Let me know what you guys think.

I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick edge to support a stylus.

I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php

Thoughts?

In article ,
wrote:

Let me know what you guys think.

I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a
square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it
and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick
edge to support a stylus.

I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php

Thoughts?

Seems totally unnecessary. A pencil and a straight edge (a la sheet
good cutoff) is all you need to check if it's actually square. And it's
fast to set up.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:24:52 PM UTC-5, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article ,

wrote:



Let me know what you guys think.



I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a

square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it

and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick

edge to support a stylus.



I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.



http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php



Thoughts?



Seems totally unnecessary. A pencil and a straight edge (a la sheet

good cutoff) is all you need to check if it's actually square. And it's

fast to set up.

read the article.


A minor caveat to this method is that it can be difficult to discern small gaps between the two pencil lines (especially with a thick pencil lead).. The most you might be able to detect is a 0.010" difference which equates to a minimum detection of 0.036 degrees with an 8" square.
Another caveat is that the edge you place your square against must be perfectly flat, otherwise you will not get an accurate calculation of your square's angle error.


The dial indicator method is 10X more accurate.




--

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to

read. - Groucho Marx

On 1/3/13 5:24 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Let me know what you guys think.

I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a
square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it
and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick
edge to support a stylus.

I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php

Thoughts?

Seems totally unnecessary. A pencil and a straight edge (a la sheet
good cutoff) is all you need to check if it's actually square. And it's
fast to set up.


And plenty accurate enough for woodworking.
I used a utility blade to mark. Just a small mark near the corner of the
square and another at the top of its leg. No need to mark its entire
length.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/3/13 5:30 PM, wrote:
A minor caveat to this method is that it can be difficult to discern
small gaps between the two pencil lines (especially with a thick
pencil lead).

Use a knife.


The most you might be able to detect is a 0.010"
difference which equates to a minimum detection of 0.036 degrees with
an 8" square. Another caveat is that the edge you place your square
against must be perfectly flat, otherwise you will not get an
accurate calculation of your square's angle error.


The dial indicator method is 10X more accurate.


Great, if we need to send a rocket into space, but not necessary for
woodworking. :-)

--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:57:37 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/3/13 5:30 PM, wrote:

A minor caveat to this method is that it can be difficult to discern

small gaps between the two pencil lines (especially with a thick

pencil lead).



Use a knife.





The most you might be able to detect is a 0.010"

difference which equates to a minimum detection of 0.036 degrees with

an 8" square. Another caveat is that the edge you place your square

against must be perfectly flat, otherwise you will not get an

accurate calculation of your square's angle error.





The dial indicator method is 10X more accurate.





Great, if we need to send a rocket into space, but not necessary for

woodworking. :-)

I like to have at least one master square that I know is balls to wall accurate. I had no way of checking before and I do now. The Draw-A-Line and flip method will never tell you how far out of wack your square is - only that it might be out of wack. There is no way to quantitate the angle error unless you can measure the distance betwene the lines/knife marks with a caliper (good luck). How much of a gap in between the marks is considered unacceptable? You can't easily answer that question so why bother checking in the first place?





--



-MIKE-



"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"

--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)

--

http://mikedrums.com



---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

wrote:
Let me know what you guys think.

I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick edge to support a stylus.

I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php

Thoughts?

Sinced/dx (arctan) is close to 1 near 0, yourerror is not very big, but
your equation which divides an angle by L (before applying arctan)
doesn't make sense. For instance, it suggests that if you choose L
great enough that your error will be as small as you need it to be. I
did not try to redo your derivations, but I am willing to do so if we
don't find a concensus. By the way,you might sketch a triangle
somewhere(tan = opp/adj)for those that may be a bit rusty at doing trig.

Bill

On 1/3/13 6:21 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:57:37 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/3/13 5:30 PM, wrote:

A minor caveat to this method is that it can be difficult to
discern

small gaps between the two pencil lines (especially with a thick

pencil lead).



Use a knife.





The most you might be able to detect is a 0.010"

difference which equates to a minimum detection of 0.036 degrees
with

an 8" square. Another caveat is that the edge you place your
square

against must be perfectly flat, otherwise you will not get an

accurate calculation of your square's angle error.





The dial indicator method is 10X more accurate.





Great, if we need to send a rocket into space, but not necessary
for

woodworking. :-)

I like to have at least one master square that I know is balls to
wall accurate. I had no way of checking before and I do now. The
Draw-A-Line and flip method will never tell you how far out of wack
your square is - only that it might be out of wack. There is no way
to quantitate the angle error unless you can measure the distance
betwene the lines/knife marks with a caliper (good luck). How much
of a gap in between the marks is considered unacceptable? You can't
easily answer that question so why bother checking in the first
place?


Yeah, ok man... good luck with those rocket ships. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Bill wrote:
wrote:
Let me know what you guys think.

I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness
of a square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory.
I've tried it and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the
square needs a thick edge to support a stylus.

I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php

Thoughts?

Sinced/dx (arctan) is close to 1 near 0, yourerror is not very big,

I appreciate the point that you are trying to make, but I don't find the
argument given to be as rigorous as it should be.

I'd enjoy seeing a re-write. I'll help here if you like. I don't think
that L was "well-defined" (consistent) in the present argument
Bill


but your equation which divides an angle by L (before applying arctan)
doesn't make sense. For instance, it suggests that if you choose L
great enough that your error will be as small as you need it to be. I
did not try to redo your derivations, but I am willing to do so if we
don't find a concensus. By the way,you might sketch a triangle
somewhere(tan = opp/adj)for those that may be a bit rusty at doing trig.

Bill

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:30:29 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/3/13 6:21 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:57:37 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:

On 1/3/13 5:30 PM, wrote:



A minor caveat to this method is that it can be difficult to

discern



small gaps between the two pencil lines (especially with a thick



pencil lead).







Use a knife.











The most you might be able to detect is a 0.010"



difference which equates to a minimum detection of 0.036 degrees

with



an 8" square. Another caveat is that the edge you place your

square



against must be perfectly flat, otherwise you will not get an



accurate calculation of your square's angle error.











The dial indicator method is 10X more accurate.











Great, if we need to send a rocket into space, but not necessary

for



woodworking. :-)



I like to have at least one master square that I know is balls to

wall accurate. I had no way of checking before and I do now. The

Draw-A-Line and flip method will never tell you how far out of wack

your square is - only that it might be out of wack. There is no way

to quantitate the angle error unless you can measure the distance

betwene the lines/knife marks with a caliper (good luck). How much

of a gap in between the marks is considered unacceptable? You can't

easily answer that question so why bother checking in the first

place?





Yeah, ok man... good luck with those rocket ships. :-)

Instead of being a ****ing smart ass why don't you try answering my questions?







--



-MIKE-



"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"

--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)

--

http://mikedrums.com



---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/3/2013 6:21 PM, wrote:
....

I like to have at least one master square that I know is balls to
wall accurate. I had no way of checking before and I do now. The
Draw-A-Line and flip method will never tell you how far out of wack
your square is - only that it might be out of wack. There is no way
to quantitate theangle error ...

What difference does it make what the numeric value is?

If it's enough to detect that way, it's enough that for really precise
layouts it's off.

So, what you gonna' do at that point, anyway even if you do know
_precisely_ how much that is? Eggs-ackly the same thing as if you only
know it's off---either ignore it and go on, go get a new Starrett, or
adjust it until it does pass (the peen method works a charm for that).

If it passes the pencil test, it's plenty close enough for woodworking;
even fine woodworking. The wood itself moves more than that.

--

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:24:24 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
wrote:

Let me know what you guys think.



I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick edge to support a stylus.



I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.



http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php



Thoughts?



Sinced/dx (arctan) is close to 1 near 0, yourerror is not very big, but

your equation which divides an angle by L (before applying arctan)

doesn't make sense. For instance, it suggests that if you choose L

great enough that your error will be as small as you need it to be. I

did not try to redo your derivations, but I am willing to do so if we

don't find a concensus. By the way,you might sketch a triangle

somewhere(tan = opp/adj)for those that may be a bit rusty at doing trig.



Bill

Trust me, the math works. Draw a few squares that are off by a little in CAD and check.

Use my online calculator:
http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square_Math.php

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:41:36 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/3/2013 6:21 PM, wrote:

...



I like to have at least one master square that I know is balls to

wall accurate. I had no way of checking before and I do now. The

Draw-A-Line and flip method will never tell you how far out of wack

your square is - only that it might be out of wack. There is no way

to quantitate theangle error ...



What difference does it make what the numeric value is?



If it's enough to detect that way, it's enough that for really precise

layouts it's off.



So, what you gonna' do at that point, anyway even if you do know

_precisely_ how much that is?

If you don't know how much it's off you can't make a call either way.

So why bother checking?


Eggs-ackly the same thing as if you only

know it's off---either ignore it and go on, go get a new Starrett, or

adjust it until it does pass (the peen method works a charm for that).



If it passes the pencil test, it's plenty close enough for woodworking;

What is a "pass" on the pencil test?


even fine woodworking. The wood itself moves more than that.



--

On 1/3/13 6:40 PM, wrote:


Yeah, ok man... good luck with those rocket ships. :-)

Instead of being a ****ing smart ass why don't you try answering my questions?



Touchy, touchy. Why do you need to know how far out it is? Do you have
an adjustment method that you dial in an amount and it corrects that much?

As far as I know, the adjustment method is literally hit and miss. You
punch the outside of the corner with a nail set to bring in an obtuse
angle and punch the inside to push out an acute angle.

You repeat the test and if it's pushed or pulled too far, oops, try again.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:40:30 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:

wrote:

Let me know what you guys think.



I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness

of a square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory.

I've tried it and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the

square needs a thick edge to support a stylus.



I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.



http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php



Thoughts?



Sinced/dx (arctan) is close to 1 near 0, yourerror is not very big,



I appreciate the point that you are trying to make, but I don't find the

argument given to be as rigorous as it should be.



I'd enjoy seeing a re-write. I'll help here if you like. I don't think

that L was "well-defined" (consistent) in the present argument

Bill





but your equation which divides an angle by L (before applying arctan)

doesn't make sense. For instance, it suggests that if you choose L

great enough that your error will be as small as you need it to be. I

did not try to redo your derivations, but I am willing to do so if we

don't find a concensus. By the way,you might sketch a triangle

somewhere(tan = opp/adj)for those that may be a bit rusty at doing trig.



Bill

L is the length of the square's edge. It was defined adequately.

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:46:14 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/3/13 6:40 PM, wrote:





Yeah, ok man... good luck with those rocket ships. :-)



Instead of being a ****ing smart ass why don't you try answering my questions?







Touchy, touchy. Why do you need to know how far out it is?

How do you know when to throw away the square? Where do you draw the line (pun intended)?

Do you have

an adjustment method that you dial in an amount and it corrects that much?

No. But I'll know what contributed to my joints not being square.




As far as I know, the adjustment method is literally hit and miss. You

punch the outside of the corner with a nail set to bring in an obtuse

angle and punch the inside to push out an acute angle.



You repeat the test and if it's pushed or pulled too far, oops, try again.








--



-MIKE-



"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"

--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)

--

http://mikedrums.com



---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:24:24 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
wrote:

Let me know what you guys think.
I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick edge to support a stylus.
I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.
http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php
Thoughts?


Sinced/dx (arctan) is close to 1 near 0, yourerror is not very big, but

your equation which divides an angle by L (before applying arctan)

doesn't make sense. For instance, it suggests that if you choose L

great enough that your error will be as small as you need it to be. I

did not try to redo your derivations, but I am willing to do so if we

don't find a concensus. By the way,you might sketch a triangle

somewhere(tan = opp/adj)for those that may be a bit rusty at doing trig.



Bill
Trust me, the math works.
If you are going to present the math, then do so (properly).

The sentence tht you wrote: "The answer given will be the amount in
degrees that your square is off. "
is terrible. Squares are not "off", degrees are not measure in amounts,
and no answer was given (and no question was asked)!!

If you are going to get rigorous, then do so--let's not pawn it off.
"Trust Me, the math works", should not follow your (lack of a) a
successful derivation.
Lets not trip to slip the argument by people just because you figure
you've already worked hard enough on it! I enjoy well-done mathematics
as much as anybody, surely more than some. Hope to see you try again.

Bill


Draw a few squares that are off by a little in CAD and check.

Use my online calculator:
http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square_Math.php

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:24:24 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
wrote:

Let me know what you guys think.



I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick edge to support a stylus.



I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.



http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php



Thoughts?



Sinced/dx (arctan) is close to 1 near 0, yourerror is not very big, but

your equation which divides an angle by L (before applying arctan)

doesn't make sense. For instance, it suggests that if you choose L

great enough that your error will be as small as you need it to be.

For the same angle error, as L get longer so does abs(Delta1 - Delta2).

I

did not try to redo your derivations, but I am willing to do so if we

don't find a concensus. By the way,you might sketch a triangle

somewhere(tan = opp/adj)for those that may be a bit rusty at doing trig.



Bill

On 1/3/13 6:51 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:46:14 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/3/13 6:40 PM, wrote:


Yeah, ok man... good luck with those rocket ships. :-)


Instead of being a ****ing smart ass why don't you try answering my questions?


Touchy, touchy. Why do you need to know how far out it is?

How do you know when to throw away the square? Where do you draw the line (pun intended)?


Again, we're back to my original point. We're talking woodworking. How
exact does a 2' square need to be? In my mind, within the width of the
edge of an exact blade over 2' is plenty close. Using the mark and flip
method is plenty good enough. If a person doesn't have a factory edged,
2'x4' piece of plywood or mdf at his disposal somewhere, he probably
shouldn't be woodworking. An aluminum straight edge clamped to a work
bench does fine in that regard, as well. Something a woodworking
shouldn't be without, either.


Do you have
an adjustment method that you dial in an amount and it corrects that much?

No. But I'll know what contributed to my joints not being square.


I can use the mark and flip method to know if my square contributed to
my out of square joints. That is, unless I'm trusting my square to set
my edge guide for ripping a 30' piece of plywood. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:04:12 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:24:24 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

wrote:



Let me know what you guys think.

I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick edge to support a stylus.

I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php

Thoughts?





Sinced/dx (arctan) is close to 1 near 0, yourerror is not very big, but



your equation which divides an angle by L (before applying arctan)



doesn't make sense. For instance, it suggests that if you choose L



great enough that your error will be as small as you need it to be. I



did not try to redo your derivations, but I am willing to do so if we



don't find a concensus. By the way,you might sketch a triangle



somewhere(tan = opp/adj)for those that may be a bit rusty at doing trig.







Bill

Trust me, the math works.

If you are going to present the math, then do so (properly).



The sentence tht you wrote: "The answer given will be the amount in

degrees that your square is off. "

is terrible. Squares are not "off", degrees are not measure in amounts,


and no answer was given (and no question was asked)!!

Squares can be "off" in the sense that they are not a true 90 degrees. Every square will be "off" to some degree. Perfection is imaginary.





If you are going to get rigorous, then do so--let's not pawn it off.

Reposted for your convenience:
"For the same angle error, as L get longer so does abs(Delta1 - Delta2). "


"Trust Me, the math works", should not follow your (lack of a) a

successful derivation.

Lets not trip to slip the argument by people just because you figure

you've already worked hard enough on it! I enjoy well-done mathematics

as much as anybody, surely more than some. Hope to see you try again.

There is no need to "try again" and I appreciate your veiled arrogance.

Where are you having trouble with the math?




Bill





Draw a few squares that are off by a little in CAD and check.



Use my online calculator:

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square_Math.php

In article ,
wrote:

read the article.

Did.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On 1/3/2013 6:40 PM, Bill wrote:
I appreciate the point that you are trying to make, but I don't find the
argument given to be as rigorous as it should be.

From what I've seen, Dr. Grella has a pretty good grasp of mathematics
and scientific principles.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:09:31 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/3/13 6:51 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:46:14 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:

On 1/3/13 6:40 PM, wrote:





Yeah, ok man... good luck with those rocket ships. :-)





Instead of being a ****ing smart ass why don't you try answering my questions?





Touchy, touchy. Why do you need to know how far out it is?



How do you know when to throw away the square? Where do you draw the line (pun intended)?





Again, we're back to my original point. We're talking woodworking. How

exact does a 2' square need to be? In my mind, within the width of the

edge of an exact blade over 2' is plenty close.

When is it not close? Two blade widths? Three? And why?

Using the mark and flip

method is plenty good enough. If a person doesn't have a factory edged,

2'x4' piece of plywood or mdf at his disposal somewhere, he probably

shouldn't be woodworking. An aluminum straight edge clamped to a work

bench does fine in that regard, as well. Something a woodworking

shouldn't be without, either.





Do you have

an adjustment method that you dial in an amount and it corrects that much?



No. But I'll know what contributed to my joints not being square.





I can use the mark and flip method to know if my square contributed to

my out of square joints.

Again. By what means does the flip method tell you to drop the square in the trash? And why?


That is, unless I'm trusting my square to set

my edge guide for ripping a 30' piece of plywood. :-)





--



-MIKE-



"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"

--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)

--

http://mikedrums.com



---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

I challenge anyone to find a flow in my math.

Good luck.

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:30:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I challenge anyone to find a flow in my math.



Good luck.

Flaw Not flow. /that was intentional (grin)/

In article ,
wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:24:52 PM UTC-5, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Let me know what you guys think.
I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a
square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it
and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick
edge to support a stylus.
I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.
http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php
Thoughts?
Seems totally unnecessary. A pencil and a straight edge (a la sheet
good cutoff) is all you need to check if it's actually square. And it's
fast to set up.
read the article.
A minor caveat to this method is that it can be difficult to discern
small gaps between the two pencil lines (especially with a thick pencil
lead). The most you might be able to detect is a 0.010" difference which
equates to a minimum detection of 0.036 degrees with an 8" square.
Another caveat is that the edge you place your square against must
be perfectly flat, otherwise you will not get an accurate calculation of
your square's angle error.
The dial indicator method is 10X more accurate.

What are we building here, bookcases or space shuttles? 10X more accurate
is not necessary for woodworking.


--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

wrote:

There is no need to "try again"

Then who is being arrogant?

and I appreciate your veiled
arrogance.


Where are you having trouble with the math?

Your identifiers are poorly chosen making your "work" difficult to read.
From your words/diagram, it looks like delta1, delta2, and L are all
the same.
I don't see the 5-degrees you mentioned (in your diagram).

Doing math is like doing design: Do-over, and do-over, and do-over. One
should
get quite humble about the process!

Bill

On 1/3/2013 7:32 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:30:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I challenge anyone to find a flow in my math.



Good luck.

Flaw Not flow. /that was intentional (grin)/

Appears to be a matter of resolution. I'm of the camp that if you don't
have perfection as a goal for every step of the process, you will never
scratch that itch some of us are cursed with.

At the same time, I'm just as guilty as anyone of occasionally settling
for less ... mainly due to time, circumstances, the medium
(woodworking), and the need to 'git r' done'.

That said, you are only as accurate as your tools allow ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

I forgot to mention, what you have labeled as "References" are not
references at all.

Please re-do.

Bill

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:41:23 PM UTC-5, Larry W wrote:
In article ,

wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:24:52 PM UTC-5, Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article ,

wrote:

Let me know what you guys think.

I've been working on a new method (new?) for checking the squareness of a

square using a dial indicator. The method works in theory. I've tried it

and it seems to work in practice. A caveat is that the square needs a thick

edge to support a stylus.

I am going to work on a video demonstrating the process.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/square_a_square.php

Thoughts?

Seems totally unnecessary. A pencil and a straight edge (a la sheet

good cutoff) is all you need to check if it's actually square. And it's

fast to set up.

read the article.

A minor caveat to this method is that it can be difficult to discern

small gaps between the two pencil lines (especially with a thick pencil

lead). The most you might be able to detect is a 0.010" difference which

equates to a minimum detection of 0.036 degrees with an 8" square.

Another caveat is that the edge you place your square against must

be perfectly flat, otherwise you will not get an accurate calculation of

your square's angle error.

The dial indicator method is 10X more accurate.



What are we building here, bookcases or space shuttles? 10X more accurate

is not necessary for woodworking.


Scenario: You make it out to the woodshop after a hard night of drinking. As the acetaldehyde takes it's effect on you, you drop your Starrett square on the concrete floor. What do you do? Continue to use it and hope for the best or check to see if it's still of 'Starrett Quality'? How do you check?







--

Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)



Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:44:17 PM UTC-5, Swingman wrote:
On 1/3/2013 7:32 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:30:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:

I challenge anyone to find a flow in my math.







Good luck.



Flaw Not flow. /that was intentional (grin)/



Appears to be a matter of resolution. I'm of the camp that if you don't

have perfection as a goal for every step of the process, you will never

scratch that itch some of us are cursed with.

My sentiments exactly.





At the same time, I'm just as guilty as anyone of occasionally settling

for less ... mainly due to time, circumstances, the medium

(woodworking), and the need to 'git r' done'.



That said, you are only as accurate as your tools allow ...



--

eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com

Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net

https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts

KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

In article ,
wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:41:23 PM UTC-5, Larry W wrote:
What are we building here, bookcases or space shuttles? 10X more accurate
is not necessary for woodworking.

Scenario: You make it out to the woodshop after a hard night of
drinking. As the acetaldehyde takes it's effect on you, you drop your
Starrett square on the concrete floor. What do you do? Continue to use
it and hope for the best or check to see if it's still of 'Starrett
Quality'? How do you check?


I'm by no means a teetotaler, but I haven't had a "hard night of drinking"
in over 20 years. And if or when I did, I sure wouldn't head to the wood
shop afterwards. And if I did, I probably wouldn't use one of my Starret
squares. And if I did use the Starret, probaly wouldn't drop it. And if
I did happen to drop it, after a hard night of drinking, I probably
wouldn't care enough to check it.

What was the question again?



--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:55:20 PM UTC-5, Larry W wrote:
In article ,

wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:41:23 PM UTC-5, Larry W wrote:

What are we building here, bookcases or space shuttles? 10X more accurate

is not necessary for woodworking.



Scenario: You make it out to the woodshop after a hard night of

drinking. As the acetaldehyde takes it's effect on you, you drop your

Starrett square on the concrete floor. What do you do? Continue to use

it and hope for the best or check to see if it's still of 'Starrett

Quality'? How do you check?





I'm by no means a teetotaler, but I haven't had a "hard night of drinking"

in over 20 years. And if or when I did, I sure wouldn't head to the wood

shop afterwards. And if I did, I probably wouldn't use one of my Starret

squares. And if I did use the Starret, probaly wouldn't drop it. And if

I did happen to drop it, after a hard night of drinking, I probably

wouldn't care enough to check it.

Then why did you buy a Starret?





What was the question again?







--

Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)



Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Swingman wrote:
On 1/3/2013 6:40 PM, Bill wrote:
I appreciate the point that you are trying to make, but I don't find the
argument given to be as rigorous as it should be.

From what I've seen, Dr. Grella has a pretty good grasp of mathematics
and scientific principles.

Yes, there was just probably some confusion aboutnotation.
I just don't think his present work is "camera-ready" yet, for publication.
I think the work needsmorediagrams.

Thanks,
Bill

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:44:31 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
I forgot to mention, what you have labeled as "References" are not

references at all.



Yes they are. I am 'referring' to them in the article. It's done routinely in the literature. See 5d below where as it applies here.

ref·er·ence (rfr-ns, rfrns)
n.

wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:44:31 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
I forgot to mention, what you have labeled as "References" are not

references at all.


Yes they are. I am 'referring' to them in the article. It's done routinely in the literature.
References usally means bibliographical references (to related works).

"Notes" may be more appropriate (I'm not looking for an argument).

Bill


See 5d below where as it applies here.

ref·er·ence (rfr-ns, rfrns)
n.
1. An act of referring: filed away the article for future reference.
2.
a. Significance in a specified context: Her speeches have special reference to environmental policy.
b. Meaning or denotation.
3. The state of being related or referred: with reference to; in reference to.
4. A mention of an occurrence or situation: made frequent references to her promotion.
5.
a. A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source.
b. The passage or source so referred to.
c. A work frequently used as a source.
d. A mark or footnote used to direct a reader elsewhere for additional information.



Please re-do.



Bill

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:43:05 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
wrote:



There is no need to "try again"



Then who is being arrogant?



and I appreciate your veiled

arrogance.





Where are you having trouble with the math?



Your identifiers are poorly chosen making your "work" difficult to read.


From your words/diagram, it looks like delta1, delta2, and L are all

the same.

Not at all. The red d2 is above the red line. d denotes distance.

The passage "take a reading at the bottom of the square (d2 in Figure 1)" should have clued you in that d was a distance. We are, after all, discussing a dial indicator method. Dial indicators measure distances.


I don't see the 5-degrees you mentioned (in your diagram).

" Tilt your miter gauge to approximately 5 degrees." You can't tell that the miter gauge and square are tilted in Figure 1?




Doing math is like doing design: Do-over, and do-over, and do-over. One

should

get quite humble about the process!

Point out what you think needs a do over. If you have other questions let me know.





Bill

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:05:34 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:44:31 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

I forgot to mention, what you have labeled as "References" are not



references at all.





Yes they are. I am 'referring' to them in the article. It's done routinely in the literature.

References usally means bibliographical references (to related works).

Yes, usually. It is however, not incorrect how I used the term.





"Notes" may be more appropriate (I'm not looking for an argument).

I like references. It's what I'm used to.





Bill





See 5d below where as it applies here.



ref�er�ence (rfr-ns, rfrns)

n.

1. An act of referring: filed away the article for future reference.

2.

a. Significance in a specified context: Her speeches have special reference to environmental policy.

b. Meaning or denotation.

3. The state of being related or referred: with reference to; in reference to.

4. A mention of an occurrence or situation: made frequent references to her promotion.

5.

a. A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source.

b. The passage or source so referred to.

c. A work frequently used as a source.

d. A mark or footnote used to direct a reader elsewhere for additional information.







Please re-do.







Bill

wrote in news:bc9297af-00ce-44cd-8f63-cfff2cea2c50
@googlegroups.com:


I like to have at least one master square that I know is balls to wall accurate. I had no way
of checking before and I do now. The Draw-A-Line and flip method will never tell you how
far out of wack your square is

Pfui. Of course it will. The more the lines diverge, the more out of whack it is.

- only that it might be out of wack. There is no way to quantitate the angle error unless you
can measure the distance betwene the lines/knife marks with a caliper (good luck).

That'll work. Feeler gauges will probably work better.

How much of a gap in between the marks is considered unacceptable? You can't easily
answer that question so why bother checking in the first place?

Of course you can easily answer that question. Decide what percentage error is
acceptable in your project, and you can easily calculate the permissible gap between the
marks. Suppose you want accuracy to one part in 1000 (99.9%). The gap between the
pencil lines at a distance of 8" -- double the error in the square, remember -- must be no
more than 8 * 2/1000 = 0.016", which is easily measurable with feeler gauges, a dial caliper,
or a mike.

wrote:
Yes they are. I am 'referring' to them in the article. It's done routinely in the literature.
References usally means bibliographical references (to related works).
Yes, usually. It is however, not incorrect how I used the term.




"Notes" may be more appropriate (I'm not looking for an argument).
I like references. It's what I'm used to.



When you submit your work for publication, the publisher will advise you
in no uncertain terms how it it should appear.
While your idea may be just fine, having reviewed a few books and papers
before, it is my humble opinion your your paper needs work.
I would look forward to seeing your ideas presented again. As has been
suggested, this isn't rocket science, but the application of using
the magnetic cubes to check for accuracy in squares is an interesting
application. Why settle for good-enough.

Bill