Jim, have you tried applying a full daisy wheel to the 3rd version, where nothing jumps off the page? It looks like the tie could raise a foot or so and the ground floor would be the the line connecting the 2 lower petals. With a 2nd wheel laid on top, where the orientation is rotated(north south vs east west) the center peak petal would dictate the peak.

Without pictures this stuff gets foggy.

I am working right now on a rendering of Jim's building using the half wheel method. Thanks Jim for giving me a good example to use to show my methods.

What A little while guys...

DLB

Tim:
I did understand what you meant.

I created this one:



It shows the roof to be an 8/12. If I did it right.

Jim Rogers

Ok here it is. I have developed a close copy of Jim's building using geometry methods. It is not exactly the same, but should be very close.


We start out with the figure as normal. Here X is 6 feet, since the width of the elevation is 24 feet.


Next we define the width of the building and the height of the first story based on the measurements of the half wheel.


Next, we define the height of the knee wall. This is arrived at by taking a measurement from the figures with the compass that suits our needs, here highlighted in red. Using the compass, we transfer that measurement to the wall height, again shown in red.

Next the roof height is defined by taking another measurement from the figure and transferring it to where it is needed. Again highlighted in red. Except reviewing the drawing now, my highlight of the line stopped to soon. it should extend all the way to the lower left hand corner of the figure. Also the roof height line should extend to the cross-tie line, not the knee-wall line. oops

The brace lines are drawn, again by taking a measurement from the figure and transferring it to where it is needed.

And finally we draw in lines to represent the timbers to show bent configuration.

Compare our geometry-yielded figure to Jim's numerically yielded design:


The measurements are very very similar, I will try and get approximations up soon.

Keep in mind, the measurements will not be exactly the same. One drawing is made with pure geometry, the other I assume was made with numbers. Jim's drawing comes out to nice measurements of inches and feet, and a common roof pitch, mine will not but rather will yield a bunch of numbers with geometric ratios, not equal to whole inches or even convenient fractions of an inch. Which reminds us, Geometry is a scribe system not a numeric layout system

Hope this clarifies things for you...

DLB

I appreciate your drawings but some of them the lines are light and I can't see the red.

Are you saying to extend line D-G to the wall to determine the plate height?

And I do understand that this is scribe but I wanted things to look proportional.

Jim

You said:
"Next the roof height is defined by taking another measurement from the figure and transferring it to where it is needed."

Where is this measurement taken from?

And I can't see where you placed it?

Can you explain this more?

Jim

I will post direct links to the pictures so you can look at them in higher resolution...

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/HiddenOrder/Geometria/GEO%20Article/scan0008.jpg
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/HiddenOrder/Geometria/GEO%20Article/scan0009.jpg
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/HiddenOrder/Geometria/GEO%20Article/scan0010-a.jpg
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/HiddenOrder/Geometria/GEO%20Article/scan0011-a.jpg
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/HiddenOrder/Geometria/GEO%20Article/scan0012-a.jpg
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/HiddenOrder/Geometria/GEO%20Article/scan0013.jpg

The line for the roof height is one of the long diagonals on the figure, line DH. With the compass, this measurement is transferred to define the roof height. It extends along an extended line CH upward from the intersection of line FG, which also marks the top of the Tie Beam in this layout.

The plate height is simple line FG extended in either direction



for comparison, here is your layout superimposed over mine. I could do a little bit of tweaking to make mine match yours a little closer, but considering how quick I did it I am quite surprised at how close they actually are.

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff345/HiddenOrder/a-gableendview-start1-1.jpg

Let me know if you have any other questions

DLB

As far as differences go, My tie is slightly higher, and as such so are the braces, and my knee wall is slightly shorter. The overall wall height ends up being just about the same, as are the locations of the queen posts and the center post. My roof pitch is ever so slightly steeper.

Thanks for explaining the measurement D-H. And how you applied it. That was the one I was missing.

I think I understand your layout now. It was a very interesting exercise.

The comparison is truly amazing. And I guess it shows that my proportions weren't that far off.

Thanks again.

Jim Rogers

Jim,
In all honesty, a building designed with geometry and one designed with feet and inches are often times going to be very similar, sometimes the difference may only be a tiny fraction of an inch. My belief however is that the geometry allows us to arrive at sound relationships and profiles quicker than we would through mathematics, and is a lot more enjoyable.

My interest in geometry arises out of historic curiosity, but after experimenting with it I have discovered the tremendous rigor of its methods, and its incredible ability to yield beautiful figures that are also wonderful structurally.