In article <[email protected]>,
McQualude <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Bonomi spaketh...
>
[[.. munch ..]]
>
>It's called a trapezoid, a type of quadrilateral.
>
>> _________
>> / | \
>> / | \
>> / | \
>> +----------------+
>>
>> The diagonals, from top right to bottom left, and bottom right to top
>> left, are the same length, but it's _clearly_ not right-angle corners.
>
>Yeah and why would anyone but an idiot be checking a trapezoid for
>squareness?
By the same token, "Why would anyone but an idiot be checking the diagonals
on something *known* to be square?"
The answer, in _both_ instances, is that the party *does*not*know* what the
actual shape is. and is measuring to _make_the_determination_.
The 'trapazoidalism', or other out-of-square condition, may not be gross
enough to be readily apparent to the unaided eye. Which is _why_ you
measure -- to be *sure* it's "right". (yes, pun intended).
>> Technically, the only thing that 'equal diagonals' guarantees is that
>> the object is 'bilaterally symmetric'
>
>To check for squareness, 4 sides are measured and if the opposite sides
>are equal and the diagonals are the same, then the piece is square (it's
>corners are right angles for the dense types).
I'll readily agree with _that_. The original poster claimed that squareness
could be determined by measuring _only_ the diagonals. Which is the point
I took issue with.
GrayFox wrote...
> Don't forget that the table saw fence is usually toed out a hair to
> relieve binding as the material is passed through the saw blade. When
> cutting keep the material snug to the fence at the point it first
> touches the blade, not snug to the fence all the way through.
If the fence is straight, it should be snug all the way through. If the
fence is not straight, that's the first thing to fix.
Jim
"Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@c-ns.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'll readily agree with _that_. The original poster claimed that
squareness
> could be determined by measuring _only_ the diagonals. Which is the point
> I took issue with.
>
No I did not claim that. I claimed he could measure his diagonals and it
would be square if they are equal. This is in response to his post about
ripping each side with the rip fence and then rotating it and ripping the
next. This will insure that the sides are equal and my original advice is
quite correct.
Frank
Robert Bonomi spaketh...
>>The easiest way to check for squareness after you're done is to
>>measure the diagonals. If your piece is square, then the diagonals
>>will be equal. (this works for any square or rectangular object)
> Caveat: "Just because" the diagonals are equal, does *NOT* mean that
> the piece is square (or rectangular).
Square as in a right angle, not as in 4 equal sides.
> That particular "rule of thumb"
> is valid _only_ if the opposite sides (both pairs of them) are the
> same length.
>
> To wit, consider a piece shaped like a truncated isosceles triangle:
It's called a trapezoid, a type of quadrilateral.
> _________
> / | \
> / | \
> / | \
> +----------------+
>
> The diagonals, from top right to bottom left, and bottom right to top
> left, are the same length, but it's _clearly_ not right-angle corners.
Yeah and why would anyone but an idiot be checking a trapezoid for
squareness?
> Technically, the only thing that 'equal diagonals' guarantees is that
> the object is 'bilaterally symmetric'
To check for squareness, 4 sides are measured and if the opposite sides
are equal and the diagonals are the same, then the piece is square (it's
corners are right angles for the dense types).
--
McQualude
"Quentin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eH%[email protected]...
> Hi
>
> I'm new to the WW scene. Can anyone tell me the best way to square a
sheet
> e.g. 22" x 22".
>
> I have started by making one cut on my TS and then using this as the guide
> for the next cut, rotating after each cut.
>
The easiest way to check for squareness after you're done is to measure the
diagonals. If your piece is square, then the diagonals will be equal.
(this works for any square or rectangular object)
Frank
If your saw is square then this will work.
However I'd rip two sides of it parallel first, then determine how much
needs to be cut off the other two sides. Then check to make sure that your
crosscut is actually square.
"Quentin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eH%[email protected]...
> Hi
>
> I'm new to the WW scene. Can anyone tell me the best way to square a
sheet
> e.g. 22" x 22".
>
> I have started by making one cut on my TS and then using this as the guide
> for the next cut, rotating after each cut.
>
> Thanks
>
> Quentin
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Quentin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:eH%[email protected]...
>> Hi
>>
>> I'm new to the WW scene. Can anyone tell me the best way to square a
>sheet
>> e.g. 22" x 22".
>>
>> I have started by making one cut on my TS and then using this as the guide
>> for the next cut, rotating after each cut.
>>
>
>The easiest way to check for squareness after you're done is to measure the
>diagonals. If your piece is square, then the diagonals will be equal.
>(this works for any square or rectangular object)
Caveat: "Just because" the diagonals are equal, does *NOT* mean that the
piece is square (or rectangular). That particular "rule of thumb" is valid
_only_ if the opposite sides (both pairs of them) are the same length.
To wit, consider a piece shaped like a truncated isosceles triangle:
_________
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
+----------------+
The diagonals, from top right to bottom left, and bottom right to top left,
are the same length, but it's _clearly_ not right-angle corners.
Technically, the only thing that 'equal diagonals' guarantees is that the
object is 'bilaterally symmetric' -- i.e., that there is a 'centerline' (as
shown above), about which one side is the 'mirror image' of the other.
In article <[email protected]>, "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> If your saw is square then this will work.
> However I'd rip two sides of it parallel first, then determine how much
> needs to be cut off the other two sides. Then check to make sure that your
> crosscut is actually square.
>
> "Quentin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eH%[email protected]...
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm new to the WW scene. Can anyone tell me the best way to square a
> sheet
> > e.g. 22" x 22".
> >
> > I have started by making one cut on my TS and then using this as the guide
> > for the next cut, rotating after each cut.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> >
>
>
Don't forget that the table saw fence is usually toed out a hair to
relieve binding as the material is passed through the saw blade. When
cutting keep the material snug to the fence at the point it first
touches the blade, not snug to the fence all the way through.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:35:23 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) pixelated:
>To wit, consider a piece shaped like a truncated isosceles triangle:
_________
> / | \
> / | \
> / | \
> +----------------+
Well, ya takes yer $4 million Starrett try square 'n
ye rubs it over the tapers all firm-like until they's
scraped all flat and square, son. Ain't that what ther
fore?
----------------------------------------------------------
--== EAT RIGHT...KEEP FIT...DIE ANYWAY ==--
http://www.diversify.com/stees.html - Schnazzy Tees online
----------------------------------------------------------