The Four Horsemen

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:14:11 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:51:43 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:42:21 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:06:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:21:09 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:43:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:50:58 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
Sir Ridesalot writes:

I believe it was Quakers who when building wooden ships used square
pegs in round holes because that stopped the peg from twisting loose
in use. So, sometimes even a square peg in a round hole is useful.

Not just Quakers, surely. Treenails were standard practice. I have
read that the non-native black locust trees in my area were originally
introduced to provide treenail stock.

Here are some pictures and video:

http://www.boat-building.org/learn-s...ood/treenails/

Those certainly look round to me.

The head ends are left square, and the corners are driven into whatever
is being fastened. I would be amazed if Quakers or anyone else drove
full-length square pegs into round holes.

Why in the world would one want to leave a square head on a round peg.
Beside I don't think that you are envisioning just how treenails were
installed... The ends of the treenail were slotted and after driving
into place wedges were driven into the end of the treenail to lock it
in place.

Why would anyone put a flat head on a nail? So it doesn't go all the way
into the hole. The corners bite into the hole, keeping it in place
before wedges are driven into each end. After that the protruding ends
can be cut off.

I don't have to envision it, because I can watch the nice video of a guy
who apparently does it for a living:

http://www.boat-building.org/learn-s...ood/treenails/

It's really pretty entertaining.

All I can say that I've spent time examining the remains of schooners
built in the early 1900's, I spent quite a bit of time helping with
the rebuilding of a 60 ft. wooden fishing boat under the supervision
of a wooden boat builder that was born in 1890 and spent his life
building traditional Maine wooden boats, I've build a boat or two
myself, and I've never seen a treenail with a square head.

But if you've seen it in the movies then I'll bow to your superior
knowledge.

So you've installed treenails? How were they made? Did you make them?
It seems to me that the only straightforward ways of making round pins
out of wood start with squares, why wouldn't it be *easier* to leave a
square head on them?

Well historically they were made by a bloke who split a plank into
smaller pieces and then used, probably a draw knife, to make them into
a round pin. My grandfather's barn, that I mentioned had treenails for
the mortise-tenon joints that weren't perfectly round.

Right, he split them into roughly square pieces, and then rounded them.
It's extra trouble to take the square head off, in that case -- you
have to turn the bugger around on your shaving horse, an extra step.

Err... I suspect that treenails would have been made in fairly long
lengths - say four to six feet. You take your work piece and lay it
down on whatever you are using to lay stuff on and round off one half
and then turn it end for end and do the other end. then cut the
treenails off a bit longer then the work. You wouldn't make the tree
nails to frame up a barn one piece at a time.

You talk like a man with a six foot lathe, rather than one with a froe
and a drawknife. From your description you've never rounded a piece of
stock by hand at all.

Well, not recently I'll admit, but I have hand made masts and spars
since I was 10 or 11 years old when I made (albeit with a great deal
of help from my father) an iceboat, as they were called then. It also
had a sail made from a flour sack, but my mother sewed that :-)

Hand split shingles are not made as you describe, nor are hand split
chair parts.

I hate to be the one to tell you but cedar shakes, as they are
properly called, are not round. Nor can they be made in one long
length and sliced off to size as they taper so if they were 6 foot
lengths one end would be paper thin and the other about two inches
thick and every shake would be a different thickness. Very difficult
to lay them evenly :-)

I hate to tell you, but there were things called shingles before they
were ever sawn. Hand split shingles, or shakes, are tapered after being
split. They could be split into six foot lengths, cut, and then
tapered, but that would be stupid.

Well, I'm a product of my environment and when you say "hand split
shingles" I envision the cedar shakes that were made in New England,
which I've seen made and they definitely were not tapered after they
were split.
See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nwXRChPmyw
for the movie.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 11/15/2013 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:05:26 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:14:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

David Scheidt writes:

John B. wrote:
:On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:36:12 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

:
:Before about 1820, no treenails were round. They were square, the
:better grade hexaganal ("eight square"). The engine lathe made it
:possible to make round treenails, which are markedly inferior. (So
:much so that using round treenails increased the cost of insuring a
:ship, or made it impossible to do so.) The advantage of a square or
:hex treenail is that it will go into a hole rather smaller than the
:treenail, which greatly increases the holding force it exerts. None
:of these were expanded with wedges, which is a slip shod technique.
:

:Well, as I previously said, my grandfather's barn was built with
:mortise-tenon joints holding the post and beams together and the
:joints were pinned with treenails. and they were essentially round,
:and I doubt that barn builders in the 1700's had a lathe set up at the
:building site to make the pins.

A barn is not a boat. And the pin used in a cross bored mortise and
tenon joint isn't the same as a treenail tused to fasten planks in
place.

:And I might add, that I've certainly seen masts and spars on the USS
:Constitution (built in 1794) that were round. Long skinny round things
:they were. If a lathe was necessary to make them it must have been a
:big one.

What's a spar got to do with a treenail? Other than 'wood, on ships'?

he
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/att...0.16.27-am.png

Taht's a picture from Essex. Maybe Massachusetts did things
differently than Maine, but I wouldn't bet on it. Clearly, square
heads.

Nice picture. Here's a link that connects to some discussion:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/woo...s-37071-3.html


Well here is a site that shows exactly what I've been talking about,
in some detail.
http://penobscotmarinemuseum.org/pbh...ng-wooden-ship


Interesting site. They show treenails being rounded by pounding them
through a hole in a thick steel plate (like a large dowel plate).
Although this has certainly been done, it's a modern innovation. Thick
steel plates were not available back in the days of the Constitution.

Why ever not?

The plate that they show is about 1/3rd the diameter of the treenail
in thickness. If the treenail is 1 inch in diameter than the metal
plate is about 1/3rd inch thick and certainly that is well within the
capability of early American blacksmiths to make.

It might also be noted that by 1776 the "Colonies" were producing
1/7th of the world's iron and steel.


Including the Ashtabula Bow Socket Company, of later bicycle
fame.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

John B. writes:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:46:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:55:18 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:36:12 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

John B. wrote:
:On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:21:09 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

:John B. writes:
:
: On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:43:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
: wrote:
:
:Frank Krygowski writes:
:
: On Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:50:58 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
: Sir Ridesalot writes:
:
: I believe it was Quakers who when building wooden ships used square
: pegs in round holes because that stopped the peg from twisting loose
: in use. So, sometimes even a square peg in a round hole is useful.
:
: Not just Quakers, surely. Treenails were standard practice. I have
: read that the non-native black locust trees in my area were originally
: introduced to provide treenail stock.
:
: Here are some pictures and video:
:
: http://www.boat-building.org/learn-s...ood/treenails/
:
: Those certainly look round to me.
:
:The head ends are left square, and the corners are driven into whatever
:is being fastened. I would be amazed if Quakers or anyone else drove
:full-length square pegs into round holes.
:
: Why in the world would one want to leave a square head on a round peg.
: Beside I don't think that you are envisioning just how treenails were
: installed... The ends of the treenail were slotted and after driving
: into place wedges were driven into the end of the treenail to lock it
: in place.
:
:Why would anyone put a flat head on a nail? So it doesn't go all the way
:into the hole. The corners bite into the hole, keeping it in place
:before wedges are driven into each end. After that the protruding ends
:can be cut off.
:
:I don't have to envision it, because I can watch the nice video of a guy
:who apparently does it for a living:
:
:http://www.boat-building.org/learn-s...ood/treenails/
:
:It's really pretty entertaining.

:All I can say that I've spent time examining the remains of schooners
:built in the early 1900's, I spent quite a bit of time helping with
:the rebuilding of a 60 ft. wooden fishing boat under the supervision
f a wooden boat builder that was born in 1890 and spent his life
:building traditional Maine wooden boats, I've build a boat or two
:myself, and I've never seen a treenail with a square head.

Before about 1820, no treenails were round. They were square, the
better grade hexaganal ("eight square"). The engine lathe made it
possible to make round treenails, which are markedly inferior. (So
much so that using round treenails increased the cost of insuring a
ship, or made it impossible to do so.) The advantage of a square or
hex treenail is that it will go into a hole rather smaller than the
treenail, which greatly increases the holding force it exerts. None
of these were expanded with wedges, which is a slip shod technique.


Well, as I previously said, my grandfather's barn was built with
mortise-tenon joints holding the post and beams together and the
joints were pinned with treenails. and they were essentially round,
and I doubt that barn builders in the 1700's had a lathe set up at the
building site to make the pins.

Almost any pin can restrain a mortise and tenon joint; all the forces
are perpendicular to the grain of the pin. That is, there is no force
trying to extract the pin.

Treenails are something different; they have to sustain forces parallel
to the grain.

Be rational. Some treenails held forces lengthwise and some held
forces in sheer. The treenails used in the Dutch example in holding
the stem together were in sheer, or will be as soon as the boat is
built.

Until this thread I had never heard the pin used with a drawbore tenon
referred to as a "treenail", which still seems an abuse of terminology.
You described treenails as having been obsoleted by wrought iron or
galvanized bolts; no reasonable person would replace the wooden pin for
a tenon with a threaded bolt, although one might replace the entire
joint with one fastened by bolts.

No, probably not in barns :-) And "modern" practices would have long
made obsolete the mortise and tenon joints in timbers although they
were still being used in Indonesian 30 years ago, just like by
Granddad's barn - mortise and tenon joint with a pin to hold it
together.

There has been a revival of interest in timber framing in the US, at
least in New England. You really could hire a crew to duplicate that
barn, today, although it wouldn't be the cheapest way to get a barn.

When you described your grandfather's barn as having treenails, I
assumed that it had joints similar to those between the planking and
frames on an old wooden vessel, which would have been quite unusual. In
fact, it seems it was put together in a way that you could hire a timber
framing crew to do today.

As I said, they were mortise and tenon joints, a mortise cut into one
piece and a tenon to fit into it with a pin through to hold it
together.

I've never seen joints made exactly this way on a boat, probably
because boats seldom use square framing (square in the sense of all
joints were at 90 degree).

By the way, have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KJbRHO76s
It is about a water powered mill in a tiny town in Vermont, Ben the
owner in the film apparently ran the mill from about 1941 until he
died. At about 13:30 into the film is a scene of Ben making dowel
pins. Not treenails but I suspect that in many instances treenails may
well have been made the same way.

Interesting video. The tool is called a "dowel plate", and if you're
not a thrifty Vermonter you can buy one ready made. I don't doubt that
someone somewhere made treenails this way, but using a plate of steel
for such a pedestrian purpose is a modern luxury. Before the Bessemer
process steel was quite expensive; axe heads used to be made of wrought
iron folded around a steel cutting edge to save money.

Drawbored mortise and tenon joints may be old fashioned, but they're not
obsolete in the way that treenails are.

I'm not sure what a "drawbored" joint is but I saw pinned mortise and
tenon joints being used in house building in Indonesia some 30 years
ago and I suspect that they are still used there in the country if
wooden houses are still being built there.

It's called a "drawbore" because the hole in the tenon is a bit further
from the tenon shoulder than the hole in the mortise is from the surface
that shoulder bears on. The pin has a tapered point on its end, and
driving the pin in tightens the joint. The tapered bit is cut off
afterwards, so that Usenet blowhards can claim that no such feature ever
existed.

And I might add, that I've certainly seen masts and spars on the USS
Constitution (built in 1794) that were round. Long skinny round things
they were. If a lathe was necessary to make them it must have been a
big one.

The Constitution has (obviously) been repeatedly re-rigged. They were
working on it last time I saw it, a couple of years ago. Many of the
tools in use looked pretty modern to me, but I did not see any oversized
lathes.

Most any working sailing ship get considerable maintenance but the
original spars were very likely to have been round.

Over half of the wood in the hull of the Constitution has been added
since it became a museum piece; it's safe to say that all of the spars
and rigging are of modern manufacture. The Constitution is no better
example than some other reproduction of actual period technique.

Repairs and modification of the USS Constitution started in about
1803, 6 years after she was built, and continued throughout her
service life. In 1819, Isaac Hull wrote to Stephen Decatur that:
"Constitution had received] a thorough repair...about eight years
after she was built. Every beam in her was new, and all the ceilings
under the orlops were found rotten, and her plank outside from the
water's edge to the Gunwale were taken off and new put on."

My point is that most of the ship has been replaced *after* she ceased
being a working vessel, and started being a museum piece.

I would guess that throughout her life nearly everything had been
modified, rebuilt or replaced. Sort of like my Grandfather's axe that
had two new heads and five new hafts :-)


--

John B. wrote:

:I expect that was the way they did it "in the old days" as there are
:all kind of stories about "barn raising's" that seemed to indicate it
:was pretty much a one day affair.

It's pretty much a one or two day affair. There's a fair amount of prep work
done, to prepare the site, and arrange for the materials to all be
available, but not much carpantry. I've watched a team of mennonite
carpenters build a barn (paid, not a community event. It was also
really a workshop, not a barn). The ground was cleared, some holes dug
for posts, and the lumber delivered in advance. The crew (about 20 men,
I htink) showed up, and went to work. They used chainsaws to make tennons,
etc. they built the walls on the ground, and lifted them into place
(with the help of a high-lift fork truck), and then did the roof
joists. They the framing done before the middle of the afternoon.
They put the roof sheathing on, and framed out doors and windows
before the end of the day. A much smaller crew came back, and did the
siding, shingled, etc.

--
sig 109

Radey Shouman writes:

It's called a "drawbore" because the hole in the tenon is a bit further
from the tenon shoulder than the hole in the mortise is from the surface
that shoulder bears on.

I think you go that backwards. The distance, on the tenon, from hole
to shoulder is the shorter. Otherwise it would be pushing the tenon
out.

The pin has a tapered point on its end, and
driving the pin in tightens the joint. The tapered bit is cut off
afterwards, so that Usenet blowhards can claim that no such feature ever
existed.

--
Joe Riel

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:14:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:05:26 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:14:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

David Scheidt writes:

John B. wrote:
:On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:36:12 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

:
:Before about 1820, no treenails were round. They were square, the
:better grade hexaganal ("eight square"). The engine lathe made it
:possible to make round treenails, which are markedly inferior. (So
:much so that using round treenails increased the cost of insuring a
:ship, or made it impossible to do so.) The advantage of a square or
:hex treenail is that it will go into a hole rather smaller than the
:treenail, which greatly increases the holding force it exerts. None
:of these were expanded with wedges, which is a slip shod technique.
:

:Well, as I previously said, my grandfather's barn was built with
:mortise-tenon joints holding the post and beams together and the
:joints were pinned with treenails. and they were essentially round,
:and I doubt that barn builders in the 1700's had a lathe set up at the
:building site to make the pins.

A barn is not a boat. And the pin used in a cross bored mortise and
tenon joint isn't the same as a treenail tused to fasten planks in
place.

:And I might add, that I've certainly seen masts and spars on the USS
:Constitution (built in 1794) that were round. Long skinny round things
:they were. If a lathe was necessary to make them it must have been a
:big one.

What's a spar got to do with a treenail? Other than 'wood, on ships'?

he
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/att...0.16.27-am.png

Taht's a picture from Essex. Maybe Massachusetts did things
differently than Maine, but I wouldn't bet on it. Clearly, square
heads.

Nice picture. Here's a link that connects to some discussion:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/woo...s-37071-3.html


Well here is a site that shows exactly what I've been talking about,
in some detail.
http://penobscotmarinemuseum.org/pbh...ng-wooden-ship


Interesting site. They show treenails being rounded by pounding them
through a hole in a thick steel plate (like a large dowel plate).
Although this has certainly been done, it's a modern innovation. Thick
steel plates were not available back in the days of the Constitution.

Why ever not?

The plate that they show is about 1/3rd the diameter of the treenail
in thickness. If the treenail is 1 inch in diameter than the metal
plate is about 1/3rd inch thick and certainly that is well within the
capability of early American blacksmiths to make.

It might also be noted that by 1776 the "Colonies" were producing
1/7th of the world's iron and steel.

Possible, sure. Cost effective, no way.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

The first Iron furnace, i.e., converting iron ore into iron or steel,
seems to have been at Falling Creek VA in 1620. The first ship built
in America was in 1607-08/ By the time of the Revolutionary War the
boat building and iron/steel making was a century and a half old. Do
you really think that they didn't know what they were doing?

And, "cost effective" is a relative term and depends largely on the
ratio between cost of materials and labor and sales prices.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:33:13 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/15/2013 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:05:26 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:14:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

David Scheidt writes:

John B. wrote:
:On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:36:12 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

:
:Before about 1820, no treenails were round. They were square, the
:better grade hexaganal ("eight square"). The engine lathe made it
:possible to make round treenails, which are markedly inferior. (So
:much so that using round treenails increased the cost of insuring a
:ship, or made it impossible to do so.) The advantage of a square or
:hex treenail is that it will go into a hole rather smaller than the
:treenail, which greatly increases the holding force it exerts. None
:of these were expanded with wedges, which is a slip shod technique.
:

:Well, as I previously said, my grandfather's barn was built with
:mortise-tenon joints holding the post and beams together and the
:joints were pinned with treenails. and they were essentially round,
:and I doubt that barn builders in the 1700's had a lathe set up at the
:building site to make the pins.

A barn is not a boat. And the pin used in a cross bored mortise and
tenon joint isn't the same as a treenail tused to fasten planks in
place.

:And I might add, that I've certainly seen masts and spars on the USS
:Constitution (built in 1794) that were round. Long skinny round things
:they were. If a lathe was necessary to make them it must have been a
:big one.

What's a spar got to do with a treenail? Other than 'wood, on ships'?

he
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/att...0.16.27-am.png

Taht's a picture from Essex. Maybe Massachusetts did things
differently than Maine, but I wouldn't bet on it. Clearly, square
heads.

Nice picture. Here's a link that connects to some discussion:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/woo...s-37071-3.html


Well here is a site that shows exactly what I've been talking about,
in some detail.
http://penobscotmarinemuseum.org/pbh...ng-wooden-ship


Interesting site. They show treenails being rounded by pounding them
through a hole in a thick steel plate (like a large dowel plate).
Although this has certainly been done, it's a modern innovation. Thick
steel plates were not available back in the days of the Constitution.

Why ever not?

The plate that they show is about 1/3rd the diameter of the treenail
in thickness. If the treenail is 1 inch in diameter than the metal
plate is about 1/3rd inch thick and certainly that is well within the
capability of early American blacksmiths to make.

It might also be noted that by 1776 the "Colonies" were producing
1/7th of the world's iron and steel.


Including the Ashtabula Bow Socket Company, of later bicycle
fame.

I've always wondered why those Europeans came up with those three
piece cranks.... and then complain about the crank arms coming loose
and the news boy riding by on his Schwin never seems to have that
problem :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:38:40 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:46:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:55:18 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:36:12 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

John B. wrote:
:On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:21:09 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

:John B. writes:
:
: On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:43:49 -0500, Radey Shouman
: wrote:
:
:Frank Krygowski writes:
:
: On Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:50:58 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
: Sir Ridesalot writes:
:
: I believe it was Quakers who when building wooden ships used square
: pegs in round holes because that stopped the peg from twisting loose
: in use. So, sometimes even a square peg in a round hole is useful.
:
: Not just Quakers, surely. Treenails were standard practice. I have
: read that the non-native black locust trees in my area were originally
: introduced to provide treenail stock.
:
: Here are some pictures and video:
:
: http://www.boat-building.org/learn-s...ood/treenails/
:
: Those certainly look round to me.
:
:The head ends are left square, and the corners are driven into whatever
:is being fastened. I would be amazed if Quakers or anyone else drove
:full-length square pegs into round holes.
:
: Why in the world would one want to leave a square head on a round peg.
: Beside I don't think that you are envisioning just how treenails were
: installed... The ends of the treenail were slotted and after driving
: into place wedges were driven into the end of the treenail to lock it
: in place.
:
:Why would anyone put a flat head on a nail? So it doesn't go all the way
:into the hole. The corners bite into the hole, keeping it in place
:before wedges are driven into each end. After that the protruding ends
:can be cut off.
:
:I don't have to envision it, because I can watch the nice video of a guy
:who apparently does it for a living:
:
:http://www.boat-building.org/learn-s...ood/treenails/
:
:It's really pretty entertaining.

:All I can say that I've spent time examining the remains of schooners
:built in the early 1900's, I spent quite a bit of time helping with
:the rebuilding of a 60 ft. wooden fishing boat under the supervision
f a wooden boat builder that was born in 1890 and spent his life
:building traditional Maine wooden boats, I've build a boat or two
:myself, and I've never seen a treenail with a square head.

Before about 1820, no treenails were round. They were square, the
better grade hexaganal ("eight square"). The engine lathe made it
possible to make round treenails, which are markedly inferior. (So
much so that using round treenails increased the cost of insuring a
ship, or made it impossible to do so.) The advantage of a square or
hex treenail is that it will go into a hole rather smaller than the
treenail, which greatly increases the holding force it exerts. None
of these were expanded with wedges, which is a slip shod technique.


Well, as I previously said, my grandfather's barn was built with
mortise-tenon joints holding the post and beams together and the
joints were pinned with treenails. and they were essentially round,
and I doubt that barn builders in the 1700's had a lathe set up at the
building site to make the pins.

Almost any pin can restrain a mortise and tenon joint; all the forces
are perpendicular to the grain of the pin. That is, there is no force
trying to extract the pin.

Treenails are something different; they have to sustain forces parallel
to the grain.

Be rational. Some treenails held forces lengthwise and some held
forces in sheer. The treenails used in the Dutch example in holding
the stem together were in sheer, or will be as soon as the boat is
built.

Until this thread I had never heard the pin used with a drawbore tenon
referred to as a "treenail", which still seems an abuse of terminology.
You described treenails as having been obsoleted by wrought iron or
galvanized bolts; no reasonable person would replace the wooden pin for
a tenon with a threaded bolt, although one might replace the entire
joint with one fastened by bolts.

No, probably not in barns :-) And "modern" practices would have long
made obsolete the mortise and tenon joints in timbers although they
were still being used in Indonesian 30 years ago, just like by
Granddad's barn - mortise and tenon joint with a pin to hold it
together.

There has been a revival of interest in timber framing in the US, at
least in New England. You really could hire a crew to duplicate that
barn, today, although it wouldn't be the cheapest way to get a barn.

Can they afford the wood? !0 - 15 years ago in Indonesia the cost of
wood had gotten so high that many houses were being built out of
concrete blocks with steel rafters and roof trusses as it was cheaper.

When you described your grandfather's barn as having treenails, I
assumed that it had joints similar to those between the planking and
frames on an old wooden vessel, which would have been quite unusual. In
fact, it seems it was put together in a way that you could hire a timber
framing crew to do today.

As I said, they were mortise and tenon joints, a mortise cut into one
piece and a tenon to fit into it with a pin through to hold it
together.

I've never seen joints made exactly this way on a boat, probably
because boats seldom use square framing (square in the sense of all
joints were at 90 degree).

By the way, have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KJbRHO76s
It is about a water powered mill in a tiny town in Vermont, Ben the
owner in the film apparently ran the mill from about 1941 until he
died. At about 13:30 into the film is a scene of Ben making dowel
pins. Not treenails but I suspect that in many instances treenails may
well have been made the same way.

Interesting video. The tool is called a "dowel plate", and if you're
not a thrifty Vermonter you can buy one ready made. I don't doubt that
someone somewhere made treenails this way, but using a plate of steel
for such a pedestrian purpose is a modern luxury. Before the Bessemer
process steel was quite expensive; axe heads used to be made of wrought
iron folded around a steel cutting edge to save money.

Drawbored mortise and tenon joints may be old fashioned, but they're not
obsolete in the way that treenails are.

I'm not sure what a "drawbored" joint is but I saw pinned mortise and
tenon joints being used in house building in Indonesia some 30 years
ago and I suspect that they are still used there in the country if
wooden houses are still being built there.

It's called a "drawbore" because the hole in the tenon is a bit further
from the tenon shoulder than the hole in the mortise is from the surface
that shoulder bears on. The pin has a tapered point on its end, and
driving the pin in tightens the joint. The tapered bit is cut off
afterwards, so that Usenet blowhards can claim that no such feature ever
existed.

Ah yes. I've seen cabinet makers make those type of joints. (although
a lot of them now substitute glue for the pin :-)


And I might add, that I've certainly seen masts and spars on the USS
Constitution (built in 1794) that were round. Long skinny round things
they were. If a lathe was necessary to make them it must have been a
big one.

The Constitution has (obviously) been repeatedly re-rigged. They were
working on it last time I saw it, a couple of years ago. Many of the
tools in use looked pretty modern to me, but I did not see any oversized
lathes.

Most any working sailing ship get considerable maintenance but the
original spars were very likely to have been round.

Over half of the wood in the hull of the Constitution has been added
since it became a museum piece; it's safe to say that all of the spars
and rigging are of modern manufacture. The Constitution is no better
example than some other reproduction of actual period technique.

Repairs and modification of the USS Constitution started in about
1803, 6 years after she was built, and continued throughout her
service life. In 1819, Isaac Hull wrote to Stephen Decatur that:
"Constitution had received] a thorough repair...about eight years
after she was built. Every beam in her was new, and all the ceilings
under the orlops were found rotten, and her plank outside from the
water's edge to the Gunwale were taken off and new put on."

My point is that most of the ship has been replaced *after* she ceased
being a working vessel, and started being a museum piece.


The Constitution was repeatedly refurbished and repaired starting
about 6 years after it was launched. and continuing ever sense. The
1931 U.S. Frigate CONSTITUTION Research Memorandum stated that "During
the recent restoration [1927-1931] about 85 percent of the ship has
been renewed, leaving about 15 percent of the original material still
intact."

There may not be but a splinter left of the original ship :-)

But this seems true of all wooden ships. At least wooden naval ships.




I would guess that throughout her life nearly everything had been
modified, rebuilt or replaced. Sort of like my Grandfather's axe that
had two new heads and five new hafts :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:06:53 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

John B. wrote:

:I expect that was the way they did it "in the old days" as there are
:all kind of stories about "barn raising's" that seemed to indicate it
:was pretty much a one day affair.

It's pretty much a one or two day affair. There's a fair amount of prep work
done, to prepare the site, and arrange for the materials to all be
available, but not much carpantry. I've watched a team of mennonite
carpenters build a barn (paid, not a community event. It was also
really a workshop, not a barn). The ground was cleared, some holes dug
for posts, and the lumber delivered in advance. The crew (about 20 men,
I htink) showed up, and went to work. They used chainsaws to make tennons,
etc. they built the walls on the ground, and lifted them into place
(with the help of a high-lift fork truck), and then did the roof
joists. They the framing done before the middle of the afternoon.
They put the roof sheathing on, and framed out doors and windows
before the end of the day. A much smaller crew came back, and did the
siding, shingled, etc.

You mean that they built the wall laying flat on the ground and then
sort of tilted it into place?
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
:On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:06:53 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

:John B. wrote:
:
::I expect that was the way they did it "in the old days" as there are
::all kind of stories about "barn raising's" that seemed to indicate it
::was pretty much a one day affair.
:
:It's pretty much a one or two day affair. There's a fair amount of prep work
:done, to prepare the site, and arrange for the materials to all be
:available, but not much carpantry. I've watched a team of mennonite
:carpenters build a barn (paid, not a community event. It was also
:really a workshop, not a barn). The ground was cleared, some holes dug
:for posts, and the lumber delivered in advance. The crew (about 20 men,
:I htink) showed up, and went to work. They used chainsaws to make tennons,
:etc. they built the walls on the ground, and lifted them into place
:(with the help of a high-lift fork truck), and then did the roof
:joists. They the framing done before the middle of the afternoon.
:They put the roof sheathing on, and framed out doors and windows
:before the end of the day. A much smaller crew came back, and did the
:siding, shingled, etc.

:You mean that they built the wall laying flat on the ground and then
:sort of tilted it into place?

yep. It required some actual lifting, too, because the main wall
posts have tenons that fit into whatever the sill plate was. (They
had a masonary foundation, no wood at or below grade.) What was
really impressive is how everyone knew what they were doing, and there
was no shouting or cursing. Not at all like a typical american
construction site. this was before digital cameras, so I dn't have
photos.

If you look around youtube, there are some videos.

--
sig 43