Bent Lamination 

Like this? thewoodwhispererguild.com/product/sculpted-rocker/ :)

don't Grown frames run the risk of creating reaction wood?

ThisWoodwork DO IT!!! It's actually incredibly fun. Though incorporating those curved parts into a project then presents itself with all sorts of fun challenges. :)

Marcus460 hmm.. I'll have to look into it. Sounds interesting!

I don't remember the name of the company the lecturer gave us but did a quick search and I found PureTimber.com

+Fine Woodworking of South Carolina Excellent idea; I never thought of that.

have a wet /damp rag handy and as soon as you have clamping pressure and squeeze out wipe off the excess...unless you like scraping grinding and sanding off excess glue...then leave it like he did

earlydawn81 Here's what I did with it. :) thewoodwhispererguild.com/product/sculpted-rocker-bundle/

Thanks!!!

wordsnwood It's something to be concerned about, but it's also very project-specific. Sometimes you can't afford any springback so you cut your laminations thinner. Sometimes the final shape isn't quite that crucial so you roll with what you get. In the case of this rocker, we can tolerate a little springback. And from my experience, the springback is affected more by laminate thickness than glue. But the laminations I've done using the heavy duty glues do seem to have a little less.

it's species dependent too....I do curved wood handrail for a living and the outer piece of the lamination has the detail on it and is much thicker then a 1/4 inch.....we definitely allow for spring back....but if i told you how much you might want to compete with me so you figure it out for yourself with 200-400 dollars worth of bent rail laminations...oh and did i mention you need to allow for how tight the circle is to so you can stay with in the building code tolerances and still have plumb balusters

***** Thanks Joe. A work in progress. :)

Justin Martinez Hey Justin. We have the build available in 24 videos over on the Guild site: thewoodwhispererguild.com/product/sculpted-rocker/

Michael Bowers I would just build the form higher. You can keep layering plywood or MDF, flush-trimming each layer as you add it to the stack. 16" wide is pretty substantial though so you might need to go with a form that's constructed of ribs instead. So you'd have almost a torsion box style rib structure that provides lots of strength without using tons of material.

I don't agree with your assertion here. What I'm doing by making a curve based off the existing curve is essentially the same thing as drawing the curve from the same center point, just with a different radius. Let's think about it in the simplest terms possible: a full circle. If I used this technique to go around a giant circle, you have to agree that the end result would be a larger circle, right? It's not physically possible for it to be the same circle. By tracing around the outside edge with a compass set to 1", we'll end up with a new circle that's exactly 2" larger in diameter. So why is this any different when you're doing a small section of that large circle? It's not. And that's all I'm doing is making a larger radius curve that is part of a much larger circle. So why do the curves meet almost perfectly at 3:20 instead of showing some offset? Because we're looking at a very small section. Keep in mind, the actual radius of the circle we're working with here would be measured in feet, not inches. So when we're looking at a tiny part of that circle, a couple inches difference in diameter isn't going to be very visible to the naked eye. In order to see the difference in the curvature, you'd need a much larger chunk of the circle or the difference in diameter would need to be much greater. This does beg the question as to whether it's worth it to go through this extra step since a simple identical curve would probably work just fine in this situation. But woodworkers generally don't stop at "good enough". :)

Unfortunately, you don't have to "agree" with my assertion for it to be as I had described. When you are to make a concentric shape, the radii are from a common center, but when you trace inwardly from an edge like your curve that is merely going to make a portion of a curve that is "over to one side by X amount", but more or less parallel, not concentric (i.e. reduced in radius/diameter/circumference) proportionally to that distance. If anything it'd be nearly the same measure as the first curve since you don't make a complete circle, but rather just a small portion of one, so it's overall representative curve would be that comparable to the origin curve it was traced relative to. If you were tracing an entire circle, about "an inch" inward, you could follow the outer edge enough to complete a concentric circle, but only doing part of a curve that way, particularly with an outward bend, doesn't work the same. It is "good enough" for the purpose being used, but the principle behind it isn't always going to suffice, and the reason it wouldn't always work as intended is as described, particularly with compound curves.

I think your misunderstanding can be clarified at 2:25. The most important thing here is keeping the compass perpendicular to the tangent line at any point on the curve. If you do this Mark's method is valid. If you mistakenly keep the compass in the same orientation, then you would be correct and the curve is simply translated, not modified in any way. Quite often this is the intention in carpentry and is why you see spirit levels on good quality scribing compasses.

Indeed, at 2:25 you actually make my point... Per your own words and actions in the video, keeping the scribe perpendicular to the edge merely transfers the line over by X span. It's really not a matter that bears argument since you are in cursory agreement, and the commentary on the video is merely reiterating what you were doing/explaining...

A well articulated troll is still a troll. I'm going to throw in my two cents here. If you have a complete circle that you are scribing, and both points of your scribe maintain a straight line with the center point of the circle, then you have a concentric circle of a smaller radius. It's that simple.

Michael Olsen Yup. look closely when I'm attaching them and you'll see the light reflecting off the tape. I taped them up before attaching.

Thinner and more laminations and there shouldn't be springback. FWIW, I have had luck with a hybrid approach,: steam the lamination, let them set up and cool in the form, unglued. There is spring back, but then put them back in the form with glue and it holds nicely.

Most RU-vid videos show a brute force method; strong forms and high pressure. I like to dry fit the pieces in the forms for a few days or more - like a week. I'll just tighten the clamps a bit, and then again in a few days. I want the slats to stay on the moist side and daily temperature fluctuations are actually good for the bend. This allows me to take the pieces apart to see how flexible each is and how they nestle. I might notice one tends to twist and warp wrongly, so I just rightly replace. I do this, so the glue and clamp phase is boring - not a gloopy mess of rushing to find more clamps. That's how you get extreme curves that look good and are strong, patience.

Backyard Woodworking You too!

LMAO

A truly useful response - fact and science based - the link to the Gougeon Brothers is a true gem and the Raka recommendation is excellent - thanks

whitewolf8758 No. But if we do a bent lamination on a future project, I'll certainly show the entire process from top to bottom.

Andres Salas Well the best thing to do is remove it while it's still wet. After it dries, whatever is left can be sanded away in preparation for jointing.

The Wood Whisperer thanks for the tip. Love the vids! Cheers!