Here is a link to a you tube video I made showing workholding without any vise. It covers a lot of options that are useful whether or not you have a vise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvhn-PAfEW4
Here is a link to a you tube video I made showing workholding without any vise. It covers a lot of options that are useful whether or not you have a vise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvhn-PAfEW4
Mike, I've watched that video of your several times and love it! I need to build 5 or so benches, two of them double sided) for students in the coming months, do you find students get along well with this type of bench? I can't see why not but a vise sure is easy (and expensive...)
Ian, with all due respect, I cannot help but feel that maybe your thinking out some other issue by using this subject as a tennis wall. either that or your seriously tripping and should be spending some more time cutting wood!
simply work-holding and I bet the most happy people are the ones who figured out how to hold their work so they could get on with it, which ever way it might be - even one's foot like the Japanese!
Just my getting philosophical again Matthew - no problem. I of course used Ken's post as an opportunity to bounce some big picture points. It did a great job of opening up alternative perspectives on work holding that won't be familiar to many - and was pitched in a slightly provocative tone which to my mind as well as inviting discussion of specific methods suggested that an end vise wasn't necessary. My immediate thought was 'how in heaven is the punter supposed to decide between the alternatives?' Which prompted some philosophical/big picture musings on the matter of how we (in general) evaluate alternative tools and methods.
It's easy to mutter about our just needing to 'figure out how to hold our work and get on with it', but there as they say lies the rub.
Workable alternatives are great (as Ken's), but how are these to be evauated against other possibilities (conventional vises etc in this case), never mind against inaccurate advice and overblown claims from vested interests which can really muddy the water. Just how is the mythical woodworker supposed to 'figure out' whatever it is and get working without as so often happens getting burned, running a never ending testing programme or screwing up?
I wasn't saying Steve that old isn't good, and certainly wasn't adopting an anti conservation position - there's probably a gazillion very useful methods that have been lost to us as a result of the less than optimum/somewhat haphazard means i also described by which we undertake our innovation. Against that if there was no improvement we'd probably still be scraping spear points from sticks using flints, or maybe even relying on just picking up what we found lying about.
Even when we conserve we innovate - I doubt there's much 'traditional' in use today that precisely replicates how it was done in its 'day'. We seem also to ignore large swathes of time, and instead to cherry pick methods from specific eras. The ubiquitous 'olde' Stanley plane for example is in the big picture a recent industrial phenomenon. Neither our conservation nor our innovation anyway deliver optimum results - great old stuff gets lost, great new stuff is ignored, rubbish gets pushed as the latest and greatest, and the wheel is re-invented time and again.
I just floated the thought that there is perhaps room for improvement. That we could greatly up the effective return on our innovation if we could somehow establish a system that would enable us to better evaluate alternatives, and in doing so regularly strike a better balance between conservation and innovation. i.e. recognise what we have that's good and not throw it away, and equally make sure that what's new is genuinely an improvement. And effectively communicate the results.
It's not just a technical capability issue. There's also the conflicting ego, commercial and other motivations as above that can get in the mix and act to confuse the picture. Hence the added thought that trustworthiness (i used a very technical definition which combines reliable delivery of practical results with goodwill and integrity) is also central to our better getting our act together...
Last edited by ian maybury; 09-29-2015 at 6:57 PM. Reason: response to Matthew added
I didn't think you were, but you implied, as you often do, that folks who adhere to traditional methods do so blindly or slavishly, simply following the way it's "always" been done. Whereas I'd rather see most traditional techniques as mature technologies that are the result of hundreds of years of innovation and experimentation. On the far side of history, we only see the very best ideas that one, not the zillions of bad ones that have already been tried…anyway, I was asking for specific examples of traditional techniques that you think are inefficient, and I notice you didn't come up with any. Well, if you think of something, let me know…
"For me, chairs and chairmaking are a means to an end. My real goal is to spend my days in a quiet, dustless shop doing hand work on an object that is beautiful, useful and fun to make." --Peter Galbert
Thanks Steve. Yes and no from this end. We'd agree on the traditional as we experience it in large part being mature technologies resulting from long innovation and experimentation. We'd agree too that those methods that survive (even if they often enjoy the advantage of some modern 'tweaks') tend to be tried and tested, and to work very well - and be highly equipment and resource effective.
This was why I avoided answering your question - because doing so might have seemed to place me in some sort of knee jerk anti camp trying to argue that traditional methods are often rubbish. Which they most certainly are not. Rarely so in fact, and normally only when taken out of appropriate context.
They aren't necessarily always the answer to the maiden's prayer either, but that's true of all methods of work new and old. Conclusions are inevitably heavily dependent on the assessment criteria and the situation - a given method may be perceived as being more or less optimum depending on the situation and beliefs of the perceiver.
What I do imply at times is that there's likely a proportion of the trad woodworking faction that's in it less for its hard utility/efficiency and more for 'soft' reasons of one sort or another. As in many areas of life these days - look at stuff like the transition of motorcycling from utility transport to become for some a tribal lifestyle - or a matter of bragging rights, or just simple fun, or whatever....
This is no problem either, it's a great way of trialling, recycling and improving traditional activities that would otherwise likely have been lost - and of bringing more nuanced sets of requirements to bear than was perhaps the case first time around. Guess it's important that sight of the utility/productive efficiency of methods isn't lost though.
All i was trying to point up above in response to the thread (but at a tangent to the thrust of what you and also Ken posted) is that this mutiplicity of perspectives tends to greatly muddy the water for the woodworking punter trying to decide where to invest his/her resources - that the way we (in the most general sense possible - it's a societal rather than a woodworking matter) collect and utilise the information resulting from activities like these is far from optimum or efficient...
Last edited by ian maybury; 09-30-2015 at 8:11 PM.
Isn't it frequently hard to actually know what is "traditional" vs "new innovation"? There is the expression that there is nothing new under the sun, but companies like Apple seem to me to dispel that line of reasoning. I have an appreciation for old "traditional" ways of doing things, which seems to increase the older I get. At the same time in terms of my life work experience I went from ridding the wave of innovation brought by digital data communications to trying to rediscover how to communicate with "man's best friend" dogs, which ultimately are wolves. So It is just a little weird to use modern digital communication to try to better understand how animals communicate at the most basic levels often via genetically inherited traits. My point in this context is, just by posting on SMC we are creating records that may reach untold numbers of people. No telling how long these records may last or how they may be accessed in the future. There seems to me to be little that guys who research the history of woodworking can absolutely agree on. History, to my knowledge, is not all that definable in absolute terms. Science and the scientific method, are often considered the ultimate proof. Then there is the modern scientific philosophy that all scientific research has proven one thing, research always reflects the prejudices of the researchers.
It seems to me that we all have to find our own "truths", which may not hold true at all for the guy standing next to us. Still I think we all try to offer up what we find to be "true" in the hope that it may benefit others.
Ken, I kept the tail vise on my new bench, however, I left off the calculator. Just sayin. Bob
Life's too short to use old sandpaper.
This is all about how one works. If a person is building furniture mortise and tenon work, or variations lap joints, bridles etc. and dove tails are the most used joints. Rabbets and groves are probably next. If you have a tail vise and a shoulder vise most of this work is done facing the bench or with bench dogs. Even marking out dove tails is done flat on the bench. All of the other holding things are done by adapting something like Paul Sellers and his clamping or using battens. Just my opinion. If I were to build another bench a shoulder and tail vise would be included.
Jim
James,
You broke the code. There are many ways of working wood, no right way for everyone.
A shoulder vise and a tail vise on my bench would drive me bat poo crazy in a Texas minute but they are perfect for you and I expect that is true for more folks than folks like me who like an English style bench.
As always with all things wood....YMMV.
ken
An excellent video. When I build a better bench that design will definitely be in the mix.
Hi Mike, ta for that. You got it. Seeming 'fact' is so very slippery, because what gets communicated depends so heavily on the perception (in turn largely determined by the motivation and situation) of the reader/receiver and the writer/communicator. Even when a hugely capable person like Ken goes to considerable trouble to put up 100% solid material to communicate his experience of an important set of working methods that many of us are not familiar with.
Who knows (i've no idea how it can be otherwise) what transmits by the time readers in very widely differing situations get involved?
Then consider the scenario we encounter in life where more often than not there's an agenda involved, and the priority (consciously or unconsciously) shifts to 'selling' the punter over accurate communication of information.
We're so used to trying to navigate through the resulting fog that we tend to want to just 'get on with it' (as best we can extract our own take on the 'best' way forward for ourself and our own), but it's a huge practical issue anywhere that precise communication of knowledge with minimum distortion and waste is required. One with potentially very serious implications for a lot more in human affairs than just woodworking..
Last edited by ian maybury; 10-01-2015 at 7:01 AM.