why are they called dividers?

[woodbloke]

I much prefer the divider method for laying out dovetails.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

Very simply described, and much easer with pics it's thus, assuming the board is say 75mm and is to be split with three tails:
1. Mark the two half tails each side, all round, so that there are two lines on the end grain at each side.
2. Place one point of the divider on a line, set the dividers to roughly a third the distance and walk it twice across the end, making two dots.
3. Go to the other side of the wood with the divider on the same setting and walk it twice back the other way, so you should now end up with four dots on the wood, fairly close together, depending on how fine you want the tails to be.
4. The two pairs of dots mark the positions of the pins and from there it's easy to complete the rest of the marking out for the joint - Rob

 

[David C]

What I wonder, is Jacobs tradition, apart from unsolicited, rude and inapropriate comments?

David

 

[Cheshirechappie]

BugBear,

Joyce and Wearing come to mind, suggesting that the ruler method was in vogue at Loughborough after the war.

I can't go further back than that.

Have you seen divider method mentioned please?

David

By 'eck, 'ees raight, tha knaws!

I've just had a look in Wearing (The Essential Woodworker, Fig 268, p. 137) and there it is! (I suppose I could be pedantic and claim that the diagram shows a stick with equal divisions, not a ruler; but that would be dancing on the head of a pin. Besides, a ruler could be said to be a stick with equal divisions on it...)

Sorry David - you're right, I'm wrong!

 

[Jake]

What I wonder, is Jacobs tradition, apart from unsolicited, rude and inapropriate comments?

The idea of an unsolicited comment on teh internet really made me laugh. =D>

 

[Jacob]

Old Wearing an unreliable witness IMHO. You might work out your spacings on paper by the ruler and off set angle system whatever you call it but to do it on the workpiece would be very fiddly. It'd be easier to go straight for the division into fractions and certainly be easier to use dividers.
His drawer DTs are all chunky and he's committed to the mythical 1 in 6 or 8 angles. This means he has not spent much time looking at old furniture where these things are done differently, and better IMHO. The commonest drawer DT in the real world is the single kerf going to a point. This is found almost everywhere in light furniture and is not only elegant but also easy - there is only one line to square across and this sets a kerf for the two cuts. It's seems to be ignored by writers as a whole - in deference presumably to Barnsley's own arbitrary rules.
Wearing also uses the daft detail at the back of drawers - a screw in a countersunk slot. This does not work at all well. If the bottom is likely to move it will simply pull out of the front. This proves he's out of touch IMHO.

However good the books they shouldn't be taken as gospel. More truth to be found in old woodwork itself.

 

[Jacob]

What I wonder, is Jacobs tradition, apart from unsolicited, rude and inapropriate comments?

David

Your unsolicited, rude and inapropriate comments noted! Inappropriate BTW, 3 Ps. They are devils for correct spelling on here!

 

[Jake]

What I wonder, is Jacobs tradition, apart from unsolicited, rude and inapropriate comments?

David

Your unsolicited, rude and inapropriate comments noted! Inappropriate BTW, 3 Ps. They are devils for correct spelling on here!

Tsk, "are noted", surely. Pompous waggy-finger thing at you in a headmastery-way.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Joyce and Wearing come to mind, suggesting that the ruler method was in vogue at Loughborough after the war.

Have you seen divider method mentioned please? David

David, I've no idea if the slopey ruler method of setting out dovetail spacing was particularly a post-war Loughborough thing: I've used that method a lot when I get especially nitpicky about even spacing, but then I was taught a fair amount of my furnituremaking by Bob Wearing... perhaps some of his inflluence stuck.

I've even described the slopey ruler method in some of my own witterings on dovetailing, see below. Incidentally, if you follow the methodology described in Joyce for setting out dovetails using the slopey ruler method it's incorrect-- you'll end up with the two outside tails wider than all the rest in the set, that's if my memory serves me right because I can't be bothered to go and replicate his described method.

I've also used the divider method several times-- there's no gain in speed over the slopey ruler method that I've been able to discern, and neither method is as fast as simply eyeballing the spacing as you go, ie, eyeball half the width, eyeball half the two remaining widths, etc. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

.....
I've even described the slopey ruler method in some of my own witterings on dovetailing, see below. Incidentally, if you follow the methodology described in Joyce for setting out dovetails using the slopey ruler method it's incorrect-- you'll end up with the two outside tails wider than all the rest in the set, .....

Actually the method you show is incorrect - you will end up with the two outside tails narrower than the others, unless you abandon the 2/3 the width suggestion and just have half a pin (which would also be wrong).
Joyce gets it wrong too, but differently!
Basically it's fraught with little complications, and obviously isn't traditional (if you look at old furniture). Does it account for the way that so many modern makers make the outer pins too thin and have abandoned the single kerf pin? I thought it might be fashion but no, it's Wearing and Joyce (and all their followers) getting it wrong!
If you were going to use it it'd be better done on a piece of paper or board (a mini rod) rather than on the workpiece. After all you will only have to repeat it for each side unless you have made up a little rod with which to transfer the measurements.

The divider method will at least get things equalized, but for most purposes eyeballing freehand is going to be fine. And the little random errors of freehand (if they occur) tend to look easier on the eye than the systematic regular error of a method which doesn't work.

PS Wearing's method (fig 268) acknowledges the problem of the different sized outer pin but without quite showing how to solve it i.e. centre line plus half pin width both sides, or one side on the outer pin. Not that it's difficult but it is potentially confusing.

 

[bugbear]

BugBear,

Joyce and Wearing come to mind, suggesting that the ruler method was in vogue at Loughborough after the war.

I can't go further back than that.

Have you seen divider method mentioned please?

David

It's also mentioned in "woodworking made simple", and several (St) Charles Hayward books (since Hayward reused content so much, counting them is pointless!). It's only mentioned in the larger references, none of the thinner books mention it.

Interestingly it's not in Kirby's "The Complete Dovetail", probably because Kirby emphasizes the design possibilities of more interesting layouts than equal spacing. It's also absent from Bernard Jones "Practical Woodworker", Hooper & Wells, and Ellis.

The divider method was mentioned, but since I wasn't looking for it, I didn't note which books it appeared in. By far the commonest method mentioned was to measure the distance and use arithmetic division.

But Holzapfel says "Very little care is taken in setting out the pins; indeed, their distances are usually marked with a pencil, without the rule or compasses, and the two external pins are always left nearly as strong again as the others."

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

.......... By far the commonest method mentioned was to measure the distance and use arithmetic division.

Let's face it, it is easiest and quickest, next to freehanding:-

But Holzapfel says "Very little care is taken in setting out the pins; indeed, their distances are usually marked with a pencil, without the rule or compasses, and the two external pins are always left nearly as strong again as the others."

BugBear

Couldn't agree more! Though for some purposes where strength is paramount such as tanks and cisterns, a very regular setting out method would be better I think.

It's a pity that these threads seem so often to revolve around what is merely written by various "experts". It's much more interesting and informative to look at real woodwork and to find out what real woodworkers used to do in the real world. Start now (if you have an oldish piece) - how are the DTs set out, and why?

 

[Racers]

But how do the "real woodworkers" find out what to do? they must have learnt from someone. We haven't got that someone so books/forums do have a part to play.

Why don't you wright a book Jacob?

Pete

 

[Jacob]

But how do the "real woodworkers" find out what to do? they must have learnt from someone. We haven't got that someone so books/forums do have a part to play.

Books and forums yes of course. But first and foremost look at stuff and don't take anything for granted.
IMHOif you haven't got a trade experienced person to consult then looking at stuff is the most important part of the learning process - even better if you can pull it apart and put it back together again.

Why don't you wright a book Jacob?

Pete

Nobody'd buy it!
Be handy though - instead of trying to answer questions I could just say "it's on page 365 of volume 12 (available from all good bookshops with free DVD)" etc. etc. :lol:

 

[GazPal]

But how do the "real woodworkers" find out what to do? they must have learnt from someone. We haven't got that someone so books/forums do have a part to play.

Books and forums yes of course. But first and foremost look at stuff and don't take anything for granted.
IMHOif you haven't got a trade experienced person to consult then looking at stuff is the most important part of the learning process - even better if you can pull it apart and put it back together again.

Why don't you wright a book Jacob?

Pete

Nobody'd buy it!
Be handy though - instead of trying to answer questions I could just say "it's on page 365 of volume 12 (available from all good bookshops with free DVD)" etc. etc. :lol:

Free DVD? !!!!!! I'll have two copies, but be sure to sign them. Soon to be available through Amazon at half their RRP :wink:

 

[Alf]

Go on, Jacob, dare you. I'd buy it - I think it'd be educational for all involved. But you'd have to promise not to sign it; can't abide authors scribbling all over my books.

For what it's worth, as I had the first volume of The Woodworker out anyway (1901), I looked at its piece devoted to dovetailing last night and while it was firm on the frequency of the pins, it neglected to mention how to go about laying them out. Similarly, stern words on appropriate angles (with drawing) but no word on whether you should get out the bevel or dovetail marker or Mk1 eyeball. So no earthly use at all, but for the purposes of elimination...

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Actually the method you show is incorrect - you will end up with the two outside tails narrower than the others, unless you abandon the 2/3 the width suggestion and just have half a pin (which would also be wrong).
Joyce gets it wrong too, but differently!

Yes, off a wee bit, but hard to detect as there's usually only about 0.5- 1 mm variation between the pin centres. Joyce's method leaves the differences visually quite obvious, which was how I spotted it because I tried it a couple of times and there it was.

Basically it's fraught with little complications...

I've never found it in the slightest complicated, so nothing fraught that I'm aware of.

... and obviously isn't traditional (if you look at old furniture).

You're quite correct Jacob. It isn't traditional I suppose, and I think perhaps I could revisit ancient Egyptian dovetailing layouts for the proper form. I wouldn't want to use any of those rubbish modern dovetail types such as those from the English Walnut period say, or any of that naff Georgian stuff (sic).

I thought it might be fashion but no, it's Wearing and Joyce (and all their followers) getting it wrong!

Wrong? Or just doesn't comply with your definition of right?

If you were going to use it it'd be better done on a piece of paper or board (a mini rod) rather than on the workpiece. After all you will only have to repeat it for each side unless you have made up a little rod with which to transfer the measurements.

Huh? Why mark dovetails out on paper or rods? A waste of time surely? Mark the wood as necessary and cut it is the way I've always preferred to work.

The divider method will at least get things equalized, but for most purposes eyeballing freehand is going to be fine. And the little random errors of freehand (if they occur) tend to look easier on the eye than the systematic regular error of a method which doesn't work.

Agreed, dividers work, freehand eyeballing works fine too, and the sloped rule method also works, even though you seem not to like it. There's usually lots of ways to achieve things, so whatever works works, and it doesn't have to be "traditional" to be right surely?

PS Wearing's method (fig 268) acknowledges the problem of the different sized outer pin but without quite showing how to solve it i.e. centre line plus half pin width both sides, or one side on the outer pin. Not that it's difficult but it is potentially confusing.

I don't think I know that drawing of Wearing's. I can't recall ever seeing a drawing or a written description created by him for setting out tails and pins. I only remember him demonstrating the method during a lesson and going from there with it. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

....
Yes, off a wee bit, but hard to detect as there's usually only about 0.5- 1 mm variation between the pin centres. Joyce's method leaves the differences visually quite obvious, which was how I spotted it because I tried it a couple of times and there it was.

Basically it's fraught with little complications...

I've never found it in the slightest complicated, so nothing fraught that I'm aware of.

Off a wee bit? The complication is that all these systems will be off a wee bit unless you are very careful Why not eyeball to begin with?

... and obviously isn't traditional (if you look at old furniture).

You're quite correct Jacob. It isn't traditional I suppose, and I think perhaps I could revisit ancient Egyptian dovetailing layouts for the proper form. I wouldn't want to use any of those rubbish modern dovetail types such as those from the English Walnut period say, or any of that naff Georgian stuff (sic).

I thought it might be fashion but no, it's Wearing and Joyce (and all their followers) getting it wrong!

Wrong? Or just doesn't comply with your definition of right?

I haven't got a definition of right. I'm suggesting that traditionally they were done much more freely and more easily. Lots of variations. What they get wrong is first of all in suggesting that theirs is the right way, secondly in getting it wrong a wee bit, thirdly in ignoring how it's done traditionally, fourthly in making it difficult.

If you were going to use it it'd be better done on a piece of paper or board (a mini rod) rather than on the workpiece. After all you will only have to repeat it for each side unless you have made up a little rod with which to transfer the measurements.

Huh? Why mark dovetails out on paper or rods? A waste of time surely? Mark the wood as necessary and cut it is the way I've always preferred to work.

Work it out once (for all the drawers of the same size), instead of marking up each one individually

The divider method will at least get things equalized, but for most purposes eyeballing freehand is going to be fine. And the little random errors of freehand (if they occur) tend to look easier on the eye than the systematic regular error of a method which doesn't work.

Agreed, dividers work, freehand eyeballing works fine too, and the sloped rule method also works, even though you seem not to like it. There's usually lots of ways to achieve things, so whatever works works, and it doesn't have to be "traditional" to be right surely?

Traditional tends to be "right" in that it usually is the tried and tested most efficient way of doing anything.

PS Wearing's method (fig 268) acknowledges the problem of the different sized outer pin but without quite showing how to solve it i.e. centre line plus half pin width both sides, or one side on the outer pin. Not that it's difficult but it is potentially confusing.

I don't think I know that drawing of Wearing's. I can't recall ever seeing a drawing or a written description created by him for setting out tails and pins. I only remember him demonstrating the method during a lesson and going from there with it. Slainte.

In the book.
What ever happened to the single kerf DT? It's effective, easiest, most common, and is neat and tidy.

 

[bugbear]

..as I had the first volume of The Woodworker out anyway (1901), ...

DRIVE BY!!!

BugBear

 

[Racers]

I thought she was younger :wink:


Pete

 

[GazPal]

What ever happened to the single kerf DT? It's effective, easiest, most common, and is neat and tidy.

It's among the dovetail types we were taught at school and used during my apprentice years and since. I still prefer their appearance, as well as ease of execution.