{ *VIEW IN A FIXED-PITCH FONT* e.g. 'fixedsys' on a Windows PC ]

In article ,
PDQ wrote:
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 = 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
2 inch wide = 2.8284271247461900976033774484194
3 inch wide = 4.24264068711928514640506617262909
4 inch wide = 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
| of the miter was proportional to "the square of the width of the board".

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

Actually, you *did*. And you even quoted those _exact_words_, above.
"For clarity", the occurrences of the indicated words have been marked,
so that the vision-impaired can locate them.


Better get your eyes checked. Your geekiness leaves much to be desired.

"Speak for yourself, John" would seem to apply.

You might, however, be in line for the "Conehead" awards.

You're the leading candidate for the pseudo-"Ronald McDonald" award.
(The one named for the _original_ 'big red hair' circus entertainer, made
Famous by Larry Harmon.)