Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#33787 - 07/09/16 04:40 PM Out of wind.
jjboudreau19 Offline
Member

Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 23
So! I'm cutting into some fairly long posts and a few of them are out of wind, some more extreme than others. I was wondering what the tolerances were before I have to start doing snap line. is 1/8th out of wind fine? 1/4? The species is pine...

Top
#33788 - 07/09/16 05:17 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
Maybe deal with an eighth, but a 1/4" can become problematic, depending on the joinery involved and how accurate you need to be.

Top
#33789 - 07/09/16 06:51 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
jjboudreau19 Offline
Member

Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 23
Thanks Timbeal! you the go to guy for all my timber needs..haha.

Top
#33792 - 07/10/16 11:20 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
I agree fully with Tim...if employing "edge rule" anything beyond 0.125" can become problematic...

However, with "line rule" we have used post over 3 meters (~10') that are "out of wind" by as much (or more) than 50 mm (~2") with no ill effect at all...Some very twisted posts (beyond 60mm of wind) can have an unusual aesthetic affect and still achieve very tight and solid joints.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33893 - 08/10/16 02:23 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jon Senior Offline
Member

Registered: 05/04/11
Posts: 114
One of the best fitting beams in my house was the most out of wind. It jumped out at me and forced my hand to move from "edge rule" to snapped lines. As a result it took zero force to fit while most of the others involved a certain amount of leverage to counter the wind and align the tenon with the mortise.
_________________________
Jon

Contemporary Norman longhouse in Normandy

Top
#33896 - 08/10/16 03:29 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Great example Jon...!!!

I just taught a few more folks over the last year "line rule" and "templating systems."

One a well seasoned Timberwright...said he could never go back to "Edge Rule" ever again...Now that he understands this acient system better...he said he even better understands how "scribe rule" is less efficient than "Line Rule." Being well over 7000 years old, you would think it would catch on faster here in the West...???...but having a European root to the craft here is probably a big part of it...
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33899 - 08/11/16 04:17 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
I'll third the motion on using line rule. I picked up the use of it from Jay's forum posts, thinking that it sounded like a good concept. I would absolutely never go back to edge rule.

Line rule gives you totally accurate layout information, it's just so easy to be right on. Sometimes I have laid out a beam using square rule because it doesn't have much joinery, but it kind of feels like walking onto the jobsite without pants on or something! crazy Just kind on naked...
The other day I snapped lines on a beam that I just needed to accurately plane with my big Makita. The ends were perfectly plumb/ level to one another with no guesswork.

Top
#33918 - 08/18/16 10:44 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Is it not odd Sean...what we do now with "line layout" in achieving "truing" the ends of timbers and/or joint locations, with our huge 300 mm and 400 mm power planners...the Xia dynasty was doing the exact same thing (of course with hand tools..:)..) over 4000 years ago.

It's strange how systems develop from one culture to another. In some, they stayed intact in some timber framing cultures while others go off on different tangents and concepts. Since "edge rule" is a relatively modern concept (~250 years old) beginning sometime in the late 1700's with the "industrial revolution," and what we would call the "modern milling praxis"...this method took hold and held on into today's North American timber framing methodologies of layout...Even though "scribe rule" (the oldest method) and "line rule" (the next oldest) holds such superior approach to the craft. It all speaks to the strength of "normative culture and practice" often outweighing...logic, or a "better way" for lack of better words...
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33919 - 08/19/16 08:21 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
timberwrestler Online   content
Member

Registered: 11/07/05
Posts: 272
Loc: Becket, MA
I don't buy it Jay. I have no beef with line rule (although I do have a beef with overuse of quotation marks), nor any system of layout. I mix and match them all of the time. I asked you how you'd layout this hypothetical middle beam with line rule on this very forum, but never heard an answer.



Scribing it would be easy. Square ruling it would be easy. Line ruling it, I don't think so. Oh, and my imaginary beam is not at the end of the other posts, let's say that's a section cut. I even drew fancy little centerlines. You can't measure the distance off of the centerlines in this case. And what if it came in at an angle? Or what if you didn't know the width of that center beam yet (you're trying to cut the mortise in one of the outer posts?

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who is dogmatic in their viewpoints. And that's pro-SIPS or anti-SIPS. All mill rule all the time (and that's where line rule would really be a waste of time), or all scribing. And certainly not in politics. It's all a balance.
_________________________
www.uncarvedblockinc.com

Top
#33920 - 08/20/16 12:41 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: timberwrestler]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Brad I don't ever recall seeing this drawing before? Sorry I missed, or overlooked it at some point. I did not do this intentionally and would love to know which post it was on if you could share that with me. I dislike missing things like that.

If...mixing and matching...systems of layout works for your style of timber framing, by all means employ such an approach. I wouldn't suggest to anyone that they stop using what works for them...I would only suggest that there maybe better, and/or easier approaches. I am always studying systems to learn more about the craft, or hone the systems I do employee. Further, I completely believe you could lay the example timbers out just as you describe...and I appreciate you query in how this could be possible with Line Rule. In small order, all I can say to that is one needs to fully understand all three systems completely to understand their comparatives, thus understanding how one is faster than another and perhaps (overall) much simpler to use.

In the case of your drawing, if the timber configuration exists...as is...within your drawing as described, then laying this out with Line Rule is not only faster, it would be much more accurate than employing the Edge Rule system to a great degree (in my experience with all three systems) as I understand them. The only system that I know of that could even come close to the level of accuracy within all three of them (and match it in quality) would be Scribe
Rule accept this is much more labor intensive, generally slower, and involves all timbers being present together at one time.

I would further point out that with Line Rule (and its related templating and scribing systems that typical work in concert with it as it relates to Asian layout modalities that employ it) the posts could very well be in one location, and the connecting timbers in another, with little to no ill effect to accuracy of fit once the frame comes together. They could even be Live Edge and whether at sill, midspan or eave plate location has little bearing at all.

I grant the comments above are more a statement of application experience than a procedural outline. I would have to actually teach and/or illustrate to much greater detail the procedural elements if one is not acquainted with them, and there are many text and publications (mostly in Japanese, Korean, and related languages) that cover well this topic...much better than I could here in this brief post.

I can expand that I have seen done and done myself, very similar fittings to the one illustrated with not only...out of wind...timbers but those with tapers and live edges as well...which of course...brings into play scribing and templating systems as they apply to Line Rule methods of layout...yet not what we would typically find (overall) in the European systems of scribing.

I think Sean of Hylandwoodcraft...who is following this post thread and has fully embraced Line Rule yet understand thoroughly Edge Rule...could expand on this further from a different view point perhaps? With his added value perspective, I might be able to expand this reply in better context and application or procedural understanding...I am not sure?

Quote:
You can't measure the distance off of the centerlines in this case. And what if it came in at an angle?


I must be (and very well could be?) missing something in regards to the above statement. I can (and have) measured off of the...reference lines...(we don't typically call them centerlines as often they are not just in the center of a timber...and...there may well be more than a single reference line such as on live edge and curved timbers.) Angles too have no context...other that what those angles may actually be (measured or empirically templated.) Further, all four sides of the timber could very well have (if one really wanted to make things this complicated for a visual aesthetic or artistic statement) completely different angles as well.

Quote:
Or what if you didn't know the width of that center beam yet (you're trying to cut the mortise in one of the outer posts?


Again, I may be missing something? From the statement I will take it to perhaps reflect some scenarios I have experienced in the past where part of a frame is in one shop and the rest of the timbers to be jointed are someplace else. In that context, standardizations within the working model would be agreed upon by all active participants to the frame. As such, the standardization (even with live edge members) would still dictate your housing depths and related criteria to such joint unions.



As to being dogmatic in view, I don't believe I am (no more so than anyone else that may have a deeper understanding or experience with some topic.) I think anyone can agree that there is the existence of...bad ideas...be it in a topic like human trafficking/slavery, or something as simple or mundane..like a building system...That does not make it dogmatic I don't believe, just a commonly held perspective among a given group of individuals. The group of Timberwrights I work and associate with most commonly do not care for SIPs in general...particularly commercial SIPs...or any of these general insulative diaphragm approaches accordingly for a number of reason not germane to this layout post topic. If we do employ elements of this insulative diaphragm concept within some context of this system, or its applicable architecture application, we typically build them ourselves from raw material...


Edited by Jay White Cloud (08/20/16 12:44 AM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33921 - 08/20/16 09:33 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Will B Offline

Member

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 180
Loc: Massachusetts
Jay, SHyland,
It would be great to see links to your earlier posts about line rule. Aren't we just talking about about variations of the same layout systems? Capitalizing Line Rule makes it sounds like a separate system from Square Rule.
The way I interpret Square Rule is that you can either layout from an edge if the timber is good enough or from snap lines if not (as is done on hewn timbers). In both cases you're framing to the "perfect timber within". Both methods are Square Rule.
In Scribe Rule you frame to the irregular surface, not with housings to the perfect timber within. You can either direct scribe by laying the timbers over one another and then using various methods to transfer the intersection (including plumb line scribe ala Dodge and Truax) or use templates or other recording methods to transfer the irregularities to timbers remote from one another (also referred to as "mapping" or "distance scribing"). I have some but limited exposure to Asian methods but interpret the templating system used there to be similar to this. Reference to any texts or online links showing a source for this would also be useful, Jay.
In Brad's example the easiest solution I can see is tumbling, a form of scribing where you lay the smaller timber over the posts and rotate it while transferring the angles and intersections
It's so hard to visualize this stuff in a short online post, but I think we are discussing just two layout systems, Square Rule and Scribe Rule, to account for timber variations. If there is a third system I'd like to know how it differs (I don't consider mill rule a system).
_________________________
Will
www.heartwoodschool.com

Top
#33922 - 08/20/16 09:53 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
Personally I don't see the issue with laying out the timber in the drawing, if I am understanding it correctly. I house all my joinery, so if I had a timber that was way out of square my housing would be deeper on one side. The exact depth of the housing being determined by it's distance from the snapped line. So in a typical frame all of the similar timbers are interchangable, as with square rule. However, the snapped lines give far more detail to inform the joinery cutting than square rule.
To use the example of the OP, it wouldn't matter to me a bit if a timber was out of wind. All the joinery would be perfectly plumb and level to one another regardless of the timber.
Another benefit that I have found using line rule is that it makes a handy reference for planing. I plane my timbers after all the joinery is done, right before it goes out to the site. All my joinery is housed, so the joinery is not affected.Ends where they enter a housing need to be exactly sized in planing, and the lines are great for that.
Hopefully that clarifies the matter, let me know if I missed anything or was not clear enough.

Top
#33923 - 08/20/16 10:40 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
Hi Will,
I didn't see that you had posted while I was writing my last post. I guess that is what many discussions come down to, what exactly is defined by the terms being used.
Whenever I have ever read about or talked to anyone who uses square rule, it is usually in the context of layout from the reference face, whether that reference face is a snapped line or the physical edge of a timber. To clarify, would you then define the layout methodology of the East as square rule, but with a snapped line reference rather than a reference face? It seems to me that the methodology is different enough to merit it's own designation to keep discussion clear.

Is it the use of housings that qualify in your mind, a system as falling under the definition of square rule? I am by no means an expert, and perhaps others can provide more historical context, but it is not possible to have a discussion unless the terms are clearly defined and agreed upon.

http://forums.tfguild.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=27400&page=all

The above thread seems to shed some light on the situation. It seems that a critical differentiation is the position of the snapped lines. A centered snap line is a whole separate methodology than the offset snapped lines used in hewing.

Top
#33924 - 08/20/16 05:50 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Will B Offline

Member

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 180
Loc: Massachusetts
Hi S,
I believe square rule was developed using snap lines BEFORE layout from an edge became prevalent. This was because the earliest proponents of square rule were using hewn timbers and then sawmills became common later (at least for bigger timbers). See Jack Sobon's monograph "Square Rule vs. Scribe Rule", available from the Guild (I think). I personally don't see much practical difference in laying out from a centerline or an offset line, and would be curious to know how the methodology would differ in your technique. It's wonderful we can always learn something new in this craft.
If you look at James Mitchell's book 'A Master's Guide to Timber Framing" he uses a method he calls "Virtual Rule", which (in my opinion, and this could open a can of worms) is a just a variation of centerline square rule. The use of housings and thus framing to a perfect timber within is what distinguishes square rule in my view, whether laid out from an edge or a line.
I'll check out the link you sent for clarification and could be convinced otherwise. Thanks.
_________________________
Will
www.heartwoodschool.com

Top
#33925 - 08/20/16 08:22 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
Will, two practical aspects I can see with an off set snap line, say 2 inches off the reference face, is that a line has been set for one side of the mortice and second it helps(at least it helps me) to keep the ref faces orientated easily, at a quick glance I can tell the orientation. When dealing with center lines you have to rely on some other indicator. Just keeping it simple, it matters not as the function is the same where ever the line is placed.

Top
#33926 - 08/20/16 09:11 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
I think that one of the cruxes of the matter are where the layout ends and the joinery begins. In my case, I LIKE fully housed joinery. I like it structurally and also for the flexibility it gives me in planing. It is not a decision that was necessarily made in response to my layout method. In fact, I went to fully housed joinery before I ever used center line layout. I don't see that it would be hard to use center line layout without fully housed joinery as well it would just have to incorporate some aspects of stock preparation.
My adaptation of the layout method that I learned from Jay, is probably not in accordance with traditional Japanese practice, nor is my suite of joinery. My combination of layout, joinery, and structural preferences are in the end my own custom combination created to suit my priorities and tooling preferences. One could say that I took an Eastern layout method and married it to a more Western joinery.
When you get right down to it, when most people talk about square rule, they are talking about reference face layout. Any mention of snap line square rule gets treated as a subset of the methodology, particularly useful on hewed timbers. It still seems to follow most of the other attributes of square rule such as offset tenons.
Another compelling reason to count center line rule as a separate method is that it is the dominant layout system for entire cultures with a unique tradition and heritage. So, even though center line rule and snap line square rule have similarities, they have no common root. I can't argue the historic particulars as I have no first hand in depth knowledge. Perhaps Jay will have something to say in that regard. The forum thread that I referenced in my earlier post did seem to draw a hard distinction between center line rule and snap line square rule however.
I do realize that I should be more careful with my own terminology. Sometimes I just say snap line rule, where I should more properly say center line rule. It turns out that words matter! wink

Top
#33927 - 08/21/16 05:21 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Will B Offline

Member

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 180
Loc: Massachusetts
Right, I see where much reference to square rule assumes a reference face. My take on it is that if I am laying out the table of a housing to be parallel to ANY reference plane, be it a face, offset line or centerline, I would consider it square rule. That's just my personal view and could be a modern interpretation; I appreciate the historical and cultural precedents you and Jay mention. I've used centerlines when the designer has dimensioned to them, and fully housed the joinery parallel to them.
We have a big timber framing course starting tomorrow so may decline to post further for awhile, but I'm glad we have a good sawyer that gives us timber that is within our 1/8" tolerances (I agree with that limit) so we can use edge layout. Using white pine also helps; our last batch of red pine twisted like crazy; never again.
_________________________
Will
www.heartwoodschool.com

Top
#33928 - 08/21/16 05:53 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Hylandwoodcraft]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hey Will, Sean, Brad, et.al,

Was up in the UP of Michigan raising another little Asian Style cabin with a former student that just came out grand! Line Ruled of course, yet I had no way to post here and seem to have gotten behind in the conversation....sorry. I will do my best to catch up...and thanks for the great discussion about this wonderful topic!

As for links to the topic...I will try to give some basic blurbs I share with folks (and the one I think I shared with Sean quite a few years ago now...ha, ha,) on this subject with a few added updates. This isn't by far even close to the extent that exists and I am diligently compiling and trying to develop a manuscript for publication that will have this topic covered. I have consider a co-facilitation at next year's conference (perhaps a pre/post con workshop to go with it) that covers "Layout Methods" and have several co-facilitator coverage on it to really give it some breadth...

This is another student/friend demonstrating the basis in a short article I wrote for Permies.com.
http://permies.com/t/42793/timber/Line-Rule-methods-layout-Timber

Here are a few Google links (I use Japanese as one good example though there is comparable information in Korean and Chinese as well) that can lead to a number of viewings and other information on the topic. Doing searches in the orgin languages greatly helps understanding these systems of layout application and context much better.

Sumidzuke (sumitsuke) is (in general) term for “layout” but literally means “Blackening the face,” in Japanese. I wish I could post the kanji here for better clarity, yet our TFG forum does not support foreign script, and you would only see number code...so...look at the search line for the kanji for this word.

Sumidzuke

Some video of interest perhaps?

[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/4m6SQ1X74H0[/video]

[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/7wHBDcB8qao[/video]

This young man has done one of the best basic videos I have seen of late covering Line Layout. Joshua is learning to master many of these crafts quite effectively and demonstrates the methods in a very simplistic and unobstructed way!

[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/LMPfzOVmtqo[/video]

Originally Posted By: Will B
...I believe square rule was developed using snap lines BEFORE layout from an edge became prevalent....


I share that in the historical record/text that I can locate on the subject over the years, that the common interpretation that Scribe Rule has any snapped lines is not reflected in literature from the period that I have found. It has not been reflected in the limited descriptions I have had related to me orally as well. If any do have such literary examples I would very much love reading those references, especially around the orgin periods between 1760's to 1820's.

Originally Posted By: Will B
Aren't we just talking about about variations of the same layout systems? Capitalizing Line Rule makes it sounds like a separate system from Square Rule.


That seems to be a very common misconception of the actual (or maybe I should say original..??) systems of Line Layout. Learning Edge Rule and Scribe Rule both from strictly a Dutch/Germanic oral tradition (Old Order Amish) I can share that their use of the technique was the same as all historic records I have found, and did not employ any snapped lines of any kind. That was (and is??) a completely separate method. They did, on occasion, snap a...Grease Line...(rolled on a spool and comprised of soot, render, and sometimes a powdered dye used in coloring wool.) This method again was considered an entirely different method of layout, much as I would later find in Middle East and Asian systems of Line Layout. I have never seen, or read a written example of this method of layout (as they demonstrated and employed) in a European/North American context within a historic record. Their method of Line Layout may have been unique (in a European context) to this style of layout that got handed down to them within their tradition as a oral history only understanding.

In all context of the term and meaning of actual Line Rule (aka Sumidzuke as just one example in the Japanese forms)...I would suggest that it is very much (if not extremely) different in form and understanding of layout systems that predates Square Rule (aka in the contemporary Edge/Mill Rule that are very similar to Square Rule...or the same in some folks view??) by millenia of existence and method application/context. The only system older than...Line Rule.... (that I can find in research and application) is...Scribe Rule... which also has a very distinct difference in approach modalities in many (not all) ways from what is found in the West.

Line Rule has no bearing on either a reference edge or plane on a timber as it very much does in Edge Rule related systems of layout in it historical (not modern) application...which do not historically employ lines snapped on the timber in any way that I have seen as part of that system on old frames or in literature. I would love to see any literary citation that any could offer to suggest otherwise? Again understanding that Edge Rule only came into being in the late 1700's. Line Rule actually represents the Kodama Shinzumi (Spirit Line) of timber to be jointed. This reference line that can't actually be seen or touched at all, it being single line/ray of reference within the timber or several of them...some may actually be at different angles. It is only in the mind of the Timberwright and/or designer of the frame and not an actual tangible line one can touch. It is represented by single points (most often but not always) on both the ends of the timber being jointed. Often in the old Asian blueprints or Plane boards (literally Cedar boards) the Line would only be designated in plan view as a single ink dot on the board and from this Dot Point one must extrapolate (or understand) a wealth of unseen, and/or given information about the architecture to be constructed.

I would also point out that in several Scribe Rule methods of joinery...there are indeed housings, yet not as commonly found in the European traditions yet found in the Eastern Mediterranean boat building traditions and on into Africa, Middle East and Asia, though (I do believe???) a Let In Brace (most common scribed brace in the European tradition) is considered a Housed Joint.

Originally Posted By: Will B
If you look at James Mitchell's book 'A Master's Guide to Timber Framing" he uses a method he calls "Virtual Rule", which (in my opinion, and this could open a can of worms) is a just a variation of centerline square rule...


Jame's foundational understanding of Line Rule (aka his "Virtual Rule") is almost completely (if not completely?) in the Asian context and much of it influenced by (if memory serves) from "The Complete Japanese Joinery" (– 1995 by Hideo Sato (Author), Yasua Nakahara (Author), Koichi Paul Nii (Translator) which is actually a poor translation and reprint of two original books only found in Japanese. Overall a great little book for experienced timber framers interested in Japanese Timber framing, but inundated with mis referenced pages, and typos, that would only be caught by a language speaker or those well versed in the Japanese traditions the book is meant to reflect.

No..."can of worms opened"... wink grin but one heck of a great conversation and exchange on the subject for our forum!!!


Edited by Jay White Cloud (08/21/16 06:03 PM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33929 - 08/21/16 09:48 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Jay White Cloud]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hi Will,

I must have been writing when you posted...Hope the class goes great and don't worry about getting back to this conversation in a timely manner...We all understand and will be here in good order for more conversation... grin

I agree and do see a modern interpretation of Square Rule forming in today's North American timber framing culture...as more an interpretation than an actual learned, orally passed down or well understood approach to the craft from a distinct (and well understood) historic record. I would suggest that most (much??) is based only on very few literary examples and lay interpretation of what is left. It does not reflect a well executed cultural oral tradition and/or apprenticed approach to the craft as we find in some cultures still today. As an example, Japan where we still have timber framing families with lineages (unbroken) going back over 1000 years. This significantly reflects a different (and perhaps?) a deeper understanding to the craft within those cultural examples perhaps?

There is much innovation and new ideas trying to come into play here in North American timber framing. Many are good ones, yet many are just that..."interpretations" and not founded in craft but rather an...I think approach. Overall, they do not reflect the historic modalities and approaches to the methods as in their orgin and historical application/context root form overall, as I can find or ascertain in my research of the topic. Layout, being as critical as it is to our craft, has always fascinated me and I found early on its example to be a wonderful differentiator to not only culture but also regional variances within the craft.

If Edge Rule (aka Square Rule) was actually founded on any form of...Lining Method...with snapped lines of any form, as in Asian timber framing cultures we would find many examples still left on timbers today as..Tell Marks...to the system, just as we do today on historic Asian structures of this type. In China, Korea and Japan, especially in hidden locations like inner walls and the top of timbers the Timberwrights leave an extensive record of Lining and layout in their examples of the craft...Some even with notation. Since most of these cultures (still today) have extensive Blessing Ceremonies and other complex Ground Breaking and Ridge Raising ceremonies with all types of written notation of one form or another depending on region, age and local culture...we can see a distinct difference now in the craft as we can from the past examples compared to North America's examples of European timber framing examples still found here. Dr. R. Knapp's work in this area of Asian Timber Framing is extensive and covers a lifetime of just his research on this and related subjects, which offers many in depth views of their approaches to the craft.

Just in this conversation we see some habitual understanding that keeps coming back into reference like Centerline that only reflects the limited and poor understanding of Western Timber Framers (rightfully so because of lack of documentation and guidance) instead of the more accurate and contextual understanding of Line Rule...as these markings do not always represent (though they can and do at times) just the center of a beam or post. Very often there very well may be a Reference Face on a timber within the Asian approach, yet that face is only a superficial guide to what will come later in layout...just like the fact that wood is also (often) oriented the same way it grows or grew in the forest when finally in a frame, which seldom (if ever?) is considered in Western or European timber frames.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33930 - 08/22/16 01:17 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Roger Nair Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 450
Loc: Bakerton, WV, USA
"Off the point, the Prophet Isaiah had a line rule, from KJV

"[9] Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
[10] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
[11] For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
[12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
[13] But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
[14] Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
[15] Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
[16] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
[17] Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place."

Useful metaphor requires knowledge of the reference in the populace. Good building was high tech and uncertainty is vanquished with a plummet. After all is said, a line and a plumb bob develops a reference plane.

Jay wrote, "Line Rule has no bearing on either a reference edge or plane on a timber as it very much does in Edge Rule related systems of layout in it historical (not modern) application...which do not historically employ lines snapped on the timber in any way that I have seen as part of that system on old frames or in literature. I would love to see any literary citation that any could offer to suggest otherwise?" So does Isaiah answer your query?


Edited by Roger Nair (08/22/16 01:21 AM)

Top
#33931 - 08/22/16 01:44 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hello Roger,

Though perhaps "off point" I can appreciate (though not a Christian myself) the fineries of any scripture within Isaiah and any of the other Abrahamic faiths..Yet must admitt some unfamiliarity with the symbalance (or significance if any??) these passages may have as they may apply to the actual application or understanding of Line Layout in any of the traditional points of relevance to applying Line Layout within timber framing as it would be translated from the original languages I have translated it from?

As a Bodyguard to the Chaplains in active service during my times in the Marines it has been a long time since I have read these passages...Thanks for sharing them.

Perhaps (for clarity) I should have expanded my comment in context to read more clearly for those not more familiar with this system of layout in the traditional sense?

Line Rule has no bearing on either a reference edge or plane on a timber's surface other than point of context within the design, yet rather relies more precisely (or significantly?) on planes and/or rays within the timber itself represented by viewable points typically at each ends of a given timber...

Perhaps that describes is a bit clearer or concise??? I am always open to suggestions to refine the definitive understanding further and/or more clearly. Through Sean's questions and discussion on the topic over the years I do believe I have honed the description pretty well, and discussion like this only aids refinement further...Thank you.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33932 - 08/22/16 04:01 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
D Wagstaff Offline
Member

Registered: 02/17/12
Posts: 252
Once an old jewish character, Haantje, he was called, who lived in a shoe box before picking up and heading out to Bulgaria where he lived in a mud hut, told me something credited to this Isaiah figure: Something like this, "Before building your house, make your best guess at the costs, then double that and double that again and you will be close."
Nice stuff Rodger and, to the extent of its authenticity, can be considered evidence sufficient, if you ask me.


Edited by D Wagstaff (08/22/16 04:02 AM)

Top
#33933 - 08/22/16 09:06 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: D Wagstaff]
Roger Nair Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 450
Loc: Bakerton, WV, USA
Thanks Don.

Jay, I think you are missing the obvious, try thinking laterally instead of literally. The King James translation is well before the era of square rule carpentry and construction but you will find within the passage evidence of reference plane thinking and from the tried foundation stone evidence of forming material to reference planes. Building and carpentry method has for ages had the concept of tried and trued, it's embedded in tool names ie try square and try plane. I find that your insistence that surface planes are not relevant to be uncraftsmanlike. What you seem to discount is the conversion and stock preparation as part of layout, when craftsmen reshape the stock it is toward a purpose. You are talking about systems however it strikes me that you are trying to make cheese but bypassing the dairy animals.

Top
#33934 - 08/22/16 10:02 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hello Roger,

I agree that we can find much in the way of Squares and related layout tools being employed both in Europe, the Middle East, and Asian well before King Jame's time period. Yet I do not find clear evidence of any aspect (other than some in stone) begins to reflect the true Square Rule modalities as we find them starting in the 1760's (give of take) other than perhaps in some ship building which I am looking more into...I do agree further that during the 1600 we do find some limited evidence of work being conducted in both stone and timber that is moving toward the use of squares in the layout systems even more, yet the evidence both in literature and architecture is still dominated mostly by Scribe Rule systems of building and there is only some very rare and obscure evidence of Lining Methods of layout being found in timber framing though some in stone sculpture and within that context and ship building as well.

As to Line Rule systems using King James translation (1604 to 1611,) especially one not really related directly to timber framing, as a foundationally significant source for details in a layout method orgined predominantly in Asia over the last ~4000 years, is literary citation I would think applicable to this topic...but that is just my view. Since the Xia Dynasty ((c. 2070-1600 BCE) then the Shang Dynasty (1600-1050 BCE) I think I will have to keep on the path I currently am following for the topic of Line Rule, yet still do look for evidence of it everywhere.

To your observation of craft and my take on it, I would suggest that since I started in the Scribe Rule (then Square Rule) Dutch-Germanic style I understand very well these systems and how they "reshape the stock" not only in timber framing but most of the folk class of furniture design and manufacture as well. I have not discounted any of this, just moved on into the older Asian systems of applying design and layout from that culture's craft aesthetic and perspective. Not better...per se...just different and older.



Edited by Jay White Cloud (08/22/16 10:07 AM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33935 - 08/22/16 11:55 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Roger Nair]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
I'm sorry Roger, but I totally fail to see any real pertinence in your point with the quote. I really feel like you are putting words in Jay's mouth by saying that he is discounting stock preparation and surface planes. He was talking about a specific system that happens to not rely on those for a reference. You could just as easily find fault with Will for saying that Mill rule is not a layout system. Doesn't that discount stock preparation?
And I fail to see why you find it necessary to personally attack Jay for being "uncraftsmanlike". That's something that I don't think that any of us should be saying in a public venue lightly. This is someone's reputation and very nature that you are passing judgement on.

I think that we can have an interesting discussion on the history and nature of layout methods without this turning sour!

Top
#33936 - 08/22/16 07:39 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Roger Nair Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 450
Loc: Bakerton, WV, USA
Well I've been carrying around the Isaiah passage for over fifty years and I find it revealing, so it goes. As to me putting words in Jay's mouth over discounting stock preparation, a comparison of how square rule handles odd sizing and how a Japanese crew might handle the same problem. Central to my understanding of the Japanese approach is how the helpers and apprentices will spend a major amount of time hand planing the small rectangular stock into standard dimensions. The idea is to create a visual field upon which the featured stock, the round, bowed and wavy, stand out from the field of uniformity. Jay does not account for that behavior and praises Eastern line rule superiority. Can anyone think Eastern mill rule in a traditional context? that is a tease.

Reread the uncraftsmanlike comment, that stems from the above critique not a attack on the person. Nevertheless I am sorry for hurt feelings and will endeavor to be more mindful of others feelings.

Top
#33937 - 08/22/16 09:33 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Roger Nair]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
I guess I should "account better" perhaps than I have, so will endeavor to explain certain aspects in more detail than I failed to do above...

I only use the Japanese forms of Line Layout as not to clog a conversation with all the many related styles of layout found throughout Asian timber framing cultures that I have studied and travel to see. So I don't mean for us to get trapped into any one specific cultural application of Line Layout system...Though all of them are very similar in application.

Stock preparation is not planned to standard dimension for most frames...especially historically or in the vernacular folk forms of which I specialise (e.g. Minka, Soan style Chashitsu, Hanok, Wondumak, Chise, etc) Most (if not all??) wood typically whether in Japan, Korea, China or elsewhere is often surfaced treated, be it with a plane, axe, adz or even shark skin and fire...or some other fashion...is done for function and aesthetic...if left to an exposed area that is viewable. It is typically an aesthetic or practical treatment and has little (if anything in most cases) to do with truing (aka squaring) a member into a dimensional uniform shape. The exceptions are rare until we get into perhaps more refined furniture and related work, yet even here much is done by touch and eye, in finishing and not application of square and measure of degree. As stated before, and having taught this subject for some time now, the snapped lines are the relevant element to layout and not the plane of the timber itself they are snapped or drawn upon. These line only represent Focal Points for areas deeper inside the timber. Again, this is why for example, the Koreans can and do employ so much tapered and round stock in their frames never bothering to do more than unify the surface with planes and related tools for aesthetic and durability reasons.

The lines and what they represent are the focal point to layout, in the design and application of joinery. "Visual Fields" are not but an after effect that forms the contrasting geometry of timbers coming together in a very aesthetically pleasing presentation. Studying "Wabi Sabi" and the element embraced by practicing "Kintsugi," explains the focus in much of not only Japanese aesthetic and approach to design (even their layout systems) and to that found in much of Asian culture. Truing a timber is seldom (if ever) a focus much beyond appropriate length and approximate dimension...and of course a given aesthetic. Which is almost exclusively ture in all the Asian vernacular folk classes of timber frame architecture. The way a timber, stone or related element comes in its natural form most often is the focus...with its imperfections and to use as such is more often the goal than having it conform to a set geometry or reference plane. With Line Layout systems, when well understood and embraced, the elements of "Wabi Sabi" are fully reflected.

As to my application of craft and artistic style, I let my work (and that of students I help) speak for itself, and take no umbrage. I personally do try very hard not to engage in critique anyone's work past safety or when they request such assessment or analysis be it historic, structural or from an aesthetic perspective.




Edited by Jay White Cloud (08/22/16 09:39 PM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33940 - 08/24/16 08:54 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Chris Hall Offline

Member

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 168
Loc: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Quote:
"Sumidzuke (sumitsuke) is (in general) term for “layout” but literally means “Blackening the face,” in Japanese"


I would quibble with that on a couple of counts. As far as I know, the standard reading for those characters is 'sumi-tsuke'. I've just searched online, and in my two kanji dictionaries, in vain to see if there is a variant reading of "sumidzuke", to no avail. I'd be interested to see a link to a dictionary where that kanji pairing is written in kana as "sumidzuke".

As for a literal reading of the characters, while there is a Sumitsuke Festival at New Year's in certain parts of Japan, in which people blacken their faces with ink, the literal meaning of the two characters is 'ink-apply', i'e., "put ink on (things)", not "blacken the face". Neither character in sumi-tsuke means 'face' or 'black(en)'. Sumi is ink, and ~tsuke is apply, put on.

The common (i.e., not literal) meaning of sumitsuke to people in Japan, according to standard dictionaries, is in reference to the New Year's Festival and people blackening their faces. The meaning of 'putting ink on timbers' is a secondary meaning and one of those technical carpentry words known to fewer regular Japanese folks.





_________________________
My blog on carpentry practice, East and West:

http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.com

Top
#33941 - 08/25/16 12:33 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Chris Hall]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hello Chris...It's been awhile since we chatted...Thank you for adding your voice to the conversation.

Originally Posted By: Chris Hall
As far as I know, the standard reading for those characters is 'sumi-tsuke'.


I don't believe I would disagree with you Chris...and perhaps as a Romanized translation of the word, that perhaps could be the first example...however...it isn't the only one that is correct...as it has been explained to me.

I can share...from native language speakers (and my notes as well as computer based translators including Googles that only seems to get better each year) that... "Sumidzuke" comes up just as often.

On checking, it was explained to me that both are acceptable spellings. One of my primary sources over the decades is the former (now passed) languages Professors (and dear friend) at Dartmouth College...John Rassias and the Rassias Center for World Languages and Culture. This is offered to cite just one of my other translation sources I use beyond my own knowledge, notes, and contact with Native Language speakers.

In general...as to translation in the Romanized words of Japanese, I would bow to your spoken Japanese on most (if not all accounts) yet must share that having corresponded and traveled there in good account (as well as being raised part of my life in a native speaking Korean/Japanese household) I have learned there is much to the Romanization of Japanese terms (i.e. romaji) and regrettably our forum does not support kanji or I would use it with the words as well. With both standard and non-standard Romanization I have seen a very broad range of spelling both in country and in modern translators.

Further, I know you have taken umbrage with certain academic groups that translate architectural terms like Jaanus. I too, find some of there translations of architectural and related terms out of context, yet after speaking with Native speakers and linguists on the topic I can also state that there is not always definitive correct and incorrect terms on many of these. None of this even begins to speak to dialects, Prefecture and subtle Kanji differences within the Japanese language from Hokkaido to the Ryukyu archipelago...which reflects a broad and rich variance with the language...much like English. Just as a Mainer sounds and speaks much different than a Texan, often even spelling things differently, so to do we find this in Japan, Korean, China and in most languages.

Originally Posted By: Chris Hall
Neither character in sumi-tsuke means 'face' or 'black(en)'. Sumi is ink, and ~tsuke is apply, put on.


In the literal translation of the Kanji Chris...I would agree with you 100%. However, that does not mean that within certain regional normative cultures, this is not the Kanji used to describe the festival events or what takes place...and...I have seen it posted as such...

As to the translation of "Blacking the face" I would reflect similar findings and citations as above...and offer the following links as well being the fastest I could find that supports my understanding...For those interested...please not the Kanji reflected in the search bar for both pages are the same...It all depends on use and context...as well as...regional Prefectural differences in the Japanese culture and cast system.

Lining and layout of timber...or Sumidsuke

Blackening the Face Festival photos...(note different in different Prefecture)

As always Chris...good to hear from you...If you send me an email Chris we can explore this further if you would wish, as to not get to far off the subject into the subtleties of language translation into English or obscure meaning of Kanji from standard "street" Japanese and into traditional architectural forms...



Edited by Jay White Cloud (08/25/16 12:35 AM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33942 - 08/25/16 01:46 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Jay White Cloud]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
I would add...shortly after the above posting the below was located as additional information for this short segue into the Japanese Language...There is both traditional Kanji and the Hiragana forms...Below is a Hiragana translation from a festival site in Japan...

Sumidzuke

Note again the primary phonetic translation is Sumi (ink) dzuke (attach or attaching). As Chris pointed out no reference to face...yet...it is used as such and reflect the linguistic differentials that exist in the spoken language culturally from different Prefectures (regions or states) of Japan.

Further...when used in a complete sentence the Romaji for the word does shift (or change) and could explain some of the confusion. With in a sentence it often is translated as...Sumitsuke.

Who is bad? "Short version. Kiurakozan Sumitsuke festival

The above passage coming from a festival goer's blog post about one of these related festivals that can range from honoring the dead, to fishing and other good harvests...Region to region, they go by different names...Schools and young children are often the focal point and many videos exist reflecting these wonderful celebrations...
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33943 - 08/25/16 10:48 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Jay White Cloud]
Chris Hall Offline

Member

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 168
Loc: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posting up links to Google Translate pages - you must be joking. Google Translate is notoriously poor when it comes to Japanese-English translation. I would not agree that it has gotten better each year. Rather, it would be more accurate to say that it has a very long way to go yet.

Quote:
I don't believe I would disagree with you Chris...and perhaps as a Romanized translation of the word, that perhaps could be the first example...however...it isn't the only one that is correct...as it has been explained to me.

I can share...from native language speakers (and my notes as well as computer based translators including Googles that only seems to get better each year) that... "Sumidzuke" comes up just as often.

On checking, it was explained to me that both are acceptable spellings.


I was really talking about how those characters for sumitsuke would be rendered in hiragana, since, if you look up kanji in a Japanese dictionary, the pronunciation for the character is rendered in hiragana (or katakana as the case may be). Romanizations of Japanese can only derive from the hiragana/katakana.

The issue here seems to be whether the character which stands alone as 'tsuke' is read as '~tsuke' or '~dzuke' as a suffix, when appended to 'sumi'. Correct? I realize that this will seem like some insanely minor and obscure detail to many reading this, but it is not so if you are a student of the Japanese language, so please bear with me.

I'll try to illustrate the issue firstly with a relevant example - and apologies to those for whom this is old hat. Take a word beginning with the 'su' sound, such as 'sushi'. When the word 'sushi' forms a suffix, the 'su' sound is voiced as 'zu', as in maki-zushi (rolled sushi). The sound 'su' has a hiragana character representing it, and the sound 'zu' has the same hiragana character with a couple of tick marks added above, indicating that it is to be voiced as 'zu'.

The same pairing occurs with the phoneme 'tsu', which as the initial consonant of a suffix may, at times, be voiced as 'dzu'.

Romanizations attempt to convey these voice shifts by their spelling.

This phenomenon of these voice shifts is called rendaku in Japanese. This area of Japanese is a bit of a minefield - as the wiki link mentions, "it's unpredictable".

Such is the case for sumitsuke. I might add it is the same situation as well for another relevant pair, namely 'sumi' + 'tsubo' - a 'sumitsubo' or Japanese inkline. It is never written as 'sumidzubo' - and again, I'm talking about how the word is rendered in hiragana.

Looking through the link on rendaku provided above, I do believe the reason sumitsuke is not rendered as sumidzuke is 'Lyman's Law'.

By the standard logic of how rendaku is manifest, both sumitsuke and sumitsubo might be voiced as, and written as 'sumidzuke' and sumidzubo', but they are not, at least not according to Japanese dictionaries. That's why I asked you to provide a reference to a Japanese language source for that, not 'Google Translate', and not "as was explained to me". Japanese people are, it would be worth noting, no more expert on their own language than English speakers are experts on their own. That is to say, expertise varies widely. Many English speakers miss-spell and mispronounce English. We all know that. Imagine if a Japanese person sought guidance as to how to spell or pronounce an English word from an English speaker who was not all that savvy about their own language?

And hearing a thing secondhand does start a process of telephone as we all know.

Again, I said simply, show me a link to a Japanese dictionary which shows a hiragana spelling of the kanji for sumitsuke as sumidzuke. The Japanese dictionary entry, just like our English dictionaries, will indicate the preferred pronunciation for any word listed. If you don't have that, the rest is, I'm afraid, waffling.
_________________________
My blog on carpentry practice, East and West:

http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.com

Top
#33944 - 08/25/16 11:49 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Chris Hall Offline

Member

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 168
Loc: Greenfield, Massachusetts
By the way, if you're curious about how good Google Translate might be, a good test is to input an English passage, have it translate it to Japanese, and then take that result and translate it back into English. The fidelity of the result give you a god idea about how good the translation software might be.

I chose the following two stanzas from a Children's nursery rhyme

Quote:
Mary had a little lamb,
His fleece was white as snow,
And everywhere that Mary went,
The lamb was sure to go.

He followed her to school one day,
Which was against the rule,
It made the children laugh and play
To see a lamb at school.


Into Japanese and back again, and we have the following:

Quote:
Mary had a little lamb,
His fleece is was white as snow
Mary, that you are everywhere I went
Lamb was please do go.

He was chasing her on the day of school
This was opposed to the rule
Made to play it, children and laughter
Please refer to the lamb at school.


It's not too bad, I suppose, especially if you already know the English version and can compare, but consider that the diction is appropriate to a young child. It does a lot worse with more sophisticated language as adults might use.
_________________________
My blog on carpentry practice, East and West:

http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.com

Top
#33945 - 08/25/16 04:02 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Chris Hall]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Originally Posted By: Chris Hall
Japanese people are, it would be worth noting, no more expert on their own language than English speakers are experts on their own.



I don't disagree with that...in general academic terms Chris...per se.

Nevertheless, I want to know and understand how native speakers talk (aka Mainers and Texans...or the common folk) way more than I want to debate academics on the deeper...opinions...of language deconstruction and purely Dictionarial Formats of a standard linguistic format as found in exclusively pedagogical venue.

I need (and want) to "correspond with" native speakers the best I am able and take their general guidance in this matters of...how they themselves speak. Kind of..."the person in the street..." (or workshop) speaking the language mindset. Douglas Brooks (et al) shared this logic with me a long time ago when learning any conversational aspects of a language.

Chris, I know you are very passionate about the Japanese language, and I already offered that I am sure you speak it (in your own way) much better than I do by far. We are now very much getting into the academic details of linguistics and semantics however...I think

As to your opinion of Google you have all the right to those beliefs. My sources I offered in the former post are relatively substantial in not only academic circles, but in teaching and learning to speak Second Tongue Languages. Again, if you do not value that to some degree, I won't debate it. I clearly don't agree on some points, yet overall have no umbridge with your views in general. The details of your language mechanical deconstruct (linguistically) is sound in context. I would turn to you, post haste, as a source... should I ever really need such a deeper understanding of something I am failing to grasp on such matters for your view of it. I know a number of Language teachers however, that would agree with me on much of what I wrote above in the other posts...when...just trying to get folks speaking passably another language.

Is the free software Google offers perhaps the best? I would say for free software that all can access pretty easily...it is considered so by many (most?) It is good and trying to get better. I would point out that I don't just study Japanese, but several of Asian languages (et al) almost exclusively as a...Street Speaker, and to be able to do better research in these cultures arts and building systems from that perspective. I am not a Linguist, nor claim to be one by any standard, nor is that my goal.

I am (or have been) around native speakers on fair occasion and in direct contact with some often enough that their guidance and assistance (as reflected in what limited citing I did in the previous post reflects) seems to get me by well enough. I don't think I can do better than I have on this topic since you disagree with the sources I have offered...and since that is the case, offering more would only detract from the post topic...which isn't Japanese translation esoteric breakdowns...but layout systems and how the are employed.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33946 - 08/25/16 06:22 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Chris Hall Offline

Member

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 168
Loc: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Evidently you cannot show a link to a Japanese dictionary in regards to that word. Don't worry about it.

I don't use translation software to any significant extent. Almost always my method is old school, read the text, look up words/kanji I don't know in the dictionary, or, increasingly of late, online sources, such as unihan, Jim Breen's JDic Lawrence Howell's Kanji Networks, etc..

Note that my observation in regards to the word 'sumitsuke' was initially offered as a 'quibble', a slight objection. Wasn't intending to get into a discussion of linguistics.

I didn't want to delve into the topic of layout systems as such, and in fact do not find myself in concordance with your expressed views in regards to Japanese layout methods. That topic as such, seems outside the OP topic, which was concerning how much wind is too much.

If sumitsuke - putting lines on wood - is of interest to you, and you have spent time delving in, sufficient to the point where you feel informed enough to assert a conviction about what it is about and how it is employed, then I presume a certain depth of study on your part has been obtained. Layout is a topic of great interest to me, and as a student of that topic myself, I have made many different models to explore various areas of study. I'm currently studying layout from some French texts. It's an endless topic. I've shared many of those past studies on my blog and would happily share pictures of various things I've studied and made here too. I'd be interested to see your study projects, to get a sense of where you are actually at. I'd also be interested to see which writings on sumitsuke you have studied, so some of your descriptive geometry work, and so forth.

The most basic of all layout work, beyond snapping straight lines on timbers and laying out joinery, would be hoppers, then splayed post work, followed by regular hip roof work. But, to be at a point of actual depth in the topic of layout, one would need to have good familiarity with irregular construction, polygonal construction, and curved construction. All of those mentioned above are parts of the 'Asian' traditions you espouse. Keen to see examples of your study or work in that regard, and happy to discuss such issues further.
_________________________
My blog on carpentry practice, East and West:

http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.com

Top
#33948 - 08/25/16 10:22 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hi Chris,

I responded offline to not distract further...

Regards,

j
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33949 - 08/27/16 10:18 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Will B Offline

Member

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 180
Loc: Massachusetts
For another view, see Michael Anderson's three articles on sumitsuki in issues 26, 28 & 29 in Timber Framing (also in the Guild's Joinery & Design Workbook, Vol. 2, I think.

Here's a short passage:

"JAPANESE layout has used the center line, square rule method since hundreds of years before
industry arrived along with Admiral Perry’s
black ships. The method, historically as well as
in present-day Japan, seems to have been little
affected by whether regular or irregular timbers
were employed. In fact, in pre-industrial
times, one of the advantages of employing a
method based on vertical and horizontal center
lines was the ability to use less expensive
unshaped material wherever possible. The same
layout techniques are as useful for marking
precisely-dimensioned timbers as for the rough
logs of the koyabari roof framing, though the
latter require additional techniques.
Even the old farmhouses or minka, famous
for their irregular spans and timber dimensions,
were laid out according to square rule.
There is another reason why a scribe method
was and is used only in special situations in
Japan. Japan is a small country. The houses are
small, the cars are small, the builder’s yards are
small. Nearby where I live on a well-traveled
road, there is a patch of ground with a lean-to
roof over it some 8 ft. deep by 20 ft. long. In
this small space a single carpenter, working
alone, manages to mark and cut the entire
frame. There simply is no space to maneuver."
_________________________
Will
www.heartwoodschool.com

Top
#33950 - 08/27/16 02:55 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
Thanks Will, for posting that. I'll read the articles and have more questions I'm sure.

Top
#33951 - 08/28/16 09:55 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Will B Offline

Member

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 180
Loc: Massachusetts
You can see how this contributes to my impression that there are cultural variations (including edge and centerline) of just two layout systems - scribe and square rule - even though those terms are modern and the systems go back hundreds of years.
_________________________
Will
www.heartwoodschool.com

Top
#33957 - 08/30/16 07:48 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Will B]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Thanks much Will for that blast from the past...

I lost all my old issues of the Journal in a break alas and will have to wait to get back to a Library copy to refresh my memory in more detail.

From the passage above, I can more than see why your impression of the method would overlap in your mind. I can not say I agree with it fully in my view, yet acknowledge (to no small degree) we are delving deeply into perhaps academic understandings where there is not a correct or incorrect perspective (perhaps?) of intricacies within comparatives of these layout systems.

Indeed...if...just considering the Japanese method of Line Layout by itself (which is much older than a few hundred years of Perry's time frame, and much more like 2000 plus (perhaps more or just around that time) which does indeed almost exclusively use a Sashigane framing square (much lighter and more flexible from modern Western Squares) that is employed to switch from side to side of the layout line to wrap a perpendicular mark around the timber...then indeed I could understand perhaps having an understanding why one would think or determine that Line Rule and Square Rule are one and the same...

As I am deep into a project and traveling, and this is a fascinating topic that deserves more than a small blurb entry, I will make a much better effort to offer more than I have in this entry.

I will end with, other than the history of Line Rule predating the modalities within Edge Rule (the more germane term I feel...yet perhaps not...??...I want to examine some old text at Dartmouth that Ed Levine shared with me years ago to confirm that..) by several millenia...there is much, much more to this historical story. Line Rule's lineage seems to suggest coming a long way (perhaps as far as Egypt...more to examine there) by way of India, China and then through Korean peninsula. Where it has more similarities to how it evolved in Japan once arriving with travelers from the mainland...than it does to taking a timber and using a reference edge (or plane) to create a point of demarcation referral to unify and standardize joinery, which was a step toward mass production and away from Scribe Rule. This historical time periods was bent on Industrial Revolutionary homogenization of craft and bespoke work found with Scribe Rule methods.

In the long history of Line Rule, which might well have been (and still might be..??) done more often in the round and/or live edge than in canted timber they often employ a layout tool more akin to a T Square than a square as we know it. In some regions other methods are used that don't resemble a T or any form of Square type layout tool at all. I for one don't and do not teach that method, yet instead employ a "Wrapping Template" of sorts. One I have seen similar to in the hands of more folk based Timberwrights that have been created from paper and even (it would seem??) a type of velum. One could argue that this then still makes it a...Square Rule...method, yet the context would be inaccurate (in my view) from the intent of method overall within its depths compared to historical Edge Rule. Again, making this conversation more academic than correct or incorrect in perspective.

Much thanks again for sharing that passage.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33958 - 08/30/16 08:45 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
Just got my copy of Timber Frame Joinery and Design Volume 2 in the mail, as I didn't have that yet. It really breaks my heart to have to buy another book! grin
It'll be a few days before I can get into it, but I'll be interested in the read and will get back in detail soon...

Top
#33995 - 09/23/16 09:06 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
Hi Will,
I read through the copy of Timber Frame Joinery and Design Volume 2 and can understand your impression. My initial takeaway is that I find some of the nomenclature surrounding square rule to be inconsistent and unsatisfactory.
For example, as you cited, the article by Anderson from Dec. 92 describes the Japanese approach as "the center line square rule method". However, the very definition of square rule in "Introduction to Layout" is as follows "The square rule was developed in North America, apparently near the turn of the 19th century (the earliest dated example is 1803). Timber framers could now get roughly squared timbers relatively easily. The trees here were large and could be milled or hewn down to a nearly consistent section along the length without concern for wasting too much of the tree, and surfaces were true and straight enough to serve as reference." I feel that the above definition is pretty much the stock basic definition of square rule as far as I have encountered and I think that most people would be familiar with, with notable emphasis to North American development as well as the edge as primary and preferred reference face. The eastern systems of layout clearly predate and are are on a totally separate line of development from anything North American, so I think that we are setting up for a lot of confusion in trying to refer to the two as being part of the same basic system.
I know that there are techniques for snapping lines in square rule (and scribe rule as well!) but I would argue that these are not central to the layout method in the way that a centered snap line is central in Eastern layout. Edge reference is the norm and the gold standard in square rule, snapping lines typically seems to be a way to manage unusual or undesirable situations in practice. Square rule has a mindset that revolves around the edge of the timber, as is seen in the practice of offsetting tenons a given distance from the edge. The same article by Anderson speaks to the centrality of the snapped center line to Japanese layout. “Generally, the carpenter uses four different classes of lines to lay out
his work. These are the shinzumi,suihezumi (or mizu), tatezumi and the yorizumi.”...”Shinzumi can be read as “center line” but a different reading of the Chinese characters is “true line”, which comes closer to how the mark is actually regarded while constructing the rest of the house”. In the end, I think that the designation of square rule regarding Eastern practice is inadequate to describe a system so different from what most people would readily recognize as “square rule”. Eastern layout systems have their own very definite, developed, and distinct history, practice, tooling, and philosophy. Surely they deserve the recognition of those distinctions to be acknowledged by the nomenclature used in reference.

Top
#33996 - 09/24/16 09:33 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Will B Offline

Member

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 180
Loc: Massachusetts
Right.
I'm always learning something new in this craft, and I've expanded my interpretation of square rule since I wrote that "Introduction to layout" article to include snap line square rule. As long as we are getting good results and understand the methods to get there, the definitions, while confusing now, can best be clarified by discussions such as this.
The distinction for me (and maybe only me) remains either bringing the joinery shoulders to match an irregular surface (scribing) or bringing it into a housing that is referenced off a snap line, centered or otherwise (square rule). Can you provide an example of how the traditional eastern methods are different from either of those? This might be worthy of an article in Timber Framing.
_________________________
Will
www.heartwoodschool.com

Top
#33997 - 09/25/16 12:48 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Will B]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hi Sean,

Glad you kept up with this...I'm not able to get to some of my literary resources at the moment...

Great post, and I agree with your evaluation of this. I think (too often) here in the West many only focus on Japanese systems of Line Layout, and thus perhaps misinterprets the translations. Much can be lost in any translation, and seldom (if ever?) takes in Japan's own regional differences within the applications of line rule from Temple work, to folk styles of Minka construction...all the way to the Boat building traditions that also employ Line Rule. None of this (which you and I have discussed) even begins to scratch at the surface of...Line Rule...in the historical context which is much older in application than just the Japanese traditions.

Your post begins well to reflect this and the differences and broadness of the topic.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33998 - 09/25/16 01:11 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Jay White Cloud]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hello Will,

I could not agree more that this topic is worthy of an article for our TFG journal. Perhaps exploring the different methods historically and/or application modalities. I have started a rough outline a few months ago because of our discussions here. I would love editorial feedback and perhaps a direct conversation at some point if your willing. I really do want to get back to some of my old Library haunts to refresh some of my understanding of the original contexts to this subject as points of literary reference.

I think the fact that we have only seen timber framing grow in popularity since the 70's, with many learning something new along the way, we are also going to see an expansion of ideas about it. Now with even more growth among younger practitioners we are seeing a melting pot of methods and interpretations of all manner of method and layout systems. With the Internet allowing exchanges, not only amongst ourselves, but also collegues in other cultures, this understanding will further expand I am sure, This interpretation will not only expand of recent layout methods (respectfully) such as Square Rule (being less than 300 years old) but also of the more acient methods like Scribe and Line Rule.

I further agree that good results and understanding (for ourselves) in how we arrive at our individual timber framing goals is the most important thing for each of us. It reflects the contemporary dedication to craft we all want to achieve in our give works within the craft.

I do not think (at all) you are alone in your distinctions or interpretations of current understandings within modern Western Layout Methods. I find your view(s) generally common among many in our craft today. This is a rather logical understanding (I think?) within a limited and small (relatively) normative culture such as our...North American Timberwright population. We (collectively) are limited to a very small selection of publications with a very narrow scope of exposure to the craft. This has expanded (greatly!) in the last decade with the internet, and other contemporary publications on the subject now coming to us in other languages and traditions. With this literary and technological advancement, we find ourselves in conversations such as this.

I like parts of your break down of the different Layout Systems. However I do believe they are too overly simplified and/or too interpretive (subjective?) and not reflective at all of the actual parts and/or applications of the give marking systems as they originated, evolved and are still applied today.

We can agree that...Scribe Rule...(in its most basic of understanding) is a matter of fitting one unique plane (or edge just as a shoulder in a joint) of reference into conformity with another. This is the way of it, be it stone, textiles, or wood. Especially in the bespoke aspects of the craft(s).

The other aspect of creating a...generic uniformity within a joint matrix..is by all means an aspect of...Square Rule. This was the entire foundational purpose of how this system evolved, being able to take roughly shaped (hewn or sawn) stock material and creating...generic uniformity...within the joint matrix of a timber frames design...be it for architecture or a ship. This was done (as Sean referenced above) off a reference plane and/or edge of a timber...with no other point of reference ever required, or part of the system. Snapped lines had no part of the original Square Rule marking and layout system. I have never seen, or read a reference (historically) to snapped lines being part of the system or how to understand its application and execution. The addition of snapped referenced lines has only been found in the most recent of contemporary timber frame layout systems as they have evolved in individual application from the melding of Line and Edge (aka Square Rule) into one amalgamated system. This is a reinvention in the coeval designs of timber frames today here in North America, and not of original context of modality.

As I offered earlier in above posts...Line Rule...has nothing to do with...Square Rule...in the historic context, nor (for the most part) with a...Framing Square....as we understand them here in the West. Line Rule (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, et al) is a system that has both scribed elements within it, and works on structural members that are very often round or organic in nature...so a square has little use quite often...as we understand their application within Square Rule.

As for a specific difference..."of how the traditional eastern methods are different...."...I'm not sure I could illustrate that more than I have thus far in context application of the three systems? I guess (??) I could offer another breakdown of the three systems from both the historic application and how they are still used (in their pure form) today, and perhaps for publication purposes expand illustrations of the different systems for clarity.

Scribe Rule...has a wealth and depth of technique depending on cultural evolution of the given system. From overlays of framing members (timbers), use of lofting planes both below (floor) and side (walls) in some systems, to the application of plummet tools/systems, and even some templating as it latter began to evolve into the next oldest system...Line Rule.

Line Rule...has almost (from what I can glean thus far) as old a history as the different Scribing systems. Lining system also have a deep and vast application of modalities within it depending on the cultures that apply it. Line Rule also has, or does have, aspects of Scribing within it as much (most??) of it is performed on organic shapes...and...does not have to rely on a Framing Square as we understand (and use it) here in the West.

Square Rule...historically in application (and as it was taught until recently to most Timberwrights) is solely dependent on the use of the...Framing Square...as we know it in the Western context. This is even reflected in the shape of the tool's two arms. The tools blade and tongue are sized according to equivalents to the most common standards in mortise and tenon proportions most common in Western timber frames. The Edge Rule (aka Square Rule) system was entirely dependant on this tool, and the referenced edge/plane of a given timber to be jointed...No other tools of layout are required to execute the marking of a given timber frame, other than perhaps dividers or story pole, and marking tools such as a Scribe Knife and/or Pencil, and for the better equipped Timberwrights a Race Knife.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#33999 - 09/25/16 10:26 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Will B]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
I wouldn't say that Eastern timber framing in general uses housings in the same way that western square rule does. Many times there seems to be an emphasis on stock preparation making reduction housings unnecessary. Anderson's Sumitsuke 1 seems to also refer to some use of mapping as well "While marking these, memos can be noted on the ezuita regarding irregularities in dimension, height variation, local adjustments, etc." What I don't know is how this changes over the various forms (Minka vs. temple carpentry for instance in Japan). I would love to hear from some people that specialize in Eastern practice such as Chris Hall or Jay on the usage or lack of usage of reduction housings in traditional Japanese framing.

Top
#34000 - 09/25/16 12:05 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hello Sean,

In general, across the different systems of Line Rule marking methods in the different cultures that still routinely employ them (especially in the folk classes of the architecture within these culture) there is little in the way of...Reduction Housing...as understood in the Western timber framing context to a uniform size, location or even shape in some examples. Again, in the classic sense of the method...Line Layout snapped ink lines represent a point of internal registration within a given geometry of a timber that may even (as found in many Minka) have different elevations of reference along the often turning and twistings of a live edge beam. The housing are either plotted in the detail on the plan and elevation view or story poled to correspond to these reference points, and/or scribe templated to conform to the unique characteristics of each joint intersection. This was (and is) one of the key areas of interest to me in learning how this was/is achieved. Unlike European scribing methods, with the timbers ever needing to be referenced to one another, or lofted by plummet in any way, the Eastern approach rather only needs the understanding of the Line Rule modalities themselves, templates, story poles, strategic plan and elevation line drawings to do the brunt of this very complicated and often organic fitting of bespoke joint intersections. In other context of this system, items are (very much) uniform in nature, yet organic and/or rounded in shape.

If a reduction to a uniform shape (or depth) is performed it may only apply to a individual joint within a frame. Each organic shape being reduced to a more consistent and uniform geometry for a given joint intersection.


Edited by Jay White Cloud (09/25/16 12:13 PM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34001 - 09/25/16 01:40 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Sorry Sean,

I completely neglect to address the..."stock removal"...you referenced.

This to, also seems to be either misunderstood, and/or misinterpreted by many as being for dimensional shaping and or gaining uniformity within the timber...which is the furthest from the truth both in Folk Class and Imperial or Merchant Class Japanese architecture, and I don't know of a single case of it being so in the Korean or Chinese modalities...(not to say it couldn't have take place in some limited or regionally specific aspect?)

Stock Removal is for the soul (and it would seem almost entire goal) of aesthetics and surface treatment against water and dirt absorption. Planned timbers have there grain closed (for lack of a better discription) against water and dirt and seem to present as more durable surface for untreated/finished timbers, than rough unplanned surfaces...especially with the fine edges achieved in Japanese Kana blades and what they leave behind for a finish. Many joints do have housings and these are taken off the Line for reference, not an edge or plain of a timber. To this reference, in the more refined classes of Japanese archtiecture, these housings will follow some common format to a given region and/or Daiku, yet again the timber itself may be out of square or organic in some other context, and it hasn't been until recent times (and the onslaught of modern tools and Western influences there post WWII) that more attention to...Squareness...seems to have become of more focus among some practitioners.

In many ways (some regrettably) the West has influence Japan more than they have us. As a culture of paradoxes in many ways, after their suppression in post WWII culture...all things old where considered worthy of abandonment by many. Old was bad, and new (being mainly Western) was good. It has not been until very recently that we see a resurgence of Cultural pride and desire to save what has almost been lost within many folk arts and crafts. Parts of the countryside have virtually become devoid of growth, until very recently, with most opting for the newness of large cities.

Korea's and China's...stock preparation...also is focused almost entirely on aesthetics and not necessarily the detail refinement of geometry to a set homogeneous shape...per se.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34002 - 09/25/16 06:33 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
Here is a nice short post to balance out the thread.

Some housing are great to carry extra loads, so even if you are matching a surface to another there are times when a housing is nice.


Edited by TIMBEAL (09/25/16 06:40 PM)

Top
#34003 - 09/25/16 09:17 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: TIMBEAL]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
Timbeal,
A good point made for clarification. Every variant of layout uses structural housings for load bearing purposes. Sizing housings for reduction are something seen most frequently on square ruled frames.


Jay,
I would have to disagree that snapped lines were never part of square rule historically. I have a reprint of "Timber Framing Made Easy" by Fred Hodgson published in 1909 which references an offset snapped line technique in dealing with out of wind timber. This is presented as one possible way to deal with twist. The context being that laying out purely from the edge is preferred.


Edited by Hylandwoodcraft (09/25/16 09:28 PM)

Top
#34004 - 09/25/16 09:34 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Jay White Cloud]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
Thanks for clarifying some of that Jay. So would it be fair to say that in most Eastern frames similar components are less interchangeable that in a typical square ruled frame?

Top
#34005 - 09/26/16 06:37 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
Only a few pieces on a frame square ruled would be interchangeable, braces could fit in various positions, some girts if depending on other inputs. You might get post 2 and 3 on the same side exchanged but I wouldn't count on it.

Some snapped line brace work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyhB5XLsprA

Top
#34006 - 09/26/16 09:24 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Will B Offline

Member

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 180
Loc: Massachusetts
Thanks for this discussion; I think that this illustrates that, regardless of labels, the craftsperson understands the permutations of the systems and uses them wherever appropriate and often in combination.
_________________________
Will
www.heartwoodschool.com

Top
#34007 - 09/26/16 11:17 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
All pieces of a given type would be typically interchangeable in most square rule frames. Is this not true on yours?

Top
#34008 - 09/26/16 11:29 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Hylandwoodcraft]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hello Sean, et al,

Thank you, on the subject of lining timbers as part of Square Rule, your comments from earlier, forces me to clarify more clearly my points on this aspect of the subject from above that may not have been clear enough chronologically. Please tell me if you (or others) still disagree or can find additional references that are earlier after reading this post. This is really important for writing a definitive (to date) piece on the subject of Layout Systems as we now perceive them here in the West.

Hodgson's reference to using snapped lines (et al) can be found in several text starting, from what I can tell thus far around the late 1880's. This does need further examination to see if older examples are available in publication, or reference. I myself have referenced use of Grease Lines (as they were called) by the Amish that shared their Barnwright and building linage with me. This clearly indicates (as Will B. et al have also shared) that...line marking...is part of some refined systems historically after 1880's. This was neither common practice however, nor the norm originally...and it was not intended as part of Square Rule in the unedited context of the method.

I don't believe this late (after 1870's) reference by Hodgson or others around the 1890 time period of refinement to layout to the earlier original practice changes the view that the context of Square Rule layout system was clearly intended as a minimalist procedural tactic to get a timber frame built rabidly with as few of tools as possible and most importantly...having interchangeable parts in the framing members.

This was paramount to farming structures and domestic life of the time period and the goals of our Western agricultural communities of the period; soon to be taken over by Balloon Framing and migration past the Mississippi to the Pacific. This was also becoming (very much) part of the normative culture of the Industrial Revolution that was rapidly taking hold after 1765 in much of the Built Environment and all other Industries of Western Culture of the time period through Europe and hear in North America.

So for clarity...I should amend or edit above (perhaps??) comments on this subject to read more succinctly, that in the original context...pre 1885...Snapped Line Layout use... was never part of the primary principles of...Square Rule...OR...in common use anywhere at all among Timberwrights of Europe or the West.

I would suggest further (as I have before) if snapped lines of any kind had ever been part of any common application in timber framing layout systems prior to 1880 we would find evidence of it all over our timber frames, as we do in such a ubiquitous fashion throughout Asian timber framed architecture.

To date, I have only had related field observations (possibly original??) of what seemed like faint lines on a few barns, one frame (in I believe was coastal Connecticut) and a Tidewater Cape in Delaware region. I have tried to gain entry (to no avail) into Prince George's Chapel (~circa 1755-57?) which may also have some markings to indicate snapped lines for layout on the Pine Pillars of the central Nave within this small structure.

Prior to this I have never seen or heard to any line layout system or observations of such markings. I would point out (for clarity) once again that in any culture that has adopted a...Line Rule...system of layout (as we now are in practice of employing in many timber frame shops here in the West) that these layout marks will become as ubiquitous on parts of our frames as these layout marks and symbols are found throughout Asian frames even today.



Edited by Jay White Cloud (09/26/16 11:43 AM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34009 - 09/26/16 11:33 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Hylandwoodcraft]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Originally Posted By: Hylandwoodcraft
Thanks for clarifying some of that Jay. So would it be fair to say that in most Eastern frames similar components are less interchangeable that in a typical square ruled frame?


Very true...especially in the Folk Class of archtiecture. In other aspects, as we move into more refined frames of temples, parts become more interchangeable, especially in the bracing system of Nuki (bracing beam) and Dougong (Brackets) and related common members.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34010 - 09/26/16 11:37 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Hylandwoodcraft]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Originally Posted By: Hylandwoodcraft
All pieces of a given type would be typically interchangeable in most square rule frames. Is this not true on yours?


Yes...as is found in many moved or relocated Barns East of the Mississippi after 1820. These parts (other than gable posts) for the most part are all interchangeable in many (not all) frames that employed...Square Rule.


Edited by Jay White Cloud (09/26/16 11:45 AM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34011 - 09/26/16 08:17 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
I don't concur that most pieces are interchangeable in square ruled frames. As I stated above some pieces are, but even repetitive girts may not work in all locations, side walls maybe but you can't put it in the end bent wall and then there are subtle differences in say peg placement. Bay spans may vary limiting placement. I have made enough mistakes in 20+ years to have wished pieces were more interchangeable. I have 3, 4, 5, and 8' brace legs in the frame we have been working on. I can't see any post being swapable, there is more often than not something that makes it impossible.

Top
#34012 - 09/26/16 09:05 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Jay White Cloud]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
This thread is starting to get a bit confusing...too many parallel lines!
Jay, I was actually responding to Timbeal's last comment on square rule interchangeability. I found it a bit confusing and was hoping for clarification on his part.

In reference to you last said on snapped lines in square rule Jay, I would agree that snapping lines was not the norm within square rule timber layout as Hodgson describes it. I think that this describes one of the essential differences between North American square rule and Eastern center line layout. The former normally snaps lines only rarely. It is not the essential element or technique. The latter totally revolves around the centered snap line.
Hodgson mentions Bell's Carpentry, which predates his own book. I was thinking about picking up a copy of that, for reference. Has anyone here read it? It would be interesting to reference it for clues as to when snapped lines entered into the square rule system.

Will, would you say that Eastern timber framing uses reduction housings in a similar way to how they are used in square rule? I've really never thought of them used that way.

Top
#34013 - 09/27/16 12:01 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: TIMBEAL]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Originally Posted By: TimBEAL
I don't concur that most pieces are interchangeable in square ruled frames.


"Most" and "...some are" does leave us a bit nebulous in understanding, and perhaps I was not clear enough in my observations about this matter of interchangeability...

My observations are not geographically limited to just one region. I am not suggesting that there may not be regional characteristics that are unique. My offered information covers perhaps most (if not all) the states, from Minnesota to Louisiana and East from there that have surviving Timber Frames and the cultures that built them.

Having now been in and/or restoring perhaps 500 (perhaps more) barn and other timber frames...in an on again off again career of timber framing and historic restoration, as well as working with colleagues that probably pushes this number of timber frames into the thousands...I would have to suggest from direct observation and collaboration...that the frames designed and built employing Square Rule as its primary layout system all reflected a clear and distinct homogenization of parts...which clearly by plan and literary citation was the intent of the Square Rule modality of design, layout and construction.

In some regions all the braces, wall purlins, rafters, and even some Tie Beam, Queen Post, Struts indicated a clear and complete uniformity of design and layout. Some of these members even indicated being mass produced by a local mills with only perhaps Post, Rafter Plates and Tie Beams being cut by the Timberwright themselves. The later you get (1840 onward) the more interchangeability we seem to find, with some regions presenting with such an indistinguishable nature that barnes could be deconstructed and partnered with neighbouring structures with little ill effect or alteration to parts.

In relocated frames, the number of mismarked and unquardentated members is very common. It is only from the passage of time and wear to the frame (and restoration ethics) that keeping members in the same order is necessary on many (not all) Square Ruled vintage cut timber frames. Not only do you find End Bents in the center of structures with new joints cut to accommodate this poor historic relocation at some point in the history of the structure, but braces and wall purlins too in different order and location on many such frame.

Bay orientation has no bearing, per se, on the interchangeability of parts since a span distance is not indicative of interchangeability of joint configuration, yet a simple matter of tangible distance accommodation. Indeed, with large Barns where there may be several bay span configurations of a similar (yet multiple nature) you can and will find parts swapped out on moved frames and can (not that it is standard restoration practice) move members very often to new locations as long as bay span distance is the same.

On contemporary frames...with Line Rule...and even organic shapes...we can (and have) made parts fully swappable...as long as bay span is the same. This is neither difficult nor a challenge (over all) for this method of layout. Sean is accomplished enough with this method to speak to this ability from his own perspective of the Line Layout system's nature of accuracy.

So today, having interchangeable parts, for more simplistically designed Stock Frames (as we call them) is very achievable...even with organic live edge members, which is one of the marvels and wonderful elements to be acquired with adopting and learning the Eastern methods of layout and frame orientation.


Edited by Jay White Cloud (09/27/16 12:04 AM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34014 - 09/27/16 12:01 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Hylandwoodcraft]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Sorry Sean...My mistake...didn't mean to be confusion or answer a question not addressed to me...I am very excited to have this discussion with everyone and the subject is dear to me, and my interest in it spans almost 4 decades now...

Should you ever find anything in your reading that indicates the use of snapped lines in the historic application prior to 1880's Sean, I would love hearing from you (or anyone else that finds this.)

Originally Posted By: Hylandwoodcraft
I think that this describes one of the essential differences between North American square rule and Eastern center line layout. The former normally snaps lines only rarely. It is not the essential element or technique. The latter totally revolves around the centered snap line.


I also very much agree with you, that for those of use that use Eastern Layout systems almost exclusively now, that there is no comparison with...Square Rule...and...Line Rule... systems. I would suggest that it is somewhat misleading and inaccurate (in my view) to use the two terms interchangeable at all...They are just too different in nature historically and in practice even today...If actually following the original intent of either system, and not a reinvention or reinterpretation of them.

Originally Posted By: Hylandwoodcraft
Hodgson mentions Bell's Carpentry, which predates his own book. I was thinking about picking up a copy of that, for reference. Has anyone here read it?


If you are speaking of "Art and Science of Carpentry Made Easy" by William E. Bell, 1888...Yes I have read it in both tomb and virtual text. Here is a link to a digital copy:

"Art and Science of Carpentry Made Easy" by W. E. Bell 1888

I believe this book and Bell's descriptions of modalities for construction is indicative of the homogenisation of not only Balloon Frames (which originally hand been built as timber frames with Draw Born wood joinery and later wood and metal fasteners) but also Barn timber frames. As to lining methods this starts on page 50 with the employment of snapped chalk lines. Barn building start with Plate 7 and page 55. I have (at this stage in the game...ha, ha) seen countless frames of Bell's configuration in this book, and time period where most of the frame has many transposable parts...even frame members such as Queen Posts.

Sean, I would also suggest reading:

"Light and Heavy Timber Framing made Easy" by Fred T. Hodgson 1909

Now that many of these books are digitized you don't have to wade through countless libraries like I had to in the 70's and 80's...ha ha. Many such tomb can be read now with the push of a few buttons. All of these where my foundational reading lists prior to the more modern publications that started in the late 70's and 80's which I know many were based on information from these original text here in North American timber framing. My reading about Chalk Lines, and their application is what turned my attention to the Eastern methods once I got to travel there while in the Marines. It was a real eye opener to realize that the vastness of timber framing was only a glimmer (at best) here in the West compared to that history and its richness of methods and systems of designing and building timber frames from the Middle East and beyond.

Good Reading to you!!!


Edited by Jay White Cloud (09/27/16 12:14 AM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34015 - 09/27/16 06:42 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
That is interesting, Jay. My area has very few square ruled buildings, most are scribed in some manor. The community buildings such as churches are square ruled, I presume the builders were from away and the locals built as their fathers did and didn't pick up on the square rule app. As for my direct experience I do not try to make the parts interchangeable.... other than braces and a few girts.

Top
#34016 - 09/27/16 10:30 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: TIMBEAL]
Hylandwoodcraft Offline
Member

Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 141
Loc: Western NY
That's really interesting Timbeal. That clarifies what you meant. Sometimes those more remote geographic corners end up having some really interesting developments, and can give insights into historical practice that are long obscured in more "modern" areas. What methods of scribing commonly persisted up there?

Jay, I own Hodgson's book, and I will pick up a copy of "Art and Science of Carpentry Made Easy" by William E. Bell. It seems like it was the carpenter's standard for quite some decades.
I suppose that there is quite a dearth of documentary evidence predating the mid 1800's on exact methodology. I think that sometimes broad techniques were considered so universally understood and common that it would have been considered unnecessary to write them down. On the flip side, many specific techniques were guarded knowledge and much knowledge passed away with that generation. It's amazing how inaccessible the past of only a couple hundred years can be, when there is a major break in practice as we saw during the 1900's.

Top
#34017 - 09/27/16 10:51 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: TIMBEAL]
Roger Nair Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 450
Loc: Bakerton, WV, USA
In my own practice, I square rule but I do not repeat bents and vary bay width and create facets in roof lines so the only repeated members are braces (ignore handedness), joist and rafters. In old work variety abounds. Barns don't just spring from the ground in a single build, often there is a core building that is added on. Some of the Pennsylvania style barns are constructed with reversed reference ie start with the east gable and raise two bents then go to west gable and raise two bents and then fill in the middle. The give away for spotting is the gains are mirrored east to west and there are overscarfs on both ends of central plates and principal purlins. There can be a fair amount of specific placement in seemingly generic repeated frames.

The other issue I have is other the idea of interchangeability. The joints are repeated again and again to the extent that go no go gauges can be made for joints but the timbers do not replace one another. The same could be said of other framing systems elsewhere. Of course a scribed joint is not standardized.

It was not until Jack Sobon published the square rule, scribe rule booklet that the terms used in the title appeared in the general discussion. So this is a new reordering of knowledge that was truly lost and had to be regained. This will lead to some conflict but applying the term Edge Rule over square rule is a high handed method of discourse. Incidentally, we write and read English not High German, so drop the caps.

Top
#34018 - 09/27/16 11:30 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Roger Nair]
Roger Nair Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 450
Loc: Bakerton, WV, USA
One last thought, to test the acceptance of terms google square rule, scribe rule, line rule and edge rule.

Top
#34019 - 09/27/16 02:14 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
Thanks for this input, Roger. I also see predominant center bay lay out, where the braces are aligned to the center bay and end bents are to the outside, four bent structures. I presume these building are lofted off the floor. I never see snapped lines on these building but that doesn't mean they did't use them. Did they use ink? Chalk which would dissolve over a short period of time, let alone to be found under all the grim, was used. I have seen only one obvious snapped line and that was on a set of drop in 2x8 joist dictating the depth of the pockets, it was in a house.


Edited by TIMBEAL (09/27/16 02:16 PM)
Edit Reason: being dumb

Top
#34020 - 09/27/16 03:18 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: TIMBEAL]
Roger Nair Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 450
Loc: Bakerton, WV, USA
Hi Tim, I have seen recovered timber from a barn that had to get out of the way of a grocery store that had step rafter housings aligned to a red line on a plate. Other than that I think that the hewn timber was rough hewn in the woods, delivered to the work site and was corrected to a good enough state, I'm sure the lead told the men, "we ain't building a pie-anna." The cross grain layout would be striked with an awl against a large try square. The awl would be held in the groove of the story pole mark and the square brought up to the awl, the square held tight to the story pole and the awl is lifted off the story pole and then the line is striked. The gains are marked with a gauge set to the story pole. The story pole will bridge the undulations in the hewn beam. The other carpenter like solution could be a straight edge board set the dimension of the gain is aligned to the reference side and gains are marked with an awl. No caulk lines are really necessary with good enough timber. This is my conclusion from staring at old timber.

Top
#34021 - 09/27/16 08:12 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
That is gorgeous, Roger. I'm working in more story poles into my work. I think the tape measure makes me stupid, at times, or it could just be my eyes.

Top
#34022 - 09/27/16 09:38 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: TIMBEAL]
Roger Nair Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 450
Loc: Bakerton, WV, USA
Thanks Tim, it's good to know that this can be somehow useful to others. I presented these ideas years ago on this forum.

http://forums.tfguild.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8402&page=1

I sometimes fear that my written stuff is not clear and needs a rewrite.

For story poles I mark up tapes. However, I have retired, so I am busy forgetting and losing hard won habits.

Top
#34023 - 09/27/16 10:21 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: TIMBEAL]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hi Tim,

Your up there in the Cream of the Crop of really!!! old,and beautiful frames. Maine probably still has some of the oldest remaining frames in the country still found relatively undisturbed. About once every other year a 250 to 300 plus one will come up for restoration and or sale that is really grand. New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut all still have a wealth of nice frames (fewer each year however as Barns in general are an endangered species.)

I couldn't agree more (and I would like others views if they believe otherwise...and why?) that Maine is one of the states (and regions) that still is dominated by Scribe Ruled framing. Even the Square Rule more contemporary (for New England that can still be 150 years old) may have a mixing of Scribe and Square Rule.

From that perspective (and I should have clarified that before in my other post...sorry) your region's timber frame parts (barn or house) are not to be found with many interchangeable parts. The New England vintage timber framing traditions really held on, and not until you get south and into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota do I find more purly Square Rule frames...which of course are much new (90 to 150 years old.)

Being where you are...you style reflects its traditions...as it should and you do very well by it...from the work you have shared that I have seen...
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34024 - 09/27/16 10:34 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Hylandwoodcraft]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hi Sean,

You made some astute observations about our craft...

I would conservatively say...from reading a great deal (if not at least 80% of what is available on the subject in English and a few other languages) about timber framing...that at best only 60% (conservatively) of what is actually known in the way of means, methods and materials is actually in a publish format. Much (actually a great deal) has been lost as so much is (and was) an oral tradition. I have had this discussion with other academics outside of timber framing (yet still in the Arts and Crafts or related) that just between the last 200 years worth of wars, occupations by foreign invaders on all contents, and such, we have collectively lost a great deal in the way of traditional knowledge. The Civil War alone in this country between 1855 and 1865 erase a vast amount and Sons, Fathers and entire working lineages went away and did not return...leave deep holes within many traditions.

Douglas Brooks (a wonderful scholar and great friend) is a good example of someone salvaging this in just one area that is Japanese traditional boat building. Even though he is a foreigner, the lack of native interest for many of these very old boat builders put him in an excellent position to save what they knew from complete extinction. We hare lucky to have folks like him out in the world trying their best to save such vital heritage knowledge.

On just this topic of...Layout Systems...I garner we have only maybe 40% (at very best) written down and well documented for the next generation. I have been admonished by several collegues over the years to not writing more on just what little (or small amount from my perspective) I have learned that I know has never been written down, especially in English. Further, is putting it into context of how we can apply it in current means, methods, and material ways to contemporary timber framing.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34025 - 09/28/16 02:06 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Roger Nair]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Rodger,

Pennsylvanian examples are most evident of much of what you shared, that is agreed. Having lived and worked there for almost ten years (Gettysburg area) I found PA as a very expansive state when it came to Barns and other vintage timber frames. Almost the complete scope of the craft can be found within its boundaries, with more distinct New England traditions being the strongest examples and much different than is found the further West traveled.

As for caps on certain term, it is neither intended as "high handed" nor of any association with "High German" (??) It is from two former style guides for professional writing that out of habit I tend to still follow, and after this many years of use with no complaint thus far I don't believe there is any good reason now to "drop the caps," and the alternative of underlining or bolding key terms is burdensome.

Edge Rule came directly from Amish mentors (et al) in the 70's, and a term I have used in accordance from that time for over 35 years now. In my experience, as for first conversations on this subject with others beyond myself, I was acquainted with the terms Line, Scribe, and Edge/Square rule...int the very late 70's and early 80's with Ed Levin and/or Rudy Christian. I have been personally fascinated with the subject of Layout Systems since that time, and do enjoy discussions and learning more about it whenever the opportunity presents.

I am not sure using a Google Search alone is always indicative of acceptance of a term or expression since most folks only do (or achieve) very superficial parameter searches and neither try (or know how) to do more in depth advanced researches on many subjects...especially obscure ones like this.

I can offer, for those interested, that placing search terms in direct quotes along with also including the conjunction "and"- followed by a related topic term can dial in the search more specifically. For example:

"edge rule" and timber framing

Additionally, for even more comprehensive information, going to the orgin language, spelling and writing system can yield even great results. For example, for Line Rule most of this is either in Chinese, Korean or Japanese.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34026 - 09/28/16 06:52 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
Jay, I live in the other Maine, the part east of the Penobscot River almost to the Canadian border. This part of Maine should have been Canada. Its a long story. Pre revolution there was much unrest in this part of Maine very unsettled while the southern part was settled much earlier and is present with the older building you mention. We weren't settled until after the indian wars just prior to the revolution and more settlement after so in the early 1800s and it really finalized with the war of 1812 when boundaries were really fixed and those pesky loyalist were sifted out. I am left with an actually dismal example of full on historic examples. It was not an easy life, and there was an abandoning of these old farms soon after the settlement. Very poor soils for farming most of the land was for timber harvest through much of history and still today.

Top
#34027 - 09/28/16 10:33 AM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
You are blessed Tim...In my view. That part of Maine is beautiful and most special! Say hello to the Rive...it is a special one...

In another reincarnation (and career) I worked guiding in many parts of rural Maine, to the point of usually recertifying my WEMT credential there as Maine has some of the best emergency services in North America. My ties to the Passamaquoddy tribe also grew along the way...as did my affection for that region, it's people and environment...

As to surviving timber frames in your area...I now understand much better your perspective of things. I would wager (correct me if you believe I'm in error) that your region is virtually devoid of true Edge Ruled frames in the pure since, as this is very much a rough and rabble range of people, culture and archtiecture...so the surviving frames are probably mostly a mix or full on scribe rule with a dash of...this or that...for the few that survive.

I do believe on the boarder region there we still might still find a strong french influence to many architectural forms including rare examples of Piece sur Piece timber frame and log structures buried under plaster and more modern cladding.

Thanks for sharing that...
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34028 - 09/28/16 07:58 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
Hi Jay, yes a French essence still lingers. I have a friend that has recently been WEMT certified. This past August the Passamaquoddys at Pleasant Point just had their annual dance gathering, I was on business and only had the chance to glimpse the colorful dresses as I drove by. I wish I had stopped. It would be nice to chat in person some day as our paths cross on such matters.

We do have some very true to the detail square ruled frames, I mentioned they are typically churches and the occasional grange hall.

Top
#34029 - 09/28/16 09:14 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Dag Nabbit Tim...now I'm home sick Man!!!

I really do miss Maine, and your friend is lucky...the WEMT Certs in Maine are simply unmatched until you get to perhaps Alaska and then there not better...just comparable. I have often tried to explain to those unfamiliar with Maine just how vast it is within regions of other parts of New England. It is very much like Alaska or parts of Wyoming or Montana. When we took ambulance duty (unlike most EMT basics from most regions) you became accustomed to the 2 to 3 hours you had to care for a patient...not the normal 10 to 20 minutes that most Emergency Care staff experience.

I missed that about Churches and Grange Hall before...sorry. It makes since though as many Timberwrights of that time periods had...niches...they worked in like Churches. Churches and other public building work often pulled in a Framer from some distance away (which you probably knew that) and it was there specialty, while the farmhouse or barn was often just a talented local person or the Farmer himself. I think there is a publication someplace about the historical Churches of Maine...If I find it, I will post a link to it.
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34031 - 09/29/16 09:04 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: Roger Nair]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Originally Posted By: Roger Nair

It was not until Jack Sobon published the square rule, scribe rule booklet that the terms used in the title appeared in the general discussion...


Hello Roger, et al,

This passage has been eating at me for a number of days now...I thank you for it...as it has been making my brain itch!!

For someone that has been at this and related crafts for so dang long and spent entirely too many sleepless nights in dusty stacks of documents (before they all got digitised...ha, ha) when I read something or hear something that seems out of context...it just won't let go of my brain.

This is not a "...a new reordering of knowledge that was truly lost and had to be regained," by any stretch of the imagination. The topic of Layout (with its many terms in multiple languages and traditions) and its many methods has kept many a Wright of Woods of all sorts from Shipwright to Cooper up pondering the methods. It has also been part of the..."general discussion," well before Jack's time, or any of his publications. He is well read and known now for instilling a great deal of interest in our craft with his wonderful published works...no doubt!! Nevertheless, he was not, nor is the progenitor of this topic contemporarily...not by any means. Many of us, way back in the 70's began (like generations before in these Wood Crafts) started asking and reading old text...or those around us passing on knowledge...how to lay out all manner of thing...from templating a Vase, to Long Coat and on to lofting a small Schooner or Timber Frame Barn.

So, on that note, what had eaten at me these past few days was...Where the heck did I read..."Square Rule," for the first time. I knew I was pretty sure "Edge Rule" was from my Amish Mentors, and I know I have heard Rudy C. and Ed L. both used these terms in discussions well before any of the books we have contemporarily publish on the subject today. I just couldn't pull out from my memory where I got to reading about Square Rul???

Today I am pretty sure I found the first source reference of which I read this burried in my notes...!!

"Civil Architecture" by Edward Shaw 1836 pg 143 from his chapter on Carpentry and the section on Framing. Shaw goes on to describe both Scribe Rule and Square Rule to some length.

There is more in other text that I am unable to gather at this time. I have been after this subject for some time now, and a number of us firmly believe the roots to Square Rule are in Shipwrighting, as this craft is closely related and connected to the work of the Timberwright both now and historically. During the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Layout became a focal point in many wood related industries...ship design and building be a major one, with framing (aka timber framing) being a firm second and/or equal..



Edited by Jay White Cloud (09/29/16 09:09 PM)
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34032 - 09/29/16 09:04 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hello All...

I think this will be (or should be??) my last post on this thread. The topic of Layout for timber framing is a vast and in depth one. It is a subject I have studied at some length for well over 30 years now.

Because of this conversation and some rather excellent participation in my view, I think starting a new post thread is warranted. Further, I am (per Will B. et al's suggestion) will be writing a piece for our Journal over the next few months that should have some worth and quality by spring 2017 for that quarter's publication (if I can pull everything together in my head and notes...ha, ha.)

The new post will revisit much of what was written here, so do bear with me for the beginning. "Out of Wind" was excellent, but I feel this topic should be expanded and specifically titled to..."Layout In Timber Framing...Historic Practices and Contemporary Applications Of Them"...

The post thread will explore what I have learn and hope to outline in the article...PLUS...anything and everything others think of, would like to see, and our have views about.

Warm Regards,

j
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
#34033 - 09/30/16 08:36 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: jjboudreau19]
TIMBEAL Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1875
Loc: Maine
Before you go Jay, I need to clarify my position on universal parts of a frame fitting in various location. It is hard for me to put a piece from one part of the frame that had an intended spot and simply just put it some place else in the frame. Although some pieces are able to be put in any slot, like braces and some girts. Even top plates can we switched, depending on bent spacing and the like. The hard part for me, I realized today as I was sorting pieces of a frame we are raising, is in the layout. When I put a bunch of pieces out on the bunks for cutting they have to be in order, logical order. 1-6 all south side post. They get marked with crayon and race knife as a final marking. It simply goes against my system to mix things up. This orientation that starts in the shop and continues until the thing stands.

Top
#34034 - 09/30/16 11:35 PM Re: Out of wind. [Re: TIMBEAL]
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 484
Loc: Vermont
Hey Tim...

No worries...I will still follow along here, and post directly when addressed like you have now. We will be revisiting all this in the new post thread as I do feel a bit Sheepish in kidnapping this one as we all have...(no harm though...its been great!!)

I do want to explore much of this and compare personal notes and observations among all we can get to participate in what they have done, seen and/or researched...I will be asking many direct question for comparative analysis (of sorts) between our findings and perspectives...

Now to your points...and good ones they are...!

First, I think your perception of timber framing systems and approach modalities clearly reflects the normative cultural exposure you have to the craft in general...To me, it clearly reflects you being up there in Maine and understanding timber framing (in general) from that perspective...It even explains part of our not to distant conversation about extremely tapered pegs!!! It was pointed out to me, and on visit soon after that extreme taper in Trunnel is common in some regions...if not the norm...Maine being one of them! So again we have a stylization and moteff that still is having a effect (perhaps even subconsciously) on those that live in a Region.

I believe every word of what you wrote. I also believe (in that context and your system approach to framing) that enchantability is not as fluid or part of the system as it can be found in others...In fact, for your region and your frames...it probably just does not work. I can think of times and projects where our frames would reflect exactly the same perspective.

On the frame we are on now at 8m wide and over 45m long with 6m bays, we have a much more...well Asian...motif (actually Prairie Style to be more accurate with a Craftsman Period flair.) other than a few pieces on the gable end with a scattering hear and there...all primary pieces are virtually interchangeable to the point of not even getting specific labels until just before raising...The toggle keys (small free tenons) that lock the Corbels to the Upper Chords (aka Top Plates) number in the thousands and are mass produced to fit there mortise. The list goes on, but you get the gist...

I look forward to getting the new post up and running in a few day...I do so look forward to seeing you there with others!!!

Regards,

j
_________________________
http://about.me/tosatomo

Top
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Moderator:  Jim Rogers, mdfinc 
Newest Members
MitchJ, Skemmett, Ali, ccollier, trouts2
4785 Registered Users