Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [MedievalSawdust] Pavilion Poles & Timber-framing Scarf Joints

Expand Messages
  • Siegfried
    Yes, I could. My point was. No, I don t want ;) It would get in the way with the layout that we prefer (and our huge mucking bed) Siegfried ... --
    Message 1 of 18 , Jul 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, I could.

      My point was. No, I don't want ;) It would get in the way with the
      layout that we prefer (and our huge mucking bed)

      Siegfried


      On 7/11/05, Joseph Hayes <von_landstuhl@...> wrote:
      >
      > >> Are you planning to use a center pole?
      > >
      > > No ... It's a walltent ... 8' peak, 14.5' ridge
      >
      > You can still have a center pole. I have a 10x16 wall tent with 2
      > ridge poles and three uprights made from standard 2x4s (painted). It's
      > nice to have something in the center of the room to hang stuff from.
      >
      > Ulrich
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ____________________________________________________
      > Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items.
      > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      --
      _________________________________________________________________________
      THL Siegfried Sebastian Faust - http://crossbows.biz/
      Barony of Highland Foorde - Baronial Archery Marshal
      Kingdom of Atlantia - Deputy Kingdom Earl Marshal for Target Archery
      http://eliw.com/ - http://archery.atlantia.sca.org/
    • Siegfried
      If you look at those designed, they are meant to not come apart via twisting either. They are actually rather ingenious I think ... The only way that they
      Message 2 of 18 , Jul 11, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        If you look at those designed, they are meant to not come apart via
        twisting either. They are actually rather ingenious I think ... The
        only way that they could come apart, in practice, is via 'perfect
        lateral movement' ... any amount of twist or pressure on the joint
        itself, just binds it tight.

        Now, not saying that the wood might not decide to crack itself open
        ... but, still ;)

        Siegfried


        On 7/11/05, Conal O'hAirt Jim Hart <baronconal@...> wrote:
        > In that it was a joint
        > > that disassembled
        > > easily, and just 'held itself together'. No bolts,
        > > no nothing.
        >
        >
        > What about twisting forces?
        >
        >
        >
        > Baron Conal O'hAirt / Jim Hart
        >
        > Aude Aliquid Dignum
        > ' Dare Something Worthy '
        >
        >
        >
        > __________________________________
        > Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
        > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
        > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        --
        _________________________________________________________________________
        THL Siegfried Sebastian Faust - http://crossbows.biz/
        Barony of Highland Foorde - Baronial Archery Marshal
        Kingdom of Atlantia - Deputy Kingdom Earl Marshal for Target Archery
        http://eliw.com/ - http://archery.atlantia.sca.org/
      • Conal O'hAirt Jim Hart
        ... If I m understanding the place it broke.... ... xxxxxxx---------- ... My father taught me a trick that he used in the reserves... Take a 1/4 bolt like a
        Message 3 of 18 , Jul 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          > What finally broke was one of the laps 'split off'
          > down the length of
          > the ridge (diagonally though) ... given they were
          > only 3/4" thick.
          > Of course, it happened when I 'dropped' the pole
          > *sigh*

          If I'm understanding the place it broke....

          ---------------------
          xxxxxxx----------
          -----------


          My father taught me a trick that he used
          in the reserves...

          Take a 1/4" bolt like a long rivet and put it
          through the board just before the lap. Get one
          long enough to cutt off the threads and peen the
          end over a washer like a rivet. It will add lots
          of strenght to it.

          the 'I' is the bolt.....

          -------I----------- --I-------
          I --------- -------- I
          -------I-- ----------I-------





          Baron Conal O'hAirt / Jim Hart

          Aude Aliquid Dignum
          ' Dare Something Worthy '



          __________________________________
          Yahoo! Mail
          Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
          http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
        • James Winkler
          That would take real brass ... ;-S [Hey... looks good from 10 feet or so!!!!] Chas. [shiny brass is always ... As long as you do not go back to buying gold
          Message 4 of 18 , Jul 11, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            That would take 'real brass'... ;-S   [Hey... looks good from 10 feet or so!!!!]
            Chas.
             

            \[shiny brass is always
            > nice]...

            As long as you do not go back to buying
            gold spray paint by the case Charles....



            Baron Conal O'hAirt / Jim Hart

               Aude Aliquid Dignum
                 ' Dare Something Worthy '

          • ewdysar
            I believe that I have seen examples of the Norm joint in the Gamble House in Pasadena, a historical Greene and Greene Craftsman mansion. The house also
            Message 5 of 18 , Jul 12, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I believe that I have seen examples of the "Norm" joint in the
              Gamble House in Pasadena, a historical Greene and Greene Craftsman
              mansion. The house also contains examples of the scarf joints
              shown. The Norm joint was used in various spots in the interior,
              with exotic woods and master quality detail. The scarf joints were
              in the roof structure along with other timber frame joints, more
              structural than show.

              Eric, aka Eirikr

              --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried
              <SiegfriedFaust@g...> wrote:
              > Ok, so last year my ridge pole busted at Pennsic, and I managed to
              > screw & glue it together to allow it to work ...
              > In particular, I was impressed a while back while watching This Old
              > House reruns, at watching Norm make a 'Interlocking Scarf Joint'
              (or
              > something similarly called). In that it was a joint that
              disassembled
              > easily, and just 'held itself together'. No bolts, no nothing.
              > Really dern impressive and guaranteed to impress people, who
              looking
              > at it think that there is no way it will hold together, but it
              does.
              >
              > Ok, here is my question though. I've done some research, and
              while
              > 'real details' are hard to find, I'm debating between 2 different
              > joints. And I'd like some advice.
              >
              > The first is the 'Norm' joint ... pardon the bad ASCII art (go
              render
              > this in a monospace font), but it looks like this:
              > ___________________________________
              > /
              > ---[]---[]---[]---
              > _______________________/___________
              >
              > In this join, the [] areas hold wood blocks, that are meant to
              slide
              > in easily. No need to be 'tight'. Once all 3 are in, any attempt
              at
              > movement by the joint binds them all up.
              >
              > Second is a Splayed Hooked Wedged Scarf Joint, that I found via
              > searching online at Timber Framing sites ... A decent picture of
              this
              > can be seen here sans it's wedges:
              > http://www.trilliumdell.com/vocabulary/img/scarf_joint.jpg
              >
              > Also here is bad ASCII art as well:
              > _____________________________________
              > __\
              > __..--''
              > __..-[]-''
              > __..--''
              > _____\_______________________________
              >
              > Here, the single hole [] (it's supposed to be tipped ... check that
              > image I sent) ... instead is meant to take 2 wedges to be driven
              > against each other, to push the joint tight and keep it tight.
              >
              > So, now, the questions:
              >
              > A) Any reason any of you can see to do one, versus the other?
              Besides
              > the fact that the bottom one seems to be quite common in timber
              > framing, whereas I can't see any references to the Norm joint
              anywhere
              > ... except the show where he made it in an arbor, and the show
              where
              > he 'discovered it', used in building a house.
              >
              > B) Followup....
              > Thanks,
              > Sorry for the long email,
              > Siegfried
              >
            • Chris Larsson (Hrelgar)
              I ve been pondering this all day. On the surface it would seem to me that the norm joint would perform better with downward pressure (assuming beam is
              Message 6 of 18 , Jul 12, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I've been pondering this all day. On the surface it would seem to me
                that the norm joint would perform better with downward pressure
                (assuming beam is horizontal) Since there's more wood available (half
                of the beam) in the hook portion of the joint.

                But then I noticed that the block in the timber frame joint is
                actually a wedge and is canted. During the assembly the wedge is
                hammered in, driving the pieces together, and would result in a
                tighter joint. Norm's relies on well cut, matching surfaces.

                Also, I'd speculate that the timber frame joint may make assembly
                easier. Remember, this would be used on large beams. So the beams
                could be hoisted into place, and supported by an upright from below
                and hooked together (where the wedge will be eventually driven in).
                Then the uprights (which presumably this is being used to bridge
                between), can be drawn together (via ropes/pulleys or whatever) and
                the joint would be drawn together, sliding along the canted portion of
                the joint. Then finally the wedge would be hammered in to hold in place.

                I have no timber frame experience, so my description is pure conjecture.

                So, I'd guess that Norm's joint might actually be better for your
                application, since there'd be more wood available to support the joint
                with downward force. I was thinking that one could actually make the
                blocks be wedge shaped parallelograms (i.e. a rectangle on one end and
                a parallelogram on the other) which would force the 2 beams closer
                together during assembly.

                I was also thinking that you could wrap the hooked portion of the
                joint tightly with cord rather than metal. Just an alternative that
                would accomplish the same thing.

                Chris

                > > A) Any reason any of you can see to do one, versus the other?
                > Besides
                > > the fact that the bottom one seems to be quite common in timber
                > > framing, whereas I can't see any references to the Norm joint
                > anywhere
                > > ... except the show where he made it in an arbor, and the show
                > where
                > > he 'discovered it', used in building a house.
                > >
              • Bill McNutt
                It s been my experience that butt joints and scotch tape will work in calm weather. It s when the wind starts to pick up that things get exciting. Neither of
                Message 7 of 18 , Jul 13, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  It's been my experience that butt joints and scotch tape will work in calm
                  weather. It's when the wind starts to pick up that things get exciting.
                  Neither of these joints do if for me when I think of pitching my pavilion at
                  the Lilies War, where occasional gusts of 30 mph are thought of as "breezy."
                  How are these things going to hold up with the side-ways forces that pop
                  back and forth?

                  Master Will
                  http://tech.cls.utk.edu/wood


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                  [mailto:medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Larsson
                  (Hrelgar)
                  Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:36 PM
                  To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [MedievalSawdust] Re: Pavilion Poles & Timber-framing Scarf Joints

                  I've been pondering this all day. On the surface it would seem to me
                  that the norm joint would perform better with downward pressure
                  (assuming beam is horizontal) Since there's more wood available (half
                  of the beam) in the hook portion of the joint.

                  But then I noticed that the block in the timber frame joint is
                  actually a wedge and is canted. During the assembly the wedge is
                  hammered in, driving the pieces together, and would result in a
                  tighter joint. Norm's relies on well cut, matching surfaces.

                  Also, I'd speculate that the timber frame joint may make assembly
                  easier. Remember, this would be used on large beams. So the beams
                  could be hoisted into place, and supported by an upright from below
                  and hooked together (where the wedge will be eventually driven in).
                  Then the uprights (which presumably this is being used to bridge
                  between), can be drawn together (via ropes/pulleys or whatever) and
                  the joint would be drawn together, sliding along the canted portion of
                  the joint. Then finally the wedge would be hammered in to hold in place.

                  I have no timber frame experience, so my description is pure conjecture.

                  So, I'd guess that Norm's joint might actually be better for your
                  application, since there'd be more wood available to support the joint
                  with downward force. I was thinking that one could actually make the
                  blocks be wedge shaped parallelograms (i.e. a rectangle on one end and
                  a parallelogram on the other) which would force the 2 beams closer
                  together during assembly.

                  I was also thinking that you could wrap the hooked portion of the
                  joint tightly with cord rather than metal. Just an alternative that
                  would accomplish the same thing.

                  Chris

                  > > A) Any reason any of you can see to do one, versus the other?
                  > Besides
                  > > the fact that the bottom one seems to be quite common in timber
                  > > framing, whereas I can't see any references to the Norm joint
                  > anywhere
                  > > ... except the show where he made it in an arbor, and the show
                  > where
                  > > he 'discovered it', used in building a house.
                  > >





                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Siegfried
                  Ahh, yes, that s it. The Gamble house. It was an episode where Norm visited the Gamble house and saw the joint there. Then he in a later episode made
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jul 13, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ahh, yes, that's it. The Gamble house. It was an episode where Norm
                    visited the Gamble house and saw the joint there. Then he in a later
                    episode made gazebo/type thing, using that joint to hook long cross
                    pieces together.

                    Thanks, that had been bugging me.

                    Siegfried


                    On 7/12/05, ewdysar <ewdysar@...> wrote:
                    > I believe that I have seen examples of the "Norm" joint in the
                    > Gamble House in Pasadena, a historical Greene and Greene Craftsman
                    > mansion. The house also contains examples of the scarf joints
                    > shown. The Norm joint was used in various spots in the interior,
                    > with exotic woods and master quality detail. The scarf joints were
                    > in the roof structure along with other timber frame joints, more
                    > structural than show.
                    >
                    > Eric, aka Eirikr
                    >
                    > --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried
                    > <SiegfriedFaust@g...> wrote:
                    > > Ok, so last year my ridge pole busted at Pennsic, and I managed to
                    > > screw & glue it together to allow it to work ...
                    > > In particular, I was impressed a while back while watching This Old
                    > > House reruns, at watching Norm make a 'Interlocking Scarf Joint'
                    > (or
                    > > something similarly called). In that it was a joint that
                    > disassembled
                    > > easily, and just 'held itself together'. No bolts, no nothing.
                    > > Really dern impressive and guaranteed to impress people, who
                    > looking
                    > > at it think that there is no way it will hold together, but it
                    > does.
                    > >
                    > > Ok, here is my question though. I've done some research, and
                    > while
                    > > 'real details' are hard to find, I'm debating between 2 different
                    > > joints. And I'd like some advice.
                    > >
                    > > The first is the 'Norm' joint ... pardon the bad ASCII art (go
                    > render
                    > > this in a monospace font), but it looks like this:
                    > > ___________________________________
                    > > /
                    > > ---[]---[]---[]---
                    > > _______________________/___________
                    > >
                    > > In this join, the [] areas hold wood blocks, that are meant to
                    > slide
                    > > in easily. No need to be 'tight'. Once all 3 are in, any attempt
                    > at
                    > > movement by the joint binds them all up.
                    > >
                    > > Second is a Splayed Hooked Wedged Scarf Joint, that I found via
                    > > searching online at Timber Framing sites ... A decent picture of
                    > this
                    > > can be seen here sans it's wedges:
                    > > http://www.trilliumdell.com/vocabulary/img/scarf_joint.jpg
                    > >
                    > > Also here is bad ASCII art as well:
                    > > _____________________________________
                    > > __\
                    > > __..--''
                    > > __..-[]-''
                    > > __..--''
                    > > _____\_______________________________
                    > >
                    > > Here, the single hole [] (it's supposed to be tipped ... check that
                    > > image I sent) ... instead is meant to take 2 wedges to be driven
                    > > against each other, to push the joint tight and keep it tight.
                    > >
                    > > So, now, the questions:
                    > >
                    > > A) Any reason any of you can see to do one, versus the other?
                    > Besides
                    > > the fact that the bottom one seems to be quite common in timber
                    > > framing, whereas I can't see any references to the Norm joint
                    > anywhere
                    > > ... except the show where he made it in an arbor, and the show
                    > where
                    > > he 'discovered it', used in building a house.
                    > >
                    > > B) Followup....
                    > > Thanks,
                    > > Sorry for the long email,
                    > > Siegfried
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    --
                    _________________________________________________________________________
                    THL Siegfried Sebastian Faust - http://crossbows.biz/
                    Barony of Highland Foorde - Baronial Archery Marshal
                    Kingdom of Atlantia - Deputy Kingdom Earl Marshal for Target Archery
                    http://eliw.com/ - http://archery.atlantia.sca.org/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.