you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 140 points 4 months ago (17 children)

Method A on account that that would be the maximum usable length

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 95 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    As a skilled carpenter who's used to measuring wood, this is the only answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago

    Well..... It kinda depends. If I were to be ordering stock to recreate the branch or even if I were making a covering for the branch. I'd have to order at least 6 inches of material to cut down.

    So I think it matters most how you are intending to use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Oh you're a skilled carpenter? How much wood have you cut in your time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Half as much as they have measured, is my guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    THIS ia getting philosophical.... i mean, first of all, things don't need to be cut perfectly in half every time they're cut.

    But then your answer is probably an estimate/approximation.

    HOWEVER... when you cut one piece of wood into two, is not 100% of the wood cut into?

    So either this carpenter measures 50% of his wood aimlessly, or you, sir, are a LIAR

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    That’s not how it works with soft bodies though, method B represents potential useable length when pointing down. It’s only distorted because it’s pointing up. For rigid bodies, I’d agree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Nobody cares how long the limp branches are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments