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