Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws


I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling holes for
screws.

What I have been doing is holding the drill bit in front of the screw at eye
level and trying to sight it to see if I can still see the shaft of the
screw behind it. If I can just /barely/ see it, then I know that the
screw's shaft will be a smidgeon larger than the hole it's teething into,
and that's what I'm aiming for usually.

Note, I'm not talking about the case where I need a hole large enough in a
board for the threads to spin freely to pull the board down to something
underneath. I'm talking about the underneath business, but perhaps there
are rules for the board here too.

Fundamentals:

1. Does pre-drilling generally create a stronger hold, because presumably
there is less wood pushed to the side of the screw? Or does the stress of
the wood split to the side add to the hold against the threads?

2. Should a pre-bore be large enough to only grab the threads? Or is this
only necessary for the harder of the hard woods?

Thanks!


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 568
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

What I have been doing is holding the drill bit in front of the screw at eye
level and trying to sight it to see if I can still see the shaft of the
screw behind it. If I can just /barely/ see it, then I know that the
screw's shaft will be a smidgeon larger than the hole it's teething into,
and that's what I'm aiming for usually.


Sounds about like my technique - except sometimes I measure the
screw's shank with a dial caliper, and grab the next smallest drill
bit from the size I measured. I'm definitely not suggesting this
level of precision is necessary - just for me, my caliper and decimal-
fraction conversion chart are easier to reach than my drill bits, and
this way I can grab the right drill bit the first time. Sometime if I
get smart I'll measure shanks on all the screw sizes I use commonly,
and write them on the screw bins, so I won't have to measure for most
of them.



1. Does pre-drilling generally create a stronger hold, because presumably
there is less wood pushed to the side of the screw? Or does the stress of
the wood split to the side add to the hold against the threads?


I don't know about this, but it sounds like the beginnings of a very
interesting experiment! I'm guessing it would depend a lot on wood
type, screw type (especially thread depth?), and probably grain
orientation. I'm looking forward to seeing more educated replies and/
or good references for this information.

Sorry I can't actually help more, but I think you're on the right
track. At least you're not alone!
Good luck,
Andy

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:

I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling

holes for
screws.


Use a dial caliper (About $20) and measure screw.

Use 75% of thread dia for pilot holes.

Use thread dia +.015 for clearance holes.

Have fun.

Lew




Easier yet...Somewhere on the internet (sorry I didn't save the link but
a little googling should get you there) I found some pdf files with all
sorts of interesting shop reference charts. One of these tells you
exactly what size drill bit to use for each different wood screw size.
It even breaks it down to different size bits depending on whether you
are using hardwood or softwood.

I printed out the charts with the info I use frequently, laminated them,
and keep them in easy reach of my workbench.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

You should be able to find a chart here =

http://tinyurl.com/3ymwpm

Smitty



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,047
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws


"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:

I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling

holes for
screws.


Use a dial caliper (About $20) and measure screw.

Use 75% of thread dia for pilot holes.

Use thread dia +.015 for clearance holes.

Have fun.

Lew



  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 844
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

Let's go to the source:

http://www.wlfuller.com/html/what_size___.html

PS: One of the older and largest producers of drill bits.




Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling holes for
screws.

What I have been doing is holding the drill bit in front of the screw at eye
level and trying to sight it to see if I can still see the shaft of the
screw behind it. If I can just /barely/ see it, then I know that the
screw's shaft will be a smidgeon larger than the hole it's teething into,
and that's what I'm aiming for usually.

Note, I'm not talking about the case where I need a hole large enough in a
board for the threads to spin freely to pull the board down to something
underneath. I'm talking about the underneath business, but perhaps there
are rules for the board here too.

Fundamentals:

1. Does pre-drilling generally create a stronger hold, because presumably
there is less wood pushed to the side of the screw? Or does the stress of
the wood split to the side add to the hold against the threads?

2. Should a pre-bore be large enough to only grab the threads? Or is this
only necessary for the harder of the hard woods?

Thanks!


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 403
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:34:52 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote:

Top posted for your convenience.

(In other words, you can look at the earlier text by scrolling down if
you *want* to, but you're not forced to wade through dozens of lines
of unedited material to get to the meat of THIS post

************************************************** ************

There is an article at WoodCentral which has the correct sizes of
drill bits for screwhead, shank, and root diameters of common sizes.
There's also drilling and tapping information for metal work.

http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/...cles_713.shtml



I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling holes for
screws.

What I have been doing is holding the drill bit in front of the screw at eye
level and trying to sight it to see if I can still see the shaft of the
screw behind it. If I can just /barely/ see it, then I know that the
screw's shaft will be a smidgeon larger than the hole it's teething into,
and that's what I'm aiming for usually.

Note, I'm not talking about the case where I need a hole large enough in a
board for the threads to spin freely to pull the board down to something
underneath. I'm talking about the underneath business, but perhaps there
are rules for the board here too.

Fundamentals:

1. Does pre-drilling generally create a stronger hold, because presumably
there is less wood pushed to the side of the screw? Or does the stress of
the wood split to the side add to the hold against the threads?

2. Should a pre-bore be large enough to only grab the threads? Or is this
only necessary for the harder of the hard woods?

Thanks!


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

On 31 Oct, 20:35, (J T) wrote:
Wed, Oct 31, 2007, 11:47am (EDT-3)
(Kerry Montgomery) doth query?
So just use a 1/16" bit for all pre-drilling?

Are you asking? Or what? Using just one size bit might make sense
for you, but not for me. I might use screws with a body smaller, or
larger, than 1/16". How about pre-drilling holes for nails? Any
thoughts on that? Or furniture glides? I usually pre-drill for those,
for sure.

JOAT
It's not hard, if you get your mind right.
- Granny Weatherwax


I forget where I saw it, but some research was done that proved that
pre-drilling for wire nails (round-shanked nails) made the nails grip
more securely, (probably because the wood contacts the nail over 360
degrees of the nail's circumference, and not just on 2 sides where the
grain divides around the nail).


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,376
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling holes for
screws.


snip

See:

http://www.internetwoodworking.com/w5/screws.html

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

LRod said something like:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:34:52 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote:

Top posted for your convenience.

(In other words, you can look at the earlier text by scrolling down if
you *want* to, but you're not forced to wade through dozens of lines
of unedited material to get to the meat of THIS post


Top posting is convenient as you point out for email, because in email there
are two contributors, and less need for interleaved posting.

Please see further down (for a visual demonstration.)


************************************************** ************

There is an article at WoodCentral which has the correct sizes of
drill bits for screwhead, shank, and root diameters of common sizes.
There's also drilling and tapping information for metal work.

http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/...cles_713.shtml



I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling holes
for
screws.


But if in a usenet environment, you have many interleaved posting
opportunities. Pretend I was someone who wanted to repond to both your post
and this part of my post. In such a case, top posting is the formula for a
mess.

Please scroll further down....



What I have been doing is holding the drill bit in front of the screw at
eye
level and trying to sight it to see if I can still see the shaft of the
screw behind it. If I can just /barely/ see it, then I know that the
screw's shaft will be a smidgeon larger than the hole it's teething into,
and that's what I'm aiming for usually.


Someone replying now to this point as well would want to interleave here.

Interleaved posts by their nature follow top-down. An interleaved comment
follows immediately the paragraph or line it refers to. But your top post
is bottom up. But a response to a *part* of your top post (interleaved)
would be top down. If there were several cycles of interleaved posts and
top posts a complicated conversation would be nearly impossible to follow.

And you have no idea as to how complicated a conversation an existing thread
might turn into.



Note, I'm not talking about the case where I need a hole large enough in
a
board for the threads to spin freely to pull the board down to something
underneath. I'm talking about the underneath business, but perhaps there
are rules for the board here too.

Fundamentals:

1. Does pre-drilling generally create a stronger hold, because presumably
there is less wood pushed to the side of the screw? Or does the stress
of
the wood split to the side add to the hold against the threads?

2. Should a pre-bore be large enough to only grab the threads? Or is
this
only necessary for the harder of the hard woods?

Thanks!




--
"Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity!
Two weeks from everywhere!"


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

All this is interesting. I too, occasionally, use callipers to help in
pilot drill bit choice. However, I usually just eyeball it: hold a bit
against the screw seeking the bit that looks like it is the same size as the
shank of the screw. I don't build wood stuff for NASA.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 931
Default [OT] Yet another posting thread. Was: Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

"Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote in
news:kn7Wi.6420$pT.2027@trndny07:


Top posting is convenient as you point out for email, because in email
there are two contributors, and less need for interleaved posting.


*snipped and trimmed for content and length*

My newsreader makes reading messages that are either top, middle, or
bottom posted easy. I have it set to display the original message
(denoted with the standard character by 98% of posts) in a smaller size
font than the new message.

It will also automatically scroll down to the new text when I ask it to.

Because of these settings, I just don't see what the problem with where
someone put his original message is. As long as things are kept neat and
trimmed, reading messages is really quite easy.

Fyi, I'm using Xnews.

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,398
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws


"David Todtman" wrote in message
All this is interesting. I too, occasionally, use callipers to help in
pilot drill bit choice. However, I usually just eyeball it: hold a bit
against the screw seeking the bit that looks like it is the same size as

the
shank of the screw. I don't build wood stuff for NASA.


I usually do that too unless I'm afraid of something splitting or I want to
be more exact and then I fit the screw to one of the holes in my drill
index. I can tell what kind of grab the screw will have depending on how far
up the shaft the threads grab in the index.


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default [OT] Yet another posting thread. Was: Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

Puckdropper said something like:
"Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote in
news:kn7Wi.6420$pT.2027@trndny07:


Top posting is convenient as you point out for email, because in
email there are two contributors, and less need for interleaved
posting.


*snipped and trimmed for content and length*

My newsreader makes reading messages that are either top, middle, or
bottom posted easy.


*snipped and trimmed for content and length*

My newsreaders delimit different reply indentation levels with differing
colors. Does *not* solve the problem of the mess that you're inviting when
you top post.

As an example I just did what you did. *Of course* you can hack out all but
one sentence and claim you have trimmed it down neatly and made something
easy to read. But then you have also misrepresented the entirety of what
was said.

This is made much worse by the fact that there are some newsreaders out
there that group messages into threads by subject line and not id's. When
you change subjects, you have to go out of your way to make sure that the
entirety of what was said is represented, because people with such
newsreaders will not easily understand what the original point was because
it is embodied in a different thread.

There are many well written explanations out there for why top posting is
bad. A quick google gave me too many to start listing them here.

For the record, years and years ago I used to top-post in usenet myself. I
felt that it was a cleaner representation of information: place the
information right at the top, like in email. I was dead wrong.


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

Limey Lurker said something like:

....[rip]...

I forget where I saw it, but some research was done that proved that
pre-drilling for wire nails (round-shanked nails) made the nails grip
more securely, (probably because the wood contacts the nail over 360
degrees of the nail's circumference, and not just on 2 sides where the
grain divides around the nail).


That much makes intuitive sense, but it's not 100% clear to me that the
force from the memory of the wood (the degree to which it is trying to slam
back in place) isn't a stronger force to hold the nail in place.


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws


"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:34:52 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote:

Top posted for your convenience.

(In other words, you can look at the earlier text by scrolling down if
you *want* to, but you're not forced to wade through dozens of lines
of unedited material to get to the meat of THIS post


Some might consider it better to snip unwanted text rather than leave that
unedited material in place. Obviously, others don't, but the dozens of
lines of unedited material has never been a good argument for top posting.
In fact, leaving all that irrelevant text in place has never been a good
practice for a lot of reasons. But... I don't really care that much myself
about top or bottom posting and I'm getting out now before this turns into
another extended thread debating the two styles.

--

-Mike-



  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

Mike Marlow said something like:
"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:34:52 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote:

Top posted for your convenience.

(In other words, you can look at the earlier text by scrolling down
if you *want* to, but you're not forced to wade through dozens of
lines of unedited material to get to the meat of THIS post


Some might consider it better to snip unwanted text rather than leave
that unedited material in place. Obviously, others don't, but the
dozens of lines of unedited material has never been a good argument
for top posting. In fact, leaving all that irrelevant text in place
has never been a good practice for a lot of reasons. But... I don't
really care that much myself about top or bottom posting and I'm
getting out now before this turns into another extended thread
debating the two styles.


Good idea. I was convinced once that top posting was superior, but it
wasn't long before I figured out why.

But of all the usenet skills, getting out before the flame happens is one of
the better ones.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

Thomas G. Marshall said something like:

....[rip]...

Good idea. I was convinced once that top posting was superior, but it
wasn't long before I figured out why.


.....oops. should be "before I figured out why *not* ."


But of all the usenet skills, getting out before the flame happens is
one of the better ones.



  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

LRod said something like:

....[rip]...

There is an article at WoodCentral which has the correct sizes of
drill bits for screwhead, shank, and root diameters of common sizes.
There's also drilling and tapping information for metal work.

http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/...cles_713.shtml



I never quite realized that there were numbered and lettered bit sizes for
intermediate widths.

Makes more sense than things like 37/256th 's. Unless they are primarily
metric.


....[rip]...


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

What I have been doing is holding the drill bit in front of the screw at
eye level and trying to sight it to see if I can still see the shaft of
the screw behind it. If I can just /barely/ see it, then I know that the
screw's shaft will be a smidgeon larger than the hole it's teething into,
and that's what I'm aiming for usually.


Yeah, I do that too, plus a little trial and error.

2. Should a pre-bore be large enough to only grab the threads? Or is this
only necessary for the harder of the hard woods?


I think the answer is that it depends on the wood, and to some degree on
the position of the screw.

IME, I seldom need to predrill at all in softwoods. If I am close to the end
of the board, where splitting is more likely, I will predrill more often and
more agressively.

However, I have found reclaimed very old (soft) wood to be brittle and
absotutely required predrilling.

IME, the harder the wood, and the larger the screw, the more particular you
should be about pilot hole size.

Cheers,

Steve


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default changing the topic to fractions

I never quite realized that there were numbered and lettered bit sizes for
intermediate widths.

Makes more sense than things like 37/256th 's. Unless they are primarily
metric.


The metric debate got me thinking:

Since all the common denomenators for franctional inches are powers of 2,
wouldn't it be much less cumbersome to express the demomenator as the
exponent of the power of 2?

That is:

1/2 = 1/(2^1) could be expressed as 1:1 or "one, one"
3/4 = 3/(2^2) or "three, two"
3/16 would be "three, four"
37/256 would be "thiry seven, eight"

But then again I'm comfortable in hexidecimal.

-Steve



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default changing the topic to fractions

In article , "Stephen M" wrote:

The metric debate got me thinking:

Since all the common denomenators for franctional inches are powers of 2,
wouldn't it be much less cumbersome to express the demomenator as the
exponent of the power of 2?

That is:

1/2 = 1/(2^1) could be expressed as 1:1 or "one, one"
3/4 = 3/(2^2) or "three, two"
3/16 would be "three, four"
37/256 would be "thiry seven, eight"


"Less cumbersome"?? Not in my opinion.

But then again I'm comfortable in hexidecimal.


So am I (first job out of college was assembly-language programming on a
370/145 DOS/VSE) -- but I still think that's a really bad idea, starting with
the fact that while you and I are perfectly comfortable doing math in hex, it
appears you've forgotten that somewhere around 99.99% of the population isn't.

BTW, it's spelled "hexadecimal."

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

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


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default changing the topic to fractions

"Less cumbersome"?? Not in my opinion.

"seven thirty seconds" is preferable to "seven five"?

I'm not really serious that it's a viable nomenclature, it just seems that
there 's a while lot of chaff in the current system.

But then again I'm comfortable in hexidecimal.


So am I (first job out of college was assembly-language programming on a
370/145 DOS/VSE)


VAX assembler & BLISS

BTW, it's spelled "hexadecimal."


Point taken.

it appears you've forgotten that somewhere around 99.99% of the
population isn't.


Really only 10 types though, those that understand binary and...

I bet we could get the whole scentific notation crowd on board for another
..001%

Please note that I did not suggest that 1/32 be represented as 1/20

Cheers,

Steve




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default changing the topic to fractions

Stephen M said something like:
"Less cumbersome"?? Not in my opinion.


"seven thirty seconds" is preferable to "seven five"?

I'm not really serious that it's a viable nomenclature, it just seems
that there 's a while lot of chaff in the current system.

But then again I'm comfortable in hexidecimal.


So am I (first job out of college was assembly-language programming
on a 370/145 DOS/VSE)


VAX assembler & BLISS


Ah....a DEC old-timer.

I actually was a programmer for DEC in high school cira 1981. My junior
year, working in the hiighly coveted "BASIC and RTL" department up in MK2 in
Merrimack, NH.

Big time hooey, because for some reason, BASIC ruled the roost up there.
Bliss was what everything serious was written in and was a very cool idea.
Sitting approximately 2 inches (5.08 cm ) above assembly language it was
a pretty nifty portable solution, particularly at the time. At least IMHO.

I wonder if I could write a "JBliss" compiler (to java VM code) ?

Maybe when my table project is done...

PS. Ever do mental arithmetic to compare the old DECsystem 10's to, say, a
Dell 3 Ghz desktop? LOL...


....[john jacob jingleheimer snip]...


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

Charlie M. 1958 said something like:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:

I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling
holes for screws.


Use a dial caliper (About $20) and measure screw.

Use 75% of thread dia for pilot holes.

Use thread dia +.015 for clearance holes.


..015 %? You mean .00015 times (or 1/6666th of) the diameter larger?
Yikes!


  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default changing the topic to fractions

In article , "Stephen M" wrote:
"Less cumbersome"?? Not in my opinion.


"seven thirty seconds" is preferable to "seven five"?


Yep. Much more easily understood. Even by the geeks.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default changing the topic to fractions


VAX assembler & BLISS


Ah....a DEC old-timer.

Ouch...I'm only 43!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

"Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote:

Charlie M. 1958 said something like:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:

I'm never quite sure what the best practices are for pre-drilling
holes for screws.

Use a dial caliper (About $20) and measure screw.

Use 75% of thread dia for pilot holes.

Use thread dia +.015 for clearance holes.


.015 %? You mean .00015 times (or 1/6666th of) the diameter larger?
Yikes!

Well, the percent sign after the ".015" got clipped (if it was ever
there) in your quoted text. In its absence, I would assume .015 times,
unless I wanted to be reasonable, in which case I would recognize that
he likely meant .015" or 1/64".
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,532
Default changing the topic to fractions

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:01:08 -0400, Stephen M wrote:

"Less cumbersome"?? Not in my opinion.


"seven thirty seconds" is preferable to "seven five"?


But then again I'm comfortable in hexidecimal.



hex, octal, bi-quinary, excess3, and so on. Who cares.

We could simplify the whole mess by referring to everything in 32nds or
64ths. Using 32nds, 1/2 could then be 16/, 1/4 would be 8/, and so on.

But if the US wouldn't adopt a system as simple as metric, my somewhat
tongue-in-cheek idea doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell :-).
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default changing the topic to fractions

Stephen M said something like:
VAX assembler & BLISS


Ah....a DEC old-timer.

Ouch...I'm only 43!


I'm 42. I win


  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,595
Default changing the topic to fractions

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
Stephen M said something like:
VAX assembler & BLISS
Ah....a DEC old-timer.

Ouch...I'm only 43!


I'm 42. I win


Kids!

Philco 2000 Assembly/FORTRAN IV...

--
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default [OT] Yet another posting thread. Was: Rules on pre-drilling sizes for screws

What does top-posting have to do with changing subjects?
The subject line doesn't change either way.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:50:41 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote:

Puckdropper said something like:
"Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote in
news:kn7Wi.6420$pT.2027@trndny07:


Top posting is convenient as you point out for email, because in
email there are two contributors, and less need for interleaved
posting.


*snipped and trimmed for content and length*

My newsreader makes reading messages that are either top, middle, or
bottom posted easy.


*snipped and trimmed for content and length*

My newsreaders delimit different reply indentation levels with differing
colors. Does *not* solve the problem of the mess that you're inviting when
you top post.

As an example I just did what you did. *Of course* you can hack out all but
one sentence and claim you have trimmed it down neatly and made something
easy to read. But then you have also misrepresented the entirety of what
was said.

This is made much worse by the fact that there are some newsreaders out
there that group messages into threads by subject line and not id's. When
you change subjects, you have to go out of your way to make sure that the
entirety of what was said is represented, because people with such
newsreaders will not easily understand what the original point was because
it is embodied in a different thread.

There are many well written explanations out there for why top posting is
bad. A quick google gave me too many to start listing them here.

For the record, years and years ago I used to top-post in usenet myself. I
felt that it was a cleaner representation of information: place the
information right at the top, like in email. I was dead wrong.



  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
MB MB is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default changing the topic to fractions

On Nov 1, 3:54 pm, dpb wrote:
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
Stephen M said something like:
VAX assembler & BLISS
Ah....a DEC old-timer.



Started with PDP-11/C. Vax was a major step up. BTW, I've moved on to
unix and now to windoze and still maintain that vax/vms was a great OS
- close to crash proof. It still amazes me that after twenty years,
windows is still lacking features present in vax/vms...

Mitch

  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,207
Default changing the topic to fractions

MB wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:54 pm, dpb wrote:
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
Stephen M said something like:
VAX assembler & BLISS
Ah....a DEC old-timer.



Started with PDP-11/C. Vax was a major step up. BTW, I've moved on
to
unix and now to windoze and still maintain that vax/vms was a great
OS
- close to crash proof. It still amazes me that after twenty years,
windows is still lacking features present in vax/vms...


I'm curious as to what those features are.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,047
Default changing the topic to fractions


"MB" wrote:

windows is still lacking features present in vax/vms...



Why should that surprise you?

In this digital age, try to find people who understand the analog world.

Lew


  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 931
Default changing the topic to fractions

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
:


"MB" wrote:

windows is still lacking features present in vax/vms...



Why should that surprise you?

In this digital age, try to find people who understand the analog
world.

Lew




Analog world? That's like 2^128 precision, isn't it?

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,047
Default changing the topic to fractions


"Puckdropper" wrote:

Analog world? That's like 2^128 precision, isn't it?


Try to find designers of analog inputs for high speed digital data
acquisition systems sometime.

Hasn't been taught at the collegiate level for probably 25-30 years.

Lew


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drilling out hardened steel screws question Martin Noakes Woodworking 18 January 31st 06 03:29 AM
Drilling out screws in Window -- D.A. prior owner! Ringo Langly Home Repair 17 December 1st 04 04:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"