Ultimate digital caliper for modelers.

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.

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."

C.T.T. Inc. of Dallas Texas makes inexpensive scale rulers. I bought mine at Caboose Hobbies in Denver. Walthers also stocks them Here is a link: They are not as precise as a caliper but they get the job done in most cases (:>

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. :-(

>

I googled 1:24 scale ruler. Lots of hits. Here's one.

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

Pete Keillor wrote: [...]

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

1973 is recent?

Most rulers sold here in Canada are metric

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

Hey thanks!

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

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

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 ...

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

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

"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. ;-)

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

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

"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+ wrote:

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!!!

4&8

Based on the width of a Roman chariot.

WoW.. LOT's of cross posting here !!

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

Marc

"Marc Heusser" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@news.unizh.ch...

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