Axial/Spindle and Radial/Bowl

[John Tisdale]

Maybe I'm picking at nits but, wouldn't it be more accurate, and less confusing, to use the terms "axial" and "radial" to define grain orientation and save the terms spindle for furniture parts and bowl to mean bowl?
I frequently discuss with a student if a particular log, destined to be a large hollow-form, should be mounted as an "axial turning" or as a "radial turning" - the end result, both final form and grain pattern, will be very different, not to mention warpage.

 

[Bill Alston]

From my experience many wood turners often don’t seem to like technical terms. As a result they often make up their own.
I can’t see many folks being happy with Axial and Radial but I’d sign up for it provided it’s clearly explained.
The general terms used over here to describe grain orientation is “faceplate” for bowls, or “spindle” or “side grain” work for the rest.

“Spindle” work isn't actually a very good description as lots of stuff turned in this orientation may be nothing like spindles.
A candlestick is largely side grain turning. Traditional boxes are side grain on the outside then end grain when hollowing. You can of course though make boxes from what you might call a small “bowl” blank.

*Traditional Japanese bowls are made from what we might call a “spindle” blank. It’s a type of turning I’d much like to try. The grain orientation makes much more sense to me, at least from a turning perspective. Sadly 99.9% of timber over here gets planked and isn’t thick enough to be used for anything other than very small bowls.

Just my thoughts.

Edit: The Germans like to be quite precise. It would be interesting to see how wood turners over there describe grain orientation?

 

[Mark Jundanian]

I have to stop and think when someone says spindle or bowl orientation. I prefer to say the grain is parallel or perpendicular to the bed (or the rotation axis). And for some turnings the grain is oblique.

 

[Michael Anderson]

I would place a strong bet that the average person (not just woodturner) could not define the terms radial and axial, let alone apply them in a practical context. Of course, I just finished grading my Intro to Human Biology students' first exam so I could be a little salty. Half-joke there...

I find spindle- and face/side-grain orientation to be relatively user-friendly terms; and, like Mark said above, in my mind I translate those to mean grain running parallel or perpendicular to the ways. Of course, there are infinite ways you can mount blanks if you consider grain direction, and the orientation of the fibers relative to the cutting tool is different (like Bill mentioned).

 

[Dave Landers]

I often fumble with this. I make hollow forms by mounting the wood in "either" direction (quotes because of the presumption that there are only 2 ways). None of my hollow forms end up as either spindles or bowls.

I'm ok saying "spindle orientation" as I think most turners understand what that basically means.
I sorta like the term "cross grain". It's sort of descriptive in the way your tool sees the grain. Not married to it, but it's way better than "bowl orientation" especially when you're not turning a bowl (or turning an end-grain bowl).
But its "orthogonal pair" would be "side grain", which I find less intuitively descriptive.
And "end grain" only makes sense if you are actually cutting into the end grain from the tailstock.

Axial and Radial are descriptive, assuming (as Michael points out) the person you're talking to actually knows what those words mean. And it assumes your frame of reference is comparing the axis of the tree to the axis of the lathe. Not unreasonable (but all my pieces are axial if I compare the axis of my piece with the axis of the lathe ). And for some, the tree's axis is not evident if all they've ever turned is wax-coated rectangles from woodcraft. So there's perspective and context in these terms too. They might catch on, given a decade or two of adoption...

Bottom line - I'd like better terms too, but until then I will prefer communication over precision.

 

[hockenbery]

When I teach spheres I cover face grain, side grain, and end grain.

The centers go from being in end grain, side grain, face grain.
The benefit of this order is evident when sanding and the sanding marks get hidden in the growth ring lines when the centers are in the face grain.

 

[john lucas]

I'm still trying to understand fore and aft.

 

[robo hippy]

John, that makes me think of nautical terms. Fore and Aft, I get, side ways I don't get..... Oh, port and starboard....

robo hippy

 

[Kent Reisdorph]

Maybe I'm picking at nits but, wouldn't it be more accurate, and less confusing, to use the terms "axial" and "radial" to define grain orientation and save the terms spindle for furniture parts and bowl to mean bowl?
I frequently discuss with a student if a particular log, destined to be a large hollow-form, should be mounted as an "axial turning" or as a "radial turning" - the end result, both final form and grain pattern, will be very different, not to mention warpage.

You can simplify that to "end grain" or "side grain."

 

[Timothy White]

I use the terms ”Bowl turning” to describe the orientation of the blank To turn a bowl.
“Spindle turning” to describe the orientation of the blank to turn a spindle a spindle.
The confusion is that what we are turning isn’t necessarily the way we orient the blank. For example. A goblet is usually a bowl mounted on the lathe in “Spindle” orientation
hollow forms can be turned in either orientation but are considered by some as bowls.