Thread: WIP - John's Workbench Mk2!!

You could of course forgo any sort of dog holes and just use the old fashioned variety of dogs...

Originally Posted by Woodwould

You could of course forgo any sort of dog holes and just use the old fashioned variety of dogs...

Now those are dogs, alright, WW - with sharp teeth!

But you wouldn't be forgoing dog-holes - there are hundreds on the bench in the picture. I can't see our crowd repeatedly driving those points into precious, polished bench tops. In fact, I think I can hear shrieks of agony echoing across the land as this thread is opened......

An interesting little gadget though. I've seen two-pointed dogs often enough, but haven't come across that style before - neat!

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

I can't see our crowd repeatedly driving those points into precious, polished bench tops.

Bingo! The fashion is to build benches as furniture and not workhorses.

Woodwould! 1791 and round dog holes? How dare you!

Originally Posted by rustynail

Woodwould! 1791 and round dog holes? How dare you!

The latter half of the eighteenth-century was the Golden Age of British invention, the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions, and latteral thinking in general – why wouldn't I have round dog holes?

But did all that extend to dog holes?

Originally Posted by rustynail

But did all that extend to dog holes?

Seemingly it did.

Interestingly I am unable to find anything showing round. As apprentices we were told round dog holes were for rough carpenters and bridge builders. Mind you, we were told a lot of things that were less than gospel. The logic being a square dog presented a flat face to soft furniture type timbers, did not rotate under load,could be height adjusted with the tap of a mallet, or your forehead, if you were having a bad day. To me this seemed logical and I was satisfied with the reasoning so dutifully barked out mortises to comply.
Brainwashed?

Originally Posted by rustynail

Interestingly I am unable to find anything showing round. As apprentices we were told round dog holes were for rough carpenters and bridge builders. Mind you, we were told a lot of things that were less than gospel. The logic being a square dog presented a flat face to soft furniture type timbers, did not rotate under load,could be height adjusted with the tap of a mallet, or your forehead, if you were having a bad day. To me this seemed logical and I was satisfied with the reasoning so dutifully barked out mortises to comply.
Brainwashed?

Rusty, I began my working life as an apprentice in a completely different area (electronics) and can report that we were told a few furphies. I ended up going back to school and into a completely different field at university, where we were given some information, often very dogmatically, that turned out to be quite wrong! I went on to become an academic myself, and know that I told students things that have since been shown to be wrong. So I doubt any field is free of dogmas, or anyone is infallible...

What you said above makes logical sense, and I agree that for the reasons you state, square dogs are fundamentally good. However, I use both, and while my work might be a bit rough at times, I don't think I can put any blame on the dogs! ( Hmmm, I do over-build at times, so p'raps there IS a bit of bridge-carpenter lurking in me ) Anyhow, I still reckon that there are no virtues of square dogs that can't be replicated quite satisfactorily with round ones. Putting a flat on a round dog doesn't weaken it materially. Why all this worry over strength, anyway? In 30 odd years of using wooden dogs I can't remember breaking any (if I did, it didn't leave any lasting scars ). In fact, I reckon 3/4 pinus crapiata dogs would hold most things quite well enough for me, and be kind to softer woods. I must try some & see just how easy they are to shear off...

Yeah, I know, I'm an argumentative PITA, but I'm bored witless with what I'm supposed to be doing, and debate is good....

Cheers,

I didn't mean to be derogatory with the term "rough carpenter." In the past carpenters were classified by this term if they worked rough or undressed timber. It was not a reflection on their standard of work, rather a description of the material used. What you say is correct, there isn't much between square and round when all is said and done. The big advantage with round is a quick squirt with the drill and you've got a new dog hole. Most of my work is in Aust cedar - often soft to the extreme, requiring some
changes in handling methods. Many fellows who have worked with me from time to time and qualified carpenters and joiners have been frustrated by the ease with which the wood can be damaged. Just a fragment of shaving on the bench can produce an indent requiring steaming or sanding out. In these timbers round dogs are like footy sprigs. Every piece has a pie crust edge. As far as shear strength is concerned, some of our hardwoods can give a dog a pretty bad time and I wouldn't like a pine one.
I have a set of dogs I made from brigalow in 1969. They continue to serve me well. Though the bench tops have been replaced several times since then. These days their work is light compaired to their early days when Redgum, Iron wood, Spottedgum, Ironbark and the not so frequent Lignum vitae and Ebony were all regulars. I don't think pine would have seen the day out.

My apologies for flogging a dead horse, but curiosity got the better of me. My life experiences have taught me that intuition isn’t always the most reliable guide, so I just had to do a little empirical study…..

I whipped up 3 sets of round dogs with 19mm shafts from approx. 25mm square sticks of (L to R) P. crapiata, Hoop pine and Cedar (Toona). (pic 1)
Here they are ready to go (pic 2), with two of my ‘regular’ dogs made of River oak (Cas. cunninghamiana) below. The R. oak is way tougher than any of the above woods (it was favoured for bullock yokes, according to Bootle!),so they were used to oppose the test dogs.

Here’s the test setup (pic 3) a handy bit of blackwood snugged up against the two radiata dogs & ready for me to start leaning heavily on the vise handle, until I get a satisfying snap crackle & pop.

Well, no joy. I thought I would be able to test to destruction, but the best I could do by tightening the vise as hard as I dared was to markedly compress the faces of the Cedar dogs (pic 4), but no breakages occurred- not even a crackle or two.

So I cut the shafts off the radiata dogs, notched then to half their diameter, & tried again. This is carrying it to extremes, of course, & I would never expect something like this to be practical. At last I got a good ‘snap’ (pic 5) without too much trouble, though it did surprise me a little how much resistance they managed to put up. I tossed the other two sets in the drawer with my regular dogs. They will come in handy next time I need soft, anti-bruising dogs, and be easier than scratching round for a bit of old rubber tyre….

One last pic – this is what I mean by the rotating ability of the dogs being handy. When gripping something shaped like this chair seat, the dogs automatically swivel & present maximum face to the workpiece, minimising marking.

Again, apologies for doing this topic to death....
Cheers,

LIke I said, brainwashed.

Guys, I have a problem...I don't know if I've left enough room for the wagon vice!



The hole is the underside if the top showing the unfinished mortise that dry joins (hopefully, otherwise it'll be screwed) the leg to the top.

Is this still going to work? Obviously I still have to trim the edge & install the end cap, but I was thinking of making it a bit chunkier at about 200mm.

Am I better off rethinking the vice & going for a twin screw end vice?

bvgger
might I suggest WIP - John's Workbench Mk3!!