Where shall I begin?
Today was part spent on taking my wife by car to Kamakura,
early lunch as usual. rain continued and I did not really
know what to do.
So, I continued with refining of the remaining artefacts,
image not shown.
My perrenial problem is shown in the following image.
These are the remnants of my SPs taken out of oblong
and rectangular blocks of wood. I will show you where they
actually come from, as follows.
They are the areas outside the area SP, cut into two, of course.
An additional problem is that with each SP, two redundant
pieces are produced.
I work mainly with chopstics and SPs, occasionally with
cups and saucers, and plates. With all of these, except
SPs, I have no problem of redundancy.
As a matter of fact, a lot of mass is wasted with plates and
the like, as I turn them.
That s why I do not go for them, these days.
With chopstics, there is verry little to be wasted.
I reckon that over the last two months or so I have produced more than a few hundred SPs, varying in size and length, and top profiles, but,
they are essentially the same, really.
Say, 200, then you are talking about 400 of these redundant?
pieces. And, I do not want them to be redundant, at all.
Also, as you see in the illustration, you have these
naturally curved structures. (shown in red)
What you see below might be one answer.
This is a folk, only two pronged. It does not look very
impressive, but actually it is nicely shaped in its
side profile.
This was formed out of one of the pieces you see in the first image.
Curvature has been inherited and naturally, unwanted mass
taken away. I think I will go for these, from tommorrow.
I occasionally think of them, in terms of reproducibility
for sales opportunities, but if you are going to give
them away, you do not need strict reproducibility.
And, I have got, probably, more than 300 of them,
in various materials, this particular one being oak.
I have got American black cherry, and a few more.
Sometimes, I end up with thin and flat redundancies,
as shown in the following image.
I made, today, that is, what is shown below such a
redundancy, into a small knife?, or knife like object.
This sort of thin and flat redundancies come from
cutting larger pieces of wood to my desired widths.
Yes, they are left-overs, not conforming to my
widths. Again, reprodcucibility of the same thickness
is not guaranteed, simply because initial wood thickness
(widht) varies.
However, yet again, if I am going to produce something
out of these as gifts (to 20 odd girls I am close to) it should not
be a big problem.
One of these days, I will be starting to talk about chopstics.
What is shown below is a starting point, or, very nearly.
The cross section of this is a square, down the whole length of it,
but you may see that it is slightly tapered to one end.
I will come back to this image and beyond within,
hopefully, within the next few weeks.
Today was part spent on taking my wife by car to Kamakura,
early lunch as usual. rain continued and I did not really
know what to do.
So, I continued with refining of the remaining artefacts,
image not shown.
My perrenial problem is shown in the following image.
These are the remnants of my SPs taken out of oblong
and rectangular blocks of wood. I will show you where they
actually come from, as follows.
They are the areas outside the area SP, cut into two, of course.
An additional problem is that with each SP, two redundant
pieces are produced.
I work mainly with chopstics and SPs, occasionally with
cups and saucers, and plates. With all of these, except
SPs, I have no problem of redundancy.
As a matter of fact, a lot of mass is wasted with plates and
the like, as I turn them.
That s why I do not go for them, these days.
With chopstics, there is verry little to be wasted.
I reckon that over the last two months or so I have produced more than a few hundred SPs, varying in size and length, and top profiles, but,
they are essentially the same, really.
Say, 200, then you are talking about 400 of these redundant?
pieces. And, I do not want them to be redundant, at all.
Also, as you see in the illustration, you have these
naturally curved structures. (shown in red)
What you see below might be one answer.
This is a folk, only two pronged. It does not look very
impressive, but actually it is nicely shaped in its
side profile.
This was formed out of one of the pieces you see in the first image.
Curvature has been inherited and naturally, unwanted mass
taken away. I think I will go for these, from tommorrow.
I occasionally think of them, in terms of reproducibility
for sales opportunities, but if you are going to give
them away, you do not need strict reproducibility.
And, I have got, probably, more than 300 of them,
in various materials, this particular one being oak.
I have got American black cherry, and a few more.
Sometimes, I end up with thin and flat redundancies,
as shown in the following image.
I made, today, that is, what is shown below such a
redundancy, into a small knife?, or knife like object.
This sort of thin and flat redundancies come from
cutting larger pieces of wood to my desired widths.
Yes, they are left-overs, not conforming to my
widths. Again, reprodcucibility of the same thickness
is not guaranteed, simply because initial wood thickness
(widht) varies.
However, yet again, if I am going to produce something
out of these as gifts (to 20 odd girls I am close to) it should not
be a big problem.
One of these days, I will be starting to talk about chopstics.
What is shown below is a starting point, or, very nearly.
The cross section of this is a square, down the whole length of it,
but you may see that it is slightly tapered to one end.
I will come back to this image and beyond within,
hopefully, within the next few weeks.
