Comments for Design Matters

Comment on Thumbs up on Handworks 2013! by Handworks worked. - talkFestool

Handworks worked. - talkFestool — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 04:49:40 +0000

[…] […]

Comment on Down the Rabbit Hole IV by Get Ready to Ratio | Baroque Pearls

Get Ready to Ratio | Baroque Pearls — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:01:22 +0000

[…] Down the Rabbit Hole IV […]

Comment on Down the Rabbit Hole IV by walkerg

walkerg — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:49:49 +0000

Timothy,
You have caught the sense of this approach. When I began using these proportional methods years ago, I was quite meticulous about using dividers with accuracy. As my confidence improved, I found myself gaging them by eye. I do think it’s important to take those initial steps with a sector and dividers to inform the eye. Side note – on many historic examples where one would expect artisans had enough experience to wing it, I’ve often found the proportions dead on.

George Walker

Comment on Down the Rabbit Hole IV by Timothy

Timothy — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:53:10 +0000

This all seems a bit funny to me. If what we are trying to do is get away from building to print and moving toward ratios and what looks go to your eye, what does it matter if the sector is off by 1/16″ or so. If you are dividing a small pease in half you might notice, but for just about anything else the ratio still looks good. The pease looks good. No one will notice.

Comment on Down the Rabbit Hole IV by Jim Tolpin

Jim Tolpin — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 22:24:49 +0000

OK, here’s the plane and simple fact’s (as opposed to the opinions I opined): If the distance between your focal point and the first division point aren’t equal, then the sector won’t be creating a series of Isosceles triangles and the derivations won’t work. If the first (zero to one) spacing is less than the rest, the divisions will fall short. (When using the sector to divide a space). So adjust accordingly—most simply by putting a little shim under the hinge plates, enough so that the division derivations come true. If the opposite occurs, sharpen up your block plane and trim a little bit off the ends of the legs.

Comment on Thumbs up on Handworks 2013! by Photo tour of the show – Handworks | She Works Wood

Photo tour of the show – Handworks | She Works Wood — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 05:17:18 +0000

[…] Thumbs up on Handworks 2013! […]

Comment on Down the Rabbit Hole IV by mark dorman

mark dorman — Fri, 31 May 2013 21:29:32 +0000

Quote: “not necessarily the actual intersection of our two reference planes (the inside surfaces of our arms)”

Here is the difference of what I drew on AutoCAD. The inside of my arms are parallel and touching and the center of the pin is at the end of the arm not behind it. That makes my arms intersect with the center of the pin.
The realization I just had is; it sounded like my drawing disproved Jim’s. When actually I drew my sector and proved to me it worked. So I was not comparing apples to apples. My apologies to you Jim.

Sincerely
Mark

Comment on Down the Rabbit Hole IV by Nick Webb

Nick Webb — Fri, 31 May 2013 20:08:07 +0000

But George, in your O.P. you stated categorically “the fact that the pivot point of the sector’s legs is not the center of the hinge pin as you might expect, but the back of the hinge”. This is misleading at best. We might find that in practice the reference point is not at the centre of the hinge, as we ought to expect, but to state that the reference point IS at the back of the hinge pin, without qualifying it by saying that this is the case for Jim’s particular sector is misleading.

Comment on Down the Rabbit Hole IV by walkerg

walkerg — Fri, 31 May 2013 19:48:20 +0000

Nick,
Neither Jim nor anyone else on this string is publishing mis-information. Think of it like this. The center of the hinge pin is the center of rotation but not necessarily the actual intersection of our two reference planes (the inside surfaces of our arms). Another way to visualize this. If both arms were actually parallel, would the outside surfaces intersect at the center of the hinge pin? Of course not. The planes would intersect far behind the hinge in space. Likewise any slight misalignment will put our actual apex somewhere other than the true center of the hinge. On historic sectors used for scientific and navigation purposes, I’m sure great pains were taken to get all the reference surfaces spot on. For our purposes building furniture, we are not concerned with that level of precision.

George R. Walker

Comment on Down the Rabbit Hole IV by Nick Webb

Nick Webb — Fri, 31 May 2013 18:29:04 +0000

Or, to think of it another way, why would it choose to rotate about the back of the hinge pin rather than the front, left, right or any other random point around the pin’s circumference?
Please check your sector, find where the error is, and stop publishing mis-information. There’s more than enough of that on the internet already.