Another benefit of using composite or laminated board, besides reduced price, is that it reduces the tendency to warp which a single, solid board would have.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Campus 2 to Feature Custom Designed 18-Foot Tables Inside 'Collaborative Pods'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Another benefit of using composite or laminated board, besides reduced price, is that it reduces the tendency to warp which a single, solid board would have.
I'm sure there will be a huge tour of the campus you can see on-line when all is done and the grass is rooted.
[doublepost=1460138249][/doublepost]
You bring up a good point. I have been around many custom / designer / exclusive / high-end items be it cars, furniture and even homes. All suffer from quality due to lack of volume and manufacturing statistics. Most are very high maintenance to keep up the image (will forego the a few analogies here) where the cost of ownership is far beyond the purchase price of the item.
I have a friend that IPO'ed a few years ago and he picked up the Ferrari of his dreams. The car was a maintenance nightmare. While it was hot as all hell and turned looks all the time, he found it in a local Ferrari shop a few days every month just to keep it going. Once he ended up getting it towed from the parking lot of his current contract to the cat-calling jeers of a few economy car types. Oddly, the Ferrari shop was a very hot networking scene of owners. He even joined a start-up form a meeting in the Ferrari lobby.
Last edited:
yeah, stability and strength are increased compared to solid counterparts.
as far as price goes, it's usually not cheaper to go with glulam vs solid. I'm doing a concrete table this week with wood base.. for the structure, I'm doing miter folded European birch plywood instead of solid birch.. that plywood is more expensive than solid birch (albeit, it's some of the highest quality plywood available anywhere).. then the additional labor involved with making the legs this way will be about double cost of solid birch. but these things are going to be super strong and last many many years.
--
about three minutes ago:
The Metric system was implemented by Napoleon keeping everything base-10 to speed up manual math calculations done by civil servants. That purpose does not really exist anymore with the advent of modern and personal computers.
This was one argument brought up when there was an attempt to unilaterally adopt the metric system in the USA. That failed. To this day, most "domestic" measurements are still in English while scientific, technical and foreign relation measurement are done in Metrics. A typical American schoolkid learns and works with both systems.
continuing..
the real beauty of the metric system lies in the logic of the system as a whole.. as in:
make a cube that's 10cm x 10cm x 10cm.. that's a litre.. fill it with water @0º celsius.. the water weighs 1 kilogram.. etcetc.
in imperial, a cubic foot doesn't equal one gallon.. a pound isn't related to the gallon.. etcetc.
in u.s. system, you can't so easily go between things like distance, volume, weight.. we have to use conversion factors when jumping these lines.. our stuff came from many sources over a long period of time and the system isn't really unified.. metric was implemented at a single point as a coherent system..
to me, that's the strongest argument for metric if the question is "what's better.. metric or imperial?".. this is the main reason why many scientists/engineers/etc prefer the metric system.. it's not because of the numbering scheme.
but i feel most people arguing for metric think it's beautiful because of this:
..and yes, i agree it's pretty.. very well organized and graspable.. i mean, it's ones and zeros and all you have to do is move a decimal point around.. sweet.
problem is, the system starts showing weakness very early on when needing to apply it.. using fabrication realm as example, one of the most rudimentary steps in construction is dividing lengths into smaller equal lengths.. (say, needing to equally space slats on a fence).. just about any project is going to require some form of this principle.
using a centimeter, say you need to divide it into two equal parts.. ok, cool.. 5mm
now divide it in thirds.. you can't.. or, you can't divide it into thirds and then have a corresponding mark on your ruler..
quarter it? can't
5 equal parts? cool.. 2mm.. fifths works.
6 ths? can.t
so you can only divide a centimeter in half or in fifths (and 5 is prime.. you can't do any further calculations on it)
then do that with a foot.
halves? 6"
thirds? 4"
quarters? 3"
5th? can't
sixths? 2"
so, actually using the systems to accomplish a task, you'll find many similar examples throughout imperial where it simply makes more sense and is easier/more practical to use than metric..
(and yeah, eventually imperial breaks down too but you just shift to decimal inches when that type of precision is required.. but, once you're using decimal inches on a project, the cm vs inch thing is nearly moot.. mathematically speaking, they're the same thing at that point)
anyway, my point is something like.. the best measuring system for today's human would probably be one that had the unity of metric combined with the numbers of (some of) imperial.
Last edited:
Figured I would get a response like this. Issue is most of the population does not want to use logic. They like what they have and expect everyone else to adapt.
When I read the title I was inclined to say, "So what. How does this affect me?" Now that I have read the article, I still ask the same question. Sure, I'd love to have quality wood furnishings in my own home, but mostly I cannot afford such since I need to save my pennies on Apple products. All this article shows is how Apple is using the hard earned cash we spend on their products. If a long table can make a vastly better iMac or MacBook, more power to them. But will it?
heh, or worse even.. using "most countries use metric" simply as a means to try to bash americans.. or trying to imply imperial is backwoods and for dummies..
all that's saying is they don't understand imperial (and don't actually understand metric either).. you'll notice the 'arguments' aren't based on the merits of either system and instead, are more geared towards patriotism/anti-americanism ..
reality is, neither of these two systems are optimal.. neither is better than the other.. and if we're going to progress as a species in this area, we need to recognize the downfalls of these systems and implement a new, universal system which leaves little to no doubt over what's better.. this system would incorporate things from both metric and imperial as well as have bases in modern technology. (computers-- because computers don't like base-10 either
)
Last edited:
You're right, of course. I find that if I don't "plug myself in" (wear headphones and concentrate on work) I can often be interrupted. And we're in a small "hive" to save money.
Not very environmentally friendly of them, is it?
Preach one thing, do the exact opposite.
How is it not environmentally friendly? Wood grows, you cut it, plant a new one, wood grows.
If these trees are actually not cut from old growth forests, but planted forests, it is friendly.
right.. saying that using wood isn't environmentally friendly would be similar to saying eating vegetables is not environmentally friendly
(as long as we're talking managed growth and not something like the destruction of Brazilian rainforests.. in which case, yeah, bad & sad.. most modern day 1st world construction though? using wood is a-ok)
Last edited:
ha, those trees have owners.. they belong to someone or some other entity.So I have permission to cut the trees on my street because you know, they'll grow again?
Thanks fellas
so yeah, cut away.. but make sure to youtube the spectacle so we can see what happens too
You've been involved in building a wood-topped, 18'x6' table with no joins or seams on the table surface? I'd like to see your work, because that's damned impressive!
Or did you miss the fact that the surface is a single, contiguous sheet of wood, with no splicing to increase width or length.
Re. Use of the British Imperial Unit: you're welcome
[doublepost=1460452458][/doublepost]
Nope, that would be like me taking your car and saying that I'm recycling it into my car.
if following what @sarge said back to the original statement about metric being more precise than imperial, then you'll see countries etc is irrelevant.. the statement was about one system vs the other in practical uses.
ultimately, 'precision' has nothing to do with any given unit as each unit can be divided up indefinitely.. they are equally precise.. precision is more about the application.. say you have a cnc machine that's accurate to 1000th inch.. well, it's going to be equally accurate and produce the same variances if the numbers fed to it are in a metric unit.. it's not going to be more precise if fed instructions using a different base unit.. the cuts will be equally straight etc.
---
what sarge was saying is that in practical uses, the fahrenheit scale offers more commonly used divisions than celsius.. or- in fahrenheit, the range between freezing and boiling points is 180 different numbers that a human would use.. with celsius , there are only 100 numbers that will be used.. so, assuming the same quality thermometer is being used, an american will report the current temperature to a more accurate degree than someone using celsius.
this same type of argument can be given for feet&inches vs meters.. in practical human use, imperial offers better divisions or, more usable/common numbers than metric..
tape measures are generally showing 1/16" divisions (~1.6mm).. this is a very comfortable to see and usually precise enough scale to work with on most projects.. with mm, there are too many crammed in there to read as quickly/comfortably as you can with inches..
that said, when a carpenter needs more precision, we drop down to 32nds (~.8mm).. this is probably around the smallest increments we can comfortably work with without magnification.. 32nds are more precise than millimeters but, in practical use, you can't divide a mm up any smaller and do any work with it.. like- have you ever seen a tape measure that shows .5mm increments? probably not but that's what it would take in order to make metric rulers more precise than imperial..
ever buy drill bits? in imperial, you're getting them in 1/64" increments (~.4mm).. in metric, you're getting them in .5mm increments.. again, the imperial units are giving more size options throughout a given range.
------
and hey, i get it.. people are like 'metric is so much better because it's easy and understandable since it's base 10' ..but guess what, base10 is really limited or, introduces more complications than a lot of you all are making it out to be..
here's a sweet little read pointing out the advantages of a base-12 system or even a base-16 system over base10:http://io9.gizmodo.com/5977095/why-we-should-switch-to-a-base-12-counting-system
idk, pretty sure some of what's mentioned in the above article is why imperial is staying around longer than many think it should.. who knows, maybe it's the base-tenners of the world that need to rethink their measuring scales?
(or- maybe it's the whole lot of us who need to rethink our counting system.. which is simply the way it is because we have 10 fingers
The SI system works not because C has less divisions between the boiling point and freezing point of water at room temperature than F does. SI works because the prefixes for most SI units are base 10. It makes the math much easier. Time is the big exception here. Not computer time though as that is a flat number of seconds from the epoch.
Also the SI for temperature in Kelvin. Celcius is just derivated from Kelvin.
"The kelvin is defined as the fraction 1⁄273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple poibt of water (exactly 0.01 °C or 32.018 °F). In other words, it is defined such that the triple point of water is exactly 273.16 K."
Celcuis is just Kelvin witht he numbers shifted accross somewhat. 1K as a unit = 1C in terms of the range of temperature they both measure. The only difference is K is 273.15 colder than C.
Also for measurements inches are more relatable to centimetres. Not Millimetres. mm is enough for most industries. Every pro manufacturer I know (in many industries use mm). They do not use µm or anything smaller. mm works. Also they make the math easier.
Base 16 is already used. Many different sectors of the IT industry use Hex. But you saying base 12 or base 16 is better than base 10 is possibly true but it totally goes off topic as why SI is better than imperial. Imperial is not good math because all of the different amounts within one measurement type are all different. You can't say an a foot is X^2 inches and a yard is X^4 inches. (Just random examples to prove the point that Imperial measurements have no constitent relationship between the different amounts of a measurement) SI does this well. Also within most measurements you have the same set if prefixes just added on the the base SI unit.
In length, the SI unit is the metre. You just add a prefix on to it to know what part of a metre you are talking about. millimetre is a hundredth of a meter. Kilometre is 1000x a metre. Milli is always a hundredth and kilo is always 1000x. It's a standard. It makes the math much easier and the whole SI system work so well.
How do you say one-millionth of a foot or inch? In SI we have µm. micrometre. How can you easily say that in Imperial? You can not. SI is as much about the prefixes as it is the stand units themselves.
If this was base 12 for example it'd work the exact same way. We'd just have single digits of 0123456789AB. The prefixes and exponential nature of the SI system would just the same. Something that the imperial system just does not have.
You are saying base 12 or base 16 or base whatever is better than base 10 and totally ignoring the actual differences between SI and Imperial.
hmm. yeah.. i think you missed the point about F vs C.
oh well.
i wasn't talking about inches in those examples.. i was talking about the divisions on an inch.. 16ths/32nds/etc.. these are relatable to mm.. and what i was saying is that the divisions on an inch offer more options/usability than mm do.
how so?
the point wasn't so much about imperial being better than metric in these regards (though, there are actually quite a few examples where imperial doesn't use base10).. the point was that metric is limited since it's strictly base10.
i don't think you're talking about math although you keep saying the math is much easier with metric.. if your point is that you can move a decimal point in order to call something 1.1 meter instead of 1100mm then yeah, point taken.. but that's not really math.. or, it's not an example of using the system in accordance with a task..
.000001" ..that's a millionth of an inch.. if you want to have a name for it then call it a microinch (µin).. because that's what it's called.. a thousandth of an inch is .001" ...call it a thou (or in u.s, you can call it a mil and people will understand you).. a tenth is .0001" ... like- "hey, can you take a couple tenths off that?" would be asking to make the part 1/20000th of an inch smaller.
i don't know.. i don't think you're entirely familiar with the imperial system.
that's not true.. imperial does have prefixes.. what it doesn't have is the same prefixes going through all the various fields.. if you're measuring distance in mils, well, you don't measure weight using 'mil' for .001oz ..(and actually, at that small of scale when measuring the weight of an object, we generally use mg anyway)
not ignoring the differences tbh.. just saying that imperial, in many situations, allows us to use base 12 or base16.. but i think the point you're missing is that you can also use base10.. i.e.- decimal inches.. or decimal feet.. in which case, mathematically speaking, it's the same exact thing as using metric..
but the advantage is that we're not locked into base10 with imperial.. and we also have concepts such as quarters and halves and eighths and thirds and sixteenths etc..
(which are just decimals too.. .25, .5, .125, .0625, etc.. it's just that these very useful increments are on our scales and we're not limited to working with .1 and .2 and .3 and .4 etc..)
-----
edit-
fwiw, all of your points or whatever are just basic explanations of the metric system itself and not about using the system in real world.. in the u.s, we learn metric in school and you're basically trying to explain metric to me as if i was in 2nd grade.
idk, i think i'm realizing that, in general, users of the imperial system know a lot more about metric than metric users know about imperial
Last edited:
I did not miss the point. I understood what was being said there and replied.
That's all about what you're used too. There is over 20 mm in one inch. Both sides have lots of usability metric and imperial. It's just people pushing what they are must accustomed to.
As I said so many times in my previous posts. You must of skipped over those parts. The how so (I will repeat) is cause of the prefix/exponential system metric has.
Metric could be base anything. The same relationship between the different exponentials of the units would remain the same.
That's not what I meant. I meant with more complex math, like in science.
That all makes sense, and apart from studying things super small like bacteria or atoms, numbers that small are not that relevant. In day to day tasks, µ anything is just way too small to easily measure.
I am, a lot more than you are willing to publically admit.
That is true.
You are trying to say working in .25, .5, .75 etc etc is better than .1, .2, .3 just because there is more increments. That's not true, unless more increments is all you are after. Imperial really needed to be base 16 or something, so then you still be .1, .2, .3 . . . . .A, .B, .C etc etc. Imperial really fails using a base 10 system.
Imperial uers think metric users know nothing about Imperial. If you can live that ignorance, than I can as well. Just because we don't use the Imperial system, that does not mean we do not know much about it.idk, i think i'm realizing that, in general, users of the imperial system know a lot more about metric than metric users know about imperial
I should point out I am Australian and the Imperial system was only totally removed here in 1988 (was a long process though). A slow process over 20 years ending in 1988 removed the Imperial system from Australia. Was replaced by the Metric System. I know more about the Imperial system than you are willing to admit.
Well that is how wood is made, the tree can grow that large. Then processed into a "boule".
Actually, if you go look at the source article and its pictures, there are easily visible different pieces of wood spliced together width wise in the top and sides.
Methinks that the reporter who wrote that article, had zero woodworking experience and mistakenly merged together various things he was told.
Last edited:
And that picture is also *clearly* not a 6' wide table (it looks to be closer to 3' wide), indicating that it isn't actually a picture of the table being discussed. Or did you miss that?
Hint: The guy operating the machinery in that picture is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6' (give or take a few inches).
[doublepost=1462545480][/doublepost]
Yes, trees can grow that large.
No, the lumber industry does not typically deal with trees that large, primarily because felling trees that big is *extraordinarily* dangerous, and secondarily because trees take an extraordinarily long time to grow to that diameter, even among species that eventually *will* (such as the redwood).
In fact, the entire lumber industry runs almost exclusively on trees that range from roughly 8" to roughly 24" in diameter (measured 4.5 feet above the ground).
http://extension.psu.edu/natural-re...ree-value-and-deciding-when-to-harvest-timber