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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.