On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:47:22 -0600, jtpryan wrote
(in message
31746609.640.1320875242123.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbac9):

Right, I have segments.exe that does a similar thing. What I need to figure
though is the width I need in order to overlay the ring below enough that
there won't be a gap.

Say for instance I want to build a bowl that has a 10" top diameter and is
3" high from the table it sits on. I want a graceful curve in to the
bottom. How do I figure out how wide a board to use in each ring so that
when assembled and placed over the ring below I know the overlap will be
enough to allow me to turn it say 1/8" think without poking a hole in it?
Maybe I'm just over thinking it and should go with boards that would
definitely not have this problem and have a little more waste.

-Jim

well, I just went right to the ol' reptile brain, and made a couple of
drawings. One, from the top view gave me an idea just how much width I'd need
in a board in order to give me the wall thickness I thought I'd make, for the
number of segments I felt I could do. The other drawing was a side elevation
of sorts, showing the thickness of the board - or layer, if you will. In
laying out a likely curve for the shape or profile of the project, I could
see that layers with the greatest diameter change would also need the
greatest segment strip width.

So, wall thickness and rate of change of diameter will both figure into how
wide your segment strips will need to be for any given layer. If you use math
to calculate this information, you will need matematical precision in your
tool handling and wood removal, too. Personally, I go for the reptile brain
approach. I may use a bit more wood, but I also get a bit more wiggle room in
my design. The variability in any given sample of wood kinda demands some
wiggle room. In my opinion.

Respectfully, tom koehler

--
I will find a way or make one.