Traditional Norwegian

[pmcgee]

Sean Hellman: Norwegian traditional woodworking films (http://seanhellman.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/norwegian-traditional-woodworking-films.html)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmPyRsruDEM

[pmcgee]

Wickedly simple design with the lifting poles at 18:00 (+before)

Not sure why the "pinch dogs" are in the uprights at that stage (??).

Paul

[Twisted Tenon]

Looked like the old blokes were passing on their knowledge to the next generation. I don't get using the branches for the walls though. Doesn't seem to be a lasting option.

TT

[Bushmiller]

Paul

Looks like yet another use for our saws. Got any pine out your way?

Regards
Paul

[pmcgee]

Not *that* much. :)

[Colin62]

I don't get using the branches for the walls though.

Can you imagine the smell of the pine inside the building? Must be fantastic :-)

[Twisted Tenon]

Can you imagine the smell of the pine inside the building? Must be fantastic :-)

I was thinking that too. Those main poles looked green as they were peeling the bark off. It would be years before that scent faded.

TT

[ch!ppy]

Wickedly simple design with the lifting poles at 18:00 (+before)

Not sure why the "pinch dogs" are in the uprights at that stage (??).

Paul


lifting off the frames ,using 'poles' isn't that much different to today. i would often use a similar method to lift if the wall was large enough. being made on the ground first, sometimes very long 8m-10m+ long and not enough people, or if i was putting up wall frames on my own, which i often did. other times the walls were very tall (think something like a timber wall two stories high but made in one piece) ,kinda like the front of a church, many homes i built use to have this sort frontage and shape off one side as well and the whole area inside would be like having the height of two stories but without the second floor.

commonly we just called them props in everyday building. i would often use to use different size of prop to lift and hold just above the waist level (first lift) and the props swing down to hold the frame at that height, then re-grip for lift overhead. the second props are longer and swing into place for the final lift. they temporarily hold it in place while you quickly secure props until you have the frame in basic position and then square and level. a series of props used if the wall was extremely big and heavy. whilst their frame is indeed heavy (big stave posts on end and top plate is a beam). even frames we make sometimes would weigh about the same but spread over the whole wall not just ends and top, even though the margority of timber (studs and plates) depending on its height might be 4x1 1/2, 4x2 or even 5x? or studs up to 70mm-90mm thick (detailed by the timber framing code which was designed to save timber the large pieces, engineered to spread loads etc), then add in timber lintel beams (which might be very big and heavy to average) etc it would come close to same sort of weight that they are putting up at times. nowadays the tend to add steel to save timber again, in the form of adding steel z-beams, RSJ or LVL and the list goes on. it all adds up tp weight though.

the metal staves (or 'pinch dogs"), in their position although they didn't show it are there to help move the bottom of the post (or actually in old terms the post was actually called a stave it self) into it final position , you wouldn't put the post straight into the ground as it would rot, so they would have built a sub frame (i couldn't see if they did or not) not unlike our stump,bearer and joist system. or at the very least they would have made footings for the posts to sit on out of rock. the metal 'dog' staves would have been there so they could lift to level, manuvour or position it perfectly so the top plate (or beams in their case ) end up level with the building and bottom square and straight , by hand if possible but most likely levering it up to put a slither of stale underneath or something similar.

the pine purlins for the wall and roof ,unless treated would not last a lifetime or be as durable as we would expect now. but they would not of been using Pine Radiator that we have to use here (our climate prevents us from using those species the cold european countries can grow with optimum success), they would be using conifers similar but better than our pine, like spruce, scotts pine (which one can extract other types of preservatives out of-though not allowed in todays green-non poison world) and even birch. the first two in particular. there is a fair bit of tannin in them so they would be more durable to our pine for the purlins to hold the wall and roof cladding.

in contrast in the late and well into the 1900's hundred here, in out of the way places we used to use cypress pine and some eucalypts to build with. it would not look as hefty as the norweigian timber frame for sure, cypress only grows pretty slender and is often used before it reached full maturity so commonly 4-6inch round (sometime bigger and used for rail sleepers), used side by side (incredibly wasteful method of building), staved into ground (pretty resistant to termites and rot-though not fully) and cracks filled with mud and lime mixtures. later years they were often clad with corrugated iron, plasted even nicer on the inside you may even not notice what the wall was made from it was generally flat enough. even in the early to mid 1900's many places, usually shops or workshed for mechanics etc often used just branches to hold up purlins to which the corrugated iron was attached. I have been taught from the australian builder framing code i always found these things very interesting to look at. they don't conform and often use limbs or thin trunks as rafters.

their are bunches of fine print and pages to the framing code that still allow carpenters to make judgements on timber and even the ground types (without needed approval from others) that allow a qualified carpenter to build from scratch, if qualified he can visually asses the strength of timber, and visually grade the foundation (dirt) to know how much movement he must count for (in what grade soils one is building designated by diff letter and such). trouble is the councils and shires are laymen so getting something through council is just easier if you have different people sign off at the different phases.

i see many simularlites when watching that vid and many reasons why we build the way we do now to conserve large portions of timer. the beam/top plate and rafter joint is nice (i have used that same joint myself once or twice) but it weakens the beam somewhat and is basically acting as a lintel around the whole structure instead of just openings .and now the are ways of obtaining the same function or better with using less timber/or in better positions for better function, wile still maintaining strength.

great vid though, note the chisels used, hatchets used a lot, hand saws from the 70's by the looks


cheers
chippy