Redneck Roundup #3 is getting underway

[RockHillWill]

Classes by Per and Patman have been concluded and we are all getting ready for the upcoming 3rd annual Redneck Roundup. Not much went on today. Finished making a hood for a backup generator and began the building of a Radiator shell for Jim Hery's 35 Bugatti, cleaning up the shop and moving more things outside. In addition to Patman, Per and Jim, Jake Ladd is staying on from the shaping class to help get things ready.

PC6-a 003.jpg

PC6-a 004.jpg

PC6-a 005.jpg

PC6-a 0011.jpg

PC6-b 001.jpg

PC6-b 002.jpg

[cliffrod]

Will- do you know how many will likely be there Fri AM, in case I want to make some copies or will everybody that lives in the modern world just take pics with their smart phones of the copies I bring?

[Kerry Pinkerton]

I, for one, like hardcopy AC. Looking forward to meet you and seeing your presentation.

[Mike Motage]

I would like a hard copy. Thank you for offering.

[cliffrod]

No problem. I'll run off a stack and bring them. They have the necessary layout information and some proofs, which is more than I ever got. They don't have a step-by-step of how to do everything. All that is pretty clear and straightforward once you see it done and explained. I've been going through the various potential uses and how to do & succinctly describe/demonstrate each one. Plan on taking some notes or whatever.

I usually scale jobs up not down but it sounds like many here would like to scale down projects like pedal cars and such.

Really looking forward to getting the video done and posted, as well as help from Bill and others offering to share video they take. These pages will be included on the final video. Without the forum and RR schedule, this project would still be gathering dust..

Thanks, guys.

[RockHillWill]

AC, there will be some of many persuasions, but I too, would like to ask for a hard copy.

Regards, Will

[JimRussell]

Hi Clint,

A hardcopy would be nice if you so desire, otherwise I'll take a lot of pictures!

After our conversation the other day I got to thinking about something I was taught years (a lot of years ) ago when I was in the Boy Scouts. We were taught that we could estimate the height of a tree or building by having someone of known height stand in front of the tree. One would step back a distance and hold a pencil in the line of one's vision. The top of the eraser was aligned with the persons head and at the base of the tree (persons feet) one would place his thumb nail on the pencil. The pencil could then be moved up the tree in steps, aligning the lower (thumb) on the top mark and repeated to the top of the tree. The number of steps multiplied by the persons height was the approximate height of the tree. The Handbook illustrated this as a right triangle from the measurer's eye to the person standing in front of the tree. This sounds like the same principle you are showing, although I am sure your version with the tool you use is much more refined and accurate. Am I on the right track??? or just a .

[cliffrod]

Hi Jim,

Well, sort of yes and sort of no. My geometry vocabulary is not perfect, so will try to remember and use the correct terms.

The yes- Estimating by triangulation to gauge distance or height does take advantage of two sides (or lines of sight), the included angle between them and a lot of estimating. It's based on the right triangle method, which is the less user friendly of the two even in the studio. We read about it but never learned this in scouts- we were busy cutting whips for our apple fights whenever we were out in the woods in VT. Maple saplings are hard to beat- they'll whip an apple like nothing else in the world.

The no- either of these methods I use employ two known measurements to create the desired included angle, which is either the apex angle (isosceles) or one of th base angles (right). The accuracy is as precise as the person that lays out the triangle. Do it right, use sharp calipers and it's amazingly accurate.

i was taught that it has to be the two maximum dimensions of the model and job. The cool thing it that I've learned it only has to be measurement of the same dimension of model and job. If needed, the sides can be extended as rays instead of being drawn as segments so any dimension can be applied to calculate the new dimension in the same ratio. Sometimes a greater dimension than was expected is found during a project, but there is no need for a new triangle as long as the same ratio is being used.

Does that make sense?

The whole point is that this triangle stuff is like the USNavy realizing that old technology like a sextant should be common knowledge, no matter how high tech the world is. You'll enjoy it. it's basically free and it's bulletproof to use, whatever your level of math, geometry or computer proficiency ( or not.)

See you Fri AM....

[JimRussell]

Clint,

we were busy cutting whips for our apple fights whenever we were out in the woods in VT. Maple saplings are hard to beat- they'll whip an apple like nothing else in the world

Having been raised in upstate New York, I'm well aware of the whipping action of maple saplings in an apple fight .

[cliffrod]

Should have mentioned I am doing a quick read of a mapmaker/cartography history I got last weekend to see if there's any related info on triangulation that might help for Fri. Nothing yet.

I introduced our totally southern daughter to whipping apples a couple yrs ago in VT, up on the hill at our family farm at one of my favorite trees. First apple was too tight but the second was perfect. I hit a tree trunk 100+ft away dead center, about 25-30 ft off the ground. She was sold on whipping apples. That was a good daddy moment...