how do you get it level?

That was interesting. I found the whole transit, lake spirit level thing very interesting too.

As for the whole water level thing, I never imagined this thread would take off like it did. I am glad it did though and that maybe people learned something about this old, but still useful and accurate way to get things level. This ol farm boy learned a few extra things as well. Very interesting thread.
 
Thanks Stu... great article you found :wave:

Resevoir must be pretty important... I vaguely remember trying to set one up, but all the buckets were full of mortar or something... can't remember now, but seems it was a big mistake to skip it. :huh:

The bit about the transit, etc being off 26" over two miles is interesting too... gotta wonder why, refraction?, shooting straight on a curved surface? May have to find his reference if I ever have free time again :D
 
John,

The reservoir isn't mandatory...although that's how I did it when levelling the piers for my shop.

When I was levelling the front porch...and several other things in the shop...I just used the tube without the bucket. As long as there's enough tubing to make up the difference in the height of the two ends being levelled, the tubing alone works just fine.

Oh, and the trick about dish washing liquid is a good one. A few drops of Dawn were added to both sides of the tubing each time we used it. Oh, and so were a few drops of red food coloring...to help see the line.

And as indicated in the article Stu linked to...there must be NO AIR BUBBLES in the tubing. NONE...ZILCH...or you WILL have inaccurate results. On a long section of tubing, getting all the bubbles out takes a bit of time and patience...but the accurate results are well worth the effort! :thumb:



Thanks for asking the question Frank. There's loads of people that never saw that whole section of my thread, so they're getting that info here. ;)

- Marty -
 
You young whipper-snappers,.............

glad you still can learn from us old----- (stinkers).

They used the same water system building the pyrminds.
I know, saw it in the movies.................

:rofl::rofl:
 
Travis said, "I never imagined this thread would take off like it did."
You never imagined? I never imagined. :eek:
But, it has been very interesting. I have to buy some tubing. :D

That's what's great about forums...you learn. Some of the computer scared people at work think I spend to much time on these forums, and I do to a point, but I must say, sharing information makes you a lot smarter.

Now I brought up the water level thing and yet never used a reservoir type system. It makes sense though. I think I am going to make one as well.
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've read all posts in this thread from the begining and as far as I understand it, using the water level system has to be done without flipping or moving the table or the parts that we want to mark to cut to level

The final result of the process is that the planes defined by the top of the table and the plane defined by the resting points of the legs on the floor are parallel. Right?:huh:

If we mark the first set of lines, for instance the top ones because it is easier to do it and then we flip them to mark the bottom ones, as their resting points will be different of the ones used for marking the first set of lines; the second set of lines will most problably not be parallel to the first one. Will they?:huh:

For the same reason if the surface where the piece is resting is not leveled (most problably) it can’t be taken as a reference. So the only true level is the one given by the water line.:dunno:

So, the only way I see to do it is marking both sets of lines without moving the piece and without cutting anything until we have both sets of lines ( top and bottom) marked. See pic

LEVEL.JPG

Although I must admit that by the time I’m finishing writing this I’m not sure if I’ve followed all the reasoning through. After reading so much post talking about the same thing I’m a bit dizzy, :bonkers: so forgive me if what I said is a complete nonsense, and bring me back from the dark side of the force:eek:
 
I went to the shop where the table was sold and discovered that the buyer had not picked up yet. There are seven resting places for the glass top on the driftwood base. I didn't count how many points set on the floor but it looks to be about the same. I'm going back with the camera. The glass top could make picture taking tricky but I'll give it a digi shot or two.
 
OK, I took the digi cam over to the store and got a couple pictures of the table that started it all. The top rests at seven points. I didn't count those on the floor, but it is about the same. The fish are 6-7 pound bass that the table maker also did the taxidermy on.
 

Attachments

  • fish table top.jpg
    fish table top.jpg
    54.8 KB · Views: 16
  • fish table bottom.jpg
    fish table bottom.jpg
    58.5 KB · Views: 16
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've read all posts in this thread from the begining and as far as I understand it, using the water level system has to be done without flipping or moving the table or the parts that we want to mark to cut to level

The final result of the process is that the planes defined by the top of the table and the plane defined by the resting points of the legs on the floor are parallel. Right?:huh:

If we mark the first set of lines, for instance the top ones because it is easier to do it and then we flip them to mark the bottom ones, as their resting points will be different of the ones used for marking the first set of lines; the second set of lines will most problably not be parallel to the first one. Will they?:huh:

For the same reason if the surface where the piece is resting is not leveled (most problably) it can’t be taken as a reference. So the only true level is the one given by the water line.:dunno:

So, the only way I see to do it is marking both sets of lines without moving the piece and without cutting anything until we have both sets of lines ( top and bottom) marked. See pic

View attachment 10898

Although I must admit that by the time I’m finishing writing this I’m not sure if I’ve followed all the reasoning through. After reading so much post talking about the same thing I’m a bit dizzy, :bonkers: so forgive me if what I said is a complete nonsense, and bring me back from the dark side of the force:eek:

Okay, I was hoping someone else would take a stab at this, as I have a tendency to confuse people more than I help them with their confusion/ question. Anyway here goes...

You are right in that you cannot change the waterlevel or the item or it will screw up the measurements...that is if YOU DO NOT USE A BENCHMARK. A benchmark is simply a starting point. In this example you would set up a water level and then make some marks. One of those marks would be a BENCHMARK. This is a simple line that tells you where the waterlevel was. You would want to mark it on something that never changes, say a post in your shop, or a spot on the wall...anything that does not move.

Now you can do whatever it is you want. Maybe cut one leg, then tera down your waterlevel and do something else for the rest of the afternoon. When you get back to doing the other three legs you set up your water level again. Okay so its not the same set up as before so the water level is different right? Well you run it over to your benchmark and see WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.

Lets say its 2-1/4 inches short from the first waterlevel setup. Well since you know the difference thanks to the Benchmark, you can just make your marks with your waterlevel, then bring up the line by the difference (2-1/4 inches) and you are perfectly accurate.

Does this make sense? Not trying to be mean or coy, just hoping I am explaining it right. Around here we use benchmarks all the time. Generally speaking the first person to come to a new house site is the soils engineer. He takes a look at the property and figures out how to design a septic system for the house. He does calculations on the lay of the land, the land type and how well it drains. Well to get those grades, he needs to establish a base line. He does that by making a benchmark. As I said, it is on something that does not move, like a phone pole or something. He typically pounds in a nail, then marks it with a ribbon and states the elevation as stated in feet above sea level. That is because every other contractor that comes in sets up their transit off this benchmark. No matter what it is, whether it is a concrete footing, or a second story elevation, everything is set either plus or minus off this benchmark. With a waterlevel its the same thing. As long as you establish a level line, then mark it as the benchmark, you can measure the discrepancy and build accordingly.

Now other builders might do things differently, but as a rule here in Maine the soils engineer really sets everyone else up.
 
I was thinking today that in essence, a regular level is a waterlevel in reverse. That is a where a waterlevel is read in reference to the water level in the tube seeking level, a regular level uses an air bubble suspended in a vial of liquid. When that liquid is level, the air bubble moves to the center of the vial.

This is in many ways more practical because the "waterlevel" is smaller and held in a rigid body of some sort. Its accuracy then does not come from the amount of water in it itself...for it is far to small to see changes, but in how long the base of that level is. Obviously a 8 foot level is twice as accurate as a 4 foot level, which is in turn is more accurate than a 2 foot level....that is assuming the base is indeed flat.
 
Okay, I was hoping someone else would take a stab at this...

Hi Travis.

I think I don't get the right meaning of your comment. No offence was meant to be made on my side and if that is what is understood from my post please accept my apologies.
Not being english my mother tongue (but my third) I know that sometimes due to that I may write things in a way that may lead to misunderstandings.


On the other side you are right, on your precision and I agree completely with you; if you have a fixed level reference you can do as you explain.
 
Oh no Toni, no apolgies were needed. I was not offended in any way by you. What I said was just good old american slang...

I was just saying that I am probably not the most qualified to reply to your question...other woodworkers on here are a lot smarter than I am that is for sure, but that I would try and answer your question.

We often use the word "stab" in that way here. Kind of like "I will make a run at it". Or "I will try and answer it". But I could see where english not being your native language, you would take the word "stab" for meaning something negative or bad in that context.
 
On the other side you are right, on your precision and I agree completely with you; if you have a fixed level reference you can do as you explain.

I think the original question was how would a woodworker take something as odd shaped as a piece of driftwood and find a way to make the top level, was the general question.

I think the waterlevel answer was one way to do that. In thinking about it though, I would think some sort of leveling feet would have to be attached to the bottom of this thing because even if you built the thing level, straight, parrelle and all that, where this thing ultimately lands in the customers house might not be. I think its final resting place would have to be shimmed and leveled to the same tolerances of a pool table.

Its quite the project, and a lot of things to think about. Still a very interesting post...it certainly made me think some, and I like that.
 
Hi Travis.

Thanks for your explanation, now I now a bit more slang and my knowledge of english has improved, and everything for free!!!!:thumb:

I is amazing how many things one can learn on this forum:)
 
Top