# T-square recommendations please



## Lonsdale73 (21 Feb 2015)

Looking for a good, reliable and well, square t-square - any suggestions?


----------



## lurker (21 Feb 2015)

See t-squares-advice-t87143.html


----------



## Lonsdale73 (21 Feb 2015)

Thank you


----------



## lurker (21 Feb 2015)

Welcome to the forum by the way 
Hope you stick around we are a friendly bunch!


----------



## Lonsdale73 (23 Feb 2015)

lurker":3t1mhlm2 said:


> Welcome to the forum by the way
> Hope you stick around we are a friendly bunch!



Thanks again; I hope you don't come to regret inviting me hang around.

I haven't done much woodwork since school which was an awfully long time ago but a combination of circumstances culminated in a desire / need to turn my hand to it again. I seem to have a major problem getting things square and I don't know if it's my marking out, the cutting, the tools I use or even the timber that's at fault. I remember the wooden t-squares we used at school and can find something similar by Loxley in A2 and A1 sizes, from under £8 each to over £30 for what appears to be the exact same thing. Given the use of A sizes I think these are intended for draughtsmen rather than carpenters (and I'm sure I read they're accurate to 1mm in 1000mm which to me might be fine for drawing purposes but probably isn't accurate enough for joinery), Trend offer one at £30 and another that doubles as a router guide for £60 then there's the Woodpecker at a whopping £140. I feel I've already made some very costly mistakes in buying the wrong thing through lack of knowledge and I keep reading variants on the theme buy once cheap, buy twice so don't want to waste more money on yet more wrong choices.

I was an okay schoolboy carpenter (even better at maths when the hypotenuse was equal to the root of the sum of the other two sides) so becoming increasingly frustrated at an inability to produce something as simple as an A4 sized frame square!


----------



## Jacob (23 Feb 2015)

What do you want it for?
"T square" means drawing board accessory as a rule, and accuracy not that important (as long as you use the same one and all edges are straight). 
Not really used in woodwork as such (except on the drawing board, with set square). 
We use short "tri-squares" or the most common is a 1 foot sliding combination square.
Squaring up a frame or other workpiece is done with a variety of techniques, most common being measuring diagonals; tape measure, or just a lath with marks or perhaps a pin at one end.

There's a lot of relativity in woodwork; if a thing works and _looks _square relative to it's surroundings, then it_ is_ square, even if you measurements say otherwise. 
1mm in 1000mm is very accurate in woodwork terms and would probably only be noticeable where things are side by side (doors/frames etc). Apparent accuracy is achieved here not by squaring, but by fitting one item against the other until it _looks_ right.

PS I should add; you aim at accuracy of course, but if you apply engineering standards you will be endlessly dissatisfied - many things don't last overnight staying the same length, or flat. :shock:


----------



## Lonsdale73 (23 Feb 2015)

"... you aim at accuracy of course, but if you apply engineering standards you will be endlessly dissatisfied - many things don't last overnight staying the same length, or flat."

I appreciate I might be pedantic way beyond my technical ability. I have three carpenter's squares which appear square to one another and feel it would be a remarkable coincidence if they were all out by the same amount. Referring back to the frame example, I assembled one long and one short side together, placed one square on the outside, one on the inside and all seemed fine. Repeated it for the other two lengths, again all seemed fine. When joining them together, I could get one corner square but not the other, ending up with a kind of trapezoid. Baffled.


----------



## Jacob (23 Feb 2015)

Lonsdale73":13q6i90g said:


> "... you aim at accuracy of course, but if you apply engineering standards you will be endlessly dissatisfied - many things don't last overnight staying the same length, or flat."
> 
> I appreciate I might be pedantic way beyond my technical ability. I have three carpenter's squares which appear square to one another and feel it would be a remarkable coincidence if they were all out by the same amount. Referring back to the frame example, I assembled one long and one short side together, placed one square on the outside, one on the inside and all seemed fine. Repeated it for the other two lengths, again all seemed fine. When joining them together, I could get one corner square but not the other, ending up with a kind of trapezoid. Baffled.


It almost certainly won't be the squares at fault. It'll be procedural.
I'd get them together for a dry run and measure the diagonals. If not exactly the same then ask yourself if it would be noticeable. If yes you'd then have to identify which one or two sides is/are over length, and trim. If tolerable you just proceed to glue up, but clamp them so that the diagonals are as close as you can get them.
But if you are new to it you will make a lot of mistakes - it gets better with practice but you may have to endure your early work being less good - or just keep turning it in the fire-wood.
Beginners have a really strong tendency to believe that their tools and equipment are at fault. And there are a lot of tool selling vultures out there! People are known to spend a fortune on "better" kit only to be disappointed by no improvement in the results of their hard work. I'm quite sure a better square would make no difference at all.


----------



## Lonsdale73 (23 Feb 2015)

"And there are a lot of tool selling vultures out there! People are known to spend a fortune on "better" kit only to be disappointed by no improvement in the results of their hard work."

I'm a photographer and I see an awful lot of money wasted on 'better' kit when it would be better to invest some time in learning the basics than buying the latest bit of gadgetry. Yes, I have pro gear for that - and on days like yesterday when it was bleak and pouring with rain I need to know my lens can work with what light there is and the camera won't pack in.

I've tried to apply similar logic to my carpentry hardware, avoiding the cheapest but without going straight to the top end. Like he table saw; I had a cheap one before that just didn't feel safe to use so this time I bought a mid-range model from Charnwood. I'm continually checking the rip fence is square and parallel but if I draw what I believe is a straight line on the piece to be cut then the cut itself doesn't run parallel to the line. I've tried running a bearing guided router bit along a clamping guide to have one edge I can reasonably assume to be straight and ensuring this edge runs along the rip fence without any noticeable improvement. I also bought an Incra ibox jig. First test cut wasn't too bad, bit tight perhaps but subsequent attempts haven't been even remotely close. It's been gathering sawdust since last June while I wait 'a few days' for the supplier to advise what the problem is.


----------



## blackrodd (23 Feb 2015)

I don't have a Charneood saw bench myself, 
In regard to the ripping in a straight line, I presume you have straightened one edge on, or by planing, if you are then having difficulty in getting a parallel cut, you can check the (unplugged) front and rear saw blade with reference to the mitre slide in the saw bed, and then the fence also to the mitre slide. 
I believe there are several owners of Charnwood on here, hopefully someone will be along sometime soon, and give you some first hand advice on setting up and using it.
Regards Rodders

The framing issues you have mentioned, it is a good idea to have the two pieces, that are to be the same length (s) and clamp them together and get them square and the same length rather than individual measuring, x 2, or more.
If I understand you're earlier post correctly, this may be helpful. Rodders


----------



## Jacob (23 Feb 2015)

Lonsdale73":t602ht0c said:


> ... I'm continually checking the rip fence is square and parallel but if I draw what I believe is a straight line on the piece to be cut then the cut itself doesn't run parallel to the line. ......what the problem is.


The problem, whatever it is, will be simple. Something isn't square, or something is shifting the workpiece out of line, or something. It should be possible to spot it by looking closely and maybe it will just need a bit of a shim somewhere, or a tap with a hammer. Getting the kit working properly is all part of the process especially with cheap kit (Charnwood). It won't necessarily work properly out of the box.


----------



## Lonsdale73 (23 Feb 2015)

"you can check the (unplugged) front and rear saw blade with reference to the mitre slide in the saw bed" - Not sure if I've understood this correctly, I've checked the blade is at 90 degrees when it's supposed to be (figured I can worry about angled cuts when I've got to grips with straight and parallel ones) but are you suggesting the blade might be slightly skewed front to back? That could account for the 'loss' of more material than the blade's thickness would suggest. 

"and then the fence also to the mitre slide." - yep, that part seemed logical enough. I'd noticed if I lined it up with the (non-standard) mitre track then locked it into place the fence wood move away from the track. Charnwood's advice was to loosen two screws, square off and re-tighten that's the part I'm constantly checking. There does seem o be rather a lot of play in something intended to serve as a guide!

"it is a good idea to have the two pieces, that are to be the same length (s) and clamp them together" - that was something I remembered from my school days and I used double sided adhesive tape to join two battens - and we're only talking 18mmx34mm here - and I've tried cutting with one face in front of the other and again with one on top of the other but still there's a slight difference in length


----------



## Lonsdale73 (23 Feb 2015)

" It should be possible to spot it by looking closely" - hopefully you're right and it might be glaringly obvious to a more experienced - or even younger but sharper - pair of eyes than mine.

Some camera manuals leave a lot to e desired but generally they're a lot simpler to follow machinery manuals, some of which have the potential to seriously injure or kill.


----------



## lurker (25 Feb 2015)

My table saw is, I think, the bottom of Charnwood' s range , mine is bang on.
Even with the original blade is was " not bad" 
I do know how to set things up and due to experience (maybe) know why and how when things are wrong.

You mention cameras: mine have all the wiz bangs on them but I rarely use them as I cut my photographic teeth on 
SLR 40 years ago and the relationship between iso, speed and f stops are just second nature. All skills are the same.


----------



## lurker (25 Feb 2015)

and on days like yesterday when it was bleak and pouring with rain I need to know my lens can work with what light there is and the camera won't pack up

For that you need Olympus not something made by a photocopier manufacturer  ]


----------



## lurker (25 Feb 2015)

Equipment manuals ,as you know from cameras are no use for learning technique
Suggest you look at Steve Maskery DVD on setting up a saw table
If you fancy driving down the A 46 to Loughborough I would happily show you how I fettled my table saw
And how to very simply check the accuracy of a square....... Someone here better than I with words might be able to describe it to you


----------



## Jacob (25 Feb 2015)

lurker":ry5f30yz said:


> My table saw is, I think, the bottom of Charnwood' s range , mine is bang on.
> Even with the original blade is was " not bad"
> I do know how to set things up and due to experience (maybe) know why and how when things are wrong.
> 
> ...


This is true - they are all craft skills (including music which is my latest preoccupation) and this includes getting the kit to work long after it's outa the box.
My SLR was Pentax s1a (50 years ago) which I'm pleased to say my daughter is now using. The Weston Master V is bust - I should take it back and complain.



> And how to very simply check the accuracy of a square.......


I think he's done that and they are accurate. Doesn't need them anyway they are just a distraction (it's the diagonals!!).


----------



## mailee (25 Feb 2015)

Ironically today I wanted to cut a sheet of ply for the back of a cabinet I am making. I measured from the end I knew was square as I had checked it with a square and marked off a cutting line. (I have done this hundreds of times in the past) Before cutting I checked the diagonals and it was 8mm out? I double checked everything and it was still out. I ended up cutting the ply to the diagonal measurement as I knew this would be correct......it wasn't?  I then checked the frame was correct by again measuring the diagonals and it was?? I gave up in the end and trimmed it to fit. I came to the conclusion that I must be going mad due to old age! :roll: Well at least it looks square, just hope it is when the glass doors are fitted. :?


----------



## Lonsdale73 (26 Feb 2015)

"the relationship between iso, speed and f stop" - was still ASA when I first picked up a camera!

With cameras, I know what I'm doing so I can pick up someone else's SLR and determine whether the reason their photographs aren't as good as they'd hope is down to hardware or operator failure. And, as I suspect is the case here, it's rarely the hardware. Cameras will work out of the box but you still need to know how to set them 'properly'. The do have the advantage of not being likely to cause death or dismemberment!

I'm sure Olympus have dabbled in office equipment too. I remember an ad showing the alphabet with the tagline "The Big Five: Only one name stands out alone." And it was true; there was Minolta, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax all clustered together and way ahead of the pack was - and still is - Canon. But as we know from the above, it's not the camera, not even the lens - it's the operator.


----------



## gmgmgm (23 Mar 2015)

Lonsdale73 - this sounds very similar to my experience.

You haven't mentioned "shooting board" - for me, this was the missing link. I can happily measure an accurate square, and can even cut a fairly straight line, but without the shooting board I couldn't get a cut very square.

Anyone should be able to get a square edge when using a shooting board and handplane. It is a wonderfully simple device, and I completely overlooked it when I started out on this hobby again after many years.


----------



## Lonsdale73 (25 Mar 2015)

gmgmgm":3plwz800 said:


> Lonsdale73 - this sounds very similar to my experience.
> 
> You haven't mentioned "shooting board" - for me, this was the missing link. I can happily measure an accurate square, and can even cut a fairly straight line, but without the shooting board I couldn't get a cut very square.
> 
> Anyone should be able to get a square edge when using a shooting board and handplane. It is a wonderfully simple device, and I completely overlooked it when I started out on this hobby again after many years.



Thanks. I had to google 'shooting board' and found this useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwYJhfChDdM It evoked long forgotten memories of woodwork classes back at school. Wonder if Mr Horsefield is still with us? Or Mr McGarry?


----------



## Lonsdale73 (13 May 2015)

Quick update. A very happy and generous friend sprung for the Woodpecker TS600 for me. Yes it's still an expensive piece of kit for what it is but even an engineering ignoramus like me can appreciate its inherent quality. Would love to say it's transformed me into a master craftsman practically overnight but that would be stretching the truth way too far. However, it has instilled an enormous amount of confidence in my ability to at least measure and mark accurately which in tun has encouraged me to tackle new techniques with a modicum of success. I guess woodwork is as much about confidence and experience as any other technically demanding subject and it's all too easy for a bad workman to blame his tools however I'm still mindful of my granda's adage about having the right tool for the job. And this certainly is.


----------



## MusicMan (14 Dec 2015)

Readers of this thread might like to look at my 'high accuracy square-checking jig' that i've just posted in the Jigs forum.

Keith


----------



## Steve Maskery (18 Dec 2015)

I realise that I'm a bit late to the party here but for the sake of completeness, I should point out that for any frame to end up square at all four corners, it's not enough for the joinery to be right, the opposite sides must be exactly the same length (hence cutting them in pairs) That is true whether using mitres like a picture frame or M&T like a door.

It's not sufficient to measure the diagonals. They can be the same and the frame still be out. All it takes is for one side to be shorter than its oppo and you have a trapezoid which still has identical diagonals.

BTW, good camera talk above. I'm a some-gear-but-not-much-idea sort of photographer As I'm looking to get some new video kit at the mo, I need to up my game somewhat.


----------

