Thread: I should have charged more

Originally Posted by IanW

As some wit pointed out, that way, we're got a mile start, & we've got his shoes.....

Nice. I'll put that into my collection of witty ripostes.

Originally Posted by mic-d

I've taken to using a digital angle gauge to quickly give me the bisected angle and set the sliding bevel from it for saw adjustments. Why not use the angle gauge to set the saw? Well the sliding bevel has a more positive lock and it conserves the measuring tool for safer measuring duties only.

Yes, but every step as in transferring the digital angle to the bevel gauge introduces a new opportunity for error.

And I am a champion at doing that, so I'm happier using a bevel gauge which works in the real angles rather than digital or scaled ones.

Although when I think about it I'm still introducing a new step, actually steps, for error when I mark out the bevel gauge angles in pencil and bisect them and transfer that to the saw.

If I understand correctly what you've said, you're using the digital angle finder to identify and then set the (independently calculated) bisected angle and then transferring the bisected angle to the bevel gauge and using the bevel gauge to set the saw angle. If so, this might be a very satisfactory compromise between my frustrating attempts at using digital and analogue protractors to find the angle and then transferring them to the reverse scale on the saw.

Originally Posted by mic-d

I saw a manual mitre box the other day that worked a bit like the Festool power saw that has meshed fences so you get the complimentary angles automatically. It was a neat tool.

Could you post a link to this?

Why is it that when a process requires multiple steps, any errors made are always additive!? The law of averages says they should cancel out half the time, but they never do - Murphy's law always trumps any other....

Originally Posted by 419

Yes, but every step as in transferring the digital angle to the bevel gauge introduces a new opportunity for error.

And I am a champion at doing that, so I'm happier using a bevel gauge which works in the real angles rather than digital or scaled ones.

Although when I think about it I'm still introducing a new step, actually steps, for error when I mark out the bevel gauge angles in pencil and bisect them and transfer that to the saw.

If I understand correctly what you've said, you're using the digital angle finder to identify and then set the (independently calculated) bisected angle and then transferring the bisected angle to the bevel gauge and using the bevel gauge to set the saw angle. If so, this might be a very satisfactory compromise between my frustrating attempts at using digital and analogue protractors to find the angle and then transferring them to the reverse scale on the saw.



Could you post a link to this?

Yes, rather than bisecting the angle by whatever means, either directly on the work with a wider straight board or taking off the angle with a sliding bevel then transfering it, bisecting it resetting the bevel gauge etc, just measure the angle with the digital gauge, halve the measurement on the gauge, set the bevel off of that. For me this has steamlined the process and eliminated errors.

The mitre box was called a MagicMitre mitre box. Now I see it's made of plastic so I don't know how well it would last, I thought it was alloy when I first saw it.
cheers

Originally Posted by IanW

Why is it that when a process requires multiple steps, any errors made are always additive!? The law of averages says they should cancel out half the time, but they never do - Murphy's law always trumps any other....

Of course! Because you have to understand that Murphy's Law (which I think is misunderstood) is overlaid with Third Time Lucky. The first time you do the wrong thing, the second time you do the right thing the wrong way and the third time you forget one of the steps and do it the wrong way, but you say that doesn't count because you forgot and the last time you do it by eye and it was so easy you wondered what all the fuss was about, forget every little detail taken into account and do it wrong the next time.

Originally Posted by mic-d

Of course! Because you have to understand that Murphy's Law (which I think is misunderstood) is overlaid with Third Time Lucky. The first time you do the wrong thing, the second time you do the right thing the wrong way and the third time you forget one of the steps and do it the wrong way, but you say that doesn't count because you forgot and the last time you do it by eye and it was so easy you wondered what all the fuss was about, forget every little detail taken into account and do it wrong the next time.

On Saturday I very carefully laminated rice paper onto an acrylic sheet for my Shoji doors. It was beautiful to behold the process ( in my imagination). I applied spray contact like a Rolls Royce spray painter, sandwiched dowels between them and gradually married them together, rolled them together with a (freshly washed - aha you won't catch me out with a grubby mark) rubber roller, trimmed the excess with a razor sharp chisel and took it to the doors. I had very carefully laminated an offcut of acrylic rather than the right piece

Must be something in the air ---

Last night I glued up a little box I'm making to hold a Christmas present for one of my daughters. The top & bottom are captured in grooves, which I find a bit tricky with small pieces getting the fit just-so but it all went together pretty well & when I cut the lid section off this morning, everything stayed true. I was feeling borderline smug as I tidied up the saw cut & fitted the hinges. With the hinges screwed in place, I held it at arms' length to adnmre the complete match of the fiddleback pattern around the sides, and would you believe it?! I'd reversed the lid, so the pattern is a mismatch!

How could I, after all these years of making things, make such a silly, fundamental error? I think I'm starting to lose the plot.....

So I shut up shop fr the day & took the dog for a walk while I had a bit of a think. I could leave it as-is, most of you folks would spot the blunder, but most of the rest of the population wouldn't. However (as per the spirit of this thread!), it really bugs me to walk away from a mistake if there's any way to correct it. A possible solution I've come up with is to take a couple of mm off the edge on the box side all round (enough to remove the hinge rebates), and glue on a thin strip of contrasting wood. If I get it right, I might be able to pass it off as an intentional bit of design...

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Must be something in the air ---

Last night I glued up a little box I'm making to hold a Christmas present for one of my daughters. The top & bottom are captured in grooves, which I find a bit tricky with small pieces getting the fit just-so but it all went together pretty well & when I cut the lid section off this morning, everything stayed true. I was feeling borderline smug as I tidied up the saw cut & fitted the hinges. With the hinges screwed in place, I held it at arms' length to adnmre the complete match of the fiddleback pattern around the sides, and would you believe it?! I'd reversed the lid, so the pattern is a mismatch!

How could I, after all these years of making things, make such a silly, fundamental error? I think I'm starting to lose the plot.....

So I shut up shop fr the day & took the dog for a walk while I had a bit of a think. I could leave it as-is, most of you folks would spot the blunder, but most of the rest of the population wouldn't. However (as per the spirit of this thread!), it really bugs me to walk away from a mistake if there's any way to correct it. A possible solution I've come up with is to take a couple of mm off the edge on the box side all round (enough to remove the hinge rebates), and glue on a thin strip of contrasting wood. If I get it right, I might be able to pass it off as an intentional bit of design...

Cheers,

Ian,

My best made is Swedish,

His favourite line,
It’s not a mistake it’s a design adjustment, best said after a few drinks with a slight Swedish accent.

Cheers Matt.

Another self inflicted and embarrassing error, which indicates that I am losing the plot.

Last week I pulled a two stroke earth auger out of the shed after not being used for about seven or eight years. Assumed it wouldn't start because fuel had gummed up the carby. Didn't start. Dismantled carby and cleaned it. Wouldn't start. No attempt at even coughing. Diagnosis: no spark. Put spark tester on it. Diagnosis confirmed. Got the not terribly rare spark plug at the third shop I went to. Installed spark plug. Still wouldn't start. Much stuffing around trying to find problem. Then I wondered did it have a hidden stop switch that I'd forgotten? No. The stop switch I'd carefully set to the correct position on every attempt was at the end of the slide right where the arrow pointed. Blinding flash of cosmic insight. The arrow points to the stop position. Slide in opposite direction. Started first pull.

Only wasted a few hours of my life.

Now I have a fully working auger, and a spare spark plug.

Originally Posted by mic-d

Yes, rather than bisecting the angle by whatever means, either directly on the work with a wider straight board or taking off the angle with a sliding bevel then transfering it, bisecting it resetting the bevel gauge etc, just measure the angle with the digital gauge, halve the measurement on the gauge, set the bevel off of that. For me this has steamlined the process and eliminated errors.

Experimented with that today. Works well, except the digital angle finder is much thinner than the bevel gauge and there's an element of judging alignment between the blades by eye unless I put a packer under the digital finder to put it on the same level as the blade in the bevel gauge.

I think I'll just buy cheap Bunnings digital finders and use them in one step to find the angle and set the saw to the bisected angle.

I don't why I didn't do that before. It was a few years back, but maybe I was focused on the process of using the digital finder to get the angle and then using the textaed protractor on the saw to set the saw.

Anyway, thank you for setting me back on the path to quick, easy and very accurate mitres.

Originally Posted by mic-d

The mitre box was called a MagicMitre mitre box. Now I see it's made of plastic so I don't know how well it would last, I thought it was alloy when I first saw it.
cheers

I googled magic mitre and came up with this. Seems complicated compared with the digital angle finder process you've described.
How to use a magic mitre box? - Wonkee Donkee Tools

Recently I bought online a very much simpler and very cheap version which has the advantage of being pressed up to the angle, then screwed tight, and then cut through the mitre posts.

IMG_1561.jpg

Good idea but poorly executed. It is useless because there is about a five degree slop in the loose arm because the gears which move the arms in tandem are cut too loose.

IMG_1562.jpg