Swingman wrote:

: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message
: ...
: Swingman wrote:
: : "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message
:
: : Nope ... exactly you said is: "when the angle isn't 45 degrees, one cut
: : will be longer than the other" .. and "the joint will look bad".
:
:
: And JT is completely right.

: Right in theory, wrong in actualy practice. Did you READ what JT originally
: took exception to? Obviously not.


Yes, I read the whole thread, and was remarking on a couple of posts
in which it was asserted that (a) you can make a good mitre sled
with guides A and B if they add up to 90 degrees, and (b) your reply to JT
(who had remarked that the angle of the mitred bit would inded be 90
degrees, but would look wrong if A and B aren't 45 degrees),
saying it just does not matter.

: : While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the
: : _wider_
: : the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut
: this
: : way
: : are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From
: : practical
: : experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.

: I've already proved that's not the case .READ what I said!


You didn't prove it -- you asserted it.


: : ?? 45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.
:
: Um, no. Way, way no.

: If you don't know what "complementary angle" is, you shouldn't be in the
: discussion.


Two angles are complementary if they ADD UP TO 90 degrees -- that's the
definition. 45 thus isn't the complementary angle to 90 -- it's
complementary to 45; and zero is complementary to 90 degrees.

-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message

Yes, I read the whole thread, and was remarking on a couple of posts
in which it was asserted that (a) you can make a good mitre sled
with guides A and B if they add up to 90 degrees, and (b) your reply to JT
(who had remarked that the angle of the mitred bit would inded be 90
degrees, but would look wrong if A and B aren't 45 degrees),
saying it just does not matter.

Two angles are complementary if they ADD UP TO 90 degrees -- that's the
definition. 45 thus isn't the complementary angle to 90 -- it's
complementary to 45; and zero is complementary to 90 degrees.

You know exactly WHAT was said and will apparently twist anything to get the
last word ...have at it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/13/04

Swingman wrote:

: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message


: You know exactly WHAT was said and will apparently twist anything to get the
: last word ...have at it.



You said: 45 is the complementary angle to 45.
I said it wasn't.

You then replied with a sharp remark that if I don't know what a
complementary angle is, then I should get off the thread.

I looked up the actual definition of "comp-lementary angle", and I was
right -- A and B are complementary iff they add up to 90.

How is this "twist[ing] anything"?

-- Andy Barss





: --
: www.e-woodshop.net
: Last update: 3/13/04



--

Andy Barss
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Douglass 208, 626-3284

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:

: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message


: You know exactly WHAT was said and will apparently twist anything to get
the
: last word ...have at it.

You said: 45 is the complementary angle to 45.
I said it wasn't.

LOL ... thanks for proving my point about twisting words. You've once again
confused what you mistakenly _thought_ was said, with what was actually
stated.

AAMOF, I'll kiss your ass and baby powder it if you can show me where I said
that ... go back and look.

Wanna try again?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/11/04

ah, to heck with it. it's not all that hard to make one that is right
at 45 degrees....

Swingman wrote:
: "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

: You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
: the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

: http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/parts.jpg
: http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/joint.jpg

: Go ahead, zoom in to your hearts content and tell me that the 90 degree
: miter joint, cut in 4 1/2" wide scrap plywood, on opposite sides of my table
: saw miter sled, that cuts insuring complementary angles, doesn't "look
: right".

You've got a nice jig that has (very close to) 45 degrees on each side.


Your earlier posts didn't say anything about getting this close to
symmetry in the two angles.

-- Andy Barss

Swingman wrote:
: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message
: Swingman wrote:
:
: : "Andrew Barss" wrote in message
:
:
: : You know exactly WHAT was said and will apparently twist anything to get
: the
: : last word ...have at it.

: You said: 45 is the complementary angle to 45.
: I said it wasn't.

: LOL ... thanks for proving my point about twisting words. You've once again
: confused what you mistakenly _thought_ was said, with what was actually
: stated.

: AAMOF, I'll kiss your ass and baby powder it if you can show me where I said
: that ... go back and look.



Sure. Go to groups.google.com, and seelk out the thread indexed at:

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...ews.com#link28


In that post you said, and this is an exact quote:

45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.


This is the remark I challenged, and the one you're wrong on.


-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:
: "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

: You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
: the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

: http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/parts.jpg
: http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/joint.jpg

: Go ahead, zoom in to your hearts content and tell me that the 90 degree
: miter joint, cut in 4 1/2" wide scrap plywood, on opposite sides of my
table
: saw miter sled, that cuts insuring complementary angles, doesn't "look
: right".

You've got a nice jig that has (very close to) 45 degrees on each side.


Your earlier posts didn't say anything about getting this close to
symmetry in the two angles.

I would have sworn they all did ... but maybe it was because I wrote it and
didn't have to read it.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/11/04

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message

: You said: 45 is the complementary angle to 45.
: I said it wasn't.

In that post you said, and this is an exact quote:

45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.


This is the remark I challenged, and the one you're wrong on.

Nothing wrong with that statement at all ... just think about it a bit
longer.

(Hint: what do you add to a 45 degree angle to get a 90 degree angle/joint?)

.... and, in case you haven't noticed, it's NOT what you stated above. Take a
close look.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/11/04

Bridger wrote:

ah, to heck with it. it's not all that hard to make one that is right
at 45 degrees....

And if it's just a little off....

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

I pivoted the fence near the blade end then glued blocks at points a
little more than 45°. Tee nuts in them also allowed card stck to be
used as shims to get right-on 45°.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:51:53 -0700, Bridger wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:09:06 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Bridger wrote:

ah, to heck with it. it's not all that hard to make one that is right
at 45 degrees....

And if it's just a little off....


make another one. they're made out of scraps anyway....

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:09:06 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Bridger wrote:

ah, to heck with it. it's not all that hard to make one that is right
at 45 degrees....

And if it's just a little off....


make another one. they're made out of scraps anyway....

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:36:37 -0500, "
wrote:

I pivoted the fence near the blade end then glued blocks at points a
little more than 45°. Tee nuts in them also allowed card stck to be
used as shims to get right-on 45°.

================================================== ====
Basically the way I make all my sleds.

I have my fence pivot near the blade.... BUT I then

rout a 3/8 " wide slot in the top of the base... and rout a 1/8 inch
deep 3/4 inch wide slot in the bottom of the base...(to hold a )

Then drill a 1/4 in hole in the far end of the fence ..away from the
blade...

This allows the fence to be Locked down and be solid anywhere along
that 1" in long slot...

..
The Block has a fine threaded carriage bolt to allow me to finely
adjust the fence. Then I just lock the fine threaded carriage bolt
again sat the back side of the fence and tighten the fence down ...

Extremely rare for me to have to re-adjust the sleds...But when I do
it is only a 2 minute job.....

Bob Griffiths

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:09:06 -0500, Silvan
brought forth from the murky depths:

Bridger wrote:

ah, to heck with it. it's not all that hard to make one that is right
at 45 degrees....

And if it's just a little off....

It matches most of us perfectly.


-------------------------------------------------------
Have you read the new book "What Would Machiavelli Do?"
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Dynamic, Interactive Websites!
--------------------------------------------------------

Swingman wrote:
: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message

: : You said: 45 is the complementary angle to 45.
: : I said it wasn't.

: In that post you said, and this is an exact quote:
:
: 45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.
:
:
: This is the remark I challenged, and the one you're wrong on.

: Nothing wrong with that statement at all ... just think about it a bit
: longer.

: (Hint: what do you add to a 45 degree angle to get a 90 degree angle/joint?)


45, of course. But when you say 45 is the complementary angle to 90,
you're dead wrong. As I said, 45 is complementary to 45, 80 is
complementary to 10, and zero is complementary to 90.

Look, I was just correcting you on your misuse of a technical term from
geometry. No need to go ballistic.

-- Andy Barss

Swingman wrote:

: Why would anyone attempting to build a miter sled for a table saw do such a
: sloppy job as to NOT get the two cuts as close to 45 degrees as possible?


Look, all I was trying to do was make explicit an implicit assumption of
your post. Explicitly: the two angles need to not just sum to 90, they
need to be very close to 45 degrees if the joint doesn't look and feel
off.

You know that; I know that; an inexperienced person doesn't. So I was
just trying to add some helpful clarity to your post.

-- Andy Barss















: : While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the
: _wider_
: : the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut this
: way
: : are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From
: practical
: : experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.
:
: Try it with, say, a 1.5" wide frame.

: You won't cut that on your miter saw either.


: : Once again, the difference in angle in a properly built sled is so small
: as
: : to make joint length mismatch a none issue in the width of the stock
: likely
: : to be used in the typical woodworking project that requires miter
: joints.
:
: Nope.

: Yep.


: : Now, the 'proof is in the pudding', so to speak. I am telling you that I
: use
: : such a miter sled on the table saw and that the resultant joints "look"
: NO
: : differently than when cut on my SCMS, and more importantly, ultimately
: fit
: : better around the four corners. I routinely use the sled to make picture
: : frames, and to frame glass table tops, with NO ill effects on appearance
: : whatsoever.
:
: Then you're either got a jig that is very accurately 45 degrees, or
: else you're using extremely thin stock.

: As you say, "horsefeathers" ... take a look at the picutres I posted.


: : Now, lest you think I am the only one ... one of the most asked about
: table
: : saw miter sleds is the one used by David J. Marks on Wood Works, which
: is
: : designed using this very principle.
:
: Hunh? I'll bet you a ten dollar bill his jig is within less than half a
: degree from perfectly 45/45.

: That's the point!


: Theory is fine, but practical application, particularly when using the
: : tolerances involved in woodworking, is far less likely to stifel
: creative
: : solutions in cutting tight joints.
:
: : IOW, if you haven't used such a miter sled on a table saw, you need to
: : loosen up and give it a try before embarking on a theoretical campaign
: to
: : discount its usefulness for cutting miters in typical woodworking
: projects.
:
: You need to measure your jig's deviance from 45 degrees befoe making such
: pronouncements.

: You don't read very well do you?


: --
: www.e-woodshop.net
: Last update: 3/11/04





--

Andy Barss
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Douglass 208, 626-3284

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message

: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message

: : You said: 45 is the complementary angle to 45.
: : I said it wasn't.

But. Andrew ... that is EXACTLY what you are saying below.

: In that post you said, and this is an exact quote:
:
: 45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.

Which is it, Andrew? ... Can you see the corner you have boxed yourself into
because you didn't read and understand what was being discussed, then you
compounded your error by entirely making up the first statement above?

: This is the remark I challenged, and the one you're wrong on.

: Nothing wrong with that statement at all ... just think about it a bit
: longer.

: (Hint: what do you add to a 45 degree angle to get a 90 degree
angle/joint?)


45, of course.

Now, we're getting somehwere!

But when you say 45 is the complementary angle to 90,
you're dead wrong. As I said, 45 is complementary to 45, 80 is
complementary to 10, and zero is complementary to 90.

No argument whatsover, However, also by accepted definition, "The complement
of something is what is required in order to complete it". In the statement
you keep taking out of context (what went before it, Andrew), 45 degrees is
what was required to in order complete the joint _under discusssion_ to 90
degrees.

Granted, it may take a bit more intelligence than you've exhibited thus far
to grasp the correctness of the statement, but it IS correct, even when
taken out of context, as you have done..

Look, I was just correcting you on your misuse of a technical term from
geometry. No need to go ballistic.

LOL ... My take is that you've proved yourself far too fallible in both
reading comprehension, and in attributing statements that were never
uttered, to be "correcting" anyone.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/15/04

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message

So I was
just trying to add some helpful clarity to your post.

That was mighty nice of you, Andrew ... but, it is rather amusing, all
things considered, this idea of you adding "clarity".

;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/15/04

Swingman wrote:

: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message

: So I was
: just trying to add some helpful clarity to your post.

: That was mighty nice of you, Andrew ... but, it is rather amusing, all
: things considered, this idea of you adding "clarity".

Ok, I get it. You're a troll.

-- AB