If you mean a miter cut, the length of the miter is

the root of two times the square of the width of the board.

If you mean a bevel cut, the length of the bevel is

the root of two times the square of the thickness of the board.

1 inch wide =3D 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
2 inch wide =3D 2.8284271247461900976033774484194
3 inch wide =3D 4.24264068711928514640506617262909
4 inch wide =3D 5.65685424949238019520675489683879

It appears the bevel/miter is proportional to the width by a factor of =
~1.41.
Or, the width/thickness is always 70.7106781186547524400844362105198% of =
the bevel/miter.
__________________________________________________ _______

Dougie, you said

| You missed the point rather dramatically, I'm afraid. You wrote that =
the width=20
| of the miter was proportional to "the square of the width of the =
board".=20

I don't think so. No where in the preceding, which I include herewith =
for clarity, did I state what you saw.

Better get your eyes checked. Your geekiness leaves much to be desired. =
You might, however, be in line for the "Conehead" awards.
__________________________________________________ ______
--=20

PDQ
--
=20
"David" wrote in message =
...
| I've got a board set at a 45 degree angle, back from a line. How much =

| (percentage) of the length of the board does it take up? To=20
| conceptualize the issue, I drew a one inch line on paper with a ruler, =

| and rotated the ruler to a 45 degree angle, thinking that the one inch =

| mark on the ruler would be only 1/2 away from the starting point =
(along=20
| the original path of the ruler), but it looks like it's about 90% =
along=20
| the one inch span. What's the formula?
|=20
| Dave

--=20

PDQ
--
=20
"Doug Miller" wrote in message =
. ..
| In article , "PDQ" =
wrote:
| Picky, picky, picky.
|
| If you want to play those games, Doug:
|
| "Bevel" is described as "the angle formed at the juncture of two non =
=3D
| perpendicular surfaces."
|
| "Miter" could mean "a tall ornamental liturgical headdress" worn by =
some =3D
| members of the clergy, or it could mean, as it does in this case, =3D
| "either of the surfaces that come together in a miter joint".
|
| If you want to play with polygonal surfaces, why not say so? "board =
=3D
| _not_ squared" is so imprecise.
|
| I guess your problem must lie with your inability to visualize the =
=3D
| position of the board within its frame of reference.
|=20
| You missed the point rather dramatically, I'm afraid. You wrote that =
the width=20
| of the miter was proportional to "the square of the width of the =
board".=20
|=20
| This is false.
|=20
| It is proportional to the *width* of the board. Period. Not the square =
of its=20
| width.
|=20
| You then compounded this error by repeating it with respect to =
thickness, and=20
| bevels.
|=20
| And now you've compounded it still further by showing that, in =
addition to=20
| your difficulties with mathematics, you also have some reading =
comprehension=20
| issues.
|=20
| --
| Regards,
| Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
|=20
| Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his =
butt.
| And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?