Is there some way I can find the width of the orange bar using only the data shown?
JTQ said:
Is there some way I can find the width of the orange bar using only the data shown?
Open the image in Photoshop and set the scale so that the units quoted are true in mm. Then measure the width of the orange bar with the selection tool.
No.
i agree with sibeen.
I agree with bubblecar
(or scale it straight off the screen and do a simple ratio)
Boris said:
i agree with sibeen.
at a guess, i’d say about 9
that assumes the drawing is accurate.
i’d say it “looks” to be about half the 32 measure…so 15.
Just did it in Photoshop (but not to a high degree of accuracy, given the low res inage). The orange bar is approximately 19 wide.
Alrighty, thanks
I’ve been given a catalogue of drawers at work that I need to set up in a software program, but the intelligent people that wrote the catalogue missed a hell of a lot of information in it.
Boris said:
i’d say it “looks” to be about half the 32 measure…so 15.
i got (107-72)/4
(+/- 1)
Boris said:
i’d say it “looks” to be about half the 32 measure…so 15.
Assuming symmetry, leftmost vertical line to right hand side of orange is 36, and it looks a little over half of that, so I’d say 20.
JTQ said:
Alrighty, thanksI’ve been given a catalogue of drawers at work that I need to set up in a software program, but the intelligent people that wrote the catalogue missed a hell of a lot of information in it.
Did they give you an autocad file?
I think you just use whatever width timber you see fit as matches the rest of your cabinet.
sibeen said:
Did they give you an autocad file?
Nah, just a bunch of PDFs and hard copy.
and knowing nominal sizes would narrow down the range and assume material to be mdf melamine, so probably 18.
maybe.
;-)
19 mm is the standard for thickness for dressed pine.
party_pants said:
I think you just use whatever width timber you see fit as matches the rest of your cabinet.
Could do, but the timber sits at the left of the orange bar. The orange bar is the width between the timber and the screw holes.
Bubblecar said:
Just did it in Photoshop (but not to a high degree of accuracy, given the low res inage). The orange bar is approximately 19 wide.
Yep.
JTQ said:
Alrighty, thanksI’ve been given a catalogue of drawers at work that I need to set up in a software program, but the intelligent people that wrote the catalogue missed a hell of a lot of information in it.
It would probably be obvious if you had the unit in front of you, as they are quite specific as to what the perimeters line up with.
PermeateFree said:
It would probably be obvious if you had the unit in front of you, as they are quite specific as to what the perimeters line up with.
Actually having it in front of me would be perfect, as I could just grab a ruler and measure it with that, and check their dumb catalogue in the bin.
JTQ said:
PermeateFree said:
It would probably be obvious if you had the unit in front of you, as they are quite specific as to what the perimeters line up with.
Actually having it in front of me would be perfect, as I could just grab a ruler and measure it with that, and check their dumb catalogue in the bin.
In that situation the only solution is to try several scales on common scale-rules to find which one they have used, then scale it off. Due to the simplicity of the drawing those drawn should be quite accurate.
I reckon its more yellow than orange.
20
If it is laminate cabinetry it will be 16 or 19mm. Find the material type and you find your answer. Or like others have said scale by ratio or a software application. If you have access to cad you can import a jpeg then se t scale off that and measure away..
72/4, except that the far quarter may be slightly smaller than the other 3 quarters.
stan101 said:
If it is laminate cabinetry it will be 16 or 19mm. Find the material type and you find your answer. Or like others have said scale by ratio or a software application. If you have access to cad you can import a jpeg then se t scale off that and measure away..
16mm or 18mm is used in laminate cabinetry. But this isn’t a laminate board I’m trying to measure, it’s the gap between the laminate board and the drawer runner.
JTQ said:
16mm or 18mm is used in laminate cabinetry. But this isn’t a laminate board I’m trying to measure, it’s the gap between the laminate board and the drawer runner.
Correction… laminate board and the screw holes.
JTQ said:
JTQ said:
16mm or 18mm is used in laminate cabinetry. But this isn’t a laminate board I’m trying to measure, it’s the gap between the laminate board and the drawer runner.
Correction… laminate board and the screw holes.
Measure the screw lengths. Make the board the next standard size up.
You have to make some assumptions but it looks to me that the measurement is 72/4 = 18
furious said:
You have to make some assumptions but it looks to me that the measurement is 72/4 = 18
Could be, but if you look more closely, the orange bar is wider than the space beside it.
Speedy said:
furious said:
You have to make some assumptions but it looks to me that the measurement is 72/4 = 18
Could be, but if you look more closely, the orange bar is wider than the space beside it.
scale may not be exact.
roughbarked said:
Speedy said:
furious said:
You have to make some assumptions but it looks to me that the measurement is 72/4 = 18
Could be, but if you look more closely, the orange bar is wider than the space beside it.
scale may not be exact.
It may not be. We can assume that it isn’t and use random numbers, or assume that it is to scale.
Precise scaling finds the distance to be 18.94736842, or as we engineers like to call it, 20,
The Rev Dodgson said:
Precise scaling finds the distance to be 18.94736842, or as we engineers like to call it, 20,
or, FN.
Hence my reference to assumptions…
It does, but I think it might be an optical illusion caused by the colouring. My high tech method of placing a measuring device on the screen has them at roughly the same width…
furious said:
- if you look more closely, the orange bar is wider than the space beside it
It does, but I think it might be an optical illusion caused by the colouring. My high tech method of placing a measuring device on the screen has them at roughly the same width…
:) It’s not an optical illusion.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Precise scaling finds the distance to be 18.94736842, or as we engineers like to call it, 20,
:)
…and I’m finding that funny at the moment because I just realised I made a big OoM error in something I was discussing yesterday. My business partner has just spent the last 5 minutes laughing at me.
furious said:
- if you look more closely, the orange bar is wider than the space beside it
It does, but I think it might be an optical illusion caused by the colouring. My high tech method of placing a measuring device on the screen has them at roughly the same width…
I used the same technology to arrive at my number.
furious said:
- if you look more closely, the orange bar is wider than the space beside it
It does, but I think it might be an optical illusion caused by the colouring. My high tech method of placing a measuring device on the screen has them at roughly the same width…
I used the same technology to arrive at my number.
The Rev Dodgson said:
furious said:
- if you look more closely, the orange bar is wider than the space beside it
It does, but I think it might be an optical illusion caused by the colouring. My high tech method of placing a measuring device on the screen has them at roughly the same width…
I used the same technology to arrive at my number.
Me too. Look more closely furious :)
I see that The Rev is of the ‘measure twice’ school of thought.
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Precise scaling finds the distance to be 18.94736842, or as we engineers like to call it, 20,:)
…and I’m finding that funny at the moment because I just realised I made a big OoM error in something I was discussing yesterday. My business partner has just spent the last 5 minutes laughing at me.
Last Friday I spent the day listening to an old codger tell us why it had been all down hill since slide rules were replaced by calculators, and people didn’t need to do OoM calcs in their head any more. :)
sibeen said:
I see that The Rev is of the ‘measure twice’ school of thought.
And measuring a third time, I find the gap on the right is bigger than the gap on the left, so I should really revise my estimate to 18.
glad to see everyone is slowly coming around to agreement with my 18.
;-)
A simple scale off the screen gives 20. but I’m no engineer
Morning all .. curious if anyone currently around is any good at maths .. I’ve got a shape and need to figure out a parametric formula for the curve.
Using the image below…
I need to find how to calculate the distance for both #1 and #2, as two separate formulas.
Would anyone know how to, or be able to suggest what to search for on Google for this? I’m not even sure what the search term would be…
JTQ said:
Morning all .. curious if anyone currently around is any good at maths .. I’ve got a shape and need to figure out a parametric formula for the curve.Using the image below…
I need to find how to calculate the distance for both #1 and #2, as two separate formulas.
Would anyone know how to, or be able to suggest what to search for on Google for this? I’m not even sure what the search term would be…
What sort of curve is it? Circle, parabola, something else?
The Rev Dodgson said:
What sort of curve is it? Circle, parabola, something else?
Just an arc. At the moment the red box is 900×200, green is 700 wide, and an arc with radius of 700.
Actually I think I may have it sorted, using circular segment :)
JTQ said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
What sort of curve is it? Circle, parabola, something else?Just an arc. At the moment the red box is 900×200, green is 700 wide, and an arc with radius of 700.
That doesn’t give enough information to define the position of the red box relative to the arc centre.
Need a bit more info, JtQ. E.g. you could give us the minimum value of A1 or the maximum value of A2?