I'm using some Accuride 3832 draw slides in a face framed cabinet.
To make things simple I planned to center the slides on the drawer and
also center the slides in the 4" high opening to align the drawer.
For face frame use these slides require the use of Accuride's "Face
Frame Bracket Kit".
I just checked the spec's on the spacing for the mounting holes for
the front bracket. They are 2.35" (59.7 mm) between the holes or
1.175" (29.85 mm) from center.
Has anyone ever seen a ruler where inches are broken down to decimal?
Smart thinking Accuride.
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
You have a metric part with original dimensions of 60mm and 30mm. The
US importer has probably 'helpfully' converted these exact
measurements into useless imperial values, and rounded them to boot.
Use a metric ruler.
Quite likely. Or a part that was originally dimensioned in inches,
converted to metric, and back to inches, with roundoff errors
creeping in along the way. We have a lot of that where I work,
thanks to an enthusiasm to convert to metric some years ago
followed by an enthusiasm for a new inventory database that
wanted everything in imperial units(*).
(* we used to measure linear stuff in inches, which worked well.
Then we did it in cm, which also worked well. The new system
wants everything in fractional feet, which is absurd.)
Suppose it'd make more difference if:
1. The rule was really calibrated that accurately
2. The lines were really scribed rather than screened
3. I could count such lines even with a magnifier
4. I could keep a drill from sliding around the odd latewood ring into the
5. I didn't have a calculator.
Hell, it's 1 1/8 "fat" in my head
Years ago there was a great amount of pressure in the company that I worked
for to express all measurements in metric. Unfortunately, I was working in
business forms where standard paper sizes were 8 1/2" x 11", and computer
printers (and typwriters, remember these) printed 10 characters per inch
horizontally and 6 lines per inch vertically. These measurements were
impossible to use when converted to metric to 6 decimal places. There where
no rulers that could be used to measure such units. We stuck to our guns and
our pica rulers, which were calibrated to the measurements we needed to use.
There are many rulers or scales out there calibrated in many different
units. My favourite is a printers scale with 1/10", 1/6", 1/12" as well as
standard 16ths. If you want to get real fine you used a points/pica scale
which was divided into 72 units per inch with 12 points per pica, and 6 pica
Like "em's" and "en's"? :)
One of my most fortunate opportunities was to work as a Print Devil. The
shop was a odd-mix of technology. Two linotypes, still operational; the old
pulleys, that ran the presses, still on the cieling; a computerized
typesetter in the corner; typewriters and word processors, old Kluge platten
presses next to a small web press; etc.
One of my favorite jobs was, after a hand-set, putting the type back into
the distribution box - noting that the space for some letters ('e', 't')
were larger than others. Least favorite had to be melting the lead type to
reform the ingots for the Linotype.
Old Bob used to joke that he could read upside-down and backwards better
I remember watching that darned Linotype for hours, still an amazing work of
Actually an "em quad" and an "en quad". :)
(for the uneducated, 2 "en"s == 1 "em".)
The literal dimension of which varied according to the size _and_ style_ of
So, "no", rulers were _not_ calibrated in such units. Although some kinds of
spacing were called out in those units.
Not to mention the ambiguity issue if one tried to employ those "units" at
a point where to dissimilar fonts adjoined.
The correct job title is "printer's devil". "Devil" actually being an
archaic word for 'assistant'/'helper'.
I never actually _worked_ in a letter-press shop, but my folks -bought- a
lot of printing for their business, and us kids often got to tag along
when they went to the printers. And _were_ allowed into 'shop' areas,
as long as we stayed out of the way (both of the equipment, and the
people :) The Linotype room was a favorite visiting spot. :)
The shop where they bought most of printing was a sizable operation. IIRC,
they had 6 Linotypes, with at least 3-4 of them manned most of the time. 3
shifts. Probably 50+ people in the press-room. I think about the _only_
kind of a press they didn't have was a web. Heck, they even had one of
the ones like you see in the old Westerns -- lay the sheet of paper on
the type frame, and crank the big wooden windless to press 'em together.
They _used_ it regularly, too. For pulling 'proof' pages, for customer
approval, before the job went on the high-speed presses.
Heidelberg rotary presses were fascinating to watch, too.
I think it was a Kluge, where the sheets passed barely-over/through a line
of flame, just before settling in the output stacker.
This shop did enough typesetting that they had an automatic melter/reformer,
As well as an extruding machine for generating filler bars. The melter ran
Type slugs read upside-down *or* backwards, not both. It's a 'mirror image'
of what hits the paper. I found reading upside-down easier/faster than
One heck of a gadget, aren't they? _all_ mechanical. Rube Goldberg would
be green with envy. Not so much fun when a font matrix jammed, way up there
on the traveller, and somebody had to climb up there an manually un-jam it.
There _is_ at least one *still*in*commercial*operation*, today.
BTW, you're _strongly_ encouraged to look up an old science-fiction short
story called ETOAIN SHRDLU The title should give you an idea of the
Sorry, a _real_ "pica pole" does -not- have 72 points to the inch.
"True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
72.27 points for one inch is a 'good enough' approximation for almost all
_Most_ modern computer-based composing systems do use a 'fat point', where
there _are_ exactly 72 points to the inch.
The difference is _just_enough_ to screw things up, if you're not aware
of it, and doing precision printing.
If that is the case, then "true printers points" are not accurately defined.
What you are describing is an approximation and, that being the case, the
notion of "precision printing" is nonsense. A precision approximation?
What's that? Is it is similar to a smidge? Maybe closer to a gnat's ass?
That's exactly right. They're *NOT* defined in any 'theoretical' manner.
They are _measured_.
Oddly enough, when you measure something, there is 'uncertainty' in the
Yup. I've seen "approximations" of the relationship, out to 15+ decimals.
Which, even so, claim to be nothing more than approximations.
6 sig figs is generally sufficient to reduce the 'error' to the level
of 'undetectable by the unaided eye', over reasonable (for printing purposes)
spans of distance, i.e. to around 30 inches. 72.27 pt/in is sufficient
for 8-1/2x11 work, to the same standard.
Try doing 8' wide wall charts, and you find you _do_ need extra precision
to deal with 'cumulative errors'.
As usual, Clinton, you know not that of which you speak.
*MEASURE* the side of a square, and it's diagonal. Now, tell me, *exactly*
how much longer is the diagonal than the side? No uncertainty for measurement
error, not an 'expression' as the difference of two theoretical terms, just
the simple, single quantative value that is an _exact_ answer. Can't do it?
Then, by your logic, the notion of a 'square' is nonsense.
Are you trying to be an asshole or are you really that stupid. You say that
your system can not be defined by a known standard. If that is the case,
there is no standard. The increments on your scale won't necessarily be
anything close to the next guys scale. Why would it be if there was no
standard? Just put a couple of marks on a scale, any distance, it doesn't
matter, and call it a printers point.
Oh, OH, OH!!!! He _almost_ gets it. There _are "a couple of marks" on
a reference; said marks _do_ constitute the "official standard". The
distance between those marks is a pica (_by_definition, a point is 1/12 of
a pica). No math, no theory, no 'definition' in terms of other units -- an
actual _physical_ standard.
Just like the present-day definition of the kilogram, and the pre-1965
definition of the meter. Or the pre-1967 definition of the liter.
Until roughly the 1960s, the 'state of the art' in measurement was such
that one could _compare_ two physical distances with a higher degree
of precision than one could, for example, count wavelengths of light.
The printing world simply _hasn't_needed_ a more precise 'definition' than
"a couple of marks" on a reference, "Comparative" accuracy of a 'copy'
can be determined to about 1 part in "ten to the tenth" power, using only
1950's technology. In an environment where the difference between
exactly 72:1 and 72.27:1 _usually_ doesn't matter, an 'error' of one
or even two orders of magnitude greater than 1950's 'state of the art'
is far smaller than what could affect any 'real-world' printing task.
An approximation error of one part in ten-to-the-eighth, translates to
an error of 1/10 of a point (approximately 10/7227 of an inch) in a distance
_in_excess_of_ a fifth of a mile.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.