I am frequently having to do this particular calculation, months apart, and
have to rebuild the wheel each time. Today I attempted to write the damn
thing down as a formula so I could make an Excel spreadsheet for my own use.
The following, in a spreadsheet, worked twice for me today, but there is
likely a better/easier way?
A formula for spacing a given number of same width slats/spindles evenly
between two points:
X = (S - (W*N))/(N + 1)
where:
X = spacing in inches
S = Space to be filled with slats of a desired width
W = Desired width of slat
N = Number of slats desired
Your corrections/better ideas are more than welcome ... the older I get, the
more I am just looking for a way to getting back to making sawdust faster.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Luigi Zanasi" wrote in message
> Ah! I see! You're talking about the design, not the installation. Then
> using your formula makes absolute sense.
You're right, I actually do use it for the "design" stage, particularly when
doing a shop drawing with a CAD program, which I generally do for every
piece I make since I am usually buiilding custom and rarely use plans ...
then it is a matter of implementing the design.
Most of the time I am looking to accurately mark the location of mortices
for a row of spindles/slats on both a top apron and bottom stringer.
> And you get to try out
> different #s of spindles.
Yes. that's the beauty of having a spreadsheet, you can just plug in the
different options/design.
>But when it comes to installing them, I
> would still use my method. A 1/64th error in fabricating the spindles
> means a gap that is off by 1/2 inch if you're using 30 spindles or so.
There's a better, and more accurate way then that, actually.
I generally take the results of the calculation and make a "story stick"
with the measurements on it, then use that the "story stick" mark the
location of the mortises for the spindles/slats ... that way there is very
little measurement error, particularly if you reference the same post or leg
as the starting point, and it is much faster.
Thanks for the discussion, Luigi.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
Luigi Zanasi said:
>On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 18:32:56 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]>
>scribbled:
>>A formula for spacing a given number of same width slats/spindles evenly
>>between two points:
>>
>>X = (S - (W*N))/(N + 1)
>>
>>where:
>>
>>X = spacing in inches
>>S = Space to be filled with slats of a desired width
>>W = Desired width of slat
>>N = Number of slats desired
>>
>>Your corrections/better ideas are more than welcome ... the older I get, the
>>more I am just looking for a way to getting back to making sawdust faster.
>
>Instead of calculating W*N, measure it. If you've got lots of
>spindles/slats, it's easy to screw you up if there is the slightest
>inaccuracy in the measurement of the width of slats/spindles. Put all
>your slats/spindles next to each other & measure the width. Then
>divide by the number of slats/spindles plus one to get the spacing.
Or calculate Centerlines for mounting the slats, rather than spacing
between slats. That way, variations in individual slats will not
matter.
I won't modify your formula for that - you're a smart guy! ;-)
FWIW,
Greg G.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> classic fencepost error....
LOL. You're right ... we always put barbed wire fence posts for cattle at
16.5'. Also a good way to measure distance later on, if you are consistent.
My punishment for my many and frequent transgressions as a kid was give me "
...another mile of fence', or " ... another 200' feet of field line for the
septic systems'.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Randy" wrote in message
> If the slats are adjacent on both ends then n-1
> if the slats are adjacent on one end then n
> if the slats are spaced on both ends then n+1
While I agree, IME, you will hardly see anything but the last with
spindles/slats in woodworking.
However, it would not be a bad idea, and easy, to add that to the
spreadsheet in the event you would want to do 1 and 2 above ... options,
options!
Thanks!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
Mine was holes for trees.
Swingman wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>classic fencepost error....
>
>
> LOL. You're right ... we always put barbed wire fence posts for cattle at
> 16.5'. Also a good way to measure distance later on, if you are consistent.
>
> My punishment for my many and frequent transgressions as a kid was give me "
> ...another mile of fence', or " ... another 200' feet of field line for the
> septic systems'.
>
"Randy" wrote in message
> If you have cad program, why aren't you just using the "segment" command?
A distinct possibility, and a good point.
However, said CAD program is not available in the shop, the formula works
quickly with my shopbench calculator which does woodworking fractions, and
the spreadsheet works on a PDA, which is easily available in the shop.
Last but not least, I've just in the recent past gained enough proficiency
on my meager CAD program (QuickCAD) to make good shop drawings ... IOW, I am
more interest in making sawdust than in being a proficient CAD jockey. ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
If the slats are adjacent on both ends then n-1
if the slats are adjacent on one end then n
if the slats are spaced on both ends then n+1
Swingman wrote:
> "Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
>
>
>>"Close, but no seegar" applies.
>>
>>change the denominator to "N-1", and you've got it.
>>
>>"Close, but no seegar" applies.
>>
>>change the denominator to "N-1", and you've got it.
>>
>>Note: with N slats, there are only N-1 spaces _between_ the slats.
>
>
> "Close, but no seegar". :)
>
> Note that (n + 1).is the goal.
>
> When positioning spindles between two legs, or bars in a window, you
> generally leave a space between the first post/ and the first spindle, and a
> space between the last spindle and the last post, therefore you need one
> more space than (n-1).
>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Most of the time I am looking to accurately mark the location of mortices
> for a row of spindles/slats on both a top apron and bottom stringer.
>
> There's a better, and more accurate way then that, actually.
>
> I generally take the results of the calculation and make a "story stick"
> with the measurements on it, then use that the "story stick" mark the
> location of the mortises for the spindles/slats ... that way there is very
> little measurement error, particularly if you reference the same post or
> leg
> as the starting point, and it is much faster.
I take the top and bottom stringers and clamp them together when making the
marks. That way, if there is an error, the spindle will still be straight
even if it is off by 1/64. I also do the math rather than mark say, every
2". The pencil line can be a huge error when marking 14 slats. Or so I'd
told. I'd never do that myself would I?
I guess I could use a spreadsheet but I take pencil and paper and draw out
(crudely) the spaces and slats: --0--0--0--0--0-- The I make marks as
needed. 1 1/2" spaces with 2" slats is 1.5, 3.5, 5, 7, 8.5, etc. This is
the place where the Lee Valley Saddle Square is the perfect tool for layout.
The only important rule is simplicity. Don't make 1 13/64 slats and end up
with 2 11/16 spaces. The math will drive you crazy and you will be blind
looking at all those little lines on the ruler.
Swingman wrote:
> X = (S - (W*N))/(N + 1)
>
> where:
>
> X = spacing in inches
> S = Space to be filled with slats of a desired width
> W = Desired width of slat
> N = Number of slats desired
>
In addition to the considerations expressed about inaccuracies and measuring,
you should modify your formula to divide by N - 1 (not N + 1). For example, with
5 slats, there are 4 spaces between them...
JeffB
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
> "Close, but no seegar" applies.
>
> change the denominator to "N-1", and you've got it.
>
> "Close, but no seegar" applies.
>
> change the denominator to "N-1", and you've got it.
>
> Note: with N slats, there are only N-1 spaces _between_ the slats.
"Close, but no seegar". :)
Note that (n + 1).is the goal.
When positioning spindles between two legs, or bars in a window, you
generally leave a space between the first post/ and the first spindle, and a
space between the last spindle and the last post, therefore you need one
more space than (n-1).
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
> I take the top and bottom stringers and clamp them together when making
the
> marks. That way, if there is an error, the spindle will still be straight
> even if it is off by 1/64. I also do the math rather than mark say, every
> 2". The pencil line can be a huge error when marking 14 slats. Or so I'd
> told. I'd never do that myself would I?
Great minds think alike? ... right now I am looking at six "stringers"
clamped together (top/bottom/top/bottom, etc) that I started marking
mortises on before I quit the shop last night. ;>)
AAMOF, here's a picture of the very operation (incomplete) you describe:
http://e-woodshop.net/files/marking.jpg
As you can see, I keep an electric pencil sharpener on the wall hung
workbench where I do most of my marking.
The "story stick", which I make carefully and keep for future use, also
clamped to the stringers, makes marking less error prone.
> I guess I could use a spreadsheet but I take pencil and paper and draw out
> (crudely) the spaces and slats: --0--0--0--0--0-- The I make marks as
> needed. 1 1/2" spaces with 2" slats is 1.5, 3.5, 5, 7, 8.5, etc. This is
> the place where the Lee Valley Saddle Square is the perfect tool for
layout.
I use an engineer's square ... I've used a hinge to do the same thing in the
past, but I've been meaning to get one of thse LV Saddle Squares, but just
haven't gotten around to it. Sounds like you like it?
> The only important rule is simplicity. Don't make 1 13/64 slats and end up
> with 2 11/16 spaces. The math will drive you crazy and you will be blind
> looking at all those little lines on the ruler.
That's _precisely_ why I spent the time yesterday doing the formula and
making a spreadsheet. That, and here lately I can't remember the next time
how I did it the last time ... you probably haven't got that 'advanced' yet
(in age). ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>I am frequently having to do this particular calculation, months apart, and
>have to rebuild the wheel each time. Today I attempted to write the damn
>thing down as a formula so I could make an Excel spreadsheet for my own use.
>
>The following, in a spreadsheet, worked twice for me today, but there is
>likely a better/easier way?
>
>A formula for spacing a given number of same width slats/spindles evenly
>between two points:
>
>X = (S - (W*N))/(N + 1)
>
>where:
>
>X = spacing in inches
>S = Space to be filled with slats of a desired width
>W = Desired width of slat
>N = Number of slats desired
>
>Your corrections/better ideas are more than welcome ... the older I get, the
>more I am just looking for a way to getting back to making sawdust faster.
"Close, but no seegar" applies.
change the denominator to "N-1", and you've got it.
"Close, but no seegar" applies.
change the denominator to "N-1", and you've got it.
Note: with N slats, there are only N-1 spaces _between_ the slats.
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 18:32:56 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]>
scribbled:
>I am frequently having to do this particular calculation, months apart, and
>have to rebuild the wheel each time. Today I attempted to write the damn
>thing down as a formula so I could make an Excel spreadsheet for my own use.
>
>The following, in a spreadsheet, worked twice for me today, but there is
>likely a better/easier way?
>
>A formula for spacing a given number of same width slats/spindles evenly
>between two points:
>
>X = (S - (W*N))/(N + 1)
>
>where:
>
>X = spacing in inches
>S = Space to be filled with slats of a desired width
>W = Desired width of slat
>N = Number of slats desired
>
>Your corrections/better ideas are more than welcome ... the older I get, the
>more I am just looking for a way to getting back to making sawdust faster.
Instead of calculating W*N, measure it. If you've got lots of
spindles/slats, it's easy to screw you up if there is the slightest
inaccuracy in the measurement of the width of slats/spindles. Put all
your slats/spindles next to each other & measure the width. Then
divide by the number of slats/spindles plus one to get the spacing.
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
JeffB said:
>
>
>Swingman wrote:
>
>> X = (S - (W*N))/(N + 1)
>>
>> where:
>>
>> X = spacing in inches
>> S = Space to be filled with slats of a desired width
>> W = Desired width of slat
>> N = Number of slats desired
>>
>
>In addition to the considerations expressed about inaccuracies and measuring,
>you should modify your formula to divide by N - 1 (not N + 1). For example, with
>5 slats, there are 4 spaces between them...
Kinda depends on whether you leave spaces at the ends - like a
baluster.
------------------
| | | | |
------------------
vs.
------------
| | | | |
------------
Greg G.
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 20:16:49 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]>
scribbled:
>"Luigi Zanasi" wrote in message
>
>> Instead of calculating W*N, measure it. If you've got lots of
>> spindles/slats, it's easy to screw you up if there is the slightest
>> inaccuracy in the measurement of the width of slats/spindles. Put all
>> your slats/spindles next to each other & measure the width. Then
>> divide by the number of slats/spindles plus one to get the spacing.
>
>"inaccuracies" in woodworking measurements are inevitable regardless of the
>method ... you just do your careful best as in all woodworking.
Absolutely true.
>The idea is
>to be able to calculate without having to cut a bunch of expensive wood to
>do a trial and error method like that.
>
>Not to mention that it's convenient to have the option to change your slat
>width as your design may change.
Ah! I see! You're talking about the design, not the installation. Then
using your formula makes absolute sense. And you get to try out
different #s of spindles. But when it comes to installing them, I
would still use my method. A 1/64th error in fabricating the spindles
means a gap that is off by 1/2 inch if you're using 30 spindles or so.
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
"Luigi Zanasi" wrote in message
> Instead of calculating W*N, measure it. If you've got lots of
> spindles/slats, it's easy to screw you up if there is the slightest
> inaccuracy in the measurement of the width of slats/spindles. Put all
> your slats/spindles next to each other & measure the width. Then
> divide by the number of slats/spindles plus one to get the spacing.
"inaccuracies" in woodworking measurements are inevitable regardless of the
method ... you just do your careful best as in all woodworking. The idea is
to be able to calculate without having to cut a bunch of expensive wood to
do a trial and error method like that.
Not to mention that it's convenient to have the option to change your slat
width as your design may change.
Thanks, in any event.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
--
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:aef9
> Note: with N slats, there are only N-1 spaces _between_ the slats.
>
True. OTOH, if you are putting slats or spindles between two end posts, it
is N+1 as there will be six spaces.
If you have cad program, why aren't you just using the "segment" command?
Swingman wrote:
> "Luigi Zanasi" wrote in message
>
>
>>Ah! I see! You're talking about the design, not the installation. Then
>>using your formula makes absolute sense.
>
>
> You're right, I actually do use it for the "design" stage, particularly when
> doing a shop drawing with a CAD program, which I generally do for every
> piece I make since I am usually buiilding custom and rarely use plans ...
> then it is a matter of implementing the design.
>
> Most of the time I am looking to accurately mark the location of mortices
> for a row of spindles/slats on both a top apron and bottom stringer.
>
>
>>And you get to try out
>>different #s of spindles.
>
>
> Yes. that's the beauty of having a spreadsheet, you can just plug in the
> different options/design.
>
>
>>But when it comes to installing them, I
>>would still use my method. A 1/64th error in fabricating the spindles
>>means a gap that is off by 1/2 inch if you're using 30 spindles or so.
>
>
> There's a better, and more accurate way then that, actually.
>
> I generally take the results of the calculation and make a "story stick"
> with the measurements on it, then use that the "story stick" mark the
> location of the mortises for the spindles/slats ... that way there is very
> little measurement error, particularly if you reference the same post or leg
> as the starting point, and it is much faster.
>
> Thanks for the discussion, Luigi.
>
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:53:59 GMT, JeffB <[email protected]>
scribbled:
>Swingman wrote:
>
>> X = (S - (W*N))/(N + 1)
>>
>> where:
>>
>> X = spacing in inches
>> S = Space to be filled with slats of a desired width
>> W = Desired width of slat
>> N = Number of slats desired
>>
>
>In addition to the considerations expressed about inaccuracies and measuring,
>you should modify your formula to divide by N - 1 (not N + 1). For example, with
>5 slats, there are 4 spaces between them...
Not if he wants spaces beyond the two end spindles. So with 5 slats,
there would be 4 spaces between them and 2 more at each end of the row
of slats.
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:aef9
> > Note: with N slats, there are only N-1 spaces _between_ the slats.
> >
>
> True. OTOH, if you are putting slats or spindles between two end posts,
it
> is N+1 as there will be six spaces.
Exactly ... AAMOF, I don't think I've ever seen spindles/slats between two
posts or legs that started with a slat/spindle next to each posts instead of
a space?
(n+1) is definitely correct for the task at hand.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04