Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23863 06/21/10 03:13 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 305
T
timberwrestler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 305
DL,

I don't quite follow your reasoning for using your daisy wheel lines as the bottom of rafters and tie beams.

The Laurie Smith Dutch project from last fall went down to Texas. I think he was going to set it up at a school. Here's the basis of the geometry and the final frame.





We also used several tricks of Laurie's to lay things out full scale. First of all, we would often set up the dividers to twice or 3 times the base divider distance, so that you would step off 8 times or 12 times instead of 24 times.

We also used rods with holes drilled in them at the appropriate distance, and a sharpened 20D spike poking through the hole. We set the rods up as equilateral triangles with the trammel points running through, and laid out our floor plan that way. I don't think I have a picture. You can also just get your tape measure out...

I think the Guild has a few copies of the little book documenting the garden shed built by Laurie a few years ago. I was blown away by his finding of a geometry in the crazy asymmetric vaulting of Lincoln Cathedral. There are rumors circulating that he may be back this fall.

Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23871 06/21/10 07:12 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 344
Joel McCarty Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 344
We DO have a few copies of Laurie's book in the basement.

Find it on the tfg webstore.


Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23873 06/21/10 10:07 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
The reason I chose to have the lines mark the bottoms of rafters (and it is my choice, it's the way I do it, not the way it has to be done) is because it simplifies things for me when it comes to actually laying out the joint, assuming that other lines marked edges and not centers. If you choose to use your horizontal lines as center lines then your rafter lines have to be used as center lines too. I guess if you get right down to it, if any one of your primary lines mark a center then all have to mark a center, and if any mark an edge then all have to mark an edge, in order to keep joinery consistent and matching.

I thought I'd present that idea, assuming that it was normal to use the lines as center marks rather than my idea of using them for edges. It was presented as another possibility.

I think of it like this: When you are laying out studs for a stick framed building, do you make your marks on your plates for the centers of the studs? If so, you do it much different than anything I have ever learned. In stick framing, you mark the edges because it makes layout easier, and it also makes measurements conform to standard units. That's the exact same reason why I thought to do that with my daisy layout lines.

You may see logic in doing it otherwise, and I have not problem with that at all!

The rods to set up triangles is a great idea, thanks for that! I have found the string setup to be quite unsatisfactory because string tends to stretch, throwing off your accuracy.

I should talk a little bit about triangles. Triangles are my way of transferring things from the circles of the daisy wheel to the rectangles and lines of a building. I mentioned earlier that triangles can be used to mark rafter plumb cuts (and horizontal cuts) They can also be used to establish perfect right angles -I use the 3:4:5 side ration right triangle. If you make a triangle with a side relationship of 3 units for one side, 4 units for another, and 5 units for the last, then you will always have a perfect right triangle, which will allow you to lay out perfect right angles.
So with my fondness for triangles, I am very excited to have learned this trick as to how to use them! Thanks a whole lot!

setting the dividers to a multiple of the distance is quite handy, and I think you will actually be slightly more accurate that way (my opinion)

One thing I would recommend, If you are laying out a full scale floor plan don't use your dividers to step off the distance -use rods (which I am pretty sure is authentically medieval)You make a rod with pointed ends, set to a distance determined by the calipers (2 or 3 or 4 times the size of a line on my 1:24 scale drawing, for example) Then you just turn the rod end over end along a string that has been stretched out to make sure you're running straight. This way you can easily lay out a building on grass or dirt ground, or even a somewhat uneven surface.
For e personally I find that dividers are great for stepping off timbers. They work best when their sharpened steel points can set into a surface just a little bit, but not cut in (like in dirt) I don't like using them on concrete because it's hard on their ends.

Also... I REFUSE to get my tape measure out! Except for maybe here and there to test theories and relationships (ok, so a I use a tape measure to rough cut logs to length before they are squared, and I use an inch ruler and a bubble level to mark the size of timbers to be hewn)

and Ken, thanks for the info about the spread of the daisy wheel

Last edited by D L Bahler; 06/21/10 10:16 PM.

Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23874 06/21/10 10:26 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Actually I should revise my statement about what lines mark. Mostly because I oversimplified things. Really What the lines mark depends on a number of factors, but most importantly the type of joinery used.

If your tie beams join at the same level as the plate, then perhaps your rafter lines need to mark an edge. If they join above then perhaps the lines need to mark a rafter's center. If below, then it's not really important so long as you are consistent. Or it could be a matter of what you want most to conform to the line. Personally I choose ties and joists because I find interior wall height to be more important. Someone else may choose to set rafters as their standard (which is maybe better in a barn or shed or some such) I will draw up some diagrams to illustrate what I mean.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel [Re: D L Bahler] #23875 06/21/10 11:33 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946


Here is the picture I promised. This shows an English tying joint style of post/plate/tie connection. Here you can see the plate is bisected by the horizontal line, but that is not always necessarily the case, that's why I choose to define it as the bottom of the tie is marked by the line. I hope this clears thing's up a bit

This system works just fine whether you are joining truss rafters into the tie beams (with no overhang) or running rafters across the plate for an overhang. In case it is not immediately obvious, the end of the tie beam can be cut off at an angle to accommodate narrower rafters


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23876 06/21/10 11:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
I tried linking google maps but with no success. If you zoom in on the Washington Monument you will find a 2 circle layout similar to Brads posting of the little frame cut in the workshop. An example of geometry used here in the U.S. And isn't that something.... the monument coming right out of the vesica.

In my example the two circles just kiss, they do not over lap.

Tim

Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23880 06/22/10 03:05 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
There is another way to view these layout lines as well, as I sit here pondering their meaning...

These lines can also be used as lines of balance, and as lines of balance they can also be stated as lines of strength. They are lines of weakness in a sense, and weakness can be harnessed to yield strength.

They are lines of balance not of each individual timber, but of the joint and of the building as a whole. The building is not any one of it's parts, nor is it merely the sum of it's parts. If we stacked an assortment of timbers on a pile, they would not create a strong building. Each one sits there unyielding, with no interaction with the other timbers all around it. Even if we stack the timbers in an orderly manner, we stilldo not have a structure.

The structure is a whole in and of itself. It's members combine to create something greater than their mathematical sum. They do this by sacrificing parts of themselves in order to strengthen the whole. This is what we call joinery; the art that we call ourselves the masters of. But if we want strength, then the wood should direct our cuts, not the line imposed by our will. We must be partners with the wood, not overlords. And this is why I believe that hand working is superior to machine work, it harmonizes and utilizes the strength of each timber, each fiber of wood. When we work the wood with our hands, then we can hear what it is trying to tell us. The master carpenter is he who has best learned the art of working harmoniously with the wood, of using the wood as his partner on the quest for perfection.

And this is the same with geometry. When we allow geometry to dictate our choices, then the structure will arise a harmonious, balanced unit. In balance there is strength, and there is harmony. I believe that the geometric design will prove the strongest in the end for this reason.

I have read that a hand hewn timber is superior in strength to an otherwise identical sawn timber, because the act of hewing utilizes the natural lines of weakness in the wood and as such the whole is left stronger, whereas the saw cuts blindly through and across the grain, ripping apart the fibers as it passes leaving gaping wounds. The cleanly sliced lines of a hewn timber are said to shed water, for example, and thus prolong the life of a cabin or exposed timbers in a frame built therewith, whereas the lines of a sawn timber trap moisture, and pull it deep within the timber. The saw yields weakness, which attracts fungus and insects, which yields further weakness...

So could it be too that a building laid out by the laws of nature is superior?

When working wood by hand, you exploit the lines of weakness. You split along the length of the grain where it is weakest, and as such you do not disrupt the natural flow of the wood, therefore leaving it stronger. I build bows, for example, and wen forming the back of a wooden bow I dare not cut across the grain of the wood in any tiny spot or else the entire bow will fail with a catastrophic explosion of fiber. Indeed, the smaller the error the more dramatic the failure might be. I must instead use the strength of the grain as my partner in this task, for only when the wood is at its strongest can it resist the tension placed upon it. And not only will it stretch and bend, but it will spring back with great force.

Perhaps geometry reflects this principle as well. Could it be that the lines of the daisy wheel are the lines of weakness? Could it be that by dividing your structure along its weakest lines, the whole is strengthened? Just as you divide the log along its weakest line to yield strength, so do you divide the frame along it's weakest lines.

It is said that true geometry -that is, the geometry of the circle- yields balance. The sum of the circle is zero, it has no beginning or end or limit, and the sum of the building yielded by it is balance.

And what of the axe? In my opinion the axe is the master of all tools. The axeman yields to the wood, all the while teaching the wood to yield to him. Just as the geometrician yields to the laws of nature, deriving strength from limitation.

Let's say that I am chopping a log in half along it's width. How should I do this? Does it not seem reasonable that I should stand atop the log and strike it with one solid blow with a good sharp axe, slicing it cleanly in two? We can all see that this will not work. Those who have used an axe know that the bit will travel a very very short distance before the resistance of the wood grain stops it. If we continue chopping like this, the log will eventually be cut but it will take a very long time. so how do we do this? We allow the log itself to become our partner in the process. We turn the axe at an angle, and sink the bit halfway with the grain, halfway against it. The wood itself forces us to conform to its patters, but all the while we are slowly making it conform to ours.

The axe is a tool of compromise, and compromise will yield a balance between strength and function. The strongest timber undoubtedly would be one split down its length, allowed to twist with the pattern of the grain or curve with the arch of the tree (because all trees have a natural arch, which at times as carpenters we should learn to exploit)or one that is left as a round timer, stripped of its weakness (bark and sapwood)-But these timbers would be difficult to join into a whole, it would be difficult to bring their strength into the strength of a structure. To yield the greatest strength as a whole, each member must sacrifice it's own strength. (this same principle, by the way, applies to us humans as well)

When we work with nature, then nature will be our partner along the way. -If we allow the grain to dictate our actions, then it will be our partner and our friend along the way, and soon we will learn to teach the wood to follow our path. That is the path of the axe, a tool of compromise yet at the same time a tool of strength and precision. We are again looking for the point of balance...

This all ties into geometry, or else I probably would not put it here at all. The lines of geometry are lines of balance, lines of harmony. And this all, ultimately, has to do with how we should apply these lines to reality.
If I am correct, then the geometric lines of a figure mark lines of weakness, and therefore they are lines of strength. As with the individual timber, we must exploit weakness to gain strength in the structure. By dividing a log between the week fibers of it's long grain, we yield 2 stronger halves than we would have if we had simply sawed straight through. Perhaps it is also true that if we divide the building along it's lines of weakness, then the whole will be made stronger. Perhaps there is more to this daisy wheel than mere aesthetic value. Perhaps there is more to these proportions than the fact that they are pleasing to the eye.

With geometry, we once again are striving for the point of perfect balance. We are allowing nature to be our guide and our partner once again, for what is geometry if not a reflection of the world around us?


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23883 06/22/10 10:27 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
The world around us. http://www.crystalinks.com/grids.html

Washington D C sits on a ley line.

That is an interesting philosophy, DL. There is more to it than we see in front of us.

I am questioning the lay out of the rafter in the english tying joint above. I see the rafter sitting on top of the tie beam, you have it out in the air above the roof plane. Am I missing something there? I at times use the bottom of the tie beam as a reference face like you have red lined.

Tim

Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23884 06/22/10 01:49 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
That diagram can be used to represent the rafter tying into the end of the tie beam as is sometimes done, in which case there is no overhang. If that is the case then the rafter terminates at that point, and the tie beam may or may not have an angled end to match the roof slope, depending on whether or not the rafter depth requires it. The diagram can also be used to show a rafter that passes over the plate beside the tie beam, joined across the plate by a birdsmouth or some such, represented here by the right triangle that shows up where the plate and rafter overlap -this is the part where one or both must yield to the other.

according to the red lines, where else could I put the rafter other than where it is now? If I would center it on the line (instead o having the line mark its bottom edge) then both the tie and the plate would as a result have to be repositioned as well

I think that the tie beam should be run according to the red line like I have it because this balances the joint, it keeps the layout line as the central focus of joinery at this point

But yes, I do think there is more to things -to everything- than we see in front of us. To quote my favorite person of all time, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth"


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Designing With the Daisy Wheel #23885 06/22/10 11:51 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
I see what your saying, and there are even more possibilities with the tie, like it could extend beyond the post and still have the rafter land on the top of the tie with common purlins. As in fig. 7 and 8 http://www.tfguild.org/joinery/part2.pdf

Tim

Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Jim Rogers, mdfinc, Paul Freeman 

Newest Members
HFT, Wrongthinker, kaymaxi, RLTJohn, fendrishi
5134 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.127s Queries: 15 (0.021s) Memory: 3.2360 MB (Peak: 3.3977 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 10:56:03 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS