I'm finished - finally - with all my bathroom work. Faux painted the walls,
laid a ton of tile, made two vanities each with numerous partitioned
drawers, made a makeup table for 'her",also a stool, installed the johns,
sinks, lights, etc. Now I'm ready for the next project.

The next project is a front, exterior door. Been "Sketchuping" it, not
finished yet, this is a link to the Sketchup file...
http://www.filedropper.com/frontdoor
All the stuff is in layers so one can see joinery, etc. If you want to see
but don't use Sketchup, here is a link to a jpeg showing the details at the
center rail and panels.
http://www.filedropper.com/frontdoor_1 interior is to the left, exterior to
the right.

The door will be African mahogany, stiles and rails are to be 1 3/4" thick,
panels 1 1/2". In both cases, the thickness will be achieved by gluing
thinner boards face to face.

The outside of the door will be pretty conventional; the drawings don't show
it but I may cope the rails/stiles on that side.

The inside of the door will be different as I want the panels - bottom one
especially - to overlay the rails & stiles? Why? Because we have a cat
that sprays. If the panel is recessed, urine runs down inside the panel and
cat urine is the most corrosive substance in the known universe. The
obvious solution is to get rid of the cat. OK, want him? Barring that, the
only solution I can think of is to have the panel overlay rails/stiles.

I've built numerous passage doors, never an exterior one (except for screen
doors) so I have some questions...

1. Can you see any problem with the panels overlaying rails/stiles on the
interior?

2. How big a stub tenon on the panels?

3. I am somewhat concerned about the difference in relative humidity inside
to outside in the winter when the house is heated and the interior RH is
considerably lower than it is outside. When I hung some of the cabinet
doors I recently made in my unheated shop I left a fat 1/16" gap between
left and right doors, each of which was about 13", 26" total, close to what
the front door panel width will be. That gap increased by at least 1/8"
within a couple of days. (RH higher in shop than inside house). I don't
think the front door will bow, it will be pretty stout, but I welcome your
thoughts and experience. (IME, a clear coat finish - maybe paint too - won't
stop seasonal movement).

I have also considered a board and batten door, also a "Z" door. They
aren't appropriate for the house. I have also seen (pictures only) of doors
that use a bottom to top "rail" consisting of boards glued up into one
solid, top to bottom panel which is then let into the two stiles; I don't
know if the panel boards are T&G or not but I can't imagine how it would
handle expansion & contraction if not. OTOH, I have seen numerous boats
with the sides built of narrow, glued up planks, then fastened to the ribs;
a real bear to fix damage but the expansion and contraction doesn't push the
deck off
______________________________

I thank you and welcome all comment regarding the above.

On 3/6/2016 5:03 PM, dadiOH wrote:
I'm finished - finally - with all my bathroom work. Faux painted the walls,
laid a ton of tile, made two vanities each with numerous partitioned
drawers, made a makeup table for 'her",also a stool, installed the johns,
sinks, lights, etc. Now I'm ready for the next project.

The next project is a front, exterior door. Been "Sketchuping" it, not
finished yet, this is a link to the Sketchup file...
http://www.filedropper.com/frontdoor
All the stuff is in layers so one can see joinery, etc. If you want to see
but don't use Sketchup, here is a link to a jpeg showing the details at the
center rail and panels.
http://www.filedropper.com/frontdoor_1 interior is to the left, exterior to
the right.

The door will be African mahogany, stiles and rails are to be 1 3/4" thick,
panels 1 1/2". In both cases, the thickness will be achieved by gluing
thinner boards face to face.

The outside of the door will be pretty conventional; the drawings don't show
it but I may cope the rails/stiles on that side.

The inside of the door will be different as I want the panels - bottom one
especially - to overlay the rails & stiles? Why? Because we have a cat
that sprays. If the panel is recessed, urine runs down inside the panel and
cat urine is the most corrosive substance in the known universe. The
obvious solution is to get rid of the cat. OK, want him? Barring that, the
only solution I can think of is to have the panel overlay rails/stiles.

I've built numerous passage doors, never an exterior one (except for screen
doors) so I have some questions...

1. Can you see any problem with the panels overlaying rails/stiles on the
interior?

2. How big a stub tenon on the panels?

3. I am somewhat concerned about the difference in relative humidity inside
to outside in the winter when the house is heated and the interior RH is
considerably lower than it is outside. When I hung some of the cabinet
doors I recently made in my unheated shop I left a fat 1/16" gap between
left and right doors, each of which was about 13", 26" total, close to what
the front door panel width will be. That gap increased by at least 1/8"
within a couple of days. (RH higher in shop than inside house). I don't
think the front door will bow, it will be pretty stout, but I welcome your
thoughts and experience. (IME, a clear coat finish - maybe paint too - won't
stop seasonal movement).

I have also considered a board and batten door, also a "Z" door. They
aren't appropriate for the house. I have also seen (pictures only) of doors
that use a bottom to top "rail" consisting of boards glued up into one
solid, top to bottom panel which is then let into the two stiles; I don't
know if the panel boards are T&G or not but I can't imagine how it would
handle expansion & contraction if not. OTOH, I have seen numerous boats
with the sides built of narrow, glued up planks, then fastened to the ribs;
a real bear to fix damage but the expansion and contraction doesn't push the
deck off
______________________________

I thank you and welcome all comment regarding the above.



Maybe I am playing too safe but your links take me to a site to download
a file. I would rather not do that.

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 5:18:38 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:

Maybe I am playing too safe but your links take me to a site to download
a file. I would rather not do that.

Yeah, same here.

First, congrats on the bathroom! Sounds like a helluva lot of work to me.

I was really wanting to see what you were up to dadiOH, but downloading like that is scary for me, too.

I have built a few exterior doors along the way, and I am almost positive that Karl and I have had a conversation of him building them, too.

Not nearly as hard or demanding as other projects unless you do something like a 15 panel door. The trick is in the jamb fit.

It sounds like a great project, but personally speaking, I find it hard to compete with a factory built door blank as I can see live and in person the joinery as well as if the door is warped, straight, or square before purchase. As bad as the lumber is around here I wouldn't build a door unless I needed a size I couldn't buy. I would spend more time than it was worth just sorting out and conditioning the wood before cutting and assembly.

BTW. have you considered an oversized stainless kick plate to combat the effects of your little sprayer?

Robert

Leon wrote:

Maybe I am playing too safe but your links take me to a site to
download a file. I would rather not do that.

Yes, they do. I figured looking at the actual Sketchup file might help
people visualize some of the stuff I was asking about. The only way for
them to do that is for me to post the file somewhere and provide a link so
they could download it, has to be downloaded to view.

In the case of the jpeg for those who do not have Sketchup, I just stuck it
at the same site - since I was there anyway - rather than a more normal
image sharing site such as Picasa. In both cases, the purpose is to allow
someone to view an image; in the case of the hosting site I used, one
downloads a file; in the case of Picasa, one downloads exactly the same data
but it is not in a file form. In the case of a file, it is easily deleted
when one is finished viewing; in the case of data from Picasa et al, it
stays on one's computer until one cleans out the TEMP/Temporary Internet
Files/etc directories that are usually filled to overflowing.

I do understand your concern (Robert's too) but keep in mind that everytime
we click on a link to whatever, we are downloading stuff, all of which COULD
be malicious. When downloading a file, one gets a pop up showing the name -
including extension - of the file, what program opens it and a choice to
either open it or save it. If one chooses to save it, it can then be
scanned with an AV program.

On 3/7/2016 6:35 AM, dadiOH wrote:

I do understand your concern (Robert's too) but keep in mind that everytime
we click on a link to whatever, we are downloading stuff, all of which COULD
be malicious. When downloading a file, one gets a pop up showing the name -
including extension - of the file, what program opens it and a choice to
either open it or save it. If one chooses to save it, it can then be
scanned with an AV program.

The days are long gone when it was necessary for the user to actively
click on/download malware to be infected.

Today's advertising platforms are notorious for offering drive-by
opportunities for transfer of malicious software, both "pre-click" and
"post-click" by the user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising

Pertinent part of that link is included below for those not aware of the
dangers of drive-by malware infections:

pre-click: "Examples of pre-click malware include being embedded in main
scripts of the page or drive-by-downloads. Malware can also auto-run, as
in the case of auto redirects, where the user is automatically taken to
a different site, which could be malicious. Malware can also be found in
the delivery of an ad – where a clean ad that has no malware pre or post
click (in its build and design) can still be infected whilst being
called.[8] Malicious code can hide undetected and the user has no idea
what's coming their way."

post-click: "the user clicks on the ad to visit the advertised site, and
instead is directly infected or redirected to a malicious site. These
sites trick users into copying viruses or spyware usually disguised as
Flash files, which are very popular on the web."[9] Redirection is often
built into online advertising, and this spread of malware is often
successful because users expect a redirection to happen when clicking on
an advertisement. A redirection that is taking place only needs to be
co-opted in order to infect a user's computer.[1]

"Malvertising often involves the exploitation of trustworthy companies.
Those attempting to spread malware place "clean" advertisements on
trustworthy sites first in order to gain a good reputation, then they
later "insert a virus or spyware in the code behind the ad, and after a
mass virus infection is produced, they remove the virus", thus infecting
all visitors of the site during that time period. The identities of
those responsible are often hard to trace, making it hard to prevent the
attacks or stop them altogether, because the "ad network infrastructure
is very complex with many linked connections between ads and
click-through destinations."

Another good reason to run an adblocker (among other protective
measures) and not listen to the propaganda of the advertising industry.

When it comes to those websites who don't allow those with adblocker's
to visit, I say verily: **** You!

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

"Swingman" wrote

Another good reason to run an adblocker (among other protective measures)
and not listen to the propaganda of the advertising industry.

When it comes to those websites who don't allow those with adblocker's to
visit, I say verily: **** You!

I absolutely agree with you on this. I often have to go to websites that
have so much "extra" activity going on it that the page won't load properly.
But with an adblocker, I get some whiny complaints about I am cutting into
their bottom line. No mention of how all that crap not only slows down my
computer, but as you point out, is often associated with malware.
Adblockers greatly speed up download time on many websites.

Another thing about those ads that many people are not aware of. I work
sometimes with people who have vision and hearing problems. (I am not so hot
in those departments myself.) They need to use settings within windows and
third party programs to see and hear the material on the website. But
companies routinely screw up those settings because it "interferes" with
their ads. Like these folks are going to buy something from a company that
sabotages their web experience. By installing an adblocker on their
machines, their access to the web more than doubled.

And another complaint I have about ad heavy websites. Ever go to a website
that took some time to load. First this ads loads, then another, then
another and if an ad, which is located somewhere else doesn't load, the
whole webpage freezes. Or all the ads load, then they inform you that the
page you are looking "no longer exists".

It is just like television. Nobody with any brains sits there and endures
huge amounts of advertising. We record it and fast forward through all the
crap. Why should we do anything differently on the web? If websites want
to unleash the ad weapon on us, like warriors of old, we get hold of a
shield. It is a form of self defense as far as I am concerned. And far
healthier for my blood pressure and the health of my beloved computer,
After all, he is a member of the family. I need to look out for him.

In article om, "Lee
Michaels" says...

"Swingman" wrote

Another good reason to run an adblocker (among other protective measures)
and not listen to the propaganda of the advertising industry.

When it comes to those websites who don't allow those with adblocker's to
visit, I say verily: **** You!

I absolutely agree with you on this. I often have to go to websites that
have so much "extra" activity going on it that the page won't load properly.
But with an adblocker, I get some whiny complaints about I am cutting into
their bottom line. No mention of how all that crap not only slows down my
computer, but as you point out, is often associated with malware.
Adblockers greatly speed up download time on many websites.

Another thing about those ads that many people are not aware of. I work
sometimes with people who have vision and hearing problems. (I am not so hot
in those departments myself.) They need to use settings within windows and
third party programs to see and hear the material on the website. But
companies routinely screw up those settings because it "interferes" with
their ads. Like these folks are going to buy something from a company that
sabotages their web experience. By installing an adblocker on their
machines, their access to the web more than doubled.

And another complaint I have about ad heavy websites. Ever go to a website
that took some time to load. First this ads loads, then another, then
another and if an ad, which is located somewhere else doesn't load, the
whole webpage freezes. Or all the ads load, then they inform you that the
page you are looking "no longer exists".

The two that annoy me most are the one where just as I click on the link
I want, an ad pops up and shifts the link, and the pages that I see load
and then vanish.

It is just like television. Nobody with any brains sits there and endures
huge amounts of advertising. We record it and fast forward through all the
crap. Why should we do anything differently on the web? If websites want
to unleash the ad weapon on us, like warriors of old, we get hold of a
shield. It is a form of self defense as far as I am concerned. And far
healthier for my blood pressure and the health of my beloved computer,
After all, he is a member of the family. I need to look out for him.

I would like to see legislation that holds internet advertisers strictly
liable for all damages resulting from their advertising, with all web
page owners who display their advertisements equally liable. Many ads
are executable code so this is no longer a passive activity--if they
plant malware on you they should be required to clean it up and
compensate you for your losses.

Of course the advertisers will scream bloody murder and so will everyone
who operates an ad-supported web site. I for one don't really care.

On 3/7/2016 6:35 AM, dadiOH wrote:
Leon wrote:

Maybe I am playing too safe but your links take me to a site to
download a file. I would rather not do that.

Yes, they do. I figured looking at the actual Sketchup file might help
people visualize some of the stuff I was asking about. The only way for
them to do that is for me to post the file somewhere and provide a link so
they could download it, has to be downloaded to view.

In the case of the jpeg for those who do not have Sketchup, I just stuck it
at the same site - since I was there anyway - rather than a more normal
image sharing site such as Picasa. In both cases, the purpose is to allow
someone to view an image; in the case of the hosting site I used, one
downloads a file; in the case of Picasa, one downloads exactly the same data
but it is not in a file form. In the case of a file, it is easily deleted
when one is finished viewing; in the case of data from Picasa et al, it
stays on one's computer until one cleans out the TEMP/Temporary Internet
Files/etc directories that are usually filled to overflowing.

I do understand your concern (Robert's too) but keep in mind that everytime
we click on a link to whatever, we are downloading stuff, all of which COULD
be malicious. When downloading a file, one gets a pop up showing the name -
including extension - of the file, what program opens it and a choice to
either open it or save it. If one chooses to save it, it can then be
scanned with an AV program.




Understood! But I typically do not purposely down load from a site that
I have never seen before. Just something I practice.

On 3/7/2016 9:16 AM, Swingman wrote:

Another good reason to run an adblocker (among other protective
measures) and not listen to the propaganda of the advertising industry.

When it comes to those websites who don't allow those with adblocker's
to visit, I say verily: **** You!

It's getting worse:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016...to-ransomware/

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:31:55 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 3/7/2016 9:16 AM, Swingman wrote:

Another good reason to run an adblocker (among other protective
measures) and not listen to the propaganda of the advertising industry.

When it comes to those websites who don't allow those with adblocker's
to visit, I say verily: **** You!

It's getting worse:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016...to-ransomware/

Things like that is why one should keep their disk image's updated.