Duct Tape Book Binding – Cheepo Delux
instructables.com
instructables.com
It worked pretty well; I rarely have trouble with pages coming loose or bindings cracking in the books I've made. I have a few ideas for how to further improve the result, but those will have to wait for when I find time to pick up the hobby again; lately the most I've done is quick stitched bindings for small booklets when I want to include some essay or article as a supplement in my diary.
For spines I prefer black bookbinder's tape. It looks more handsome than duct tape, and takes silver paint pen very well for titling.
That said, I’m curious to try this process, which seems like it would go significantly faster and require less tools and setup.
The technique is called the double fan method, and would work fine with the rest of the techniques here.
This will leave between the pages for, ideally, less than 1/32nd of an inch or a quarter millimeter, which will vastly improve the strength of the glue's attachment to the pages without significantly impairing one's ability to open the pages mostly flat.
What the author could also do is get some board (like, say, the cardboard on the back of legal pads), clamp all that together prior to gluing, extend the spine an inch off a countertop with heavy books on the rest of the book block to hold it still, and then use a hacksaw to saw into the spine at intervals, about 1/32nd of an inch deep, crosswise to the spine. Take a piece of thread, dental floss, or fine string, and after gluing, press it into the first channel, loop back into the second, then the third, etc. Wipe excess glue and then put the duct tape over the spine, pressing it down evenly--THEN you fold the tape over the front and back at the same time, taping down the thread loops to the front and back of the board. Now you have a semi-hardcover, depending on the thickness of the boards.
Note that the duct tape adds little to the structure. You could also use a piece of cotton or linen in its place, you just have to glue it down to the front and back. This would be stronger, longer term, because PVA will hold better than duct tape adhesive over the years. If you do, cut the cloth "on the bias" meaning at 45 degrees to the weave. This prevents fraying and increases overall strength, for the forces it will encounter. If you do this, you can add another layer of PVA to the spine on top of the cloth, which increases strength.
My wife is a teacher and we created something like this as an exercise for all of her art students to make their own journals, with the final step being covering it with kraft paper. They loved it, used it for their art journals all semester, and asked to do it again at the end so they could have another.
If you get the basic assembly and gluing right, you'll be very surprised at the durability of something like this, including a lot of punishment like opening the book flat and using your hand to "break" the spine. It'll hold together.
In "perfect binding", which is the name for the overall class of binding the linked article is describing, where individual sheets are glued together along one edge, it's still called sawn-in cords for lack of a better name. It's not a typical addition in perfect binding, but it's exactly the same technique with the same purpose: adding cords to increase strength.
Here's a video of a well-known binder, Sage Reynolds, doing it as I described it for a perfect bound book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMXHmXSYXso
I have one of those presses and it's definitely useful for a variety of binding tasks, but honestly, I've never used it the way it is in the video. I have a laying press [0] that I use for such things, and once you see the logic of that, it's pretty straightforward to reproduce the effect with boards and clamps.
[0] https://hollanders.com/collections/presses-other-equipment/p...
PVA glue cures by eliminating moisture from the glue, and the low pressure of the vacuum will serve to accelerate the loss of moisture from the glue.
That said, let me present my decision tree for using duct tape:
if not closet.gaffer_tape then
if task.urgent then
online.order(gaffer_tape)
return closet.duct_tape or bail("ing wire")
else
return obtain(gaffer_tape)
end
else
return closet.gaffer_tape
endWhile the terms are frequently used interchangeably "gaffer tape" and "duct tape" are very different tapes with very different glues, and very different stretch properties, for very different use cases.
That being said, I'm curious as to how bailing wire would be used in this scenario.
None are very good at their job, as it happens.
Or those wires used to suspend ceiling tiles, if you need something that's going to last more than a couple years
1: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/c/tapes/reclosable-fasteners/m...
This was back in the 80's, so we didn't have the internets then. Funny how many myths I promoted, albeit harmlessly.
3-in-1 is good.
I suspect you mean duck tape
You can tape over the stitch if you don’t like the look of it, but I personally like the texture.
This duct-tape thing still requires a bit of manual effort. 2-hole punch is a bit less popular (3-hole punch is everywhere), but 2-hole punch is smaller: both the binding clips and the punch itself is just more compact.
2-hole punch has two choices: the "long-side" 11.5-inch binding like a more normal book, or the "top-side" 8-inch. The standard clip works in both positions quite well.
Edit: Typo
One teacher had a moan because it wasn't strictly regulation but even they had to eventually concede it was a lot better.
But as other comments say, I may go with the purpose-made spinetape and maybe a cardboard cover (but then I'll start procrastinating over cover design!)
Any hints?
As wiktionary notes, the offensiveness even within countries is variable:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spaz
But if you're writing for the wider english-speaking/reading internet, you probably want to be aware of these things to avoid unintentional offence, just as I assume Australians modulate their usage of 'cunt' for different audiences online.
It can be jarring to hear in otherwise tame movies, now that we're conditioned to shun the word, but I'm pretty sure that conditioning is something that only a minority of people in the US have been exposed to, even today. Mostly those of us who are online too much, probably. Outside that sort of bubble I'm not sure how "problematic" it's actually considered to be, by the average person.
The outrage honestly just comes off as white knighting.
*I'm aware these terms used to be more in line with the others, but frankly I'd also question the wisdom of using them in a public forum.
A dumbass is someone who is stupid or foolish. Stupid, fool, idiot, and moron are all terms that at one point or another were used to describe those with an IDD. They're all still acceptable insults AFAIK, but now not the "r-word". For the longest time it was a fairly tepid insult but suddenly has, for reasons unclear to be, become outrageous and objectionable on par with the "n-word".
> I'm aware these terms used to be more in line with the others, but frankly I'd also question the wisdom of using them in a public forum.
It goes beyond insults though, the term has become completely unacceptable as a witticism or in a self deprecating manner. It just seems arbitrary to me and feels like an arbitrary change to give someone the opportunity to seize the moral high ground in a disagreement by labeling you ableist.
Idk, I guess I'm just old an can't keep up. The day someone labels me an "ist" for saying "I'm an idiot" is the day I'm burning it all down.
It is 100% arbitrary. Languages evolve arbitrarily. they're not planned. The word was a medical term that if you think about the literal meaning is simply descriptive. But that doesn't matter. What matters is usage. It has changed from a descriptive term to a significant insult for many.
It is, by definition, 100% abelist. Its current usage is to demean someone for their limited / different mental ability. There's no difference between making fun of someone for their mental ability or making fun of someone for their physical ability. No one argues that calling someone in a wheelchair a "cripple" is abelist. Why would you argue that calling someone with mental disability "retarted" isn't?
> Why would you argue that calling someone with mental disability "retarted" isn't?
No no no, that isn't what I'm saying at all. In my lifetime, it has *never* been acceptable to call someone with an IDD a retard.
HOWEVER, for the better part of the last 40 years you could call another able person a retard without raising eyebrows. Within the last 5 years or so there has been an abrupt change and the word is no longer acceptable to use under any circumstances. And I'm unaware of what occurred for that shift to happen.
Today if an able person said to another able person who'd broken their foot, "what's up gimpy?" it would be taken as a jest. However saying that to someone who is permanently disabled is highly offensive. The situation was the same with the word retarded up until recently.
anyone can be an "idiot" or "moron" or do something "stupid". It doesn't denote anything specific other than "your actions weren't intelligent" and a sense of belittling.
"retarted" is a word that is extremely hurtful to those it is used against. I'm sure that "developmentally delayed" people are more sensitive to being called "stupid" than your average person, but it's nothing compared to being called "retarted". Imagine your brother or sister was "developmentally delayed" and was regularly spat on by society (as we do to anyone who is) and bullied and called "retarted".
Would you still say it's "white knighting"? Or would you stand up for your sibling and say "hey that's mean. don't call them that!"
I would like to think you would stand up for your sibling. I would like to think that if you spent a moment putting yourself in the shoes of someone who is abused with that word you would recognize that it has long since transformed from a medical term to a harmful slur that helps no-one, and hurts many.
I would like to think that you would recognize that people are worth standing up for even if you're not related to them, even if you don't know them.
> "mentally challenged" and "developmentally delayed" aren't pejorative terms so they're not relevant to the discussion.
A pejorative is all about context. If you're in the southern United States and someone says to you "bless your heart" or "oh sweet child", you've just been insulted.
Calling your able bodied sibling "mentally challenged" is no different than calling them "retarded".
> anyone can be an "idiot" or "moron" or do something "stupid"
Fool, idiot, moron, and stupid were, like retard, once used as terms to describe someone with an IDD.
to be clear, i'm not trying to call you out with the following. I'm just using that sentence as an example because it's... such a _good_ example. It's not clear that you were even defending that sentiment so much as pointing it out, so please don't take this as me attacking you.
Statements like that are precisely the problem of abelist thinking, and precisely why we need to be active about speaking up for the minorities amongst us. It basically boils down to "it doesn't affect me or folks around me so it doesn't seem like much of a problem".
Most people aren't effected by stairs either, but they really suck for anyone in a wheelchair.
> Tons of movies from the 00s up to the early part of the 20-teens still used it freely and there was no major uproar over it—in general
Calling someone a "fag" wasn't problematic for the same time period too, except for all the people who it was problematic for.
I will agree that "retarted" is a word that a lot of Americans (most?) still think is fine to use, except for anyone with a family member or friend who people disparage with that word.
Does that mean we should continue to be "well, not a problem for anyone I know"? Or should we recognize that it hurts some people, helps no people, and stop using it.
You’re welcome.
It's not quite as pretty as duct tape, but it's fine for me.