There is a thread here every few months about whether or not biscuits show
through. Most people say they have never seen it, but a few insist it
happens all the time.

I made up a game board out of 1/2" ply recessed in a frame of walnut. I cut
the biscuit slots off center so the thin side would be on the bottom.
Unfortunately I screwed up in cutting the slots on the mating pieces and the
spacing only worked with the plywood upside down, with the thin part on top.
Normally I would have redone it, but this was for a project my son was doing
for 6th grade and it didn't seem right to fuss too much over it; so I went
with what I had. (besides, I could blame it on my son!)

Well, they didn't show at first and they still don't show a week later. If
they don't telegraph through 1/16" of plywood it is hard to believe they
ever do. And yes, they are nice snug fits; PC 557 and PC biscuits.

I have read that European biscuits are compressed, but PC found that they
work the same without compression so PC biscuits are not compressed. Maybe
that accounts for people's varying experiences?

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:55:36 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

Unfortunately I screwed up in cutting the slots on the mating pieces and the
spacing only worked with the plywood upside down, with the thin part on top.
Normally I would have redone it, but this was for a project my son was doing
for 6th grade

Who was doing the project, you say?

If you ARE intending to teach him, then do it right, and mark matching
surfaces before routing.

"Guess who" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:55:36 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

Unfortunately I screwed up in cutting the slots on the mating pieces and
the
spacing only worked with the plywood upside down, with the thin part on
top.
Normally I would have redone it, but this was for a project my son was
doing
for 6th grade

Who was doing the project, you say?

We were. He didn't do all the work, but he did some of everything; except
for making the lap joints in 1/8" x 1/8" stock.

If you ARE intending to teach him, then do it right, and mark matching
surfaces before routing.

But if it came out perfectly, why wasn't it right? Is there some higher
standard than looking and working properly?

In computer programming, it's called "elegance". And of course
it's completely subjective.

Toller wrote:

But if it came out perfectly, why wasn't it right? Is there some higher
standard than looking and working properly?

"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
In computer programming, it's called "elegance". And of course
it's completely subjective.

Elegant programs run faster, are easier to debug, and take up less space.
If they didn't do those things, they wouldn't be elegant.

If two woodworking projects are indistinquishable, it is spurious to argue
that one is elegant; heck, you couldn't even tell which one was supposedly
elegant.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:13:24 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

If you ARE intending to teach him, then do it right, and mark matching
surfaces before routing.

But if it came out perfectly, why wasn't it right? Is there some higher
standard than looking and working properly?

So what does this mean?

QUOTE from your original post:
Unfortunately I screwed up in cutting the slots on the mating pieces
and the spacing only worked with the plywood upside down, with the
thin part on top.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:51:07 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

If two woodworking projects are indistinquishable, it is spurious to argue
that one is elegant; heck, you couldn't even tell which one was supposedly
elegant.

Again from your former posting:
"Well, they didn't show at first and they still don't show a week
later."

So basically you've started a thread and an argument about something
that doesn't happen?

Just incidentally, elegance implies beauty and simplicity both at the
same time. Now ...back to something useful.

"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
In computer programming, it's called "elegance". And of course
it's completely subjective.


Baloney! In computer programming, if it comes out perfect and works, it's
called a bug.

--

-Mike-

That should probably be changed to read "PC found that they were cheaper to
make if not compressed".


"Toller" wrote in message
...
but PC found that they
work the same without compression so PC biscuits are not compressed.
Maybe
that accounts for people's varying experiences?

"Guess who" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:13:24 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

If you ARE intending to teach him, then do it right, and mark matching
surfaces before routing.

But if it came out perfectly, why wasn't it right? Is there some higher
standard than looking and working properly?

So what does this mean?

QUOTE from your original post:
Unfortunately I screwed up in cutting the slots on the mating pieces
and the spacing only worked with the plywood upside down, with the
thin part on top.


Exactly. There is no way to tell from that I did anything wrong. It is
perfect in appearance and function.
So, I didn't actually do anything wrong if it in indistinquishable from
correct! I just thought I did because of the people here who say biscuits
aren't usable because they telegraph through to the surface.

"Toller" wrote in message
...

"Guess who" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:13:24 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

If you ARE intending to teach him, then do it right, and mark matching
surfaces before routing.

But if it came out perfectly, why wasn't it right? Is there some higher
standard than looking and working properly?

So what does this mean?

QUOTE from your original post:
Unfortunately I screwed up in cutting the slots on the mating pieces
and the spacing only worked with the plywood upside down, with the
thin part on top.


Exactly. There is no way to tell from that I did anything wrong. It is
perfect in appearance and function.
So, I didn't actually do anything wrong if it in indistinquishable from
correct! I just thought I did because of the people here who say biscuits
aren't usable because they telegraph through to the surface.

I think the thing is...YOU know you did it wrong. Since YOU mentioned it,
YOU said you screwed up, so YOU know its wrong. But here's the thing. If
it doesn't make a whit of difference to YOU, then it's just fine.

"Toller" wrote in
:

There is a thread here every few months about whether or not biscuits
show through. Most people say they have never seen it, but a few
insist it happens all the time.

I made up a game board out of 1/2" ply recessed in a frame of walnut.
I cut the biscuit slots off center so the thin side would be on the
bottom. Unfortunately I screwed up in cutting the slots on the mating
pieces and the spacing only worked with the plywood upside down, with
the thin part on top. Normally I would have redone it, but this was
for a project my son was doing for 6th grade and it didn't seem right
to fuss too much over it; so I went with what I had. (besides, I could
blame it on my son!)

Well, they didn't show at first and they still don't show a week
later. If they don't telegraph through 1/16" of plywood it is hard to
believe they ever do. And yes, they are nice snug fits; PC 557
and PC biscuits.

I have read that European biscuits are compressed, but PC found that
they work the same without compression so PC biscuits are not
compressed. Maybe that accounts for people's varying experiences?



That'll teach you to ask a simple question.
Your theory sounds good. Maybe I'll pick up some PC biscuits and do a
little testing.
Happy New Year,
Hank

In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
In computer programming, it's called "elegance". And of course
it's completely subjective.


Baloney! In computer programming, if it comes out perfect and works, it's
called a bug.

Baloney, yourself! If that happens, the proper term is "miracle". g

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Toller wrote:
.. . . but this was for a project my son was doing
for 6th grade and it didn't seem right to fuss too much over it; so I went
with what I had. (besides, I could blame it on my son!)

You're some dad, allright. First you do the project the kid should be
doing to begin with, then if he gets a ****ty grade, it's down to him.

On a more related note - the only comment I've heard from Norm lately
is that he's discovered that sometimes biscuits leave "depressions" in
the surface of the wood above and below them so he seems to be moving
away from their use.

FoggyTown

That's not an industry standard definition of elegance as it
applies to computer programming. In fact, speed, resources,
etc. are frequently not considered at all for "elegance".
Someone wants to show off by using recursion where it's
clever but unnecessary, for example.

By your definition, a program that is "elegant" in one
environment may be entirely inelegant in another (for
example on a machine with lots of cpu power but little
memory). So "elegance" would not only be subjective,
but dependent entirely on current circumstances.

Toller wrote:
"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...

In computer programming, it's called "elegance". And of course
it's completely subjective.


Elegant programs run faster, are easier to debug, and take up less space.
If they didn't do those things, they wouldn't be elegant.

If two woodworking projects are indistinquishable, it is spurious to argue
that one is elegant; heck, you couldn't even tell which one was supposedly
elegant.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:21:44 -0500, Guess who wrote:


So basically you've started a thread and an argument about something that
doesn't happen?

This is Usenet. What is your point?


;-)

Bill