A Hand tool challenge *LINK*

Where do we indicate we're in?

Bruce, a MN galoot

>

post a reply on the events board

Dan Donaldson

>

8 so far

Dan Donaldson

>There must be at least a few more that would be willing to try it, with as many people as we have here ;-) No pressure (easy for me to say, huh ;-)). You are only really competing against yourself and trying a challenge. Out of this you will have a good list of tools that were used in the late 1700's, some idea of the time that they spent building things, and a chance to see how well you could do if you had to make a living then. I don't know yet what the projects will be, but you can pick what you want that fits the tools you have, and will also have a list of other projects that you might want to try at another time. It would be up to you whether or not you wanted to post how you did, and we can post pictures of projects (and tools used) of those that are willing, with or without times etc.

C'mon, let's have some fun;-)

Question for Adam

Dan Donaldson

>Adam, if some do want to do all of the stock prep by hand, could that be a separate thing from the project? (i.e. two weparate times. One for stock prep and the other for the project) I am just asking this because you said that we could use surfaced wood since some may have a problem getting rough sawn.

No metal rules? *LINK*

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>I just read through Adam's challenge posting on the events board and I am surprised by one point. No metal rules, straightedges, or squares? I'm pretty sure rules and squares have been in use since the Egyptians in one form or another. Standardized measurement has also been around since the cubit. Can this be verified?

Can we fashion our own measuring devices, squares and story poles for the challenge?


Thread on measuring devices and standardized measu

Got Wood (Rules)?

Todd Stock

>Jonathon:

Exception to policy on metal rules?

With all that eye candy on the walls of your collector's vault...er, shop, you can't scrounge up one beater Stanley 58 or a Lufkin 36-1/2?

Perhaps your project should be something along the lines of a colonial/early US SpeedSquare.

Todd

How about?

Jorge Casta�eda ~ East Penobscot Bay

>Taking a piece of wood in the vise, taking a few swipes with a plane and voila! a straight edge.

Re: No metal rules?

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Jonathan,

I never said no metal squares did I? Well I didn't mean it.

I'll address all these questions on the official challenge website, which is currently in work. I'll get you guys tool lists asap and some help with shop equipment.

I hope you are as excited as I am.

Adam

By Eye and Hand

Todd Stock

>Where's the challenge in that?

This is about more than just learning something about the realities of making a living working wood in the 18th century... it's about justifying the $265 for that new coffin sided smoother, and maybe sniping a minty folder off the 'Bay.

But seriously - I agree with you...maybe the challenge might be modified to be more along the lines of building by eye and hand, rather than by plan and measurement.

Oops...almost forgot...

(New Tool Geeks) Do you have the link for that plane?

(Old Tool Geeks) $265 for a coffin sided smoother? Are you nuts?!? How are you gonna' afford to send your kids to a good trade school?

Sounds like a lot of fun.

Dan Donaldson

>

Re: No metal rules?

Larry Marshall

>Jonathan, I think you have to define "standardized", stating clearly what you mean by the term. For instance, while people have used 'inches' for a very long time, inches weren't officially 'standardized' in North America until 1830. There are stories, for instance, of projects done by two groups of people (navy and civilians, for instance) where, when they brought their pieces together, they didn't fit because 'inches' were of different sizes. As you go back in time this sort of variation, and examples of it, become more and more evident.

Cheers --- Larry

Re: No metal rules? *LINK*

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>Hi Larry

"Ancient Egyptian carpenters employed a sophisticated measuring system when setting out furniture. The standard unit of linear measurement used by carpenters was the �royal cubit�, which was based on the length of a man�s forearm. Being 524 mm in length, it was divided into 7 palm widths, with each palm subdivided into 4 thumb sized digits. A second smaller measure called the �short cubit� was also used: this was 450 mm in length and was divided into 6 palm widths. These measures were inscribed onto graduated wooden rules or cubit rods.

Carpenters placed great importance in measurement to ensure accuracy and uniformity of furniture construction. Although these measurements were standardised, �royal cubit rods� have been discovered, as one might expect, with an error of up to plus or minus 2 mm in overall length.

On an interior wall of the nomarch Knumhotep III�s tomb (No 3) at Beni Hasan are found lists of officials who served this provincial governor. An officer named Neter-nakht is cited as being �superintendent of carpenters�. John Garstang excavated the necropolis, which lay below these important rock-cut tombs at the beginning of the 20th century. In one of these small burial chambers (BH 23), which with others was attributed to a Neter-nakht, he found a broken wooden cubit rod some 140mm in length. This instrument would have been an important symbol for a workshop overseer, thus identifying this individual�s role and status. From anatomical and skeletal remains of ancient Egyptian mummies we see that these people were approximately four centimetres shorter than the average modern European.

Research has shown that the average height of an adult ancient Egyptian male would have been 1.71 metres. The lengths of discovered bed frames support these data, as they were designed and manufactured to meet the anthropometric need of the user. An Early Dynastic bed frame with bovine shaped legs discovered by Petrie at Tarkhan is preserved in the Manchester University Museum (5429) and has a length of 1.76 metres. The bed frame of Queen Hetepheres has a length of 1.77 metres, while those discovered in the tomb of Tutankhamun ranged between 1.75 and 1.845 metres. Children used shorter bed frames and some may have been mistakenly identified as bed frames but in fact were simple seats on which the individual would kneel."

A think we're talking apples and oranges


Woodworking in ancient Egypt

I'll be keeping my good eye open

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>

Re: A Hand tool challenge

Michael Kieta-Ramstein, Germany

>Adam,

I'm interested in participating, but I have a problem with timing, rather than time. I'll be away from my workshop for most of a month. Do you have an end date in mind for completion of projects?

Michael

Re: A Hand tool challenge

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Michael,

There is no time limit for the challenge. To participate, simply add your name and e-mail address to the thread in the WC EVENTS.

I will e-mail each individual in that thread the web address with the challenge details. I will try to leave that website up for several months.

Gut Gluck

Adam

Re: No metal rules?

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Jonathan and others,

Whatever you are saying about Ancient Egypt doesn't apply to 18th century Anglo-american furniture making, or carpentry (or ship building)as far as I know.

When you measure (early 18th century 2' rules SOMETIMES had quarters of an inch marked) you make a guess. Then you transfer that guess elsewhere, approximating the first guess. Adding guess to guess is bad.

The 18th century woodworker found other ways to produce accuracy. Accuracy was achieved through gauging, tool slaving, match planing and match sawing, not accurate measuring. These are good ways, fast ways, ways that get projects done.

Our little challenge will force you to try these ways. You may not prefer them. But I think it will be a good experience.

I wonder if the result might be that you ignore the scale on your tablesaw fence. If you want two boards the same size, you set the fence to one board, then rip the next for example. Seems to me the table saw fence is a lot like a marking gauge. Although, I could be wrong. I've never really used a table saw!

Adam

Re: No metal rules?

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>Hi Adam and all,

I agree in that once the basic proportions/dimensions are established that these can be transfered in the manner that you describe. The master craftsman, performing repetitive tasks would find it cumbersome to measure everything.

I'll do a little more checking, but I think that a ruler, whether made of wood, copper or bronze, and a straightedge were commonly used and could also be used for angle trisection as well. I also think that proportions for common items were established, recorded and followed by craftsmen with....wait for it...rulers or some type of measuring device. One common rule might be the golden triange for proportioning appealing and functional works, but I can not date it's origin

On the other hand, a simple piece of string that will not stretch could be considered a ruler.

Re: No metal rules?

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Jonathan,

The accurate rules you mention simply don't exist today, aren't listed in period inventories, and aren't mentioned in the scant period texts.

That doesn't mean they didn't exist. 2 foot rules were common enough, though their accuracy was/is questionable. That said, guys have checked them and found them to be ammazingly precise.

Proportions like golden section were common enough and their use can be proven through measuring existing pieces. But multiplying one measurement by .618 probably wasn't how it was done. This can be easier and more accurately done with a set of dividers (often listed as a compass in period accounts).

Chippendale's 1748 director doesn't have much in the way of dimensions of any kind (parametric or absolute). If you look at the drawings, the iso views look a bit funny. I suspect the reason is that the side views aren't actually projections at all.

If you are looking at a table for example, the width to height proportion is established clearly enough. You can set your dividers to the drawing, walk off 8 movements for example and establish basic size of the table. The depth can be had by resetting your dividers to the depth as depicted, and walking that off. The line lengths are correct, even if the projections aren't.

Anyway, that's just my theory, Jonathan. Others have disagreed, or at least suggested the director was more of a fashion magazine intended to show designs and carvings, not proportions.

If you buy into my theory, it pretty much explains how you could make furniture using pretty complicated proportions without any rulers whatsoever.

I want you to know, I'm not telling you that your are wrong and I know everything. This is just my own theory. As you can see I've thought about it some, but I lack the data (many many fine antiques) to test it out. Mack Headley's done quite a bit with this and had access to the furniture. It would be interesting to get his take on it.

Adam

How them old dudes did it. *LINK*

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>I have been very interested in this topic for the last three months or so - I f you find any more information, please post or give me a shout off-line. This is one one the most complete articles on standardized measurement that I've found. The iron Ulna was one of the first standardized metal rules

"Sometime after the Magna Charta was signed in the Thirteenth Century, King Edward I of England took a step forward. He ordered a permanent measuring stick made of iron to serve as a master standard yardstick for the entire kingdom. This master yardstick was called the "iron ulna", after the bone of the forearm, and it was standardized as the length of a yard, very close to the length of our present-day yard."


A History of Measurement and Metrics