Industrial-Retro-Indie-Hipster-Techno Research-Based Woodworking

All of the words used in the title of this entry have been used at one point or another to describe whether in complete or partial truth the design statement my current work is making. There are projects that actually pay the bills, and then because the economy has slowed down that activity, there are projects that are producing a body of knowledge or at least are adding to it.

There are aspects to a project I have coming up that I need to understand more completely before actually committing resources toward building it, so I decided to create a series of simple objects to prototype those aspects and their associated construction methods. The original purpose of this prototype set involved the design use of tungsten filament light bulbs, but as the project evolved so too did the objects used to hold the bulbs.

Those objects are the end result of an evolutionary process as there were several iterations of each that came before I arrived at the final set you see here. Each design iteration had fewer parts as time went on, but those parts became increasingly complex to build as I described in an earlier entry. The most significant development I think that came from this project was in the direct use of design model geometry to graphically generate computer numerically controlled tool paths. An artisan studio or workshop is a high-mix, low-volume build environment, and being able to adapt methods quickly to different design requirements to achieve acceptable build time becomes more important if a business case is involved.

A good reference source for some of the underlying principles that I currently attempt to address through prototyping design work can be found at the website for the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Quick Response Manufacturing.

The Incremental Cost of Part Complexity

I was introduced to parametric solids modeling about the time I completed building the pipe organ for Zion Lutheran. The leading program at that time was and still is SolidWorks. Although I wanted to use solids modeling then, I continued to use 2D computer drafting because of the high cost of 3D design programs including SolidWorks.

A few years ago, the cost of a reasonably well featured solids modeling program became low enough that I could justify incorporating it into my design work. Now I finally had a real engineering design program to use. The first thing I immediately noticed was a reduction in errors in the workshop. A good solids design requires that one accurately model each part and assembly, and having those represented in drawing format let me clearly see each part feature, and the relationship of each part to its parent assembly, in three dimensions. All of that helped me to build better in the workshop.

But something else happened that I did not count on. The parts I designed started becoming more complex. Parts began containing more features as parts started taking on more function within an assembly while the assemblies themselves began to have less parts overall. Look at the exploded view of the assembly above as an example. The assembly itself has only four parts. That seems simple enough. But look at the notched rail. That part is designed to hold a component mounted through the hole located along its top. The notches themselves locate the assembly along rails that are part of a larger assembly. And the two vertical slot mortises receive the tenons of two tenoned cross members that hold it all together.

Each of these features, the notches, hole, and mortises, must be accurately and sequentially machined until that one part is completed. The interesting thing I find now is that the cost of producing each feature is not simply the time it takes to machine that feature, but the additive cost of producing each preceding feature if a mistake is made while producing that feature. This is a problem because anyone who has done any woodworking knows that the activity is inherently error prone. A mistake at the end means having to go back and do a lot of work all over again, all the blade changes, tool setups, sizing, etc., and all for one part.

The projects that I've journaled here reflect an iterative change in part design and part to assembly relationship for me. All seem deceptively simple enough, but all are providing me with valuable experience in designing and building within a new paradigm. I've known others who have built in this style of complex efficiency and part economy especially among the German pipe organ builders. I find it an interesting and intelligent way to build.

The Alice Table: An Introduction

I recently received a commission to build a small side table for a client. Obviously that client's name is Alice. She asked me to build a table for her using teak so that it would match her current set of furniture. I suggested using walnut along with teak to keep cost reasonable. I often use more than one type of wood in my work to provide variation in color which should be obvious by now.

Alice has a degree in art education, and I kept this in mind as I did the design work making sure to use color and space well in an otherwise functional object. We went through a number of design iterations together by email before deciding on this open frame form. The design has two cross frames that connect the side frames to each other to break up what would have otherwise been open space. The design becomes more visually interesting while the cross frames support an inner shelf. Alice can use it to keep a book or magazine on while keeping the top clear for something more important. Like a glass of wine for instance.

Alice and I agreed on price and terms this week. Work will begin right after I complete building something to prototype several design and construction concepts to be used in another project. More on that in the following post.