-MIKE- wrote:
dpb wrote:
They're quoting an absolute accuracy--you can do much better than that
w/ repeatability using the same tape --

It only took me once, to learn to use the same tape throughout a project.

BINGO!!!

Also, a woodworkers delight is finding that his project tape measure
coincides precisely with the tape measure on his table saw fence!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:


If you had a wall 25 feet long (length of tape measure) that had to be
filled with cabinets, wouldn't 5/16" over 25 feet be tight enough?

Depends on which way the error goes. If the cabinets end up 5/16 too short
you can fudge it any number of ways. If they end up 5/16 too long then
you've got a royal pain in the butt.

This has only happened to me once, when the framers moved a kitchen sink
window rough opening in the stud wall 4" closer to the only
perpendicular wall I had too worry about; then, to compound the problem,
mounted the window in the RO closer to one side than the other.

In order to center the sink base cabinet on that kitchen window
(something that is ABSOLUTELY required in most installations where a
kitchen window is involved over a sink), I ended up having to completely
rebuild the last of four base cabinet in the run to fit the now too
small space.

... amazing how little time a one off, angled, base cabinet takes to
build when it's urgent.

Three years later I still have that right hand, angled base cabinet in
storage, and still looking for a place to install it ... the houses I've
been since have been mirror images in layout.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 2, 3:41*pm, Swingman wrote:
Tom Watson wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:22:55 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

So if perfect isn't the goal...then what is?

sigh...
Regards,

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

ROTFLMAO!!!

One word: *".edu"



Yep, I went to school. And I already admitted to being prone to
excessive analysis.

And no matter how much people talk about "equal" and refuse to
acknowledge that there' s a tolerance, there's really still an
underlying tolerance determined by your measurement process, or
whatnot. Just like you can't measure (as noted by Tom Watson),
there's also no such thing as "equal". I think I've gotten a good
answer from people's posts despite their aversion to the word
"tolerance". Maybe a better way to pose the question is to ask about
practice rather than about tolerance, since there seems to be some
sort of objection to the term. In other words, suppose you're gluing
up a drawer. You've got it all together and it's time to check if
it's square. What's the process? Is it slap a measuring tape on it
and measure the diagonals from the outside corner? If a difference
can be detected by this procedure then fix it. Using some sort of
rod gauge would be more accurate. Is it necessary, or is the tape
measure procedure adequate?

A picture of the piece in question can be seen he

http://members.cox.net/jsam/tmp/img_0553.jpg

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:55:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



Yep, I went to school.


http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/windingsticks-1.aspx


Regards,

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

wrote:

"tolerance". Maybe a better way to pose the question is to ask about
practice rather than about tolerance, since there seems to be some
sort of objection to the term.

"Practice/practical" is what we've been talking about, your insistence
on "tolerance" is theoretical.

In other words, suppose you're gluing
up a drawer. You've got it all together and it's time to check if
it's square. What's the process? Is it slap a measuring tape on it
and measure the diagonals from the outside corner? If a difference
can be detected by this procedure then fix it. Using some sort of
rod gauge would be more accurate. Is it necessary, or is the tape
measure procedure adequate?

Along with Tom Watson's link (incidentally, Tom being a master
cabinetmaker, in the finest sense of the word, so pay particular
attention to any tips you get from that quarter), try the following,
either which will increase your "tolerance" when using a tape measure
for measuring diagonals in pursuit of the holy grail of squa

http://www.woodworkingtips.com/etips/etip092200ws.html
http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?page=18032

That said, a simple stick of sufficient length will also to the job.


A picture of the piece in question can be seen he

http://members.cox.net/jsam/tmp/img_0553.jpg

Very nicely done ... just looking, I really do wish I were close enough
to give you a hand as it looks like something that is doable with enough
experience ... keep on trying to you get it, each brick wall broken is
another step closer to mastering the situation.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article ,
Mike Marlow wrote:

"jo4hn" wrote in message
om...
Tom Watson wrote:

Zeno may have been the first framing carpenter, although I am not
entirely sure about that - nor anything else, it seems.

I know not but that I know not.
mahaloklos,
"soc"

I think, therefore I am...

"I think I am, therefore, I am, I think!"

In article ,
Mike Marlow wrote:

.... Is there really a dark side of the moon?


No, the moon doesn't have a dark side -- now, it's "evil twin", on the other
hand .......

wrote in message
...




And no matter how much people talk about "equal" and refuse to
acknowledge that there' s a tolerance, there's really still an
underlying tolerance determined by your measurement process, or
whatnot. Just like you can't measure (as noted by Tom Watson),
there's also no such thing as "equal". I think I've gotten a good
answer from people's posts despite their aversion to the word
"tolerance".

You missed the points explained to you Adrian. Nobody has any aversion to
the word tolerance, nor does anyone refuse to acknowledge it. You are
reading things into what people wrote that simply were not there. Just read
what people wrote and don't try to put words in their mouths that they
didn't speak.

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:16:38 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:


"Swingman" wrote in message
m...
wrote:

Which proves that your sudden interest in "square" has come after the
fact, and after lack thereof has bitten you in the butt.

This is the way you learn ... and we've all done it.

...snip a bunch of other similar Swingman comments...

Swing - you're getting awful mellow. You getting laid again?

Maybe he learned that he was ambidextrous. DAMHIKT wink

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Dec 2, 11:41*am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 4:01 pm, Swingman wrote:

I'm not arguing. *I agree, making things square is important. *All
along I've made making things square a goal. *For the most part, I did
the things you listed. *There was nothing on your list that made me
think, "If only I'd done that my project would be better." * But even
if there was...that part of my project is done. *It's history.

That's good. *It can only be concluded then, that what you need to do is to
perfect what you are already doing. *Increase your precision, take your time
before going on in order to make sure each step is complete and ready for
the next step, etc. *Generally, those projects that we really don't like
when they are complete fall into two categories. *The first is projects that
someone else dreamed up and were clearly bad ideas to start with... *And the
second (more seriously), are projects that we just plain old rushed our way
through.

I'll try to go slower next time: I'll see if I can take 15 years on
my next project.

But more seriously, I prefer to be slow are careful and I think I
mostly do work that way. But being rushed by the glue is one problem
that I didn't see a way around until I was forced to really look for
different glue. (There is no way I ever could have put the case
together in the 15 minutes or so that PVA allows. I enlisted my
wife's help in glue application and assembly and it still took 45
minutes to get everything together.) So when I glued up the drawers I
was always rushed. By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all. I'd much prefer it if I could
come back tomorrow and double check the assembly for square. But I
haven't found any 48 hour glues. At least the next time I do
something like this I'll have an hour instead of 15 minutes---that
should cut down on the rush factor. (The next project is a table
which seems like it should be a lot easier to put together than 27"
long dovetails.)


If an experienced cabinet maker would burn my project and start
over....well, that really isn't useful information for me. If that's
the case, then I will end up with a project that doesn't look like it
was made by an experienced cabinet maker. That's OK, because I'm not
an experienced cabinet maker. I consider this my first real furniture
project. I want to know how to make the best of what I have. Being
told "you're screwed" is not helpful. I want to look forward, not
backward.

Ok - then take the input you receive, and try to figure out what you are
doing that is not really in keeping with that advice, rather than getting
defensive.

You're right. I did respond in a defensive way and I can see this now
that it was not what I should have done.

On Dec 2, 6:00*pm, Tom Watson wrote:

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/windingsticks-1.aspx

Uh oh. Is it time to talk about twist now?

I found the remark about using the straight edge with the bevel down
to cast a shadow interesting. My straight edges are all unbeveled and
I never saw the point of the bevel.

On Dec 2, 7:28*pm, "Mike Marlow" wrote:
wrote in message

...

And no matter how much people talk about "equal" and refuse to
acknowledge that there' s a tolerance, there's really still an
underlying tolerance determined by your measurement process, or
whatnot. * Just like you can't measure (as noted by Tom Watson),
there's also no such thing as "equal". * I think I've gotten a good
answer from people's posts despite their aversion to the word
"tolerance".

You missed the points explained to you Adrian. *Nobody has any aversion to
the word tolerance, nor does anyone refuse to acknowledge it. *You are
reading things into what people wrote that simply were not there. *Just read
what people wrote and don't try to put words in their mouths that they
didn't speak.

When people say "just make it the same" then they aren't acknowledging
the existence of a tolerance. My problem I think is more the reverse
of what you indicate: I'm having trouble reading the right things
into what some people have said, trouble giving the proper
interpretation to the unsaid parts.
(If I recall correctly you actually did post a tolerance, but many
people seem to be in the "just make it the same" camp.)

wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 11:41 am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 4:01 pm, Swingman wrote:

I'm not arguing. I agree, making things square is important. All
along I've made making things square a goal. For the most part, I did
the things you listed. There was nothing on your list that made me
think, "If only I'd done that my project would be better." But even
if there was...that part of my project is done. It's history.

That's good. It can only be concluded then, that what you need to do is to
perfect what you are already doing. Increase your precision, take your
time
before going on in order to make sure each step is complete and ready for
the next step, etc. Generally, those projects that we really don't like
when they are complete fall into two categories. The first is projects
that
someone else dreamed up and were clearly bad ideas to start with... And
the
second (more seriously), are projects that we just plain old rushed our
way
through.

I'll try to go slower next time: I'll see if I can take 15 years on
my next project.

But more seriously, I prefer to be slow are careful and I think I
mostly do work that way. But being rushed by the glue is one problem
that I didn't see a way around until I was forced to really look for
different glue. (There is no way I ever could have put the case
together in the 15 minutes or so that PVA allows. I enlisted my
wife's help in glue application and assembly and it still took 45
minutes to get everything together.) So when I glued up the drawers I
was always rushed. By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all. I'd much prefer it if I could
come back tomorrow and double check the assembly for square. But I
haven't found any 48 hour glues. At least the next time I do
something like this I'll have an hour instead of 15 minutes---that
should cut down on the rush factor. (The next project is a table
which seems like it should be a lot easier to put together than 27"
long dovetails.)

========

try epoxies. the open time can vary from seconds to weeks for different
products. the one i use for glass takes approx 1 week to set up.

http://www.hisglassworks.com/cart/ca...ct_detail&p=94

of course, it would be hard to undo it if you did make a mistake.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:28:35 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:00*pm, Tom Watson wrote:

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/windingsticks-1.aspx

Uh oh. Is it time to talk about twist now?

I found the remark about using the straight edge with the bevel down
to cast a shadow interesting. My straight edges are all unbeveled and
I never saw the point of the bevel.


Did you read down to where it talks about using them as bar gauges?



Regards,

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

wrote in message
...


But more seriously, I prefer to be slow are careful and I think I
mostly do work that way. But being rushed by the glue is one problem
that I didn't see a way around until I was forced to really look for
different glue. (There is no way I ever could have put the case
together in the 15 minutes or so that PVA allows. I enlisted my
wife's help in glue application and assembly and it still took 45
minutes to get everything together.) So when I glued up the drawers I
was always rushed.

That's the nature of glue up. One is always under the gun.

By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all.

Try things like cutting a stick to the predetermined length for the
diagonal, and either tacking it or screwing it in place to hold the carcass
square as you're gluing it up. Once you have done your measurements of the
diagonals, you know the exact length that they must be, and it's quck and
easy to throw a brace in. No more measuring - just throw it in.

I'd much prefer it if I could
come back tomorrow and double check the assembly for square. But I
haven't found any 48 hour glues. At least the next time I do
something like this I'll have an hour instead of 15 minutes---that
should cut down on the rush factor. (The next project is a table
which seems like it should be a lot easier to put together than 27"
long dovetails.)

Actually Adrian, when I originally spoke of taking one's time I was
referring more to the other stages of a project such as taking the time to
make exact measurements, do proper stage preparation such as sanding and
cleaning, etc. Those are the areas where we usually rush and in one way or
another, they lead to either errors compounding errors or they lead to some
other form of displeasure when the finish goes on. Glue up is always a
fight against the clock. Things like jigs and braces and the like can help
you when the clock is ticking, but you will still be moving briskly.

It helps to swear a bit in this part of the project...


You're right. I did respond in a defensive way and I can see this now
that it was not what I should have done.

Wait - apologies and admissions are not acceptable practice here at the
wreck. When faced with things like this the appropriate type of response
includes words that begin with "f" and end with "k" (not firetruck), as well
as some sort of ad hominem attack. In general, references to either a
political party that you don't like, or a religeous affiliation you consider
to be beneath a worm's belly, make good starting points.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:52:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 2, 7:28*pm, "Mike Marlow" wrote:
wrote in message

...

And no matter how much people talk about "equal" and refuse to
acknowledge that there' s a tolerance, there's really still an
underlying tolerance determined by your measurement process, or
whatnot. * Just like you can't measure (as noted by Tom Watson),
there's also no such thing as "equal". * I think I've gotten a good
answer from people's posts despite their aversion to the word
"tolerance".

You missed the points explained to you Adrian. *Nobody has any aversion to
the word tolerance, nor does anyone refuse to acknowledge it. *You are
reading things into what people wrote that simply were not there. *Just read
what people wrote and don't try to put words in their mouths that they
didn't speak.

When people say "just make it the same" then they aren't acknowledging
the existence of a tolerance. My problem I think is more the reverse
of what you indicate: I'm having trouble reading the right things
into what some people have said, trouble giving the proper
interpretation to the unsaid parts.
(If I recall correctly you actually did post a tolerance, but many
people seem to be in the "just make it the same" camp.)


It is the same as the difference between the Platonic Forms and
existential reality. Reality is a copy of the Form. The Form is
perfect and therefore non-existant (sic). This does not preclude one
from attempting to replicate the Form. Indeed, living in the material
world, it is the best that we can do.




Regards,

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

wrote:

mostly do work that way. But being rushed by the glue is one problem
that I didn't see a way around until I was forced to really look for
different glue. (There is no way I ever could have put the case
together in the 15 minutes or so that PVA allows. I enlisted my
wife's help in glue application and assembly and it still took 45
minutes to get everything together.) So when I glued up the drawers I
was always rushed. By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all. I'd much prefer it if I could
come back tomorrow and double check the assembly for square. But I
haven't found any 48 hour glues. At least the next time I do
something like this I'll have an hour instead of 15 minutes---that
should cut down on the rush factor. (The next project is a table
which seems like it should be a lot easier to put together than 27"
long dovetails.)

Simple solution: Don't glue-up the whole piece at once!! Break it into
two, or more, glue-ups! Rare is the component that you can't break down
into multiple glue-ups if need be.

CAVEAT: when doing partial glue-ups, it's a good practice (actually
imperative) to go ahead and clamp up the full assembly, both glued
joint, and unglued joints, and check for square.

Use some common sense with multiple glue-ups, think it through so that
you don't glue yourself into a corner; practice the steps first before
each glue-up, with clamps at ready; and your project will thank you ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

wrote:

When people say "just make it the same" then they aren't acknowledging
the existence of a tolerance.

You're not snapping to the fact that the treatise on "batch cutting" is,
for all practical purposes, the very essence of addressing your fixation
on "tolerance" taking it, as much as is possible in woodworking,
completely out of the equation.

My problem I think is more the reverse
of what you indicate:

Nope ... your problem is you're either being impractically silly, or
splitting unnecessary hairs for fun.

Those who can't measure two pieces and "make them the same", within the
realm of practicality in woodworking, will certainly want to consider
finding another hobby.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Morris Dovey wrote:

We /can/ talk about tolerance, but to do so meaningfully and with any
real degree of precision we need to know the species, to look at the way
the board was sawed, consider the dimensions and the grain, heft the
board to assess its density, measure its moisture content, think about
the joints we plan to use,...

As in all things, those who delve too deeply into the theoretical rarely
find time to practice the practical.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

For all PRACTICAL woodworking purposes, Tom Watson said it best:

"Treat squareness as an absolute. You will fail anyway but in trying
for the absolute you will come as close as possible - by definition.

Treat the difference between the diagonals as an absolute. You will
fail anyway but in trying for the absolute you will come as close as
possible - by definition."

Anything else, in this particular thread, is the equivalent of Mark
Twain's maxim on "teaching a pig to sing" ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:59:20 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


wrote in message
...


But more seriously, I prefer to be slow are careful and I think I
mostly do work that way. But being rushed by the glue is one problem
that I didn't see a way around until I was forced to really look for
different glue. (There is no way I ever could have put the case
together in the 15 minutes or so that PVA allows. I enlisted my
wife's help in glue application and assembly and it still took 45
minutes to get everything together.) So when I glued up the drawers I
was always rushed.

That's the nature of glue up. One is always under the gun.

By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all.

Try things like cutting a stick to the predetermined length for the
diagonal, and either tacking it or screwing it in place to hold the carcass
square as you're gluing it up. Once you have done your measurements of the
diagonals, you know the exact length that they must be, and it's quck and
easy to throw a brace in. No more measuring - just throw it in.

I will cut a square piece of scrap precisely to the dimensions of the
inside of any particular box (sometimes two...depending on size) and
glue and clamp to that. Very simple, even for larger cabinet boxes. I
always work alone, so need to be very efficient. Jig EVERYTHING!

cg

I'd much prefer it if I could
come back tomorrow and double check the assembly for square. But I
haven't found any 48 hour glues. At least the next time I do
something like this I'll have an hour instead of 15 minutes---that
should cut down on the rush factor. (The next project is a table
which seems like it should be a lot easier to put together than 27"
long dovetails.)

Actually Adrian, when I originally spoke of taking one's time I was
referring more to the other stages of a project such as taking the time to
make exact measurements, do proper stage preparation such as sanding and
cleaning, etc. Those are the areas where we usually rush and in one way or
another, they lead to either errors compounding errors or they lead to some
other form of displeasure when the finish goes on. Glue up is always a
fight against the clock. Things like jigs and braces and the like can help
you when the clock is ticking, but you will still be moving briskly.

It helps to swear a bit in this part of the project...


You're right. I did respond in a defensive way and I can see this now
that it was not what I should have done.

Wait - apologies and admissions are not acceptable practice here at the
wreck. When faced with things like this the appropriate type of response
includes words that begin with "f" and end with "k" (not firetruck), as well
as some sort of ad hominem attack. In general, references to either a
political party that you don't like, or a religeous affiliation you consider
to be beneath a worm's belly, make good starting points.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


With a material like wood, trying to hard cast a tolerance is
almost meaningless in one sense, because the material moves so
much throughout its life. Any specified tolerance will be moot
as the wood swells and shrinks, or depending on the moisture
content of the wood while you are building the product. It is
something of a cop out, but the best answer really is to just do
your best to make them exactly the same. I go back to my
earlier statement that any error introduced intentionally
(tolerance) will be compounded.

I do understand the frustration of a guy who thinks precisely
and wants to do very well, receiving input in imprecise
terminology.

I'm coming in late to this discussion, having been out of town for
a few days. Personally, I like perfection in anything. The
problem is at what level can you call something perfect. For
instance, if a glue joint looks invisible at 2' distance, is it
perfect? How about if it's invisible at 1' or 6" or at the
microscopic level?

You seldom do anything better than what you're shooting to
accomplish, so trying to do something as good as possible is a
reasonable decision. However, there's a point in time when the
80% rule kicks in: 20% of the time, effort, materials and cost
will result in 80% of the desired goal. The remaining 20% will be
what takes all the rest: and does so at a nonlinear pace.

When I built things in my shop, I always tried my best to make
them as good as I could, but tempered that with reasonable
expectations of time as a factor.



--
Nonny

What does it mean when drool runs
out of both sides of a drunken
Congressman’s mouth?

The floor is level.

"Nonny" wrote

When I built things in my shop, I always tried my best to make them as
good as I could, but tempered that with reasonable expectations of time as
a factor.


Although I agree in principle, it ALWAYS take me longer to build something
than I think it will.

In ,
Tom Watson dropped this bit of wisdom:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:52:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 2, 7:28 pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



It is the same as the difference between the Platonic Forms and
existential reality. Reality is a copy of the Form. The Form is
perfect and therefore non-existant (sic). This does not preclude one
from attempting to replicate the Form. Indeed, living in the material
world, it is the best that we can do.




Regards,

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

Tom; What is with all this philosophy and existentialism??

It would appear that this analagy is a propos:

Q: What happened to the last one who was perfect?

A: Other than that, what did you think about Easter?

The recipient of all that benevolence is the last that was considered "perfect".

Any who think "make it like the last one" have yet to be there the first time.

ROFL

P D Q

"Lee Michaels" wrote:


Although I agree in principle, it ALWAYS take me longer to build
something than I think it will.

Unless you are doing it for money, woodworking is like sailing.

The time doing it is not subtracted from your allotted time on this
earth.

Lew

Swingman wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

We /can/ talk about tolerance, but to do so meaningfully and with any
real degree of precision we need to know the species, to look at the
way the board was sawed, consider the dimensions and the grain, heft
the board to assess its density, measure its moisture content, think
about the joints we plan to use,...

As in all things, those who delve too deeply into the theoretical rarely
find time to practice the practical.

It pretty much depends on the project. When building largish optical
stuff with wood, the theoretical aspects became important fairly quickly...

....and my discovery was that the the needed precision did require more
time than usual to get things right - but it was a one-time cost worth
every second spent.

My take, even on non-precision woodworking, is that knowledge and
understanding are more likely to contribute to quality of result than is
their lack.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Holy Flying Firetrucks don't do it for me.....

Mike Marlow wrote:

Wait - apologies and admissions are not acceptable practice here at the
wreck. When faced with things like this the appropriate type of response
includes words that begin with "f" and end with "k" (not firetruck), as well
as some sort of ad hominem attack.

Morris Dovey wrote:
Swingman wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

We /can/ talk about tolerance, but to do so meaningfully and with any
real degree of precision we need to know the species, to look at the
way the board was sawed, consider the dimensions and the grain, heft
the board to assess its density, measure its moisture content, think
about the joints we plan to use,...

As in all things, those who delve too deeply into the theoretical
rarely find time to practice the practical.


My take, even on non-precision woodworking, is that knowledge and
understanding are more likely to contribute to quality of result than is
their lack.

Or, as is the case in point, too much "knowledge" has gotten in the way
of "understanding", contributing to less than satisfactory result.

I rest my case...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Pat Barber wrote in
:

Holy Flying Firetrucks don't do it for me.....

I find the mental image somewhat amusing. Holy Flying Firetrucks, Batman!

Puckdropper
--

On Dec 3, 9:54*am, Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:28:35 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:00*pm, Tom Watson wrote:

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/windingsticks-1.aspx

Uh oh. *Is it time to talk about twist now?

I found the remark about using the straight edge with the bevel down
to cast a shadow interesting. *My straight edges are all unbeveled and
I never saw the point of the bevel.

Did you read down to where it talks about using them as bar gauges?

I didn't find that part so interesting because it seemed like getting
the clamp on without the parts slipping would be annoying. And I have
this already:

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...=1,43513,43553

On Dec 3, 9:59*am, "Mike Marlow" wrote:

By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all.

Try things like cutting a stick to the predetermined length for the
diagonal, and either tacking it or screwing it in place to hold the carcass
square as you're gluing it up. *Once you have done your measurements of the
diagonals, you know the exact length that they must be, and it's quck and
easy to throw a brace in. *No more measuring - just throw it in.

This is an intriguing idea. I assume you have to assemble your
project dry, square it up and then you can fit your diagonal brace to
that.

wrote:

snip...

It is something of a cop out, but the best answer really is to
just do your best to make them exactly the same. I go back to my earlier
statement that any error introduced intentionally (tolerance) will be
compounded.

Well, but do I *really* need to do my best? What if I'm a machinist
used to grinding plates flat to .0001" and I decide to take up
woodworking. I might have a very different concept of what my best
should be. Suppose I use a bar gauge and observe an error of 1/8".
So I apply clamps. But now I went to far and it's .02" the other
way. So now I clamp a hair the other direction, but I can still fit
my .005" feeler in the gap. So I apply a tiny turn of the clamp
again. But now I still see a hair of a gap. So....

The point is that presumably this is going too far. There's a point
at which I'm just wasting time. And trying to pursue high levels of
accuracy, as noted elsewhere in this thread, takes disproportionately
more time.

Ask yourself: What tolerance will give you a result that you find pleasing?

You are unhappy with with a drawer which projects 1/8 inch too far. That
means that you need a finer tolerance than 1/8 inch. On the other hand,
you might not have been bothered if the error was 0.001 inch. That implies
that 0.001 inches is probably a finer tolerance than you really need.

Your question about what tolerance is needed does not have a single answer.
There are many things that affect the answer.

First off it depends upon what you are trying to accomplish. If you are
building a piece of rustic furniture with a hand axe then a tolerance of
1/8 inch may be more than adequate. On the other hand, many projects
require a finer fit between parts.

What tolerance is needed also depends upon what you are talking about.
For instance, if you are building a shop cabinet, you may not care if it
is 30 inches high or 31 inches high. So in one sense, you have a tolerance
of 1 inch when you decide to cut the pieces for the cabinet. However if you
cut one side at 30 inches and the other at 31 inches then you are likely to
have a problem. Thus your tolerance in the length of the two sides should
be finer than 1 inch. I.e. consistency between the sides is more important
than the actual length. Please note the various people that have commented
about the use of stop blocks, cutting pieces of the same lengths using a
single machine setup, etc. to ensure consistency of dimensions.

What accuracy is needed also depends upon to what in a project you are
referring. Many people do not like to see gaps in a joint which are wider
than a few thousandths of an inch. Thus anything which can cause gaps needs
a fine tolerance. Once again this usually means consistency between the
length of the sides rather than absolute dimensions. If you are building
inset doors then many people prefer that the size of the gap between the
door and the face frame is consistent. This requires that the door and the
cabinet opening be of the appropriate sizes (and squareness). The gap
might be 1/8 inch and an acceptable tolerance may be 1/4 of that (say 0.030
inches YMMV). Another project may have overlay doors and a difference in
size between two doors of 1/4 inch might be acceptable. Another project
might have a table top and you might not care if the size of the top varies
from the original plan by 2 inches.

It also depends upon what capabilities that you have for trimming the
various parts of a project. For instance, you may be able to plane the
dimensions of an inset door to get a very good fit in its opening. Thus
the tolerances of the door's original dimensions may not be as tight since
it can be trimmed to fit. On the other hand, some plywoods have very thin
surface veneers. This might prevent you from trimming the plywood to bring
it smooth with a surrounding solid wood frame. In this case, having the
plywood too proud would be a problem.

The final answer is that the required tolerance varies depending upon
what you consider acceptable and what you are building.

wrote:

ps. Morris, How did those silverware trays come out in the end? I
never did hear the end of it.

They came out fairly well. I had some photos on my web site for a while
to show the joinery and clamping. There is still one page with photos
showing the jig used for cutting the angled tenons on the diagonal
divider blanks at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Bevel/

(After the tenons were cut, 1/4" was trimmed from top and bottom of each
divider)

It was an interesting challenge to make the boxes dead-on square with
invisible glue lines at the ends of diagonal dividers.

The customer was happy.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 4, 1:55*am, Dan Coby wrote:
wrote:

snip...



*It is something of a cop out, but the best answer really is to
just do your best to make them exactly the same. *I go back to my earlier
statement that any error introduced intentionally (tolerance) will be
compounded.

Well, but do I *really* need to do my best? *What if I'm a machinist
used to grinding plates flat to .0001" and I decide to take up
woodworking. *I might have a very different concept of what my best
should be. *Suppose I use a bar gauge and observe an error of 1/8".
So I apply clamps. *But now I went to far and it's .02" the other
way. *So now I clamp a hair the other direction, but I can still fit
my .005" feeler in the gap. *So I apply a tiny turn of the clamp
again. *But now I still see a hair of a gap. *So....

The point is that presumably this is going too far. *There's a point
at which I'm just wasting time. *And trying to pursue high levels of
accuracy, as noted elsewhere in this thread, takes disproportionately
more time.

Ask yourself: *What tolerance will give you a result that you find pleasing?

You are unhappy with with a drawer which projects 1/8 inch too far. *That
means that you need a finer tolerance than 1/8 inch. *On the other hand,
you might not have been bothered if the error was 0.001 inch. *That implies
that 0.001 inches is probably a finer tolerance than you really need.

This clarifies my thoughts on the matter, though it does lead to the
next question. If I make an error in squaring up a drawer, then where
and how does the error manifest in the project? In other words, what
are the implications of being out of square. (And as people have
noted, in the end it's all of the accumulated errors that matter.) I
can imagine the following process: construct a drawer oversized.
Glue it up. plane sides to fit. Insert drawer. Mark drawer front
flush with case. Plane drawer front down to the marks. If you're OK
with the drawer front varying in thickness by about 1/16" then
squaring the drawer to 1/8" would be perfectly fine. Everything
seems straight forward (except it's a bit of a pain to work out how
much of the error ends up affecting the position of the front vs the
loss in drawer width). If the drawer slides acted like 1/2" wooden
blocks then I could think the same way about my situation. Does the
loss in drawer width exceed the 1/16" tolerance specified on the
drawer slide spec sheet?

In the case of my project with slides I am somewhat confused about
what is going on and how imperfections in the drawer box are affecting
the assembly. My process was to fit the fronts on after installing
the drawers, with the fronts planed to fit the openings. I had a lot
of trouble getting the first drawer front centered when I worked with
the case upright. For the second one I tipped the case on its back to
avoid fighting gravity. But then I discovered that with the case on
its back, the drawer slides shift the drawers to the side, so this
didn't work at all. I changed the angle of one drawer slide and this
caused the drawer to twist so that the drawer front wasn't aligned in
its opening any more. The drawers can shift side to side in the
drawer cavity by about 1/4" and they don't "choose" to rest in the
centered position. When I tried shimming a slide to center the drawer
it had no effect. The drawers are positioned at a different location
when the drawers are open than when they're shut. (In fact, I wonder
if there's going to be trouble with the drawer fronts hitting the
frame because of this. It's hard to tell for sure without the
handles.) The result is that I haven't been able to think clearly
about what actions I can take and what the results of those actions
will be.

On Dec 4, 7:59*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
wrote:
ps. *Morris, How did those silverware trays come out in the end? * I
never did hear the end of it.

They came out fairly well. I had some photos on my web site for a while
to show the joinery and clamping. There is still one page with photos
showing the jig used for cutting the angled tenons on the diagonal
divider blanks at

* *http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Bevel/

(After the tenons were cut, 1/4" was trimmed from top and bottom of each
divider)

It was an interesting challenge to make the boxes dead-on square with
invisible glue lines at the ends of diagonal dividers.

Heh. My version doesn't have glue lines, but glue rectangles (or
maybe they are triangles?) at the ends of the dividers. Clearly I
had a tolerance problem. I don't think any of the (non woodworkers)
I've shown it to have ever noticed on this feature of the project,
though.

The customer was happy.

Well that's good.

On Dec 3, 9:53*am, "charlie" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 2, 11:41 am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:



wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 4:01 pm, Swingman wrote:

I'm not arguing. I agree, making things square is important. All
along I've made making things square a goal. For the most part, I did
the things you listed. There was nothing on your list that made me
think, "If only I'd done that my project would be better." But even
if there was...that part of my project is done. It's history.

That's good. It can only be concluded then, that what you need to do is to
perfect what you are already doing. Increase your precision, take your
time
before going on in order to make sure each step is complete and ready for
the next step, etc. Generally, those projects that we really don't like
when they are complete fall into two categories. The first is projects
that
someone else dreamed up and were clearly bad ideas to start with... And
the
second (more seriously), are projects that we just plain old rushed our
way
through.

I'll try to go slower next time: *I'll see if I can take 15 years on
my next project. *

But more seriously, I prefer to be slow are careful and I think I
mostly do work that way. *But being rushed by the glue is one problem
that I didn't see a way around until I was forced to really look for
different glue. * *(There is no way I ever could have put the case
together in the 15 minutes or so that PVA allows. *I enlisted my
wife's help in glue application and assembly and it still took 45
minutes to get everything together.) *So when I glued up the drawers I
was always rushed. *By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all. *I'd much prefer it if I could
come back tomorrow and double check the assembly for square. *But I
haven't found any 48 hour glues. *At least the next time I do
something like this I'll have an hour instead of 15 minutes---that
should cut down on the rush factor. *(The next project is a table
which seems like it should be a lot easier to put together than 27"
long dovetails.)

========

try epoxies. the open time can vary from seconds to weeks for different
products. the one i use for glass takes approx 1 week to set up.

http://www.hisglassworks.com/cart/ca...ct_detail&p=94


Do you have any idea what the working time of this stuff is? They say
it takes a week to cure. I have an epoxy that takes 2 weeks to cure.
But the working time is only 80 minutes.

of course, it would be hard to undo it if you did make a mistake.

I haven't had much luck with undoing "reversible" glues. I
experimented with hide glue. Turns out my shop is too cold for it,
and even though I warmed the Old Brown Glue to 130 degrees I only got
about 5 minutes of working time. But when I tried to reverse the glue
because of large unsightly glue lines I ended up giving up and sawing
the pieces apart.

The fish glue I used is supposedly reversible, like hide glue. I
haven't tried to reverse it. But they claim a 60-90 minute working
time which is as long as the epoxies I'm familiar with.

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:41:12 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Tom Watson wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:22:55 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

So if perfect isn't the goal...then what is?






sigh...

Regards,

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

ROTFLMAO!!!

One word: ".edu"



Bwahahahahaha! Two points for each of you. bseg

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 9:53 am, "charlie" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 2, 11:41 am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:



wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 4:01 pm, Swingman wrote:

I'm not arguing. I agree, making things square is important. All
along I've made making things square a goal. For the most part, I did
the things you listed. There was nothing on your list that made me
think, "If only I'd done that my project would be better." But even
if there was...that part of my project is done. It's history.

That's good. It can only be concluded then, that what you need to do is
to
perfect what you are already doing. Increase your precision, take your
time
before going on in order to make sure each step is complete and ready
for
the next step, etc. Generally, those projects that we really don't like
when they are complete fall into two categories. The first is projects
that
someone else dreamed up and were clearly bad ideas to start with... And
the
second (more seriously), are projects that we just plain old rushed our
way
through.

I'll try to go slower next time: I'll see if I can take 15 years on
my next project.

But more seriously, I prefer to be slow are careful and I think I
mostly do work that way. But being rushed by the glue is one problem
that I didn't see a way around until I was forced to really look for
different glue. (There is no way I ever could have put the case
together in the 15 minutes or so that PVA allows. I enlisted my
wife's help in glue application and assembly and it still took 45
minutes to get everything together.) So when I glued up the drawers I
was always rushed. By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all. I'd much prefer it if I could
come back tomorrow and double check the assembly for square. But I
haven't found any 48 hour glues. At least the next time I do
something like this I'll have an hour instead of 15 minutes---that
should cut down on the rush factor. (The next project is a table
which seems like it should be a lot easier to put together than 27"
long dovetails.)

========

try epoxies. the open time can vary from seconds to weeks for different
products. the one i use for glass takes approx 1 week to set up.

http://www.hisglassworks.com/cart/ca...ct_detail&p=94


Do you have any idea what the working time of this stuff is? They say
it takes a week to cure. I have an epoxy that takes 2 weeks to cure.
But the working time is only 80 minutes.

=============

i've heard of people moving things glued using hxtal for a couple of days at
least. you have to clamp or have it sit still for almost the entire week, as
it can creep until it sets. here's what the faq on it says

"HXTAL sets slowly - at 75°F, it requires about one week to achieve most of
the final bond strength, (see Physical Properties Sheet). However,
ordinarily HXTAL is set sufficiently after 24 hours to hold the two parts
together as long as no stress is applied to the glue joint."

regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/ChaniArts

Swingman wrote:
wrote:

mostly do work that way. But being rushed by the glue is one problem
that I didn't see a way around until I was forced to really look for
different glue. (There is no way I ever could have put the case
together in the 15 minutes or so that PVA allows. I enlisted my
wife's help in glue application and assembly and it still took 45
minutes to get everything together.) So when I glued up the drawers I
was always rushed. By the time I would get to the point where I'm
supposed to check if the assembly is square I've already been fighting
against the glue and I'm at the end of my open time and probably tired
and drained from the stress of it all. I'd much prefer it if I could
come back tomorrow and double check the assembly for square. But I
haven't found any 48 hour glues. At least the next time I do
something like this I'll have an hour instead of 15 minutes---that
should cut down on the rush factor. (The next project is a table
which seems like it should be a lot easier to put together than 27"
long dovetails.)

Simple solution: Don't glue-up the whole piece at once!! Break it into
two, or more, glue-ups! Rare is the component that you can't break down
into multiple glue-ups if need be.

CAVEAT: when doing partial glue-ups, it's a good practice (actually
imperative) to go ahead and clamp up the full assembly, both glued
joint, and unglued joints, and check for square.

Use some common sense with multiple glue-ups, think it through so that
you don't glue yourself into a corner; practice the steps first before
each glue-up, with clamps at ready; and your project will thank you ...


I'm coming in real late on this one, but I think it's important to
stress what Swing is saying here, but from a different angle.

My first glueups were as stressed as what Adrian is describing. I
suspect most experience that "time is running out" syndrome, and the
added pressure almost ensures that something will be forgotten.

Because of that, anything that could go wrong needs to be anticipated
long before the glue lays down. Although it's a royal pain in the ass, I
do a lot of dry fits. That's probably to my detriment, as each dry fit
is going to loosen the joints slightly but I'll take that hit if I can
do one dry fit and have it run flawlessly. Including measuring the
diagonals.

Then, when I do my final wet assembly, that one gawdammed thing that
didn't show up in dry fits rears its ugly head. Happens each time, and
if it didn't I'd think something was way off. However, all of the other
smaller problems are dealt with and I can still do it inside the glue's
open time.

The key is to not be surprised by much. That's why the dry fits work for me.

Tanus

wrote:

Heh. My version doesn't have glue lines, but glue rectangles (or
maybe they are triangles?) at the ends of the dividers. Clearly I
had a tolerance problem. I don't think any of the (non woodworkers)
I've shown it to have ever noticed on this feature of the project,
though.

This afternoon I found a photo of the first dry fit test and added it to
the bottom of the page:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Bevel/

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/