The Lee Valley/Veritas 24" steel straight edge is ground flat to within
0.001" over 24". Cost is $36.50. (Item # 05N62.01)

That seems like a steal (pardon the pun) when compared to the Starrett
at 54.00 (Item # S-380-24) with 0.002" per foot. The #385-24 is $104!
(I don't know the difference between it and the S-380-24.)
I thought Starrett was impossible to beat??????

Is my data correct?

On 10 Jan 2005 18:18:22 -0800, "Never Enough Money"
wrote:

The Lee Valley/Veritas 24" steel straight edge is ground flat to within
0.001" over 24". Cost is $36.50. (Item # 05N62.01)

That seems like a steal (pardon the pun) when compared to the Starrett
at 54.00 (Item # S-380-24) with 0.002" per foot. The #385-24 is $104!
(I don't know the difference between it and the S-380-24.)
I thought Starrett was impossible to beat??????

Is my data correct?

Probably. I'm not sure if Starrett has read the writing on the wall
or not, but they are going to lose market share if they don't become
more price competitive. I'll buy American if it makes sense to do so.
If it's a few percentage points more expensive for the same product,
I'll give them a nod. But when extremely comparable alternatives are
available at 1/2 the cost, it's hard for me to justify. It's a
competitive world - and it should be.

JP

Starrett doesn't give a rip about some hobbiest in his home workshop. That
is not the market that pays there bills. They are an industrial supplier.

"Jay Pique" wrote in message
...
Probably. I'm not sure if Starrett has read the writing on the wall
or not, but they are going to lose market share if they don't become
more price competitive. I'll buy American if it makes sense to do so.
If it's a few percentage points more expensive for the same product,
I'll give them a nod. But when extremely comparable alternatives are
available at 1/2 the cost, it's hard for me to justify. It's a
competitive world - and it should be.

JP

Mine is from Snap On tools at .0002 $85 for the 2 footer I would say
Starrett is out of line if the accuracy is .002.

In article .com, "Never Enough Money" wrote:
The Lee Valley/Veritas 24" steel straight edge is ground flat to within
0.001" over 24". Cost is $36.50. (Item # 05N62.01)

That seems like a steal (pardon the pun) when compared to the Starrett
at 54.00 (Item # S-380-24) with 0.002" per foot. The #385-24 is $104!
(I don't know the difference between it and the S-380-24.)
I thought Starrett was impossible to beat??????

Is my data correct?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Where did you get the figure for the Starrett? I couldn't
find an accuracy specification on Starrett's web site, and two thou per foot
sounds a bit sloppy for a Starrett IMHO. Are you sure that isn't 0.0002" per
foot?

Difference between the 380-24 and the 385-24, from Starrett's web site:
"The No. 380 Series are not beveled or graduated. The No. 385 Series are
beveled one edge, but not graduated. The No. 387 Series has one edge that is
both beveled and graduated in 32nds of an inch."


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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Never Enough Money" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Lee Valley/Veritas 24" steel straight edge is ground flat to within
0.001" over 24". Cost is $36.50. (Item # 05N62.01)

That seems like a steal (pardon the pun) when compared to the Starrett
at 54.00 (Item # S-380-24) with 0.002" per foot. The #385-24 is $104!
(I don't know the difference between it and the S-380-24.)
I thought Starrett was impossible to beat??????

Is my data correct?


Yep, good 'til the _first_ drop....

I got the accuracy data from Amazon.

In article . com, "Never Enough Money" wrote:
I got the accuracy data from Amazon.

I don't see it there... can you be more specific?

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

See product description on any of the Starrett stright edges. For
example:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...?v=glance&s=hi

In article . com, "Never Enough Money" wrote:
See product description on any of the Starrett stright edges. For
example:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...456983/sr=1-6/
ref=sr_1_6/102-0787086-8824912?v=glance&s=hi

Gotcha. And quoted directly from that page:
"Product Description Specifications: Edge straightness .0002" per foot."

That's point zero zero ZERO two. Two ten-thousandths per foot. Not two
thousandths. The short answer to your initial question "Is my data correct?"
is "No."

The long answer is that the $54 Starrett is within four ten-thousandths across
two feet, and the $37 Lee Valley is within ten ten-thousandths. Sounds to me
like the Starrett is the better deal, and by a long way: the LV tool is more
than two-thirds the price of the Starret, but only forty percent as accurate.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Thankyou. I completely missed a zero.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
The long answer is that the $54 Starrett is within four ten-thousandths
across
two feet, and the $37 Lee Valley is within ten ten-thousandths. Sounds to
me
like the Starrett is the better deal, and by a long way: the LV tool is
more
than two-thirds the price of the Starret, but only forty percent as
accurate.

Starret is the best deal as far as dollar per accuracy, but that begs the
question of "how accurate do you need?" Or, "How sharp is your crayon?"

Of course, the SnapOn stated accuracy is per 12in, where the Starrett
and the LeeValley is TOTAL error over the entire length, but 0.0002 is
pretty good even if only over a 12in run


John

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:23:26 -0600, "Knothead"
wrote:

Mine is from Snap On tools at .0002 $85 for the 2 footer I would say
Starrett is out of line if the accuracy is .002.

"CW" wrote in message
...


Starrett doesn't give a rip about some hobbiest in his home workshop. That
is not the market that pays there bills. They are an industrial supplier.

After looking at the latest Woodworking Supply catalog, inside cover, with
Starrett's new offerings, I'd respectfully offer they've changed their
minds...

Never Enough Money wrote:
See product description on any of the Starrett stright edges. For
example:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...?v=glance&s=hi


Ok. Somebody finally has proof of what it is. So everybody
shut up about 0.002" and use the right number!

The starrett is $108 for the 2' so the LV is 1/3 the price at 40% as
accurate. Looks like the
LV is the better deal (accuracies aside).

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article . com, "Never
Enough Money" wrote:
See product description on any of the Starrett stright edges. For
example:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...456983/sr=1-6/
ref=sr_1_6/102-0787086-8824912?v=glance&s=hi

Gotcha. And quoted directly from that page:
"Product Description Specifications: Edge straightness .0002" per foot."

That's point zero zero ZERO two. Two ten-thousandths per foot. Not two
thousandths. The short answer to your initial question "Is my data
correct?"
is "No."

The long answer is that the $54 Starrett is within four ten-thousandths
across
two feet, and the $37 Lee Valley is within ten ten-thousandths. Sounds to
me
like the Starrett is the better deal, and by a long way: the LV tool is
more
than two-thirds the price of the Starret, but only forty percent as
accurate.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

Gotcha. And quoted directly from that page:
"Product Description Specifications: Edge straightness .0002" per
foot."

Sheesh.

0.0002"=5 microns off straight over a foot
0.002"=50 microns off straight over a foot

For reference, a human hair is about 100 microns thick. Talk about
splitting hairs.

On 11 Jan 2005 08:43:19 -0800, "Never Enough Money"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Thankyou. I completely missed a zero.

No need to thank him. Think nothing of it!

Nate Perkins notes:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

Gotcha. And quoted directly from that page:
"Product Description Specifications: Edge straightness .0002" per
foot."

Sheesh.

0.0002"=5 microns off straight over a foot
0.002"=50 microns off straight over a foot

For reference, a human hair is about 100 microns thick. Talk about
splitting hairs.

And anyone who REALLY gets their tools set up to .002" is way past where they
need to be when working wood.

Results on the best days are going to be within 1/64" or so, with the very,
very, very occasional dip to 1/128". Unless you're making a damned small box,
moving it from bedroom to kitchen when the dishwasher is in use will make it
move nearly that much.

With my eyesight as it is now (fairly good except for excessive floaters), I
doubt I could see a difference between 0.0002" and 0.002" on my table saw table
even if the straight edge would show it. And if I could, I'd still leave it
alone.

Charlie Self
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above
that which is expected." George W. Bush

In article , "James \"Cubby\" Culbertson" wrote:
The starrett is $108 for the 2'

That's for the 385-24 (bevelled one side). The 380-24, as referenced in the
original post in this thread (not bevelled, like the LV) is ~ $54.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

And anyone who REALLY gets their tools set up to .002" is way past where they
need to be when working wood.

Results on the best days are going to be within 1/64" or so, with the very,
very, very occasional dip to 1/128". Unless you're making a damned small box,
moving it from bedroom to kitchen when the dishwasher is in use will make it
move nearly that much.

With my eyesight as it is now (fairly good except for excessive floaters), I
doubt I could see a difference between 0.0002" and 0.002" on my table saw table
even if the straight edge would show it. And if I could, I'd still leave it
alone.

All of which is correct, but misses the point of the thread. The original post
asked, in essence, why is the Starrett more expensive, yet less accurate, than
the Lee Valley; this was shown to be a misconception. Whether the 2.5x greater
accuracy of the Starrett is needed for woodworking is a different discussion.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Charlie, You are correct about wood: that 0.002 is way past where you
need to be. However, for machining steel parts, 0.0002" is really nice.

Also, seems to me that if your stratig ege reference has an error of up
x, then your jointer can be up to square root of (2 x squared), root
mean squared (RMS). If you join two pieces that also gets RMS'ed so the
error is potentially twice the eror in the original reference straigth
edge.

Still not very much, but just for completeness, we ought to make note
of this effect -- unless this analysis is wrong -- and it sure could
be.....

Yes Doug -- you hit the point of the discussion right on the head. I've
noticed that these threads take on a life of their own and usually
morph into completely different discussions. In this case, it has, at
least, stayed constructive.

"Never Enough Money" wrote in message
oups.com...
Charlie, You are correct about wood: that 0.002 is way past where you
need to be. However, for machining steel parts, 0.0002" is really nice.

Also, seems to me that if your stratig ege reference has an error of up
x, then your jointer can be up to square root of (2 x squared), root
mean squared (RMS). If you join two pieces that also gets RMS'ed so the
error is potentially twice the eror in the original reference straigth
edge.

Still not very much, but just for completeness, we ought to make note
of this effect -- unless this analysis is wrong -- and it sure could
be.....


It sure is an entertaining analysis. It has all the right components -
numbers, multipliers, square roots, abbreviations and a way to put all of
those together. Hell, it doesn't have to be accurate, it sure looks
impressive as a formula.
--

-Mike-

Charlie Self wrote:

Hi Charlie,

Especially when you consider that 200 years ago people were using wooden
planes, and big-slab wooden benches - which weren't leveled with a routah
and sled - to make furniture that is excellent by any standard.


And anyone who REALLY gets their tools set up to .002" is way past where
they need to be when working wood.

Results on the best days are going to be within 1/64" or so, with the
very, very, very occasional dip to 1/128". Unless you're making a damned
small box, moving it from bedroom to kitchen when the dishwasher is in use
will make it move nearly that much.

With my eyesight as it is now (fairly good except for excessive floaters),
I doubt I could see a difference between 0.0002" and 0.002" on my table
saw table even if the straight edge would show it. And if I could, I'd
still leave it alone.

Charlie Self
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise
above that which is expected." George W. Bush

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Charlie Self wrote:
Nate Perkins notes:


(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:


Gotcha. And quoted directly from that page:
"Product Description Specifications: Edge straightness .0002" per
foot."

Sheesh.

0.0002"=5 microns off straight over a foot
0.002"=50 microns off straight over a foot

For reference, a human hair is about 100 microns thick. Talk about
splitting hairs.


And anyone who REALLY gets their tools set up to .002" is way past where they
need to be when working wood.

Results on the best days are going to be within 1/64" or so, with the very,
very, very occasional dip to 1/128". Unless you're making a damned small box,
moving it from bedroom to kitchen when the dishwasher is in use will make it
move nearly that much.

With my eyesight as it is now (fairly good except for excessive floaters), I
doubt I could see a difference between 0.0002" and 0.002" on my table saw table
even if the straight edge would show it. And if I could, I'd still leave it
alone.

Charlie Self
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above
that which is expected." George W. Bush


First, a human hair isn't necessarily 100 microns. red
heads may be down to 60 microns, lots of black hair is 150
to 200 microns.

Second about 1/128" Hell, breathing on the wood will make
it move that much from just absorbing moisture. And working
out the math, if you are 1/128" short you are truly a "hair"
short or maybe "two hairs" short or more accurately you are
one black and curly short. Oh yuck!

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:WtdFd.140$aa6.59
@fe61.usenetserver.com:


"Never Enough Money" wrote in message
oups.com...
Charlie, You are correct about wood: that 0.002 is way past where you
need to be. However, for machining steel parts, 0.0002" is really nice.

Also, seems to me that if your stratig ege reference has an error of up
x, then your jointer can be up to square root of (2 x squared), root
mean squared (RMS). If you join two pieces that also gets RMS'ed so the
error is potentially twice the eror in the original reference straigth
edge.

Still not very much, but just for completeness, we ought to make note
of this effect -- unless this analysis is wrong -- and it sure could
be.....


It sure is an entertaining analysis. It has all the right components -
numbers, multipliers, square roots, abbreviations and a way to put all of
those together. Hell, it doesn't have to be accurate, it sure looks
impressive as a formula.

All it needs is an addendum calculating for 220/240/440V, wire gauge, and
whether we need three or four leads...

Patriarch,
who IS kidding...

They've always had a line of tools for the woodworker. There market has
always been professionals, mostly patternmakers and the like. Their main
market though, is the metalworking industry. Always has been.
"patrick conroy" wrote in message
news

"CW" wrote in message
...


Starrett doesn't give a rip about some hobbiest in his home workshop.
That
is not the market that pays there bills. They are an industrial
supplier.

After looking at the latest Woodworking Supply catalog, inside cover, with
Starrett's new offerings, I'd respectfully offer they've changed their
minds...

Why bother with straight? Play with it. Straight lines are boring. Use an
angle grinder with a carving blade in it and go for it.

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Charlie Self wrote:

Hi Charlie,

Especially when you consider that 200 years ago people were using wooden
planes, and big-slab wooden benches - which weren't leveled with a routah
and sled - to make furniture that is excellent by any standard.


And anyone who REALLY gets their tools set up to .002" is way past where
they need to be when working wood.

Results on the best days are going to be within 1/64" or so, with the
very, very, very occasional dip to 1/128". Unless you're making a damned
small box, moving it from bedroom to kitchen when the dishwasher is in
use
will make it move nearly that much.

With my eyesight as it is now (fairly good except for excessive
floaters),
I doubt I could see a difference between 0.0002" and 0.002" on my table
saw table even if the straight edge would show it. And if I could, I'd
still leave it alone.

Charlie Self
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise
above that which is expected." George W. Bush

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
:

Nate Perkins notes:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

Gotcha. And quoted directly from that page:
"Product Description Specifications: Edge straightness .0002" per
foot."

Sheesh.

0.0002"=5 microns off straight over a foot
0.002"=50 microns off straight over a foot

For reference, a human hair is about 100 microns thick. Talk about
splitting hairs.

And anyone who REALLY gets their tools set up to .002" is way past
where they need to be when working wood.

Yeah, my point exactly. Most people have no concept how small 0.0002"
really is. You can't see 0.0002" with your eye. You can't reliably see it
with the best optical microscopes. It's so small that any amount of
routine handling will throw it out of tolerance.

So why pay extra for 0.0002" tolerance in Starrett vs 0.002" tolerance from
Lee Valley? Beats me.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:09:13 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Second about 1/128" Hell, breathing on the wood will make
it move that much from just absorbing moisture. And working
out the math, if you are 1/128" short you are truly a "hair"
short or maybe "two hairs" short or more accurately you are
one black and curly short. Oh yuck!

What's yuck about black and curly man? My wife has black curly hair on
her head. Seems OK to me G

"CW" wrote in message
...

They've always had a line of tools for the woodworker. There market has
always been professionals, mostly patternmakers and the like. Their main
market though, is the metalworking industry. Always has been.

Good to know.
Just speculating *as you are* as to their current marketing strategy.
[Unless you work in their marketing department.]

I'm speculating they too sense a "disturbance in the force" and are looking
to grab some bucks from an expanding segment.

Old Nick wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:09:13 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Second about 1/128" Hell, breathing on the wood will make
it move that much from just absorbing moisture. And working
out the math, if you are 1/128" short you are truly a "hair"
short or maybe "two hairs" short or more accurately you are
one black and curly short. Oh yuck!


What's yuck about black and curly man? My wife has black curly hair on
her head. Seems OK to me G

I thought someone would descend to a lower level. ;-)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:47:30 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:

Old Nick wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:09:13 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Second about 1/128" Hell, breathing on the wood will make
it move that much from just absorbing moisture. And working
out the math, if you are 1/128" short you are truly a "hair"
short or maybe "two hairs" short or more accurately you are
one black and curly short. Oh yuck!


What's yuck about black and curly man? My wife has black curly hair on
her head. Seems OK to me G

I thought someone would descend to a lower level. ;-)

Now, now, trolls' accusations not withstanding, this is a civilized group
populated by gentleman (and proper ladies). [besides, that would have been
waaaay too easy :-) ]



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:47:30 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

What's yuck about black and curly man? My wife has black curly hair on
her head. Seems OK to me G

I thought someone would descend to a lower level. ;-)

Aaah! That stuff between my toes.......

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:47:30 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Damn!

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
Yeah, my point exactly. Most people have no concept how small 0.0002"
really is.

True


You can't see 0.0002" with your eye.

Yes, you can, easily.

You can't reliably see it
with the best optical microscopes. It's so small that any amount of
routine handling will throw it out of tolerance.

Depends upon your routine.

So why pay extra for 0.0002" tolerance in Starrett vs 0.002" tolerance
from
Lee Valley? Beats me.

Depends on the intended purpose.

"patrick conroy" wrote in message
...

Good to know.
Just speculating *as you are* as to their current marketing strategy.
[Unless you work in their marketing department.]

Comes from a long time dealing with the company and working with a couple of
their toolmakers.

I'm speculating they too sense a "disturbance in the force" and are
looking
to grab some bucks from an expanding segment.

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:23:42 -0800, CW wrote:

You can't see 0.0002" with your eye.

Yes, you can, easily.

[This keeps coming out sounding argumentative, and it's not meant to be]

Can you tell 0.0002 from 0.0003 by eye "easily?"

No, but that was never the issuse.


When you say "easily," do
you mean bright light shows 'twixt straightedge and work? In astronomy we
deal with arcseconds; there are limits to what the eye can see.

References to astronomy don't make you look good. For various reasons, I
have learned to dismiss the astronomy types.

Older eyes
have more trouble. Can old farts here see 0.0002 easily?

I can. YOu would have to live with my eyes for a day to appreciate that.

Is that amount
small enough that temperature (coefficient of thermal expansion) matters?

For a guy in his woodshop, no.

"CW" wrote in
:


"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:23:42 -0800, CW wrote:

You can't see 0.0002" with your eye.

Yes, you can, easily.

[This keeps coming out sounding argumentative, and it's not meant to
be]

Can you tell 0.0002 from 0.0003 by eye "easily?"

No, but that was never the issuse.


When you say "easily," do
you mean bright light shows 'twixt straightedge and work? In
astronomy we deal with arcseconds; there are limits to what the eye
can see.

References to astronomy don't make you look good. For various reasons,
I have learned to dismiss the astronomy types.

Really? What types don't you dismiss?

Older eyes
have more trouble. Can old farts here see 0.0002 easily?

I can. YOu would have to live with my eyes for a day to appreciate
that.

Is that amount
small enough that temperature (coefficient of thermal expansion)
matters?

For a guy in his woodshop, no.

Sure it does. Look up the CTE of a good stainless steel. Assuming a
2ft bar, the linear CTE is about 3x the tolerance for every degree F.

Now try the same with the elastic modulus. :-P

You want to pay extra money for a 5um tolerance, go for it. I'll save
my money and buy something useful.