It puzzles me why the American tool tradition still follows some designs that seem old-fashioned to a European. To wit:
Table saws
What prevents American consumers from demanding that TS manufacturers provide riving knives and blade guards that move with the blade and don’t obscure one’s view or working? FWW states that there are about 3500 amputations per annum in the US due to TS accident. And 10X that many accidents where there is less permanent injury (kickback and other incidents.
Why do you struggle with mitre gauges in slots rather than having a sliding table with a cross cut fence? Huge plywood-box crosscut jigs, or expensive aftermarket mitre gauges that still have very limited capacity, seem a poor way to improve a TS for cross cutting.
Jointers and planers
In Europe there is the option of buying a (confusingly-named, for Americans) planer-thicknesser. The same stand, motor and cutter block serve the jointer (called planer in the UK) on top of the machine; and the planer (called thicknesser in the UK) underneath. This saves space in the shop and money when you buy it. You can go straight from flattening and jointing to making the board an even thickness, on the one machine.
The width of the planer and the thicknesser is automatically a match, 10 or 12” being the norm for a small shop. Whilst the option of having separate machines is not a bad thing (despite the increased cost/space requirements) I never understand why the US market typically buys 6” or 8” jointers but 13” planers….?
Last Vestiges of Colonialisation
Why on earth does the US stick to imperial measurements? Shouldn’t it have been thrown out with the tea?
The puzzle
Despite all these disadvantages (as I might see them) why is American WW so much more dynamic and quality-oriented that it is in the UK, where ugly pine things are the normal fodder of most amateurs. (Not moi, naturally 🙂 )
Lataxe, having a bit of a stir.
Replies
Imperial measurements remain so US manufacturers will still make at least some nuts and bolts. Besides it was the other revolution (French) that threw out the imperial measurements.
Regulation here has not required riving knives, nor sliding tables, both of which are, every thing being equal, more costly to produce than our standard designs. Therefore using our standard designs largely perfected in the 1930's, and functional without high precision manufacturing, is less expensive. We didn't have to retool our factories after WWII so changing to the European standards would have been very expensive in terms of capital equipment, would have sold no more machines, and potentially would have made it easier for European market penetration.
<<Why on earth does the US stick to imperial measurements? Shouldn’t it have been thrown out with the tea?>>
Because we're hard-headed (You ain't figgered that out yet? LOL). Perhaps it should have gone with the tea, but we have this national trait of tending to go our own way, despite what the rest of the world may do or think. This is both a plus and a negative (measurements are a case in point....).
<<The puzzle
Despite all these disadvantages (as I might see them) why is American WW so much more dynamic and quality-oriented that it is in the UK, where ugly pine things are the normal fodder of most amateurs. (Not moi, naturally :-) )>>
I suspect that a lot of the reason(s) is/are cultural. Europeans, in general, tend to be much more class-conscious than Americans are, and I suspect that it affects people's aspirations. In the US, people are taught from the cradle that they can be anything they want to be -- doctor, President, professor, arch-bishop, etc. -- if they just work hard enough to get there. That attitude transfers to/underlies almost everything in America...whether it is business, school, woodworking, writing poetry, or raising Bonsai trees. I'm not sure that it's the same, culturally, in European countries, despite the official egalitarianism.
The differences, to be sure, are rather subtle, but distinctively there. Perhaps something along the lines of "if it's not specifically prohibited, then it's allowed" vs "if it's not specifically allowed, then it's prohibited" type of mentality built into the culture. In most of the US, the former seems to be the rule, whereas in Europe, it tends, in my observation, toward the latter. The attitude of many American woodworkers is: "I, too, can build a Dunlap or Townsend-quality highboy, even if it takes me 20 years to learn how to do it," whereas the European tends toward the "I must go through the apprenticeship program for 7 years, and then I must work for 20 years to become a "master" woodworker, THEN I MIGHT be able to do something like the Chippendale chair....."
Americans still tend to think of the universe as being limitless, whereas Europeans tend to be very aware of the limitations of the universe.
(These comments are obviously generalisations, and won't apply in every instance.....)
(My observations of Europeans and their habits/outlook on life come from having lived for 12 years in various parts of Gemany, and from having also travelled fairly extensively throughout a large part of Europe while there.)
I would say we've stayed with imperial measurement because of the enormous cost of re-tooling all machines to metric. I use metric and find the imperial system cumbersome. I'm always converting to millimeters.
Apparently there was a considerable amount of money set aside for the conversion but Regan used it somewhere else. My shop is metric, I tried the imperial system when I first started working in this country, I gave up the idea when I had to divide a board into 9 identical parts ... Long time ago !C.
If I ever move back to the States it would be only with reluctance that'd I'd switch back to inches. 2(3/16 + 1/2 - (16 and 1/16 x 2))....what a mess!
By 'divide in nine identical parts', do you mean that you needed to do this across its width? You don't need any particular system for that, you just need a scale with divisions that are wide enough to lay across the width and use ten marks. For instance, if you have an 8" board and need to have nine equal pieces, lay a scale or ruler across the board on an angle so you have 10 marks and nine spaces. The outside marks are just for alignment and you mark the board on each end, so you can connect the dots. You now have nine pieces, theoretically of the same size. Again, if the scale has equally spaced marks, it doesn't even need numbers on it. The numbers just make it easier because the system used isn't as important as having equal spacing.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Lataxe,
The answer is the same one for all your questions: Because we've always done it that way!
I find it interesting that a fellow who is busting baskets out of trees with a LATAXE, is amazed that someone else is averse to change! Ha ha ;?)> Kinda like the old Quaker, who said to his wife one day, "Thee knows, Hannah, everyone is strange except for me and thee, and Hannah, sometimes, I think thee is a little strange." Not me. Of course not me.
Regards,
Ray Pine
Re: riving knives/blade guards- I'm not sure the majority of woodworkers in the US are even aware of them, let alone willing to use one. Americans have the odd tendency to take some risks, when it would add very little time to use the safety equipment they removed because "I'm just going to make a couple of cuts, then I'll put it back". Maybe the manufacturers would put riving knives on if more people made it known that they would pay for it. The money they could make would probably be more of an incentive than any regulation. If there are 3500 amputations in the US every year, they must not be happening on the job, otherwise OSHA would get in on the act. They want their money, too. If they thought it would be expensive to convert to metric after WWII, it was a pretty short-sighted decision. Think of how much it would cost to change everything now.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Maybe it comes down to space. Americans like big cars, big roads, so maybe we feel better with more machines around us? The more, the merrier! However, I do think we should usher in the european type sliders like yesterday.
As for measurments, what a conincidence, I was wondering when europe was going to start to use the imperial system? ha ha ha!!
good post, hope some ts mfg's see this thread!
joe p
My U.S. inspiration came from early FWW. Blokes making thr most unlikely machines from kitchen waste disposal units, driving saws from motorcycle back wheels and the like. Home made lathes longer than my living room! Now you rarely see sawdust and someone discusses 9mm ply. Fences have gone just plain daft in the amateur market, won't be long before they incorporate micrometers.
There's nowt wrong with old iron. Meddings pillar drill pre 1963, Universal 1983, bandsaw 1970s. Home made safety items. I try not to measure but use stop blocks, easier on the eyes.
Some great replies.
It was in my mind that American woodworkers are typically more adventuresome, and therefore more skilled, than the average British WW. There are exceptions (I hope I'm one) but lots of people here are conformist and apparently afraid to try because they dread being seen to fail. I don't know why people assume they'll fail rather than succeed, though. Me, I think I can do anything (until it hurts too much).
I greatly admire the attitude of can-do that many Americans live by.
But as adventuresome as you are, there is also (as some posts have noted) a stubborn streak, where people think it is a virtue to have a different opinion from "others", no matter what the merits or demerits of the issue in question. You think it "independent-minded" or "exercising freedom" to take pointless risks with a tablesaw. And even the Original Imperialists here in Britian have gone metric, with only the mad old natterjacks wanting to hang on to 64ths of an inch! ("Metric? Pah, an unholy invention of the French"!!!)
Mad old natterjacks are, as you know, noted for being independent-minded, on all possible occasions; and also on some impossible ones.
Riving knife and other safety features cost no more, once they are inherent and endemic in the design. Making them compulsory created a level playing field for European manufacturers; and also ensured that their design became usable rather than just a clumsy add-on to please the paranoid.
Careless Europeans are now saved from themselves and they don't even notice. Meanwhile, for you the price of carelessness is to maybe lose a finger.
Also, my saw is indeed braked and comes to rest in 6 seconds. Ah ha!
As to manufacturers having to invest a bit more to make their tools better - well I thought that was the idea of capitalism, rather than producing the same things current in 1949 for the next 50 years! Don't get me wrong, I detest the "NEW, IMPROVED" syndrome - unless it really is improved, that is.
If I was a bit more adventuresome, I might start a business exporting and selling European-style tablesaws to the US. (Too busy woodworking though <G>). There are some very nice ones of similar quality and prices to yours now - except they have a sliding table and the safety stuff. They ain't all Felders and Knapps you know. :-)
I'll scan and post the glossy for one of these cheaper TS and you can judge for yourselves (within the confines of the advertising BS of course). That one of mine in the photos I posted is currently £1450, of which 17.5% is Government purchase tax. But you can get similar ones from a European retailer for half that now, if you accept its Taiwanese origins.
At bottom, though, vive le difference. It makes for a more interesting world.
Lataxe.
PS I do make proper furniture too, Ray, honest! Baskets and chairs straight from the tree are just recent addition to my many, many WW interests. I might be getting natterjack tendencies though (its me age, man).
Lataxe,
Mad old natterjack! I want the t-shirt, I feel I've earned it.
Cheers,
Ray
Regarding stubborn tendencies, is that why you Brits continue to give distances in miles, to talk about 18 yard boxes when chatting about football and furlongs when discussing horse racing? I'm not even going to get into the notion of your favorite pub replacing "pints" with ".473 litres".There are many things in the U.S. that are represented in metric, like food labels. Trade is predominately metric based. In the end, it really doesn't matter to me much, I'm comfortable reading fractions of an inch and can pretty much tell you what a yard looks like to within an inch or two.Your other points about safety are noted, but I am not a fan of the EU nanny state approach where government is increasingly injecting themselves into citizens lives for the purposes of protecting them from themselves. This is actually the notion of conservative anti-big government ideology, it's not about big government in terms of fiscal policy, it's about the encroachment of government into private life.
<<Regarding stubborn tendencies, is that why you Brits continue to give distances in miles, to talk about 18 yard boxes when chatting about football and furlongs when discussing horse racing? I'm not even going to get into the notion of your favorite pub replacing "pints" with ".473 litres".>>
You must be talking about an American pint, not an Imperial pint: that would be 0.5682450 litres (20 fl oz). :-)
My favorite, though, has to be measuring weight in stone (14 pounds).
And, while we're at it, why does a British "hundredweight" weigh 112 lbs?
Want more? Try this link:
http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html
I erad an interview with Eric Clapton and he said that when he was first getting into the guitar, he was a seven stone weakling. Now if we can go back to measuring in cubits and hands, we'll have totally regressed. I can see it now- two guys in a bar, talking about someone the met previously saying, "She was seven and a half stone and 14 hands at the shoulder." The other guy replys, "As long as her hips aren't much more than one cubit wide, you're OK". Here in Wisconsin, the standard unit of measurement is the axe handle.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
WITH TONGUE FIRMLY IN CHEEK:<<Now if we can go back to measuring in cubits and hands, we'll have totally regressed.>>"Riiiiiiight....What's a cubit?"<<"She was seven and a half stone and 14 hands at the shoulder." >><<Here in Wisconsin, the standard unit of measurement is the axe handle.>>Whoa! If you're measuring female dimensions with axe handles, them must be some real corn-fed wimmens!! Just what kind of women ya got up there if ya have to measure 'em using agricultural units? ;-)Dare I ask where the term "battle axe" comes from....?:-)
"Let's see, a cubit, I used to know what a cubit is. Never mind, I want you to go out into the world and collect all of the animals by two, male and female, and bring them into the ark." "Riiiight. Who is this really?"Well, Wisconsin is the Dairy State, after all."Battle axe?" Only if they're PO'd.You still didn't say what happened to Red Dwarf.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Edited 3/20/2006 9:15 pm by highfigh
<<You still didn't say what happened to Red Dwarf.>>
Ran off and joined the Moscow circus???
Dare I ask where the term "battle axe" comes from....?
Mother-in-law... Ahem...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
In Australia we have two specialist units of measure.
The Sydharb is a measure of volume - ie this dam hold as much as half of Sydney Harbour
The Slab is a unit of work - How much to run the dozer over my drive on the way past (to a council worker)? .... oh 2 slabs (each slab being 24 cans of beer)
<<The Slab is a unit of work - How much to run the dozer over my drive on the way past (to a council worker)? .... oh 2 slabs (each slab being 24 cans of beer)>>
Too funny!! Sounds like beer math: 1 beer per guy X 25 guys = 32 cases of beer
<em>You must be talking about an American pint, not an Imperial pint: that would be 0.5682450 litres (20 fl oz). :-)</em>dang, I knew I was getting shorted at my local watering hole, next time I order a pint it's gonna be all imperial... maybe we were a little rash with that whole Boston throwing tea into the harbor business :)
<<dang, I knew I was getting shorted at my local watering hole, next time I order a pint it's gonna be all imperial... maybe we were a little rash with that whole Boston throwing tea into the harbor business :)>>Perhaps we were: as far as I'm concerned, beer is properly measured out in 1/2 litre or in Imperial pint increments. Anything less is just teasing your taste buds..... (Then again, those 22 or so ounce bottles that the Aussies & Kiwis send our way ain't too bad either.....) :-)
"maybe we were a little rash with that whole Boston throwing tea into the harbor business :)"No we weren't. I wouldn't hold that Crown's actions against the current Brits, though. They just didn't think the whole thing through- if they had kept the units of measurement, we would be getting a bigger beer when we ordered a pint. "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy".
Benjamin Franklin.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Pzgren:I followed your link in yopur Mar 16 post, and found a nagging question answered. I noted that when ordering beer in Munich, one orders either a vollmass or a halbmass; full- or half-mass. This presumably from the Austrian (fairly close the Munich) measure of 2 kannen of 1 1/4 pints each, 2 kannen equal one mass. So the mass is a generous liter. Except that the glasses one is served in are marked with 1 and 0.5 liter 'fill lines'. Looks like the traditional measure got adapted to the metric system.Who knew that woodworking was so interesting!Rocotoed
In a Munich Bierzelte, ein Mass = ein Krug, which is really the same thing, except that ein Krug is filled to the top, rather than just to the liter line....One word of friendly advice when drinking Bier in Munich: don't EVER, EVER mess with the ladies who bring you your Bier -- anyone that can carry FIVE or more full one-litre mugs of Bier in EACH hand is some one not to screw with!! In fact, make sure that you give her a good tip!! ;-)Ahhhh... I miss those days.......
Pzgren---
Advice noted, but I had that figured out by just doing the math--anyone who can carry 40-50 lbs in their arms, and for a whole workshift is not to be taken lightly. And besides, why on earth would I hassle anyone, ANYONE who is bringing me really good beer in liter quantities?----Rocotoed
<<. And besides, why on earth would I hassle anyone, ANYONE who is bringing me really good beer in liter quantities?>>My point exactly -- don't bite the hand that uuuuuhhhhh...feeds...you!!! ;-)On a more (just very slightly) serious note, if you haven't been yet, you owe it to yourself to drink (some) Bier in Munich (and if you have been, you owe it to yourself to go again...). There's tons of other great things to do there as well, but nothing (well...almost nothing) as pleasurable as drinking fresh local Bier vom Fass in the Bier-Hauptstadt der Welt.....Na Starovia!!James
There are exceptions (I hope I'm one) but lots of people here are conformist and apparently afraid to try because they dread being seen to fail.
Lataxe... I wouldn't be so quick to buy into what the UK media are selling... I've seen some awesome projects coming out of UK workshops, both pro and amateur... Projects that put mine to shame.. When mags encourage rookies to start with the likes of bird feeders, it's hardly surprising that mediocrity is the net result.
Life with metric isn't all it's cracked up to be neither... wouldn't be the first time I've seen new engineering drawings calling for some particularly weird size in metric... it takes a minute or two to figure out that it's actually an imperial size and a common one at that... begs the question, if they want imperial why not just say so??
As for EC certified machinery having an edge over traditional US machines... Sure, there's a safety issue that we might have a lead on, but at the expense of function... classic case in point is the guard design on a jointer... US kidney design doesn't expose the cutter head irrespective of how large the stock is that's being passed through it. With EC certified guards, if your timber is too big to fit under the guard you've no option but to slide it out of the way... Improvement..???
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Ah well Mike, I think in his opening post lataxe confesses to not reading British woodworking magazines, and I wonder if that includes keeping in touch with what's coming out of British designers too?
I do wonder if he is perhaps largely unaware of designer/makers, some of whom are well known outwith as well as within the UK, that are working right under his nose.
Below is a short randomly selected list of just a few UK based designer makers and small businesses working largely in the craft tradition. This is not the same as a list of British furniture/product/3D designers whose work is made by others. Most of the following have websites that can be found easily by doing an internet search if anyone is curious about the range of work coming out of British workshops. There really is inspiring work in the group below.
I find the work of well known contemporary British and American designers can be inspired and skillfully made and I don't believe there's really a them and us scenario-- you just have to look at a wide range of work to see what's going on.
There are also designer/makers working in both countries and elsewhere in the world whose work can suffer from some or all of being uninspired, twee, pretentious, ugly, non-functional, poorly made, etc.. The list of designer makers whose work and reputation I don't believe in includes some big names on both sides of the Atlantic. It's impossible to be credulous along with possessing an uncritical admiration for all other designer makers if you think deeply about the subject as I like to think I do.
As to the saw debate, the use of measurement, etc., I'm keeping out of it, ha, ha. And here is that list. Slainte.
Wales and Wales, Alan Peters, Rupert Williamson, Nick Allen, Fred Baier, Barnsley Workshop, Jermey Broun, Robert Ingham, Matthew Burt, Nicholas Chandler, David Colwell, Derek Gilham, Martin Grierson, Rachel Hutchinson, Itre Furniture, Philip Koomen, Inner Space, Andrew Lawton, Lucinda leech, Peter Lloyd, John Makepeace, Jonathan Markovitz, Jeremy Pieterson, Waring Robinson, Mark Ripley, David Savage, Andrew Skelton, Peter Toaig, Andrew Varah, James Verner, Katie Walker, Waywood Furniture, Richard Williams, Williams and Cleal, Toby Winteringham, Scott Woyka.Richard Jones Furniture
As to the saw debate, the use of measurement, etc., I'm keeping out of it, ha, ha.
och go on ya big jessy... ye ken ya want to.. ;)
ummm... thinking about it.... I ducked that one too... Ahem...
feathers are still singed from the last flame war... note, I didn't mention the D word... ??
I've often thought the UK media does a pitiful job when it comes to showcasing local talent... Surely a lesson there for the taking..??
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Edited 3/16/2006 8:34 pm by Midnight
Didn't notice if this has been mentioned yet, Sawstop, is pretty ingenious in protecting "bonehead moves".
What do you mean it won't be long till they use micrometers? I thought they already were. Next stop- the Ã… (Angstrom). Absolutely useful in woodworking, too.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Not to mention the lack of a brake on most table saws which is both a safety issue and a waste of time consideration. It's only a matter of a simple electronic feedback loop on the motor as many chop saws have. How often have you waited for the damn' thing to wind down before going on to the next task?
How long does it take for yours to stop? Is it an older one?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I've never timed it, but I sure get tired of shifting from one foot to the other while waiting for that blade to quit coasting. It's a six-year-old PM-66. Maybe something like ten seconds? An electrician friend wants me to let him modify it. As it is, when he uses my saw he just presses a piece of scrap agains the side of the blade to stop it. Bad idea in my book.
I've seen people press wood on the side, too. "Not gonna doit- wouldn't be prudent."
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Chop saws have universal motors which are fairly simple to rig up for electronic brakes, the same type of braking won't work with the single phase induction motors that are found on most cabinet and contractor's saws.
John White, Shop Manager, Fine Woodworking Magazine
OK -- so an extra winding with a solenoid or centrifical switch to activate it?
On industrial machines the brake is often an actual mechanical brake, built into the motor, that is automatically applied when the power is cut off. Not that familiar with other ways it can be done, but none are as simple as the braking on universal motors.
State of the art these days is to use a variable frequency drive which allows speed control, torque control, braking, and numerous other programmable functions. Unfortunately VFD's only work on three phase motors, but they can use single phase power on the input side.
I don't see any big safety problem with using a piece of wood against the side of the blade as a brake, as long as the blade is high enough to allow pressing against the disk without catching the teeth. Another safe way to stop the blade is to just crosscut or rip a piece of scrap after the power is switched off.
John W.
Edited 3/16/2006 12:25 pm ET by JohnWW
John, Right now my (approx 10 yr old) Powermatic Model 64 is disassembled & scattered around my basement for storage, so I can't test it to be sure. But I swear it has blade break. You can hear the switching in the motor when you turn it off. The blade definitely slows down much faster after than click occurs. It's a 1.5 hp, TEFC. If it can be done on that level of saw, it would certainly seem doable on the more expensive units.
"Despite all these disadvantages (as I might see them) why is American WW so much more dynamic and quality-oriented that it is in the UK, where ugly pine things are the normal fodder of most amateurs."
I think part of this is as old as this country. Manufacturing finished goods here was prohibited by the Crown just before the Revolution and it was required that raw materials be shipped to England so finished products could be made (not necessarily with the same materials, which meant that inferior materials were often substituted) and shipped back, paid for by whomever sent the raw stock over in the first place. This was a big problem for the colonists and, along with being treated as part of England when they really didn't want to (they left to get away from that life), they made do with what they had while they set up shop in order to be self-sufficient. Kind of a "Don't tell me what to do or how to do it!" thing. Like teenagers, I think. Some of the craftsmen of the time were trained in England, but once they had to make their own tools they came up with different ways to do it as well (over time) and sometimes better than what was available before (Yankee ingenuity). Also, I'm not sure the apprentice system was really the same after the War due to the loss of life, which would have included many craftsmen and they needed to come up with new ways to build things in. After succeeding by using their own methods, I would imagine that their atitude became "I can do this or anything else if I want to".
Back to the Imperial vs Metric measurement issue- when did England abandon Imperial? I thought it was relatively recently and I didn't think it was total abandonment, at that. One thing about differing measuring systems- if some other country comes to a country with one system and the invaded country uses another, parts won't necessarily be compatible, i.e., German railroads using one guage and the rest of Europe using another during WWII (IIRC). Makes it hard for the invaders to just pick up found items and use them to replace their broken/missing parts.
As for miter slots that really suck- I don't know. It's definitely not the best way to go. The problem is, if a TA has a sliding table/fence, a riving knife and good blade guard and other mandated safety features, it would cost close to $1500 for a decent one and if a (much) cheaper version was available, it might not be worth buying. This would make the expense hard to justify for someone wanting to buy one as a hobbyist. OTOH, the EZSmart and Festool crowd would be very happy about this.
What ever happened to Red Dwarf?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Edited 3/16/2006 12:00 pm by highfigh
1. No US tablesaw I have used has ever had a splitter, or riving knife, that blocked my view. Not sure of your question. Major accidents are similarly caused in the UK by incompetence, as here.
2. Personally, I don't "struggle" with a miter guage. Sliding tables I find awkward. We use vertical panels saws for large sheets. Much easier.
3. Jointers/planers. Valid question. I spose it's a matter of space. We yanks have lots of it, but in Britain, it's at a premium.
4.Measurements. Where I work, metric is the norm thanks to Jimmy Carter. But it's useless in a non-scientific endeavor like cabinetry where all our suppliers are on standard units.
5.Design. perhaps the most interesting question. I believe UK/US differences here are due to believe it or not, freedom in other aspects of our lives, thus reflected in our work. Last time I checked we still had a Bill of Rights, but that was a while ago. Whereas England has no such protections for freedom of expression, and the collective peer pressure there is rather daunting compared to here.
Regarding imperial vs metric, it's reasonable to not remember how many square feet in an acre (much less how many feet in a mile), or how many teaspoons in a quart. With metric, everything is so easy, so it would be harder to hide our stupidity. You see, most Americans are mighty ignorant folk, but do not wish to appear that way to others.
Regarding the metric vs imperial question, while the metric system has its obvious logic and benefits, so too does the imperial system. Suppose you want to divide 10 ft by 3. Answer: 3 ft - 4 in. It's easy because the foot is base 12, so it's divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. The inch is base 16 which has it's own logic because it can be halfed, quartered, eigthed, etc. -- each time the level of accuracy/precision is doubled. If the milimeter isn't quite accurate enough, you basically have to move to tenths of milimeters, which is increasing accuracy and precision by a factor of ten, which might be overkill. Whereas if the sixteenth isn't precise enough, you just go to thirty-seconds, or sixty-fourths. It makes a lot of sense in construction, carpentry, and cabinetry. The metric system is certainly better suited to machine work where you are routinely dealing with hundredths or thousandths of a milimeter, but for anything dealing with wood, I actually think the imperial system is more logical.
That said, if I ever upgrade to a real cabinet saw, it will have a sliding table for sure. The Euros are way ahead of us on that one. Ditto for combo jointer-planers.
By the way, Grizzly recently came out with a line of Euro type saws. I suspect the other "U.S." manufacturers are not far behind.
I'm fairly sure those amputation numbers are mostly amateurs. I've dabbled in this craft for a while now and have had the good fortune to have met many professional cabinet makers. Nearly all of them can count to ten and those that reach down to untie their shoes looking for that last digit or two usually list machines like jointers and shapers as the cause.It would be a shame to point to the machine as the cause of amputations on table saws when the real fault lies with the user. In America anyone can go out and buy a power tool. There is no test, no safety lesson and absolutely no training required. Frankly, to amputate a finger on a table saw is really hard to do unless you are doing an incredibly bonehead thing. There are plenty of people, untrained and totally uninitiated, doing bonehead things on a table saw. Protecting people from themselves quickly can become a more than full time mission.Europe has a guild system that is falling apart. Many of the luminaries here in America were products of the guild system of G.B. and Europe, it's a real pity that this system that is responsible for such skills is deteriorating but it is. The weakening of this system is opening the door for more designer/craftsmen in Europe since they no longer need to go through the guild system to hang out their shingle and pronounce themselves cabinetmakers. I'd guess the amputation rates will climb in Europe as more and more untrained users begin buying woodworking tools. To sum up, I think it unfair to point to the machine when training is nonexistent. Sure, we can legislate safety into all sorts of machines from cars to scissors but the responsibility for safety lies within the user and an untrained user will certainly be able to amputate any limb of your imagination with all of the safely options in place.As to measuring, who cares? It's a language describing distance and it doesn't matter one tiny bit what is used as long as one can describe a distance and transpose it accurately.Lee
IIRC, 1 acre = 43,560 sq ft. If the 'foot' was the average actual size way back, it was smaller than now, because people were smaller on average, although I think it was the King's foot that was used to set the standard. The divisions, to my mind, must have been visually determined because I doubt that many apprentices wrote or read at the time and they were the ones doing the majority of the rough cutting. Cutting to length with a story stick and using dividers or marking gauges to determine thickness doesn't need markings, but setting the standard and replicating it accurately is the important part. It's pretty easy to visually divide a distance by two, then do it again and again till you can't see the difference or you reach the end of practical resolution (1/64") for the time. On paper, metric makes accuracy easier (reaching a solution in decimal) but dividing by two visually, then by five is harder. Once people could read, count and do simple math, metric made sense. But I may be wrong.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Admittedly, some of us Brits are hanging on to that imperial measurement stuff. But I now use kilos and litres, even for the wonky-leg beverages, which are sold in metric everywhere except the pub. At the pub, I look forward to a future of litres rather than pints of beer, even if the lady-wife will have to cart me home with an even more slack-faced smile than heretofor.
Being of the right maturity (that of an old cheese) I was taught imperial at school - no metric then. I adopted metric long before it was made “official” by the State. It’s just easier. Out of necessity, I can convert imperial to metric and vice versa in my head. But these days, if I want a smaller measurement, I divide by 10 rather than 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32. It’s genuinely simple, rather than just familiar.
The nanny state. Hmmmm.
As one with anarchist tendencies, I too regard those who make thousands of pointless laws with great suspicion. However, if car seat belts, banning alcohol whilst driving and fitting TS safety features stops the unwary from harming themselves and others, not to mention draining the resources of the National Health System, I’m for them. These laws DO have a point and enhance my freedom (from pointless dangers) perhaps only at the expense of the "freedoms" of selfish speed freaks, profiteer capitalists and uncaring factory employers.
I agree about the jointer safety guards – the American design is far better than the European.
There are certainly some accomplished professional makers in the UK, as listed by Richard Jones. Some of them were at the Cheltenham show that I attended and they impressed me.
I would contend that these are a special class of people and not representative of the thousands of amateurs. They stand out precisely because they are so far above the average UK furniture maker, amateur or professional.
I wish it were otherwise, but many (not all) the amateurs I come across are impatient and self-deluding about what they make. Their standards are those of IKEA, not those of the people Richard lists. And I agree with Mike Wallace that British magazines have been to blame, setting abysmally low expectations for amateurs.
That’s why I only now buy FWW. Perhaps the British mags have moved on and those I sometimes flick through in WH Smith are just a bad sample. J
What do you think of Furniture and Cabinetmaking Magazine?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
HF,
Well, I have many issues of F&C - as many as I have issues of FWW (about 50-60, looking at the bookshelf). It was the only British mag I bought, after a few months trying the alternatives, when I first began wood butchering. It did stand out.
But I stopped my subscription to F&C about 2 years ago as it seemed to get in a rut. Their standards on the making front were very good indeed; but the same people tended to keep showing up time after time with similar stuff.
F&C also felt a bit too biased towards modern furniture designs for my taste. This is fair enough if they're supporting what most top end British makers seem to want to do. But it wasnae for me. FWW's broader spectrum of styles suits me better.
Compared to FWW, the F&C tool reviews were fairly lame. They did suffer from a touch of the, "I like the look of this cast iron jobby"; and a bit of, "I used it for an hour then marshalled my usual prejudices". With some exceptions (I remember a chisel test) there was not much science involved in most of these "tests". I can't remember them ever criticising anything in any meaningful way and began to suspect that they were beholden to advertisers, which (except for the brave FWW editors) seems the norm in the publishing industry as a whole.
Unlike FWW, my copies of F&Cs are in a box in the loft. I do root them out now and then, if I vaguely remember an article about this or that which would help my current attempt to make something. But FWW can be read many times and you still find a bit of something you missed. FWW is information-rich in a way no other WW mag seems to be.
Perhaps I'll have a peek at their current issue, in the newsagent's, and hope to pleasantly surprised.
Lataxe
NB, Here isw a link to a European-style saw that is a very good price. I've felt one up a bit in Kendal Tool's showroom and (without actually running it) it seems very well made - beefy parts with no discenible play or wobble, to the eye and hand at least.
They site also has a Fox planer/thicknesser that seems of similar value and quality.
No doubt these machines are not of Knapp quality but they may still be very good. Any European out there own one?
http://www.poolewood.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh000001.pl?REFPAGE=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2epoolewood%2eco%2euk%2fcgi%2dbin%2fss000001%2epl%3fRANDOM%3dNETQUOTEVAR%253ARANDOM%26PAGE%3dSEARCH%26SS%3dFox%26TB%3dA%26PR%3d%2d1%26ACTION%3dSearch&WD=fox&PREVQUERY=TB%3dA%26GB%3d%26SS%3dFox%26PR%3d%2d1&PN=Fox_F36_529_10__Cast_Iron_Cabinet_Saw%2ehtml%23aF36_2d529x#aF36_2d529x
Edited 3/19/2006 8:54 am ET by Lataxe
In Canada we drive in kilometers per hour, buy our house by the square foot, buy our milk by the liter, and our beer by the pint. The best I think is that I measure things in centimeters, but the ruler is 1ft long...
I find that the debate is between metric and imperial a little odd. You should use the most appropriate scale for the job. It's as simple as that.
Some scales are just appropriate for the task. I buy my beer by the pint, intuitively I know how big a pint glass is. Does it matter how many ounces are in it? Nope. A pint is a good size for a beer. When I go from place to place I know how much a pint is and how much it should cost.
For woodworking I use imperial, even though I learned metric in school. Why? I buy my wood in board feet, standard thicknesses for plane wood are measured in 1/2", 3/4", and so forth. Even when I buy sheet goods I get them in 4x8 sheets (most of the time). So it's the appropriate scale, to have to covert all these measurements to metric (3/4" to 1.905 cm... no way) when I can by a tape measure in inches would just complicate things.
In Canada,The metric system was devised by French scientists in the late 18th century to replace the chaotic collection of units then in use.Currently the meter is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second. Everyone in every country can have an infenitely precise distance for a meter, a centimeter.... Metric system is getting old! Why are englishmen still clinging like there where going to fall off the face of earth to the imperial system!Why do you think the lunar explorer crashed! Imperial calculation.... it's bound to fail.In a perfect world everything would be metric!Have a nice day;)
The meter (metre) is now defined by the speed of light in a vacuum... but it still goes back to an actual stick, the International Prototype Metre, a piece of platinum-iridium that was the standard until 1960. This was constructed to match a (turns out later, incorrectly calculated) one-forty-millionth of the circumference of the Earth. France still has that original meter bar, copies of which were distributed to other countries more than two centuries ago.
So it's still an arbitrary measure, but generally more useful than our Imperial measures. I do agree with the previous poster who points out that it's far easier to divide by halves, quarters, fourths, sixths, etc. in Imperial...My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
It wasn't just Imperial units, it was mixing/confusing the units in one problem.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Well, I often find it easier to "slip" a decimal point than to mess up while dividing by 2. Square feet per acre is pretty easy if you remember there are 640 acres in a square mile(one section); residents of the coasts may find this an arcane fact, but not so for mid-westerners. But in much of furniture making measurements are of limited importance, since making boards all the same width or length whether 12" or 12 1/4" is important, but almost never making it 12 1/128th, versus 12 1/16. The size of mortises depends on the chisel (or router bit) at hand. The tenon is trimmed to enter the mortise so that it makes a snug hand pressure or light tap fit, not on whether it is 0.2501" inches or 0.2492".
I thought it was 40 acres / quarter section.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
No, it was "40 acres and a mule".
For Sister Sarah?I looked it up and it is 43,560 sq ft/acre and 640 acres/section. "I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."Edited 3/22/2006 9:15 am by highfigh
Edited 3/22/2006 9:18 am by highfigh
"Forty acres and a mule" was one of the slogan's used in the politics of reconstruction, as one way of paying "reparations" to the former slaves freed by the Civil War. That would have provided a modest, but independent living for the freedmen. Consequently, it was never enacted.
The public land system that sold or transferred land from federal ownership into private hands was based on survey's of the public domain into Ranges of Townships each consisting of 36 Sections, each of a nominal 640 acres. For a short time it was planned that every other Township would be granted to groups to settle a town, roughly as had been done in colonial New England, with the other Townships to be sold by the acre. This system quickly gave way to the system of selling all the land by the acre, as designated by the range, township, and section. Sections didn't always contain exactly 640 acres; since the earth is more or less a sphere, and the Section a square, some sections had to have small adjustments to fit, and therefore might actually have slightly different acreage. Most of the land was sold for $1.25 per acre until the railroad land grants and the Homestead Act began to change the terms of public land sales.
Edited 3/22/2006 11:10 pm ET by SteveSchoene
You might want to rember that an acre has a distinct definition, and that is the amount of land one man with one horse can plow in a day. These days, most folks would be hard pressed to harness a horse(even if they had one) , let alone plow their own front yard, and then, one day would hardly suffice . Sh*t, in some neigbourhoods they can't even mow their front yard with a gas powered grasscut-itator, but then they can't likely spell acre either. Ergo, the "acre" definition is in definietly a fluxitative noun in many current social situations. .Doncha grok it!!Eric.
Lataxe,
You have piques my curiosity on these joiner/planer/thicknesser machines. I do have limited space in my shop and if these combination tools work as well as the separates I would consider buying one. Could you toss out a few names and/or web sites so I could do some research?
Thanks
Chris
You may be the first of a new American revolution in tool owning traditions!
Here are some names familiar in Europe. I don't know which of them export to the States.
(NB I'll find some Web sites tomorrow and post them. I have to bathe after a Fell walk, just now, as She Who Must Be Obeyed insists that I am not fragarant enough).
The Cheaper end of the market: Perform, Fox Tools, Elektra Bekum, Metabo, Sheppach. (smallest models all under £900, some by quite a lot). Typically the smallest model does 10 ins wide (in the planer and thicknesser) and 6 - 8 inches deep (in the thicknesser).
Middle stuff: Robland, Startright, Emco, Hammer. Meatier machines with bigger motors and capacity. 12 - 16 ins width. £1000 and up
Top end:Sedgwick, Knapp. 100% heavy steel and cast iron, 3-phase options and built to last decades. 12 -16 ins (why would you want wider). £2500 and up.
I can also tell you that (along with many other tools) there are Far East models that are now of good quality but generally cheaper than equivalent German, British or Italian engineering. Myself, I still prefer to buy European where possible but its a world market and our pensions and salaries are not infinite!
Lataxe.
Cwalvoord,
Some links, as promised.
Lataxe
http://www.tool-net.co.uk/p-329852/metabo-hc260c-240v-10-planer-thicknesser.html
http://www.dbkeighley.co.uk/masters/fox_22_565.htm
http://www.cadanproducts.co.uk/shop/DeWalt_DW733S_219.html
http://www.machinemart.co.uk/product.asp?p=060610031&r=2125&g=116
http://www.kityuk.com/machines/kity439.html
http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/10748974/Planer_Thicknesser.html
http://www.diytools.co.uk/diy/Main/Product.asp?iProductID=6632
http://www.toolsbypost.com/product.php?id=956&category=424
http://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/review/review.php?id=25
http://sbwoodworkingmachinery.co.uk/brochures/47_Planer%20Thicknesser%20XSDB-310_org.pdf
http://sbwoodworkingmachinery.co.uk/brochures/62_Planer%20Thicknesser%20Mortiser%20FS%2030_org.pdf
http://sbwoodworkingmachinery.co.uk/brochures/87_Planers_org.pdf
http://www.axminster.co.uk/product.asp?pf_id=21230&src=froogle
<!----><!----><!---->
Thanks. These are some neat tools.
I see that Jet makes a J/P for the overseas market, maybe they should bring it here.
I have an old Robland, you'll love the J/P morticer combo.
Napie,
If I may ask, are you located in the US or elsewhere? If you are in the states where did you get the Robland? I didn't see any US distributors for most of these tools.
Thanks, Chris
I'm in Michigan and I bought it at a wood working show. It was from Laguna tools back in 1988. That was what they carried before they changed hands and started the Laguna brand. I think the Laguna brand may be built by Robland, also the Startrite machines sure look the same.
"Why on earth does the US stick to imperial measurements?"
Quite simple---dollars. Why do so many non-English speaking countries still call a board which measures 1.5" x 3.5" a two by four?
Most manufacturing facilities manufacture parts using the metric system. It is the construction industry which has not changed.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled