|
The creek is drowning you guys.
Wow Woodpeckers announced a Fibonacci gauge and not one of you mentioned it.
But all the bitching about the creekkkkkkkkkkkkk ..... |
The creek is drowning you guys.
tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote in
: Wow Woodpeckers announced a Fibonacci gauge and not one of you mentioned it. But all the bitching about the creekkkkkkkkkkkkk ..... I saw that but I don't have a clue how it would be used. Wanting to figure out a use for it and can't. If I wanted to follow the "golden ratio" rule wouldn't it be pretty easy to multiply by 1.6, mark it and cut? I'd be interested in knowing what use you thing it would be... Larry |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On 5/30/2012 4:23 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
Wow Woodpeckers announced a Fibonacci gauge and not one of you mentioned it. But all the bitching about the creekkkkkkkkkkkkk ..... It seems Woodpeckers might be trying to come up with too many single production tools. |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On 5/30/2012 6:16 PM, Larry wrote:
tiredofspamnospam.nospam.com wrote in : Wow Woodpeckers announced a Fibonacci gauge and not one of you mentioned it. But all the bitching about the creekkkkkkkkkkkkk ..... I saw that but I don't have a clue how it would be used. Wanting to figure out a use for it and can't. If I wanted to follow the "golden ratio" rule wouldn't it be pretty easy to multiply by 1.6, mark it and cut? I'd be interested in knowing what use you thing it would be... Larry Like using a calculator to add 2+3. '~) |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On May 30, 4:23*pm, tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
Wow Woodpeckers announced a Fibonacci gauge and not one of you mentioned it. But all the bitching about the creekkkkkkkkkkkkk ..... Awwww -- Don't worry about the creek. I have been shot a couple of times for commenting on the increasing level of OT and non-labeled OT content. But so far rec.woodworking is still halfway clean in that respect. The "Creek" string gives the guys who are more worried about politics, Oldsmobile, gas prices, screwed up California laws and whatever else that post has degenerated into; than actual woodworking, a single spot on which to focus. Just imagine if 800+ posts as silly as those had been sprinkled across the entire group. Some groups have done that and have become useless. I hope it doesn't happen here. But after lurking here for 10-15 years there does seem to be a trend. RonB |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On 5/31/2012 7:55 AM, RonB wrote:
I hope it doesn't happen here. But after lurking here for 10-15 years there does seem to be a trend. I've been here the same length of time and I notice nothing different in that respect. There's always been the BAD's, the various Bennett Wars, the "man in the doorway", the Joe W. Woodpecker's, ad infinitum. Nothing has changed but some of the names ... I do miss Apeman ... and all those naked pictures he used to email you of his "wife"/"girlfriend"/"whatever". ;) Remember the guy who gave everyone on the wReck who wanted one, a website on his server? -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
The creek is drowning you guys.
Nothing, I was wondering why everything was off topic and nothing on
topic... The only thing I saw on topic was how thing can a floor board be. Someone released a new tool and nothing... nada... I just thought I bring you back to bitching about tools woodworking tools. :-) On 5/30/2012 7:16 PM, Larry wrote: tiredofspamnospam.nospam.com wrote in : Wow Woodpeckers announced a Fibonacci gauge and not one of you mentioned it. But all the bitching about the creekkkkkkkkkkkkk ..... I saw that but I don't have a clue how it would be used. Wanting to figure out a use for it and can't. If I wanted to follow the "golden ratio" rule wouldn't it be pretty easy to multiply by 1.6, mark it and cut? I'd be interested in knowing what use you thing it would be... Larry |
The creek is drowning you guys.
"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message ... Nothing, I was wondering why everything was off topic and nothing on topic... The only thing I saw on topic was how thing can a floor board be. Someone released a new tool and nothing... nada... I just thought I bring you back to bitching about tools woodworking tools. :-) Maybe the problem is that many of us have been here for so long we have pretty much run out of our own woodworking questions and the web-based discussion sites have pulled in the bulk of the "new blood" ?? The big commercial sites, like FWW and PWW, have surely attracted people who would never find the newsgroups.... and the many ISPs that have dropped the newsgroups have limited the pool of new blood. We old school guys are going the way of the dinosaurs? Do we need to evolve? ;~) How????? Rec.Woodworking t-shirts that have instructions on setting up news readers??? ;~) John |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On May 31, 10:15*am, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote: "tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message ... Nothing, I was wondering why everything was off topic and nothing on topic... The only thing I saw on topic was how thing can a floor board be. Someone released a new tool and nothing... nada... I just thought I bring you back to bitching about tools *woodworking tools. :-) Maybe the problem is that many of us have been here for so long we have pretty much run out of our own woodworking questions and the web-based discussion sites have pulled in the bulk of the "new blood" *?? *The big commercial sites, like FWW and PWW, have surely attracted people who would never find the newsgroups.... and the many ISPs that have dropped the newsgroups have limited the pool of new blood. *We old school guys are going the way of the dinosaurs? Do we need to evolve? ;~) *How????? Rec.Woodworking t-shirts that have instructions on setting up news readers??? ;~) John I suspect at least some of them spend more time at a keyboard that in the shop. RonB |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On May 31, 9:09*pm, RonB wrote:
On May 31, 10:15*am, "John Grossbohlin" wrote: "tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message .. . Nothing, I was wondering why everything was off topic and nothing on topic... The only thing I saw on topic was how thing can a floor board be. Someone released a new tool and nothing... nada... I just thought I bring you back to bitching about tools *woodworking tools. :-) Maybe the problem is that many of us have been here for so long we have pretty much run out of our own woodworking questions and the web-based discussion sites have pulled in the bulk of the "new blood" *?? *The big commercial sites, like FWW and PWW, have surely attracted people who would never find the newsgroups.... and the many ISPs that have dropped the newsgroups have limited the pool of new blood. *We old school guys are going the way of the dinosaurs? Do we need to evolve? ;~) *How????? Rec.Woodworking t-shirts that have instructions on setting up news readers??? ;~) John I suspect at least some of them spend more time at a keyboard that in the shop. RonB And look what I am doing now. See ya - heading for the shop! RonB |
The creek is drowning you guys.
RonB wrote:
I suspect at least some of them spend more time at a keyboard that in the shop. RonB Well, that's part of the point. Left to other forces, many of us might lead less-balanced lives. The expectation, for instance, that there are folks here waiting to see me finish my workbench is helpful! From my point of view, whatever time I can get in the shop is a good thing. That includes, shimming a door, finishing my drywall, priming and painting, installing wiring and EMT and light fixtures, as well as thinking about and doing woodworking projects (albeit small ones). It's a fair bet I wouldn't be having anywhere near so much "fun" without this group! Every new thing I learn to do earns me a unit of "fun". This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. Bill |
The creek is drowning you guys.
"Bill" wrote This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. You obviously need a board stretcher. Just ask at the lumber yard. They will know what you are talking about... |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On 5/31/2012 11:13 PM, Bill wrote:
This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. A quality tool and blade ... one you can handle, and sharp, respectively. Sounds like you're missing one or both? Instead of the speed square try this: http://www.dannylipford.com/video/ci...rosscut-guide/ -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
The creek is drowning you guys.
"Bill" wrote in message ... This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. Makes me wonder which way you have the square on the board.... point facing toward you or away. I find towards works much better than away as the force of holding the square against the wood and pushing the saw oppose each other. I've seen others use the speed square with the point pointing away which puts both forces in the same direction and slippage/canting happens more easily. Just a thought... John |
The creek is drowning you guys.
Bill, thats ridiculous.
I can cut a pretty good square using my foot to keep the 2x4 off the ground... It's not hard. Now get to work.. On 6/1/2012 12:13 AM, Bill wrote: RonB wrote: I suspect at least some of them spend more time at a keyboard that in the shop. RonB Well, that's part of the point. Left to other forces, many of us might lead less-balanced lives. The expectation, for instance, that there are folks here waiting to see me finish my workbench is helpful! From my point of view, whatever time I can get in the shop is a good thing. That includes, shimming a door, finishing my drywall, priming and painting, installing wiring and EMT and light fixtures, as well as thinking about and doing woodworking projects (albeit small ones). It's a fair bet I wouldn't be having anywhere near so much "fun" without this group! Every new thing I learn to do earns me a unit of "fun". This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. Bill |
The creek is drowning you guys.
John Grossbohlin wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message ... This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. Makes me wonder which way you have the square on the board.... point facing toward you or away. I find towards works much better than away as the force of holding the square against the wood and pushing the saw oppose each other. I've seen others use the speed square with the point pointing away which puts both forces in the same direction and slippage/canting happens more easily. Just a thought... Well, that IS an interesting thought. You may have identified the crux of the problem. I've been using it point away, because I liked the idea of having my fingers behind, rather than in front of, the saw. But as you point out, there is a conflict of interest. IIRC, I needed to wrap my fingers around other end anyway to get the blade through. FWIW, I'm using a maybe 1970's Craftman, ~15Amp CS I picked up at an auction for about $12. I'm using this blade (new): Avanti 7-1/4 in. x 60 Tooth Fine Finish Circular Saw Blade, which I expected should be fine since I'm cutting soft wood. http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1...kuId=202847711 John |
The creek is drowning you guys.
In article , Bill wrote:
John Grossbohlin wrote: ...snipped... FWIW, I'm using a maybe 1970's Craftman, ~15Amp CS I picked up at an auction for about $12. I'm using this blade (new): Avanti 7-1/4 in. x 60 Tooth Fine Finish Circular Saw Blade, which I expected should be fine since I'm cutting soft wood. A 60 tooth blade is not appropriate for cutting dimensional lumber with a hand held circular saw, especially an old an tired one. It will take a lot less effort and you'll get better results with something like 24 teeth for framing lumber being held by hand. The 60 tooth blade is more suited to 1x stock or plywood that is securely supported or clamped down. -- Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein) Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org |
The creek is drowning you guys.
Larry W wrote:
In , wrote: ...snipped... FWIW, I'm using a maybe 1970's Craftman, ~15Amp CS I picked up at an auction for about $12. I'm using this blade (new): Avanti 7-1/4 in. x 60 Tooth Fine Finish Circular Saw Blade, which I expected should be fine since I'm cutting soft wood. A 60 tooth blade is not appropriate for cutting dimensional lumber with a hand held circular saw, especially an old an tired one. It will take a lot less effort and you'll get better results with something like 24 teeth for framing lumber being held by hand. The 60 tooth blade is more suited to 1x stock or plywood that is securely supported or clamped down. It's the first and only CS blade I have bought, so I don't have much to compare it to. It's getting the job done. I DID FIND your remarks informative. A 24 tooth blade leave me with a "rougher" cut, wouldn't it? This blade is leaving me with a smooth cut (which is what I wanted). When you say "better results", do you mean speed-wise? BTW, I noticed that the CS is not Craftsman, it's Black & Decker (which I inadvertantly equated via the old Sears Roebuck and Co.). Same difference, I think. |
The creek is drowning you guys.
Bill wrote:
Larry W wrote: In , wrote: ...snipped... FWIW, I'm using a maybe 1970's Craftman, ~15Amp CS I picked up at an auction for about $12. I'm using this blade (new): Avanti 7-1/4 in. x 60 Tooth Fine Finish Circular Saw Blade, which I expected should be fine since I'm cutting soft wood. A 60 tooth blade is not appropriate for cutting dimensional lumber with a hand held circular saw, especially an old an tired one. It will take a lot less effort and you'll get better results with something like 24 teeth for framing lumber being held by hand. The 60 tooth blade is more suited to 1x stock or plywood that is securely supported or clamped down. I read into the fact that it would work for plywood that it was "plenty of blade" for the job. Evidently, the "stability" of the plywood is an important factor (and one I did not consider). Thanks! Bill |
The creek is drowning you guys.
"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message m... "Bill" wrote in message ... This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. Makes me wonder which way you have the square on the board.... point facing toward you or away. I find towards works much better than away as the force of holding the square against the wood and pushing the saw oppose each other. I've seen others use the speed square with the point pointing away which puts both forces in the same direction and slippage/canting happens more easily. Just a thought... ================================================== ====================== It also has the advantage that you can keep an eye on your thumb. Cut off a finger, you can adapt. Cut off a thumb and life becomes rather difficult. |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
tiredofspam wrote:
Bill, thats ridiculous. I can cut a pretty good square using my foot to keep the 2x4 off the ground... It's not hard. Now get to work.. Thank you for the encouragement! : ) I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ Cheers, Bill |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
"Bill" wrote in message ... tiredofspam wrote: Bill, thats ridiculous. I can cut a pretty good square using my foot to keep the 2x4 off the ground... It's not hard. Now get to work.. Thank you for the encouragement! : ) I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ Cheers, Bill ==== How many workbenches is that now? Without checking the reflections in shiny objects, I see three, so far. -- Eric |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
"Eric" wrote in message ... "Bill" wrote in message ... I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ Cheers, Bill ==== How many workbenches is that now? Without checking the reflections in shiny objects, I see three, so far. This discussion reminds me of a friend of mine whom I see only occasionally.... I knew he was a member of my woodworking club years ago and when I saw him over the years I'd ask what he'd been working on in his shop. Several times in a row, spread over several years he responded "nothing at the moment." Then one time he admitted that the only thing he'd ever made was the shop itself... it's sort of become a tool museum! A couple years ago, after his parent's passed away, he moved into his parent's home and sold his own home. He's slowly been building a new shop... "to house your tool collection" I asked? ;~) John |
The creek is drowning you guys.
"CW" wrote in message ... "John Grossbohlin" wrote in message m... "Bill" wrote in message ... This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. Makes me wonder which way you have the square on the board.... point facing toward you or away. I find towards works much better than away as the force of holding the square against the wood and pushing the saw oppose each other. I've seen others use the speed square with the point pointing away which puts both forces in the same direction and slippage/canting happens more easily. Just a thought... ================================================== ====================== It also has the advantage that you can keep an eye on your thumb. Cut off a finger, you can adapt. Cut off a thumb and life becomes rather difficult. Yeah... I hate it when that happens. ;~) |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On 6/1/2012 11:58 PM, CW wrote:
================================================== ====================== It also has the advantage that you can keep an eye on your thumb. Cut off a finger, you can adapt. Cut off a thumb and life becomes rather difficult. ROTFL ... yep, the "opposing thumb" (and an elbow that bends so you can reach your mouth) is indeed the backbone (NPI) of civilization as we know it. Ask any cat or dog. :) -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
On 6/2/2012 3:25 AM, Bill wrote:
tiredofspam wrote: Bill, thats ridiculous. I can cut a pretty good square using my foot to keep the 2x4 off the ground... It's not hard. Now get to work.. Thank you for the encouragement! : ) I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ Looking good so far, Bill. Not to be critical, but the only thing that concerns me, strictly judging from the photos, is that the legs may be too close together for the height of the table? It appears that much downward pressure on a benchtop overhang larger than the end "aprons" may have a tendency to tip the bench. Disregard if you have assured yourself that is not the case. And you are going to put another "stretcher/apron" assembly toward the bottom of the legs, right? -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On 6/1/2012 11:58 PM, CW wrote:
"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message m... "Bill" wrote in message ... This week I learned I can't cut a 2by4 with a CS and a speed square nicely, unless I clamp it down. I guess I need 2 hands on the saw or the saw wanders away, especially towards the end of the cut. I tried 3x in a row, and the board just got shorter and shorter and shorter. If anyone has a suggestion for this, I'd be interested (as the clamping approach is not as fast). Maybe if I saw everyday I'll "hulk-up" a bit. Makes me wonder which way you have the square on the board.... point facing toward you or away. I find towards works much better than away as the force of holding the square against the wood and pushing the saw oppose each other. I've seen others use the speed square with the point pointing away which puts both forces in the same direction and slippage/canting happens more easily. Just a thought... ================================================== ====================== It also has the advantage that you can keep an eye on your thumb. Cut off a finger, you can adapt. Cut off a thumb and life becomes rather difficult. Granted the "whole thumb" half your thumb, not so bad. I really only have trouble buttoning my right long sleeve button with half a left thumb. ;~) |
The creek is drowning you guys.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:48:05 -0500, Swingman wrote:
On 6/1/2012 11:58 PM, CW wrote: ================================================== ====================== It also has the advantage that you can keep an eye on your thumb. Cut off a finger, you can adapt. Cut off a thumb and life becomes rather difficult. ROTFL ... yep, the "opposing thumb" (and an elbow that bends so you can reach your mouth) is indeed the backbone (NPI) of civilization as we know it. Ask any cat or dog. :) The cats I asked HAHed and said "You servants had better watch yourselves. Now get back to work. I want dinner and I want it NOW! After that, I'll let you pet me for half an hour." Dogs come when you call. Cats have answering services. LJ, who is not a believer in pet ownership (either way.) -- Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:25:27 -0400, Bill wrote:
tiredofspam wrote: Bill, thats ridiculous. I can cut a pretty good square using my foot to keep the 2x4 off the ground... It's not hard. Now get to work.. Thank you for the encouragement! : ) I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ All I can say is "With that shallow leg spacing, he'd better lag that puppy to the wall, or the vise will drag it down onto his toesies." -- Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
"Swingman" wrote Not to be critical, but the only thing that concerns me, strictly judging from the photos, is that the legs may be too close together for the height of the table? It appears that much downward pressure on a benchtop overhang larger than the end "aprons" may have a tendency to tip the bench. Disregard if you have assured yourself that is not the case. And you are going to put another "stretcher/apron" assembly toward the bottom of the legs, right? I agree. The only way a bench that narrow will be stable is if you pile 800 pounds on the bottom. That is commonly done for lathes. In fact I thought it was a lathe bench when I looked at it. Those guys must have narrow benches to get close to their turning. So they stack sand bags on the bottom. This creates a stable base and cuts down on vibration. Remember the comment I made about benches need to be heavy? If you are not going to something really heavy, it must be wide enough to give a stable work surface. Particularly if you are going to install a vise on there. I have a fairly narrow bench in my shop. But it is made from solid maple and always has tools stacked on the lower shelves. So I can get away with it. It is very heavy. Another suggestion I would make. If you are going to put a vise on there, particularly a solid metal one that sits on top of the bench, think about putting some additional wood underneath the bench to mount the vise to. A heavy vise on a bench can introduce extra stresses on the bench. If some of those stresses are shared by some kind of underlying structure, there is less stress on the bench top. Of course, I will confess to building every thing super strong. I guess that comes from seeing people hurt, growing up, who built flimsy crap. Not me. One thing I have done on small benches like this is to fasten numerous 2 X 4's or 6's to the top. Then install and additional layer on top of this. I have even put down a layer of 2 X stock, then plywood, then more sold stock over that. You can't have a top that is too strong, heavy or sturdy! Unless you are going to bolt this to the floor or wall, or pile on lots of sandbags, I would expand the foot print of this thing. |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
Bill I agree with everyone else. The legs are too close together.
I also believe that your stretcher underneath needs to come out on the side toward your work side. Since you have indicated you are using ply for the top, your support should go close to the edge, but allow yourself some clamp space. This will support your work better at the edge if you wish to hammer a nail into something. Also With that height, I would use at least 2x6 , maybe a 2x8 stretcher between your legs (length wise) to prevent racking. You can do so along the short side too. I would mortise it, but given your abilities, you might try barrel bolts and bolting them. Or if you have a router creating a pocket in the stretcher for a nut and bolting them. Bill you sound like the generation X kids that need encouragement for everything they do like even getting up in the morning. Wow great that you got up... Wow it's great that you screwed four legs on... How's that Bill? Am I getting better at encouragement? On 6/2/2012 4:25 AM, Bill wrote: tiredofspam wrote: Bill, thats ridiculous. I can cut a pretty good square using my foot to keep the 2x4 off the ground... It's not hard. Now get to work.. Thank you for the encouragement! : ) I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ Cheers, Bill |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ Cheers, Bill ==== How many workbenches is that now? Without checking the reflections in shiny objects, I see three, so far. Yes, but none with a vise. There is a hollow door on old cabinets (I am eager to abandon), a 3-legged kitchen table, a $7 (auction) Work-Mate which doesn't close well but still has been very handy, and my saw horses. The new one ought to be very handy. Thank you for observing! Bill -- Eric |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
Swingman wrote:
On 6/2/2012 3:25 AM, Bill wrote: tiredofspam wrote: Bill, thats ridiculous. I can cut a pretty good square using my foot to keep the 2x4 off the ground... It's not hard. Now get to work.. Thank you for the encouragement! : ) I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ Looking good so far, Bill. Not to be critical, but the only thing that concerns me, strictly judging from the photos, is that the legs may be too close together for the height of the table? It appears that much downward pressure on a benchtop overhang larger than the end "aprons" may have a tendency to tip the bench. Thank you for looking. A 26.5" long apron is supporting a 27.75" wide top, so the benchtop overhang will only be 3/4" at the aprons. The aprons extend 4.5" past the legs. So the legs span 17.5". My intuition anticipates that the ratio of benchtop width to leg span = 27.75/17.5 ~ 1.6, while larger than I might prefer, seems workable, especially given the mass. The decision on top width was guided by the 9.25" width of the SYP lumber at Menards, and other choices followed from the required 5"by5" area that my vice wants to occupy on top. Trying to maximize support for the vise, one is led to positioning at least one leg where I have it. 'Course, no one ways table legs have to be symetrical, but this is my first table, and I don't want family and friends to think I haven't seen a table before (j/k)! The height is 40". Is there a "back of the envelope" way to estimate it's stability? 40/17.5 ~ 2.3? (good enough?). If is doesn't work out, I can reposition the legs outward, without any modification all all to the long stretchers, without unreasonable inconvenience, since I'm not planning to glue the top down. I could make all 4 short aprons out of one 2by4. The inconvenience is dealing with those square ("Robertson") deck screw heads which my drill is rough on. Next time aouund I will be seeking deck screws with Torx heads!!! If anyone else is considering a similar project they would do well to observe that remark! Disregard if you have assured yourself that is not the case. And you are going to put another "stretcher/apron" assembly toward the bottom of the legs, right? Absolutely! Hopefully, this evening! |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote Not to be critical, but the only thing that concerns me, strictly judging from the photos, is that the legs may be too close together for the height of the table? I agree. The only way a bench that narrow will be stable is if you pile 800 pounds on the bottom. That is commonly done for lathes. In fact I thought it was a lathe bench when I looked at it. Those guys must have narrow benches to get close to their turning. So they stack sand bags on the bottom. This creates a stable base and cuts down on vibration. Remember the comment I made about benches need to be heavy? If you are not going to something really heavy, it must be wide enough to give a stable work surface. Particularly if you are going to install a vise on there. I have a fairly narrow bench in my shop. But it is made from solid maple and always has tools stacked on the lower shelves. So I can get away with it. It is very heavy. Another suggestion I would make. If you are going to put a vise on there, particularly a solid metal one that sits on top of the bench, think about putting some additional wood underneath the bench to mount the vise to. A heavy vise on a bench can introduce extra stresses on the bench. If some of those stresses are shared by some kind of underlying structure, there is less stress on the bench top. Of course, I will confess to building every thing super strong. I guess that comes from seeing people hurt, growing up, who built flimsy crap. Not me. One thing I have done on small benches like this is to fasten numerous 2 X 4's or 6's to the top. Then install and additional layer on top of this. I have even put down a layer of 2 X stock, then plywood, then more sold stock over that. You can't have a top that is too strong, heavy or sturdy! Unless you are going to bolt this to the floor or wall, or pile on lots of sandbags, I would expand the foot print of this thing. All comments noted and appreciated! I think I'll complete version 1, since I'm almost there, and proceed accordingly. Thanks, Bill |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
tiredofspam wrote:
Bill you sound like the generation X kids that need encouragement for everything they do like even getting up in the morning. Wow great that you got up... Wow it's great that you screwed four legs on... How's that Bill? Am I getting better at encouragement? Awe, you may as well get off that theme. I DO enjoy communicating with others. Because I find encouragement from the newsgroup (or magazines, books, etc.), doesn't mean that I am asking you to provide it for me. Just listening to a musical performance used to inspire me to play my guitar. Viewing art inspires me to draw. Reading inspires me to think. It may surprise you that an important part of my profession is motivating people to think/work. Some kinds of work are 2nd nature to me, others less so--especially since I got married. : ) You think you work more than me? I will caution you that you have to go some to do that. |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
"Bill" wrote in message ... I took a picture and updated my website tonight for anyone who is curious whether I really ever do any work! http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/ Cheers, Bill ==== How many workbenches is that now? Without checking the reflections in shiny objects, I see three, so far. Yes, but none with a vise. There is a hollow door on old cabinets (I am eager to abandon), a 3-legged kitchen table, a $7 (auction) Work-Mate which doesn't close well but still has been very handy, and my saw horses. The new one ought to be very handy. Thank you for observing! Bill ========= Haha! Don't blame your tools! As long as you're having fun. Sounds like me. Organization freak! A clean workshop is the sign of a dirty mind. Wait! Well, something like that? -- Eric |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
"Bill" wrote in message ... tiredofspam wrote: Bill you sound like the generation X kids that need encouragement for everything they do like even getting up in the morning. Wow great that you got up... Wow it's great that you screwed four legs on... How's that Bill? Am I getting better at encouragement? Awe, you may as well get off that theme. I DO enjoy communicating with others. Because I find encouragement from the newsgroup (or magazines, books, etc.), doesn't mean that I am asking you to provide it for me. Just listening to a musical performance used to inspire me to play my guitar. Viewing art inspires me to draw. Reading inspires me to think. It may surprise you that an important part of my profession is motivating people to think/work. Some kinds of work are 2nd nature to me, others less so--especially since I got married. : ) You think you work more than me? I will caution you that you have to go some to do that. ========= I think he was hinting about you getting your legs screwed off in the morning and wanted to hear details?? Any pics? -- Eric |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
"Bill" wrote in message ... Swingman wrote: Not to be critical, but the only thing that concerns me, strictly judging from the photos, is that the legs may be too close together for the height of the table? It appears that much downward pressure on a benchtop overhang larger than the end "aprons" may have a tendency to tip the bench. Thank you for looking. A 26.5" long apron is supporting a 27.75" wide top, so the benchtop overhang will only be 3/4" at the aprons. The aprons extend 4.5" past the legs. So the legs span 17.5". My intuition anticipates that the ratio of benchtop width to leg span = 27.75/17.5 ~ 1.6, while larger than I might prefer, seems workable, especially given the mass. The decision on top width was guided by the 9.25" width of the SYP lumber at Menards, and other choices followed from the required 5"by5" area that my vice wants to occupy on top. Trying to maximize support for the vise, one is led to positioning at least one leg where I have it. 'Course, no one ways table legs have to be symetrical, but this is my first table, and I don't want family and friends to think I haven't seen a table before (j/k)! The height is 40". Is there a "back of the envelope" way to estimate it's stability? 40/17.5 ~ 2.3? (good enough?). If is doesn't work out, I can reposition the legs outward, without any modification all all to the long stretchers, without unreasonable inconvenience, since I'm not planning to glue the top down. I could make all 4 short aprons out of one 2by4. The inconvenience is dealing with those square ("Robertson") deck screw heads which my drill is rough on. Next time aouund I will be seeking deck screws with Torx heads!!! If anyone else is considering a similar project they would do well to observe that remark! ========== I'll second that! All those in favour? Should we make up an official ballot? -- Eric |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
Bill wrote in :
Thank you for looking. A 26.5" long apron is supporting a 27.75" wide top, so the benchtop overhang will only be 3/4" at the aprons. The aprons extend 4.5" past the legs. So the legs span 17.5". My intuition anticipates that the ratio of benchtop width to leg span = 27.75/17.5 ~ 1.6, while larger than I might prefer, seems workable, especially given the mass. The decision on top width was guided by the 9.25" width of the SYP lumber at Menards, and other choices followed from the required 5"by5" area that my vice wants to occupy on top. Trying to maximize support for the vise, one is led to positioning at least one leg where I have it. 'Course, no one ways table legs have to be symetrical, but this is my first table, and I don't want family and friends to think I haven't seen a table before (j/k)! The height is 40". Is there a "back of the envelope" way to estimate it's stability? 40/17.5 ~ 2.3? (good enough?). One thing you can try that should be simple and easy is to clamp a 2x on the stretcher at the proposed distance. Push down on the very end and see how hard it is to make the bench structure move. You basically have a lever at that point, although not as simple as described in the textbooks. *g* If is doesn't work out, I can reposition the legs outward, without any modification all all to the long stretchers, without unreasonable inconvenience, since I'm not planning to glue the top down. I could make all 4 short aprons out of one 2by4. The inconvenience is dealing with those square ("Robertson") deck screw heads which my drill is rough on. Next time aouund I will be seeking deck screws with Torx heads!!! If anyone else is considering a similar project they would do well to observe that remark! It might be worth finding a different bit. The fit between bit and screw needs to be tight and the bits should fit solidly into the screw. My experience with the Phillips bits has been that there's a bunch of bits out there that kinda work ok with Phillips "general purpose" or "drywall" screws and only 1 or two that really work well with them. I imagine it's the same for square drive. Are you predrilling before attempting to drive the screws? It really does help, even if you're not close to the edge where it's required. Puckdropper -- Make it to fit, don't make it fit. |
The creek is drowning you guys--Bill's project update
Puckdropper wrote:
One thing you can try that should be simple and easy is to clamp a 2x on the stretcher at the proposed distance. Push down on the very end and see how hard it is to make the bench structure move. You basically have a lever at that point, although not as simple as described in the textbooks. *g* Yes Puck, I have been thinking about the vertical (downward) vector that needs to be supported. And, that the distance from the leg (fulcrum) of the origin of that vector relates directly to the force exerted on the leg by that vector. So if someone sets something heavy right on the edge, I wouldn't want the table to break or cartwheel. So at this point, we have 5" of distance past the fulcrum. I'm curious to do the experiment you suggested and see what it takes to lift the back legs off of the ground, or perhaps, break 5" off of the apron (s). Wagers? ;) Everyone knows it is easier to push over a longer pole than a shorter pole. I would expect excessive horizontal force to result in the screws/wood breaking loose. Intuitively, I think my pole analogy should apply to the bench, but you have to accept that the force is being applied at the feet (due to friction?) to make it work. I think this is correct. I don't claim to be knowledgable about physics. I am just trying to apply the basic leverage relation. Cheers, Bill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter