"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This all comes down to a matter of where one is measuring the angle from.
> Where would the man set his miter saw? 36 dregrees (I almost wrote %%D).
LOL.... I would like to see the 54 degree setting on the saw... I think
what the OP was really wanting to know was what to set the saw at.
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:15:17 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>>and yes
>>"All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
>>single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
>>180 degrees"
>>as Quoted from CJ
>>
>The only trouble with that quote is, it's false.
>
>The sum of the exterior angles of any closed polygon of n sides is
>(n - 2) * 180 degrees.
That is also false.
I'm tired of this, so here's the proof:
For any closed polygon, pick any point in the interior. Draw lines
from there to all vertices of the polygon. If you have n sides, you
now have n triangles. Add all angles, and you have n*180, the sum in
all of the triangles (**). However, that includes all of the angles
at the interior point. They add to 360, so subtract that [360 =
2*180] So you sind up with the angles at the vertices, the
"interior" angles, adding to (n-2)*180.
Draw lines to continue each side in the same direction each time to
look like one of those wheeled firecrackers. The small angles so
obtained are what are referred to as the "exterior" angles of a
polygon. Now, all of the outside anlges add to each inside angle to
produce n lines, or n*180.
So, the exterior angle sum is found by subtracting: (n-2)*180 - n*180
= 2* 180 = 360.
If the polygon is "regular', all sides are the same length and all
interior angles are the same measure. So divide by the number of sides
= number of angles to get the size of each one.
(**) Proof for the triangle, the basis for all of this, depends on the
fact that angles on paralallel lines crossed by a line are the same.
It is the start, not the end. The others are built from triangles.
Period.
Dan.
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:CcBgc.49418$aD.40272@edtnps89...
> Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
> guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
> some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
you
> come up with 108 degrees??
> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
3.33333333333333333
> sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell
you
> the patent to widgets ok
>
> CHRIS
>
>
> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > 5 sided planter, each corner 108 deg therefore 108 * 5 = 540 deg in a
> circle
> > >
> > > I know US and UK gallons are different, didn't realise that degrees
were
> as
> > > well....
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> >
> > The sum of the interior angles of a polygon is (n-2)*180 degrees,
> > where n is the number of sides. Note that this has nothing to do
> > with the _central_ angle of a circle.
> >
> > In the case of a pentagon, the sum of the interior angles is:
> >
> > A = (5-2)*180 = 540 degrees
> >
> > So each of the five interior angles of a regular (all sides
> > the same length) pentagon is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
> >
> > Equal-angle mitres should be half of this, or 54 degrees.
> >
> >
>
>
Chris,
I suggest you open a drawing package and draw it out as you don't seem to be
able to follow the maths. This isn't a matter of opinion; facts is facts.
Bernard R
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:56:34 -0700, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>This has been fun. I cut using the 36 degree setting on the saw and it
>turned out perfect,but as someone stated a couple of posts back, it's gonna
>be ugly alright. No, I won't quit my " Day Job ".
>
>Thanks again for a very entertaining thread.
For some real entertainment, come on back when ya need a bootleg
"Best of Fine Woodworking" CD.
It's like 54 vs. 36, but with _ethics._
Michael
In article <[email protected]>, CW
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This is getting comical.
This is the funniest goddam thread I've read on the wreck in a very,
very long time!
You guys crack me up!
Here... I'll help everyone out with the following link:
<http://www.betterwoodworking.com/compound_miter.htm>
Now you can all argue over how wrong their chart is, or what the
complementary angle is... Oh, wait... Nevermind.
LOL!
--
"We have been looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the billing record from the Rose Law firm.
-And they were in the same building with her." - <http://wizbangblog.com/>
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:CcBgc.49418$aD.40272@edtnps89...
> Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
> guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
> some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do you
> come up with 108 degrees??
Something (maybe) your speed:
http://www.coolmath.com/interior.htm
> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a 3.33333333333333333
> sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell you
> the patent to widgets ok
You might want to be a little less cocky when you're
(obviously) working so far from your area of expertise.
"Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
> guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
> some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
you
> come up with 108 degrees??
> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly
It doesn't have to ... what the man wants for his planter box is a "regular
polygon" or "convex polygon" ... i.e, the sides and angles are equal.
As you seem to think, a regular polygon does NOT necessarily have the sum of
the interior angles = 360 degrees.
An equilateral triangle is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior
angles = 180 degrees
A square is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior angles = 360
digress
A pentagon is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior angles = 540
degrees.
Folks are obviously better educated in the UK these days.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
I've never seen so much bickering and misinformation in my life
as there is in this thread.
Even Doug who is usually right on target is off a bit on this one.
Doug's formula is for the sum of the INTERIOR angles.
The sum of the EXTERIOR angles = 360° for any regular
polygon of ANY number of sides. Including triangles and squares.
The EXTERIOR angle of said polygon is 360° / n
The INTERIOR angle is = 180° - (360° / n)
Art
"Doug Miller" wrote in message...
>
> The sum of the exterior angles of any closed polygon of n sides is
> (n - 2) * 180 degrees.
>
> 180 for a triangle
> 360 for a square
> 540 for a pentagon
> 720 for a hexagon
> and so on.
>
<snip>
> Miter gauge settings measure the difference from 90 degrees (e.g. to make a
> cut at a right angle, you set the gauge at 90 - 90 = 0 degrees). So to make
> the proper 54-degree cuts for a mitered joint at the corner of a regular
> pentagon, you set your miter gauge to 90 - 54 = 36 degrees -- but this cuts a
> 54-degree angle, *not* a 36-degree angle. Don't believe me? Make the cut. Then
> get a protractor and measure the actual angle.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to which
the
> 2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to make the
> cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
> geometry would know instinctively.
Yeah but..... ;~) He indicated the use of a compound miter saw. I took
that to indicate that he wanted to know what to set that saw at. Had he
indicated a Skil saw or jig saw, the 54 degree angle would have been
correct.
> Granted, a fair difference in interpretation .... and if you just want to
> get the job done and not understand "why" you need to set the saw
> differently, then all you need to know is 36 degrees.
Yes exactly.
>
> However, unless you have a grasp of the geometry involved, you may never
> figure out the angles on the next project ... which is obviously WHY the
> question was asked in the FIRST damn place.
Well for those more challenged with the geometry rules... ;~) I always go
for the saw setting angle.
If you want a square or rectangle, add up the amount of cuts necessary. 8,
2 on each end of each of the 4 boards. Divide 8 into 360, you get 45
degrees for the saw setting.
For a 6 sided project, 12 cuts divided into 360 gives you a saw setting of
30 degrees. The resulting angle would be 60 degrees on the end of each
board.
In rec.woodworking
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I am
>not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
>would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
I can picture a lot of 5 sided planters but probably wouldn't make any with
2x4s. Are you talking about a pentagon with sides perpendicular to the
ground? If so, the angles would be 54 degrees each to make 108 degree
corners.
In rec.woodworking
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
>guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
>some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do you
>come up with 108 degrees??
> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
>3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a 3.33333333333333333
>sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell you
>the patent to widgets ok
The one lacking common sense is you Chris. You use 45 to get 90 degree
corners in a square. A pentagon has obtuse angles bonehead. Let's bet
before you go look at a.b.p.w to see the AutoCAD drawing I posted.
In rec.woodworking
"Bernard Randall" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Chris,
>
>I suggest you open a drawing package and draw it out as you don't seem to be
>able to follow the maths. This isn't a matter of opinion; facts is facts.
Bernard R
You are of course right. I've posted a pic on a.b.p.ww to prove it.
In rec.woodworking
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Folks are obviously better educated in the UK these days.
Ummm, it was my post that started this and I'm in the great state of Texas,
USA.
In rec.woodworking
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bruce I looked at your drawing Do you not see your mistake ???????
There is no mistake in the drawing Chris.
>Even your drawing shows 54 Degrees. Seeing that you cut your MITER off a
>fence or table saw that is set to 90 degrees from your blade being set at 0
>Degrees. DO YOU NOT GET 36 FROM SUBTRACTING 54 FROM 90 ?????????? Is that
>not what you would have to set your saw to ????? 36 degrees is your miter
>try actually building something for once.
Yes, if that is the question, then you have to set your saw at 36 degrees
to achieve the required 54 degree angle.
> You are why CAD programs get such a bad name. CAD programs do give the
>right information it is how one is able to interpret the information give to
>be able to put it into practice.
I didn't know CAD programs had a bad name? If someone interprets that
drawing WRONG and sets the saw to 54, that isn't my fault.
Chris,
Have you family ties with B.A.D.? Or just blood brothers?
--
Think thrice, measure twice and cut once.
Sanding is like paying taxes ... everyone has to do it, but it is
important to take steps to minimize it.
There is only one period and no underscores in the real email address.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <R2Fgc.50508$aD.5563@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You are the one who has interpreted the information wrong by reading it
>>as 54 when in order to make that cut it is in reality 36 what you would have
>>to set your saw to.
>
>To cut a 54-degree angle you set the saw to 36 degrees, for the same reason
>that to cut a 90-degree angle you set it to zero.
BINGO!! Swish! Nothin but net Doug. LOL!
In rec.woodworking
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"CW" wrote in message
>> This is getting comical.
>
>The guy wants to make a pentagonal planter box for his wife, right?
>
>He probably has yet to realize that his wife will eventually want him to
>slop the sides outwards ... now we're talking _compound_ miter cuts.
>
> ... then the real comedy begins.
Yeah, I thought about that when I originally posted. A straight pentagon
planter is downright ugly.
In rec.woodworking
Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
>I sit totally stunned that so many people could work so hard at
>misunderstanding each other.
Jeez Paul, how long have you lived? Isn't that what entire countries have
done since man has been walking upright?
If you would like the real formula for a MITER it is as follows
A=(360/x)/2
where "a" is the MITER "x" is the number of sides
For interior or exterior angles it would be
A=(360/x)
where "A" is the interior or exterior angle.
CHRIS
"Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 5 sided planter, each corner 108 deg therefore 108 * 5 = 540 deg in a
circle
> >
> > I know US and UK gallons are different, didn't realise that degrees were
as
> > well....
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> The sum of the interior angles of a polygon is (n-2)*180 degrees,
> where n is the number of sides. Note that this has nothing to do
> with the _central_ angle of a circle.
>
> In the case of a pentagon, the sum of the interior angles is:
>
> A = (5-2)*180 = 540 degrees
>
> So each of the five interior angles of a regular (all sides
> the same length) pentagon is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
>
> Equal-angle mitres should be half of this, or 54 degrees.
>
>
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:17:38 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>>> All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
>>> single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
>>> 180 degrees. This is an absolute fact.
>
>No, it's an absolute falsehood. The sum of the exterior angles of any closed
>polygon of n sides is (n - 2) * 180 degrees. It's 360 *only* for four-sided
>figures, where (4 - 2) * 180 = 2 * 180 = 360.
You mean the sum of the "interior" angles is (n-2)*180. Otherwise OK.
The exterior always all add to 360.
Dan.
You guys are making this way too complicated. I'd love to get this
group together to play 'telephone'.
Some careless use of terminology has muddied the picture here. The
idea of 'interior' and 'exterior' angles is just confusing. There is
only one angle one needs to be concerned with, and that is the (bevel
angle) between the center of a regular polygon and any vertex.
The answer to the original question should be obvious by drawing a
circumscribed circle about the polygon. Then draw 'spokes' from the
center to each vertex. You will have created a bunch of triangles as
well as circle segments. As we know from fifth grade math class, the
sum of the angles of all circle segments always adds up to 360
degrees. This is the only thing that always adds up to 360 degrees.
The sum of the perimeter angles between the polygon segments does not
add up to 360 degrees except for 4-sided polygons.
So, with your little sketch, note that the angle between the vertexes
and the center of a pentagon is 72 degrees, which also happens to be
360/5. Since your segment includes two such bevel angles, each is 36
degrees. This is the bevel angle. Period. End of story.
Imagine what would have happened if the original poster had wanted to
build a gazebo...
Nice to see everybody staying on topic, though...
John
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:05:47 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>If I was wrong then I'd apologise, as I'm not, then I won't.
>>
>>The OP asked "What degree would I need to cut the 2x4's"
>>
>>He would need to set his compound miter saw to 36 degrees...
>
>Which causes the saw to cut at an angle of (90 - 36) = 54 degrees.
>
>Think about it: what do you set your miter gauge at to make a cut at 90
>degrees? Unless you have a really unusual miter gauge, you'll set it at zero.
>
>I think the confusion arises from careless use of terminology.
>
>For *any* closed polygon of n sides, the sum of the exterior angles is
> (n - 2) * 180
>and the measurement at each angle of a regular polygon is
> (n - 2) * 180 / n.
>To cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular polygon of n sides, the
>angles at each end of each piece are
> (n - 2) * 180 / (2n).
>
>However, to cut a board at the angle p, one must set the miter gauge to
> (90 - p)
>because miter gauges measure angle from a line *perpendicular* to the edge of
>the board being cut. For example, to cut a board square (90 degrees), you set
>the miter gauge at zero.
>
>So....
>
>To cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular polygon of n sides, the
>_miter_gauge_ setting is
> (90 - p)
>where p is (n - 2) * 180 / (2n), or
> 90 - [(n - 2) * 180 / (2n)]
>simplifying...
> = 90 - [(180n - 360) / (2n)]
> = 90 - [(180n / 2n) - (360 / 2n)]
> = 90 - [90 - 180/n]
> = 180/n
>
>Thus, to cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular pentagon (n = 5), the
>_miter_gauge_ setting is 180/5 = 36 degrees. Which produces a 54-degree angle.
John Paquay
[email protected]
"Building Your Own Kitchen Cabinets"
http://home.insightbb.com/~jpaquay/shop.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
With Glory and Passion No Longer in Fashion
The Hero Breaks His Blade. -- Kansas, The Pinnacle, 1975
------------------------------------------------------------------
Please go and BUILD a pentagone to see that your MITER has to be 36
degreesand figure out what I mean. You have no clue what you are talking
about. You are the one who is "(obviously) working so far from your area of
expertise."
CHRIS
"Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:CcBgc.49418$aD.40272@edtnps89...
> > Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I
will
> > guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square.
Use
> > some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
you
> > come up with 108 degrees??
>
> Something (maybe) your speed:
>
> http://www.coolmath.com/interior.htm
>
>
> > 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> > 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
3.33333333333333333
> > sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell
you
> > the patent to widgets ok
>
> You might want to be a little less cocky when you're
> (obviously) working so far from your area of expertise.
>
>
In article <vMDgc.49783$aD.16476@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Did you even read the OP.????
>
>and yes
>"All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
>single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
>180 degrees"
>as Quoted from CJ
>
The only trouble with that quote is, it's false.
The sum of the exterior angles of any closed polygon of n sides is
(n - 2) * 180 degrees.
180 for a triangle
360 for a square
540 for a pentagon
720 for a hexagon
and so on.
>So will you make the bet ? And try making a pentagon setting your saw to 54
>degrees or will you apologise and accept that the answer is 36 degrees.
Miter gauge settings measure the difference from 90 degrees (e.g. to make a
cut at a right angle, you set the gauge at 90 - 90 = 0 degrees). So to make
the proper 54-degree cuts for a mitered joint at the corner of a regular
pentagon, you set your miter gauge to 90 - 54 = 36 degrees -- but this cuts a
54-degree angle, *not* a 36-degree angle. Don't believe me? Make the cut. Then
get a protractor and measure the actual angle.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
"gandalf" wrote in message
> Well Bob I reckon that after reading the responses here you are likely to
bin
> woodworking and take up stamp collecting.
LOL ..
> Your simple question (the answer to which is 36 degrees) has caused more
grief
> than a troll fest.
>
> Don't give up, they're generally very helpful here. This thread however
beggars
> belief.
Actually, it may set a new record in the current day and age: Thus far each
and every post in the thread has been ON topic, the thread has fewer, by
about 500, posts in it than any with the word BUSH in the subject, and the
Next key is still equally available for anyone who feels to the contrary.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
18°
Bob S.
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
am
> not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
>
> Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
>
>
In article <seEgc.50010$aD.286@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Please read the "OP" and then go and build one
>I am getting sick and tired of people without the concept of actually
>building something trying to tell me how it is done. You do END up with a 54
>Degree angle but do not set your saw for a 54 degree MITER cut. Please learn
>the difference between the two.
Thank you, that is exactly what I have been saying. (Did you read my post
before you replied?) As my post makes abundantly clear, I know the difference
perfectly well. It is now clear that you do also, although your sloppy use of
terminology in previous posts made it appear that you did not.
Now just add up those 54-degree angles -- one at each end of each of five
pieces, making ten in all -- and get 540 degrees as the sum of the exterior
angles in a pentagon, and we'll both be on the same page.
:-)
>
>CHRIS
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <vMDgc.49783$aD.16476@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Did you even read the OP.????
>> >
>> >and yes
>> >"All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
>> >single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
>> >180 degrees"
>> >as Quoted from CJ
>> >
>> The only trouble with that quote is, it's false.
>>
>> The sum of the exterior angles of any closed polygon of n sides is
>> (n - 2) * 180 degrees.
>>
>> 180 for a triangle
>> 360 for a square
>> 540 for a pentagon
>> 720 for a hexagon
>> and so on.
>>
>> >So will you make the bet ? And try making a pentagon setting your saw to
>54
>> >degrees or will you apologise and accept that the answer is 36 degrees.
>>
>> Miter gauge settings measure the difference from 90 degrees (e.g. to make
>a
>> cut at a right angle, you set the gauge at 90 - 90 = 0 degrees). So to
>make
>> the proper 54-degree cuts for a mitered joint at the corner of a regular
>> pentagon, you set your miter gauge to 90 - 54 = 36 degrees -- but this
>cuts a
>> 54-degree angle, *not* a 36-degree angle. Don't believe me? Make the cut.
>Then
>> get a protractor and measure the actual angle.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
>> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>>
>>
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do you
come up with 108 degrees??
108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a 3.33333333333333333
sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell you
the patent to widgets ok
CHRIS
"Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 5 sided planter, each corner 108 deg therefore 108 * 5 = 540 deg in a
circle
> >
> > I know US and UK gallons are different, didn't realise that degrees were
as
> > well....
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> The sum of the interior angles of a polygon is (n-2)*180 degrees,
> where n is the number of sides. Note that this has nothing to do
> with the _central_ angle of a circle.
>
> In the case of a pentagon, the sum of the interior angles is:
>
> A = (5-2)*180 = 540 degrees
>
> So each of the five interior angles of a regular (all sides
> the same length) pentagon is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
>
> Equal-angle mitres should be half of this, or 54 degrees.
>
>
In article <3SEgc.23180$ru4.21289@attbi_s52>, "Wood Butcher" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've never seen so much bickering and misinformation in my life
>as there is in this thread.
>
>Even Doug who is usually right on target is off a bit on this one.
>Doug's formula is for the sum of the INTERIOR angles.
Right you are. 'Scuse me while I hunt around for a shop rag to wipe some of
that egg offa my face. :-)
>
>The sum of the EXTERIOR angles = 360° for any regular
>polygon of ANY number of sides. Including triangles and squares.
>The EXTERIOR angle of said polygon is 360° / n
>The INTERIOR angle is = 180° - (360° / n)
>
>Art
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message...
>>
>> The sum of the exterior angles of any closed polygon of n sides is
>> (n - 2) * 180 degrees.
>>
>> 180 for a triangle
>> 360 for a square
>> 540 for a pentagon
>> 720 for a hexagon
>> and so on.
>>
><snip>
>> Miter gauge settings measure the difference from 90 degrees (e.g. to make a
>> cut at a right angle, you set the gauge at 90 - 90 = 0 degrees). So to make
>> the proper 54-degree cuts for a mitered joint at the corner of a regular
>> pentagon, you set your miter gauge to 90 - 54 = 36 degrees -- but this cuts a
>> 54-degree angle, *not* a 36-degree angle. Don't believe me? Make the cut.
> Then
>> get a protractor and measure the actual angle.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
>> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>>
>>
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
This has been fun. I cut using the 36 degree setting on the saw and it
turned out perfect,but as someone stated a couple of posts back, it's gonna
be ugly alright. No, I won't quit my " Day Job ".
Thanks again for a very entertaining thread.
Bob
|
| > Well Bob I reckon that after reading the responses here you are likely
to
| bin
| > woodworking and take up stamp collecting.
|
| LOL ..
|
Well it s been fun how many different ways can you say Potatoes. I guess
this is why these forums exist . It was nice NOT to see all kinds of name
calling and just a good exchange of different points of view for once.
CHRIS
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pmkierst-14F48C.01253719042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>
> > In rec.woodworking
> > Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >I sit totally stunned that so many people could work so hard at
> > >misunderstanding each other.
> >
> > Jeez Paul, how long have you lived? Isn't that what entire countries
have
> > done since man has been walking upright?
>
> Good point. I had hoped for better for people who aren't
> scum^H^H^H^Hpoliticians but I always do seem to be overly optimistic.
"John Paquay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You guys are making this way too complicated. I'd love to get this
> group together to play 'telephone'.
>
> Some careless use of terminology has muddied the picture here. The
> idea of 'interior' and 'exterior' angles is just confusing. There is
> only one angle one needs to be concerned with, and that is the (bevel
> angle) between the center of a regular polygon and any vertex.
>
> The answer to the original question should be obvious by drawing a
> circumscribed circle about the polygon. Then draw 'spokes' from the
> center to each vertex. You will have created a bunch of triangles as
> well as circle segments. As we know from fifth grade math class, the
> sum of the angles of all circle segments always adds up to 360
> degrees. This is the only thing that always adds up to 360 degrees.
> The sum of the perimeter angles between the polygon segments does not
> add up to 360 degrees except for 4-sided polygons.
>
> So, with your little sketch, note that the angle between the vertexes
> and the center of a pentagon is 72 degrees, which also happens to be
> 360/5. Since your segment includes two such bevel angles, each is 36
> degrees. This is the bevel angle. Period. End of story.
Yet the story continues.... ;-)
You've now got five isosceles triangles (two equal length sides).
The angle at the apex is 72 degrees as you noted. Since the sum
of the angles of any triangle must be 180 degrees, this leaves
180 - 72 = 108 degrees for the other two angles of each triangle.
Since the other two angles are equal, they must each be
108/2 = 54 degrees. This is the angle between an outside face
and the mitre cut's face.
To cut this 54 degree angle on a mitre saw, set the saw to
90 - 54 = 36 degrees, since the saw's scale has 0 degrees
as a right angle, and measures deflection from the
perpendicular.
This all comes down to a matter of where one is measuring the angle from.
Where would the man set his miter saw? 36 dregrees (I almost wrote %%D).
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, that is correct.
>
>
> "Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In rec.woodworking
> > "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >360 deg / 5 = 72 deg
> > >
> > >Divide in 2 for each side of planter 72 deg /2 = 36 deg at each end of
> > >2x4's.
> >
> > WRONG!
> >
> > And I'll accept your apology anytime you're ready.
>
>
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7bDgc.49509$aD.7112@edtnps89...
> Please go and BUILD a pentagone to see that your MITER has to be 36
> degreesand figure out what I mean. You have no clue what you are talking
> about. You are the one who is "(obviously) working so far from your area of
> expertise."
Tell us again how the sum of the interior angles of
a polygon must be 360 degrees. I get a kick out of
it.
The sum of the interior angles of a pentagon is 540
degrees. Each interior angle is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
half of that is 54 degrees.
If your measuring instrument is providing the right-angle
compliment, then you want to cut at 90-54 = 36 degrees.
Note that this is not the usual meaning of "complimentary
angle" in geometry, where it refers to the 180 degree
compliment:
\
\
\
180-A \ A
-------------\----------------
A \ 180-A
\
\
\
Many mitre saws will provide a scale showing the angle
from 90 degrees (0 is a right angle cut) and the right-
angle compliment (90 degrees is a right angle cut).
In this case, you want 54 degree cuts on the legs of
the pentagon so that 108 degree interior angles will
be formed. And yes, 108 does not divide evenly into
360 degrees, and there's no reason why it should.
Figuring out how to use your mitre saw's dial is not
the crux of the problem. It's knowing what interior
angle you need in order to form a given regular polygon.
Quick, what's the required mitre cut for a nonagon?
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The real fun comes when he cuts those angles and finds out what
"incremental
> error" is all about. :)
Not gonna happen.... ;~) Way too much detailed advice given that would
prevent such a thang.
"Danny Boy" wrote in message
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:58:45 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> >"Danny Boy" wrote in message
> >
> >> By the way, has anyone here made those cuts, or made the item in
> >> question? It's not too difficult to do with a few scraps.
>
> >On the tree planter, I used a protractor to lay out the angles, and a
> >circular saw to cut them. IIRC, 67.5 degrees was the magic number ... and
it
> >was close enough, as the parts fit good enough for the job
>
> It's bang on, in fact.
>
> An octagon can take another turn if you draw a square within a square
> at 45. Then it's easy to see the inside angle of the octagon as 135.
> So two cuts would each be 67.5 as you say.
>
> Using the formula:
>
> Each inside angle is (8-2)*180 / 8 = 3/4 of 180 = 135 ...etc.
You're preaching to the choir! ;>)
That's the setting on the miter guage.
The angle on the side of the board is 70°.
Art
"Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Quick, what's the required mitre cut for a nonagon?
>
> 20
>
>
"Danny Boy" wrote in message
> By the way, has anyone here made those cuts, or made the item in
> question? It's not too difficult to do with a few scraps.
In a manner of speaking .. I once made an octagonal border around a tree
using landscape timbers, and I made an octagonal poker table in college ...
and I'm a mistake prone MF (muddled fellow) when it comes to cutting angles.
On the tree planter, I used a protractor to lay out the angles, and a
circular saw to cut them. IIRC, 67.5 degrees was the magic number ... and it
was close enough, as the parts fit good enough for the job
Had I used the protractor to cut the equivalent to the much discussed 36
degree angle in the landscape timbers (22.5 degrees), I would still be
cutting ... which is one of the reasons I _enjoyed_ the discussion so much.
:)
On the other hand, had I been cutting out the same shape out in a sheet of
plywood for that poker table, I would have used the much discussed 36 degree
angle equivalent, or 22.5 degrees, to knock off the edges and give it that
poker table cachet.
IOW, it certainly won't hurt any woodworker to know, and thoroughly
understand, the difference, and think carefully about a particular tool's
angular reference point before starting a cut ... even if you have to beat a
whole damn herd of horses to death to make the point.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"CW" wrote in message
> >> This is getting comical.
> >
> >The guy wants to make a pentagonal planter box for his wife, right?
> >
> >He probably has yet to realize that his wife will eventually want him to
> >slop the sides outwards ... now we're talking _compound_ miter cuts.
> >
> > ... then the real comedy begins.
>
> Yeah, I thought about that when I originally posted. A straight pentagon
> planter is downright ugly.
Easy. You just cut the bottom at a different angle. Right? ;)
Let's see, it would be 54 - 36 x 360 / 540.
That is when you let the computer miter program earn its spot. ;~)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "CW" wrote in message
> > This is getting comical.
>
> The guy wants to make a pentagonal planter box for his wife, right?
>
> He probably has yet to realize that his wife will eventually want him to
> slop the sides outwards ... now we're talking _compound_ miter cuts.
>
> ... then the real comedy begins.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/13/04
>
>
Read the OP
And then try and build one using 54 I would like to see what yo end up with
CHRIS
"Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7bDgc.49509$aD.7112@edtnps89...
> > Please go and BUILD a pentagone to see that your MITER has to be 36
> > degreesand figure out what I mean. You have no clue what you are talking
> > about. You are the one who is "(obviously) working so far from your
area of
> > expertise."
>
> Tell us again how the sum of the interior angles of
> a polygon must be 360 degrees. I get a kick out of
> it.
>
> The sum of the interior angles of a pentagon is 540
> degrees. Each interior angle is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
> half of that is 54 degrees.
>
> If your measuring instrument is providing the right-angle
> compliment, then you want to cut at 90-54 = 36 degrees.
> Note that this is not the usual meaning of "complimentary
> angle" in geometry, where it refers to the 180 degree
> compliment:
>
> \
> \
> \
> 180-A \ A
> -------------\----------------
> A \ 180-A
> \
> \
> \
>
> Many mitre saws will provide a scale showing the angle
> from 90 degrees (0 is a right angle cut) and the right-
> angle compliment (90 degrees is a right angle cut).
>
> In this case, you want 54 degree cuts on the legs of
> the pentagon so that 108 degree interior angles will
> be formed. And yes, 108 does not divide evenly into
> 360 degrees, and there's no reason why it should.
>
> Figuring out how to use your mitre saw's dial is not
> the crux of the problem. It's knowing what interior
> angle you need in order to form a given regular polygon.
>
> Quick, what's the required mitre cut for a nonagon?
>
>
>
>
>
No, that is correct.
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >360 deg / 5 = 72 deg
> >
> >Divide in 2 for each side of planter 72 deg /2 = 36 deg at each end of
> >2x4's.
>
> WRONG!
>
> And I'll accept your apology anytime you're ready.
You are correct.
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:seEgc.50010$aD.286@edtnps89...
> Please read the "OP" and then go and build one
> I am getting sick and tired of people without the concept of actually
> building something trying to tell me how it is done. You do END up with a
54
> Degree angle but do not set your saw for a 54 degree MITER cut. Please
learn
> the difference between the two.
You are the one who has interpreted the information wrong by reading it
as 54 when in order to make that cut it is in reality 36 what you would have
to set your saw to.
And yes CAD programs do have a bad name in the millwork industry and are
generally pretty pictures with overall sizes on them . Unless you have
somebody with experience in joinery as a draftsperson. You cannot trust CAD
drawings in the real world. That is why cabinetmakers do full size layouts
most of the time.
CHRIS
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Bruce I looked at your drawing Do you not see your mistake ???????
>
> There is no mistake in the drawing Chris.
>
> >Even your drawing shows 54 Degrees. Seeing that you cut your MITER off a
> >fence or table saw that is set to 90 degrees from your blade being set at
0
> >Degrees. DO YOU NOT GET 36 FROM SUBTRACTING 54 FROM 90 ?????????? Is that
> >not what you would have to set your saw to ????? 36 degrees is your miter
> >try actually building something for once.
>
> Yes, if that is the question, then you have to set your saw at 36 degrees
> to achieve the required 54 degree angle.
>
> > You are why CAD programs get such a bad name. CAD programs do give
the
> >right information it is how one is able to interpret the information give
to
> >be able to put it into practice.
>
> I didn't know CAD programs had a bad name? If someone interprets that
> drawing WRONG and sets the saw to 54, that isn't my fault.
"Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 5 sided planter, each corner 108 deg therefore 108 * 5 = 540 deg in a circle
>
> I know US and UK gallons are different, didn't realise that degrees were as
> well....
>
> Graham
The sum of the interior angles of a polygon is (n-2)*180 degrees,
where n is the number of sides. Note that this has nothing to do
with the _central_ angle of a circle.
In the case of a pentagon, the sum of the interior angles is:
A = (5-2)*180 = 540 degrees
So each of the five interior angles of a regular (all sides
the same length) pentagon is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
Equal-angle mitres should be half of this, or 54 degrees.
Go and make one before you start calling me ignorant and do a little of
your own rethinking as to why when you set your saw to LOL 54 degrees you do
not come up with a pentagon. By the way what is your occupation???
I will bet you are not a cabinetmaker.
CHRIS
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I would suggest you do a little rethinking before you make yourself out to
> be this ignorant.
>
> "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:CcBgc.49418$aD.40272@edtnps89...
> > Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I
will
> > guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square.
Use
> > some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
> you
> > come up with 108 degrees??
> > 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> > 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
> 3.33333333333333333
> > sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell
> you
> > the patent to widgets ok
> >
> > CHRIS
> >
> >
> > "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > 5 sided planter, each corner 108 deg therefore 108 * 5 = 540 deg in
a
> > circle
> > > >
> > > > I know US and UK gallons are different, didn't realise that degrees
> were
> > as
> > > > well....
> > > >
> > > > Graham
> > >
> > >
> > > The sum of the interior angles of a polygon is (n-2)*180 degrees,
> > > where n is the number of sides. Note that this has nothing to do
> > > with the _central_ angle of a circle.
> > >
> > > In the case of a pentagon, the sum of the interior angles is:
> > >
> > > A = (5-2)*180 = 540 degrees
> > >
> > > So each of the five interior angles of a regular (all sides
> > > the same length) pentagon is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
> > >
> > > Equal-angle mitres should be half of this, or 54 degrees.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
"Bruce" wrote in message
> In rec.woodworking
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Folks are obviously better educated in the UK these days.
>
> Ummm, it was my post that started this and I'm in the great state of
Texas,
> USA.
Ummm, so am I ... but since you got it right the first time, you obviously
weren't included in "these days" with regard to education.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
Exactly.
"Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My reply was in context with rest of the thread
>
> "Wood Butcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:JVEgc.23259$yD1.55912@attbi_s54...
> > That's the setting on the miter guage.
> > The angle on the side of the board is 70°.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > Quick, what's the required mitre cut for a nonagon?
> > >
> > > 20
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Ah... 36+54=90. You're both right.
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:CcBgc.49418$aD.40272@edtnps89...
> Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
> guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
> some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
you
> come up with 108 degrees??
> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
3.33333333333333333
> sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell
you
> the patent to widgets ok
>
> CHRIS
>
>
> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > 5 sided planter, each corner 108 deg therefore 108 * 5 = 540 deg in a
> circle
> > >
> > > I know US and UK gallons are different, didn't realise that degrees
were
> as
> > > well....
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> >
> > The sum of the interior angles of a polygon is (n-2)*180 degrees,
> > where n is the number of sides. Note that this has nothing to do
> > with the _central_ angle of a circle.
> >
> > In the case of a pentagon, the sum of the interior angles is:
> >
> > A = (5-2)*180 = 540 degrees
> >
> > So each of the five interior angles of a regular (all sides
> > the same length) pentagon is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
> >
> > Equal-angle mitres should be half of this, or 54 degrees.
> >
> >
>
>
Bruce I looked at your drawing Do you not see your mistake ???????
Even your drawing shows 54 Degrees. Seeing that you cut your MITER off a
fence or table saw that is set to 90 degrees from your blade being set at 0
Degrees. DO YOU NOT GET 36 FROM SUBTRACTING 54 FROM 90 ?????????? Is that
not what you would have to set your saw to ????? 36 degrees is your miter
try actually building something for once.
You are why CAD programs get such a bad name. CAD programs do give the
right information it is how one is able to interpret the information give to
be able to put it into practice.
CHRIS
to quote you "lets make a bet" then lets go and build one to prove it I
will wager $ 100.00 Canadian to prove my point that you have to set your
miter to 36 Degrees will you?
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I
will
> >guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
> >some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
you
> >come up with 108 degrees??
> > 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> >3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
3.33333333333333333
> >sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell
you
> >the patent to widgets ok
>
> The one lacking common sense is you Chris. You use 45 to get 90 degree
> corners in a square. A pentagon has obtuse angles bonehead. Let's bet
> before you go look at a.b.p.w to see the AutoCAD drawing I posted.
>
>
"Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7bDgc.49509$aD.7112@edtnps89...
> > Please go and BUILD a pentagone to see that your MITER has to be 36
> > degreesand figure out what I mean. You have no clue what you are talking
> > about. You are the one who is "(obviously) working so far from your
area of
> > expertise."
>
> Tell us again how the sum of the interior angles of
> a polygon must be 360 degrees. I get a kick out of
> it.
>
> The sum of the interior angles of a pentagon is 540
> degrees. Each interior angle is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
> half of that is 54 degrees.
>
> If your measuring instrument is providing the right-angle
> compliment, then you want to cut at 90-54 = 36 degrees.
> Note that this is not the usual meaning of "complimentary
> angle" in geometry, where it refers to the 180 degree
> compliment:
>
> \
> \
> \
> 180-A \ A
> -------------\----------------
> A \ 180-A
> \
> \
> \
>
Actually, Complimentary angles add to 90 deg. Supplementary angles add to
180 deg.
Go build one then start making some since
CHRIS
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> > Please read the "OP" and then go and build one
> > I am getting sick and tired of people without the concept of actually
> > building something trying to tell me how it is done. You do END up with
a
> 54
>
> Ahhh , now we're getting somewhere. ... therefore, the correct answer to
the
> OP's question of what angle the cut needs to be:
>
> >>What degree
> >>would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this?
>
> ... is 54 degrees, NOT 36, as you have heretofore been insisting..
>
> The answer to the unasked question "how to cut a 54 degree angle on a
miter
> saw" is to set it to the complementary angle of 36 degrees.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/13/04
>
>
On Sun 18 Apr 2004 04:54:52p, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote in news:[email protected]:
> I do it one step simpler. I count the amount of cuts needed, 10, and
> divide into 360, 36 degrees.
>
> For a square, 8 cuts into 360, 45 degrees.
>
> For a 20 piece unit, 40 cuts into 360, 9 degrees.
Beautiful.
If I can take away just one nice, simple rule of thumb for the shop from a
thread, then it was worthwhile. In this case, it paid off double. One
excellent tip from Leon (Thanks!) and a whole lot of entertainment. :-)
Dan
In article <R2Fgc.50508$aD.5563@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are the one who has interpreted the information wrong by reading it
>as 54 when in order to make that cut it is in reality 36 what you would have
>to set your saw to.
To cut a 54-degree angle you set the saw to 36 degrees, for the same reason
that to cut a 90-degree angle you set it to zero.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Could you please go and make a pentagon and see for yourself that 36
Degrees will work for a MITER.
I have CAD programs (IE Auto CAD V- 7 all the way up to 2004) and do know
how to use them. I also am a very experienced cabinetmaker and am more than
capable of making SIMPLE MITERS and using common sense. If you want all five
sides of a pentagon to be of equal length you would have to use a common
MITER of 36 degrees. If you have trouble comprehending that there is no
sense even trying to explain it any further. GO MAKE A PENTAGON AND FIGURE
IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. Also please knock off your condescending attitude about
"Folks are obviously better educated in the UK these days" because you are
only making yourself look foolish with your self righteous comments.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> > Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I
will
> > guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square.
Use
> > some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
> you
> > come up with 108 degrees??
> > 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly
>
>
> It doesn't have to ... what the man wants for his planter box is a
"regular
> polygon" or "convex polygon" ... i.e, the sides and angles are equal.
>
> As you seem to think, a regular polygon does NOT necessarily have the sum
of
> the interior angles = 360 degrees.
>
> An equilateral triangle is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior
> angles = 180 degrees
>
> A square is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior angles = 360
> digress
>
> A pentagon is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior angles = 540
> degrees.
>
> Folks are obviously better educated in the UK these days.
>
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/13/04
>
>
>
>
I will quote CJ at this point as he expained it so well.
> A pentagon consists of five 72 degree angles.
>
> All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
> single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
> 180 degrees. This is an absolute fact.
>
> For a pentagon, he corners should be mitered at 36 degrees relative
> to the edges. 36 degrees sharper than a 90 degree perpendicular line,
> to be precise.
>
> CJ
"Henry E Schaffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <ZWCgc.49462$aD.4129@edtnps89>,
> Chris Melanson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Could you please go and make a pentagon and see for yourself that 36
> >Degrees will work for a MITER.
>
> I'll try it with ASCII-art - and start with one end of one board:
> (use Courier or other monospace type font to view):
>
> ------------------------------- <- 36 degrees
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ------------- <- other angle
>
> The "other angle" is 180-36 = 144 degrees, but that isn't important
> right now.
>
> Now put another cut end up against this cut end -
> ------------------------------- <- outside angle = 2 * 36 = 72 deg
> ./
> . /
> . /
> . /
> . /
> . /
> ------------- /
> / /
> / /
> / /
> / /
> / /
>
>
> The resulting corner is less than 90 degrees - i.e. it turns "inwards"
> faster than needed for a square. Clearly for a pentagon, we need it to
> turn "inwards" less than for a square.
>
> Where might 36 have come from? My guess is that starting with a
> regular square piece of lumber, if you want to end up with 54 degrees,
> then the other part will have an angle of 90 - 54 = 36. Depending on
> how you feed your wood into the saw - you may have to set your miter
> gauge for either one of the two complementary angles. I.e. are you
> referring to the angle from the side or the end of the wood being cut.
>
> > ...
> --
> --henry schaffer
> hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu
5 sided planter, each corner 108 deg therefore 108 * 5 = 540 deg in a circle
I know US and UK gallons are different, didn't realise that degrees were as
well....
Graham
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
am
> >not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> >would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27"
long.
>
> I can picture a lot of 5 sided planters but probably wouldn't make any
with
> 2x4s. Are you talking about a pentagon with sides perpendicular to the
> ground? If so, the angles would be 54 degrees each to make 108 degree
> corners.
>
>
360 deg / 5 = 72 deg
Divide in 2 for each side of planter 72 deg /2 = 36 deg at each end of
2x4's.
Graham
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
am
> not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
>
> Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
>
>
In article <ZWCgc.49462$aD.4129@edtnps89>,
Chris Melanson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Could you please go and make a pentagon and see for yourself that 36
>Degrees will work for a MITER.
I'll try it with ASCII-art - and start with one end of one board:
(use Courier or other monospace type font to view):
------------------------------- <- 36 degrees
.
.
.
.
.
.
------------- <- other angle
The "other angle" is 180-36 = 144 degrees, but that isn't important
right now.
Now put another cut end up against this cut end -
------------------------------- <- outside angle = 2 * 36 = 72 deg
./
. /
. /
. /
. /
. /
------------- /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
The resulting corner is less than 90 degrees - i.e. it turns "inwards"
faster than needed for a square. Clearly for a pentagon, we need it to
turn "inwards" less than for a square.
Where might 36 have come from? My guess is that starting with a
regular square piece of lumber, if you want to end up with 54 degrees,
then the other part will have an angle of 90 - 54 = 36. Depending on
how you feed your wood into the saw - you may have to set your miter
gauge for either one of the two complementary angles. I.e. are you
referring to the angle from the side or the end of the wood being cut.
> ...
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu
If I was wrong then I'd apologise, as I'm not, then I won't.
The OP asked "What degree would I need to cut the 2x4's"
He would need to set his compound miter saw to 36 degrees...
Graham
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >360 deg / 5 = 72 deg
> >
> >Divide in 2 for each side of planter 72 deg /2 = 36 deg at each end of
> >2x4's.
>
> WRONG!
>
> And I'll accept your apology anytime you're ready.
In article <seEgc.50010$aD.286@edtnps89>,
Chris Melanson <[email protected]> wrote:
>... I am getting sick and tired of people without the concept of
>actually building something trying to tell me how it is done. You do
>END up with a 54 Degree angle but do not set your saw for a 54 degree
>MITER cut. Please learn the difference between the two.
What if I *draw* a line on a board end, so it is at 54 degrees from
the side? (Using a protractor or other angle indicating device.) E.g.
-------------------------------
54 deg -> . |
. |
. |
. |
. ZZZ |
. |
-------------------------------|
and then, using a saw, cut off the part labelled "ZZZ"? What have I set
my saw to?
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu
PLEASE read the OP
>>My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
am
>>not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
>>would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
Bob's not asking for the angle in the piece of wood he's just cut
Bob's asking what degree would he need to cut the 2 x 4's. He needs an angle
of 36.
Graham
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> > Did you even read the OP.????
>
> Yes, but you obviously didn't.
>
> > So will you make the bet ? And try making a pentagon setting your saw to
> 54
> > degrees or will you apologise and accept that the answer is 36 degrees.
>
> I don't have to ... the angle you are actually cutting when you set your
saw
> to cut 36 is the complementary angle, 54 degrees.
>
> Go out to the shop, cut a 36 degree angle on your saw, then measure the
> angle you just cut.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/13/04
>
>
>
>
>
My reply was in context with rest of the thread
"Wood Butcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JVEgc.23259$yD1.55912@attbi_s54...
> That's the setting on the miter guage.
> The angle on the side of the board is 70°.
>
> Art
>
> "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Quick, what's the required mitre cut for a nonagon?
> >
> > 20
> >
> >
>
>
As I previously stated, read what the OP has asked for, not what you think
he has asked for. If he has asked the wrong question, then that is a totally
different matter.
Bob is not asking what angle his 2x4 has to be cut to (which is 54 deg), he
is asking what angle does he "need" to cut the wood, so he can build a 5
sided planter. He needs an angle of 36 deg.
He applies an angle of 36 degrees to his CMS and will be able to build a 5
sided planter.
Graham
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters"
<graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >If I was wrong then I'd apologise, as I'm not, then I won't.
> >
> >The OP asked "What degree would I need to cut the 2x4's"
> >
> >He would need to set his compound miter saw to 36 degrees...
>
> Which causes the saw to cut at an angle of (90 - 36) = 54 degrees.
>
> Think about it: what do you set your miter gauge at to make a cut at 90
> degrees? Unless you have a really unusual miter gauge, you'll set it at
zero.
>
> I think the confusion arises from careless use of terminology.
>
> For *any* closed polygon of n sides, the sum of the exterior angles is
> (n - 2) * 180
> and the measurement at each angle of a regular polygon is
> (n - 2) * 180 / n.
> To cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular polygon of n sides, the
> angles at each end of each piece are
> (n - 2) * 180 / (2n).
>
> However, to cut a board at the angle p, one must set the miter gauge to
> (90 - p)
> because miter gauges measure angle from a line *perpendicular* to the edge
of
> the board being cut. For example, to cut a board square (90 degrees), you
set
> the miter gauge at zero.
>
> So....
>
> To cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular polygon of n sides, the
> _miter_gauge_ setting is
> (90 - p)
> where p is (n - 2) * 180 / (2n), or
> 90 - [(n - 2) * 180 / (2n)]
> simplifying...
> = 90 - [(180n - 360) / (2n)]
> = 90 - [(180n / 2n) - (360 / 2n)]
> = 90 - [90 - 180/n]
> = 180/n
>
> Thus, to cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular pentagon (n = 5),
the
> _miter_gauge_ setting is 180/5 = 36 degrees. Which produces a 54-degree
angle.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I am
> not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
>
-------------
Well Bob I reckon that after reading the responses here you are likely to bin
woodworking and take up stamp collecting.
Your simple question (the answer to which is 36 degrees) has caused more grief
than a troll fest.
Don't give up, they're generally very helpful here. This thread however beggars
belief.
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:05:54 GMT, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
>guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
>some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do you
>come up with 108 degrees??
> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
>3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a 3.33333333333333333
>sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell you
>the patent to widgets ok
>
>CHRIS
Interior angles don't have to add to 360. Exterior angles do. For a pentagon, interior angle is 108, exterior angle is 180-108 = 72.
5 * 72 = 360
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:38:15 -0400, Danny Boy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now, all of the outside anlges add to each inside angle to
>produce n lines, or n*180.
>
>So, the exterior angle sum is found by subtracting: (n-2)*180 - n*180
>= 2* 180 = 360.
OOps! Too much of a hurry. The other away around:
n*180 - (n-2)*180 = 2*180 = 360.
Dan.
What am I leaving out ? The concept of complementary angles is that
mating MITERS of 36 degrees result in a angle of 72 degrees and in order to
obtain a pentagon you have 5 sides and 5 * 72 is 360. But a MITER of 54
degrees would result in an angle of 108 and 5 * 104 = 540 not 360 which is
what a circle consist of in degrees.So how would you obtain a closed polygon
consisting of 540 degrees?
Can you not see that?
The "OP" asked "My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it
would look cute?? I am
not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
CHRIS
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> > I will quote CJ at this point as he expained it so well.
> >
All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
> single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
> 180 degrees.
>
> Yes, but only part of the story. Exterior angles equal 72, interior angles
> equal 108.
>
> > > For a pentagon, he corners should be mitered at 36 degrees relative
> > > to the edges. 36 degrees sharper than a 90 degree perpendicular line,
> > > to be precise.
> > >
> > > CJ
>
> The right answer, but you appeared to be going about it for the wrong
> reason:
>
> >> Use some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the
hell
> >> do you come up with 108 degrees?? 108 dose not even divide into 360
> evenly
>
> As stated, it doesn't have to. What you are leaving out, or failing to
> mention, is the concept of complementary angles.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/13/04
>
>
"Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> Did you even read the OP.????
Yes, but you obviously didn't.
> So will you make the bet ? And try making a pentagon setting your saw to
54
> degrees or will you apologise and accept that the answer is 36 degrees.
I don't have to ... the angle you are actually cutting when you set your saw
to cut 36 is the complementary angle, 54 degrees.
Go out to the shop, cut a 36 degree angle on your saw, then measure the
angle you just cut.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
In defense of the CAD program and drafting in general, in the old days when
one used a pencil and T square to draw, the "rule" was to not "over"
dimension. Over dimensioning would be showing a dimension for every line or
object on the drawing from more than one reference point. Proper
dimensioning requires the person reading the drawing to do some math on his
own to properly interpret unknown distances. For example, a line is 2"
long and another line intersects this line .25" from one end. Proper
dimensioned, the over all length of the line is shown and only the distance
from only one end of the line describes where the intersecting line is
located. Either a dimension indicating the intersection is .25" from the
end of the other line or a dimension indicating 1.75" from the other end of
the line is all that is required. In more complicated and detailed drawings
this is not so cut and dry. The person reading the drawings should be able
to interpret the drawings and to handle his end to make sure that the
results are a reflection the drawings. This is probably much like a
pharmacist that is able to read the prescription from a doctor. The patient
normally has no clue as to what the prescription really says. This whole
thread is a good example of why knowing how to read a drawing is essential.
Full sized plans should not be needed by any one to understand a properly
drawn and dimensioned drawing. CAD programs if anything have let some
draftsmen become lazy or sloppy as it does eliminate a lot of thinking on
the draftsman's part.
Imagine full sized plans for a house, sky scraper or a highway from the
east coast to the west coast.
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:R2Fgc.50508$aD.5563@edtnps89...
> You are the one who has interpreted the information wrong by reading
it
> as 54 when in order to make that cut it is in reality 36 what you would
have
> to set your saw to.
> And yes CAD programs do have a bad name in the millwork industry and
are
> generally pretty pictures with overall sizes on them . Unless you have
> somebody with experience in joinery as a draftsperson. You cannot trust
CAD
> drawings in the real world. That is why cabinetmakers do full size layouts
> most of the time.
>
> CHRIS
>
>
> "Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In rec.woodworking
> > "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce I looked at your drawing Do you not see your mistake ???????
> >
> > There is no mistake in the drawing Chris.
> >
> > >Even your drawing shows 54 Degrees. Seeing that you cut your MITER off
a
> > >fence or table saw that is set to 90 degrees from your blade being set
at
> 0
> > >Degrees. DO YOU NOT GET 36 FROM SUBTRACTING 54 FROM 90 ?????????? Is
that
> > >not what you would have to set your saw to ????? 36 degrees is your
miter
> > >try actually building something for once.
> >
> > Yes, if that is the question, then you have to set your saw at 36
degrees
> > to achieve the required 54 degree angle.
> >
> > > You are why CAD programs get such a bad name. CAD programs do give
> the
> > >right information it is how one is able to interpret the information
give
> to
> > >be able to put it into practice.
> >
> > I didn't know CAD programs had a bad name? If someone interprets that
> > drawing WRONG and sets the saw to 54, that isn't my fault.
>
>
In defense of the CAD program and drafting in general, in the old days when
one used a pencil and T square to draw, the "rule" was to not "over"
dimension. Over dimensioning would be showing a dimension for every line or
object on the drawing from more than one reference point. Proper
dimensioning requires the person reading the drawing to do some math on his
own to properly interpret unknown distances. For example, a line is 2"
long and another line intersects this line .25" from one end. Proper
dimensioned, the over all length of the line is shown and only the distance
from only one end of the line describes where the intersecting line is
located. Either a dimension indicating the intersection is .25" from the
end of the other line or a dimension indicating 1.75" from the other end of
the line is all that is required. In more complicated and detailed drawings
this is not so cut and dry. The person reading the drawings should be able
to interpret the drawings and to handle his end to make sure that the
results are a reflection the drawings. This is probably much like a
pharmacist that is able to read the prescription from a doctor. The patient
normally has no clue as to what the prescription really says. This whole
thread is a good example of why knowing how to read a drawing is essential.
Full sized plans should not be needed by any one to understand a properly
drawn and dimensioned drawing. CAD programs if anything have let some
draftsmen become lazy or sloppy as it does eliminate a lot of thinking on
the draftsman's part.
Hey Bob,
Look this is a very simple miter. 5 sides x 2 miters = 10 cuts. 360/10
= 36 degrees. Easy.
I do picture frames and after much effort went to the local high
school and had the Trig teacher help me with a formula that gives me
the angle for any frame of any number of sides and given the diameter
of the frame will tell me how long to cut each leg.
Now the trick will be to get exactly 36 degrees. Not 35.5 because the
slight difference will show. Trial and error.
Bill in New Mexico
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I am
> not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
>
> Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
"Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> Please read the "OP" and then go and build one
> I am getting sick and tired of people without the concept of actually
> building something trying to tell me how it is done. You do END up with a
54
Ahhh , now we're getting somewhere. ... therefore, the correct answer to the
OP's question of what angle the cut needs to be:
>>What degree
>>would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this?
... is 54 degrees, NOT 36, as you have heretofore been insisting..
The answer to the unasked question "how to cut a 54 degree angle on a miter
saw" is to set it to the complementary angle of 36 degrees.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
Since what?
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XCEgc.50457$aD.21269@edtnps89...
> Go build one then start making some since
> CHRIS
>
>
Bob I betcha you are totally confused now... LOL...
I hope you recognize the correct answers.
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
am
> not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
>
> Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
>
>
I do it one step simpler. I count the amount of cuts needed, 10, and divide
into 360, 36 degrees.
For a square, 8 cuts into 360, 45 degrees.
For a 20 piece unit, 40 cuts into 360, 9 degrees.
"Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 360 deg / 5 = 72 deg
>
> Divide in 2 for each side of planter 72 deg /2 = 36 deg at each end of
> 2x4's.
>
> Graham
>
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
> am
> > not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> > would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27"
long.
> >
> > Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
> >
> >
>
>
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:58:45 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Danny Boy" wrote in message
>
>> By the way, has anyone here made those cuts, or made the item in
>> question? It's not too difficult to do with a few scraps.
>On the tree planter, I used a protractor to lay out the angles, and a
>circular saw to cut them. IIRC, 67.5 degrees was the magic number ... and it
>was close enough, as the parts fit good enough for the job
It's bang on, in fact.
An octagon can take another turn if you draw a square within a square
at 45. Then it's easy to see the inside angle of the octagon as 135.
So two cuts would each be 67.5 as you say.
Using the formula:
Each inside angle is (8-2)*180 / 8 = 3/4 of 180 = 135 ...etc.
Dan.
This is getting comical.
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >360 deg / 5 = 72 deg
> >
> >Divide in 2 for each side of planter 72 deg /2 = 36 deg at each end of
> >2x4's.
>
> Wrong
YES I am!!!
Bob
"Unisaw A100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| >Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
|
| Say Bob, aren't you glad you asked?
|
| UA100
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:40:53 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"John Paquay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> You guys are making this way too complicated. I'd love to get this
>> group together to play 'telephone'.
>>
>> Some careless use of terminology has muddied the picture here. The
>> idea of 'interior' and 'exterior' angles is just confusing. There is
>> only one angle one needs to be concerned with, and that is the (bevel
>> angle) between the center of a regular polygon and any vertex.
>>
>> The answer to the original question should be obvious by drawing a
>> circumscribed circle about the polygon. Then draw 'spokes' from the
>> center to each vertex. You will have created a bunch of triangles as
>> well as circle segments. As we know from fifth grade math class, the
>> sum of the angles of all circle segments always adds up to 360
>> degrees. This is the only thing that always adds up to 360 degrees.
>> The sum of the perimeter angles between the polygon segments does not
>> add up to 360 degrees except for 4-sided polygons.
>>
>> So, with your little sketch, note that the angle between the vertexes
>> and the center of a pentagon is 72 degrees, which also happens to be
>> 360/5. Since your segment includes two such bevel angles, each is 36
>> degrees. This is the bevel angle. Period. End of story.
>
>Yet the story continues.... ;-)
>
>You've now got five isosceles triangles (two equal length sides).
>The angle at the apex is 72 degrees as you noted. Since the sum
>of the angles of any triangle must be 180 degrees, this leaves
>180 - 72 = 108 degrees for the other two angles of each triangle.
>
>Since the other two angles are equal, they must each be
>108/2 = 54 degrees. This is the angle between an outside face
>and the mitre cut's face.
>
>To cut this 54 degree angle on a mitre saw, set the saw to
>90 - 54 = 36 degrees, since the saw's scale has 0 degrees
>as a right angle, and measures deflection from the
>perpendicular.
>
I agree, but my head hurts now.
Thanks for bringing me home, though.
John
John Paquay
[email protected]
"Building Your Own Kitchen Cabinets"
http://home.insightbb.com/~jpaquay/shop.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
With Glory and Passion No Longer in Fashion
The Hero Breaks His Blade. -- Kansas, The Pinnacle, 1975
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OKEgc.50493$aD.27927@edtnps89...
> Read the OP
> And then try and build one using 54 I would like to see what yo end up with
>
I would build a correct pentagon. My pieces would have
54 degree angles as measured between the outside face
and the cut face:
--------------------
/ \
/ \ cut face
/ \
/ <----- 54 deg -----> \
-----------------------------
outside face
In article <_zDgc.49689$aD.12258@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I will quote CJ at this point as he expained it so well.
>
>> A pentagon consists of five 72 degree angles.
No it doesn't. It consists of five 108-degree angles.
>>
>> All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
>> single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
>> 180 degrees. This is an absolute fact.
No, it's an absolute falsehood. The sum of the exterior angles of any closed
polygon of n sides is (n - 2) * 180 degrees. It's 360 *only* for four-sided
figures, where (4 - 2) * 180 = 2 * 180 = 360.
>>
>> For a pentagon, he corners should be mitered at 36 degrees relative
>> to the edges. 36 degrees sharper than a 90 degree perpendicular line,
>> to be precise.
Which means a 54-degree angle on each piece. Combined, those make a 108-degree
angle.
Get a pencil, paper, and protractor, and draw it out yourself.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Why do we have to insult each other?
What happened to an exchange of ideas and constructive criticism?
Rob
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> > Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I
will
> > guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square.
Use
> > some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
> you
> > come up with 108 degrees??
> > 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly
>
>
> It doesn't have to ... what the man wants for his planter box is a
"regular
> polygon" or "convex polygon" ... i.e, the sides and angles are equal.
>
> As you seem to think, a regular polygon does NOT necessarily have the sum
of
> the interior angles = 360 degrees.
>
> An equilateral triangle is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior
> angles = 180 degrees
>
> A square is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior angles = 360
> digress
>
> A pentagon is a regular polygon where the sum of the interior angles = 540
> degrees.
>
> Folks are obviously better educated in the UK these days.
>
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/13/04
>
>
>
>
"Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> Could you please go and make a pentagon and see for yourself that 36
> Degrees will work for a MITER.
> I have CAD programs (IE Auto CAD V- 7 all the way up to 2004) and do know
> how to use them. I also am a very experienced cabinetmaker and am more
than
> capable of making SIMPLE MITERS and using common sense. If you want all
five
> sides of a pentagon to be of equal length you would have to use a common
> MITER of 36 degrees. If you have trouble comprehending that there is no
> sense even trying to explain it any further. GO MAKE A PENTAGON AND FIGURE
> IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.
Go back and read again what I took exception to.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> > > Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I
> will
> > > guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square.
> Use
> > > some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell
do
> > you
> > > come up with 108 degrees??
> > > 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly
> >
> >
> > It doesn't have to ... what the man wants for his planter box is a
> "regular
> > polygon" or "convex polygon" ... i.e, the sides and angles are equal.
> >
> > As you seem to think, a regular polygon does NOT necessarily have the
sum
> of
> > the interior angles = 360 degrees.
Sorry for the spelling forgot to run through spell checker before sending
the last post.
CHRIS
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7bDgc.49509$aD.7112@edtnps89...
> Please go and BUILD a pentagone to see that your MITER has to be 36
> degreesand figure out what I mean. You have no clue what you are talking
> about. You are the one who is "(obviously) working so far from your area
of
> expertise."
>
> CHRIS
>
> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:CcBgc.49418$aD.40272@edtnps89...
> > > Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I
> will
> > > guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square.
> Use
> > > some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell
do
> you
> > > come up with 108 degrees??
> >
> > Something (maybe) your speed:
> >
> > http://www.coolmath.com/interior.htm
> >
> >
> > > 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> > > 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
> 3.33333333333333333
> > > sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will
sell
> you
> > > the patent to widgets ok
> >
> > You might want to be a little less cocky when you're
> > (obviously) working so far from your area of expertise.
> >
> >
>
>
I would suggest you do a little rethinking before you make yourself out to
be this ignorant.
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:CcBgc.49418$aD.40272@edtnps89...
> Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
> guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
> some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
you
> come up with 108 degrees??
> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
3.33333333333333333
> sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell
you
> the patent to widgets ok
>
> CHRIS
>
>
> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > 5 sided planter, each corner 108 deg therefore 108 * 5 = 540 deg in a
> circle
> > >
> > > I know US and UK gallons are different, didn't realise that degrees
were
> as
> > > well....
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> >
> > The sum of the interior angles of a polygon is (n-2)*180 degrees,
> > where n is the number of sides. Note that this has nothing to do
> > with the _central_ angle of a circle.
> >
> > In the case of a pentagon, the sum of the interior angles is:
> >
> > A = (5-2)*180 = 540 degrees
> >
> > So each of the five interior angles of a regular (all sides
> > the same length) pentagon is 540/5 = 108 degrees.
> >
> > Equal-angle mitres should be half of this, or 54 degrees.
> >
> >
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
> In rec.woodworking
> Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I sit totally stunned that so many people could work so hard at
> >misunderstanding each other.
>
> Jeez Paul, how long have you lived? Isn't that what entire countries have
> done since man has been walking upright?
Good point. I had hoped for better for people who aren't
scum^H^H^H^Hpoliticians but I always do seem to be overly optimistic.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
> My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I am
> not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
>
> Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
<10 zillion replies omitted for clarity>
I sit totally stunned that so many people could work so hard at
misunderstanding each other.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I hope Bobs wife does not change her mind and go for a 6 sided piece... ;~)
"Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> I will quote CJ at this point as he expained it so well.
>
> > A pentagon consists of five 72 degree angles.
Yes, but only part of the story. Exterior angles equal 72, interior angles
equal 108.
> > For a pentagon, he corners should be mitered at 36 degrees relative
> > to the edges. 36 degrees sharper than a 90 degree perpendicular line,
> > to be precise.
> >
> > CJ
The right answer, but you appeared to be going about it for the wrong
reason:
>> Use some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell
>> do you come up with 108 degrees?? 108 dose not even divide into 360
evenly
As stated, it doesn't have to. What you are leaving out, or failing to
mention, is the concept of complementary angles.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:38:10 GMT, "Chris Melanson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Go and make one before you start calling me ignorant and do a little of
>your own rethinking as to why when you set your saw to LOL 54 degrees you do
>not come up with a pentagon. By the way what is your occupation???
> I will bet you are not a cabinetmaker.
Using the formula (n-2)*180 as the sum of interior angles of a
polygon:
With n = 5, you get 3*180, or 540.
If all the same (regular) you'll get 540/5 or 108.
To have two equal cuts meet at that angle you'll have to have each 54
degrees.
Most, if not all miters turn only to 45 degrees on the scale, and are
initially perpendicular to the blade, so set at the complimentary
angle (90 - 54) = 36 degrees.
Dan
(not a cabinetmaker)
The real fun comes when he cuts those angles and finds out what "incremental
error" is all about. :)
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I hope Bobs wife does not change her mind and go for a 6 sided piece...
;~)
>
>
It has to happen every once in a while. If everyone let it build up, they'd
explode. :)
"gandalf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
am
> > not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> > would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27"
long.
> >
> -------------
> Well Bob I reckon that after reading the responses here you are likely to
bin
> woodworking and take up stamp collecting.
>
> Your simple question (the answer to which is 36 degrees) has caused more
grief
> than a troll fest.
>
> Don't give up, they're generally very helpful here. This thread however
beggars
> belief.
>
>
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
am
> not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
>
> Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
36°
--
© Jon Down ®
My eBay items currently listed:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=lamblies&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25
You got it. There has been many correct answers with different numbers. A
lot of argument has gone on due to different reference points.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This all comes down to a matter of where one is measuring the angle
from.
> > Where would the man set his miter saw? 36 dregrees (I almost wrote %%D).
>
>
> LOL.... I would like to see the 54 degree setting on the saw... I
think
> what the OP was really wanting to know was what to set the saw at.
>
>
Please read the "OP" and then go and build one
I am getting sick and tired of people without the concept of actually
building something trying to tell me how it is done. You do END up with a 54
Degree angle but do not set your saw for a 54 degree MITER cut. Please learn
the difference between the two.
CHRIS
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <vMDgc.49783$aD.16476@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Did you even read the OP.????
> >
> >and yes
> >"All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
> >single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
> >180 degrees"
> >as Quoted from CJ
> >
> The only trouble with that quote is, it's false.
>
> The sum of the exterior angles of any closed polygon of n sides is
> (n - 2) * 180 degrees.
>
> 180 for a triangle
> 360 for a square
> 540 for a pentagon
> 720 for a hexagon
> and so on.
>
> >So will you make the bet ? And try making a pentagon setting your saw to
54
> >degrees or will you apologise and accept that the answer is 36 degrees.
>
> Miter gauge settings measure the difference from 90 degrees (e.g. to make
a
> cut at a right angle, you set the gauge at 90 - 90 = 0 degrees). So to
make
> the proper 54-degree cuts for a mitered joint at the corner of a regular
> pentagon, you set your miter gauge to 90 - 54 = 36 degrees -- but this
cuts a
> 54-degree angle, *not* a 36-degree angle. Don't believe me? Make the cut.
Then
> get a protractor and measure the actual angle.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:46:45 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Tell us again how the sum of the interior angles of
>a polygon must be 360 degrees. I get a kick out of
>it.
He's mixing it up with the exterior angles which always add to 360.
Dan.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:20:40 GMT, John Paquay <[email protected]>
wrote:
>So, with your little sketch, note that the angle between the vertexes
>and the center of a pentagon is 72 degrees, which also happens to be
>360/5. Since your segment includes two such bevel angles, each is 36
>degrees. This is the bevel angle. Period. End of story.
Not quite! You said.... "angle between the vertexes and the center of
a pentagon is 72 degrees", which is quite correct. However, that is
not the angle in question. The angles being cut are at the vertex,
not the center. The angle at the center,subtracted from the triangle
[180 degrees] formed by that and the angles at the vertices makes them
each half of 180 - 72, or 108/2 = 54 degrees. Two cuts together form
the angle at the vertex, 108 degrees.
By the way, has anyone here made those cuts, or made the item in
question? It's not too difficult to do with a few scraps.
Dan.
"CW" wrote in message
> This is getting comical.
The guy wants to make a pentagonal planter box for his wife, right?
He probably has yet to realize that his wife will eventually want him to
slop the sides outwards ... now we're talking _compound_ miter cuts.
... then the real comedy begins.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
I agree Graham you are NOT wrong. And some people should learn to read the
OP and not jump in the middle of a conversation you should check the posts
on the A.B.P.woodworking about this topic also seems like this post really
opened a can of worms
"Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I was wrong then I'd apologise, as I'm not, then I won't.
>
> The OP asked "What degree would I need to cut the 2x4's"
>
> He would need to set his compound miter saw to 36 degrees...
>
> Graham
>
> "Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In rec.woodworking
> > "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >360 deg / 5 = 72 deg
> > >
> > >Divide in 2 for each side of planter 72 deg /2 = 36 deg at each end of
> > >2x4's.
> >
> > WRONG!
> >
> > And I'll accept your apology anytime you're ready.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Graham Walters" <graham@*spam*aceglow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If I was wrong then I'd apologise, as I'm not, then I won't.
>
>The OP asked "What degree would I need to cut the 2x4's"
>
>He would need to set his compound miter saw to 36 degrees...
Which causes the saw to cut at an angle of (90 - 36) = 54 degrees.
Think about it: what do you set your miter gauge at to make a cut at 90
degrees? Unless you have a really unusual miter gauge, you'll set it at zero.
I think the confusion arises from careless use of terminology.
For *any* closed polygon of n sides, the sum of the exterior angles is
(n - 2) * 180
and the measurement at each angle of a regular polygon is
(n - 2) * 180 / n.
To cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular polygon of n sides, the
angles at each end of each piece are
(n - 2) * 180 / (2n).
However, to cut a board at the angle p, one must set the miter gauge to
(90 - p)
because miter gauges measure angle from a line *perpendicular* to the edge of
the board being cut. For example, to cut a board square (90 degrees), you set
the miter gauge at zero.
So....
To cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular polygon of n sides, the
_miter_gauge_ setting is
(90 - p)
where p is (n - 2) * 180 / (2n), or
90 - [(n - 2) * 180 / (2n)]
simplifying...
= 90 - [(180n - 360) / (2n)]
= 90 - [(180n / 2n) - (360 / 2n)]
= 90 - [90 - 180/n]
= 180/n
Thus, to cut a mitered frame in the shape of a regular pentagon (n = 5), the
_miter_gauge_ setting is 180/5 = 36 degrees. Which produces a 54-degree angle.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
In article <3SEgc.23180$ru4.21289@attbi_s52>,
Wood Butcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've never seen so much bickering and misinformation in my life
>as there is in this thread.
>
<...snipped...>
Aww, come on. There have been much worse threads than this one.
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
Did you even read the OP.????
and yes
"All closed polygons have angles that equal 360 degrees, with the
single exception of the triangle family, where those angles equal
180 degrees"
as Quoted from CJ
So will you make the bet ? And try making a pentagon setting your saw to 54
degrees or will you apologise and accept that the answer is 36 degrees.
CHRIS
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> > Could you please go and make a pentagon and see for yourself that 36
> > Degrees will work for a MITER.
> > I have CAD programs (IE Auto CAD V- 7 all the way up to 2004) and do
know
> > how to use them. I also am a very experienced cabinetmaker and am more
> than
> > capable of making SIMPLE MITERS and using common sense. If you want all
> five
> > sides of a pentagon to be of equal length you would have to use a common
> > MITER of 36 degrees. If you have trouble comprehending that there is no
> > sense even trying to explain it any further. GO MAKE A PENTAGON AND
FIGURE
> > IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.
>
> Go back and read again what I took exception to.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/13/04
>
> > "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> > > > Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with.
I
> > will
> > > > guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a
square.
> > Use
> > > > some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell
> do
> > > you
> > > > come up with 108 degrees??
> > > > 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly
> > >
> > >
> > > It doesn't have to ... what the man wants for his planter box is a
> > "regular
> > > polygon" or "convex polygon" ... i.e, the sides and angles are equal.
> > >
> > > As you seem to think, a regular polygon does NOT necessarily have the
> sum
> > of
> > > the interior angles = 360 degrees.
>
>
"Leon" wrote in message
>
> "CW" wrote in message
>
> > This all comes down to a matter of where one is measuring the angle
from.
> > Where would the man set his miter saw? 36 dregrees (I almost wrote %%D).
>
>
> LOL.... I would like to see the 54 degree setting on the saw... I
think
> what the OP was really wanting to know was what to set the saw at.
Obviously not everyone agrees on that:
>> What degree would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this?
To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to which the
2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to make the
cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
geometry would know instinctively.
Granted, a fair difference in interpretation .... and if you just want to
get the job done and not understand "why" you need to set the saw
differently, then all you need to know is 36 degrees.
However, unless you have a grasp of the geometry involved, you may never
figure out the angles on the next project ... which is obviously WHY the
question was asked in the FIRST damn place.
;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
Swingman responds:
>>
>> LOL.... I would like to see the 54 degree setting on the saw... I
>think
>> what the OP was really wanting to know was what to set the saw at.
>
>Obviously not everyone agrees on that:
>
>>> What degree would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this?
>
>To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to which the
>2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to make the
>cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
>geometry would know instinctively.
Ah well. My Bosch 4412 has a 52 deg. left and 60 deg. right setting.
Angles confuse me easily. I probably spend more time working out angles than at
any other single woodworking chore.
But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying to pound
into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English but won't
study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
perspective one gets 51 years later!
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
On 19 Apr 2004 09:26:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
>daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying to pound
>into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English but won't
>study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
>perspective one gets 51 years later!
A word to the wise, and do take it kindly:
There is no sense the blind leading the blind. Get her a good tutor!
"Pounding" never works; you have to stimulate some interest. A good
tutor should be able to do that as well.
Dan.
On 19 Apr 2004 09:26:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Swingman responds:
>>To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to which the
>>2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to make the
>>cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
>>geometry would know instinctively.
>Angles confuse me easily...
>But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
>daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying to pound
>into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English but won't
>study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
>perspective one gets 51 years later!
Ah, Charlie, 'twasn't math problems that turned this thread into the
train wreck it became, 'twas a lack of English. (Or rather a lack in
that branch of English study involving a simple willingness to look up
definitions.)
Seems to me that Chris's been making an ass of himself, (with all the
bravado of one who's ignorance has him convinced he's right), simply
because he insists on calling a locomotive a caboose.
Michael
(not a choo-choo engineer)
In article <WTGhc.158$P72.66@edtnps84>, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually there was only once I had typed 36 degree angle instead of
>miter which was a mistake on my part I will admit. But if you check the
>thread I quoted MITER at least 10 times.
Without making it clear that you were referring to the setting of the miter
gauge.
>I had also agreed that you would
>achieve a 54 degree angle.
Yes, you did: once.
>At no time did I resort to personal name calling
>either. I had asked the question about the occupation as a point of
>reference to show that if you do not work in the trade you might not
>understand that there is a distinct difference when you reefer to something
>as a MITER or as a ANGLE.
By your email address it appears that you do work in the trade -- and by your
confused syntax and garbled terminology it appears that you don't understand
that "distinct difference" too well yourself.
>Example :
> If I asked for a 90 degree angle I would expect to see one piece of
>material joined to the other at 90 degrees from each other (typically a butt
>joint)
>But if I asked for a 90 degree MITER I would expect to see two pieces of
>material joined together with a 45 degree MITER on each piece.
See what I mean about garbled terminology? You're using the word "MITER" in
two different senses within the same sentence.
At this point, it's perfectly clear that you do in fact understand how to set
your miter gauge properly to make the cuts that you need. But it's equally
clear that you do a piss-poor job of explaining it, and the harder you try to
explain, the worse you do at it. It's time to quit.
>
>CHRIS
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <xRDhc.1644$mP2.227@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Michel you seem to not of read the thread very well. I do not know
>how
>> >many times I stated that the miter saw was to be set at 36 degrees and
>the
>> >resulting angle would be 54 degrees. Seems to me you need to brush up on
>> >your reading skills some what.
>>
>> Since you don't know how many times you stated that, I'll be happy to tell
>> you: once. The rest of the time, you were busy insisting that the angle of
>the
>> cut was 36 degrees, which it manifestly is not.
>>
>> > As far as you saying "I am making an ass of myself".
>>
>> Perhaps he's referring to this post of yours on 18 Apr:
>>
>> Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
>> guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
>> some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
>you
>> come up with 108 degrees??
>> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
>> 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
>3.33333333333333333
>> sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell
>you
>> the patent to widgets ok
>>
>> > I feel that when
>> >some one lacks the capability to express himself with having to name call
>> >other people it shows a level of intellect that I neither have the time
>or
>> >the patience for.
>>
>> You mean like when you wrote this?
>>
>> By the way what is your occupation??? I will bet you are not a
>cabinetmaker.
>>
>> > A newsgroup should be a forum for people to have a free exchange of
>> >ideas and opinions. But it is exactly your reaction why people turn away
>> >from these groups and at that point every one loses. I feel that every
>> >person has the capability to be able to positively contribute to a
>> >conversation. But some people lack the common respect toward others to do
>> >this on a regular basis.
>> >
>> >CHRIS
>>
>> Chris, perhaps you should go back through the thread in Google and examine
>> your tone in nearly all of your posts. Michael said it very well: you've
>been
>> making an ass of yourself with all the bravado of one whose ignorance has
>> convinced him he's right.
>> >
>> >"Michael Baglio @nc.rr.com>" <mbaglio<NOSPAM> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On 19 Apr 2004 09:26:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Swingman responds:
>> >> >>To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to
>which
>> >the
>> >> >>2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to
>make
>> >the
>> >> >>cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
>> >> >>geometry would know instinctively.
>> >>
>> >> >Angles confuse me easily...
>> >> >But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
>> >> >daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying
>to
>> >pound
>> >> >into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English
>but
>> >won't
>> >> >study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
>> >> >perspective one gets 51 years later!
>> >>
>> >> Ah, Charlie, 'twasn't math problems that turned this thread into the
>> >> train wreck it became, 'twas a lack of English. (Or rather a lack in
>> >> that branch of English study involving a simple willingness to look up
>> >> definitions.)
>> >>
>> >> Seems to me that Chris's been making an ass of himself, (with all the
>> >> bravado of one who's ignorance has him convinced he's right), simply
>> >> because he insists on calling a locomotive a caboose.
>> >>
>> >> Michael
>> >> (not a choo-choo engineer)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
>> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>>
>>
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Actually there was only once I had typed 36 degree angle instead of
miter which was a mistake on my part I will admit. But if you check the
thread I quoted MITER at least 10 times. I had also agreed that you would
achieve a 54 degree angle. At no time did I resort to personal name calling
either. I had asked the question about the occupation as a point of
reference to show that if you do not work in the trade you might not
understand that there is a distinct difference when you reefer to something
as a MITER or as a ANGLE.
Example :
If I asked for a 90 degree angle I would expect to see one piece of
material joined to the other at 90 degrees from each other (typically a butt
joint)
But if I asked for a 90 degree MITER I would expect to see two pieces of
material joined together with a 45 degree MITER on each piece.
CHRIS
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <xRDhc.1644$mP2.227@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Michel you seem to not of read the thread very well. I do not know
how
> >many times I stated that the miter saw was to be set at 36 degrees and
the
> >resulting angle would be 54 degrees. Seems to me you need to brush up on
> >your reading skills some what.
>
> Since you don't know how many times you stated that, I'll be happy to tell
> you: once. The rest of the time, you were busy insisting that the angle of
the
> cut was 36 degrees, which it manifestly is not.
>
> > As far as you saying "I am making an ass of myself".
>
> Perhaps he's referring to this post of yours on 18 Apr:
>
> Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
> guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
> some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do
you
> come up with 108 degrees??
> 108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
> 3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a
3.33333333333333333
> sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell
you
> the patent to widgets ok
>
> > I feel that when
> >some one lacks the capability to express himself with having to name call
> >other people it shows a level of intellect that I neither have the time
or
> >the patience for.
>
> You mean like when you wrote this?
>
> By the way what is your occupation??? I will bet you are not a
cabinetmaker.
>
> > A newsgroup should be a forum for people to have a free exchange of
> >ideas and opinions. But it is exactly your reaction why people turn away
> >from these groups and at that point every one loses. I feel that every
> >person has the capability to be able to positively contribute to a
> >conversation. But some people lack the common respect toward others to do
> >this on a regular basis.
> >
> >CHRIS
>
> Chris, perhaps you should go back through the thread in Google and examine
> your tone in nearly all of your posts. Michael said it very well: you've
been
> making an ass of yourself with all the bravado of one whose ignorance has
> convinced him he's right.
> >
> >"Michael Baglio @nc.rr.com>" <mbaglio<NOSPAM> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On 19 Apr 2004 09:26:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Swingman responds:
> >> >>To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to
which
> >the
> >> >>2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to
make
> >the
> >> >>cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
> >> >>geometry would know instinctively.
> >>
> >> >Angles confuse me easily...
> >> >But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
> >> >daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying
to
> >pound
> >> >into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English
but
> >won't
> >> >study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
> >> >perspective one gets 51 years later!
> >>
> >> Ah, Charlie, 'twasn't math problems that turned this thread into the
> >> train wreck it became, 'twas a lack of English. (Or rather a lack in
> >> that branch of English study involving a simple willingness to look up
> >> definitions.)
> >>
> >> Seems to me that Chris's been making an ass of himself, (with all the
> >> bravado of one who's ignorance has him convinced he's right), simply
> >> because he insists on calling a locomotive a caboose.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >> (not a choo-choo engineer)
> >
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>
In article <xRDhc.1644$mP2.227@edtnps89>, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michel you seem to not of read the thread very well. I do not know how
>many times I stated that the miter saw was to be set at 36 degrees and the
>resulting angle would be 54 degrees. Seems to me you need to brush up on
>your reading skills some what.
Since you don't know how many times you stated that, I'll be happy to tell
you: once. The rest of the time, you were busy insisting that the angle of the
cut was 36 degrees, which it manifestly is not.
> As far as you saying "I am making an ass of myself".
Perhaps he's referring to this post of yours on 18 Apr:
Ok you go ahead and build it that way and see what you end up with. I will
guarantee you do not end up with a pentagon at all not even a square. Use
some common sense if you use 45 degrees to get a square how the hell do you
come up with 108 degrees??
108 dose not even divide into 360 evenly you end up with
3.333333333333333333333333333333333 and so on show me a 3.33333333333333333
sided object through the rose coloured glasses you wear. and I will sell you
the patent to widgets ok
> I feel that when
>some one lacks the capability to express himself with having to name call
>other people it shows a level of intellect that I neither have the time or
>the patience for.
You mean like when you wrote this?
By the way what is your occupation??? I will bet you are not a cabinetmaker.
> A newsgroup should be a forum for people to have a free exchange of
>ideas and opinions. But it is exactly your reaction why people turn away
>from these groups and at that point every one loses. I feel that every
>person has the capability to be able to positively contribute to a
>conversation. But some people lack the common respect toward others to do
>this on a regular basis.
>
>CHRIS
Chris, perhaps you should go back through the thread in Google and examine
your tone in nearly all of your posts. Michael said it very well: you've been
making an ass of yourself with all the bravado of one whose ignorance has
convinced him he's right.
>
>"Michael Baglio @nc.rr.com>" <mbaglio<NOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 19 Apr 2004 09:26:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Swingman responds:
>> >>To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to which
>the
>> >>2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to make
>the
>> >>cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
>> >>geometry would know instinctively.
>>
>> >Angles confuse me easily...
>> >But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
>> >daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying to
>pound
>> >into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English but
>won't
>> >study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
>> >perspective one gets 51 years later!
>>
>> Ah, Charlie, 'twasn't math problems that turned this thread into the
>> train wreck it became, 'twas a lack of English. (Or rather a lack in
>> that branch of English study involving a simple willingness to look up
>> definitions.)
>>
>> Seems to me that Chris's been making an ass of himself, (with all the
>> bravado of one who's ignorance has him convinced he's right), simply
>> because he insists on calling a locomotive a caboose.
>>
>> Michael
>> (not a choo-choo engineer)
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Hey, Guys,
It's really amazing how long this thread continued without degenerating into the "You're a ...", "No, I'm not, you are." contest.
Why don't we make an effort to keep it civil until the thread dies a natural death.
And, no, I'm not trying to be a net nanny or stifle anyone's freedom of expression, but if we were all to imagine the person being
addressed is actually sitting there in person ...
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:55:09 GMT, "Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michel you seem to not of read the thread very well. I do not know how
>many times I stated that the miter saw was to be set at 36 degrees and the
>resulting angle would be 54 degrees. Seems to me you need to brush up on
>your reading skills some what.
> As far as you saying "I am making an ass of myself". I feel that when
>some one lacks the capability to express himself with having to name call
>other people it shows a level of intellect that I neither have the time or
>the patience for.
> A newsgroup should be a forum for people to have a free exchange of
>ideas and opinions. But it is exactly your reaction why people turn away
>from these groups and at that point every one loses. I feel that every
>person has the capability to be able to positively contribute to a
>conversation. But some people lack the common respect toward others to do
>this on a regular basis.
>
>CHRIS
>
>"Michael Baglio @nc.rr.com>" <mbaglio<NOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 19 Apr 2004 09:26:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Swingman responds:
>> >>To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to which
>the
>> >>2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to make
>the
>> >>cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
>> >>geometry would know instinctively.
>>
>> >Angles confuse me easily...
>> >But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
>> >daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying to
>pound
>> >into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English but
>won't
>> >study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
>> >perspective one gets 51 years later!
>>
>> Ah, Charlie, 'twasn't math problems that turned this thread into the
>> train wreck it became, 'twas a lack of English. (Or rather a lack in
>> that branch of English study involving a simple willingness to look up
>> definitions.)
>>
>> Seems to me that Chris's been making an ass of himself, (with all the
>> bravado of one who's ignorance has him convinced he's right), simply
>> because he insists on calling a locomotive a caboose.
>>
>> Michael
>> (not a choo-choo engineer)
>
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
boy, am I glad I stayed out of this thread. looks like a
pissing contest is brewing. I'm afraid to even look at the
other posts in it.
dave
Chris Melanson wrote:
> Michel you seem to not of read the thread very well. I do not know how
> many times I stated that the miter saw was to be set at 36 degrees and the
> resulting angle would be 54 degrees. Seems to me you need to brush up on
> your reading skills some what.
> As far as you saying "I am making an ass of myself". I feel that when
> some one lacks the capability to express himself with having to name call
> other people it shows a level of intellect that I neither have the time or
> the patience for.
> A newsgroup should be a forum for people to have a free exchange of
> ideas and opinions. But it is exactly your reaction why people turn away
> from these groups and at that point every one loses. I feel that every
> person has the capability to be able to positively contribute to a
> conversation. But some people lack the common respect toward others to do
> this on a regular basis.
>
> CHRIS
>
> "Michael Baglio @nc.rr.com>" <mbaglio<NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On 19 Apr 2004 09:26:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Swingman responds:
>>>
>>>>To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to which
>
> the
>
>>>>2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to make
>
> the
>
>>>>cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
>>>>geometry would know instinctively.
>>
>>>Angles confuse me easily...
>>>But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
>>>daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying to
>
> pound
>
>>>into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English but
>
> won't
>
>>>study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
>>>perspective one gets 51 years later!
>>
>>Ah, Charlie, 'twasn't math problems that turned this thread into the
>>train wreck it became, 'twas a lack of English. (Or rather a lack in
>>that branch of English study involving a simple willingness to look up
>>definitions.)
>>
>>Seems to me that Chris's been making an ass of himself, (with all the
>>bravado of one who's ignorance has him convinced he's right), simply
>>because he insists on calling a locomotive a caboose.
>>
>>Michael
>>(not a choo-choo engineer)
>
>
>
Michel you seem to not of read the thread very well. I do not know how
many times I stated that the miter saw was to be set at 36 degrees and the
resulting angle would be 54 degrees. Seems to me you need to brush up on
your reading skills some what.
As far as you saying "I am making an ass of myself". I feel that when
some one lacks the capability to express himself with having to name call
other people it shows a level of intellect that I neither have the time or
the patience for.
A newsgroup should be a forum for people to have a free exchange of
ideas and opinions. But it is exactly your reaction why people turn away
from these groups and at that point every one loses. I feel that every
person has the capability to be able to positively contribute to a
conversation. But some people lack the common respect toward others to do
this on a regular basis.
CHRIS
"Michael Baglio @nc.rr.com>" <mbaglio<NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 19 Apr 2004 09:26:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >Swingman responds:
> >>To me, that is _specifically_ asking for the 54 "degree" angle to which
the
> >>2 X 4's need to be cut ... not the angle of the saw necessary to make
the
> >>cut, which someone with a through understanding of woodworking miter
> >>geometry would know instinctively.
>
> >Angles confuse me easily...
> >But my math is abyssmal and always has been, which is my own fault for
> >daydreaming through the appropriate classes, something I am now trying to
pound
> >into a 14 year old granddaughter's head. She's excellent an English but
won't
> >study math "because I'll never use it." Amazing what a difference in
> >perspective one gets 51 years later!
>
> Ah, Charlie, 'twasn't math problems that turned this thread into the
> train wreck it became, 'twas a lack of English. (Or rather a lack in
> that branch of English study involving a simple willingness to look up
> definitions.)
>
> Seems to me that Chris's been making an ass of himself, (with all the
> bravado of one who's ignorance has him convinced he's right), simply
> because he insists on calling a locomotive a caboose.
>
> Michael
> (not a choo-choo engineer)
It would be a 36 degree angle
The way to figure out any angle is very simple
you divide 360 by the number of sides then divide your answer in halve to
find out your miter
example for a square : 360 / 4 = 90 then 90 / 2 = 45 degree angle
Example for a pentagon : 360 / 5 = 72 then 72/ 2 = 36 degree angle
Chris
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My wife would like a 5 sided planter. Just thinks it would look cute?? I
am
> not a wood worker but, have access to a compound miter saw. What degree
> would I need to cut the 2x4's to achieve this? They will each be 27" long.
>
> Thanks for any help or advice.Bob
>
>
"Chris Melanson" wrote in message
> I agree Graham you are NOT wrong. And some people should learn to read the
> OP and not jump in the middle of a conversation you should check the posts
> on the A.B.P.woodworking about this topic also seems like this post really
> opened a can of worms
Hey ... at least it is ON TOPIC!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/13/04
What I have found, for the most part, is that the fault is on both sides.
The "draftsman" is not usually a draftsman. He is often just somebody that
learned to draw shapes with a CAD program. His knowledge of drafting
standards and proper layout are usually lacking. Often that is on top of
limited shop experience. On the other hand, people in the shop are often
not any better. They never bother to correctly learn to read a print,
thinking that a print should be like a picture and if they can't understand
it, it's the draftsman's fault. This situation is very prevalent and usually
continues this way as there is often no one that really knows any better.
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:R2Fgc.50508$aD.5563@edtnps89...
> And yes CAD programs do have a bad name in the millwork industry and
are
> generally pretty pictures with overall sizes on them . Unless you have
> somebody with experience in joinery as a draftsperson. You cannot trust
CAD
> drawings in the real world. That is why cabinetmakers do full size layouts
> most of the time.
>