Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 30 of 136 1 2 28 29 30 31 32 135 136
Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: Roger Nair] #17232 10/29/08 04:13 AM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 112
W
Waccabuc Offline
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 112
I agree w you Roger. I learned it that way from the booklet that came w my 1st Stanley Steel Square. Then use slope (rise over run) analogously on the tongue and blade of the framing (Steel) square to step out the rafter Length (hypotenuese).

I see lots of old houses and barns w 8/12 roofs, some 9/12 too. But 8/12 is a noticeable break point, or break angle, for the human feet and balance not to slip or tumble easily. Working on a 9/12 slope roof demands much more attention and energy for balance and grip, and thus slows down the pace of the work significantly. "Time is money" also applied in the good old thrifty days. Gumshoes are good. 8/12 sheds rain and melting snow, taking along accumulated debris quite well. Lower pitch roofs hold more seeds, leaves, needles and dampness, giving moss, lichen, bacteria and fungus a good growing medium which can destroy roofing material faster than UV radiation.
Finding balance - that's a good life.
Seems the term pitch isn't used so much anymore.
Steve


Shine on!
Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: Waccabuc] #17239 10/30/08 01:01 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,198
N
northern hewer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,198
Hi everyone:

thanks for coming on board, I am sure everyone is enjoying this discussion.

I would ask what everyone thinks of this in relation to pitches of roofs:

This is a method to lay out a roof to a 1\3rd pitch, related in a 100 yr old text,

(remember this is to make it exactly a 1\3rd pitch)

a) draw AB AND BC at right angles
b) describe an arc from A
c) divide the arc in 3 equal parts as indicated by E and E1
d) draw lines from E and E1 connecting them to A
e) place a square with the blade on 12 on A and the tongue so that it disects the arc
f) Placing the square as shown we find that a third pitch (or hexagon mitre) is 7 inches to the foot instead of 8 as most workmen suppose

Using the same method we find:

The quarter pitch (or octagon mitre) is 5 inches to the foot,

The half pitch or (square mitre) is 12 inches to the foot

Hope you enjoy--please comment

NH



Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: northern hewer] #17242 10/30/08 02:06 PM
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
R
Roger Nair Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
Hewer, your example matches "Practical Uses of the Steel Square" by Fred Hodgson. This method is unlike the common methods of defining PITCH, such as rise over run or rise over span, instead he uses a method of dividing the arc of the quadrant, a method of angular description which will not agree with the rise over span or the rise over run methods. It is an absurd idea that tells the world that it is wrong and Hodgson knows the exact way. Very strangely, everything that follow in the Hodgson text refutes this method.

Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: Roger Nair] #17244 10/30/08 05:38 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 687
G
Gabel Offline
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 687
In Hodgson's Practical Uses of the Steel Square Volume 1, Mr. Hodgson quotes the instructions that came with a Sargent framing square as saying the following:

"The pitch is the proportion that the rise bears to the whole width of the building."

So a 1/3 pitch would be 8 inches of rise to a foot of run, as others have said.

Roger,

Where does Hodgson outline that screwed up version of pitch? I couldn't find it in my copy of PUOTSS.


Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: Gabel] #17245 10/30/08 05:44 PM
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
R
Roger Nair Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
Gabel, the middle of page 202 and read on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8Uk1AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=steel+square+hodgson#PPA202,M1

Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: Roger Nair] #17246 10/30/08 06:54 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 687
G
Gabel Offline
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 687
Found it -- i was looking in my later edition and had to pull out the older version.

It's funny, he outlines that method and then immediately says not to use it, as no one else does and the commonly used way will be "near enough". what was he trying to do? why mention it?

Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: Gabel] #17247 10/30/08 07:54 PM
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
R
Roger Nair Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
It is supposed to be a clarifying example, that claims theoretical correctness but on examination is a muddle. The whole example steams with attitude and lacks rigor. In a following paragraph our square savant does battle with learned quidnuncs.

All in all, Hodgson give me a headache. His various books seem like a cut and paste out of his other books. He needed a clear minded editor.

Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: Roger Nair] #17250 10/31/08 12:08 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,198
N
northern hewer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,198
Hi again everyone:

Especially: Don, Our barns,Timbeal, Roger, Waccabuc, Gabel

I do agree his approach is hard understand at times, but all in all I do believe his heart was in the right spot.

He stresses that one should know and understand the various aspects of the use of the steel square, eventhough at times it seems to clash with reality.

Anyone studying his books will glean some new understanding of roof framing besides that which comes nicely bundled up from the factory with steel bands around the various sections nowadays.

Today I was talking with a vary good framer for a while, and the subject came around to framing in a complicated roof structure with valleys and hips. He really had never had to even think about such things as framing and cutting rafters to accomodate roof slopes because it was always there to be unbundled and most times fit where it was supposed to.

Fred Hodgson's works overall I salute because having been written before the modern trend started tries to waken up those that are aspiring into the realm of the carpentry world as it was known at that time with various descriptions that were around at that time and zeros in on the use of the steel square in paricular.

I have read various old texts written before Hodgson's works one was "carpentry made easy" by William E Bell (1858). It had sections that related to the construction of timberframe structures using hewn material, which I found very interesting but the terminology would sometimes slow you down.

Oh yes sorry about the headache Roger

NH




Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: northern hewer] #17257 11/01/08 03:40 PM
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
R
Roger Nair Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
I checked Google Books and found 'Carpentry Made Easy' by William Bell, based on a quick scan I think this is worthwhile book to study. As in real estate the three most important factors are location, location and location, Bells opening chapter in building math suggests to me that the three most important factors in carpentry are proportion, proportion and proportion. Bell addresses the pitch problem as a dicotomy between building specification and true inclination.

http://books.google.com/books?id=WnwOAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=carpentry+made+easy+bell#PPA43,M1

I suppose pitch has long been a source of confusion.

Re: historic hewing questionnaire [Re: Roger Nair] #17258 11/01/08 03:51 PM
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
R
Roger Nair Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
spelling typo dichotomy

Page 30 of 136 1 2 28 29 30 31 32 135 136

Moderated by  Jim Rogers, mdfinc 

Newest Members
Bradyhas1, cpgoody, James_Fargeaux, HFT, Wrongthinker
5137 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.271s Queries: 16 (0.196s) Memory: 3.2352 MB (Peak: 3.3990 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-05-20 08:29:48 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS