I don't necessarily subscribe to the .001" accuracy in woodworking espoused
in some of the threads floating around here lately (particularly when a 4"
wide board cut this morning at 65 degree/70% rh may well be a different
width tomorrow afternoon when it's 95/95), but with wood getting more
expensive by the day, it does pay to develop a method/philosophy of
measuring, marking, layout and cutting that can get you "consistency" in the
dimensioning of your parts ... which is what you should be shooting for when
things have to go together as a whole.

On the methodology side, no amount of precision measuring will get you this
needed consistency like the "batch" cutting/routing of parts, and the
meticulous and consistent "referencing" of faces and edges to fences and
cutting surfaces when machining/cutting ... particularly for a "production
run" of multiple pieces in a small shop environment.

On the measuring side, I find myself going back repeatedly to the following
tools for obtaining this necessary consistency, to the point that I even
keep these, and like items, on a large plastic TV tray, lined with a
non-skid rubber mat, so I can move them en masse around the shop as I need
them:

Incra rule set (with the Bend rule the most used)
http://www.incra.biz/Products/RuleSets.html

Veritas Saddle square (one of the most used items in the shop)
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...936,50298&ap=1

..05mm mechanical pencil (steal this from my shop and you're dead!)

Sliding bevel square
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...=1,42936,50298

Sliding Square
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...98&cat=1,42936

Starret combination square

With the above (and paying particular attention to maintaining reference
edges), careful layout, marking and subsequent machine setup can be done
with enough consistency to carry you from part 1 to part 101 with
confidence, regardless of how many zero's of precision you put behind the
period.

FWIW/YMMV, etc. ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/06

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
I don't necessarily subscribe to the .001" accuracy in woodworking espoused
in some of the threads floating around here lately (particularly when a 4"
wide board cut this morning at 65 degree/70% rh may well be a different
width tomorrow afternoon when it's 95/95), but with wood getting more
expensive by the day, it does pay to develop a method/philosophy of
measuring, marking, layout and cutting that can get you "consistency" in
the
dimensioning of your parts ... which is what you should be shooting for
when
things have to go together as a whole.

On the methodology side, no amount of precision measuring will get you
this
needed consistency like the "batch" cutting/routing of parts, and the
meticulous and consistent "referencing" of faces and edges to fences and
cutting surfaces when machining/cutting ... particularly for a "production
run" of multiple pieces in a small shop environment.

On the measuring side, I find myself going back repeatedly to the
following
tools for obtaining this necessary consistency, to the point that I even
keep these, and like items, on a large plastic TV tray, lined with a
non-skid rubber mat, so I can move them en masse around the shop as I need
them:

Incra rule set (with the Bend rule the most used)
http://www.incra.biz/Products/RuleSets.html

Veritas Saddle square (one of the most used items in the shop)
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...936,50298&ap=1

.05mm mechanical pencil (steal this from my shop and you're dead!)

Sliding bevel square
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...=1,42936,50298

Sliding Square
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...98&cat=1,42936

Starret combination square

With the above (and paying particular attention to maintaining reference
edges), careful layout, marking and subsequent machine setup can be done
with enough consistency to carry you from part 1 to part 101 with
confidence, regardless of how many zero's of precision you put behind the
period.

FWIW/YMMV, etc. ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/06




Swingman, I agree with you generally but marking methods and repeatability
is always my nemesis. I (almost always) exclusively use my Starrett
combination square or sliding bevel along with my 24" rule to make a story
pole/stick marked with a sharp knife and notes with actual measurements.
This makes repeatability almost stupid-proof.

However for machine setups, I do go back to my machinist attitude and set
the machines up with dial indicators, feeler gages, micrometers and dead
flat straightedges. My personal tolerances for woodworking machines are +/-
0.002" for most setups. An 8lb single jack persuades any machine that
refuses to cooperate!

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Swingman wrote:
I don't necessarily subscribe to the .001" accuracy in woodworking espoused
in some of the threads floating around here lately (particularly when a 4"
wide board cut this morning at 65 degree/70% rh may well be a different
width tomorrow afternoon when it's 95/95), but.......[snip]

I have a mechanical vernier calliper which is my depth gauge, thickness
measuring device and all around do-all to 5". I have a Lee Valley 12"
rule... do NOT touch!

**** with my mechanical pencils and death will be imminent. My 12"
Swanson Speed square(s)
a Johnson 48" rule and my 150" 6" x .25" straight edge.. I mean...
don't even LOOK at it, okay? I had that one milled by a guy who does
propeller shafts for gas-turbine driven high-speed landing craft for
the US Marines.... like I said...don't touch! It is over 12 feet of
..002"

Other than that, thumbs up to the SwingMeister who seems to do things
the way they ought to be done.... not so sure about western Swing
music... I went to see my hero John Prine last weekend in London..and I
am going to see what is left of The Who this coming weekend.... so
whatthe**** do I know, eh?


Prine's song titled Some Humans Ain't Human ripped my heart apart.

On 25 Sep 2006 18:54:13 -0700, "Robatoy" wrote:


Other than that, thumbs up to the SwingMeister who seems to do things
the way they ought to be done.... not so sure about western Swing
music...

You have to get that man to send you a CD of his band.

It WILL make you a true believer.

As to the measurements - I own every measurement device known to man
and have found that "a little bit more" and "a little bit less" are
the only truths of wooddorking measurement.

(watson - who owns both a six foot and a four foot Starrett straight
edge, a Starrett Dial Indicator, a Starrett Vernier, and would have
happily measured in nano-rch's at a certain point in his life - but is
happy now to have it, "just about dead close boogie".)

Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

There is a rather old measurement term that uses a
human hair that is not used in mixed company.

I recall carpenters using this term over 50 years
ago and it's still used in the construction trades
even today.

Tom Watson wrote:


(watson - who owns both a six foot and a four foot Starrett straight
edge, a Starrett Dial Indicator, a Starrett Vernier, and would have
happily measured in nano-rch's at a certain point in his life - but is
happy now to have it, "just about dead close boogie".)

Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Pat Barber wrote:
There is a rather old measurement term that uses a
human hair that is not used in mixed company.

I recall carpenters using this term over 50 years
ago and it's still used in the construction trades
even today.

Yup, c-hairs come in red, blonde and black..all slightly different in
dimension. But the differences are usually regional and are not a
recognized international standard.... especially in Brazil where such
measurements are scarce. I wouldn't want to be a cabinetmaker in
Brazil... or in certain nordic parts of Russia either...I mean..we're
talking rope...

will you look at the time!

r

Pat Barber wrote:
There is a rather old measurement term that uses a
human hair that is not used in mixed company.

I recall carpenters using this term over 50 years
ago and it's still used in the construction trades
even today.


Current fashion dictates that less of them are around for reference
purposes. G

"Robatoy" wrote in message

Pat Barber wrote:
There is a rather old measurement term that uses a
human hair that is not used in mixed company.

I recall carpenters using this term over 50 years
ago and it's still used in the construction trades
even today.

Yup, c-hairs come in red, blonde and black..all slightly different in
dimension. But the differences are usually regional and are not a
recognized international standard.... especially in Brazil where such
measurements are scarce. I wouldn't want to be a cabinetmaker in
Brazil... or in certain nordic parts of Russia either...I mean..we're
talking rope...

Actually, I've done extensive personal research into this area and can
assure you that red is pretty much the same world wide; with blonde, you can
only guess unless the lights are on; and with black, like the markings on a
tape measure, you must do a side by side comparison.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/06

"B A R R Y" wrote in message

Current fashion dictates that less of them are around for reference
purposes. G

Personally, I hate that trend ... I think.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/06

Swingman wrote:

Personally, I hate that trend ... I think.


A little is better than none, and way better than too much. G

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:

Personally, I hate that trend ... I think.


A little is better than none, and way better than too much. G

Obviously, more research is in order.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/06

Swingman wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:
Personally, I hate that trend ... I think.

A little is better than none, and way better than too much. G

Obviously, more research is in order.



Agreed! Yet another area of research revolutionized by the Internet!
Or so I've heard... G

BTW, I just returned from my local Woodcraft, and they now stock a
finishing product called "Bush Oil"!

BTW, I just returned from my local Woodcraft, and they now stock a
finishing product called "Bush Oil"!

There you go. Persuant to the previous discussion, some people apparently
have no use for the stuff. g

Lee

--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

_________________________________
Lee Gordon
http://www.leegordonproductions.com

Lee Gordon wrote:
BTW, I just returned from my local Woodcraft, and they now stock a
finishing product called "Bush Oil"!

There you go. Persuant to the previous discussion, some people apparently
have no use for the stuff. g

Lee


For those, there is a large selection of waxes...

I agree with the notion that much more research is in order.
Being an 'get-to-work' kinda guy. I'll roll up my sleeve and get
started.

r

Whilst I could not agree more, (that certain protoplasmic dimensional
analysis is as fun as it gets), I have done some serious studies on
getting to .001" with routers.
For a temporary diversion see the
http://patwarner.com/routing_to_001.html link for more on this.
__________________________________________________ _____
Swingman wrote:
I don't necessarily subscribe to the .001" accuracy in woodworking espoused
in some of the threads floating around here lately (particularly when a 4"
wide board cut this morning at 65 degree/70% rh may well be a different
width tomorrow afternoon when it's 95/95), but with wood getting more
expensive by the day, it does pay to develop a method/philosophy of
measuring, marking, layout and cutting that can get you "consistency" in the
dimensioning of your parts ... which is what you should be shooting for when
things have to go together as a whole.

On the methodology side, no amount of precision measuring will get you this
needed consistency like the "batch" cutting/routing of parts, and the
meticulous and consistent "referencing" of faces and edges to fences and
cutting surfaces when machining/cutting ... particularly for a "production
run" of multiple pieces in a small shop environment.

On the measuring side, I find myself going back repeatedly to the following
tools for obtaining this necessary consistency, to the point that I even
keep these, and like items, on a large plastic TV tray, lined with a
non-skid rubber mat, so I can move them en masse around the shop as I need
them:

Incra rule set (with the Bend rule the most used)
http://www.incra.biz/Products/RuleSets.html

Veritas Saddle square (one of the most used items in the shop)
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...936,50298&ap=1

.05mm mechanical pencil (steal this from my shop and you're dead!)

Sliding bevel square
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...=1,42936,50298

Sliding Square
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...98&cat=1,42936

Starret combination square

With the above (and paying particular attention to maintaining reference
edges), careful layout, marking and subsequent machine setup can be done
with enough consistency to carry you from part 1 to part 101 with
confidence, regardless of how many zero's of precision you put behind the
period.

FWIW/YMMV, etc. ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/06

I once worked with a Swiss optics technician that used the corresponding
slang term in either German or Swiss (I don't remember). A bunch of
us picked it up over the years. When I started using it around the
house, the wife thought it was a real unit of measure. She even started
using it. I was getting quite a chuckle until I told her what it meant.
I had trouble telling her with a straight face. Man, that was funny.
Strange, she didn't think so at the time. :-)

-- d phi / dt


Pat Barber wrote:

There is a rather old measurement term that uses a
human hair that is not used in mixed company.

I recall carpenters using this term over 50 years
ago and it's still used in the construction trades
even today.

Tom Watson wrote:


(watson - who owns both a six foot and a four foot Starrett straight
edge, a Starrett Dial Indicator, a Starrett Vernier, and would have
happily measured in nano-rch's at a certain point in his life - but is
happy now to have it, "just about dead close boogie".)

Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On 26 Sep 2006 16:56:57 -0700, wrote:

Whilst I could not agree more, (that certain protoplasmic dimensional
analysis is as fun as it gets), I have done some serious studies on
getting to .001" with routers.
For a temporary diversion see the
http://patwarner.com/routing_to_001.html link for more on this.

$24? You buy a hell of a lot of wood for that plus have enough for a
beer when you've finished practicing. It might be accurate to 0.001"
for a few minutes in an airconditioned workshop but it leave it an
hour in the sun and I'll bet you a beer it won't.

--

After I reached my current age, I found that some
things are best left not said.

Women will hold a grudge for their entire life.

Blue Enamel wrote:

I once worked with a Swiss optics technician that used the corresponding
slang term in either German or Swiss (I don't remember). A bunch of us
picked it up over the years. When I started using it around the house,
the wife thought it was a real unit of measure. She even started using
it. I was getting quite a chuckle until I told her what it meant. I
had trouble telling her with a straight face. Man, that was funny.
Strange, she didn't think so at the time. :-)

-- d phi / dt


Pat Barber wrote:

There is a rather old measurement term that uses a
human hair that is not used in mixed company.

I recall carpenters using this term over 50 years
ago and it's still used in the construction trades
even today.

Tom Watson wrote:


(watson - who owns both a six foot and a four foot Starrett straight
edge, a Starrett Dial Indicator, a Starrett Vernier, and would have
happily measured in nano-rch's at a certain point in his life - but is
happy now to have it, "just about dead close boogie".)

Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Pat Barber wrote:
After I reached my current age, I found that some
things are best left not said.

Women will hold a grudge for their entire life.

snipped
No,
Just for the rest of yours.
Joe

We need to be careful, very careful.
Even on the wurld wiide weeb, things get out.


Joe Gorman wrote:

Pat Barber wrote:

Women will hold a grudge for their entire life.

No,
Just for the rest of yours.
Joe

"Blue Enamel" wrote in message
...
I once worked with a Swiss optics technician that used the corresponding
slang term in either German or Swiss (I don't remember). A bunch of
us picked it up over the years. When I started using it around the
house, the wife thought it was a real unit of measure. She even started
using it. I was getting quite a chuckle until I told her what it meant.
I had trouble telling her with a straight face. Man, that was funny.
Strange, she didn't think so at the time. :-)

And the German/Swiss slang term for this unit of measure is?

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:05:13 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


And the German/Swiss slang term for this unit of measure is?


Babel fish says that it is:

königliches ****haar


Hell, I didn't translate it.




Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

The pronounciation was "futsahurly". I never saw it written down, but I
sure heard it a lot. Especially since the technician went to numerous
Deep Purple shows in Europe when he was younger.

-- Blue

Tom Watson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:05:13 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:



And the German/Swiss slang term for this unit of measure is?



Babel fish says that it is:

königliches ****haar


Hell, I didn't translate it.




Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:08:24 -0500, "Swingman"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote in message

Pat Barber wrote:
There is a rather old measurement term that uses a
human hair that is not used in mixed company.

I recall carpenters using this term over 50 years
ago and it's still used in the construction trades
even today.

Yup, c-hairs come in red, blonde and black..all slightly different in
dimension. But the differences are usually regional and are not a
recognized international standard.... especially in Brazil where such
measurements are scarce. I wouldn't want to be a cabinetmaker in
Brazil... or in certain nordic parts of Russia either...I mean..we're
talking rope...

Actually, I've done extensive personal research into this area and can
assure you that red is pretty much the same world wide; with blonde, you can
only guess unless the lights are on; and with black, like the markings on a
tape measure, you must do a side by side comparison.

Isn't that why rch is the only one used for measurement?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=R.C.H.

George Shouse wrote:

Isn't that why rch is the only one used for measurement?

Depends on whether you reference the straight or curly version.

Lew

Uh Oh...now we are "splitting hairs", which is also
used as a measurement.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Depends on whether you reference the straight or curly version.

Lew