Menu
What's new

Oval table top

i would say that adding the extensions like charlie and norman and dave have said is the easyist methode for the hardware or slides to be installed..you can use a trestle type support and and be on with it! just dont forget about the wood movement issue.
 
I'd go with straight sides. (ie: the FIRST table Dave showed)

I've seen many double-pedestal oval type tables like that, and they look great. In my head, it seems like the true ellipse type table Dave showed -- the 2nd one with continuous curves -- would look rather odd with these suddenly straight leaves in them. You'd need to mock it up in Sketchup first, I think, but when I picture it, it just looks weird. I think you're going to get a bit of sharp angle where you transition from the curve to the leaf.

Now as to the construction... I've seen various companies that sell the pedestals, and even sell the complete base as a kit, such that you just need to build the top. Just thought I'd mention that, in case you didn't know. It gives you options to skip some of the parts that you might find tedious/difficult.

best,
...art
 
I think the stadium shape is the only real practical solution. But it occurs to me that it may be possible geometrically to extend an ellipse but it's totally impractical from a furniture standpoint. The extensions would have to be crescent shaped and go on the outside of the existing ellipse, forming a bigger ellipse.
 
not too long ago i had watched an episode of new yankee workshop, where the despised (only because he has every tool and jig known to man) :bow:norm abrams built a double pedestal table like you're thinking about, but the top was rectangular. one thing to remember, on the ends with the pedestals, people gotta put their feet somewhere... :doh:
 
Al, I haven't drawn anything yet. I was toying with Doug's idea a little. It actually might be workable. If I can this evening, I'll see if I can come up with an illustration.
 
Thanks all. I look forward to Daves drawings. I am really thinking of going with some nice cherry. My lumber guy has some with ingrowen bark and other with intresting figure. Thanks again to all for the help so far.:wave:
 
Al, I hope you don't have your hopes too high. I'll do what I can for you.

Not a lot of time this evening but I'm wondering about something like this. The basic top is 36x72 per your original post. The "leaves" add 20 inches in each direction. I'm thinking of some sort of extending leaf supports under the table and perhaps splines between leaves to keep everything straight.

Al_KillianTable.jpg
 
now you got yur work cut out fer ya al:eek: that looks like anite mare waitin to happen..glad its yu and not me.. the center pull out with straight ends i can see as much user freindly..whereyu gonna store them round sections???
 
i have to agree with larry, and his idea falls well within the theory of the path of least resistance. the main table can be an ovoid (how's that for splitting hairs? :rofl:) shape, but when company shows up, if there's only one straight sided leaf, who's really gonna be that nitpicky to mention it?
 
You guys are correct. Adding a leaf or two in the middle would certainly be easier. As I said earlier, I was just starting to explore Doug's idea.

So, Al?
 
Dave Richards said:
..,.As I said earlier, I was just starting to explore Doug's idea.

So, Al?
Click to expand...

Well actually I wasn't thinking about expanding the width, just the length like the OP. That would make the crescent extension shaped more like a Klingon Bat-leth, tapering to very sharp points. Like I said - totally impractical for a furniture project. It was just a theoretical observation, that you could extend a true ellipse and end up with a true ellipse.
 
I think I will make it elipcal when the leafs are out and just split it jhalf and add a few leafs when needed. I was thinking that instead of two bases, use one oval shaped base. In theroy this would allow for a ligther look and more leg room. Ideas about that?

Dave, I like your drawing, however this would end up bing one of those projects that just sit in the shop and never get done due to complex design issues.

Ok now I am off too fix them their brakes on the truck. Kinda hard on the tranny when you slam it into park(or snow bank) to stop.:rofl:
 
Doug Shepard said:
[...] it occurs to me that it may be possible geometrically to extend an ellipse [...]
Click to expand...

I wonder...I seem to remember (from high school or early college) that three points is sufficient to uniquely define:
  • A flat plane
  • A circle
  • A parabola
  • An ellipse
  • Maybe even a hyperbola? :dunno:
I wonder how hard it would be to officially confirm (or refute) the last three items?
 
Kerry Burton said:
I wonder...I seem to remember (from high school or early college) that three points is sufficient to uniquely define:
  • A flat plane
  • A circle
  • A parabola
  • An ellipse
  • Maybe even a hyperbola? :dunno:
I wonder how hard it would be to officially confirm (or refute) the last three items?
Click to expand...


Brain overload.:)
 
Kerry Burton said:
I wonder...I seem to remember (from high school or early college) that three points is sufficient to uniquely define:
  • A flat plane
  • A circle
  • A parabola
  • An ellipse
  • Maybe even a hyperbola? :dunno:
I wonder how hard it would be to officially confirm (or refute) the last three items?
Click to expand...

Agree about the flat plane but not about uniquely defining the rest. If you take 3 points on those last 4 they will tell you what plane they lie on, but dont help to uniquely define them.
Ex: A circle is uniquely defined by a single point and a radius. Pick any 3 points on the circle and you can figure out what plane the circle lies on. But you cant recontruct a circle of that radius if only given the 3 points.
The same applies to the others.
 
Doug Shepard said:
Pick any 3 points on the circle and you can figure out what plane the circle lies on. But you cant recontruct a circle of that radius if only given the 3 points.
Click to expand...

Actually, the method for a circle (maybe not the math, but the geometric construction) is fairly easy to understand. (See http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/geometry/circlefrom3/)

3 points define a triangle, and there's only one circle that can be circumscribed around a given triangle.

As for the others ... well, let's give Al :wave: his thread back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top