# try square question

Page 4 of 6
• posted on July 10, 2004, 3:41 pm

You are plonked you creep, I don't chat in here to put up with your ancient redneck crap.... Alex
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 9, 2004, 5:21 pm
wrote:

I'ts in the words..."Try", meaning "check", and "Square" meaning 90 degrees." It's use to check for dead-on 90 degrees, that is angle measure, not for measuring length. For example, you'd check if your blade was square to the table. It is also used for marking 90 degrees.
Linear measures are added to extend the possible use on some squares, but the Try Square still serves its purpose.
Bill.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 10, 2004, 1:01 pm

Looks like Miller's falls knew that, eBay (in the pictures): 6106079531 Alex
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 10, 2004, 6:55 pm
wrote:

I knew that. At least there is some agreement. :-)
Bill.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 10, 2004, 7:24 pm
wrote:

Bugger it! I checked a little more, and Ebay is listing Tri Square, and Try square. However, they show little difference, except in one case they show a Combination Square set as a "Machinist's Tri Square." I give up. But I've known all of my life a "try square" to be a simple tool for checking if 90 degrees, period. ....and I'm a senior.
Bill.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 9, 2004, 7:27 pm
Squares without marks are usually (but not always) more precisely square. I use my expensive squares without marks only for CHECKING squareness. I use my less expensive squares with marks for layout and scribing lines with an awl or marking knife.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 9, 2004, 8:28 pm
On 9 Jul 2004 12:27:24 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@control-tech.com (Charles Erskine) wrote:

You almost lost me on this one, but I see (I think). You mean that you'd hold the scribe or knife against the mark while dragging the two down the length of the wood? Then it makes sense to have a cheap square for that purpose. Myself, I'd rather use a tool designed for that purpose: a nice rosewood/brass marking guage.
Bill.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 11, 2004, 4:15 pm
wrote:

I think the "correct" way to do it is to use your highly-accurate macninist's square to check the accuracy of your try square. Once you have verified that your try square is, indeed, square, you use the try square to draw lines perpendicular to the reference edge on your workpiece. The marking gauge (or a height gauge) would be used to draw lines parallel to your reference edge.
Ed
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 11, 2004, 5:41 pm

You can verify if your square is square by simply using it to draw a line perpendicular to the edge of a board and then flipping the square over to the other side of the line and seeing if the line is parallel to the square with no gap.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 29, 2004, 10:46 pm
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:41:00 +0000, Leon wrote:

It all depends on how much error you are willing to accept.
Woodworking does not require the same level of precision that machining does so the tools for each trade, while sometimes similar in purpose, are different in execution.
Bill
--
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 11, 2004, 1:21 am
AArDvarK wrote:

This thread is hilarious. Some one suggest that is spelled a certain way because that's the way it is on e-bay. Ha, any using billboard to check their spelling? English is in a constant state of change, both in the meaning of words and the spelling of words, so anything is possible and generally is when you look at the way people spell in news groups and e-mails. Just saw a reference to not "paint the floor into a closet." What the hell is that? The saying is "painting yourself into a corner."
If you want to see a "standard spelling, or standard meaning" use a dictionary, and if that isn't entirely satisfactory use your knowledge of English. Anything is is just opinion which is very little value. "Tri" is a prefix that means 3, it is not a word. So a Tri Square (two words) is inherently substandard. A try square is simply two legs at a right angle, there is no 3 of anything.
A machinist or combination square, may have three parts, but there aren't 3 angles as someone suggested. The cast part with the level does has a right angle on one side and a 45 degree angle on the other side as measured against the slide. So you could call it a bisquare, but what the hell would that mean. If you have the common third piece fits on the slide, you end up with two 45 degrees from the slide or 90 degrees with itself. So now it could be call a tri-something since it has three pieces, of if you count angles maybe a quart- or quintsquare, but again, what the hell would that mean? Maybe that's why the correct name makes some sense, a square used by a machinist or a square with a combination of uses.
Discussion is great for amusement, but if you want the correct meaning or use of something, consult a dictionary or an accepted or noted technical manual. Still, people make mistakes, so also use your brain. Hell, the Third International Websters, even forgot to put Uranus in the original printing. Maybe someone didn't make a mistake but was just trying to be being politically correct?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 29, 2004, 10:47 pm
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:21:37 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:

Yes, it is a try-square ... to 'try' the trueness of an edge or face.
But just to keep things lively, consider that the straight edge provides the third angle. 45, 90, 180 ... there's your three angles.
The machinist squares are not marked with distances because they are only used to test for squareness and even then, only on comparatively rough work.
Bill
--
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 30, 2004, 5:44 am
Anonymous wrote:

Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a straight edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance between two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about that.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 30, 2004, 5:48 am

The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as arbitrary an angle as any other.
Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between two points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to LA and you'll see what I mean.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 30, 2004, 1:38 pm
Elwood Dowd wrote:

If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but that would have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest. Since we are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are compelled to take curved paths.
Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being an angle, yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually something that one needs to do.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 31, 2004, 5:00 am
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be prepared to forfeit your reward.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 31, 2004, 5:33 am

Excellent straw man. Unfortunately, there are many mathematical concepts that are not easily defined. It doesn't, however, mean they aren't true. For example, take the concept that a circle of infinite radius can be represented by a line. Where is the center of a circle of infinite radius? I'd say a 180 degree angle has an infinite number of axes.
todd
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 31, 2004, 11:27 pm
Todd Fatheree wrote:

I'm no mathematician, but a line (note A line, meaning one line) doesn't have to have a dimension so of course it can be any length. It needs two points and then it can go off forever. As far as the center of the circle, well the circle is twice as big as the radius but the radius in infinite so the center has to be half of the infinite diameter. Yeah right.
Not infinite at all, not even existent. As I understand it, an angle requires two lines. If you take two lines and place them in same plane and the same direction and they touch at any point, you define a single line by definition. The only thing that has changed is the dimension of the line, but it is A line. If you have a straight edge, it is ideally defined by the two end points, and whatever is in between is just a mechanical holder or a visual aid. If it is a single line, then there is no axes and no angle formed.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 31, 2004, 5:58 am
George E. Cawthon wrote:

Why would you want to measure the subtended angle of a straightedge? Now, consider something like a door or a wing-sweep actuator, where you have movement possible thorugh a range of angles.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 31, 2004, 11:34 pm
"J. Clarke" wrote:

You wouldn't, nor could you. The door and the wing-sweep actuator are not lines, they are solid figures and you are considering two solid figures in reference to each other (door-wall) and (actuator-whatever). But if you want to visualize them as lines in a single plane, then when they are at 180 degrees you have two lines that are separated by a space, or if they touch you have a single line.