Quick & dirty lathe balls: holesaw and sander jigs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 май 2024
- Another method for making rough spheres on the wood lathe. A simple sanding jig is then used to smooth them a bit. The entire process takes minutes once the jigs have been made.
There are many, many ways to make wooden spheres. Perfection is an impossible goal, so it's a nice project to play around with. I am not asking your advice on how to do it in this video. I've already made more than my share, and I've watched countless videos on the subject. In case you're looking, here are a few RUclips presenters that have made some interesting attempts: Noho91, Izzy Swan, Pask Makes.
Remember though: videos are heavily edited, and so they are misleading. They make things look easy. But there are two woodworking subjects that look WAY easier than they actually are: sphere making and dowel making. Both subjects are usually delivered with the promise of some new, simplified contraption that will somehow ensure a perfect, easy result. Not the case with either. It is no coincidence that both of these projects are round. Round things require precision while spinning, which means that it's tough to produce any respectable result without tons of troubleshooting. Strap in, because there aren't really any simple AND perfect ways to produce perfect dowels or spheres. Perfection with these is found at the price of attention paid to the individual-that is, you can have one only after you've given it enough of your time. And even then, it could still be improved upon.
Remember that guy in 'Jurassic Park 2,' who was complaining: “I'll love it when it works!”?
The other guy then responds (perfectly), “It'll work when you love it.”
Making round things is like that. Perfection may only be approached, and not obtained. The relationship is asymptotic.
If you want to see perfection pr0n, take note that you are indulging your biases by watching a fantasy. You may want to see crisp corners and smooth edges where 'appropriate,' but those expectations are the want of your preference for order in a constantly changing world. Hold a handful of snow as hard as you can, but the more powerful the clench, the more apparent the futility. Even the most exquisitely crafted precision pays its tax to the universe in which it temporarily resides. The nature of this reality is to be impartial and deconstructive over time, and thus, any shiny gems of finely sculpted order will eventually erode and then decompose to be used for other latticed states of new creation. That's just how it works. So there's really no point in telling me how I could do it better, unless you can show me how to do it in such a way that I can no longer tell you how you might do that better. And since that is necessarily not possible, shut your presumptuous hole. Hope you liked the video.
Oh, one more thing: the mathematical term for 'eggish' is 'ellipsoid.' We could make one intentionally by simply angling the holesaw away from the center of the lathe's axis of rotation. Technically (even though it's more round than a billiards ball), the Earth is an ellipsoid, since the spin causes a mild outward bulge. Let's back up for a moment. The circle is an ideal. It is not possible in the physical world. The sphere is a circle that is projected into an additional dimension, so it is therefore just as impossible. No more, no less; both the circle and the sphere require an infinite number of points to define. But as far as real-world approximations go, tweaking any one of its little variables will cause the circle to deform. This is why the universe is so full of ellipses. Orbits are just one case. A round swimming pool viewed from eye level is another. As is a coffee cup, or a penny-from every perspective but one, these circles are ellipses. But you view through eyes, and thus, through perspective, an aberration. You have never seen a circle. Nor will you, ever.
It's easier to make an ellipse or an ellipsoid, than a circle or a sphere, because it's easier to not be perfectly round from every possible perspective. One little variable off, and there goes the ideal! Have no fear: you may love the idea of perfection, but ideally, imperfection can still work for you, once you come 'round to loving it.
Note @ 5:45, the jig is vibrating because I forgot to put one hoseclamp in place: the handle on the F-clamp spun loose, and so the clamp loosened. The edit doesn't suggest this. The jig is normally pretty solid when it's clamped tightly.
Also note @ 7:45, the holesaw is favoring the side of the 'sphere' closest to me. It is here apparent that the guide hole was off. This is not something that you would see in use. Although my procedure in this video was shoddy, this method does work. This was just a demo. Hope you can pick something up from it.
*****
Oh, a small addendum to the second-from-last paragraph of the description. The character limit had been breached there, but here in the comments one can spam to the Moon and back.
Ok, the Moon-- let's use that.
Think about it.
It's a bright disk. It looks almost supernaturally round. Perfectly round things have an otherworldly aspect to them, because they are such unusual objects to our sight. From this effect our Moon almost looks cartoonish after you stare for a bit, especially when it looks orange, or when it's low in the sky.¹
So you may want to argue that a sphere is the circle apparent, because it does not look elliptical. Yeah, almost. But you have two eyes, and thus, binocular vison; any sphere that you see is a stereoscopic image, because the brain blends two--slightly off--images into one average. Oh, but you'll get around this distortion by closing one eye, right? You are a clever one. Tell me, how is it that you know that your single eye is aligned in perfect perpendicularity to the Moon, and further, that it's also centered on it without deviation? If you have a steady gaze, I'll concede that maybe you've got a clear view. But is it also without atmospheric distortion? Seems there's no turbulence in your sight, yet the peripheral stars do their flicker.
The circle is an ideal. It's not of this world. Silly idea? Plato wrote of 'Forms' 2½K years ago, long before most of the gods people pray to nowadays had been invented. His argument was that there are ideas which represent certain truths about reality which are far more accurate, permanent, and thus more substantial, than any of the hazy imperfections that our lives consist of. It's almost ironic that we consider an idea like this to be both dated and bat-sheet by default, yet it's closer to the way the external world works than any of the intuitive fantasies that our minds tend to cook up. ²[Come back up here after you've finished reading this, and apply the reality of footnote¹ to this idea of our "intuitive fantasies".]
The brain builds with what the eyes provide; here, you and I will briefly inhabit the inside of a tiny skewed bubble of limited consciousness, and from this point we will extrapolate an understanding of infinity: a pocket-level projecting its error across an ocean.
In video or photography, we call it 'spherical aberration,' gleefully conceding that it is a flaw inherent to any lens-based visual system which should be mitigated and controlled. What we don't admit is that this limitation is the full extent of our own projection of this reality. Distorted is the best we can have. Such is necessary to occupy a place in space. Outward seems to become diminished. And its seat here at the center of the sphere is temporary, at that.
¹Search "Moon illusion" for more on our perceptual differences between the noon and horizon sky positions. There's no real consensus about how/why, but we tend to overestimate its size by 50% when it's low in the sky. Surprisingly, this phenomenon is not being caused by the fact that the horizon Moon's light must travel through more atmosphere, and thus will be subjected to more of Earth's turbulence; in fact, the low Moon is not really any larger in the sky at all. The apparent difference is _perceptual,_ and somewhat sensible, when we consider that a cloud in the horizon is much, much smaller than it is when viewed directly overhead. ²⮥
Hey, should you find value in reading these, please react to it. I question my own motive for posting such serious considerations in this cesspool. But tell me, fellow reader: where does one go to read something genuine? It certainly isn't there in mass-publishing! Mass appeal sells, and so it especially appeals to advertisers. Messages tend to pollute with bias and soften in such a field, where they are exposed to the bright rays of mass scrutiny. At least out here we are free to exchange our thoughts without the burn of coerced compromise. For now.
I loved it! I haven't seen the full video yet, but I've read the commentary. It's surprisingly relevant to my process of learning how to create 3D art and renderings. It's often very easy to spot a perfectly proportioned image as a render, if the artist has failed to include imperfections.
Our surroundings are full of dirt, scratches, illusions created by perspectives, wear & tear, age, etc...
Whenever possible, I try to emulate that. It is surprisingly far more difficult to emulate objects with imperfections than to simulate perfection.
A simple white-glazed mug still needs a significant amount of thought to make realistic. Usually the base is unglazed, but how rough is that fired unglazed ceramic? What shade of white/cream is it? Same goes for the glaze. It can't be perfectly white. How glossy is the glaze? Do new mugs have minor scratches that we don't notice? To what degree should I emulate that?
Just like that, there becomes an endless persuit to improve what is technically perfect, in order to make it more realistic. An ideal mug would be the brightest white, with a uniform and extremely glossy glaze. It would be perfectly cylindrical. The base would also be glazed. The handle wouldn't need to be slightly thicker where it joins the mug's body.
I really enjoy these videos, plz keep them coming because they help me stay alot less lazy and inspired to do something.
@OutOfNames...
There was this cutoff chunk of decking sitting around the shop that looked like a piece of sandstone, so I decided to make a fake rock out of it. Man, imitating a natural thing is the most unnatural thing a man can do. My bias for symmetry just kept interrupting me. It just never had that 'finished' feel to it. Sometimes we have to fight against our brains to accomplish simple tasks. For example, don't swat at a fly-- swat above it in a back and forth motion, since the fly has been selected to avoid the conscious decisions made by the brains of fly predators.
Mindless processes are simply better at replicating mindlessly processed things.
Side note: I always wanted to render 3D objects for games. I consider it a form of sculpture. It was just one of those life paths I didn't take.
i like reading them, they often get my thinkingmachine going
@@pocket83squared Thanks for this. Being the 'fish in the water, not noticing that they are wet' we so often seem to forget that we're locked inside our minds, limited to our perceptions of reality.
The difficulty of 3D modeling is there, but there are some good programs that are free, like blender. Also the mentioned difficulty in making a realistic model says to me that we have a long way to go in our ability to accurately model reality. We can predict that gravity and pressure will force water into a sphere, but modeling an accurate drop of water takes a lot of steps and processing, almost as if reality 'never' produces a perfect sphere.
That sanding jig is genius
You've got some balls there, mister!
:D
The sanding thingy is the star of this show, though - great idea.
Barely recognized you! Weird how a person has an avatar instead of a face around here. It's like you have a new haircut or something.
The sanding jig was probably my favorite part of the video to be honest that was a brilliant idea
Starting at 4:40 I felt like I was playing a Myst game.
This sanding method is ingenious! I'll definitely give that a try, I think it will complement my usual method of making wooden balls (which is using two sided 3 axis CNC machining).
Seriously cool idea!
For even more accurate spheres, find a way to position your drill press over your lathe!
I love your commentary in the description, so eloquent!
Neat idea I can see where it would come in handy for doing some projects
Keep up the great videos
Totally didn't notice it until just now. The MerrillMath button is on your lathe. Nice!
I did enjoy that.
Great concept
Funnily enough I've done your whole process here to make wooden balls but didn't come up with the sanding part. I did sand it on the same bench belt sander but had trouble keeping it in place just wearing a leather glove and holding it loosely. Will have to give this sanding jig a go. Great video as always
Great job.
I have no problem making spheres to the limits of my measurement abilities. When I want a better sphere, I just use cruder measurement tools.
It's a really cool concept (that's mainly why I watch your videos), but I still think that using standard turning tools and techniques would be not much slower, and would give a surface that you would not even need to sand. That said, I don't think that I couldn turn a perfect sphere by hand.
Anyway, your videos inspire me to make stuff and get of my lazy butt ;-D Thank you
4:11 is that a framed photo of the ruined fresco of jesus photo that girl mangled? lol
I liked the idea .. good job 👏
I think pask makes had a similar jig with tighter tolerances for a more precise sphere that needed less sanding. All the same I like this for a faster and easier to make version.
Wow, you really like your comparative adjectives.
This is nearly an identical method. No less precise. No more sanding. If you want to, sand it on the lathe before dropping it loose.
Ha-ha! _The Simpsons_ already did that!
@@pocket83squared comparatives are better and more useful than all other varieties of adjective. They make you sound smarter and more knowledgable.
Nice balls
this is a very interesting aproach. makes me wanna think about where i can implement this kind of thinking in other places :)
an idea: what about using a benchtop harbor freight drill press? once you get the spindle aligned and such you can use the press motion instead of relying the wood to not be ground away by the saw.
Been waiting for this video ever since I first saw your channel banner however many years ago
Well I enjoyed it!
Brilliant
Are you sure it's not easy? You sure made it look like magic. I should have stayed happy in my ignorance and NOT delved into the video description + comments.
Slick idea.
The machines that cut stone spheres using two or three rotating cups are pretty cool, check em out if you haven’t seen them. Interesting method here, not entirely into it, but trying new things is how change happens!
We could try three holesaws! That would be something to see. Dry sanding them with cups would be a problem, though. Slurry doesn't really work with wood. Maybe some kind of flap-disk sanders, instead? Three of those might do the trick.
pocket83² you could turn cups then glue loose silicon carbide or garnet to them. Or pvc pipe. But yeah my first thought was a kind of flap wheel, which would probably win. I’ve actually seen small stone spheres made on a grinder using a cup against the wheel, the stone needs to be evenly proportioned, but it randomly vibrates to quite round.
Pastewax as a lubricant for the ply jig and holesaw?
Great concept. I’m getting a big kick out of it because I’ve got the same lathe. Could you show your banjo modification?
Even if it's not 100% effective, it's still a pretty interesting way to do it. Even without a lathe, it shows the concept of using a 2 dimensional cutting plane (the holesaw) on an object rotating in a 1 dimensional plane(rotating around the center of an axis) can cause a 3 dimensional change on the object. So essentially, I could use a hole saw in a rotation around a stable octagon and get the same or a similar result depending on accuracy of movement.
when will you post on your main channel again?
I want one of those sitting on my desk. Not sure why i need it so badly, but i do.
You had me hooked until you started talking about a bent hole Saw drilling an elliptic hole! Lol
Don't laugh too hard. It may be possible!
It depends on the speed, and thus the frequency of the oscillation against the wall. The drill has to spin such that it only bounces back-and-forth. Did you ever notice how a (dull) counter-sink will sometimes make a hex pattern? its oscillation has a frequency-to-rotation ratio that causes it, just like a Spirograph.
All of life is crisscrossing waves.
But yeah, in my case, I just wore out one side from pressing my bent holesaw against the side to stop the wobbling.
Maybe just make plastic inserts for smaller hole saws to fit? Plus hard plastic might not wear as bad as plywood like that prototype has?
how are the balls working for your workout?
STOP DEFENDING YOURSELF! We know trolls nitpick everything, no way around that. I love you, have a nice day
That Guy You realize _you’re_ now nit-picking him, right?
Kind of looks like the Minority Report wood balls. I was always curious how those props were made, and I'm guessing they were turned
That movie was the reason that I started making spheres in the first place. Oak looks to be the closest to the screen prop. That was some intense sci-fi. Cruise is a weirdo, but my man can act. Love his films.
What I wouldn't do to dangle from a pair of balls rather than gymnastic hoops. It's simply the next step up.
When i saw the balls i immediately thought of a handle for weights to workout your grip strength
Ok maybe a dumb question, I’m sorry if it is, but what is the difference between softwood (1 word) and soft wood (2 words)? 3:20
Not dumb at all! In fact, the confusion stems (pun) from a dumb naming system. When you are woodworking, a soft wood is one that hammer-dents easily. In contrast, a softwood is wood from a tree that usually has a pinecone.
Simply put-- classifying a wood as either a hardwood or a softwood has to do with the shape of the plant's seed.
Even though this is irrelevant, if I don't make the distinction on video, the commenters will gleefully make the correction for me!
pocket83² Ahhh ok, now I know. Obviously, I knew what soft wood was, but I was not aware of softwood. Thank you for the lesson. “Confusion stems” hahahahaha!
what's lathema?
It's coconut shaped!
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just rough a sphere with the lathe?
i keep thinking the sphere in the thumbnail is some sort of negative space in a piece of wood rather than just a rough sphere (despite the fact that it wouldnt even make sense to be negative space)
With the nubs and no sanding it's a great onion
*follows instructions*
La vie.
maybe throwing a small drill press on the lathe could also be an option
The saw is labeled ManCrafts. Hahaha
This is a prototype, so just relax
🤣 MANCRAFTS! LMAO! 🤣
Barely anybody ever catches that. Now you can never unsee it.
@@pocket83squared I'll never unsee!!
Use a drill press.
YOU use a drill press. And make a video about doing it. Then bring me another cup of coffee.
Chucks also have a fair amount of play in play in them so there's no guarantee, even after all the effort to accurately position press, that it would turn out any better. Additionally a drill press would be hard to adjust.
why don't you use your main channel anymore
The
👎👎👎🙈
Is that a monkey emoji? Perfect metaphor for a jeering, waste hurling mob. Use words and make a point, or else that's exactly how I'll think of you.
Don't you want some respect? Don't you want to express some idea, rather than just making grunts of disapproval all the time?
¿Usted no habla Inglés? Use translate. Man, every comment was from monkeys this morning.