I like a belt sander when I need to really remove some material like paint for example, I think it cuts better.

an Orbital I like for finer sanding

it offers a lot more control.

I usually use my belt sander for large surface where I need to remove a lot of material, such as an uneven biscuit joint.

To be honest, I also use it when my patience is running low and my orbital or 1/3 sheet sander is not fast enough...

Although, it's not really related to woodworking, I found a belt sander really useful to level an even sub-floor section when installing the flooring.

(Such as sanding down an uneven joint between two plywood or OSB sheets.)

I find myself using my belt sander less and less.

I really only use it when I need to remove a lot of material, whether that is a finish or if it is rough.

I find that for years I only use it if I need 60 or 80 grit work done, or I have a very large area, like a table top where the belt sander will get the job done much faster.

But even there, if I go down to 100 grit, after that I use my random orbit.

I also find the orbit has a more control

and I don't have to fight with it all the time.

I find the belt sander is good for larger pieces, especially long one like planks and boards.

I used it for cleaning boards from pallets that I disassemble.

Hands down

it is much faster.

Just need to be extra careful not to stay in one place too long (Sanding in general is like that I suppose but the faster the tool the greater the risk.)

Orbital sanders, at least mine, generally cannot perform at the same speed.

Ideally I use my orbital for small pieces that are not flat or have harder to reach places.

Examples would be chairs and birdhouses.

I also use it for cleaning the edges of wood all the time in an effort to create a soft curve as supposed to a hard angle that would be created after a 90 degree cut.

90% of my finishing jobs I use the random orbital sander as well.

The only time I use the belt sander vs the orbital sander is when i need to either: Remove a LOT of wood really quickly Cleaning large pieces of wood or Flattening large pieces

Question: I own both a belt sander and random orbit sander.  I've found that as I've worked on improving my finishing technique, I will oftentimes go for the random orbit sander over any other sanding implements.  I am curious if the belt sander has a specific use for which it excels, to the point where it is a more efficient tool than a random orbit sander for the job?

In what situations would I use a belt sander versus a random orbit sander?

Belt sander for big jobs, orbital for finer sanding. The  belt sander is preferred rather than the the orbital sander  for:  Removing a LOT of wood really quickly Cleaning large pieces of wood or Flattening large pieces

Belt sanders are generally used for faster removal of larger amounts of wood or paint over larger surfaces. Orbital sanders are used for finer sanding.


I suspect that it actually isn't going to get any worse.

However, what is generally accepted practice is to use epoxy.

If you want to hide the crack and patch you can mix in some sawdust, in this case maple sawdust would be best.

As an alternative, you could mix in some other colorful stuff to make it pop.

Ground turquoise is a common choice for this.

Of course any glue or epoxy will leave a bit of a mess and will need to be cleaned up.

You might end up needing to refinishing the whole piece.

If that is the case, nut oils are food safe and so is carnuba wax, which is hypoallergenic.

If it were mine, I think I'd either try a tinted epoxy or epoxy-based filler.

Or I'd accept the crack but stabilize it with a butterfly inlay... or just accept the crack as part of the character of the piece.

Frank Howarth made a great video about how he "repaired" a cracked wooden bowl.

The rough turned maple bowl that I wanted to finish next had cracked.

The crack was at an angle to vertical when the bowl was sitting normally.

I cut out the section of the bowl with the crack on the band saw.

Then I build a new segmented piece to take the place of the section.

In this new section, I continue the idea of the chevron pattern, and add more detail.

I give the chevron pattern branches by adding alternating pieces of birch and walnut wood on either side of the pattern.

I also add a walnut ring at the top of the bowl so the segmented pattern has something to die into.

Then I turn the whole bowl down to a finished piece.

He made a feature out of it

You'd have to be ambitious to do what he did

but it might serve as inspiration.

Due to the size of the crack a mechanical repair would be best like the aforementioned butterfly or stitch inlay or in lieu of that an epoxy would work.

I wouldn't try to color match with dust or pigment as it just plain won't match and may just become an eye sore.

If you want to color it go with black or some sort of metallic mix.

CA glue, aka super glue, probably won't work here

- it's too large of a crack.

I wouldn't do it on my bowl.

Filling it with gap filling or thick CA will probably result in a mess, also CA glue is brittle while epoxy can flex a little bit with seasonal movement.

I use CA glue for hairline cracks, not open, through cracks.

And you would never clamp this back into place

- there is a reason it split in the first place so don't force it back.

(Shrinkage, seasonal movement, too close to pith, internal stresses, etc)

For the epoxy generally almost any two part epoxy would do.

Using blue tape, tape off one side of the crack so it doesn't just spill out all over.

and fill.

After dry remove tape and sand bowl or at least the local area and refinish with mineral oil, wax or a combo of those or walnut oil.

Boom you're done.

Since the surface would need to be cleaned up manually (not on a lathe), try CA glue and clamp it together.

Much less mess than epoxy to clean up.

The CA glue will be safe after fully curing.

Not enough rep to add a comment but most glues are food safe when dry.

The drying agents may have toxins in them but they evaporate and the dried glue is okay.

Obviously you'll want a glue that's waterproof when dry such as Titebond III

The Wood Whisperer has a good post on this

You might want to get the "gap-filling" variety of CA.

It's nice and runny and should seep nicely into the void without a lot of coaxing and, of course, as the name suggests, it will fill the gap.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with clamping which will just put undue stress on the glue.

If this crack had been in the bowl when the turner was making it, he/she would certainly have patched it in this very manner.

It probably developed after the wood continued to age/dry-out after the finish was completed.

You are just trying to get something to patch the opening.

You can find it at the big name woodworking stores and online.

Question: I recently came into possession of a wonderful turned maple bowl however there is one downside. There is a small crack about halfway through the bowl. The crack goes fully from top to bottom but not fully left to right. The bowl is not about to fall apart but I think after a while of putting fruit into it, or several used as a salad serving bowl the crack would spread and weaken.   Is it possible to glue this and (bonus points) glue it with a food safe glue?

How to effectively fix a crack in a turned bowl

It is generally accepted practice to use an epoxy or epoxy-based filler to mend cracks in turned items. Other glues may also be used.

The accepted practice would be to use epoxy or an epoxy-based filler. Almost any two-part epoxy would be suitable and would flex slightly with seasonal changes. However, a mechanical repair would be best, but epoxy would work. Waterproof CA glue is also an option, but a gap-filling variety would be recommended. Most glues are food-safe when dry.

A mechanical repair would be best, but epoxy would also work.


A couple of things to consider: If you accidentally spill glue on your pieces, the stain will not penetrate it.

So, this argues in favor of staining before gluing.

However... If you get stain on the joints, the glue will not work (or at least it won't work as well).

I think things are typically stained after the fact except in rare circumstances such as for a frame and panel door.

However, I think either works as long as you're aware of the two pitfalls mentioned.

Good luck!

I prefer to tape up my glue joints, then stain / poly / paint.

After that, fix any finishing boo-boos, remove the tape, glue up, and you're good to go.

This provides the benefit of getting stain and/or paint / finish in all the nooks and crannies, allows you to fix any drips or bobbles in the finish with everything laying flat, and if you do get some expansion around the joints, you're not presented with an unstained bit of wood showing.

On edit: If I'm worried about glue coming out onto the finished surface during glue-up, I just place tape right next to the un-glued surface so that if glue squeezes out and I don't catch it, it's on tape, not finish.

Glue.

SAND Stain/Finish

I have had this scenario come up before and the best method I have found thus far is to clean as well as you can while you are gluing, then once the glue is set lightly sand the joints with a fine grit paper (sand evenly across all the board(s).

I do this even if I do not see noticeable glue marks prior to finishing as I have thought I was fine then realized as the stain was being applied that there was in fact glue.

I would also not generally suggest applying tape to wood.

Depending on the tape and the wood adhesive can be left behind which will lead to problems similar to the glue problem in the first place.

I always glue up my stuff first, and I always sand all the joints after I'm done to make sure they are even and

any glue that was on the outside of the joint is removed so the wood will take a stain and not be blocked.

Most people build and then finish (especially if the finish is applied by someone else).

Assuming you are diligent, regarding cleaning up the glue as it is pressed out this works fairly well.

However if the glue sets then true stains (that is something designed to be absorbed into the wood fibers) will not take to the area covered in glue.

Usually, this is a tiny bit of surface which is ignored or covered in similar or slightly darker color of opaque finish or paint.

For stains that are opaque (or not very transparent), a few extra coats will hide the offending area.

For myself, when these approaches aren't enough I will finish the surfaces of the pieces to be glued together first and then glue them together.

This implies you have decided on a finish and set of colors for the finished piece and this can be tricky if you are using the finishes to help different cuts of wood look similar.

It also takes more time.

Another approach is to use a water soluble stain or dye (like Van Dyke Crystals) to color the wood, then glue and then apply see-though finish with little or no color like shellac or varnish.

In this approach, the shellac will coat any glue you may have missed but the color will match the area without glue.

The tricky part here, is not to sand through the finish and cut into the wood revealing an unstained area.

The bonus is you can glue the stained wood without issue.

I have not had great luck with tape; there is a slight seam created where the glue fills the slight edge of the tape.

It may not be noticeable at first glance, but it is easy to feel with your fingers.

Having said that, I have not tried any of the new tapes available for painters.

I've watched many videos in which people glue up panels and such and I've seen them use very little glue with almost no squeeze-out as well as huge amounts of squeeze-out and glue dripping everywhere.

I try to minimize squeeze-out; the ability to estimate how much glue to squirt on comes with experience.

But when it does squeeze out, I try to come back in about 20 minutes and scrape off the squeeze-out with a putty knife.

At that time, it's pretty stiff but still very easy to scrape off.

If you wait till it's hard, the process is a bit more difficult.

I did some experimenting the other day and found that yellow glue is easy to color with artist's pigment (a fine colored powder use in frescos etc.).

I can see that there might be situations where coloring the glue

might mitigate problems of glueing first.

It depends on the color of the wood.

The wood I use is Guanacaste a very dark wood with black streaks.

In some cases black colored glue might work out.

I've tried both ways.

When raising panel doors, I stain my panels before I put them into the frame.

I use rubber balls for expansion in the raise panel doors.

I glue the joints when I assemble door then stain the frame.

I stained my wood before putting my table top to my coffee table......

i am now starting over.

I allowed th glue to dry for 2 days when I went to pit the table top on the legs in several spots the table top started pulling apart.

I would never again first I can always sand the spot where I may jabe gotten glue then stain it.

Question: After you've fabricated your pieces, is it better to "glue-up", then stain? Or is it better to stain first, then glue? What's a good rule-of-thumb?

Stain then glue, or vice-versa?

things are typically stained after the fact except in rare circumstances such as for a frame and panel door.

Most people build and then apply stain or finish, except for frame and panel doors, for example. However, some people may mask of the glue joints and then apply  stain/finish

Some people may mask of the glue joints and then apply  stain/finish.

it appears that most people build and then apply stain or finish, except for frame and panel doors, for example.


The most basic step is making a jig.

Clamp the jig to your drill press table

and you can just put in the blank press it up against the stops and drill down and put the piece on the result pile.

You can also center-punch the holes before drilling.

This will help align the drill bit to where the hole should go.

Put some wood screws through a piece of scrap wood (with a little protruding on the other side) with the same spacing as the holes should be and tap it onto the blanks.

As for the bit I suggest a forstner type drill bit.

Are you set on manufacturing these yourself?

Because really, "best and most efficient" is to get a company with either large industrial machines or low cost labour to manufacturer this part for you.

If you're limited to a standard drill (hand drill, drill press, etc.)

then you're going to get the most efficiency by stacking the parts so that you can drill multiple parts in one pass.

The longer the drill bit and the larger the press, the more you can do at the same time.

Multiple spindle drills, as Daniel suggests, will give you another big bump in efficiency.

You can also scale up with people.

A couple friends and a few cases of beer might go a long way.

You should also factor in that you will likely need to produce more than 5000 as your yield probably won't be 100% -

some will get damaged, holes will be misaligned, etc.

Lets say you can drill 3 boards at a time with a standard drill (one hold), and 3 friends (4 people in total).

You now need to each drill 1,250 holes.

If you can drill 2 holes a minute (I'm just guessing here)

you need 625 minutes or almost 10.5 hours each to complete this.

That is only a day or two of work, just for the holes.

The key to efficiency will not be how many parts you can stack, but rather, how quickly you can set up the next part for drilling.

Set up a fixture with appropriate stops so it only takes a second to pull out the current part and drop the next one in and have it perfectly aligned.

Group your parts into manageable batches (as Jasper suggested in a comment).

Set up the stops to drill one hole on every part in the batch, then set up the stops for drilling the next hole in each part.

You should use a high-quality carbide-tipped Forstner bit for faster drilling, but as always be certain to back the drill out periodically to clear the chips/shavings and reduce heat buildup.

Consider adding a strategically-positioned vacuum to clear shavings as you drill.

A hole saw will be too slow since you'll have to pry out the core after each hole.

A hole saw also wouldn't work very well if you need to make a stopped hole.

You could also use a spade bit, twist bit, or (as Daniel suggested in a comment) an auger bit.

Regardless of which bit you use, it goes without saying that you should use a sacrificial backer board to prevent blowout on the back side.

It's also a good idea to drill from both sides rather than drilling all the way through, but you may find that with the backer board you can drill all the way through just fine.

If you have a powerful enough drill press and a multi-spindle head that's capable of drilling 3 holes at a time, as Daniel suggests, (either all 3 in a single board, or 3 boards lined up next to each other), you can cut your time by about 66%.

You can find multiple spindle drill press attachments which may suit your purpose. http://www.hypneumat.com/multi-spindleheads.html

More expensive models are adjustable.

This page has some adjustable models as well. edit

Rather than Forstner bits

I would go with auger or spade bits.

They will handle the deep cut faster.

The trouble is that they have tearout.

To handle that, you can drill partway through then flip the piece over and drill from the other side.

This may be difficult if you don't have your jig perfectly centered.

You can drill until the spur comes through, then align the other side with that hole to finish the bore.

Alternatively, you can use some sacrificial stock under the piece.

This will prevent the wood fibers from moving vertically.

If you're making repetitive bores, you shouldn't need to replace the stock, since the holes will always be in the same place and will still prevent the fibers from moving.

A slightly off-topic approach would be looking into CNC automated equipment, especially if the 5000 units are the first of thousands more.

It is not my area of expertise

but I know small shops use such gear for limited runs.

Once set up, you would still need someone to feed the wood and swap bits, but the drilling would be hands off.

The overhead is the cost of the gear and its set up for task(s), which would include the programming.

There is a hobby-oriented gear as well as full production grade gear.

For a taste of the hobby end, you may wish to visit http://makezine.com/category/workshop/cnc-machining/

Question: I make small hand-craft timber products from my garage and I've recently been approached by a wholesaler, who is looking to purchase large quantities of a very simple product I make.  The product is made of pine and is a 300mm long piece of 2x2 with 3x30mm evenly-spaced holes drilled though the timber.  Anyhow, my question is given I have to make 5000 of these small products, what would be the best/most efficient/productive method of drilling 15,000 30mm holes? And also what drill piece would you recommend?

Best method for drilling thousands of holes?

S0: The most basic step is making a jig.  You should use a high-quality carbide-tipped Forstner bit for faster drilling, but as always be certain to back the drill out periodically to clear the chips/shavings and reduce heat buildup. A multiple spindle will help. Set up a fixture with appropriate stops so it only takes a second to pull out the current part and drop the next one in and have it perfectly aligned. Group your parts into manageable batches. Really, the "best and most efficient" is to get a company with either large industrial machines or low cost labour to manufacturer this part for you.

The most basic step is to make a jig. A  forstner type drill bit is recommended. Consider adding a strategically-positioned vacuum to clear shavings as you drill.  The "best and most efficient" method is to get a company with either large industrial machines or low cost labour to manufacturer this part for you.  Multiple spindle drills will give another big bump in efficiency. You can also scale up with people.  Efficiency can be helped by suitable and manageable stacking of parts and how quickly the next part can be presented for drilling. A slightly different approach would be looking into  CNC  automated equipment.


well, there may be more to it that you'd think.

And definitely an interesting piece of trivia.

There are 2 types of nibs, either as something sticking out like on the picture in the question, or as a little notch.

There are multiple answers, ranging from: nothing

, that's just for decoration

this can be used to attach a blade guard (so you tie the strings around it and it won't slip)

you can use it as a pivot point against a nail to draw a circle

(you lock your pencil in between 2 teeth).

The explanation I'd always seen was that this "single tooth" could be used to create an initial nick in the wood to start the cut at a fairly precise place.

Without that nick, the first cut has a tendency to slip sideways a bit, losing accuracy.

You could create the guide nick in other ways -- with a chisel, for example -- perhaps more accurately.

But building it into the saw guarantees you'll have it when you need it.

I can't prove that was the original intent.

But I can say that it seems to work when used that way.

It's more a carpentry solution than a cabinetry solution, though, since it risks a bit more tear-out.

A trollish question indeed ;)

My favorite answer has been, "So you can recognize an old saw at garage sales," but the most well referenced sources I've found indicate that it was originally placed as a decoration and just stuck.

I wondered this for years

and so I emailed Christopher Schwarz (former editor of Popular Woodworking magazine and now owner of Lost Art Press .

He seems to research historical things very well and he responded that neither he nor anyone else knows for sure.

He said he had asked Roy Underhill (host of PBS's Woodwright's Shop) and a few others.

So, nobody knows for sure.

I always liked this answer

Some have said early handsaws had an auxiliary handle near the toe to guide the flexible saws and prevent them from bending.

The nib is said by them to be a vestigial handle which had become ornamental. from the Disstonian Institute

Question: Saw nibs have been present for hundreds of years. What is their purpose?

What is the purpose of a saw nib?

The explanation of a saw nib is a "single tooth" that could be used to create an initial nick in the wood to start the cut at a fairly precise place.

Some say this  "single tooth" could be used to create an initial nick in the wood to start the cut at a fairly precise place. Others believe that early handsaws had an auxiliary handle near the toe to guide the flexible saws and prevent them from bending. The nib is sometimes said to be a vestigial handle which had become ornamental.

The nib is said byto be a vestigial handle which had become ornamental. from the Disstonian Institute

This "single tooth" could be used to create an initial nick in the wood to start the cut at a fairly precise place.

Early handsaws had an auxiliary handle near the toe to guide the flexible saws and prevent them from bending.

The nib is said to be a vestigial handle which had become ornamental.


For something that large, I would want more than just a glue joint holding it together.

I would want some sort of mechanical connection between the sides and top/bottom, such as slip tenons, dowels, or mortise and tenon.

If you want the look of a mitered corner, I'd suggest going with mitered half laps.

The glue area is much larger, and you can pin the joint if you want.

If you go with a mitered joint, make sure the top/bottom are mitered into the sides so gravity will not be pulling the joint apart.

Should splines be good enough or is there something better I should consider or maybe something to do in conjunction with that.

Just a bit on the terminology, a true spline runs lengthways in a slot milled into the face of both mitres, through all or most of the joint (a through spline or stopped spline respectively).

A different joint reinforcement, where a piece of wood is inserted into one or more slots milled across the corner is now commonly also described as a spline but this is more accurately described as a mitre key .

In the video you link to Matthias is using mitre keys, not splines.

Mitre keys are generally regarded as not adding greatly to the strength of the joint, while splines do provide a significant improvement.

However, this is with keys and splines of conventional size.

The strength of each reinforcement is due to three factors: structural advantage, the thickness of the wood slivers used and the glue surface area.

The splined joint being superior in all regards.

However, mitre keys were originally quite small and done using veneer thicknesses, resulting in only modest added strength while the keys in the video on the other hand are far larger than conventional ones and also thicker.

So they probably add as much, if not more, strength than a typical spline would, being of relatively modest width (25mm / 1" being a typical maximum).

If you use either sizeable mitre key or fairly wide spline, using wood of some thickness (perhaps above 3mm / 1/8" material)

I think it likely that you will end up with joints that are strong enough.

Even saying that, if you would prefer to reinforce the mitres using a method that is faster there are a few I can recommend.

And the first two are guaranteed to provide greater stability and strength.

These are L-shaped steel mending plates or plywood corner braces .

They are simply screwed or nailed into the frame at the back and essentially make the joint completely rigid.

Last but not least, the simplest reinforcements of all: large staples or corrugated fasteners .

If you don't have any philosophical objection to using mechanical fasteners both of these require no effort to install yet add hugely to the strength of the joint, as the metal would have to shear through or be torn free from the wood for them to fail.

Some people consider them crude and ugly, but they work and I would argue that their ugliness is irrelevant as they are on the back of the joint where nobody will ever see them.

LeeG's answer is a good one, but I would also say that a well done spline joint would also work, you would just have to make sure the spline goes all the way through the width of the frame not just a little corner of it.

It should then give you a similar gluing surface as LeeG's answer.

It might come down to which one is easier for you to create.

Though on of the things you could do to make either stronger would be to make 'pins' that go through the frame from the front of a different wood, thus giving it more strength AND a nice pretty accent.

In cases where you do not want to damage the outer edge of a decorative frame (Like a nice picture frame) you could do this with a biscuit joiner.

I have made many strong frames with a "detail biscuit joiner", a perfect mitered cut and wood glue.

What about adding a grove in your actual frame to allow the mirror to sit closer to the front.

Then you could get some sheet material and pin/fasten from the back.

Then you would have that additional cohesion of the fasteners all around the mirror.

Question: I found this large 4' x 3' mirror in the garbage. It is a heavy beast. I plan on making frame for it but I'm worried about the joint.   I only have experience with miter joins and splines which seems the way to go. In  this video  by Matthias Wandel he made a slightly smaller frame which was just reinforced with splines.   Should splines be good enough or is there something better I should consider or maybe something to do in conjunction with that.

Strong joints to use when making custom frames

Some sort of mechanical connection between the sides and top/bottom, such as slip tenons, dowels, or mortise and tenon would make a strong joint.  Large staples or corrugated fasteners also add strength. Pins could be made to go through frame or a biscuit joiner could be used.

A mechanical connection such as tenons, dowels or mortise and tenon is recommended. Simple large staples or fasteners could be considered. A well-done spline joint would work. Wooden pins could be used for strength and decoration. A biscuit jointer may be effective. A groove in the actual frame for the mirror to sit in could be an option.


I agree with the other answers that it's best called a finger joint or maybe a finger jointed corner brace .

You could also call it a box joint if you want to distinguish it from the tapered finger joints that are sometimes used to join boards end-to-end in stock made up of shorter pieces.

The point of a corner brace is to add support to the corner joint.

Usually, the brace is connected to each rail with glue and screws.

Using a finger joint here adds a lot of glue area in a shearing direction, so the connection between brace and rails should be very strong even without mechanical fasteners.

Forming that joint in a production setting would be fast and cheap, and it would save the cost of maybe 16 screws per chair and the time needed to drive them.

I found another example at dutchcrafters.com , which describes these braces as "grooved":

While the corner brace is pretty common in chairs I've never seen what appears to be a 'finger' joint incorporated with it.

But that is the best I can guess, a finger joint for the brace.

This looks to be some sort of Finger joint, probably used as an Assembly joint to make it easier to assemble.

You could apply glue to the corner brace, then run a screw through it, and not have to worry about clamping it while the glue dries.

There is no official name for many more complex types of joints, and once you get to combining different types of joint techniques you can only really do your best to describe them succinctly.

There's a really great woodworking glossary website here: http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/_g_A.htm which describes lots of types of joint, but even he gets to the point where he's calling things something like an "angled keyed dovetail half lap joint".

It is probably the most accurate way to describe the particular joint he's talking about (roughly half way down the page) but there's not a single person who, if asked to joint two pieces of timber using an angled keyed dovetail half lap joint, wouldn't ask you to explain with a drawing.

"Interlocking corner brace", "finger jointed corner brace", "

box jointed angle brace" and "grooved corner brace"

all seem like reasonable names for the joint to me.

Interlocking corner brace.

I only found one company that uses it.

Question: I removed the seats from dining chairs I just bought but have never seen this type of construction. What is it called?

What is the name of the corner joint with grooves on this chair?

The joint in question is known as a Finger Joint, interlocking corner brace or box joint.

The joint in question is a sort of finger joint  or maybe a  finger jointed corner brace, possibly used as an assembly joint. It has also been described as an interlocking corner brace or a box joint.

It is a sort of finger joint  or maybe a  finger jointed corner brace, possibly used as an assembly joint.


One of the problems with putting wheels on a work bench, is it often isn't stable enough for some of the stuff we do on the bench (hand planing for instance).

Rockler has a set of workbench casters that lock down to allow the bench to roll, but then can be popped up to put the bench back on its own legs for stability.

I would use bolts, if I remember correctly I used bolts to attach wheels to my table/cart that I made, 12-14 years ago and they are still going fine.

I attached them to 2x4's

that were a part of the lower frame structure.

They don't need to be real big, but by having the bolt go though something (with a good washer on either end)

you can prevent the 'easy' tearout that can happen with screws or nails.

Screws only hold as well as the wood their blade digs into and will slowly work their way out, ripping the wood over time.

The bolt, the wood or the wheel has to snap for the bolt not to work.

It depends on the wheels and load, and without more information on what exactly failed (wood?

Screws?

Wheel?)

it will be hard to give you an answer specific to your problem.

When I built my large worktable, I had 4x4 posts as legs, but they were still too small for the 500lb rated load wheels I wanted to use, so added 2x4's wrapped around the legs to end up with, essentially, 7x7 lumber ends.

With glue and screws, it provided plenty of stable surface to use 3" (7.5cm) lag bolts.

When the wheels are locked, the table is very strong and stable, and when unlocked it moves easily despite its weight and size.

However, looking at how the table is designed, I believe the main issue is that you are screwing into the endgrain of the wood.

Screws don't hold very well into endgrain.

So I suggest you attach a 2x4x4 to the leg, with the endgrain parallel to the floor (horizontal).

Now you have two 2x4's next to each other - close to a 4x4.

One presenting end grain to the floor, the other presenting cross grain to the floor.

Now attach another 2x4x4 flat to the bottom of the leg.

You can use screws to go from this flat plate to the cross grain piece without special techniques.

Screwing the end leg board to the plate, though, should either use pocket holes from the end grain presenting board into the plate, or using angled screws in either direction (plate to leg, or leg to plate) so that the screw threads have something to grab.

Then choose the largest screws that still fit through the wheels of at least 2" length (throw away the screws that came with the wheels - they aren't going to hold the load) and screw them into the 2x4x4 plate you just attached.

Depending on the size and location, you may want to pre-drill holes to avoid splitting.

Also, make sure your wheels are up to the expected loads.

You may buy four 100LB (45kg) rated wheels, and assume your table will never support more than 400LB (180kg) of load, but keep in mind that wheel ratings are meant for load directly down, and you'll be placing a lot of dynamic and side loads on the work surface.

Depending on your planing direction and the load on the table you could be placing well over 200LB loads on a single wheel.

Drop a 100lb object on the table near the corner and the sudden force will certainly exceed 100LB for the wheel underneath.

Keep this in mind when choosing wheels.

Support the bolt that you're using as an axle on both sides.

In other words, don't cantilever the wheels.

This will reduce the moment the bolt is applying to the wooden frame to effectively zero

(it takes its "leverage" away).

I would not rely on just common wood screws to hold something heavy...

lag bolts with washers can be used the same way but they will bite into more wood and be less likely to be pulled out..

Question: As part of my building of a workbench as referenced in  this meta post , I attached some wheels to the bottom of the bench by securing some 2x4x4 blocks to the corner of each foot.  Over time, the wheels sagged and eventually one of the blocks ripped out, as I'd just used screws to hold the wooden wheel mount in place.  When one is attaching wheels to a heavy piece of furniture (like a workbench), what are some methods one can use to ensure the wheels remain stable?

How do I secure wheels to a workbench?

Rockler has a set of  workbench casters  that lock down to allow the bench to roll, but then can be popped up to put the bench back on its own legs for stability.  Depending on the size and location, you may want to pre-drill holes to avoid splitting.  lag bolts with washers can be used, they will bite into more wood and be less likely to be pulled out.

Workbench casters are available that lock down to allow the bench to roll, but then can be popped up to put the bench back on its own legs for stability.  Bolts would be recommended. Lag bolts with washers are less likely to be pulled out. Avoid screwing into the end grain of the wood. Pre-drill holes to avoid splitting.


There are many hidden reinforcements you could use - biscuits, dowels, or more complex hidden joints such as these:

Mitred corner dovetail joint Mitred blind dovetail joint ...

but I wouldn't recommend them unless you have a lot of skill with a chisel, and a lot of time on your hands.

Both of these images are from here which is a really excellent site for all kinds of woodworking terms, and has lots of variations on common joints etc.

How might this joint be constructed so that it is strong enough to prevent racking but still appear to be a miter?

It's not racking that is the major concern here

, it would be (probably sudden!)

failure of the glue line in one or both of the mitres.

The answers from WhatEvil and Matt cover many of the solutions.

There are a number of variations on blind dovetailed mitres, but the others are of increasing complexity and hence harder and harder to make accurately.

To add some details re.

splined mitres (a stopped splined mitre to be specific, also called a hidden spline mitre joint or blind splined mitre joint): With the bench being made from fairly beefy material

it allows for quite a substantial spline being used, as I've illustrated above.

Even made from hardwood (with the grain oriented correctly, as shown) it is probably strong enough to be impossible to break in normal use, if plywood is used it would be stronger still.

Almost certainly overkill but for absolute assurance the spline could be made from metal (in which case it should be glued in place with epoxy or polyurethane adhesive).

Bonus joint: if a slight difference in appearance would be acceptable the rebated or rebbeted mitre joint could be used as well:

This is a significantly strong joint and may be the easiest wood-only solution as only three saw cuts are required per edge.

I've thought about this some more and have come up with an alternative solution.

If I had to make this bench and be sure that the joints won't break over time, I'd want to look at some real reinforcement...

how about a steel substructure?

So you have your basic bench structure which is made by lamination of smaller timber boards:

The fact that it's made of smaller timber boards allows you to sandwich the boards around a bent steel plate: Cross section of the whole bench: Cross section through main part of bench showing steel housed within timbers, with optional dowel: Fully exploded view:

So basically: Get 2 pieces of steel cut and folded (which should be quite cheap from a local fabricator), I have drawn them at 5mm thick with a 60mm timber thickness.

Get your constituent timber pieces for lamination and groove them out using a router or a circular saw.

I have shown a 10mm groove width to allow tolerance for the steel, though in reality the less tolerance you can have the better.

Optionally, drill dowel holes to aid in positioning / holding the whole thing together.

Glue

the whole timber part of the bench up around the steels.

I'd advise either using an epoxy glue to glue the steel into the timber and take up any tolerance, or wedge the steel tightly into the timber using timber wedges or maybe standard plastic packers or wedges, but you can get away with using PVA wood glue for the timber itself.

Now you have a really sturdy bench that looks simply constructed, and isn't actually that hard to do.

If you build it right, this thing isn't breaking in a hundred years.

Bear in mind

this is just a concept.

You could use just one central steel, or 3 steels, or smaller, separate steel brackets at each end, or you could use biscuits to reinforce between the horizontals either side of the grooves.

The basic premise is the important thing and that's to build the laminations up around steel brackets in order to add hidden reinforcement.

While I may (justifiably) be shunned for bringing it up, it is possible to get right-angled dowels .

This will prevent any motion of the pieces, but it's not what you call a purist approach to woodworking.

Metal Brace

This is not my area of specialty at all

but if I had to guess I would say that there are some metal brackets hiding underneath the joins that we cannot see.

Quite possibly in conjunction with what ever joint is hiding in there.

Just as long as they are a strong metal.

Not like the cheap ones made that are zinc plated you commonly find in hardware stores.

They will bend a twist without much effort.

Splined Mitre

I don't see this with a bench

but you could hide a large splinted mitre, that does not transverse the entire width, reinforced with screws or bolts underneath.

Graphus has the correct terminology for this joint: a stopped splined mitre to be specific, also called

a hidden spline mitre joint or blind splined mitre

joint

I would be wary not using some metal hardware to reinforce this bench.

Most people don't lightly rest the bottoms on a bench.

Besides mitered versions of various types of other sufficiently strong joinery methods, you could use non-mitered versions of any of those, and more (dovetail, dowels, Domino, mortise and tenon, box joints, dadoed/housed joints, knock-down hardware, etc.--perhaps even butt joints with countersunk lag screws), using any sufficiently strong material.

Then, when you're all done, veneer the whole thing

so it looks like you used miter joints.

This wouldn't be my first choice, but the parts of the bench look thick enough that almost any material would be strong enough.

You could certainly achieve the same look with inexpensive materials, artificially-distressed veneers (even 1/8" or thinner might do it), and faux miter joints.

I own the bench along with the matching table.

It is a simple frame constructed with 2x3 dimension lumber; a simple reclaimed board veneer with miters.

Question: In this bench, the joints appear to be simple miters; however, I can't believe that this piece would be stable with a simple miter. How might this joint be constructed so that it is strong enough to prevent racking but still appear to be a miter?

What might be stronger than a miter but still look like a miter joint?

Bonus joint, metal brace, splined mitre may all look like a miter joint. Besides mitered versions of various types of other sufficiently strong joinery methods, you could use non-mitered versions of any of those, and more (dovetail, dowels, Domino, mortise and tenon, box joints, dadoed/housed joints, knock-down hardware, etc.--perhaps even butt joints with countersunk lag screws), using any sufficiently strong material.

Besides mitered versions of various types of other sufficiently strong joinery methods, you could use non-mitered versions of any of those, and more (dovetail, dowels, Domino, mortise and tenon, box joints, dadoed/housed joints, knock-down hardware, etc.--perhaps even butt joints with countersunk lag screws), using any sufficiently strong material. rebated or rebbeted mitre joints could be used. Right-angled dowels, splined mitres and metal braces are other alternatives.

Rebated or rabbeted mitre joints could be used

It is possible to get  right-angled dowel


The easiest way is to use a table saw.

If you don't have a table saw, then yes, a circular saw would work pretty well.

If you want a nice straight edge clamp another straight board or other straightedge to the board so that it guides the saw.

To set up, first measure the distance from the edge of the saw's sole plate to the blade and then add the width that you want to remove from the board.

Clamp the guide board at that total distance from the edge of the workpiece.

For example, if it's 3 1/4" from the edge of the sole plate to the blade and you want to remove 1/2", you'd clamp the guide board 3 3/4" from the edge of the workpiece.

Then you 1) put on your safety glasses and 2) run the saw down the board with the sole plate riding along the guide board.

If you have a hand plane and a way to clamp the board on edge, that'll work too.

Draw a line 1/2" from the edge of the board and just plane to the line.

I am assuming you don't have a bandsaw or a table saw.

If you have a couple saw horses that you can use to clamp the board onto, then mark your line and using the circular saw to cut the line. if you leave just a little bit extra, then you can use the hand plane to true up the surface and fine tune the final size.

if the edge doesn't need to be pretty then just cut off exactly what you need with the saw.

Even a hand saw can be used, but it takes a little more practice to make a nice long straight cut.

As Caleb mentioned, a table saw is the easiest way to shave off 1/2", since it will also guarantee that the newly-cut edge is parallel to a flat edge registered against the fence.

A circular saw with its base/shoe registered against a straight board also works, as Caleb mentioned, but can be a pain to set up because of the offset from the shoe to the blade.

(I can't tell you the number of times I spent 10 minutes or more measuring and fine-tuning the setup for a cut, clamped everything in place, and forgot to account for the offset.

Sometimes I realized it before I made the cut, but not always.)

To eliminate the offset from the equation and save yourself from a lot of wasted time and/or mistakes, consider making a zero-clearance straightedge guide or homemade tracksaw.

( Source )

A homemade or commercially-available parallel edge guide like the Kreg Rip-Cut would also work reasonably well with a circular saw and will require less setup than a straightedge for repeat cuts.

( Source )

Another solution is to use a router.

You can either use a straightedge guide similar to one of the circular saw guides, or you can use a (top-bearing) pattern bit or (bottom-bearing) flush trim bit.

Flush trim bits are slick because you can construct your project with the excess edge extending past the adjoining face, then use the flush trim bit to trim the edge exactly to the face.

Whenever you use a router, remember to take light passes.

( Source )

Another option that I haven't tried is to clamp another floorboard to it, offset by 1/4" and go along the edge with a flush-trim router bit.

Update: I have now tried this and it is easy and works like a charm.

I bought a cheap small router (the best selling one on Amazon, £40) and a pattern bit.

A pattern bit is the same as a flush cut bit but the bearing is near the router instead of away from it..

You can use either in this case.

Put the boards together on their edges in the floor, then tilt them so they are offset by the desired amount.

Clamp them on the top.

Then turn them over and get someone to hold them steady and cut!

If you have a workbench or something then use that obviously, but I don't.

The bit I got wasn't long enough to do the full depth (20 mm) but the router could easily have handled it if it could.

But anyway once you have cut half the depth you can just unclamp the boards and cut again using the already cut part as the pattern.

As Kromster says, if you need to cut more than a few mm use a jigsaw to do a rough cut first.

I didn't need to in my case because the timber merchants I found cut it to width for me.

Before I had a table saw (and I had misplaced my old circular saw in a move), I used a clamped down straightedge and a jigsaw* to cut the edge of a piece of plywood.

The edge was pretty rough, and would have needed some work with a sanding block or hand plane if I had been using it for something fancier than a garden cold frame, but it was a $30 tool that was at hand, rather than a (more dangerous) $40 tool I didn't have.

Best answer, as others have noted, is a table saw.

The hand tool, not

the table mounted tool also known as a scroll saw)

Table saw or circular saw.

If you're using a circular saw you can either use a straight edge, or use the gauge that is engraved into the base of your saw, provided there is one.

Just adjust the depth of your blade to barely come out of your piece, move your saw over on the piece of wood till the 1/2" notch is lined up with the edge, clamp down on the base with your thumb and forefinger, and rip away.

Question: I have a small 20" x 24" x 1" pine board that happens to be 1/4" to 1/2" too wide for my needs -- the 20" side needs to be more like 19.7".  What's the easiest/cleanest way for a beginner like me to shave this off? Would running a planer across the side work? Or would it work to take it off with a circular saw?

Easiest way for a beginner to reduce a pine board's width by 1/2"?

Table saw or circular saw  are recommended for beginners wanting to reduce a pine board's width by 1/2". Using a router is another option. It is possible to use a hand saw but that takes more practice.

A table saw would be ideal but a circular saw would work. You could use a hand saw. Another solution is to use a router.


I would use a 1" diameter straight cutting bit on a router table to make the main compartment body.

You'll have to raise it up into the workpiece to avoid having an open end on the compartment though.

For the slot, you can just use a slot cutting bit or set with a bearing guide to follow the edge around.

If you think you'll have clearance issues with the bearing and nut, you could always get a top-bearing slot cutter instead.

This could be easily cut with a T-Slot Router bit

I did a little search and found ISCAR has a set of T bits that can cut slots from 2mm - 5mm.

The cutting end can be removed and replaced with different thickness cutters giving you the option to have many different sized slots with one bit.

Though after further looking it is really designed for metal cutting, it might work.

I've seen several others and most seem to be for cutting metal and none seem very cheap.

Another option might be to use an angled router bit like those for dovetails.

Then you can make a piece like a wedge and slide it in.

It looks almost like it would require a Dremel tool

The slot that holds the compartment cover looks too narrow to be cut by any router bit that I've seen, and I agree that something like a Dremel tool with a fine saw blade could do the trick.

Another way to approach the problem is to remove the back of the board, form the slot, and then replace the back: Rout the compartment.

Slice the back of the board off with a band saw.

Rout out the area around the compartment using a bit depth that matches the slot width.

Glue the back of the board back on.

I know this might sound like a crazy idea, but if you have a good sharp resaw blade in the bandsaw the glue joint practically disappears.

People who aren't looking for it will never notice.

They probably used a small slotting bit in a router table, or something similar.

Of course there's nothing that requires using that particular compartment design...

Question: I'm making a peg cribbage board and want to make a peg compartment with a sliding door.   It looks almost like it would require a Dremel tool, but was wondering if anyone has any techniques for accomplishing the task.

How can I make this cribbage board peg compartment?

Use a  1" diameter straight cutting bit  on a router table to make the main compartment body of the cribbage peg board. Alternatively, a Dremel tool is recommended. A slot cutting tool is recommended for the slots.

A router bit is widely recommended. However, a dremel tool with a fine saw blade may be the best option.

A dremel tool with a fine saw blade may be the best option.


Not a direct answer to your question but thought I'd add that if you can find a screw of suitable overall form

but it's unfortunately not self-tapping

you can modify them so that they are.

Any screw can be modified to make it self-tapping, and the process is surprisingly easy.

All that's required is to create clearance and effectively a cutting edge, or more than one, and the existing threading takes care of the rest (just as it does on manufactured self-tapping screws).

This sounds like a lot of work but

it can be a very quick operation, literally a few seconds per screw at fastest.

So I'll concentrate on the fast-and-dirty method instead of those that create a groove similar to that seen on many commercial types.

Grip your screw in gloved fingers or pliers (pad jaws to prevent crushing the threads) and hold it against a grinder or belt sander to create one flat face on it, approximately 1/3 of the way up the threads.

Ideally it should retain its original point, looking something like this when you're done: Bingo, your screw has just become self-tapping.

The important parts are to have self-tapping screws (unless you want to do a little predrilling before using the screws, not recommended) and having a flat surface on the bottom of the head.

Depending on what you expect it to need to bear, most screws would handle this fairly well.

However, the Kreg pocket hole screws are HARD.

Your average deck screw is very soft in comparison.

I accidentally hit one with my biscuit joiner and totaled the blade.

It also made a terrible racket and barely touched the screw.

So that would be the biggest difference between them and some other screw you would likely use that looks similar.

From what I can see of the pocket screws and their intended purpose you can find similar properties in screws that have pan or truss like heads.

Basically a wide head with a flat bottom.

You can also get screws with washer heads.

I ended getting screws advertised as Particle Board screws.

They had a washer head and looked similar to this.

The ones I purchased were threaded all the way unlike typical pocket screws.

It is also important to use self tapping / type-17 screws.

Like Doresoom points out:

It's a huge pain to drill a pilot hole at the same angle

I would still be curious to know of any other ideas people have.

I suppose you could also just purchase washers which you could partner with other screws but that would be a costly venture.

I've made several rough projects where, just for practice, I used pocket screws, including a couple sawhorses, a little outside bench for taking off shoes, and my own workbench.

Each time, I actually just used regular drywall screws instead of the Kreg screws, for convenience and (a very little bit of) money saving -- not because they're at all the right screws.

One thing I really had to do with the drywall screws that I wouldn't have had to do with the right screws was to pull the joint very tightly together before screwing.

This is because the pressure on the screw to start tapping wants to push the joint apart -- even with a real Kreg screw.

But then, the threads of a drywall screw run all the way to the head, so the threads near the head grab the first board, and don't let it pull snug against the second board.

This is why Kreg screws have the partially unthreaded shank; that unthreaded part slips right through the first board, so the joint pulls snug.

In summary, for a rough project like your workbench, you can use any screw that fits if you're willing to clamp the joint very tightly before screwing.

And while the self-tapping feature and wide washer on Kreg screws are very nice features, the one feature I would really look for if I couldn't find Kreg screws is that partially unthreaded shank.

I know this is an old question, but I recently had to solve this problem myself, so maybe I can help someone who finds this later.

I used the SPAX screws, 1-1/4" Long for 3/4" stock.

They are REAR PANEL screws, and they have a 3/8" head.

$3 for a box of 30, and it took me about 15 mins to modify them all.

Not great time-wise, but batching them out helps, and it works in a pinch.

I modified them in two stages:

First took them to the bench grinder and ground a flat in the first couple threads as mentioned here: *

Then I chucked them in my mini lathe (but probably would have been faster chucking them in a drill), and ran them against a rotary tool with a mounted grinding wheel of larger diameter then the screw head (3/4" in my case) and ground the first few threads off to make the clearance on the shaft.

Question: So I borrowed a Kreg jig from a friend and was using some scrap 2x4's to work on the  Community Project: Lets build a workbench! . Unfortunately I came to an impasse. I went to 3 local hardware stores on none of them carried "pocket screws" when I asked for them by that name.   Sure I  can  order the genuine article from the Kreg website but I am more interested in what other hardware alternatives are there to pocket screws?

What alternatives are there for pocket screws?

With regard to pocket screws and their intended purpose, you can find similar properties in screws that have pan or truss like heads. You can also get screws with washer heads. The important parts are to have self-tapping screws (unless you want to do a little predrilling before using the screws, not recommended) and having a flat surface on the bottom of the head.

The important features to find are a self-tapping thread and a flat bottom to the screw head. Other screws with pan or truss heads may be suitable. Screws with washer heads are also available. Washers could be paired with other screws but may be more expensive.


The usual way to do this I think would be to use the correct bit in a router, but it could also be done using a suitable cutter chucked up in a drill.

If using a drill ideally it will be in a drill stand for accuracy and repeatability, or a drill press will be used.

Round-nosed router bit: [ Source ] 'Rotary file' or burr for drills: [ Source ]

It's a little unconventional but an alternative if using a drill or drill press is to use a ball-headed grinding bit.

I use one of these myself on very splinter-prone woods to form a countersink for screw heads: The above image shows the diamond-coated and abrasive stone versions.

These will grind wood approximately equally but in general you'll get better durability from the first type.

I'd use a forstner drill bit sized smaller than the game balls in a drill press.

This will leave a flat bottom hole with a slight pilot hole in the center

but I think that would be OK for your intentions.

The drill press should have some sort of mechanism to control the depth.

If it doesn't, you could have your table low enough

so the stroke of the drill press completes at the appropriate hole depth.

I used this method to make a marble "game" for my children.

Each child starts with three marbles on a board, throughout the course of the day if they misbehave they lose a marble.

At the end of they day the need to have one marble to "pay" for dessert.

It's a lot of fun for me, I'm not sure they like it too much...

There are various ball-end cutters available, but balls or ball-shapes also fit into cylindrical or conical holes (and cylindrical holes with flat or conical bottoms) more easily achieved with a "normal" twist drill bit, a center drill, or a countersink.

Depends what you want, or how much function is important .vs.

the way one or the other looks.

You will want a drill press (or a CNC Router) to maintain consistent depth (the router might also maintain spacing for you.)

Perhaps not as cool as the other ideas you could always have this done in two pieces as well.

You could do this with two boards and a basic drill.

Top board

you could drill straight thru.

Use some sacrificial wood beneath to reduce tear out.

Then glue that to a normal board below to give the overall project some size.

Be sure to clean glue that would come out from the holes.

This could add a nice appeal if you use two different coloured woods.

Only obvious downside is that you would not have curved recesses with this method.

Single tool suggestion

A traditional approach for this would be to use something like a spoon bit.

Image from LeeValley Tools To prove my point the product description from the page.... One, it will bore a hole with a round bottom .

This allows maximum possible blind hole depth in a chair leg to receive a stretcher with no chance of a brad point or spur breaking through.

If you do plan on using these the minor con about this.

Working with them you need to remove the bit to periodically clear debris.

This should only be considered a minor hassle.

Also, since they have do not have a central spur or point, they can be hard to get properly positioned.

With frequent use its not so hard but making a small pilot hole certainly helps.

One other option is a simple bowl gouge .

Question: I am making my own wooden board game. The game pieces have ball-shaped bases. I want them to move around the board and rest in small indentations. Something like this:    What kind of tools and techniques should I use?

Making a small indent/crevice/depression for a ball

S0: The usual way to do this I think would be to use the correct bit in a router, but it could also be done using a suitable cutter chucked up in a drill.  If using a drill ideally it will be in a drill stand for accuracy and repeatability, or a drill press will be used.  A forstner drill bit sized smaller than the game balls in a drill press would be another option.  There are various ball-end cutters available, but balls or ball-shapes also fit into cylindrical or conical holes (and cylindrical holes with flat or conical bottoms) more easily achieved with a "normal" twist drill bit, a center drill,  or a countersink. A traditional approach for this would be to use something like a spoon bit or a simple bowl gouge.

A router and suitable bit is recommended. Otherwise, a number of bits are suitable, including a forstner bit, , ball-headed grinding bit or cutter, or spoon bit. A drill press is also advisable for accuracy. Another option is a bowl gouge.

Use the correct bit in a router or a cutter in a drill.

A forstner bit is recommended. A drill press would give better accuracy.

Drill press and ball-headed grinding bit.


Are there any other easier and cost effective options for mounting a 2x6 to concrete?

Tapcon screws will be your easiest and cheapest means to mount a 2x6 to a concrete floor, by far.

They will require a hammer drill to drill the holes in the concrete, but you can rent one from the store if you don't have one.

You could also use concrete expansion anchors too.

However, these are quite a bit more expensive than Tapcons.

They do have a lot more holding power, though.

They have an expansive sleeve that's threaded with a bolt you tighten, which causes the sleeve to bear on the concrete hole in friction.

These are used quite often in industrial applications where heavy loads are present.

source

I'm not sure if this is cheaper in the long term but consider using adhesive, it's certainly the easiest option since you just apply, press the board into position and wait for the glue to cure.

Construction adhesive and epoxy are both viable here, as long as the concrete surface is in good condition, not friable and dust-free.

With epoxy in particular you do want to be quite sure of the position of your 2x6 since moving it would be somewhat difficult :-)

If you have a hammer drill, then use tapcon.

If you don't, then you're going to have to buy or rent tools anyway, and the decision isn't clear.

Cost is largely a wash if you don't already have the appropriate tools for one or the other.

Time is different, though.

Drilling holes and then screwing in screws is much more time consuming than simply shooting a nail.

The biggest advantage for screws, though, is that they can generally be removed if needed later.

Nails can be too, but they may chip or spall the concrete, or you may have to cut them off and grind them down flush with the concrete later if you decide to remove the item they are attaching.

With screws you can use a regular drill and a concrete bit, but the bit wears down quickly and the drill proceeds slowly.

If you have very few fasteners, though, this can be the most cost effective option.

If you have many fasteners you'll want to rent a hammer drill, which works with the concrete drill bit to drill significantly more quickly and easily.

Chances are good that a cheap drill will have difficulty driving the concrete screw in, though.

Again, a strong drill or a hammer drill improves the experience here, but isn't necessary.

If you use the hex-head screws you can use a socket set to drive them in, and again is a cheaper option to buying a new drill if you aren't doing very many of them.

With nails the work goes very quickly.

The powder actuated nailer isn't terribly expensive to buy or rent (cheaper than the hammer drill) but the consumables (powder and nails) are more expensive than the screws per fastener.

However, you can't beat the speed you can attach something with.

If you're doing many fasteners and don't have a hammer drill, being able to nail in the boards quickly allows you to move forward in your project.

Nails can cause problems, particularly in substandard concrete.

If the concrete is soft, or has evidence of spalling or a lot of cracking, you should probably shy away from nails.

You also have to make some decisions in the blind - without knowing how hard the concrete is you have to try a few different size powder charges to find the one that drives the nail to the correct depth.

And, again, if you believe there's a good chance someone will want to undo what you've done, screws can be slightly more forgiving in terms of removing them from the concrete and using that area in other ways.

Nails are hardly a deal breaker, but they can complicate removal later.

If you want the wood to be mounted permanently you can use a ramset and wood fastening bolts.

Pretty cheap and extremely fast.

Its like shooting a gun, bam! bam! bam!

You're done.

If you value your money much more than your time, I would use ordinary masonry anchors because that will be the cheapest option.

They have drill bits you can use in a regular drill for concrete.

Not expensive at all.

Then buy some cut nails and tie wire.

The bit should be slightly smaller than the cut nail.

Drill the hole through the board into the concrete and then cut yourself a piece of wire.

Stick the wire in the hole

so you have extra coming out like a couple inches.

Then drive the cut nail and it won't come out.

Good Luck!

Question: I am adding shelves to my basement and I need to mount 2x6 to basement concrete.  I asked one of Home Depot folks and he suggested to use Tapcon as the most optimal option. He explained that a concrete nailer could be much more expensive.   I expect Tapcon screws are my lowest cost option. I wanted to post my question here and learn about my options.   Are there any other easier and cost effective options for mounting a 2x6 to concrete?

Easy options to mount a 2x6 to concrete

S1: Tapcon screws will be your easiest and cheapest means to mount a 2x6 to a concrete floor, by far. If you want the wood to be mounted permanently you can use a ramset and wood fastening bolts.  You could also use concrete expansion anchors too. I'm not sure if this is cheaper in the long term but consider using adhesive, it's certainly the easiest option since you just apply, press the board into position and wait for the glue to cure.

Tapcon screws and a hammer drill would be the cheapest option. Other options include cut nails and tie wire; concrete expansion anchors; a ramset and wood-fastening bolts; and even adhesive.

Concrete expansion anchors may be suitable.

A ramset and wood fastening bolts would be a permanent mounting option.


Ashler's answer is the simplest and cheapest way to get holes the same depth.

But as an extra there are bit collars that can be put on the bits which will enforce exact depth stops.

A lot of people drill a hole through a suitable length of wood dowel (or small square cross section) and use that as a stop-collar on the drill.

Example

You can also just use an external chunk of wood Example One benefit of both these

is you don't need an Allen key and can very quickly swap back and forth between two or more different depths (useful for e.g. dowelling)

Unlike some pieces of tape or rubber/plastic grommets, they can't be pushed out of position by overenthusiastic pressure.

The simplest means is to place a tab of masking tape on the drill bit at the desired depth.

When the spinning tab lowers to the surface of the wood and sweeps away the wood chips, stop.

You can also adjust your drill press table to be at the desired depth when the drill reaches the end of it's stroke.

Tape is what I would have suggested and continue to use but

if you wanted something a little more robust my suggestion would be depth stop collars /nuts

Image from AliExpress

Easily removed off the bits and adjustable as well

which tape would not be as much.

if this is not a big project and you're just trying to get very close sized holes..

(maybe you don't want to punch through the other side),

i've used electrical tape on the drill bit.

just tape above the depth you want to stop.

when you hit the tape... stop...

Question: My drill press doesn't have a "stop".  How do I make a drill hole the same depth every time?

How do I make a drill hole the same depth every time?

A lot of people drill a hole through a suitable length of wood dowel (or small square cross section) and use that as a stop-collar on the drill.   The simplest means is to place a tab of masking tape on the drill bit at the desired depth.  You can also adjust your drill press table to be at the desired depth when the drill reaches the end of it's stroke.

The simplest means is to place a tab of masking tape on the drill bit at the desired depth. You could drill a hole through a suitable length of wood dowel (or small square cross section) and use that as a stop-collar on the drill. Alternatively, you could also adjust your drill press table to be at the desired depth when the drill reaches the end of it's stroke.

Drill a hole through a suitable length of wood dowel (or small square cross section) and use that as a stop-collar on the drill.


Bio fuel briquettes / fire logs for campfire / woodstove would be a simple suggestion outside of compost.

When it comes to compost you cannot use too much and also heed my warning below.

The gist of the solutions our there are to take sawdust and wood pulp mixing it with water and compressing it as much as possible.

Small containers work best where you can have some holes to let the water out.

Best approach would involve some sort of press

but I have seen success just using large amounts of weight.

Either way try and get as much of the water out of the pulp as you can.

Once that is done leave it to dry.

Milage will vary with local but they would need to dry several days at least.

Once dry then you have some simple fire logs.

One such example of this process can be found on instructables.com .

Another from Ana White using paraffin wax and hand mixing .

I have heard of more success with water and compression.

Here is a video showing a paper/sawdust mixture and using a perforated sewer pipe and a bottle jack jig to force the water out.

You can find oodles of variations of this

so you should be able to find a combinations of tools and techniques that can suit your needs.

There are commercial options as far as pressed go that are designed for this as well.

Be warned though!

Not all sawdust should be burned or used for anything other than landfill.

Be aware of your woods and things that have glues and adhesives should not be burned.

Other things like treated wood should be avoided as well.

Some woods are known irritants and allergens.

This cannot be stressed enough

so you just need to be careful.

A related question on this subject:

How should I dispose of sawdust safely?

I have used sawdust as filler in my yard to curtail erosion.

Especially where I sometimes parked my truck and left ruts in the rain.

There are plenty of other uses, though most need some extra work.

If the saw dust doesn't have treated wood in it then it can be used as mulch, some plants like raspberry beds love saw dust.

My wife also used it as mulch around her flower beds.

My dad's neighbor uses it for animal bedding.

Horses and chickens.

Chickens seem to be a big one and growing.

There also pellet makers for pellet stoves, though I would do plenty of research before buying one of these.

You might find someone who already has one and partner with them.

I found a link with a multitude of possibilities.

OK 28.

The break down into categories of burning them, using them for gardening, craft applications, animal bedding, absorption uses, wood filler, even cooking.

One option I had not thought of was to list it on craigslist and see who is interested.

One result for listing

it was a mushroom farmer who loved the stuff.

Only a few uses would consume the amount of sawdust I can generate when I'm cooking.

It appears that treated wood, some exotics and black walnut dust should be kept separate from agricultural and animal applications.

I found information that that black walnut trees secrete a poison called juglone as a natural defense to prevent other trees from growing in their proximity, so it should definitely be kept separate.

( http://www.toolcrib.com/blog/2008/06/28-ways-to-recycle-and-reuse-sawdust-and-woodchips )

I keep a plastic bag filled with sawdust to use as wood filler.

Mixing it with a little glue can provide a nice material to fill small cracks or defects.

Question: I find that the thing I make most in my shop is sawdust, I'm quite skilled at it. Much of my scraps and dust end up on a garbage truck and I am looking for a more earth friendly way to deal with it.  I have tried composting the sawdust to use in gardens but it is very slow to decay and I am not certain how good it is as a fertilizer and soil enhancement. What alternatives are available to sending the stuff to a landfill?

What alternatives are there to throwing sawdust in the trash?

S1: If the saw dust doesn't have treated wood in it then it can be used as mulch, some plants like raspberry beds love saw dust.  Saw dust can also be used as animal bedding, as a yard filler, to make fuel briquettes and as a wood filler.

Suggested uses fro sawdust include making biofuel briquettes for fires and stoves; compost; mulch and plant bedding; ground filler; wood filler and animal bedding.

Bio fuel briquettes/fire logs  for campfire/woodstove, or compost.


First, as Aloysius says above, you should stay away from the ends of the mortise during bulk removal.

1/16 of an inch or 1-2mm should be sufficient.

Now, when you have done a bunch of chopping, and you have chips clogging the mortise, you need to clear them out, as you said.

Use a bench chisel that is one "size" below your mortising chisel.

For example, a 1/4 inch if you are doing a 3/8 inch mortise.

Guide the chisel with the thumb and forefinger of your non-dominant hand as you work it into the chips.

Then, still lightly pinching the chisel, rest your non-dominant forefinger on the board and use it as fulcrum as you lever the waste out of the hole.

The chisel should not touch the end of the mortise if you do this correctly.

Don't lever.

Pare straight downward into the opening, taking it in multiple passes if necessary, and letting the chisel act as a wedge to do the work.

Paul Sellers is a master craftsman, author of several books and some very good video tutorials.

He does several on cutting mortises - this one probably being most relevant to this topic.

I've learned a lot from watching his videos, still dont have the skill to implement the lessons very well as yet - very much a novice at this.

Are you looking to use only hand tools?

If you have a router, this can get the majority of the mortise bottom flat with a flat bottom bit.

Then the corners will be easier to chisel out.

A drill with a forstner bit can be used to accomplish this as well.

If you have a drill press, that would be ideal.

There are also hollow chisel mortising attachments you can buy for drill presses that will make perfectly square mortises, and many woodoworkers will "drag" this along the bottom to achieve a relatively flat mortise bottom.

If you want to use only hand tools, a router plane would be capable of achieving this, coming from both directions to get into the corners.

Borrowing from my own answer about this very topic : Auger Bits Whether you are going for traditional techniques or powered/hand hybrid auger bits would be a tool of choice for this.

Using auger bits that are the exact width of you hole you are trying to make, in a brace and bit or drill, you can easily remove waste and not have to worry about going "outside the lines".

Stagger the holes and you will get a similar shape like that of the ones you have pictured. From Chris' Project Page As you can see from the above image (mortise in a workbench)

most of the wood was removed with auger bit.

The screw tip and the shape help to naturally create straight holes.

I'm really looking for a technique which allows me to reliably clear the debris without risking damage Be careful when/if you are exiting out the other side.

To mitigate damage you can Used waste/scrap wood (clamp well) Count

the rotations it takes until the screw (eye) just shows proud on the other side (A Roy Underhill suggestion).

Mark

the depth of your bits using masking tape.

Feel for the screw/eye coming out

Most of those suggestions will work in tandem.

This way you can turn the work over and have cleaner edges on the outside.

Question: I've watched a couple of videos of making mortises.     What technique should I use to remove (bulk) waste from the hole without damaging the ends of the mortise hole?   Clearly levering against them will bruise or dent the wood.  I'm really looking for a technique which allows me to reliably clear the debris without risking damage.   I'm especially looking for answers more specific than "be careful".  Edit: I'm not talking about the paring stage, I'm talking about bulk waste removal.

How to avoid damaging the ends of mortise holes when chiseling?

to avoid damaging the ends of mortise holes when chiseling you can use a bench chisel one size below the mortising chisel. A router will certainly be a big help as would a forstner bit. There are also hollow chisel mortising attachments fro drill presses. If using only hand tools, a router plane would be able to do it.

When using chisels, stay away from the edges during bulk removal in a mortice. Use a bench chisel one size below your mortising chisel. Don't lever. Pare straight downward into the opening, taking it in multiple passes if necessary, and letting the chisel act as a wedge to do the work. A router can get the majority of the mortise bottom flat with a flat bottom bit.  A drill with a forstner bit can be used to accomplish this as well.  A drill press would be ideal. Hollow chisel mortising attachments  for drill presses make perfectly square mortises, and many woodworkers "drag" this along the bottom to achieve a relatively flat mortise bottom.  If you want to use only hand tools, a router plane would be capable of achieving this, coming from both directions to get into the corners.

Stay away from the edges during bulk removal in a mortice.


In my experience, it's best just to stop right when you notice the issue and address it immediately.

If you are determined to continue without stopping, and your quick slash isn't enough to jog your memory, either stop conducting, letting your musicians continue, and actually write a note, or just don't worry about it.

If you don't notice anything the next time through, your musicians fixed it on their own, and if you do notice it again, it will be easier to remember.

I have no experience in conducting, but I assume what works for your own instrumental performance will work here, too.

When you're really in doubt, I would definitely try to record the performance and listen to it again when you can totally concentrate on it.

You'll have more "space" to analyze and the next time you'll be more prepared.

I would say that the best way is to try to go through the whole piece at least once, marking each issue to address with a small but noticeable sign in the conductor's score (I would recommend a circle), so that later you can study each of them by its own, and with the proper musicians.

Be careful, though.

Don't fall into the trap of trying to correct every little detail the first time and

also you'll see that sometimes the same musicians will notice that something was off, and they might try to fix it themselves.

Also, at the beginning of the following rehearsals, go directly to one of the issues you marked last time (preferably the one with the most difficulty)

Keep a small personal recorder on you, with a one-button start-stop interface, and an external mic attached to your shirt collar.

If something happens, press the button and mention something that will jog your memory when you review.

If you have a smartphone, there's most likely an app in the app store that will serve this purpose well for you

, you can use the button on the phone's in-ear headset to control the recording, or a large button displayed prominently on the screen that will be easy for you to press.

Alternatively: if you can find someone who'd be interested, get an assistant conductor who can stand near you and take notes.

Then you can tell the assistant a few keywords, and assume that they're following along on a part and can jot notes down in the correct place for you.

This solution will make it easier to review the notes with the ensemble right away.

Our choir director has a "three strikes and we're out" rule, because she can remember two problem spots in a song before stopping at the third.

I'm learning to conduct from her and one trick I've picked up is to stick my finger on the page where a problem happened; I can track one that way.

Usually the reminder of where it was is enough, since most of our songs are short (3min or under).

For longer songs I would stop at the first problem that I want to address now, which might not be the first problem to occur.

A small idea from one who doesn't conduct, but records a lot.

I've sat through plenty recordings checking the scores whilst recording.

Always make the note on that section/instrument that has the problem.

Write only on the top of the page, if it's a problem for the whole orchestra.

Make your own system of terminology.

A circle can mean dynamic problem, a box can mean rhythmic problem, triangle is something something.

Assuming your score is on off-white paper printed with black (possibly laser) use a green or red (if you're colorblind, they are still the same) marker or pencil, so it sticks in the eye on page turn.

I use a pen cause

once recorded I don't really need the score anymore, but if you need it for the next day, you might want to go home and erase the points.

One note about recording: it doesn't help to start recording when you notice something.

Record the WHOLE rehearsal and listen to it when you get home.

Looking at the score and seeing your points a couple of hours later, will give you a good idea of what you heard and what they actually played.

I've seen conductors mark trouble spots with Post-It flags, but haven't tried this myself.

Yet. :-)

Question: As a mostly untrained conductor, one problem I've always had is keeping track of problems with a piece as we work through it.  Something will stick out  and I'll want to go back, but all I could manage was a slash or other simple mark that isn't enough information to fully recall the issue.  Is there a common method for recording musical issues for later correction?

Keeping track of problems during rehearsals

S0: I would say that the best way is to try to go through the whole piece at least once, marking each issue to address with a small but noticeable sign in the conductor's score (I would recommend a circle), so that later you can study each of them by its own, and with the proper musicians.  Always make the note on that section/instrument that has the problem.  For longer songs, stop at the first problem you want to address at the time, which might not be the first problem to occur. When you're really in doubt, I would definitely try to record the performance and listen to it again when you can totally concentrate on it. Keep a small personal recorder on you, with a one-button start-stop interface, and an external mic attached to your shirt collar. Alternatively, if you can find someone who'd be interested, get an assistant conductor who can stand near you and take notes.

To note a musical issue, you could either record the performace and use an external microphone to add comments, or you could write notes on the scores, using symbols/notes/post it notes,  possible stoping conducting breifly, or use an assistant to take notes.

To note a musical issue, you could stop conduction, write a note, use signs, your finger, or post it notes on the relevant position

Stop the performance at the issue you want to address

Record the whole performance, use an external mic and listen after

Alternatively: if you can find someone who'd be interested, get an assistant conductor who can stand near you and take notes.


A time signature is simply the composer's way of telling you how s/

he is subdividing the measure.

So in 4/4 time, the composer imagines the measure divided into four beats, while in 8/8 time, the composer imagines the measure divided into eight beats.

The difference is less in the strict timing and more in the feel or pulse of the music.

Try counting these out loud:

4/4 time: "1-2-3-4-/1-2-3-4-"8/8 time: "12345678/12345678"2/2 time: "1---2---/1---2---" All three of these take up exactly the same amount of time, but to me, the 4/4 time feels steady, while the 8/8 time feels brisk and the 2/2 time feels stately.

In all three time signatures, a quarter note will have the same value—one quarter of the measure—but in 4/4 time, it represents the pulse of the music, while in 8/8, it's two pulses and in 2/2 time, it's half a pulse.

A difference in feel between 3/4 and 6/8 time can be even more obvious.

In 3/4 time, the measure is broken up into three distinct beats, as in a waltz.

In 6/8 time, by contrast, the measure is often broken up into two beats, each with a triplet feel.

Like this: 3/4 time: "ONE and TWO and TRE and/ONE and TWO and TRE and "6/8 time: "ONE two tre

FOR fiv

six/ONE two tre

FOR fiv six " If the composer writes three quarter notes in 3/4 time, it will feel like three notes on the beat.

But if the composer writes three quarter notes in 6/8 time, the second note may feel syncopated relative to the overall pulse of the music.

Update: Listen to the first twenty seconds or so of La Pistola y El Corazon by Los Lobos.

Is it in 3/4 or 6/8 time?

Depending on how you hear it, the music has a much different feel, with the lead guitars putting emphasis on different parts of the melody.

Listen a few times and try to hear it both ways!

Adding to Alex's answer, There seem to be at least 2 factors in choosing a time signature

First way is disregarding

duplet/triplet feel one is how many beats there are in the bar, so often in the case of 7/16

it's all about just the number of 16ths in that bar.

in many prog rock passages and places where the time signature is constantly changing it's because the player wants to extend a repeated phrase by an odd amount

so they'll just stick the notes in the phrase and change the time signature bar to bar.

As a practical example, suppose you have a phrase of nine quavers, grouped 3 3 3.

One way often used by prog rockers is to alter one group to be different lengths in a passage(let's use the last group here), so perhaps it would go 333,336,333,332.

In time signature terms

what you would have there is 9/8,12/8,9/8,8/8, It doesn't make sense to define the 8/8 bar as 4/4 because it breaks the pattern.

The second way is considering the feel

This is where 3/4 and 6/8 commonly differ.

As you may know 3/4 is counted in duplets or 1+2+3+(3 groups of 2), whereas 6/8 is counted in triplets or 1+a2+a(2 groups of 3)

The same can be applied to 4/4 and 8/8, where the difference is that 4/4 is counted 1+2+3+4+(or 4 groups of 2) but 8/8 can be grouped as (3 3 2),(3 2 3) or (2 3 3)in

the example of 332 this would be counted 1+a 2+a

+ You could arguably use 4/4, but in this case 8/8 suggests the feel better. Also for extra fun, here is my favourite example on 8/8 time signatures

There is one commonly-used time signature that is just wrong.

6/8 literally means that there are six beats in the measure, and an eighth note gets one beat.

Almost always there are two beats in the measure and

a dotted quarter note gets one beat.

But there is no readable way to write that.

In 4/4 time, the concept of pulse is assigned to the quarter note beat.

However, in 8/8 time, which would seem to be similar, the sense of pulse is completely open-ended.

Often time signatures in 8 have a dotted quarter note pulse, such as 6/8, 9/8, 12/8, but in a time signature like 8/8, which is not historically used, the composer is free to subdivide as they choose.

This could technically be any variation of 3+3+2.

Basically, the difference is in the subdivision.

As an arranger, I have once used 8/8 as a time signature.

I wanted the performance to emphasise the nature of the quaver as the pulse, while recognising that the melody was easier to recognise as 4/4 than 4/8, thus preserving its legato style.

8/8 also led to a saner tempo marking...

Question: These days I pretty much play everything by ear, but was originally trained in strathspey and reel violin so realise I should know the answer to this, but I can't remember what, if any, the practical differences were.  Is there any difference between a score marked 4/4 and one marked 8/8? Or is that sort of thing only useful to indicate a time signature change within a piece of music?

Is there any real-world difference between time signatures such as 4/4 and 8/8?

The difference is less in the strict timing and more in the feel or pulse of the music.  iin 4/4 time, the composer imagines the measure divided into four beats, while in 8/8 time, the composer imagines the measure divided into eight beats.

In 4/4 time, the composer imagines the measure divided into four beats, while in 8/8 time, the composer imagines the measure divided into eight beats.   The difference is less in the strict timing and more in the feel or pulse of the music.


First, sound is perceived when things bump around in your ear, which is generally caused by air bumping around.

Moving your pick through the air therefore causes sound, and striking the strings is amplified by the guitar, creating even more sound.

Thus, pick sounds are unavoidable.

That said, there are various things you can do to lessen the sound.

One is your type of pick.

A harder, thicker pick will create more sound, so you could choose a thinner and/or softer one.

(As Lennart notes below, the opposite may be true for acoustic guitar.

It also depends how you play.

Picks are cheap, so get a few and experiment!)

You can also hold the pick more loosely, so that your fingers absorb some of the impact when the pick hits the strings.

Picking on an angle and drawing the pick across the strings will also create more pick sounds; the less the pick is in contact with the strings, the less sound it makes.

And of course, you can just play softer.

Don't hit the strings so hard :

P.

On the other hand, the behavior you describe in the question comments is caused by striking too softly or not following through.

You want a smooth, continuous motion through the strings.

While it's impossible to avoid entirely, try to avoid the inconsistent motion caused by the strings impeding your strumming.

This just takes practice, and a strong wrist.

It sounds like you're playing chords by plucking strings one at a time.

Unless you're playing arpeggios, that's not the best way to do it:

Try strumming them all in a row, in a fluid motion.

Keep in mind that some pick noise is inevitable, even desirable.

In the studio, I do everything I can to emphasize incidental noises like the pick hitting the strings, the noises made by the flautist clicking the keys, or the vocalist inhaling before singing a line.

It's what makes music sound human and relatable.

Unless you're getting a truly horrifically loud series of clicks when playing, don't worry about it too much.

Listen to other players, and you'll hear that, to a point, this is normal and natural.

However, lighter nylon picks (like the ones put out by Clayton, for example) can mitigate this, as can lighter strings (although those would reduce the volume the strings produce, I think).

There are also hybrid silk/steel strings that can give you a softer sound.

(I'm guessing you're playing guitar with steel strings; classical guitars with nylon strings are generally not played with a plectrum.)

Like Matthew wrote in his answer , hold the pick more softly and play more gently and subtly.

You'll have a better dynamic range, a less percussive sound, and you'll have better control over your instrument.

You also ask about playing without a pick.

Sure, you can do that, but you'll be playing what's known as fingerstyle playing, a very different sort of music than strummed guitar.

You'll also be wearing down the fingernails on your strumming hand, so you'll want to prepare for that.

Beyond what is said, there's pick angle.

I tend to get more of the click when I play with the pick hitting parallel to the string, so I try to hit with a little bit of an angle.

Another trick is compression.

My Boss CS3 has knobs for attack and sustain, and by turning down the attack, you'll control that picky pop a little.

Plus, of course, legato.

There's lots that'll tell you more here, including listening to Satriani, but in a nutshell, if you pick once and do lots with hammer-ons and pull offs, you will get a much smoother attack with little of the pick sound.

But, even with these techniques, you want to play around, try to get dynamics.

The pick sound can give an edge that you want for some songs.

About 10 years ago I was obsessed with this very same question.

There are lots of things to try.

Go fingerstyle.

Don't be afraid!

Give it a go.

If your friends give you grief, make 'em watch Crossroads , already!

Beyond fingerstyle is the apoyando stroke.

Learn the rest stroke , where your fingertip grazes the string before the nail hits it and comes to rest on the next string.

This is the key to that sweet, sweet sound.

Try plucking closer to the middle of the string (away from the bridge).

But there's a beyond that, too.

For want of a better name, let's call it the Albert King soft-shoe .

After you can do an apoyando with the thumb, Do a strum with the thumb!

If you "brush" the strings with the flesh (no nail) of your fingers, you can summon sounds from the strings with almost zero attack .

It almost sounds like a synthesized clarinet.

I use Thomastik Nickel Flats in an obscenely heavy gauge.

This cuts even more exraneous upper harmonics (while paradoxically making it easier to play harmonics).

And the flat wrapping means I can play slides all the way across the neck with none of that scritcha-scratcha noise.

Accuracy!

When I play a chord, after my pick triggers one string it then falls against the next string causing a clashing noise which kind of irritates me.

If you want to avoid that sound, you should avoid your pick hitting that final string.

Either by stopping the pick before it reaches the unwanted string, or by lifting your picking hand away from the strings, so the pick passes over the unwanted string without touching it.

Practice this slowly, then gradually work up your speed.

Precise plectrum work requires a lot of practice, but it's essential for many styles of playing.

Question: When I play the guitar (electric with steel strings), I can hear the noise of the pick clashing against the steel strings.  When I play a chord, after my pick triggers one string it then falls against the next string causing a clashing noise which kind of irritates me. Can I use the pick without that noise or should I play chords with my hands instead?  Is it the pick, my technique of holding the pick or does it have something to do with how I strike?

How can I prevent the noise my guitar pick makes?

Playing with fingers avoids the problem of pick noise on the guitar. Otherwise, go for a lighter nylon pick and hold the pick more loosely and play more gently. Avoiding pick noise takes practice and a strong wrist.

Experiment with picks. A heavier pick may make more sound than a light one. Experiment with how you hold the pick and hold it more gently. Practice picking and strumming more smoothly. Develop accuracy. Experiment with fingerstyle playing - without a pick.