THEEXQUISITECUBE Group 9 Divesh Brahmbhatt Christie Clampitt Jeremy Goucher

To begin our process, we had group dis-cussions about different types of wood and how they could be manipulated into different forms. We researched books and discovered ways in which wood can be used to make furniture and other wood crafts. Immediately, textures/types and joinery jumped out at us based on the different kinds of wood we came across as well as how they were connected.

TEAM DISCUSSIONS

As we looked more into furniture-making, we discovered several chairs and tables that utilized specific types of joints with specific types of wood. For example, the panels for the back of a chair seemed to be more elegant when there was a mys-tery as to how they were attached together. Simi-larly, the connection of table legs to the table top appeared more sophisticated with the use of hid-den joinery, such as peg or biscuit, instead of nails.

Along with our discussions, this research led us to explore the possibilities of joinery and how they are expressed as our project focus.

RESEARCH

We first found a mentor, Royce Bjornstead, who runs his own business called Mossy Creeks Woodworks. He educated us on his method ofcrafting wood. In creating his works, he holds plenty of knowledge on the many wood types and joinery, and he advised us on which to use.

First of all, Royce explained to us several joints with which he is familiar: finger, key, biscuit, dove-tail, rabbet, and peg. We then postulated which types of wood would best articulate these joints.

In addition, we were assisted greatly by Tim LaTourette in thewoodshop. Though we knew what we wanted to create, Tim explained the best and most efficient methods with which to make a few of our samples and our prototype.

MENTORS

The joints we ended up focusing on were the rabbet joint, finger joint, peg joint, and key joint because those are the ones our men-tor explained the best and, in fact, recom-mended to us based on his experience. Starting with the simplest joint, the rabbet, we discovered it was the least sturdy of all the joints on its own. For it to suffice in our project, we would need a second element, a fastener or peg or biscuit, invisibly inserted inside for strength. We therefore determined quickly that we would not have our prototype demonstrate this joint.

TESTING PROCESS: RABBET JOINT

With the finger joint, we made a jig in order to evenly space out the “fingers” and to make a perfect fit. In order for them to fit, however, we learned that the second piece needed to be offset the length of a finger. Additionally, we were informed that the deeper the fin-gers were, the stronger the joint.

TESTING PROCESS: FINGER JOINT

The peg joint proved to equally have both positive and negative aspects. Simply a peg piece in-serted into drilled holes in each wood piece, this joint is fragile if a large amount of weight is placed on it, despite that a larger peg made a stronger joint. Still, it was more sturdy than the rabbet joint.

TESTING PROCESS: PEG JOINT

Finally, the key joint demonstrated the most ele-gant and exquisite qualities that we were looking for. We made small slits in each wood piece and then inserted a second type of wood in the slits to create the keys which connected the two pieces together. Like the finger and peg joints, the larger and deeper the slits were, the stronger the joint was. However, the key joint had a subtle quality that distinguished it from others. Without the different colors of the wood, the joint would seem unno-ticeable and the surface uniform. This eloquence allowed the joint to especially stand out with the two different wood species, and it best defined the exquisite quality we were trying to reveal.

TESTING PROCESS: KEY JOINT

The wood types that we decided to use were walnut and cherry. They are both hardwoods, making them more sturdy when making the small, fragile key joints. These woods are also not prone to crack-ing or splintering like certain softwoods. Primarily, however, these woods were chosen because the light color of cherry contrasted well with the dark tone of walnut, enhancing the look of the joint.

TESTING PROCESS: WOOD TYPES

In making our prototype, we discovered differ-ent tools and methods of production that will serve us best in producing the final cube. Our mentor, Royce, informed us that using tools is only as good as the knowledge of how one uses them. For example, the table saw proved to be the most important tool in our explorations, and we found several ways to use it. For the greatest efficiency, it was best to establish a set way to repeat similar cuts at the same time, as with finger and key joints, in order to conserve time. Making cuts at different angles required us to know how to alter the table saw, demon-strating a growing understanding of the tool.

TOOLS + PRODUCTION

Moreoever, it was important to know how to use the tools properly. Being amateurs with woodshop tools, we required the cru-cial expertise of our mentors Royce and Tim. Toward the end, we added a refine-ment of slightly rounding the edges in order for the viewers eyes to easily move around the corners, and this required an acute knowledge of the sanding machine.

The wide variety of machines and tools at our disposal allowed us to experiment with different ways of making our cuts.

TOOLS + PRODUCTION

Our definition of the word exquisite ismultifaceted in that it means having a qual-ity of careful refinement, beauty, appeal, responsiveness, and delicacy that allows the subject to stand out among many. Our prototype of the key joint, we feel, dem-onstrates all of these characteristics. Wecarefully chose the joint because of its beauty and elegance. The contrasting wood types demonstrate an eminent appeal. The craft and refinements are something to be desired. Our cube is, in essence, exquisite.

DEFINITION OF EXQUISITE