# Metric

Page 6 of 16
• posted on September 8, 2009, 1:12 pm

Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?

2.65 "
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 1:16 pm
Leon wrote:

So, six of one and half a dozen of the other... :-)
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 26, 2009, 8:51 pm

.
http://snickrit.se or very soon diyfurnitureplans.com In my fathers workshop in the 40ies (myself 13 years old) we handled both inperial (25.4 mm) and english (27 mm) inches plus naturally the metric system that was standard for all but the timber and woodwork industry at that time. The lumber was measured and sold by english inches in cubic foot, the workshop workers often spoke of imperial measuremenst, Plans where all in the metric system most in centimeters and millimeter thus an inch was said to be 2 centimeter and 5.4 millimeter. Today all is in millimeter. French got metric at the revolution 1889 The imperial Russia got metric at the revolution1918 We in Scandinavia got officially metric sometimes 188? without a revolution why the change was not complete before sometim e in 60ies. I recommend to buy a measuring tape marked in both imperial and metric and slowly go metric. Klas
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 1:17 pm

That'd be 0.1043307", Leon. (BTW, I do get your point. )<G>
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 2:58 pm

I used to design business forms. Most typewriters (remember those) and computer printers were based on the inch systems but used many strange scales. I ended up having to work with line spacing of 1/8", 1/4", 1/3" and 1/2", character spacing varied from 1/12", 1/10", 1/8", 1/6" and up to 5/32". The biggest problem is that the typesetting equipment all ran on another scale traditionally used by typesetters and printers, picas and points. While conversion is not precise, a pica is very close to 1/6" and there are 12 points to a pica which works out to about 72 points to the inch.
When you work in all these scales for many years it becomes natural to you and you can convert back and forth in your head easily. I still have stainless steel rulers in all these spacings and scales, and often use them when one of them will work better for me. When it works correctly I will even use metric.
One of the reasons that the old Imperial system is dying is that different countries used different standards. I learned many years ago that Imperial measurements are useless in precision work because England, Canada, Australia and the US all had different lengths of inches. Granted this was at the 5th or 6th decimal but it was unuseable. Another example is the gallon. Do you prefer it to liters? But which gallon? In the printing business we had to mix photo chemicals for our litho camera film. You would have to check where the Kodak chemicals were made because if they said add 30 ounces of concentrate to a gallon of water, you needed to know which ounces and which gallon. A US Gallon contains 128 ounces which is 4 quarts of 32 ounces each, a Canadian Gallon contains 160 ounces which is 4 quarts of 40 ounces each. Even the ounces were slightly different. In this regard metric is much easier.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 1:42 pm

Irrelevant if you've truly converted to metric. Just like learning a foreign language. When you've truly gotten it, you don't translate in your head, you *think* in the language in which you're speaking. No different here. 5.3mm=5.3mm. period.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 5:02 pm

0.10433070866141732283464566929134 inch.
Floating point error might have occurred.
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 9:54 pm

It's 2.65mm.
nb
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 10:36 pm
wrote:

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate that distance.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 10:53 pm
Leon wrote:

.65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40
You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch? More importantly, can you use it?
Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for woodworking.
--
Froz...

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 11:28 pm
FrozenNorth wrote:

Lots of us use calipers that split that into 25 parts.

I can, but generally only use the measuring tools to check the results - my primary cutting tool is good to +/-0.001, all by itself.

Not really. Imagine gluing up a table top with that much difference between the heights of adjacent boards...
...or assembling a M&T joint when the tenon was 0.025" oversize and the mortise was 0.025" undersize.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 11:42 pm
Morris Dovey wrote:

Agreed, I can also make a mark at half a millimeter with a pencil, but what have I got when I actually make the cut?

We all don't have a CNC, and you will still have movement larger than what we are talking about.

ROS ;-)
That can be tweaked, pick one and adjust.
However if the tenon was 0.025 undersize. and the mortise was 0.025 oversize, then we have a problem.
--
Froz...

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 9, 2009, 2:26 am
wrote:

Not really. Plane shavings are your friend. DAMHIKT
Luigi
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 11:37 pm

No, I wnat to se the metric rule that will indicate 2.65mm.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 9, 2009, 12:22 am

It is on the opposite side of the rule that has .20866 inches. Just flip it around
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 11:00 pm

2.65 millimeters = 0.104330709 inches
http://tinyurl.com/luowee
nb
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 11:42 pm
wrote:

You have obviousely missed my point, as what you pointed out is not metric. I wanted to see the rule that indicates your answer, 2.65 mm. My point is it is easier to measure halves in inperial than in metric. Regardless of an imperial rule marked in 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, or 1/64 of an inch, 1/2 is alway easy to see. It is going to be tough to see 2.65 mm markings.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 8, 2009, 11:59 pm
Leon wrote:

Ok, you take a measurement and it comes to 13 25/64 with a really good rule, where are we now?
Mark it accurately. ;-)
Now cut it, without a CNC.
--
Froz...

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 9, 2009, 12:13 am
FrozenNorth wrote:

NBD - I have a 24" scale that'll handle the measurement accurately. I'd mark it with a knife and split the mark with my RAS. If I needed more than one I'd set a stop - look at the bottom of
for a setup that allows setting multiple stops on the RAS at one time (handy when there's expectation of doing another run of the same part or set of parts).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 9, 2009, 12:42 am

I have rules in the shop that indicate that. Not a problem. But still I asked about a rule indicating 1/2 of 5.3 mm.
As for the 13 25/64, It is 13 inches plus the "only" mark in between 12/32" and 13/32", easily marked with a knife. But is there a rule that shows 2.65mm? Better yet, is there a rule that would indicate 5.3 mm let alone half of that distance?