I'm not sure if any of this is even remotely related to the Fourier analysis. I'm relatively new to all of this and I'm kinda embarassed to say that I really don't understand the formula that is always referenced in everything that explains anything related to Fourier, so I don't understand any of the discussion that follows it, which usually turns out to be the entire discussion - kinda frustrating. However I hope to understand all those things the longer I work with Maple. The material I've shown is just something I did one day when working with maple and experimenting with waves. Doing some experimenting, using Maple, It "seems" to me that any wave that repeats itself can be broken down into the waves that make it up by looking for a period that repeats itself and then multiplying that period by waves of various frequencies. For each wave that is used to do this, if the wave is the same as the one being used, then the result of integrating the period will be non-zero. I found this out using maple by taking a wave of one frequency, multiplying it by another and then integrating the result which produced zero. However, that was pretty obvious just by looking at it, without integrating or doing any other type of math since everything above the axis is the same as everything below. I then multiplied two waves of the same frequency and noticed that the result was a wave that went above the x axis and was obviously non zero - in fact the entire wave was above the x-axis. That seemed to work for any wave so it seems like an easy way to "pick out" a wave of any frequency that is inside any repeating wave comprised of many waves that repeats itself over any particular period. The amplitude turns out to be the result of integrating and then dividing by pi. I'm still working on this and hope to add to that webpage and worksheet as I do so. I apologize if I didn't answer your questions very well, but although I understand what I did in that example, I don't really have a good understanding of how it relates to waves in general yet - but I will.

I'm not sure if any of this is even remotely related to the Fourier analysis. I'm relatively new to all of this and I'm kinda embarassed to say that I really don't understand the formula that is always referenced in everything that explains anything related to Fourier, so I don't understand any of the discussion that follows it, which usually turns out to be the entire discussion - kinda frustrating. However I hope to understand all those things the longer I work with Maple. The material I've shown is just something I did one day when working with maple and experimenting with waves. Doing some experimenting, using Maple, It "seems" to me that any wave that repeats itself can be broken down into the waves that make it up by looking for a period that repeats itself and then multiplying that period by waves of various frequencies. For each wave that is used to do this, if the wave is the same as the one being used, then the result of integrating the period will be non-zero. I found this out using maple by taking a wave of one frequency, multiplying it by another and then integrating the result which produced zero. However, that was pretty obvious just by looking at it, without integrating or doing any other type of math since everything above the axis is the same as everything below. I then multiplied two waves of the same frequency and noticed that the result was a wave that went above the x axis and was obviously non zero - in fact the entire wave was above the x-axis. That seemed to work for any wave so it seems like an easy way to "pick out" a wave of any frequency that is inside any repeating wave comprised of many waves that repeats itself over any particular period. The amplitude turns out to be the result of integrating and then dividing by pi. I'm still working on this and hope to add to that webpage and worksheet as I do so. I apologize if I didn't answer your questions very well, but although I understand what I did in that example, I don't really have a good understanding of how it relates to waves in general yet - but I will.

I, for one, can certainly understand the dilemma of what to place in what order when it comes to help for new users, as well as those who are more familar with Maple but confronted with a new version of Maple with newer features. I think the "Quick Help" box that pops up when Maple loads is a great feature. I also think that the help system is just about as good as it can be - a click of the mouse on the help menu, takes one to the help "table of contents" which in my opinion too is very easy to navigate. Something that I think would be advantages to Maple is to find a way to better inform new users of the "Classic Worksheet". You've provided a cool calculator with the newer versions of Maple, yet the classic worksheet is something that loads really quick, very easy to work with, and the menu item help/introduction is extremely informative. Yet, I didn't even realize any of this until fairly recently after using Maple for about 5 months. I think it would even be very neat, if along with the usual user manuals, you'd provide a small user manual - just something of about 50 pages or so - that would catch the attention of a new user, directing them to have a look at the classic worksheet for things they want to do really quick without loading the "Big One". All in all, I think Maple is really great and extremely easy to navigate, all things considered - kudos to the developers of Maple.

I, for one, can certainly understand the dilemma of what to place in what order when it comes to help for new users, as well as those who are more familar with Maple but confronted with a new version of Maple with newer features. I think the "Quick Help" box that pops up when Maple loads is a great feature. I also think that the help system is just about as good as it can be - a click of the mouse on the help menu, takes one to the help "table of contents" which in my opinion too is very easy to navigate. Something that I think would be advantages to Maple is to find a way to better inform new users of the "Classic Worksheet". You've provided a cool calculator with the newer versions of Maple, yet the classic worksheet is something that loads really quick, very easy to work with, and the menu item help/introduction is extremely informative. Yet, I didn't even realize any of this until fairly recently after using Maple for about 5 months. I think it would even be very neat, if along with the usual user manuals, you'd provide a small user manual - just something of about 50 pages or so - that would catch the attention of a new user, directing them to have a look at the classic worksheet for things they want to do really quick without loading the "Big One". All in all, I think Maple is really great and extremely easy to navigate, all things considered - kudos to the developers of Maple.

Thanks Robert - I really appreciate you showing me that. I haven't explored Maple's audio package yet, but I remember it being mentioned when I originally viewed the Maple demo CD. It never ceases to amaze me what Maple is capable of. Using maple to do what I did in that worksheet, helped me better visualize a lot of what I already understood and your example helped even more. With maple the learning is easy, so it's easy to learn a lot... quickly.

Thanks Robert - I really appreciate you showing me that. I haven't explored Maple's audio package yet, but I remember it being mentioned when I originally viewed the Maple demo CD. It never ceases to amaze me what Maple is capable of. Using maple to do what I did in that worksheet, helped me better visualize a lot of what I already understood and your example helped even more. With maple the learning is easy, so it's easy to learn a lot... quickly.

I think that declaration statement may also need to be removed?

I think that declaration statement may also need to be removed?

I applaud you for doing the work with the hand tools as you do. You must feel a great deal of pride after completing a project such as the glider - knowing that it was built using those type of tools. The availability of specialized saws such as the one you described have either greatly improved within the past 15 years of so, or I just never noticed them as I have in recent years. Even blades for my large bandsaw have taken on a new face. There's a blade known as the "wood-slicer" that when new, can cut a paper-thin slice of maple up to 12" without a blade mark on it. The trick with scrapers seems to be to scrape cross-hatched at about 15-30deg angle to the direction of the grain. Moisture content of the wood at the time they are being used can also effect their perfomance. On a humid day, a little more agressive cutting angle seems to work best. Depending on wood type, the variation of moisture content can vary a great deal based on relative humidity. I have a friend who has been working on some windsor chairs for a couple of years now. He's doing it all with hand-tools, and is doing a very fine job. That's a project I'd like to undertake sometime in the future when things slow down a bit for me.

v/r, I'm not taking on any new projects at this time. You may be able to find someone willing to take on your project at luth.org. I think a solid body electric would allow for all kinds of creativity towards what you described.

Joe, the tool on that page is a scraper. You can get them (or make your own) in any size or shape. Small oval ones like the one shown, is a size I just file the edge flat and that provides enough for scraping. Larger ones need burnished to work well. I rarely use sanding paper since scrapers do a finer job - more quickly. So you collect tools? That's very cool! Although I'm not a collector, I really enjoy looking at the collections of others. Old planes as well as new ones that are well crafted are probably the most collected woodworking hand-tool. Stanley planes are one of the most collected. Below are a couple of links to some very fine planes: holtey lie-nielsen As you may already know, good chisels are made of hard and soft metal fused together. The hard metal provides the edge. They are also very expensive. There are quite a few places on the internet that explain sharpening procedures for all types of chisels.

I'm glad you enjoyed the shop pic. I consider myself very fortunate to have such a nice shop. It was something I only dreamed about most of my life and was finally able to make it a reality. Making a quality bench from maple is a really great project! Since you like working with hand-tools, you may understand how much I enjoy doing something like shown at the following link. Hand carving a cello bridge Both the japanese chisels and stanley planes are great tools to have around the shop. I don't go too expensive with the chisels, but for gouges, I always opt for the japanese variety. Working wood with a plane and especially the art of doing it well, can be a very rewarding experience.

Are you a woodworker? I use a lot of tung oil - mostly polymerized. Besides the usually woodworking type of things, below are a couple of links to some other things I make with Maple. A Flute A Patented Violin Bridge Below is a link to a picture of my shop with a slab of maple, I've yet to figure out what I'm going to use it for. Maple slab

Which Vista version do you have on the Toshiba? As far as I know the default is the 32-bit version with the option for a free 64-bit version upgrade. The biggest problem with Vista is the requirement that all drivers be signed - you are not allowed to install an unsigned driver in Vista as you can in WinXP. I've been through the driver signing process myself and there are a lot of rigorous tests involved, and it's rather expensive too. The whole process, along with the expense, and the inability to upgrade a driver without having to have it too go through the process all over again, is probably what keeps many developers from wanting to go through the process.

Which Vista version do you have on the Toshiba? As far as I know the default is the 32-bit version with the option for a free 64-bit version upgrade. The biggest problem with Vista is the requirement that all drivers be signed - you are not allowed to install an unsigned driver in Vista as you can in WinXP. I've been through the driver signing process myself and there are a lot of rigorous tests involved, and it's rather expensive too. The whole process, along with the expense, and the inability to upgrade a driver without having to have it too go through the process all over again, is probably what keeps many developers from wanting to go through the process.