# help with measurements?

Page 1 of 2
• posted on December 31, 2003, 7:41 pm
If anyone can help with these measurements, something just seems off, I'm terrible at geometry, but can measure and cut just fine.
I'm wanting to build a corner cabinet for my tv and related equipment. The design size is limited on one side to 34" because of a door jamb. The shape I've come up with is 5 sided-essentially the same as a profile of a diamond from a ring-not a pentagon. Measurements of 22" for the front (tv screen edge), 12" each side, then 34" for each of the back sides. I've just cut out graph paper, one square to one inch to fit these measurements. The TV itself is box shaped, narrowing slightly towards the back. 25" across the front screen edge, 19" deep, and 19" wide at the back. I've also cut the graph paper to fit those measurements. The tv paper fits well inside the cabinet paper, but it doesn't seem like it should. Given that the cabinet paper front edge is only 22 squares (cut on the diagonal) and tv paper is 25 squares wide, how is this possible. Have I measured wrong, is it a matter of perception, something else? I don't want to buy and cut wood if this just isn't going to work.
Thanks!
--
Melissa
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 7:50 pm
sounds like a simple math problem. YOU and the rest of us that have half a brain know that the diagonal of a square is longer than a side...
think "a" squared plus "b" squared equals "c" squared... a and b are sides and c is the diagonal. I'll let YOU do the rest.
dave
Melissa wrote:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 8:09 pm
Thanks Dave, that's exactly the problem. As I said, I'm terrible at geometry, so bad that I didn't realize the diagonal was longer than the sides. I guess my half brain isn't the half that can handle that. :) All set now, just needed a bit of reassurance that the tv would indeed fit. Thanks!
--
Melissa

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 9:04 pm
Cool!
dave
Melissa wrote:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 7:54 pm
Melissa wrote:

A pentagon is a Five Sided figure, a diamond can be any shape?????

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 8:11 pm
--

> > I've come up with is 5 sided-essentially the same as a profile of a
diamond
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 1, 2004, 6:48 am
jim wrote:

She said profile. most stones are cut with a flat top, a short bevel about 30 degrees down and then the bevel to a point at the bottom of the stone. In profile that is a pentagon.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 8:08 pm
Melissa wrote...

I'm not sure you have the sizes you think you do. 22 diagonals would be just under 31-1/8". A square's diagonal is about 1.414 times the length of a side. That would account for your TV model fitting in the space, but then you'd have the wrong measurements for the plan view of the cabinet. Are all the angles right angles? If so, then all your measurements given above work except the front, which is actually 31.110".
Cheers!
Jim

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 8:16 pm

My information was off. I gave measurements for all but the front edge, that I gave in squares. I made the other measurements on the wall itself, but couldn't make the diagonal measurement (couldn't get the m. tape to steady enough for that), so was going on the incorrect assumption that the diagonal of the square was the same as the length of a side. Corrected now, thanks!
--
Melissa

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 8:41 pm

but
now,
Your mistake is assuming the diagonals of the graph paper are 1". They are actually 1.414".
Draw two 34" lines at 90 deg to each other. At the end of these lines draw a 12" radius circle. Connect the circle centers. Cut a piece of graph paper to 22" and carefully place it between the circles so that simultaneously the ends touch the circles and the paper is parallel to the line joining the centers. Mark on the circles where the graph paper has touched. Draw lines from these points to the circle centers. You have your five sided diamond. Angles can be read with a protractor.
Good luck.
TW

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 8:55 pm
TinWoodsmn wrote...

Except in this case, a 22" segment cannot touch both circles, because they are over 24" apart at the closest.
Jim

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 9:18 pm

draw a

paper to

the
Jim, you're absolutely right. I should have checked my work more closely before sending a non solution.
Happy New Year to all.
TW

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 1, 2004, 12:40 am
TinWoodsmn wrote...

No sweat, mon. I had asked Melissa if all the angles were right angles. Hello-oh! The polygon has five angles; they can't *all* be right! (G)

To you, too!
Jim

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 10:31 pm
In rec.woodworking

I'm not able to reproduce a design like that in AutoCAD. Are the 2 34" pieces at a right angle? That is what I assumed since it is in a corner. If they are, the geometry doesn't work. The 22" front will never intersect 12" sides.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 10:31 pm
In rec.woodworking

I've tried to draw this in AutoCAD and I get the idea but it won't work with the measurements you gave me unless the 2 34" sides aren't perpendicular. Are they? If so, the 22" will never meet the 12" sides.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 10:38 pm
dave
Bruce wrote:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 10:45 pm
In alt.home.repair

Actually, those weren't supposed to be sent because I'd seen it was already answered. As for AutoCAD, I do everything in AutoCAD and hardly consider it overkill. I drew it up in about 3 minutes, much easier than sketching it on paper.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 1, 2004, 2:20 am
I'm not saying anything's wrong with using Autocad, Bruce; just that the OP's question was of a basic nature, needing a simple answer regarding diagonals.
dave
Bruce wrote:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on January 1, 2004, 2:37 am
In alt.home.repair

Dave,
I drew it out to determine what her problem was. I had no idea she was equating the hypotenuse of a square with the side of a square because I found her description hard to follow. I'm much more visual. Once I saw the picture, the light went on.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 31, 2003, 11:54 pm
Instead of messing with all the math, why don't you just use a story stick?
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.

"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"