On 11/25/2013 8:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:37:01 -0600, Leon wrote:
With you having the domino the lap joints reinforced with the domino
floating tenon used on the back face frames should be easily doable.
Again if you would like a drawing showing the details all you have to do is
ask.

I don't have Skectchup yet, but I sure would like to see a few
pictures of partial construction of the face frames in the back of a
unit.


Ill post some more pictures after breakfast to show that detail.

wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:22:26 -0600, jim
wrote:



wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:08:14 -0600, jim
wrote:



wrote:


People have been making things flat or round to that level of
precision for ages.

Flat and round (spherical) are trivial problems and as you note it's
been done for ages, at least since the middle ages.

And there isn't much advantage in having a
CAD model for those shapes.

There isn't much reason to have a CAD model for a board, either, but
when you want to put a few dozen of them together, having a CAD model
gets rather interesting.


Other shapes are
more difficult, as is size.

And it is doubtful there is anyone reading this who
is cutting complex shapes from CAD models with precision
held to tenths.

Huh??? Have you ever heard of a mirror, or lens, system? Please
explain your statement?

How many have you modeled in CAD and then manufactured
to within tenth of the designed part?

You still make no sense. Are you saying that precision machining
doesn't require the same level of modeling that sloppier work does?
Really?

First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).


I'm saying that any CAD system can produce geometry that
is far more accurate than any manufacturing process. If a 3d
computer model has dimensions that are different than what you
like them to be, it is because of the input the software was
given, not because the software is sloppy.

A program like Sketchup caters to people who want to
model something that looks good without paying much attention
precise numbers. But that doesn't mean it is sloppy. It just
means it is not as easy to hit the exact numbers you may want as
in other programs that cater to people who want models driven
by precise numerical inputs instead of mouse actions.

On 11/25/2013 9:24 AM, jim wrote:


First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).




Huh?
I guess you didn't check out my offerings?

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/draft.htm

Lofted to .01 inch, since traditional nail in the floor
lofting considered 1/8th inch superb fairing.

jim fired this volley in
:

But that doesn't mean it is sloppy. It just
means it is not as easy to hit the exact numbers you may want as
in other programs that cater to people who want models driven
by precise numerical inputs instead of mouse actions.


You hit it right on the head. That's why it's not suitable as CAD, even
though it's an extremely useful system for visual presentation.

And although I might not have made it clear... that was my whole point on
base-1.

Lloyd

On 11/25/2013 8:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:37:01 -0600, Leon wrote:
With you having the domino the lap joints reinforced with the domino
floating tenon used on the back face frames should be easily doable.
Again if you would like a drawing showing the details all you have to do is
ask.

I don't have Skectchup yet, but I sure would like to see a few
pictures of partial construction of the face frames in the back of a
unit.



Details of the back face frames, 16 pictures. I added a few captions to
explain what is going on but you should get the idea.

I showed my dado extender jig, e-mail me and I-ll explain further. This
is kind of a trade secret. stupid simple but a time saver and a must
when attaching any face frame to any side, top or bottom panel.

Any way, follow this link and scroll left and right to see the set of
pictures.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/11051045046/

"jim" wrote in his blissful ignorance
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:22:26 -0600, jim
wrote:
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:08:14 -0600, jim

wrote:

How many have you modeled in CAD and then manufactured
to within tenth of the designed part?

You still make no sense. Are you saying that precision machining
doesn't require the same level of modeling that sloppier work does?
Really?

First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).


I'm saying that any CAD system can produce geometry that
is far more accurate than any manufacturing process. If a 3d
computer model has dimensions that are different than what you
like them to be, it is because of the input the software was
given, not because the software is sloppy.


http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/ge...icron-accuracy
"The axis position feedback system uses a 0.5-nanometer scale to
reliably track axis motion commands programmable in steps as small as
10 nanometers."

I've watched a large aspherical Germanium infrared camera lens being
diamond-turned to a mirror-like submicron finish on a CNC lathe.
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.co... Mosul_lg.jpg

All you demonstrate is that YOU don't know how to do this.

jsw

Richard wrote:

On 11/25/2013 9:24 AM, jim wrote:

First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).

Huh?
I guess you didn't check out my offerings?

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/draft.htm

Lofted to .01 inch, since traditional nail in the floor
lofting considered 1/8th inch superb fairing.

I did look. And its nice work.
But you aren't claiming that you took
a 3d model and produced a part held to tenth
accuracy. If you can achieve .01" accuracy in
manufacturing that hull to match the 3d model,
that would be extraordinary
accuracy.

On 11/25/2013 9:34 AM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jim fired this volley in
:

But that doesn't mean it is sloppy. It just
means it is not as easy to hit the exact numbers you may want as
in other programs that cater to people who want models driven
by precise numerical inputs instead of mouse actions.


You hit it right on the head. That's why it's not suitable as CAD, even
though it's an extremely useful system for visual presentation.

And although I might not have made it clear... that was my whole point on
base-1.

Except that what you quoted as justification for your "whole point" is
incorrect, therefore you're still wrong.

With SketchUp, "precise numerical inputs" can be input to the same
precision as AutoCAD, by simply using the keyboard.

Try again ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/25/2013 9:24 AM, jim wrote:


wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:22:26 -0600, jim
wrote:



wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:08:14 -0600, jim
wrote:



wrote:


People have been making things flat or round to that level of
precision for ages.

Flat and round (spherical) are trivial problems and as you note it's
been done for ages, at least since the middle ages.

And there isn't much advantage in having a
CAD model for those shapes.

There isn't much reason to have a CAD model for a board, either, but
when you want to put a few dozen of them together, having a CAD model
gets rather interesting.


Other shapes are
more difficult, as is size.

And it is doubtful there is anyone reading this who
is cutting complex shapes from CAD models with precision
held to tenths.

Huh??? Have you ever heard of a mirror, or lens, system? Please
explain your statement?

How many have you modeled in CAD and then manufactured
to within tenth of the designed part?

You still make no sense. Are you saying that precision machining
doesn't require the same level of modeling that sloppier work does?
Really?

First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).


I'm saying that any CAD system can produce geometry that
is far more accurate than any manufacturing process. If a 3d
computer model has dimensions that are different than what you
like them to be, it is because of the input the software was
given, not because the software is sloppy.

A program like Sketchup caters to people who want to
model something that looks good without paying much attention
precise numbers. But that doesn't mean it is sloppy. It just
means it is not as easy to hit the exact numbers you may want as
in other programs that cater to people who want models driven
by precise numerical inputs instead of mouse actions.


I'm going to take exception to your wording in your last paragraph.
Maybe I misunderstood.

I was an AutoCAD user for about 8 years, other CAD programs since 1986.

Anyway I am a furniture designer and builder. I have completely
converted over to Sketchup.

Now where I might be confused with your wording is that if I draw
something that is 4" long it is precisely 4" If I draw 4.015625, I get
a line that is 4 1/64" long, precisely.

Now if you are talking about a higher degree of resolution, I would a
agree that Sketchup begins to round after the fourth digit right of the
point. .0001

In woodworking drawings it it is typically not necessary to measure in
increments that are smaller than 32ths of an inch.".

While that is true, Sketchup can still very accurately draw in
increments that are 1/64" or greater. Anything with in that resolution
works out just fine.

And for what it is worth, You can type in precise distances just like
with a CAD program with in the resolution that Sketchup operates.


After drawing a complex piece of furniture with Sketchup, sometimes with
hundreds of separate components I use a plug in program that takes the
exact over all dimensions of every component and imports that data,
accurately, into an optimization program that has my inventory of
materials. I cut the components overall sizes using the optimization
program with no reference to the Sketchup drawings of the actual project.

I will reference the drawings for specific details for each component
that may need to have tenons, dado's, slots, mortices, ect.

On 11/25/2013 9:34 AM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jim fired this volley in
:

But that doesn't mean it is sloppy. It just
means it is not as easy to hit the exact numbers you may want as
in other programs that cater to people who want models driven
by precise numerical inputs instead of mouse actions.


You hit it right on the head. That's why it's not suitable as CAD, even
though it's an extremely useful system for visual presentation.

And although I might not have made it clear... that was my whole point on
base-1.

Lloyd



Lloyd, you simply do not know how to use Sketchup to its extents. Your
comments show your ignorance about Sketchup. I'm not trying to belittle
you but most every thing you have mentioned about Sketchup is inaccurate.

Again, I switched from AutoCAD to Sketchup about 6~8 years ago because I
get the same needed resolution and accuracy.

I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution however the program is quite capable of accurately and quite
quickly drawing a box that is 4 1/16 x 5 3/64 x 9 19/32.

don't knock the program until you actually learn how to use it, not just
play around with it.


I would be more than willing to show you some detailed drawing that I
have done with Sketchup.

On 11/25/2013 10:47 AM, Leon wrote:
Now if you are talking about a higher degree of resolution, I would a
agree that Sketchup begins to round after the fourth digit right of the
point. .0001

Only for presentation, and depending upon the resolution you have set.

For dimensional computations, SketchUp still uses its internal accuracy,
the same as AutoCAD.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/25/2013 11:00 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/25/2013 10:47 AM, Leon wrote:
Now if you are talking about a higher degree of resolution, I would a
agree that Sketchup begins to round after the fourth digit right of the
point. .0001

Only for presentation, and depending upon the resolution you have set.

For dimensional computations, SketchUp still uses its internal accuracy,
the same as AutoCAD.




Speaking of which, I have a plug in for chaining the units, precision of
the units, type of units, etc with out having to open up the Sketchup
Dialog box.

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"jim" wrote in his blissful ignorance
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:22:26 -0600, jim
wrote:
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:08:14 -0600, jim

wrote:

How many have you modeled in CAD and then manufactured
to within tenth of the designed part?

You still make no sense. Are you saying that precision machining
doesn't require the same level of modeling that sloppier work does?
Really?

First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).


I'm saying that any CAD system can produce geometry that
is far more accurate than any manufacturing process. If a 3d
computer model has dimensions that are different than what you
like them to be, it is because of the input the software was
given, not because the software is sloppy.

http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/ge...icron-accuracy
"The axis position feedback system uses a 0.5-nanometer scale to
reliably track axis motion commands programmable in steps as small as
10 nanometers."

Yes that machine should be able to cut 3d parts so they match
the 3d computer geometry to within a tenth.
However, the CAD model of the part can be made a million times more
accurate than even that machine can manufacture.

I didn't say there were no way to produce complicated 3d
parts that are within a tenth of the 3d CAD model.
I said that I doubt anyone reading this was doing that. You
still haven't changed my mind.




I've watched a large aspherical Germanium infrared camera lens being
diamond-turned to a mirror-like submicron finish on a CNC lathe.

Turning something on a lathe doesn't need a 3d model.
That is not 3d machining.

And watching someone else do it doesn't count as doing.

On 11/25/2013 11:00 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/25/2013 10:47 AM, Leon wrote:
Now if you are talking about a higher degree of resolution, I would a
agree that Sketchup begins to round after the fourth digit right of the
point. .0001

Only for presentation, and depending upon the resolution you have set.

For dimensional computations, SketchUp still uses its internal accuracy,
the same as AutoCAD.

Here, do this:

Open SU, go to Go to Window|Model Info|Units|Fractional and choose 1/64"
or whatever Format you desire .

Now, draw a rectangle of any size using the rectangle tool

Select the rectangle and right click Area|Selection

You will see a number representing the area of the rectangle you
selected to .000000 precision.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Leon wrote:

On 11/25/2013 9:24 AM, jim wrote:


wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:22:26 -0600, jim
wrote:



wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:08:14 -0600, jim
wrote:



wrote:


People have been making things flat or round to that level of
precision for ages.

Flat and round (spherical) are trivial problems and as you note it's
been done for ages, at least since the middle ages.

And there isn't much advantage in having a
CAD model for those shapes.

There isn't much reason to have a CAD model for a board, either, but
when you want to put a few dozen of them together, having a CAD model
gets rather interesting.


Other shapes are
more difficult, as is size.

And it is doubtful there is anyone reading this who
is cutting complex shapes from CAD models with precision
held to tenths.

Huh??? Have you ever heard of a mirror, or lens, system? Please
explain your statement?

How many have you modeled in CAD and then manufactured
to within tenth of the designed part?

You still make no sense. Are you saying that precision machining
doesn't require the same level of modeling that sloppier work does?
Really?

First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).


I'm saying that any CAD system can produce geometry that
is far more accurate than any manufacturing process. If a 3d
computer model has dimensions that are different than what you
like them to be, it is because of the input the software was
given, not because the software is sloppy.

A program like Sketchup caters to people who want to
model something that looks good without paying much attention
precise numbers. But that doesn't mean it is sloppy. It just
means it is not as easy to hit the exact numbers you may want as
in other programs that cater to people who want models driven
by precise numerical inputs instead of mouse actions.


I'm going to take exception to your wording in your last paragraph.
Maybe I misunderstood.

I was an AutoCAD user for about 8 years, other CAD programs since 1986.

Anyway I am a furniture designer and builder. I have completely
converted over to Sketchup.

Now where I might be confused with your wording is that if I draw
something that is 4" long it is precisely 4" If I draw 4.015625, I get
a line that is 4 1/64" long, precisely.


Yes. I said you can do it if you want to, but the program
is obviously targeted at people who want to use the mouse
for input.



Now if you are talking about a higher degree of resolution, I would a
agree that Sketchup begins to round after the fourth digit right of the
point. .0001


It looks like it can take much more precise input than that.
There is a setting in the units dialog box. And you
don't have to work in fractions. You can switch to decimals
and input numbers down to a millionth of a mm. Internally,
the data is even more precise than that.

On 11/25/2013 11:00 AM, Leon wrote:
don't knock the program until you actually learn how to use it, not just
play around with it.

Ayup ...One would hope that their accuracy in their work indeed exceeds
their accuracy/misconceptions about a program with which they obviously
have little familiarity.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"jim" wrote in message
...


Jim Wilkins wrote:

"jim" wrote in his blissful ignorance
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:22:26 -0600, jim

wrote:
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:08:14 -0600, jim

wrote:

How many have you modeled in CAD and then manufactured
to within tenth of the designed part?

You still make no sense. Are you saying that precision
machining
doesn't require the same level of modeling that sloppier work
does?
Really?

First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).


I'm saying that any CAD system can produce geometry that
is far more accurate than any manufacturing process. If a 3d
computer model has dimensions that are different than what you
like them to be, it is because of the input the software was
given, not because the software is sloppy.

http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/ge...icron-accuracy
"The axis position feedback system uses a 0.5-nanometer scale to
reliably track axis motion commands programmable in steps as small
as
10 nanometers."

Yes that machine should be able to cut 3d parts so they match
the 3d computer geometry to within a tenth.
However, the CAD model of the part can be made a million times more
accurate than even that machine can manufacture.

I didn't say there were no way to produce complicated 3d
parts that are within a tenth of the 3d CAD model.
I said that I doubt anyone reading this was doing that. You
still haven't changed my mind.




I've watched a large aspherical Germanium infrared camera lens
being
diamond-turned to a mirror-like submicron finish on a CNC lathe.

Turning something on a lathe doesn't need a 3d model.
That is not 3d machining.

And watching someone else do it doesn't count as doing.

You are demonstrating my point that petulant misfits will snatch at
any excuse to belittle capable people.

On 11/25/2013 10:18 AM, jim wrote:


Richard wrote:

On 11/25/2013 9:24 AM, jim wrote:

First of all most of the examples of precision that have
been given involve no 3d modeling at all. And the rest
appear to be at best 2d modeling (e.g.. a lathe profile).

Huh?
I guess you didn't check out my offerings?

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/draft.htm

Lofted to .01 inch, since traditional nail in the floor
lofting considered 1/8th inch superb fairing.

I did look. And its nice work.
But you aren't claiming that you took
a 3d model and produced a part held to tenth
accuracy. If you can achieve .01" accuracy in
manufacturing that hull to match the 3d model,
that would be extraordinary
accuracy.


I'm sorry, Jim, but this sounds like arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Drafting (or modeling) and machining are two distinctly different
disciplines and outside of a few hobbyist, damned few people do both.

A fiberglass boat's hull is seldom held to anywhere near that accuracy.
If you check carefully you will usually find all manner of inaccuracy in
construction. Missed dimensions (by INCHES some times), asymmetry,
misalignment, etc, that the eye simply does not catch.

On the other hand, large steel ships MUST hold that kind of accuracy.
Those ships are built in smaller sections called "lifts", which are
then stacked together to form the finished structure. They HAVE to be
built that accurately just to fit together.

For what it's worth...

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet fired this volley in
:

I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution however the program is quite capable of accurately and quite
quickly drawing a box that is 4 1/16 x 5 3/64 x 9 19/32.

If I were using it for woodworking, I assume those accuracies would be
adequate, if a little gross for a CNC router...

But I work daily with sub-thousandth measurements. Do you really
understand how funny dealing with "thirty-secondths" sounds to a
metalworker? Today, I had to lay out a complex, multi-curved cam slot a
half-thousanth wider than a bearing, because the bearings that ride in it
work the plus side of their tolerances -- and the bearings are spec'd by
the customer. Even two thousanths of an inch would cause them to track
wrong.

I also am not belittling what you do. I've done it (in a prior life)
with very nice results on some 'fine' reproduction furniture. They're
just not the same games, that's all.

I have -eh- maybe 250-300 hours building large-scale models in Sketchup;
100 meter scale. Maybe I could finesse it into doing 1/4" stuff to
tenths of a thou.; but why, when there are CAMs out there well-adapted to
what machinists do? Why use an axe where a scalpel is called for?

Lloyd

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:43:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

You are demonstrating my point that petulant misfits will snatch at
any excuse to belittle capable people.

You powers of perception is great, you can and do read way more than
is said.

"Markem" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:43:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

You are demonstrating my point that petulant misfits will snatch at
any excuse to belittle capable people.

You powers of perception is great, you can and do read way more than
is said.

I didn't mean you, but if the shoe fits...

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:01:54 -0500, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message


Speaking of RCH...do our woodworking compadres know about
RCH and the
other colors of tolerance?

Well, I for one do. But my experiences with them had nothing to do with
woodworking and sigh were long ago


ROFLMAO!!


__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:07:22 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Markem fired this volley in
:


Yes Lloyd keeping on painting with that brush. You get into many
"discussions" that carry on and on?

You bitch about the color I'm using, but you don't even pay attention to
what it IS.

I said, "The guys who are harping on (it)"... Not ALL woodworkers, and
not everyone else; just the guys who are denying.

If you paid closer attention, you might actually not hate the 'decor'.

I'm kind of strident about 'good work' because I design machines to
manufacture explosives. You don't get many 'second tries' in that
endeavor.

Lloyd

True indeed.

And Lloyd has a very good track record...and all of his limbs and most
of his fingers.

Gunner

__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:00:57 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"User Bp" wrote in message
...

Yes, but that's how we got where we are. After all, somebody had to
start with rocks and sticks. I'd still like to see a readable
account
of how it's done. Moore's "Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy" gives
a good start, but the narrative is hard to follow beyond the basics.

bob prohaska

Try this:
https://archive.org/details/accuratetoolwor00stangoog

jsw

Thats a lot easier than "Fundimentals of Dimensional Metrology":
(which sits in the "Technical/Difficult ****" shelf of my library.

Thanks!

Gunner

__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:26:58 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
.3.70...
"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in
news:l6u4qk$qdf$2
@dont-email.me:

With care and patience the half-century-old machines in my home
shop
can still hold around 2-3 tenths.
jsw

Jim, these guys who are harping on the issue have been working to
maximum
tolerance of 1/32" for so long that they cannot imagine anyone
working to
tenths of a thousandth of an inch.

And because THEY can't do it, they state flatly that "nobody" in
this group
can.

Lloyd

Social Equality requires that no one should be allowed to challenge
their fragile self-esteem by displaying more knowledge or possessions.

The fundamental difference between right and left is that seeing
innate differences prompts the right to improve themselves, the left
to tear the others down and demand political cures for their
psychiatric deficiencies.

jsw

VERY!! well stated!!


__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:42:59 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in
message . 3.70...
"Mike Marlow" fired this volley in
:


D'Oh! Ok - guess that proves I'm not a machinist. What happened
to
the 100 thousandth though? Wouldn't half a tenth be 50 one
hundred
thousandths?

yes, but that's not common 'jargon'.

Most machinists work to somewhere between 1 and 5 tenths (of a
thousandth
of an inch). Some work to major fractions of a 'tenth' -- half,
quarter,
whatnot... and they usually express it that way, saying stuff like,
"half
a tenth".

A very few work to less, and then they mostly discuss micro-inches.
Lloyd

The downfeed on my 1940's-vintage surface grinder is graduated in
half tenths.
jsw

I wrote that wrong. The graduations are 0.0005" apart.

You were right the first time..in common practice.

Once the basic mind set is formed...getting complicated or verbose is
contraindicated. Half tenth is very commonly used.

Gunner

__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:00:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution

Oh..you work to .125 tolerances then?


__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:10:08 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Markem" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:43:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

You are demonstrating my point that petulant misfits will snatch at
any excuse to belittle capable people.

You powers of perception is great, you can and do read way more than
is said.

I didn't mean you, but if the shoe fits...



I have noted that some in rec metal are a bit on the brainy side eh?
At least in they're attempts at insults.

On 11/25/2013 11:49 AM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet fired this volley in
:

I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution however the program is quite capable of accurately and quite
quickly drawing a box that is 4 1/16 x 5 3/64 x 9 19/32.

If I were using it for woodworking, I assume those accuracies would be
adequate, if a little gross for a CNC router...

Not in the slightest for a CNC. Why would one choose odd ball
tolerances, tiny fractions, when working with wood? Sketch up is being
used for CNC machines and 3D printers.

Metal working in some cases would be another matter.




But I work daily with sub-thousandth measurements. Do you really
understand how funny dealing with "thirty-secondths" sounds to a
metalworker? Today, I had to lay out a complex, multi-curved cam slot a
half-thousanth wider than a bearing, because the bearings that ride in it
work the plus side of their tolerances -- and the bearings are spec'd by
the customer. Even two thousanths of an inch would cause them to track
wrong.


And given the OP's original post to this thread do you realize how funny
it sounds to use a program that uses the resolutions that you are
speaking about when Sketchup is more than capable of satisfying his
needs for free?

I realize you work with high resolutions, that is the requirement of
metal working. But Sketchup is far more of a program than to simply
sketch out pencil type drawings.



I also am not belittling what you do. I've done it (in a prior life)
with very nice results on some 'fine' reproduction furniture. They're
just not the same games, that's all.

And Sketchup would be more than fine for reproduction furniture drawings.



I have -eh- maybe 250-300 hours building large-scale models in Sketchup;
100 meter scale. Maybe I could finesse it into doing 1/4" stuff to
tenths of a thou.; but why, when there are CAMs out there well-adapted to
what machinists do? Why use an axe where a scalpel is called for?


So with that kind of time put in with Sketchup you are just getting
started. I have many more drawings than you have in hours and most of
the drawings require 10~20 hours of design.

If you need that higher resolution use the program that works but your
descriptions of the capabilities of Sketchup makes one wonder if you
really know what it can do.

I think the biggest problem with this whole thread is that the OP posted
to wood working and metal working. His first item on his wish list was
for wood boards and followed by stuff you make at home. He had the
knowledge of 2D CAD programs so he was not totally ignorant of what to
use but IMHO he wanted to do 3D for, most likely, less than extreme
resolution drawings.

On 11/25/2013 12:25 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:00:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution

Oh..you work to .125 tolerances then?



No, that is not what I said, I said I routinely work with pieces that
measure in 1/8" resolution. The tolerances have to be much greater for
a joint to disappear.

There is a difference between resolution and tolerance. They are not
the same. I simply choose to design using 1/8" as my smallest
increment. The cuts have to be as close to that measurement as
possible. A piece that calls to be 48.125" needs to be as close to that
as possible. 48.120" is way not close enough if you don't want the
joint to stick out like a sore thumb.

Then stack on top of that the wood greatly changes shape, relative to
steel, depending on the relative humidity and a project may have several
hundred pieces that interlock with each other. We wood workers work in
pretty tight tolerances too but don't draw project pieces to sizes that
include minute fractions for the sake of having odd lengths and widths.
I realize this is required in smaller sized metal working projects
where size dictates higher precision.










__
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Heinlein

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:42:59 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in
message . 3.70...
"Mike Marlow" fired this volley in
:


D'Oh! Ok - guess that proves I'm not a machinist. What happened
to
the 100 thousandth though? Wouldn't half a tenth be 50 one
hundred
thousandths?

yes, but that's not common 'jargon'.

Most machinists work to somewhere between 1 and 5 tenths (of a
thousandth
of an inch). Some work to major fractions of a 'tenth' -- half,
quarter,
whatnot... and they usually express it that way, saying stuff like,
"half
a tenth".

A very few work to less, and then they mostly discuss micro-inches.
Lloyd

The downfeed on my 1940's-vintage surface grinder is graduated in
half tenths.
jsw

I wrote that wrong. The graduations are 0.0005" apart.

Resolution accuracy

On 11/25/2013 11:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/25/2013 11:00 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/25/2013 10:47 AM, Leon wrote:
Now if you are talking about a higher degree of resolution, I would a
agree that Sketchup begins to round after the fourth digit right of the
point. .0001

Only for presentation, and depending upon the resolution you have set.

For dimensional computations, SketchUp still uses its internal accuracy,
the same as AutoCAD.

Here, do this:

Open SU, go to Go to Window|Model Info|Units|Fractional and choose 1/64"
or whatever Format you desire .

Now, draw a rectangle of any size using the rectangle tool

Select the rectangle and right click Area|Selection

You will see a number representing the area of the rectangle you
selected to .000000 precision.



Understood, I was talking more about the actual drawn dimension having
limitations to their resolution.

On 11/25/2013 12:25 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:00:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

I am a woodworker and routinely work with pieces that measure in 1/8"
resolution

Oh..you work to .125 tolerances then?

When "woodworking", depends upon what you're making/measuring.

In a construction project, .0125" is generally what a framing carpenter
shoots for when measuring for a cut.

Whereas a trim carpenter would probably base most of his measurements on
..03125".

In a piece of fine furniture or cabinetry, .015625" is often not
acceptable due to its obvious visibility, or when needing parts to be
square.

Leon, being a master craftsman, more than likely sets his drawing
"precision" for critical projects when using SketchUp to 1/64", which
gives you a roundup of 1/32" for cutting dimensions on a shop drawings.

That said, most learn quickly to batch cut like parts so that any error
in like components still make for consistent, same size parts.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/25/2013 12:34 PM, Leon wrote:
I think the biggest problem with this whole thread is that the OP posted
to wood working and metal working. His first item on his wish list was
for wood boards and followed by stuff you make at home. He had the
knowledge of 2D CAD programs so he was not totally ignorant of what to
use but IMHO he wanted to do 3D for, most likely, less than extreme
resolution drawings.


My bet is that the OP would be much more than perfectly happy with this
for his simple "3-D metal" drawings:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-n...0/Untitled.jpg





--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/25/2013 12:52 PM, Leon wrote:

Understood, I was talking more about the actual drawn dimension having
limitations to their resolution.

Like this:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink




--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/25/2013 11:23 AM, jim wrote:



Snip



A program like Sketchup caters to people who want to
model something that looks good without paying much attention
precise numbers. But that doesn't mean it is sloppy. It just
means it is not as easy to hit the exact numbers you may want as
in other programs that cater to people who want models driven
by precise numerical inputs instead of mouse actions.


I'm going to take exception to your wording in your last paragraph.
Maybe I misunderstood.

I was an AutoCAD user for about 8 years, other CAD programs since 1986.

Anyway I am a furniture designer and builder. I have completely
converted over to Sketchup.

Now where I might be confused with your wording is that if I draw
something that is 4" long it is precisely 4" If I draw 4.015625, I get
a line that is 4 1/64" long, precisely.


Yes. I said you can do it if you want to, but the program
is obviously targeted at people who want to use the mouse
for input.

What gives you that thought. I mostly use the mouse simply to start a
line and to give that line a direction to move relative to the starting
point. It is keyboard input from there. For that matter you can mostly
use a mouse with AutoCAD.

And, if one prefers to use a mouse or a mouse and a 3D input device what
difference does it make which program you use as long as the program is
capable of getting the job done.

Am I detecting a bit of snobbery here? ;~)

I thought the same about Sketchup when I was using AutoCAD, In fact I
had installed and uninstalled 3 different versions of Sketchup before it
dawned on me that Sketchup was way better for woodworking than AutoCAD.



Now if you are talking about a higher degree of resolution, I would a
agree that Sketchup begins to round after the fourth digit right of the
point. .0001


It looks like it can take much more precise input than that.
There is a setting in the units dialog box. And you
don't have to work in fractions. You can switch to decimals
and input numbers down to a millionth of a mm. Internally,
the data is even more precise than that.

That is correct. I tend to input/draw in decimals, much faster than
inputting fractions, but work in fractions in the shop so the drawings
are also in fractions.

On 11/25/2013 12:56 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/25/2013 12:34 PM, Leon wrote:
I think the biggest problem with this whole thread is that the OP posted
to wood working and metal working. His first item on his wish list was
for wood boards and followed by stuff you make at home. He had the
knowledge of 2D CAD programs so he was not totally ignorant of what to
use but IMHO he wanted to do 3D for, most likely, less than extreme
resolution drawings.


My bet is that the OP would be much more than perfectly happy with this
for his simple "3-D metal" drawings:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-n...0/Untitled.jpg







And for the most part a majority in this thread! LOL. There are a few
that may not be and rightfully so but just because I drive a Maserati
does not mean I use it to it's limits. The Camry works just fine and in
many practical ways out performs the Maserati.

On 11/25/2013 1:17 PM, Leon wrote:
On 11/25/2013 12:56 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/25/2013 12:34 PM, Leon wrote:
I think the biggest problem with this whole thread is that the OP posted
to wood working and metal working. His first item on his wish list was
for wood boards and followed by stuff you make at home. He had the
knowledge of 2D CAD programs so he was not totally ignorant of what to
use but IMHO he wanted to do 3D for, most likely, less than extreme
resolution drawings.


My bet is that the OP would be much more than perfectly happy with this
for his simple "3-D metal" drawings:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-n...0/Untitled.jpg





And for the most part a majority in this thread! LOL. There are a few
that may not be and rightfully so but just because I drive a Maserati
does not mean I use it to it's limits. The Camry works just fine and in
many practical ways out performs the Maserati.


LOL ... just ragging on you a bit, Bubba.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:42:59 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in
message . 3.70...
"Mike Marlow" fired this volley in
:


D'Oh! Ok - guess that proves I'm not a machinist. What happened
to
the 100 thousandth though? Wouldn't half a tenth be 50 one
hundred
thousandths?

yes, but that's not common 'jargon'.

Most machinists work to somewhere between 1 and 5 tenths (of a
thousandth
of an inch). Some work to major fractions of a 'tenth' -- half,
quarter,
whatnot... and they usually express it that way, saying stuff like,
"half
a tenth".

A very few work to less, and then they mostly discuss micro-inches.
Lloyd

The downfeed on my 1940's-vintage surface grinder is graduated in
half tenths.
jsw

I wrote that wrong. The graduations are 0.0005" apart.

Resolution accuracy

I feel a bit like Bill in this thread. I thought I had a pretty good handle
on measurements, fractions, and all that crap. It's been a bit embarassing
to have exposed my lack of understanding when it comes to how machinists
measure things, and even more so to have missed at least one point to that
effect, in this thread. But - despite my apparent lack of ability to read,
this has been an enjoyable thread for me. One more thing learned before I
die. Bill is very good at that part of life - likes to learn and is not
afraid to do so. That's where I feel a bit like him with what's been
discussed here.

The guys that have been patient in responding to my obvious ignorance have
been great - especially Gunner (who I see over in rec.guns quite a bit).
Gunner - ping me at the email address below - with the obvious deletion.

Sorry again for my density. It's the Uki blood. Or, just simple density...


--

-Mike-

On 11/25/2013 1:00 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 11/25/2013 12:52 PM, Leon wrote:

Understood, I was talking more about the actual drawn dimension having
limitations to their resolution.

Like this:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink







No, can you think/tell me what that converts to as a fraction off the
top of your head? LOL My calculated industries calculator can't
either. ;~)

I like to see fractions, on my drawings, that I can actually come close
to reproducing. ;~)


A bit off topic, I checked the outside temp a few minutes ago,
42.51232367 degrees F.