At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting
them round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?

william kossack wrote:
At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting
them round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?

William:

Piece of plywood - smooth and square

Get two pieces of 1/8 metal or plastic 3/4 wide by say 12" long. (2nd
one can/should be longer) (Miter slot inserts)

Attach one miter slot insert so board sits in miter slot of bandsaw when
board is place on top.

Draw a line on top of board - mark with ruler. (This will be your
reference for the slot....

Cut a slot on top of plywood - 90 deg to slot on bottom. 3/8 X 3/4 By
width of plywood - or even longer. Make slot so left edge is even with
blade.

Now - put nail in (close to) left hand edge of top slider... Drive all
the way through. Mount slider with nail sticking up.

Place blank on jig. Center over the nail. Pound or push on - depending
on blank hardness.


Cut wood on bandsaw by spinning around nail.


That's what I did - used it for stool seat cut-outs etc.

There are lots of variations -- but that's how they all work. Spinning
the blank around a metal nail....


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
http://woodwork.pmccl.com

"william kossack" wrote in message
...
At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting
them round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?

http://www.turnedwood.com/framesled.html

Quick search on "segmented wood turning" for the Yahoo group, and more.

Cut out a circle in cardboard 6" diameter. Continue to make them but
increase each by one inch until you reach the swing of your lathe. stack
them on top of one another and then drive a nail through the centre. This
is how they are stored. Now take the appropriate size template for your
half log blank that is face down and tack the cardboard circle on the top of
the blank. cut out the blank following the edge of the carboard circle.
Not an exact science but close enough.................

--

Regards,
M.J. (Mike) Orr


"william kossack" wrote in message
...
At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting them
round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?

"william kossack" wrote in message
...
At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting
them round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?

Sheesh, wonder what _I_ was thinking?

Anyway, unnecessarily complicated http://www.ronan.net/~woodwork/bsjig.htm

Easily figured out from here http://store.yahoo.com/plansnow/bandsaw.html
This about the same as I use.

Then there's Duginskie's book, and any other woodworking text.

Since they're so easy to make - two sticks and a piece of plywood - I keep a
couple premade for 10 & 12" circles.

If I tried to turn a bit of wood I was cutting on my table saw it would be
grabbed by the blade and flung backwards at about 250 miles an hour.

OK, OK, it should say bandsaw not tablesaw on my subject line

Michael Lehmann wrote:
If I tried to turn a bit of wood I was cutting on my table saw it would be
grabbed by the blade and flung backwards at about 250 miles an hour.

Just remember that the edge of the band saw blade, should be lined up with
outside edge of circle to be cut.

"WillR" wrote in message
...
william kossack wrote:
At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting them
round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?

William:

Piece of plywood - smooth and square

Get two pieces of 1/8 metal or plastic 3/4 wide by say 12" long. (2nd one
can/should be longer) (Miter slot inserts)

Attach one miter slot insert so board sits in miter slot of bandsaw when
board is place on top.

Draw a line on top of board - mark with ruler. (This will be your
reference for the slot....

Cut a slot on top of plywood - 90 deg to slot on bottom. 3/8 X 3/4 By
width of plywood - or even longer. Make slot so left edge is even with
blade.

Now - put nail in (close to) left hand edge of top slider... Drive all the
way through. Mount slider with nail sticking up.

Place blank on jig. Center over the nail. Pound or push on - depending on
blank hardness.


Cut wood on bandsaw by spinning around nail.


That's what I did - used it for stool seat cut-outs etc.

There are lots of variations -- but that's how they all work. Spinning the
blank around a metal nail....


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
http://woodwork.pmccl.com

william kossack wrote:
OK, OK, it should say bandsaw not tablesaw on my subject line
=20
Michael Lehmann wrote:
=20
If I tried to turn a bit of wood I was cutting on my table saw it=20
would be grabbed by the blade and flung backwards at about 250 miles=20
an hour.


One must be precise in these newsgroups -- or you get your nose tweaked.

ROTFLMAO


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

"WillR" wrote in message
...
william kossack wrote:
OK, OK, it should say bandsaw not tablesaw on my subject line

Michael Lehmann wrote:

If I tried to turn a bit of wood I was cutting on my table saw it
would be grabbed by the blade and flung backwards at about 250 miles
an hour.


One must be precise in these newsgroups -- or you get your nose tweaked.

ROTFLMAO

That's all right. I answered _both_ for saws.

--
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it.” George Bernard Shaw

Will, be careful. I think you got it right, but you might get your nose
tweaked for saying "precise" if you meant "accurate". I did once and I
still don't understand the difference. Or care! I think it has to do
with repeatability. Maybe somebody will set both of us 'cynics' straight
(ie.without curves or angles) G)


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

I just visited one of my mentors this afternoon.
When I saw his large Bandsaw without any sawdust on it I asked him are you
still using it?
He replied, I am getting pretty good with the chainsaw and I no longer
bother using the big Bandsaw anymore. That gave me food for thought



"Arch" wrote in message
...
Will, be careful. I think you got it right, but you might get your nose
tweaked for saying "precise" if you meant "accurate". I did once and I
still don't understand the difference. Or care! I think it has to do
with repeatability. Maybe somebody will set both of us 'cynics' straight
(ie.without curves or angles) G)


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Arch wrote:
Will, be careful. I think you got it right, but you might get your nos=
e
tweaked for saying "precise" if you meant "accurate". I did once and =
I
still don't understand the difference. Or care! I think it has to do
with repeatability. Maybe somebody will set both of us 'cynics' straigh=
t
(ie.without curves or angles) G)
=20
=20
Turn to Safety, Arch =20
Fortiter
=20
=20
=20
http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings
=20

Ah what the ....

If you mean numbers -----

Don't say 1.23456789 when at best you are 10% accurate (say in reading a =

ruler) -- in other words 1.2 is ok -- the extra digits represent=20
precision - but are meaningless. (BS baffles brains -- IOW -- if you=20
want the _precise_ mathematical terminology. Now If you want=20
_mathematical_ precision I will scan the entry from (one of) my=20
Mathematics Dictionary and post it.)

Saying 1.235 to carry on a calculation - keeping the 3 and the 5 as=20
"guard digits" would be ok -- as long as you remember to present only=20
one decimal in the final answer -- in this example... If on the other=20
hand you are within 1% you can present 2 decimal places of precision=20
(and it will be considered _accurate_) - and carry one, or two, (or even =

three if you are a mathematical heretic) guard digits -- depending on=20
your mathematical religion and the capacity of your numeric processors.=20
Hope that is clear. WARNING! Other mathematically inclined people are=20
likely to choke on this definition as I have not demonstrated the=20
required rigor, nor have I inserted the required squiggles. But dinner=20
is waiting and I know my priorities.

If you want the examples in mod 2, 7,8,5(bi-quinary), 11,13, 16 64 or=20
base 256 (represented as Hex) [as opposed to base 10] I can do those=20
quickly -- if it would make you more comfortable. Other bases will make=20
me think overly long and I will pop a mental fuse as there is a very=20
delicate balance these days. I refuse to do it in the natural logs - but =

leave that to the interested reader (insane of course.)

I have made no attempt at rigor here. But _could_ bore you into a seven=20
year nap if you are an insomniac and need relief...

Just responding to the nose tweak.

However, here, precise was used in a different modality. I believe I=20
meant exact -- which I believe to be a correct usage -- but will change=20
my language if it offends. LOL

Hope you never ask a question (make a point) like that again and I have=20
done my best to see that you don't. ROTFL

But -- if it was a new usage -- I claim copyright and first dibs and all =

that stuff. Clear?


Gotcha! Wake up D***It!

--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

Arch wrote:
Will, be careful. I think you got it right, but you might get your nos=
e
tweaked for saying "precise" if you meant "accurate". I did once and =
I
still don't understand the difference. Or care! I think it has to do
with repeatability. Maybe somebody will set both of us 'cynics' straigh=
t
(ie.without curves or angles) G)
=20
=20
Turn to Safety, Arch =20
Fortiter
=20
=20
=20
http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings
=20
Arch:

I must apologize - I forgot the following..

When multiplying or dividing -- the percentage of error adds absolutely, =

when adding and subtracting, the absolute error adds absolutely.

That would make it clear why you have the rules about guard digits and=20
places of precision.

For example if you multiply two number together, (and you had been able=20
to make the measurements and obtain the two numbers to 5% accuracy...)=20
The resulting answer would be accurate to 10% -- so any digits beyond=20
the first decimal place would be guard digits or used for rounding...

So you could haver 5 decimal places of precision -- but the number would =

be accurate to one decimal place...

So in this situation if you had 1.115 (plus as many digits more as you=20
please since they are not relevant) in the calculator window after the=20
calculation -- the _answer_ would be 1.1 and be accurate to _one_=20
decimal place... No matter what your calculator said...

All kidding aside -- you should remember this when doing calculations=20
when you multiply or divide measured numbers.


Adding or subtracting..
1 1/2 (+- 1/16 ) + 1 1/4 (+- 1/16) is 2 3/4 (+- 2/16) or

2 2/4 (+- 1/8 ) in other words... Because it is the ABSOLUTE SUM of the=20
two estimated errors that is the error factor.


Now you made me think... That was terrible. But --- Not too bad for a=20
guy with a degree in Basket Weaving huh?

Anyone with eng, phys or math degrees - don't even hassle me about this=20
or I will pop a cork. LOL


You asked for it. You got it. Don't complain.


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

WillR wrote:
Arch wrote:
=20
Will, be careful. I think you got it right, but you might get your no=
se
tweaked for saying "precise" if you meant "accurate". I did once and=
I
still don't understand the difference. Or care! I think it has to do
with repeatability. Maybe somebody will set both of us 'cynics' straig=
ht
(ie.without curves or angles) G)

Turn to Safety, Arch =20
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Arch:
=20
I must apologize - I forgot the following..
=20
When multiplying or dividing -- the percentage of error adds absolutely=
,=20
when adding and subtracting, the absolute error adds absolutely.
=20
That would make it clear why you have the rules about guard digits and =

places of precision.
=20
For example if you multiply two number together, (and you had been able=
=20
to make the measurements and obtain the two numbers to 5% accuracy...) =

The resulting answer would be accurate to 10% -- so any digits beyond=20
the first decimal place would be guard digits or used for rounding...
=20
So you could haver 5 decimal places of precision -- but the number woul=
d=20
be accurate to one decimal place...
=20
So in this situation if you had 1.115 (plus as many digits more as you =

please since they are not relevant) in the calculator window after the =

calculation -- the _answer_ would be 1.1 and be accurate to _one_=20
decimal place... No matter what your calculator said...
=20
All kidding aside -- you should remember this when doing calculations=20
when you multiply or divide measured numbers.
=20
=20
Adding or subtracting..
1 1/2 (+- 1/16 ) + 1 1/4 (+- 1/16) is 2 3/4 (+- 2/16) or
=20
2 2/4 (+- 1/8 ) in other words... Because it is the ABSOLUTE SUM of the=
=20
two estimated errors that is the error factor.
=20
=20
Now you made me think... That was terrible. But --- Not too bad for a=20
guy with a degree in Basket Weaving huh?
=20
Anyone with eng, phys or math degrees - don't even hassle me about this=
=20
or I will pop a cork. LOL
=20
=20
You asked for it. You got it. Don't complain.
=20
=20

uh 2 3/4 (+- 1/8 ) in other words... Because it is the ABSOLUTE SUM of=20
the two estimated errors that is the error factor.


Now you know why it was basket weaving...

--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

this is what they told us at university
Accurate means "capable of providing a correct reading or measurement." In
physical science it means 'correct'. A measurement is accurate if it
correctly reflects the size of the thing being measured.
Precise means "exact, as in performance, execution, or amount. "In physical
science it means "repeatable, reliable, getting the same measurement each
time."

However, in light of the recent plaigarism thread, I should admit the
previous post was not my rhetoric. I cant now give credit where it is due as
I cant remember where I found it.
mick

If a band saw is sitting on a table does that make it a table saw? Instead
of a bench saw?

Is a table saw one that is used for cutting tables?

How can one be PRECISE?? with an imprecise language?

Walt C
Wasting bandwidth in MN.


"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"WillR" wrote in message
...
william kossack wrote:
OK, OK, it should say bandsaw not tablesaw on my subject line

Michael Lehmann wrote:

If I tried to turn a bit of wood I was cutting on my table saw it
would be grabbed by the blade and flung backwards at about 250 miles
an hour.


One must be precise in these newsgroups -- or you get your nose tweaked.

ROTFLMAO

That's all right. I answered _both_ for saws.

--
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw

Michael Lehmann wrote:
this is what they told us at university
Accurate means "capable of providing a correct reading or measurement." In
physical science it means 'correct'. A measurement is accurate if it
correctly reflects the size of the thing being measured.
Precise means "exact, as in performance, execution, or amount. "In physical
science it means "repeatable, reliable, getting the same measurement each
time."



Actually that definition would not be very useful for eng., scientists,
stats. types and other mentally challenged workers.

Typically there you need to talk about "degrees of accuracy" -- hence
the need for agreed upon precision.

But this is boring stuff -- and I only care about the +- for the
micrometer on the lathe these days. (Just kidding)

The definitions are very important if you work with compound angles and
are designing multi component systems - particularly with spindles being
linked at compound angles -- as recent experience has reminded me. If
you forget to account for error factors the parts won't mesh -- or they
shove each other to the wrong place and something further down the line
doesn't work. You need to _know_ how much slop to design into a
system... Even then you normally have to _tune_ the fit at the end of
the process where the errors became excessive in the limit points..

(It's an issue in the above because you must work with Tangents
(rise/run) sines, cosines and so on and multiple calculations -- not
allowing for error gives pretty ugly results)

....Then the theoretical knowledge is like manna from heaven -- wonderful
to have at the right moment...

Arch was just tweaking my nose -- but as usual he raised a useful topic.

It really is important if you design -- less so if you work with plans
-- or just fiddle.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Walt:


Walt Cheever wrote:
If a band saw is sitting on a table does that make it a table saw? Inst=
ead=20
of a bench saw?
=20
Is a table saw one that is used for cutting tables?
=20
How can one be PRECISE?? with an imprecise language?
=20
Walt C
Wasting bandwidth in MN.


Clearly a fellow adherent to the Red Green School of Fine Woodworking=20
and life philosophy.

These are deep philosophical questions. I shall ponder them at some=20
length -- tomorrow.

Check this post - tomorrow.



Good one. LOL


=20
=20
"George" george@least wrote in message=20
...
=20
"WillR" wrote in message
om...
william kossack wrote:

OK, OK, it should say bandsaw not tablesaw on my subject line

Michael Lehmann wrote:


If I tried to turn a bit of wood I was cutting on my table saw it
would be grabbed by the blade and flung backwards at about 250 miles
an hour.


One must be precise in these newsgroups -- or you get your nose tweaked=
=2E

ROTFLMAO

That's all right. I answered _both_ for saws.

--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw


=20
=20
=20


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

I found this site that I occasionally glance at when I am feeling
particuarly pedantic.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html




"WillR" wrote in message
...
Michael Lehmann wrote:
this is what they told us at university
Accurate means "capable of providing a correct reading or measurement."
In
physical science it means 'correct'. A measurement is accurate if it
correctly reflects the size of the thing being measured.
Precise means "exact, as in performance, execution, or amount. "In
physical
science it means "repeatable, reliable, getting the same measurement
each
time."



Actually that definition would not be very useful for eng., scientists,
stats. types and other mentally challenged workers.

Typically there you need to talk about "degrees of accuracy" -- hence
the need for agreed upon precision.

But this is boring stuff -- and I only care about the +- for the
micrometer on the lathe these days. (Just kidding)

The definitions are very important if you work with compound angles and
are designing multi component systems - particularly with spindles being
linked at compound angles -- as recent experience has reminded me. If
you forget to account for error factors the parts won't mesh -- or they
shove each other to the wrong place and something further down the line
doesn't work. You need to _know_ how much slop to design into a
system... Even then you normally have to _tune_ the fit at the end of
the process where the errors became excessive in the limit points..

(It's an issue in the above because you must work with Tangents
(rise/run) sines, cosines and so on and multiple calculations -- not
allowing for error gives pretty ugly results)

...Then the theoretical knowledge is like manna from heaven -- wonderful
to have at the right moment...

Arch was just tweaking my nose -- but as usual he raised a useful topic.

It really is important if you design -- less so if you work with plans
-- or just fiddle.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Kevin wrote:
I found this site that I occasionally glance at when I am feeling
particuarly pedantic.
=20
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html
=20


Pretty good for English. Not a lot about rulers. LOL


--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

"WillR" wrote in message
...
Arch wrote:
SNIP.....
Arch:

I must apologize - I forgot the following..

When multiplying or dividing -- the percentage of error adds absolutely,
when adding and subtracting, the absolute error adds absolutely.

That would make it clear why you have the rules about guard digits and
places of precision.

For example if you multiply two number together, (and you had been able
to make the measurements and obtain the two numbers to 5% accuracy...)
The resulting answer would be accurate to 10% -- so any digits beyond
the first decimal place would be guard digits or used for rounding...

So you could haver 5 decimal places of precision -- but the number would
be accurate to one decimal place...

So in this situation if you had 1.115 (plus as many digits more as you
please since they are not relevant) in the calculator window after the
calculation -- the _answer_ would be 1.1 and be accurate to _one_
decimal place... No matter what your calculator said...

All kidding aside -- you should remember this when doing calculations
when you multiply or divide measured numbers.


Adding or subtracting..
1 1/2 (+- 1/16 ) + 1 1/4 (+- 1/16) is 2 3/4 (+- 2/16) or

2 2/4 (+- 1/8 ) in other words... Because it is the ABSOLUTE SUM of the
two estimated errors that is the error factor.
SNIP .......
=================================
We all (or at least the veteran wood/ metal/ etc. workers) know that any
tolerances will accumulate in the direction that will totally defeat any
attempt at assembly until the entire project has been modified to the point
where it is no longer identifiable as the original concept showed it on the
plans (if any plans were actually drawn!) {:-)

Ken Moon
Webberville, TX

Ken Moon wrote:
"WillR" wrote in message
...
Arch wrote:
SNIP.....
Arch:

I must apologize - I forgot the following..

When multiplying or dividing -- the percentage of error adds absolutely,
when adding and subtracting, the absolute error adds absolutely.
=================================
We all (or at least the veteran wood/ metal/ etc. workers) know that any
tolerances will accumulate in the direction that will totally defeat any
attempt at assembly until the entire project has been modified to the point
where it is no longer identifiable as the original concept showed it on the
plans (if any plans were actually drawn!) {:-)

Ken Moon
Webberville, TX




I thought that's what I said looks puzzled?

Rught you got it! LOL



--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

for those who care

precise is an absolute measure ie .005 inches
accurate is a percentage reference ie .005 inches per foot

ergo it would be imprecise to describe a language as inaccurate

Ottoaprentice wordsmint


"Arch" wrote in message
...
Will, be careful. I think you got it right, but you might get your nose
tweaked for saying "precise" if you meant "accurate". I did once and I
still don't understand the difference. Or care! I think it has to do
with repeatability. Maybe somebody will set both of us 'cynics' straight
(ie.without curves or angles) G)


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Otto:

Couldn't resist this (not that it's not an electrical joke thread... --
although we could induct "the other group" and really give this
discussion a positive charge...)

As I have been working on the latest project and turning over the design
in my mind I have been trying to draw a bead on this "accuracy and
precision thing". Not to put too fine a point on it but one can grind on
the issues until you develop the skill to put a finer point on your
instruments of operation. In other words if one is going cut to the
quick, and not shave the truth, or skew the situation (lest it spiral
out of control), it would be best to take harbor in a comfy cove and
contemplate the issues carefully. Anything else would be but a finial on
a turners philosophy in addressing the issues with sufficient sharpness.

If that is clear, read on.


ottomatic wrote:
for those who care

precise is an absolute measure ie .005 inches
accurate is a percentage reference ie .005 inches per foot


Not necessarily. IMO It would inaccurate and imprecise to say the above..

First: "i.e." Is I believe -- "id est" (That is to say -- "That is") in
Latin as I recall -- pretty foggy on my Latin these days and too lazy to
look -- how is that for an imprecise answer.. LOL i.e. -- the "periods"
count and "ie" is an inaccurate depiction of the contraction.
)

So If I may be so bold this could be better:

**
... accurate is a percentage reference -- e.g. The measurement is 1.02
feet - precise to two places and accurate within +/- .005 inches. If one
is describing a single measurement. (An observation.)

Here we can/should/might give a precise amount of _an estimate of_ the
observable error. Since it is a measurement.

or

The measurement is 1.02 foot - precise to two places and accurate within
2% per foot of length after all applicable calculations. If one is
describing a what could be called a calculation method used to arrive at
a figure. This is assuming we had used multiplication or division to
arrive at this number.

If we only used addition or subtraction, it would be best (more
acceptable) to state a +/- error figure. (Not necessarily symmetric as
in: within +.05 inches, and within -.1 inches)

Note that statistical methods would use all the arithmetic operation
classes and we would therefore be compelled to say something of this
nature in other situations:

e.g.
I asked the classs to measure a 4.50 inch stick of wood and record that
number along with their estimated error. After analysis I determined
that they were with .05 inches of the correct answer 80% of the time and
had a greater error the remaining 20% of the time. In other words the
class can be counted on to take a measurement with an accuracy of 1.5%
in a similar situation -- at least 80 %of the time.


**

The above would -- I believe -- be more correct. Assuming I was taught
correctly -- and I make no guarantees -- especially after considering my
past professors carefully, and considering my scholarly record -- which
was disgraceful at best.

....Since one is describing a particular example (for e.g.) -- not a
stating a general principle (Or is it principal? hmmm LOL) So therefore
it was an inaccurate depiction of the principle, and imprecise thinking.

And other far more knowledgeable people who frequent this group could
of course pick me to tiny pieces.

The point is that is quite difficult to precisely describe this issue
without a lot of thought - and requires _far_ too many words to make it
fun (* or accurate).

And now I think I will run rather than waiting for a well deserved shot,
and a cranky reply. ROTFL


And now -- back to the lathe.

ergo it would be imprecise to describe a language as inaccurate


What can I say to that... ?




Ottoaprentice wordsmint


"Arch" wrote in message
...

Will, be careful. I think you got it right, but you might get your nose
tweaked for saying "precise" if you meant "accurate". I did once and I
still don't understand the difference. Or care! I think it has to do
with repeatability. Maybe somebody will set both of us 'cynics' straight
(ie.without curves or angles) G)


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings






--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Was there an idea that said "you can prove a theory is you can dis-prove the
opposite"
I think it would be easier to define imprecise and inaccurate.
It maybe accurate to define imprecise as a long list of inaccuracies.
But it would be inaccurate to define inaccurate as a long list of
imprecision, (if one were measuring 45mm long bolts with a 1m long stick
with no graduations.)
But its all semantics (and loads of fun) and genarally people understand
whats going on.
mick

Over the weekend I used a jury rigged approach based on some of the
designs but much simpler.

I had a piece of 1/2 inch baltic birch plywood that I had made a mistake
in cutting.

I knotched one end with a cut wide enough for my bandsaw blade and
several inches deep.

I drilled a few holes in to receive a finish nail that I cut short so
less than 1/2 an inch would stick out when driven through a hole from
the other side of the plywood.

Then I mounted a chunk with a shallow hole drilled in what I thought
should be the center and moved the plywood until the chunk was nearly
contacting the blade. I made sure that the hole with the nail was lined
up with the tip of the blade and then clamped the plywood to the bandsaw
table.

The approach does not require anything more than a few holes because I
can reposition the plywood so the center is in the correct place.

The plywood is stiff enough that there is no flexing.

After a couple smaller chunks I put a large piece of dry elm log almost
9 inches thick and with a weight of 30-40 pounds onto the jig that had
been cut in half. Taking it slow and easy I was able to cut the log
into a round blank about 14 inches across. I could have made it bigger
but I wanted to cut out some serious checking at the ends of the log

william kossack wrote:
At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting
them round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?

"william kossack" wrote in message
news
Over the weekend I used a jury rigged approach based on some of the
designs but much simpler.


So much easier when the jig maintains the cutting edge tangent, isn't it?

I built a similar jig but had trouble with the bandsaw making the turns. I
have an 18" saw with a 3/4 inch blade.

What blade size did you use?

Thanks
Mike

"william kossack" wrote in message
news
Over the weekend I used a jury rigged approach based on some of the
designs but much simpler.

I had a piece of 1/2 inch baltic birch plywood that I had made a mistake
in cutting.

I knotched one end with a cut wide enough for my bandsaw blade and several
inches deep.

I drilled a few holes in to receive a finish nail that I cut short so less
than 1/2 an inch would stick out when driven through a hole from the other
side of the plywood.

Then I mounted a chunk with a shallow hole drilled in what I thought
should be the center and moved the plywood until the chunk was nearly
contacting the blade. I made sure that the hole with the nail was lined
up with the tip of the blade and then clamped the plywood to the bandsaw
table.

The approach does not require anything more than a few holes because I can
reposition the plywood so the center is in the correct place.

The plywood is stiff enough that there is no flexing.

After a couple smaller chunks I put a large piece of dry elm log almost 9
inches thick and with a weight of 30-40 pounds onto the jig that had been
cut in half. Taking it slow and easy I was able to cut the log into a
round blank about 14 inches across. I could have made it bigger but I
wanted to cut out some serious checking at the ends of the log

william kossack wrote:
At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting them
round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?

http://www.timberwolf1.com/silicon_steel_slection.asp

See the far right for radius of cut.

"Mike Leskowyak" wrote in message
...
I built a similar jig but had trouble with the bandsaw making the turns.
I
have an 18" saw with a 3/4 inch blade.

What blade size did you use?


"william kossack" wrote in message
news
Over the weekend I used a jury rigged approach based on some of the
designs but much simpler.

I have a Jet 18

I use timberwolf blades that I buy directly from timberwolf. I like
dealing with them because they keep a record of all the blades I've
purchased. I just ordered some more 3/inch (RK blades I think invoice
is on my desk at work) but if your unsure just explain to them what your
doing and they will be able to suggest the correct blade.

They were running a buy 3 and get 1 free special but even then their
prices are 1/3 to 1/2 what you pay elsewhere for their blades

Mike Leskowyak wrote:
I built a similar jig but had trouble with the bandsaw making the turns. I
have an 18" saw with a 3/4 inch blade.

What blade size did you use?

Thanks
Mike

"william kossack" wrote in message
news
Over the weekend I used a jury rigged approach based on some of the
designs but much simpler.

I had a piece of 1/2 inch baltic birch plywood that I had made a mistake
in cutting.

I knotched one end with a cut wide enough for my bandsaw blade and several
inches deep.

I drilled a few holes in to receive a finish nail that I cut short so less
than 1/2 an inch would stick out when driven through a hole from the other
side of the plywood.

Then I mounted a chunk with a shallow hole drilled in what I thought
should be the center and moved the plywood until the chunk was nearly
contacting the blade. I made sure that the hole with the nail was lined
up with the tip of the blade and then clamped the plywood to the bandsaw
table.

The approach does not require anything more than a few holes because I can
reposition the plywood so the center is in the correct place.

The plywood is stiff enough that there is no flexing.

After a couple smaller chunks I put a large piece of dry elm log almost 9
inches thick and with a weight of 30-40 pounds onto the jig that had been
cut in half. Taking it slow and easy I was able to cut the log into a
round blank about 14 inches across. I could have made it bigger but I
wanted to cut out some serious checking at the ends of the log

william kossack wrote:

At one point I remember seening the plans for a jig to help cut blanks
round on a bandsaw. I've decided I'm a meserable failure at cutting them
round free hand.

Can anyone point me to some plans?