Hand tool speed i

[James Pallas]

I saw another post about power tool v hand tool speed recently. It made me think about it for a while. I have had the pleasure of seeing some very good hand tool workers work. When working in a well equipped shop and working with hand tool methods they can be very fast. I was sometimes amazed at how quickly tasks are completed. Volume production is definitely the realm of machine. One off pieces not so much.
There is a definite separation of methods and also the appearance of finished work. This is evident in the unseen parts of a piece of work. I have seen someone rive legs for a table out of an 8/4 block use a hatchet to rough a taper and plane them in just minutes. It takes skills that I don't have but wish I did.
i know machines are fast and less strenuous. I just posting this to open a discussion about the most productive skills for hand tool work. I have used both hand and power and not firmly in one camp or the other.
Jim

[Jim Koepke]

For me, it isn't about the speed so much as it is about the noise, dust and expense of power tools.

Though there is a bandsaw, lathe, drill press and a few smaller power tools in my shop, most of my shop time is spent with hand tools. If my intent was to produce large amounts of consumer products, then power tools might be more sensible.

jtk

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I'm with Jim. I dislike the noise and dust of powertools. Not to mention it is a hell of a lot easier to accidentally cut a finger off with a power saw than a hand saw. Woodworking for me is not about producing volume. I enjoy the process as much as the finished product, and as cliche as it is I get more of a zen sensation with hand tools and I appreciate the skill required.

That all said, there are some times when hand tools can be tedious, like removing a lot of wood by hand planing or making long rip cuts with a hand saw. So I bought a lunchbox planer. It's loud and heavy and creates a lot of dust but it prevents me from having to spend a tremendous amount of time planing by hand to thickness, which I don't particularly enjoy. In the end everyone must find their own balance, I think. The only power tools I have right now are a planer, a circular saw for long rips, and a drill press that gets used for metal work, sharpening, etc. as much as for drilling holes in wood. The only thing I really wish I had right now is a big bandsaw for ripping and resawing.

[James Pallas]

I do all my prep by hand. With that said my work begins at the lumber yard. I try to pick lumber that will be easy to work I work with any type of wood. I just try to pick pieces that will work easily. If I want something with figure than I start thinking veneer and pick easy to work stuff for secondary stuff. I usually buy rough and try to buy something close in thickness for its use. I do have a bandsaw to resaw with but only 6" wide. In the past I have had a full shop of power tools. Now I only do one off pieces and find all the power tools take up a lot of space and maintenance. I have a small job site table saw and use it infrequently. For my builds it takes too long to get out set up hook to the vac do a couple of cuts and put it away. I'm interested to know what others do.
Jim

[steven c newman]

For one...I have no need to be in a hurry.....I don't waste time, but I am not in a rush. No timeclock to worry about anymore, besides..rushing around leads to mistakes. I use what gets a task done the easiest...and simplest.

[James Pallas]

For one...I have no need to be in a hurry.....I don't waste time, but I am not in a rush. No timeclock to worry about anymore, besides..rushing around leads to mistakes. I use what gets a task done the easiest...and simplest.
Steven you do a lot of hand plane work. You never seem to mention that the task is so arduous and time consuming. You seem to take it as just part of woodworking. I feel the same, it is simply not that hard to do or shouldn't be. What advice would you give as far as your approach. I know you have had people come to your shop and helped them.
Jim

[steven c newman]

I size the plane to the task, no need for a 10 pound plane to plane a small part...
384735
When a No. 3 sized plane will do. Micron thin shavings may look nice, but waste time. wax to the sole of the plane ( and the tooth line on a handsaw) to make things move easier.
Mainly, once the plane (or saw) is sharp, waxed and ready for work....just guide it, let the plane do the work.

It is not just your arms, or just your legs, use the entire body. Work up to the speed you think you need, but there isn't really any rush.

I work until I get tired, then take a break. I have back issues, and let that tell me when to stop. I go to the shop to relax.....beats just sitting around.

[Brandon Speaks]

What got me into hand tools originally was the discovery that some things are done easier and faster by hand.

I carved these board game pieces as a gift. But to make it complete I needed to make a board. I wanted to chamfer the edges so I went and bought a router bit, did several test cuts, then did the board, and was unhappy with the result. All in I probably spent 5 hours messing with it between the trip to the store and the work.

http://i68.tinypic.com/tafmyt.jpg

A few weeks later I was putzing in my basement and came across a hand plane I bought years ago for a buck or 2 and sharpened the blade, my first few test passes were a chamfer on a board that was so much better than what the router did on that project. Been going further down this rabbit hole ever since.

[James Pallas]

That is very nice work Brandon. Sometimes, but not always, it is far easier to use hand tools and faster too. On work such as your chamfers it is so much easier to pick up a block plane than to get out a power router, cords, bits make test cuts that it is no contest. I think a lot of times the scope of the work defines the tools required.
Jim

[Robert Hazelwood]

...You seem to take it as just part of woodworking...
Jim

Pretty much this. It takes the amount of time that it takes, and try to enjoy the journey. Sometimes it reminds me of taking a canoe trip. You usually drive for a while at freeway speeds to get to the launch, then when you finally get in the boat and start paddling it seems like a lot of effort and you are barely moving. After a while your mind and body adjust to the pace and it begins to seem normal, then eventually you start to enjoy it. And you may as well enjoy it, because at that point there's no way to get to the take-out any faster. That is what it seems like to me to hand dimension a pile of boards.

Of course the more you do it the more efficient you get, which make it more enjoyable. To extend the canoe analogy, compare the paddle stroke of an experienced river guide with a frantic newbie. The former is getting more work done with less effort. That is helpful to maintain the patient mindset you need.

And once you are done you realize it didn't really take that long. Perhaps it took several multiples longer than if you had a good jointer and planer...but what I've found is that when I tally up the time spent dimensioning stock for a project it might amount to two or three weeknights or a saturday afternoon for a project that took a month of nights and weekends. I probably spend more time dry fitting and just scratching my head figuring something out than hand planing.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I do all my prep by hand. With that said my work begins at the lumber yard. I try to pick lumber that will be easy to work I work with any type of wood.
Jim

This is an important point that I am slowly learning. Picking the right or wrong piece of wood makes a huge difference in the amount of work necessary to dimension. I find myself becoming pickier as I gain experience, and I am sure that with experience I will be able to pick appropriate pieces easily. So that could cut your dimensioning labor in half sometimes. Combine that with the increase in hand tool skill you pick up over time and I bet an experienced craftsman with a well-picked board can dimension lumber in less than half the time it takes a beginner.

A few weeks ago I started planing one face and one edge on the slabs that will become my workbench. I have the basics covered when it comes to hand planes but I'd still call myself a beginner, and I've never worked with anything as big as these slabs (the smallest was 2x8x76") so the first edge I jointed took me about two hours. I doubt any of the older, more experienced folks here take even half that long to joint an edge most of the time.

[James Pallas]

Matthew, I started this thread with two things in mind, to try to help someone and to try to get some pointers for myself. I'm not sure whether you meant 2 hours for an edge or 2 hours for the first face. If I was faced with either of those situations I would most likely have picked another piece of lumber. Of course if it was a finely figured board than maybe I would have worked on it. Here is how I start at the yard. I take the board out of the stack and look at the end grain for too close to the pith etc., than site down the edge for wind, bow, twist, crook propeller wood etc. if it passes those tests I then try to evaluate the face, knots, checks, scaling etc. only than do I decide whether I like it for looks, sap wood and such. No guarantees it will be okay but a good guess it will work for me. I hope others have lots of thoughts to add to this.
Jim

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Picking good lumber is definitely important, but just as important is learning to use the planes correctly. The first time I tried to flatten rough lumber by hand it took forever because I had all of my planes set up to take very fine shavings. 8000 strokes later I realized that if you want to actually get something done you need to have a plane set up to take thick shavings, one to take thinner, but still substantial shavings, and one to take very fine shavings after the other two have done 90% of the work. I knew I needed a jack, jointer, smoother, I just did not understand that they needed to be set up differently to work correctly.

Edge jointing is no different than anything else in that regard. If the edge is really out of whack, your first tool should be a chalk line, followed by a rip saw. Then a couple of passes with the jack to remove the saw marks, and your jointer should be just a pass or two. If you just have a point or two that is high, mark them, take them down with the jack, and then reach for the jointer.

[Jim Koepke]

Picking good lumber is definitely important, but just as important is learning to use the planes correctly.

This is especially true when you want to make top notch molding. If it isn't going to be painted it is nice to have the grain of the molding be continuous:

384768

On the underside it is obvious where the section was cut out for the miter. On the face surface the grain blends together fairly well. The straighter the grain the better the grain appears to be continuous.

A few things come to mind that can be done with hand tools which would cost a lot in tooling to do with power tools.

Here is one example:

384767

One needs more than a router to put reeding on a piece that far from the edge.

Not sure if there are many power tool operations that weren't already done before the age of industrialization.

jtk

[Mike Allen1010]

Jim, thanks for posting. I think your idea about the relative speed, quality of result, and time/effort associated with hand tools versus power tools is really interesting. IMHO, the feedback/comments of already been insightful and I'm sure many of our fellow Neanders have a perspective on this topic I look forward to hearing.


As someone who has been a 95% hand tool woodworker for 20 years (my only significant stationary power tools a bandsaw), I'm particularly interested in the implications of your thread as relates to potentially perceived "need for power tool" barriers that prevent people from pursuing an interest in woodworking.


No one wants to hear me ramble on about myself but for purposes of this thread, I started 30 years ago as a power tool woodworker. One of my biggest challenges as a broke college student was the idea I needed a shop full of expensive power tools really even to get started with woodworking at any level, which at the time seem like an absolute barrier.


I'm fearful this inaccurate perception prevents young people from pursuing woodworking – which if true would be a terrible shame. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the demographics of my fellow Neanders here on SMC skewed heavily towards older men (which includes me). I wonder if the perceived need for a "shop full of power tools" is an important reason why people, especially younger people, shy away from woodworking?


When people learn of my interest in woodworking (usually because I boorishly subject them to pictures of my projects), I frequently hear "I would love to do that, but I don't have room/can't afford the necessary power tools". However, once they spent some time in my shop they quickly realize how fast/accurate/practical woodworking with hand tools is and this barrier disappears.


Maybe I'm way off base here. I'm really interested in hearing thoughts and comments from my fellow Creekers about the idea that a perceived need for a shop full of power tools is a barrier to people pursuing the craft.


Best, Mike

[Osvaldo Cristo]

That is very nice work Brandon. Sometimes, but not always, it is far easier to use hand tools and faster too. On work such as your chamfers it is so much easier to pick up a block plane than to get out a power router, cords, bits make test cuts that it is no contest. I think a lot of times the scope of the work defines the tools required.
Jim

Fully agree you.

It is funny when I see guys looking for his power impact driver to screw only one or two wood screws. An archaic and outdated simple screwdriver could be way faster...

[Robert Hazelwood]

Well I'm 33, which I guess is on the younger end of the woodworker spectrum. When I started getting into woodworking I was 27, and living in a rental house while working on location for a construction job (i.e. I had moved halfway across the country to work on a project that would last 2-4 years). From an early age I had always tinkered and built things, so I had managed to swing a place with a 2 car garage. So space wasn't an issue, but I definitely did not want to deal with moving a bunch of equipment back across the country when the job wrapped up. Plus in a rental you can't modify the shop space much, and this place would have needed a lot of work to get a good power tool setup. So life circumstances did play a role in my initial orientation towards hand tools. I also just found hand tools fascinating.

A big hangup for me with power tools was dust collection. I could imagine a way to fit some machines in the shop, but then when I considered getting a big enough dust collector and cyclone and all of the ductwork it just started to seem too complex, at least for a more or less temporary shop. It's a can of worms, which you can tell by the fact that most of the threads in the workshop forum here are about dust collection. You have to be really committed to the hobby to be willing to set up all of that. If someone vaguely interested in woodworking looks into it and perceives that is that standard set up they would need, I can easily see it putting them off. You could say something similar about sharpening I guess...

But yeah, young people are generally on the lower end of income and job security, and more likely to need to move in the near future. All of these are severe impediments to setting up a modern power tool shop. However it seems to me that for younger woodworkers, though they may be few in number, hand tools are more en vogue. There are a lot of people on Instagram doing work in the spare bedroom or balcony of their apartment. Whereas the local woodworking club, mostly retiree age, seem to regard hand tools as arcane and completely antiquated.

In the end though, woodworking is just a demanding hobby. You can eliminate some of the money and space requirements if you use hand tools, but you trade that for a steeper learning curve. Not many people want to learn difficult things.

[Warren Lake]

If you want to make a living good luck with that. We were taught dont use a hand tool when you can use a machine, that statement has proven itself to me likely thousands of times over the years. Chances I could have done all different types of custom work ive done with hand tools are zero and little to do with my experience or skill set with them.

[Andrew Seemann]

I do both power and hand tools, and I am not dogmatic about using either. I've been fortunate enough to accumulate many of both over the last 40 years. While I like the process of using tools, I also like taking an idea and bringing it to completion; the means isn't the end for me. I don't have nearly enough time to be exclusively hand tool, nor the desire. I did plenty of manual labor in my youth, enough to not see anything romantic about ending a day sore and exhausted. I also find that as I get older and more arthritic, I can't do the things that I used to do all day long. I recently rediscovered my random orbit sanders when my hands and back informed me they didn't appreciate being asked to plane and scrape for hours on end. I still like learning new techniques and keeping my skills up, but I don't see any point in using hand tools for the sake of using hand tools.

Don't get me wrong, I probably do more handwork than the typical power tool worker, and if I can do something as fast or nearly as fast by hand I still do. I also do more power tools than they typical hand tool worker. For me they work best together, rather than in opposition.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

If you want to compare the speed between power tools and hand tools then it probably means also to prepare the stock by hand vs by machine, which not every "neanderthal" nowadays does. But if stock is prepared by hand then it boils down to how efficiently coarse tools are used. And the longer time coarse tool is used and more accuracy the better (pretty much what Shannon Rogers was saying in his video about saws https://youtu.be/FTB4Ghxwwvk).

There were links to videos about some old Chinese woodworker in some thread few years ago - he was amazingly fast. I noticed that he would not care so much about second face and edge, as long as he can mark and cut the joints. Once assembled then he would clean external surfaces and leave internal or hidden rough. Changing order of operations such way one can avoid unnecessary work or do two things at once. Something to think about.

[James Pallas]

What started me thinking about this subject was the fact that old records show things like workers making 6 candle stands a day or ten drawers. After looking at lots of pictures I came to the realization that it was the level of finish that was part of the key to the speed. I'm certain I'm not the first person to recognize this by a long ways. I concluded for myself that this was part of the speed secret. Does that table apron need to be finished on 6 sides. Do all of the aprons on one table need to be exactly 3/4 thick? Does the table top need to finish out at exactly 1 inch? I decided for myself that I needed to think a lot different when hand working as opposed to machine working. If you have doubts just look under the fenders of that 60 grand suv in your driveway.
Jim

[Matthew Hartlin]

I find this topic very interesting(along with the wealth of knowledge on this forum) and I find it interesting that most people seem to have come to the same conclusions that I have;

1. Hand tools are fairly cheap and accessible compared to a power tool shop.
2. If you're working this as a hobby, time to complete a project is not of the utmost importance.
3. Hand tool projects are not equal to power tool projects, ie 4S4, everything being exactly 3/4, mirror finishes on all surfaces.

What I find very interesting in the speed discussion is the hours of service these craftsmen had under their belts in their apprenticeships. Likely thousands of hours working in the shop as a young man into adult hood. No matter the time or effort you can put into preparing stock by hand, cutting dovetails, glue-ups, without the thousands of hours of practice I don't think we can ever truly appreciate how quickly they could work. In any case, I very quickly realized that power tools were not for me in my hobby, the size, noise and dust was not something that I had the time or money to deal with. Luckily I had a pretty well stocked toll chest handed down to me that forced me into hand tools and 5 years on I'm beginning to see myself as competent. I do think the learn curve with handtools is much steeper than power tools. I swear it took me 2 years just to figure how the core tools worked.

[Brian Holcombe]

There are many areas where hand tools are a great choice for speed, efficiency and unencumbered use. These areas are only found if you go through the paces with hand tools and dedicate the effort to making with them. This pays dividends in later use.

Here is example, I use a number of small Japanese planes for various work, chamfer, round-over, chair making planes, etc, etc. These are only working great because I went through the effort of really learning kanna, and pushing myself and using it daily even when I wanted to chuck it over my shoulder and return to a #4 plane. Now I use these without issue because I can diagnose issues quickly.

Diagnostics are where it either very much comes together or completely falls apart and gets stuck on the shelf. The same goes for machine tools, taking the time to know your tools and diagnose issues you have with them is the best way to get a well working setup. A well working setup combined with a user in tune with tool and work are where really great work starts turning out.

Speed is a critical factor in handtool use because efficient use of the tools brings about the realization that they're effective.

[Warren Mickley]

As a long time hand tool professional, it is sometimes humorous to read people's perceptions. Some can't imagine that one would get faster and more efficient with regular work. In general, if the work was designed for hand tools it is more economical to make by hand and if it was designed for machines it is more economical by machine.

Sometimes it is hard to predict which way would be best. A guy from a millwork company was having me do some carving for a fireplace. After going over the drawings, he said "maybe you would like to make these mouldings also." The mouldings were complicated so I was a little skeptical and I said " How much would it cost you to makes these mouldings?" "Hundreds of dollars a piece" It was kind of a shock, but when he explained why they were difficult to make with machinery, I agreed to make them and they were very happy.

I could tell lots of stories like this, but the main thing is that even a guy in this market does not always know what the most efficient way is; others are only guessing.

I find that well prepared stock saves time all the way down the line. If one has done a good job with the trying plane the joinery fits better and only a single layer has to be removed to clean with the smoothing plane. Subsequent staining and finishing is much easier because of the quality of the surface.

[Brandon Speaks]

Doing production work is different than hobby work. For production work the machines are set up based on a planned workflow, in hobby work the equation changes.

I am by no means putting down machine work though, I have and use a table saw, bandsaw, router both in and out of a table, drill press, and just about any hand power tool.

Which i use is all situational, if I need to cut a couple boards grabbing the handsaw is often quicker than getting set up on any of the above, if I need to cut a lot the power tool is quicker.

As Warren Mickley said also it depends on skill level, he and many here are doubtless at least twice or three times as fast with hand tools compared to me, that again changes the equation.

In the end for me I do this only for fun, so just choose which ever tool I feel like using.

[John C Cox]

What started me thinking about this subject was the fact that old records show things like workers making 6 candle stands a day or ten drawers. After looking at lots of pictures I came to the realization that it was the level of finish that was part of the key to the speed. I'm certain I'm not the first person to recognize this by a long ways. I concluded for myself that this was part of the speed secret. Does that table apron need to be finished on 6 sides. Do all of the aprons on one table need to be exactly 3/4 thick? Does the table top need to finish out at exactly 1 inch? I decided for myself that I needed to think a lot different when hand working as opposed to machine working. If you have doubts just look under the fenders of that 60 grand suv in your driveway.
Jim

Jim,
That's a good point. And often as not - we have to "re-learn" not onlh hand tool ways of doing things - but how designs of things made by hand tools can (and should) differ......

For example - it's very very easy to make a lot of different things with hand tools.. And it's very very easy to make a lot of the "same things" with power tools.... But doing it the other way around doesn't always go so well...

Mimicing factory methods makes sense for a factory or where you are making many of the same things... And it often makes sense with power tools and jigs which take some time to get set up properly... And so you end up "batching" parts... You make all the legs in 1 go.. Flatten and thickness all the parts in 1 go... All the drawer sides in 1 go.. All the drawer fronts in another go... All the drawer backs in another go... All the parts are interchangeable. And then you make all the tenons in 1 go... All the dovetail pins in a separate go, all the mortises in another go, and finally all the dovetail tails in another go.... Etc.... Then you fit it all together like a big lego set if you have done your job well..... And you do it this way for power tool specific reasons - aka it can be difficult and time consuming to mimic the same setup twice or 14 times... And so within this paradigm - things are DESIGNED for as many common and symmetrical parts as possible.... For example - the design makes all the drawers the same size so that you can run them off in 1 go...

But look at many old things..... Almost nothing is really perfectly symmetrical. No two things are really perfectly "the same"... All the drawers may be slightly different sizes and fitted to their openings. Often their dovetails, pins, mortises, and tenons would not interchange with other pieces - they are hand fitted. When you look at the shapes - the lines all flow cleanly, but they aren't exactly the same... And this is an intentional part of the design. It's part of making hand work "work" right.... Second - since things are designed this way - you plan for things in "nowhere land" to receive the minimum amount of work required.... So they didn't bother with even cleaning up the saw marks and inconsistent thicknesses left after jointing boards inside the aprons of a table top or on the "inside" of upholstered furniture past a quick knock down of splinters... This is part of the intentional design of hand made things... Where a factory made thing requires all these surfaces to be clean sanded, consistent thickness, square and true so their jigs, fixtures, and power tools work correctly....

It's worth thinking about.....

[John C Cox]

Warren has stated this probably better than I can...

Here's my example of hobby guitar building by hand....

This year - I am doing 3 guitars..... Each one is completely different. Mostly handwork... Different size, shape, wood, scale, etc... And as such - trying to "batch" things beyond the initial stock prep doesn't really work well - because everything is different once you get past 1 of the 3 guitars.. And almost all the parts end up being hand fitted. And so because of that - I am very unhappy with how the "workflow" was progressing trying to do the "same" operation to 3 completely different guitars at once (where the "same" operation was actually completely different on each one because of the hand fitting)...

It's actually hugely unsatisfying because I now have 3x as much "Unfinished" project work as when doing them 1 at a time....

and because of that - at this point in the builds, I have basically switched back to doing 1 guitar at a time... This way - I can "Start, Work, and Finish" on something rather than "Pick up, put down, start, stop, start, stop.. Still not done yet.... Hey look - 3 half built guitars are staring at me. :( :( "

The other huge benefit of this is that it splits up the most tedious and least favorite parts so I am not grinding away on 3 guitars worth of my least favorite operation all at once....


As a long time hand tool professional, it is sometimes humorous to read people's perceptions. Some can't imagine that one would get faster and more efficient with regular work. In general, if the work was designed for hand tools it is more economical to make by hand and if it was designed for machines it is more economical by machine.

Sometimes it is hard to predict which way would be best. A guy from a millwork company was having me do some carving for a fireplace. After going over the drawings, he said "maybe you would like to make these mouldings also." The mouldings were complicated so I was a little skeptical and I said " How much would it cost you to makes these mouldings?" "Hundreds of dollars a piece" It was kind of a shock, but when he explained why they were difficult to make with machinery, I agreed to make them and they were very happy.

I could tell lots of stories like this, but the main thing is that even a guy in this market does not always know what the most efficient way is; others are only guessing.

I find that well prepared stock saves time all the way down the line. If one has done a good job with the trying plane the joinery fits better and only a single layer has to be removed to clean with the smoothing plane. Subsequent staining and finishing is much easier because of the quality of the surface.

[James Pallas]

I like to see everyone join in the conversations. I like to think that hand tool workers in the past were very good. They didn't waste a lot of time on things. They were out to get the work done with the quality required and make a living. I just can't picture a worker 4 squaring a 10 ft board to get a 3 ft piece or thicknessing a table apron to make it exactly 3/4. I can see them getting the face side flat and the width right and looking good because they needed that to work toward a finished piece. The machine worker needs to flatten both sides so the machine can work properly in many cases or to accurately make on size fits all parts. I'm not saying one way is good or bad. The work is just different.
Jim

[Mike Holbrook]

I will throw in with Andrey above. How can one compare machine work to hand work without taking a look at the prep work to get the stock. As has been said many times in other posts machine work is largely set up work. Typically as machines go up in cost there get to be more and more features that may speed up set up time. There is most likely an infinite number of jigs one can make or buy to speed up production with machines. I believe one could spend a lifetime designing and making jigs and never get anything actually made. I am not, of course, speaking from personal experience.

At the same time there is a great deal one can do with “coarser” tools, should one decide to take the time to develop the requisite skill set. Take the lowly wedge or froe. A dull tool with major taper simply will not do what a sharp well tapered tool will. It is easy to test this simply by using better and cruder mauls and splitting axes. The cruder tool will make lots of splinters and go where the grain goes. The other tool may enable the user to split off small exact pieces. Taking the time to: mark splitting lines, make good gluts, have appropriate axes to help with splits and cut connecting wood.......can produce results that I suspect many woodworkers will never see. Once you see a guy like Drew Langsner split precise 3/4” pieces out of small logs, using an axe or froe you figure out it is possible.

IMHO, in my humble opinion, we have gotten to the point that we try to emulate, the rather boaring flat surfaces machines make in wood with hand tools. Lately I find myself asking why I would want to do that. How many of us actually write on paper at a desk or set things on a table that can not handle a slightly rougher surface? The iPad I am posting with works on rough surfaces or even in my lap.

[Brian Holcombe]

Machine made is not necessarily square and flat. Check out danish chairs by any of the famous makers of the post WWII period, not a straight board in the group typically and not one thing made by hand short of some touch up work with shaves. I make by hand and I can tell you, getting perfect curves by hand is not easy, duplicating things even less easy.

It's very hard to say 'this is this, that is that' and do so in a way that actually covers the broad spectrum. I think Warren's comments cover it very well, things designed for hand tools are best made by hand and things designed for machine tools best made by machine.

[James Pallas]

Machine made is not necessarily square and flat. Check out danish chairs by any of the famous makers of the post WWII period, not a straight board in the group typically and not one thing made by hand short of some touch up work with shaves. I make by hand and I can tell you, getting perfect curves by hand is not easy, duplicating things even less easy.

It's very hard to say 'this is this, that is that' and do so in a way that actually covers the broad spectrum. I think Warren's comments cover it very well, things designed for hand tools are best made by hand and things designed for machine tools best made by machine.
I believed it's a little different than just hand and machine. If it was left at that than we should just use machines to do everything but carve and with CNC improving almost daily that goes also. Once properly set a machine can cut dovetails around the clock and very clean every time. Hand tool workers can't compete. Where the big difference comes in is where the parameters change. When working by hand you can go from one dovetail size to another no problem with a jig it has to be reset and checked. If you cut dovetails by eye with few markings experienced hand workers can be very fast. Whether or not that is acceptable is another question in this day and time.
Jim

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Then let me state the obvious. How to design for hand tools? And then another one. How to design for hand tools that cannot be done by machines?

Dovetails with narrow pins. Turned profiles with sharp edges. Carving with sharp crisp edges. What else?

Will we see the end of woodworking as we know it? With advance of machines will it come down to downloading a design from web and scaling it on computer and feeding it to machine that will be present in everybody's home? Will it survive as a hobby?

[Brian Holcombe]

I believed it's a little different than just hand and machine. If it was left at that than we should just use machines to do everything but carve and with CNC improving almost daily that goes also. Once properly set a machine can cut dovetails around the clock and very clean every time. Hand tool workers can't compete. Where the big difference comes in is where the parameters change. When working by hand you can go from one dovetail size to another no problem with a jig it has to be reset and checked. If you cut dovetails by eye with few markings experienced hand workers can be very fast. Whether or not that is acceptable is another question in this day and time.
Jim

I actually view this very much like buying a suit, there are certain things considerably better done by hand and the result is better for it. There are also things that machines do exceptionally well.

CNC is improving but the best machines are extremely expensive and so the hourly rates charged for them to exist and be profitable, whilst taking on short runs, are quite substantial. So much so that hand work then becomes reasonable and affordable by comparison.

[ken hatch]

I saw another post about power tool v hand tool speed recently. It made me think about it for a while. I have had the pleasure of seeing some very good hand tool workers work. When working in a well equipped shop and working with hand tool methods they can be very fast. I was sometimes amazed at how quickly tasks are completed. Volume production is definitely the realm of machine. One off pieces not so much.
There is a definite separation of methods and also the appearance of finished work. This is evident in the unseen parts of a piece of work. I have seen someone rive legs for a table out of an 8/4 block use a hatchet to rough a taper and plane them in just minutes. It takes skills that I don't have but wish I did.
i know machines are fast and less strenuous. I just posting this to open a discussion about the most productive skills for hand tool work. I have used both hand and power and not firmly in one camp or the other.
Jim

Jim,

I'm a blended shop. I can prep lumber and do at times but the machines are there might as well use 'em if they will work without too much monkey motion. I could easily live without the 8" jointer, I would guess near 80% of the planer prep is done by hand because 8" is too small. The 20" planer and the 18" bandsaw are another story. Yes I could do without but they are really good for the scut work, getting close so the piece can be finished by hand with ease. The table saw is kinda like the jointer, if I could sale it for half the price I paid for it I would but for now I don't really need the real estate and it is occasionally handy. I sold (gave away) all my powered router stuff years ago and have been a happier woodwork for it.

The reason it works for me is I do simple mostly one off builds that are hand tool friendly.

ken

[James Pallas]

We here a lot about benches being made on this forum so I'll use that as an example. If working by hand you read about people working to get their pieces for laminating just right, four square and such. In my way of thinking I would work to get the faces square to the reference edge and if it turned out that I had that but the 6 ft long board was tapered by say a 1/4 inch along those faces I simply wouldn't care. If the glue faces are good and square to the reference edge it's okay. I may take more care with the dog block but not the rest. Once glued up I'll have to straighten the back edge anyway. All of this is within reason and judgement of course.
Jim

[Brian Holcombe]

You can also work the top and reference sides, leave the bottom alone and cut in flat areas for the joinery. Built more like a timber structure than a furniture piece.

Having worked with mainly hand tools for so long, I tend to build in a way that avoids large glue ups. So the best way to save effort is to pick a board that is wide and heavy enough for a workbench all on its own. That saves a good number of hours right there. Same for the legs.

I do the same for furniture, I’m not making glue ups unless I absolutely have to.

There is much furniture from the 18th century made in mahogany, I assume one of the reasons they loved it is that you can harvest huge sections and the wood is dark, two things that make life easier.

[James Pallas]

Brian I agree with all you said. I also would feel the same about a table apron if the apron were thicker on one end than the other and all the joinery is laced out from the face edge and face surface why spend time on the off face. I don't mean grossly so, why take an eight or so off to get to a 64th gauge line.
Jim

[kent wardecke]

Three men four days. According to the Keno brothers that's how long it took craftsman in pre industrial New England to make a high boy dresser. A guest on "The Woodrights Shop" said it would take " a long day" to turn an oak log into a bible box complete with carving, all by hand. Let's compare that to Norm who does 95% of his work in a shop that is equipped with $250k of tools. It would take him two days to make the high boy and he would probably buy carved medallions and fans. The bible box, a 1/2 a day. So empirically machines are 3-10x's faster
I'm not sure what my point was in those examples but some things that are faster by hand: mortissing hinges and locks, chamfors and round overs if you have the right plane, small runs of tongue and groove if you have a #49, small runs of rabbets and dados again if you have the tool, cleaning up seams on a large glue up and making something fit when it's just off a hair

[Patrick Chase]

That all said, there are some times when hand tools can be tedious, like removing a lot of wood by hand planing or making long rip cuts with a hand saw. So I bought a lunchbox planer. It's loud and heavy and creates a lot of dust but it prevents me from having to spend a tremendous amount of time planing by hand to thickness, which I don't particularly enjoy.

If you can you might retrofit that lunchbox with a helical head. It will help with the noise, and makes the dust easier to collect in-machine (not so stringy). I have a DW735 with a Shelix head FWIW.

[Patrick Chase]

Volume production is definitely the realm of machine. One off pieces not so much.

I think this is the key point when it comes to productivity. Many machines are setup-intensive due to the need for jigs/fixtures/etc, and that negates much of their speed advantage for one-off work. Obviously that logic doesn't apply to things like planers where the only setup is for thickness, but it does for many others.

[Patrick Chase]

A few weeks later I was putzing in my basement and came across a hand plane I bought years ago for a buck or 2 and sharpened the blade, my first few test passes were a chamfer on a board that was so much better than what the router did on that project. Been going further down this rabbit hole ever since.

You should try a Japanese chamfer plane. You'll never go back to your router for anything short of extremely high-volume work.

[Patrick Chase]

Matthew, I started this thread with two things in mind, to try to help someone and to try to get some pointers for myself. I'm not sure whether you meant 2 hours for an edge or 2 hours for the first face. If I was faced with either of those situations I would most likely have picked another piece of lumber

...or picked up a rip saw. I'm amazed at how many folks spend hours hogging off material that could be cut off.

[Patrick Chase]

Will we see the end of woodworking as we know it? With advance of machines will it come down to downloading a design from web and scaling it on computer and feeding it to machine that will be present in everybody's home? Will it survive as a hobby?

Ever priced out a CNC router that's large enough for furniture work?

Moore's law doesn't apply to aluminum frames, stepper motors, spindles, etc. The controller has already declined in cost to the point where it's a small fraction of the overall cost, and everything else is relatively stable.

[James Pallas]

...or picked up a rip saw. I'm amazed at how many folks spend hours hogging off material that could be cut off.
Or spend time and calories rip saw 6 boards to make them equal, glue up and then rip both edges once again to get those edges parallel. Of course then only the two edge boards won't have parallel sides.:)
Jim

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Ever priced out a CNC router that's large enough for furniture work?

Moore's law doesn't apply to aluminum frames, stepper motors, spindles, etc. The controller has already declined in cost to the point where it's a small fraction of the overall cost, and everything else is relatively stable.

There is something like liquid wood already. I can imagine it can be printed in relatively small parts then.

[Patrick Chase]

There is something like liquid wood already. I can imagine it can be printed in relatively small parts then.

Sure, but then you have plastic furniture. Not the same thing at all. I don't know of any 3D printers that can create microstructures on a scale comparable to wood. The fibers in a typical hardwood have diameters on the order of 10 microns, and wall thicknesses (when dried) of less than a micron.

[Patrick Chase]

Or spend time and calories rip saw 6 boards to make them equal, glue up and then rip both edges once again to get those edges parallel. Of course then only the two edge boards won't have parallel sides.:)
Jim

I wasn't saying that you can always hit final geometry off the saw (though you can do so more often than a lot of people think). For larger-scale work with a rip saw or bow saw the best I can reliably do is to be accurate to within about 1/2 mm depending on the cut. If it needs to be tighter than that then the planes come out to refine the saw work, but note that I still don't have to do all that much with them.

Similarly there is a practical minimum thickness that you can saw off, which depends upon the characteristics of the wood and your skill. I'm not experienced at resawing veneers and the like, so my minimum is likely higher than a more skilled woodworker's would be.

I totally get using a scrub/jack/fore to remove, say, 1/16" of thickness. I don't understand people who use planes to blast off 1/4", though. It's just so wasteful of time and effort compared to resawing.

[Mike Holbrook]

It seems to me that it is easy to get mired in “machine language”. To an experienced computer coder “machine language” is much closer to a bunch of switches set either on or off than a “language” that comes close to representing recognizable human thought patterns. Have we become so emersed in tryng to produce what a machine can produce that we are loosing our craft skills, artistic eye, hmmm Hand and Eye, no I think someone already came up with that one....

Should, as Jim Toplin suggests, we relate the height of our bench to our specific body parts vs mm or inches? Maybe there will be a CNC machine one day that will scan human bodies and customize furniture to fit individuals...but then will it measure the height of each family member and build furniture to fit the average family member? What happens when the family has visitors, new members.....How much abstract thought will this machine be capable of? How do we build a a style and artistic appreciation in, which successfully relates to the rest of our abode? I’m just suggesting that with machines there are always trade offs. Machines are tools not artists, or craftsmen.

For this poster, the trade offs between machines and hand tools have more to do with craftsmanship and artistic expression than speed. Is the artist who paints fast better than the one who paints slowly? Is the artist who sculpts in clay a lesser artist than the artist who generates art via computer programs? I just hellped my daughter select tools to do an art project. The challenge was to make an artistic object from parts the instructor selected from everyday items presented by the students. She was given a broken skateboard. I was impressed that she came up with the idea of making a Maori, native New Zealand inhabitants, mask from the skateboard. My wife’s mother was a native of New Zealand, making her a New Zealander by New Zealand law. Ohhk, maybe family history is getting off subject, but is it really? Can we remove ourselves from our culture, tribes, family history?

I personally have been moving more and more toward hand tools, particularly “cruder” hand tools. For me this makes sense as the ”medium” I am working in is wood. It makes sense to me to start with tools that allow me to feel and work with the grain, density...in the medium. Still sometimes a hand saw, bandsaw or tablesaw can reveal what is inside the wood in new and interesting ways. I still use machines, particularly when I feel they can produce in the wood medium something that can not be produced by another method.

[Jim Koepke]

I still use machines, particularly when I feel they can produce in the wood medium something that can not be produced by another method.

My reason for using a bandsaw is it can do many tasks faster and better than my hand sawing. For a single cut, a hand saw may be quicker than having to set up the bandsaw.

My drill press provides repeatability and precision when hand boring would be difficult.

Other than a lathe that is about the extent of my power tools. After sawing a piece on the bandsaw three or four passes from a hand plane and the saw marks are gone. To me there is no need for a power jointer or a planer.

jtk

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

...or picked up a rip saw. I'm amazed at how many folks spend hours hogging off material that could be cut off.

Well, right now my only options for ripping are a hand saw or a circular saw. With the former I still can't cut a straight enough line over more than a couple feet, and the latter requires a straight edge to reference the fence and only cuts to a depth of 2". These boards were 80" long so definitely not representative of most furniture making stock.

Ideally I would have boards that didn't require so much prep but sometimes there just isn't that much selection. The stock I bought was all that I could get with the parameters I set and the price I could afford.

But on the subject of sawing. Say you have a board that is like these-80" long and 2" or so thick-and there's a decent crook in it so that one edge has a bow that puts the middle about 1/8" higher than the ends. The other side is correspondingly concave and the center is 1/8" lower than the ends. Would you take a rip saw and try to correct those issues rather than planing?

[Patrick Chase]

Well, right now my only options for ripping are a hand saw or a circular saw. With the former I still can't cut a straight enough line over more than a couple feet, and the latter requires a straight edge to reference the fence and only cuts to a depth of 2". These boards were 80" long so definitely not representative of most furniture making stock.

You might want to give a bowsaw a try. Those can cut to unlimited depth (with the frame rotated to the side) but allow more line adjustment once in the cut than does a traditional ripsaw. I used mine a lot for that sort of work while my technique was even worse than it is now. You could also increase the set on your handsaw to give the plate a little more "play" in the cut, but that has other unpalatable consequences.



But on the subject of sawing. Say you have a board that is like these-80" long and 2" or so thick-and there's a decent crook in it so that one edge has a bow that puts the middle about 1/8" higher than the ends. The other side is correspondingly concave and the center is 1/8" lower than the ends. Would you take a rip saw and try to correct those issues rather than planing?

In that specific situation I'd probably plane. If it's truly a crook as opposed to a continuous bow then I might (but probably wouldn't) saw the board in two and re-attach with a scarf joint, adjusting the angle of one or both surfaces to correct the crook.

[Pat Barry]

Well, right now my only options for ripping are a hand saw or a circular saw. With the former I still can't cut a straight enough line over more than a couple feet, and the latter requires a straight edge to reference the fence and only cuts to a depth of 2". These boards were 80" long so definitely not representative of most furniture making stock.

Ideally I would have boards that didn't require so much prep but sometimes there just isn't that much selection. The stock I bought was all that I could get with the parameters I set and the price I could afford.

But on the subject of sawing. Say you have a board that is like these-80" long and 2" or so thick-and there's a decent crook in it so that one edge has a bow that puts the middle about 1/8" higher than the ends. The other side is correspondingly concave and the center is 1/8" lower than the ends. Would you take a rip saw and try to correct those issues rather than planing?
You could do rip cut with a guide from both sides with your circular saw and get 4 inches total depth. If that's not enough you can finish the rip with a handsaw and 90% of the hard work would be done with the circular saw.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Are you consistently off in one direction or the other? There are various things that can make the saw drift, and if that is the case correcting them makes it much easier to keep the saw straight.

Do you have a saw bench? Being able to position the stock properly helps a lot.

If the board is the width you want, I would not rip it to try to correct the 1/8 bow. I would mark it (use a chalk line if you do not have any straight edges to reference from), and then use a jack to get it close and a jointer to finish it.


Well, right now my only options for ripping are a hand saw or a circular saw. With the former I still can't cut a straight enough line over more than a couple feet, and the latter requires a straight edge to reference the fence and only cuts to a depth of 2". These boards were 80" long so definitely not representative of most furniture making stock.

Ideally I would have boards that didn't require so much prep but sometimes there just isn't that much selection. The stock I bought was all that I could get with the parameters I set and the price I could afford.

But on the subject of sawing. Say you have a board that is like these-80" long and 2" or so thick-and there's a decent crook in it so that one edge has a bow that puts the middle about 1/8" higher than the ends. The other side is correspondingly concave and the center is 1/8" lower than the ends. Would you take a rip saw and try to correct those issues rather than planing?

[Patrick Chase]

You could do rip cut with a guide from both sides with your circular saw and get 4 inches total depth. If that's not enough you can finish the rip with a handsaw and 90% of the hard work would be done with the circular saw.

Hey, it's a motorized kerfing plane!

[Pat Barry]

Hey, it's a motorized kerfing plane!
We could patent this!

[steven c newman]

Straight line rip right down the center....flip the boards over, so the curves match up, and glue it up. Jointer to smooth the saw marks on the edges. Simple?

[Warren Lake]

good way to ruin a nice looking board

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I'm fearful this inaccurate perception prevents young people from pursuing woodworking – which if true would be a terrible shame. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the demographics of my fellow Neanders here on SMC skewed heavily towards older men (which includes me). I wonder if the perceived need for a "shop full of power tools" is an important reason why people, especially younger people, shy away from woodworking?



Speaking as a guy still in his 20's I'd say that's a big part of it. I know there are some folks out there that do a little woodworking from an apartment but you have to really want to work wood to be willing to deal with the disadvantages of doing it in an apartment.

Even without the perceived need for a lot of big machines, it is still a hobby that ideally requires a decent amount of space and a sizable initial investment both financially and in time. Combine that with the fact that most people in their twenties are living in apartments in cities (where most of the work is) and moving almost regularly (again...the work thing), and it just doesn't feel feasible. Of all my friends in a similar age range I know only a few that actually do any woodworking but I bet the number will double a couple times as people get older and lives become a little more stable. The desire is there, I think.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

You could do rip cut with a guide from both sides with your circular saw and get 4 inches total depth. If that's not enough you can finish the rip with a handsaw and 90% of the hard work would be done with the circular saw.

This is exactly what I did to rip a 4" thick beam in half. Not as easy as it would be with a bandsaw but it works well enough. Having never used a bandsaw I may be overestimating its ability to facilitate accuracy in long rip cuts. It may well be that my circular saw with a fence gets the same end result.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Are you consistently off in one direction or the other? There are various things that can make the saw drift, and if that is the case correcting them makes it much easier to keep the saw straight.

Do you have a saw bench? Being able to position the stock properly helps a lot.

If the board is the width you want, I would not rip it to try to correct the 1/8 bow. I would mark it (use a chalk line if you do not have any straight edges to reference from), and then use a jack to get it close and a jointer to finish it.

Ha, my current saw bench is two coolers. A proper saw bench would certainly help but so far I have avoided using a hand saw to rip these big boards. My saws are all in good enough shape that I'm pretty sure it is my doing when the saw leaves the line.

[James Pallas]

Ha, my current saw bench is two coolers. A proper saw bench would certainly help but so far I have avoided using a hand saw to rip these big boards. My saws are all in good enough shape that I'm pretty sure it is my doing when the saw leaves the line.

Matthew, Sometimes we put unintentional barriers between ourselves and getting the work done. I have a picture of you trying to work on two coolers. It would seem to me that they would not raise the work high enough. If you have your mind on not jamming the end of your saw into the floor, you can't concentrate on sawing the line. Always try to remove the barriers. Sometimes it can't be done. Maybe a proper saw bench should be in your future. Because of back issues I can't use a saw bench any longer. I just hate the fact that I have to find work arounds because it impacts the goal.
Jim

[James Waldron]

For the best aid for effective ripping with a hand saw:

385133

Sorry for the sideways arrangement; it's right side up on my system. Click it to big it.

If you do a lot of ripping (or cross cutting, for that matter) of long boards, make two benches. Height should be at the bottom of the knee; too high doesn't work at all, while too low is quickly tiring and very tough on the back. Dovetails are optional; a simpler joint for the tops would be fine. Mortise and tenon for the base joints is hard to beat. The center slot is sized to permit a clamp to hold stock in place when needed. I keep planning to drill for holdfast use, but I haven't actually needed them yet, so it's gotten put off. One of these days ....

Mine was made with two BORG 2X6, 8'. Easy to build. If you don't work in heavy lumber, lighter stock, say 2X4, would probably work as well; flimsy is not good.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Matthew, Sometimes we put unintentional barriers between ourselves and getting the work done. I have a picture of you trying to work on two coolers. It would seem to me that they would not raise the work high enough. If you have your mind on not jamming the end of your saw into the floor, you can't concentrate on sawing the line. Always try to remove the barriers. Sometimes it can't be done. Maybe a proper saw bench should be in your future. Because of back issues I can't use a saw bench any longer. I just hate the fact that I have to find work arounds because it impacts the goal.
Jim

It's in the works. I have some douglas fir that oughtta work just fine for it actually. But I'm the type of guy who is prone to having multiple half-finished projects at once, and it is a habit I am trying to break. In the spirit of forming good habits, I am trying to concentrate on the workbench project before I get going on anything else. If I find myself in a situation where I have to do a lot of hand sawing then perhaps I'll take a side road and make a quick saw bench but so far I haven't needed to do much with the hand saws.

I totally agree with your point on self-placed barriers, though. That is actually a large part of what prompted me to get to work on a real workbench. I've been trying to learn on an old bench that was used with power tools and it has been a significant barrier in my acquiring the basic skills of hand tool woodworking. I knew this and I knew that a legitimate workbench would help quite a bit but I kept telling myself that I didn't have the time, and that I move too frequently to deal with having a big, heavy hunk of wood to haul around. But in the end I decided that if I am going to make an honest attempt at hand tool woodworking I have to do it well. So. Workbench it is. I chose Will Myers' Moravian design because it is easy to break down and transport.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

If you can you might retrofit that lunchbox with a helical head. It will help with the noise, and makes the dust easier to collect in-machine (not so stringy). I have a DW735 with a Shelix head FWIW.

If I had the money I'd probably have that exact setup. But money is somewhat tight for the foreseeable future and if I do get a big enough chunk of change it'll be going towards a decent bandsaw. Honestly I've been pretty pleased with my old 12" Delta. The infeed and outfeed tables that came with it are practically worthless but making new tables was easy enough. With sharp blades and light cuts tearout hasn't been an issue at all. I didn't consider the noise and dust advantage of a helical head. I thought they were mainly for preventing tearout and getting a better finish on wood with difficult grain.

[Mike Allen1010]

For the best aid for effective ripping with a hand saw:

385133

Sorry for the sideways arrangement; it's right side up on my system. Click it to big it.

If you do a lot of ripping (or cross cutting, for that matter) of long boards, make two benches. Height should be at the bottom of the knee; too high doesn't work at all, while too low is quickly tiring and very tough on the back. Dovetails are optional; a simpler joint for the tops would be fine. Mortise and tenon for the base joints is hard to beat. The center slot is sized to permit a clamp to hold stock in place when needed. I keep planning to drill for holdfast use, but I haven't actually needed them yet, so it's gotten put off. One of these days ....

Mine was made with two BORG 2X6, 8'. Easy to build. If you don't work in heavy lumber, lighter stock, say 2X4, would probably work as well; flimsy is not good.


+1, IMHO, A solid, stable saw bench is one of the best things you can do to make yourself a better hand tool woodworker. Personally I add dog holes to hold the work tight and a flip up edge stop to keep the work piece where I want it. My biases error on the side of bigger/heavier (so the work stays steady when you're working hard with a sharp handsaw).

Just my opinion,YMMV

[James Pallas]

A good saw bench, and better yet two, are the foundation of hand tool work. With two saw benches and a sturdy set of saw horses anything is possible. IMO you can have a great work bench but without a saw bench and horses you will be struggling with some of the fundamentals of woodworking. Just ask me, I can no longer work on a saw bench.
Jim

[Nicholas Lawrence]

They do not need to be elaborate to make a big difference. All you need is an eight foot two by six, a dozen screws, and a half hour or so. Schwartz or somebody posted free plans for this one.


385315

[john zulu]

It really depends on the work we do. Using the wrong tools for the job does not help at all. I do use my hand planes from time to time but it depends on the job at hand.
For example cutting the stock to length a miter saw really does nail it with spot on precision. Drilling end grain for dowels is best done with a power drill.

Then again sanding on the grain is done with scrapers. It really depends on the job at hand. I do wish I could use hand tools exclusively but it just takes too much time for some results.
A finish from the hand plane has no rival. Power tools and hand tools together can accomplish a lot.

[john zulu]

My reason for using a bandsaw is it can do many tasks faster and better than my hand sawing. For a single cut, a hand saw may be quicker than having to set up the bandsaw.

My drill press provides repeatability and precision when hand boring would be difficult.

Other than a lathe that is about the extent of my power tools. After sawing a piece on the bandsaw three or four passes from a hand plane and the saw marks are gone. To me there is no need for a power jointer or a planer.

jtk

It is the exact same setup I have although I have a track saw and more. Power jointer and planer is more for mass volume.

[James Pallas]

Things do go faster and with less energy supplied by the worker. That being said the workers of yesteryear were good at doing what was needed and not more. For example we had some new flooring installed in a bathroom. The finish man came to install the new baseboards. He unloaded a compressor, power cords, air lines, nail guns, chop saw. He made 4 straight cuts and 2 copes. He drove 10 nails, than packed up everything. Time spent? Energy expended by the worker? These are the types of things that make me think about the speed subject.
Jim

[steven c newman]

I am always getting accused of working too fast....that people using power tools for the same jobs can't keep up......

Trim the floor? Small mitre box, a coping saw, hammer and a nail set...maybe a tool box to work from?

[Jim Koepke]

I am always getting accused of working too fast...

Others used to get on my case about this at more than one job. They were afraid management would expect everyone else to work as fast.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Others used to get on my case about this at more than one job. They were afraid management would expect everyone else to work as fast.


I had a *manager* get on my case about that at one job, because she felt it was causing more trouble in the team than it was worth. That's when I realized that I prefer being a small fish in a big pond (i.e. a less-exceptional member of an exceptional team rather than vice-versa) and changed employers. I took a step or two down authority-wise but boy was I happier. Not everybody can check their ego at the door enough to make that work, though.

[Jim Koepke]

I had a *manager* get on my case about that at one job, because she felt it was causing more trouble in the team than it was worth. That's when I realized that I prefer being a small fish in a big pond (i.e. a less-exceptional member of an exceptional team rather than vice-versa) and changed employers. I took a step or two down authority-wise but boy was I happier. Not everybody can check their ego at the door enough to make that work, though.

My strangest encounter with management was when my position was a final test technician. The assemblers were being trained on a new line of equipment and there was need for someone to work as an assembler on the old lines. Having been an assembler on previous jobs they decided to pick me to do the assembly. All of a sudden the test techs were getting through the preliminary testing much quicker. It turns out my assemblies were put together closer to the tolerances than what the assemblers would do. The techs were checking the paperwork and picking my assemblies to test when available because it was less work to get them set up for the burn in phase. The manager came to me and told me she couldn't have me doing better work than the regular assemblers. It kind of shocked me at the time.

Years later on another job when my job was to rebuild ticket transports for ticket vendors the group manager at the time was glad that the installers were looking for my tags on the rebuilds because they knew they would work first time every time. Before that the shop steward had the attitude of, "heck, if it doesn't work just go get another one." Most of the time that would mean packing it back up and getting on a train to another location where they were stored. My complaints didn't help a whole lot. Just a difference of opinion, my idea of job security is doing a good job right. His idea was having no problem with doing the same job over because it was messed up the first time.

When kidding with friends about my old job and what is missed the most, my reply is, "the naps."

Sometimes having a union is good, other times it is just a way to keep the misfits employed.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

I had a *manager* get on my case about that at one job, because she felt it was causing more trouble in the team than it was worth. That's when I realized that I prefer being a small fish in a big pond (i.e. a less-exceptional member of an exceptional team rather than vice-versa) and changed employers. I took a step or two down authority-wise but boy was I happier. Not everybody can check their ego at the door enough to make that work, though.
Now that is a story with an unanticipated ending. I can't imagine it that way just yet. Glad it worked out for the better though.

[Pat Barry]

My strangest encounter with management was when my position was a final test technician. The assemblers were being trained on a new line of equipment and there was need for someone to work as an assembler on the old lines. Having been an assembler on previous jobs they decided to pick me to do the assembly. All of a sudden the test techs were getting through the preliminary testing much quicker. It turns out my assemblies were put together closer to the tolerances than what the assemblers would do. The techs were checking the paperwork and picking my assemblies to test when available because it was less work to get them set up for the burn in phase. The manager came to me and told me she couldn't have me doing better work than the regular assemblers. It kind of shocked me at the time.

Years later on another job when my job was to rebuild ticket transports for ticket vendors the group manager at the time was glad that the installers were looking for my tags on the rebuilds because they new they would work first time every time. Before that the shop steward had the attitude of, "heck, if it doesn't work just go get another one." Most of the time that would mean packing it back up and getting on a train to another location where they were stored. My complaints didn't help a whole lot. Just a difference of opinion, my idea of job security is doing a good job right. His idea was having no problem with doing the same job over because it was messed up the first time.

When kidding with friends about my old job and what is missed the most, my reply is, "the naps."

Sometimes having a union is good, other times it is just a way to keep the misfits employed.

jtk
I suspect the reason they picked a tech for the job you described is precisely because they needed better results in the first place. This is not all that uncommon of a method used by managemnent to set things right. The question is, how long did that go on, and did they utilize you to train the real assemblers?

[Patrick Chase]

Now that is a story with an unanticipated ending. I can't imagine it that way just yet. Glad it worked out for the better though.

It was from "America's Best Company to Work For" in 1993 to the one from 2013-2017 (at least). The caliber of people was WAY higher at the latter by the time I moved.

I'll take "peers who understand and act on what I'm talking about" over positional power any day, all else being equal.

[Patrick Chase]

Sometimes having a union is good, other times it is just a way to keep the misfits employed.


Drifting waayy OT, but... To my knowledge nobody has yet figured out a societal organization that generally keeps both robber baron bosses and lazy employees at bay. Almost anything you can think of to address the latter opens the door to abuses by the former, and vice versa. Right now the zeitgeist is more on the side of "enabling robber barons" than in the past, though I'm sure the wheel of reincarnation will turn again.

[Jim Koepke]

I suspect the reason they picked a tech for the job you described is precisely because they needed better results in the first place. This is not all that uncommon of a method used by managemnent to set things right. The question is, how long did that go on, and did they utilize you to train the real assemblers?

It isn't likely they were looking for better results, they wanted to have units to ship. My time assembling at that employer was short. No, they didn't have me train the regular assemblers.

On my last job rebuilding ticket transports one of the supervisors had me produce a manual for rebuilding them.

One of my favorite images from the manual is adjusting a motor control component:

385461

Some of the other techs had trouble holding their hands in that position.

jtk

[Tom M King]

Looks like it helps to have two left hands.

[John C Cox]

No doubt it was probably "harder" for the managers to force the test techs to stop preferentially selecting units they knew would pass.... As you are well aware - it's poor practice to "Randomly sample" only product that is easy to test and you know will pass.....

What they should have done after you had proven you could easily "make them all this way" is to set you up as a trainer/procedure writer to make sure the process on how to "make them right" was documented.... But the second important stop is with Engineering - to ensure the parts specs and BOM were all correct... There have been some spectacular failures and gigantic warranty costs over what was simply sloppy Engineering record keeping.... Aka - 40% internal reject rates on motors because of stuff like pre-cutting the wire for electric motor windings 2" too short because that's what the BOM called out...

Unfortunately for managers..... Planning around "perfect" employees is a way to ensure utter disaster... You have to plan around the "Average" employee that gets hired by your organization.... And that means you have to make sure you have plenty of cushion built in to all your systems to deal with reality of what the cat drags in.... ;)

And so it goes....


My strangest encounter with management was when my position was a final test technician. The assemblers were being trained on a new line of equipment and there was need for someone to work as an assembler on the old lines. Having been an assembler on previous jobs they decided to pick me to do the assembly. All of a sudden the test techs were getting through the preliminary testing much quicker. It turns out my assemblies were put together closer to the tolerances than what the assemblers would do. The techs were checking the paperwork and picking my assemblies to test when available because it was less work to get them set up for the burn in phase. The manager came to me and told me she couldn't have me doing better work than the regular assemblers. It kind of shocked me at the time.

Years later on another job when my job was to rebuild ticket transports for ticket vendors the group manager at the time was glad that the installers were looking for my tags on the rebuilds because they knew they would work first time every time. Before that the shop steward had the attitude of, "heck, if it doesn't work just go get another one." Most of the time that would mean packing it back up and getting on a train to another location where they were stored. My complaints didn't help a whole lot. Just a difference of opinion, my idea of job security is doing a good job right. His idea was having no problem with doing the same job over because it was messed up the first time.

When kidding with friends about my old job and what is missed the most, my reply is, "the naps."

Sometimes having a union is good, other times it is just a way to keep the misfits employed.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

What they should have done after you had proven you could easily "make them all this way" is to set you up as a trainer/procedure writer to make sure the process on how to "make them right" was documented.... But the second important stop is with Engineering - to ensure the parts specs and BOM were all correct... There have been some spectacular failures and gigantic warranty costs over what was simply sloppy Engineering record keeping....

They were not set up that way. The project engineer was against any idea submitted by the peons. (he wasn't the only engineer in my acquaintance who felt non-engineers were not capable of coming up with better ways of doing things. Every unit had to go through preliminary test, burn in and a final test before it was ready for shipping.

Back to the engineer, after another company bought us, my application as a field service technician for another division was accepted. Not long after that information came to me the engineer was "let go" because of working with vendors, "for a fee," to approve out of spec parts.

On a new line of equipment a motor driver was in an "undetermined state" when the unit was powered on. Sometimes it would come up in a mode that would drag down the power supply and prevent the unit from turning on. With a quick power of power on cycle everything would come up fine. When this was mentioned to a higher up, they assured me it wasn't a problem and don't worry. About a week later one of the customer service people came to me and asked about how to get around the problem. He had a customer that got a unit that wouldn't power on. In another week they had a work around to put in the system to prevent the problem.

The company was just all around bad news. There was an omen of this on the day of my job interview, my mother passed away. The company that bought us out wasn't too bad, but they were also stuck in their ways with no incentive to change. One example was they made what passed for copiers before the days of Xerox. When the Xerox process was first being developed they had an opportunity to purchase the rights. Management felt it wasn't as viable a process as the chemical coated paper copying system they manufactured.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

They were not set up that way. The project engineer was against any idea submitted by the peons. (he wasn't the only engineer in my acquaintance who felt non-engineers were not capable of coming up with better ways of doing things. Every unit had to go through preliminary test, burn in and a final test before it was ready for shipping.

In my experience engineers who take that approach tend to pay for it in the long term, at least in any organization with reasonable performance-based incentives. It's akin to a newly commissioned Lieutenant who won't accept ideas from their veteran NCOs.


Back to the engineer, after another company bought us, my application as a field service technician for another division was accepted. Not long after that information came to me the engineer was "let go" because of working with vendors, "for a fee," to approve out of spec parts.

I would like to be able to say that that sort of thing doesn't happen, but it does and with alarming regularity.



The company was just all around bad news. There was an omen of this on the day of my job interview, my mother passed away. The company that bought us out wasn't too bad, but they were also stuck in their ways with no incentive to change. One example was they made what passed for copiers before the days of Xerox. When the Xerox process was first being developed they had an opportunity to purchase the rights. Management felt it wasn't as viable a process as the chemical coated paper copying system they manufactured.

Photostat/Itek?

[James Pallas]

This is fun. Someone threw this thread in the stew pot and just look at what came out. Went from hand tools to engineers in a heartbeat.
Jim

[John C Cox]

Somebody threw the thread into the stew pot and just look at what came out...

Well.... We did make it all the way till Page 5 till somebody let the kids run all over the place with their nerf guns.... ;) ;)

[Jim Koepke]

Photostat/Itek?

Diazo.

A blue printing process for those who do not know about diazo.

jtk