# measuring into grooves



## engineer one (25 Sep 2007)

amongst the many chores when making my coffee table is properly fitting the inner shelves.

so apart from making a set of bars, how do others measure the distance into the grooves. 

since i am using mdf my tolerances are easier than if i was using real wood.

my method has been to dry assemble with clamps, and then measure the inner rail distance, then between the bottom of one groove to the other inner rail outside, and do the same the other way, then deduct the differences and add them to the inner rail distance. :? 

apart from bar gauges then what are the alternatives??

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Rear of a vernier gauage measures depth with the thin peice of metal that lsides out 

To measure across two slots, I clamp a couple of pices of 10mm*10mm wood together


----------



## Alf (25 Sep 2007)

Alternatives: the humble telescopic radio aerial or a couple of those plastic clip things for hanging posters sliding one inside the other. But frankly pinch rods aren't hard to make and can be held together with a couple of small clamps if necessary.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

engineer one":3d0llvht said:


> amongst the many chores when making my coffee table is properly fitting the inner shelves.
> 
> so apart from making a set of bars, how do others measure the distance into the grooves.
> 
> ...


You start the job by drawing up a rod with all necessary dimensions marked full size, and after that you don't need to measure or calculate anything, you take dimensions straight from the rod. i.e. you lay on the work piece and mark off with a set square or similar.
This process verifies the design and eliminates mistakes. Also components can be made in any order and they will all fit. And it's much easier than all those little calculations - any one of which might be wrong, or lost on the back of an envelope etc!

Said it before - will have to say it again no doubt :roll:
cheers
Jacob


----------



## Philly (25 Sep 2007)

Paul
You can't beat actually measuring from the workpiece - Jacob's method can work but in the real world I find components have a way over being over/undersize. So measuring the gap makes sense.
Hope this helps
Philly


----------



## andy king (25 Sep 2007)

I agree with Jacob that a rod is always the way ahead, I use one for pretty well every job I do for the reasons Jacob makes, but if I have to drop in panels or such like, I do tend to take a measurement as well from the assembled pieces, as Philly suggests.
I do this either from a dry run or final glue up depending on the way the piece has to be fitted.
Sizes can alter fractionally by cramping or tweaking of joints for final fitting, so both work hand in hand for me.

Andy


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":3gpx8y2u said:


> Said it before - will have to say it again no doubt :roll:
> cheers
> Jacob



You may have said it again, and again, but you didn't actually answer the question that was asked :roll: 



> how do others measure the distance into the grooves.



A rod will not help measure groove depths, only help with marking out before construction and the slight variations in cuts etc. are not taken into account.

I rarely use a rod and am more than happy measuring and calculating which I find straight forward and pretty easy


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Philly":w37oaw13 said:


> Paul
> You can't beat actually measuring from the workpiece - Jacob's method can work but in the real world I find components have a way over being over/undersize. So measuring the gap makes sense.
> Hope this helps
> Philly


Depends which real world you live in :shock: 
A 12 pane sash window would have about 35 wood components. A 6 panel door and frame about 15. A typical job might be a set of 5 windows and one door; 190 components in total, each of which has to be cut to length, planed to size, morticed, tenoned, rebated, moulded, joined, wedged, fitted, housed etc etc. The hardware too must be fitted, housed, morticed etc. 
How to keep track of all these components and operations and minimise error and waste, maintain accuracy, organise so that for example all the mortices are cut in one sequence?
The answer - a rod (or several rods). There's nothing mysterious or difficult about it - it just means that all the measurements & calculations which you'd have to do anyway, you do at the beginning just once and record in one place.
If you find that you are having to measure something in the middle of the job, from the workpiece, it means you have already made a mistake, ("over/undersize") and are probably making another one!
It works just as well and is just as essential for a simple job such as a single coffee table & shelf from 4 pieces of mdf

cheers
Jacob
PS if you find that components are "over/undersize" you either replace them (and work out how to cut them accurately), or, you modify the rod accordingly and alter the design. Much easier to alter a few pencil lines than to work blindly around some unwanted and unrecorded design variations!


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Tony":1r7bwfjk said:


> snip
> you didn't actually answer the question that was asked :roll:
> 
> 
> ...


Answer - you don't. You have already done it when you set out the rod. You will have drawn in a line for the depth of the housings. 
You take the measurements from the rod to the workpiece directly so you don't need to measure it again.
Say you have 2 sides of a simple cupboard, of 18mm MDF at 600mm outside dimensions, with a housing for a shelf 10mm deep.
On the rod you make 2 marks 600mm apart, then 2 more marks 18mm in, then 2 more marks 10mm out from the 2nd marks. You then have it all set out including the length of the shelf in the housing _without calculating it_. You can take the measurement from it _without measuring it_. And you can see that it will all fit exactly as you have just drawn it up full size and there aren't any gaps.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Scrit (25 Sep 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":3qj927fg said:


> Said it before - will have to say it again no doubt :roll:


 :lol:


----------



## Niki (25 Sep 2007)

Hi Paul

I have 150mm, 300mm, 600mm and 1000mm steel rulers.

I push one into one side groove and another one to the other side groove and just add the numbers as on the pictures

Another method that I use sometimes is, measure the distance without the grooves, measure the grooves depth with the tail of the caliper and add.

Regards
niki


----------



## Alf (25 Sep 2007)

Jacob, thing is, _if_ Paul hasn't used a rod and _if_ his work isn't as precise as that anyway, then a rod still doesn't answer the question. _Plus_ given the popular mantra of "measure twice, cut once", surely it's no bad thing to check the actual space as well as what it _should_ be according to the rod? In addition to which if you don't have the luxury of doing this every day for money, but rather infrequently for love, then bitter experience shows it's best to check and the time taken in so doing is not a factor.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## RogerS (25 Sep 2007)

I hear what you say, Alf, but when I read Jacob's post I got one of those rare lightbulb moments and so, also as a casual user of the workshop, I can see how a rod could work for me. 

Guess it's personal preference at the end of the day


----------



## engineer one (25 Sep 2007)

i have taken all the suggestions on board, and whilst i basically agree with
mr grimsdale, it does ignore certain things which happen when as alf says you are not doing these jobs often enough to have a proper knowledge base.

for instance if you use a plough plane then the wood may make your grooves slightly different because of spring back etc. and setting routers and keeping everything flat and smooth is also more difficult than it should be.

as usual niki has come up with a sensible solution, but i will make pinch bars, if only to use properly the veritas bar clamps that i have :lol: 

of course then i have to change the blade in my table saw :lol: from mdf cutting back to real wood. but since i have to make some mouldings that is going to happen anyway.

paul :wink:


----------



## Alf (25 Sep 2007)

Oh I'm not against the rod principle - think that'll have to be done if I ever get these ruddy saw till doors off the to-do list - but it's not a solution to a situation half way through the job.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Alex (25 Sep 2007)

Pinch rod, as described a few posts earlier. Two bits of wood 1/8"x3/4" one slips over the other to measure between the boards, while it's still in situ mark off the one rod on the other remove. Reassemble rods to mark and use to mark off shelf. Take two measures for front and back of shelf. You can also use pinch rod to check squareness if you put points on the end of the rods and measure across diagonals. :lol: 
I mainly use pinch rods when doing staircase'sw with winders.

Alex


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Alf":18sma24t said:


> Jacob, thing is, _if_ Paul hasn't used a rod and _if_ his work isn't as precise as that anyway, then a rod still doesn't answer the question. _Plus_ given the popular mantra of "measure twice, cut once", surely it's no bad thing to check the actual space as well as what it _should_ be according to the rod? In addition to which if you don't have the luxury of doing this every day for money, but rather infrequently for love, then bitter experience shows it's best to check and the time taken in so doing is not a factor.
> 
> Cheers, Alf


Err, yes right I'm saying how Paul _should_ have done it.
So how should he do it now? Wossa problem? Praps I've misunderstood the question but it seems to me that he should measure between the sides and add on 2x the depth of the groove/housing.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## DomValente (25 Sep 2007)

> measure between the sides and add on 2x the depth of the groove/housing.



Finally !!
 
Dom


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

DomValente":2hj6wm4d said:


> > measure between the sides and add on 2x the depth of the groove/housing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was that it then well blow me down :lol: 

cheers
Jacob


----------



## engineer one (25 Sep 2007)

worryingly that is what i done  

just looking for better solutions in the future and i guess more accuracy :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":vpu27wxy said:


> [me that he should measure between the sides
> 
> Jacob



Are you really sure about that? because your advice to him (ignoring his actual question) was to use a rod to build things so 



> that you don't need to measure or calculate anything


----------



## Philly (25 Sep 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":3agj6465 said:


> Philly":3agj6465 said:
> 
> 
> > Paul
> ...



Well in Paul's "real world" he is making a coffee table. He mentions it in his original post? And I still stand by my advice - check the real measurement. Don't forget, wood has a habit of moving, so that "rod", while perfect if you were engineering, is not going to be as accurate as checking the actual workpiece.
I had a good laugh reading your postscript -"Much easier to alter a few pencil lines than to work blindly around some unwanted and unrecorded design variations!" Jacob, are you telling me that you never make an error? Most folk I know make mistakes in every project - and I'm sure the Pro's do too. These unwanted design variations are a huge part of the learning process, as well as a source of unusual and original design quirks. :lol: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## engineer one (25 Sep 2007)

quirks, philly, now i have to include quirks as well. :? 

shucks i have just remembered that the sub atomic things are called quarks :lol: 

however you are right, the very making of this table has demanded changes in the original spec, and subsequently some of the detail work too.

i guess i could spend the time making a model, but unless full size it is difficult to guarantee that it gives the correct impression  

so for now, i will hope that it will come out almost as i thought it might :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## DomValente (25 Sep 2007)

OoH, ooh, fight, fight. :twisted: 

Dom


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Philly":21dj52m2 said:


> snip
> Don't forget, wood has a habit of moving, so that "rod", while perfect if you were engineering, is not going to be as accurate as checking the actual workpiece.


The whole point of the rod system is to make work _more_ accurate. I realise it's not obvious, but if you progress through a piece bit by bit measuring as you go then you may be building on previous errors and slowly departing from the original intention. The rod brings you back to base and maintains accuracy. It's absolutely essential if you are working to a predetermined measurement such as something which has to be fitted; window to masonry, drawer to chest, or merely repeating something, etc


> snip
> Jacob, are you telling me that you never make an error?


No I didn't say that and I've made plenty - but I know a really good way to minimise them - guess what it's called THE ROD

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":vrwgpsgg said:


> The whole point of the rod system is to make work _more_ accurate. I realise it's not obvious, but if you progress through a piece bit by bit measuring as you go then you may be building on previous errors
> Jacob



Jacob, a every engineer knows, this is incorrect - it is drummed in from day one. 

You ALWAYS measure from a datum point (for woodworking reference see David Charlesworth's posts and articles) so there are *no incremental errors *at all. In woodworking, your datum will be a face or side and all measurements are taken from that, not from previously measured points.

I do not disagree with you that a rod may be a useful tool, particularly for general carpentry, but I do strongly disagree with your point that it is more accurate than measurement (using the correct techniques). 

One uses whatever works for yourself as both work equally well, but only one will determine the depth of a slot.


----------



## engineer one (25 Sep 2007)

surely the whole thing about rods is that you have to have experience with them to make them work, and in addition for the hobbyist, there is almost an imperative not to waste wood, so if we make an error, then we work round it whilst the pro may be unhappy but will pick up another bit of wood.

i would love to be perfect, but have to work within my skill levels and the mistakes i make. :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (25 Sep 2007)

Tony":2638fxv3 said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":2638fxv3 said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point of the rod system is to make work _more_ accurate. I realise it's not obvious, but if you progress through a piece bit by bit measuring as you go then you may be building on previous errors
> ...


As I've said before - various engineers use the same (similar) system for the same reason, and boat builders, sail makers etc and many other manufacturs I guess.
Structural engineers lay out steel work on chalk lines on floors - full sized drawings, and take measurements from that. Though I guess it's more computerised nowadays. Boat builders loft out with full sized drawings the same. 
Google "boat building lofting out" and you will see examples
Some make 3d models full size to check for accuracy and take off measurements. I've seen ships engines modelled like this.
It's more or less universal but woodworkers seem to have lost the knack.
The woodworkers datum is the face/edge mark, which is an essential part of the rod system.

cheers
Jacob
PS the point is if you "measured" everything on a big job as I described earlier it would be extremely tedious to keep having to do it, and error would be bound to creep in. And you'd have to keep checking, recalculating. All those little back of envelope notes! Infact quite impossible. Hence the rod - you measure/calculate once only, or not at all; because the measurement/calculation is done for you by the graphic process.
e.g. in a big job you might have say 20 rails, meeting rails, cills, all the same length all with same spacing of mortices/tenons etc. Are you going to make 20 measurements, and then 100 sub measurements for the mortices etc? Not bloody likely - once is enough! On the rod, and marks taken off.


----------



## bg (25 Sep 2007)

Thank you Mr grimsdale for reminding us about using a rod. Of course it is something I know I know of, but its not something I've remembered about when I've actually been making something. Well I hope I will remember not to spare the rod for my next making effort. 

And, as I'm just about to make a few saw benches so as to put a frame on them to facilitate cutting sheet material at a respectable hight, your design of a simple saw bench could be just the ticket. But then I look closely at those compound angles and see its not simple at all. Those legs slant back as well as outward. I would guss the interesting bit is fitting the legs to the top as you have to grove the top out in two angles. Still trying to work out how to set my CSMS to achieve it. Its going to be an interesting excerise, nerver thought a saw bench would be so challenging.


----------



## mr (25 Sep 2007)

Praps I'm just stoopid but as far as I can see a rod is the only way to do it. From the outset of my life in wood mangling it just seemed obvious to have a bit of stick with marks on it at the relevant places. That way all components are the same size every time without fail and without thought. 
Mike


----------



## Anonymous (26 Sep 2007)

bg":38031vo7 said:


> Thank you Mr grimsdale for reminding us about using a rod. Of course it is something I know I know of, but its not something I've remembered about when I've actually been making something. Well I hope I will remember not to spare the rod for my next making effort.
> 
> And, as I'm just about to make a few saw benches so as to put a frame on them to facilitate cutting sheet material at a respectable hight, your design of a simple saw bench could be just the ticket. But then I look closely at those compound angles and see its not simple at all. Those legs slant back as well as outward. I would guss the interesting bit is fitting the legs to the top as you have to grove the top out in two angles. Still trying to work out how to set my CSMS to achieve it. Its going to be an interesting excerise, nerver thought a saw bench would be so challenging.


Hi BG
Yes you've got it , well nearly. To get the legs to align at right angles in the housing, or to make a rectangular footprint, the cross section has to be a rhomboid.
Conversely - if you use a rectangular section for the legs then the footprint becomes rhomboidal, and the housing angles adjusted accordingly.
Doing it the first way is neater and easier. To work out the dimensions and bevels (the _dihedral_ angles) you can do it graphically with a full size drawing with projections etc (just fits a piece of A1) which becomes a 2 dimensional rod -you lay pieces on and take marks off.
Or you do it with trigonometry, or roofing tables/squares etc. Infact it's the classic basic exercise in roof cutting.




> Praps I'm just stoopid but as far as I can see a rod is the only way to do it. From the outset of my life in wood mangling it just seemed obvious to have a bit of stick with marks on it at the relevant places. That way all components are the same size every time without fail and without thought.
> Mike


No it's the others who are stoopid :lol: or just plain ignorant! What you describe is the basic one dimensional rod , but at a more complicated level it becomes a powerful graphical calculator and setting out device. Can move into three dimensions with pattern making etc.

cheers
Jacob
PS when I say "device" this doesn't mean you can find one in a gadget catalogue, covered in brass knobs :lol: . I realise this may cause some dismay, especially to those who see the solution to every woodworking problem as the purchase of another gadget!


----------



## Anonymous (26 Sep 2007)

Jacob

You still don't get it and seem to have a very closed mind - a rod is not the best solution *in all cases*, just because you find it useful making windows!

Most members make small items of furniture, not windows with 100+ components and they make each piece to fit as they go along due to inaccuracies in the making, or developing skills. 
Sure a professional joiner who makes batches will find a rod useful, but mostly, we make one-offs.

It must just be me, but I find simple trigonomety (especially with a calculator) and the use of a ruler quite easy and plenty accurate. I often wonder about the claims of 'full size drawings' being more accurate too, as a bit of maths will accuratley dimension every component (10 decimal places on my cheap calculator); surely no-one in their right mind would take dimesions off a drawing? (probably made with a ruler in the first place) - made easier with CAD over the past 25+ years.


----------



## Anonymous (26 Sep 2007)

Tony":3pt83v6i said:


> Jacob
> 
> You still don't get it.
> snip
> ...


Well you'd better tell all the millions of different sorts of fabricators, who have been using the rod with variations, for thousands of years, that they've all been doing it wrong :lol: 
Timber framers do it - layout on floor etc. Greek temple builders did it - full size drawings have been found faintly scratched on floors showing the layout of complicated bits, column entasis etc.
The really surprising thing is that modern woodworkers don't seem to know this simple and essential technique.
First experience of the rod system for some would be model aircraft making - the Keilcraft sort with balsa and tissue. You don't _measure_ all those spars and bits; you lay them on to the drawing and cut or mark. You then go on to pin and glue on top of the drawing itself.
If you tried to measure or calculate all those tiny components it'd be utterly impossible.
You obviously never made model aircraft Tony. :roll:

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Anonymous (26 Sep 2007)

Tony":29babubt said:


> snip
> as a bit of maths will accuratley dimension every component (10 decimal places on my cheap calculator);
> snip


No that's where you have got it wrong. This is a key detail but hard to grasp if it's unfamiliar. A calculator *does not* "accurately dimension every component (10 decimal places )" . 
It does it *precisely* to 10 dec places, but this is not the same as *accurately*; it could be out by 3 inches at the same time. The rod is about *accuracy*, the degree of precision involved is what you bring to it yourself, with the means available to you.
This basic misunderstanding probably accounts for the obsession with precision which features such a lot on this group e.g. recent thread about the precision of engineering squares.
Its about confusing precision and accuracy. The first *does not* give you the second.
Believe it or not - you could make a very accurate saw horse (as above), with precisely fitting joints and precise angles, if you had no measuring apparatus available at all other than a piece of knotted string! You'd also need a straight edge and a pencil.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Alf (26 Sep 2007)

DomValente":35nyeifd said:


> > measure between the sides and add on 2x the depth of the groove/housing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Erm, 'scuse me, but given that we're all busily being told off for calculating the measurements for our projects (regardless of whether we actually know of, appreciate and use a full size drawing or not...) surely having pinch rods clamped at the correct distance to measure off onto the work is to be preferred over unnecessary mathmatical addition wherein error can creep?

Jacob, I think most of us do actually get the use of a rod and we don't actually need to be told we're stupid or ignorant for still arguing with you. What you've failed to grasp is we're not arguing with you on the use of the rod _per se_, but on its effectiveness:

a) in this case, where there is no rod and the project is already started
b) in cases where, frankly, what _we_ intend to build doesn't always turn out that way
c) given that the customer (SWMBO, TPTBs) is quite likely to change the spec after the project is started...
d) when one is paying for the materials oneself instead of a customer, and the tendency tend to work round any problems rather than enjoying the Utopian ideal of scraping that piece and starting again.

Added to which I still can't fathom why anyone would deliberately resist measuring the actual project if it was there, available, and not a significant issue to do so.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## mr (26 Sep 2007)

Alf":2900oku0 said:


> Added to which I still can't fathom why anyone would deliberately resist measuring the actual project if it was there, available, and not a significant issue to do so.
> 
> Cheers, Alf



I don't mean to be contentious but I would say that I deliberately resist measurement wherever possible particularly fine measurement. The problem is that my eyesight is so poor (praps this counts as a significant issue) that I find it hard to see the numbers on whatever measuring device. It's much easier for me to have another bit of wood (for example) to hand to compare something to. For example the edge of a raised panel needs to fit into an offcut of the groove prepared for it. Like so;







As I type I have a small block sat on my desk that I know to be 19 mm thick. I use this for setting cutting gauges for thicknessing stock and so on (and yes a lot of my projects use 19mm thick stock) . Anyway Im fast getting a name as a complete Luddite so I'll shut it now (he says busily tying knots in a bit of string - must try that out). 
Cheers Mike


----------



## Anonymous (26 Sep 2007)

Alf":1994wxgx said:


> DomValente":1994wxgx said:
> 
> 
> > > measure between the sides and add on 2x the depth of the groove/housing.
> ...


Risk of going round in circles here. It's a bit of a hobby horse of mine. Mind you you should see this precise obby os i've just made with nowt but a piece of string and some mdf scraps!
BTW I'm not mad enough to argue against using a tape measure (it's not like honing jigs :lol: ), it's just how you do it - procedure etc.
And IMHO the obsession with precision on this group is really a misguided search for accuracy. It's not a snark its a boojum :shock:

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Alf (26 Sep 2007)

Mike, sorry, should have been more exact. When I say "measure" I meant with pinch rods, not a tape or rule. That way you have a set length you can mark from and no need for good eyesight. I'm all for eliminating numbered measurements in favour of stops, blocks, the mating piece etc.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## StevieB (26 Sep 2007)

Erm, tis a really bad idea to use a bit of string on the grounds that a bit of string stretches.

Back in the days of undergraduate biology we had a lecturer involved in measuring the lengths of pigs intestines (don't ask why) and since they are difficult to lay out flat (even when you take it out of the pig) he used a bit of string to measure them. Got some fantastically significant results from his two groups - mostly because the string stretched as he used it repeatedly.....

Accuracy and precision - semantics to my mind. I can cut a piece of timber precisely an inch short or I can cut it accurately to the mark I made which was an inch short. Doesn't matter what I call it - its still short.

Steve - now thankfully far removed from the distant days of pig intestines.


----------



## engineer one (26 Sep 2007)

gawd and i thought i could be contentious asking about other things :? 

jacob you are absolutely right about the benefits of a rod.
HOWEVER. it depends on being taught or shown how to use one,
which we now have a better idea of. it also depends on what you are
making.

a lot of people got back into woodworking through using mdf, which can in principal be very accurate in both cutting and usage because it really does not move. 

"real wood" MOVES and has knots and other failings. some of which you only find after cutting/planing and thicknessing. this is important to remember and understand.

as an amateur, you don't have much spare wood, so you work round the problems, which immediately makes a story stick kind of redundant. :roll: 
TO THE AMATEUR.

once you have some experience, you can then move on to rods/story sticks and because of your skill will find them both useful and accurate.

there is another point, which is that my table has kind of grown organically from trying to accomodate the top and some other ideas to the somewhat simpler and i think cleaner and more attractive proposition now. that has meant changing things as i go, which is why i need to measure the grooves after making.  

if you are copying something, or making it to fit a specific hole, then rods are vital because as we know tapes have movement in them. however, if you use pinch rods, you can still have errors if you mark the intersection incorrectly, or do not tighten them properly.

my request is not for complex 10 decimal accuracy, it is to combine the movement of the wood with non movement of mdf in a way that will not at some time in the future blow the joints and make the table fall apart :? 
but it is for precision. which may not be the same thing.

nice to see mike back too.

paul :wink:


----------



## spadge (26 Sep 2007)

At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire I really cannot see the advantage of using a rod for a simple project such as a table. You only have to mark the length of the components once (ie rail length, leg length etc) and use a tee square to mark that distance on all the remaining similar pieces. So you only measure each piece once and transfer that measurement to the other similar pieces, therefore no room for error.

This is no different from (but quicker than) drawing a rod on which you would have to measure and mark the lengths of the various pieces once but then transfer that measurement to all associated pieces.

Clearly things will be different if you are batch producing something or making a more complicated piece. In these circumstances a rod may well be the way to go.

No one method is right in all circumstances. Just as you chose the most appropriate construction method for a piece you should chose the most appropriate method to layout the piece. 

Cheers

Grahame


----------



## Anonymous (26 Sep 2007)

spadge":1g2oqg0t said:


> At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire I really cannot see the advantage of using a rod for a simple project such as a table. You only have to mark the length of the components once (ie rail length, leg length etc) and use a tee square to mark that distance on all the remaining similar pieces. So you only measure each piece once and transfer that measurement to the other similar pieces, therefore no room for error.
> 
> This is no different from (but quicker than) drawing a rod on which you would have to measure and mark the lengths of the various pieces once but then transfer that measurement to all associated pieces.
> 
> ...


With a rod you'd also mark the mortices, tenons, haunches if any, drawer details, clearance gaps, in fact everything. In the process you work out and verify the design, and you have a separate complete reference should you need it. 
In the end it's quicker, even for a simple one off. You have to mark all these things anyway - you are just doing them together at the beginning instead of during the process, and you see that they all work together instead of finding later that something doesn't fit.
I'd say its useful for just about everything you are likely to do in the way of normal woodwork where more than one measurement has to be made, other than merely cutting (not many pieces) to lengths, or not free form carving or turning perhaps, and other exceptions could be found I expect

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Anonymous (26 Sep 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":2pvgej1o said:


> [You obviously never made model aircraft Tony. :roll:
> 
> cheers
> Jacob



Actually, between the ages of 11 and 15, I made model aircraft with my dad :lol: Free flight for first two years, then radio controlled and for the last 6 months, indoor planes.

The best two we made were a Focker DR1 triplane (red baren) which flew dreadfully and a 1/6 scale spitfire mk5 which was a dream to fly.

My favourite of them all was a Pitts special biplane


----------



## ByronBlack (26 Sep 2007)

Jacob. If one is making a small project and creates a rod, how do you go about labelling your marks? I ask this because if the project is small and uses close fitting joints such as mortice and tenons the lines are so close that writing any labels will become difficult and sometimes obscure the lines. Is there a practical solution to this? Do you use abbreviations or some such short-hand?

Finally, what do you make your rods out of? Do you re-use them? Do you use both sides for the same project, or do you use multiple rods for various components?


----------



## Anonymous (27 Sep 2007)

ByronBlack":3dh8luei said:


> Jacob. If one is making a small project and creates a rod, how do you go about labelling your marks? I ask this because if the project is small and uses close fitting joints such as mortice and tenons the lines are so close that writing any labels will become difficult and sometimes obscure the lines. Is there a practical solution to this? Do you use abbreviations or some such short-hand?


If you are not sure of the details on a rod you add in more until it is recognisable as a sectional drawing and everything becomes obvious. If it's something you know well then the marks are just the minimum necessary and another person might not be able to interpret them, or you might forget yourself if you are away from the job too long. But in general you get to recognise them like a bar code e.g. the end of a rail would have marks for shoulder, haunch, rebate, moulding, the end itself - all falling into a familiar sequence. This bar code also tells you which piece it is. So I can pick a piece at random from the 100 or so bits marked up and say immediately that it's a "top sash bottom rail" or whatever. So I don't identify them , they identify themselves.


> Finally, what do you make your rods out of? Do you re-use them? Do you use both sides for the same project, or do you use multiple rods for various components?


B&Qs best MFC shelf lengths 6" wide. Used to think that I'd re-use them but it doesn't happen often. I've saved some of the most interesting ones.
One side only - the pencil marks would get scuffed on the other side. One rod for the whole thing e.g. a door plus frame would have the full horizontal section on one edge of the board, and ditto vertical on the other (same side). The horizontal marks would go on roughly in this order; masonry width, clearance, door frame width, rebate, clearance, door stile, slot for panel & haunch on tenon (these usually coincide), panel clearance, muntin, panel slot in muntin etc etc. Similar for the vertical.
Most definitely not to use multiple rods for components as the whole point is to make everthing fit, so e.g you draw a drawer rod in situ in the table apron part of the rod etc. Then you make the components in any order and you know they will fit.
As you draw it up it does all those little back of envelope calculations for you, which eliminates the most common mistakes. It's a sort of magical calculator which doesn't need batteries!
Also - you can take measurements *off* direct to the workpiece, or transfer indirectly to a lath, or by measuring with a tape. You could put measurements *on* direct from the workpiece e.g. you could lay on the bit of PAR you are going to use and mark the width with a pencil. Or you could tranfer them *on* from a lath, pinch rods, tape etc
You can check the measurements of a component e.g. a panel, by just laying it on and seeing if it lines up with the marks.
As I said - its a really powerful device.
cheers
Jacob


----------



## Anonymous (27 Sep 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":3btpk9kr said:


> [B&Qs best MFC shelf lengths 6" wide. Used to think that I'd re-use them but it doesn't happen often. .Jacob



So, you keep buying pieces of material to make rods?? Business must be good if you can buy material to throw away

I only had to buy my ruler once and it probably cost less than one piece of MFC


The thing that bothers me about this 'discussion' Jacob, is that you think the way you choose to do things is _right and everyone else is wrong_. 

Clearly this is absolute rubbish and each person does things the way they want to and the way they like - that is why we do any hobby to get enjoyment.

You will never convince everyone that drawing marks on a scrap of wood is better than measurement, especially for small projects, as there are really no benefits at all over careful measurement, possibly unless one is making batches (which hobbiests tend not to do).

Why not just use your rod and accept that others choose not too?


----------



## Sawdust (27 Sep 2007)

Tony,

Why do you take such exception to what Jacob said. It strikes me that he knows what he's talking about and has some good ideas which as happy to share.

Surely that is the purpose if the forum. 

Mike


----------



## JFC (27 Sep 2007)

Now now Tony , your getting flustered :lol: 
I don't use a rod as such , i don't buy timber to throw away . Maybe it was because my teacher was a tight wad but we used to use ( and i still do ) the fist peice marked out as a pattern . If i'm making a table i will mark out one leg and mark the rest from that "pattern" I spose it is a rod in a way but one that gets used in the end .


----------



## Anonymous (27 Sep 2007)

Sawdust":ul66pm2t said:


> Tony,
> 
> Why do you take such exception to what Jacob said. It strikes me that he knows what he's talking about and has some good ideas which as happy to share.
> 
> ...


Yes what's the matter Tony? 
You are free to ignore anything I say and do things how you like; I'm not saying you are wrong, I couldn't care less!
Remember you are a moderator you are not supposed to generate ill feeling and bad tempers. 
Or is it just the way you say it? :roll:
No I don't throw the rods away - I rub them out and re-use them. Some of them are 20 years old probably.

cheers
Jacob
PS Just realised it's the way I said it - I meant I don't re-use the rod itself, to make a replica of the item, but I do re-use the boards. 
Still no excuse for the irritability :roll:


----------



## Anonymous (27 Sep 2007)

I was just answering Byron's questions. That's why I seem to be repeating myself - people keep asking me to.
Or is Byron an agent provocateur - deliberately inducing me to bore people beyond endurance! 
If you don't like it don't read it.
cheers
Jacob


----------



## wizer (27 Sep 2007)

Not sure if I understand. Can you go through how to use a story stick again pls Jacob....







Kidding :lol:


----------



## engineer one (27 Sep 2007)

look i did not want to start world war 3 with this supposedly simple question.

jacob your comments are sensible and cogent, but just because you repeat it, and do not consider the original question properly does not make you right for all the circumstances.

tony has asked a couple of times for you to answer the actual question i asked and you have kind of gone off topic.

in a perfect world and with the proper training or learnt skills then a rod is the way to go, there is no doubt.

HOWEVER.

if you have not been trained to use it, and you cannot visualise it properly, and you do not use them day in day out, then there is even a possibility for rods to be inefficient and inaccurate, since it is possible to misunderstand your laying out there. you jacob mya deny this, but that is because of your skills and knowledge, and does not take into account the learning curve that an amateur needs to go through.

take my coffee table(please :lol: :roll: ) the design has been rolling around in my head for a longish while, so the first step was cutting and shaping the basic wood. after which i had to modify the design because some of the wood did not work properly. then i made the various components using a kind of rod, ie stops on the saw etc to layout the lengths and dimentsions. but once you start some of the detail work, in my case, for instance cutting the grooves no matter how careful you are there are potential errors within this.

therefore it makes sense to me to have an additional measuring system for the final fit up, since it allows for the mistakes that you inevitably as an amateur make during the cutting out and machining process.

so lets get back to the basics. 
in a perfect world we would all comfortably make rods, and perfect furniture, but sadly neither we nor the work are perfect, and we need the cheats device.

that was all i asked for. so lets go back to neutral corners, and think about the question, not our own preconceptions.

paul :wink:


----------



## wizer (27 Sep 2007)

Guys this is getting silly. There is far too much bickering on this forum lately. I have had a PM suggesting that Jacob was banned. If this is true it is totally out of order. I see a lot of over moderation on this forum.


----------



## Anonymous (27 Sep 2007)

Any more questions anybody? :lol: :lol: 

cheers
Jacob


----------



## PowerTool (27 Sep 2007)

Yes - what's it like beig a TV star ? :wink: 

Saw you on Tommy Walsh's "room for improvement" last week (sash windows in Bonsall - just incase you've been on a few times,and I haven't seen them yet... :lol: )

Andrew


----------



## spadge (27 Sep 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":3kyx24kk said:


> Any more questions anybody? :lol: :lol:
> 
> cheers
> Jacob



If my grandmothers auntie met up with my sisters brothers cousins son and decided she wanted me to make my nephews sons friend a coffee table.
Would you recommend I used a rod :wink:


----------



## engineer one (27 Sep 2007)

i have heard of sparing the rod and saving the child, but this is getting silly.

let us go back into history. 

:? 

it is likely that the rod was invented even before the egyptians, but lets take that as a starting point. depending upon which form of history you believe in, the pyramids were built by slaves. thus you had a language problem, and also a different system of measurements in all these countries. so rods or an equivalent, were certainly used as a kind of shorthand and as a means of ensuring that guys with different language and understandings mass produced the same things.

later, rood/rod or perches were used to build churches and even later cathedrals to a specific standard and with some interchangeable parts.
later during the early industrial revolution, machinery was generally made on site because there was no mass production, and thus layout lines on the floor became universal. once proper lathes and other accurate machines were made, then more parts were made off site and assembled, so people used drawings. however i know from personal investigation at Doncaster loco works, that until about 1911, almost every loco off the line had a different set of dimensions even though measuring sticks were used. this was until such things as flame cutters and mass production methods became more readily available. and more worryingly, the drawing were often produced after manufacture which is why often the dimensions are a little stupid in the real world. during the first war, more effective measuring methods became available, and more people could read write and add up, plus, because of people like henry ford, more specific parts were made, it became more practical to introduce measurements than rods.

thus we get up to date, where rods are generally used for fitted items, be they doors, windows, or bookshelves, whilst in my view, smaller, mobile furniture tends to be built less so, except in mass production workshops.

for the individual i would suggest that a combination of both is necessary.

anyway , having pulled the pin on this grenade, i am off back into the bunker :lol: 

and finally no banning and no more repeats please :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Alf (27 Sep 2007)

WiZeR":1xw4j4kq said:


> I have had a PM suggesting that Jacob was banned. If this is true it is totally out of order.


That'd be the one from Jacob suggesting the Yahoo group instead...? I thought that was a little out of order, yes. And that's speaking as someone who voluntarily shared Jacob's one month ban in mild protest. But let us make like a Boojum and let it softly and silently vanish away.

I _think_ certain people are over-reacting and essentially playing into Jacob's mischievous hands. Like a wayward parrot, a firm voice and not getting into a total hissy fit every time he does a Bad Thing is probably advisable. Not so easy if the parrot's hanging onto your ear-lobe, but luckily Jacob seems minus beak... And after all he does occasionally say useful things and may even have beautiful plummage in the right light :lol:

Cheers, Alf

Who'd be grateful if Jacob could refrain from getting banned until after I'd tried doing a rod for these doors 'cos I may need advice...


----------



## ByronBlack (27 Sep 2007)

Jacob - please don't misinterpret my genuine questions with trouble making, it was nothing of the sort, I appreciate the effort you made to answer my questions.


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Sep 2007)

Alf":rpz2aoiu said:


> Who'd be grateful if Jacob could refrain from getting banned until after I'd tried doing a rod for these doors 'cos I may need advice...



Me too - I'm quite interested in rods and have used them for a few jobs  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (27 Sep 2007)

Alf":y5rbr2cp said:


> WiZeR":y5rbr2cp said:
> 
> 
> > I have had a PM suggesting that Jacob was banned. If this is true it is totally out of order.
> ...


Rod advice ey? Hmm yes stand back let me at it!
Wossa problem? I'd be happy to explain everything again :lol: 
Thanks for the mild protest BTW.
I think I might have got a copy of J Brown's book at last, via Abe books, for only a fiver + post, which is a deal as it is unavailable except at daft prices. I'm looking forward to reading it. And I've ordered old Jimmy Krenov vol 2 just to show that I haven't got a closed mind  



> please don't misinterpret my genuine questions with trouble making, it was nothing of the sort, I appreciate the effort you made to answer my questions.


Sokay Byron I was only joking, happy to oblige, sorry if boring though.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Alf (27 Sep 2007)

Steady on, Jacob; my project strike rate is so slow we could be looking at next year...  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Sgian Dubh (27 Sep 2007)

If anyone wants to read a primer on rods and stuff go to the articles, Every Rod Tells a Story parts 1 and 2 from Furniture & Cabinetmaking, issues 85 and 86, Feb and Mar 2004. 

Alternatively, I have a copy of the original manuscript on my hard drive. Slainte.


----------



## Alf (27 Sep 2007)

Paul Chapman":2mi8er1i said:


> Alf":2mi8er1i said:
> 
> 
> > Who'd be grateful if Jacob could refrain from getting banned until after I'd tried doing a rod for these doors 'cos I may need advice...
> ...


Seems we're all outta luck, Paul. Waiting to hear what the crime was now...

Richard, amazingly I think I may have those very issues about my person someplace. I will hunt them out. Thank you.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MooreToolsPlease (27 Sep 2007)

Sadly I don't have those issues.
How can I get hold of them?


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Sep 2007)

Alf":m0gf3ft3 said:


> Paul Chapman":m0gf3ft3 said:
> 
> 
> > Alf":m0gf3ft3 said:
> ...



:? :? :? :? :? :?


----------

