Leatherworking General part deux

Calculating circumference rarely works out in the real world.
mark every 45 degrees (or less) on both parts and check alignment as you go.
I used to make templates for cutting steel pipe.
Always got the circumference by wrapping posterboard around it because that's the only way to get it right consistantly.
Also, any diameter measurement error is increased by a factor if PI.

>>1137805
>Calculating circumference rarely works out in the real world.

glad I went to skool

Is OK making a quiver?

>>1137868
OP, damn autocorrect.

>>1137805
>calculating circumference rarely works out in the real world
As a physicist, fucking triggered. A calculation's a fucking exact calculation. OP explain what you're trying to do, and I'll try to explain how to do it not-retardedly.

>>1137872
But you're not an expert of the real world, so your opinion is not applicable here?

>>1137872
>exact calculation
There's no such thing as a perfect circle in the real world, even if there were, there's no way to measure it "exactly".
Practical experience says measuring the circumference is more reliable than calculating it.
Calculating is fine if you're just fabricating a round piece, but to match an existing piece, nothing beats actually measuring it.

File: 15391144_10210120773948856_6672489767171011967_n.jpg (19KB, 238x395px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 238x395px

Bahahahahahahah @ all these posts, including OP.

Alright bro, here's the deal.
You fucked up.
You fucked up by thinking circumfrence is the deciding aspect. Protip: it's stitch hole count.
Why? Because your disk, as large as it may be, needs those stitches on the inside of the disk, offset from the outlying edge. You can't stitch empty air.

You fucked up by assuming you had your shit on point and stitching both ends individually. Any leatherworker should know that you go in one direction with a stitch, and trim excess if it ever arises (though pro leatherworkers know how to not need excess).

Undo one side's stitches and try again. Continue on ONE direction, cut the excess, and suck it up buttercup.
It's not a total loss, but hopefully you learned how to be less of a basic bitch.

>>1137802
I would guess that you have correctly worked out the circumference but failed to take into account the reduction in diameter due to the thickness of the seam. Dumbass.

>>1137872
Gtfo, Stephen Hawking. Your field is just theories (guesses), come back when you've done a days work in the real world.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (174KB, 1761x991px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1761x991px

>>1137881
You don't need to be an expert to draw and create circles, nor do you need to be to calculate a circumference to some degree of certainty.

>>1137882
Ok there "technically" isn't a perfect circle in the real world, and you can't measure it "exactly". However there ARE near-perfect circles that are 99.99999% correctly formed compared to a perfect circle, and as such the calculated (and physical) circumference has that same insane level of near-perfectness, which can be calculated using your typical equation with pi out to maybe 3 or 4 decimal places. I do agree with you that hand-measuring is more reliable than calculating simply because most people do not use the proper steps to ensure a perfect circle in their project, whether it's woodworking, metalworking, or in this scenario leatherworking.

>>1137898
>I'm taking the bait
The phone you're shitposting on is powered by physics. I guess NASA doesn't do anything in the real world either. Fuck those physicists.

>>1137890
Lesson learned.

I fixed it, and made the crease at the bottom appear intentional, but lesson fuckin learned.

>>1137881
>>1137898
Rekt with knowledge. Seriously those were very ignorant posts you should both feel bad.

>>1137872
As a fellow physicist, you should know better than most that physics is the art of approximation.

A simple equation will get you a good first order approximation, but in the real world there are a shitload of other factors that come into play that throw off your perfect mathematical answer.
That being said, OP is still a moron. I'm not sure exactly how he managed to fuck his shit up that badly. Measure twice, cut once is a rule of thumb for a reason.

>>1137872
>As a physicist,

First, assume a spherical cow in a vacuum.

>>1137920
NASA doesn't do anything in the real world except falsify shit. Everything NASA has done is a hoax. I bet you actually believe the earth is round because NASA told you.

Remember when you're dealing with sewing circles and arcs, you need to calculate based off of the stitch line.

If you have a circle of leather measuring 5" across, the circumference is 15.7"

If you cut a piece of leather 15.7" long to wrap the circumference, you'll end up with too much material, why?

If your seam is only 1/8" inset, then your effective circumference is 14.9"

halp

>large phone
>sunglasses hard case
>reading glasses
>bottle of water

at what point does the utility value of not having to juggle edc items that are > pocket sized outweigh the public perception value of not looking like some fuggin queer who totes around a handbag like a woman? what do I shoot for in terms of design and style and all that? looking for functionality of a basket, and aesthetics of a briefcase seems the best fit, but combining those two has my thought process arriving at a durable leather version of a small paper shopping bag which would look gay as fuck. sole purpose of this thing is so he can have a hand free for doors when going from car to desk/kitchen counter and back to car. you guys got anything? am thinking veg tan so it's structured instead of slouchy chrome most purses are made from and hard angles instead of soft curves. but handle/s? dimensions? other elements not mentioned? any input, pls gib

>>1139209
Go milsurp satchel/messenger bag or an actual briefcase. No matter how ugly you make your handbag, it will still be a handbag, which will look stupid and is inherently even more of a woman's accessory than the other options.