Precision Tools in Woodworking

[Stanley Covington]

I have shared my opinions regarding the usefulness of precision tools for woodworking on a couple of posts. Some dismissed the usefulness of precision measuring tools without providing reasoned explanations. But I think others might benefit, so a few of my experiences and thoughts follow.

I suggest that woodworkers that desire good results and value their time should own three tools: 1. A diemaker’s square; 2. A precision ground straightedge; 3. A precision micrometer (1” .0001”). I will explain why below, but first you need to understand what kind of tools these should be, since there is so much useless junk made in Taiwan, China and India, and even the US and Europe. The tools I am recommending are not sold at Home Depot, or even in the woodworking tool catalogues, but by retailers that specialize in supplying high quality machinist’s tools to professionals. These tools are expensive, and they come with real certificates of testing for accuracy, and a solid guarantee. Once you have your set of these tools, check out their equivalents made in China, Taiwan or India and you will immediately see what I mean about junk.

Why a diemaker’s square? Most woodworkers have never seen one. While not especially useful for layout, they excel at checking the accuracy of tools and setting up equipment. Unlike the engineer’s square, which is typically a chunky stainless steel body pinned to a thinner tongue, the diemaker’s square is a solid piece of steel, so much more rigid. A quality diemaker’s square is hardened, precision ground and certified. Besides being very straight, very parallel and very square, it has bevels cut into the tongue’s four long edges, which are chemically blackened, creating a knife edge that makes it easy to quickly and unerringly see any gap between the tongue and the tool or equipment being checked. No single tool beats it for checking for square. This is a big deal if you care about 90º.

These tools are not for layout or even for even daily use (although the diemaker’s square excels at setting up tablesaws, bandsaws, and jointer fences) but are used to check that your workaday tools remain accurate. They aren’t used that often and spend most of the time in their boxes.

An example. Some years ago I ordered a Starrett combo square to replace my old worn-out one. When it arrived, I pulled out my diemaker’s square and feeler gauges and checked it. It turned out to be .012” out of square measured at the end of the blade. That’s a lot, IMO. I was shocked that Starrett would let something so shoddy leave the factory, but sh#t happens. I contacted the retailer, explained the problem, and he exchanged the tool for one with proper tolerances. But if I had blithely assumed the combo square was accurate simply because all my other Starrett tools were excellent, not only would my quality have dropped off considerably, I would have begun to question both my eyesight and sanity by the time I finished the chest of drawers I was working on.

Another example. When Lie-Nielson first came out with their jointer plane, I bought one right away. One reason I was willing to pay the high price was because all the L-N tools I had purchased previously had been manufactured to very high tolerances. I sharpened the blade and tried a cut and was shocked to find that it would not plane a flat surface. My 24” precision straightedge showed that the 22” sole was both cupped and twisted. The problem was easily corrected using glass, W/D paper, lube and the same precision straightedge. Since I had checked my framing square and knew it to be quite accurate, I could have used it instead, but it would have slower, more difficult, and I would have less confidence in the flatness of the finished sole.

I am not relating these stories to badmouth Starrett or Lie-Nielson, but rather to point out that everything in Murphy’s World has problems that must be dealt with, and that good tools can help discover and resolve those problems before they get too far out of control.

When I was a civil engineering student, the professors teaching surveying told me that errors tend to cancel each other out. After graduation, Professor Murphy taught me the truth: errors always accumulate. Test this for yourself. Take a board at least 10 inches wide you believe has all six sides/edges square/parallel. Using a square and marking knife (a pencil/pen is too fat), spin a line around the six sides/edges. Begin each line where the previous line ended, and reference the square off a different surface when cutting each line. Does the last line meet the first line perfectly, or is there an offset? If there is an offset, the error may be the board. If so, ask yourself why the board is not square/parallel, and if that amount of unexplained error might tend to make a drawer flat or twisted. If on the other hand the error is in the square, how do you check to make sure the square is good or bad?

Assuming you used the marking knife properly, is the line it cut absolutely straight? How can you tell?

How do you make a board truly flat on all four sides with all sides truly at 90º without a square that has truly straight edges and that measures a precise 90º angle? You can’t. I don’t care if your square is steel or wood or aluminum or granite, if it is not true, all your woodworking will be guesswork. That’s not good enough for me.

The oldest method for testing a square, one already pointed out by others, is to place the body of the square against some reliably straight reference surface, draw a line along the tongue, then reverse the square and draw another line closely adjacent to, or on top of, the first line. If the two lines are absolutely parallel, all is well, but if not, the max gap between the two lines indicates twice the deviation from 90º. But how do you know the reference surface you used is straight? You checked it with your straightedge? You mean that $12 aluminum or steel square made in China you bought from Sears? Or did you use a more accurate straightedge? You mean that “Made in India" POS you bought from Lee Valley? I have already shared my experiences regarding the accuracy of some combo squares. Some guys use the edge of their tablesaw or bandsaw ASSUMING the surface is straight. Fat chance. Some guys swear by using the edge of a piece of paper. That is delusional. My in-laws have four monstrous German-made CNC paper shears in their factory in Sendai, and I have checked those long blades and know they are not perfectly straight. They don’t need to be since paper is not intended to be a precision tool.

I use my dial calipers regularly, mostly for measuring the thickness of boards, and comparing edge thickness of boards I am planing. When hand planing especially, dial calipers give quick, reliable results. But dial calipers are a rack and pinion tool, and racks and pinions wear out or get dinged or clogged. When this happens, and it always does, accuracy suffers and errors begin to accumulate. How do you check the accuracy? Feeler gauges are good, but a 1” micrometer lets you quickly and reliably check up to 1” thick.

Ideally, you would check the precision of your tools before you use them the first time (or better yet, before you even buy them), and then check them occasionally to confirm they are straight/square/within tolerance. Recognize that squares and straightedges wear out or become damaged in daily use. But how is a fellow to check the tolerances of his tools accurately using tools that are themselves goofy?

Besides my layout square, and framing square, I periodically check my planes (both wood and metal body) for flat/square. Yes, they do wear and move. I also check my shooting boards and cutting jigs frequently.

I think most people use their layout and measuring tools and jigs until they become either too damaged to use, or until the precision degrades to the point their inadequacy becomes too gross to ignore, usually after repeated mistakes make them question their eyesight.

I puzzled over this problem for a long time until I met a retired machinist who educated me. Manufacturers that have customers that rely on the accuracy of the products they make have Standard tools intended only for testing/calibrating the tools used on the factory/shop floor. They hire technicians or companies to periodically certify that these tools are still within tolerance and calibrated properly. These are expensive and massive granite and steel things. Since I don’t have access to such “Standards,” my retired machinist friend recommended I follow his example and keep a small set of high-quality, certified, precision tools in my shop, including a diemaker’s square, a 24” precision ground straightedge, and a 1” .0001” micrometer. I followed his advice, and since then, I have never had to wonder if any of my layout or measuring tools is straight, or square, or properly calibrated, or measuring properly because I have my own reliable Standards at hand. I also use them to check the accuracy of the tools belonging to the guys that work for me.

Long-term, I believe this has made my work much more accurate and efficient. Without doubt, it has caused me to replace tools that were out of tolerance despite appearing hunky dory, tools that I would have otherwise continued to use ignorant of their failings. It has also caused me to reject a lot of bad tools I would have later regretted buying due to unacceptable tolerances. I am certain it has saved me a lot of time and embarrassment over the years.

If you have been working with tools for a long time and think this is all nonsense, then I wish you well. But there may be guys without your skills that might find these ideas useful so retain your flames. I am not saying this is the only way to get the job done. After all, folks were making excellent furniture millennia before mankind could even hope to measure a thousandth of an inch. And there are lots of tricks for magnifying errors in woodworking to make them obvious. What I am saying is that, long-term, three precision tools can make the job easier and more efficient and give you greater confidence in your other tools.

Those of you that scoff at me for these suggestions should check your own tools for accuracy before long. You may be shocked.

[Chris Griggs]

This is a very interesting and informative thread Stanley. Thanks for posting it. While many probably will not agree with all your assertions (in terms of necessity) your points are all very well stated and reasoning explained well. Its given me some good food for thought. Will I run out and buy all this stuff immediately? Nah, that's not where I can and want to apply my funds at the moment, and at the moment I'm okay with my less then perfect tools....in all honesty there's a good chance I'll never pursue this. That said I can definitely see how REALLY knowing the tolerances or your tools would be helpful and could potentially make things more efficient.

Thanks for posting this. Well written, informative, and some really good food for thought.

[Chris Griggs]

Also it would be helpful if you could post brand names or links to the tools you consider high quality machinist tools.

[Adam Petersen]

With what do you check the accuracy of your accuracy checking tools?

[John Coloccia]

I couldn't do the work I do (not the way I do it, at any rate) without real straight edges, engineering squares and calipers. One thing I will disagree with is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Indian straight edges and squares as long as they are made properly, and many that I've seen are fine including the Veritas ones you're mentioning.

Sometimes it's good enough to mark things off of each other and just make them fit, but if you're doing something that needs to fit AND be dimensionally accurate, eyeballing it is just not good enough. When I'm making an instrument, a nice fit just simply isn't good enough. It needs to fit well AND it needs to be accurate. I think sometimes some people here forget not everyone is making dressers and entertainment centers.

[Kees Heiden]

Hmmm, it depends on what you make, I suppose. In woodworking, especially handtool woodworking (the subject of this forum), you just don't need machine room accuracy. Checking your square on the edge of the workbench, works allright. Is it very accurate? Probably not. Is it good enough to layout a tenon shoulder? Absolutely! It doesn't really matter when your carcasses or doors or drawers don't end up at a true 90 degrees. A few swipes with a plane and all non squareness is quickly adjusted and parts are fitted together. And if things are not totally straight, who cares, if it looks straightish and the cubboard or table stands with all its legs on the ground? The strenght of handtool woodworking is the possibility to work with parts that are not 100% correct, because you fit all parts to each other. Taking meassurements from the adjoining part, instead of a ruler.

I do have a micrometer, leftover from my motorcycle hobby, but never use it in woodworking. I do have a (Indian or Chinese) straightedge, which is nice to chack plane soles. Further, I couldn't care less about precision.

[Jim Matthews]

I get my boards S6S with a 4" square, marking gauge, knife and straightedge.

I make each piece to fit the next, so having the sort of precision you describe doesn't help me much.
I doubt anything I make is perfectly flat, level or plumb. I do actually finish projects, this way.

Perfection is the mortal enemy of good enough.

[Richard Shaefer]

While I respect anyone's methods of work so long as they generate a finished product to the satisfaction of the that person, I'm pretty fimly in the 'nonsense' camp. Tools designed from steel for use on steel implicitly assume a Young's modulus of the measured material of 29,000 ksi. Wood is significantly softer. Pine is about 20x softer. That means that when you measure the thickness of the workpiece with the .0001 accuracy tool, you actually change the the thickness of the wood within the limits of accuracy of the tool. It's like trying to measure the thickness of a sponge; you change the conditions by examining them. You killed Schrodinger's cat!!

Like you said, I'm sure those tools are useful for tool set-up, but as long as subect media is wood, it's still a tough sell.

[Adam Cruea]

I suppose that your tools, since steel, could use the precision.

However, people have been working wood and making excellent furniture/items for centuries without said precision tools.

[Charlie Stanford]

While I respect anyone's methods of work so long as they generate a finished product to the satisfaction of the that person, I'm pretty fimly in the 'nonsense' camp. Tools designed from steel for use on steel implicitly assume a Young's modulus of the measured material of 29,000 ksi. Wood is significantly softer. Pine is about 20x softer. That means that when you measure the thickness of the workpiece with the .0001 accuracy tool, you actually change the the thickness of the wood within the limits of accuracy of the tool. It's like trying to measure the thickness of a sponge; you change the conditions by examining them. You killed Schrodinger's cat!!

Like you said, I'm sure those tools are useful for tool set-up, but as long as subect media is wood, it's still a tough sell.

Good stuff.

And one can certainly spot check a woodworking machine tool with these highly sensitive devices but surely just a few inches away from point of measurement the cast iron will not have been machined to the level of accuracy the tool is reading to in the first spot. The anal retentive individual likely will find this hard to deal with. The wood won't give a damn, of this I'm sure. Once one starts to talk about this level of accuracy then the force applied to move the wood, a compressible material, over or through the machine comes into play. The exercise becomes absurd and one bogs down in a bit of tail-chasing ultimately going nowhere or one deludes themselves into believing they are actually and in real time working wood to these incredibly precise nominal measurements provided by their arsenal of instrumentation. It's hard to imagine that somebody gets through an engineering much less a full degree and doesn't gain an understanding of these basic truths.

[Zach Dillinger]

Hmmm, it depends on what you make, I suppose. In woodworking, especially handtool woodworking (the subject of this forum), you just don't need machine room accuracy. Checking your square on the edge of the workbench, works allright. Is it very accurate? Probably not. Is it good enough to layout a tenon shoulder? Absolutely! It doesn't really matter when your carcasses or doors or drawers don't end up at a true 90 degrees. A few swipes with a plane and all non squareness is quickly adjusted and parts are fitted together. And if things are not totally straight, who cares, if it looks straightish and the cubboard or table stands with all its legs on the ground? The strenght of handtool woodworking is the possibility to work with parts that are not 100% correct, because you fit all parts to each other. Taking meassurements from the adjoining part, instead of a ruler.

I do have a micrometer, leftover from my motorcycle hobby, but never use it in woodworking. I do have a (Indian or Chinese) straightedge, which is nice to chack plane soles. Further, I couldn't care less about precision.

+1. If you like using precision tools, more power to you. I'd rather spend the money on wood. My wooden squares and wooden straightedge are just fine. I do have a nice Starrett combination square that I bought at an antique store, but I really only use it when my wooden squares aren't handy. They live in my tool box for protection; the Starrett lives in a rack mounted over my main bench.

[jamie shard]

I really like Stanley's post. I learn the most from people near the extremes, but I usually dial it back a little in my own practice.

There is a lot of truth to "errors accumulate" and "check what you expect". I think what your describing is probably a once or twice a year check, unless a tool is dropped. It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Being an engineer myself by training I appreciate Stanley's post. Certainly it is not for everyone, but I think the critics misunderstand his intent. The American quality guru Edward Deming postulated that," You don't know what you don't know." Too many new hand tool users have never checked the accuracy of the tools they use for marking and measuring. Personally I like story sticks, cutting things like aprons in pairs, and other techniques to avoid measuring whenever possible. That said, some things like marking tenon shoulders are a lot faster and more accurate if the square being used is accurate. I know you can adjust by paring or using a shoulder plane, but equally (and more efficiently) you can avoid this if the square is actually square. I keep a precision 24" straightedge myself along with dial indicators, test indicators, and an engineers square. All of these tools I verified for accuracy by taking them to work and putting them on a coordinate measuring machine which is calibrated annually by an outside service to standards traceable to NIST (National Institue of Standards and Technology). These tools like Stanley said, are reference tools only and sit in a drawer in my mechanics/machinists tool chest except for when I need to check other tools for accuracy.

If nothing else, think of Stanley's treatise as a wakeup call to check the accuracy of your marking and measuring tools. No matter how you work or what tools you use, good results are easier to obtain if you tools are accurate.

[Chris Fournier]

I would agree that precision measuring tools have a place in woodworking, they certainly do in my shop. Primarily these tools get used to ensure that my equipment and tools are well set up. So many of the disappointing project outcomes stem from poorly set up tools and equipment. I consider what Stanley is talking about as the first step in any woodworking project. It was not the first step that I took I should add. As I developed proficiency and began to demand better results I was forced to take this path.

As for squishing wood with measuring tools, I agree that you certainly can if you are not being careful. If however you are careful and have the same touch on the measuring tool through out the project, the information that you are gathering by the thousandths is still good, useful and relevant.

I am now doing a model project in my shop and I have to use dial calipers to make sure that I am holding specified tolerances that the client insists on. The objects that I am making will be wrapped in graphics and they need to be size on, not woodworking close.

[Charlie Stanford]

I would agree that precision measuring tools have a place in woodworking, they certainly do in my shop. Primarily these tools get used to ensure that my equipment and tools are well set up. So many of the disappointing project outcomes stem from poorly set up tools and equipment. I consider what Stanley is talking about as the first step in any woodworking project. It was not the first step that I took I should add. As I developed proficiency and began to demand better results I was forced to take this path.

As for squishing wood with measuring tools, I agree that you certainly can if you are not being careful. If however you are careful and have the same touch on the measuring tool through out the project, the information that you are gathering by the thousandths is still good, useful and relevant.

I am now doing a model project in my shop and I have to use dial calipers to make sure that I am holding specified tolerances that the client insists on. The objects that I am making will be wrapped in graphics and they need to be size on, not woodworking close.

Squishing tools with a measuring tool is an issue but not nearly as big an issue as squishing them when running them over or through a machine which, itself, is manufactured to far less tolerance than machinist's tools are capable of measuring. Even if cast iron tables and fences were perfect, a pipe dream, then arbor runout (not to mention the imperfection in blades and cutters themselves) would mess up the whole thing at least in terms of the tolerances being thrown about in this thread.

[Jim Foster]

It's nice to have a good square and a good straight edge for handwork and machine work. Beyond that, I'm not sure more "precision" measuring capability is needed when making "bespoke" items with hand-tools. On the machine side of things, I use a 1-2-3 block all the time on my table-saw for safe, accurate crosscuts. I do use some "precision" measuring tools to set up equipment.

Interesting post, provokes a few thoughts, especially since I was making some mortise & tenon joints last night, realizing if I could saw to a line more accurately I'd have a lot less effort to fit the joints and also that since I was using the mortise to size the tenon, I did not need any measuring tools beyond a small square.

[Chris Fournier]

True, some techniques require no measuring tools once the layout is completed. I enjoy this type of work when it crosses my bench.

[Kees Heiden]

In a patternmakers shop I can see the need for such accuracy. But building furniture for my livingroom? My house is made in the 1950's. Brick building with wooden floors. There is nothing straight or square in the house. In fact, my workbench is the only reasonably flat surface I have. So, it doesn't matter if the furniture isn't machine room perfect either.

And I did check one of my squares on a unused part of the workbench which is still pretty straight. I have no problems with the fit of my M&T joints, thank you. I like to work with wooden planes. The scales on my marking gauges is pretty lame, so I don't use them. Accuracy to a thousands of an inch is laughable in my shop, but still, things I make are not that bad.

So I still don't understand the need for metalworking spec'd measuring tools.

[Sean Hughto]

It really depends what you make. Personally, in my shop I disappoint my tools all the time, and they rarely disappoint me.

We all find our preferred methods of work. All are valid. All are ultimately to be judged by the quality of our works.

I tend to like hand fitting and its tolerance of "imperfection." It often seems to be the door through which personality and soul enter a piece.

[Charlie Stanford]

In a patternmakers shop I can see the need for such accuracy. But building furniture for my livingroom? My house is made in the 1950's. Brick building with wooden floors. There is nothing straight or square in the house. In fact, my workbench is the only reasonably flat surface I have. So, it doesn't matter if the furniture isn't machine room perfect either.

And I did check one of my squares on a unused part of the workbench which is still pretty straight. I have no problems with the fit of my M&T joints, thank you. I like to work with wooden planes. The scales on my marking gauges is pretty lame, so I don't use them. Accuracy to a thousands of an inch is laughable in my shop, but still, things I make are not that bad.

So I still don't understand the need for metalworking spec'd measuring tools.

Building one-off furniture is a process, from start to finish, of trimming to fit.

What seems to be being intimated in some of these posts sounds like the manufacture of interchangeable parts, built to a specific tolerance in a factory operation - anything but taking a nip and tuck here and there to make a joint fit its one and only mate - but workpieces built to work with twelve dozen other complementary workpieces on the schedule for that day's production.

Even if you set up for production the wobble of a saw blade on a consumer-grade saw is enough to possibly require quick trim with a plane for a nice tenon fit. You can push a workpiece through a tenon shoulder cut too quickly on a tablesaw and spoil accuracy. Ditto the lack of accuracy that can be found in many spots on the average mortising machine. For the most part the levels of accuracy being discussed are illusory except *maybe* for those equipped with very, very high quality tooling - probably European made at that. It won't have the name Delta, Jet, or Powermatic on it that's for sure.

[John Coloccia]

There's a lot of misinformation on this thread. I routinely work to a couple thousandths of an inch without doing any special at all. Whether or not it's a good idea for any particular piece is really governed by what you're working on, but the notion that you somehow CAN'T work to tolerances like this, or that it's difficult, is just wrong. Also, the notion that you can't work to these tolerances because the wood moves is misleading at best. Wood hardly moves at all along it's length. A quartersawn 1' wide board, going from 80% humidity in the summer to 20% in the winter, might shrink .1" across it's width, but that's across the entire width. A feature, such as a slot, will hardly change dimensions at all.

Anytime this topic comes up, there's always this broad brush stroke of, "Oh, you're just being silly...tee hee hee....the wood's going to move. What a waste of time". It's a bit more nuanced than that. Yes, at some level the wood does move, and at another level it just doesn't. In some places it pays (or is necessary) to be extremely precise, and in other places it doesn't.

[Charlie Stanford]

There's a lot of misinformation on this thread. I routinely work to a couple thousandths of an inch without doing any special at all. Whether or not it's a good idea for any particular piece is really governed by what you're working on, but the notion that you somehow CAN'T work to tolerances like this, or that it's difficult, is just wrong. Also, the notion that you can't work to these tolerances because the wood moves is misleading at best. Wood hardly moves at all along it's length. A quartersawn 1' wide board, going from 80% humidity in the summer to 20% in the winter, might shrink .1" across it's width, but that's across the entire width. A feature, such as a slot, will hardly change dimensions at all.

Anytime this topic comes up, there's always this broad brush stroke of, "Oh, you're just being silly...tee hee hee....the wood's going to move. What a waste of time". It's a bit more nuanced than that. Yes, at some level the wood does move, and at another level it just doesn't. In some places it pays (or is necessary) to be extremely precise, and in other places it doesn't.

Wood movement down the road doesn't have anything to do with fitting a joint being made on the bench right now. You're right.

Anybody trimming to fit is working to those tolerances but they don't have to be measured, a nominal measurement, some sort of gauged reading, does not have to be obtained with a machine room grade tool, to actually work to those tolerances.

That's the point being made.

Anybody who has ever skimmed a joint with a plane, just removed tissue, and had that one joint fit perfectly as a result has worked to a very high level of basically unmeasurable but uber precision. And what would be the point in measuring it anyway? If it fits, it fits. If the human eye and hand can detect 'fit' then that's all the particular medium of wood requires.

[Ray Bohn]

From an old "New Guy" with a lot to learn- Thank you for a wealth of information. I have a certain amount of doubt related to everything I do right now. Using accurate tools makes me feel more confident as I move ahead.

[Jim Koepke]

Having accurate measuring devices can be helpful in the shop.


David Weaver mentions:

It's nice to have a precision square and a decent dial caliper.

A dial caliper is very useful to check auger bits against dowel stock when dowels are used in a project. They are also good for checking a saw's set.

Most of my planes have been checked for flat and square, some are, some aren't. Some it doesn't matter since it is only going to be used as a scrub plane or to knock off some saw marks.

My feelings are split on this subject. The yearly arrival of the swallows has never rejected any of the bird houses in our field due to it being out of square. In the case of some, they do not even care that they are downright ugly.

One of my biggest problems used to be trying to make everything supper accurate. My methods have changed from constant use of a tape measure to using a story stick or cutting to fit. My work seems to end up better now. Quite often different tape measures do not agree one with another. Most of my measuring of short items is now done with a four fold yard stick that is off by an 1/8" in some places.

A caveat here, there are some precision measuring devices used in my shop at times. Most of the time they are not required for my projects. Most of the time my projects do not even come close to the realm of high end woodworking.

On some of my work the parts are made with tolerances that would be in the range of thousandths of an inch. It doesn't require precision instruments to get there. The main requirement is a flat working surface. Two sides of a box can be set side by side. Then run a finger over the edge where the two come together. If it is out much more than a thousandths of an inch, you will know. When doing this turn one piece end for end. If they are not parallel, it will be noticed. Then flip one top to bottom. If it is out of square, well you can see where this is going.

Squareness can also be tested by standing pieces on end next to each other. If the gap comes together or expands, the ends are not square. If they look good, move one piece around so the sides that were on the outside are now on the inside. If the pieces are out of square by the same amount, this will let you know.

For many projects knowing how to compare parts and make them fit without measuring devices is just as valid a way to get the job done.

My shooting board is not trusted. The pieces coming off of it are checked constantly. This is a good example of were "errors accumulate." If the fence succumbs to the constant pressure from the plane or the plane's blade gets skewed, the cut will not be square.

On the other hand, there isn't much power woodworking in my shop. Someone with a table saw, jointer and a few other electron burners would likely benefit from having some accurate tools to check their everyday tools.

Though even with the most accurate set up, it is the result that matters.

jtk

[David Weaver]

It's nice to have a precision square and a decent dial caliper. Knowing someone with a precision square is almost as good, because you can check your cheap ones on theirs.

It seems like once every month or so that I drop an old square or some kind of measuring tool and like to recheck it. And a dial caliper is nice if you're going to do any toolmaking and need to know thickness is some number. Otherwise, you could use old manual calipers, but there's no great reason to use them when a good used B&S dial caliper is about the same price as a couple of old manual tools that are in good shape.

Years ago, I bid on a 24-inch starrett engineer's square on ebay (not a typo). I didn't expect to get it, but I thought it would be nice to have to check square on large tools, and super nice to make chute boards and anything else you might like to have square. I got it for $19. It's still on dead nuts. I would never pay real money for something like that, but for $19, I sure will. It's monstrously heavy, you'd never whip it up with one hand to check a glue-up for square, but a really nice thing to have around. The guy who sold it went out of his way to make a case out of laminate ply and hardwood so it would be safe in shipping. I couldn't believe it.

I thought I'd probably never come across anyone who had one, it was my best find on ebay by far....but.....
..... George has one.

[Richard Shaefer]

I think you're confusing moisture/temperature related deformations with elastic deformations. different animals of the same phylum

[Jared McMahon]

I started woodworking with the intent of building period furniture. During school I was a musician (barely) and a coworker talked me into trying to build a couple bass guitars with him. So basically before I had built a single stick of furniture, I found myself deep in a world where relatively tiny errors in distances or radius or angles can mean the difference between an instrument and a really pretty piece of firewood. I'm sure there's a lot that can be accomplished with a more limited level of precision, but the initial post rings true to me in that taking things to that next level is pretty much always a nice-to-have, and you're only one project away from it being a must-have. :O

[george wilson]

I definitely use precision tools for setting up machines. I have a Delta thickness sander and used a dial caliper to get the table exactly parallel to the sanding drum. I ran 8" wide boards through,and checked their opposite edges for thickness,adjusting the table until I got the boards exactly the same thickness all the way across. Then,when I glue up guitar tops and backs,they are exactly the same thickness,rather than looking like tapered siding.

[Jim Neeley]

I'm an engineer who has generally evolved into the "throw away your tape measure" philosophy, i.e. using one drawer side to assure it's mate is the same length) but still see the value in a reference square for checking things like shooting board angle.

Stanley,

You posted "You mean that “Made in India" POS you bought from Lee Valley?"

As for disparaging LV for their straightedges being made in India, one of us is confused.

On Lee Valley's site, on both the steel straightedge page it says "Canadian-made". See the link below
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=56676&cat=1,240,45313,56676

On their aluminum straightedge side its says "Made in Canada". See the link below
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=50074&cat=1,240,45313

I never realized that Alaska was so close to India. <g>

Jim in Alaska

[Chris Griggs]

I'm an engineer who has generally evolved into the "throw away your tape measure" philosophy, i.e. using one drawer side to assure it's mate is the same length) but still see the value in a reference square for checking things like shooting board angle.

Stanley,

You posted "You mean that “Made in India" POS you bought from Lee Valley?"

As for disparaging LV for their straightedges being made in India, one of us is confused.

On Lee Valley's site, on both the steel straightedge page it says "Canadian-made". See the link below
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=56676&cat=1,240,45313,56676

On their aluminum straightedge side its says "Made in Canada". See the link below
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=50074&cat=1,240,45313

I never realized that Alaska was so close to India. <g>

Jim in Alaska

That confused me too. No idea if they meet the tolerances of machinist straight edges, but I'm not sure what that reference was about. Honestly, I thought it muddied the motivation and credibility behind what seemed like an otherwise very informative well thought out post.

[Dave Cav]

I definitely use precision tools for setting up machines. I have a Delta thickness sander and used a dial caliper to get the table exactly parallel to the sanding drum. I ran 8" wide boards through,and checked their opposite edges for thickness,adjusting the table until I got the boards exactly the same thickness all the way across. Then,when I glue up guitar tops and backs,they are exactly the same thickness,rather than looking like tapered siding.

I know this is the Neander forum, but the thread has been hijacked a little, so I'll keep the hijack going. I'm far from a 100 % Neander, as a glance at my avatar will tell you, but I do a lot of final fitting, trimming and finishing with hand tools. I use my power tools for heavy, repetative work, or some types of work that require machine-like precision- such as making mortises and tenons. And in that respect I'm kind of a machine Neanderthal. I use a flat belt Millbury tenoner that's considerably older than I am, and a Newman mortiser that was made when I was in elementary school. After I use a marking gauge to lay out the locations of the M&Ts, I use a digital caliper and a couple of dial indicators to set the machines up. After measuring the position and offset of a test mortise or tenon with the calipers, I use a dial inidicator to move the mortiser table or tenoner heads the exact amount to center the mortise or tenon in the stock, and I can usually get everything centered and ready to go in one iteration. Once the frame, or door, or whatever is made and glued up it's usually back to the chisels and hand planes for final fitting.

[ian maybury]

I'm another engineer that has posted before on the usefulness of precision in woodworking.

We've just had a thread which discussed the ability of a finely set plane to remove a shaving as fine as half a thou, and when we creep up on fits we're often dealing with dimensions if not this tight then still pretty damn fine.

Wood is elastic, and wood does move - but there are lots of places in joints where we need to generate fits to what are pretty much engineering tolerances. The wood of course moves afterwards, but the whole point is surely that the piece is designed so that these joints move with it and don't open up.

Working to fine tolerances in engineering is not a simple matter either - even on highly accurate machines. In the case of engineering parts and assemblies end up being designed around the capability of the machines that make them, and the tolerances required for them to function. Get it wrong and it'll end up a mess. Try for example marking and drilling a line of 20 equally spaced holes measuring from one to the next by whatever means and see how many ways there are that errors can cancel and/or accumulate in a situation like this. (different results that this can deliver) The issue may not arise if you are using a fancy CNC controlled machine that avoids the problem by having a positioning system designed so that it continuously positions from a datum - but that doesn't alter the underlying reality...

There are to my mind two basic methods possible in woodwork. Either (a) measure approximately, recognise this by making many parts slightly oversize, and when cutting these pieces and sneak up on fits for everything that needs a close fit - or (b) locate/size everything by measurement and proceed by dead reckoning/calculation and cut to size. My guess is that in woodworking most of us (a) evolve ways of working which actually blend the two e.g. square some critical corners and set some key lengths, but maybe fit most of the rest or reference off other parts, but that (b) these routines (because some will work better than others, and because stuff like machine accuracies can be highly variable) are not often formalised or well communicated - we work them out for ourselves.

There's by definition scope for a fairly wide range of approaches - even if we're shooting for similar outcomes.

There tend on the other hand in engineering to be fairly highly developed methodologies for the management of tolerances, dimensions and fits - and of course machine tools are often (a) capable of high levels of accuracy, but also (b) tend to be pretty clearly characterised in terms of their capability. (using the quality control and instrument calibration procedures already described)

Wonder if anything similar is taught on say the high end fine woodworking courses taught in the prestigious schools? It matters, because there's by definition going to be more and less effective and efficient methodologies. Skill/what you have practiced is of course a very big factor too - both in machine and hand tool use. There's stuff that can be done very efficiently with hand tools provided you have mastered the hand skills (put in the 1000s of hours needed to properly embed it in the body memory), and many woodworking machines can become highly inaccurate if handled wrongly.

Back in the day (pre mass production - the days of craft production) engineering was much like wood working. Parts were hand fitted, and seemingly the same parts in machines etc were not for this reason interchangeable. Economics and competitiveness drove the situation in manufacturing and engineering - we want to be able to repair products, but it also shook out that when volume production is involved that it's cheaper and delivers much higher quality levels in the finished item if you work to controlled tolerances and known and often very high levels of dimensional predictability/repeatability. A big part of the problem in DIY/hobby woodworking is no doubt that except in the case of very high volume operations the value simply isn't present to deliver a return on the required investment in improved methods and capability)

It'd be nice in many ways to see these issues discussed in factual terms as they relate to woodworking - the reality of what's 'best' (what does best mean?) is surely a lot more nuanced than might seem to be the case??

One issue that gets up my nose is seeing the makers of quite a lot DIY/hobby level woodworking tools and machinery exploit this lack of clarity/lack of understanding of how tolerances translate into performance by setting enormously wide and self serving tolerances/specs for stuff like machine table flatness for sample. There's rarely too many hostages to fortune created by these companies, but heaven help anybody that gets a lemon/a machine at the worst case/outer limits of the specified tolerances in multiple cases.....

ian

[Charlie Stanford]

I'm another engineer that has posted before on the usefulness of precision in woodworking.

We've just had a thread which discussed the ability of a finely set plane to remove a shaving as fine as half a thou, and when we creep up on fits we're often dealing with dimensions if not this tight then still pretty damn fine.

Wood is elastic, and wood does move - but there are lots of places in joints where we need to generate fits to what are pretty much engineering tolerances. The wood of course moves afterwards, but the whole point is surely that the piece is designed so that these joints move with it and don't open up.

Working to fine tolerances in engineering is not a simple matter either - even on highly accurate machines. In the case of engineering parts and assemblies end up being designed around the capability of the machines that make them, and the tolerances required for them to function. Get it wrong and it'll end up a mess. Try for example marking and drilling a line of 20 equally spaced holes measuring from one to the next by whatever means and see how many ways there are (different results that this can deliver) that errors can cancel and/or accumulate in a situation like this. The issue may not arise if you are using a fancy CNC controlled machine that avoids the problem by having a positioning system designed so that it continuously positions from a datum - but that doesn't alter the underlying reality...

There are to my mind two basic methods possible in woodwork. Either (a) measure approximately, recognise this by making many parts slightly oversize, and when cutting these pieces and sneak up on fits for everything that needs a close fit - or (b) locate/size everything by measurement and proceed by dead reckoning. My guess is that in woodworking most of us (a) evolve ways of working which actually blend the two e.g. square some critical corners and set some key lengths, but maybe fit most of the rest or reference off other parts, but that (b) these routines (because some will work better than others) are not often formalised or well communicated - we work them out for ourselves.

There's by definition scope for a fairly wide range of approaches - even if we're shooting for similar outcomes.

There tend on the other hand in engineering to be fairly highly developed methodologies for the management of tolerances, dimensions and fits - and of course machine tools are often (a) capable of high levels of accuracy, but also (b) tend to be pretty clearly characterised in terms of their capability. (using the quality control and instrument calibration procedures already described)

Wonder if anything similar is taught on say the high end fine woodworking courses taught in the prestigious schools? It matters, because there's by definition going to be more and less effective and efficient methodologies. Skill/what you have practiced is of course a very big factor too. There's stuff that can be done very efficiently with hand tools provided you have mastered the hand skills. (put in the 1000s of hours needed to properly embed it in the body memory)

Back in the day (pre mass production) engineering was much like wood working. Parts were hand fitted, and seemingly the same parts in machines etc were not for this reason interchangeable. Economics drove the situation in manufacturing and engineering - we want to be able to repair products, but it also shook out that when volume production is involved that it's cheaper and delivers much higher quality levels in the finished item if you work to controlled tolerances and known and often very high levels of dimensional predictability/repeatability.

It'd be nice in many ways to see these issues discussed in factual terms - the reality of what's 'best' (what does best mean?) is surely a lot more nuanced than might seem to be the case?? One issue that really gets up my nose is seeing the makers of quite a lot woodworking tools and machinery exploit this lack of clarity/lack of understanding of how tolerances translate into performance by setting enormously wide and self serving tolerances/specs for stuff like machine table flatness for sample. There's rarely too many hostages to fortune created, but heaven help anybody that gets a machine at the worst case/outer limits of the specified tolerances in multiple cases.....

ian

Well, here's a set of facts: The finest furniture-making, joinery, instrument making, etc. were all accomplished by hand in an age where none of these high precision measuring devices, machinery, etc. were available. Walking into just one, literally just one, Medieval cathedral should disabuse anybody with a notion of necessity for any of these things. And then after visiting just one cathedral stroll through a major museum with a decorative arts collection if for some strange reason one isn't convinced.

[ian maybury]

Hi Charlie. I guess it's not about either/or - or to argue that precision wasn't possible back in the day. Fine furniture from centuries ago is another example of what you describe. The modern tendency to de-skill stuff by using high precision but horribly expensive machines tends to produce horribly lifeless stuff, and is anyway not economically feasible unless the volumes are pretty high.

The trouble is though that even at the DIY/hobby level, and even working with hand tools (never mind in mixed hand/machine work) we do have to take account of issues of precision and dimensions, and the issue seems not to be clearly treated in a lot of what is published...

ian

[Mike Siemsen]

I think people should work the way they enjoy working. It is important to remember that planes make things straight and that you can plane out a straight edge for free and make you own squares from wood. Straight edges and squares can be checked against themselves. in hand work it is far more important to always lay out from a registration face and edge than it is to have ultra precision tools. The object is to minimize inaccuaracies through technique. I can build a perfectly square frame with out a square. equal length sides, equal length ends, measure the diagonals with a stick until they match. It is better to have a goodknowledge of geometry than precision tools.

[Jim Palmer]

Well, here's a set of facts: The finest furniture-making, joinery, instrument making, etc. were all accomplished by hand in an age where none of these high precision measuring devices, machinery, etc. were available. Walking into just one, literally just one, Medieval cathedral should disabuse anybody with a notion of necessity for any of these things. And then after visiting just one cathedral stroll through a major museum with a decorative arts collection if for some strange reason one isn't convinced.

Very true.

-----------

The need for accuracy tends to be as variable as the grains of sand on a beach until filtered down and graded depending upon end-use. Aesthetic beauty, finesse and micron-fine accuracy don't necessarily run hand in hand and one rule of thumb a carpenter or mason needs to bear in mind is the need for pieces to be pleasing to the eye. Think of the golden ratio and Michaelangelo's "David" combined. If a finish piece looks and feels right, it is right. Not necessarily the case in terms of engineering, due to the fact most pieces are intended for much higher stress applications involving extremes seldom suffered by timber goods.

Engineering and woodworking tolerances tend to diverge greatly once we consider the actual need for practical working methods and tooling tailored toward crafting such different materials.

Yes, accurate and well made tools are a must within both industries, but the need for accuracy depends greatly upon the skills, tooling, materials and end-uses involved. Are such high demands for accuracy absolutely necessary for those involved in amateur woodworking? No.

Final tool choice/selection is certainly up to the craftsman, but materials and end-use dictate the degree of accuracy needed. In terms of woodworking, micron-fine accuracy is quite unnecessary unless crafting wooden clocks in the style of Harrison's fine wooden timepieces.

By all means invest in whatever tooling is financially practicable and beg, borrow and steal techniques from other crafts for use in woodworking, but no amount of financial outlay will ever replace the very genuine need for one to learn the necessary differences in tooling and materials when crafting wood or metal. Then learn which is more important...... Actually crafting wood and enjoying the experience, or determining whether or not you need to tool up and attempt to craft to much finer tolerances than ever necessary.

------------

[Mel Fulks]

Accuracy is always relative .It seems to me that whenever something more accurate is introduced someone else involved in the manufacturing process 'uses up 'that advance by slacking off on their part. Enthusiasm about the high tech new stuff can cause people to pay more for less. Example: more accurate machining in ,Mechanite out. Lower quality new miracle product. Accuracy can can cause some to look at thousandths and ignore larger increments.I once saw an employer ecstatic over the performance of his new CNC router. A big pile of plywood parts had been cut out EXACTLY one inch too small. Unfortunately computer genius had programmed router cuts on wrong side of lines. But the parts were ACCURATE ,though unusable.

[Bob Warfield]

This thread has been a very good read for me. Here's my story. I used to build drag racing engines. When you take an engine design originally made to run 4,000 to 5,000 R.P.M.'s and build it to turn 10,000+ R.P.M.'s you have to have ALL the deminsions not close but PERFECT. A very old friend who retired from Sunnen Mfg. once proved to me that touching a part with your fingers will change it's deminsion. I got burnt out on the raceing game several years ago and haven't touched an engine since.
When I got into wood working I went nuts trying to deminsion lumber. I've since learned, almost, that real close is good enough.

Good Luck
Bob

[Ed Looney]

I have shared my opinions regarding the usefulness of precision tools for woodworking on a couple of posts. Some dismissed the usefulness of precision measuring tools without providing reasoned explanations. But I think others might benefit, so a few of my experiences and thoughts follow.
I suggest that woodworkers that desire good results and value their time should own three tools: 1. A diemaker�s square; 2. A precision ground straightedge; 3. A precision micrometer (1� .0001�). I will explain why below, but first you need to understand what kind of tools these should be, since there is so much useless junk made in Taiwan, China and India, and even the US and Europe. The tools I am recommending are not sold at Home Depot, or even in the woodworking tool catalogues, but by retailers that specialize in supplying high quality machinist�s tools to professionals. These tools are expensive, and they come with real certificates of testing for accuracy, and a solid guarantee. Once you have your set of these tools, check out their equivalents made in China, Taiwan or India and you will immediately see what I mean about junk.



There's a lot of misinformation on this thread. I routinely work to a couple thousandths of an inch without doing any special at all.
Anytime this topic comes up, there's always this broad brush stroke of, "Oh, you're just being silly...tee hee hee....the wood's going to move. What a waste of time". It's a bit more nuanced than that. Yes, at some level the wood does move, and at another level it just doesn't. In some places it pays (or is necessary) to be extremely precise, and in other places it doesn't.

Stanley I think you are spot on and John your observations on this thread are insightful.
The first error some are making about the use of precision tools is that they have to be used in daily production. I do not believe that is what was intended. There is a need to have a set of measuring tools that are not used to make anything but are only used to set-up and inspect. I have a good try try-square I love to use while laying out work but I also have a machinist grade square that I use to inspect my other squares. Rob Cosman is fond of saying that you must inspect what you expect. He was taught this by someone who taught him. But no matter the saying's origin there is nothing more true in life.

I am a machinist by trade and I was taught as a young man starting out that if I need to be accurate to 1/16th then I need to learn to cut to the 1/32nd. If the boss expects you to cut to the 1/16th and you can cut to the 1/32nd you will never have a quality issue. That was some of the best advise I was ever given.

There is a fallacy of thought that precision with wood is not possible because wood moves with temperature and humidity unlike metal. The inference there is that metal does not move which is inaccurate. Metal does move. So why the accuracy in machining metal? The answer is fit and quality of product. Metal cut at 70 deg will return to that size at 70 deg. Like wood will return to the size it was cut when the moisture content and temperature return to the same as when the wood was shaped.

I ran a test with a tenon cut from Poplar. It was cut it exactly 1/4" (.250"). I left it in my shop that is not temperature controlled and measured it throughout the next year. The maximum movement I got was .003. That is less than the average human hair. I can take 1/4" aluminum bar stock and lay it out in direct sunlight and get more movement than that.

I am a firm believer that the accuracy in woodworking can be taken to the next level if only people will choose to master the skills necessary to get there. The only obstruction is desire.


Ed

[Stanley Covington]

I have found many of the comments well thought out. Some not so much.

It was suggested that I provide links and names to manufacturers of the machinist’s tools I recommended. My straightedge and micrometer are by Starrett and made in the USA. The diemaker’s square is SPI made in Switzerland. I have been doing this for a long time, and I bought these tools well before anyone even thought about having true precision tools made in China or India. Since then I have read bad things about the quality of SPI, B&S and other stalwart name brands. I even doubt Starrett nowadays, so I will not recommend any one brand. The key thing is to buy from a reputable retailer of professional grade tools, someone with a solid money-back guarantee. Have them check it in the store in front of you against the sort of expensive certified calibration tools a high-quality machine shop would typically buy for QC purposes. You can’t do that online or from a catalogue. If they refuse to check it for you, or won’t accept returns, go elsewhere.

Allow me to clarify a few points my initial post left muddled. First, I am not suggesting your work is crappy unless you use high-precision machinists tools for your everyday woodworking. As I have mentioned in other posts, I seldom precisely measure anything beyond overall exterior dimensions and thickness.

An example of my workday tools. I am currently using an Empire aluminum square I bought on Guam for big stuff, a small cheap stainless Shinwa square I bought in Tokyo recently for small stuff, and 1.5 meter and 50 cm Shinwa stainless straightedges certified compliant with Japan Industrial Standard Grade 1 (Shinwa makes a damn good straightedge, BTW, but I have never seen them sold outside of Japan). I also have a fairly new Starrett combo square I use infrequently. These are my everyday working tools, and I imagine they are very similar to your own. I use these relatively cheap tools for two reasons. First, I know the squares are disposable, will surely be shaved by marking knife to uselessness, or will eventually get knocked off the bench or otherwise damaged, so there is no point in spending a lot of money on them. Second, I checked them for precision with my “Standard” machinists tools when I first bought them, and I also periodically check them against my “Standards” to ensure they are still nuts on, so I use them with confidence. When they don’t pass muster anymore, I will toss them or give them away. Not a matter of if, only when.

But I seldom use the division marks on these tools. I use them mostly to layout and/or confirm straight and square. Besides these tools and carefully marked layout sticks, I rely on two Starrett compasses, good marking gauges (Titemark and Kinshiro), a sharp marking knife (Kiyotada), and Mark-1 eyeball for most work. Sadly, there was no certification or guarantee on the Mark-1, and I find it is not what it once was.

I badmouthed my LV straightedge because the one I bought some years back was made in India and abysmal. They don’t appear to have it in their catalogue anymore, but if you drop by the house, you can check it out yourself.

A word about quality perception. I have a very Japanese mindset when it comes to quality: When I pay money for a product, I believe I OWN the reputation of the manufacturer and retailer, for good or ill, as far as that product goes. If the product turns out to be bad, I will tell everyone I know about it because I have paid for the right to do so. In Japan, the buyer is God. Vengeance is mine. This is not the American mindset, and many of you will object and call this unfair. Ergo Detroit getting its ass kicked over and over and over again. LV screwed up when they let a poor quality product travel from their shipping office to my front door, but it appears they are trying to do better.

So you think that wood is too unstable or too yielding for precision work? I heartily disagree. While not as homogenous as steel or concrete or plastic, wood is an excellent material that can be worked with great precision. Just ask anyone that works it commercially under a decent QC program. Wood does not deform as much as rubber, nor does it compress like a marshmallow. Do you really imagine in your feverish dreams that, because wood compresses under stress, it cannot be cut/milled to high tolerances? Wow, imagine that, a material that exhibits plastic deformation and a hysteresis loop; how unique (heavy sarcasm intended).



If you truly believe that seeking precision is futile because wood is softer than steel, you need to pay closer attention to the world around you. Extremely high tolerances in wood are not just possible but are absolutely required in many situations. One example, and not an unusual one. In a previous reincarnation I worked for five years for a company named MetalFit (http://www.metalfit.co.jp/) making wooden structural frames from softwood glulams using fully automated CNC production lines in Japan and Minnesota. The company has changed hands several times since then, but judging from the website, the connectors and production lines appear to be the same. These robotic lines cut/milled the members using programs automatically generated from CAD structural drawings. Because the wood had to accommodate precision metal connectors and drift pins to transmit compression, tension, bending and shear, cutting and milling tolerances were +- .0008". The members were all pre-cut in the factory and assembled on the jobsite, so dimensions had to be very tight to prevent Murphy's Law of Accumulated Errors from making assembly difficult. Of course, the glulams were re-milled upon delivery to bring them up to acceptable tolerances before they went into the line.

Cutting wood to such tolerances is easy if the machinery is well designed and maintained and setup properly. Anybody in the industry knows that. For that matter, so long as its arbor is running true and the blade doesn't wobble too much, your tablesaw can do it. But believe me, only insanity can result from attempting to setup your tablesaw to cut those sort of tolerances if your square is .012” out of wack like the Starrett combo I rejected was.

The Germans do a pretty good job at precision machining of wood too. Fascinating machines. http://www.hundeggerusa.com/

But let's set half-baked engineering theory, and willful ignorance of modern commercial woodworking practice aside for now, and shift our focus back to handwork. Do you suppose that a tenon joint layed out with a sloppy square, perhaps resulting in a gap at the shoulder, is the best anyone should strive for? If you are happy with that sort of joint, blissful art thou. I prefer to use a square I know to be accurate (no, not a diemaker's square, dagnabit, pay attention), and if the shoulder turns out to be sloppy, well then that's may fault for not cutting to the line. I like Sean’s words about him disappointing his tools. No doubt we all do that to one degree or another. But just because I can’t cut by hand to the ten-thousandth of an inch my micrometer can measure, must I be satisfied with +- .012” levels of accuracy? Of course not. The golden mean lies somewhere between these two extremes, and each of us makes a decision, intentionally or no, about what that precision will be. My intention was to encourage you to ask yourself “how do I know my tools are accurate?” From that starting point, you can make an intelligent decision.

I am fine with folks that don't need or don't want their layout and measuring tools to be straight and square. I could not care less if their little projects are lop-sided. But (here’s the part where I puff up and turn red) to spout half-understood materials science principles to support the notion that precision in woodworking is futile is not to talk about the "real world," but rather about "Wayne's World."

[Matt Lau]

Precision is precision.

While wood is an unstable medium, precision matters!
I had an eye opener last week when I was prepping mahogany for a neck.
My maestro wasn't satisfied until both surfaces were dead flat--they literally sucked onto a precision milled, granite plate with just rubbing!

It doesn't matter that things can be fixed/tweaked!
Sometimes it's nice to do things right the first time.

-Matt

ps. Can you please, please, please send me links to the manufacturer/suppliers?

[Stanley Covington]

I have found many of the comments well thought out. Some not so much.

Matt asked me to provide links to manufacturers of the machinist’s tools I recommended. My straightedge and micrometer are by Starrett and made in the USA. The diemaker’s square is SPI made in Switzerland. I have been doing this for a long time, and I bought these tools well before anyone even thought about having true precision tools made in China or India. Since then I have read bad things about the quality of SPI, B&S and other stalwart name brands. I even doubt Starrett nowadays, so I will not recommend any one brand. Fowler might still be OK. The key thing is to buy from a reputable retailer of professional grade tools, someone with a solid money-back guarantee. Have the store check the tool you are considering buying in front of you against the sort of expensive certified calibration tools a high-quality machine shop would typically buy for QC purposes. You can’t do that online or from a catalogue. If they refuse to check it for you, or won’t accept returns, go elsewhere.

Allow me to clarify a few points my initial post left muddled. First, I am not suggesting your work is crappy unless you use high-precision machinists tools for your everyday woodworking. As I have mentioned in other posts, I seldom precisely measure anything beyond overall exterior dimensions and thickness.

An example of my workday tools. I am currently using an Empire aluminum square I bought on Guam for big stuff, a small cheap stainless Shinwa square I bought in Tokyo recently for small stuff, and 1.5 meter and 50 cm Shinwa stainless straightedges certified compliant with Japan Industrial Standard Grade 1 (Shinwa makes a damn good straightedge, BTW, but I have never seen them sold outside of Japan). I also have a fairly new Starrett combo square I use infrequently. These are my everyday working tools, and I imagine they are very similar to your own. I use these relatively cheap tools for two reasons. First, I know the squares and straightedges are disposable, will surely be shaved by marking knife to uselessness, or will eventually get knocked off the bench or otherwise damaged, so there is no point in spending a lot of money on them. Second, I checked them for precision with my “Standard” machinists tools when I first bought them, and I also periodically check them against my “Standards” to ensure they are still nuts on, so I use them with confidence. When they don’t pass muster anymore, I will toss them or give them away. Not a matter of if, only when.

But I seldom use the division marks on these tools. I use them mostly to layout and/or confirm straight and square. Besides these tools and carefully marked layout sticks, I rely on two Starrett compasses, good marking gauges (Titemark and Kinshiro), a sharp marking knife (Kiyotada), and Mark-1 eyeball for most work. Sadly, there was no certification or guarantee on the Mark-1, and I find it is not what it once was.

I badmouthed my LV straightedge because the one I bought some years back was made in India and abysmal. They don’t appear to have it in their catalogue anymore, but if you drop by the house, you can check it out yourself.

A word about quality perception. I have a very Japanese mindset when it comes to quality: When I pay money for a product, I believe I OWN the reputation of the manufacturer and retailer, for good or ill, as far as that product goes. If the product turns out to be bad, I will tell everyone I know about it because I have paid for the right to do so. In Japan, the buyer is God. Vengeance is mine. This is not the American mindset, and many of you will object and call this unfair. Ergo Detroit getting its ass kicked over and over and over again. LV screwed up when they let a poor quality product travel from their shipping office to my front door, but it appears they are trying to do better.

So you think that wood is too unstable or too yielding for precision work? I heartily disagree. While not as homogenous as steel or concrete or plastic, wood is an excellent material that can be worked with great precision. Just ask anyone that works it commercially under a decent QC program. Wood does not deform as much as rubber, nor does it compress like a marshmallow. Do you really imagine in your feverish dreams that, because wood compresses under stress, it cannot be cut/milled to high tolerances? Wow, imagine that, a material that exhibits plastic deformation and a hysteresis loop; how unique (heavy sarcasm intended).

FYI, I not only have a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering, I have a masters degree in Structural Engineering (earthquake forces in steel moment frames). I need no lectures about materials science, nor do I need to be reminded of the modulus of elasticity of steel, thank you very much.

If you truly believe that seeking precision is futile because wood is softer than steel, you need to pay closer attention to the world around you. Extremely high tolerances in wood are not just possible but are absolutely required in many situations. One example, and not an unusual one. In a previous reincarnation I worked for five years for a company named MetalFit (http://www.metalfit.co.jp/) making wooden structural frames from softwood glulams using fully automated CNC production lines in Japan and Minnesota. The company has changed hands several times since then, but judging from the website, the connectors and production lines appear to be the same. These robotic lines cut/milled the members using programs automatically generated from CAD structural drawings. Because the wood had to accommodate precision metal connectors and drift pins to transmit compression, tension, bending and shear, cutting and milling tolerances were +- .0008". The members were all pre-cut in the factory and assembled on the jobsite, so dimensions had to be very tight to prevent Murphy's Law of Accumulated Errors from making assembly difficult. Of course, the glulams were re-milled upon delivery to bring them up to acceptable tolerances before they went into the line.

Cutting wood to such tolerances is easy if the machinery is well designed and maintained and setup properly. Anybody in the industry knows that. For that matter, so long as its arbor is running true and the blade doesn't wobble too much, your tablesaw can do it. But believe me, only insanity can result from attempting to setup your tablesaw to cut those sort of tolerances if your square is .012” out of wack like the Starrett combo I rejected was.

The Germans do a pretty good job at precision machining of wood too. Fascinating machines. http://www.hundeggerusa.com/

But let's set half-baked engineering theory, and willful ignorance of modern commercial woodworking practice aside for now, and shift our focus back to handwork. Do you suppose that a tenon joint layed out with a sloppy square, perhaps resulting in a gap at the shoulder, is the best anyone should strive for? If you are happy with that sort of joint, blissful art thou. I prefer to use a square I know to be accurate (no, not a diemaker's square, dagnabit, pay attention), and if the shoulder turns out to be sloppy, well then that's may fault for not cutting to the line. I like Sean’s words about him disappointing his tools. No doubt we all do that to one degree or another. But just because I can’t cut by hand to the ten-thousandth of an inch my micrometer can measure, must I be satisfied with +- .012” levels of accuracy? Of course not. The golden mean lies somewhere between these two extremes, and each of us makes a decision, intentionally or no, about what that precision will be. My intention was to encourage you to ask yourself “how do I know my tools are accurate?” From that starting point, you can make an intelligent decision.

I am fine with folks that don't need or don't want their layout and measuring tools to be straight and square. I could not care less if their little projects are lop-sided. But (here’s the part where I puff up and turn red) to spout half-understood materials science principles to support the notion that precision in woodworking is futile is not to talk about the "real world," but rather about "Wayne's World."

[Kees Heiden]

I hear you about only using the super precise only for testing your other meassuring tools.

But still, you are way out with your recommended specs. That kind of precision is not neccessary, especially not in handtool woodworking, the subject of this forum.

A good square is good to have. Check it on a straight section of your bench, that's good enough. And yes, squares wear out. A;ll the old ones I find are rife for the garbage can.
A good straight edge is good to have. A couple of years ago I broke down and bought the cheapest i could find with a DIN spec, about 50 euro. It's nice to have to check plane soles. But now I like working with wooden planes and the thing becomes mood. In daily work I like a wooden straight edge, and indeed check it from time to time to the steel one.
A micrometer? No idea what that is usefull for.

I would recommend you to have a look into Peter Follansbee's work. It might change your attitude to woodworking to a more reasonable level.

[Stanley Covington]

But still, you are way out with your recommended specs. That kind of precision is not neccessary, especially not in handtool woodworking, the subject of this forum. A micrometer? No idea what that is usefull for. I would recommend you to have a look into Peter Follansbee's work. It might change your attitude to woodworking to a more reasonable level.

Kees, thank you for your comments. Please help me clearly understand the points you are trying to make.

1. You say that the specs I recommended are "way out." Good enough. But remind me where I recommended any specs in any of my posts. Looking back at my posts I see that I did mention that I found .012" runout over 12" to be excessive for me. I also wrote that a particular product I was once involved in manufacturing commercially was milled with CNC machinery to tolerances of +-.0008". But I hope I would never be so foolish as to recommend specs or tolerances to anyone on this forum. That's something for each man to decide for the individual project he is working on, either on his own, or with his client, at least in my opinion.

2. You wrote: "That kind of precision is not necessary..." OK, what "precision" do you refer to Kees? I didn't give any specific numbers, so do you mean any precision that requires machinists tools? If so, is the level of accuracy of your 50 Euro straightedge, or the "section" of your bench, the standard we should all follow? What are these standards for precision all woodworkers should follow? I respect your opinion, but what is this sweeping assertion based on? Rough work like what Peter Follansbee does? Are you suggesting that his is the only kind of work that can be done with handtools? Is that the only kind of woodworking worthy to be discussed in this forum? Must instrument makers and sashimonoshi be satisfied with these standards of precision you seem to share with Peter Follansbee?

BTW, I have a signed copy of his newest book on making a joint stool. Great book. But that isn't the whole world of woodworking.

3. I apologize if my attitude needs to be adjusted to more reasonable levels. I will reread Mr. Follansbee's book tonight and search for ways to adjust that troublesome thing. But can you help me out and tell me what you think those levels should be?

Thanks,

Stan

[Kees Heiden]

:)
I don't want to sound too much like a knowit all. But I like the discussion. I am an engineer myself, but like to work purely with handtools at home in my gardenshed.

12 thou over 12". That's the same as 1mm over a meter isn't it? That's indeed too much for a straightedge. I have no idea how precise my cheapish DIN normed one is, but it's definitely straighter then that. When you have a reasonable straightedge, you can check the side of your workbench and plane it to straight and use that to test your squares. It's not dificult to plane a piece of wood straighter the 1mm over a meter.

I still don't understand the need for a micrometer though.

I just feel that you can do fine woodworking without the latest in Mitutoyo measuring equipement. My first project, a pine box with panneled sides was made with some "Home Depot" tools. It still looks perfectly fine with tight shoulders for the M&T joints. I used a Sandvik square, unchecked, straight form the store.

And I mentioned Peter Follansbee to show the other end of the spectrum of woodworking. His work does look rough from close up, but it looks very nice from a little distance. Pieces like that from the middleages have survived very well over the centuries, and I admire them a lot.

In fact the more I learn about woodworking, the more I steer away from the precision stuff and just try to increase my skills so I can make cuts without too much of measuring around. Feel and emotion against logic and engineering. That kind of mindset.

[ian maybury]

Hi Stan, others. Good stuff. To be fair we all seem to be on fairly common ground - that depending on how you work (high tech/ hand tools/mixed) that many methodologies are possible - and that some of these involve right first time/dead reckoning/dimension driven tasks, and others that are much less so/involve creeping up to a dimension or a fit. On the basis that what we tend to regard as 'good' wood work mixes occasions where absolute accuracy is important, accurate repetition and not so much accuracy all play their parts. Bearing in mid of course that commercial volume production woodworking is not at all the same 'work' as the building of one off pieces.

It'd be nice if we could move on to real world discussion of the various methodologies that people use. Just where do we see the requirement for high levels of accuracy pop up, and what methods/job plans do we use to achieve it?

Are we objectively/numerically aware of what we are doing, or do we need to be? One of the mags wrote an insightful piece on this issue some time ago pointing out (can't remember the exact words) that hand tools like planes routinely work to within microns - and that if as a hand tool user you want to garner some of the kudos that so called high tech has gained (which methods have their place too) the trick is to start bandying around the same terms and measurements. The differences are in many ways perhaps as much to do with language and subjective feeling as tolerances....

ian

[jamie shard]

Stanley, good follow up post, too.

I hope the intensity I "hear" in this thread doesn't get out of control. Provocative posts are fun, but when people get bent out of shape... no fun.

[Richard Shaefer]

I FYI, I not only have a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering, I have a masters degree in Structural Engineering (earthquake forces in steel moment frames). I need no lectures about materials science, nor do I need to be reminded of the modulus of elasticity of steel, thank you very much.


Well, if you want to play that game, I have degree in engineering too. I'm also a professional engineer every day of the week, I teach a masters class in bridge design, and I'm an expert in seismic retrofit design, and engineering materials science.

As I said before, I'm happy that you have methods of work that suit your needs.
But I think you take it too far by at least a full order of magnitude.
Just a suggestion here, but you might be happier sharing your methods of work and how they have helped you and just leaving it at that rather than being offended by others who may disagree.
Like I said, just a suggestion.

[John Coloccia]

I still don't understand the need for a micrometer though.


Well, everyone keeps talking about "need" as though someone claimed that you can't do good work without precision equipment. Instead, I will simply give you just a small sample of what I use my micrometers for.

1) measure acoustic top/back thicknesses
2) measure the depth of blind holes to make sure my hardware will fit properly
3) measure features on hardware so I can select the proper drill bit
4) measure guitar nut slot widths and or nut widths so I can quickly rough size a nut to the slot
5) measure fret tang width and compare to the fret slot width I measured with a feeler gauge....this measurement is critical and being off can cause your neck to bow forward or drive the neck into a fatal back bow
6) measure screws to quickly determine proper through hole clearance
7) measure string thicknesses to see what a customer is currently using
8) measure fret heights to determine how much life is left
9) measure guitar neck thicknesses as I'm carving
10) measure veneer thicknesses

And that's just what I happen to remember doing yesterday afternoon. I use them so much that I have several in the shop. One of them, from StewMac, is specially modified to measure fret tang depth and fret heights. Yes, this is very instrument-centric because that's what I do. If I made Morris chairs, I would use it for various things on a Morris chair. Some of these uses are just convenience. Others are because it's not enough to just look right. Sometimes you have to hit a very specific number too. Either way, for smaller items it is sooo much easier and quicker to use calipers than it is to measure with a ruler.

Oddly enough, I use my calipers often for ROUGHING. For example, I may need to take a bone nut blank that is .200", and take it down to .180" to fit a nut slot. No problem. I have a nice granite plate with sandpaper on it. Flatten one side, and measure the corners. Use differential pressure to bring the other side done flat and PARALLEL (how would you measure that without calipers?). Then gradually bring it down, checking as I go along, until I'm at about .181" - .182" or so. Switch to 600 grit and tweak it until I get a nice snug fit. The whole process takes me just a couple of minutes because I was able to quickly straighten out a blank and rough it to size without constantly stopping to test fit it.

I also use them to quickly transfer measurements. Measure and lock, and then transfer to wherever I want. I use it to find precise centers. Measure, divide in half, set to the half value and lock. Now I can use the calipers almost like a compass to leave a little mark where the center is.

Tons of uses...mine is in my hand for something or other all day.

[george wilson]

These days I like my precision tools because I have a machine shop now,and do have them on hand. Mostly,as I mentioned,I might set up machines with them. I'd like to say that all of the wood work I've posted here was done not only with hand tools,but 18th.C. style hand tools,including wooden squares and wooden planes. The masterpieces you see in museums were indeed done with simple tools,it is true.

I propose a word limit per post for those who are not contributors.:)

[Charlie Stanford]

Well, everyone keeps talking about "need" as though someone claimed that you can't do good work without precision equipment. Instead, I will simply give you just a small sample of what I use my micrometers for.

1) measure acoustic top/back thicknesses
2) measure the depth of blind holes to make sure my hardware will fit properly
3) measure features on hardware so I can select the proper drill bit
4) measure guitar nut slot widths and or nut widths so I can quickly rough size a nut to the slot
5) measure fret tang width and compare to the fret slot width I measured with a feeler gauge....this measurement is critical and being off can cause your neck to bow forward or drive the neck into a fatal back bow
6) measure screws to quickly determine proper through hole clearance
7) measure string thicknesses to see what a customer is currently using
8) measure fret heights to determine how much life is left
9) measure guitar neck thicknesses as I'm carving
10) measure veneer thicknesses

And that's just what I happen to remember doing yesterday afternoon. I use them so much that I have several in the shop. One of them, from StewMac, is specially modified to measure fret tang depth and fret heights. Yes, this is very instrument-centric because that's what I do. If I made Morris chairs, I would use it for various things on a Morris chair. Some of these uses are just convenience. Others are because it's not enough to just look right. Sometimes you have to hit a very specific number too. Either way, for smaller items it is sooo much easier and quicker to use calipers than it is to measure with a ruler.

Oddly enough, I use my calipers often for ROUGHING. For example, I may need to take a bone nut blank that is .200", and take it down to .180" to fit a nut slot. No problem. I have a nice granite plate with sandpaper on it. Flatten one side, and measure the corners. Use differential pressure to bring the other side done flat and PARALLEL (how would you measure that without calipers?). Then gradually bring it down, checking as I go along, until I'm at about .181" - .182" or so. Switch to 600 grit and tweak it until I get a nice snug fit. The whole process takes me just a couple of minutes because I was able to quickly straighten out a blank and rough it to size without constantly stopping to test fit it.

I also use them to quickly transfer measurements. Measure and lock, and then transfer to wherever I want. I use it to find precise centers. Measure, divide in half, set to the half value and lock. Now I can use the calipers almost like a compass to leave a little mark where the center is.

Tons of uses...mine is in my hand for something or other all day.

Fair enough.

John and Thomas Seymour, no micrometers:

http://www.pem.org/sites/luxury/

[Zach Dillinger]

If you work with machines, you might need these tools. If you work solely with hand tools, you don't need them. You may like to use them and that's fine and good. But please don't make beginners think they are necessary. They aren't necessary, nor are they even particularly useful in my shop. My shop-built wooden squares and straightedges are just fine for my work. But I don't build bridges. And I don't build space vehicles. So I really couldn't care less about micrometers or precision squares.

As for testing my squares, it is easy enough to scribe a line, then flip the square and eyeball the difference. If my eye says its good, its good enough for hand tool woodworking. For my straightedges, I make two at a time and use them to check each other. It works just fine. No need for a super-precise, accurate to .0000000000000001, $8 million machinists straightedge. For me. If you want it, no big deal.

[Kees Heiden]

Micrometers. you mean something like this don't you?

254167

I also have Vernier calipers and use them often for the reasons you mention. Not because I couldn't do it any other way, just because it is often a handily shaped meassuring tool.

[John Coloccia]

Micrometers. you mean something like this don't you?

254167

I also have Vernier calipers and use them often for the reasons you mention. Not because I couldn't do it any other way, just because it is often a handily shaped meassuring tool.

Digital calipers, actually, but everyone calls them micrometers so I try to do that too. I used to have dial calipers too, and actually prefer those, but they don't seem to hold up well in my shop. I was probably killing a dial caliper every year or so, so I switched to digital. Dial is nice because you get instant feedback...you can see the material give, you can quickly find the widest or narrowest point, etc. I have some micrometers here that I don't use much, but they do get used occasionally.

[Jim Foster]

Well said.

I think many beginners (like me on and off for the last 20 yrs) with no formal training, second guess our efforts and get caught up in marketing hype and try to follow paths with hand-tools and machine tools simultaneously. In my limited efforts I notice the use of machine tools requires lots of focus on machine setup and fiddling with precision measuring tools to get the blade the right height or the fence the right distance, etc... In using handtools, (once you know how :) ) you can easily shave off .002" or better with a plane, and your marking one piece against the next (A very key factor) the flexibility is limitless when compared to machine tools and the accuracy can be significant when you can manipulate feature sizes by several thousandths. Doing this on affordable machine tools is possible (manipulating an existing feature by several thousandths is not easy with most home shop equipment) with good skills, but requires precision setup capability as well.

Accurately squaring up a shop made square with no precision tools is not only realistic, but something that I think we all should do as hand woodworkers.

I confess to being a mechanical engineer as well and own number of micrometers (none have or will make it up to my shop). In my shop I have three non-woodworking precision tools. A Starrett dial caliper that I use all the time because it's so quick and convenient, a 3ft piece of flat ground stock (pretty cheap and very straight), and a cheap (but american made) set of 1-2-3 blocks. The 1-2-3 blocks are used all the time for machine tool setup and making safe accurate crosscuts on my tablesaw (I highly recommend them) In full disclosure I also have an 18x24" granite surface plate (very flat, very heavy, and less than $200) left over from an old project and is now used as a sharpening table.

I'm fortunate enough to have several old Bridge City squares, but at this stage I almost wish I did not so I'd be forced to make my own :)

It seems to me there is no need for precision tools in shops that are exclusive to hand tools. I would argue that even a square is a luxury that is not necessary to make precision mortise&tenon joints.

On the flip side, it's very nice to have precision measuring tools, but it can hamper your path to successful hand-tool work if you rely on those tools and do not develop the skills used for centuries without these machinist quality measuring tools.



If you work with machines, you might need these tools. If you work solely with hand tools, you don't need them. You may like to use them and that's fine and good. But please don't make beginners think they are necessary. They aren't necessary, nor are they even particularly useful in my shop. My shop-built wooden squares and straightedges are just fine for my work. But I don't build bridges. And I don't build space vehicles. So I really couldn't care less about micrometers or precision squares.

As for testing my squares, it is easy enough to scribe a line, then flip the square and eyeball the difference. If my eye says its good, its good enough for hand tool woodworking. For my straightedges, I make two at a time and use them to check each other. It works just fine. No need for a super-precise, accurate to .0000000000000001, $8 million machinists straightedge. For me. If you want it, no big deal.

[Bill Fleming]

As another "woodworking engineer" - I hope we never arrive at the point where people say, like lawyers, "that there are too many of us".... we need all the engineers we can find, there are just too many problems that need solving.

I do have to say that I agree with the spirit of Stan's note about a set of "shop set of standards" - I think whether consciously or unconsciously we all know which measuring tools within our shops are "the good ones" and which are "close." Having suffered the results of inaccurate tools that I assumed were good enough I would advise a person starting to invest in a set of shop standards. Stan outlines a straightforward approach to doing this consciously and knowing the quality and tolerances associated with the chosen standard. Myself, I arrived at my set of shop standards more painfully as a result of problems and my solution was less preplanned. I use a square from Woodpeckers, a rule from Bridge City, a Double Square from LV and an inherited micrometer. All used to setup tools, check other tools and use for checking critical work.

I guess the main point of Stan's note is know the accuracy and limits of your measuring tools and then you are more empowered to consciously design and build to whatever tolerances you choose.

Cheers - Bill

[Ed Looney]

I have been taught by a wise person to inspect what you expect. If you expect the joint to come out square and don't inspect the square you laid out the joint with then don't expect the joint to come out square. I know the commonly used method is to get a pipe clamp and force the joint into submission and it will be fine. But wouldn't it just be easier to add some precision to your work and make sure it was laid out and cut square to begin with? All that fussing with the clamps in a rush before the glue sets is a pain.

Ed

[Charlie Stanford]

If you work with machines, you might need these tools. If you work solely with hand tools, you don't need them. You may like to use them and that's fine and good. But please don't make beginners think they are necessary. They aren't necessary, nor are they even particularly useful in my shop. My shop-built wooden squares and straightedges are just fine for my work. But I don't build bridges. And I don't build space vehicles. So I really couldn't care less about micrometers or precision squares.

As for testing my squares, it is easy enough to scribe a line, then flip the square and eyeball the difference. If my eye says its good, its good enough for hand tool woodworking. For my straightedges, I make two at a time and use them to check each other. It works just fine. No need for a super-precise, accurate to .0000000000000001, $8 million machinists straightedge. For me. If you want it, no big deal.

I can't imagine what good could possibly come out of putting machinist's grade straightedges, dial gauges, etc. on consumer grade woodworking machinery, can you? Nothing will spec out worth a damn. It's just not machined to close enough tolerances or assembled to close enough tolerances. So, what 'ya gonna do at the end of the day? Fire it all up and get to work. That, or get off the merry-go-round and do it like the old guys did which is what you do and apparently do extraordinarily well.

[Adam Cruea]

Ya know, with a little knowledge of math, you can easily make wooden tools that are precise. *shrug*

Again, people been working things without super dead-nuts perfect tools for years. Since I use hand tools, this is my opinion. Do I own a square? Yes. Steel straight edge? Yes? Do I think they're dead-nuts perfect? No. But they're in the ball park and probably more precise than the tools I have, and the work I do is for me. I'm the only one that has to be happy with what I build (and my wife, of course). I check flat for "good enough". As is, did I plane a 4" rut in that board? No? I can only see a shimmer of light?

If someone wants to have gobs and gobs of super-precise stuff to check their other expensive stuff to transfer that precision to other expensive stuff, more power. I'd much rather spend money on lumber and hand tools as opposed to stuff that checks stuff that checks stuff.

If someone walks into my house and starts inspecting things close enough to see little flaws or "oops" moments, I tell them to stop being an ass or GTFO. :-D

[Charlie Stanford]

Ya know, with a little knowledge of math, you can easily make wooden tools that are precise. *shrug*

Again, people been working things without super dead-nuts perfect tools for years. Since I use hand tools, this is my opinion. Do I own a square? Yes. Steel straight edge? Yes? Do I think they're dead-nuts perfect? No. But they're in the ball park and probably more precise than the tools I have, and the work I do is for me. I'm the only one that has to be happy with what I build (and my wife, of course). I check flat for "good enough". As is, did I plane a 4" rut in that board? No? I can only see a shimmer of light?

If someone wants to have gobs and gobs of super-precise stuff to check their other expensive stuff to transfer that precision to other expensive stuff, more power. I'd much rather spend money on lumber and hand tools as opposed to stuff that checks stuff that checks stuff.

If someone walks into my house and starts inspecting things close enough to see little flaws or "oops" moments, I tell them to stop being an ass or GTFO. :-D

Best bloody post in the whole thread.

[Stanley Covington]

Well, if you want to play that game, I have degree in engineering too. I'm also a professional engineer every day of the week, I teach a masters class in bridge design, and I'm an expert in seismic retrofit design, and engineering materials science.

As I said before, I'm happy that you have methods of work that suit your needs.
But I think you take it too far by at least a full order of magnitude.
Just a suggestion here, but you might be happier sharing your methods of work and how they have helped you and just leaving it at that rather than being offended by others who may disagree.
Like I said, just a suggestion.

Thank you for your suggestion.

I have no problem with people that disagree with me. After all, this forum is a place for people to share their opinions, and those opinions are going to clash. And you will note that I did not respond to those that objected to things I actually wrote in my post.

But I do not feel it useful to remain silent in cases of misunderstanding. You wrote that wood could not be measured to .0001" because it is so soft the micrometer would crush the wood. That may or may not be, but the fact remains that nowhere did I suggest using a micrometer to measure wood to the ten thousandth. Go back and check.

If you are interested, I use a digital caliper to measure wood thickness when planing by hand or by machine. By pure coincidence, my Mitsutoyo measures to the ten thousandth of an inch, but it would be silly of me to suppose that measuring to .0001" would be useful outside of a CNC production situation, or that a dial caliper with its big jaws could actually measure wood to that level consistently. I ignore the last digit. And ignoring that last digit is irritating. The next caliper I buy will not measure beyond .001". Once again, I do not suggest using a micrometer to measure wood, nor do I suggest that readers of this forum should measure to the ten thousandth of an inch with any tool. Please do not accuse me of being an idiot, or for not paying attention in school, for something I did not write.

One thing I learned while working in the industry is that, while there are similarities, steel and wood are not the same, as you correctly pointed out. They have very different engineering properties. Consequently, there are significant differences in how wood must be handled to achieve consistent tolerances. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done, just that most people don't know how to do it. The truth is that the people on this forum don't need to concern themselves with such tolerances, therefore, I apologize for even mentioning that CNC machines could cut/mill wood to high tolerances, and for the misunderstanding that factual statement has created.

Another post ridiculed the specs that I recommended. What specs? What recommendation? I simply told of two of my experiences that actually mentioned tolerances, one about the accuracy of a particular steel tool, and the other about some CNC machinery. But I did not recommend a single spec, or tolerance, or numerical value to anyone, nor did I suggest that the readers of this forum should follow some specific specs or tolerances. Go back and check. If someone disagrees with me, that is their right, but if they post a criticism of what I wrote, I insist that criticism be about something I actually wrote, and not attribute nonsense to me. If left alone, incorrect attributions often come to be perceived as factual.

Thank you again for your entirely correct suggestion.

[Charlie Stanford]

Thank you for your suggestion.

I have no problem with people that disagree with me. After all, this forum is a place for people to share their opinions, and those opinions are going to clash. And you will note that I did not respond to those that objected to things I actually wrote in my post.

But I do not feel it useful to remain silent in cases of misunderstanding. You wrote that wood could not be measured to .0001" because it is so soft the micrometer would crush the wood. That may or may not be, but the fact remains that nowhere did I suggest using a micrometer to measure wood to the ten thousandth. Go back and check.

If you are interested, I use a digital caliper to measure wood thickness when planing by hand or by machine. By pure coincidence, my Mitsutoyo measures to the ten thousandth of an inch, but it would be silly of me to suppose that measuring to .0001" would be useful outside of a CNC production situation, or that a dial caliper with its big jaws could actually measure wood to that level consistently. I ignore the last digit. And ignoring that last digit is irritating. The next caliper I buy will not measure beyond .001". Once again, I do not suggest using a micrometer to measure wood, nor do I suggest that readers of this forum should measure to the ten thousandth of an inch with any tool. Please do not accuse me of being an idiot, or for not paying attention in school, for something I did not write.

One thing I learned while working in the industry is that, while there are similarities, steel and wood are not the same, as you correctly pointed out. They have different very engineering properties. Consequently, there are significant differences in how wood must be handled to achieve consistent tolerances. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done, just that most people don't know how to do it. The truth is that the people on this forum don't need to concern themselves with such tolerances, therefore, I apologize for even mentioning that CNC machines could cut/mill wood to high tolerances, and for the misunderstanding that factual statement has created.

Another post ridiculed the specs that I recommended. What specs? What recommendation? I simply told of two of my experiences that actually mentioned tolerances, one about the accuracy of a particular steel tool, and the other about some CNC machinery. But I did not recommend a single spec, or tolerance, or numerical value to anyone, nor did I suggest that the readers of this forum should follow some specific specs or tolerances. Go back and check. If someone disagrees with me, that is their right, but if they post a criticism of what I wrote, I insist that criticism be about something I actually wrote, and not attribute nonsense to me. If left alone, incorrect attributions often come to be perceived as factual.

Thank you again for your entirely correct suggestion.

Maybe you could try articulating exactly what we are supposed to do with these sensitive instruments in one paragraph. I assume if we're not supposed to measure wood then we're supposed to measure machines and other tools. Then what? What is it EXACTLY that you propose we do with this information besides wring our hands?

[steven c newman]

Ok, A little table i made awhile ago, just for example. I MIGHT have used a tape measure, once, maybe twice during the entire build. For some reason, i can not see worrying about .0001" in wood. It may vary from one day to the next, depending on weather conditions in the area. What fit perfectly one late afternoon, might not fit at all, or be too loose the next morning. The wood computer desk I am sitting at , has breadboard edges. They are now 3/8" too long, due to the dry winter weather. Next June or July, they will be just the right length, again. Does a "precision tool" account for such items??

Steel will move as well. Remember that a steel bridge needs to be assembled from parts, and if the sun should heat them up enough, it will be hard to install the last bit of frame work. The rest has "swelled" enough to make the last opening too small. 254224254225My squares.

Yes i use a square, or two, just for layout work. mainly as a guideline from my handsaw to follow. Layout a mortise, or a tenon. Just lines to guide the hand tool. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the table254223Looks good from here. Daughter loves it, and, it matches her Grandmother's old chair.

[Chris Griggs]

Maybe folks didn't make it this far down in the original post (it was rather long:)). Its worth pointing out that nowhere did Stanley say these were required to do good work or that we all needed to run out and buy them... in fact he stated up front what a lot of folks seem to be saying as rebuttals.



If you have been working with tools for a long time and think this is all nonsense, then I wish you well. But there may be guys without your skills that might find these ideas useful so retain your flames. I am not saying this is the only way to get the job done. After all, folks were making excellent furniture millennia before mankind could even hope to measure a thousandth of an inch. And there are lots of tricks for magnifying errors in woodworking to make them obvious. What I am saying is that, long-term, three precision tools can make the job easier and more efficient and give you greater confidence in your other tools.

I'm not going to run out and buy this stuff either, but I still appreciate learning what tools he finds beneficial, in what capacity and why. I wonder how many of the people who are so offended (as opposed to simply in disagreement) would be singing the same tune if they paid $400 for a new plane and learned that it was out of tolerance.

Again, I have the same disagreements, and am in the camp of "a tool is as a tool does" and also "if it looks/acts square, flat, even, fair,,, whatever, than it is good enough" but I can still understand appreciate the other perspective...

( Of course, the fact that I have a bachelors degree in pyschology and an Ivey League masters degree in education makes me more qualified to understand multiple perspectives than the rest of you... I would insert a giant eye-rolling smiley con here but they don't make one big enough for me to thoroughly convey my level of sarcasm)

Anyway, I'll say again. This has been an interesting thread... if nothing else good food for thought, and I appreciate Stanleys, detailed descriptions and clear explanations of his points despite the fact that they may not be my thang. This thread has also evoked some good discussion different sorts of measuring equipment and in what aspects of woodworking (if any) higher tolerances may be especially helpful.

[Stanley Covington]

Ah, you want the executive summary. Here we go, step by step.

1. Get three reliable measuring tools, a diemaker's square, a straightedge, and a micrometer. Do not use them for daily work, but set them aside, carefully protected. Let's call these tools "Standards."

2. Using these Standards, test the accuracy of any layout and measuring tools you are considering buying before you buy them, if possible. If your tests reveal that a tool does not meet your personal expectations for accuracy, decline to buy that tool. Alternately, if it is not possible to test a tool before buying it (i.e. an Ebay, catalogue, or internet purchase), use these Standards to test the tool upon receipt. If it fails your test, either return it to the seller, or dispose of it otherwise, but do not rely on it. You may also want to test the precision of other tools, for instance, the flatness of a plane's sole or the angle between sole and side if you intend to use it for shooting.

Note: The diemaker's square can be used to test for square, of course, and for flat/straight. The straightedge can be used to measure flat/straight over distances your diemaker's square can't. The micrometer can be used to test the precision of a vernier/dial/digital caliper. Keep in mind that you cannot reliably test the precision of one tool using another tool of equal or lesser precision. For example, if the caliper you are testing reads to .001", then the tool being used to check it must be able to accurately measure to at least .0001". The same principle applies to squares and straightedges. An example of how not to test would be to go to Home Depot and try to test the accuracy of one Empire brand framing square by using another Empire brand framing square taken down from the same wall. On the other hand, going to a Rockler store and testing a 6" Crown square against a 7" Incra guaranteed square, while not ideal, at least makes sense.

3. Using these "Standards," periodically re-test your layout and measuring tools (and any other tools you deem necessary) to determine if they still meet your personal expectations for accuracy. The frequency of this periodic testing will vary from person to person, of course, but it makes sense to base it on how frequently, and how hard, you use your tools. If your tools meet your expectations, all is well. If they don't, then you have to make the decision to either ignore, repair, replace or do without.

4. If, during the normal course of events, you suspect one of your layout or measuring tools (or other tool) is out of tolerance (i.e.a layout square shaved repeatedly by a marking knife), or has been damaged, perhaps due to a fall from your bench to a concrete floor, for instance, test it using these "Standards" to ascertain if it still meets your personal expectations for accuracy. If it does, all is well. If it doesn't, you have to make the decision to either ignore, repair, replace or do without.

I hope that is concise enough. Please cease the wringing of hands.

Stan

[Jim Koepke]

Of course, the fact that I have a bachelors degree in pyschology...

That must be some rarified field. Looking it up gave me no clue as to what it is. 254228

jtk

[george wilson]

I haven't seen any digital caliper that would measure closer than a half thousandth. That's why I prefer a dial caliper. Easy to interpolate to a quarter thou. by where the needle falls. Of course,over several inches,calipers are not accurate to .001" anyway,but for comparative measuring,when I want 2 pieces of metal to fit just to each other,they are fine. I also don't want to deal with battery failure,oct excessive battery failure found even (or especially) in Starrett digital calipers.

By the way,working to a tenth of a thousandth even in steel is not the easiest thing to do. This was alluded to earlier. The machined surfaces are rougher than that small a measurement,and precision grinding is usually resorted to in order to even get surfaces that are smooth enough to warrant that measurement. Holding master precision levels in the hand will warp them some. I wear gloves when leveling my metal lathes with mine. How many here have actually worked to tenths?

By the way,where can I find a digital caliper that measures to .0001"?

[Leigh Betsch]

How many here have actually worked to tenths?
By the way,where can I find a digital caliper that measures to .0001"?
Sorry I'm not actually in this conversation, but I have to answer this. Me. +\-.0002 was real common when I was in the mold making business. And .00005 occasionally, but that's a whole different world. Temp control, vibration control, Moore jig bore mounted on 4 ft of concrete foundation, but not in my home shop. And defiantly not with a caliper! Splitting a thou is quite common but there are still a lot of machinists that don't have the knack. They can sometimes fit something close but as far a holding the numbers consistently they lack the focus.
Ok I'm just bragging, back to the sideline for me.
Alright on edit I'll weigh in on topic also. The only true precision tool I use for wood is my dial caliper. I like it for measuring board thickness when I use my thickness planner and occasionally when I rip a board to width on my table saw. But it is a bit of a crutch. I learned machining way before taking up this sport and I'll never be able to unlearn.

[Stanley Covington]

I haven't seen any digital caliper that would measure closer than a half thousandth. That's why I prefer a dial caliper. Easy to interpolate to a quarter thou. by where the needle falls. Of course,over several inches,calipers are not accurate to .001" anyway,but for comparative measuring,when I want 2 pieces of metal to fit just to each other,they are fine. I also don't want to deal with battery failure,oct excessive battery failure found even (or especially) in Starrett digital calipers.

By the way,working to a tenth of a thousandth even in steel is not the easiest thing to do. This was alluded to earlier. The machined surfaces are rougher than that small a measurement,and precision grinding is usually resorted to in order to even get surfaces that are smooth enough to warrant that measurement. Holding master precision levels in the hand will warp them some. I wear gloves when leveling my metal lathes with mine. How many here have actually worked to tenths?

By the way,where can I find a digital caliper that measures to .0001"?

George

Thanks for the insight. The Mitsutoyo digital caliper is a 500mm unit I bought in Japan around 2004 for measuring glulams. They don't show it in their product line anymore. And you are right, it reads out to .0005" in inch mode, not .0001". And that extra digit makes it a pain to read.

Since you are a professional machinist, what brands or even specific tools would you recommend nowadays?

Thanks,

Stan

[Mark Dorman]

If flat and square are not important; why do people flatten the backs of plane blades? Is it so we can make a flatter surface with our cambered blade? Why do we lap the soles of planes? If our square is off and we saw to that line do we fix it with our equally crooked shooting board? These are things I'm asking myself and learning as I go. I'm learning what good equipment is and what close enough is and how a lot of times its not. When I did metal fab work (30 years worth) some people's close enough was and some people's wasn't; but the tools never lied. They were consistent; weather accurate or not they did it the same every time. It was up to you to learn the tools and make them perform better than their condition. In my woodworking if the end result is not close enough; I ask my self was it my focus, my skill or my tools. As mentioned by someone earlier I disappoint my tools a lot. If I find its skill/focus I work on that. If its the tool I repair, replace or figure a way to make it work knowing its limitation. You have to be able to determine if its the tool or you though. If a more precise square or straight edge improves my end result and saves me time and material I might talk my penny pinching self into spending the money; after I wasted about five times that much time and material though. Precision; is it a tool that you start with or something you figure out on the way?
Threads like this can be good food for thought. Hay lets get into marking tools because if your using a pencil instead of a marking knife and your knife is not single bevel well then; oh never mind.

[John Coloccia]

[QUOTE=Mark Dorman;2062664
Threads like this can be good food for thought. Hay lets get into marking tools because if your using a pencil instead of a marking knife and your knife is not single bevel well then; oh never mind.[/QUOTE]

Funny enough, I find I'm more accurate with a pencil than a knife. For some reason, I find it very easy to split a pencil line, and very hard to nail a knife mark. When I'm marking things off, sometimes I'll intentionally make the line fatter than it needs to be, in fact. Let's say I want to mark off a measurement. I find it very difficult to put the pencil down EXACTLY where I want it and mark, so lately what I've been doing instead is making a mark as close as I can, and then I widen it a bit so that the measurement I want is dead center of the width of my mark. If I overshoot a touch, no problem...I just widen the other side a touch and I'm back in business :) Maybe that's difficult to visualize. I should make a video. Anyhow, that's so much easier than make a mark...woops...erase the mark...make another mark....grrrr....erase.....

When I do it, it feels like this should be one of those tricks that we all learn about, but I've never seen it talked about anywhere. It probably even has a fancy name, like "fat marking" or something. Someone help me out here.

[Kees Heiden]

Stanley, I did understand you were using the Standards to calibrate your other meassuring tools. Of course, in specifying a set of standards you implicitely define the specs you want to work with in woodworking. It all goes together. The precision you want in your woodwork is reflected in the Standards you keep in the closet. And the other way around.

You really only need a good straightedge. You can make these yourself. Plane the edges of two battens and compare them to each other. Or put a sheet of sanding paper on a piece of thick floatglass and use that to straighten the batten. There are probably more tricks, but I just splurged and bought a steel straightedge with a DIN "certificate". A chinese one of course, because that is plenty good enough for me.

When you have a reliable straightedge, you can use it to find or create a straight section on your workbench and use that to calibrate your squares.

And I have still no idea why you want to meassure thickness of wood with a dial or vernier caliper. You can use a marking gauge to compare boards and see if the faces are parallel. And thing like tenons are fitted to size.

So I still think you are going overboard with your precision tools. But if it makes you happy, I won't argue against that.

[Stanley Covington]

Funny enough, I find I'm more accurate with a pencil than a knife. For some reason, I find it very easy to split a pencil line, and very hard to nail a knife mark. When I'm marking things off, sometimes I'll intentionally make the line fatter than it needs to be, in fact.

Very interesting. For many years I have used a marking knife for anything I thought needed precision. I still do, for the most part. For layout requiring less precision, like a cut with a skillsaw, I tend to use an inkline or a carpenter's pencil sharpened to a chisel point.

But I was in the Woodcraft store in Stanton CA one day and purchased Rob Cosman's dovetail DVD because a friend had praised his techniques, and because we share the same alma mater. I was shocked to see him using, not a knife, not a pencil, but a ballpen! I was scandalized.

But one day a few years later I was laying out tight dovetails in 1-1/4" thick softwood and found my knife was wandering all over the place. On top of that, I couldn't see the knife marks when I was done. I guess my aging eyes were letting me down. So I tried a ball pen, just like Rob shows in his DVD, and found it worked very well indeed. Of course, I still lay out pins using a knife. I find myself using a ballpen more and more, and a pencil less and less.

I have since bought most of Rob's DVD's.

Thanks, Rob!

Stan

[Stanley Covington]

Stanley, I did understand you were using the Standards to calibrate your other meassuring tools. Of course, in specifying a set of standards you implicitely define the specs you want to work with in woodworking. It all goes together. The precision you want in your woodwork is reflected in the Standards you keep in the closet. And the other way around.

You really only need a good straightedge. You can make these yourself. Plane the edges of two battens and compare them to each other. Or put a sheet of sanding paper on a piece of thick floatglass and use that to straighten the batten. There are probably more tricks, but I just splurged and bought a steel straightedge with a DIN "certificate". A chinese one of course, because that is plenty good enough for me.

When you have a reliable straightedge, you can use it to find or create a straight section on your workbench and use that to calibrate your squares.

And I have still no idea why you want to meassure thickness of wood with a dial or vernier caliper. You can use a marking gauge to compare boards and see if the faces are parallel. And thing like tenons are fitted to size.

So I still think you are going overboard with your precision tools. But if it makes you happy, I won't argue against that.

I think we are talking about different types of woodworking, Kees, and there is nothing wrong with that. Whatever gets the job done for you is what you should use.

You wrote "when you have a reliable straightedge." That is the whole point of my post, Kees. You and I just have different definitions of the word reliable.

The matched batten tool you mentioned is very very ancient and pretty good. In fact, one of the first tools I was told to make as a young man was just that. I copied the one the old boy that taught me kept in his toolbox. I used a piece of fine-grain quartersawn hinoki (believe it or not the wood was once a piece of Ise Shrine). I cut the stick in half and then connected the two pieces together with two sliding dovetail pins. I also added a bamboo wear strip on the edge of each batten because hinoki is a bit soft. In Japan they call it an "awasejogi"合わせ定規 which translates to "opposing rulers." I still use it for truing the soles of my wooden-bodied planes. I love that little thing, but frankly speaking, its not nearly as reliable as my 24" Starrett straightedge, or even my much cheaper Shinwa straightedge, and its a lot harder for me to accurately judge the gap between the wear strip and the surface I am testing. But if matched battens work well for you, great.

You wrote that you have no idea why I would want to use a dial caliper. Have you tried using a dial caliper for measuring wood thickness? A lot of people find them pretty handy, and decent Chinese made units can be bought very cheaply nowadays. Here is one example where a caliper can be handy. As you know, a good handplane is a very precision tool that can shave a thousandth of an inch reliably with every stroke. If you measure the thickness of your plane shavings at a particular setting, a caliper can help you determine how many strokes are necessary on one one side of the board to make it closely match the thickness of the opposite side. That can save a lot of trial and error and squinting at marking gauge lines when prepping material.

Is a dial caliper essential? No. And I am not saying you must use a dial caliper to do good work, Kees, just that I, and many people, find them very useful. The micrometer I suggested just helps to make sure the caliper is measuring correctly.

I agree with you totally about tenons.

Best of luck.

Stan

[Kees Heiden]

Yes, we work differently with different perspectives. I did like the discussion a lot though and think it is good when both views are displayed in the same thread.

BTW, I use my vernier calipers often because it is such a handy nifty little tool, but in woodwork I don't use it for its accuracy. In the little metal work I still do, I use all the tools you describe though.

Nice story about that Japanese straightedge. I like that kind of stuff.

[Chris Griggs]

A dial or digital caliper is actually something that I don't own that I would like to get (you can get basic ones so cheap don't know why I haven't). I don't bother to evenly thickness my wood unless I have too for the piece's particular use, but there are times when it really matters and it would be convenient just to check with a caliper. Its not a requirement.... just check with my marking gauge or a stop rule and feeling if it is even around the board is good enough, but a digital caliper, while not necessary, would be handy in some cases. A lot of the tools we talk about on this forum aren't required, but that doesn't mean they aren't nice to have. Would also be nice for say, checking auger widths against dowel stock maybe....I could even see if being used for checking fits of joinery in some case - not to dial an exact numeric fit, but maybe just to get an idea of how far off things are. Another place it might be useful...sliding dovetail...ever been fitting a sliding dovetail and trying to figure out exactly where its off. Its not always and issue of being just to fat, sometime the angle is a tad off and by measuring both the widest and narrowest part of both the male and female parts of the joint you could very quickly tell if and where things are off (of course dividers will do this for you as well). Anyway, would I actually use a dial or digital caliper this way in my shop? Maybe, maybe not....don't know. Just kinda reflecting on ways in which one might be handy. For me it probably wouldn't be used to check all me tolerannces within .0001", but I can see it being pretty handy as a point to point comparison tool. For me the question as to whether or not to use such tool comes down to whether they will make certain things quicker and easier and if the advantages they offer are worth he expenditure....if I think they'll lead to lots of fussing I'm not interested...if the have the potential to help with a few things here and there, but are really expensive and not required, I'm probably not interested....but if they can make some tasks more convenient and aren't a huge investment its a worthwhile consideration.

I too really like the matched straight edge Kees and Stan describe. Since match plane my winding sticks in this way I use them as straight edges all the time. When its time to true them up, I clamp them together in the vise, plane a slight hollow, and then plane until I think that hollow is gone. If when I hold them edge to edge up to the light I see no light or just a small amount thats good enough, as the amount of hollow I might still be seeing is actually twice what each individual stick has in it.

Good stuff. Interesting thread.

[Chris Griggs]

That must be some rarified field. Looking it up gave me no clue as to what it is. 254228

jtk

Just saw this post. LOL!!! Yeah its a select somewhat esoteric major, only offered by a handful of universities, and only students who are absolutely certain about their career path tend to pursue it.

[george wilson]

Actually,to make a straight edge or a master flat,you need to make 3 that fit together interchangeably,not 2.

[Charlie Stanford]

Actually,to make a straight edge or a master flat,you need to make 3 that fit together interchangeably,not 2.

Yup:

http://home.comcast.net/~jaswensen/machines/straight_edge/straight_edge.html

[Stanley Covington]

Actually,to make a straight edge or a master flat,you need to make 3 that fit together interchangeably,not 2.

I see your point. But do you think it is likely the bumps and hollows of the two pieces of an awasejogi lightly planed or scraped while joined together will align so perfectly when the edges are placed against each other? Seems counterintuitive. What do you think?

Stan

[Zach Dillinger]

Actually,to make a straight edge or a master flat,you need to make 3 that fit together interchangeably,not 2.

That's true. I keep one that I don't use and just make a new pair when I need them, relying on the unused third. I don't need three for my work, but two can be helpful.

[george wilson]

Mitutoyo is a good brand. Never heard of Mitsutoyo.

The making of 3 straight edges or 3 master flats was brought into standard practice in the early 19th.C.. Beginning machinists were required to make their own master flats starting with 3 castings .

[ian maybury]

:D It seems like there's been plenty of psychology in play/on display in this thread anyway....

The interesting bit is that there clearly are techniques on the more traditional side of the house that translate to machine based measurement driven woodworking, and vice versa.

It's been mentioned before, but the role of skill is a big deal in my mind. Machine based and production oriented methods by definition have their roots in an approach that sought to de-skill most operations - but (especially with woodworking machinery which isn't always as precise as it could be) there's another skill set that becomes important there too.

Craft methods on the other hand tend to rely heavily on manual and individual woodworker skills - the video of that Scottish woodworker somebody posted recently doing tenons with a few strokes of a chisel and bit of paring was a great example of this. Or the guy turning beautiful chess pieces in a Moroccan market using a small bow lathe, a single cutter and his foot. Neither technique is likely to be remotely useful to anybody not prepared to put in the hours needed to build either skill - but both are cost effective and fast compared to beating the same task to death with technology. e.g. router and fixtures and maybe a router plane for the tenons.

Neither is right or wrong per se, and as hobby woodworkers largely free of output targets we each have the freedom to choose our preferred approach. Whether that be a productivity minded and machine based, or a gloriously self indulgent insistence on the use of hand tools for its own sake, or one of the many many points between these extremes on the continuum.

What I do feel is that it'd be a pity if we were to get bogged down in an ideological insistence on one approach or the other. We're each in different situations, from the point of view of budget, time availability, workshop facilities, skill set/level and everything else, and what's more are not necessarily chasing the same objectives. As in one guy may be trying to get his house fitted out ASAP at reasonable cost in the his spare time, another may be in the realm of pure art.

As before it'd be nice to see the methods that people use shared and explained. The design, and subsequently the methods used to make the parts for and to assemble e.g. a simple shelved cabinet presume an approach to the control of dimensions and fits right from the first step - but you don't see the methods discussed in any more than peripheral way in the mags....

Here's an offering from the engineering side of the house for what it's worth. I recently got fed up with the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in tape measures, and bought a 600mm/24in vernier calliper from these guys in India: http://www.ebay.com/itm/600mm-24-HARDENED-STAINLESS-STEEL-VERNIER-CALIPER-WITH-WOODEN-BOX-ECspares-/261065409196?pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3cc8b602ac&vxp=mtr It's not digital, and it doesn't have a dial (it's the older vernier scale type i was brought up on) - but it's very well made and actually of very comparable quality in hardened stainless steel as say an old Mitutoyo. It wasn't perfect, in that the length of the set screws locating the gigs/bronze bearing strips needed a little fine tuning with a file to solve a glitchiness in the movement - but it's 100% now and all for about $100. For a tool of which type cost many many hundreds back in the day.

Is it the sort of thing you use for every measurement? No - it's often easier to make a part and then transfer measurements from that. Or set a machine stop once, and use that. It doesn't even have to be done that way, in that it seems likely that with a story stick and a carefully thought through approach to the sequence of work you could get there without every needing the know any dimension exactly. But it's very useful at times when e.g. you want to get an accurate measurement and use it to make a part to fit a gap precisely to be able to determine dimension to within a pretty close tolerance (maybe 0.1mm or so)...

ian

[Charlie Stanford]

Mitutoyo is a good brand. Never heard of Mitsutoyo.

The making of 3 straight edges or 3 master flats was brought into standard practice in the early 19th.C.. Beginning machinists were required to make their own master flats starting with 3 castings .

Yup, again (U.S site, in English):

http://www.mitutoyo.com/

We all could probably use one of these since it measures without making any contact with the thing being measured:

http://www.mitutoyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/E4156-544_LaserScanMic.pdf

[Kees Heiden]

Actually,to make a straight edge or a master flat,you need to make 3 that fit together interchangeably,not 2.


You could argue that the plane is the 3rd straight edge.

In fact it is easy to make one concave and then on fitting you automatically make the other convex. But when you turn him around, the error would show up (probably). I guess it's best to use the match planing technique.

[Chris Griggs]

Actually,to make a straight edge or a master flat,you need to make 3 that fit together interchangeably,not 2.

Interesting. That's the first I've ever seen that. I don't fully understand why though. I'll have to read though the link Charlie posted when I have some time this evening. Great info guys, thanks

[george wilson]

Ian,there is no substitute for personal skill,that is for sure. And,of course,without TASTE ( a judgement that may or may not be in the craftsman's head),it all comes to naught,anyway.

Not sure that you could argue that the plane is the 3rd. straight edge. What if the plane is not perfect? Besides,the plane does not rest entirely flat upon the wood,does it? It rests on the throat,just before the blade,and upon the heel of the sole in operation.

This discussion is verging on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.:) Are ANY of you going to implement anything discussed here in your wood working? It would be better to be perfecting your skills than niggling about things like this. But,I suppose that's the nature of these fora.

[Chris Vandiver]

Interesting. That's the first I've ever seen that. I don't fully understand why though. I'll have to read though the link Charlie posted when I have some time this evening. Great info guys, thanks


Three surfaces are required(if none are a known flat) to keep from creating mirror image surfaces.

[Mike Cogswell]

Digital calipers, actually, but everyone calls them micrometers so I try to do that too.

John,

Since you apparently know the difference between a micrometer and a caliper (dial or digital) I respectfully suggest you refer to them by their correct name. In your earlier posts, where you made many references to using a micrometer I foolishly assumed you meant you were using a micrometer and not a caliper. While I suppose some people may call a caliper a micrometer, you are the first I have actually encountered. I suspect the vast majority of people reading this also know the difference and use the correct name. I try to also use dial or digital caliper, at least the first time, to make it clear I'm not referring to an inside or outside caliper.

I enjoy your posts and very much appreciate the very different aspect of woodworking you bring to the table. Please don't confuse me. I need no additional help in that area.

[Kees Heiden]

Here is a description how you make two straightedges. Indeed matchplaning them together and then folding them open and look for a lightgap in between.:

http://investigationsblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/a-homemade-straightedge/

[John Coloccia]

Interesting. That's the first I've ever seen that. I don't fully understand why though. I'll have to read though the link Charlie posted when I have some time this evening. Great info guys, thanks

It's because two edges can fit together like pins and tails on a dovetail and you would not detect any deviation because they fit each other, but if you add a third edge it could potentially fit the pins or the tails but obviously not both.

[george wilson]

Actually,you can see .0001" in a gap,not .001" as your article states,Kees. I wonder how much of a machinist the author is?
The article is just an opinion on how to do it. The great early engineering masters like Maudslay ,Whitworth,and others laid down the foundations of all modern precision in the late 18th.,early 19th.C.. They used 3 plates,scraped together to make master flats. The same applied to straight edges,though if you had already made a suitable master flat,you could use it to make the straight edge. Starting from scratch,though,you need to make 3. But,the tolerances being discussed are far beyond the requirements of woodworking,so it is moot anyway.

[John Coloccia]

John,

Since you apparently know the difference between a micrometer and a caliper (dial or digital) I respectfully suggest you refer to them by their correct name. In your earlier posts, where you made many references to using a micrometer I foolishly assumed you meant you were using a micrometer and not a caliper. While I suppose some people may call a caliper a micrometer, you are the first I have actually encountered. I suspect the vast majority of people reading this also know the difference and use the correct name. I try to also use dial or digital caliper, at least the first time, to make it clear I'm not referring to an inside or outside caliper.

I enjoy your posts and very much appreciate the very different aspect of woodworking you bring to the table. Please don't confuse me. I need no additional help in that area.

I'm sorry, Mike. Believe it or not, the worst offenders are engineers (or former engineers like me) and machinists. They're constantly asking you to "hand them the mics", and they're "micing" this and "micing" that....and then you ask them for calipers and they hand you dividers, which is a type of caliper but obviously not what I want! And then there's the odd duck that hands you digital calipers and decides to call them "verniers". LOL. I guess the alternate lingo was a survival skill in my former life. You're right. I'll cut it out and be more precise.

[george wilson]

Actually,dividers have 2 straight legs with sharp tips,commonly used to scribe circles,or in many cases,machinists file one leg slightly longer. Then,they can hang the longer of the legs off of an edge,and scribe a line parallel to that edge along the metal. To be more exact,though,hermaphrodite calipers(morphy calipers) are the more correct instrument for this application. They have one pointed leg,with adjustable tip,and the other leg has a curve to bear against the side of the metal being scribed.

Being mostly underpaid,frugal types,machinists just made do with their regular dividers rather than also purchasing the hermaphrodite calipers,so you don't commonly see them. You do commonly see dividers with slightly different length legs.

Calipers are either inside or outside style. Both have curved legs,the inside being curved outwards to bear against the inside of a hole or gap being measured. I have to go eat now. More later.

Edit: So,if dividers are really compasses,why are they called dividers? Because their sharp points were used with steel rules with very thin etched or engraved divisions. A machinist was expected to be able to use his dividers to "click" into 1/128" divisions on his steel rules,then transfer the measurement to his work.

Early machinists most of the time had no micrometers of their own. They cost too much. They were expected to learn to "feel" a thousandth with plain calipers when making parts fit. This is a skill I learned early on. They sometimes had standard gauges that measured just 1 measurement,like 1",or other common measurements. They could use these to check the sizes of shafts being turned,or set their calipers to them. Much work was done by individual fitting of parts by feeling with calipers,rather than by measuring parts to absolutely known measurements with micrometers of gauges.

[ian maybury]

Here's another write up on the three edges technique: http://home.comcast.net/~jaswensen/machines/straight_edge/straight_edge.html

It seems to me Charlie that we react at a gut or emotional level to the de-skilling/de-humanisation of work.

Which likely is an intuition we'd do well to take account of - lest we end up with the woodworking equivalent of these enormous glass and marble shopping centres (malls?) that sell little of any practical use to anybody. The cost of which pieces of bragging rights though was enormous - so we end up paying for them ad infinitum in the form of escalating prices driven by daft rents - despite a massive economic crash the prices still keep going up because the rent has to be paid off fewer customers. (i paid the equivalent of $20 (!!) for a bog standard cinema ticket in Dublin last night)

It's for reasons like this important that we stay conscious of what we are doing. It's easy to get locked into a habitual or unthinking machine/technology mindset, or into an equally blind more traditional one. In either case we stand to run into problems when the context changes...

ian

[Chris Griggs]

It's because two edges can fit together like pins and tails on a dovetail and you would not detect any deviation because they fit each other, but if you add a third edge it could potentially fit the pins or the tails but obviously not both.

I still haven't read through that full link yet. Just posting quickly between meetings right now. I'll probably understand once I read through the details. What I don't get is if you match plane the pieces won't any deviation in flatness be identical in the two pieces and this automatically show up as being multiplied...if they're match planed I don't see how the deviations can cancel eachother out. How could they be opposing if they are planed together? I don't doubt you guys are correct. Clearly there is something I'm not visualizing correctly hear. I'll read through the whole thing on my lunch today and repost with my understanding or lack there of.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

A dial or digital caliper is actually something that I don't own that I would like to get . . . Would also be nice for say, checking auger widths against dowel stock maybe....

When using auger bits or handheld drills, I stopped trying to measure the dowel stock versus the auger bit - any run out in the drill being used or maybe an imperceptible bend in the auger bit might change things, or maybe I'm just measuring the auger bit wrong - I've just found it quicker to grab a piece of scrap stock from the project (often the "horns" cut off after cutting mortises, for instance) and a few auger or drill bits that might be close to what I want and drill a few holes, and try the fit of the dowels in question in those holes. Sometimes with less-forgiving wood, Irwin bit "A" might make a hole more amenable to what I want than Jennings bit "B" or even Irwin bit "C". I toss it at the end of the project, as test fitting pegs tends to wallow out the holes. (I learned that quickly after trying to rely on the same couple of pieces of drilled wood, although I do still have on kicking around as it was handy for building tool holders, seeing if a 3/4" or 13/16" or whatever is a better size hole for this chisel to rest in)

[John Coloccia]

I still haven't read through that full link yet. Just posting quickly between meetings right now. I'll probably understand once I read through the details. What I don't get is if you match plane the pieces won't any deviation in flatness be identical in the two pieces and this automatically show up as being multiplied...if they're match planed I don't see how the deviations can cancel eachother out. How could they be opposing if they are planed together? I don't doubt you guys are correct. Clearly there is something I'm not visualizing correctly hear. I'll read through the whole thing on my lunch today and repost with my understanding or lack there of.

I don't know about making a straight edge via match planing. I was talking about why you need 3 pieces to make one straight edge.

What match planing buys you is if you're not perfectly square, when you join the edges the angles will always be supplementary and the glue up will be flat. It will indeed double any error in flatness along the gluing surface, however. Even worse, if there is any sanding or scraping to be done after the glueup, and the joint isn't dead square, you will end up with a wavy joint because the joint is angled and meets at different points as you go down a piece. Maybe not a big deal if you're just going to do a light scraping, but if you do any shaping, carving, rounding, etc it can end up looking really amateurish.

[george wilson]

Just have faith that the original masters knew what they were doing. The foundations of our modern precision work is based upon them,and upon clock makers. Clockmakers were the precision industries of their day. When heavier engineering came along,the now famous early engineers like Maudslay,Whitworth,and all the others stepped in and laid the way. They scraped in 3's.

[Stanley Covington]

Mitutoyo is a good brand. Never heard of Mitsutoyo.

The making of 3 straight edges or 3 master flats was brought into standard practice in the early 19th.C.. Beginning machinists were required to make their own master flats starting with 3 castings .

Now you are just being curmudgeonly. Is ミツトヨbetter?

[Keith Outten]

WOW,

I spent most of my life working as an Inspector which means that I already know that I don't know it all yet :)
I used to hang out in machine shops when I was in high school. Worked on every type of engine you can imagine when Uncle Sam offered me a job that I wasn't allowed to refuse so I joined the Navy. Later in life I attended a Non-Destructive Testing / Quality Control training program offered by one of Newport News Shipbuilding's (NNS) subsidiaries which led me to Nuclear Contruction projects, then Nuclear Operations and eventually ten years at NASA Langley.

I remember many visits to the Main Machine Shop at NNS and the things I witnessed few can imagine. Like OD Micrometers that were so big they had to moved by an overhead crane, used inside a BIG shop that was kept at 68 degrees F to inspect things that I am not allowed to discuss. Through the years I eventually became an ASNT Level III Examiner and racked up a lot of certifications from Industrial Radiographer to High Strength Structural Steel Inspection and last but not least Visual Inspector.

Getting back on topic I own several OD Mics, two digital calipers, a pipe wall thickness micrometer and a host of other precision tools these days simply because I use to own a metal lathe and a mill. I do have a 1.000" calibration standard that I use to check the small OD Mics and digital calipers against on occasion even though it rarely matters anymore. I never use my tape measure for woodworking, it is used for rough carpentry and to measure walls so I can calculate how much paint I need to buy.

I do build custom jigs and fixtures every now and then, thats when I am particular about accuracy. This is when the mics and calipers become very handy to own. Not that I need to work to Nuclear or Space Program tolerances per se, its just nice to be able to know that a jig or fixture won't add an unacceptable error to a project that is complex. Last but not least I own a CNC Router but it pretty much takes care of itself because I trust its accuracy based on checking the machine periodically the same as I check other tools as Stanley stated in his post.

This thread takes me on a trip down memory lane, thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts and please remember to keep things friendly. Tolerance of other peoples personalities and the techniques they prefer are just as important as the ones you have to measure with those micrometers and those wonderful Starret scales :)

You do know that a ruler is a monarch and a scale is a measuring instrument :)
.

[george wilson]

Stanley,not being a curmudgeon. If you are talking about technical subjects,it is an obligation to call things by their correct names. That includes calipers,dividers,micrometers,dial and digital calipers,and the accuracies which can be ascribed to these instruments. You can't throw around incorrect terms as it adds confusion to the discussion. You can't say .0001" when you should say .0005" in a technical discussion. If you work in metric,this can be confusing to convert,I know.

If scientific papers were written in very offhand ways,we'd still be cranking our cars. That's just the way it is. It is reality. Even in Japanese.:)

I didn't start this discussion,but being a toolmaker,I have used these tools for many years.

When I was in college,I was fortunate to study with one of the foremost artists in the country. I made a drawing of a sailing ship,and made some error in the rigging. He told me so,and said if you are going to make drawings of technical subjects,you can be criticized for doing it wrong. I didn't even think of calling him a curmudgeon. I knew he was right. I resolved to do better next time.

Keith,I don't use a tape for important things because acceptable government standard error is 3/16" in 6 feet! I do have a $3.00 tape measure I bought out of a bin at the grocery store. It is actually quite accurate (but not a steel rule)!!

[Mel Fulks]

Some mentions in this thread about some company's precision tools not being made as well now as they were before. There is a lot of good used stuff competing with new. In a relatively small market any tool not likely to get worn out is eventually back on the market and competing with current production. Capability of accuracy does not necessarily get translated into product. My son is an engineer in a company that does high precision work. They have gone to laser type measuring and recently sold off some LARGE precision tools at low prices. Purchasers got good deals.

[Stanley Covington]

Stanley,not being a curmudgeon. If you are talking about technical subjects,it is an obligation to call things by their correct names.
If scientific papers were written in very offhand ways,we'd still be cranking our cars. That's just the way it is. It is reality. Even in Japanese.:)

George, please cut me some slack over a spelling error of the name of a Japanese company, the phonetic of which can be Romanized as either Mitutoyo, using the prewar Romanized version of ツ, or Mitsutoyo, using the postwar Romanized version of ツ. My mistake was to add the s, an error of spelling, but not quite as serious an error as my brother calling a vernier caliper a venereal calibre.:eek: A Freudian slip, perhaps? BTW, do you pronounce Nikon cameras naikahn, or nick-on, or nee-cone? I promise to not call you an imprecise scientist. Didn't I already apologized for my error of referring to the fourth decimal place as .0001"? Definitely curmudgeon-like.:p

Wow, I had not realized this had developed into a discussion of scientific papers and technical subjects equal in importance to the development of the modern crankless automobile! I will try to be more careful.:D

Stan

[Chris Griggs]

Ok, I just read through the explanation of the 3 straight edge averaging and that makes perfect sense.

RE: the match planing thing. Yes it the same thing I do when edge joining two boards but with a different purpose (though when I match plane I still do check for a slight gap when held together to create a slightly sprung joint. When I match plane in an attempt to get a straight edge the idea is that any gap I get is twice the out of flatness of each straight edge. So if my edges are slightly convex and I can't fit a piece of paper in the gap when I hold them together the gap is probably less than .002". Keep in mind I'm not using this for super high tolerance stuff. I use them as winding sticks and also to check my progress when I'm flattening a board. They seem to work well for that.

Honestly, I don't recall where I picked this up, and perhaps its a poor method but for me it seems to have been a nice quick way to get a pretty straight reference on things like winding stick that are out being used a lot and thus need semi regular truing. I like the idea of the 3 edge approach for something more precise...if I was going to do that I'd probably use a material that is more stable than wood, but easier to work than metal...I wonder if some type of hardish polymer would work well for a shop made straight edge?

[george wilson]

My first dial caliper was a Craftsman made in the late 60's. I have no idea who made it. It served for many years,and was dropped 3 or 4 times before it finally gave up the ghost.

My worst dial caliper was a USA made Starrett(though they are my favorite tool makers,at least their old stuff). I had other calipers in the shop,and after the warranty had expired,I discovered that the inside measurement jaws were off by .008". Ruined a job due to that. I was given the run around by the repair shop at Starrett,but finally they agreed to look at it to verify it hadn't been damaged,and was made wrong. I sent it back,and it returned with the card of the repair woman,only out .004" this time!!! I currently do own a Starrett which is o.k.,and a good Peacock,which is no longer a good brand.

Somehow,I got hold of a vice president of the company,and told him I could see how it could have gotten out of the factory the first time,but after SPECIAL TREATMENT,how was it still messed up? He told me to send it back at once,and mailed another caliper.

I might mention that Starrett also seemed to insist on using the old,out dated UNCOVERED rack gear,when everyone else,even $14.00 Chinese ones,had covered racks. I think they EVENTUALLY started using a covered rack.

I'll bet that if the caliper in question had been one of the Starretts now made in China,it would not have had that gross flaw. None of the cheap,throw away Chinese calipers I had in the shop (for others to use) were ever messed up like that.

I also had a Mitutoyo caliper which lasted well,but seemed to be rather prone to the needle jumping out of place. Eventually,I discovered that the needle itself was loose!!

B&S calipers are made in France for the time being,the real company is long out of business. I haven't tried them yet. I have a very nice Japanese Peacock brand I like very much. I noticed Enco was selling Peacock calipers and ordered one. It was a HORRIBLE,roughly ground piece of junk!!! What happened to that brand? The $14.00 ones were superb compared to it. Fowlers are made in a number of widely diverse places,and it's strictly pot luck what you get. Helios? who knows where they are made? Used to be a good German(or Swiss) brand. So many good names have been sold off to Asian companies,it's getting hard to know what is good,except by personal inspection. For now,I recommend Mitutoyo because at least they are still Japanese.

[Darius Ferlas]

Just some facts to put precision in perspective:

A linear foot of cast iron will expand/contract by 0.001" with ambient temperature fluctuation of 20 degF. In a good chunk of the US most unheated workshops/garages will see tetmperature changes of 60+ deg. F which amounts to 0.004" of the change in the dimension. Of course wood will change more.

The smallest object a human eye can see is 0.1mm (0.004").

The smallest object a human finger can detect is 0.003".

An average coat of spray is 0.004" to 0.008" thick.

A layer of sweat and/or oil on human fingers can be more than 0.004" thick.

[Jim Koepke]

When I do it, it feels like this should be one of those tricks that we all learn about, but I've never seen it talked about anywhere.

My recollection of this is it being a topic of discussion in the sixth grade. Most likely it was a personal favorite of the instructor. He was also the teacher that stayed after school to play chess with students.

Much of what we do is knowing what our markings or layout lines represent. If a knife line is dead on, then it is "saw to the line." If it is a pencil mark with the center of the line where we want it, then it is "split the line." None of my saws are thin enough to split a knifed line.

My most used caliper is a Lufkin 4" that is marked in 32nds. It isn't that difficult to extrapolate to about 0.007" or there about.

That is often used for dowels and bits. Most of the bits that work good with dowels are kept separate from the other bits.

In an earlier post of mine my last job is mentioned an my writing of a piece on using your calibrated eye for a technical manual.

Here is the text of that piece:


The Calibrated Eye
The purpose of this exercise is to train your eye to recognize small sizes for what they are.
To do this exercise one needs a lot of mixed spacing washers. The sizes found on our TTMs
are .001, .005, .010, .016, .030 and .040 with occasionally some other odd sizes.
A dial or digital caliper is also needed. Small containers or pieces of paper to separate the
washers into different piles are also needed.

With all the washers mixed in a pile, start measuring with the caliper. Look at the edge of each
one during the measuring process. Separate the washers into piles of washers that measure the
same. After a short time, look at the washer before measuring it and see if you know what it
will measure before it is put in to the caliper. Keep doing this until you get good.
Congratulations you now have calibrated your eyes. Recalibration may be needed if not used
on a regular basis.

The Unseen Measuring Device

Screw threads are often neglected when it comes to measuring. This is peculiar since making
accurate rulers at one time depended on a threaded shaft for the precise engraving of the lines.
In the Vendor TTMs, the adjusting screws for the ticket gaps in the feeder section use a
threaded shaft with 32 threads per inch. Another way to look at this is one complete turn of the
nut on the adjustment shaft for the gap will change it by 1/32 of an inch or 0.03125 of an inch,
until it is stopped by the limits of its movement.

Taking this one more step, a half turn will change the gap 0.0156 of an inch, rounded
for simplicity. A quarter turn will move it almost 0.008 of an inch.
You may ask where is this going...

By knowing how much movement is accomplished by what increment of turning one can
better understand what they are doing.

Think of the face of a clock. If one turns a fastener with 32 threads per inch about 1 minute's
worth, the fastener will move just a bit more than 0.0005, five ten-thousandths of an inch. Two
minutes of turn is a bit more than .001, one thousandth, of an inch.
Micrometers measure items down to 0.0001, one ten-thousandth of an inch. With each full turn
of the handle being 0.025 of an inch. With just a little calculation, you will know the precision
screw inside the Micrometer has 40 threads per inch.

Please note there hasn't been any changes to this.

The text is written for folks who do not know that a "minute" is also 1/60 of a degree. Some of the references are specific to things used.

Looking at the end of a piece of wood can usually tell me if it is close to square. With a trained eye and a square it isn't too hard to gauge the amount of out of square. Knowing from experience the thickness of my shavings it is not too hard to figure how to hold my plane to take a few passes to square the board.

As someone else says, what ever works for you is good.

For me it is helpful to have some way to check standards. Is it absolutely necessary? That depends...

jtk

[george wilson]

Darius: I can see one of my hairs,and they are .002" in diameter. I can feel it,too,if i run my finger over it laying on the table,for example. My cat has finer hair(fur) than that. I can see it too. I can feel a LOT smaller of a ridge on a piece of metal I am turning than .003". .003" is pretty large. I can SEE a sudden difference of .001" on a piece of metal I'm turning.A piece of typing paper is .005". Pretty thick,really,though not a lot thicker than some of those specs.

Actually,it has been shown that the human eye can see a scratch 1/250,000 wide. Consider how small the lines on a DVD are. Whoever wrote those specs is WAY off.

No doubt,this will start a huge argument,but I know what I'm talking about.

[Chris Griggs]

Darius: I can see one of my hairs,and they are .002" in diameter. I can feel it,too,if i run my finger over it laying on the table,for example. My cat has finer hair(fur) than that. I can see it too. I can feel a LOT smaller of a ridge on a piece of metal I am turning than .003". .003" is pretty large. I can SEE a sudden difference of .001" on a piece of metal I'm turning.A piece of typing paper is .005". Pretty thick,really,though not a lot thicker than some of those specs.

Actually,it has been shown that the human eye can see a scratch 1/250,000 wide. Consider how small the lines on a DVD are. Whoever wrote those specs is WAY off.

No doubt,this will start a huge argument,but I know what I'm talking about.

I don't think this will start an argument. I don't know what I'm talking about but those definitely seemed off to me too. I know that copy paper is .004 to .005" thick and I know I can see things alot thinner. Those measurement all sounded quite large to me...perhaps each number was short a zero behind the decimal point?

[Darius Ferlas]

Darius: I can see one of my hairs,and they are .002" in diameter. I can feel it,too,if i run my finger over it laying on the table,for example. My cat has finer hair(fur) than that. I can see it too. I can feel a LOT smaller of a ridge on a piece of metal I am turning than .003". .003" is pretty large. I can SEE a sudden difference of .001" on a piece of metal I'm turning.A piece of typing paper is .005". Pretty thick,really,though not a lot thicker than some of those specs.

Actually,it has been shown that the human eye can see a scratch 1/250,000 wide. Consider how small the lines on a DVD are. Whoever wrote those specs is WAY off.

No doubt,this will start a huge argument,but I know what I'm talking about.

Your hair may be thicker.
Here is a list of some objects' dimensions (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html).

There may be variations in how individual people perceive the world and some are known to have more acute senses. For example, the hearing angle in humans is between 20 and 20,000 Hz. Some can here sounds on either side of the boundaries.

[David Weaver]

Maybe it was thicker when george was younger!! :)

[Jim Neeley]

Stanley, I did understand you were using the Standards to calibrate your other meassuring tools. Of course, in specifying a set of standards you implicitely define the specs you want to work with in woodworking. It all goes together. The precision you want in your woodwork is reflected in the Standards you keep in the closet. And the other way around.

Kees,

I believe it incorrect to directly correlate the accuracy of a reference tool to the accuracy of the final measurement.

Think back to engineering classes and you will remember the rule of thumb that the accuracy of the tool should be an order of magnitude better than what it's measuring. Following this very conservative rule, to accurately measure to 0.01", your tool should be accurate to 0.001". This rule of thumb would require the reference tool to be accurate to 0.0001".

We both know that this rule of thumb is often impractical so we live with a multiplier smaller than 10x but on the other hand, a multiplier of 2x is generally considered unacceptable.

I do not own diemakers accuracy reference tools but I do have a set I use to confirm the accuracy of my favorite tools periodically or after they have been dropped.

Jim in Alaska
(Are we all PE's???) :eek::eek::eek:

[george wilson]

You are new here. I am the retired toolmaker and musical instrument maker for Colonial Williamsburg. If you read the rest of this thread,you must know that I have micrometers,dial calipers,and other measuring tools to actually measure and not speculate. My hair is very fine,and is .002" by measurement.

I assume a person has 20-20 eye sight,and good hearing. I could also hear the annoying high pitched squeal of the alarm systems in some of the buildings in Williamsburg. Made my head float!!

There was a HUGE and BITTER discussion about the 1/250,000 wide scratch visible to the eye on a SMOOTH surface over on the Practical Machinist's Forum a few years ago. I managed to prove my points there,but I am not going to go through that again. This silly thread just got a LOT worse in my opinion. When I cut .001" deep with my HLVH,using a feed of .001",I can clearly see the .001" shaving. How fine do you think the strands in very fine steel wool are? You can still see them,can't you? Now,am I going to have to go out to the shop and measure them for you?:) Maybe I will,just for giggles.

[george wilson]

O.K.,I measured a single strand of #00 fine steel wool. It is 1/2 thou. thick,and I can see it without magnification. I have actually taken shavings off finer than that with my lathe,now that I've looked at the steel wool.

Darius,just looked at your "engineer's list". It says that 40 microns is as small as can be seen. Then,it says a spider web is 2 to 3 microns. Now,I think we all can say that we HAVE seen spider webs. Noted that not all spiders extrude the same dia. web,but your list says that,and I've seen webs of all kinds of spiders.

I really don't need an internet reference to tell me how thick my OWN hairs are!!! That is silly. I measured a lot of things when looking for a thin strand to repair the broken cross hair in one of my old but expensive rifle scopes. Currently,my cat's black fur strand is in there,but it is too thick. I need to find that certain garden spider web they used on scopes.

[John Coloccia]

O.K.,I measured a single strand of #00 fine steel wool. It is 1/2 thou. thick,and I can see it without magnification. I have actually taken shavings off finer than that with my lathe,now that I've looked at the steel wool.

Darius,just looked at your "engineer's list". It says that 40 microns is as small as can be seen. Then,it says a spider web is 2 to 3 microns. Now,I think we all can say that we HAVE seen spider webs. Noted that not all spiders extrude the same did. web,but your list says that,and I've seen webs of all kinds of spiders.

I really don't need an internet reference to tell me how thick my OWN hairs are!!! That is silly. I measured a lot of things when looking for a thin strand to repair the broken cross hair in one of my old but expensive rifle scopes. Currently,my cat's black fur strand is in there,but it is too thick. I need to find that certain garden spider web they used on scopes.

I'm with George all the way on this. A .001" gap is easy to spot and feel as far as anomalies go. I've happen to have done a lot of machining but that's only because I spent a good chunk of a career with automation, optical assemblies, sub-micron alignments, etc...really tiny stuff...and the path to making progress is don't wait 4 weeks for the shop to make your part! After a while, .001 just doesn't seem that impossibly small anymore, though that's not to say it's not challenging to actual maintain that...and anything less pretty much starts requiring active feedback loops of some sort, or at least a temperature/vibration controlled environment.

I can say from experience, having spent many hours staring at optical stages, that I don't think I can see movement of .0001" unless I happen to be looking at a shadow (there's a trick for you...instant magnifier) but .001" is not challenging.

[Chris Vandiver]

As I understand it, the human fingertip can feel a 1/1000th of an inch difference.

[Kees Heiden]

Kees,

I believe it incorrect to directly correlate the accuracy of a reference tool to the accuracy of the final measurement.

Think back to engineering classes and you will remember the rule of thumb that the accuracy of the tool should be an order of magnitude better than what it's measuring. Following this very conservative rule, to accurately measure to 0.01", your tool should be accurate to 0.001". This rule of thumb would require the reference tool to be accurate to 0.0001".

We both know that this rule of thumb is often impractical so we live with a multiplier smaller than 10x but on the other hand, a multiplier of 2x is generally considered unacceptable.

I do not own diemakers accuracy reference tools but I do have a set I use to confirm the accuracy of my favorite tools periodically or after they have been dropped.

Jim in Alaska
(Are we all PE's???) :eek::eek::eek:

Jim. Yes exactly. When you stock a standard accurate to 0.0001", you implicitely specify that you work to 0.001 mm. Personally I think that is a bit overkill in handtool woodworking.

Btw, i am an electrical engineer, so what do I know about precision. :-)

[Von Bickley]

I was going to stay out of this discussion, but a lot of people cannot afford expensive measuring equipment. I am retired on disability and will never be able to have expensive measuring devices. When I build something, I check the diagonals with a 6 ft. stick rule, I will check square with an old framing square or speed square, and check to see if my joints are fitting tight. As long as my measurements are within 1 RCH, I am satisfied.

[John Coloccia]

I was going to stay out of this discussion, but a lot of people cannot afford expensive measuring equipment. I am retired on disability and will never be able to have expensive measuring devices. When I build something, I check the diagonals with a 6 ft. stick rule, I will check square with an old framing square or speed square, and check to see if my joints are fitting tight. As long as my measurements are within 1 RCH, I am satisfied.

There are lots of ways to get precision, Von. For example, when I want to get a centerline from some random guitar neck transferred to the body, I don't try to measure it. I take a long straight edge and extend the lines from the edges of the neck down onto the body, and I mark off as precisely as I can some convenient measurement....25" from the nut, for example. Then I take my compass and draw two arcs across the centerline....larger the better. Connect the points where the arcs intersect...and that's your centerline. I'll bet you that my centerline is good to .010" over 25", and the method is remarkably insensitive to the condition of your straight edge as long as you use the same part every time and make the mark at the same distance (you don't have to measure...just story pole it right on the straight edge).

The idea is to understand the limits of your tools and know how to achieve the limit. It's not all or nothing.

[george wilson]

I hope some of you go up to post #111 and look at some of the sizes the "engineer's chart"says objects are,in relation to the smaller than 40 microns we aren't supposed to be able to see. It is very strange that a spider web is listed as 2 to 3 when we aren't supposed to see smaller than 40 microns. My point is,you cannot just list a number and say we can't see it. The object being viewed may or may not be seen due to the background and/or lighting it is viewed against.

A metal lathe turning full of small scratches from being turned is not going to show a 1/250,000" scratch,but that scratch will show up in a polished,smooth surface. A .002" hair is easily visible under most conditions. So was the 1/2 thou. steel wool strand.

I just hate it when sweeping generalizations are made like that.

[Darius Ferlas]

I agree with all the above, George.
The data I posted comes from various averages arrived it based on some psych studies. Unfortunately I do not know the methodologies used, such as ambient light, contrasts, backgrounds, shape of one papillary lines etc.

[Leigh Betsch]

When I get my plane blades really really sharp, sharp like an electron microscope can't see, my shavings get so thin no one can see them. See attached pic. ;)

[george wilson]

Could you enlarge the picture?

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

The emperors new smoother?

[Bruce Haugen]

. A .002" hair is easily visible under most conditions.

Some of mine is much finer than that, George. Heck, some is so fine you can't even see it:D

[Leigh Betsch]

Last time I try to out smarty aleck you guys.

[Chris Vandiver]

Could you enlarge the picture?

Here it is. I enlarged it for you.

[Chris Griggs]

When I get my plane blades really really sharp, sharp like an electron microscope can't see, my shavings get so thin no one can see them. See attached pic. ;)


HAHAHAHA! You beat me to the joke. I was going to post a picture of my new set of <.004 feeler gauges! I'm always loosing them and keep having to buy new ones:rolleyes:

[george wilson]

A micron is about .00004"(4 hundred thousandths),to go with the engineer's chart of sizes. 5 microns is .0005". So,a cobweb at 2 to 3 microns would be about .0001" diameter,give or take. I hate walking into them because I can never see them!!:)

[John Coloccia]

I think a normal spider web is made up of multiple strands. The single strand is when the spider comes dangling from the ceiling. I'll admit that often times I can't see those until I notice a spider floating next to me and my tuffet.

[george wilson]

you may just not be focused ion the strand,but when it touches you,you will soon see it.

[Wilbur Pan]

Darius: I can see one of my hairs,and they are .002" in diameter. I can feel it,too,if i run my finger over it laying on the table,for example. My cat has finer hair(fur) than that. I can see it too. I can feel a LOT smaller of a ridge on a piece of metal I am turning than .003". .003" is pretty large. I can SEE a sudden difference of .001" on a piece of metal I'm turning.A piece of typing paper is .005". Pretty thick,really,though not a lot thicker than some of those specs.


For visual acuity, it's more accurate to describe it in terms of the arc of the field of vision that can be resolved instead of how thin an object can be detected. You can't really talk about seeing a small object as a measure of visual acuity unless you also know how far away that object is.

It also depends on what the eye is trying to resolve. The limit at which the eye can resolve two closely spaced objects is slightly different than the limit at which the eye can detect a fine dark line against a light background, which is also different than the limit that the eyes can detect differences in depth. To complicate things further, lighting conditions, contrast between the object and the background, and even the shape of the object all influence the measurement of actual visual acuity at any given time.

For the most part, though, 0.5 arc minutes is a pretty good number to work with as far as the limits of human vision go. If you do some basic trigonometry, it turns out that if you have 20/20 vision and lighting conditions are good, you should be able to see a 0.001" line at a distance of 6-7/8".

The eye also can resolve differences smaller than that. The human eye can detect misalignment of line segments that are even smaller: 0.13 arc minutes.

[Chris Vandiver]

For visual acuity, it's more accurate to describe it in terms of the arc of the field of vision that can be resolved instead of how thin an object can be detected. You can't really talk about seeing a small object as a measure of visual acuity unless you also know how far away that object is.

It also depends on what the eye is trying to resolve. The limit at which the eye can resolve two closely spaced objects is slightly different than the limit at which the eye can detect a fine dark line against a light background, which is also different than the limit that the eyes can detect differences in depth. To complicate things further, lighting conditions, contrast between the object and the background, and even the shape of the object all influence the measurement of actual visual acuity at any given time.

For the most part, though, 0.5 arc minutes is a pretty good number to work with as far as the limits of human vision go. If you do some basic trigonometry, it turns out that if you have 20/20 vision and lighting conditions are good, you should be able to see a 0.001" line at a distance of 6-7/8".

The eye also can resolve differences smaller than that. The human eye can detect misalignment of line segments that are even smaller: 0.13 arc minutes.


Thanks for clearing that up.:)

[Alan Wright]

Stanley,

I really appreciated reading your original post. Not sure why some take such umbrage to some of your points. Seems like you are saying "don't assume your tools are square". If they aren't, I'm just making my goal of cutting and joining truly square pieces of wood more difficult. I'm not sure what I'm gonna do, becuase I don't want to spend the big bucks on the precision tools (i'm a hobbyist), but I am definately listening to you, and agree with your principal points. Gotta think on it some more...

THANKS!

Alan

[Charlie Stanford]

Stanley,

I really appreciated reading your original post. Not sure why some take such umbrage to some of your points. Seems like you are saying "don't assume your tools are square". If they aren't, I'm just making my goal of cutting and joining truly square pieces of wood more difficult. I'm not sure what I'm gonna do, becuase I don't want to spend the big bucks on the precision tools (i'm a hobbyist), but I am definately listening to you, and agree with your principal points. Gotta think on it some more...

THANKS!

Alan

Nobody is taking umbrage at the notion of square squares.

It's just how square do they need to be? If in the classic test of a square used in woodworking - knife a line, flip square, knife another line very close to the first one, no real divergence can be detected by eye then the square is plenty square enough, especially after Wilbur's post informing us how sensitive our sight really is.

[Stanley Covington]

Alan:

Thanks for the comments.

I don't see the comments of those that disagree as umbrage, and even if they are, they don't bother me.

I understand why the cost of the tools I recommended can be a real problem for some. I know what it is like to not have enough cash to buy a tool I thought I really needed. For six years I was a poor engineering student in Utah, with a wife and three babies, supporting my young family and paying all my school and living expenses single handedly by working as a carpenter during the summers and a cabinetmaker during the school months. Back then, aside from a steel framing square, an ancient Disston D-8 and a battered old skillsaw I bought at flea markets, and four bent and rusty bar clamps, all the tools I owned fit into a single apple crate. Nearly everything my wife and I owned back then was either made by ourselves or bought used from garage sales and flea markets. College towns have great flea markets. We were very poor but those were good times for us.

As many that contributed to this thread have correctly pointed out, there are other ways to achieve the same results without spending $400. The first essential tool is a decent straightedge. This thread talks about traditional ways of making one yourself. http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?198992-A-Wooden-Straightedge You might want to pay attention to the links to a book titled Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy. Cool stuff. I wish I had read it years ago. There are also other sources on the web and in old books.

Or with some luck you can buy a decent inexpensive straightedge that will be adequate.

Using this straightedge as a guide, you can follow the method Charlie Stanford outlined to check your square. If you find that your square is out of wack, you can use files, stones, glass, and sandpaper along with your straightedge to true it. If you are careful, it will then be plenty accurate, and you will have gained a new skill.

The more expensive tools I recommended save time and give a man ongoing confidence that his other tools are performing as intended. At least, I think so. It logically follows that, if a man knows his tools are performing correctly, Murphy loses some power over him, and he must acknowledge to himself that any errors that creep into his work are the fault of his own hand/eye/intelligence, and cannot be blamed for long on a square that might have become damaged when it was dropped yesterday, or a worn-out dial caliper, for example. Removing the variable of suspicious tools from the equation can help a guy improve his skills significantly, but that will happen only if he wants to improve his speed and accuracy.

But for the guy that is happy with the skills he has and the quality of the things he makes (and there is NOTHING wrong with that) owning such tools is illogical, and he would be wasting his money to buy them. But I think some folks find it irritating for me to suggest their tools might have problems, ergo the objections. No problemo.

In my opinion, in the case of a man that uses his tools to feed his family, any tools that waste his limited time or decrease the quality of his work product are guilty of stealing bread from his family's table. Such a man may have no choice but to use crappy tools, but he will not be satisfied with them once he learns he has options. The men of my family have been carpenters, cabinetmakers, masons, and plasterers in America and England for at least 300 something years, according to my Father, Uncles, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, two dusty diaries, and my brother that double-checked my Grandmother's geneaology work by investigating the church and tax records in Olde Blighty. So I suppose my lack of tolerance of questionable tools is an inherited attitude.

But for the newbie, the guy with little cash, the hobbyist, or the guy that doesn't need or value more precise work, the tools I recommended are unimportant. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Stan

[Chris Fournier]

The lines have been drawn, the specs loaded, and now both sides shall fire at each other, who will prevail?

If you eschew precision instruments in your shop then you can't even comment on their worth now can you? You haven't used them so your opinions are pure speculation as to their worth. And your opinion should come with a grain of salt...

If you build to drawings and specs which some of us do, you too would find precision measuring tools very useful. If you build musical instruments or any other object where repeatability is paramount then you will use precision measuring instruments. Take a moment and google cane flyrod building - gasp - precision measuring instruments and handplanes on the same bench!

I can build a mortise and tenon joint with out a dial caliper using hand tools and I often do. I can also build a floating tenon joint and a dial caliper can help me cut to the chase faster than without.

If your arguement is that these tools have no place in woodworking you are talking nonsense. If your arguement is that you can't do good woodworking without these tools you do not have much of an appreciation for our craft.

If you like to get off on the right foot I guarantee you that precision measuring tools will earn their keep in a wood working shop.

[Stanley Covington]

The lines have been drawn, the specs loaded, and now both sides shall fire at each other, who will prevail?

If you eschew precision instruments in your shop then you can't even comment on their worth now can you? You haven't used them so your opinions are pure speculation as to their worth. And your opinion should come with a grain of salt...

If you build to drawings and specs, which some of us do, you too would find precision measuring tools very useful. If you build musical instruments or any other object where repeatability is paramount then you will use precision measuring instruments. Take a moment and google cane flyrod building - gasp - precision measuring instruments and handplanes on the same bench!

I can build a mortise and tenon joint with out a dial caliper using hand tools and I often do. I can also build a floating tenon joint and a dial caliper can help me cut to the chase faster than without.

If your argument is that these tools have no place in woodworking you are talking nonsense. If your argument is that you can't do good woodworking without these tools, you do not have much of an appreciation for our craft.

If you like to get off on the right foot I guarantee you that precision measuring tools will earn their keep in a wood working shop.

Wow. What he said.

[Mel Fulks]

Think you have a typo ,need to remove the "don't "in front of "eschew" .Or change "eschew" to "use". Had to read it a couple of times. Otherwise no one will know whom to shoot...

[Alan Wright]

Stan,

Guess one of the things in your original post that struck me is that you got a Starrett square that wasn't square. I have 6 or 7 of them, all different sizes. I just assumed they were square out of the box because they were Starrett. I'm gonna check them all for square as soon as I figure out how to do that. I haven't read the thread you referenced yet, but will. I am a hobbyiest as I noted, but I hate it when I can't rely on my tools. I try to buy the best I can afford because I want to get the best results I can afford. I have some Grizzly stiff because that is what I could get by the LOML. But I also have some Festool, Veritas, Incra, Jessum, and yes Starrett stuff. Over the years, I have acquired a nice shop full of tools. However, again I just assume the better brand measuring and marking tools were dead on accurate. If that isn't necessarily true, I want to begin to pay attention to that and make sure they get fixed or replaced. I need all the help I can get. Starting with tools that aren't properly calibrated seems like a silly mistake on my part and one I plan to pay much more attention to.

Alan

[John Coloccia]

Stan,

Guess one of the things in your original post that struck me is that you got a Starrett square that wasn't square. I have 6 or 7 of them, all different sizes. I just assumed they were square out of the box because they were Starrett. I'm gonna check them all for square as soon as I figure out how to do that. I haven't read the thread you referenced yet, but will. I am a hobbyiest as I noted, but I hate it when I can't rely on my tools. I try to buy the best I can afford because I want to get the best results I can afford. I have some Grizzly stiff because that is what I could get by the LOML. But I also have some Festool, Veritas, Incra, Jessum, and yes Starrett stuff. Over the years, I have acquired a nice shop full of tools. However, again I just assume the better brand measuring and marking tools were dead on accurate. If that isn't necessarily true, I want to begin to pay attention to that and make sure they get fixed or replaced. I need all the help I can get. Starting with tools that aren't properly calibrated seems like a silly mistake on my part and one I plan to pay much more attention to.

Alan

Alan, I hate to say this but Starrett has ruined their reputation. At one time, you bought a Starrett and you didn't have to check it. It was dead nuts..PERIOD. Not anymore. Don't ask me...I don't know...I don't care. I don't buy Starrett anymore, except used, and I check it very carefully before I buy.

IMHO, if you want it to be proper out of the box, every time, buy Mitutoyo. I've yet to be disappointed in a Mitutoyo tool. Starrett still makes some good stuff...and they also make crap...and that's a problem because I'm not a metrology shop nor do I have time to be a quality control department. I also don't have time to research what they still make well and what shows up as basket cases. Bah....buy Mitutoyo if you want it to be reliably good. Let me tell you....labs all across the nation are filled with Mitutoyo calipers, micrometers, etc.

[Stanley Covington]

Alan, I hate to say this but Starrett has ruined their reputation. At one time, you bought a Starrett and you didn't have to check it. It was dead nuts..PERIOD. Not anymore. Don't ask me...I don't know...I don't care. I don't buy Starrett anymore, except used, and I check it very carefully before I buy.

IMHO, if you want it to be proper out of the box, every time, buy Mitutoyo. I've yet to be disappointed in a Mitutoyo tool. Starrett still makes some good stuff...and they also make crap...and that's a problem because I'm not a metrology shop nor do I have time to be a quality control department. I also don't have time to research what they still make well and what shows up as basket cases. Bah....buy Mitutoyo if you want it to be reliably good. Let me tell you....labs all across the nation are filled with Mitutoyo calipers, micrometers, etc.

Amen. And you spelled the name right too!

Stan

[Kees Heiden]

Alan:

Thanks for the comments.

I don't see the comments of those that disagree as umbrage, and even if they are, they don't bother me.

I understand why the cost of the tools I recommended can be a real problem for some. I know what it is like to not have enough cash to buy a tool I thought I really needed. For six years I was a poor engineering student in Utah, with a wife and three babies, supporting my young family and paying all my school and living expenses single handedly by working as a carpenter during the summers and a cabinetmaker during the school months. Back then, aside from a steel framing square, an ancient Disston D-8 and a battered old skillsaw I bought at flea markets, and four bent and rusty bar clamps, all the tools I owned fit into a single apple crate. Nearly everything my wife and I owned back then was either made by ourselves or bought used from garage sales and flea markets. College towns have great flea markets. We were very poor but those were good times for us.

As many that contributed to this thread have correctly pointed out, there are other ways to achieve the same results without spending $400. The first essential tool is a decent straightedge. This thread talks about traditional ways of making one yourself. http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?198992-A-Wooden-Straightedge You might want to pay attention to the links to a book titled Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy. Cool stuff. I wish I had read it years ago. There are also other sources on the web and in old books.

Or with some luck you can buy a decent inexpensive straightedge that will be adequate.

Using this straightedge as a guide, you can follow the method Charlie Stanford outlined to check your square. If you find that your square is out of wack, you can use files, stones, glass, and sandpaper along with your straightedge to true it. If you are careful, it will then be plenty accurate, and you will have gained a new skill.

The more expensive tools I recommended save time and give a man ongoing confidence that his other tools are performing as intended. At least, I think so. It logically follows that, if a man knows his tools are performing correctly, Murphy loses some power over him, and he must acknowledge to himself that any errors that creep into his work are the fault of his own hand/eye/intelligence, and cannot be blamed for long on a square that might have become damaged when it was dropped yesterday, or a worn-out dial caliper, for example. Removing the variable of suspicious tools from the equation can help a guy improve his skills significantly, but that will happen only if he wants to improve his speed and accuracy.

But for the guy that is happy with the skills he has and the quality of the things he makes (and there is NOTHING wrong with that) owning such tools is illogical, and he would be wasting his money to buy them. But I think some folks find it irritating for me to suggest their tools might have problems, ergo the objections. No problemo.

In my opinion, in the case of a man that uses his tools to feed his family, any tools that waste his limited time or decrease the quality of his work product are guilty of stealing bread from his family's table. Such a man may have no choice but to use crappy tools, but he will not be satisfied with them once he learns he has options. The men of my family have been carpenters, cabinetmakers, masons, and plasterers in America and England for at least 300 something years, according to my Father, Uncles, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, two dusty diaries, and my brother that double-checked my Grandmother's geneaology work by investigating the church and tax records in Olde Blighty. So I suppose my lack of tolerance of questionable tools is an inherited attitude.

But for the newbie, the guy with little cash, the hobbyist, or the guy that doesn't need or value more precise work, the tools I recommended are unimportant. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Stan

Amen to all that.

[Zach Dillinger]

The lines have been drawn, the specs loaded, and now both sides shall fire at each other, who will prevail?

If you don't eschew precision instruments in your shop then you can't even comment on their worth now can you? You haven't used them so your opinions are pure speculation as to their worth. And your opinion should come with a grain of salt...

If you build to drawings and specs which some of us do, you too would find precision measuring tools very useful. If you build musical instruments or any other object where repeatability is paramount then you will use precision measuring instruments. Take a moment and google cane flyrod building - gasp - precision measuring instruments and handplanes on the same bench!

I can build a mortise and tenon joint with out a dial caliper using hand tools and I often do. I can also build a floating tenon joint and a dial caliper can help me cut to the chase faster than without.

If your arguement is that these tools have no place in woodworking you are talking nonsense. If your arguement is that you can't do good woodworking without these tools you do not have much of an appreciation for our craft.

If you like to get off on the right foot I guarantee you that precision measuring tools will earn their keep in a wood working shop.

What he said. They can be useful to some people, less so to others. Using them isn't an indicator that you will do fine work; not using them isn't an indicator that you can't do fine work.

[Charlie Stanford]

What he said. They can be useful to some people, less so to others. Using them isn't an indicator that you will do fine work; not using them isn't an indicator that you can't do fine work.

How true, the noted stringed instrument makers of the 17th and 18th century would be shocked at the news that they had not accomplished a bit of fine work.

[David Keller NC]

I read through this thread this morning (whew!). There's a lot of good info in it, but the way I see it, there's a fundamental disagreement that is unresolvable.

I am also an engineer, and I do understand that precision measurement is absolutely necessary if you want to make duplicates repeatedly, or you want to make a part that must fit an existing space. Such a situation is something I've been working on for the last several weeks: making 4 nearly identical jewelry boxes. To make the job go faster, I've spent a lot of time on machine set-ups to ensure that I can cut 16 sides of these boxes and the 32 miter joints on their ends by just running them through a properly set up table saw.

However, most of the time I'm making colonial reproductions by the methods originally employed, or as near to the original methods as I can dope out from tool marks on the originals. In this case, one is a whole lot less concerned about the absolute dimensions of a part - one makes a part of the furniture to fit another part on the same piece. When working this way, one generally doesn't care how straight and flat the rails/stiles on a door are, one builds the door and planes it to set flat on the bench and to fit the door opening. In other words, close enough is good enough if one's building a one-off, or several similar pieces, each built as a one-off.

I know woodworkers that never use the "cut it to fit, paint it to match" method - they use cut-lists and precision measurement. And I know woodworkers that don't own any measurement devices beyond a simple wooden straightedge and an old Disston square. They make almost entirely one-off pieces.

Both types are capable of making real works of art.

[Stanley Covington]

I thought the term was " cut to match, paint to fit."

The "disagreement" has been stated a dozen different ways. But the primary cause of the so-called "disagreement" is a lack of comprehension of the original premise of the post, namely, that three precision tools can be helpful in ensuring a fellow's layout and measuring tools are in fact reliable at all times, and not just assumed to be reliable. But is has been discouraging to observe that about 1/2 the people disagreeing with the thread are actually objecting to something that was NOT part of the premise, namely the mistaken idea that one must use expensive machinist's tools to do good work. They are in fact objecting to a ridiculous idea that I specifically disclaimed in the originating post.

A lot of people use high-precision tools in all their woodworking. This habit is especially common among people that are required to meet precise dimensions or tolerances as part of the job. In my humble opinion, even where the project doesn't require such precise work, such tools can be very helpful. But are they necessary to do good work? No. Did I suggest that people needed them for working directly on wood? And again, No.

It is glaringly obvious that good work can be done without precision machinists tools. It has been done for thousands of years, and continues today. Since ancient times, competent craftsmen around the world have always taken great pains to ensure their layout and measuring tools where as accurate as they could get them. In fact, since ancient times, the sign of the master craftsman in many civilizations has not been the axe, or saw or plane, but the simple square, the ultimate layout and measuring tool. We are so blessed to live in a time where we can go to Home Teapot and for a measly $12 buy a square that any master craftsman in the Renaissance would have sold one of his children to obtain.

Unlike those dark days, anybody can now buy unimaginably precise tools at, relatively speaking, amazingly little cost. Using them, a craftsman can QUICKLY and EASILY test his workaday tools to ensure they are performing correctly. He doesn't have to guess. He doesn't have to spend time to make approximations. I see owning and using such tools to be a great advantage. Some think it is insignificant. Some are deeply offended. I think I was a fool to begin this thread.

Stan

[Charlie Stanford]

I thought the term was " cut to match, paint to fit."

The "disagreement" has been stated a dozen different ways. But the primary cause of the so-called "disagreement" is a lack of comprehension of the original premise of the post, namely, that three precision tools can be helpful in ensuring a fellow's layout and measuring tools are in fact reliable at all times, and not just assumed to be reliable. But is has been discouraging to observe that about 1/2 the people disagreeing with the thread are actually objecting to something that was NOT part of the premise, namely the mistaken idea that one must use expensive machinist's tools to do good work. They are in fact objecting to a ridiculous idea that I specifically disclaimed in the originating post.

A lot of people use high-precision tools in all their woodworking. This habit is especially common among people that are required to meet precise dimensions or tolerances as part of the job. In my humble opinion, even where the project doesn't require such precise work, such tools can be very helpful. But are they necessary to do good work? No. Did I suggest that people needed them for working directly on wood? And again, No.

It is glaringly obvious that good work can be done without precision machinists tools. It has been done for thousands of years, and continues today. Since ancient times, competent craftsmen around the world have always taken great pains to ensure their layout and measuring tools where as accurate as they could get them. In fact, since ancient times, the sign of the master craftsman in many civilizations has not been the axe, or saw or plane, but the simple square, the ultimate layout and measuring tool. We are so blessed to live in a time where we can go to Home Teapot and for a measly $12 buy a square that any master craftsman in the Renaissance would have sold one of his children to obtain.

Unlike those dark days, anybody can now buy unimaginably precise tools at, relatively speaking, amazingly little cost. Using them, a craftsman can QUICKLY and EASILY test his workaday tools to ensure they are performing correctly. He doesn't have to guess. He doesn't have to spend time to make approximations. I see owning and using such tools to be a great advantage. Some think it is insignificant. Some are deeply offended. I think I was a fool to begin this thread.

Stan

Remind me what workaday tools we're supposed to be testing again. We've already determined that we can check a square for square and a straighedge for straight by striking lines and that our own eyes can detect very small deviations, and certainly deviations great enough to actually cause problems with a woodworking project. It takes fifteen seconds, or less, to test a square and a straightedge. To check both would be perhaps an investment of 30 seconds of one's time.

Please articulate, succinctly and specifically, exactly which tools we're supposed to be checking in your opinion.

[David Keller NC]

Actually, I think the sarcastic expression is "beat it to fit, paint it to match" :D

What I was pointing out is that using the "one-off" method, one doesn't need any precision measuring/layout tools, because virtually nothing is measured. This is partly why a wooden square, even though it may be several tens of thousandths off of true square, is about the only measurement tool one requires to build an extraordinarily complex 18th century piece of furniture.

But - that's only if one builds an 18th century piece of furniture by the original methods. If one uses modern methods using machine tools and cutlists, it'd be quickly apparent why a wooden square isn't going to do the job, at least not conveniently, and a (truly) straightedge is necessary.

[Doug Bowman]

Given the number of engineers in this thread -- I have learned 1 thing (OK re-learned!)

"Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud -- After a while you realize that the pig enjoys it!"

:D

[george wilson]

I think everyone on this forum is an engineer.

[Joe Leigh]

It sure seems that way...or a self proclaimed expert. Sure doesn't leave much room for opinion or good old fashioned speculation.

[David Weaver]

Oh, plenty of room for that, Joe. Besides, the reaction you'd get for speculation is just the same as it would be for fact (disagreement) :)

[george wilson]

I am not an engineer,but it seemed like I was the one they always came to when there was a special problem In Williamsburg.

[Dave Anderson NH]

George, In spite of what you think, you are an engineer. It's a mindset, not a function of in what or how much you were educated. I have always liked the 19th century meaning of the word mechanic. Essentially it meant a practical engineer.

[Adam Cruea]

I think everyone on this forum is an engineer.

Not an engineer here, just a lowly IT worker that goes off the principle of KISS.

[Lynn Floyd]

You know you have a good thread when you get this many responses. I agree with and understand and appreciate Stanley's ideas and intent about truing up our tools. There are variables in every activity, some removable, some not. We eliminate as many as we can and live with the rest. I've been in the millwork business for 35 years, building mostly doors and windows and running wood molding. I learned many years ago that seemingly small inaccuracies can lead to real problems. If the opposite sticking flats or the tenon shoulders (or both) are off a few thousandths on a 3-0 x 8-0 hard maple door, then be assured you will have a warped door, or worse 30 or so warped doors. This is not a matter of aesthetics; it means they're not acceptable. By the way, don't discount the accuracy of the ancients. Remember the old hundredths scale on a rafter square? But this is another topic.

[Charlie Ross]

George, In spite of what you think, you are an engineer.

Why do you want to insult that man like that?:D

[george wilson]

I agree,I am an engineer of sorts. When I need to know something,I know how to research it. When we were building the working replica of the 18th.C. fire engine,I had to figure out about how much air pressure 8 crankers and 2 treadlers could generate. Then,how thick to make the copper air tank,and how wide to make the soft soldered seams(which the original had),so it wouldn't blow up. They had little regard for safety in the 18th.C.,and more regard for how much the copper cost. Plus,likely a limited selection of gauges back then. Old tanks being demonstrated sometimes blow up,so they are usually wrapped in chicken wire to prevent injuries.

I think they might have been limited to using copper sheathing for ship's hulls in the original engine,and went with that as it was available. The silversmiths were not happy when I recommended 10 gauge copper,but these days we want a safety factor of 6,IIRC,and the public would be cranking the engine. Plus,it would be used daily,not just for the occasional fire as it was used in the old days. We have to avoid injuries and lawsuits!!

[glenn bradley]

I suppose that your tools, since steel, could use the precision.

However, people have been working wood and making excellent furniture/items for centuries without said precision tools.

Quite true but, many beautiful antique items are very asymmetrical. The aren't made by the dozen, nor do they have to conform to someone else's hardware, installation site, and so forth. My stuff doesn't often have to either ;-) I do however like to know that as I am fitting one thing to another and I need 7/64" off the length of something that I can get it with reasonable confidence.

A buffet would look tragic built to Home Depot kitchen cabinet standards and a mandolin would probably fail to please if built to my bookcases tolerances. What we do and how we do it determines our needs and satisfaction levels. No matter what the tolerance that the end product will tolerate, I still like to know that 90* is 90* plus or minus an amount that I am comfortable with. To each their own, Ford / Chevy, Tastes Great / Less Filling, etc. ;).

[george wilson]

I've read that earlier Ferrari's bodies are far from symmetrical,being hand formed.

[Dale Murray]

I was pretty much raised working wood with my father. Some of the earliest lessons I learned were:
- Always use the same tape measure for an entire project. Even if it is slightly off that will be ok because everything will be off by the same amount. That may seem perverse but true; precision is repeat-ability, even if not accurate.
- Dial Calipers - we always had those handy
- Micrometer - had those too
- Precision squares - you betcha
- Starrett squares - I would never trust anything less

My personal belief is I will screw something up, I know I will. I will be off at some point but, if I am off I want to have nothing to blame in that chain of events and my ineptitude.

[Bruce Haugen]

My personal belief is I will screw something up, I know I will. I will be off at some point but, if I am off I want to have nothing to blame in that chain of events and my ineptitude.

My dad was a carpenter; he was the guy who taught me that a stack of 2X lumber was a kit to make a house. We knew things would be off, too. He didn't blame the ruler or the square. He (and I) blamed the guy driving the ruler or the square. I know where in the chain of events that things go wrong, usually me. That's not as important to me as knowing how to fix them.

[george wilson]

Dale,I trust OLD Starrett stuff. And then,I still check them against my known standards,like my granite squares,granite straight edge,or granite surface plate.

[Jonathan McCullough]

I generally try to avoid reliance on tight measurements in woodworking, preferring instead to try to match pieces (joints, dadoes) with each other rather than to measurements. I'd like to suggest that the precision of our innate senses are well suited to the precision required of wood working; we are surprisingly accurate when it comes to sensing whether something is level or plumb, parallel or canted, symmetrical or lopsided, and our eyes and hands can sense whether something is fit tight or needs adjustment. Working in metal on moving parts to tight tolerances is admittedly beyond my ability--and probably most peoples' abilities--to do without confirmation of a dial test indicator or those ubiquitous, handy digital calipers. One of the inane things I've seen is the calculation of plane shavings as opposed to the observing the finished surface of the work; No one would think to measure the swarf from a machinist's file. Or feeler gauges to test the flatness on a smoother's sole--a plane either accomplishes the desired result or it doesn't. But one use of precision tools I've seen that actually appears to make a lot of sense is Kevin Drake's incredibly clever use of feeler gauges to offset a dovetail marker for the kerf of a dovetail saw. He demonstrates this in a video available from Glen-Drake Toolworks, where the dovetails he makes pop right in off the saw with no gaps and no pounding. You don't need feeler gauges to do competent dovetail work, but I find that his process, technique, and results are admirable.

[Mark Roderick]

Excellent thread, thank you Stanley.

Woodworking is much easier, especially for the beginner, if your tools are flat and square. So you need a way to check that they're flat and square.

As you do more woodworking, you learn that you don't need any tools to check for flat and square. You can make your own devices - I won't call them tools. To check that an edge is square you can measure the diagonals, etc. To obtain two very straight edges lay them edge to edge and then reverse ends, etc. Given all these devices that can be made in anybody's shop, nobody ever really needs to buy the high-quality tools Stanley is talking about.

The tools that Stanley is talking about are merely shortcuts for those devices. Fine tools have their own aesthetic, more appealing to some than to others. And if you're going to use such tools, of course you want them to be as accurate as possible.

Objectively, Stanley's tolerances are "too high." But there's probably some engineer out there who thinks they are "too low," as a result of an unhappy childhood or something. Doesn't really matter. We all agree that Stanley's tolerances are at least "high enough."

The only thing I'd quarrel with is the assertion that anybody works to within tolerances of a thousandth of an inch. No woodworker works to that tolerance when laying out a cut, if only becuase there is no device capable of measuring that tolerance. I believe all that is meant is that when I am edge-jointing a board to achieve a tight fit I take plane shavings that are a thousandth of an inch thick. But that is totally different in my kind than asserting that I work within a thousandth of an inch "tolerance," which to me implies a measurement of some kind.

[M Manlove]

Gentlemen, Please
I am one of the older folk. I am 66 and a retired postal manager. I've been working wood and pounding metal for over 50 years. We cannot read a response to a post and see the facial expression or body posture of the writer. Those have been throughout history a large part of communication. I see many things here on the creek that I question or just plain don't agree with. However, we are forced to understand the writer based only on what is written. We don't all write as well as we should. We certainly don't all read and interpret as well as we should. We will never all agree on anything, but we need not rise to the level of criticism we sometimes do. Many years ago one of my first jobs was working for an old farmer. I was amazed at his patience with me as I learned the job. He finally told me that he sat down at the end of every day to make sure that he had spent as much time improving himself as he did being critical of others. I think about that often. Obviously I don't do it well or I would be really good at more things than I am. If we all did it we would have legions of masters and that would lead to more confusion. I simply find it a good reminder to stop whenever there is a possibility that I don't understand some one or may have misunderstood them. I respect and admire you all. Keep writing. Be nice.

[Mel Fulks]

Good point from an expert. No better place to learn patience than the post office.

[george wilson]

Mel,was that a joke?:)

[Mel Fulks]

Would I joke about something like that ? I understand they are in trouble financially and have made some suggestions to help. They could rent out little cubicles to those in line ,so that their families could visit them while they're "away".

[David Weaver]

excellent :)

[Stanley Covington]

Dale,I trust OLD Starrett stuff. And then,I still check them against my known standards,like my granite squares,granite straight edge,or granite surface plate.

Now that is the attitude of a serious professional worth emulating. The cap is doffed once again.

Stan

[Patrick McCarthy]

Stanley, having now read all 173 responses, I can say I have enjoyed the discussion. I have been surprised by some of the assumptions others made about what your original post meant, but overall a thoughtful discussion.

My take-away: I think it is important FOR ME to get better reference tools to check my standard working tools to make sure they are as accurate as I hope them to be.

Thank you for starting the discussion and fielding the responses. Patrick

[Stanley Covington]

Patrick:

Thank you for wading through it all. Your kind words have made it all worth while for me.

Stan

[george wilson]

Thank you,Stanley. I had bought a brand new Starrett USA made dial caliper. This was before they went Chinese. To make the story short,I found out the inside measuring jaw was .008" off. Messed up a job due to it. I had been using my Mitutoyo calipers instead,I suppose. Anyway,I sent it back to Starrett for repair. It came back with the repair woman's tag,only out .004" this time!! I got hold of a VP somehow,and he had me return the caliper for a new one. HOW this caliper was STILL off .004" after special attention"By one of their best technicians" was never explained. I should have just fixed it myself and saved the waiting and aggravation.

So,no,I never trust any new product. I test it,and prefer OLD Starrett stuff. When I was in college,back in the good old days when we made fine machinery,a student kept getting a thin gear tooth when he cut the last tooth on a gear. He did this a few times. The teacher examined the Brown and Sharpe index plate. It had the wrong number stamped on the circle of holes the student was using. B&S was one of the very best brands.

Like in the X files,TRUST NO ONE!!

[Ed Looney]

George

I like a phrase Ronald Reagan used with the Russians. "Trust but verify". As Stanley has steadfastly pointed out it makes sense to have standards used only for verification of one's measurement and layout tools.


Ed

[george wilson]

Machine shops with decent standards regularly have their instruments re certified. I have used measuring equipment that has the re certification tag still pasted on.

Shops that have 9000 series manufacturing standards get their tools checked. Now,9000 series doesn't mean a THING!!! It only means that the shop has established precision standards which every product must pass. HOWEVER,what those standards ARE may not be that precise. You will see Grizzly and other catalogs mention:"Made in a 90XX series shop". Take it with a grain of salt!! My NASA machine shop manager friend told me what the 9000 series means,and it may not mean much,but sounds impressive.

Besides,anything made in China is perfectly capable of being a dud,whereas its other "brothers" may be o.k.. Quality control over there is still very iffy. Look at the poison baby formula,for example. I don't think the manufacturer meant to make a shoddy product,but some supplier likely sold him contaminated ingredients(this is an assumption on my part),but the guy committed suicide over it,which makes me think he was sorry.(Or maybe afraid of Chinese prisons).

[Bruce Haugen]

Shops that have 9000 series manufacturing standards get their tools checked. Now,9000 series doesn't mean a THING!!! It only means that the shop has established precision standards which every product must pass. HOWEVER,what those standards ARE may not be that precise. You will see Grizzly and other catalogs mention:"Made in a 90XX series shop". Take it with a grain of salt!! My NASA machine shop manager friend told me what the 9000 series means,and it may not mean much,but sounds impressive.

I have a friend who used to work in an ISO 9000 certified company, say 20 years ago. (This company made products that are used world-wide, and everyone on this site would recognize the name.) When the certification team was brought through, they always went to one process machinist who rigorously adhered to the standard. The company always passed inspection. Not one other machinist in the company followed those standards. So much for standards. They only work if everyone follows them.

[Stanley Covington]

Shops that have 9000 series manufacturing standards get their tools checked. Now,9000 series doesn't mean a THING!!! It only means that the shop has established precision standards which every product must pass. HOWEVER,what those standards ARE may not be that precise. You will see Grizzly and other catalogs mention:"Made in a 90XX series shop". Take it with a grain of salt!! My NASA machine shop manager friend told me what the 9000 series means,and it may not mean much,but sounds impressive.

Besides,anything made in China is perfectly capable of being a dud,whereas its other "brothers" may be o.k.. Quality control over there is still very iffy. Look at the poison baby formula,for example. I don't think the manufacturer meant to make a shoddy product,but some supplier likely sold him contaminated ingredients(this is an assumption on my part),but the guy committed suicide over it,which makes me think he was sorry.(Or maybe afraid of Chinese prisons).

There was a time when Plain Jane ISO9000 meant something. But not now. I succeeded in obtaining ISO9000 certification for a company simply by writing documentation, but I know the procedures required in the docs were never implemented. That said, at the level of horsepower of the construction industry where I am employed (my current employer has 9000+ employees and does US$15 -16 Billion in sales annually) there are ISO certifications that are meaningful, so I will not condemn them in general.

There was a time when I was in charge of having products made in China. A few interesting things I learned.

1. A Taiwanese owned/managed factory in mainland China is far far superior to a Chinese-owned factory (Japanese factories did not make the product we required).

2. While there are responsible and conscientious mainland Chinese people in charge of quality control and inspection at many factories in China, the probability is high that the trained QC person you approved last month will probably not be overseeing the QC for your product next year.

3. If quality is important to you at all, you must hire your own man in China or Hong Kong or Taiwan to oversea QC compliance. Another option is to hire a certified inspection company, but this can get pricey and they are not as effective at motivating the factory.

One scenario goes like this: The QC guy you interviewed and approved at the mainland China factory does good work for 14 months. Product quality is acceptable in light of the low price. In month 15, he leaves the factory to go work for Uncle Hwa, and is replaced by a teenage girl from the countryside. She likes the big city, but misses her Mom and cousins. Her job, as explained to her, will be to ensure the labeling is attached properly and serial numbers are entered into the product verification log, occasionally. Magnaflux testing? What's that? Dimension confirmation? "Yea, use those jigs over there, close is good enough," her manager tells her.

The factory you contracted with to manufacture the product, after serious value-engineering efforts, will receive three shipments of materials from the supplier you approved, enough to keep production going for 18 months. But for the fourth shipment, the supplier sends defective materials, and splits the cost difference with the shipping manager at the factory you contracted with. The shipping manager resigns, returns to Fujian Province, builds a new house, and every day enjoys a nice bottle of beer kept cool in his new Toshiba-knock-off refrigerator. Trusting the designs and specs you created, and the QC procedures you have agreed upon in writing with the Owners of the factory, you will not realize the product that just arrived at the port of Long Beach or Yokohama is dangerous garbage for some time.

Three months later, after the initial customer complaints, you were successful in snatching back the defective product already shipped prior to any deaths or lawsuits. Sadly, the two customers that realized the product was defective swear they will never buy your product again. But after the defect is corrected, your company's (still-high-for-now) name value, combined with the 37% lower price of your Chinese-made product brings them back for more. Greed and short-term memory solves all.

Because Murphy is in his heaven, an end-user buys one of the defective products that reached market before you could grab it back. He complains to the retailer that sold it to him, and the retailer exchanges it for one made from materials compliant with the approved specs. Out of the 3,000 defective products sold to end-users, 30 are returned within the warranty period as defective. While the whole episode has been embarrassing, the company has not only retained all its customers, but gained a few more in the DIY market. Profits have increased steadily over the last two years, and in perspective, 1% warranty loss is less than the "shrinkage" that walks off the loading dock in the same time period. Tee time is 4:15, Big Bertha is awaitin, and its your turn to buy the first round of drinks at the clubhouse.

[Julie Moriarty]

While I am often called a perfectionist, I see a life like this, one well lived:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXRTaaGHOIM&amp;list=UUObwzFiUD7snGOitGOWTRsw&amp; index=2

No need for die-maker precision when you can produce a quality product and live a quality life.

[Kees Heiden]

:)

This makes me happy. I like that table too!

[Matt Lau]

That makes me happy too!

[James White]

Love the thread. I was a little surprised by some of the knee jerk reactions to the op.

For those that can't afford something more durable. This has been an exellent buy for me. Just treat it with care and it should serve you well. I don't know the actual tolerances. But I recall reading somewhere of an engineer who tested several brands and found them to be remarkably accurate.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0027A5KX8/ref=oh_details_o08_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

James

[Charlie Stanford]

While I am often called a perfectionist, I see a life like this, one well lived:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXRTaaGHOIM&amp;list=UUObwzFiUD7snGOitGOWTRsw&amp; index=2

No need for die-maker precision when you can produce a quality product and live a quality life.

I think the video production is as much an accomplishment as the table, but I think it was supposed to be....

[David Weaver]

Plastic drafting stuff is usually pretty good. Amazon might be a bad place to go through for stuff like that because it costs little but a lot to ship. Art supply stores usually have lots of that stuff (or even wal mart) and the other thing they have is the fantastic lead holders and such.

[george wilson]

So,who is the guy in the video? Buckaroo Banzaii?:)

For those who haven't seen "Buckaroo Banzaii"(a movie),maybe Google it?

Buckaroo Banzaii was the craziest movie I ever saw!! He was a top notch scientist,rock and roll star,brain surgeon,astronaut,about everything you can think of. I wish I had brought butter to that movie,to help eat the solid comic book corn it was made of!!:)

He was the leader of a band,in which everyone was armed to the teeth with concealed guns,operating on someone's brain,driving an ultra fast truck he designed through a solid rock mountain,into another dimension full of weird creatures. He also saved Earth from invading space creatures.

Somehow,this video has a strong resemblance to that movie.

I must agree,though,if you are making a slab table,high precision is not needed!! However,I'd at least put some biscuits,butterfly joints, or SOMETHING into the glued up joint to try to keep it from opening up down the road.

[Mike Cogswell]

Plastic drafting stuff is usually pretty good. Amazon might be a bad place to go through for stuff like that because it costs little but a lot to ship. Art supply stores usually have lots of that stuff (or even wal mart) and the other thing they have is the fantastic lead holders and such.

Become an Amazon prime member. Free 2 day shipping on many item and tons of free TV and Movies to download (or watch on your internet enabled TV).

[John Coloccia]

So,who is the guy in the video? Buckaroo Banzaii?:)

For those who haven't seen "Buckaroo Banzaii"(a movie),maybe Google it?

Buckaroo Banzaii was the craziest movie I ever saw!! He was a top notch scientist,rock and roll star,brain surgeon,astronaut,about everything you can think of. I wish I had brought butter to that movie,to help eat the solid comic book corn it was made of!!:)

He was the leader of a band,in which everyone was armed to the teeth with concealed guns,operating on someone's brain,driving an ultra fast truck he designed through a solid rock mountain,into another dimension full of weird creatures. He also saved Earth from invading space creatures.

Somehow,this video has a strong resemblance to that movie.

I must agree,though,if you are making a slab table,high precision is not needed!! However,I'd at least put some biscuits,butterfly joints, or SOMETHING into the glued up joint to try to keep it from opening up down the road.

Great movie... Funny you should mention him. I had an old text adventure game on my Apple IIe....The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzaii. I recently downloaded an emulator and downloaded the disc image for that game and played it...maybe last week. Oh, the memories. I never did figure out how to get his car running.

It's nice to see that we still have young people interested in this sort of stuff. Anyone ever see the Jarvi bench video? I watch this from time to time to remind me that not everything needs to be neat and perfect....not that you'd ever confuse my shop for "neat".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3utt2Y5aH0

[george wilson]

Was the OP's video intended to show woodworking,or to make the guy look "cool"?

I mean,what do we have here? Guy rips a few planks out,apparently goofs off while they are drying,doing cool stuff. He glues them up with absolutely no joinery and de barks the edges (any of you can't handle this part of wood working?:))

Then,they make steel legs,which I hope do not stain the rug with rust. Hopefully,he glued some carpet scraps,or something under the steel legs to keep it off a carpet. Actually,the metal work was more significant than the amount of woodworking here.

Pure,unadulterated BUCKAROO!!!:):):)

[John Coloccia]

Was the OP's video intended to show woodworking,or to make the guy look "cool"?

Honestly, I couldn't get through the video. I tried twice. I really can't stand the jerky style that everyone seems to use these days, and the music was destroying my speakers...I don't know if they intended to have everything driven into clipping of if that was a mistake, but there it is.

But I did go out to his website and searched around a bit. Seems like he does nice work.

[Charlie Stanford]

Was the OP's video intended to show woodworking,or to make the guy look "cool"?

Perhaps to show that the life he leads has more 'quality' than most. Basically, he's cooler than you and me. Or maybe just me. Yea, prolly just moi.

I didn't produce a rap video yesterday but I did spend a lot of time with my 3 1/2 year old daughter. Felt like a quality life to me. I also took delivery of a new-to-me bit brace. That's about the only thing I did yesterday that had anything to do with woodworking. Maybe this afternoon I'll get started on a Nakashima rip-off. I need to find a sawmill to drive an old pickup to. Maybe stop at Starbucks on the way and take some coffee to my homies.

[daniel lane]

Ha! Buckaroo Banzai....I still have the book! Both videos are nice, they are inspiring. I liked the Jarvi bench video, that's the kind of shop I'd be happy with. :)


daniel

[george wilson]

John,your video was very interesting!! The guy has made a unique piece with good design. Clever use of the sawmill!!

Charlie, he's cooler than me,too!! I'd just have wasted time while the wood was drying doing something boring in the shop,I suppose.:)

[David Weaver]

Become an Amazon prime member. Free 2 day shipping on many item and tons of free TV and Movies to download (or watch on your internet enabled TV).

Yeah, I'm a prime member. But the issue is more that the square is $11 and it would be $2-$4 at an art supply store. There's a lower limit on amazon items where the deal isn't too great because they have to guard against the chance you might order a couple of cheap things and have them foot the shipping bill. So they just load it into the price instead.

Compare the price to the squares here (random google find, I've never shopped at the attached, it just came up at the top of the list)

http://www.cutting-mats.net/2364.html?cmp=googleproducts&kw=2364&utm_source=2364&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=googleproducts

[David Weaver]

Perhaps to show that the life he leads has more 'quality' than most. Basically, he's cooler than you and me. Or maybe just me. Yea, prolly just moi.

I didn't produce a rap video yesterday but I did spend a lot of time with my 3 1/2 year old daughter. Felt like a quality life to me. I also took delivery of a new-to-me bit brace. That's about the only thing I did yesterday that had anything to do with woodworking. Maybe this afternoon I'll get started on a Nakashima rip-off. I need to find a sawmill to drive an old pickup to. Maybe stop at Starbucks on the way and take some coffee to my homies.

Word up to the magikist, brother.

[george wilson]

I just suck at sandblasting concrete,and make the most awful tattoo parlor signs.

[Mike Cogswell]

Yeah, I'm a prime member. But the issue is more that the square is $11 and it would be $2-$4 at an art supply store. There's a lower limit on amazon items where the deal isn't too great because they have to guard against the chance you might order a couple of cheap things and have them foot the shipping bill. So they just load it into the price instead.

Compare the price to the squares here (random google find, I've never shopped at the attached, it just came up at the top of the list)

http://www.cutting-mats.net/2364.html?cmp=googleproducts&kw=2364&utm_source=2364&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=googleproducts

Oh, I'd never claim that Amazon is always the best deal, although with free shipping it's not unusual when they are. They recently addressed the cheap item problem by having a bunch of very low priced items added as add-ons that they wouldn't ordinarily sell. Now they sell them, but only when you happen to buy something else. Apples to apples, the triangle on your site is actually cheaper on Amazon by a few pennies - slightly higher price but lower shipping. It's one of the many items that isn't prime eligible because it in not sold or fulfilled by Amazon. Generally, I avoid non-prime items since they tend to be more expensive, take longer to get and you wind up dealing with somewhat of an unknown quality vendor.

It always pays to google and shop around.

I haven't purchased a triangle since I took drafting in high school in the '60s. :)

[David Weaver]

I forgot to make my actual point when I posted that, which was that it's one of the few things that I would buy at a local store instead of amazon because it would be $4 and no shipping.

Thanks for pointing out that there are add-on items at amazon. I've been on prime for a couple of months now but didn't know that ( I love the free movies, too, BTW. that's probably the best part of the whole deal.

[daniel lane]

I just suck at sandblasting concrete,and make the most awful tattoo parlor signs.

Heh - I thought it was a pressure washer and thought, "hey, I bet it's not illegal to 'graffiti' by strategically CLEANING the art out of a dirty spot..."

[John Coloccia]

John,your video was very interesting!! The guy has made a unique piece with good design. Clever use of the sawmill!!

Charlie, he's cooler than me,too!! I'd just have wasted time while the wood was drying doing something boring in the shop,I suppose.:)

My favorite part is his bending setup. I have a feeling it took him a couple of tries to get all that fixturing and his process down pat for that. Anyone who's ever done something like that can relate to the finely choreographed chaotic ballet it takes to pull it off and the mad rush to get it all done without actually rushing and making stupid mistakes.

Some of his other pieces are absolutely stunning. Go out to www.mikejarvi.com, and look at #16. I don't care for all of his work, but some of it shows some really nuance and taste.

[Steve Voigt]

While I am often called a perfectionist, I see a life like this, one well lived:

No need for die-maker precision when you can produce a quality product and live a quality life.

Great video, Julie. Beautiful table. And badass drawknife.
In a former life, I was a machinist. I still use my dial calipers all the time, but the only time I use a micrometer is when I need to measure something at the hardware store before I buy it. People look at you funny if you're using the calipers in the store, but they don't notice the mic in one hand…I don't own a patternmaker's square, and no one in my shop did either. The parts we made for the Hubble telescope still turned out ok. :) And I've managed to get by for years without a proper precision straight edge, though I would like one. A couple high quality levels and shopmade wooden straight edges have served me well.
The one precision tool I really miss is a granite surface plate. Very soon I'm going to break down and order one…

-Steve

[Stanley Covington]

A couple high quality levels and shopmade wooden straight edges have served me well.
The one precision tool I really miss is a granite surface plate. Very soon I'm going to break down and order one…
-Steve

Steve:

Thanks for the insight into your experience and work methods. I have always admired serious machinists and their skills with handtools.

The thought of you using a micrometer in a hardware store makes me grin:D.

But what do you use your high-quality levels for in woodworking?

I have a high-end bubble level by Starrett I occasionally use for installing customer's machinery, and working on my own rifles, but I can't imagine a situation where it would be especially useful in woodworking.

And you mentioned you missed having a granite surface plate. If/when you procure one, what will you use it for?

Thanks for the insight.

Stan

[Steve Voigt]

Hi Stan--thanks for the questions and sorry I was unclear. I meant good carpenter's levels, not precision machinist levels like your Starrett. When I was hanging a lot of doors, I bought Stabila 32" and 72" levels for a good price. I use both as straight edges all the time. The long one is great for checking long glue edges, and lots cheaper than a 48" straight edge, not to mention the astronomically priced 72" straight edge. I'm sure the level is not as straight as a real straight edge, but I know from experience that if two glue edges check out against my long level, they will fit together without any gaps, and that's all I care about. In general I think that when problems arise in my woodworking, it is not due to a lack of precision in my measuring instruments, but to a lack of skill on my part.
For some things, the levels are too thick for doing accurate work, but there I've used them as references to make wooden straight edges (however, I really want to try the 3-edge technique for making a truly straight edge. One of these days…).
Granite surface plates? Useful for all sorts of stuff. Checking plane soles for flat. Use with sandpaper to true plane soles, flatten blades (and save your stones for honing), etc. Use with a 1-2-3 block to check the outside of a square. Use as a reference for the scraping technique that Dave Barnett was talking about in another thread. All sorts of stuff!
By the way, 1-2-3 blocks--that's another machinist thing I still use. They are not terribly expensive, and can be used to check the inside of squares, as standards for calipers, square up a blade on a table saw, as parallels on a drill press (just don't drill into them!)and many other uses.

-Steve

P.S. Sorry if some of this has already been said--it's a long (though very useful) thread, and I don't remember all that's been covered!

[Stanley Covington]

Hi Stan--thanks for the questions and sorry I was unclear. I meant good carpenter's levels, not precision machinist levels like your Starrett. When I was hanging a lot of doors, I bought Stabila 32" and 72" levels for a good price. I use both as straight edges all the time. The long one is great for checking long glue edges, and lots cheaper than a 48" straight edge, not to mention the astronomically priced 72" straight edge. I'm sure the level is not as straight as a real straight edge, but I know from experience that if two glue edges check out against my long level, they will fit together without any gaps, and that's all I care about. In general I think that when problems arise in my woodworking, it is not due to a lack of precision in my measuring instruments, but to a lack of skill on my part.
For some things, the levels are too thick for doing accurate work, but there I've used them as references to make wooden straight edges (however, I really want to try the 3-edge technique for making a truly straight edge. One of these days…).
Granite surface plates? Useful for all sorts of stuff. Checking plane soles for flat. Use with sandpaper to true plane soles, flatten blades (and save your stones for honing), etc. Use with a 1-2-3 block to check the outside of a square. Use as a reference for the scraping technique that Dave Barnett was talking about in another thread. All sorts of stuff!
By the way, 1-2-3 blocks--that's another machinist thing I still use. They are not terribly expensive, and can be used to check the inside of squares, as standards for calipers, square up a blade on a table saw, as parallels on a drill press (just don't drill into them!)and many other uses.

-Steve

P.S. Sorry if some of this has already been said--it's a long (though very useful) thread, and I don't remember all that's been covered!

Steve

Thanks for the insight. Yes, the levels make sense now. A granite surface plate would be handy... but as much as I move around, it would be difficult for me.

Stan

[Mike Cogswell]

<snip>In general I think that when problems arise in my woodworking, it is not due to a lack of precision in my measuring instruments, but to a lack of skill on my part.
Amen - I never blame my tools for my inability to perform adequately accurate work.


Granite surface plates? Useful for all sorts of stuff. Checking plane soles for flat. Use with sandpaper to true plane soles, flatten blades (and save your stones for honing), etc. Use with a 1-2-3 block to check the outside of a square. Use as a reference for the scraping technique that Dave Barnett was talking about in another thread. All sorts of stuff!
By the way, 1-2-3 blocks--that's another machinist thing I still use. They are not terribly expensive, and can be used to check the inside of squares, as standards for calipers, square up a blade on a table saw, as parallels on a drill press (just don't drill into them!)and many other uses.

-Steve

Exactly. My granite surface plate (18 x 12 x 3, flat to 0.00005") is one of my three references. The others are a set of Mitutoyo gauge blocks and an 18" square accurate to 0.001" . Like you I use the granite both as a reference to verify the edges of my straightedge and master square as well as to flatten items like plane soles, blades, etc. I used the Mitutoyo blocks to check my digital height gauge and my dial slide calipers (30+ year old 6" Craftsman made in Japan and two Starrett 1202s, one 6" and one fractional 12") for accuracy. I use the master square to set-up and periodically check tailed tools as well as the squares I use every day. I also have a dial indicator I use to check run-out in arbors, table saw blades, etc. as well as to check and set the table saw fence and arbor for parallel to the mitre slot.

In actual day-to-day woodworking about the only ones that see frequent use are the surface plate for flattening/sharpening and the Starrett 1202F which is a real fast way to check board thicknesses. In almost all projects that involve multiple parts with the same dimension I use a story stick to mark them. If I'm crosscutting multiple parts on the table saw I use a stop on the sled. Single cuts I just do with a handsaw - it's often faster than setting up a cut on the table saw.

Some on this thread have stated that you don't need, or can't obtain, a high degree of precision with woodworking. I say it's situational and depends on what you mean by precision. I'm pretty sure a pattern maker or luthier has a lot more precise view of woodworking than I do. It's the nature of their work. However, my idea of precision varies. If I'm making a carcase, I won't really care much if it's 24 1/8", or even 24 1/4", instead of exactly 24" deep. But I most certainly care that all the pieces are the same depth else it won't be square when assembled. I'd also care a great deal if I was making a set (e.g. kitchen or bath cabinets). As has been covered in this thread, a human can easily see and feel a difference of a few thou, maybe even a single one. So most of all I care that the boards that have common faces are all the same thickness.

Not long ago I made a full set of double window sash for my daughter's circa 1880 house. That's hundreds of pieces of wood that had to be very accurately made. The dial calipers got a good workout on that project.




P.S. Sorry if some of this has already been said--it's a long (though very useful) thread, and I don't remember all that's been covered!
Ditto

[Stanley Covington]

Exactly. My granite surface plate (18 x 12 x 3, flat to 0.00005") is one of my three references. The others are a set of Mitutoyo gauge blocks and an 18" square accurate to 0.001" . Like you I use the granite both as a reference to verify the edges of my straightedge and master square as well as to flatten items like plane soles, blades, etc. I used the Mitutoyo blocks to check my digital height gauge and my dial slide calipers (30+ year old 6" Craftsman made in Japan and two Starrett 1202s, one 6" and one fractional 12") for accuracy. I use the master square to set-up and periodically check tailed tools as well as the squares I use every day. I also have a dial indicator I use to check run-out in arbors, table saw blades, etc. as well as to check and set the table saw fence and arbor for parallel to the mitre slot.

In actual day-to-day woodworking about the only ones that see frequent use are the surface plate for flattening/sharpening and the Starrett 1202F which is a real fast way to check board thicknesses. In almost all projects that involve multiple parts with the same dimension I use a story stick to mark them. If I'm crosscutting multiple parts on the table saw I use a stop on the sled. Single cuts I just do with a handsaw - it's often faster than setting up a cut on the table saw.

Some on this thread have stated that you don't need, or can't obtain, a high degree of precision with woodworking. I say it's situational and depends on what you mean by precision. I'm pretty sure a pattern maker or luthier has a lot more precise view of woodworking than I do. It's the nature of their work. However, my idea of precision varies. If I'm making a carcase, I won't really care much if it's 24 1/8", or even 24 1/4", instead of exactly 24" deep. But I most certainly care that all the pieces are the same depth else it won't be square when assembled. I'd also care a great deal if I was making a set (e.g. kitchen or bath cabinets). As has been covered in this thread, a human can easily see and feel a difference of a few thou, maybe even a single one. So most of all I care that the boards that have common faces are all the same thickness.

Not long ago I made a full set of double window sash for my daughter's circa 1880 house. That's hundreds of pieces of wood that had to be very accurately made. The dial calipers got a good workout on that project.

I doff my cap.

Stan

[Julie Moriarty]

So,who is the guy in the video? Buckaroo Banzaii?:)

It's David Moore. He's one of those guys on whom moss will never grow. I love the video but it makes me feel like I've wasted my life!

Here's another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBgoDrKO2OI&amp;list=UUObwzFiUD7snGOitGOWTRsw&amp; index=1

It never ceases to amaze me what he does with some pretty basic tools. Did you notice the General brand caliper?

If you want to see more of his videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/dpmbn8

Here's his website: http://davidmoorefurniture.com/ Some really beautiful pieces there.

[george wilson]

Some nice pieces on his website.

I must work on my bicycle handlebar and riding skills,and gunfighter skills,too.:)

[daniel lane]

Oh my. A hipster woodworker. Never thought I'd see one of those.

[george wilson]

I think the wooden handle bar might be a bad idea. How long do you think it will take the bicycle clamp to squeeze the wood until it gets compressed and loosens. Tighten clamp again,same thing.

[John Coloccia]

It's David Moore. He's one of those guys on whom moss will never grow. I love the video but it makes me feel like I've wasted my life!

Here's another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBgoDrKO2OI&amp;list=UUObwzFiUD7snGOitGOWTRsw&amp; index=1

It never ceases to amaze me what he does with some pretty basic tools. Did you notice the General brand caliper?

If you want to see more of his videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/dpmbn8

Here's his website: http://davidmoorefurniture.com/ Some really beautiful pieces there.

I would have bet money he road a fixie. LOL.

[george wilson]

His videos seem to dwell on his coolness more than on his woodworking. I mean,WHO plays gunfighter ballads in their woodworking videos?????? Besides,Marty Robbin's "Big Iron" wasn't such a tough guy. I modified his song so that the stranger carried a PIG IRON on his hip!!! Now,THAT would be someone you wouldn't mess with!!:)

[Jim Koepke]

I think the wooden handle bar might be a bad idea. How long do you think it will take the bicycle clamp to squeeze the wood until it gets compressed and loosens. Tighten clamp again,same thing.

When I was an avid bicyclist, my thoughts were the same.

But there is a lot of history of wood use in bicycles. Found this from Googling > wooden handlebars <:

http://veloaficionado.com/american-wood-bicycle-components-1896-1897/

Looking at the images from the search seems to indicate there is a lot of modern wooden bike component enthusiasts.

jtk

[george wilson]

I am aware that bikes had wooden parts. But,there is a different type of clamp holding the antique bike's handle bars on. There is full contact all inside the clamp,and it is longer than the modern clamp on the new bike. The modern clamp looks like it has just 2 circular lines of single point contact on the handle bars. That is fine for metal(might give a better grip,too).But,on wood it's going to soon wear grooves. Also,even if it gives full contact,the clamp is much shorter than the old type for use on wood.

My suggestion: At least make a 2" tube of metal with a slit so it can squeeze shut. Make the handlebar so it is a snug fit in the tube. Then,apply the actual bike's clamp on the tube. This would help a lot on not just scoring the wood.

Of course,if the rider just rides on the rear tire,never touching the handle bar,it would not be necessary to do more about it!!!

[Joe Leigh]

You can't pull a wheelie without having your hands on the handle bars.
Besides, a guy with a portfolio like his knows a few things about wood movement

Face it George, he's cooler than you. And me.

[george wilson]

But,I never had coolness as a goal!!:) I wanted to be a craftsman,only,pure and simple.

At least I got the simple part down.:)

[Mark Roderick]

Long ago I made a quest to find a large square that was actually square. My quest led me to an art supply store, but a quick test revealed that the "squares" they carried, even the best of them, were nowhere near square.

[Jonas Baker]

But,I never had coolness as a goal!!:) I wanted to be a craftsman,only,pure and simple.

At least I got the simple part down.:)

Yeah, George you're not as cool because you don't have a video that included you filming music videos for bands that no one outside of Williamsburg, Brooklyn has heard of, in between the time it took you to make a slab top table...

Of course I'm being sarcastic. George, you're way cooler than this guy. Come on. Dedication to ones craft is "cooler" than making a slick video. In fact, the objects you make stand the test of time and don't need anything else to laud the precision craftsmanship that went into them.

I did check out David Moore's website, and he does make some nice furniture, so I won't bad mouth him for being part of the hipster, fixed gear bike riding, segment of the population.

Jonas

[george wilson]

Thank you,Jonas. I always personally considered becoming skilled and educated as being the truly cool thing to do. I do not put this person in the same category,but I think the invention of being cool was an excuse for stupidly refusing to learn and not becoming an achiever.

David clearly has talent. I think he needs to de emphasize his life style. Might be his way of marketing himself to the younger generation,but I regard that sort of showmanship as being in the "Hollywood woodworker" category. A lot of people who tend to be newbies fall for that sort of thing,however.

[David Weaver]

I don't think that part of the population segment will be buying his higher priced pieces, either. Something a little more understated would probably do better to draw the customers with the dollars. He's got a little Reggie Jackson in his self promotion ideas.

"I'm thinking about the magnitude of me".

[george wilson]

I can't fault anyone who wants to do his best work. Naturally,it usually means that you tend to end up working for the rich. My best work is that way,too. It's the only way a craftsman can recoup the time he puts into an involved piece of work.

I should not think the slab table would cost a fortune,though. Most of the cost really is in the steel legs.

[David Weaver]

I can't fault anyone who wants to do his best work. Naturally,it usually means that you tend to end up working for the rich. My best work is that way,too. It's the only way a craftsman can recoup the time he puts into an involved piece of work.

I should not think the slab table would cost a fortune,though. Most of the cost really is in the steel legs.

The guy who bought my tablesaw had made a slab conference table and told me what he got for it. I won't repeat it because I don't know how big the table was, but it was a lot of money. He said "I'd like to get more of those customers".

I'll bet.

If I were going to do work and I were able to fine work, I would absolutely aim it straight at the people who can pay for it.

[Mel Fulks]

George,we all know you are not concerned about being cool .You have been photographed and filmed in the "puffy shirt".

[Zach Dillinger]

George,we all know you are not concerned about being cool .You have been photographed and filmed in the "puffy shirt".

Wait... so puffy shirts aren't cool? I have so much to learn... :)

/runs to closet, packs away puffy shirts and breeches.

[Sean Hughto]

http://www.tobeapirate.com/Seinfeld_Shirt/JerryPirat.jpg

[David Weaver]

Give that man a wooden plane and some high stockings!

[Chris Griggs]

Give that man a wooden plane and some high stockings!

Don't forget the wiglet!

[David Weaver]

Maybe George will lend his around :) Maybe one of those paper hats, too. (I don't think George wore any of those in any pictures or videos I saw).

[John Coloccia]

Don't forget the wiglet!

He was so cute in his little wiglet and puffy shirt, wasn't he?

It's too late to bury the video now, George. It's in the wild :)

[Chris Griggs]

He was so cute in his little wiglet and puffy shirt, wasn't he?

It's too late to bury the video now, George. It's in the wild :)

Actually, he liked the wiglet look so much he continued to wear it even after he stopped dawning the colonial garb, as seen from this 1996 photo.

255718

[george wilson]

Of course,as a museum employee,I was paid to work in costume. It was a requirement of the job. At least my shirt did not have the segmented arms,or the fru fru front!!

The movie was their decision,too. I was just informed that we were going to make the movie.

Chris,you COULD have at least sketched the wiglet in to also cover my bald spot!!:) Bald spot is very uncool.

[Chris Griggs]

Chris,you COULD have at least sketched the wiglet in to also cover my bald spot!!:) Bald spot is very uncool.

Oh, sorry George. Here's a cooler photo. Is this better?:)

255719

My word, you can tell its been a really long week if I'm resorting to drawing hair styles on old photos of George to amuse myself. Please do forgive me...I'll return to being at least a semi normal human being by tomorrow afternoon.

[Mel Fulks]

Chris ,your earlier work had more subtlety.You fooled me with the first one.

[John Coloccia]

I've noticed that my hair is starting to thin. I will not be going to Griggs Hair Club for Men.

[Chris Griggs]

You fooled me with the first one.

LOL! Not bad for MS paint


I've noticed that my hair is starting to thin. I will not be going to Griggs Hair Club for Men.

A wise decision.

[george wilson]

What is that,Chris,a MULLET????

By the way,my wife,who is much younger,says that only OLD people wear wrist watches. Youngunns use their cell phones(or whatever).

[Chris Griggs]

What is that,Chris,a MULLET????

By the way,my wife,who is much younger,says that only OLD people wear wrist watches. Youngunns use their cell phones(or whatever).

I was going for mohawk with ponytail...I guess that would fall into the mullet family.

That's true about the cell phones. My age group (HS class of 2k) was actually right on the cusp of the cell phone generation. I use my cell phone to check the time but also like wrist watches. The whole everyone having cells from grade school on and being on facebook and twitter didn't come into full swing until I was in college. Becasue of this there's actually some interesting differences between the folks currently in there late 20s-early 30s and folks just 5 years younger than we are. I work at a University and much the current generation fits perfectly with what your wife describes. Another interesting tidbit, the current generation of college/HS students will say that email is too slow and outdated. The effect technology can have on cultural over a very short time period is quite amazing. Of course, everything I describe refers to very broad general trends and certainly doesn't apply only to one age group or the entirety of one age group.

[Zach Dillinger]

Looks like a Rick James haircut. It didn't look good on him either.

[george wilson]

Well,I know nothing about new fangled gadgets. Here I sit,taking truly hobby thickness wood and gluing it together. Trying to make something that cooler guys can expound upon. It's pathetic,really.

[Chris Griggs]

Speaking of cool. What are you making these days George? If anything on this forum is cool its the things you've made. I'd love to see some pics of the latest G. Wilson masterpiece.

[george wilson]

I made a small cannon barrel lately,and am finishing up some other jobs,like making some aluminum discs that are tooling for a local manufacturer. Not sure what they do. I have to cut slices off a 4 1/8" round bar of aluminum,slice pieces off with a bandsaw and turn them down to smooth 1/2" thick discs. Not masterpieces by any means,but make money.

My back ins really painful today. When I feel better I'll post a bunch of pictures of making the wooden treadle lathe I posted here many months ago.

[Mark Roderick]

If your daughter's house was built in 1880 I doubt you had much use for a square. Mine was built in 1886 and every angle is custom, sometimes complex. Everything is cut to fit.

[daniel lane]

I've been enjoying this thread (massively hijacked as it has become) and wanted to make a couple of comments:
1. I wasn't disparaging David for being a hipster, I was just surprised to see a hipster woodworker. Hope nobody took my comment as negative.
2. George is definitely cooler, wiglet and all. Although I respect David and his work, I find George's stuff way more inspiring.
3. Chris, do I need permission to use that image as my avatar? :)


daniel

[Jack Curtis]

...By the way,my wife,who is much younger,says that only OLD people wear wrist watches. Youngunns use their cell phones(or whatever).


Hmmm, I haven't worn a watch for more than 40 years, so go figure. Of course, I was running a software development firm, so it didn't matter what time it was, I was working. BTW, airports could use a lot more clocks in public places.

[Mel Fulks]

Well, maybe that explains all those really cheap street Rolex offers.

[Chris Griggs]

1. I wasn't disparaging David for being a hipster, I was just surprised to see a hipster woodworker. Hope nobody took my comment as negative.


There is nothing wrong with disparaging hipsters. Everything hipsters do is done out of irony. They want to be disparaged. Of course, before you disparage be sure that they are actually hipsters, not just someone in skinny jeans riding a fixie, there is a subtle difference.


I2. George is definitely cooler, wiglet and all. Although I respect David and his work, I find George's stuff way more inspiring.
George is definitely one of the coolest people I will ever have the pleasure of knowing.




3. Chris, do I need permission to use that image as my avatar? :)


Of course not. I would love to see that image as your avatar. Might wanna ask George's permission though.

[george wilson]

Do you mean the picture of ME? I don't care. Could do without the pony tail,though.:)

[Ryan Baker]

George, please DO post some pics of that small cannon barrel. Iremember you talking about that but don't remember any pics of the finished thing.

I must have missed the treadle lathe too.

[george wilson]

I will try to remember to post pictures when I get to feeling better. I haven't finished the cannon yet. Got my name,date,etc. stamped around the breech is all.

Speaking of cheap watches,my journeymen,Jon was in the Navy in 'nam. When he was in Hong Kong,he bought a cheap watch. Found out it had a bamboo mainspring!! Ran for a while,too.