Newbie question :) be kind...

Puckdropper wrote:


The centimeter isn't an official metric measurement - you could go with the decimeter. (which also isn't an official measurement.

You must take very short steps! 1 m would be closer!
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 05:49 +0000, Puckdropper wrote:

A large step equals 1 m. A normal step 10% less, about 3 feet. My thumb, I say _MY_ thumb, is 2,5 cm wide. About 1 inch. My hand is 0,1 m wide, that is 10 cm. That is enough for daily use. We use metric about 200 years now on continental Europe, and the inches and miles are lost and gone forever. The rest of the world will follow, simply because of its merits. The better is the enemy of the good.
Groet, salut, Wim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:45:50 +0100, wim van bemmel wrote:

A typical pace is usually counted as 30", so two paces equal roughly 5 feet.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 11:18 -0800, Steve Caple wrote:

And what differs about 3 feet from 30" ? I hear you say: about 6 inches, about a handwith. And that is what 'about' is about. About a handwith per pace.
Wim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you add up the difference it amounts to another pace every five paces.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Smith wrote:

Yeah, and if you're short, your pace is closer to 24" (60cm) than 30". While if you're lanky 6'6"+ (205cm+), your pace may be over a metre (39").
So????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was my point, the nit-picking doesn't mean anything in the real world. {;^)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

Your arms outstretched are almost exactly equal to your height. A extended stride is equal to your height. For me, they equal a distance mid-way between 6 feet and two metres.
I'm unsure what that proves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 09:17 +1300, Greg Procter wrote:

1,0 m. That is so for most people of moderate size. That is very easy for measuring a length of rope. Pick it up in your left hand, strech to your right shoulder, and there is your meter. But that does not prove superiority. By the same token I could have stretched the rope on the floor and measured 3 footpasses plus something. The superiority is in the simple and uniform way of measuring and expressing these measurements. In decimal, not in fractions. The primitive fractions 1/2, 1/4 may be easy. But if you come to 5/32" is is more difficult. I met 15/64" .. it takes a handheld japanese to get even an idea of what is ment.
We are modelbuilders. Mostly we deal with plans in inches and feet, yes even in Europe because we model ancient prototype, and the plans of that are in inches too. Gently this will change. Our grandchildren have to be educated in converting those vintage units. Only if they model.
Groet, salut, Wim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wim van bemmel wrote:

Go carefully there - I began building a model of a French loco from an early book and found it to be in French feet, about the time I was adding the superstructure to the underframe. It never did get completed.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:20:24 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

Trains don't have feet, French or otherwise. They have wheels.
I mean, really, Greg. What do you take us for? -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Haddad wrote:

Would you be convinced otherwise If I found you a drawing of a loco with feet?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:20:24 +1300, Greg Procter wrote:

Wow, that stinks.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 14:20 +1300, Greg Procter wrote:

"that is where the lard begins to stink", an old Dutch saying. There are many feet. And miles. I look at 19th century map of The Netherlands, and there are 7 scales on bottom. From German&Dutch to Luxemburg miles. And all have their own feet. But, the good news: there is only 1 meter. Worldwide, forever. Since more than 2 centuries. Thanks to the French revolution.
So let us build models, read the plans and convert the odd time and place related units to meter and build models using that unit. It is correct that HO scale is 3,5 mm/ft. That mm is unambiguous. It is 1/1000 , 0,001 m. That ft is not so. It is the current foot, exactly 1225,4 mm. So even if you use feet, by international standards it is defined NOW in terms of meter. But aware, as you stated. Feet were nowhere and never alike.
Groet, salut, Wim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wim van bemmel wrote:

Shssssh! The yanks are busy making their own metre!

NO NO NO! HO is a scale ratio of 1:87 except in Britain and the USa. _Britain_ uses (or doesn't use) 3.5mm to the foot. The US sets it's own standard of 1:87.1 which is neither 3.5mm:foot nor 1:87. (NMRA standards) (they say it's "near enough", but why add the 0.1 (0.1149%) if 1:87 is near enough)

One of my current projects is the New Zealand standard Guards Van. The carpenters worked from a standard plan (well, I've found five different standard plans so far) but carpenters worked to the nearest 1/8" and it's very difficult to find two vans that are exactly alike out of many hundreds.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

It's 3.5/12*25.4 = 1/87.085714... rounded off to 1/87.1.
--
Best regards
Erik Olsen DK
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erik Olsen DK wrote:

That's a great theory! In Denmark (I assume you are in Denmark) HO is 1:87. (no decimal point, no extra numbers, exact, precise) (official)
Why would anyone in their right mind form a ratio from _two_ measuring systems, one being archaic? Why would one set an _exact_ scale ratio and then round off that ratio??
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/20/2008 12:17 PM Greg Procter spake thus:

Just to put this canard to rest, that whole 1:87 vs 1:87.1 business is a difference totally without a distinction.
For example, taking a scale 50' boxcar (yes, that's what we call them: wagons are things that trail behind horses, or little children playing):
o At 1:87, the actual length is 6.89655" o At 1:87.1, the actual length is 6.99963"
The difference in actual lengths is 0.00792.
Now, are you going to tell us with a straight face that you could even detect this difference, even if you had that boxcar in your hands?
They're essentially the same and not even worth discussing further.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

If it's not worth discussing, then why bother to include the 0.1 in the ratio? The NMRA obviously thought the distinction was worth making.
BTW the difference in your quoted dimensions is 0.10308" which is visible.
I work to about 0.05mm but 0.5mm is about as close as I can measure by eye over the length of a (50') wagon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/20/2008 3:05 PM Greg Procter spake thus:

OK, Greg, just for you, we're going to change the official NMRA ratio to:
1:87 <put hands over ears> point one <uncover ears>.
Does that work for you?

My bad; the 2nd number should have been 6.88863. Happy fingers there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.