pmsl

Since when has there been 10/8 to an inch.

formatting link

Reply to
The3rd Earl Of Derby
Loading thread data ...

You're probably confusing it for 1/10ths of an inch. Much used in electronics.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Reply to
The3rd Earl Of Derby

The message from "The3rd Earl Of Derby" contains these words:

typical ruler layout. No sign however of the 1/64" graduations.

Reply to
Roger

The message from "The3rd Earl Of Derby" contains these words:

Reply to
Guy King

Assuming that should read "there are...", I still don't see the problem.

I do hope you don't find typing while wearing wet trousers too unpleasant to enlighten us all further.

Reply to
Autolycus

Did you look at the inch at the bottom pic?

Reply to
The3rd Earl Of Derby

The top edge of the scale is in 1/10 and 1/20 of an inch. The bottom edge goes from 1/4 down to 1/32 of an inch (not 1/64 as advertised).

Reply to
Paul Herber

Indeed, but unlike you, I can recognise that what is shown in that picture is 1 1/4 inches, i.e. 10/8 inches. Have you never used a ruler before?

Reply to
Steve Firth

My mistake there are 4/8th's but on the bottom scale not on the top. As MrPlowman pointed out they are 10th's of an inch.

Reply to
The3rd Earl Of Derby

There are not 10/8 to an inch. The bottom scale gives 8/8ths in the inch.

The top is not an eighths scale. The inch is divided into 10, to give 1/10ths of an inch, and then by 2 again to give 1/20ths of an inch.

What is your problem with that? It is convienently marked in 1/20 ths of an inch, and on the other 1/32 nds.

If one of these offends you, ignore them.

As I recently mentioned on another thread, you get tape measures in feet and tenths of feet.

Chill.

Reply to
Ron Lowe

Keep your hair on,if you would have read the whole thread you would not needed to responded.

Reply to
The3rd Earl Of Derby

Still using inches?

Reply to
Peter Taylor

I know.. Quaint, isn't it.....

Reply to
Andy Hall

Why quaint? MrRumm.

I cant see the benefit of working in metric,bearing in in mind I'm old school woodwork taught.

Reply to
The3rd Earl Of Derby

Sorry,MrHall. :-P

Reply to
The3rd Earl Of Derby

You can ask John for his views.

Mine is that for practical work such as woodworking, it is far easier to work in mm. and one is far less likely to make mistakes because calculation is far easier.

The examples of measuring rules that you gave illustrate precisely the confusion and risk of errors inherent in the archaic imperial system. There were rulers marked in 8ths of an inch and subdivisions thereof, and others in 10ths and subdivisions of that. It would be extremely easy to use the wrong scale in the middle of a project and make a total hash of it.

A user of the deprecated system of inches will have calculation difficulties.

For example, try to rapidly add 1 and 7/8 inches to 17/64ths of an inch. Answer is 2 and 9/64 inch, but the calculation requires converting the 7/8 to 56/64, adding the 11 to make 73 and then subtracting 64 to arrive at 9. A conversion, an addition and a subtraction. Very error prone.

If I take the same dimension in millimetre sizes they are 47.625 and

6.747. I can add these simply and directly in my head and get 54.372. One easy operation.

For woodworking tolerances I might have used figures of 47.6 and 6.7 and it would have been even faster. Rounding takes no effort at all. Pick the figure for truncation and add one if the following digit is >

  1. No calculation needed.

The worst sin is to have measures with mixes of systems of units. I only buy metric ones now and have for some years. The mixed ones get consigned to use in the garden etc. and then to the bin.

Reply to
Andy Hall

As someone (else?) brought up using both systems with equal comfort I do agree - especially regarding calculations - however, when for example, I'm cutting lengths of timber to tolerances of say 1/4 or even 1/8" I find it much quicker and with less chance of error to use inches.

Eg, 73 and 1/2 inches is much easier to read off a tape than 1873 mm, where it's very easy to end up a decade out on the scale simply because the numbers aren't so clearly displayed. Admoittedly some metric tapes are better than others in that respect - eg I have one long one which doesn't even show the 'metre' digit along its length, you have to look back to the last 'whole' metre.

David

Reply to
Lobster

This is an area where metric only tapes help - there is more room for the extra printing of all digits more frequently - e.g. every 100mm.

The dual tapes and rules are the worst of both worlds because they don't have this and moreover encourage the user to commit the cardinal sin of mixing units.

Reply to
Andy Hall

I was forced to start using metric back in '71 when the complete building industry changed over. I think there are good points and bad. For instance, the arithmetic of working out spacings (mullions, stair risers etc) is SO much easier in metric than with 1/16ths. But the old imperial

1/4" and 1/8" scales made drawings just a little big larger and easier to show detail than 1:100 and 1:50, and so often 1:20 works out too big for the paper when ½" = 1 foot (1:24) would have been perfect.

I agree about readability of measuring tapes, that's something that really could be improved. I wish they'd do a tape with only cm, like a levelling staff. To my old eyes, mm close up are a blur without my glasses, and beyond about 1.5m they're too small to see anyway. It's easy to judge

1/10ths of a cm by eye.

And why are tapes always left-handed? When I'm marking or taking a measurement I want to hold the tape with my left hand and the pencil with my right, but then the tape numbers are always upside down!

Peter

Reply to
Peter Taylor

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.