Why Power Tools are Evil
Od...@cris.com
After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,
and following the yeoman efforts of Chris Solar making tapered
legs, I've come to the conclusion that power tools are
indeed evil.
They are in many cases, a necessary evil (much as cars, freeways,
trains, planes and automobiles are), and I bear no ill will
against those who use, or prefer them even. But yes, they are
evil. Why? Aside from the usual rhetoric, (Noisy vs. Quiet,
Clouds of Dust vs. Shavings, Norm vs. Frank) I believe power
tools, and the way most people are taught woodworking, stunts
your growth. It narrows your approach, creativity, experience,
and your mind, as it applies to woodworking, and to life in general.
To many (especially those who have participated in this forum
for a while), this is no revelation. The "sane" approach to
enjoyable woodworking is "the right tool for the job", whether
it be a 8" jointer, or a 24" jointer plane. The thing that
troubles me; the reason why I bother you with these musings
is this: Without exception, the hand tool workers I have met (in
person, or via the net) are at least familiar with most
power tools, and their intended functions. This is not the
case for many of my normite friends. Not only are they
unaware of the most basic hand tools, and their function, they're
ignorant of the fact that there might be another approach.
This is not an indictment of those folks (they're my friends),
it's an indictment of how woodworking is presented to the
public. In fact, it's an indictment of our modern-day society!
Didn't anyone find it ironic, that a recent issue of TOH
magazine, containing an article of Norm extolling his workbench
(a rather traditional-looking cabinetmaker's bench), had
a full photo spread of Norm using his bench, and not ONE
handtool was present? Why? I'll tell you.
It's about caysh (cash). Money. Moolah. Cabbage. Dinero.
There are very few, if any major manufacturers of hand tools
left in the world. Stanley, the garage door opener giant,
scoffs at complaints that their plane quality has dropped
drastically over the last 40 years. "Why should we worry
about something that most people just put on a shelf?"
This is all about the generation of yuppie bastard, self-
agrandizing, instantly-gratified milksops, who want to
have it all (custom woodwork, cheap), and wants to have it
now (gotta be able to joint that 20" wide chestnut board
in five minutes or less, who cares if it came from a 300-year
old barn). The idea of apprenticing to learn a trade/hobby is
unthinkable. Just look at NBA rookie salaries, for example.
As long as we are controlled by the military
industrial woodworking complex, we are doomed. Don't you
see how easily the trunnions of a PM66 can be converted
to operate the elevating mechanism of a howitzer? Isn't
it obvious how a 5HP shaper doubles as a rocket launcher?
Check the width capacity on your shaper. A TOW missile
fits perfectly. A jointer, a harmless machine? Just
think of the black helicopters landing, plugging in their
jointers, then requesting you to "talk" as they remove
the guard, and slide your fingers inexorably forward!
Wake up, people! Let's get back to nature. Let's get
back to woodworking as God intended it....
...Wake up O'Deen! Wake up! You're not in Montana!
You're in Southern California.
Oh, sorry, must have dozed off. Uhhhh power tools suck,
hand tools rule. ;^)
O'Deen
.
David J. McBride
Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
>Oh, sorry, must have dozed off. Uhhhh power tools suck,
>hand tools rule. ;^)
>
>O'Deen
General Ripper,
You forgot to mention fluoridation and the degradation and the
poisoning of our prescious bodily fluids.
--
YrHmbl&ObdntSrvnt,
David J. McBride
Houston, Texas
The person who can smile when something goes wrong . . . has thought of
someone to blame it on.
Mitch Favreau
In article <960430153...@voyager.cris.com> , Od...@CRIS.COM writes:
>Oh, sorry, must have dozed off. Uhhhh power tools suck,
>hand tools rule. ;^)
>
Luddite! Saboteur!! :)
Mitch
Suzanne Schrems
BEWARE the Unaplaner!!!!
Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
>After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,
>and following the yeoman efforts of Chris Solar making tapered
>legs, I've come to the conclusion that power tools are
>indeed evil.
(Big squash of great stuff, but gotta save that bandwidth!)
>This is all about the generation of yuppie bastard, self-
>agrandizing, instantly-gratified milksops, who want to
>have it all (custom woodwork, cheap), and wants to have it
>now (gotta be able to joint that 20" wide chestnut board
>in five minutes or less, who cares if it came from a 300-year
>old barn). The idea of apprenticing to learn a trade/hobby is
>unthinkable. Just look at NBA rookie salaries, for example.
>
>As long as we are controlled by the military
>industrial woodworking complex, we are doomed. Don't you
>see how easily the trunnions of a PM66 can be converted
>to operate the elevating mechanism of a howitzer? Isn't
>it obvious how a 5HP shaper doubles as a rocket launcher?
>Check the width capacity on your shaper. A TOW missile
>fits perfectly. A jointer, a harmless machine? Just
>think of the black helicopters landing, plugging in their
>jointers, then requesting you to "talk" as they remove
>the guard, and slide your fingers inexorably forward!
>Wake up, people! Let's get back to nature. Let's get
>back to woodworking as God intended it....
>
>...Wake up O'Deen! Wake up! You're not in Montana!
>You're in Southern California.
>
>Oh, sorry, must have dozed off. Uhhhh power tools suck,
>hand tools rule. ;^)
>
>O'Deen
>.
Jimmie Motto
With all due respect....did something in particular generate this
amazing outpouring?
Seriously..for me anyway, I think because I learned on power tools, and
speed and accuracy being essential if you want to be competetive,it
doesn't seem that i have any choice but to use power tools.I guess after
years of using hand tools, one gets much faster than I am with them, but
who has the time?...oh wait.. I gotta go ..it's time for cappaciano and
something with chutney duck butter on it..hahahahahaha
J.motto
thank heaven I'm working ....and I've never had anything w/ chutney
duck butter on it.
Bill Short
Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
>After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,
>and following the yeoman efforts of Chris Solar making tapered
>legs, I've come to the conclusion that power tools are
>indeed evil.
>They are in many cases, a necessary evil (much as cars, freeways,
>This is all about the generation of yuppie bastard, self-
>O'Deen
>.
Do you have a strong opinion on this?
Bill Short
JRAshton
In reply to Jimmie Motto, Thank God I don't have to be competative as far
as wood working goes
And can take my time working with the hand tools much of the time- instead
of having to churn out plywood kitchen cabinets and then being too tired
and fed up to make the nice stuff I really want to.
As a side note, I was in the big city at the Woodcraft Supply store the
other day. The guy said they stopped selling the Primus woodbodied planes
because no one buys them. And they don't sell many Bailey type planes
either. Most people buy power tools or carving tools-
I guess I'm just really surprised that most wood workers don't even know
how to use hand tools. I guess I've been living out here in the sticks
away from the real world too long- it's nicer that way
J.R.
JRAshton
John Levin
In article <960430153...@voyager.cris.com>, Od...@CRIS.COM says...
>
>After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,....
[Lotsa innaleckshul stuff 'bout how the WPA wuz wrong in hookin' up thuh farm
to 'lecktricity an' how we'd all be betta' off iff'n all the cows wuz milked by
hand and th' carpentry werk wuz done with rusty axes...]
Mr. O'Deen! Mr. O'Deen! Ah jes' bought a YB block plane.... doesn't plug in or
nuthin! Does thet make me a YB? (Muh mama will be so proud, cuz ah'll be the
furst inna family to be able to order uh spritzer without busting out loud
laughing.)
Ken Stovesand
Bill Short wrote:
>
> Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
>
> >There are very few, if any major manufacturers of hand tools
> >left in the world. Stanley, the garage door opener giant,
> >scoffs at complaints that their plane quality has dropped
> >drastically over the last 40 years. "Why should we worry
> >about something that most people just put on a shelf?"
anymore? I don't recall seeing them in the larger mail order
catalogs. I have one of the Improved Smoothing Planes which I
use regularly and was hoping to add either the Primis jointer
plane or a wooden block plane someday (depending on disposable
income available at that time).
Regards,
Ken Stovesand
Carl Muhlhausen LZ 1B-115L x3052
In article <960430153...@voyager.cris.com>, <Od...@CRIS.COM> wrote:
>After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,
>and following the yeoman efforts of Chris Solar making tapered
>legs, I've come to the conclusion that power tools are
>indeed evil.
Right on Paddy. Are you going to sell, give away, or ritualistically
sacrifice your bandsaw?
I think the message I got from FK is that handtools and
the knowledge of how to use them are an essential part
of this craft called woodworking. The power tools have
their place, but even a professional woodworker, let
alone YB/ENB hobbyist, should know when and how to
use a handplane instead of a belt sander.
Not to bring up the Norm bashing thread again, but
watching FK I couldn't help but think how much
more people would learn about woodworking if there
were a "New Hungarian Workshop".
At one point Frank went over to one in his
collection of bandsaws to trim a piece he'd
made a mistake on. While doing it he remarked
how his old grandpa would have chided him
for using a power tool when it would have been
faster to saw it by hand.
---
>Oh, sorry, must have dozed off. Uhhhh power tools suck,
>hand tools rule. ;^)
>
>O'Deen
>.
Party on, dude.
Carl
--
Carl W. Muhlhausen led...@elmo.lz.att.com
Rm. 1B-115L (908)-576-3052
AT&T Bell Laboratories
307 Middletown-Lincroft Rd.
Lincroft, NJ 07738
Larry A. Fisher
I am going to add my 2 cents to your dissertation and revelation. I won't
touch the evil ramblings for I know a canard when I hear one sing!
Anyway, I must attest and afirm that I love all aspects of woodworking -
power and handtools. However, the two most enjoyable aspects to me are
making cabriole legs, because after bandsawing them to rough shape I get
to take out my Record spokeshave and bring them to life, and cutting
dovetails by hand. Nothing looks better and has more character than hand
cut dovetails. I think I am up to a nickels' worth so I shall depart.
Larry Fisher
lafi...@amoco.com
John Darlington
Jimmie Motto (YXF...@prodigy.com) writes:
> With all due respect....did something in particular generate this
> amazing outpouring?
> Seriously..for me anyway, I think because I learned on power tools, and
> speed and accuracy being essential if you want to be competetive,it
> doesn't seem that i have any choice but to use power tools.I guess after
> years of using hand tools, one gets much faster than I am with them, but
> who has the time?...oh wait.. I gotta go ..it's time for cappaciano and
> something with chutney duck butter on it..hahahahahaha
Does this come from Pukey Ducks, by any chance? ;^)
JD
Tom Perigrin
In article <4m6hoo$u...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, YXF...@prodigy.com
(Jimmie Motto) wrote:
> Seriously..for me anyway, I think because I learned on power tools, and
> speed and accuracy being essential if you want to be competetive,it
> doesn't seem that i have any choice but to use power tools.
There are two goals to my woodworking... "product" and "fulfillment".
Now, it would be wrong to say these are independant... selling product
for "cash" allows me to buy "stuff", which can lead to "fulfillment". I
like stuff... I own a LOT of stuff, and I want MORE stuff. So a lot of my
work uses power tools to make product fast, so I can sell it competatively,
to get lots of cash to buy stuf".
But, sometimes I don't want cash to buy stuff. Sometimes I want stuff I
can't buy, or sometimes I want a "mood" that owning more stuff can't
provide.
Then I either turn to making the unavailable stuff myself, or I work wood
in a fashion conducive to creating that mood. In for former case the
stuff might be a reproduction of a 1450's grain chest, which will hold my
video tapes in a very unobtrustive fashion or a repor of a 1500's armoire
to hold my TV (my last house had a 16'th C front room, which had a lot of
20'th C gizmo's hidden behind doors and panels). My new house is going
Victorian Gothic. Since I am not going to sell these, then I often use
that as an excuse to avoid the pressure of being competative, and allow the
manufacturing to be an excuse to create a contmplative mood conducive to
lowering my blood pressure and calming my frazzled nerves...
When I am interested in generate "mood", then I put down the power tools,
and pick up the planes, the hand drills, the bow saws... I take a board
with wonderful figure from the woodpile... A board that I have been
saving 10 to 20 years. I examine the grain. I plan the work. I consider
and meditate on how the final result will look. I make the first cut, and
as I am cutting it with a bow saw, I get to watch the interaction of wood
and metal. The gentle zzzzsh, zzzzsh as the blade cuts the wood. I clamp
the board in my bench, and I plane the edges... long curls of wood peel
off the board. Each curl caresses my hand as it leaves the plane... it
feels like the hair of the long haired women of my youth. The odor of wood
and nostalgia waft around me... I sight along the board... it is flat,
it is sharp, it is nearly perfect... I run my fingers over the surface...
the slight undulations, invisiable to the eye tease my senses. It is a
complex surface, with life and movement, not a dead plane created by a
screaming metal behemouth.
I clean up the shavings, and crumble them in my hands... I feel the give
and the resistance, and I think about the springs and summers and rains and
winds and sun upon the tree. I smell the wood, and smell the odors locked
deep within a tree that no-one but a woodworker will smell. Not the
squirell, not the person who buys a finished product covered with
polyurine... my smell, a hidden smell, a woodworkers smell.
After an hour of such work, I am relaxed. I am ready to go to work the next
day and deal with (Segmentation violation - core dumped). I am ready to
deal with co-workers who can't even remember that it was THEY who insisted
on using the procedure for which they are now chewing me out for being so
dumb as to use... Because I can nod my head, smile, and meanwhile I think
of long blond curls of wood, of the sun, the rain, the surface running
under my fingers, and then I say "Yes Bob...."
I can't do that with a plunge routah, a portable planer, or a skill saw.
But I can make nice product...
To each in it's season... and for me, handtools are a way to relaxation.
---
If I was smart, I'd have a clever .sig
art.m...@ualberta.ca
Od...@CRIS.COM writes:
...
>I've come to the conclusion that power tools are indeed evil.
>tools, and the way most people are taught woodworking, stunts
>your growth. It narrows your approach, creativity, experience,
>and your mind, as it applies to woodworking, and to life in general.
It was in reading rec.ww that I came to discover that in some
cases, a handsaw can be quicker than a powersaw.
Now, when I want a quick rough cut of a 2x4 (or similar) I reach
for a handsaw, instead of for the tablesaw. I save my ears, I
waste no time, and I work those biceps! ;-)
I think that there is a fair amount of truth in Patrick's thoughts.
If you don't seen hand tools in the stores, and if you don't get
taught to use them in Grade 7 shop class, and if none of your friends
use them, and if you don't see them on TV or happen across them in
books... Well then naturally when you approach a problem or project,
you're going to approach it with the tools you're familiar with.
I'll make no apologies for using my tablesaw to rip bookshelves out
of a sheet of birch plywood. Right tool, at the right time.
But I would also like to learn to use, for example, a Jack & Smoothing
plane (Soon Mr. Leach, Soon :-), how they work, and when is the right
time to use them. Each, I believe, has it's place [See Tom Peregrins'
post in this thread for a good example].
>...Wake up O'Deen! Wake up! You're not in Montana!
>You're in Southern California.
And I'm in Edmonton, Alberta. Across the border and behind a nasty
currency exchange rate from all those wonderfull mail order tools.
But at least I can walk through a Lee Valley Tools _store_.
(minor gloat gloat)
>Oh, sorry, must have dozed off. Uhhhh power tools suck,
>hand tools rule. ;^)
"In all things, moderation" or maybe "The Right tool at the right time"
...art
Who's located and printed the very cool Scary Sharp(tm) instructions
but hasn't yet tried them out on the blade in his block plane...
(Hey, it's the only plane I have right now, thanks Dad.)
--
..art mulder ( art.m...@ualberta.ca )( http://www.ualberta.ca/~amulder/ )
( Sys Admin / Support Analyst, Network Resources )
( Computing and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton )
Patrick Olguin
On 1 May 1996, Carl Muhlhausen LZ 1B-115L x3052 wrote:
> In article <960430153...@voyager.cris.com>, <Od...@CRIS.COM> wrote:
> >After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,
> >and following the yeoman efforts of Chris Solar making tapered
> >legs, I've come to the conclusion that power tools are
> >indeed evil.
>
> Right on Paddy. Are you going to sell, give away, or ritualistically
> sacrifice your bandsaw?
Nope. Remember, I threw in the clause about *necessary* evil.
I'm not trading in my bubba-mobile for a covered wagon either.
:^)
>
> I think the message I got from FK is that handtools and
> the knowledge of how to use them are an essential part
> of this craft called woodworking. The power tools have
> their place, but even a professional woodworker, let
> alone YB/ENB hobbyist, should know when and how to
> use a handplane instead of a belt sander.
>
> Not to bring up the Norm bashing thread again, but
> watching FK I couldn't help but think how much
> more people would learn about woodworking if there
> were a "New Hungarian Workshop".
>
Carl,
You hit the bull's-eye on the nose ;-). This is precisely
what my "manifesto" was about, though you did it without
conpsiracy theories, black helicopters, and pollution of
our bodily fluids. I guess I was a little frustrated over
articles from "experienced" woodworkers who, with 25 years
of experience under their belt, didn't know how to do
the most basic task (flatten a wide board, for example)
without the exclusive use of power. It's not a Norm vs.
Neanderthal thing, it's being a an educated, effective
woodworker thing.
Using a particular method because that's all you know, that's
all you wanna know, and that's how you're gonna by-god do it,
is a little like writing the cgi-scripts for your web site in
Fortran II, 'cuz you're too afraid to learn perl.
As far as what we're presented in the woodworking media,
I firmly believe it's money that talks. No big surprise
here, but ultimately, it's the budding woodworker that
suffers. Knowledge is power, folks, so learn everything
you can. The best power tool, is the one between your
ears. Use it so you can make an informed decision about
how you work.
OBTW, a hammer (a handtool, no less) is about the worst
thing for your hearing. Just to show you that not all
hand tools are the benign, romantic creatures one might
think they are.
O'Deen
J. Michael Thompson
Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
> To many (especially those who have participated in this forum
> for a while), this is no revelation. The "sane" approach to
> enjoyable woodworking is "the right tool for the job", whether
> it be a 8" jointer, or a 24" jointer plane. The thing that
> troubles me; the reason why I bother you with these musings
> is this: Without exception, the hand tool workers I have met (in
> person, or via the net) are at least familiar with most
> power tools, and their intended functions. This is not the
> case for many of my normite friends. Not only are they
> unaware of the most basic hand tools, and their function, they're
> ignorant of the fact that there might be another approach.
I have to plead guilty as charged, but I try to be honest about it. When someone
calls me a "Craftsman", I say "No, I'm just a machine operator, but at least I'm a
GOOD machine operator."
:-)
JMT
Peter Stewart Richards
--
- Peter Stewart Richards
I recently spent 9 days straight working 10 hours a day in one of
those cog-jointed wooden cabins that these Scandinavians like to have in
the mountains.
We tore down a part of the structure and made a toolshed/latrine (with
a turf roof) from the materials. In addition I put in a couple of
windows, moved some doors around (!) and completed all the usual
finishing tasks with architraving and so on.
There was no electricity for miles, so just guess what sort of tools I
was using.
Record Marples in England, Jack in Denmark, Sandvik in Sweden, still
make a magnificent selection of hand tools.
Don't let the market forces get to you.
Bennett Leeds
> It's about caysh (cash). Money. Moolah. Cabbage. Dinero
Although Patrick approaches the issue with his usual protective tongue-in-
cheek, he does make some serious points. However, he didn't, in my view,
carry his analysis through properly.
> This is all about the generation of yuppie bastard, self-agrandizing,
> instantly-gratified milksops, who want to have it all (custom woodwork,
> cheap), and wants to have it now (gotta be able to joint that 20" wide
> chestnut board in five minutes or less, who cares if it comes from a
> 300-year old bar). The idea that apprenticing to learn a trande/hobby is
> unthinkable.
And you say these people are your friends? I'm glad you don't count me as
one of your friends. ;^)
Blaming the unwashed is easy for the enlightened, but I believe the root
of the problem lies elsewhere:
- Our educational system
- The tool manufacturers (this is where money comes in)
- The old time woodworkers
The first and third are actually tied together. Woodworkers teaching others
is a relatively new thing. Since Frank Klausz has been mentioned a couple
times already, it's worth nothing that he apprenticed to his dad, thus
"losing a father and gaining a master." Even so, his dad held back some of
his favorite secrets from his son until the very end, as if he were scared
of being eclipsed by him. Frank comments (I'm paraphrasing from memory here):
"In America woodworker's will be glad to tell you how they made something,
but not what it cost them to make. In Europe, it's the exact opposite."
Until magazines, books, and video, apprenticing was just about the only
way to really learn woodworking. Well, I hate to break the news to people
about 50 years too late, but apprenticing ain't happening - not in
woodworking and not in other crafts and trades. Society changes - always
has and always will. If the woodworkers of the past hadn't been so damn
protective of their trade, it might have fared better. But, woodworking
has a long history of protectionism. In England of the past, there were
laws with serious penalties limiting woodworkers to specific fields, such
as timber joinery, cabinetmaking, etc. Luckily, we've had a new breed of
woodworker: Frank Klausz, Tage Frid, James Krenov, Toshio Odate and others.
Now, the tool manufacturers. Yeah, this is where the money comes in. They
do what it takes to make money. That means educating people on how to use
their tools. You get a ton of instructions with every new biscuit joiner
(and it comes ready to go out of the box). You get just about nothing with
your Stanley plane. Nothing that really helps, anyway. Buy a Hock blade
and it comes wrapped in some reprints telling you how to sharpen it and
how to adjust the plane. Big difference.
But, our form of capitalism is still working. The revival in hand tools
has sparked a number of new companies like Hock Handmade, Lie-Nielsen,
Clifton, and countless others, even as Stanley and Record discontinue more
items each year (the Record 073 sticks in my mind).
> Didn't anyone find it ironic, that a recent issue of TOH magazine,
> containing an article of Norm extolling his his workbench (a rather
> traditional-looking cabinetmaker's bench), had a full photo spread of
> Norm using his bench, and not ONE handtool was present?
That's not the ironic part at all. Benches, even nice Ulmia benches like
the one Norm has, are great for power tool woodworking. Having mine has
made as big a difference for me when shaping an edge with plunge router
as it did for my handplaning. Claiming this as irony only furthers the
divide between hand and power tools - something that shouldn't exist.
The *real* irony is that Norm still uses that Ulmia bench: not the bench
he designed and built for an early episode of NYW. Although Norm obviously
had exposure to good benches, the bench he designed and built (and then
used as a setup table for a couple episodes before it dissappeared) doesn't
have many of the good features of those good benches. I think it's all part
of this "new" thing that America went whole hog on post WW II. New was in.
Well, "those who ignore the past are condemned to relive it" is very true.
We lost more in the way of woodworking, from houses with trimwork removed,
ceilings lowered, hardwood floors covered with carpet, or just destroyed
(not to mention old furniture that was lost) during the 1950's than, I'll
wager, in any other decade. Norm did away with the traditional tail vise,
replacing it with the "new" moving dog design that gives you less clamping
options (no jaws) and less capacity (length of stock limited to 6" or more
less than length of bench, as opposed to holding stock longer than the bench).
Back to the point, the difference between Norm and Frank is not related to
power tools at all. Look at any of Frank's 3 wonderful videos and you'll
see power tools in use. (BTW, there's more good stuff in these 3 videos
than in all of NYW's many episodes). The difference is also not related to
hand tools at all. They're not vastly superior, and those who use them are
not vastly superior. There's nothing more special about tuning a #4 than
tuning a bandsaw. That's just an easy out that too many take, and have a
good laugh with. But, that puts the very woodworkers who should be learning
more on the defensive.
We ain't gonna help people learning the craft from Norm if we insult them
as "yuppie-bastard milksops," even in jest. Back someone into a corner and
they'll snap back. You'll not teach them anything. You won't learn anything
from them, either.
So, to those that want, go ahead, back me into a corner. See where it gets
me or you.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
PS: I offer as proof Frank Klausz's video "Making Mortise and Tenon Joints."
In the tape, he makes them with a chisel, mallet and saw. He also makes
them with a plunge router and tablesaw. He also thems them with a drill
press (hollow chisel) and bandsaw. Obviously, Frank isn't a hand tool
purist, and doesn't regard power tools as evil.
Scott Post
> JRAshton wrote:
>
> I guess I'm just really surprised that most wood workers don't even know
> how to use hand tools. I guess I've been living out here in the sticks
> away from the real world too long- it's nicer that way
>
I think a lot of folks are scared off from hand tools from a first experience
trying to use one that wasn't properly tuned. There's a definate mystique
surrounding hand planes and if you don't have an old hand around to take
you under his wing it can be quite intimidating. Sharpening always struck
me as just plain magic. When I started woodworking I didn't even consider
buying tools that didn't plug it. Hell, if I wanted a workout I'd go to the
gym.
In the past four or five months I've begun using hand tools. It started
slowly when I purchased a hand scraper. When I posted a question about
burnishing it properly some gimp on the left coast invited me to join
the oldtools mailing list. I did. Big mistake.
I've bought four planes in the last three weeks. Once you use a turn of
the century handplane you're hooked for life. I'm currently building a
couple of Mission style nightstands that will not be touched by sandpaper.
Once you've seen a scraped or planed surface your ROS will spend eternity
on the shelf. It's quite amazing.
I'm not quite ready to disconnect from the power grid, but you'd be amazed
at how satisfying it can be to sweep up a pile of fine shavings at the
end of the evening.
--
Scott Post sp...@netusa1.net
Just say when you get your first package from Ashby you're in real trouble.
Linda Brown
Mr. Odeen - I haven't had the pleaasure of your acquaintance, but I
am in awe of your creative writing ability.....power tools for launching
missiles? Aren't there a number of missile launching sites in Montana?
I'm confused. Though I play, as a hobby, at woodworking without a table
saw, jointer, planer, bandsaw or even a drill press, if I were to be in
a 'production' line, I think I'd be ever so happy to suddenly inherit
said mechanisms (along with hearing protection, I admit.) Didn't we
once have a glass washboard, replaced by a hand wringer, then an
electric agitator, leading not to war but to the superfluous Maytag
repairman with so much leisure time he could sit around making silly
advertisements when he should have been hand crafting cunning Windsor
chairs? You yourself said, "the right tool for the job." I am doing
(or attempting) Everything by hand, including resawing, and Wish, by
god, that I had a Huge Beautiful 16" bandsaw standing in the corner.
I did, however, last weekend, make my first 'old tools' purchase, a
Bailey No. 5 Jackplane with a corrugated sole for only $15 at Tool Town
in Spokane, WA, and along with it, a bottle on naval jelly, so I am
now hooked. I know it will soon replace my el cheapo smooth plane,
and I'll be shopping for more such bargains. I hope, though, that my
Creativity comes not from a limited line of tools, but from the
step-by-step decisions in substituting materials and methods for what
I can not yet afford. Have a little more faith in us humble beginners!
All is not lost, as you fear. I lived in Montana for seven years, and
carry a little of it with me wherever I go. Wake up! Look around...at
all the new names on this newsgroup alone. For every jaded woodworker
here, there must be twenty-nine newbies begging for information.
Electricity is not evil...it's evolved into the Internet so you can
recount your most recent dream sequence and share it with All! It's a
Power Tool...egad.
-Barb Siddiqui <http://www.televar.com/~lbrown/barb.html>
Mike Weaver
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Bennett Leeds wrote:
> > It's about caysh (cash). Money. Moolah. Cabbage. Dinero
>
> Although Patrick approaches the issue with his usual protective tongue-in-
> cheek, he does make some serious points. However, he didn't, in my view,
> carry his analysis through properly.
That's your perogitive (no, I'm not Bobby Brown).
<tamp, tamp, and tamp some more>
> > Didn't anyone find it ironic, that a recent issue of TOH magazine,
> > containing an article of Norm extolling his his workbench (a rather
> > traditional-looking cabinetmaker's bench), had a full photo spread of
> > Norm using his bench, and not ONE handtool was present?
>
> That's not the ironic part at all. Benches, even nice Ulmia benches like
> the one Norm has, are great for power tool woodworking. Having mine has
> made as big a difference for me when shaping an edge with plunge router
> as it did for my handplaning. Claiming this as irony only furthers the
> divide between hand and power tools - something that shouldn't exist.
Yes, that *is* the ironic part.
The ironic part *isn't* the fact that it's used for power tool woodworking
as much as it's used *exclusively* for power tool woodworking.
People flip on the tube and see Norm workin' with a shop
of tools that most [IMHO] cannot afford and almost *instantly* figure
they need all that stuff to do quality woodworking.
It alienates those aspiring woodworkers without much $$$$.
There's never even a mention in most of the mass media of the
*possibility* of another approach (ie hand tool methods), and the above
mention of Norm's bench [and its use] is but one example in this
discussion. [Obviously Roy Underhill, etc are excepted from this sentiment]
(Apologies to O'Deen if I'm messin' this up some).
<tamp, snip, stomp, tamp>
<"difference between Norm and Frank is not related to power tools at all">
> The difference is also not related to
> hand tools at all. They're not vastly superior, and those who use them are
> not vastly superior. There's nothing more special about tuning a #4 than
> tuning a bandsaw. That's just an easy out that too many take, and have a
> good laugh with. But, that puts the very woodworkers who should be learning
> more on the defensive.
Bzzzzt wrong, but thanks for playing our game! ;-)
(I'd beg to differ, but it's not becoming, so I'll just differ.)
There *is* something more special about tuning a #4 than a bandsaw. As
you play with the plane, and take a swipe - adjust it some, and take
another swipe, there's a feeling that develops.
"Wow, this is really cool. I wish this plane could talk - and tell me
about the owners through the years. Heh, this plane may have been used to
make some furniture that's in the White House. Man! Look at that surface.
*Now* I know why so many people write 140 line posts to say 'I planed a
board'." ;-)
OTOH, Norm s over there w/ the mechanic's box open; wrenches about, and
dial indicators a flyin' around. Then it's done. It's a purely mechanical
process. No feeling. No connection with the wood.
There's no 'easy out' taken by claiming that tuning a plane is more
special than tuning a bandsaw is just is.
Just say - you'd know about this if you had experienced it.
As for that 'putting the very woodworkers who should be learning
more on the defensive' goes - WHAT? HUH?
If beginning woodworkers worked *more* with handtools, they would
understand 'why do I get tearout when I run my 20" chesnut board over
my 1-ton, 40" power-consuming, dust-producing planer?"
They would know more about *why* wood works the way it does, and have
learned that quicker than through the use of *only* power tools.
If you take a swipe the wrong way with a plane, it typically does not
ruin the board. The same cannot be said when making a 'boo-boo' with a
power tool most of the time.
And, as a result, there would be less of an intimidation factor for
newbies when using hand tools. Since there is less of an intimidation
factor, people tend to try more things.
This, in turn, opens up more possibilities, and you don't get tied down
to the 'use a 1/2" straight bit in the router to round over the edge'
mentality. What if you don't have a router?
If you had used hand tools, you'd know that there are many ways to
accomplish this task.
But I digress somewhat from the original spirit of the post...
O'Deen is talking about the fact that the way most people are taught
(Norm is a prime example) is using [primarily or solely] power tools.
And, such reliance on them reduces your creativity and methods.
> PS: I offer as proof Frank Klausz's video "Making Mortise and Tenon Joints."
> In the tape, he makes them with a chisel, mallet and saw. He also makes
> them with a plunge router and tablesaw. He also thems them with a drill
> press (hollow chisel) and bandsaw. Obviously, Frank isn't a hand tool
> purist, and doesn't regard power tools as evil.
No, Frank doesn't regard them as evil...
...but you missed the point of O'Deen's post.
-Mike
-----------------
Michael P. Weaver Unix Systems Administrator Email: mi...@umbc.edu
University Computing Services, UMBC
Baltimore, MD 21228
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine, and not my employer's.
Od...@cris.com
Bennett Leeds writes:
>
> > It's about caysh (cash). Money. Moolah. Cabbage. Dinero
>
> Although Patrick approaches the issue with his usual protective tongue-in-
> cheek, he does make some serious points. However, he didn't, in my view,
> carry his analysis through properly.
Naturally. I always encase myself in humor to protect my fragile ego.
I would never introduce humor to put people at ease, so I could
get my point across.
>
>
Ñtamp®
> And you say these people are your friends? I'm glad you don't count me as
> one of your friends. ;—)
Rejoice and be glad, Bennett, it requires a sense of humor.
>
> Blaming the unwashed is easy for the enlightened, but I believe the root
> of the problem lies elsewhere:
> - Our educational system
> - The tool manufacturers (this is where money comes in)
> - The old time woodworkers
>
> The first and third are actually tied together. Woodworkers teaching others
> is a relatively new thing. Since Frank Klausz has been mentioned a couple
> times already, it's worth nothing that he apprenticed to his dad, thus
> "losing a father and gaining a master." Even so, his dad held back some of
> his favorite secrets from his son until the very end, as if he were scared
> of being eclipsed by him. Frank comments (I'm paraphrasing from memory here):
> "In America woodworker's will be glad to tell you how they made something,
> but not what it cost them to make. In Europe, it's the exact opposite."
>
> Until magazines, books, and video, apprenticing was just about the only
> way to really learn woodworking. Well, I hate to break the news to people
> about 50 years too late, but apprenticing ain't happening - not in
> woodworking and not in other crafts and trades. Society changes - always
> has and always will. If the woodworkers of the past hadn't been so damn
> protective of their trade, it might have fared better. But, woodworking
> has a long history of protectionism. In England of the past, there were
> laws with serious penalties limiting woodworkers to specific fields, such
> as timber joinery, cabinetmaking, etc. Luckily, we've had a new breed of
> woodworker: Frank Klausz, Tage Frid, James Krenov, Toshio Odate and others.
New breed? These guys, along with other FWW editors, have been around for
a generation. Now, as evidenced by the slow transmogrification of FWW
into a slicked-up version of TCN's catalog (just read the last few issues'
letters to the editor), I see content/advertising going backward, as it
pertains to hand tool exposure, not forward. The "enlightenment" of
woodworkers to learn, and use *all* methods of woodwork is continuing in
spite of the woodworking establishment, not because of it. The followers of
Frank and his cross-cultural crowd are small, compared to the legions
following Norm to the land East of Ashby.
>
> Now, the tool manufacturers. Yeah, this is where the money comes in. They
> do what it takes to make money. That means educating people on how to use
> their tools. You get a ton of instructions with every new biscuit joiner
> (and it comes ready to go out of the box). You get just about nothing with
> your Stanley plane. Nothing that really helps, anyway. Buy a Hock blade
> and it comes wrapped in some reprints telling you how to sharpen it and
> how to adjust the plane. Big difference.
>
> But, our form of capitalism is still working. The revival in hand tools
> has sparked a number of new companies like Hock Handmade, Lie-Nielsen,
> Clifton, and countless others, even as Stanley and Record discontinue more
> items each year (the Record 073 sticks in my mind).
Countless others? Tiny little cottage industries, yes. Manufacturing
giants, turning out quality tools, no. I agree that capitalism works,
I just don't believe that it works to the educational benefit of the
budding woodworker, nor am I naive enough to believe that it should.
I don't advocate government intervention (even by black helicopters),
but it's my right and royal duty to expose them for what they are:
self-serving financial entities, as opposed to the benevolent, philanthropic
foundations, supporting a public service program, that they would have us
believe. Though well-intentioned, Norm's show is a net disservice
to the budding woodworker. Period.
>
>
> > Didn't anyone find it ironic, that a recent issue of TOH magazine,
> > containing an article of Norm extolling his his workbench (a rather
> > traditional-looking cabinetmaker's bench), had a full photo spread of
> > Norm using his bench, and not ONE handtool was present?
>
> That's not the ironic part at all. Benches, even nice Ulmia benches like
> the one Norm has, are great for power tool woodworking. Having mine has
> made as big a difference for me when shaping an edge with plunge router
> as it did for my handplaning. Claiming this as irony only furthers the
> divide between hand and power tools - something that shouldn't exist.
Obviously, I used too much humor, which clouded my point. Did I not
write, before my article devolved into a 680-word manifesto that,
"The 'sane' approach to enjoyable woodworking is 'the right tool for
the job', whether it be a 8" jointer, or a 24" jointer plane"?
I see no division here. I didn't say that benches aren't great
for power tool woodworking, they are. But, the "great unwashed" might
infer from the article that power tools are the *only* thing one
uses on a bench such as Norm's. That, IMHO, is a gross omission
on the part of TOH, but who am I kidding? They're the offical
organ of the Military Industrial Woodworking Complex (MIWC).
> Back to the point, the difference between Norm and Frank is not related to
> power tools at all.
You are dead wrong. It's ALL about power tools, and a single-minded
approach to woodworking. Frank uses power tools. He ALSO USES HAND TOOLS,
and thus has a balanced, coherent, and sound approach to woodworking.
Norm's woodworking is continually hampered by his power-only approach.
Re: a recent episode where he uses a hand-held power planer to "joint"
a board too long for his jointah? You think Frank would do that?
Would you do that? For the purpose of this argument, I suppose you might ;—).
>Look at any of Frank's 3 wonderful videos and you'll
> see power tools in use. (BTW, there's more good stuff in these 3 videos
> than in all of NYW's many episodes). The difference is also not related to
> hand tools at all. They're not vastly superior, and those who use them are
> not vastly superior. There's nothing more special about tuning a #4 than
> tuning a bandsaw. That's just an easy out that too many take, and have a
> good laugh with. But, that puts the very woodworkers who should be learning
> more on the defensive.
No, Bennett, *you're* the only one put on the defensive, and why am I
not surprised? One person was actually able to make light of himself,
and refuse the title of "craftsman", in favor of "machine operator"
(but, a GOOD one). What an unusual gift that fellow has, being able
to laugh at himself. Hahahahahaha.
I never said hand toolers are vastly superior. You're insecurity is
showing. I said they are better informed. My normite friends, the
ones who manage to put with my neanderthal proselytizing, the ones
who dare to venture out and try a hand tool, the ones who write me
back and say, "Dude!! This is great! It's fun! I'll never go back
to sanding... yodda yodda yodda", are appreciative of a little good-
natured ribbing (along with some encouragement). Even the ones who write
back and say, "O'Deen, this sucked, and I can't put an edge on this
damned thing!", are better for the experience, they admit.
>
> We ain't gonna help people learning the craft from Norm if we insult them
> as "yuppie-bastard milksops," even in jest. Back someone into a corner and
> they'll snap back. You'll not teach them anything. You won't learn anything
> from them, either.
Funny, I didn't drag your good name into this thread, but right away, you
backed into your favorite defensive corner and started snapping. Why?
>
> So, to those that want, go ahead, back me into a corner. See where it gets
> me or you.
Based on years of previous discussion, absolutely nowhere.
Bennett, I have no delusions of changing your mind, influencing you,
or getting you to concede even one point, EVER. It's just that I
haven't jousted in a while, and find this discussion stimulating,
somewhat. All this does is galvanize the members of the BL fan club,
as well as the O'Deen miscreants, and cause cognitive dissonance in
those who find wisdom and entertainment in reading us both. Aren't they
lucky?
Pardon me for oppressing you. It's part of the violence inherent in
the system. It's noble of you to be so serious, while I "protect"
myself with my tongue-in-cheek style. Funny, a little humor usually
disarms people, and then they open their minds. It seems to me you
find my crass attempts at humor to be noise, and that you fancy yourself
the poster child for my broad-brushing of woodworking yuppie-bastardom.
If the shoe fits... In this case, it doesn't, because I know you use
hand tools, and that you use "the right tool for the job". So then,
why are *you* insulted? I wasn't addressing you directly. Should I have?
>
> PS: I offer as proof Frank Klausz's video "Making Mortise and Tenon Joints."
> In the tape, he makes them with a chisel, mallet and saw. He also makes
> them with a plunge router and tablesaw. He also thems them with a drill
> press (hollow chisel) and bandsaw. Obviously, Frank isn't a hand tool
> purist, and doesn't regard power tools as evil.
Nobody said Frank was a hand tool purist, and if you really think
the meaning of my article is that power tools are evil, then your
reading comprehension is gone. Read Tom's followup to this
thread. Read Carl's. Read Art's. Heck, read *anybody's*. Most got the
message (and maybe even a chuckle), but you didn't. Why am I not
surprised? I offer as proof, the many other responses that matched
the less-than-serious tenor of the original article, and agreed that a
single-minded approach is flawed. Oh shoot, there I go, held hostage
by public opinion again.
Bennett, you seem to prefer the approach of dogged, point-by-point,
pseudo-logical, quasi-academic, nitpicking argument, instead of
grasping an overall concept. I suppose my article would have better
served the oppressed public, had I just entitled it:
"Narrow-minded woodworking methods limit your possibilities",
wrote, "Please don't do this!", and left it at that. Of course, that
wouldn't have been nearly as interesting, as you would have had only
one line to rebutt. I'm sure you could have pulled it off, though.
O'Deen
Just say Nothing like a rebuttal from Bennett to get things cooking.
Ed Bennett
Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
: After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,
: and following the yeoman efforts of Chris Solar making tapered
: legs, I've come to the conclusion that power tools are
: indeed evil.
: They are in many cases, a necessary evil (much as cars, freeways,
: trains, planes and automobiles are), and I bear no ill will
: against those who use, or prefer them even. But yes, they are
: evil. Why? Aside from the usual rhetoric, (Noisy vs. Quiet,
: Clouds of Dust vs. Shavings, Norm vs. Frank) I believe power
: tools, and the way most people are taught woodworking, stunts
: your growth. It narrows your approach, creativity, experience,
: and your mind, as it applies to woodworking, and to life in general.
<snip lots of stuff>
Some people work wood because they enjoy the process of cutting and
fitting. Others gain their greatest joy in the finished product and find
the shortest path to this end (ie power tools). To say that one person's
growth is being stunted, or he is narrow minded in his approach, or less
creative, or inexperienced is complete BALDERDASH!
Would you require everyone to first learn how to shoe a horse before they
learn to drive a car? Would you require all engineering students to learn
how to use a slide rule? Do all doctors need to learn how to get by
without X-ray machines or anestetics? Do we all need to learn how to use
a forge before we learn how to use a knife? Are you going to make farmers
learn how to drive oxen to plow a field? I think you're looking up from
the deep end after having fallen off.
Some newer technologies make older technologies less useful. Some people
enjoy shoeing horses, using slide rules, etc. But that doesn't mean that
only the good drivers with open and creative minds know how to shoe a
horse. I'd venture to say that most of the engineers that insist on
using a slide rule aren't necessarily the best. And how many of us would
go to a doctor that insisted that real medicine was practiced by those
that didn't need X-ray machines and anestetics? Personally, if I were
going to pay someone to have my kitchen cabinets re-done I'd probably
avoid any shop that refused to use power tools (unless they were willing
to compete in both quality and cost with the other shops).
It's not the tool that makes the craftsman, it's the crafted product. The
choice of modern vs ancient tools should have no bearing on design,
creativity, quality, excellence or any other factor that goes into the end
product. Choose the tools you like to use and quit complaining about the
tools that others like to use.
--
----------
Ed Bennett
e...@primenet.com
Inventor of TS-Aligner
(Not an advertisement, just a fact)
Dave Marulli
Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
>After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,
>and following the yeoman efforts of Chris Solar making tapered
>legs, I've come to the conclusion that power tools are
>indeed evil.
>
>They are in many cases, a necessary evil (much as cars, freeways,
>trains, planes and automobiles are), and I bear no ill will
>against those who use, or prefer them even. But yes, they are
>evil. Why? Aside from the usual rhetoric, (Noisy vs. Quiet,
>Clouds of Dust vs. Shavings, Norm vs. Frank) I believe power
>tools, and the way most people are taught woodworking, stunts
>your growth. It narrows your approach, creativity, experience,
>and your mind, as it applies to woodworking, and to life in general.
>
Woodwright's Shop: Power tools are completely acceptable if the
power is supplied by the person using the tools.
We simply need to get back to using leg-powered bandsaws and table saws,
and we will have the best of both worlds.
>Oh, sorry, must have dozed off. Uhhhh power tools suck,
>hand tools rule. ;^)
>O'Deen
Keep on pumping.
Claudio Chuaqui
Wow, couldn't resist throwing my two cents in here...
I can just relate my own experiences that have taken me
from complete woodworking /dev/null to budding neanderthal.
In my opinion the problem is lack of information -- the big
picture view -- so someone like me, who knew nothing, can
make an informed decision. I started off by going to the
bookstore and buying the simplest book I could find, Cabinetry
Basics (I think), by Sam Allen. From that book I was left with
the impression that all cabinet making consists of dowelled together
MDF...I still have the dowelling jig to prove it. I thought, whoa,
this can't be right so I took a night school course. From that
I was left with the impression that handtools are historical
artifacts, now useless...I asked the instructor about dovetails
several times and was told "get a router...". Luckily I stumbled onto
rec.ww and listened in on some heated arguments much like those
on this thread and caught on that there are other options. People on
this group were very helpful and pointed me towards the Krenov books,
old tool dealers, etc., and eventually handtool techniques.
This was the kind of woodworking experience I was after all along.
I'm not saying it's for everyone, but give it a try.
Just a long way to say that from personal experience, there
is definately *not* a balanced supply of information
out there, and it is easy to completely miss the handtool
boat altogeter.
I am very thankful that people like the Patricks and Steve Spodaryk
(to name a few) were there to balance things out a bit. So keep
arguing, it might help someone else who is as clued out as I was.
Claudio
Bud Noren
Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
: Wake up, people! Let's get back to nature. Let's get
: back to woodworking as God intended it....
Absolutely, Mr. O! Except God didn't make hand planes either, or was that
what He was doing on Sunday? Earlier in the week He got busy making oceans,
rocks, people, etc. It is therefore obvious that He intended us to work with
crude stone implements. In fact, archeological digs bear this out. We got
sidetracked sometime around the bronze age and it only got worse from there.
Now we're flogging electrons! I think we ought to go back, all the way back,
to the days when you'd grab your favorite hunk of flint and squat in the
dirt (in your back yard or wherever) with a tree and start whacking!
Those were the days when men were men! Or at least hominids of some kind.
-Bud
mike....@software.rockwell.com
Ed Bennett <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
...
: They are in many cases, a necessary evil (much as cars, freeways,
>: trains, planes and automobiles are), and I bear no ill will
>: against those who use, or prefer them even. But yes, they are
>: evil. Why? Aside from the usual rhetoric, (Noisy vs. Quiet,
>: Clouds of Dust vs. Shavings, Norm vs. Frank) I believe power
>: tools, and the way most people are taught woodworking, stunts
>: your growth. It narrows your approach, creativity, experience,
>: and your mind, as it applies to woodworking, and to life in general.
><snip lots of stuff>
>Some people work wood because they enjoy the process of cutting and
>fitting. Others gain their greatest joy in the finished product and find
>the shortest path to this end (ie power tools). To say that one person's
>growth is being stunted, or he is narrow minded in his approach, or less
>creative, or inexperienced is complete BALDERDASH!
Well, I've found (much to my surprise) that some of the hand tool
methods are at least as quick and effective (at least until you factor
in the sharpening time) as the power methods. Scrapers as opposed to
sandpaper, under most of the circumstances that come up in my shop,
are a good example.
And I very much regret having gone power first. I'd be way ahead in
terms of experience, tool collection, quality of product, and money,
had I known that a plane isn't ready to use when you peel off the
shrinkwrap.
Bad initial experiences and absolutely no training or guidance (except
for helping my dad build a house - all power tools there) meant I went
with what I could understand and see on TV and read about in magazines
(mainly WOOD). Yup, power. As much as I could afford.
I had a woodworking magazine come in a couple of days ago. The
featured article is about getting started with a _mere_ $500 set of
tools. Now, as a guy who has a decent day job, $500 is an amount I can
reasonably come up with if I know it's for something I'm going to get
good use out of, and I don't have a rough month, and the kids don't
need new shoes for a while. But that's a lot of money for a lot of
people, especialy for somebody who isn't sure if they have any talent.
For a lot less, with a little guidance, somebody could put together a
set of reasonably good hand tools and have cash left over for decent
wood (skip the 2X4 phase, go straight to cherry - cool). And probably
better resale options if it didn't work out.
Jimbone
Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
>Bennett Leeds writes:
>>
>Giant over-analysis deleted<
I don't intend to minimize your arguments, perhaps just add a little
perspective.
I am 31 and have been a woodworking hobbyist for a few years now. I
probably (and undesirebly) fall into the "Yuppie-Hobbyist" category.
Although I will vehemently deny such a label in person.
I, though, am lucky that my Grandfather and to a lesser extent, my
father were trained and experienced craftsman, in wood and metal, so I
have had the opportunity to experience the use of some very fine
handtools that I hope to oneday be the caretaker of.
I believe the present use of power tools and dis-use of hand tools
falls to a couple of really simple factors.
1. GOOD handtools are difficult to come by and are not necessarily
less expensive than their powered counterparts, in fact, where you
might get away with 1 sander, you may use 3 planes. You will also
burn more wood practicing and making mistakes in learning how to use
these tools. We all know what wood costs these days.
2. There are very few places that you can learn the proper care and
use of these tools, and fewer people that will teach proper
techniques.
I admit to enjoying watching ww shows on the tube. But for me, I
believe the most important thing I can learn from them is that there
are many ways to do the same thing. A good woodworker is creative at
creating solutions to problems of maybe not having the exact percise
correct tool, but can overcome it with ingenuity.
As a hobbyist, I learn what good quality workmanship is all about, and
can make more informed decisions when buying furniture and the like.
If I ever get to possess all of these tools that are available to me,
I hope that I will be able to find someone willing to teach me the
proper use of them. I am looking forward to it.
Jimbone.
ANNE B. WATSON
Money comes in different shapes. As folks move in to condo's there is less
room for a hobby like woodworking. I ended up buying a rental with a carport
and small building (which I enlarged to double the origional size) so
I could have some sort of wood shop.
That is why I am surprised that renting time in a woodshop has not become
more popular. Even with the insurance costs figured in. Some of the
retirement communities are including a craft/woodshop as part of their
amenities. Sounds like a good idea to me.
In my younger days no one ever worried about a little sawdust- just
sweep it up and add it to the garbage can. Now all you read about
are fancy systems to get rid of chips and dust before it gets 2 inches
from the machine. Strange times we live in.
--
This Q@A has been sent to http://www.aye.net/~hbk and http://
www.cnl.com.au/~hbk for inclusion in one of a host of FAQ's being
compiled on most every woodworking topic discussed here and in the
real world as I & the 11 other contributing pro's encounter them.
Patrick Leach
Ed Bennett <e...@primenet.com>, predictably responds:
<snip of horses, sliderules, and X-rays>
>It's not the tool that makes the craftsman, it's the crafted product. The
>choice of modern vs ancient tools should have no bearing on design,
>creativity, quality, excellence or any other factor that goes into the end
>product. Choose the tools you like to use and quit complaining about the
>tools that others like to use.
Tell ya what, Ed, the day you can build a Windsor chair, with power
tools, that's structurally superior to one made with handtools, and the
day you can mechanically process dovetails finer than those wrought by
celibate shaking woodworkers, is the day I'll buy a TS-Aligner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Leach
Just say The usual Branch Normians are circlin' the wagons.
etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Lauer
I have a serious suggestion (a very rare moment for me). There is a lot
of knowledge floating around this newsgroup, both Normites and
Neanderthals. Neither side seems to totally agree with the other. Has
anyone thought about producing a TV show (or video or book) that might
address a happy medium and present a different view of woodworking with a
combination of power and hand tool uses and techniques ???
Perhaps even a suggestion to one of the existing shows (I only see Norm
and Roy Underhill in my area) that they occasionally cover the gap that
exists ? I think I'll be writing a letter myself.
When it's more "practical" to use the power planer - show us how. When
it's "better" to use a hand plane - so us how. I for one would watch,
listen, read, and buy this kind of hybrid woodworking . I'm a product of
my environment - I'd just like to broaden it !
Just a thought........
Lou
--
Lou Lauer
la...@softaid.net
http://www.softaid.net/lauer
WC - # 6, ARCA # 75, Bob Schacht http://www.softaid.net/lauer/bsm.html
MARINO SEGNAN
I followed with real enjoyment all the thread and
I must add my observations:
A lot of people do woodworking to build useful things, so they
are interested in the final result. Power tools enable
a person who has never had manual skills to produce
immediately satisfactory results (instant gratification)
which are often undistinguishable from what you see
in a store, with a minimal learning time.
Some operations are repetitive and have no relation
with the final result. Suppose you want to resaw a 10"
board of some hard tropical wood. How many people would
enjoy to do it by hand instead of using a bandsaw,
considering that you will plane it anyway?
I am personally more interested in spending time in the
design of what I build and experimenting new solutions/techniques
than in the repetitive parts, and use whatever tool gives
good/fast results.
However, when I do not have a detailed design
in my mind, using hand tools, which I find slower because I am
not very good at them, gives my more time to think during
the execution, and allows me to change/refine the design.
For example, I made a spatula of canyon oak for serving at
dinner using only hand saw, chisels, scrapers and it came
out really nice.
It took six hours, compared to probably one with power tools, but
the shape would have been much less elegant.
marino segnan
hau...@mbi.org
In article <4mauig$o...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM> Dave Marulli <mar...@rdcs.kodak.com> writes:
>From: Dave Marulli <mar...@rdcs.kodak.com>
>Subject: Re: Why Power Tools are Evil
>Date: 2 May 1996 18:23:12 GMT
>Od...@CRIS.COM wrote:
>>After reading Carl Muhlhausen wax poetic about Frank Klausz,
>>and following the yeoman efforts of Chris Solar making tapered
>>legs, I've come to the conclusion that power tools are
>>indeed evil.
>>
Dave writes:
>The answer to the dilemma is quite simple and can be seen on the
>Woodwright's Shop: Power tools are completely acceptable if the
>power is supplied by the person using the tools.
>We simply need to get back to using leg-powered bandsaws and table saws,
>and we will have the best of both worlds.
Hmmm. Don't see any smiley's, so, can I safely assume you transport yourself
and your family under your own power? Do you chop wood and heat your house
without gas, and did you remove your electrical hookup completely? If not,
you are a first-rate hypocrite.
Rich
Just say I DO transport myself with my own power, but I would never suggest
that those who don't are not 'acceptable'.
Steve Bryant
In article <960502181...@viking.cris.com>, Od...@CRIS.COM writes:
>Nobody said Frank was a hand tool purist, and if you really think
>the meaning of my article is that power tools are evil, then your
>reading comprehension is gone. Read Tom's followup to this
>thread. Read Carl's. Read Art's. Heck, read *anybody's*. Most got the
>message (and maybe even a chuckle), but you didn't. Why am I not
>surprised? I offer as proof, the many other responses that matched
>the less-than-serious tenor of the original article, and agreed that a
>single-minded approach is flawed. Oh shoot, there I go, held hostage
>by public opinion again.
>
>Bennett, you seem to prefer the approach of dogged, point-by-point,
>pseudo-logical, quasi-academic, nitpicking argument, instead of
>grasping an overall concept. I suppose my article would have better
>served the oppressed public, had I just entitled it:
>"Narrow-minded woodworking methods limit your possibilities",
>wrote, "Please don't do this!", and left it at that. Of course, that
>wouldn't have been nearly as interesting, as you would have had only
>one line to rebutt. I'm sure you could have pulled it off, though.
>
>O'Deen
>
>Just say Nothing like a rebuttal from Bennett to get things cooking.
Chuckle, snort.
Keep up the interesting posts O'Deen!
Bennett Leeds
Patrick Olguin writes:
> Rejoice and be glad, Bennett, it requires a sense of humor.
> not surprised?
> yuppie-bastardom.
I'm disappointed that you've turned this thread into a personal attack
against me. Even I thought you'd come up with something better.
> > In England of the past, there were
> > laws with serious penalties limiting woodworkers to specific fields, such
> > as timber joinery, cabinetmaking, etc. Luckily, we've had a new breed of
> > woodworker: Frank Klausz, Tage Frid, James Krenov, Toshio Odate and
> > others.
>
> New breed? These guys, along with other FWW editors, have been around for
> a generation.
One would think that someone into "old tools" as much as you would regard
anyone still living as downright newfangled. How many years has it been
that these guys have been teaching via magazines, books, or videos? How
does that compare to how many centuries humans have worked wood? In context
to the "England of the past" (you did read that part, didn't you?) they are
a new breed.
But, thanks for the nit-picking - it certainly got us off of my point of
how it was partially the protective nature of past woodworkers that caused
many techniques to almost die off. And, getting us off *my* points in *your*
thread is what your reply is all about, isn't it?
> Now, as evidenced by the slow transmogrification of FWW into a slicked-up
> version of TCN's catalog (just read the last few issues' letters to the
> editor)
Ironic you should mention this: maybe you should read the articles instead
of the letters: the latest FWW has a brief article on how to flatten a board
too wide for your jointer/planer by hand - the very thing that made hand
tooling click for you. Who knows - maybe there's some budding Patrick
out there without a computer who just read that article and tried it with
his dad's old plane.
> Norm's show is a net disservice to the budding woodworker.
You've no argument from me on that. We just attribute it to different
things. Too bad agreeing with Bennett is bad PR for you.
> But, the "great unwashed" might infer from the article that power tools
> are the *only* thing one uses on a bench such as Norm's.
You're stretching way too far on this: postulating what others might infer.
If you're worried that TOH mag is only going to promote power tools,
you've got better fodder to write about than the inclusion of a workbench
in a photo. As your 1900 line reply indicates, my guess is I've touched
a nerve.
> > Back to the point, the difference between Norm and Frank is not related to
> > power tools at all.
>
> You are dead wrong. It's ALL about power tools, and a single-minded
> approach to woodworking.
It's not about power tools - it's ONLY about a single-minded approach to
woodworking. What bothers me are your comments that the former inextricably
leads to the latter.
> Norm's woodworking is continually hampered by his power-only approach.
As is Roy Underhill's with his hand tool only approach. We can compare
and contrast the two, but that's another thread - preferably one without
your personal attacks.
> I never said hand toolers are vastly superior.
True, you just said people using power tools are "yuppie bastard, self-
agrandizing, instantly-gratified milksops" who know nothing about hand
tool techniques. A worn-out, prejudiced generalization at best, no matter
how much humor you attempt to bring to it.
> > We ain't gonna help people learning the craft from Norm if we insult them
> > as "yuppie-bastard milksops," even in jest. Back someone into a corner and
> > they'll snap back. You'll not teach them anything. You won't learn
> > anything from them, either.
>
> Funny, I didn't drag your good name into this thread, but right away, you
> backed into your favorite defensive corner and started snapping.
Snapping? You need to learn not to snap back when someone makes a suggestion
not to insult others, Patrick. Assuming you didn't want your post to be
just preaching to the converted, you should have realized that the pro-Norm
crowd doesn't take kindly to being made fun of - you've been here long
enough.
> I know you use hand tools, and that you use "the right tool for the job".
> So then, why are *you* insulted? I wasn't addressing you directly.
Not everyone thinks only of themselves, Patrick. I don't need to sit
quietly while you insult others. I wasn't insulted then. I am now.
> It's noble of you to be so serious, while I "protect" myself with my
> tongue-in-cheek style.
Get off your high horse, Patrick. "Protect" was your word, in a post or
email of yours. It was *you* who said that humor was your protection.
That you attempt to turn it on me now indicates how low you've sunk.
> I offer as proof, the many other responses that matched the
> less-than-serious tenor of the original article, and agreed that a
> single-minded approach is flawed.
Are you "less-than-serious" that a single-minded approach is flawed? Nope.
So, are you also less-than-serious that power tools "stunts your growth,
narrows your approach, creativity?" Are you less-than-serious when in this
thread you insist that "It's ALL about power tools?" If the answer isn't
also "no," then why are *you* so defensive?
Of course, this is by design. You get the nay-sayers in a catch-22. You get
to denigrate power tool users, but when called on it, you get to accuse
them of lacking a sense of humor. Clever, but transparent. I'm just brave
enough to call you on it.
Oh, that I didn't respond with an emulation your tired cliches about
manifestos and Montana is my choice. Debate it on rec.writing.style,
not here.
> Most got the message (and maybe even a chuckle), but you didn't.
It's too bad you can't understand anyone who doesn't post back with a
"me too" or a "no way" post. Sorry, but not all of use want to be pigeon-
holed by you.
> > So, to those that want, go ahead, back me into a corner. See where it
> > gets me or you.
Felling better after your weekly Bennett bashing? I knew you would.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
"rec.ww's whipping boy."
Douglas Rand
MARINO SEGNAN (marino...@Sun.COM) wrote:
: A lot of people do woodworking to build useful things, so they
: are interested in the final result. Power tools enable
: a person who has never had manual skills to produce
: immediately satisfactory results (instant gratification)
: which are often undistinguishable from what you see
: in a store, with a minimal learning time.
There is a persistent mistake made in this group that power tools
enable the unskilled to do skilled work. While I'd be the first
person to agree that power tools make it much easier to do accurate
work, they only do so for those who already have most or all of the
requisite skill needed to do the job by hand.
Another point often missed is that if one does want repeatable hand
work, past certain things done purely for the skill such as hand
dovetails, there is often a special purpose tool. c.f. the hundreds
of individual planes used to produce custom mouldings and raised
panels. Hand work, per se, does not equate to work which is only
dependent on the hand-eye coordination of the tool user. Few of us
would be willing or able to make a flat board using a fishtail gouge.
We use planes, because it is easier to make a flat surface that way,
and surely a purist could argue that there are other ways, requiring
greater skill, but producing an inferior produce, which where used in
days of yore.
Certainly an unskilled woodworker can make mountains of shavings with
power tools more quickly than with hand tools. But get out of this
power tools make an unskilled person able to do skilled work viewpoint.
They don't.
All of this is not to say that there is not a certain pleasure in doing
things by hand. More power to those with the leisure time to do so. But
don't sneer at my brand of woodworking, where I must have results in
less time.
Doug
--
Doug Rand <dr...@sgi.com> (508) 567 - 2217
Silicon Graphics http://reality.sgi.com/employees/drand
Disclaimer: These are my views, SGI's views are in 3D
Chris Solar
mike....@software.rockwell.com wrote:
: Ed Bennett <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
[snip]
: >Some people work wood because they enjoy the process of cutting and
: >the shortest path to this end (ie power tools). To say that one person's
: >growth is being stunted, or he is narrow minded in his approach, or less
: >creative, or inexperienced is complete BALDERDASH!
: Well, I've found (much to my surprise) that some of the hand tool
: methods are at least as quick and effective (at least until you factor
: in the sharpening time) as the power methods. Scrapers as opposed to
: sandpaper, under most of the circumstances that come up in my shop,
: are a good example.
I agree, and I think that's what Patrick (O'Deen?) was really getting
at: that there's this whole group of people who think that the
only way to do something is with a power tool. I don't consider
that to be evil, just unfortunate.
In my case, I'm tapering table legs. This seemed intimidating
before -- I thought I'd need a table saw with a jig or a band saw
or a router with a jig or a jointer with a jig...in general,
some big power tool plus a jig. Complicated. It was actually quite
surprising to me when I realized that all I has to do was draw a
couple of lines, use a hand saw, and then spend a couple of minutes
planing.
Sure, the hand sawing was tedious, but I've got a lousy saw.
Sure, I could have cut a taper on a table saw in 5 seconds, but
that doesn't include the time building and setting up the
jig, the money spent on the saw, the power, the dust collector,
etc. etc. When you add it all up, doing it by hand wasn't really
any slower for someone like me who does one-offs as a hobby.
If I made a living out of tapered table legs, then without
a doubt I'd get a table saw or whatever.
--
Christopher Solar NORTEL (613) 763-2862
Opinions are my own and do not necessarily ...you get the idea.
Jack Flatley
MARINO SEGNAN <marino...@Sun.COM> wrote:
>I followed with real enjoyment all the thread and
>I must add my observations:
>A lot of people do woodworking to build useful things, so they
>are interested in the final result. Power tools enable
>a person who has never had manual skills to produce
>immediately satisfactory results (instant gratification)
>which are often undistinguishable from what you see
>in a store, with a minimal learning time.
< snipped some good stuff >
>marino segnan
I, too, have enjoyed this thread. And now let me throw my 2 senses (cents,
that's a pun!) in the fray.
Marino (nice name if you're a Dolphin fan) makes an excellent point when he
states that one's objective or final result in woodworking will determine
technique. One's objective can be design, function, personal relaxation,
diversion, challenge, or skills development for instance. Or I think, some
combination or mix of these objectives.
Most outspoken or opinionated people tend to take extreme positions.
Folks, woodworking is not binary. This discussion seems to debate whether
hand tools are more divine than power tools.
I have seen this kind of debate rage in many fields. Road racing versus
oval racing. Fly fishing versus bait fishing. Carrying your golf bag
versus a pull cart. Sprint races versus marathons. Free flight model
airplanes versus u-control. Literary classics versus detective novels.
PBS versus broadcast TV. Lawyers versus prosititutes. (hey, just kidding,
don't sue me. I'll pick on lawers but I won't touch religion!) There are
many more fields were one side or the other feels annointed. One term used
to refer to these "annointed" is purist. They feel they answer to a higher
calling. They consider the rest of us unwashed masses.
If the people taking these extreme positions, feel one way or another is
the only way to go, that's great! That's their right. That's their
privilage. It also, makes for great heated debates on whether mine is
bigger than yours. What I take exception to, is when people with these
rather firm positions try to humble, insult, ridicule or put down people
from the other side of the coin. That should be a moral or ethical no-no.
As I stated above woodworking is not binary. In reality, at least my
reality, the folks I know use some and varied mix of hand tools and power
tools. There is NO universal right way to do things. The techniques to
complete a task depend on the resources that are available and what the
objective is. Those resources not only include various hand and power
tools, but time, skill, ability, knowledge education and money. The
objective could be to just build a table, to provide stress relief or
relaxation, to enhance manual skills, to provide artistic expression, to
earn a living or supplement income, to save money, etc. Just like
woodworking is not binary, neither are objectives or resources. This
blending of resources and objectives should be what determines how
something is done. If one of the objectives is some esoteric satisfaction,
that's fine. That's fine for each individual and may not be for everyone.
At a recent Arts & Crafts show I saw a woodturner whose work included
colored resin cast in place in natural holes and voids in the wood and
turned in place. Does such mixed media offend a purist turner? Judging by
his sales, people liked his work and sales were good. (I think making a
living from his work, was one of his key objectives.)
Again, Marino's point is key. What's the objective?
"Of course, that just my opinion, I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
"You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is!" - Jack
Flatley
Jack Flatley
Jacksonville, Florida
Doug Dawson
[ An entire thread, provoked and tamped. ]
Let us now kiss the lightning rod of our inspired discontent...
If Norm Abram wanted to do something truly innovative and
original, why wouldn't he just pull out a bench plane and
put it to some serious use in doing some critical task in
a project? E.g., surfacing a wide board. Yeah, I know,
he pulled out a block plane once to ease some corners,
yadda yadda yadda; don't try to pawn that off on us, we
all know it's bullshit.
I never fully accepted that such an uncommonly appropriate
thing in woodworking could be so _studiously_ _avoided_!
This is Norm's next, perhaps finest, frontier. It's up to
you, Dear Readers, to blow your minds inside out trying to
figure some reason why it should not be so.
Doug Dawson
daw...@physics.utexas.edu
Lane Romel
I think we have a person with a little common sense. With the money that
Norm makes he can afford the very best that money can buy. Personnally I
do not have the skill or the patience to use manual methods since it is
just a hobby if I can't do it with a power tool I don't build it. At the
same time I have great appreciation for those who can and the products
they make. I gues to each his own . As well Norm caters to amature wood
workers who are by far the most prevalent not to people who already know
how to do it. He needs a lot of people to watch the show to make it
financially viable. In that spirit I think he does a good job.
Ed Bennett
Patrick,
Will that be Visa or MasterCard? :)
Seriously,
I don't see the relationship between structural integrity and handtools. Is
this, like, some kind-of mystical sort-of thing, like, man?
And wow! Like, I've never seen a dovetail saw that cut as fine as a a good
sharp router bit, man. And you'd have to do some awsome chislen' to leave no
tool marks dude! Power tools can be pretty fine.
- Ed Bennett
- Inventor of the TS-Aligner
- (switched newsreaders and lost my .sig)
Paul Lalonde
In article <318DAC...@primenet.com>, Ed Bennett <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>I don't see the relationship between structural integrity and handtools. Is
>this, like, some kind-of mystical sort-of thing, like, man?
There is a relationship, in certain types of construction.
In the case of a windsor chair the work MUST follow the grain in order
to get maximum strenght from thin parts. Power tools are particularly
bad at following grain in a reasonable way, leading to weaker members,
or a need for thicker members.
>And wow! Like, I've never seen a dovetail saw that cut as fine as a a good
>sharp router bit, man.
I'll argue this one. I can make a really fine, smooth kerf with my
saw. The thinnest kerf I've seen on a router is about 1/8". But I
think you are refering the cut tails, and I'll warant I can do as good
a job with my saw and chisels as you can with your router.
> And you'd have to do some awsome chislen' to leave no
>tool marks dude! Power tools can be pretty fine.
I make a lot of fine furniture with hand tools. And I don't leave
tool marks. Further I challenge you to find tool marks on the good
faces (the ones that matter) of 17th, 18th, and 19th century pieces.
As for carved things, carvings ARE tool marks. So there.
Paul, who uses his table saw and bandsaw, and owns a router,
but gets so much more use out of his handtools.
Internet: lal...@cs.ubc.ca
Web: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/lalonde/homepage.html
"On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible aux yeux"
- Antoine de St.-Exupery
Glen A. Smith
Tom Perigrin waxes poetic:
>When I am interested in generate "mood", then I put down the power tools,
>and pick up the planes, the hand drills, the bow saws... I take a board
>with wonderful figure from the woodpile... A board that I have been
>saving 10 to 20 years. I examine the grain. I plan the work. I consider
>and meditate on how the final result will look. I make the first cut, and
>as I am cutting it with a bow saw, I get to watch the interaction of wood
>and metal. The gentle zzzzsh, zzzzsh as the blade cuts the wood. I clamp
>the board in my bench, and I plane the edges... long curls of wood peel
>off the board. Each curl caresses my hand as it leaves the plane... it
>feels like the hair of the long haired women of my youth. The odor of wood
>and nostalgia waft around me... I sight along the board... it is flat,
>it is sharp, it is nearly perfect... I run my fingers over the surface...
>the slight undulations, invisiable to the eye tease my senses. It is a
>complex surface, with life and movement, not a dead plane created by a
>screaming metal behemouth.
>
>I clean up the shavings, and crumble them in my hands... I feel the give
>and the resistance, and I think about the springs and summers and rains and
>winds and sun upon the tree. I smell the wood, and smell the odors locked
>deep within a tree that no-one but a woodworker will smell. Not the
>squirell, not the person who buys a finished product covered with
>polyurine... my smell, a hidden smell, a woodworkers smell.
>
Tom, and all the others who post from the neader point of view.
I want to thank you all for convincing me to take the plane that
my Father gave me from his shop out of the toolbox. With help
from this newsgroup and some of the FAQ's (esp. the Scary
Sharp (tm) info). I have taken apart the plane and sharpened the
blade, learned about the different parts and what can be expected
from a properly tuned plane.
My plane is now used instead of taking up room in my toolbox,
it is no longer a chunk of steel and wood surrounded in Black
Magic. No longer is it a tool that I am scared to use. I
remember asking to help my Father and Grandfather plane a
blurfl, and my Father saying "Sorry Glen, even I let your Grandpa
do the planing." I remember being satisfied with that response
and happy to play with the pretty curls of wood that Gramps made.
Smelling them and trying to make them stay flat. Thanks for
bringing that memory to the front of my brain with your note.
Dad and I made a lot of stuff together over the years, mostly with
power tools, I hope to be more able to balance hand and power tools
with my kids when I have them.
And my wife wonders why when I get home, I give her a kiss and
sit down with my new plane and some SC sandpaper, half close my
eyes, slide it around and smile.
Glen A. Smith Raleigh, North Carolina
Lets face it, If this posting was the official position of my employer -
it would be so filled with leagalese as to be unreadable. I don't speak
for them and they certainly don't speak for me.
Bennett Leeds
Mike Weaver writes:
> People flip on the tube and see Norm workin' with a shop of tools that
> most [IMHO] cannot afford and almost *instantly* figure they need all
Why don't those same people watch the very next half hour and see Roy and
then realize they don't need any of it?
> There's never even a mention....
> [Obviously Roy Underhill, etc are excepted from this sentiment]
Well excuse me, but in my book you can't except out Roy when talking about
Norm. Both have woodworking shows on PBS, often run back to back. Why is
Norm so much more influential than Roy?
Is it because unlike Roy, Norm believes in editing (is editing a Neanderthal
no-no?). So, after watching both shows, the viewers get to decide if they
want to build a desk finished with polyurethane or two not completed wood
puppets finished with some blood spots. ;^)
> The ironic part *isn't* that it's used for power tool woodoworking
> as much as it's used *exclusively* for power tool woodworking.
Norm uses power tools exclusively on his workbench because his show is
about using power tools exclusively. You can attack that premise as not
being appropriate (been there, done that) all you want, but it doesn't
make him using a workbench ironic. It just shows how important a workbench
is no matter what kind of woodworking you are, and how little improvement
has been made on them over the years.
> There *is* something more special about tuning a #4 than a bandsaw.
1. Don't confuse tuning with using. Depending on how you feel about it,
there's even a difference between tuning and adjusting. But, I'm OK
with combining those if you want.
2. Let's compare tuning:
With a plane, you might have to remove some rust.
With a bandsaw, you might have to remove some rust.
With a plane, you might have to flatten the sole.
With a bandsaw, you might have to align the wheels to be coplaner.
With a plane, you might have to adjust the frog to get a smaller opening.
With a bandsaw, you might have to adjust the rip fence to compensate for
lead.
With a plane, you have to adjust the chipbreaker whenever you take the
blade out.
With a bandsaw, you have to adjust the guides whenever you take the blade
out.
With a plane, you might have to grind a new bevel on the blade.
With a bandsaw, well, oh my gosh, you're right: grinding a new bevel is one
of the ultimate joys of metal-, uh, I mean, wood-working.
3. Let's compare using.
Much has been written about the experience of planing. Tom writes poetry
about the surface left behind. Well, if you've ever resawn a wide board
only to discover a grain pattern on the inside that is now not only
book-matched, but is actually better than the patterns on either face,
you've experienced what to me is an equivalent joy of discovery.
Realize that different people will rank different aspects of woodworking
differently.
> Just say - you'd know about this if you had experienced it.
Beware of assumptions. Go ask Paddy for a copy of my Norris plane review
of not too long ago, and then say that I haven't experienced hand plane
nirvana. As for what I know about hand plane tuning, read my comments on
tuning Japanese hand planes in that post. Then come back here about what
I've experienced.
If anything, it would appear you've got some cool bandsaw experiences in
your future. My advice would be to not let power-tool prejudice prevent
you from enjoying them.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
Just say If all woodworking was was hand-planing and tuning hand planes
many of us would have gotten bored a long time ago.
Ed Bennett
Paul Lalonde <lal...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
: There is a relationship, in certain types of construction.
: In the case of a windsor chair the work MUST follow the grain in order
: to get maximum strenght from thin parts. Power tools are particularly
: bad at following grain in a reasonable way, leading to weaker members,
: or a need for thicker members.
Excuse me, Paul, but this does sound like some sort of mystical thing.
You're talking to a guy that knows a thing or two about materials science
and machining. Go ahead and tell me exactly what parts need to be cut
with hand tools in order to be stronger. And, while you're at it, explain
to me exactly what it is about power tools that make it impossible to
obtain the same results.
I understand that both the resistance to shearing forces and the tensile
strength of wood vary greatly depending on the orientation of the grain.
Are you saying that using a chisel or spokeshave makes it easier to
"follow the grain" and therefore you get a stronger piece? I'm not sure
what kind of power tools you're thinking of but I have no trouble
orienting the grain for maximum strength. I don't think that this is a
question of hand tools or power tools. I suppose that if your spokeshave
automaticly follows the grain (weather you want it to or not) you have to
do less thinking in the process. However, the claim was that certain
things MUST be done with hand tools or they won't be as strong. I still
think the claim is completely bogus.
: I'll argue this one. I can make a really fine, smooth kerf with my
: saw. The thinnest kerf I've seen on a router is about 1/8". But I
: think you are refering the cut tails, and I'll warant I can do as good
: a job with my saw and chisels as you can with your router.
Like I said, I've never seen a dovetail saw (or any hand saw) that left as
smooth a surface as a good sharp router bit. Maybe you've got one that
does. It would be the first one that I've ever heard of.
I wouldn't be surprised to see you cut dovetails as good a router. In
fact, I might even be hard pressed to tell the difference between your
hand cut dovetails and my router cut dovetails. But, I bet you'll be
working on it long after the noise is gone and the dust has settled. And
then what would you have for all your work? Hand cut dovetails that were
as good as router cut dovetails. Anybody looking at them wouldn't be able
to tell the difference.
: I make a lot of fine furniture with hand tools. And I don't leave
: tool marks. Further I challenge you to find tool marks on the good
: faces (the ones that matter) of 17th, 18th, and 19th century pieces.
: As for carved things, carvings ARE tool marks. So there.
: Paul, who uses his table saw and bandsaw, and owns a router,
: but gets so much more use out of his handtools.
I don't doubt that you make a lot of fine furniture. I admire your use
and skill with hand tools. You might even gain a great deal of
satisfaction from using your hand tools over your power tools. That's
great! I don't want to minimize that at all. You'd be surprised to learn
that I own a bunch of hand tools too. And that I enjoy using them as
well. And I've made some pretty nice pieces of furniture in my day as
well. I'd probably learn a lot from you about using my hand tools.
However, I just don't take much to myths and folklore.
--
----------
Ed Bennett
e...@primenet.com
Inventor of TS-Aligner
(Not an advertisement, just a fact)
PS: I've seen lots of tool marks on antiques. Some people think it adds
value. I have to admit, I didn't get a chance to look for tool marks on
any of the pieces on display at the Smithsonian.
Scott Post
> Lane Romel wrote:
>
> I think we have a person with a little common sense. With the money that
> Norm makes he can afford the very best that money can buy. Personnally I
> do not have the skill or the patience to use manual methods since it is
> just a hobby if I can't do it with a power tool I don't build it.
>
You might be surprised at what you can do. After reading a couple of books
I was able to put a razor sharp edge on my first hand plane and immediately
got those long, paper thin shavings you hear the neanderthals extolling.
I've only been using hand planes for a month, but I can now smooth a
table top faster with planes and cabinet scrapers than I could with my
random orbital sander - and the surface looks much better. I'm a klutz
from the word go. If I can tune a hand plane anyone can. Not to mention
the price. For the price of a ROS you can get a couple of good hand planes,
a #80 scraper, and a couple of hand scrapers. My investment in sharpening
supplies is counted in pennies - I use automotive sandpaper.
I still do my initial planing with my Delta and I'll still rip my boards
on my table saw, but I'll never again sand a piece of wood. I'm still
waiting for a good dovetail saw to show up at my doorstep, at which time
I'll retire my router's dovetail bits. :-)
--
Scott Post sp...@netusa1.net
George Parrott
led...@elmo.lz.att.com (Carl Muhlhausen LZ 1B-115L x3052) wrote:
Big snip
>
>Not to bring up the Norm bashing thread again, but
>watching FK I couldn't help but think how much
>more people would learn about woodworking if there
>were a "New Hungarian Workshop".
>
My wife, who is into the product but not the production, has even
watched, enjoyed, and participated in positive discussion of FK's
dovetailing and morticing videos. We both agree that a TV show
featuring FK would be highly worthwhile and watchable, even by SWMBO.
George
Doug Dawson
Bennett Leeds <ben...@mv.us.adobe.com> wrote:
>Why don't those same people watch the very next half hour and see Roy and
>then realize they don't need any of it?
I sat around after Norm was done, and all I got was this stupid
gardening show. Then Barney, and I gave up.
>Norm uses power tools exclusively on his workbench because his show is
>about using power tools exclusively.
Ummmm.... Why?
Doug Dawson
daw...@physics.utexas.edu
Doug Dawson
Ed Bennett <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Paul Lalonde <lal...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>: There is a relationship, in certain types of construction.
>: In the case of a windsor chair the work MUST follow the grain in order
>: to get maximum strenght from thin parts. Power tools are particularly
>: bad at following grain in a reasonable way, leading to weaker members,
>: or a need for thicker members.
>Excuse me, Paul, but this does sound like some sort of mystical thing.
>You're talking to a guy that knows a thing or two about materials science
>and machining. Go ahead and tell me exactly what parts need to be cut
>with hand tools in order to be stronger. And, while you're at it, explain
>to me exactly what it is about power tools that make it impossible to
>obtain the same results.
Errrrrrr...
[ tamp of some really, really weird stuff... ]
>I wouldn't be surprised to see you cut dovetails as good a router. In
>fact, I might even be hard pressed to tell the difference between your
>hand cut dovetails and my router cut dovetails.
Might? As good as a router? You're jerking our chain. The
difference between router-cut and hand-cut dovetails is somewhat
more obvious than the difference between a dog and your Buick.
Unless, of course, you're dog is trying to hide behind a Buick...
But then what would be his point in life?.... :-)
If that's not clear enough.....
Doug Dawson please forgive the formatting, I didn't write this code...
daw...@physics.utexas.edu
Don Berry
In article <4mme7p$r...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Ed Bennett
<e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Paul Lalonde <lal...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
<snip of Paul's comments about Windsor chairs>
>Excuse me, Paul, but this does sound like some sort of mystical thing.
>You're talking to a guy that knows a thing or two about materials science
>and machining. Go ahead and tell me exactly what parts need to be cut
>with hand tools in order to be stronger. And, while you're at it, explain
>to me exactly what it is about power tools that make it impossible to
>obtain the same results.
I don't think that strength, per se, is the major issue.
A good Windsor is full of graceful curves, which intersect flat surfaces
or other curves at odd angles. Tapered holes (think "conic sections")
are common. I suppose you could make a whole bunch of jigs to hold curved
pieces in the proper positions relative to the drill press, but an
experienced eye with brace and spoon bits can "line it up and shoot"
pretty fast. Not to mention hollowing the seat, where the 3-D scultping
would require very complicated router templates.... or some handtools and
an "eye".
No, it's not impossible to get similar results with power tools; in the
limit, you could probably machine any shape you want with a CNC mill.
But, if you compare a authentic Windsor with the production-run imitations
you can't miss the sterilty of the latter. In adjusting the design to
meet the limitations of the machinery a lot of "style" gets sacrificed -
angles simplied, curves eliminated or reduced, and thin spindles fattened.
Patrick Leach's comment on Windsor chairs was extremely well chosen for
his argument; few designs would exploit the rectilinear limitations of
most powertools as effectively. That Paddy, he's a sneaky one, alright.
About dovetails:
<snip>
> But, I bet you'll be
>working on it long after the noise is gone and the dust has settled. And
>then what would you have for all your work? Hand cut dovetails that were
>as good as router cut dovetails. Anybody looking at them wouldn't be able
>to tell the difference.
This should not be about whether evenly spaced dovetails cut by hand or by
router are identical. However, many people use dovetails as a decorative
feature, and intentionally choose uneven spacings or extremely fine
tails. These are difficult or impossible to achieve with a router. A
bandsaw might work, but isn't that useful for half blind dovetails.
As far as speed, the beauty of power tools is reproducibility _once the
initial layout/setup is done_. I've heard many people complain about the
difficulties in setting up the various DT jigs. If you can leave it set
for a particular drawer size or whatever, and dedicate a router with the
bit depth set, then the setup is minimal. Otherwise, an experienced
person could probably give you a run for your money in making one drawer
or a few joints.
Overall, I have to agree with Tom Perigrin's analysis here. It's a
matter of what I'm looking to gain from woodworking at a particular
moment: "product" or "mood". However, in my case, I'll admit that there
are times when the precision of my table saw benefits my "mood" as much
(but in a different way) as hand cutting joints or hand planing. Still,
many _recreational_ woodworkers are missing out on some remarkable
experiences by limiting themselves to only powertools.
-Don Berry
--
be...@a.chem.upenn.edu
Larry Jaques
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com(Bennett Leeds) wrote:
>Mike Weaver writes:
>> People flip on the tube and see Norm workin' with a shop of tools that
>> most [IMHO] cannot afford and almost *instantly* figure they need all
>> that sutff to do quality woodworking.
>Why don't those same people watch the very next half hour and see Roy and
>then realize they don't need any of it?
I watch Roy first and know that the stuff Norm shows up with cost
beaucoup bucks and take at _least_ as long to set up unless you have
six of each tool installed, one per bench for each step in the
process. Bullpuckey! I have a garage, not an auditorium.
The kind gent, Mssr. Oertel, sent a b/p of a springpole lathe that I
will be constructing soon, for my more Normite needs to spin things
faster than a brace and bit will accomplish. My evil power tools will
remain in the locked cabinet a month more, thank you.
Neanderly your,
LBJ
P.S.: Blood is one of the few stains I use in my shop. More power to
Roy!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
give me The Luxuries Of Life * Larry Jaques
i can live without the necessities * lja...@diversify.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Perigrin
In article <4mme7p$r...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Ed Bennett
<e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Paul Lalonde <lal...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> : In the case of a windsor chair the work MUST follow the grain in order
> : to get maximum strenght from thin parts. Power tools are particularly
> : bad at following grain in a reasonable way, leading to weaker members,
> : or a need for thicker members.
>
> with hand tools in order to be stronger. And, while you're at it, explain
> to me exactly what it is about power tools that make it impossible to
> obtain the same results.
Did Paul say "impossible"? No, he said "particularly bad".
>
> I understand that both the resistance to shearing forces and the tensile
> strength of wood vary greatly depending on the orientation of the grain.
> Are you saying that using a chisel or spokeshave makes it easier to
> "follow the grain" and therefore you get a stronger piece? I'm not sure
> what kind of power tools you're thinking of but I have no trouble
> orienting the grain for maximum strength.
Orienting the grain sounds like putting the stick in the clamp in the right
orientation. "Following the grain" sounds like following the dips and
bends and twists of the grain.
> question of hand tools or power tools. I suppose that if your spokeshave
> automaticly follows the grain (weather you want it to or not) you have to
> do less thinking in the process. However, the claim was that certain
> things MUST be done with hand tools or they won't be as strong. I still
> think the claim is completely bogus.
Paul didn't make that claim. That is a strawman, with regard to Paul's
posting.
>
> : I'll argue this one. I can make a really fine, smooth kerf with my
> : saw. The thinnest kerf I've seen on a router is about 1/8". But I
> : think you are refering the cut tails, and I'll warant I can do as good
> : a job with my saw and chisels as you can with your router.
>
> Like I said, I've never seen a dovetail saw (or any hand saw) that left as
> smooth a surface as a good sharp router bit. Maybe you've got one that
> does. It would be the first one that I've ever heard of.
Considering the fact that the surfaces are going to be hidden inside the
joint, I don't think "smoothness" matters much once one is smooth enough to
get a good glue joint. However, no router and dovetail jig can make those
delicate dovetails that come to a 1/16" point.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to see you cut dovetails as good a router. In
> fact, I might even be hard pressed to tell the difference between your
> hand cut dovetails and my router cut dovetails. But, I bet you'll be
> working on it long after the noise is gone and the dust has settled. And
> then what would you have for all your work? Hand cut dovetails that were
> as good as router cut dovetails. Anybody looking at them wouldn't be able
> to tell the difference.
Wrong... see above. The delicate dovetails that were a mark of a really
good craftsman are impossible to cut with any current router and jig.
---
If I was smart, I'd have a clever .sig
Tom Perigrin
In article <4mb12q$n...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Ed Bennett
<e...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Would you require everyone to first learn how to shoe a horse before they
> learn to drive a car?
I can do that.
> Would you require all engineering students to learn
> how to use a slide rule?
Learned that in the 5'th grade.
> Do all doctors need to learn how to get by
> without X-ray machines or anestetics?
I'm not that kind of doctor. But actually, it would be nice if a doctor
who arrives at a car-crash scene could do something rather than wring
his/her hands wailing "Oh, if only I had an X-ray machine".
> Do we all need to learn how to use
> a forge before we learn how to use a knife?
Yup. makes shoeing the horse easier, and making reproduction hinges and
hardware.
> Are you going to make farmers
> learn how to drive oxen to plow a field?
Never used Oxen, but I have used a horse drawn plow.
-----
I've worked wood with a stone axe and chisel
I've smelted iron from ore, and carried it through to a chisel
I've felled a tree, and made boards from it
I've made timber framed cottages, and I worked with a thatcher in the UK
I've cast my own cannon barrel, and the carriage, and made the gunpowder
from
saltpeter extracted from manure, sulfur gathered at a volcano, and
charcoal
I made myself, and made the mold to cast the balls (I didn't mine the
lead)
I've made most of my 16'th C reproduction tools
Come on, give me a HARD one!
> Ed Bennett
> e...@primenet.com
> Inventor of TS-Aligner
> (Not an advertisement, just a fact)
Tom Perigrin
Who has never heard of, seen, nor met anyone who has used, TS-Aligner
(not a flame, just a fact)
Larry A. Fisher
Try a Dozuki dovetail saw. I did, and have not used my traditional
english dovetail saw since. You have to see and try to believe just how
beautiful they cut.
Larry Fisher
lafi...@amoco.com
Michael Peele
Ed Bennett wrote:
> Excuse me, Paul, but this does sound like some sort of mystical thing.
> You're talking to a guy that knows a thing or two about materials science
> and machining. Go ahead and tell me exactly what parts need to be cut
> with hand tools in order to be stronger. And, while you're at it, explain
> to me exactly what it is about power tools that make it impossible to
> obtain the same results.
>
> I understand that both the resistance to shearing forces and the tensile
> strength of wood vary greatly depending on the orientation of the grain.
> Are you saying that using a chisel or spokeshave makes it easier to
> "follow the grain" and therefore you get a stronger piece? I'm not sure
> what kind of power tools you're thinking of but I have no trouble
> orienting the grain for maximum strength. I don't think that this is a
> question of hand tools or power tools. I suppose that if your spokeshave
> automaticly follows the grain (weather you want it to or not) you have to
> do less thinking in the process. However, the claim was that certain
> things MUST be done with hand tools or they won't be as strong. I still
> think the claim is completely bogus.
Well Edd since you are "a guy that knows a thing or two about materials
science and machining" let me explain a thing about making Winsor
chairs.
First and formost the strength Patrick(MoA) is reffering to is not
gained
from the finishing of the chair with handtools, but from the preperation
of
the stock with hand tools. Legs, spindles, strechers and crest rails
made
from "split out stock" will be much stronger than "sawn stock".
Sawn stock is inferior for "Winsor chair construction" even if you use a
hand
saw. Notice I said Winsor chair construction and not all chair
construction.
Split out stock can be bent and "straightened" with better results and
yes
strength than sawn stock. Straighting is what you do when your spoke
shave
follows the grain weather you want it to or not. You use a very
primivite
tool for this process, fire.
Michael Peele
Inventor of nothing
Humble builder of a few Winsor chairs
Bennett Leeds
Doug Dawson writes:
> Bennett Leeds wrote:
> > Why don't these same people watch the very next half hour and see Roy
> > then realize they don't need any of it?
>
> gardening show. Then Barney, and I gave up.
Are you implying that Norm gets substantially more air time than Roy? Or
are you just informing us that those who didn't think to tune in a half
hour earlier, or pay attention to the commercials run before and after
Norm advertising The Woodwright's Shop, are doomed to a life of power tool
woodworking?
So, was Norm your only source of woodworking knowledge? Did you learn to
paint from that guy with the beard and soft-spoken voice also? ;^)
> > Norm uses power tools exclusively on his workbench because his show is
> > about using power tools exclusively.
>
> Ummmm.... Why?
You left out the part where I said:
> > You can attack that premise as not being appropriate (been there, done
> > that) all you want but it doesn't make him using a workbench ironic.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
hau...@mbi.org
In article <4mmjep$f...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> daw...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (Doug Dawson) writes:
>From: daw...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (Doug Dawson)
>Subject: Re: Why Power Tools are Evil
>Ed Bennett <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Excuse me, Paul, but this does sound like some sort of mystical thing.
>>You're talking to a guy that knows a thing or two about materials science
>>and machining. Go ahead and tell me exactly what parts need to be cut
>>with hand tools in order to be stronger. And, while you're at it, explain
>>to me exactly what it is about power tools that make it impossible to
>>obtain the same results.
Doug writes:
> Errrrrrr...
> [ tamp of some really, really weird stuff... ]
Ed's valid argument about following grain is really, really weird? What, to
you, would be completely normal?
>>I wouldn't be surprised to see you cut dovetails as good a router. In
>>fact, I might even be hard pressed to tell the difference between your
>>hand cut dovetails and my router cut dovetails.
> Might? As good as a router? You're jerking our chain. The
> difference between router-cut and hand-cut dovetails is somewhat
> more obvious than the difference between a dog and your Buick.
Now this is funny. Aside from the absurd comparison, even the hand
dovetailers can't agree whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of
being compared unfavorably to power dovetailers, or to cry 'hand ones are
better' - not mechanically or timely, but just 'better'.
> If that's not clear enough.....
Just as clear as the Ohio in spring. If you think hand dovetails are so
vastly different, Doug, then, pray tell, why so?
Rich
Just say there ain't no mystic about dovetails, hand or otherwise
Paul Lalonde
In article <4mme7p$r...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Ed Bennett <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Paul Lalonde <lal...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>: There is a relationship, in certain types of construction.
>: In the case of a windsor chair the work MUST follow the grain in order
>: to get maximum strenght from thin parts.
>
>You're talking to a guy that knows a thing or two about materials science
>and machining.
I have no doubth that you know how to orient grain for maximum strenght,
and are a competant woodworker. I do however suspect that you haven't
built any windsor chairs (or other designs involving thin splindles
under high stress).
>Go ahead and tell me exactly what parts need to be cut
>with hand tools in order to be stronger. And, while you're at it, explain
>to me exactly what it is about power tools that make it impossible to
>obtain the same results.
Wood selection for a windsor chair is much different from selection
for other projects. For one, you start with a fresh-cut log, so that
when you pull your spindles out of it they all have their grain running
the entire lenght - splitting them out gives you that, where sawing
them out lets the grain run out in most cases. You might be able
to find some boards you can do this with, but it's difficult.
Then a draw-knife lets you further work your billets while compensating
for the grain at each step. It could probably be done with some
sort of power tool, but it will be much more difficult - no jigging
will let you adapt to the individual spindles as well as your hands
and eyes can.
>Are you saying that using a chisel or spokeshave makes it easier to
>"follow the grain" and therefore you get a stronger piece?
In the green wood yes. In seasonned wood the balance changes.
>I'm not sure
>what kind of power tools you're thinking of but I have no trouble
>orienting the grain for maximum strength.
With most power tools you get to pick one orientation. But grain
changes through a log. Re-adjusting jigs to adapt to the different
grain in different pieces is just plain slow compared to hauling
off shavings by hand.
>However, the claim was that certain
>things MUST be done with hand tools or they won't be as strong. I still
>think the claim is completely bogus.
I guess this comes down to how much imperative you put in the word
must. I am no massochist. There are some tasks that are much easier
using one tool than an other. In this case it's drawknife and
spokeshave rather than tablesaw and lathe. For this instance it's
hand vs. power, but this is only an instance. It's more an issue
of the right tool for the job. For windsor chairs the right tools
are almost all hand tools.
>Like I said, I've never seen a dovetail saw (or any hand saw) that left as
>smooth a surface as a good sharp router bit. Maybe you've got one that
>does. It would be the first one that I've ever heard of.
Most saws people play with are so dull and poorly sharpenned that
I'm not suprised. Mind you, as soon as my router bits dull, my surfaces
are nowhere near as nice as with a spiff new bit. And the surface
tear-out. Yuck. Anyhow, one thing to remember is that the surface
out of a saw is not for final consumption. I'll compare your routered
moldings to my planed moldings, and they will be about the same.
The smoothness of the surfaces on the inside of a joint in only
important up to a point, and a decent saw gives you that.
>I wouldn't be surprised to see you cut dovetails as good a router. In
>fact, I might even be hard pressed to tell the difference between your
>hand cut dovetails and my router cut dovetails. But, I bet you'll be
>working on it long after the noise is gone and the dust has settled.
It depends how many. I have no urge to do chest-of-drawer's worth
of dovetails by hand. One drawer is another matter, and the time
is more likely to be comparable. Mostly I have to evaluate why I'm
doing them and if I decide I just need product, figure out how many
hand-cuts I can make in the time that it would take to set up the
jigs. As I get better at it the answer is more joints per jig-settup
time, but it will never catch up to a half dozen drawers.
>You'd be surprised to learn that I own a bunch of hand tools too.
No surpise. You would have to be nuts not to.
> And that I enjoy using them as well. And I've made some pretty nice
>pieces of furniture in my day as well.
No surpise here either. There are many paths.
>I'd probably learn a lot from you about using my hand tools.
>However, I just don't take much to myths and folklore.
The specific example chosen wasn't about myth, it was chosen because
it is an example of where a set of speciallized (hand) tools is
more useful, almost necessary, than the power tools that some would
have replace them.
>PS: I've seen lots of tool marks on antiques. Some people think it adds
>value.
I hate the thought that tool marks add value. It's rude to the artisans
who were producing top-notch work. Find me a Sheraton piece with
obvious tool marks that add to value and I'll gag.
Later,
Paul
Bennett Leeds
Anne B. Watson writes:
> In my younger days no one ever worried about a little sawdust - just
> sweep it up and add it to the garbage can. Now all you read about
> are fancy systems to get rid of chips and dust before it gets 2 inches
> from the machine. Strange times we live in.
Yeah, like the physicists visiting ground-zero a very short time after a
nuclear test explosion, and the wife of one wearing a necklace made from the
turned-into-glass-sand around her neck for decades, and using asbestos brake
linings, and using asbestos to insulate our children from the cold, and,
of course, putting red dye #2 into M&Ms, I long for the good old days.
There's no way something I can't see is gonna hurt me.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
Claudio Chuaqui
Bennett Leeds wrote:
>
> Doug Dawson writes:
> > Bennett Leeds wrote:
> > > Why don't these same people watch the very next half hour and see Roy
> > > then realize they don't need any of it?
> >
> > I sat around after Norm was done, and all I got was this stupid
> > gardening show. Then Barney, and I gave up.
>
> Are you implying that Norm gets substantially more air time than Roy? Or
> are you just informing us that those who didn't think to tune in a half
> hour earlier, or pay attention to the commercials run before and after
> Norm advertising The Woodwright's Shop, are doomed to a life of power tool
> woodworking?
>
I think Doug was just saying that Roy's show isn't available on
some PBS affiliates. As far as I know it isn't aired on the
Seattle station (KCTS?). I see Norm, TOH, Hometime, but no Roy.
From listening in on a similar thread on Oldtools, I gather that
Norm does get more airtime than Roy in some areas.
Claudio
Doug Dawson
<hau...@mbi.org> wrote:
> daw...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (Doug Dawson) writes:
>>Ed Bennett <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>>Excuse me, Paul, but this does sound like some sort of mystical thing.
>>>You're talking to a guy that knows a thing or two about materials science
>>>and machining. Go ahead and tell me exactly what parts need to be cut
>>>with hand tools in order to be stronger. And, while you're at it, explain
>>>to me exactly what it is about power tools that make it impossible to
>>>obtain the same results.
>
>Doug writes:
>
>> Errrrrrr...
>
>> [ tamp of some really, really weird stuff... ]
>
>Ed's valid argument about following grain is really, really weird? What, to
>you, would be completely normal?
No, it's just his whole frame of mind, I read it carefully, and it
gave me the willies.
>>>I wouldn't be surprised to see you cut dovetails as good a router. In
>>>fact, I might even be hard pressed to tell the difference between your
>>>hand cut dovetails and my router cut dovetails.
>> Might? As good as a router? You're jerking our chain. The
>> difference between router-cut and hand-cut dovetails is somewhat
>> more obvious than the difference between a dog and your Buick.
>Now this is funny. Aside from the absurd comparison, even the hand
>dovetailers can't agree whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of
>being compared unfavorably to power dovetailers, or to cry 'hand ones are
>better' - not mechanically or timely, but just 'better'.
Thing is, Ed has never seen handcut dovetails. Or if he has, he's
never knowed it. My analogy was not absurd, and the moral behind
it was clear, if you looked at the rest of it.
I'm sure that you could try and make handcut dovetails look as close
as possible to machine-cut dovetails, but why would anyone want to
do that? It's kind of silly. Why would you want to do it?
FWIW, I never gave much thought at all to people who cut dovetails
with a routah.
Doug Dawson
daw...@physics.utexas.edu
Just say, most of the work in woodworking is in the design, IMO.
And requiring backwards-compatibility with an Etch-a-Sketch bothers me.
:-b
Doug Dawson
Bennett Leeds <ben...@mv.us.adobe.com> wrote:
>Doug Dawson writes:
>> Bennett Leeds wrote:
>> > Why don't these same people watch the very next half hour and see Roy
>> > then realize they don't need any of it?
>> I sat around after Norm was done, and all I got was this stupid
>> gardening show. Then Barney, and I gave up.
>Are you implying that Norm gets substantially more air time than Roy?
Well, okay, yes. And the running of the two shows back to back is
perhaps just a regional anomaly... But it doesn't matter that much.
You can always look it up in the Guide things, if it's offered in
your market, if you're lucky.
>are you just informing us that those who didn't think to tune in a half
>hour earlier, or pay attention to the commercials run before and after
>Norm advertising The Woodwright's Shop, are doomed to a life of power tool
>woodworking?
You live in a really swell market. There's currently a thread
in oldtools in which your market would be quite envied indeed.
I'll leave aside the issue of whether people might become more
aware of alternative methods by being exposed to Roy's show.
>> > Norm uses power tools exclusively on his workbench because his show is
>> > about using power tools exclusively.
>>
>> Ummmm.... Why?
>You left out the part where I said:
>> > You can attack that premise as not being appropriate (been there, done
>> > that) all you want but it doesn't make him using a workbench ironic.
I guess my point is, that your assumption above is quite a leap!
Does he even _have_ that premise? I.e., is the concept of "this
is about power tools only!" _that_ deeply ingrained into the show?
Is it really ABOUT POWER TOOLS? [ emphasis only ] I just think
that's a bit of a leap. I wonder what Norm would think about that.
Doug Dawson
daw...@physics.utexas.edu
Jeff Gorman
On Mon, 6 May 1996 21:32:47 GMT, Bennett Leeds wrote:
~ ............... Go ask Paddy for a copy of my Norris plane review
~ of not too long ago
Could we all see it please?
Jeff
--
Jeff Gorman - West Yorkshire
je...@millard.demon.co.uk
Steve Turadek
> I guess my point is, that your assumption above is quite a leap!
> Does he even _have_ that premise? I.e., is the concept of "this
> is about power tools only!" _that_ deeply ingrained into the show?
> Is it really ABOUT POWER TOOLS? [ emphasis only ] I just think
> that's a bit of a leap. I wonder what Norm would think about that.
>
this is an interesting thread. I see some people make comments that
really focus on wood technology. others insist there is something more,
perhaps some spiritual or artistic aspect of making things from wood. and
that perhaps the use of handtools brings makes it a little easier to
experience "The Soul of the Tree."
I notice Norm's early shows were *very* focused on technology. and that
lately he is more sensitive to the nature of wood and how furniture design
needs to accomadate it. this is partly due, I think, to his experience
level, and partly due to feedback from viewers.
to me what this all boils down to is: do I want to make furniture while
wearing a space suite or do I want to be in the same room as the wood.
running my table saw and my planer, I am thinking about chips flying, the
incredible noise, the incredible dust. I'm wearing safety goggles, ear
muffs, perhaps a face mask, perhaps a respirator. I'm worrying about
having a hard maple 6x6 thrown into my groin by a 3 HP motor, or sticking
my finger into a carbide blade spinning at 20,000 RPM...
do I actually *do* this stuff? yah. for roughing stock, for getting it
four-square, it a reasonable comprimise. maybe I run these tools 2 or 3
hours a week.
the rest of the time, I prefer thinking about fit and finish, and using
tools that silently accomplish my objectives...
--
tur...@cisco.com- personal opinions not my employer's -408-526-7058
Tom Perigrin
In article <4mo3n0$o...@zeppo.cs.ubc.ca>, lal...@cs.ubc.ca (Paul Lalonde)
wrote:
> I hate the thought that tool marks add value. It's rude to the artisans
> who were producing top-notch work. Find me a Sheraton piece with
> obvious tool marks that add to value and I'll gag.
Okay, I've never had the pleasure of fondling an actual Sheraton... But I
have bought and sold a fair sample of English antiques. Almost all of
these pieces have obvious tool marks... where it is expected. Small
scribe lines on the bottom of the drawer runners. Little pin-prick marks
where things were measured out. Small saw-nicks where a saw cut a
fraction too deeply on a hidden dovetail. The backs of some very fine
pieces are just jack planed. All of this on inner or lower or back
surfaces, where the finish didn't need to be perfect.
Perhaps Sheraton finished all surfaces to a high-polish... All I know is
that tool marks were common, but unobtrusive, on the hundreds of pieces I
handled. I liked them... it gave me some silly connection to the person
who made the piece... it made the piece more real, less "manufactured" or
"processed".
Your Milage May Vary
Tom
Mike Weaver
On Mon, 6 May 1996, Bennett Leeds wrote:
> Mike Weaver writes:
> > People flip on the tube and see Norm workin' with a shop of tools that
> > most [IMHO] cannot afford and almost *instantly* figure they need all
> > that sutff to do quality woodworking.
>
> Why don't those same people watch the very next half hour and see Roy and
> then realize they don't need any of it?
First, not all markets carry Roy after Norm (or Roy at all).
Second, A wee bit of a jump there. (an apples to oranges kind of
thing, imho).
Roy's intent is *not* to show how to make furniture. His show is
primarily about the woodworking methods of the past.
(As a matter of fact, there is a story in oldtools that says Roy, when
asked, calls himself a 'story teller', and the fact that he makes
things is byproduct of that. (As opposed to being a carpenter/furniture
maker who tells an occasional story).
> > There's never even a mention....
> > [Obviously Roy Underhill, etc are excepted from this sentiment]
>
> Well excuse me, but in my book you can't except out Roy when talking about
> Norm. Both have woodworking shows on PBS, often run back to back. Why is
> Norm so much more influential than Roy?
Why can't you except out Roy when talking about Norm?
What, are they the same person? (Hmm, has anyone ever seen the two of
them together? ;-)
See above.
> Is it because unlike Roy, Norm believes in editing (is editing a Neanderthal
> no-no?). So, after watching both shows, the viewers get to decide if they
> want to build a desk finished with polyurethane or two not completed wood
> puppets finished with some blood spots. ;^)
See above.
> > The ironic part *isn't* that it's used for power tool woodoworking
> > as much as it's used *exclusively* for power tool woodworking.
>
> Norm uses power tools exclusively on his workbench because his show is
> about using power tools exclusively. You can attack that premise as not
> being appropriate (been there, done that) all you want, but it doesn't
> make him using a workbench ironic. It just shows how important a workbench
> is no matter what kind of woodworking you are, and how little improvement
> has been made on them over the years.
The point of the original post (from O'Deen) *wasn't* that Norm uses a
workbench - *nobody* has questioned the importance of a workbench.
The point was (and is) that Norm uses *only* power tools on that
workbench (except for the _token_ use of a block plane), and that, in turn,
both puts off the average woodworker (who thinks that all the fancy
power tools (incl $2300 resawing bandsaws - remember *that* thread?) are
necessary to do quality work) and limits the exposure to different
methods that would greatly benefit most woodworkers.
Yes, 'that premise' [power tools exclusively] is faulty. (as you say,
'been there, done that')
If you'd like to dwell on the workbench itself a bit, that's fine.
Perhaps the reason that there 'has been little imporovement' on them over
the years is that they have evolved to a point where no major
improvements *need* to be made.
<insert perfect example of Norm's 'new, improved' bench being made &
disappearing rather quickly, or was it relegated to a setup-table?>
> > There *is* something more special about tuning a #4 than a bandsaw.
>
> 1. Don't confuse tuning with using. Depending on how you feel about it,
> there's even a difference between tuning and adjusting. But, I'm OK
> with combining those if you want.
Point taken.
> 2. Let's compare tuning:
<Some relevant comparisons snipped>
> 3. Let's compare using.
<snip>
> Realize that different people will rank different aspects of woodworking
> differently.
Agreed.
> > Just say - you'd know about this if you had experienced it.
>
> Beware of assumptions. Go ask Paddy for a copy of my Norris plane review
> of not too long ago, and then say that I haven't experienced hand plane
> nirvana. As for what I know about hand plane tuning, read my comments on
> tuning Japanese hand planes in that post. Then come back here about what
> I've experienced.
You got me - I saw that review.
And, I know you've used planes, etc, and I did make some incorrect
statements re: you not having experienced handtools.
> If anything, it would appear you've got some cool bandsaw experiences in
> your future. My advice would be to not let power-tool prejudice prevent
> you from enjoying them.
I'll be enjoying my bandsaw when I do get one.
> Just say If all woodworking was was hand-planing and tuning hand planes
> many of us would have gotten bored a long time ago.
Just say if all woodworking was dust-producing, noise generating, power-tool
using many of us would not have gotten into it in the first place.
Use whatever method you like. Use whatever tools you like.
You win; you win; you win. There, I said it. ;-)
I'm tired of writing, do what you wish.
-Mike
-----------------
Michael P. Weaver Unix Systems Administrator Email: mi...@umbc.edu
University Computing Services, UMBC
Baltimore, MD 21228
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine, and not my employer's.
Bennett Leeds
Doug Dawson writes:
> I'll leave aside the issue of whether people might become more
> aware of alternative methods by being exposed to Roy's show.
OK, but to me that's part of Patrick's "overall concept" when he started
this thread. Part of it was that power toolers are unaware of hand tool
techniques because they haven't been exposed to them through the mass media.
Does Roy not expose as much as Norm? Does Roy not use as "single-minded an
approach" (Patrick's words) as Norm? Is what Patrick was really saying
that one single-minded approach is better than another?
> Bennett Leeds wrote:
> > You can attack that premise as not being appropriate (been there, done
> > that) all you want but it doesn't make him using a workbench ironic.
>
> I guess my point is, that your assumption above is quite a leap!
> Does he even _have_ that premise? I.e., is the concept of "this
> is about power tools only!" _that_ deeply ingrained into the show?
> Is it really ABOUT POWER TOOLS? [ emphasis only ] I just think
> that's a bit of a leap. I wonder what Norm would think about that.
Someone posted here a while back about meeting Norm at one of his appearances
at a woodworking show. He said that Norm said that's what it was about. But,
hearsay aside, why would you think Norm would think his show wasn't about
power tools only? Because he uses block plane to round the chamfered corners
of a 4x4 fence post? Because he's got a full set of Stanley chisels in their
plastic box on his bench?
Of course power tools are "_that_ deeply ingrained into the show." If that
wasn't true, we all wouldn't have the Norm bashing fodder we have. Doesn't
the "New" in NYW refer specifically to the new power tools Yankees now
equip their shops with?
Norm has responded to lots of criticism, from use of guards to ear
protection, to accounting for wood movement, etc. The one thing he hasn't
changed is that he uses power tools almost exclusively. If he changed that,
it might be a better show, but it wouldn't be NYW.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
J. Michael Thompson
Doug Dawson wrote:
> I sat around after Norm was done, and all I got was this stupid
> gardening show. Then Barney, and I gave up.
Drive far enough north to pickup KERA - channel 13 - in Dallas.
JMT
Tom Perigrin
In article <1996May9.2...@adobe.com>,
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com(Bennett Leeds) wrote:
>
> Norm has responded to lots of criticism, from use of guards to ear
> protection, to accounting for wood movement, etc. The one thing he hasn't
> changed is that he uses power tools almost exclusively. If he changed that,
> it might be a better show, but it wouldn't be NYW.
Is "new" static? If Norm discovers that a blend of power and hand tools
are better, must he remain static? Wouldn't the program then be better
called "The 1980 Yankee Workshop"?
Norm and Morash presents NYW. If Norm did an episode on handplaning, it
would still be NYW. The program is defined by Norm... Norm is the NYW.
Patrick Olguin
On Thu, 9 May 1996, Bennett Leeds wrote:
> Doug Dawson writes:
> > I'll leave aside the issue of whether people might become more
> > aware of alternative methods by being exposed to Roy's show.
>
> OK, but to me that's part of Patrick's "overall concept" when he started
> this thread. Part of it was that power toolers are unaware of hand tool
> techniques because they haven't been exposed to them through the mass media.
> Does Roy not expose as much as Norm? Does Roy not use as "single-minded an
> approach" (Patrick's words) as Norm? Is what Patrick was really saying
> that one single-minded approach is better than another?
Nope, what I said was that the right tool for the job is
the only sane approach. The controversial part is where I
insinuated that normites are more prone to a single-minded
approach than neanderthals (recall, even Patrick Leach has a
planuh, a TS, and a BS), and I thought, and still do think
that an approach like that makes one a less-capable
woodworker, IMHO. Whether or not this is a result of
the Woodowrking Industrial Complex is subject to debate. Ed
Bennett had some good arguments against, but I'm still
unconvinced.
The woodworking rags extoll power tools, but their circulation
is small, compared to the exposure of power tools on TV.
>
>
> > Bennett Leeds wrote:
> > > You can attack that premise as not being appropriate (been there, done
> > > that) all you want but it doesn't make him using a workbench ironic.
> >
> > I guess my point is, that your assumption above is quite a leap!
> > Does he even _have_ that premise? I.e., is the concept of "this
> > is about power tools only!" _that_ deeply ingrained into the show?
> > Is it really ABOUT POWER TOOLS? [ emphasis only ] I just think
> > that's a bit of a leap. I wonder what Norm would think about that.
>
> Someone posted here a while back about meeting Norm at one of his appearances
> at a woodworking show. He said that Norm said that's what it was about. But,
> hearsay aside, why would you think Norm would think his show wasn't about
> power tools only? Because he uses block plane to round the chamfered corners
> of a 4x4 fence post? Because he's got a full set of Stanley chisels in their
> plastic box on his bench?
>
> Of course power tools are "_that_ deeply ingrained into the show." If that
> wasn't true, we all wouldn't have the Norm bashing fodder we have. Doesn't
> the "New" in NYW refer specifically to the new power tools Yankees now
> equip their shops with?
It does as implemented, but there's a burgeoning Yankee business
up in ME, that's making new tools that don't plug in. I wonder if
Tom L-N gets big enough to sponser Norm's show, if mebbe Norm would
use some "different" tools/techniques.
>
> Norm has responded to lots of criticism, from use of guards to ear
> protection, to accounting for wood movement, etc. The one thing he hasn't
> changed is that he uses power tools almost exclusively. If he changed that,
> it might be a better show, but it wouldn't be NYW.
>
Agreed.
O'Deen
Bennett Leeds
Mike Weaver writes:
> Bennett Leeds wrote:
> > Mike Weaver writes:
> > > People flip on the tube and see Norm workin' with a shop of tools that
> > > most [IMHO] cannot afford and almost *instantly* figure they need all
> >
> > Why don't those same people watch the very next half hour and see Roy and
> > then realize they don't need any of it?
>
> First, not all markets carry Roy after Norm (or Roy at all).
Yeah, others have since reported this. For my market, which is all I can
really talk about, it comes in waves. There was a time, probably when he
was building his house, that Norm didn't appear to be making any new shows
and they weren't re-running his old shows. I remember the "Where is Norm?"
thread, for instance. During that time (over a year I believe) there was
more Roy than Norm. At other times, the roles were reversed and we got more
Norm than Roy.
I don't believe that there are markets that carry Norm that never have
carried or never will carry Roy. I also don't believe that PBS is the
sole teaching mechanism for budding woodworkers. It may be the first for
some, but books, magazines, videos, and even classes, follow for most.
> Roy's intent is *not* to show how to make furniture. His show is
> primarily about the woodworking methods of the past.
Indeed, that's part of why I said:
> > So, after watching both shows, the viewers get to decide if they
> > want to build a desk finished with polyurethane or two not completed
> > wood puppets finished with some blood spots. ;^)
That Roy doesn't build furniture using only hand tools isn't surprising:
almost no-one does anymore. Klausz, Frid, Krenov, etc. all use both hand
and power tools. Most of the people making repro furniture use both -
just look at any issue of "Home Furniture."
Roy may not be the ideal hand tool proponent, but then neither is Norm
the ideal power tool proponent.
> > > There's never even a mention....
> > > [Obviously Roy Underhill, etc are excepted from this sentiment]
> >
> > Well excuse me, but in my book you can't except out Roy when talking about
> > Norm. Both have woodworking shows on PBS, often run back to back. Why is
> > Norm so much more influential than Roy?
>
> Why can't you except out Roy when talking about Norm?
Your original statement was that: "There's never even a mention in most
of the mass media of the *possibility* of another approach (ie hand tool
methods)..."
The same mass market that brings Norm to households across America
also brings quite more than a "possibility" of a hand tool approach to
most of the same households across America in the form of Roy.
> The point was (and is) that Norm uses *only* power tools on that
> workbench (except for the _token_ use of a block plane), and that, in turn,
> both puts off the average woodworker (who thinks that all the fancy
> power tools (incl $2300 resawing bandsaws - remember *that* thread?) are
> necessary to do quality work) and limits the exposure to different
> methods that would greatly benefit most woodworkers.
We're going around in circles here. Most of those who watch Norm use a
$2300 resawing bandsaw can also watch Roy use a hand saw to do the same
thing. Those watching Norm using a specialized hollow chisel mortiser
can also watch Roy using a chisel and mallet.
The exposure is there - the selection of power tools by novices is not
solely the result of not being exposed to hand tool methods. That's part
of what my "Workmanship of Risk" thread is all about. There are other
factors, too, like speed, tool availability, etc.
> Perhaps the reason that there 'has been little improvement' on them over
> the years is that they have evolved to a point where no major
> improvements *need* to be made.
>
> <insert perfect example of Norm's 'new, improved' bench being made,
> disappearing rather quickly, or was it relegated to a setup-table?>
You're preaching to the choir here. Matter of fact, you've giving me
back my very own example, as I posted in my first entry in this thread.
This is indeed the ironic part of Norm's workbench - that it's NOT the
one he designed and built on his show.
That he uses power tools on it is, I insist, not ironic - it's what you'd
expect from Norm.
> > Just say If all woodworking was was hand-planing and tuning hand planes
> > many of us would have gotten bored a long time ago.
>
> Just say if all woodworking was dust-producing, noise generating, power-tool
> using many of us would not have gotten into it in the first place.
I agree 100%. Those who use power tools do so because they're worth the
dust, noise, and money to save much time and effort.
> You win; you win; you win. There, I said it. ;-)
> I'm tired of writing, do what you wish.
Oh, and we were doing so well, too. We each made our points with
conviction, reason, and examples, we stayed away from personal
attacks, and we even found some common ground on which we agreed:
I was sure we were going to be friends.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
Bennett Leeds
> Ed Bennett wrote:
> > And, while you're at it, explain
> > I wouldn't be surprised to see you cut dovetails as good a router. In
> > fact, I might even be hard pressed to tell the difference between your
> > hand cut dovetails and my router cut dovetails.
>
> > Might? As good as a router? You're jerking our chain. The
> > difference between router-cut and hand-cut dovetails is somewhat
> > more obvious than the difference between a dog and your Buick.
Rich Haubert writes:
> Now this is funny. Aside from the absurd comparison, even the hand
> dovetailers can't agree whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows
> of being compared unfavorably to power dovetailers, or to cry 'hand ones are
> better' - not mechanically or timely, but just 'better'.
There's nothing funny nor absurd about it. Due to a router bit requiring
a shank of at least 1/4", the narrowest part of a tail socket cut by a
router bit is about 1/4". By hand, one can cut a tail socket the width of
the kerf of a handsaw. With my dozuki I can do about 1/64". This is
*impossible* to do with a router. Yes, a laser would work. Or, if you
would settle for about 1/16" kerf (4 times as big), a bandsaw would work.
I've even used a tablesaw.
To answer Ed and Rick, almost anyone can tell the difference between 1/64"
and 1/4".
Of course, mutt that I am, I use power tools to cut the pins for these
narrow sockets that I cut by hand. I like the look of the very narrow
dovetails, and some argue that having more narrow pins is stronger than
a few wide pins, probably along the same reasoning that finger joints are
so strong (lots more glue area due to having more pins, etc.).
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
Just say IMHO, arguing that power tools can do it all is not only futile,
but is not the real issue, despite what some hand tool zealots
say. The real use of power tools is to more quickly and/or more
easily and/or with less risk accomplish many (NOT ALL) woodworking
tasks. Power and hand tools compliment each other. Just because
hand tools can do things power tools can't doesn't mean one should
exclusively use power tools: I can walk to places I can't drive -
does that mean I should walk everywhere? Of course not.
R Lindberg / E Winnie
In article <318FC3...@theory.chem.ubc.ca>,
Claudio Chuaqui <chu...@theory.chem.ubc.ca> wrote:
>I think Doug was just saying that Roy's show isn't available on
>some PBS affiliates. As far as I know it isn't aired on the
>Seattle station (KCTS?).
Ralph
--
Ralph Lindberg N7BSN Ellen Winnie N7PYK e-mail <drag...@scn.org>
<http://kendaco.telebyte.com/rlindber>
RV and Camping FAQ <http://kendaco.telebyte.net/rlindber/rv/>
They call it Surfn' the Net 'cause it's so easy to wipe out
hau...@mbi.org
In article <1996May10.2...@adobe.com> ben...@mv.us.adobe.com(Bennett Leeds) writes:
>From: ben...@mv.us.adobe.com(Bennett Leeds)
>Subject: Re: Why Power Tools are Evil
>> Ed Bennett wrote:
>> > And, while you're at it, explain
>> > tools that make it impossible to
>>...
>> > I wouldn't be surprised to see you cut dovetails as good a router. In
>> > fact, I might even be hard pressed to tell the difference between your
>> > hand cut dovetails and my router cut dovetails.
>>
>> Doug Dawson writes:
>> > Might? As good as a router? You're jerking our chain. The
>> > difference between router-cut and hand-cut dovetails is somewhat
>> > more obvious than the difference between a dog and your Buick.
>Rich Haubert writes:
>> Now this is funny. Aside from the absurd comparison, even the hand
>> dovetailers can't agree whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows
>> of being compared unfavorably to power dovetailers, or to cry 'hand ones are
>> better' - not mechanically or timely, but just 'better'.
>There's nothing funny nor absurd about it. Due to a router bit requiring
>a shank of at least 1/4", the narrowest part of a tail socket cut by a
>router bit is about 1/4". By hand, one can cut a tail socket the width of
>the kerf of a handsaw. With my dozuki I can do about 1/64". This is
>*impossible* to do with a router. Yes, a laser would work. Or, if you
>would settle for about 1/16" kerf (4 times as big), a bandsaw would work.
>I've even used a tablesaw.
Gosh, Bennett, ya got me. Yes, you CAN make the 'tail socket' narrower with
hand tools. No kidding! To date, noone has mentioned any other difference
between machine and hand dovetails, other than this (to me, at least) rather
minor difference.
>To answer Ed and Rick, almost anyone can tell the difference between 1/64"
>and 1/4".
Well, sure. But the comparison, lest you forgot, was between a dog and a
Buick. Apparently you thought this a valid comparison - I think a more
appropriate one would be between a Caravan and a Voyager - one has a narrower
grill. Sure, there's a difference. But would the average person notice?
Hell, they wouldn't notice that it even had dovetails.
The implication trying to be put upon those who make dovetails with a router
is that making the space between the tails super narrow is somehow superior.
You may argue that you like the looks better (personally, I really don't), but
to argue they're stronger won't fly with me. The strength of any dovetail
is limited by the strength of that sliver of wood- making it so much weaker
than the tail itself doesn't make sense.
Rich
Just say it's liking making box joints with 1/8" fingers on one piece, and
1/2" on the other. Structurally, it don't make no sense - the goal is to
equalize - the chain is only as strong as the weakest link, etc.
Patrick Olguin
Just to show I ain't afraid to agree with Bennett in
public... Rich, with all due respect, I can't believe you think that this
is a minor difference. This isn't the only difference. Try making
half-blind, three inch tall dovetails with your typical router
jig. Not so automatic anymore. This is not such an oddball case, as this
is the best way to attach a tail vise, or shoulder vise to a bench.
>
>
> >To answer Ed and Rick, almost anyone can tell the difference between 1/64"
> >and 1/4".
>
> Well, sure. But the comparison, lest you forgot, was between a dog and a
> Buick. Apparently you thought this a valid comparison - I think a more
> appropriate one would be between a Caravan and a Voyager - one has a narrower
> grill. Sure, there's a difference. But would the average person notice?
> Hell, they wouldn't notice that it even had dovetails.
The average person? No, you're right. But, the discriminating collector,
who's going to shell out several thousand for a custom-built chest,
yes. The narrower grill analogy is kooky! :^) Mebbe I'm just a crusty
neanderthal, but that's the *first* thing I look for in a dovetailed
carcasse. Dunno about the strength issue, but the graceful look of
a delicate dovetail pin that comes to a point tells me a lot about the
amount of work, and level of skill that went into making a piece.
I'd say the analogy is more like the difference between a skunk and a
rabbit. One really stinks :^).
O'Deen
Just say Rich, you've got to get off that structural-analysis bandwagon,
and hop on the "Zen and the art of dovetailing" pullcart.
JRAshton
I don't know what all this flap is about - As someone who has a dark dingy
basement full of heavy iron power and upstairs a nice bench room with
lot's of natural light and mostly hand tools
I feel I can catagorically state that power tools are evil and from Satan
and hand tools dwell in the light.
There, I hope that settles this whole mess
Thank-you for your attention
J.R.
Randy Howard
rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com (R Lindberg / E Winnie) writes:
>In article <318FC3...@theory.chem.ubc.ca>,
>Claudio Chuaqui <chu...@theory.chem.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>I think Doug was just saying that Roy's show isn't available on
>>some PBS affiliates. As far as I know it isn't aired on the
>>Seattle station (KCTS?).
> Try watching 1/2 hour before Norm, it's been there for a couple of months
>Ralph
I wish this were true here. In Austin, for some inexplicable reason Roy's
show is on Fridays at noon, and Norm and HomeTime, TOH, etc. are all on
Saturdays. If you are an un-wed mother looking to start a career in
woodworking I guess the noon slot is a great one since it doesn't conflict
with Geraldo. Otherwise, I have no clue about the lineup. For most
people interested, they have to tape it and view it later.
Randy
--
Randy Howard (j...@mustang.us.dell.com)
Bennett Leeds
Rich Haubert writes
> Bennett Leeds writes:
> >...Due to a router bit requiring a shank of at least 1/4", the narrowest
> >part of a tail socket cut by a router bit is about 1/4"....
>
> Gosh, Bennett, ya got me. Yes, you CAN make the 'tail socket' narrower with
> hand tools. No kidding! To date, noone has mentioned any other difference
> between machine and hand dovetails, other than this (to me, at least) rather
> minor difference.
I believe the argument as originally stated said there was no difference.
One difference is enough to disprove that: Why is it that now that we agree
there is one we need more?
> >To answer Ed and Rick, almost anyone can tell the difference between 1/64"
> >and 1/4".
>
> Well, sure. But the comparison, lest you forgot, was between a dog and a
> Buick.
That was Doug Dawson's comparison, not mine. I let it go without comment.
> I think a more appropriate one would be between a Caravan and a Voyager -
> one has a narrower grill. Sure, there's a difference. But would the
> average person notice? Hell, they wouldn't notice that it even had
dovetails.
I believe the argument as originally stated was that there was no difference.
NOT that there was no difference perceptible to the uneducated lay person.
Unlike your grille comparison, however, there can be structural reasons
for the difference.
> The implication trying to be put upon those who make dovetails with a router
> is that making the space between the tails super narrow is somehow superior.
> You may argue that you like the looks better (personally, I really don't),
but
> to argue they're stronger won't fly with me. The strength of any dovetail
> is limited by the strength of that sliver of wood- making it so much weaker
> than the tail itself doesn't make sense.
Perhaps I didn't explain it well. Take a 4" deep drawer. Build it with 1/2"
box joints - you'll get 4 pairs of fingers in there. Now build it with 1/8"
box joints - you'll get 16 pairs of fingers. More fingers result in more
long grain glue surface area as well as spreading the stresses out over
a larger area and providing less unsupported length of joint.
Similarly, by building the drawer with narrower pins/tail sockets you can get
more pin/tail pairs in the same drawer, with more long grain glue area, etc.
But for me, looks alone are more than a sufficient reason to choose at least
cutting the tail sockets by hand in some instances.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
Bennett Leeds
Patrick Olguin writes
> Try making half-blind, three inch tall dovetails with your typical router
> jig. Not so automatic anymore. This is not such an oddball case, as this
> is the best way to attach a tail vise, or shoulder vise to a bench.
Warning: nitpicking follows.
As to what I believe was the question of what is or is not possible with
power tools, it is *possible* to have a router bit made that would let you
cut those dovetails. Yes, it is not automatic nor typical. But, if you were
building benches for a living, it might be worth investigating.
As readers of Scott Landis' "The Workbench Book" are well aware, Frank Klausz
uses a combination of power and hand tools to cut the large dovetails Patrick
refers to. I'm working from memory, but I believe he uses a bandsaw to cut
the pins and uses a router to cut the tail sockets. Since the latter are so
large he actually cuts them from the face, rather than from the edge as is
typical with router jigs. He then cleans up the rounded corners with a chisel.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
Andrew P. Bajorinas
jras...@aol.com (JRAshton) wrote:
]I don't know what all this flap is about - As someone who has a dark dingy
]Thank-you for your attention
]J.R.
Without darkness there would be no light.
:)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Andrew P. Bajorinas | These opinions are my own and |
| Bajo...@Perkin-Elmer.com | not those of my employer. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point |
|than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness|
|of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." George Bernard Shaw |
|____________________________________________________________________________|
hau...@mbi.org
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.96051...@voyager-fddi.cris.com> Patrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com> writes:
>From: Patrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com>
>Subject: Re: Why Power Tools are Evil
>> >> Doug Dawson writes:
>> >> > Might? As good as a router? You're jerking our chain. The
>> >> > difference between router-cut and hand-cut dovetails is somewhat
>> >> > more obvious than the difference between a dog and your Buick.
>>
>> >Rich Haubert writes:
>> >> Now this is funny. Aside from the absurd comparison, even the hand
>> >> dovetailers can't agree whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows
>> >> of being compared unfavorably to power dovetailers, or to cry 'hand ones are
>> >> better' - not mechanically or timely, but just 'better'.
>>
>> >There's nothing funny nor absurd about it. Due to a router bit requiring
>> >a shank of at least 1/4", the narrowest part of a tail socket cut by a
>> >router bit is about 1/4". By hand, one can cut a tail socket the width of
>> >the kerf of a handsaw. With my dozuki I can do about 1/64". This is
>> >*impossible* to do with a router. Yes, a laser would work. Or, if you
>> >would settle for about 1/16" kerf (4 times as big), a bandsaw would work.
>> >I've even used a tablesaw.
>>
>>
>> Gosh, Bennett, ya got me. Yes, you CAN make the 'tail socket' narrower with
>> hand tools. No kidding! To date, noone has mentioned any other difference
>> between machine and hand dovetails, other than this (to me, at least) rather
>> minor difference.
O'Deen writes:
>Just to show I ain't afraid to agree with Bennett in
>public... Rich, with all due respect, I can't believe you think that this
>is a minor difference.
What kind of difference do you think it is, Patster? I'm beginning to think
that some of those in the Neanderthal crowd only makes dovetails for looks,
and really have no real interest in strength.
This isn't the only difference. Try making
>half-blind, three inch tall dovetails with your typical router
>jig. Not so automatic anymore. This is not such an oddball case, as this
>is the best way to attach a tail vise, or shoulder vise to a bench.
Come on, Pat. It's an oddball case. I don't make anything that requires 3"
dovetails, or even 1 1/2". Of course, many think I'M an oddball.
In practice, you're right, of course. But 3" router bits CAN be made.
>> >To answer Ed and Rick, almost anyone can tell the difference between 1/64"
>> >and 1/4".
>>
>> Well, sure. But the comparison, lest you forgot, was between a dog and a
>> Buick. Apparently you thought this a valid comparison - I think a more
>> appropriate one would be between a Caravan and a Voyager - one has a narrower
>> grill. Sure, there's a difference. But would the average person notice?
>> Hell, they wouldn't notice that it even had dovetails.
>The average person? No, you're right. But, the discriminating collector,
>who's going to shell out several thousand for a custom-built chest,
>yes. The narrower grill analogy is kooky! :^)
Thanks! Kooky but, of course, accurate.
Mebbe I'm just a crusty
>neanderthal, but that's the *first* thing I look for in a dovetailed
>carcasse. Dunno about the strength issue, but the graceful look of
>a delicate dovetail pin that comes to a point tells me a lot about the
>amount of work, and level of skill that went into making a piece.
Yeah, forget about the design, size, materials, looks, era, finish, etc. The
delicate dovetail pin is WAY more important.
>I'd say the analogy is more like the difference between a skunk and a
>rabbit. One really stinks :^).
A skunk and a civet cat, maybe. In most cases, they both work fine, but
either can stink if the execution is bad.
>Just say Rich, you've got to get off that structural-analysis bandwagon,
>and hop on the "Zen and the art of dovetailing" pullcart.
Yeah, what was I thinking? I find it pretty humorous that the very people
promoting old tools and methods would ignore the reason dovetails were
invented - for strength - and promote looks instead.
No disrespect intended, of course!
Rich
Patrick Olguin
On Tue, 14 May 1996 hau...@mbi.org wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.96051...@voyager-fddi.cris.com> Patrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com> writes:
[tamp]
> >>
> >>
> >> Gosh, Bennett, ya got me. Yes, you CAN make the 'tail socket' narrower with
> >> hand tools. No kidding! To date, noone has mentioned any other difference
> >> between machine and hand dovetails, other than this (to me, at least) rather
> >> minor difference.
>
> O'Deen writes:
>
> >Just to show I ain't afraid to agree with Bennett in
> >public... Rich, with all due respect, I can't believe you think that this
> >is a minor difference.
>
> What kind of difference do you think it is, Patster? I'm beginning to think
> that some of those in the Neanderthal crowd only makes dovetails for looks,
> and really have no real interest in strength.
I must have missed the discussion where skinny pins were
dismissed as being weak. How do you figure that? (Not a rhetorical
question, I really don't know)
>
> This isn't the only difference. Try making
> >half-blind, three inch tall dovetails with your typical router
> >jig. Not so automatic anymore. This is not such an oddball case, as this
> >is the best way to attach a tail vise, or shoulder vise to a bench.
>
>
> Come on, Pat. It's an oddball case. I don't make anything that requires 3"
> dovetails, or even 1 1/2". Of course, many think I'M an oddball.
Only the ones who don't appreciate your thankless policing of
crass questions.
> In practice, you're right, of course. But 3" router bits CAN be made.
Yup, but while you're waiting for your custom bits, I'll be sawing
and chiseling my way to fun and dovetails. Like you've said in other
threads, whatever turns one's cranks.
>
> . The narrower grill analogy is kooky! :^)
>
> Thanks! Kooky but, of course, accurate.
It's a tough thing, being accurate.
> Mebbe I'm just a crusty
> >neanderthal, but that's the *first* thing I look for in a dovetailed
> >carcasse. Dunno about the strength issue, but the graceful look of
> >a delicate dovetail pin that comes to a point tells me a lot about the
> >amount of work, and level of skill that went into making a piece.
>
> Yeah, forget about the design, size, materials, looks, era, finish, etc. The
> delicate dovetail pin is WAY more important.
Nope, sir Richmeister, you misundertook me. I said "in a dovetailed
carcasse", not a piece of funiture. If my eye gets past all the
criteria you mentioned, *and* it's a dovetailed carcasse, *then*
I scrutinize the hell out of them. What can I say, I've got a *thing*
for dovetails.
>
>
> >I'd say the analogy is more like the difference between a skunk and a
> >rabbit. One really stinks :^).
>
>
> A skunk and a civet cat, maybe. In most cases, they both work fine, but
> either can stink if the execution is bad.
Finally, a good analogy. Well put.
>
>
> >Just say Rich, you've got to get off that structural-analysis bandwagon,
> >and hop on the "Zen and the art of dovetailing" pullcart.
>
> Yeah, what was I thinking? I find it pretty humorous that the very people
> promoting old tools and methods would ignore the reason dovetails were
> invented - for strength - and promote looks instead.
>
Well, that's not the way I figure it. Thin-pinned dovetails *are* strong.
Check out the ones on the cover of The Workbench Book (that old
shaker bench). They're still holding, and looking bonerific, IMHO.
Mebbe we could entice FWW to do a test like they did when comparing
M&T's to bisquicks. OTOH, maybe not ;^).
> No disrespect intended, of course!
>
Based on past performances, none taken!
O'Deen
Just say I could argue with Rich all day, lose, and still keep
my blood pressure at 110/70.
hau...@mbi.org
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.960514...@mariner.cris.com> Patrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com> writes:
>From: Patrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com>
>Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 13:57:54 -0400
O'Deen writes:
>I must have missed the discussion where skinny pins were
>dismissed as being weak. How do you figure that? (Not a rhetorical
>question, I really don't know)
Yeah, I missed it, too. But it doesn't take a physics major to figure that a
thin piece of material (including wood) is weaker than a wider one. What
sense does it make to make the tails ten times wider than the parts that hold
the tails. For maximum strength, we want to equalize the parts (the chain is
only as strong as the weakest link, etc).
>> Of course, many think I'M an oddball.
>Only the ones who don't appreciate your thankless policing of
>crass questions.
Very well said! You have a way with words I could NEVER had (and if you don't
believe me, ask any of my dear 'net friends).
>> In practice, you're right, of course. But 3" router bits CAN be made.
>Yup, but while you're waiting for your custom bits, I'll be sawing
>and chiseling my way to fun and dovetails. Like you've said in other
>threads, whatever turns one's cranks.
Another good point. In reality, I would never have custom bits made (unless I
went into some form of manufacturing of things that require custom bits, of
course!).
>>
>> . The narrower grill analogy is kooky! :^)
>>
>> Thanks! Kooky but, of course, accurate.
>It's a tough thing, being accurate.
Indeed it is! Don't you love me calling a purely subjective analogy
'accurate'?
>> Mebbe I'm just a crusty
>> >neanderthal, but that's the *first* thing I look for in a dovetailed
>> >carcasse. Dunno about the strength issue, but the graceful look of
>> >a delicate dovetail pin that comes to a point tells me a lot about the
>> >amount of work, and level of skill that went into making a piece.
>>
>> Yeah, forget about the design, size, materials, looks, era, finish, etc. The
>> delicate dovetail pin is WAY more important.
>Nope, sir Richmeister, you misundertook me. I said "in a dovetailed
>carcasse", not a piece of funiture. If my eye gets past all the
>criteria you mentioned, *and* it's a dovetailed carcasse, *then*
>I scrutinize the hell out of them. What can I say, I've got a *thing*
>for dovetails.
Yeah, OK, I got ya. But what does your wife say about that?
>> >I'd say the analogy is more like the difference between a skunk and a
>> >rabbit. One really stinks :^).
>>
>>
>> A skunk and a civet cat, maybe. In most cases, they both work fine, but
>> either can stink if the execution is bad.
>Finally, a good analogy. Well put.
Thanks, dude! Coming from you, that makes me feel great - look at me, I'm
all-a-shiverin'!
>
>> >Just say Rich, you've got to get off that structural-analysis bandwagon,
>> >and hop on the "Zen and the art of dovetailing" pullcart.
>>
>> Yeah, what was I thinking? I find it pretty humorous that the very people
>> promoting old tools and methods would ignore the reason dovetails were
>> invented - for strength - and promote looks instead.
>>
>Well, that's not the way I figure it. Thin-pinned dovetails *are* strong.
>Check out the ones on the cover of The Workbench Book (that old
>shaker bench). They're still holding, and looking bonerific, IMHO.
>Mebbe we could entice FWW to do a test like they did when comparing
>M&T's to bisquicks. OTOH, maybe not ;^).
Nah, too controversial. Yeah, I've seen some old thin-pins that have
survived, too. That don't mean (or even imply) that they wouldn't be even
stronger if they weren't so thin. I suspect craftsmen of old felt the way
many of this group feel - they made them that way 'cause they liked the looks.
>> No disrespect intended, of course!
>>
>Based on past performances, none taken!
I'll just let that one go. I know ya love me!
>Just say I could argue with Rich all day, lose, and still keep
> my blood pressure at 110/70.
I'll take that as a compliment - I think!
Rich
Patrick Olguin
On Tue, 14 May 1996 hau...@mbi.org wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.960514...@mariner.cris.com> Patrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com> writes:
> >From: Patrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com>
> >Subject: Why Skinny Dovetails are weak (was Re: Why Power Tools are Evil)
> >Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 13:57:54 -0400
>
>
> O'Deen writes:
>
> >I must have missed the discussion where skinny pins were
> >dismissed as being weak. How do you figure that? (Not a rhetorical
> >question, I really don't know)
>
> Yeah, I missed it, too. But it doesn't take a physics major to figure that a
> thin piece of material (including wood) is weaker than a wider one. What
> sense does it make to make the tails ten times wider than the parts that hold
> the tails. For maximum strength, we want to equalize the parts (the chain is
> only as strong as the weakest link, etc).
Is that really true for dovetails? Let's say you had some
normal-lloking dovetails at each end of your joint, but
in the middle, you took some poetic license, and narrowed
the pins just for show. Would these pins/tails be subject to
the same racking pressure that the pins/tails on the outside?
Again, dunno, just musing. A dangerous prospect, I know.
(Bonus points, Rich, if you can name the Disney show that
produced the previous sentence. Double bonus if you name the song)
[tamp]
> >Nope, sir Richmeister, you misundertook me. I said "in a dovetailed
> >carcasse", not a piece of funiture. If my eye gets past all the
> >criteria you mentioned, *and* it's a dovetailed carcasse, *then*
> >I scrutinize the hell out of them. What can I say, I've got a *thing*
> >for dovetails.
>
> Yeah, OK, I got ya. But what does your wife say about that?
I won't touch this line with a 10' story pole. :)
>
> >Well, that's not the way I figure it. Thin-pinned dovetails *are* strong.
> >Check out the ones on the cover of The Workbench Book (that old
> >shaker bench). They're still holding, and looking bonerific, IMHO.
> >Mebbe we could entice FWW to do a test like they did when comparing
> >M&T's to bisquicks. OTOH, maybe not ;^).
>
>
> Nah, too controversial. Yeah, I've seen some old thin-pins that have
> survived, too. That don't mean (or even imply) that they wouldn't be even
> stronger if they weren't so thin. I suspect craftsmen of old felt the way
> many of this group feel - they made them that way 'cause they liked the looks.
I'm gonna have to go back and look at some more pictures of old
stuff to see if they cut "normal" pins/tails on the outboard
edges of the joints. Still, I don't think anybody'd make a joint
on purpose, that was doomed to failure. On second thought...
> >Just say I could argue with Rich all day, lose, and still keep
> > my blood pressure at 110/70.
>
> I'll take that as a compliment - I think!
It was. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't like
oppressing people.
O'Deen
Tom Perigrin
> >This isn't the only difference. Try making
> >half-blind, three inch tall dovetails with your typical router
> >jig. Not so automatic anymore. This is not such an oddball case, as this
> >is the best way to attach a tail vise, or shoulder vise to a bench.
>
> Come on, Pat. It's an oddball case. I don't make anything that requires 3"
> dovetails, or even 1 1/2". Of course, many think I'M an oddball.
>
> In practice, you're right, of course. But 3" router bits CAN be made.
You ain't getting ME near a router bit capable of chewing out a 3" deep, 2"
wide dovetail...
I am an oddball. 1 1/2" dovetails? Man, those are so common around my
joint (so to speak) that I can't even count them... Three inches? A
mear childsplay... I build things like timber framed cottages, complete
with dovetailed braces. I cut 10" deep by 6" wide dovetails, on angles!
You gonna make a router bit for that? You got a 15 HP 220 V 3 Ph router?
michael john hide
atrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com> wrote:
:I followedthe discussion with interest .Personally I do not own a dove tail jig ,and actually try to make a living at this game
All the dove tails I do are done by hand ,and I do quite afew from
time to time . The reason I do them by hand is the very reason that
was mentioned ,a machine cannot do a shallow pin that comes down to a
point at one end ,that says HANDMADE to any person who knows
furniture.I watched Ithink the NYWorkshop on Sunday ,in that show here
Norm used a dovetail jig . Personally , If I were doing lets say a 4
drawer chest and having to do all that setup work that he did then I
would venture to say I could have done a better job by hand and done
it faster than he could do it. Next time you are in an antique shop
take a look at the drawerfront dovetails .the other thing ,this group
being what it is Recreational Woodworking ,I would have thought one of
the joys of the amature would be making handcut joints,its people who
do it for a living that need the jigs to make stuff for folks who
wouldnt know a piece of production furniture if they fell over it.
Heartbreak Kid
>atrick Olguin <Od...@cris.com> wrote:
I haven't ventured into that "Why Power Tools are Evil"
thread....or any of it's umpteen offshoots but I just gotta make
an observation about "skinny dovetails". I was taught that the
'secret' of quality joinery (in any type of joint) was to remove
as little stock as possible so that the remaining wood would have
as much strength as Nature gave it. Even the 'scientific' posts
on biscuits note that, when they do fail, the biscuits themselves
don't break, it's the thinner wood on either side of them that
gives way. Likewise with mortise and tenons when they let loose.
There's a fine line between "adding surface area for glue to
adhere to" and "perforating it so it will tear like a postage
stamp" in making skinny dovetails.
HOW any of 'em are made is a moot point in the final analysis.
Kinda like figuring out whether it was the bullet in the head or
the knife in the heart that killed the guy. He's just as dead
either way.
HBK
Andrew P. Bajorinas
t...@ai.chem.ohiou.edu (Tom Perigrin) wrote:
]I am an oddball. 1 1/2" dovetails? Man, those are so common around my
]joint (so to speak) that I can't even count them... Three inches? A
]mear childsplay... I build things like timber framed cottages, complete
]with dovetailed braces. I cut 10" deep by 6" wide dovetails, on angles!
]You gonna make a router bit for that? You got a 15 HP 220 V 3 Ph router?
My 5hp router uses the Briggs & Straton Quantum XTC engine. I can
get over 50 dovetails from a single tank of gas. :^) My dust
collector doubles as a fume hood.
Michael Peele
Patrick Olguin wrote:
Alot of stuff deleted
> I'm gonna have to go back and look at some more pictures of old
> stuff to see if they cut "normal" pins/tails on the outboard
> edges of the joints. Still, I don't think anybody'd make a joint
> on purpose, that was doomed to failure. On second thought...
>
A little bit of stuff deleted
>
> O'Deen
I've had a little experience with making dovetails of all sizes and
I've had the opportunity to look at how at how some old guys who
could't get bisquicks made'em.
My observations are that the really small pin(saw kerf width small
side) were used on small light drawers where the tails were cut in
thin material( ~ 1/4" more or less) and the pins were cut in thicker
material( 1/2" to 3/4"). Never seen this style used in heavy
construction such as chest sides.
On heaver construction(1/2" to 1 1/2") the width of small side of the
pin is usally about same thickness as the material being joined. On
really heavy material(1 1/2" to 4") the small side of the pin is about
1/2 the thickness of the material
Tails are usally 3 to 7 times the width of the pins with an odd number
of pins and an even number of tails, none of the even spacing you get
from jigs.
Does't the dovetail man discuss the layout and sizeing of pins and tails
as well as the cutting in his video?
Michael Peele
Steve Turadek
someone in this hairball of a thread wrote:
> Yeah, I missed it, too. But it doesn't take a physics major to figure that a
> thin piece of material (including wood) is weaker than a wider one. What
> sense does it make to make the tails ten times wider than the parts that hold
> the tails. For maximum strength, we want to equalize the parts (the chain is
> only as strong as the weakest link, etc).
>
but I'd like to point out that if what mattered was strength, everyone
would just use box joints. or maybe people would just forget about wood
and make everything out of polycarbonate resin.
fact of the matter is, most joints are *way* overdesigned for their
application, and in most cases it's not the joint that fails, it's the
glue, and that only happens after a hundered years (and yes, I know there
are millions of ineptly made chairs out there to which my generalization
does not apply.)
I have to think the point of this whole joinery argument is one of art
more than one of engineering. can you be artistic with a dovetail saw?
yup. can you be artistic with a router? yup (though I'd argue the
chances are lower.) can you be artless wielding either of these tools?
well, speaking from personal experience, yes...
--
tur...@cisco.com- personal opinions not my employer's -408-526-7058
J. Michael Thompson
It's possible to produce the following pseudo-extraction form this thread:
"Hand cutting dovetails is better."
"Why?"
"You can do things that cannot be done with a router."
"Like what?"
"You can cut pins that come almost to a point."
"Why would you want to do that?"
"So that when someone looks at the joint, they will see it was hand cut."
:-)
JMT
hau...@mbi.org
In article <turadek-1505...@sj-f-2-dyn5.cisco.com> tur...@cisco.com (Steve Turadek) writes:
>From: tur...@cisco.com (Steve Turadek)
>Subject: Re: Why Skinny Dovetails are weak (was Re: Why Power Tools are Evil)
>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 08:58:49 -0700
>someone in this hairball of a thread wrote:
>> Yeah, I missed it, too. But it doesn't take a physics major to figure that a
>> thin piece of material (including wood) is weaker than a wider one. What
>> sense does it make to make the tails ten times wider than the parts that hold
>> the tails. For maximum strength, we want to equalize the parts (the chain is
>> only as strong as the weakest link, etc).
>>
>but I'd like to point out that if what mattered was strength, everyone
>would just use box joints.
Funny you should say that. When I tried to argue that, noone agreed with me.
It's more of a tradition when glue was crap, but dovetails are still damn
strong, when done correctly.
>fact of the matter is, most joints are *way* overdesigned for their
>application, and in most cases it's not the joint that fails, it's the
>glue,
I disagree. Dovetails were designed to be strong without glue, and I've seen
lots of dovetails that failed structurally because of either bad design or
bad execution.
Really, most joints are butt joints or miter joints with hardware, and they
fail all the time. But I don't think that's what you meant.
>I have to think the point of this whole joinery argument is one of art
>more than one of engineering. can you be artistic with a dovetail saw?
>yup. can you be artistic with a router? yup (though I'd argue the
>chances are lower.) can you be artless wielding either of these tools?
>well, speaking from personal experience, yes...
Yes, exactly. It started out with a reference that hand dovetails looked
better, though.
RIch
Ed Bennett
Tom Perigrin <t...@ai.chem.ohiou.edu> wrote:
<...lots of "I've done that" deleted...>
: I've worked wood with a stone axe and chisel
: I've smelted iron from ore, and carried it through to a chisel
: I've felled a tree, and made boards from it
: I've made timber framed cottages, and I worked with a thatcher in the UK
: I've cast my own cannon barrel, and the carriage, and made the gunpowder
: from
: saltpeter extracted from manure, sulfur gathered at a volcano, and
: charcoal
: I made myself, and made the mold to cast the balls (I didn't mine the
: lead)
: I've made most of my 16'th C reproduction tools
: Come on, give me a HARD one!
<....>
: Tom Perigrin
: Who has never heard of, seen, nor met anyone who has used, TS-Aligner
: (not a flame, just a fact)
OK, here's a hard one:
You obviously have quite an obsession for replicating tools and
techniques that were all invented by clever people more than a century
ago. In fact, I'll bet that there's nobody in the newsgroup that can
hold a candle to the claims you've made in your response. I certainly
can't. You could probably pursue a brilliant career as a conservator at
the Smithsonian. But, are you creative? Have you invented anything to
further the state of the art? Do you contribute to furthering
woodworking technology? Got any patents under your belt? Did you invent
any of the tools, techniques, or processes that you are so fond of
replicating? Can anybody point to a Tom Perigrin original woodworking
tool that is marketable?
What you do is extremely admirable. It's also important. But it's not
the only game in town. No flame intended. I find your persuit valuable
and see how it helps others. My persuit is different but there are
hundreds of people (that you haven't met) that find it more valuable and
actually pay money for it.
--
----------
Ed Bennett
e...@primenet.com
Inventor of TS-Aligner
(Not an advertisement, just a fact)
hau...@mbi.org
In article <3199F5...@nt.com> "J. Michael Thompson" <Michael_Th...@nt.com> writes:
>From: "J. Michael Thompson" <Michael_Th...@nt.com>
>Subject: Why Skinny Dovetails are weak (was Re: Why Power Tools are Evil)
>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:17:45 -0400
>"Why?"
>"Like what?"
Nice job! My point, exactly.
Rich
Tom Perigrin
In article <4ne2ia$6...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Ed Bennett
<e...@primenet.com> wrote:
> You obviously have quite an obsession for replicating tools and
> techniques that were all invented by clever people more than a century
> ago. In fact, I'll bet that there's nobody in the newsgroup that can
> hold a candle to the claims you've made in your response. I certainly
> can't. You could probably pursue a brilliant career as a conservator at
> the Smithsonian.
Well, Colinial Williamsburg would be more in line, but yes... that has
crossed my mind from time to time. Give up a high-paying steady job for a
low-paying hard-work sort of job... yum...
> But, are you creative? Have you invented anything to
> further the state of the art? Do you contribute to furthering
> woodworking technology? Got any patents under your belt? Did you invent
> any of the tools, techniques, or processes that you are so fond of
> replicating? Can anybody point to a Tom Perigrin original woodworking
> tool that is marketable?
Nope. Haven't invented a new tool. Haven't made any new processes.
Haven't got any patents.
At least in the field of woodworking.
I do woodworking for relaxation. Relaxation from that area where I have
created new processes, do invent tools, etc... Thus, I don't want to bring
that stress into my area of relaxation. I started to do antique
reproductions for various resons unrelated to commerical success. People
wanted to buy them. I sold a few. I made more, people bought more. But,
I am not IN it for the business, it's just a nice way to pay for the hobby.
Am I creative (in my woodworking)? Depends on your defintion of
"creativity"... I am joining pieces of wood in patterns that are either
exact reproductions or similar in look and feel to perviously existing
technology. Which, to a greater or lesser degree, is what we all do. If
I wanted to make a new tool or jig, I suspect I would not devize an
entirely new technology, but would take previous solutions (wheels, levers,
screws) and arrange them in a slightly new fashion... maybe creating an
alignment jig.
But no, I don't claim to be terribly creative (in either case). In fact,
the closest I would come would be to claim to be "recreative", since I am
recreating the look and feel of those olden days.
>
> What you do is extremely admirable. It's also important. But it's not
> the only game in town. No flame intended. I find your persuit valuable
> and see how it helps others. My persuit is different but there are
> hundreds of people (that you haven't met) that find it more valuable and
> actually pay money for it.
>
I didn't say they didn't exist.... as you quoted, I said I hadn't met
them. However, you have made one small assumption ... "more valuable".
There are people who have paid to take courses, or to buy my products.
Since value is measured by numerous factors, including money, the only
definative answer would be to compare things such as bank accounts... which
sounds too much like comparing our manhoods. Let us just zip our pants and
agree that each other performs some service which is found to be valuable
to some people, most of whom are not of our mutual acquaintance...
Bennett Leeds
J. Michael Thompson" writes:
> It's possible to produce the following pseudo-extraction form this thread:
> "Hand cutting dovetails is better."
> "Why?"
> "You can do things that cannot be done with a router."
> "Like what?"
> "You can cut pins that come almost to a point."
> "Why would you want to do that?"
> "So that when someone looks at the joint, they will see it was hand cut."
Close, but off enough to make a difference. From my log, it was more like:
"You can't tell router cut dovetails from hand cut dovetails"
"Yes you can, if the hand cut dovetails have pins skinnier than the shank of
any router bit."
"OK, but it's just a minor difference that non-woodworkers wouldn't notice."
"No, it's a big difference in how the joint looks."
"Gee, I thought you guys were into strength, not looks. Equalized pins and
tails are strongest." (kudos to Rich for this smooth changing-of-topic
defense!)
"Where were skinny pins dismissed as being weak?"
And, then lots of discussion on skinny versus thin, a lot versus a few,
gluing versus non-gluing, how much strength is really needed, etc.
Back to the original statment, even non-woodworkers can tell the joints
apart, and they will sometimes prefer the skinnier pins. It's not just a
matter of knowing what's hand cut and what's not. One anecdotal example:
I use my wife, a non-woodworker, as a sounding board for designs. For a set
of drawers a little while ago, I cut a couple of samples: one using a Leigh
jig and one with skinny pins (cut with a combination of hand and power
techniques). They were identical except for the size of the pins (same number
and spacing of pins) I showed them to my wife, without telling her anything
about how they were made.
She chose the skinny pins.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
Just say Because something is subjective doesn't make it not worth doing.
Bennett Leeds
Rich Haubert wrote:
> Bennett Leeds writes:
> > In answer to Rich's thin versus thick material, he should check my
> > previous response. But, I'll expand on it some more here:
>...
> Bennett, I referred to the relative thickness of the pins and tails, NOT the
> material thickness.
Sorry, that was either a typo or a braino - as the content of my post
otherwise indicates, that's what I was discussing also.
> Bennett, I guess I didn't explain my point well enough. I said to equalize
> the pins and tails. I did NOT say nor imply that wider pins and tails were
> stronger.
I guess I erroneously *inferred* it from the combination of the article
title (skinny dovetails weak) with your statement about thick obviously
being stronger than thin. Sorry about that.
> I did say that the two should be equalized, ie weak (very thin)
> pins and wide tails don't make sense.
I've got two arguments against this:
1) For many dovetail applications, dovetails are so strong that "maximum
strength" is not necessary so other "senses," like asethetic senses,
come into play.
2) Since the stresses on a dovetailed joint, say a drawer, are greater at
the edges of the boards than in their middles, one can design the joint
with smaller and closer pins at the edges than in the middle and not
sacrifice any practical strength.
> Bennett, we were talking about the mechanical strength of the joint (at
least
> I was). Gluing area is irrelevant as far as this aspect of discussion goes.
I believe this was, until now, an unstated assumption - or it was something
that I was supposed to infer (which as we see got me on the wrong track
earlier).
It may be irrelevant to the discussion you want to have, but it's not
irrevlevant to the actual application and design of dovetails joints in
practice - unless one is using it as a knock-down joint.
>> Just say Form follows function, and it's part of the cool world we live
>> in that what is most attractive is also most strong when it comes
>> to dovetails.
>
> I'm surprised to hear you say that. For one thing, obviously what's most,
> attractive is purely subjective.
On subjectiveness, sure - but it was just a "Just say" postscript. Grant me
some poetic license, will ya?
> For another, the most attractive dovetail
> combo was said to be (by multiple posters, but not me) narrow pins and wide
> tails, NOT narrow pins and narrow tails, which you purport to be the
strongest.
>
> Super narrow pins are much more likely to tear off than wider ones. Yes,
> making them narrower means more of them, but not enough extra UNLESS you
> also make the tails narrow.
Well, "much more likely to tear off" isn't exactly quantitative. And since
we agree that having lots of super narrow pins with equally super narrow
tails is the strongest (at least if the joint is glued), then there would
appear to be other factors than "tear off."
As for my "form following function" statement, I stand by it as the
generalization it is. Lost somewhere in the quoting and requoting was my
statements that with narrow pins you have the option of putting more where
you need them. Indeed, one of Krenov's practices is to space the pins closely
at the edges and further apart in the middle. He talks about a "tension" in
the spacing, for instance.
Well, it turns out that the stresses are greater at the edges than in the
middle of the joint, so with sufficiently small pins, by spacing them closer
where the stresses are greater and further where the stresses on them aren't
as great, one acheives both maximum practical strength and what I consider to
be among the best looking dovetail joint.
Now, this does, I believe, go against your "equalizing" statements. With
equally sized pins and tails throughtout, you're almost guaranteed to have a
failure at the ends before the middle. Thus, you can reduce the number of
pins in the middle to some degree without practically affecting when first
failure will occur.
- Bennett Leeds
ben...@mv.us.adobe.com
Just say If strength were the only consideration, you'd be making metal
drawers.
J. Michael Thompson
Bennett Leeds wrote:
> Close, but off enough to make a difference.
Sure - that's what makes it "pseudo".
> Just say Because something is subjective doesn't make it not worth doing.
Absolutely.
JMT
Doug Dawson
Just when I thought I was _OUT_, they PULL ME BACK IN!!! ;^)
Bennett Leeds <ben...@mv.us.adobe.com> wrote:
>Rich Haubert writes
>> Bennett Leeds writes:
>> >...Due to a router bit requiring a shank of at least 1/4", the narrowest
>> >part of a tail socket cut by a router bit is about 1/4"....
>> Gosh, Bennett, ya got me. Yes, you CAN make the 'tail socket' narrower with
>> hand tools. No kidding! To date, noone has mentioned any other difference
>> between machine and hand dovetails, other than this (to me, at least) rather
>> minor difference.
>I believe the argument as originally stated said there was no difference.
>One difference is enough to disprove that: Why is it that now that we agree
>there is one we need more?
>> >To answer Ed and Rick, almost anyone can tell the difference between 1/64"
>> >and 1/4".
>> Well, sure. But the comparison, lest you forgot, was between a dog and a
>> Buick.
>That was Doug Dawson's comparison, not mine. I let it go without comment.
Ummmmm... I think you're taking all of this a little too seriously,
legalistically speaking. ;-) Can we try to examine the forest a
little more broadly?
In any case, my points were:
a) Anybody with a little knowledge of the field, can spot the
difference between handcut and machine-cut methods, with the
machinery that is almost universally used for that purpose,
ridiculously easily. Unless, for some unfathomable reason,
the person hand-cutting has tried hard to disguise the joint
as a machine-cut joint - this makes little sense, though.
b) Doing the joinery by hand, again given the machinery almost
everyone uses, allows one _considerably_ more flexibility
in integrating the joinery into a design. The design should
dictate the form of the joinery, within limits proscribed by
mechanical considerations - which limits are generally
fairly broad. You're not "limited to the paved roads." You
can do what you want, more or less.
And an additional point, for good measure: some people have
claimed, "Well golly, why would you ever want to make a dovetail
joint with skinny tails?", etc.. But this is just acknowledging
the limitations of restricting oneself to machine methods, isn't it.
Think about it.
Doug Dawson
daw...@physics.utexas.edu