Sadly, our woodworking is at times inspired by sorrowful events, but, as with furniture for the living, size still matters. – Editor

"I'd like to make a box for the parents of a coworker who was tragically killed this past weekend in a motorcycle accident. Problem is, I have no idea how big to make it. Anyone done this and, if so, any idea [of] a good size?" – Scott

Everyone who responded assumed, correctly it seems, that he meant a box for cremation ashes. – Editor

"I recently saw something on Bill Grumbine's web site stating that he'd gotten advice from a funeral director that a cremation urn should be 225 cubic inches or more. That said, a quick Google search for cremation urn and volume shows a variety of numbers, but all seem to be in about that same range." – Vaughn

"I had the same task a few years ago. The deceased was a woodworker. His widow asked me to select the best wood in his shop and make a box for his ashes. To this day, I still wonder what he had in mind when he bought the bird's-eye and walnut I used -- I'm sure he never imagined how it would be used. Makes you think. Anyhow, to answer your question, after speaking with the funeral home, I made the inside of the box 8 x 6 x 6. Bob was an average sized man and the ashes fit snugly. I would think a larger size might be needed for a very large person. Sorry for your loss." – Jesse

Someone then posted a very simple sizing strategy. – Editor

"The rule of thumb is one cubic inch per pound of body weight." – Perry

"I second the rule of thumb. It roughly matches the Bill Grumbine number and a lot of other references I have seen over the years. Same formula applies to pet cremations." – Charlie

Then one person summed up what we suspect all the readers were feeling. – Editor

"This doesn't answer your question, but others have already done so quite well. I just wanted to commend you for your thought and the effort to follow through. A box made by a friend can give more comfort to his parents than you know. Well done." – Ken

Dust to Dust from WoodCentral

"This may sound like a silly question, but what's the difference between the round random orbit sanders and the quarter/third/half sheet 'finishing' sanders besides type of orbital motion? Is there a situation where the finishing sander would be the better tool to use?" – Mike

Some felt that the random orbit sander (ROS in woodworker parlance) has supplanted the "jitterbug" finish sander.

"Since the advent of the ROS, there is very little use for the inline or finishing sander. The general thinking is that, when paper loads, it will leave an unsightly mark in the finish if there is any circular motion at all, but with modern stearated papers the problem is virtually eliminated." – Sam

However, several people felt there are distinct advantages to each of the two, and use both. – Editor

"I've found that my ROS will remove material faster and gives a pretty decent finish in a much shorter time frame than a half-sheet type sander will. I also have found that if you want a really smooth, scratch-free surface, the half-sheet sander does a better job if it has a true back and forth motion instead of an orbit, but it is much slower removing material. Personally, I feel there is a place in the shop for both types." – Lee

I like the ROS for flat work as it removes material faster that a 1/4 sheet sander. The one place I really use a 1/4 sheet sander the most is doing edge work. Maybe it's just me, but I find it difficult to sand a nice flat edge on 4/4 material with a ROS." – Tim

He wasn't the only one who felt that way. – Editor

"I'd have to agree with Tim. I tend to use the ROS on the tops and backs of guitar bodies, but when it comes to the sides and edges, the finishing sander did the job much easier and I had a lot more control. Trying to sand the sides and edges with the ROS was a real challenge. It was very difficult to keep from sliding off the side, and I couldn't get into some of the curves as easily." – David