Using a squaring rod

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

billbeee

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2007
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Darwin Australia
Hi All,
Just signed up so I thought an intro might be in order.
I'm an Aussie builder, ten quid tourist but still a Lancashire lad.
I spend a fair bit of my retirement time writing stuff like this.

For a rectangle to be true, that is with all the corners being at 90 degrees, the diagonals distances between opposite corners will be the same length.

This is so simple and well known that sometimes we forget it completely. All the time I see people squaring something up with say a steel square when a check of the diagonals would be far more positive and accurate.

In the bad old days before the retracting metal tape measures came out we used to do a lot of our measuring and marking out with rods of timber.

* Let's say I am making a door, it is clamped up and glued, and ready for the wedging up.
* Just before this, even though I know my shoulders on my tenons are all spot on square, :D I reach for my squaring rod and give it a final check.
* The rod is just a length of beading, say 20mm x 12mm with a smaller piece of the same material pinned underneath.
* The smaller piece underneath has a long tapered point on it to allow it to fit right into the very corner of the frame.
* I mark off one diagonal length and then the other.
* The distance between the marks is double the amount that the door is out of square.
* So a pencil mark in the middle of the two is the correct diagonal length.
* In this example of a door, I would loosen off the clamps and push along the longer diagonal until both diagonals are equal.
* As with setting out rods, the squaring rods were made with pine timber that a swift stroke with a smoothing plane would clean off the old marks and leave it fresh for the next job.

I can't remember the last time I made a mortise and tenon door, or a timber window frame with fitted sashes, but I can remember a couple of years ago when I used a squaring rod to check steel gates that I was fabricating.

I am not saying let's go back to using rods, but intrinsically it is more accurate than a tape measure, and there is no mental arithmetic to do. Also it is a one man operation. No second pair of hands holding the end of the tape, when he could be doing something else.

The point of using a diagonal measure is that an individual piece of material in a frame, can have a bend in it, and so throw out any readings that you might take with a hand square. By checking the diagonals with a rod or a tape measure your work will be far more accurate.

A hand square measures a small length, a diagonal measure is a lot longer and therefore more accurate. In addition the gap between the two distance marks is double the actual error and so easier to see.

Cheers
Bill
 
Welcome to the forum Bill, i must admit i always use a "rod",
rather than a tape measure, my old woodwork teacher would
be astounded. :lol:
 
ive always use a tape measure because its on my tool belt, ill look at a rod for the workshop
 
billbeee":1qoa21ta said:
I am not saying let's go back to using rods,

Thank heavens for that :whistle: :twisted:

Sorry Bill it's an in-joke that I couldn't resist. Welcome to the forum.

As far as checking for square goes have you seen this from our very own Steve Maskery?
 
Bill

Welcome to the forum.

I always check the diagonals to check for squareness.

MarkW, thanks for posting the Steve maskery clip, That is a very useful tool he's made.
 
Yes I use the corner to corner method all the time, it's so much more accurate with large work like wardrobe back panels. Occasionally though you just can't get to the outside corners or even opposing internal corners for the rod, then Steves gadget really comes into it's own.
 
I'm strictly a novice doing a bench joinery course and I LOVE THIS STUFF. The diagonals thing was a total revelation to me when my tutor told me about it. I am not a very numbery person and do far better with scribed/scratched/scored methods than read measurments.
I love finding out that even the diagonal rule has some tweaks to it. Keep them coming! Thanks
 
The corner to corner only works if the two opposing sides are exactly the same length and the top and bottom are the exact same length. :shock: I think Steve Maskery's Gadget is a better deal. :)
 
Lord Nibbo":5f0y6czg said:
The corner to corner only works if the two opposing sides are exactly the same length and the top and bottom are the exact same length. :shock: I think Steve Maskery's Gadget is a better deal. :)

If it doesn't it is not square. :)
 
I think what the Lord is saying, is that if your 2 sides are of different lengths,
then you wont have a perfect rectangle with 90* corners, but a trapezium shape.
 
Hi Bill

Welcome to the forum

If you could add some picture, it would make it clear for me all this "rod" business...

About the Steve Maskery's gadget, I saw it around one year ago, made 3 of them and failed to get correct reading...I think that one needs very, very precise machinery to make it.

Does anybody made and/or uses one of the Maskery's gadget ?

In the mean time I'll continue to check my diagonals like this
028.jpg



With this
Bars05.jpg
 
Hi again,
Thanks for the welcome.
being a newby, I'm not allowed to post photos, but originally I had a sketch uploaded and probably the reason why text was a bit unclear was that I first referenced the photo and then chopped it about a bit.
Niki, a photo is worth a thousand words. What you have in your lower photo is what I might call a "go, no go" gage. We might make one up say, to test a few window openings in brickwork to make sure that we have the right clearance on them all before ordering window frames. I have seen a manufactured one of these consisting of two aluminium tubes sliding inside each other, with a readout showing the width between the two ends. This was owned by a commercial window and door manufacturer. Two battens do the same job eh!

I admit I'm a bit of a roughy, and that video clip gadget seems a bit too fussy for me.

Cheers
Bill
 
Back
Top