Anyone up for a fresh real world challenge?

AI Thread Summary
Calculating rafter lengths in your head can be challenging, especially for pitches like 4:12. The common rafter length per foot of run for this pitch is approximately 12.65, which can complicate mental calculations due to the multiplication and conversion of decimal fractions. To simplify the process, it's suggested to keep measurements in "carpenter fraction" form rather than converting between decimals and fractions. This approach allows carpenters to work more intuitively with familiar fractions, making mental calculations easier. The discussion emphasizes the desire for techniques that streamline these calculations without relying on tools like calculators or framing squares.
Carpenter T
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Many carpenters have either seen or heard of someone who could calculate rafter lengths in their head. Perhaps these people are just gifted number crunchers, but I want to crack the mystery behind it. That's why I’m calling on you mathematical geniuses for help.

Are there any tricks to calculating common rafter lengths IN YOUR HEAD (with no framing square either) besides memorizing the “lengths per foot of run,” or is it just plain number crunching after that?

For example, suppose you have a building you measure at 33’. From this point you put your tape measure down and do the rest in your head with no aid of a square.

Now I know a 5/12 or a 9/12 would be easy, but it's the rest of the pitches I need help with. So say you want to frame the often used pitch of 4:12. 33’ (span) ÷ 2 (half the span) = 16’-6” (unadjusted run). In this instance I’ll use the unadjusted run for the sake of simplicity and figure on subtracting half the thickness of the ridge board after the rafter is laid out. I’m also going to avoid a building width that has a run including inch fractions so that (for my sake) I don’t complicate this too much right now.

The “common rafter length per foot of run” is 12.65: 16 (4 squared) + 144 (12 squared) = 160 √160 = 12.64911 or 12.65. If someone already knew the “length per foot of run” for a 4:12 pitch (found on any quality framing square), he could skip the whole A2 + B2 = C2 thing and start with 12.65.

Now the problem becomes a matter of multiplication and conversion: 12.65 x 16.5. For most people it’s kind of difficult to multiply 12.65 by 16.5 and be sure of the answer (208.725) without writing it down. Okay, maybe it's not to difficult for most people here, but for most carpenters it is.

Of course, the decimal inch fraction .725 must also be converted into an inch fraction of 11/16 (.725 x 16 = 11.6 or approximately 11/16). Answer: 208 11/16” (17’-4 11/16”).

Is there any way to either BYPASS or SIMPLIFY these last two multiplication and conversion steps so as to make it easier to calculate in your head? Yeah, I know I could just use a calculator, but I just thought it would be fun if I could do it in my head.

Your ingenuity is appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
For one thing, I wouldn't convert from fraction to decimal and then back; I'd keep it in "carpenter fraction" form the whole time. (By that I mean fractions with denominators as powers of two: 1/2, 3/16, etc.)

So a carpenter would know that 4:12 pitch has length per foot of run of 12 5/8, or more precisely 12 21/32, and then calculates from there.
 
Thanks for the reply. That makes sense; I think doing that will help a little bit.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
125
Views
19K
2
Replies
83
Views
21K
2
Replies
93
Views
14K
3
Replies
102
Views
10K
Replies
48
Views
11K
Replies
46
Views
8K
Back
Top