Another use for my Shooting Board

[Frederick Skelly]

While squaring up my Incra miter gauge, I realized that ALL THREE of my clear plastic draftsman triangles were out of square by a degree or so. Put them on the shooting board, got out my LV Shooting Plane - and voila! - perfectly square by each of the 3 tests I used to check!

[Jeff Heath]

Nice "out of the box" thinking. If that would only work for my metal one that is 'out' by about 1.5°. I'll just scribe and file it, if it's not too hard.

[Simon MacGowen]

Not too hard, but not too accurate either, I am afraid. Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high.

Simon

[Kory Cassel]

Not too hard, but not too accurate either, I am afraid. Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high.

Simon
Oh no, disagree.

You can achieve great results file-working metal.

[Simon MacGowen]

Oh no, disagree.

You can achieve great results file-working metal.

You are talking about squares/90*, right? Please state the tolerance level of your "great results."

Simon

[Kory Cassel]

Getting well within 1 degree by working the slot of a combo square is easy. Working the blade of a try-square to within the margins of a sharp pencil line is slightly more challenging by very doable with a file. Gap free joints and accurate woodworking machine set up can most definitely be achieved by hand working your squares with files. If you're talking about .001" over a 36" blade, then it can still be done by hand, but not easily. Following the file-work with a burnisher makes for a nice smooth marking surface. Tuning squares by hand is a matter of patience and precise checking but is not so limited by the inaccuracy of files as you seemed to indicate. No offense intended if I misunderstood your post.:)

[Jim Koepke]

More than one of my try squares or combination squares have been vastly improved with carefully thought out use of a file and scraper.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

ALL THREE of my clear plastic draftsman triangles were out of square by a degree or so.

Just for future thought and reference:

My guess is they were out by less than a degree. 1º over 12" is 0.2". 3º over 12" is more than 5/8".

Even a not so well trained human eye would see that much of an error.

FWIW, my shop made triangles were squared via shooting board:

397893

They come in handy at times.

The rosewood triangle is not shop made.

jtk

[Kory Cassel]

More than one of my try squares or combination squares have been vastly improved with carefully thought out use of a file and scraper.

jtk
Bring a scraper into to equation and you can achieve accuracies so good they become difficult to measure. Did you train as a machinist Jim?

[Simon MacGowen]

Getting well within 1 degree by working the slot of a combo square is easy. Working the blade of a try-square to within the margins of a sharp pencil line is slightly more challenging by very doable with a file. Gap free joints and accurate woodworking machine set up can most definitely be achieved by hand working your squares with files. If you're talking about .001" over a 36" blade, then it can still be done by hand, but not easily. Following the file-work with a burnisher makes for a nice smooth marking surface. Tuning squares by hand is a matter of patience and precise checking but is not so limited by the inaccuracy of files as you seemed to indicate. No offense intended if I misunderstood your post.:)

No offense taken here (or any elsewhere when I post my opinions. Disagreements mean we don't belong to a cult). My point is that it is not too hard (as the other poster pointed out) to try squaring something, but it is not a reliable method if the tolerance level is high. The accuracy of a common engineer’s square is 0.001" per inch of length. It is not 0.001" over the length of the blade.

As a reference, a CNC-made square I recently came across carries this spec.:

"Guaranteed Accurate: Machined on high-precision CNC machining centers and made from thick precision aluminum tooling plate guaranteed square to within .001” over its 18” length as verified using an automated CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine)."

Simon

[Kory Cassel]

No offense taken here (or any elsewhere when I post my opinions. Disagreements mean we don't belong to a cult). My point is that it is not too hard (as the other poster pointed out) to try squaring something, but it is not a reliable method if the tolerance level is high. The accuracy of a common engineer’s square is 0.001" per inch of length. It is not 0.001" over the length of the blade.

SimonHand filing is not too inaccurate to make a square that will mark good, gap free joint layout. You keep using that word tolerance and trying to obfuscate the issue and rattle off numbers to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about. If you want to list the applications for which it is not suitable, that's fine but correcting a woodworker's shop square is not one of them. That's what is seemed like you were saying in your original post. If you're saying that a hand filed surface is not accurate enough to suit your needs, then I'll let that go. If you were trying to say that one can't rework the edge a square to be accurate enough for shop use as a woodworker, I'll say we agree to disagree and leave it at that. The flatness tolerances that can be achieved with skilled hand work in metal would probably surprise you if you were to talk to a machinist. I wonder where you could find one.:)

[Simon MacGowen]

You keep using that word tolerance and trying to obfuscate the issue ...

I did not try to obfuscate anything. This is what I said, "Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high."

100% clear that my very first comment was made with reference to tolerance.

Simon

[Kory Cassel]

I did not try to obfuscate anything. This is what I said, "Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high."

100% clear that my very first comment was made with reference to tolerance.

SimonSo were you trying to say that the tolerance that can be achieved by filing would not serve for a 6" square?

[Simon MacGowen]

So were you trying to say that the tolerance that can be achieved by filing would not serve for a 6" square?

Not sure if you know. Your question is an indirect acknowledgement of my point that it is all about tolerance. Filing or sanding a shorter blade may bring out a better outcome or a higher tolerance.

If your responses are trying to tell us you are very good with filing or using files to square things up, I have not ruled that out in any of my previous statements.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high.

About the best resolution of my measuring devices is ~0.001". It has allowed me to file, sand and scrape a 12" square to within one thousandth of an inch over its length. Any closer than that and it would have to be measured in ten thousandths of an inch.


The accuracy of a common engineer’s square is 0.001" per inch of length. It is not 0.001" over the length of the blade.

So it seems the 'fine tuning' of my squares is to a higher tolerance than a common engineer's square. This is likely a high enough tolerance for the average woodworker.

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

About the best resolution of my measuring devices is ~0.001". It has allowed me to file, sand and scrape a 12" square to within one thousandth of an inch over its length. Any closer than that and it would have to be measured in ten thousandths of an inch.



So it seems the 'fine tuning' of my squares is to a higher tolerance than a common engineer's square. This is likely a high enough tolerance for the average woodworker.

jtk

Congrats, Jim. You outperform a CNC machine!

Simon

[Kory Cassel]

I'm sorry Simon I'm going to leave you alone about it. I work steel daily as a pro welder and also do some work in our machine shop. Your comment about filing being inaccurate due to 'tolerance' caught my attention. When you seemed to imply that a hand filed square wouldn't serve to mark layout or couldn't accurately set a table saw fence for instance, I felt like arguing the point to see exactly what you were saying.

You are correct of course in that the surface of a hand filed square cannot be said to be measured with the precision of a lapped finish due to 'tolerances' and surface roughness values. 0.001" per inch for example cannot be used as a measurement if you have too deep a variation in surface roughness.

But it can still serve just as well for it's intended purpose.

My point and why I argue with you about it is; hand filing a square and leaving a rough surface does not have to result in a bad or inaccurate tool as you seemed to imply (again if that's not what you are saying, no offense). Using machine shop terminology of 'tolerance' is a different point. If you scrape and burnish the surface, however, your 'tolerance' arguments fall away.

Hand work can result in extreme accuracy. The modern consumer wants to see 'Laser Cut' and 'Cnc machined', with 'surface ground' edges and all those little 'tolerance' decimals listed but that can easily lead you to build up a misplaced idea about what's actually going on with those numbers. Whatever use you have in mind that a carefully hand finished edge will not be good enough for color me dubious.

[Kory Cassel]

I'm sorry Jim, didn't mean to drag you into it.

I seem to have a real knack for getting people all upset when I try to share metal working knowledge in the forum. This is a woodworking site so I've decided to leave them alone about it from now on.

[brian zawatsky]

I took "tolerance" to mean deviation from absolute 90 degrees, and the doubts expressed that it wasn't possible to achieve desirable results (i.e. as close to 90 as possible) by hand filing to a scribed line.

I also have to disagree here. I'm not a machinist, but I work in a commercial cabinet shop and have done extensive work with laminates and veneers over the last 10+ years which requires accurate file work to achieve the desired result. Regardless of the material being cut (as long as it is not harder than the file, of course) it is possible to remove an incredibly small amount of material incrementally and accurately with a file. I use a Starrett machinist's square as my shop reference and have successfully tuned cheap box-store steel squares to within the same degree of accuracy to as far as I can measure.

[brian zawatsky]

Congrats, Jim. You outperform a CNC machine!

Simon

BTW, speaking as a guy who programs/troubleshoots/runs a top of the line CNC router on a daily basis I can tell you that CNC cut parts are only as accurate as the level of calibration of the machine. Just because something says CNC machined doesn't necessarily mean that it was accurately machined.

There are a lot of factories in China, for example, that are pumping out garbage parts with poor tolerances that are being produced by the thousands on various types of CNC machines.

[Kory Cassel]

BTW, speaking as a guy who programs/troubleshoots/runs a top of the line CNC router on a daily basis I can tell you that CNC cut parts are only as accurate as the level of calibration of the machine. Just because something says CNC machined doesn't necessarily mean that it was accurately machined.

There are a lot of factories in China, for example, that are pumping out garbage parts with poor tolerances that are being produced by the thousands on various types of CNC machines.
So too with our laser table. It's a constant struggle getting the best out of it here in the good old USA. Those Chinese ISO 9001 listings are porous to scrutiny if you really know what you're looking at.

[Simon MacGowen]

[QUOTE=brian zawatsky;2871675]I took "tolerance" to mean deviation from absolute 90 degrees, and the doubts expressed that it wasn't possible to achieve desirable results (i.e. as close to 90 as possible) by hand filing to a scribed line.

/QUOTE]

No, I did not say desirable results were not possible. "Desirable results", like "great results," can be anything. Some woodworkers would find 0.01" off desirable, others insist "0.0005" be their standard of reference.

If anyone can file their squares within the tolerance of an engineer's square like, or better than, a machine, CNC or not, they have my congratulations. Well done to each one of them. I know 99.99% of the people living under the sun can't do that, and that's why people make squares, and consumers buy squares.

Simon

[Simon MacGowen]

BTW, speaking as a guy who programs/troubleshoots/runs a top of the line CNC router on a daily basis I can tell you that CNC cut parts are only as accurate as the level of calibration of the machine. Just because something says CNC machined doesn't necessarily mean that it was accurately machined.

There are a lot of factories in China, for example, that are pumping out garbage parts with poor tolerances that are being produced by the thousands on various types of CNC machines.

I agree 100% to that as machines are as good as those who design them, operate them and maintain them. Some people have bought and complained about the (name removed) plywood squares, all cnc made. The vendor replaced the squares in question promptly. That square is used by tracksaw users to square up their tracks against the fence on the table. A CNC-made square still needs to go through proper QA to ensure that indeed it meets the spec. (whatever the stated tolerance).

Simon

[Kory Cassel]

[QUOTE=brian zawatsky;2871675]I took "tolerance" to mean deviation from absolute 90 degrees, and the doubts expressed that it wasn't possible to achieve desirable results (i.e. as close to 90 as possible) by hand filing to a scribed line.

/QUOTE]

No, I did not say desirable results were not possible. "Desirable results", like "great results," can be anything. Some woodworkers would find 0.01" off desirable, others insist "0.0005" be their standard of reference.

If anyone can file their squares within the tolerance of an engineer's square like, or better than, a machine, CNC or not, they have my congratulations. Well done to each one of them. I know 99.99% of the people living under the sun can't do that, and that's why people make squares, and consumers buy squares.

Simon
Are you just baiting me now? LOL I was really done but that one is enough to get me going again.:D

[Frederick Skelly]

So. I had great fun using my shooting board to also make 2 triangles - one that's a 7 inches long out of MDF and a 4 inches long out of Baltic Birch. Both are 1/2 inch thick. I used a miter appliance for my shooting board to get the 45* side right. Thanks for the idea Mr. K!
Fred

[Jim Koepke]

Did you train as a machinist Jim?

Just worked with a few during my time as a draughtsman.

jtk

[Kory Cassel]

Sorry for the rant Frederick, thought Simon was discouraging a useful endeavor.

Jim, sitting in a cool room drawing prints? Sounds like the life from where I currently am. One more hour watching chips pile up in the lathe and I'm gonna lose it.:)

[Frederick Skelly]

Sorry for the rant Frederick, thought Simon was discouraging a useful endeavor.

No problem Kory! :)

[Andrew Hughes]

I too thought it was a good share Fred. Not sure what all the ruckus was about :confused::)

[Simon MacGowen]

Sorry for the rant Frederick, thought Simon was discouraging a useful endeavor.


Kory,

Clearly you have not been around here long enough to know me. The only thing I discourage is to be a member of a cult in which every member agrees with each other -- no matter what. If someone accused me of causing a distraction to Fred's post, guilty as charged. But if you judged my comments as discouragement, your judgement skills are second-rate (no matter how good your filing skill may be. By the way, Fred was not talking about using files to correct a square, was he?:rolleyes:).

Or was this just your last shot in disguise before you said you would leave?

Simon

[Edwin Santos]

Fred,
Good share, thanks.
Every once in a while it's good to have encouragement like this to look at jigs and tools for non-obvious applications.
And I'll bet good money your level of accuracy would meet or exceed my needs as a woodworker. Best,
Edwin

[Vincent Tai]

I'm sorry Jim, didn't mean to drag you into it.

I seem to have a real knack for getting people all upset when I try to share metal working knowledge in the forum. This is a woodworking site so I've decided to leave them alone about it from now on.

Please don't do that Kory. It is good to see info about materials that make woodworking possible. And there are people who learn, like me. I knew I could file an edge very straight, around 0.001" when compared to a square or straight edge. I hadn't thought about getting that sort of tolerance for a 90 degree relation like you see in a square. Filing the edge of something like a plane iron to be square to the face is easy enough but I can visualize the increased difficulty for something like a square. Nevertheless now that I see that it is being done I'll give it a go if any old squares come my way.

There is no end to things that will rile people up. Some sharpening things and other stuff tick me off way more than it should. Fine tolerances seems to be one of those crowd displeasing specialty. If only us woodworkers would realize if we can tune hand planes quite well, cut to the line, pare crisply and cleanly; we are well on our way to achieve good tolerances with other hand tools and other mediums. Obviously experience and practice is still needed.

I would suggest you keep at it. Also helps that you work in the field, a bit of clout is almost necessary in some cases, as distasteful as that sounds. I myself would like to start some threads on steel related topics but having no credentials in anything isn't a very good start. I do think I am decently well read on a very very very small range of particular interests but if I don't have that degree... Perhaps this conundrum will push me to finally go to college... who am I kidding.

[Frederick Skelly]

Thanks guys!
Fred

[Kory Cassel]

No Simon, I didn't think you were discouraging Fred; I thought you were discouraging Jeff Heath from correcting his square with a file.

I was trying to explain myself to Fred after filling his thread with off topic ranting. Not disparage you or your comments or take a last shot at you.

I didn't mean I was going to leave as in leave the country or boycott the forum.

When I said that I was going to 'leave' you alone about the file work, I meant in the context of trying to convince you of the value in working metal with hand tools. It's proving counterproductive for me to talk to people on the forum about metalwork. Someone will make a comment and I have a tendency to reply with some approximation of " It's only metal, of course that can be done". I realize now that the tone I've been taking is not constructive as people tend to get combative when you say something like that and it's not the place in a woodworking thread to blather on about the finer points of metalwork. So I'm going to try my level best to shut up about the whole subject and let people say what they want about metal in the woodworking threads without swooping in and badgering them about it.

Our healthy disagreements aside, calling someone's judgement 'second-rate' is not constructive to anything at all. You don't have to join a cult to be polite on the internet. You can still voice your dissenting thoughts and opinions effectively without making a remark about someone else's intelligence, judgement, character, etc...that is taking a shot.

[brian zawatsky]

There's always a contrarian, most times just for the sake of being contrary.

[Simon MacGowen]

There's always a contrarian, most times just for the sake of being contrary.

In your world, someone who expresses an opinion that is different from others, someone who swims against the tide, or someone who planes against the grain is a contrarian, right?

Yes, by that definition, not only am I a contrarian, I am a proud contrarian. But for the sake of speaking up when I see things that are not necessarily true or practical, like truing a square with a blade 36" long within 0.001"...by filing.

If you have never been a "contrarian," what is your identity? Please don't let others intimidate you from speaking your mind.

Simon

[Simon MacGowen]

No Simon, I didn't think you were discouraging Fred; I thought you were discouraging Jeff Heath from correcting his square with a file.


Our healthy disagreements aside, calling someone's judgement 'second-rate' is not constructive to anything at all. You don't have to join a cult to be polite on the internet. You can still voice your dissenting thoughts and opinions effectively without making a remark about someone else's intelligence, judgement, character, etc...that is taking a shot.

So you are saying when I disagreed with Jeff, I had discouraged him? If you really thought so, you were too sensitive. Look around in this forum and elsewhere, people express disagreements all the time and they are not discouraging people, they are participating in the forum. Take a look at the mortise & tenon thread. Did everyone agree the mortise should be cut first? Or vice versa? You need to readjust your perception of people who have a different take on things. Please go back to my post and tell me where word-by-word I discouraged Jeff or any others from filing their squares?

Anyone who is interested in seeing only or mostly uniform or unchallenged comments should not be part of any forum, but be a member of one of the blogs where (almost) everyone agrees with the blog owner even when he speaks non-sense. They all do a really good job of patting each other on the back, and of course, their emperor is never naked even when he is naked. There (almost) no contrarians there, only sheep (:D)

"Our healthy disagreements aside, calling someone's judgement 'second-rate' is not constructive to anything at all."

I agree...but I clearly qualified my statement that your judgement skill was second-rate IF you judged my filing comments as a discouragement of Fred's idea. Now that you clarified, I am more than happy to retract my judgement remark.

If you aren't sure whether someone is discouraging anyone, you can always ask before you shoot, though.

Simon

[brian zawatsky]

In your world, someone who expresses an opinion that is different from others, someone who swims against the tide, or someone who planes against the grain is a contrarian, right?

Yes, by that definition, not only am I a contrarian, I am a proud contrarian. But for the sake of speaking up when I see things that are not necessarily true or practical, like truing a square with a blade 36" long within 0.001"...by filing.

If you have never been a "contrarian," what is your identity? Please don't let others intimidate you from speaking your mind.

Simon

All I'm saying is that it appears you are arguing something just for the sake of arguing rather than being productive. I am certainly not "fearful of speaking up" as you intimated in your post before you edited it. I just don't see any point in needlessly creating discord.

By the way, nobody is proposing truing a 36" blade to within .001 with a file, that was not the point of the post. That point was just raised to say that it COULD be done by hand, but would be difficult. Selective comprehension?

[Simon MacGowen]

[QUOTE=brian zawatsky;2871895]All I'm saying is that it appears you are arguing something just for the sake of arguing rather than being productive.[/QUOTE

So you are arguing with an argumentative, unproductive contrarian. That must make you a productive, agreeable (compromising?) ally.

Don't think no matter what I say, you will still accept the tide as the truth.

Simon

[James Pallas]

The first squares were made of wood by hand. The first metal blades squares were made with files. People chase all over to find antique file made squares to use in their work today. Just sayin’
Jim
and yes I have trued combos with a file and try squares with a file and framing squares with a nail punch checked them with the age old method of striking a line on a board and used them successfully.

[Simon MacGowen]

By the way, nobody is proposing truing a 36" blade to within .001 with a file, that was not the point of the post. That point was just raised to say that it COULD be done by hand, but would be difficult. Selective comprehension?

Nope. It can be done, not it could be done, according to Kory:

"If you're talking about .001" over a 36" blade, then it can still be done by hand, but not easily. Following the file-work with a burnisher makes for a nice smooth marking surface."

May be you are making a selective interpretation.

Simon

[Simon MacGowen]

The first squares were made of wood by hand. The first metal blades squares were made with files. People chase all over to find antique file made squares to use in their work today. Just sayin’
Jim
and yes I have trued combos with a file and try squares with a file and framing squares with a nail punch checked them with the age old method of striking a line on a board and used them successfully.

Jim,

Never in any of my posts have I suggested that truing a square is not feasible or desirable, or would not bring "great results."

I just trued my Lee Valley precision double square yesterday by filing the little rib on the head. Am I happy with truing my precision square for woodworking purposes? Yes. But would I deem my effort meeting the tolerance level of an engineer's square, or the TSO 18" precision square (0.001" over its ENTIRE length). Probably no. My reference machinist square is true to 0.00055"per inch, but I don't have any equipment to verify the actual tolerance of the "fixed" square. The reference square and drawing lines told me I am close enough.

My response to Jeff's post is all about tolerance, but some people think it is wrong (or discouraging, or argumentative and unproductive?) to even bring that perspective into the discussion. I welcome anyone to re-read my comment made to Jeff's post, and tell me where I am wrong about discussing truing a square in the context of tolerance.

Simon

[brian zawatsky]

Nope. It can be done, not it could be done, according to Kory:

"If you're talking about .001" over a 36" blade, then it can still be done by hand, but not easily. Following the file-work with a burnisher makes for a nice smooth marking surface."

May be you are making a selective interpretation.

Simon

Lol! Whatever you say. Ive already wasted too much of my life on this.

[Jim Koepke]

So. I had great fun using my shooting board to also make 2 triangles - one that's a 7 inches long out of MDF and a 4 inches long out of Baltic Birch. Both are 1/2 inch thick. I used a miter appliance for my shooting board to get the 45* side right. Thanks for the idea Mr. K!
Fred

You are welcome, it gives me the warm fuzzies to know others try making their own.

Well before my days in high school general shop it was common for students in high school to make their own drawing equipment. Many of those students went on to produce a great American industrial powerhouse.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Not too hard, but not too accurate either, I am afraid. Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high.

Simon


I did not try to obfuscate anything. This is what I said, "Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high."

100% clear that my very first comment was made with reference to tolerance.

Simon


[edited]
If anyone can file their squares within the tolerance of an engineer's square like, or better than, a machine, CNC or not, they have my congratulations. Well done to each one of them. I know 99.99% of the people living under the sun can't do that, and that's why people make squares, and consumers buy squares.

Simon


[edited]
But if you judged my comments as discouragement, your judgement skills are second-rate (no matter how good your filing skill may be. By the way, Fred was not talking about using files to correct a square, was he?:rolleyes:).

Or was this just your last shot in disguise before you said you would leave?

Simon

Simon,

A person with little practical experience in the art of filing or tool restoration would most likely be discouraged by reading any one of your many posts. In my experience a higher number than 0.01% of the population can be taught to file accurately.

In the last quote from your posts above you use some impolite language. There is no need for this.

Sometimes the squares people make for consumers to purchase are not square. Not long ago your average craftsman knew how to deal with such a tool. It didn't involve going back to the store and exchanging it. Framing squares even came with instructions of how to correct misalignment if the square was dropped or damaged over time.

BTW, The square of mine that was corrected is a 12" square, not a 36" square.

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

Simon,


In the last quote from your posts above you use some impolite language. There is no need for this.



jtk

Obviously, you did not read all my subsequent posts.

By the way, I don't think people -- and they are mostly adult -- who come up here and share their views are so easily discouraged as you thought.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

Obviously, you did not read all my subsequent posts.

By the way, I don't think people -- and they are mostly adult -- who come up here and share their views are so easily discouraged as you thought.

Simon

Your subsequent post did not lessen the sting felt upon the first reading.

We often forget that many people who read these pages may have found them through an internet search. That was my experience. If someone, who has seized the mantle of expertise, comments that something can not be done, many people will accept it as true and move on.

Yet with examples of how ordinary folks have been able to achieve a degree of accuracy you still cling to the idea that we somehow produced superhuman results through the simple paying of attention to details.

My proof is my result. Since it has been done more than once or twice, it is repeatable. My belief is the ability to reach this result is something that can be taught.

What proof do you have to indicate the results myself and others have obtained is not possible to a degree of accuracy such as 0.001" over the length of a square?

Are there any studies showing 99.99% of the people walking this earth are incapable of being taught such a skill?

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

Your subsequent post did not lessen the sting felt upon the first reading.


Are there any studies showing 99.99% of the people walking this earth are incapable of being taught such a skill?

jtk

What sting? second-rate is an adjective like poor. Please read things in their context. I am have been accused of making a selective comprehension when I did not.

Did you read my posts with care? Where did I ever mention about people being taught or incapable of being taught? I said 99.99% would not be able to file a square true...with the kind of precision you said you are able to achieve.

Yes, 99.99% of people living under the sun can't do that, well still leaving 7.2 billion x 0.01% = 720,000 people who can. 720,000? Oh well, that is still quite a high estimate...need to fine-tune the tolerance level a bit.

You are free to disagree with anything I say, but don't put words in my mouth.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

What sting? second-rate is an adjective like poor.

Did you read my posts with care? Where did I ever mention about people being taught or incapable of being taught? I said 99.99% would not be able to file a square true...with the kind of precision you said you are able to achieve.

Yes, 99.99% of people living under the sun can't do that, well still leaving 7.2 billion x 0.01% = 720,000 people who can. 720,000? Oh well, that is still quite a high estimate...need to fine-tune the tolerance level a bit.

Simon

If people ridiculed you by calling your judgement second rate would you not feel insulted?

Most of the men who went through the standard education of my time would likely be able to do such a task. They were taught such things in general shop class.

Now the people who grew up and live in an isolated village who never saw a file in their life, they may need training in such a skill.

Then again, some of the engineering graduates of my acquaintance may have great difficulty with such a task. Some of them seemed more versed in things that couldn't be done instead of understanding how they could be done.

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

If people ridiculed you by calling your judgement second rate would you not feel insulted?



jtk

Context, sir!

If my boss told me my judgement or skill was second-rate, IF I did this or did that, why would I feel insulted? We always hear people say like "You're pretty stupid if you plan to go down that path." Stupid?

If you insist a word like "second-rate" be an insulting word regardless of the context in which it is used, I won't say you are being over-sensitive (I won't because you would probably consider "over-sensitive" another insulting word, too), but I would suggest you read too much into a word in isolation.


Simon

[Jim Koepke]

Context, sir!

If my boss told me my judgement or skill was second-rate, IF I did this or did that, why would I feel insulted? We always hear people say like "You're pretty stupid if you plan to go down that path." Stupid?

If you insist a word like "second-rate" be an insulting word regardless of the context in which it is used, I won't say you are being over-sensitive (I won't because you would probably consider "over-sensitive" another insulting word, too), but I would suggest you read too much into a word in isolation.


Simon

So if your boss said that to you, would you have warm fuzzy feelings about the experience or would you be feeling a bit of disappointment in yourself?

For me it is kinder to tell a person a path will not achieve the results they desire. It is better for decorum, civility and the future of a relationship than to say a person is 'stupid.'

In my experience bosses have always had more success improving a worker by telling them they are capable of doing better instead of telling them they are below par.

It is much easier to influence a person's development and keep their interest by saying, "the path you are following is destined for failure," as opposed to, "You're pretty stupid if you plan to go down that path."

Some words, even in isolation, have a tainted air about them.

On a different subject, you haven't provided anything offering support for your original statement:


"Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high."

Is this your opinion upon which we have spent so many pixels? Is this a quote from a more authoritative source?

It seems there are exceptions to this 'rule' right here in this thread.

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

Are you being serious? Since when you said something that you've added a footnote or included a dissertation paper to support whatever you might care to make an opinion on? Or is it a new forum rule that you have imagined to be a condition for anyone to express their views?

If you want proof and support on everything I said, it is your responsibility to disprove what I asserted. If you intend to play a childish game out of some kind of a mission, you are the lone player. On the other hand, if you're trying to prove that you are always right, just tell yourself that you are always right, and you won't hear any "discouragement" from me on that.

Simon

[Frederick Skelly]

Context, sir!

If my boss told me my judgement or skill was second-rate, IF I did this or did that, why would I feel insulted? We always hear people say like "You're pretty stupid if you plan to go down that path." Stupid?

If you insist a word like "second-rate" be an insulting word regardless of the context in which it is used, I won't say you are being over-sensitive (I won't because you would probably consider "over-sensitive" another insulting word, too), but I would suggest you read too much into a word in isolation.


Simon

Hi Simon.
Hey, just another man's opinion here, but I'd have taken it as a put down if someone called my judgement or skill "second rate". I realize context matters, but that choice of words has a negative connotation any time I've ever encountered it. That doesn't mean you meant it that way. But it's what I would have heard.

Fred

[Jim Koepke]

Are you being serious? Since when you said something that you've added a footnote or included a dissertation paper to support whatever you might care to make an opinion on? Or is it a new forum rule that you have imagined to be a condition for anyone to express their views?

If you want proof and support on everything I said, it is your responsibility to disprove what I asserted. If you intend to play a childish game out of some kind of a mission, you are the lone player.

Simon

Serious? Yes.

Added a footnote? Often in my post is included phrases such as, "this is only my opinion, "to the best of my knowledge," "my recollection is" or other qualifiers such as, 397992

The ability of others and myself to correct an errant square to better than 0.001" over its length does seem to disprove what you asserted:


"Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high."

Yet for some odd reason you appear unable to accept this as an indication of your opinion possibly being in error.

If there is a mission involved mine would be to encourage others to try something like bringing an out of square try square back to life. Another mission might be to persuade others to be thoughtful in their communications and to avoid belittling or insulting others.

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

Thanks, Fred, for sharing your point of view. We all are receptive to messages or words differently, because of our background, education, bias, sensitivity, even gender, etc.

I can't control how other people feel about a neutral word like "second-rate," but none of the dictionaries I've checked (Oxford, American Heritage, M-W, etc.) suggest the word carries any derogatory or insulting connotation. If anyone insists that word stings -- despite what the authority says, I can only confirm that insult was not the reason why I used the word.

Simon

[Simon MacGowen]

1) Serious? Yes.

"Added a footnote? Often in my post is included phrases such as, "this is only my opinion, "to the best of my knowledge," "my recollection is" or other qualifiers such as, "

- Everything I say is my opinion, unless I quote otherwise, and it is always to the best of my knowledge or experience, unless I otherwise state. So no, I never add a footnote as it is meaningless, unless the footnote is to add some useful information.

2) "The ability of others and myself to correct an errant square to better than 0.001" over its length does seem to disprove what you asserted: "Filing or sanding an edge works only if your tolerance level is not high.""

- You already knew how high my tolerance level was? How could you disprove anything without knowing what you were measuring against?


3) "Yet for some odd reason you appear unable to accept this as an indication of your opinion possibly being in error."
- I never think I am infallible. But I remain to be convinced that it is not ok to include the topic of tolerance in the topic of truing a square with a file!

4) "If there is a mission involved mine would be to encourage others to try something like bringing an out of square try square back to life. Another mission might be to persuade others to be thoughtful in their communications and to avoid belittling or insulting others."

Your mission should be, if you accept it, to persuade people to accept that divergent views are ok, that disagreements are not necessarily discouragements, and most importantly, that anyone can be wrong, not just the one you disagree with.

Simon

[Kory Cassel]

Still going?

Sorry all, as I said it seems I have a knack for starting these things when I use that know-it-all tone about metal work. I'm gonna work on it.

Sorry Simon, my initial posts were curt and dismissive of your concerns about tolerance. I am not now offended by anything you may have said even if I found it impolite at the time. As I look back on the thread, it's all my fault.:)

[Simon MacGowen]

All good here, Kory.

Enjoy the forum (and many many of its interesting posts).

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

- You already knew how high my tolerance level was? How could you disprove anything without knowing what you were measuring against?

From what you posted earlier:


The accuracy of a common engineer’s square is 0.001" per inch of length. It is not 0.001" over the length of the blade.


Congrats, Jim. You outperform a CNC machine!


If anyone can file their squares within the tolerance of an engineer's square like, or better than, a machine, CNC or not, they have my congratulations.

If my accuracy is as good or better than a "common engineer's square" then it is probably to a high enough tolerance.

If my accuracy can also outperform a CNC machine it is likely to a "high tolerance."

If my accuracy receives your congratulations, my suspicion is it is to a high enough tolerance.

If the accuracy of my squares enables me to repeatedly mark, cut and verify perfectly square joints, it is accurate to a high enough tolerance for my needs.


- I never think I am infallible. But I remain to be convinced that it is not ok to include the topic of tolerance in the topic of truing a square with a file!

Has anyone suggested not including the topic of tolerance in the a discussion of truing a square?

Where should we discuss the topic of learning to use the quote feature to make it a little easier to follow your replies?

jtk

[Clarke Davis]

Kory and/or Simon, I have a lovely old try square -- wood, brass(?), and steel (?) -- that used to belong to my grandfather. Since I'm 72, it was a llooonnnggg time ago when my grandfather used this square! I would love to use it, but end up using a cheap modern version that is at least SQUARE! Sadly, my grandfather's is not quite true. How big of a process is it to get a square reasonably back in shape for use in finer woodworking? I am FAR from a metal worker, but if either of you could tell me how to get this back true, or point me to a good source of instruction, I'd be pleased to try.

[Kory Cassel]

There is a lot of visual media on youtube. It is not a very long or difficult procedure, not an all day thing. It is probably better to watch someone doing it before attempting your first square. If you want to get crazy accurate, you'll need a small metrology set up. But a reasonably straight edge and pencil line will get you something that I think will be useful out of the old tool and worth the modest effort to bring an heirloom back into service. Hopefully no one gets upset by what I just said.

[brian zawatsky]

Kory and/or Simon, I have a lovely old try square -- wood, brass(?), and steel (?) -- that used to belong to my grandfather. Since I'm 72, it was a llooonnnggg time ago when my grandfather used this square! I would love to use it, but end up using a cheap modern version that is at least SQUARE! Sadly, my grandfather's is not quite true. How big of a process is it to get a square reasonably back in shape for use in finer woodworking? I am FAR from a metal worker, but if either of you could tell me how to get this back true, or point me to a good source of instruction, I'd be pleased to try.

Don't ask Simon! He'll tell you it's not possible to true your square within an acceptable tolerance, so you might as well just throw it away. Or take it to a machine shop and pay them to true it for you, since there's virtually no one with the capability to true it with a file.

All you need is a true square for reference, a reliable straight edge, and perhaps a hardened steel scribe to mark a line on the square to be trued. I prefer this to a pencil line, since if you score it with the scribe a few times the steel will give you a visual cue when you have reached your mark with the file - if you're filing carefully you'll see a little wire edge form as you reach the gauge line, similar to the wire edge formed when sharpening a bevel on a low-ish grit stone. When you see this wire edge, STOP FILING! That's your cue that you're there. Take your time, be patient, and don't try to remove too much material at once. Take smooth long strokes with the file, and don't saw back and forth. Good luck!

[Simon MacGowen]

Don't ask Simon! He'll tell you it's not possible to true your square within an acceptable tolerance, so you might as well just throw it away. !

Be careful here, Brian. Jim is watching and he may ask you to prove it (i.e. quote my words from any of my posts)! Don't worry, even if you can't (and I know you can't), I won't take your remark as insulting. :p

Simon

[brian zawatsky]

Be careful here, Brian. Jim is watching and he may ask you to prove it (i.e. quote my words from any of my posts)! Don't worry, even if you can't (and I know you can't), I won't take your remark as insulting. :p

Simon

Just try it, you’ll have all the proof you need.

[Frederick Skelly]

I suggest that the Moderators close this thread. Seems like it has run it's course. There's not much new being said.
Fred

[Simon MacGowen]

Just try it, you’ll have all the proof you need.

This "contrarian" just tried, but could not find it. Could you please help?

By the way, I am not the one who needs the proof. I am not the one who accuses....

Simon

[Simon MacGowen]

I suggest that the Moderators close this thread. Seems like it has run it's course. There's not much new being said.
Fred

No objection, as clearly some people who accuse run out of logic. They think it is a shouting match.

Simon

[brian zawatsky]

This "contrarian" just tried, but could not find it. Could you please help?

By the way, I am not the one who needs the proof. I am not the one who accuses....

Simon

I offered practical advice to Clarke, who wants to true an heirloom square. By “try it”, I meant that perhaps you might actually try to do it for yourself. You’ll find it’s not that hard.

[Jim Koepke]

Kory and/or Simon, I have a lovely old try square -- wood, brass(?), and steel (?) -- that used to belong to my grandfather. Since I'm 72, it was a llooonnnggg time ago when my grandfather used this square! I would love to use it, but end up using a cheap modern version that is at least SQUARE! Sadly, my grandfather's is not quite true. How big of a process is it to get a square reasonably back in shape for use in finer woodworking? I am FAR from a metal worker, but if either of you could tell me how to get this back true, or point me to a good source of instruction, I'd be pleased to try.

PM sent.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Here is a video on filing an out of square try square to bring it back into square:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enEYzTXg2Jg

jtk