garden fence at right-angle to house
john westmore
share with a neighbour in an adjoining terraced house.
What is the best way to get the fence at exactly right angles to our houses?
The garden is about twenty metres long. Thanks for advice.
Cicero
==================================
Get a large sheet (6' x 2')of chipboard or an old door and lay it flat
with one short edge along the wall of the house. Use this board as a
'square' and run a string line along side it to give you a straight line
at 90 degrees to your houses.
Cic.
--
===================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
===================================
Harry Stottle
"Cicero" <shel...@hellfire.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.08....@hellfire.co.uk...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:41:15 +0100, john westmore wrote:
>
>> We wish to straighten and 'position correctly' the garden fence that
>> we
>> share with a neighbour in an adjoining terraced house.
>>
>> What is the best way to get the fence at exactly right angles to our
>> houses?
>> The garden is about twenty metres long. Thanks for advice.
>
> ==================================
> Get a large sheet (6' x 2')of chipboard or an old door and lay it flat
> with one short edge along the wall of the house. Use this board as a
> 'square' and run a string line along side it to give you a straight
> line
> at 90 degrees to your houses.
>
>
unit length against the wall, a 4 unit length as the boundary guide, and
a 5 unit length to make up the other side of the right angled triangle.
Dave
for the hypotenuse to make the right angle.
"Cicero" <shel...@hellfire.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.08....@hellfire.co.uk...
Palindrome
However, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily the right place for the
fence.. With any luck, if you toddle up the garden you may find the
(remains) of the boundary marker. Which may be just a small wooden post
in the ground.
The original builders may not have been that precise with the right
angle as you seem determined to be. Your neighbour may not be too happy
if your efforts leaves the boundary post well and truly your side of the
fence.
--
Sue
mm
<derbyno....@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Apply the old 3,4,5 rule. 3 foot along wall, 4 foot along fence and 5 foot
>for the hypotenuse to make the right angle.
The OP is in the UK, and the EU has forced them to use metres for
measurements. Of course this changes everything. If he wants to use
3 metres and 4 metres, he's going to need a trig calculator to find
the length of the hypotenuse. Just wanted to warn you, OP.
>
>
>"Cicero" <shel...@hellfire.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pan.2008.07.08....@hellfire.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:41:15 +0100, john westmore wrote:
Just kidding.
Dave
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:7s96749f4ojmq8pau...@4ax.com...
Harry Stottle
> <derbyno....@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Apply the old 3,4,5 rule. 3 foot along wall, 4 foot along fence and 5
>>foot
>>for the hypotenuse to make the right angle.
>
> The OP is in the UK, and the EU has forced them to use metres for
> measurements. Of course this changes everything. If he wants to use
> 3 metres and 4 metres, he's going to need a trig calculator to find
> the length of the hypotenuse. Just wanted to warn you, OP.
>>
>>
have got it, the hypotenuse would be 5 metres. ;-)
HeyBub
As others have suggested, use the 3,4,5 rule (it's what the builders of the
pyramids in Egypt did).
If the houses are 20 meters apart, you can use 15, 20, 25 meter
measurements.
However there's one difficulty you may encounter. The wall may be square to
one house and crooked as a dog's hind leg at the other.
I recommend bushes.
Martin
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:MeGdnW8o1Zby-e7V...@earthlink.com...
> john westmore wrote:
>> We wish to straighten and 'position correctly' the garden fence that
>> we share with a neighbour in an adjoining terraced house.
>>
>> What is the best way to get the fence at exactly right angles to our
>> houses? The garden is about twenty metres long. Thanks for advice.
>
> As others have suggested, use the 3,4,5 rule (it's what the builders of
> the pyramids in Egypt did).
Weird.... I thought the pyramids pre-date Pythagoras by 1 or 2 millennia?
--
Martin
Peter Bruells
Smitty Two
wrote:
If I may, as the same thought occurred to me, I believe his point is
that the 3,4,5 rule, commonly referred to as the Pythagorean theorem, is
credited to Pythagoras. It's difficult to use concepts that have not yet
been developed.
Obviously there is a hell of a lot we don't know about the state of
technology on Earth at the time the pyramids were built.
Cicero
>
> "Cicero" <shel...@hellfire.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.08....@hellfire.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:41:15 +0100, john westmore wrote:
>>
>>> We wish to straighten and 'position correctly' the garden fence that
>>> we
>>> share with a neighbour in an adjoining terraced house.
>>>
>>> What is the best way to get the fence at exactly right angles to our
>>> houses?
>>> The garden is about twenty metres long. Thanks for advice.
>>
>> ==================================
>> Get a large sheet (6' x 2')of chipboard or an old door and lay it flat
>> with one short edge along the wall of the house. Use this board as a
>> 'square' and run a string line along side it to give you a straight
>> line
>> at 90 degrees to your houses.
---------------------------------
>>
>>
> Or for a more accurate measurement, use Pythagoras's theorem. Lay a 3
> unit length against the wall, a 4 unit length as the boundary guide, and
> a 5 unit length to make up the other side of the right angled triangle.
==================================
Doesn't that just make a large set square - something like a rectangular
board with squared corners?
Peter Bruells
> In article <m2bq18e...@rogue.de>, Peter Bruells <use...@rogue.de>
> wrote:
>
>> "Martin" <n...@barrier.ngngng.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >> the pyramids in Egypt did).
>> >
>> > Weird.... I thought the pyramids pre-date Pythagoras by 1 or 2 millennia?
>>
>> And your point is?
>
> If I may, as the same thought occurred to me, I believe his point is
> that the 3,4,5 rule, commonly referred to as the Pythagorean
> theorem, is credited to Pythagoras. It's difficult to use concepts
> that have not yet been developed.
They had been developed - just not fully explored and understood. And
keep in mind that it's quite possible to develop and use a
mathematical formula but not to have a proof or deeper understanding
of it.
HeyBub
Uh, they did. But right angles pre-dated the pyramids by at least several
decades.
The circle is even older.
Andy Champ
>
> Weird.... I thought the pyramids pre-date Pythagoras by 1 or 2 millennia?
>
>
They do. And IIRC the Egyptians knew 3,4,5 but not the general rule
about the square of the hypotenuse etc. - which is what Pythagoras
discovered. Oh hang on...In another source...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
Andy
mm
wrote:
>john westmore wrote:
>> We wish to straighten and 'position correctly' the garden fence that
>> we share with a neighbour in an adjoining terraced house.
>>
>> What is the best way to get the fence at exactly right angles to our
>> houses? The garden is about twenty metres long. Thanks for advice.
>
>As others have suggested, use the 3,4,5 rule (it's what the builders of the
>pyramids in Egypt did).
>
>If the houses are 20 meters apart, you can use 15, 20, 25 meter
>measurements.
This is bad. You'll end up with something 3 times as big as a
pyramind.
>
>However there's one difficulty you may encounter. The wall may be square to
>one house and crooked as a dog's hind leg at the other.
>
>I recommend bushes.
Good points.
>
mm
<prest...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>If I may, as the same thought occurred to me, I believe his point is
>that the 3,4,5 rule, commonly referred to as the Pythagorean theorem, is
>credited to Pythagoras. It's difficult to use concepts that have not yet
>been developed.
>
>Obviously there is a hell of a lot we don't know about the state of
>technology on Earth at the time the pyramids were built.
Au contraire, mon ami. At least in this case.
Most of the pyramids did not require the local use of mathematics at
all. They were usually built from kits sold by Sears, and all the
calculations were done by Sears technicians.
mm
wrote:
Absolutely. It was also known to and proven by American Indians (long
before it was called America). There was a great chief Anohamey
among the Chippewa who had three daughters, all of whome were married.
It was their custom to sit at night around the campfire, and always
Running Lilly would sit with her one boy on a deer skin, Twinkling
Star woulld sit with her two boys on a buffalo skin, and Laughing
Rabbit would sit with her 3 young bucks on a hippotamus skin.
From this they knew that the sons of the squaw on the hippotamus are
equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides.
Harry Stottle
chipboard, has perfectly squared corners, but 1/2 an inch out and it
could result in land grab ;-)
John
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> Uh, they did. But right angles pre-dated the pyramids by at least several
> decades.
Right angles (and every other angle) have been around forever, it's just
that nobody named them. Same as gravity, space, oxygen, grass, ocean, sky,
etc. etc.
> The circle is even older.
See above. There has been at least two circles from the day man was 'born',
and he saw them every day, the sun and the moon
Cheers
John
HeyBub
Moan!
Did you hear the one about the Chinese woodworker (to be in consonance with
the mission of this group) who noticed some of his more expensive wood was
disappearing. Being a clever, though inscrutable, Chinaman he sprinkled fine
sawdust on the floor of his shop. The next morning, he discovered a child's
footprints in the sawdust!
Being even more inscrutable, he hid in a bin the next night. During the
darkness he heard scuffling around in his shop. The Chinaman jumped from his
hiding place and turned on the light.
Standing in the center of his workshop, gnawing on a board, was an
eight-foot tall Grizzly Bear with itty-bitty feet !
Nonplussed (which is similar to inscrutable), the woodworker called out:
"Now I've got you, boy-foot bear with Teak of Chan!"
David Nebenzahl
> Moan!
>
> Did you hear the one about the Chinese woodworker (to be in consonance with
> the mission of this group) who noticed some of his more expensive wood was
> disappearing. Being a clever, though inscrutable, Chinaman he sprinkled fine
> sawdust on the floor of his shop. The next morning, he discovered a child's
> footprints in the sawdust!
>
> Being even more inscrutable, he hid in a bin the next night. During the
> darkness he heard scuffling around in his shop. The Chinaman jumped from his
> hiding place and turned on the light.
>
> Standing in the center of his workshop, gnawing on a board, was an
> eight-foot tall Grizzly Bear with itty-bitty feet !
>
> Nonplussed (which is similar to inscrutable), the woodworker called out:
> "Now I've got you, boy-foot bear with Teak of Chan!"
groannnnnn ...
OK, now you've done it. I feel compelled to tell the tale of the
metallurgical engineer who was called in by Asarco, the big mining and
smelting company, to solve a problem in their copper smelting operation
in San Manuel, Arizona. Seems that no matter what material they used,
the big metal trays they used for one part of the process corroded and
leaked. They called them "sinks" since that's what they looked like, and
the corrosion was always signalled by the sink turning brown.
So they hired this new young guy, fresh out of metallurgy school back
East, to fix this vexing problem. He tried all kinds of alloys with no
luck. Stainless steel? lasted a week, then browned out. Tried this,
tried that.
Finally, in a fit of frustration, he made a prototype sink out of a
piece of sheet molybdenum that was in the corner of his lab. Poured the
copper concentrate in it, left it sit and forgot about it. He remembered
it about a week later and was amazed to see that the metal was still clean.
For his efforts, the company awarded him a plaque on the smelter floor.
It simply read:
The Unbrownable Moly Sink
(ba da BOOM!)
--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."
- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
Tim Smith
mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Absolutely. It was also known to and proven by American Indians (long
> before it was called America). There was a great chief Anohamey
> among the Chippewa who had three daughters, all of whome were married.
>
> It was their custom to sit at night around the campfire, and always
> Running Lilly would sit with her one boy on a deer skin, Twinkling
> Star woulld sit with her two boys on a buffalo skin, and Laughing
> Rabbit would sit with her 3 young bucks on a hippotamus skin.
>
> From this they knew that the sons of the squaw on the hippotamus are
> equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides.
It's funnier if it actually matches the Pythagorean Theorem. You want
the squaw on the hippotamus (not sure what that is...some
hippopotamus-like animal once found in the Americas?) to equal the sons
of the squaws on the other two hides, not the sons of her to equal them.
The way it is usually told is to have the squaw on the hippo hide weigh
as much as the combined weights of the sons of the squaws, thus making
the squaw on the hippo hide equal to the sons of the squaws on the other
two hides.
--
--Tim Smith
Jeff
The Egyptians could have got right angles without using math. Lay out a
rectangle and measure that the opposite corners in each direction are the
same distance.
Tim Smith
Jeff <j...@donotspam.me> wrote:
> The Egyptians could have got right angles without using math. Lay out a
> rectangle and measure that the opposite corners in each direction are the
> same distance.
Let's say the corners, in order, as you traverse the perimeter of the
"rectangle" are A, B, C, and D. What do you mean by "opposite corners"?
At first, I'd take that to mean A and C are opposite corners, and B and
D are opposite corners. But then AC and BD can be the same distance,
without the thing actually being a rectangle:
A B
+----------------+
/ \
/ \
/ \
+------------------------+
C D
To ensure that a four-sided convex plane figure is a rectangle, I think
we need to check all of these:
AB = CD
AC = BD
AD = BC
Here's a simple way to get a right angle. Let's say we want a right
angle to this wall:
| |
+-----------------------------*-------------------------------+
We want a right angle at the point marked with the asterisk. We need
two pieces of string, the same length, each marked about 1/3 of the way
from one end. The marks should be in the same position on each string.
The end farthest from the mark should be attached to a stake or
something, so that it can be driven into the ground. I'll draw the
string like this:
.....o........v
The v represents the stake, and the o is the mark 2/3 from the free end.
Lay out one of the strings against the wall, with the mark at the *
point, and drive the stake into the ground:
| |
+-----------------------------*-------------------------------+
.....o........v
Move that string out of the way, and then place the other string's mark
at the *, but with the stake going toward the other direction, and drive
its stake in:
| |
+-----------------------------*-------------------------------+
v........o..... v
/
/
.....o
At this point you have two stakes driven into the ground on opposite
directions along the wall from the * point, but the same distance from
it, and each stake has a string attached to it. The strings are the
same length. Now just bring the ends of the two strings together and
pull them both taught (these drawings are distorted due to the
limitations of ASCII art and how much time I'm willing to try to make
it):
| |
+-----------------------------*-------------------------------+
v v
\ /
\ /
\ /
o o
\/
A line from the place where the ends of the strings meet, to the *, is
perpendicular to the wall.
Note that this construction is based on the classic geometry problem of
constructing a perpendicular to a line.
--
--Tim Smith
AJH
> We wish to straighten and 'position correctly' the garden fence that we
> share with a neighbour in an adjoining terraced house.
>
> What is the best way to get the fence at exactly right angles to our houses?
> The garden is about twenty metres long. Thanks for advice.
You have gone very quiet John.
What do you think so far then ?!
mm
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>In article <qam7745429mf3og7c...@4ax.com>,
> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Absolutely. It was also known to and proven by American Indians (long
>> before it was called America). There was a great chief Anohamey
>> among the Chippewa who had three daughters, all of whome were married.
>>
>> It was their custom to sit at night around the campfire, and always
>> Running Lilly would sit with her one boy on a deer skin, Twinkling
>> Star woulld sit with her two boys on a buffalo skin, and Laughing
>> Rabbit would sit with her 3 young bucks on a hippotamus skin.
>>
>> From this they knew that the sons of the squaw on the hippotamus are
>> equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides.
>
>It's funnier if it actually matches the Pythagorean Theorem. You want
>the squaw on the hippotamus (not sure what that is...some
>hippopotamus-like animal once found in the Americas?) to equal the sons
>of the squaws on the other two hides, not the sons of her to equal them.
Yeah, I noticed that.
>The way it is usually told is to have the squaw on the hippo hide weigh
>as much as the combined weights of the sons of the squaws, thus making
>the squaw on the hippo hide equal to the sons of the squaws on the other
>two hides.
Hmm. I don't think I heard it that way, which might be the problem.
But maybe I did. Thanks.
john westmore_______
"AJH" <out...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c20e93c0-6b4d-45ee...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
after my nervous breakdown trying to keep up with these posts, i'm going
into therapy, selling the house, and moving to alaska
gavin
"john westmore_______" <blue...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:g5kca2$jrq$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Watch the film "Into The Wild" first :-)
john westmore_______
"gavin" <thes...@cosmicdancer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:L5jfk.252886$I42.1...@fe04.news.easynews.com...
just read an account on which the film is based. Yipes.....please change
alaska to london u.k.
Smitty Two
"john westmore_______" <blue...@mail.invalid> wrote:
A god-awful insult of a movie anyway, of an arrogant, misanthropic
teenager trying to find his way out of upper middle class suburban
boredom.
The guy was stupid, blowing around in the wind in a totally brainless
emotional psuedo-quest, making idiotic decisions at every juncture. The
screenplay was abominably constructed, too, with no character
development and scene after scene of random useless filler.
I cared so little for the character in the movie that it's hard to even
feel any compassion for the joker who pulled the pathetic stunt in real
life.
The Real Bev
> "john westmore_______" <blue...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> "john westmore_______" <blue...@mail.invalid> wrote:
I felt sorry for his parents, who loved him even if he was a jerk. And
then, of course, there's 'Grizzly Man'.
--
Cheers, Bev
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you're ever about to be mugged by a couple
of clowns, don't hesitate - go for the juggler.