Subject:
|
Re: Low Corner Slopes in Roof Parts Packs?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:53:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIEN@IWANTNOSPAM.avoidspamCTP.COM
|
Viewed:
|
2335 times
|
| |
|
|
<36D449DD.58F405FA@umich.edu> <F7oAsz.C6z@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
James Brown wrote:
> Yup, I said that first, I just neglected to use accepted terminology :)
> I'm not sure that the concave (or inside corner, if you prefer) would give
> enough area to attach to a stud at the lowest point - hence my call for people
> with math skills.
I'll just use logic. Consider the convex... if it works, then the
concave has to as well, as the edges must be the same, and the diagonal
line running from the upper corner to the lower (that the two surfaces
intersect on) has to be the same, even if the surfaces are different.
And we know the convex works.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
Stop the FDIC from spying on us! Go to
http://www.defendyourprivacy.com and sign the petition.
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Low Corner Slopes in Roof Parts Packs?
|
| On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:57:49 GMT, Gary Istok <gistok@umich.edu> wrote: <3*3 low slopes> (...) Good question... looking at my 2*4 low slope peaks, I have a feeling you may indeed be right about too little clearance :( You could use regular (medium (...) (26 years ago, 24-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
