Vernier caliper readings (a poem)

[AArDvarK]

Learning process:

Years ago I bought a nice Vernier caliper made by Catic in China. Made of a very hard stainless steel. As far as I can tell it matches-up to the graph of figure 3 on this webpage:

"A complete vernier caliper". I am glad for this and glad I found this page. I never figured how to read it beyond the most basics, as well I have no real education because of ADHD and two other brain imbalances, not pleasant for me,

39yo.

I love old classic woodworking tools such as handplanes and chisels and saws. I bought an antique plane blade and cap-iron assembly ($8, yes tapered and laminated) and decided to measure the blade's width. I am sure the Ohio Tool Co. meant for this blade to be 2 1/2 inches but the reading says less* than 2" and 3/40's plus 17. The 17 is the closest match-up on the "-Vernier scale, does this mean that the measurement is 2.417 inches? Exact scale in text:

2" + 2(8/40) + 4(8/40) (=16/40) + less than 3/40 and 17 is match-up on the "-Vernier. or 2"-2-4-less than 3/40

• 17 = 2.417"?

Metric: 6.2cm + less than 3mm m-Vernier match-up is 31 = 6.231cm, or 62.31 mm, 6.321? (Metric seems simpler! Big discovery!)

Metric converter for free download:

now I used the software to compare, result as shown:

2.417" = 61.3918mm

62.31mm = 2.45314960629921"

6.231cm = 2.45314960629921"

6.2.31cm = 2.44094488188976" (defunct and kaput)

How do you like that beeswax, ay? Or did I get my decimels in the wrong places?

Many thanks all, Alex

[Mark L.]

If I understand you, it would be 2" + .075 (3/40) + .017 = 2.092

The 17

You lost me here

• less than 3/40 and 17

Instead of referring to x/40, why not just use .025"? 1/40 = .025" I used to use a vernier all the time, but now everything is digital. A nice compromise (money wise) is a dial caliper. It's just too damned easy to misread a vernier. And yes, metric is much easier.... Mark L.