Well actually that is incorrect also. if I understand what you are saying.
Given a 40" wide area that you want to divide with 2" wide spacers so that you have 3 equal length spaces between the spacer, if you divide 40" by 3 you end up with equally divided points every 13.34 inches. If you center the dividers on the 2 equally spaced marks and then move the spacers further apart half their width or 1", as I believe you are indicating, the outer spaces end up being narrower than the center. In this example 2" narrower.
No, I do not agree. sorry, I have run across this time and time again using drawing programs where you can tell the CAD program to equally divide a line and then center dividers with width greater than "zero" on those points. You get unequal spacing on the outer spaces.
I find the easiest way is to multiply the number of dividers by their width and subtract that amount from the given area that they should be equally space in. then divide that number by the number of dividers +1.
And moving the outer points 1/2' the width of the spacer exaggerates the error.
trick. Get a measuring device, scale, yardstick, tape, etc. Find x number of equal units of measure, inch, foot, centimeter, etc, and count off the number of divisions you need. The total number of units of measure must exceed the right angle distance of the space you are dividing.
For example, let say you want to divide 10" wide distance into 12 equal measurments. Easy. Take a 12" ruler and lay it from one side of the 10" distance to the other side AT AN ANGLE so the 12" distance lays across the
10" without extending beyond being short of the 10" right angle distance. Mark off the 12 one inch increments at one point and do it again at another point. Connect the marks with a straight edge. Voila! A 10" board, tile, whatever, divided into 12 equal lines.
This is a spreadsheet I devised a few years ago to keep from having to rebuild the wheel every time I layout spindles/slats between legs, rails, posts, etc when doing A&C/Mission furniture:
formatting link
It has been posted a few times in the past five years and manages to start an argument every time. It works _perfectly_ for me and others who have used it for the purpose for which it was intended. NOTE:I have no intention engaging in argument of any type regarding the formula, if it doesn't work for someone, they can either roll their own by tweaking the formula for their specific purpose, or kiss my ass, whichever suits the time and place...
To calculate the distance between centerlines, the width of one baluster has to be added to the width of the opening before calculating the spacing. Then, the distance from the edge of the opening to the centerline of the first baluster is the calculated centerline spacing minus 1/2 the width of the baluster. That first measurement is not from centerline to centerline but from edge of opening to centerline.
Example: 9 1" wide balusters in a 39" opening.
Number of equal spaces = number of balusters + 1 = 10 equal spaces
Distance between the centerline of two adjacent balusters = width of opening + width of one baluster divided by number of equal spaces = (39 + 1) / 10 = 40/10 = 4"
Open space between adjacent balusters = distance between centerlines - width of baluster = 4 - 1 = 3
Distance from edge of opening to centerline of first baluster = distance between balusters - 1/2 width of baluster = 4 - 1/2 = 3 1/2.
That results in 9 balusters with 4" between centerlines and 3" openings between balusters and 3" between the end balusters and the edge of the opening.
LOL, well I was going to add mechanical drawing whether on paper or on the computer. CAD spells this out in a hurry and is easy to fix. Doing it on a drawing board, you try not to make that mistake a second time.
I think the confusion is coming in because someone brought centerlines into the discussion. You can do it with centerlines, you just have to account for the fact that the measurement to the first centerline from the edge of the opening is NOT a centerline to centerline measurement.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.