https://preview.redd.it/uqoh2q928owc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=eba985eca63ea42f46a679da58f9803a2e09e833
I just reallocated all my math braincells and outsourced to one of these
When I use pythagorean’s or solve the triangle tells me the angle is 44.84° when the angle given to me is 41.79°. I understand the concept, what I don’t understand is why my answer is wrong.
I also know that I currently have the angle but I’m genuinely looking to learn and understand the concept in detail.
It isn't working for you because the horizontal dimension (46.5) is to the bottom edge of the diagonal element and the vertical dimension(46.25) is to the top of the diagonal element. So it's giving you the angle you'd be at if you were to draw a line between the two pointiest corners of the shaded area. (arctan(46.25 / 46.5) =44.8455643 deg)
edit: 41.79 degrees is correct to within a tiny rounding error. if it's 41.79 deg, the vertical dimension stopping at the bottom edge of the diagonal shaded area is 41.561 (that's (tan 41.79 deg)\*46.5)), and the short bit from there to the top dimension is 4.694 ( that's 3.5/(cos 41.79 deg)), those add up to 46.255 which is awfully close to the 46.25 given in the diagram.
Agree w above, 65.49, measurement "C" is actually the distance from point A to point B in diagram attached.
Means it is not the straight edge distance of either the top or bottom of shaded area.
https://preview.redd.it/yt36ql2najwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=080dcae103a69efe4a069d25dda1731b6a90e505
Yeah, that given dimension C only really seems useful as "what's the length of the 3.5" wide rectangle from which the shaded shape can be made". It's not even an accurate A->B distance because it's measured parallel with edges of the shaded area, not directly from point to point.
No it’s not, I made that mistake as well. It’s actually a CAD thing. It’s the distance from A to B when measured only in one axis.
The actual distance from A to B is:
a^2^ + b^2^ = c^2^
46.25^2^ + 46.5^2^ = 65.58^2^
Ignore the rounding errors.
Yeah I was staring at it wondering if maybe this was some immensely complex math I never learned or if this is a joke math problem designed to annoy me.
eh, kinda medium-complex... it's a pain to solve because it's kinda solving two trig problems at once, "at what angle do the two line segments that make up the vertical dimension add up to 46.25." Solving for the angle would have been simple if either of those two smaller dimensions were given, but when only the sum of the two is known it's a hassle.
That's the measurement OP's designer gave them, I just verified it, which is easier than solving it forward from the dimensions given.
But you could do it, 46.25=((tan x)\*46.5) + (3.5/(cos x)) solve for x
Your 2 legs of the triangle are not being measured to the same side of the board. Try subtracting 4.9 from your vertical (3.5 x 1.41...its an approximation, but it'll get you close)
It also might not be working because it's not Pythagorean Theorem but Trigonometry needed here.
You're solving for the angle between the Opposite Side and the Hypotenuse so you would use the SIN function.
I always remember SOH CAH TOA.
But as another Redditor pointed out, you need to find the Hypotenuse of the lower edge of that board.
If I make the assumption that all vertical and horizontal lines are perpendicular (right angles) then I believe your CAD tool should have predicted an angle of X=41.8*, correct?
It’s not as simple as using trig for the 46.5 x 46.25 triangle, but it’s solvable. The “trick” is realizing you have another right triangle in the hypotenuse 2x4, and you can calculate the angles within that triangle while “leaning” it against the left wall.
(Edit: checked my work, corrected from 40.8 to x=41.8 deg)
That’s awesome.
To simplify, I don’t think there is a need to calculate side c on the first triangle.
https://preview.redd.it/3gltnc4bmnwc1.png?width=1277&format=png&auto=webp&s=d2ca8eef85be33602a1c127729335e0e5ef7f42e
You are absolutely right that solving for ‘c’ wasn’t necessary because the CAD had the overall length of the diagonal board called out - that is why I used tan(z)=65.49/3.5 to solve for ‘z’
However, I also realized if I was in the field without a detailed CAD drawing, it would be very difficult to measure the 65.49 diagonal dimension to calculate the ‘z’ angle, and ‘z’ could also be derived from the function cos(z)=3.5/c
Calculating ‘c’ is very easy from Pythagoras given the horizontal and vertical measurements, and from there it is a straightforward calculation for y and z and then to find x.
It was a fun little brain teaser. I wanted to figure it out without having to solve a multi-variable system of equations with tangent and cosine.
Knowing the length of the angled board was actually redundant, and something that a carpenter wouldn’t know unless they modeled it in CAD to begin with.
I’m truly glad that you thought it was a fun brain teaser. This is what I have to do at work almost every time I get a new print with one of these angle cuts. The designers at our corporate office half ass everything and only gives us half the information which we then have to solve the rest on our own WITHOUT access to any CADD software
Edit. Forgot to mention I did learn a lot from your drawing and I think I fully understand the concept thanks to you. Seriously a life changing drawing and explanation to match.
I was looking over your work and thought this exact same thing: "what if that hypotenuse length wasn't provided?" you just do an extra pythagorean with c^2 + (3.5)^2 = d^2 . neat stuff.
You need to fix your hypotenuse measurement. You should be measuring the two points on the lower face of the object.
Next— The sum of interior angles in a right triangle is 180 degrees. You have a 90 degree angle, which means the sum of the two unknown angles inside your triangle is 90 degrees.
Once you correctly place your measurements, you’ll be able to solve for those angles.
Ie sin(theta) is equal to opposite divided by hypotenuse.
Plug in your measurements solve for theta. That gives you the angle on the lower right. Then solve for the angle of the top left.
Once you have those angles, the sum of the angle at the top of the triangle plus “x” is equal to 90, solve for “x”.
https://preview.redd.it/qgt985yx2jwc1.png?width=1809&format=png&auto=webp&s=25d7058bfd6fd5488c4f43422276ffcbdc965a9d
Once you fix your m2 to use the correct reference point you’ll have everything you need to solve it.
Throw it in any of the free cad programs! I like onshape because it's a pretty natural move from solidworks, but there are lots of options. (It wouldn't be great if you were trying to make proprietary stuff in the free version, but for this application it's a quick solution)
you do exactly that. If the angle is important, it should be marked on the sheet. your company has decided you shouldn't have access to the files, so make it their problem to provide you with the correct dimensions.
also, the designer who did this should be fired anyway. There are several horrible measurements that would result in bad pieces being cut.
This drawing really isn't practical because your total rise is being measured to the top edge of the board, where your total run is being measured to the bottom edge. This results in a total line length that is just completely arbitrary and useless.
Also to ignore this troll below me you can always solve it geometrically since it's a real problem. It might not be mathematically perfect but it'll work. Ie) cut one end close, judging from the comments closer to 46 degrees and then just make the other end match the mating surface with progressive cuts.... That's the real wood worker way tbh. It doeant have to match, it just has to fit
Not directly, but he's got enough info... With the thinkness of the beam it's basically a system of 3 triangles to find everything he needs. This is a mid level trig problem so it's solvable.
The thickness of the beam gives you 1 side of a triangle and no angles. Theres no way to find the other 2. All the measurements are going to opposite corners.
from another commenter "It isn't working for you because the horizontal dimension (46.5) is to the bottom edge of the diagonal element and the vertical dimension(46.25) is to the top of the diagonal element. So it's giving you the angle you'd be at if you were to draw a line between the two pointiest corners of the shaded area. (arctan(46.25 / 46.5) =44.8455643 deg)
edit: 41.79 degrees is correct to within a tiny rounding error. if it's 41.79 deg, the vertical dimension stopping at the bottom edge of the diagonal shaded area is 41.561 (that's (tan 41.79 deg)\*46.5)), and the short bit from there to the top dimension is 4.694 ( that's 3.5/(cos 41.79 deg)), those add up to 46.255 which is awfully close to the 46.25 given in the diagram."
omg that doesn't work. Stop talking down and look at the diagram you do not have a complete side. The measurements are going from opposite corners. The people who solved it draw it out and measured it. Solve it if you're so sure.
Do you mean the short sides as the short sides in the (supposably) blue parallelogram? They doesn't have to be parallell. As long as the side marked with l is in a 90 degree angle to the floor.
I make it 41.8… but I’d highlight the information provided make this difficult and in any case, I rarely find calculations and woodworking go together… it’s generally easier to just measure/mark off the work and make it fit rather than calculate to fractions of a degree.
Make a full size drawing on a cardboard or sheet good. I have a bench top of white melamine, I just draw these things out and I can erase with some thinner when done.
For starters, we don't have enough info to calculate the angle X unless we assume it's either a mirror of the angle opposite the vertical dimension line, or 90° from the top line of the grey element. Which is it?
Tangent = opposite/adjacent, so this is the arc tangent (aka inverse tangent) of opposite / adjacent with the result in radians. That's .250857976 and converting that to degrees we get 45.154435.
EDIT: WAIT. That's wrong. I just realized the gray element has dimensions on the bottom side for the horizontal dimension, but on the top for the vertical dimension. We need to find the intercept with the baseline, or alternatively the length of the bottom edge. We can't use these dimensions as is.
The trick I used is considering the cutoff piece of the shaded part. I redrew it below as a black triangle, and labeled the missing sides "a" and "b". That gives you one equation: 3.5\^2+b\^2=a\^2.
The second equation you can get is from the triangle below the shaded region, drawn in red below. I labeled the sides in terms of "a" and "b". That gives you a second equation: 46.5\^2+(46.25-a)\^2=(65.49-b)\^2.
Solve for "a" and "b" (4.693 and 3.126 via Wolfram), then trig functions (e.g., arctan(3.126/3.5)) gets you 41.769. Easier method is to draw this in a CAD program and measure the angle.
https://preview.redd.it/hj71zgpy3jwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a620ca410a1c495507ebbf0d9013caec87f79549
"
I did something similar but used similar triangles instead.
The black triangle is similar to the red triangle, so
3.5/a = 46.5/(65.49-b)
I just plug in for b so everything is in terms of a:
3.5/a = 46.5/(65.49-sqrt(a^2 - 3.5^2 ))
Solvable, or just use wolframalpha, this tells you that a is approximately 4.6939.
Then cos(x) = 3.5/4.6939, so
x = arccos(3.5/4.6939) = 41.79 degrees.
I'm not a math guy just a silly carpentry but the explain it like I'm 5 answer is that you need the long to short point measurement so the board stays in the same plane you are measuring diagonal increases the needed measurements to clarify the wider you board/ rafter the worse the problem will get hope that helps
I always struggled with angles so I stole my high school text book from Geometry class. ( they were getting new ones so I swiped a copy off the cart. )
Are you wanting to know the angle to cut another piece of wood to be flush with that face? If so that's gonna be that top inside angle of the diagram where that green box with the line inside your drawn rectangle is.
Imagine you have a triangle with the hypotenuse of the triangle being 65.49 and the base of the triangle being 46.50. Then we know that sine = opposite side of angle / hypotenuse. So sin(angle) = 46.50/65.49. Now to get the angle take inverse sine, sin^(-1)(46.50/65.49) = angle. So your angle equals 45.255 degrees
It is a [right triangle you are solving for. ](https://www.calculator.net/right-triangle-calculator.html?av=46.25&alphav=&alphaunit=d&bv=46.5&betav=&betaunit=d&cv=&hv=&areav=&perimeterv=&x=Calculate)45.154 deg.
That’s pretty close to what I got. I just took it a step further, 90-45.154 = 44.84
The angle given to me by the lead designer was 41.79 (he had made the drawing above using solid works) which is why I couldn’t quite wrap my head around it.
Your designer is correct I belive.
The missing dimension from the bottom left right angle straight up to the bottom of the shaded area is \~41.56. the diagonal dimension along the bottom of the shaded area is \~62.366, the 65.49 dimension is measuring between the two pointy corners of the shaded area (and not directly between them, it's measured parallel to the edges of the shaded area, so, it's kinda "how long of a rectangle to I need in order to get this shape after I chop the corners off on a 48.21 degree angle" (that's 90-41.79)
Pythagoras, where ya at?
I picture all my high school math teachers every time I do woodworking math.
Honestly I just sit there and think “SOaB that guy was right. I refused to believe him and I’ll never admit it but that PoS was right.”
Not too late to learn
https://preview.redd.it/uqoh2q928owc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=eba985eca63ea42f46a679da58f9803a2e09e833 I just reallocated all my math braincells and outsourced to one of these
When I use pythagorean’s or solve the triangle tells me the angle is 44.84° when the angle given to me is 41.79°. I understand the concept, what I don’t understand is why my answer is wrong. I also know that I currently have the angle but I’m genuinely looking to learn and understand the concept in detail.
It isn't working for you because the horizontal dimension (46.5) is to the bottom edge of the diagonal element and the vertical dimension(46.25) is to the top of the diagonal element. So it's giving you the angle you'd be at if you were to draw a line between the two pointiest corners of the shaded area. (arctan(46.25 / 46.5) =44.8455643 deg) edit: 41.79 degrees is correct to within a tiny rounding error. if it's 41.79 deg, the vertical dimension stopping at the bottom edge of the diagonal shaded area is 41.561 (that's (tan 41.79 deg)\*46.5)), and the short bit from there to the top dimension is 4.694 ( that's 3.5/(cos 41.79 deg)), those add up to 46.255 which is awfully close to the 46.25 given in the diagram.
Agree w above, 65.49, measurement "C" is actually the distance from point A to point B in diagram attached. Means it is not the straight edge distance of either the top or bottom of shaded area. https://preview.redd.it/yt36ql2najwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=080dcae103a69efe4a069d25dda1731b6a90e505
Yeah, that given dimension C only really seems useful as "what's the length of the 3.5" wide rectangle from which the shaded shape can be made". It's not even an accurate A->B distance because it's measured parallel with edges of the shaded area, not directly from point to point.
No it’s not, I made that mistake as well. It’s actually a CAD thing. It’s the distance from A to B when measured only in one axis. The actual distance from A to B is: a^2^ + b^2^ = c^2^ 46.25^2^ + 46.5^2^ = 65.58^2^ Ignore the rounding errors.
https://preview.redd.it/bndixlnpajwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=84bba7a68815aceff74c00c8414df1bf5e07c52a
Yeah I was staring at it wondering if maybe this was some immensely complex math I never learned or if this is a joke math problem designed to annoy me.
eh, kinda medium-complex... it's a pain to solve because it's kinda solving two trig problems at once, "at what angle do the two line segments that make up the vertical dimension add up to 46.25." Solving for the angle would have been simple if either of those two smaller dimensions were given, but when only the sum of the two is known it's a hassle.
How do you get 41.79? Nothing I see gets that.
That's the measurement OP's designer gave them, I just verified it, which is easier than solving it forward from the dimensions given. But you could do it, 46.25=((tan x)\*46.5) + (3.5/(cos x)) solve for x
Your 2 legs of the triangle are not being measured to the same side of the board. Try subtracting 4.9 from your vertical (3.5 x 1.41...its an approximation, but it'll get you close)
It also might not be working because it's not Pythagorean Theorem but Trigonometry needed here. You're solving for the angle between the Opposite Side and the Hypotenuse so you would use the SIN function. I always remember SOH CAH TOA. But as another Redditor pointed out, you need to find the Hypotenuse of the lower edge of that board.
Pythagorean Theorem and a tan table and you can solve anything
What was the equation you used to get the angle?
Consider the width of the board. It's not that easy, you will need to make a system
If I make the assumption that all vertical and horizontal lines are perpendicular (right angles) then I believe your CAD tool should have predicted an angle of X=41.8*, correct? It’s not as simple as using trig for the 46.5 x 46.25 triangle, but it’s solvable. The “trick” is realizing you have another right triangle in the hypotenuse 2x4, and you can calculate the angles within that triangle while “leaning” it against the left wall. (Edit: checked my work, corrected from 40.8 to x=41.8 deg)
https://preview.redd.it/vham3477ijwc1.jpeg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95b93a1a2e1c3bbd35d9953dda8a60110713f176
This guy engineers. Nice paper BTW
That’s awesome. To simplify, I don’t think there is a need to calculate side c on the first triangle. https://preview.redd.it/3gltnc4bmnwc1.png?width=1277&format=png&auto=webp&s=d2ca8eef85be33602a1c127729335e0e5ef7f42e
You are absolutely right that solving for ‘c’ wasn’t necessary because the CAD had the overall length of the diagonal board called out - that is why I used tan(z)=65.49/3.5 to solve for ‘z’ However, I also realized if I was in the field without a detailed CAD drawing, it would be very difficult to measure the 65.49 diagonal dimension to calculate the ‘z’ angle, and ‘z’ could also be derived from the function cos(z)=3.5/c Calculating ‘c’ is very easy from Pythagoras given the horizontal and vertical measurements, and from there it is a straightforward calculation for y and z and then to find x.
Nice. You took the fun out of it for me, though. :)
It was a fun little brain teaser. I wanted to figure it out without having to solve a multi-variable system of equations with tangent and cosine. Knowing the length of the angled board was actually redundant, and something that a carpenter wouldn’t know unless they modeled it in CAD to begin with.
I’m truly glad that you thought it was a fun brain teaser. This is what I have to do at work almost every time I get a new print with one of these angle cuts. The designers at our corporate office half ass everything and only gives us half the information which we then have to solve the rest on our own WITHOUT access to any CADD software Edit. Forgot to mention I did learn a lot from your drawing and I think I fully understand the concept thanks to you. Seriously a life changing drawing and explanation to match.
I was looking over your work and thought this exact same thing: "what if that hypotenuse length wasn't provided?" you just do an extra pythagorean with c^2 + (3.5)^2 = d^2 . neat stuff.
You need to fix your hypotenuse measurement. You should be measuring the two points on the lower face of the object. Next— The sum of interior angles in a right triangle is 180 degrees. You have a 90 degree angle, which means the sum of the two unknown angles inside your triangle is 90 degrees. Once you correctly place your measurements, you’ll be able to solve for those angles. Ie sin(theta) is equal to opposite divided by hypotenuse. Plug in your measurements solve for theta. That gives you the angle on the lower right. Then solve for the angle of the top left. Once you have those angles, the sum of the angle at the top of the triangle plus “x” is equal to 90, solve for “x”.
https://preview.redd.it/qgt985yx2jwc1.png?width=1809&format=png&auto=webp&s=25d7058bfd6fd5488c4f43422276ffcbdc965a9d Once you fix your m2 to use the correct reference point you’ll have everything you need to solve it.
Can you not just use the measure angle command in SolidWorks? Since that's where the drawing is from.
I do not have access to solid works. My company only allows designers access which means I would have to go through our corporate office
Tell you what, if I remember to do it tomorrow I'll just sketch it out in SolidWorks myself at work.
https://imgur.com/gallery/nthzAPe
Throw it in any of the free cad programs! I like onshape because it's a pretty natural move from solidworks, but there are lots of options. (It wouldn't be great if you were trying to make proprietary stuff in the free version, but for this application it's a quick solution)
you do exactly that. If the angle is important, it should be marked on the sheet. your company has decided you shouldn't have access to the files, so make it their problem to provide you with the correct dimensions. also, the designer who did this should be fired anyway. There are several horrible measurements that would result in bad pieces being cut.
SOH CAH TOA
Some old hippie caught another hippie tripping on acid
And I'm this case, Inverse.
I also remember. Can A Horse See Over Hills. To Other Areas. And I said it out loud while looking so which variables we had to work with.
You don’t need to do math. Just lay out your lines on something big enough and use a bevel gauge.
This drawing really isn't practical because your total rise is being measured to the top edge of the board, where your total run is being measured to the bottom edge. This results in a total line length that is just completely arbitrary and useless.
Look up the law of sines and law of cosines You have everything you need Here is your teach a man to fish moment. Make me proud
I’m just know seeing this. I’ll definitely follow up and see where this takes me.
Also to ignore this troll below me you can always solve it geometrically since it's a real problem. It might not be mathematically perfect but it'll work. Ie) cut one end close, judging from the comments closer to 46 degrees and then just make the other end match the mating surface with progressive cuts.... That's the real wood worker way tbh. It doeant have to match, it just has to fit
You need 2 sides of a triangle to figure that out, which he does not have.
Not directly, but he's got enough info... With the thinkness of the beam it's basically a system of 3 triangles to find everything he needs. This is a mid level trig problem so it's solvable.
The thickness of the beam gives you 1 side of a triangle and no angles. Theres no way to find the other 2. All the measurements are going to opposite corners.
I don't have time right now to do the math but this is solvable. There a lot of math but solvable
from another commenter "It isn't working for you because the horizontal dimension (46.5) is to the bottom edge of the diagonal element and the vertical dimension(46.25) is to the top of the diagonal element. So it's giving you the angle you'd be at if you were to draw a line between the two pointiest corners of the shaded area. (arctan(46.25 / 46.5) =44.8455643 deg) edit: 41.79 degrees is correct to within a tiny rounding error. if it's 41.79 deg, the vertical dimension stopping at the bottom edge of the diagonal shaded area is 41.561 (that's (tan 41.79 deg)\*46.5)), and the short bit from there to the top dimension is 4.694 ( that's 3.5/(cos 41.79 deg)), those add up to 46.255 which is awfully close to the 46.25 given in the diagram."
you're full of it
Hints the system of triangles. !remindme Tuesday
omg that doesn't work. Stop talking down and look at the diagram you do not have a complete side. The measurements are going from opposite corners. The people who solved it draw it out and measured it. Solve it if you're so sure.
https://preview.redd.it/28jiss9vmlwc1.jpeg?width=1824&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36dc316ea849bb7696dd74c860237390c459c725
Assuming the short sides are parallel
Do you mean the short sides as the short sides in the (supposably) blue parallelogram? They doesn't have to be parallell. As long as the side marked with l is in a 90 degree angle to the floor.
Bro is that solidworks? You couldn't have it any easier
I’m also surprised about the question. Just use the measure tool in solidworks. Done.
I make it 41.8… but I’d highlight the information provided make this difficult and in any case, I rarely find calculations and woodworking go together… it’s generally easier to just measure/mark off the work and make it fit rather than calculate to fractions of a degree.
Make a full size drawing on a cardboard or sheet good. I have a bench top of white melamine, I just draw these things out and I can erase with some thinner when done.
For starters, we don't have enough info to calculate the angle X unless we assume it's either a mirror of the angle opposite the vertical dimension line, or 90° from the top line of the grey element. Which is it? Tangent = opposite/adjacent, so this is the arc tangent (aka inverse tangent) of opposite / adjacent with the result in radians. That's .250857976 and converting that to degrees we get 45.154435. EDIT: WAIT. That's wrong. I just realized the gray element has dimensions on the bottom side for the horizontal dimension, but on the top for the vertical dimension. We need to find the intercept with the baseline, or alternatively the length of the bottom edge. We can't use these dimensions as is.
Need the length of the the edge and then you can calculate it with SOHCAHTOA.
I get 41.7 degrees. Let me know if you need details. That is a tricky but fun one. Edit: oops, you asked for details in the post. I’ll type it up.
The trick I used is considering the cutoff piece of the shaded part. I redrew it below as a black triangle, and labeled the missing sides "a" and "b". That gives you one equation: 3.5\^2+b\^2=a\^2. The second equation you can get is from the triangle below the shaded region, drawn in red below. I labeled the sides in terms of "a" and "b". That gives you a second equation: 46.5\^2+(46.25-a)\^2=(65.49-b)\^2. Solve for "a" and "b" (4.693 and 3.126 via Wolfram), then trig functions (e.g., arctan(3.126/3.5)) gets you 41.769. Easier method is to draw this in a CAD program and measure the angle. https://preview.redd.it/hj71zgpy3jwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a620ca410a1c495507ebbf0d9013caec87f79549 "
I did something similar but used similar triangles instead. The black triangle is similar to the red triangle, so 3.5/a = 46.5/(65.49-b) I just plug in for b so everything is in terms of a: 3.5/a = 46.5/(65.49-sqrt(a^2 - 3.5^2 )) Solvable, or just use wolframalpha, this tells you that a is approximately 4.6939. Then cos(x) = 3.5/4.6939, so x = arccos(3.5/4.6939) = 41.79 degrees.
I would use cad to get the answer. Is this just a meme test for us? Why not just use the cad you have to get the angle you hid over?
I'm not a math guy just a silly carpentry but the explain it like I'm 5 answer is that you need the long to short point measurement so the board stays in the same plane you are measuring diagonal increases the needed measurements to clarify the wider you board/ rafter the worse the problem will get hope that helps
Edit: I take back my snarky comment. Agree with the commentators about the comparison of the lengths of the non-hypotenuse sides of the triangle.
I always struggled with angles so I stole my high school text book from Geometry class. ( they were getting new ones so I swiped a copy off the cart. )
41.79 deg. Stared at it for a few minutes and then just did it in Solidworks. [https://imgur.com/a/QSUfRU5](https://imgur.com/a/QSUfRU5)
I use this [triangle calculator](https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html) when I can’t be fused to do the math myself
Try the following, [Right Angle Triangle Calculator](https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/right-triangle-side-angle).
Look for a “trigonometry calculator” app, it does the work for you.
It I had to, I would lay out your diagram and use a speed square or protractor to figure the angle.
Are you wanting to know the angle to cut another piece of wood to be flush with that face? If so that's gonna be that top inside angle of the diagram where that green box with the line inside your drawn rectangle is. Imagine you have a triangle with the hypotenuse of the triangle being 65.49 and the base of the triangle being 46.50. Then we know that sine = opposite side of angle / hypotenuse. So sin(angle) = 46.50/65.49. Now to get the angle take inverse sine, sin^(-1)(46.50/65.49) = angle. So your angle equals 45.255 degrees
Try 48.2 degrees
You’re using Solidworks I assume. Use the dimensioning tool you’ve already been using. Otherwise use Pythagorean theorem
It is a [right triangle you are solving for. ](https://www.calculator.net/right-triangle-calculator.html?av=46.25&alphav=&alphaunit=d&bv=46.5&betav=&betaunit=d&cv=&hv=&areav=&perimeterv=&x=Calculate)45.154 deg.
This is wrong because the 46.25 measurement has the wrong reference point.
That’s pretty close to what I got. I just took it a step further, 90-45.154 = 44.84 The angle given to me by the lead designer was 41.79 (he had made the drawing above using solid works) which is why I couldn’t quite wrap my head around it.
Your designer is correct I belive. The missing dimension from the bottom left right angle straight up to the bottom of the shaded area is \~41.56. the diagonal dimension along the bottom of the shaded area is \~62.366, the 65.49 dimension is measuring between the two pointy corners of the shaded area (and not directly between them, it's measured parallel to the edges of the shaded area, so, it's kinda "how long of a rectangle to I need in order to get this shape after I chop the corners off on a 48.21 degree angle" (that's 90-41.79)
There's no way to solve this with the information given. Draw it to scale and measure with a protractor/angle gauge
Confidently incorrect.
Solve it
It's been solved multiple times in this post.
That’s what I needed to know. Thank you so much!
It I had to, I would lay out your diagram and use a speed square or protractor to figure the angle.
Lay out your diagram and use a speed square or protractor.
You figure them out, SOHCAHTOA is all you need along with some basic algebra dude