Cutting Small Angles

[dusty]

My question is why out think the plan?
If the plan called for 2 degree angle and slat that was 3/4" wide at the top and 23/32" wide at the bottom why not make them and put it together?

If upon set up you find that blade cuts away some of the 3/4" top portion when the bottom is set at 23/32' then you know the angle is wrong.

I would make a test board exactly 3/4" wide then I would mark in the bottom
1/64" on each side and lay the board on the saw. Making sure the saw would not cut the 3/4 and would hit the mark I would lock the table and fence in place and start cutting.

If that does not float your boat.

I would get out a hand plane skew the blade a 1/64 or hold the plane slightly tilted and shave a thin strip off each side. I would think one or two passes on each side would be exactly what was needed. That way you don't have to mess with hold downs, setting the table tilt, worrying how to feed the wood without cutting a finger, having something slip and mess up pieces.

In fact using the plane method you would be finished by now!:D

Then I would say to myself why was I crazy enough to post this question on the SS forum where I would get a zillion ways to do it and a math debate going?

Ed, you can always ignore those parts of each and every post that you disagree with. Or, you can read and absorb what is written and who knows. You just might learn another way of doing things.

Your methods would work fine...for you, but for me, my boat floats best when I am tinkering.

BTW: Check post #38. The bottom dimension is not 25/32" as the plan states. If you take a 2° taper off both sides of a piece that is 3/4" across the top and is 3/4" tall, the bottom dimension is 45/64" as shown. A relatively simple math problem and almost as easy to prove by doing it. However, doing it is not as simple as it sounds. It doesn't take much of a miscue to screw up a 2° table tilt.

This little project turned out to be fun and informative... at least for me. If it was a total bore to everyone (or anyone) else...I am sorry.

[dusty]

Because doing the trig only takes about ten seconds?

It might have taken you ten seconds but I had to drag the book back out. Then it took about ten minutes.

[Ed in Tampa]

Ed, you can always ignore those parts of each and every post that you disagree with. Or, you can read and absorb what is written and who knows. You just might learn another way of doing things.

Your methods would work fine...for you, but for me, my boat floats best when I am tinkering.

BTW: Check post #38. The bottom dimension is not 25/32" as the plan states. If you take a 2° taper off both sides of a piece that is 3/4" across the top and is 3/4" tall, the bottom dimension is 45/64" as shown. A relatively simple math problem and almost as easy to prove by doing it. However, doing it is not as simple as it sounds. It doesn't take much of a miscue to screw up a 2° table tilt.

This little project turned out to be fun and informative... at least for me. If it was a total bore to everyone (or anyone) else...I am sorry.

Dusty
Don't take my post wrong I was enjoying this as much as the next guy. I just see a lot of humor in it.

The difference between 23/64 and 45/64 is 1/64" most wood swells and shrinks that much day to day. For sure my eyes would not probably be able to see it on a scale

Bear1050's question was how to do it not whether the math was correct or not. And most of us me included came up with complicated setups, some math'ed it out and proved the plans wrong. And still others built models and sketchup drawings of it.

Truth be told a paper thin shaving or two with a hand plane would bevel the wood close enough.

Although as you pointed out that is not nearly as much fun.

[dusty]

As stated in another post of mine within this thread, I cut a few pieces to verify my comments. While doing that, discovered that the pieces were not consistent. Why? This is such a simple task. They should all be identical.

Well, they weren't. More practice revealed that 1) the table tilt had changed and 2) they were not the correct width at all points along their length.

The table tilt changed and I did not maintain contact with the fence throughout the entire cut.

Easy fixes. First maintain control of the work piece. These are small pieces, use a feather board and a push block.

Table tilt fix is easy as well. All you have to do is prevent the table from moving after it is set. The pictures tell how I did that.

[ATTACH]24121[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]24122[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]24123[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]24124[/ATTACH]

Most of the time a slight movement of the table is not an issue. However, with a small angle like this, I found that it changed. I don't know that that caused a significant variation but leaving it to chance is not my manner.

With the bridge across the headstock on one side and the Adjustable Stop Collar on the other, it does not move once set.

This particular setup (bridge height) yields too much exposed blade for this task (about 2 1/2") but it makes the point. I will deal with that later.

[idcook]

As likely among the least skilled newbies to this forum I believe this particular thread has yielded several valuable lesson and thus a means to progress.


It looks to me like the final tally is in (more or less):

Your options are —

A - CUT IT!
a1- Cut it according to the instructions given in the original source;

a2- Cut it according to each of the options offered in this thread;

a3- Cut it according to what seems right to you;


B - CHECK IT!
b1- if and when any of the above yields an unacceptable result makes adjustments or move onto the next;


C - KEEP IT MOVING!
c1- If all of the above yield an unacceptable result alter the base design to suit the result you’re getting.

D - DO IT WRONG!

As we tend to entertain a rather exaggerated concept of what right is.

Accept that when we use the word 'perfection' we really don’t mean flawless so much as we mean better when compared to how imperfect it could be… BUT IT LOOKS NICE AND FUNCTIONS PROPERLY!

Like most of life.

So there’s really only one way to go here — Start choppin’ wood.

[JPG]

This thread is an example of what happens when too little information is provided at the beginning. I understand the reluctance to reveal too much of a copyrighted plan that was paid for(assumption), but if all had been revealed early this thread and it's branches would have been much shorter.

As usual these discussions do help us old fogeys keep the gray matter(which actually is pink) active.

Dusty where did you gert 10" radius from? Sketchup?

My consternation with this exercise is from the very first post. the geometry did not add up. The angles and dimensions were inconsistent. I do not know about 10 seconds, but likely longer to establish confidence since it was not adding up.

My next post will as Farmer suggested likely be a 5 hour lunch.(I would need help stretching in into 3 days:D). I will be digging into chord math using Dusty's 10" radius.

[dusty]

As likely among the least skilled newbies to this forum I believe this particular thread has yielded several valuable lesson and thus a means to progress.


It looks to me like the final tally is in (more or less):

Your options are —

A - CUT IT!
a1- Cut it according to the instructions given in the original source]CHECK IT![/B]
b1- if and when any of the above yields an unacceptable result makes adjustments or move onto the next;


C - KEEP IT MOVING!
c1- If all of the above yield an unacceptable result alter the base design to suit the result you’re getting.

D - DO IT WRONG!

As we tend to entertain a rather exaggerated concept of what right is.

Accept that when we use the word 'perfection' we really don’t mean flawless so much as we mean better when compared to how imperfect it could be… BUT IT LOOKS NICE AND FUNCTIONS PROPERLY!

Like most of life.

So there’s really only one way to go here — Start choppin’ wood.

I think you got it. That is about how it goes on every project. How badly it needs to be done dictates how many attempts to achieve your own personalized level of "perfection".

I love summer wood working projects. Picnic tables and benches typically have pretty loose standards.

[BuckeyeDennis]

This thread is an example of what happens when too little information is provided at the beginning. I understand the reluctance to reveal too much of a copyrighted plan that was paid for(assumption), but if all had been revealed early this thread and it's branches would have been much shorter.

As usual these discussions do help us old fogeys keep the gray matter(which actually is pink) active.

Dusty where did you gert 10" radius from? Sketchup?

My consternation with this exercise is from the very first post. the geometry did not add up. The angles and dimensions were inconsistent. I do not know about 10 seconds, but likely longer to establish confidence since it was not adding up.
My next post will as Farmer suggested likely be a 5 hour lunch.(I would need help stretching in into 3 days:D). I will be digging into chord math using Dusty's 10" radius.

Ah, but I had no need to recheck my calculations. I got the same answer you did!

[dusty]

This thread is an example of what happens when too little information is provided at the beginning. I understand the reluctance to reveal too much of a copyrighted plan that was paid for(assumption), but if all had been revealed early this thread and it's branches would have been much shorter.

As usual these discussions do help us old fogeys keep the gray matter(which actually is pink) active.

Dusty where did you gert 10" radius from? Sketchup?

My consternation with this exercise is from the very first post. the geometry did not add up. The angles and dimensions were inconsistent. I do not know about 10 seconds, but likely longer to establish confidence since it was not adding up.

My next post will as Farmer suggested likely be a 5 hour lunch.(I would need help stretching in into 3 days:D). I will be digging into chord math using Dusty's 10" radius.

I cheated. I could not make the math work. Actually it did but I didn't believe (trust) what I was getting.

If you have sketchup loaded, you have my file in your email.

[robinson46176]

As a quick tangent off of this thread (but related) I was looking at a lot of trunk / chest pictures on a Google image search. That is something I do a lot. Dusty likes to break things down and study the details (I like to poke him with a stick but greatly respect his researching). I like to go looking at pictures since each is worth a thousand words.
While looking it crossed my mind "why"... Why a curved or dome top? I understand the style of it but in the old days most things were done for a reason(s) many of which we have forgotten about. Then it hit me... You can't stack domed or curved top boxes very well... Many people would not have wanted their trunk down on the bottom row under more trunks stacked maybe 10 high down in some ship's hold. If they had several they would not have all been placed in the travelers tiny room. Upon leaving the ship the bottom trunks might have taken a long time to get to and so the travelers might have had a long wait to leave the docks. This was just educated speculation on my part but in a quick search I found several such references including this one:
"It is believed that round or curved tops were incorporated into trunk designs in order to prevent damage caused by stacking. However, wise baggage handlers quickly realized that round top trunks could be laid on their sides to allow other trunks to be placed upon them. As a result, the contents of round top trunks were more likely to be scrambled and displaced than the contents of flat top trunks."

I just thought it was interesting.


.