Harmpie;
Add your profile so we know what resouces you have.
What you need is a program having a ambient occlusion filter, don't recall clanup having that. If you have Pro the shell option may do it but don't know for sure, free here. The only others I know are possible Blender and MeshLab

One of the first checks I do is double click the line and if does not divide I conclude some thing is wrong. However, this functionality is not high use ,at least for me, and knowing the artifact I cannot say it is a make play to make a program chage just for that. Maybe some high use users will comment. Otherwise I would suggest to make it a planned change( with other chages) if it isn't a big program impact.
The cases I run into, although few, are 3d and so I use the sphere line intersect spread sheet I have.
Your tool which is great and that cover all I need .

Its part of information theroy. Have you ever heard of Shannons. Becuase of coding and the confusion of symbols vs bits the community stated to note a different. You don't known what the probability of occurrence is but information on a particular guess is related to 1/p which means an occurrence happening that has low probability carries much more information than one with high probability and if you know that that one can structure the guess to max the information aka entropry and minimize the number of guesses one has to make. Therefore max entropy guess in general , binary search for a specific cases. Actually you are not correct. Only in the case all the probabilities are equal and is the reason I always use the general case.

The attched skp files shows a very simple case using FredoScale 2.2a in the free rotate line inference mode. The plugin seems to declar an intersect point by changing the line color but when one double clicks on the line it shows no division until the base of the triangle is conneted with the line tool. Then intersect happens. All snapping has been deactivated for this case.Using Fredo6 4.5 lib.
free roate artifact or issue.skp
Is this normal ??

Here is the link to Fredo scale that has the inference to line. My install is not correct. Make sure you pay attention to his direction including LibFredo6 4.5 install. That will give the functionally you need. http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=17948&p=403999

No =>what your will do is rotate the radial line. The center of rotation is the center point of the lower ARC and the radius is its radius plus your off set. You need to find where that intersects the vertical lines which then establishes the cord length for your new ARC. Then you can use the native tool to draw the new ARC and you can input the bulge or its radius. What I showed in the pic was obtained with the native rotate tool. If you click on the radial line and it shows a selection over its total length then you know you are not at the intersect point. Some times the native tool will do that intersect and some times not because SU will not inference properly.
BTW I noted Fredos scale tool because I was watching a post where that was done but was having some problems later so will have to double check this AM .
You can use the native SU tools by getting two inference points on each side of the line but close. You can then draw a high poly ARC between those point to use as interpolation.
Sorry for the confusion.

If I under stand the question correctly you want a 6" off set that is uniform and intersects the vertical lines at some point to be determined although you have not defined any limit on the length of the vertical line.That intersect point will determine the length of the new cord The radius of the new arc must = old R +6". Since you are dealing with a line segment at the end point there are five possible solutions for this case. Fredos scale tool can be used to solve this. Check it out here and be aware ,depending on the length of the line segment, there may be no solution or more that one. http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?t=17948.
You may get " close enough" using the SU native rotate tool or you can use two close points, use a high ply ARC to effectively interpolate to get closer too or on an intersect point.
Is this what you want?

Make sure the version of cleaner you reinstalled has the Lib to support it so double check ThomThoms install instruction.

I miss understand; If angles are different then the projected face length is different( For same thickness that is). Is that distortion OK.?

Install 1/2 , if no problem you know it is in other 1/2, divide the 1/2 by 1/2 again keep repeating. Can take just a few tries to find trouble maker. BTW that is called a maximum entropy search.

There was a long thread not long ago on this issue will try and find.
The main problem is many of the rater files do not have good edge definition and the conversion to vector does not go well.
I some times use GIMP in its edge detection mode to get the edges and then a raster to vector converter. For simple items Win Top works but there are better ones around . Again those were addressed in the thread.
The link http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=179&t=43988&hilit=+raster

David_H
Here is a link to numerous proofs of the theorem http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml All based on geometry. Your decision if you call these math

@tig said:

Mac1

What makes you think this is a scientific endeavor ?
< I agree it is obviously not an scientific endeavor>

All science 'generalizes from the particular', although it pretends it doesn't - all experiment is 'particular', from this a general theory is developed - you can never measure everything so you must rely on a limited set of data from which you generalize into a theory.
<Not really. Look at cosmology and Einstein. They will start form a postulated theory and then prove it. You make an assertion and get a result that is strangely exactly equal to the sum of the two sides. Hum I would be questioning what I am doing? You should be willing to try a different triangle and compare results?>

I'm not doing calculus here, perhaps you misconstrue me.
< Not at all I understand calculus but also under stand infinite sum is the path to integration>
I simply made a comparison - calculus relies on making things smaller and smaller and summing them to get a correct result - it works; whereas making steps like this smaller and smaller has no effect because the total length doesn't change - and so it doesn't work!
< Exactly. You are mixing apples and oranges , the sum of the two sides and trying to relate that to the length . Form the differential for the real length and then compare what you are doing. I guess I would conclude: If I am doing it wrong and concluding it doesn't work would not surprise me

I actually like weirdness of the circle and the zig-zag polygon thought-experiment... that enclosing square gets more and more 'steppy' as it shrinks down into the polygon until its areas is almost that of the circle - it can never equal the circle's area, BUT it will become practically the same... BUT the circle's circumference is fixed at PiD, while the polygon's circumference is always 4D.
My observation is simply this: the areas do converge [but never quite match], but the circumferences are always set in that fixed relationship - the polygon's being ~40% longer than the circle's - although the enclosed areas converge and the 'apparent' forms of both is effectively almost equal 'in practice' - so an almost-equality with a disproportionately divergence of lengths...

I fully understand the 'fallaciousness' of these arguments I have set out, by the way
But they show how the very large and very small produce unexpected results - divorced from 'reality' and what you might suppose will happen, when at first applying little thought...

< Just shows we are not omnipotent. IE quantum mechanics vs wave equations >

TIG
Like in any scientific endeavor you must prove your assertion is valid for all cases and not the special one you selected. Do you have that??You differential must be dl such that integration equals the length and not what you are doing.Read my above post.

So the sum of two sides of any isosceles right triangle = 2?
Solution must be done for a more general case of any right triangle and if it still equals two I'll be a believer

Su primitive geometry is " sticky' so if you have the one vertice of each of two triangles snapped and then try and move another then geometry changes as you noted. To avoid that sticky nature make your ref equilateral triangle a component. You can make copies of that and rotate, move, scale etc. without that problem. See this geodesic forum link https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/geodesichelp

Did for me also but it did run>

AIRFOIL.skpTake a look at Fredos curviloft tool. The attached used your info above, F spline fit to those, set scale of bottom to the 3" ref, did not set 2" of the top, 18 " separation. There are question about the station and position relation. Curves need clean up or provide x.y.z and station info.

Just trying to give you some help. If you don't what to consider that it is up to you. I did not say there was no problem with SU.
If those other programs are recognized by Collada as "regression" sites then great for you.

Collada has a public model site for I think is version 1.4. Try down loading a model form there and see what you get. I ran comparison test of SU7 and 8 some time ago doing that. Could not quickly find the link. Start here and poke around http://www.okino.com/conv/exp_sketchup.htm
I used the duck model and the moon buggy and don't have them loaded anymore
Here is the link to the test model bank http://www.collada.org/owl/browse.php