|
Sometimes Norm can be such a pain in the ass
Making a nice but not fancy small round dining table. Time to cut the
legs. Says Norm, "We want the legs to be 28 3/4 inches." What? It would betray his carpenterial integrity to round it off to 29"? Someone is going to sit down at it someday and embarass him by observing that the table seems to be about 1/4" high? Sheesh! FoggyTown |
Could it be that he wanted to match an existing table and "close enough"
wasn't acceptable? I don't find it all that hard to measure 28-3/4". Dave foggytown wrote: Making a nice but not fancy small round dining table. Time to cut the legs. Says Norm, "We want the legs to be 28 3/4 inches." What? It would betray his carpenterial integrity to round it off to 29"? Someone is going to sit down at it someday and embarass him by observing that the table seems to be about 1/4" high? Sheesh! FoggyTown |
David wrote:
Could it be that he wanted to match an existing table and "close enough" wasn't acceptable? I don't find it all that hard to measure 28-3/4". It would make the finished height 29½" tall. I think you're correct. So often he copies something; I assume the original had that dimension. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN VE |
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message . com... David wrote: Could it be that he wanted to match an existing table and "close enough" wasn't acceptable? I don't find it all that hard to measure 28-3/4". It would make the finished height 29½" tall. I think you're correct. So often he copies something; I assume the original had that dimension. Which leads to the reminder to newbies that measured draw(r)ins of antiques generally presume smaller people. Build to currently acceptable dimensions or be 5'5" tall.... |
Especially important when copying beds. Not good to spend hours only
to find that the side rails are about 1 foot too short. Haven't done this yet... |
foggytown wrote:
Making a nice but not fancy small round dining table. Time to cut the legs. Says Norm, "We want the legs to be 28 3/4 inches." What? It would betray his carpenterial integrity to round it off to 29"? Someone is going to sit down at it someday and embarass him by observing that the table seems to be about 1/4" high? Sheesh! Talk about pita and "Sheesh!"! :( What the heck difference is it measuring 28-3/4 vs 29? A measurement is a measurement, whatever it is...and, if the desired height of the table is 29-1/2, which is pretty typical, then if the top is 3/4, then figure out how long the legs need to be... Sheesh!!! |
You're trying to tell me that 1/4" in the height of a table makes a
difference? We're talking woodworking, not molecular physics. The tolerances for something like a table leg (which has an obvious beginning but, in theory, no end) doesn't have to be slavish to such tolerances. FoggyTown |
foggytown wrote:
You're trying to tell me that 1/4" in the height of a table makes a difference? We're talking woodworking, not molecular physics. The tolerances for something like a table leg (which has an obvious beginning but, in theory, no end) doesn't have to be slavish to such tolerances. If it's part of a set, ¼" makes a difference. Otherwise, no. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN VE |
On 20 Apr 2005 08:57:14 -0700, "foggytown" wrote:
You're trying to tell me that 1/4" in the height of a table makes a difference? It certainly can do for custom work, if you're making it to stand next to something else. I suspect though that it's "round number - random thickness", and the overall height of the table is a simple number, whilst the height of the legs is odd. |
Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
foggytown wrote: You're trying to tell me that 1/4" in the height of a table makes a difference? We're talking woodworking, not molecular physics. The tolerances for something like a table leg (which has an obvious beginning but, in theory, no end) doesn't have to be slavish to such tolerances. If it's part of a set, ¼" makes a difference. Otherwise, no. Well, it's kind of nice to have your kitchen cart line up with the countertops or your computer tale line up with your desk. There are standard heights for many things. As for "woodworking, not molecular physics", the fact that the material is wood does not mean that one is incapable of or precluded from or should not try make things precisely. Try a dovetail that's 1/4 inch off and see how you like it. Henry A. Rowland used a lignum-vitae nut in his ruling machine for making diffraction gratings--that machine has a precision in excess of 1/43,000 of an inch. I guess he didn't know that it was only allowable with wood to round things off to the nearest inch. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
foggytown wrote:
You're trying to tell me that 1/4" in the height of a table makes a difference? ... No, not really...what I'm wondering is why get upset over someone else's cutting the leg at whatever length they desire (after all, you're only sitting there watching, for heaven's sake!) Plus, you don't know why he chose that particular length--as others have noted, it could be to match the other one he already made before the show which may well have been made to match some other piece. Or, he could just have decided he did want the top to be 29-1/2, not 29-1/4 or 29-3/4--that's as valid a reason as any other, also. |
No one else shares your disdain for Norm making table legs 28-3/4". You
haven't YET explained how it's harder to measure that than a nice round number like 30". Does your tape measure have dog poo covering up the area around 28-3/4" that makes it difficult for you to measure that distance? Dave foggytown wrote: You're trying to tell me that 1/4" in the height of a table makes a difference? We're talking woodworking, not molecular physics. The tolerances for something like a table leg (which has an obvious beginning but, in theory, no end) doesn't have to be slavish to such tolerances. FoggyTown |
Unless it's a set of steamer trunks. :)
FoggyTown |
It's not as though he was cutting it to 19-31/128ths. How hard is it to
hit a quarter inch mark if that's the dimension you choose, for whatever reason? Is there something magical about even inch marks? It takes no more time or thought to set a stop for 19-1/4 vs 19 or 20, so why worry? If even inches give mystical pleasure, then go for it. Even better, go metric and take advantage of every measurement for all practical purposes being an even number of millimeters. Hardly seems worth complaining about though. Roger |
On 19 Apr 2005 13:31:20 -0700, "foggytown" wrote:
Making a nice but not fancy small round dining table. Time to cut the legs. Says Norm, "We want the legs to be 28 3/4 inches." What? It would betray his carpenterial integrity to round it off to 29"? Someone is going to sit down at it someday and embarass him by observing that the table seems to be about 1/4" high? Sheesh! FoggyTown The big numbers on your tape are feet The next biggest numbers are inches. The next order of magnitude is half inches. The third order is quarter inches. The next is eighth inches. The little bitty lines are sixteenths of an inch. Some tapes have thirty seconds and sixty fourths but most people can't see them. They can, however, be measured by other means. Cabinetmakers work to about a sixty fourth for gross dimensions and to about the thickness of a piece of copy paper (avg. 0.010) for mortise and tenons. When we get to the level of dovetail interfaces we have to consider the RH and the EMC to calculate. Nahmie usually works from an existing prototype that most people would consider to be in proportion. Would it kill the piece to make the legs one quarter of an inch longer? Not the pieces that Nahmie is usually dealing with. Let's take a Goddard-Townsend Block Front: The drawer faces are ten and one quarter inches wide. Would it hurt the proportion of the piece to increase it to eleven inches or reduce it to ten? Yes it would. Why? Because each rectangle fits in with another rectangle that fits in with another rectanglel - and they all fit perfectly. That's why the piece is in a museum. If you know enough to know what you can mess with, you're fine. If you don't know what it means - cut the damned leg to 28-3/4 and be done with it. |
Well said Tom...
The more I work with wood, the more I realize how much I don't know about design and proper proportion. Nothing looks more absurd and "amateurish" than a well constructed but poorly designed & out of proportion piece of furniture. I've made a few (too many) but I'm taking more time lately with design research and less about "can I build it". Lou In article 1114036873.809666049cc8ac59312a28727017eaf5@teran ews, Tom Watson wrote: On 19 Apr 2005 13:31:20 -0700, "foggytown" wrote: Making a nice but not fancy small round dining table. Time to cut the legs. Says Norm, "We want the legs to be 28 3/4 inches." What? It would betray his carpenterial integrity to round it off to 29"? Someone is going to sit down at it someday and embarass him by observing that the table seems to be about 1/4" high? Sheesh! FoggyTown The big numbers on your tape are feet The next biggest numbers are inches. The next order of magnitude is half inches. The third order is quarter inches. The next is eighth inches. The little bitty lines are sixteenths of an inch. Some tapes have thirty seconds and sixty fourths but most people can't see them. They can, however, be measured by other means. Cabinetmakers work to about a sixty fourth for gross dimensions and to about the thickness of a piece of copy paper (avg. 0.010) for mortise and tenons. When we get to the level of dovetail interfaces we have to consider the RH and the EMC to calculate. Nahmie usually works from an existing prototype that most people would consider to be in proportion. Would it kill the piece to make the legs one quarter of an inch longer? Not the pieces that Nahmie is usually dealing with. Let's take a Goddard-Townsend Block Front: The drawer faces are ten and one quarter inches wide. Would it hurt the proportion of the piece to increase it to eleven inches or reduce it to ten? Yes it would. Why? Because each rectangle fits in with another rectangle that fits in with another rectanglel - and they all fit perfectly. That's why the piece is in a museum. If you know enough to know what you can mess with, you're fine. If you don't know what it means - cut the damned leg to 28-3/4 and be done with it. |
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message If it's part of a set, ¼" makes a difference. Otherwise, no. I've noticed that. You make three of them 28 3/4 and one an even 29 and your drink can spill. |
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:42:55 -0400, Tom Watson
wrote: The third order is quarter inches. The next is eighth inches. Please explain this to the folks at Ridgid. On my new saw the eighths are longer than the quarters on the fence rail. What the heck? -Leuf |
David wrote:
No one else shares your disdain for Norm making table legs 28-3/4". You haven't YET explained how it's harder to measure that than a nice round number like 30". Does your tape measure have dog poo covering up the area around 28-3/4" that makes it difficult for you to measure that distance? Dave foggytown wrote: You're trying to tell me that 1/4" in the height of a table makes a difference? We're talking woodworking, not molecular physics. The tolerances for something like a table leg (which has an obvious beginning but, in theory, no end) doesn't have to be slavish to such tolerances. FoggyTown I am in agreeance with you...but one question. How did you settle on Dog Poo? Jus' wonderin' out loud to myself. Philski |
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:42:32 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote: foggytown wrote: Making a nice but not fancy small round dining table. Time to cut the legs. Says Norm, "We want the legs to be 28 3/4 inches." What? It would betray his carpenterial integrity to round it off to 29"? Someone is going to sit down at it someday and embarass him by observing that the table seems to be about 1/4" high? Sheesh! Talk about pita and "Sheesh!"! :( What the heck difference is it measuring 28-3/4 vs 29? A measurement is a measurement, whatever it is...and, if the desired height of the table is 29-1/2, which is pretty typical, then if the top is 3/4, then figure out how long the legs need to be... I see your point, but a measurement is not always just a measurement- the spec sheets I get at work from the engineering dept. are usually fairly straight-forward, 29.375" and the like, but every once in a while I get some oddball dimension like 9.007" Ever try to measure ..007" with a tape measure? I like to nail all my parts dead on, but I don't care to make any bets on the accuracy of a cut measured in 1/128ths of an inch- I just round 'em down to the nearest sane fraction. :) Sheesh!!! Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
Prometheus wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:42:32 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote: foggytown wrote: Making a nice but not fancy small round dining table. Time to cut the legs. Says Norm, "We want the legs to be 28 3/4 inches." What? It would betray his carpenterial integrity to round it off to 29"? Someone is going to sit down at it someday and embarass him by observing that the table seems to be about 1/4" high? Sheesh! Talk about pita and "Sheesh!"! :( What the heck difference is it measuring 28-3/4 vs 29? A measurement is a measurement, whatever it is...and, if the desired height of the table is 29-1/2, which is pretty typical, then if the top is 3/4, then figure out how long the legs need to be... I see your point, but a measurement is not always just a measurement- the spec sheets I get at work from the engineering dept. are usually fairly straight-forward, 29.375" and the like, but every once in a while I get some oddball dimension like 9.007" Ever try to measure .007" with a tape measure? I like to nail all my parts dead on, but I don't care to make any bets on the accuracy of a cut measured in 1/128ths of an inch- I just round 'em down to the nearest sane fraction. :) You should call the engineers and find out just what's going on. Do they give you a tolerance? If they're giving you dimensions and tolerances that are beyond the precision limits of your tools then they need to be made aware of those limits and either design to them or get you more precise tools. Sheesh!!! Aut inveniam viam aut faciam -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:32:40 -0400, the inscrutable Leuf
spake: On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:42:55 -0400, Tom Watson wrote: The third order is quarter inches. The next is eighth inches. Please explain this to the folks at Ridgid. On my new saw the eighths are longer than the quarters on the fence rail. What the heck? Ah, those are the metric "long-eighths", Leuf. ================================================== ======= What doesn't kill you + http://diversify.com ....makes you hurt more. + Web application programming ================================================== ======= |
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message If it's part of a set, ¼" makes a difference. Otherwise, no. I've noticed that. You make three of them 28 3/4 and one an even 29 and your drink can spill. Hmmm I don't follow. Do you have any mathematical theory you can cite that would support this outrageous claim? Please be thorough as your sagacity is called into question on this one. Sincerely... :-) -- Will Occasional Techno-geek |
WillR wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote: "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message If it's part of a set, ¼" makes a difference. Otherwise, no. I've noticed that. You make three of them 28 3/4 and one an even 29 and your drink can spill. Hmmm I don't follow. Do you have any mathematical theory you can cite that would support this outrageous claim? Please be thorough as your sagacity is called into question on this one. Four tables in a matched set, set side by side, one's a quarter inch short, put your drink on the crack . . . Sincerely... :-) -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
I debated long and hard with myself on what "debris" might be on his
tape. I thought of a variety of items, but decided all of them were to specific, and dog poo seemed appropriate to the subject. g Dave Philski wrote: I am in agreeance with you...but one question. How did you settle on Dog Poo? Jus' wonderin' out loud to myself. Philski |
Duane Bozarth wrote: foggytown wrote: You're trying to tell me that 1/4" in the height of a table makes a difference? ... No, not really...what I'm wondering is why get upset over someone else's cutting the leg at whatever length they desire (after all, you're only sitting there watching, for heaven's sake!) Plus, you don't know why he chose that particular length--as others have noted, it could be to match the other one he already made before the show which may well have been made to match some other piece. Or, he could just have decided he did want the top to be 29-1/2, not 29-1/4 or 29-3/4--that's as valid a reason as any other, also. Do you wonder how many people will buy the plans and make that table to those exact dimensions, AND complain about them not not being rounded off? -- FF |
"Prometheus" wrote in message ... I see your point, but a measurement is not always just a measurement- the spec sheets I get at work from the engineering dept. are usually fairly straight-forward, 29.375" and the like, but every once in a while I get some oddball dimension like 9.007" Ever try to measure .007" with a tape measure? I like to nail all my parts dead on, but I don't care to make any bets on the accuracy of a cut measured in 1/128ths of an inch- I just round 'em down to the nearest sane fraction. :) Sheesh!!! Aut inveniam viam aut faciam Hey Prometheus, Oddly enough, I was making this very point at work today. Many of the parts they want us top attach to plates require holes of a strange decimal reading, my tape only goes down to 32nds of an inch and my layout rule only goes to half millimeters. Even that is tough to hit some days. (Lamenting that yet another year has drained from the glass.) Cheers, Beej |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: Prometheus wrote: On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:42:32 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote: foggytown wrote: Making a nice but not fancy small round dining table. Time to cut the legs. Says Norm, "We want the legs to be 28 3/4 inches." What? It would betray his carpenterial integrity to round it off to 29"? Someone is going to sit down at it someday and embarass him by observing that the table seems to be about 1/4" high? Sheesh! Talk about pita and "Sheesh!"! :( What the heck difference is it measuring 28-3/4 vs 29? A measurement is a measurement, whatever it is...and, if the desired height of the table is 29-1/2, which is pretty typical, then if the top is 3/4, then figure out how long the legs need to be... I see your point, but a measurement is not always just a measurement- the spec sheets I get at work from the engineering dept. are usually fairly straight-forward, 29.375" and the like, but every once in a while I get some oddball dimension like 9.007" Ever try to measure .007" with a tape measure? I like to nail all my parts dead on, but I don't care to make any bets on the accuracy of a cut measured in 1/128ths of an inch- I just round 'em down to the nearest sane fraction. :) You should call the engineers and find out just what's going on. Do they give you a tolerance? If they're giving you dimensions and tolerances that are beyond the precision limits of your tools then they need to be made aware of those limits and either design to them or get you more precise tools. Yeah, I've got a tolerance of a sixteenth of an inch, so it's really not an issue (the parts are getting welded anyhow, and tiny gaps can be filled in easily enough). They just come up with goofy measurements sometimes because they calculate all the lengths off the one critical dimention, and then let autocad do the trig for the other dimentions. I was just pointing out that a dimention is not always sensible. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
Hey Prometheus, Oddly enough, I was making this very point at work today. Many of the parts they want us top attach to plates require holes of a strange decimal reading, my tape only goes down to 32nds of an inch and my layout rule only goes to half millimeters. Even that is tough to hit some days. (Lamenting that yet another year has drained from the glass.) Cheers, Beej Ahh... you've got *nice* tape measures :) We used to have decent tapes, but they kept getting chewed up when swarf got in them, so now we get the $2.99 Lufin ones in a selection of neon colors- they're only graduated in 16ths. Those suckers sure look funny next to the Miyoto calipers... I just took in a good cabinet rule, and keep it in my locker so it doesn't get bent. Isn't it amazing how it seems essential to have the best for projects at home, but employers always want you to make do with the cheapest crap they can dig up? It's probably time for me to start lugging in my toolbox every day again, but it's such a PITA, and they won't guarantee that someone won't swipe it when I go on break. Ah well, such is life. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
Oddly enough, I was making this very point at work today. Many of
the parts they want us top attach to plates require holes of a strange decimal reading, my tape only goes down to 32nds of an inch and my layout rule only goes to half millimeters. If the measure measurement is THAT critical, maybe you guys needs something a little more accurate than a tape measure... perhaps a Bridgeport with X,Y readings that go to 0.0001" |
By now someone should have realizwed from all these posts that the metric system IS easier and better than counting out 32nds or .00234 inches. FoggyTown |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter