Ultimate digital caliper for modelers.

[Boris Beizer]

Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. The ultimate
digital caliper for modelers should have all that and also the ability to
enter a scale factor and read directly the scale size..and then flip to see
it in millimeters, inches, fractions, etc. Technically (speaking as a
one-time digital designer) it is not difficult to do. The only way to get
this function today is to buy a really high-end digital caliper with a
computer interface. Then you have to drag a cable and computer around as
you work. Cumbersome and expensive. Should be self-contained.
Maybe we modelers can get a movement going and interest a caliper
manufacturer in such a project.

Boris

[Bob Engelhardt]

Boris Beizer wrote:
> Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
> English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. ...

Do you know how it determines the denominator when it's not an exact
conversion? E.g., would 15mm convert to 1/2 (18% small), 5/8 (6%
large), 9/16 (5% small), 19/32 (1/3% large), etc? Hopefully, the user
would have some choice. I can think of a couple of ways of doing it -
do you know how they do it?

Bob

[Val]

A quick googling found several models - with fractional resolutions of 1/64
or 1/128. I suppose the documentation will explain whether the device will
read low, high or closest to available unit.

That would be handy for the target market of woodworkers and such, I don't
see it such a big deal for scale railroad modeling. I really would like to
see scale size available.

There was an HO scale dial caliper out, not sure if it's still available.

Val

"Bob Engelhardt" <bobengelhardt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nMOdncQzRoUtoizYnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Boris Beizer wrote:
>> Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
>> English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. ...
>
> Do you know how it determines the denominator when it's not an exact
> conversion? E.g., would 15mm convert to 1/2 (18% small), 5/8 (6% large),
> 9/16 (5% small), 19/32 (1/3% large), etc? Hopefully, the user would have
> some choice. I can think of a couple of ways of doing it - do you know
> how they do it?
>
> Bob

[Kevin(Bluey)]

Boris Beizer wrote:
> Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
> English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. The ultimate
> digital caliper for modelers should have all that and also the ability to
> enter a scale factor and read directly the scale size..and then flip to see
> it in millimeters, inches, fractions, etc. Technically (speaking as a
> one-time digital designer) it is not difficult to do. The only way to get
> this function today is to buy a really high-end digital caliper with a
> computer interface. Then you have to drag a cable and computer around as
> you work. Cumbersome and expensive. Should be self-contained.
> Maybe we modelers can get a movement going and interest a caliper
> manufacturer in such a project.
>
> Boris
>
>
I think I'll stick to my old manual type ones , I've had them for many
years along with my micrometers and they served me well in my work ,now
in my hobby.
I have a few scale calculators that work well .

--
Kevin (Bluey)
"I'm not young enough to know everything."

bluey69@west.net.com.au

[Greg Procter]

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
>
> Boris Beizer wrote:
> > Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
> > English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. ...
>
> Do you know how it determines the denominator when it's not an exact
> conversion? E.g., would 15mm convert to 1/2 (18% small), 5/8 (6%
> large), 9/16 (5% small), 19/32 (1/3% large), etc? Hopefully, the user
> would have some choice. I can think of a couple of ways of doing it -
> do you know how they do it?
>
> Bob

Will it do 24ths? I model in 1/24th scale (and 1:87)
I don't seem to be able to find a 1/24" scale rule anywhere.

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Leo Lichtman]

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote: (clip) Do you know how it determines the
denominator when it's not an exact
> conversion? E.g., would 15mm convert to 1/2 (18% small), 5/8 (6% large),
> 9/16 (5% small), 19/32 (1/3% large), etc? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The most logical thing would be for it to read in the fractions that it is
set up to resolve, and jump from one to the next, without trying to get
exact matches to the other scales. If you are reading in 1/128's of an
inch, for example, you are interested in the closest value to the actual
diameter--not the closest value to a number in some other scale.

[John Fraser]

Good evening Boris;

"Boris Beizer" <bbeizer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:12r2epe2h6gfhc3@corp.supernews.com...
> Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
> English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. The ultimate
> digital caliper for modelers should have all that and also the ability to
> enter a scale factor and read directly the scale size..and then flip to
> see it in millimeters, inches, fractions, etc. Technically (speaking as a
> one-time digital designer) it is not difficult to do. The only way to get
> this function today is to buy a really high-end digital caliper with a
> computer interface. Then you have to drag a cable and computer around as
> you work. Cumbersome and expensive. Should be self-contained.
> Maybe we modelers can get a movement going and interest a caliper
> manufacturer in such a project.
>
> Boris

And I suppose you would want it to print the data, too. What you
request would be fine for single readings. Unless the instrument has a
useful memory, you will have to write them down. Gee, just like the old
days.

Cheers,
John

[Martin H. Eastburn]

Sounds like you need to buy a 1" square rod at the hardware store.
Normally in 3' lengths, can be cut down...

Then using paper or plastic sheeting - print scales. Verify sizes, redo as needed.
Then since you are a model maker, make a scale. Square not triangular.

Since square - you can do your two scales and metric and inch or
others as needed. Naturally, if you had a CNC mill, then the job is trivial.

But a laser pinter or bubble has the ability. Just coat the paper with
Stay Clear and away you go!

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Endowment Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot"s Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/



Greg Procter wrote:
> Bob Engelhardt wrote:
>
>>Boris Beizer wrote:
>>
>>>Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
>>>English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. ...
>>
>>Do you know how it determines the denominator when it's not an exact
>>conversion? E.g., would 15mm convert to 1/2 (18% small), 5/8 (6%
>>large), 9/16 (5% small), 19/32 (1/3% large), etc? Hopefully, the user
>>would have some choice. I can think of a couple of ways of doing it -
>>do you know how they do it?
>>
>>Bob
>
>
> Will it do 24ths? I model in 1/24th scale (and 1:87)
> I don't seem to be able to find a 1/24" scale rule anywhere.
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Bob Engelhardt]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Bob Engelhardt" wrote: (clip) Do you know how it determines the
> denominator when it's not an exact
>> conversion? E.g., would 15mm convert to 1/2 (18% small), 5/8 (6% large),
>> 9/16 (5% small), 19/32 (1/3% large), etc? (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The most logical thing would be for it to read in the fractions that it is
> set up to resolve, and jump from one to the next, without trying to get
> exact matches to the other scales. If you are reading in 1/128's of an
> inch, for example, you are interested in the closest value to the actual
> diameter--not the closest value to a number in some other scale.

What I meant in my example was: If you measured something that was
actually 15mm, but wanted it to read in fractions, how would it display?

I would hope that it wouldn't display in some fixed denominator, e.g.,
128 ths. Because measuring something to be 96/128 is not nearly as
useful as knowing it's 3/4. What about 80/128, now what is that? Let's
see ... divide both by 16 gives 5/8. OK, 5/8 it is. I'd want one that
would say 5/8, not 80/128. Can you imagine a list of material described
this way: "2 pcs 80/128 brass, 4 72/128 long".

Bob

[werty]

Low cost have a data port . But they need a 2nd memory
so u can go back and forth ABS and REL .

Im doin ARM7 mcu , but software is Luddite , so
no one is having fun . Ill give some free s/w soon ,
end all that .
My s/w wont use English Text to program.
Have you ever heard of anyone progarmming
a computer at high level , with no text input ?
I will be the first , Anyone , anywhere of
any nationality will be able to program it in
minutes , without a manual ..


BTW Stay away from VXB bearing . I got ripped .
$500 of 6002 and 6003 , the cage was dragging ,

kinda like that HF mill-drill that used tapered rollers
and lower roller cage was dragging on the housing !

[David Nebenzahl]

Boris Beizer spake thus:

> Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
> English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. The ultimate
> digital caliper for modelers should have all that and also the ability to
> enter a scale factor and read directly the scale size..and then flip to see
> it in millimeters, inches, fractions, etc. Technically (speaking as a
> one-time digital designer) it is not difficult to do. The only way to get
> this function today is to buy a really high-end digital caliper with a
> computer interface. Then you have to drag a cable and computer around as
> you work. Cumbersome and expensive. Should be self-contained.

So there are calipers with digital outputs? That gives me an idea: what
if a guy were to connect such a caliper to a small custom-made unit,
instead of a computer, that would display the size in whatever scale
desired?

I probably have enough skills programming a little bitty CPU (like the
Ubicom [formerly Scenix] SX-28) to make something like this. Sounds like
a fun project. Could fit in a small box, easy to more around with you.

Anyone know the type of interface these calipers use? USB? Serial?


--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[David Nebenzahl]

me spake thus:

> Anyone know the type of interface these calipers use? USB? Serial?

Looks like they use plain ol' RS-232. Now can anyone tell me the data
format?


--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Paul Newhouse]

In article <G1esh.2941$1x.50136@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
"John Fraser" <jfraser@ns.sympatico.ca> writes:

> And I suppose you would want it to print the data, too.

PRINT!!?? WiFi to a storage device.

--
The lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now.
Modular furniture is cruel and unusual.

[Bob Headrick]

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:45b1c45d$0$17952$822641b3@news.adtechcomputer s.com...
> me spake thus:
>
>> Anyone know the type of interface these calipers use? USB? Serial?
>
> Looks like they use plain ol' RS-232. Now can anyone tell me the data
> format?

Not RS-232 levels, but it is a serial data format, not quite TTL levels..
See
http://www.yadro.de/digital-scale/protocol.html or
http://www.shumatech.com/support/chinese_scales.htm

Regards,
Bob Headrick

[Boris Beizer]

"John Fraser" <jfraser@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:G1esh.2941$1x.50136@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Good evening Boris;
>
>
> And I suppose you would want it to print the data, too. What you
> request would be fine for single readings.

That's right. That's the intention. So if I'm working to say, 1:25 scale,
and I pick up a piece of wood, I can immediately measure if it is the 5.4cm
thickness I'm looking for.

Boris

[Gunner]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:14:14 GMT, "John Fraser"
<jfraser@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Good evening Boris;
>
>"Boris Beizer" <bbeizer@localnet.com> wrote in message
>news:12r2epe2h6gfhc3@corp.supernews.com...
>> Love my digital calipers and the ability to switch between metric and
>> English at a touch. Now some have a third mode, fractional. The ultimate
>> digital caliper for modelers should have all that and also the ability to
>> enter a scale factor and read directly the scale size..and then flip to
>> see it in millimeters, inches, fractions, etc. Technically (speaking as a
>> one-time digital designer) it is not difficult to do. The only way to get
>> this function today is to buy a really high-end digital caliper with a
>> computer interface. Then you have to drag a cable and computer around as
>> you work. Cumbersome and expensive. Should be self-contained.
>> Maybe we modelers can get a movement going and interest a caliper
>> manufacturer in such a project.
>>
>> Boris
>
> And I suppose you would want it to print the data, too. What you
>request would be fine for single readings. Unless the instrument has a
>useful memory, you will have to write them down. Gee, just like the old
>days.
>
>Cheers,
>John
>
This sounds like a proper job for an SPC output unit and a bit of
software

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

[Roger Shoaf]

"Bob Engelhardt" <bobengelhardt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jJ6dnf3wDuQNEizYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> I would hope that it wouldn't display in some fixed denominator, e.g.,
> 128 ths. Because measuring something to be 96/128 is not nearly as
> useful as knowing it's 3/4. What about 80/128, now what is that? Let's
> see ... divide both by 16 gives 5/8. OK, 5/8 it is. I'd want one that
> would say 5/8, not 80/128. Can you imagine a list of material described
> this way: "2 pcs 80/128 brass, 4 72/128 long".
>

Lumber comes to mind, an inch and a half board will be 6 quarter stock.
Then you have sheet metal in gauge sizes which is neither fractional nor
metric. Some how we all get by.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.

[Newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com]

Wouldn't an architect's 6 scale drafting ruler work? I don't have on
handy but I believe they usually have a 1/2" = 1' scale on them. I
think they are twelve unit based.

http://www.staples.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StaplesProductDisplay?prodCatType=0&storeId=10001&catalogId=10051&langId=-1&productId=88918&cmArea=SEARCH

Eric


Greg Procter wrote:

Will it do 24ths? I model in 1/24th scale (and 1:87) I don't seem to be
able to find a 1/24" scale rule anywhere."

[Nick Mueller]

Bob Engelhardt wrote:

> I would hope that it wouldn't display in some fixed denominator, e.g.,
> 128 ths.  Because measuring something to be 96/128 is not nearly as
> useful as knowing it's 3/4.  What about 80/128, now what is that?  Let's
> see ... divide both by 16 gives 5/8.  OK, 5/8 it is.  I'd want one that
> would say 5/8, not 80/128.

Isn't that annoying while you are getting closer to the 3/4". I mean you
start at 1/2 and crank to 3/4. The display will be:

1/2
65/128
33/64
67/128
17/32
69/128

TBC

That would drive my **crazy**. But I also don't work in fractions. :-))


Nick
--
***********************************
*** Available now in NZ and AUS ***
***********************************
<http://www.yadro.de>

[Nick Mueller]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> Anyone know the type of interface these calipers use? USB? Serial?

<http://www.yadro.de/digital-scale/protocol.html>


Nick
--
***********************************
*** Available now in NZ and AUS ***
***********************************
<http://www.yadro.de>

[Nick Mueller]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> Looks like they use plain ol' RS-232.

That's completely wrong. But many claim that in their specs.


> Now can anyone tell me the data format?

See my other posting (or my sig).


Nick
--
***********************************
*** Available now in NZ and AUS ***
***********************************
<http://www.yadro.de>

[Greg Procter]

"Newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com" wrote:
>
> Wouldn't an architect's 6 scale drafting ruler work? I don't have on
> handy but I believe they usually have a 1/2" = 1' scale on them. I
> think they are twelve unit based.


That would work, but we went metric thirty years ago and
architects/draughtsmen went CAD 10/15 years ago so I've found nothing
around NZ.
I'm sure I owned one years ago but tossed it out in one of my moves
before I added 1:24 scale to my collection of scales.
Unfortunately when a country goes metric old plans don't update
themselves. :-(

>
> http://www.staples.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StaplesProductDisplay?prodCatType=0&storeId=10001&catalogId=10051&langId=-1&productId=88918&cmArea=SEARCH
>
> Eric
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> Will it do 24ths? I model in 1/24th scale (and 1:87) I don't seem to be
> able to find a 1/24" scale rule anywhere."

[Wolf]

Pete Keillor wrote:
[...]
> I googled 1:24 scale ruler. Lots of hits. Here's one.
> http://www.thescalecard.com/ShoppingCart/jsstore.htm Look down the
> page for rulers. I don't know what shipping to nz would be, but it
> shouldn't be too bad for something that small. Good luck.
>
> Pete Keillor


1:24 is 1/2" to the foot, a standard architectural scale. You should be
able to find a ruler marked in inches even in NZ, since your switch to
metric was relatively recent. Most rulers sold here in Canada are metric
on one edge, and imperial on the other.

HTH

[Greg Procter]

Wolf wrote:
>
> Pete Keillor wrote:
> [...]
> > I googled 1:24 scale ruler. Lots of hits. Here's one.
> > http://www.thescalecard.com/ShoppingCart/jsstore.htm Look down the
> > page for rulers. I don't know what shipping to nz would be, but it
> > shouldn't be too bad for something that small. Good luck.
> >
> > Pete Keillor
>
> 1:24 is 1/2" to the foot, a standard architectural scale. You should be
> able to find a ruler marked in inches even in NZ, since your switch to
> metric was relatively recent.

1973 is recent?


Most rulers sold here in Canada are metric
> on one edge, and imperial on the other.

Yes, most rulers destined for school desks have imperial on one face,
metric on the other, and the steel rules in hardware and engineering
shops also have both, but imperial in 1/8 - 1/128 increments, which
don't readily translate to 24ths.
>
> HTH

[funfly3]

Greg Procter wrote:
> Wolf wrote:
>> Pete Keillor wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I googled 1:24 scale ruler. Lots of hits. Here's one.
>>> http://www.thescalecard.com/ShoppingCart/jsstore.htm Look down the
>>> page for rulers. I don't know what shipping to nz would be, but it
>>> shouldn't be too bad for something that small. Good luck.
>>>
>>> Pete Keillor
>> 1:24 is 1/2" to the foot, a standard architectural scale. You should be
>> able to find a ruler marked in inches even in NZ, since your switch to
>> metric was relatively recent.
>
> 1973 is recent?
>
>
> Most rulers sold here in Canada are metric
>> on one edge, and imperial on the other.
>
> Yes, most rulers destined for school desks have imperial on one face,
> metric on the other, and the steel rules in hardware and engineering
> shops also have both, but imperial in 1/8 - 1/128 increments, which
> don't readily translate to 24ths.
>> HTH
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamiya-Craft-Tools-Scale-Ruler-1-12-1-24_W0QQitemZ260078414588QQihZ016QQcategoryZ2594QQc mdZViewItem
HTH

[Greg Procter]

funfly3 wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> > Wolf wrote:
> >> Pete Keillor wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> I googled 1:24 scale ruler. Lots of hits. Here's one.
> >>> http://www.thescalecard.com/ShoppingCart/jsstore.htm Look down the
> >>> page for rulers. I don't know what shipping to nz would be, but it
> >>> shouldn't be too bad for something that small. Good luck.
> >>>
> >>> Pete Keillor
> >> 1:24 is 1/2" to the foot, a standard architectural scale. You should be
> >> able to find a ruler marked in inches even in NZ, since your switch to
> >> metric was relatively recent.
> >
> > 1973 is recent?
> >
> >
> > Most rulers sold here in Canada are metric
> >> on one edge, and imperial on the other.
> >
> > Yes, most rulers destined for school desks have imperial on one face,
> > metric on the other, and the steel rules in hardware and engineering
> > shops also have both, but imperial in 1/8 - 1/128 increments, which
> > don't readily translate to 24ths.
> >> HTH
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamiya-Craft-Tools-Scale-Ruler-1-12-1-24_W0QQitemZ260078414588QQihZ016QQcategoryZ2594QQc mdZViewItem
> HTH

Hey thanks!

[Wolf]

Greg Procter wrote:
> Wolf wrote:
>> Pete Keillor wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I googled 1:24 scale ruler. Lots of hits. Here's one.
>>> http://www.thescalecard.com/ShoppingCart/jsstore.htm Look down the
>>> page for rulers. I don't know what shipping to nz would be, but it
>>> shouldn't be too bad for something that small. Good luck.
>>>
>>> Pete Keillor
>> 1:24 is 1/2" to the foot, a standard architectural scale. You should be
>> able to find a ruler marked in inches even in NZ, since your switch to
>> metric was relatively recent.
>
> 1973 is recent?

Sure. I can still remember that year, so it must be recent. :-)

> Most rulers sold here in Canada are metric
>> on one edge, and imperial on the other.
>
> Yes, most rulers destined for school desks have imperial on one face,
> metric on the other, and the steel rules in hardware and engineering
> shops also have both, but imperial in 1/8 - 1/128 increments, which
> don't readily translate to 24ths.
>> HTH

You might find an architectural scale (you know, those triangular
thingies) in a pawnshop or junque shop, er, I mean antique store. Just
don't pay a junque price for it. :-) Or maybe you can make contact with
an architect's office that still has some lying around in dusty
drawers somewhere.

What about a US O scale ruler, that's 1/4" scale - just right, for the
inch marks on it will be 1/2" in /124th scale. Puffeck!

HTH

[Greg Procter]

Wolf wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> > Wolf wrote:
> >> Pete Keillor wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> I googled 1:24 scale ruler. Lots of hits. Here's one.
> >>> http://www.thescalecard.com/ShoppingCart/jsstore.htm Look down the
> >>> page for rulers. I don't know what shipping to nz would be, but it
> >>> shouldn't be too bad for something that small. Good luck.
> >>>
> >>> Pete Keillor
> >> 1:24 is 1/2" to the foot, a standard architectural scale. You should be
> >> able to find a ruler marked in inches even in NZ, since your switch to
> >> metric was relatively recent.
> >
> > 1973 is recent?
>
> Sure. I can still remember that year, so it must be recent. :-)

Got to admit it's tough for me to separate 1972/1973/1974 memories now -
1974 I bought my first house and gained a box-room for a railway, but
the previous couple of years tend to merge ...

>
> > Most rulers sold here in Canada are metric
> >> on one edge, and imperial on the other.
> >
> > Yes, most rulers destined for school desks have imperial on one face,
> > metric on the other, and the steel rules in hardware and engineering
> > shops also have both, but imperial in 1/8 - 1/128 increments, which
> > don't readily translate to 24ths.
> >> HTH
>
> You might find an architectural scale (you know, those triangular
> thingies) in a pawnshop or junque shop, er, I mean antique store. Just
> don't pay a junque price for it. :-) Or maybe you can make contact with
> an architect's office that still has some lying around in dusty
> drawers somewhere.

That's where I've been hunting - no luck in over a year.

>
> What about a US O scale ruler, that's 1/4" scale - just right, for the
> inch marks on it will be 1/2" in /124th scale. Puffeck!
>

Good point! I knew that but ... Guess I just never thought of the yank
odd scale.

[newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com]

Greg Procter wrote:

"That would work, but we went metric thirty years ago and
architects/draughtsmen went CAD 10/15 years ago so I've found nothing
around NZ. I'm sure I owned one years ago but tossed it out in one of
my moves before I added 1:24 scale to my collection of scales.

Unfortunately when a country goes metric old plans don't update
themselves. :-( "

That's what happens when you get in bed with the French bastards and
their new fangled measuring system. You get screwed.royally. ;-)

[John Fraser]

Yeah, but even the imperial system isn't perfect as the American ounce,
quart, and gallon are unique sizes.

It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things as 1/4":1' can be
drawn in metric at 1:50 and yield approximate sizes. For that matter, so
can railway scales: G = 1:25, O = 1:50, HO = 1:100. Thus, one wouldn't have
to mix measurement systems such as HO at 3.5mm:12" to make 87.1:1 which I
find hilarious. But, that would be too simple for those with Mensa
qualities.

Cheers,
John


<newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1169557402.134523.55800@l53g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> "That would work, but we went metric thirty years ago and
> architects/draughtsmen went CAD 10/15 years ago so I've found nothing
> around NZ. I'm sure I owned one years ago but tossed it out in one of
> my moves before I added 1:24 scale to my collection of scales.
>
> Unfortunately when a country goes metric old plans don't update
> themselves. :-( "
>
> That's what happens when you get in bed with the French bastards and
> their new fangled measuring system. You get screwed.royally. ;-)
>

[Greg Procter]

newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> "That would work, but we went metric thirty years ago and
> architects/draughtsmen went CAD 10/15 years ago so I've found nothing
> around NZ. I'm sure I owned one years ago but tossed it out in one of
> my moves before I added 1:24 scale to my collection of scales.
>
> Unfortunately when a country goes metric old plans don't update
> themselves. :-( "
>
> That's what happens when you get in bed with the French bastards and
> their new fangled measuring system. You get screwed.royally. ;-)

Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!

[funfly3]

Greg Procter wrote:
> newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com wrote:
>> Greg Procter wrote:
>>
>> "That would work, but we went metric thirty years ago and
>> architects/draughtsmen went CAD 10/15 years ago so I've found nothing
>> around NZ. I'm sure I owned one years ago but tossed it out in one of
>> my moves before I added 1:24 scale to my collection of scales.
>>
>> Unfortunately when a country goes metric old plans don't update
>> themselves. :-( "
>>
>> That's what happens when you get in bed with the French bastards and
>> their new fangled measuring system. You get screwed.royally. ;-)
>
> Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
> than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
> width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
and train tracks that are based on the width of a pair of horse's arse's

[+GF+]

"and train tracks that are based on the width of a pair of horse's arse's"

I was under the impression that the Roman chariot was to blame for that
little quirk....

--
+GF+

"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make
it shorter." - Blaise Pascal among his Provincial Letters (1656-57)

www.ete.org
www.internationalrailfair.com

[e]

In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>, Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com wrote:
>>
>> Greg Procter wrote:
>>
>> "That would work, but we went metric thirty years ago and
>> architects/draughtsmen went CAD 10/15 years ago so I've found nothing
>> around NZ. I'm sure I owned one years ago but tossed it out in one of
>> my moves before I added 1:24 scale to my collection of scales.
>>
>> Unfortunately when a country goes metric old plans don't update
>> themselves. :-( "
>>
>> That's what happens when you get in bed with the French bastards and
>> their new fangled measuring system. You get screwed.royally. ;-)
>
>Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
>than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
>width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
how about them bible assholes with a forearm?

[funfly3]

+GF+ wrote:
> "and train tracks that are based on the width of a pair of horse's arse's"
>
> I was under the impression that the Roman chariot was to blame for that
> little quirk....
>
it was see below blatantly copied from the web
The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4ft, 8.5
inches. That's an exceedingly odd number !!
Why was that gauge used?
Because that's the way they built them in England, and English
expatriates built the US railroad
Why did the English build them like that?
Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the
pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used
Why did "they" use that gauge then?
Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools
that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing, Okay!
Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would
break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's
the spacing of the wheel ruts.
So who built those old rutted roads?
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and
England) for their legions. The roads have bee used ever since
And the ruts in the roads?
Roman chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match
for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since chariots were made for
Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing
The United States standard railroad gauge of 4ft, 8.5 inches is derived
from the original specifications for the Imperial Roman war chariot
And bureaucracies live forever......

So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's
arse came up with it, you may be exactly right. because the Imperial
Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back
ends or two war horses
Now the twist to the story.......

When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on a launch pad, there are two big
booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are
solid rocket boosters or SRB for short
The SRB are made by Thiokol at their factory at Utah.
The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a
bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to
the launch site.
The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in
the mountains.
The SRBs had to fit through the tunnel.
The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad
track is about as wide as two horses' behinds
So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's
most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand
years ago by the width of a horse's arse
and you thought being a HORSE'S ARSE wasn't important!!!

[Gunner]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:39:10 GMT, funfly3 <dontemailme@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>+GF+ wrote:
>> "and train tracks that are based on the width of a pair of horse's arse's"
>>
>> I was under the impression that the Roman chariot was to blame for that
>> little quirk....
>>
>it was see below blatantly copied from the web
>The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4ft, 8.5
>inches. That's an exceedingly odd number !!
>Why was that gauge used?
>Because that's the way they built them in England, and English
>expatriates built the US railroad
>Why did the English build them like that?
>Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the
>pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used
>Why did "they" use that gauge then?
>Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools
>that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing, Okay!
>Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
>Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would
>break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's
>the spacing of the wheel ruts.
>So who built those old rutted roads?
>Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and
>England) for their legions. The roads have bee used ever since
>And the ruts in the roads?
>Roman chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match
>for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since chariots were made for
>Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing
>The United States standard railroad gauge of 4ft, 8.5 inches is derived
>from the original specifications for the Imperial Roman war chariot
>And bureaucracies live forever......
>
>So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's
>arse came up with it, you may be exactly right. because the Imperial
>Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back
>ends or two war horses
>Now the twist to the story.......
>
>When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on a launch pad, there are two big
>booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are
>solid rocket boosters or SRB for short
>The SRB are made by Thiokol at their factory at Utah.
>The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a
>bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to
>the launch site.
>The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in
>the mountains.
>The SRBs had to fit through the tunnel.
>The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad
>track is about as wide as two horses' behinds
>So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's
>most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand
>years ago by the width of a horse's arse
>and you thought being a HORSE'S ARSE wasn't important!!!


ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!


Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

[Marc Heusser]

In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
> than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
> width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!

Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)

Marc

--
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote
in message news:marc.heusser-906D7C.15445725012007@news.unizh.ch...
> In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
> Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
>> than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
>> width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
>
> Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)

I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.

No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system, they
are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them. There
exists no universal physically-based measurement system - nor can there
until we understand all of physics and the universe - so why cry "foul" if
someone chooses to use a system you don't like that's no more or less
arbitrary than the one you do like.

LLoyd

[Marc Heusser]

In article <45b8cbc0$0$18921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
>
> No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system, they
> are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them.

I just prefer the SI-system, as I do not have to remember all those
conversion factors.
Or would you prefer to use roman numerals for calculations :-)?

Marc

--
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail

[Wolf]

Marc Heusser wrote:
> In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
> Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
>> than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
>> width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
>
> Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)
>
> Marc
>


Well, having been brought up with both, and having bought all kinds of
things measured in both systems, and having lived through an incomplete
conversion to metric here in Canada, my considered conclusion is that
the old system is more consumer friendly. Why? Precisely because its
measures are based on the human body.

And human drinking capacity. Have you noticed that "standard" metric
drinks are sized very close to the old measures, with some rounding off
here and there? Eg, a half pint is 227ml - the standard soft drink in
Europe is now 250ml, which is about one tablespoon more.

There's also the convenience of estimating quantities that give us
results within a half unit or so. For a carpet, for example, a
centimetre is too small, and a metre too large, but a foot is just about
right.

The usual argument in favour of the metric system is that it's
"rational", because all its units are related to each other by powers of
10.*** Well, so what? The hard fact is that most people never convert
units into each other -- they never need to do so. People need units
that are easy to imagine in terms of use or consumption. It's no
accident that in Austria when I were a lad sliced meat was bought by the
"Deka", ie the 10gm unit. It's rather small, being less than half an
ounce, but it's in the right range - a slice of ham weighed about a
Deka, depending how the butcher set the slicing machine. On a recent
trip to Austria I shopped at a farmer's market. I noticed that people
asked for "about 1/8 kilo" of cheese, etc, not for 125gm. Interesting, eh?

I have nothing against the metric system, I use it a lot, actually. But
I do get testy with people who believe that it's inherently superior to
other systems of measurement. It isn't. It's just different. The same
goes for the imperial system. Use either for what it's good for, and
ignore it otherwise.

HTH

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote
in message news:marc.heusser-742494.16412425012007@news.unizh.ch...
> In article <45b8cbc0$0$18921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
>>
>> No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system,
>> they
>> are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them.
>
> I just prefer the SI-system, as I do not have to remember all those
> conversion factors.
> Or would you prefer to use roman numerals for calculations :-)?

That's JUST my point. Were I facile in the use of roman numerals, it would
(probably) be just as natural and easy for me to use it that way as it is
for any other measurement system with which I was fully competent. It
really doesn't matter, so long as it's 'standardized' and well-documented.

LLoyd

[Boris Beizer]

"Wolf" <ElLoboViejo@ruddy.moss> wrote in message
news:45b8cff1$0$7463$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com ...
> Marc Heusser wrote:
>> In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
>> Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
>>> than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
>>>
My old physics professor said: "There are two mensuration systems: the
metric and the barbaric."

But to get back to the topic that started this amazingly long thread.
Us modelers use a large variety of sources for our models: kits, plans,
sometimes very old documentation (that may use the stone-furlong-fortnight
mensuration system.). Kits and plans come in an amazing variety of scales:
1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:8, 1:12, 1:16, 1:24, 1:25, 1:32, 1:35, 1:48, 1:50, 1:75,
1:96, 1:100, ...1:720 ..and probably a whole bunch more that I've missed.
The base may be either in feet and inches, or metric. Our materials,
today, are usually either metric or English or both. So, let's say I have
some small brass strips sized in inches, and I'm building a 1:75 scale model
with metric plans. I want to know in an instant if that strip is the size I
want...without dragging out a calculator, without having an RS-232 or other
cable winding itself like a cobra around my delicate model, without a
blue-tooth transmitter dragging my wrist down, and without having to go to
the other room to look at the computer screen because my shop is not a
healthy place for computers. I want to do that conversion in an instant.
Apply my caliper to the material and instantly read the scale dimension in
the proper units. The ultimate digital caliper for modelers would do just
that.

Boris

[Spender]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:28:52 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote
>in message news:marc.heusser-906D7C.15445725012007@news.unizh.ch...
>> In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
>> Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
>>> than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
>>> width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
>>
>> Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)
>
>I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
>
>No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system, they
>are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them. There
>exists no universal physically-based measurement system - nor can there
>until we understand all of physics and the universe - so why cry "foul" if
>someone chooses to use a system you don't like that's no more or less
>arbitrary than the one you do like.

I don't think the basis for the system is the point. That is obviously
going to be arbitrary. It's the conversion process that makes the American
system ludicrous. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 1,760 yards to a
mile. Great if you have a calculator or an autistic savant handy.

With metrics the conversions are all based on factors of ten. Makes it
really easy, even for children with very little knowledge of arithmetic.

Working just in your head, figure the number of centimeters in 8346
kilometers. Now try figuring out how many inches there are in 8346 miles
as quickly. It's like doing long division with Roman numerals.

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:47:51 GMT, the renowned Spender
<Spender@Mars.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:28:52 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
><lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote
>>in message news:marc.heusser-906D7C.15445725012007@news.unizh.ch...
>>> In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
>>> Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
>>>> than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
>>>> width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
>>>
>>> Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)
>>
>>I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
>>
>>No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system, they
>>are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them. There
>>exists no universal physically-based measurement system - nor can there
>>until we understand all of physics and the universe - so why cry "foul" if
>>someone chooses to use a system you don't like that's no more or less
>>arbitrary than the one you do like.
>
>I don't think the basis for the system is the point. That is obviously
>going to be arbitrary. It's the conversion process that makes the American
>system ludicrous. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 1,760 yards to a
>mile. Great if you have a calculator or an autistic savant handy.
>
>With metrics the conversions are all based on factors of ten. Makes it
>really easy, even for children with very little knowledge of arithmetic.
>
>Working just in your head, figure the number of centimeters in 8346
>kilometers. Now try figuring out how many inches there are in 8346 miles
>as quickly. It's like doing long division with Roman numerals.

When you get into thermal conductivity units and that sort of thing,
mixed Imperial units can get pretty ugly. BTU*in/(ft^2*h*°F)?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Wolf]

Spender wrote:
[...]
> I don't think the basis for the system is the point. That is obviously
> going to be arbitrary. It's the conversion process that makes the American
> system ludicrous. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 1,760 yards to a
> mile. Great if you have a calculator or an autistic savant handy.

Yeah, except that one doesn't do conversions very often. I mean, I doubt
that you convert miles to yards when you're driving across town to the
hamburgre joint.

Or do you?

H'm.

> With metrics the conversions are all based on factors of ten. Makes it
> really easy, even for children with very little knowledge of arithmetic.
>
> Working just in your head, figure the number of centimeters in 8346
> kilometers. Now try figuring out how many inches there are in 8346 miles
> as quickly. It's like doing long division with Roman numerals.

Yeah, well, sure, but why on earth would you want to _do_ that?

[Greg Procter]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:
>
> "Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote
> in message news:marc.heusser-906D7C.15445725012007@news.unizh.ch...
> > In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
> > Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
> >> than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
> >> width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
> >
> > Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)
>
> I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
>
> No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system, they
> are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them. There
> exists no universal physically-based measurement system - nor can there
> until we understand all of physics and the universe - so why cry "foul" if
> someone chooses to use a system you don't like that's no more or less
> arbitrary than the one you do like.
>
> LLoyd

My grumbles at the imperial length system come from three factors;
- very strange numbers of each division in the next one up. eg 5280 feet
per mile, 66 feet per chain etc.
- nearly unworkable fractions of each inch, plus thou's.
- assorteg "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
countries.

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Greg Procter]

Marc Heusser wrote:
>
> In article <45b8cbc0$0$18921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
> >
> > No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system, they
> > are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them.
>
> I just prefer the SI-system, as I do not have to remember all those
> conversion factors.
> Or would you prefer to use roman numerals for calculations :-)?
>
> Marc

Scale modelling would be almost impossible using roman numeral
fractions!

Imagine converting a XXXI' IX +VIII/XII" long wagon/car to XXIII/M
scale!
Just converting the result to barleycorns would take a day's
calculations.

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Spender]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:12:17 -0500, Wolf <ElLoboViejo@ruddy.moss> wrote:

>Spender wrote:
>[...]
>> I don't think the basis for the system is the point. That is obviously
>> going to be arbitrary. It's the conversion process that makes the American
>> system ludicrous. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 1,760 yards to a
>> mile. Great if you have a calculator or an autistic savant handy.
>
>Yeah, except that one doesn't do conversions very often. I mean, I doubt
>that you convert miles to yards when you're driving across town to the
>hamburgre joint.
>
>Or do you?

You do conversions whenever the need arises. For anyone who needs to do
conversions a lot, the American system is a major hassle. That is why most
American scientists and engineers use the metric system.

The American public is just too dense to change. That's okay for the older
generation, but they should mandate the metric system in schools so the
next generation doesn't keep looking like a bunch of hicks to the rest of
the world.

>> With metrics the conversions are all based on factors of ten. Makes it
>> really easy, even for children with very little knowledge of arithmetic.
>>
>> Working just in your head, figure the number of centimeters in 8346
>> kilometers. Now try figuring out how many inches there are in 8346 miles
>> as quickly. It's like doing long division with Roman numerals.
>
>Yeah, well, sure, but why on earth would you want to _do_ that?

It's just an example.

[Wolf]

Greg Procter wrote:
[...]
> - assorted "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
> countries.
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.

Standards are a whole 'nother can of wigglies. At least we now have the
ISO, which is sl-o-o-o-owly bringing some order into the mess. But
please note that the measurement system used to specify the standard is
irrelevant, so long as the standard is accepted by everyone. Look at
containers - specified in feet, not metres, and for a very good reason:
they have to fit on US RR cars... :-)

I was an engineering student for two years, and found that besides the
slipstick, the most important tool was the conversion factors booklet
given by The Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation of Canada to all us
impecunious seekers after technical wisdom. I still have that booklet -
I still have two slipsticks, in fact -- and it's a goldmine of useless
information. :-)

Here's a few conversions that the decimal system supposedly simplifies:

1 km/h == 0.2778 m/sec
1 KWh == 3.671x10^5 kg-m
1 mm mercury == 0.001315 atmosphere
== 13.595 km/m^2

And so it goes. Many of the more important conversions are not simply
movements of the decimal point, because Nature isn't decimal.

IOW, the metric system is really a decimal system, and any group of base
unit whatsoever would have served - so why is the meter what it is?
Because the French Republic decided that a "natural" measure of length
would be 1/10,000 of the quarter circumference of the Earth, as measured
along the meridian passing through Paris. Unfortunately, the guy who was
given the job of surveying that line made a few minor errors, so that
the metre is pout by about 1 part in -- wait for it -- 10,000....

Hah!

Footnote: they're called "gauges" of wire (and sheet metal, etc) because
it's easier to measure those things with gauges than with calipers.
Which brings us back where we started from.

Hoohah!

It's been an entertaining ride. Thanks, guys!

HTH

[Greg Procter]

Wolf wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> [...]
> > - assorted "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
> > countries.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg.P.
>
> Standards are a whole 'nother can of wigglies. At least we now have the
> ISO, which is sl-o-o-o-owly bringing some order into the mess. But
> please note that the measurement system used to specify the standard is
> irrelevant, so long as the standard is accepted by everyone. Look at
> containers - specified in feet, not metres, and for a very good reason:
> they have to fit on US RR cars... :-)

Errr, the ISO container standard was based on a British design, so for
that reason the original dimensions were Imperial. The ISO quotes the
standards in bothe feet/inches and millimeters.

>
> I was an engineering student for two years, and found that besides the
> slipstick, the most important tool was the conversion factors booklet
> given by The Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation of Canada to all us
> impecunious seekers after technical wisdom. I still have that booklet -
> I still have two slipsticks, in fact -- and it's a goldmine of useless
> information. :-)
>
> Here's a few conversions that the decimal system supposedly simplifies:
>
> 1 km/h == 0.2778 m/sec
> 1 KWh == 3.671x10^5 kg-m
> 1 mm mercury == 0.001315 atmosphere
> == 13.595 km/m^2
>
> And so it goes. Many of the more important conversions are not simply
> movements of the decimal point, because Nature isn't decimal.
>
> IOW, the metric system is really a decimal system, and any group of base
> unit whatsoever would have served - so why is the meter what it is?
> Because the French Republic decided that a "natural" measure of length
> would be 1/10,000 of the quarter circumference of the Earth, as measured
> along the meridian passing through Paris. Unfortunately, the guy who was
> given the job of surveying that line made a few minor errors, so that
> the metre is pout by about 1 part in -- wait for it -- 10,000....
>
> Hah!
>
> Footnote: they're called "gauges" of wire (and sheet metal, etc) because
> it's easier to measure those things with gauges than with calipers.
> Which brings us back where we started from.
>
> Hoohah!

Problem #1 is which of my selection of gauges should I use to decide
which wire or screw to use or purchase.

A real life example:
I want to mount my newly built wagon (flatcar) on proprietry bogies
(trucks)
The bogies have a kingpin hole of 6mm diameter.
I need a styrene plastic tube kingpin of 6mm diameter and a screw to
thread into said tube.
Find the tube comes in inch fraction increments externally and
internally.
I can figure 1/4" = 6.35mm (unless of course it's 6mm tube labelled
1/4")
The internal diameter isn't stated, but one can infer that it nearly
matches tube two sizes down. Add tube two sizes down to shopping list to
get sufficient wall thickness - internal diameter will equal tube outer
diameter two sizes down.
The screws in the hardware shop come in gauges, whose particular gauges
unstated.
Screws and taps at home all metric sizes.
Attempt to convert 1/4" - 4/32" to metric in head, add thread depth
(opps, two thread depths) and the visualize that in terms of unknown
screws in semi-clear containers in hardware shop.
Go home - create king-pins and rat small tin of random size PK screws
for "something suitable".
;-)

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Wolf]

Greg Procter wrote:
[...]
> Problem #1 is which of my selection of gauges should I use to decide
> which wire or screw to use or purchase.
>
> A real life example:
> I want to mount my newly built wagon (flatcar) on proprietry bogies
> (trucks)
> The bogies have a kingpin hole of 6mm diameter.
> I need a styrene plastic tube kingpin of 6mm diameter and a screw to
> thread into said tube.
> Find the tube comes in inch fraction increments externally and
> internally.
> I can figure 1/4" = 6.35mm (unless of course it's 6mm tube labelled
> 1/4")
> The internal diameter isn't stated, but one can infer that it nearly
> matches tube two sizes down. Add tube two sizes down to shopping list to
> get sufficient wall thickness - internal diameter will equal tube outer
> diameter two sizes down.
> The screws in the hardware shop come in gauges, whose particular gauges
> unstated.
> Screws and taps at home all metric sizes.
> Attempt to convert 1/4" - 4/32" to metric in head, add thread depth
> (opps, two thread depths) and the visualize that in terms of unknown
> screws in semi-clear containers in hardware shop.
> Go home - create king-pins and rat small tin of random size PK screws
> for "something suitable".
> ;-)
>

Interesting. A nice example of why one needs standards, so that one
doesn't have to do all this furshlugginer converting back and forth. I
use NMRA standard trucks: they all come with kingpin holes that take a
#2 (American) screw of bolt. Piece of cake. I just don't buy trucks that
don't conform to NMRA standards. Since after-market replacement trucks
are bought by "serious" modellers (like me??? ROTFL), the manufacturers
make sure their trucks conform.

Ah well, there's always a work-around. :-)

HTH&HF

[Greg Procter]

Wolf wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> [...]
> > Problem #1 is which of my selection of gauges should I use to decide
> > which wire or screw to use or purchase.
> >
> > A real life example:
> > I want to mount my newly built wagon (flatcar) on proprietry bogies
> > (trucks)
> > The bogies have a kingpin hole of 6mm diameter.
> > I need a styrene plastic tube kingpin of 6mm diameter and a screw to
> > thread into said tube.
> > Find the tube comes in inch fraction increments externally and
> > internally.
> > I can figure 1/4" = 6.35mm (unless of course it's 6mm tube labelled
> > 1/4")
> > The internal diameter isn't stated, but one can infer that it nearly
> > matches tube two sizes down. Add tube two sizes down to shopping list to
> > get sufficient wall thickness - internal diameter will equal tube outer
> > diameter two sizes down.
> > The screws in the hardware shop come in gauges, whose particular gauges
> > unstated.
> > Screws and taps at home all metric sizes.
> > Attempt to convert 1/4" - 4/32" to metric in head, add thread depth
> > (opps, two thread depths) and the visualize that in terms of unknown
> > screws in semi-clear containers in hardware shop.
> > Go home - create king-pins and rat small tin of random size PK screws
> > for "something suitable".
> > ;-)
> >
>
> Interesting. A nice example of why one needs standards, so that one
> doesn't have to do all this furshlugginer converting back and forth. I
> use NMRA standard trucks: they all come with kingpin holes that take a
> #2 (American) screw of bolt. Piece of cake. I just don't buy trucks that
> don't conform to NMRA standards. Since after-market replacement trucks
> are bought by "serious" modellers (like me??? ROTFL), the manufacturers
> make sure their trucks conform.
>
> Ah well, there's always a work-around. :-)
>
> HTH&HF


Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
I go along.
How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
Brritishish #2 gauge?

[John Fraser]

Good evening Greg;

"Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:45B92A51.63B41E44@ihug.co.nz...
> Wolf wrote:
>>
>> Greg Procter wrote:
>> [...]
>> > - assorted "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
>> > countries.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Greg.P.
>>
>> Standards are a whole 'nother can of wigglies. At least we now have the
>> ISO, which is sl-o-o-o-owly bringing some order into the mess. But
>> please note that the measurement system used to specify the standard is
>> irrelevant, so long as the standard is accepted by everyone. Look at
>> containers - specified in feet, not metres, and for a very good reason:
>> they have to fit on US RR cars... :-)
>
> Errr, the ISO container standard was based on a British design, so for
> that reason the original dimensions were Imperial. The ISO quotes the
> standards in bothe feet/inches and millimeters.
>
>>
>> I was an engineering student for two years, and found that besides the
>> slipstick, the most important tool was the conversion factors booklet
>> given by The Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation of Canada to all us
>> impecunious seekers after technical wisdom. I still have that booklet -
>> I still have two slipsticks, in fact -- and it's a goldmine of useless
>> information. :-)
>>
>> Here's a few conversions that the decimal system supposedly simplifies:
>>
>> 1 km/h == 0.2778 m/sec
>> 1 KWh == 3.671x10^5 kg-m
>> 1 mm mercury == 0.001315 atmosphere
>> == 13.595 km/m^2
>>
>> And so it goes. Many of the more important conversions are not simply
>> movements of the decimal point, because Nature isn't decimal.
>>
>> IOW, the metric system is really a decimal system, and any group of base
>> unit whatsoever would have served - so why is the meter what it is?
>> Because the French Republic decided that a "natural" measure of length
>> would be 1/10,000 of the quarter circumference of the Earth, as measured
>> along the meridian passing through Paris. Unfortunately, the guy who was
>> given the job of surveying that line made a few minor errors, so that
>> the metre is pout by about 1 part in -- wait for it -- 10,000....
>>
>> Hah!
>>
>> Footnote: they're called "gauges" of wire (and sheet metal, etc) because
>> it's easier to measure those things with gauges than with calipers.
>> Which brings us back where we started from.
>>
>> Hoohah!
>
> Problem #1 is which of my selection of gauges should I use to decide
> which wire or screw to use or purchase.
>
> A real life example:
> I want to mount my newly built wagon (flatcar) on proprietry bogies
> (trucks)
> The bogies have a kingpin hole of 6mm diameter.
> I need a styrene plastic tube kingpin of 6mm diameter and a screw to
> thread into said tube.
> Find the tube comes in inch fraction increments externally and
> internally.
> I can figure 1/4" = 6.35mm (unless of course it's 6mm tube labelled
> 1/4")
> The internal diameter isn't stated, but one can infer that it nearly
> matches tube two sizes down. Add tube two sizes down to shopping list to
> get sufficient wall thickness - internal diameter will equal tube outer
> diameter two sizes down.
> The screws in the hardware shop come in gauges, whose particular gauges
> unstated.
> Screws and taps at home all metric sizes.
> Attempt to convert 1/4" - 4/32" to metric in head, add thread depth
> (opps, two thread depths) and the visualize that in terms of unknown
> screws in semi-clear containers in hardware shop.
> Go home - create king-pins and rat small tin of random size PK screws
> for "something suitable".
> ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.

How does 1/4" factor in?

Cheers,
John

[Nick Mueller]

Wolf wrote:

> And human drinking capacity. Have you noticed that "standard" metric
> drinks are sized very close to the old measures, with some rounding off
> here and there? Eg, a half pint is 227ml - the standard soft drink in
> Europe is now 250ml, which is about one tablespoon more.

The only acceptable human drinking capacity is the liter (of beer). Prooven
millions of times once a year at the Oktoberfest in Munich. The 1/4l is for
kids, not for men!

> There's also the convenience of estimating quantities that give us
> results within a half unit or so. For a carpet, for example, a
> centimetre is too small, and a metre too large, but a foot is just about
> right.

How's that with the height of a chair (45cm), a table (80cm), a door (2m). a
step on a stair (18cm)?
Isn't that *really* natural? But what system is giving natural numbers (pun
intended) for these sizes?

> It's no
> accident that in Austria when I were a lad sliced meat was bought by the
> "Deka", ie the 10gm unit. It's rather small, being less than half an
> ounce, but it's in the right range - a slice of ham weighed about a
> Deka, depending how the butcher set the slicing machine.

And a loaf of bread? The natural 2 kg! A pack of sugar? The natural kg!
That argument is nonsense. Both examples, mine and yours. You'll find
examples that are handy for everything. Yes, also where the Angström and
the lightyear are handy.

> On a recent
> trip to Austria I shopped at a farmer's market. I noticed that people
> asked for "about 1/8 kilo" of cheese, etc, not for 125gm. Interesting, eh?

That has a traditional background. When the ("metric") pound was still used,
no one used the gramm. So they ordered a quarter pound. Pound was
forbidden, so they switched to 1/8 kg or the "10 deka" (being close
enough). "Deka" is used only in Austria, not 100km (how many furlongs?)
further north in Bavaria we say 100g (and still sometimes pound, but the
younger don't understand you what you want when you say "a quarter of that
cheese").

Nick
--
***********************************
*** Available now in NZ and AUS ***
***********************************
<http://www.yadro.de>

[Greg Procter]

John Fraser wrote:
>
> Good evening Greg;
>
> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:45B92A51.63B41E44@ihug.co.nz...
> > Wolf wrote:
> >>
> >> Greg Procter wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > - assorted "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
> >> > countries.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Greg.P.
> >>
> >> Standards are a whole 'nother can of wigglies. At least we now have the
> >> ISO, which is sl-o-o-o-owly bringing some order into the mess. But
> >> please note that the measurement system used to specify the standard is
> >> irrelevant, so long as the standard is accepted by everyone. Look at
> >> containers - specified in feet, not metres, and for a very good reason:
> >> they have to fit on US RR cars... :-)
> >
> > Errr, the ISO container standard was based on a British design, so for
> > that reason the original dimensions were Imperial. The ISO quotes the
> > standards in bothe feet/inches and millimeters.
> >
> >>
> >> I was an engineering student for two years, and found that besides the
> >> slipstick, the most important tool was the conversion factors booklet
> >> given by The Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation of Canada to all us
> >> impecunious seekers after technical wisdom. I still have that booklet -
> >> I still have two slipsticks, in fact -- and it's a goldmine of useless
> >> information. :-)
> >>
> >> Here's a few conversions that the decimal system supposedly simplifies:
> >>
> >> 1 km/h == 0.2778 m/sec
> >> 1 KWh == 3.671x10^5 kg-m
> >> 1 mm mercury == 0.001315 atmosphere
> >> == 13.595 km/m^2
> >>
> >> And so it goes. Many of the more important conversions are not simply
> >> movements of the decimal point, because Nature isn't decimal.
> >>
> >> IOW, the metric system is really a decimal system, and any group of base
> >> unit whatsoever would have served - so why is the meter what it is?
> >> Because the French Republic decided that a "natural" measure of length
> >> would be 1/10,000 of the quarter circumference of the Earth, as measured
> >> along the meridian passing through Paris. Unfortunately, the guy who was
> >> given the job of surveying that line made a few minor errors, so that
> >> the metre is pout by about 1 part in -- wait for it -- 10,000....
> >>
> >> Hah!
> >>
> >> Footnote: they're called "gauges" of wire (and sheet metal, etc) because
> >> it's easier to measure those things with gauges than with calipers.
> >> Which brings us back where we started from.
> >>
> >> Hoohah!
> >
> > Problem #1 is which of my selection of gauges should I use to decide
> > which wire or screw to use or purchase.
> >
> > A real life example:
> > I want to mount my newly built wagon (flatcar) on proprietry bogies
> > (trucks)
> > The bogies have a kingpin hole of 6mm diameter.
> > I need a styrene plastic tube kingpin of 6mm diameter and a screw to
> > thread into said tube.
> > Find the tube comes in inch fraction increments externally and
> > internally.
> > I can figure 1/4" = 6.35mm (unless of course it's 6mm tube labelled
> > 1/4")
> > The internal diameter isn't stated, but one can infer that it nearly
> > matches tube two sizes down. Add tube two sizes down to shopping list to
> > get sufficient wall thickness - internal diameter will equal tube outer
> > diameter two sizes down.
> > The screws in the hardware shop come in gauges, whose particular gauges
> > unstated.
> > Screws and taps at home all metric sizes.
> > Attempt to convert 1/4" - 4/32" to metric in head, add thread depth
> > (opps, two thread depths) and the visualize that in terms of unknown
> > screws in semi-clear containers in hardware shop.
> > Go home - create king-pins and rat small tin of random size PK screws
> > for "something suitable".
> > ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg.P.
>
> How does 1/4" factor in?

The only suitable sized styrene plastic tube my hobby shop stocks to
make a kingpin is in fractional inch measurements. (Evergreen)
The LGB and Bachmann bogies have a loose 6mm pivot hole.
Styrene because I need to make a rigid mounting point within the frame
depth of a flat deck wagon.
Using a quarter inch screw into the styrene frame as a kingpin would
leave too few threads holding for the forces likely to be encountered.
My lathe was and is still packed away due to a major move so the
engineering was under kitchen table standards.
(actually, the kitchen table was also packed)

[Trevor Jones]

Greg Procter wrote:

> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:
>
>>"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote
>>in message news:marc.heusser-906D7C.15445725012007@news.unizh.ch...
>>
>>>In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
>>>Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
>>>>than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
>>>>width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
>>>
>>>Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)
>>
>>I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
>>
>>No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system, they
>>are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them. There
>>exists no universal physically-based measurement system - nor can there
>>until we understand all of physics and the universe - so why cry "foul" if
>>someone chooses to use a system you don't like that's no more or less
>>arbitrary than the one you do like.
>>
>>LLoyd
>
>
> My grumbles at the imperial length system come from three factors;
> - very strange numbers of each division in the next one up. eg 5280 feet
> per mile, 66 feet per chain etc.
> - nearly unworkable fractions of each inch, plus thou's.
> - assorteg "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
> countries.
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.

The gages don't count, as they were not standardised, except in the
particular trades that originated them.

In their context all the units of the imperial system have their
place. Feet and inches are logical and usefully divided units for the
things they generally get used for, as are rods, chains, and miles.

Arguing that they are not usefull, on the basis that they do not
easilly convert to other less practical units for the purpose, is a mugs
game, to be played by those that wish to make excuses.

So it's tough to translate rods to inches. So what!

I find it somewhat funny, that the school system in Canada is teaching
imperial measures again, as someone figured out the reality, that a
great deal of the world has been divy'd up into 1 mile by 2 mile
squares, (take a look at the Canadian prairies on a sattelite view, eg:
Google Earth), and that a guy who is expected to be able to go into a
pre metric building and do repairs, renovations, or the like, must be
conversant in the units that the building was built with, both lumber
and hardware, if he wishes to come out with any numbers that make sense.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

[John Fraser]

Good morning Trevor;

"Trevor Jones" <t.o.jones@telus.net> wrote in message
news:UJfuh.155953$rv4.75161@edtnps90...
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:
>>
>>>"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid>
>>>wrote
>>>in message news:marc.heusser-906D7C.15445725012007@news.unizh.ch...
>>>
>>>>In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
>>>>Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
>>>>>than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
>>>>>width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
>>>>
>>>>Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)
>>>
>>>I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
>>>
>>>No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system,
>>>they
>>>are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them. There
>>>exists no universal physically-based measurement system - nor can there
>>>until we understand all of physics and the universe - so why cry "foul"
>>>if
>>>someone chooses to use a system you don't like that's no more or less
>>>arbitrary than the one you do like.
>>>
>>>LLoyd
>>
>>
>> My grumbles at the imperial length system come from three factors;
>> - very strange numbers of each division in the next one up. eg 5280 feet
>> per mile, 66 feet per chain etc.
>> - nearly unworkable fractions of each inch, plus thou's. - assorteg
>> "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
>> countries.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg.P.
>
> The gages don't count, as they were not standardised, except in the
> particular trades that originated them.
>
> In their context all the units of the imperial system have their place.
> Feet and inches are logical and usefully divided units for the things they
> generally get used for, as are rods, chains, and miles.
>
> Arguing that they are not usefull, on the basis that they do not easilly
> convert to other less practical units for the purpose, is a mugs game, to
> be played by those that wish to make excuses.
>
> So it's tough to translate rods to inches. So what!
>
> I find it somewhat funny, that the school system in Canada is teaching
> imperial measures again, as someone figured out the reality, that a great
> deal of the world has been divy'd up into 1 mile by 2 mile squares, (take
> a look at the Canadian prairies on a sattelite view, eg: Google Earth),
> and that a guy who is expected to be able to go into a pre metric building
> and do repairs, renovations, or the like, must be conversant in the units
> that the building was built with, both lumber and hardware, if he wishes
> to come out with any numbers that make sense.
>
> Cheers
> Trevor Jones

That's because of our American neighbours who dominate much of our
lifestyle. Ironically, their metric conversions are more accurate than what
we use.

Cheers,
John

[Trevor Jones]

John Fraser wrote:

> Good morning Trevor;

>
> That's because of our American neighbours who dominate much of our
> lifestyle. Ironically, their metric conversions are more accurate than what
> we use.
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
>
Good Morning to you to, John,

It's got less to do with the Americans, than it has to do with several
hundred years of using the same measuring system that they started out
with, mainly originating in Britain.

In the mid to late 1800's the American watch industry (THE high tech
industry of it's day, making interchangeable parts before anyone else in
the world!) was working almost entirely in metric measurements. It had
far less to do with the workmen originating in Europe, than it had to do
with the appropriateness of the measuring unit for the job it was being
applied to.

Legacy measureing systems are a fact of life. If you want to order a
part and have it fit, you will have better luck if you order it to the
same measuring standard that the item was built using. A fine example of
that is the French ligne, used as a unit to measure watch movements and
crystal sizes. They sorta but don't exactly coincide with the two
decimal place metric measurements that are usually also printed on them.

If you want Irony, the American inch is officially defined as being a
unit 25.4 millimeters exactly (changed a while back to make it an even
tenth of a MM)

Cheers
Trevor Jones

[Greg Procter]

Trevor Jones wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> > "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:
> >
> >>"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote
> >>in message news:marc.heusser-906D7C.15445725012007@news.unizh.ch...
> >>
> >>>In article <45B6630A.DC155463@ihug.co.nz>,
> >>>Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Better being screwed up by the French with a logical measuring system
> >>>>than by Brits and yanks with a measuring system using someone's thumb
> >>>>width, barleycorns, shoes and lengths of chains!
> >>>
> >>>Actually I currently only see Americans using the old system :-)
> >>
> >>I prefer the simpler metric system, but eschew condemning _any_ system.
> >>
> >>No matter how hard we may strive to justify a "basis" for any system, they
> >>are, after all, arbitrary by the choice of the men who use them. There
> >>exists no universal physically-based measurement system - nor can there
> >>until we understand all of physics and the universe - so why cry "foul" if
> >>someone chooses to use a system you don't like that's no more or less
> >>arbitrary than the one you do like.
> >>
> >>LLoyd
> >
> >
> > My grumbles at the imperial length system come from three factors;
> > - very strange numbers of each division in the next one up. eg 5280 feet
> > per mile, 66 feet per chain etc.
> > - nearly unworkable fractions of each inch, plus thou's.
> > - assorteg "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
> > countries.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg.P.
>
> The gages don't count, as they were not standardised, except in the
> particular trades that originated them.

Well yes they do when materials are sold in terms of "gauges" and I'm in
the hardware shop (away from references) and faced with packages marked
only in those terms.

>
> In their context all the units of the imperial system have their
> place. Feet and inches are logical and usefully divided units for the
> things they generally get used for, as are rods, chains, and miles.
>
> Arguing that they are not usefull, on the basis that they do not
> easilly convert to other less practical units for the purpose, is a mugs
> game, to be played by those that wish to make excuses.
>
> So it's tough to translate rods to inches. So what!
>

As a scratch-builder I need to make a lot of conversions, sometimes, as
in the example I've given, in situations where I don't have conversion
tables or calculators handy.

> I find it somewhat funny, that the school system in Canada is teaching
> imperial measures again, as someone figured out the reality, that a
> great deal of the world has been divy'd up into 1 mile by 2 mile
> squares, (take a look at the Canadian prairies on a sattelite view, eg:
> Google Earth), and that a guy who is expected to be able to go into a
> pre metric building and do repairs, renovations, or the like, must be
> conversant in the units that the building was built with, both lumber
> and hardware, if he wishes to come out with any numbers that make sense.
>

Aircraft navigation has always been in imperial measurements.
As I think I've already stated that most of my prototype data is
imperial, original plans etc not having updated themselves during our
conversion to metric thirty years ago.
But I'm prepared to live with that. The problems are with dimensions of
materials available to me and in particular having at least five
different measuring systems involved.

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Marc Heusser]

In article <45b8d443$0$5727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > I just prefer the SI-system, as I do not have to remember all those
> > conversion factors.
> > Or would you prefer to use roman numerals for calculations :-)?
>
> That's JUST my point. Were I facile in the use of roman numerals, it would
> (probably) be just as natural and easy for me to use it that way as it is
> for any other measurement system with which I was fully competent. It
> really doesn't matter, so long as it's 'standardized' and well-documented.

No that misses the point - no one is facile in the use of roman numerals.
The Romans did some great things, but not in mathematics. They did not
have the notion of zero for example.

And some things are just more convenient, even if they are
mathematically equivalent.

I see you are using Microsoft Outlook Express. It would be much less
convenient if you had to control your computer through commands that
would amount to a long string of binary numbers. Mathematically this is
equivalent - in terms of being fit for human use they are not. It is not
by accident that user interfaces play such an important role. See the
recent success of the iPhone, iPod or even windowed user interfaces on
computers.

Converting units is not done by many people - there is an argument that
this is precisely because it is difficult. So why make it more difficult?

I would think the British have switched with a good reason.

To sum it up: Mathematically equivalent ways of doing things may be very
different in how easy it is for human beings to do them, ie the fit
between the task, the notion used for it and the way the human brain
works is key.

Marc

--
Switzerland/Europe
<http://www.heusser.com>
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail

[funfly3]

Marc Heusser wrote:
> In article <45b8d443$0$5727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> I just prefer the SI-system, as I do not have to remember all those
>>> conversion factors.
>>> Or would you prefer to use roman numerals for calculations :-)?
>> That's JUST my point. Were I facile in the use of roman numerals, it would
>> (probably) be just as natural and easy for me to use it that way as it is
>> for any other measurement system with which I was fully competent. It
>> really doesn't matter, so long as it's 'standardized' and well-documented.
>
> No that misses the point - no one is facile in the use of roman numerals.
> The Romans did some great things, but not in mathematics. They did not
> have the notion of zero for example.
>
> And some things are just more convenient, even if they are
> mathematically equivalent.
>
> I see you are using Microsoft Outlook Express. It would be much less
> convenient if you had to control your computer through commands that
> would amount to a long string of binary numbers. Mathematically this is
> equivalent - in terms of being fit for human use they are not. It is not
> by accident that user interfaces play such an important role. See the
> recent success of the iPhone, iPod or even windowed user interfaces on
> computers.
>
> Converting units is not done by many people - there is an argument that
> this is precisely because it is difficult. So why make it more difficult?
>
> I would think the British have switched with a good reason.
>

but only part switched over all the distances and speeds for road
traffic is still in good old miles and we still quote MPG for fuel
consumption and a pint of beer is still a pint, boats still travel in
Knots,tyre pressures still in PSI and probably a lot more that refuse to
go away
so us Brits have not gone totally metric,
and being 45 I tend to measure in both systems as old habits die hard

[Boris Beizer]

"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote in message news:marc.heusser-648810.17161526012007@news.unizh.ch...
> In article <45b8d443$0$5727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> > I just prefer the SI-system, as I do not have to remember all those
>> > conversion factors.
>> > Or would you prefer to use roman numerals for calculations :-)?



"Marc Heusser" <marc.heusser@CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALspammers.inva lid> wrote in message news:<marc.heusser-648810.17161526012007@news.unizh.ch>...

> In article <45b8d443$0$5727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydsp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
> > > I just prefer the SI-system, as I do not have to remember all those conversion factors.

> Or would you prefer to use roman numerals for calculations :-)?

>

> To sum it up: Mathematically equivalent ways of doing things may be very different in

>how easy it is for human beings to do them, ie the fit

> between the task, the notion used for it and the way the human brain

> works is key.

Actually, historically, the English (or Imperial, if you prefer --somehow, our British cousins still talk in terms of their "empire." .. But rightfully these days should be called the "American" mensuration system, because the US is just about the only country that uses it ...Liberia and Myanmar are the other two of which I know) was evolved precisely for ease of mental computation. The base is mostly 12, which is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6, as compared to base 10, which is divisible only by 2 and 5. Our angular and time measure stems from Babylon and is based on 60, which is also divisible by 5 .. Even handier than base 12. Simple divisibility by whole numbers is a real plus when you don't have a positional number system (to whatever base, 10, 12, 60, 2, etc.) and when the only people who can deal with non-simple fractions are highly paid specialists called "arithmeticians." And if you think dealing with Roman numeral integers is tough, consider fractions. One of the hardest graduate courses I ever took was an advanced arithmetic course in which one of the (tough) homework assignments was to write a program for doing square roots in the Roman numeral system without cheating by converting to decimal, etc. As a sidebar, among the Basque people of NorthEastern Spain, six fingers on each hand is a very common abnormaility (but not to them) and these folk were very happy using the base-12 counting system ... Apparently there were riots when the Napoleonic "rational" metric system was imposed on them. If you're happy with base-12 arithmetic, then it is the base-10 metric system that seems to be "irrational" and "barbaric," "inconvenient," and "clumsy."
A minor correction to another post in this interminable thread(slant, actually)...Navigation is not based on the imperial system, even though nautical miles are used. A nautical mile is not defined in terms of so many feet (6076.1033 feet or 6076 or 6080 depending on your time and place in history): it is defined as 1 minute of arc at the equator. Which is precisely equivalent to the way the meter is defined if you use the metric angular measure of grads -- 400 grads to the circle (equator), 100 kilometers to the grad, 1000 meter to the kilometer. Same idea. At sea, both nautical-miles/degree and kilometer/grad systems are used. In the air, a single method had to be chosen and the dominant one at the time was the English/Imperial/American standard, which along with the English language were made the standard for aviation. Something that the French have never forgiven us ... Imposing both our barbaric mensuration and language.

I hope this closes this overly long thread.

Boris

[Trevor Jones]

Greg Procter wrote:
> Trevor Jones wrote:

> As a scratch-builder I need to make a lot of conversions, sometimes, as
> in the example I've given, in situations where I don't have conversion
> tables or calculators handy.

> Regards,
> Greg.P.

The times that I have had to scale stuff, I generally converted all
the fractions to decimal, and worked entirely in decimal inches or
decimal millimeters.

I would make a long list of actual measurments, work out a scaling
factor, then multiply the measurement by the factor to arrive at an end
result.

I suppose a guy could work out a spreadsheet program that could be
linked with an SPC capable caliper, but that seems a different hobby,
all told.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

[Greg Procter]

Trevor Jones wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> > Trevor Jones wrote:
>
> > As a scratch-builder I need to make a lot of conversions, sometimes, as
> > in the example I've given, in situations where I don't have conversion
> > tables or calculators handy.
>
> > Regards,
> > Greg.P.
>
> The times that I have had to scale stuff, I generally converted all
> the fractions to decimal, and worked entirely in decimal inches or
> decimal millimeters.
>
> I would make a long list of actual measurments, work out a scaling
> factor, then multiply the measurement by the factor to arrive at an end
> result.
>
> I suppose a guy could work out a spreadsheet program that could be
> linked with an SPC capable caliper, but that seems a different hobby,
> all told.

I tend to do my most productive modelling well away from the computer!

Scale conversions on a sheet of paper using a calculator or slide rule,
with description, proto imperial dimension, prototype metric and then
scale metric, scale inch and scale fraction, with only the columns I'm
likely to use completed.

[David Nebenzahl]

Greg Procter spake thus:

> Trevor Jones wrote:
>
>> I suppose a guy could work out a spreadsheet program that could be
>> linked with an SPC capable caliper, but that seems a different
>> hobby, all told.
>
> I tend to do my most productive modelling well away from the computer!
>
> Scale conversions on a sheet of paper using a calculator or slide
> rule, [...]

Whoa. Stop right there. You're the first to mention this tool: why
haven't others thought of it? Well, of course, I know why: it's
considered totally obsolete.

But what an elegant solution: learn to use a slide rule. Fast, simple,
and plenty close enough. (I still have a couple around here from school
daze long ago.)



--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Greg Procter]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> Greg Procter spake thus:
>
> > Trevor Jones wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose a guy could work out a spreadsheet program that could be
> >> linked with an SPC capable caliper, but that seems a different
> >> hobby, all told.
> >
> > I tend to do my most productive modelling well away from the computer!
> >
> > Scale conversions on a sheet of paper using a calculator or slide
> > rule, [...]
>
> Whoa. Stop right there. You're the first to mention this tool: why
> haven't others thought of it? Well, of course, I know why: it's
> considered totally obsolete.
>
> But what an elegant solution: learn to use a slide rule. Fast, simple,
> and plenty close enough. (I still have a couple around here from school
> daze long ago.)
>

Slide rule? Obsolete?
Well, as I'm working in just one scale (at any given moment) I set the
conversion scale just once and read off any decimal figure quickly.
I can even set prototype inches to scale millimeters and save hundreds
of key presses required of the modern calculator!

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Wolf]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Greg Procter spake thus:
>
>> Trevor Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose a guy could work out a spreadsheet program that could be
>>> linked with an SPC capable caliper, but that seems a different
>>> hobby, all told.
>>
>> I tend to do my most productive modelling well away from the computer!
>>
>> Scale conversions on a sheet of paper using a calculator or slide
>> rule, [...]
>
> Whoa. Stop right there. You're the first to mention this tool: why
> haven't others thought of it? Well, of course, I know why: it's
> considered totally obsolete.
>
> But what an elegant solution: learn to use a slide rule. Fast, simple,
> and plenty close enough. (I still have a couple around here from school
> daze long ago.)
>
>
>


Hey, I mentioned 'em. Two in fact. I called them slipsticks - what's
your engineering slang for them?

[john]

Wolf wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> Greg Procter spake thus:
>>
>>> Trevor Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose a guy could work out a spreadsheet program that could be
>>>> linked with an SPC capable caliper, but that seems a different
>>>> hobby, all told.
>>>
>>>
>>> I tend to do my most productive modelling well away from the computer!
>>>
>>> Scale conversions on a sheet of paper using a calculator or slide
>>> rule, [...]
>>
>>
>> Whoa. Stop right there. You're the first to mention this tool: why
>> haven't others thought of it? Well, of course, I know why: it's
>> considered totally obsolete.
>>
>> But what an elegant solution: learn to use a slide rule. Fast, simple,
>> and plenty close enough. (I still have a couple around here from
>> school daze long ago.)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Hey, I mentioned 'em. Two in fact. I called them slipsticks - what's
> your engineering slang for them?


Some vendors supply plastic "slip sticks" that are used to calculate a
varity of things, weight of a chunk of metal, number of cement blocks
in wall, yards of concrete in a floor. You enter the dimensions and
they read directly in the units you are looking for. I have a bunch of
them I have collected over the years and they are a lot faster to use
than any computer.


John

[David Nebenzahl]

Wolf spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> Greg Procter spake thus:
>>
>>> Trevor Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose a guy could work out a spreadsheet program that could be
>>>> linked with an SPC capable caliper, but that seems a different
>>>> hobby, all told.
>>>
>>> I tend to do my most productive modelling well away from the computer!
>>>
>>> Scale conversions on a sheet of paper using a calculator or slide
>>> rule, [...]
>>
>> Whoa. Stop right there. You're the first to mention this tool: why
>> haven't others thought of it? Well, of course, I know why: it's
>> considered totally obsolete.
>>
>> But what an elegant solution: learn to use a slide rule. Fast, simple,
>> and plenty close enough. (I still have a couple around here from
>> school daze long ago.)
>
> Hey, I mentioned 'em. Two in fact. I called them slipsticks - what's
> your engineering slang for them?

Since I'm guessing that's a Canuck term, I missed that.

Never got far enough into engineering to learn the nerd slang for slide
rule. Any 'Merkin terms?


--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Val]

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:45bd1321$0$17942$822641b3@news.adtechcomputer s.com...
>>
>> Hey, I mentioned 'em. Two in fact. I called them slipsticks - what's your
>> engineering slang for them?
>
> Since I'm guessing that's a Canuck term, I missed that.
>
> Never got far enough into engineering to learn the nerd slang for slide
> rule. Any 'Merkin terms?
>


Slipstick

[Greg Procter]

Val wrote:
>
> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:45bd1321$0$17942$822641b3@news.adtechcomputer s.com...
> >>
> >> Hey, I mentioned 'em. Two in fact. I called them slipsticks - what's your
> >> engineering slang for them?
> >
> > Since I'm guessing that's a Canuck term, I missed that.
> >
> > Never got far enough into engineering to learn the nerd slang for slide
> > rule. Any 'Merkin terms?
> >
>
> Slipstick

I'd never heard it here in New Zealand.

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Val]

I think I first saw the term in a Robert Heinlein novel, long before I got
to the point in school of actually using one. Just about that time, the
pocket calculator came out.

A few relevant links
http://jef.raskincenter.org/unpublished/old_slipstick.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slipstick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipstick

Val

"Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:45BD19A3.2C8C5335@ihug.co.nz...
>> >
> > Never got far enough into engineering to learn the nerd slang for slide
> > rule. Any 'Merkin terms?
> >
>>
>> Slipstick
>
> I'd never heard it here in New Zealand.
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.

[e]

In article <a-ydnQdYWpHtvCDYnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@midco.net>, "Val" <vmanes@NOSPAMrap.midco.net> wrote:

>
>I think I first saw the term in a Robert Heinlein novel, long before I got
>to the point in school of actually using one. Just about that time, the
>pocket calculator came out.
>
>A few relevant links
>http://jef.raskincenter.org/unpublished/old_slipstick.html
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slipstick
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipstick
>
>Val
>
>"Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:45BD19A3.2C8C5335@ihug.co.nz...
>>> >
>> > Never got far enough into engineering to learn the nerd slang for slide
>> > rule. Any 'Merkin terms?
>> >
>>>
>>> Slipstick
>>
>> I'd never heard it here in New Zealand.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg.P.
>
>
ah yes, slipstick libby. saves the family, gets hit by a
meteor and dies, then get revived and becomes a woman.

[Steve Caple]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:11:10 GMT, e wrote:

>>A few relevant links
>>http://jef.raskincenter.org/unpublished/old_slipstick.html
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slipstick
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipstick

I've often thought of placing my old slide rule in a small wood frame with
a glass cover and a little hammer on a chain, near the computer - "In
case of power failure, ..."


--
Steve

[DoN. Nichols]

According to David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens>:
> Wolf spake thus:

[ ... ]

> > Hey, I mentioned 'em. Two in fact. I called them slipsticks - what's
> > your engineering slang for them?
>
> Since I'm guessing that's a Canuck term, I missed that.
>
> Never got far enough into engineering to learn the nerd slang for slide
> rule. Any 'Merkin terms?

I grew up calling them that same term -- and I grew up in South
Texas. It *is* an American term (at least), and probably in several
other English-speaking cultures as well.

As a matter of fact, the (supposed) MIT football cheer (from at
least as far back as the late 1950s) went:

E to the X dU dX
E to the X dX
Secant, Tangent, Cosine, Sine
3.14159
Square Root of the Integral of dUV
Slipstick Sliderule MIT

(The minor fact that MIT never had had a football team does not negate
the cheer. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

[DoN. Nichols]

According to Steve Caple <stevecaple@commoncast.net>:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:11:10 GMT, e wrote:
>
> >>A few relevant links
> >>http://jef.raskincenter.org/unpublished/old_slipstick.html
> >>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slipstick
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipstick
>
> I've often thought of placing my old slide rule in a small wood frame with
> a glass cover and a little hammer on a chain, near the computer - "In
> case of power failure, ..."

Nope -- *that* is what you do with an Abacus (Chinese) or
Soroban (Japanese). I have one of each. Those are also digital
computers. (You can even see the bits. :-)

The slipstick is an analog computer. :-)
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

[David Nebenzahl]

DoN. Nichols spake thus:

> According to David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens>:
>
>>Wolf spake thus:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>Hey, I mentioned 'em. Two in fact. I called them slipsticks - what's
>>>your engineering slang for them?
>>
>>Since I'm guessing that's a Canuck term, I missed that.
>>
>>Never got far enough into engineering to learn the nerd slang for slide
>>rule. Any 'Merkin terms?
>
> I grew up calling them that same term -- and I grew up in South
> Texas. It *is* an American term (at least), and probably in several
> other English-speaking cultures as well.
>
> As a matter of fact, the (supposed) MIT football cheer (from at
> least as far back as the late 1950s) went:
>
> E to the X dU dX
> E to the X dX
> Secant, Tangent, Cosine, Sine
> 3.14159
> Square Root of the Integral of dUV
> Slipstick Sliderule MIT
>
> (The minor fact that MIT never had had a football team does not negate
> the cheer. :-)

No, but they had ... wait for it ... veering back on-topic (oh, no!): a
hell of a model railroad club!


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)

[funfly3]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> DoN. Nichols spake thus:
>
>> According to David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens>:
>>
>>> Wolf spake thus:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>> Hey, I mentioned 'em. Two in fact. I called them slipsticks - what's
>>>> your engineering slang for them?
>>>
>>> Since I'm guessing that's a Canuck term, I missed that.
>>>
>>> Never got far enough into engineering to learn the nerd slang for
>>> slide rule. Any 'Merkin terms?
>>
>> I grew up calling them that same term -- and I grew up in South
>> Texas. It *is* an American term (at least), and probably in several
>> other English-speaking cultures as well.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, the (supposed) MIT football cheer (from at
>> least as far back as the late 1950s) went:
>>
>> E to the X dU dX
>> E to the X dX
>> Secant, Tangent, Cosine, Sine
>> 3.14159
>> Square Root of the Integral of dUV
>> Slipstick Sliderule MIT
>>
>> (The minor fact that MIT never had had a football team does not negate
>> the cheer. :-)
>
> No, but they had ... wait for it ... veering back on-topic (oh, no!): a
> hell of a model railroad club!
>
>
er not on topic for all the newsgroup this thread is cross posted to :-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

Greg Procter wrote:
>
> My grumbles at the imperial length system come from three factors;
> - very strange numbers of each division in the next one up. eg 5280 feet
> per mile, 66 feet per chain etc.
> - nearly unworkable fractions of each inch, plus thou's.
> - assorteg "gauges" of wire, screws and the like which differ between
> countries.


It DOES separate the MEN from the boys, doesn't it?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Michael A. Terrell]

Greg Procter wrote:
>
> Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> I go along.
> How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> Brritishish #2 gauge?


A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Greg Procter]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> > I go along.
> > How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> > Brritishish #2 gauge?
>
> A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
> can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.

The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their
non-resealable screw packets! :-(

[DoN. Nichols]

According to David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens>:
> DoN. Nichols spake thus:

[ ... ]

> > (The minor fact that MIT never had had a football team does not negate
> > the cheer. :-)
>
> No, but they had ... wait for it ... veering back on-topic (oh, no!): a
> hell of a model railroad club!

Indeed -- and the only one which I know of which used old
telephone company crossbar switches for running the scale time clock, as
well as handling all the switching.

I've sort of considered setting the "Followup-To: " header to
restrict the cross posting somewhat. Yes -- I will.
rec.crafts.metalworking and rec.models.railroad seem to work. Others
can switch to there to follow the discussion if they care.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

[DoN. Nichols]

According to Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>:
> Greg Procter wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> > I go along.
> > How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> > Brritishish #2 gauge?
>
>
> A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
> can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.

Why not take a look at where the hardware shop is located? If
in the US, I would consider the British gauges unlikely. In the UK, the
US gauges are fairly unlikely, as well as the British ones (somewhat
more likely than the US ones -- but these days, expect metric screws in
the UK. Specialty hardware shops might be different, but for the
general versions, expect what is natural for the locale. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

[Greg Procter]

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>
> According to Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>:
> > Greg Procter wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> > > I go along.
> > > How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> > > Brritishish #2 gauge?
> >
> >
> > A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
> > can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.
>
> Why not take a look at where the hardware shop is located? If
> in the US, I would consider the British gauges unlikely. In the UK, the
> US gauges are fairly unlikely, as well as the British ones (somewhat
> more likely than the US ones -- but these days, expect metric screws in
> the UK. Specialty hardware shops might be different, but for the
> general versions, expect what is natural for the locale. :-)
>

I know exactly where my local hardware shop is located. I live here.
Hardware shops here stock metric and/or UK gauge and/or US guage.
Without carrying charts of gauges I can't tell what diameter a "gauge"
screw is, and even if I do there usually isn't anything on the pack to
say whose "gauge" they match. That's fine if I want to screw a "whatsit"
to the kitchen wall where "about right" is close enough, but if I want
to do precision work (such as the bogie bolster example) I'm stuffed.

Regards,
Greg.P.

[David Nebenzahl]

Greg Procter spake thus:

> "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>
>>According to Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>:
>>
>>>Greg Procter wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
>>>>I go along.
>>>>How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
>>>>Brritishish #2 gauge?
>>>
>>> A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
>>>can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.
>>
>> Why not take a look at where the hardware shop is located? If
>>in the US, I would consider the British gauges unlikely. In the UK, the
>>US gauges are fairly unlikely, as well as the British ones (somewhat
>>more likely than the US ones -- but these days, expect metric screws in
>>the UK. Specialty hardware shops might be different, but for the
>>general versions, expect what is natural for the locale. :-)
>
> I know exactly where my local hardware shop is located. I live here.
> Hardware shops here stock metric and/or UK gauge and/or US guage.
> Without carrying charts of gauges I can't tell what diameter a "gauge"
> screw is, and even if I do there usually isn't anything on the pack to
> say whose "gauge" they match. That's fine if I want to screw a "whatsit"
> to the kitchen wall where "about right" is close enough, but if I want
> to do precision work (such as the bogie bolster example) I'm stuffed.

Maybe you should consider moving here (the US); in most hardware stores,
we have exactly *one* set of screw threads, good old "imperial" (for
lack of a better term). The metric stuff is all safely segregated in its
own section where it can't hurt anyone.

Why such a chaotic situation there, what with all those different gauge
systems mixed up?


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)

[Newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com]

I get grumpy when the drooling slope foreheaded cretins they hire try
and tell me there no such thing as a 2-56 screw.

Eric


Greg Procter wrote:

"The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their non-
resealable screw packets!"
:-(

[Greg Procter]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> Greg Procter spake thus:
>
> > "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
> >
> >>According to Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>:
> >>
> >>>Greg Procter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> >>>>I go along.
> >>>>How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> >>>>Brritishish #2 gauge?
> >>>
> >>> A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
> >>>can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.
> >>
> >> Why not take a look at where the hardware shop is located? If
> >>in the US, I would consider the British gauges unlikely. In the UK, the
> >>US gauges are fairly unlikely, as well as the British ones (somewhat
> >>more likely than the US ones -- but these days, expect metric screws in
> >>the UK. Specialty hardware shops might be different, but for the
> >>general versions, expect what is natural for the locale. :-)
> >
> > I know exactly where my local hardware shop is located. I live here.
> > Hardware shops here stock metric and/or UK gauge and/or US guage.
> > Without carrying charts of gauges I can't tell what diameter a "gauge"
> > screw is, and even if I do there usually isn't anything on the pack to
> > say whose "gauge" they match. That's fine if I want to screw a "whatsit"
> > to the kitchen wall where "about right" is close enough, but if I want
> > to do precision work (such as the bogie bolster example) I'm stuffed.
>
> Maybe you should consider moving here (the US);

That's a terrible thing to say, but enough of that or I'll start getting
the hate-mail again.

> in most hardware stores,
> we have exactly *one* set of screw threads, good old "imperial" (for
> lack of a better term). The metric stuff is all safely segregated in its
> own section where it can't hurt anyone.

Have you any idea how many UK imperial thread types there were/are???
Don't worry, no one else does either!
The US has quite a few, and Metric has at least two for each given
diameter.

>
> Why such a chaotic situation there, what with all those different gauge
> systems mixed up?

I blame the Chinese! They keep making what the rest of the world's
customers want and little New Zealand chain shop buyers buy whatever is
currently available. What with modern business practices and all, the
business owners hire the cheapest no-knowledge staff who buy whatever is
on offer. As the US is probably the Chinese biggest english language
customers (UK second), the NZ buyers get offered the english language
packets currently in their warehouse, so ....
Well, that's my guess.
The other week I bought a packet - the only things I could read were the
length and diameter, everything else was in a language I didn't even
recognise.

[Greg Procter]

"Newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com" wrote:
>
> I get grumpy when the drooling slope foreheaded cretins they hire try
> and tell me there no such thing as a 2-56 screw.
>
> Eric
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> "The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their non-
> resealable screw packets!"
> :-(

I wanted some aluminium tube - 19mm or 3/4" - I didn't care which.
"Good afternoon sir, what can I get for you?"
"Aluminium tube please."
"What diameter?"
"3/4""
"Sorry sir, we only stock metric!"
"OK, 19mm"
"How long a piece do you want?"
"2 metres."
"Sorry sir, it only comes in 6' lengths!"

My children invite their friends to come to the hardware shop with me -
they reckon it's great entertainment!

[Gunner]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:08:29 +1300, Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

>"Newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com" wrote:
>>
>> I get grumpy when the drooling slope foreheaded cretins they hire try
>> and tell me there no such thing as a 2-56 screw.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> Greg Procter wrote:
>>
>> "The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their non-
>> resealable screw packets!"
>> :-(
>
>I wanted some aluminium tube - 19mm or 3/4" - I didn't care which.
>"Good afternoon sir, what can I get for you?"
>"Aluminium tube please."
>"What diameter?"
>"3/4""
>"Sorry sir, we only stock metric!"
>"OK, 19mm"
>"How long a piece do you want?"
>"2 metres."
>"Sorry sir, it only comes in 6' lengths!"

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>My children invite their friends to come to the hardware shop with me -
>they reckon it's great entertainment!


Gunner,
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"
- James Burnham

[Greg Procter]

Gunner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:08:29 +1300, Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >"Newyorkcentralfan@bigfoot.com" wrote:
> >>
> >> I get grumpy when the drooling slope foreheaded cretins they hire try
> >> and tell me there no such thing as a 2-56 screw.
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >> Greg Procter wrote:
> >>
> >> "The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their non-
> >> resealable screw packets!"
> >> :-(
> >
> >I wanted some aluminium tube - 19mm or 3/4" - I didn't care which.
> >"Good afternoon sir, what can I get for you?"
> >"Aluminium tube please."
> >"What diameter?"
> >"3/4""
> >"Sorry sir, we only stock metric!"
> >"OK, 19mm"
> >"How long a piece do you want?"
> >"2 metres."
> >"Sorry sir, it only comes in 6' lengths!"
>
> ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >My children invite their friends to come to the hardware shop with me -
> >they reckon it's great entertainment!
>
> Gunner,
> "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"
> - James Burnham

There was the time just after we went metric - I wanted 6mm _or_ 1/4"
bolts and wingnuts.
The shop had 6mm bolts and 1/4" wingnuts. No 1/4" bolts or 6mm wingnuts.
"when are you going to get 6mm wingnuts?"
"Not until we sell out of the 1/4" stock."
"but but ..."

[Alan Dicey]

Greg Procter wrote:

> Have you any idea how many UK imperial thread types there were/are???
> Don't worry, no one else does either!
> The US has quite a few, and Metric has at least two for each given
> diameter.

It's a good question. Off the top of my head:

BSW - Whitworth, the original standard
BSF - British Standard Fine
BSP - Pipe threads
BSC - or CEI, Cycle threads
BA - British Association

The US has
UNC - Unified Coarse
UNF - Unified Fine

and there are others I'm not familiar with

Prior to WW2 there were a slew of different metric threads, the ISO
produced one standard in 1949 or thereabouts the M metric threads.
However, these come in Coarse and Fine versions too.

[fl@liner]

In article <45c38795$0$8720$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
alan@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk says...
>
>Greg Procter wrote:
>
>> Have you any idea how many UK imperial thread types there were/are???
>> Don't worry, no one else does either!
>> The US has quite a few, and Metric has at least two for each given
>> diameter.
>
>It's a good question. Off the top of my head:
>
>BSW - Whitworth, the original standard
>BSF - British Standard Fine
>BSP - Pipe threads
>BSC - or CEI, Cycle threads
>BA - British Association
>
>The US has
>UNC - Unified Coarse
>UNF - Unified Fine
>
>and there are others I'm not familiar with
>
>Prior to WW2 there were a slew of different metric threads, the ISO
>produced one standard in 1949 or thereabouts the M metric threads.
>However, these come in Coarse and Fine versions too.
>
The US also has
NPT - National Pipe Thread

fl@liner

[Michael A. Terrell]

Greg Procter wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> >
> > Greg Procter wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> > > I go along.
> > > How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> > > Brritishish #2 gauge?
> >
> > A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
> > can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.
>
> The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their
> non-resealable screw packets! :-(


That's not a hardware store. Real hardware stores buy hardware in
bulk.

Aren't those "Packets" marked with the size? That is what the gauges
are for, to identify what you need before you go looking for hardware.
Then you TRY to buy it, if you can wake someone up to run the register.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Greg Procter]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> >
> > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> > >
> > > Greg Procter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> > > > I go along.
> > > > How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> > > > Brritishish #2 gauge?
> > >
> > > A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
> > > can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.
> >
> > The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their
> > non-resealable screw packets! :-(
>
> That's not a hardware store. Real hardware stores buy hardware in
> bulk.

Sure, but I was after two (2) screws to serve as bogie kingpins.

>
> Aren't those "Packets" marked with the size? That is what the gauges
> are for, to identify what you need before you go looking for hardware.

I think you missed the point(s) - British and US wire and screw "gauges"
are different. I wanted screws to fit a specific sized tube - I.D.
unknown until I bought it. The screws are marked by gauge - whose gauge
was not stated on the packet. The metric screws on sale didn't include a
suitable size so I was forced into the archaic measurements department.

> Then you TRY to buy it, if you can wake someone up to run the register.

Ahhrrrgggg!
I never go back to shops where I've previously given up and left my
intended purchases on the counter!

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Greg Procter wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> >
> > Greg Procter wrote:
> > >
> > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greg Procter wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> > > > > I go along.
> > > > > How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> > > > > Brritishish #2 gauge?
> > > >
> > > > A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
> > > > can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.
> > >
> > > The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their
> > > non-resealable screw packets! :-(
> >
> > That's not a hardware store. Real hardware stores buy hardware in
> > bulk.
>
> Sure, but I was after two (2) screws to serve as bogie kingpins.
>
> >
> > Aren't those "Packets" marked with the size? That is what the gauges
> > are for, to identify what you need before you go looking for hardware.
>
> I think you missed the point(s) - British and US wire and screw "gauges"
> are different. I wanted screws to fit a specific sized tube - I.D.
> unknown until I bought it. The screws are marked by gauge - whose gauge
> was not stated on the packet. The metric screws on sale didn't include a
> suitable size so I was forced into the archaic measurements department.


No, I know they are different, but a few inexpensive tools will save
you a lot of time by letting you know what you need, before you start
looking.


> > Then you TRY to buy it, if you can wake someone up to run the register.
>
> Ahhrrrgggg!
> I never go back to shops where I've previously given up and left my
> intended purchases on the counter!


I'm trying to use up what I can of the hundreds of pounds of surplus
and salvaged hardware, rather than buy more. About 100 pounds is sorted
by diameter, thread and length in 50 drawer cabinets, while the rest is
in large coffee cans, waiting to be sorted.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Greg Procter]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> >
> > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> > >
> > > Greg Procter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg Procter wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm, there isn't any NMRA standard for 'NZR G24 scale', I make it up as
> > > > > > I go along.
> > > > > > How should I know if screws in the hardware shop are US #2 or
> > > > > > Brritishish #2 gauge?
> > > > >
> > > > > A screw gauge and thread guage come to mind. OTOH, a lot of people
> > > > > can take a quick look from six feet away and tell what it is.
> > > >
> > > > The hardware shop assistants get grumpy when you open their
> > > > non-resealable screw packets! :-(
> > >
> > > That's not a hardware store. Real hardware stores buy hardware in
> > > bulk.
> >
> > Sure, but I was after two (2) screws to serve as bogie kingpins.
> >
> > >
> > > Aren't those "Packets" marked with the size? That is what the gauges
> > > are for, to identify what you need before you go looking for hardware.
> >
> > I think you missed the point(s) - British and US wire and screw "gauges"
> > are different. I wanted screws to fit a specific sized tube - I.D.
> > unknown until I bought it. The screws are marked by gauge - whose gauge
> > was not stated on the packet. The metric screws on sale didn't include a
> > suitable size so I was forced into the archaic measurements department.
>
> No, I know they are different, but a few inexpensive tools will save
> you a lot of time by letting you know what you need, before you start
> looking.

The starting point was the tubing which I had to buy first on the same
trip. The internal diameter set the perameters for the screws. I can
only buy whatever is available.

>
>
> > > Then you TRY to buy it, if you can wake someone up to run the register.
> >
> > Ahhrrrgggg!
> > I never go back to shops where I've previously given up and left my
> > intended purchases on the counter!
>
> I'm trying to use up what I can of the hundreds of pounds of surplus
> and salvaged hardware, rather than buy more. About 100 pounds is sorted
> by diameter, thread and length in 50 drawer cabinets, while the rest is
> in large coffee cans, waiting to be sorted.
>
> --
> Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
> prove it.
> Member of DAV #85.
>
> Michael A. Terrell
> Central Florida

[Peter Forden]

Salvé

> Have you any idea how many UK imperial thread types there were/are???
> Don't worry, no one else does either!
> The US has quite a few, and Metric has at least two for each given
> diameter.
>
> >
> > Why such a chaotic situation there, what with all those different gauge
> > systems mixed up?

Dear All,
When learning to use a capstan lathe as well as various type of engineering
gear (back in the 70´s)the old boy teaching me told me to buy a) a flexible
six inch engineering rule and b) a Zeus book, the Zeus book is a
plasticised booklet which contains information on threads (not this
one.....) screws bolts etc and I (assuming you can still buy it in the U:K:
and elsewhere) suggest you zoom down to your ironmongers (hardware shop) and
demand one instantly :) The Zeus book or its equivalents are so damned
useful for working out what type of thread you want to use BW Whitworth
cycle , metric etc that I dont see how a model maker working in metal can do
without one, every time I'm in the U.K. I have to buy one as "friends " keep
borrowing mine......
Beowulf

[Peter Forden]

Salvé

> So it's tough to translate rods to inches. So what!
>
> I find it somewhat funny, that the school system in Canada is teaching
> imperial measures again, as someone figured out the reality, that a
> great deal of the world has been divy'd up into 1 mile by 2 mile
> squares, (take a look at the Canadian prairies on a sattelite view, eg:
> Google Earth), and that a guy who is expected to be able to go into a
> pre metric building and do repairs, renovations, or the like, must be
> conversant in the units that the building was built with, both lumber
> and hardware, if he wishes to come out with any numbers that make sense.
>
> Cheers
> Trevor Jones

Which is why here in Sweden they still use pre metric measurements
equivalent to feet (fot) yards (Aln) and inches (Tum) and the local narrow
guage railway 50 aln away from my flat has a gauge of three swedish
feet.... oh yes lumber can also be bought in pre metric sizes.
Beowulf

[Greg Procter]

Peter Forden wrote:
>
> Salvé
>
> > Have you any idea how many UK imperial thread types there were/are???
> > Don't worry, no one else does either!
> > The US has quite a few, and Metric has at least two for each given
> > diameter.
> >
> > >
> > > Why such a chaotic situation there, what with all those different gauge
> > > systems mixed up?
>
> Dear All,
> When learning to use a capstan lathe as well as various type of engineering
> gear (back in the 70´s)the old boy teaching me told me to buy a) a flexible
> six inch engineering rule and b) a Zeus book, the Zeus book is a
> plasticised booklet which contains information on threads (not this
> one.....) screws bolts etc and I (assuming you can still buy it in the U:K:
> and elsewhere) suggest you zoom down to your ironmongers (hardware shop) and
> demand one instantly :) The Zeus book or its equivalents are so damned
> useful for working out what type of thread you want to use BW Whitworth
> cycle , metric etc that I dont see how a model maker working in metal can do
> without one, every time I'm in the U.K. I have to buy one as "friends " keep
> borrowing mine......
> Beowulf

Yes, I have one similar to that - however in the specific instance I
quoted I didn't take it with me, nor would it have been of much use and
more importantly the screws in the hardware shop were in sealed clear
plastic containers and the descriptive label quoted only length and
"gauge" without stating thread type or whose "gauge" they fitted. The
diameter required was dependant on the tubing I could purchase. (i.d.
unknown until purchased)

Regards,
Greg.P.

[Alan Haisley]

"Boris Beizer" <bbeizer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:12rhlp06qbh2004@corp.supernews.com...
> My old physics professor said: "There are two mensuration systems: the
> metric and the barbaric."

Imperial measure has roots probably back to Pharaohic Egypt as well as
Babylon and ancient India. Many
of these measures were designed mathematically to have a large number of
even dividers. I'm not sure
about measures like the cubit, but I'd imagine that in use it was divided
and multiplied by values that gave a
lot of even divisors also.

Certainly our clock, with its hours, minutes, and seconds, has these
properties.

When ancient engineers worked on early gearing, they needed to be able to
use evenly divided circles.
In fact, they needed to use circles that could be divided using only the
classical dividers and straightedge.

This, rather than a barleycorn, someone's foot, or someone's arm, were the
justifications for the
Imperial measurement systems.

On the other hand, 10 as a basis is obviously anthromorphic - and not very
useful; try using a compass
and straightedge and dividing a circle into ten equal parts. Now do the same
thing for twelve parts.

> But to get back to the topic that started this amazingly long
> thread. Us modelers use a large variety of sources for our models: kits,
> plans, sometimes very old documentation (that may use the
> stone-furlong-fortnight mensuration system.). Kits and plans come in an
> amazing variety of scales: 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:8, 1:12, 1:16, 1:24, 1:25,
> 1:32, 1:35, 1:48, 1:50, 1:75, 1:96, 1:100, ...1:720 ..and probably a whole
> bunch more that I've missed. The base may be either in feet and inches, or
> metric. Our materials, today, are usually either metric or English or
> both. So, let's say I have some small brass strips sized in inches, and
> I'm building a 1:75 scale model with metric plans. I want to know in an
> instant if that strip is the size I want...without dragging out a
> calculator, without having an RS-232 or other cable winding itself like a
> cobra around my delicate model, without a blue-tooth transmitter dragging
> my wrist down, and without having to go to the other room to look at the
> computer screen because my shop is not a healthy place for computers. I
> want to do that conversion in an instant. Apply my caliper to the material
> and instantly read the scale dimension in the proper units. The ultimate
> digital caliper for modelers would do just that.

On topic though, what is needed is digital calipers and digital micrometers
that allow
more than just selection of metric or imperial. They also need to allow
setting of
scaling factors. This would allow the readout to be given in any arbitrary
scaled
units.

More apt to be both useful and achievable would be a set of gauges for
thicknesses,
widths, and diameters. Along with this would be gauges for screws and bolt
heads,
although they would be much harder to produce.

By the way, what is the 1:75 scale model a model of? If it is early 20th
century motive
power or rolling stock, it would most likely be a model of an American made
unit.
Which means that the original was built in Imperial units. So, all of the
metric dimensions
you have are a conversion to begin with. It's one thing if the manufacturer
gives
dimensions in 1:75th scale, but if they list the prototype dimensions in
Metric, I'd say
they have created a real problem. On the other hand, if they list only scale
dimensions, all
that is needed is a Metric reading caliper or micrometer.