If you mean a miter cut, the length of the miter is
the root of two times the square of the width of the board.
If you mean a bevel cut, the length of the bevel is
the root of two times the square of the thickness of the board.
1 inch wide =3D 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
2 inch wide =3D 2.8284271247461900976033774484194
3 inch wide =3D 4.24264068711928514640506617262909
4 inch wide =3D 5.65685424949238019520675489683879
It appears the bevel/miter is proportional to the width by a factor of = ~1.41. Or, the width/thickness is always 70.7106781186547524400844362105198% of = the bevel/miter. _________________________________________________________
Dougie, you said
| You missed the point rather dramatically, I'm afraid. You wrote that = the width=20 | of the miter was proportional to "the square of the width of the = board".=20
I don't think so. No where in the preceding, which I include herewith = for clarity, did I state what you saw.
Better get your eyes checked. Your geekiness leaves much to be desired. = You might, however, be in line for the "Conehead" awards. ________________________________________________________
--=20
PDQ
| (percentage) of the length of the board does it take up? To=20 | conceptualize the issue, I drew a one inch line on paper with a ruler, =
| and rotated the ruler to a 45 degree angle, thinking that the one inch =
| mark on the ruler would be only 1/2 away from the starting point = (along=20 | the original path of the ruler), but it looks like it's about 90% = along=20 | the one inch span. What's the formula? |=20 | Dave
--=20
PDQ
| >If you want to play those games, Doug: | >
| >"Bevel" is described as "the angle formed at the juncture of two non = =3D | >perpendicular surfaces." | >
| >"Miter" could mean "a tall ornamental liturgical headdress" worn by = some =3D | >members of the clergy, or it could mean, as it does in this case, =3D | >"either of the surfaces that come together in a miter joint". | >
| >If you want to play with polygonal surfaces, why not say so? "board = =3D | >_not_ squared" is so imprecise. | >
| >I guess your problem must lie with your inability to visualize the = =3D | >position of the board within its frame of reference. |=20 | You missed the point rather dramatically, I'm afraid. You wrote that = the width=20 | of the miter was proportional to "the square of the width of the = board".=20 |=20 | This is false. |=20 | It is proportional to the *width* of the board. Period. Not the square = of its=20 | width. |=20 | You then compounded this error by repeating it with respect to = thickness, and=20 | bevels. |=20 | And now you've compounded it still further by showing that, in = addition to=20 | your difficulties with mathematics, you also have some reading = comprehension=20 | issues. |=20 | -- | Regards, | Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) |=20 | Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his = butt. | And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?