Why is called HO?

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:03:12 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Beowulf" instead replied:

The one where the letter goes up and down, not sideways. If it went sideways, it would be Z, not N.

Xee hou dat verks?

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad
Loading thread data ...

In other words: Poor research.

We that live in Europe outside the UK know that a lot of different measuring systems have co-existed for a long time, and many of us grew up with them. We would have asked that question at first: Which measuring system?

I think in France there were more than one feet/inch-system in use, and as I recall the french were very early users of the metric systems (yes, there is more than one metric system).

Reply to
Erik Olsen DK

No problem, every customer knows which system the suppliers use.

In Denmark, English feet and inches was used by the metalworking trade (as in Germany), whereas the building and construction trades used Danish feet and inches (as well as some derived measurements I don't think exist in the English feet/inch system).

Reply to
Erik Olsen DK

I have limited access to pre-1850 French railway books, living as I do on the opposite side of the world. Had you mentioned it at the time I would have accessed your vast library of such books.

We who live in areas outside Europe also know of such things, although we generally become aware by coming into contact with them.

When you visit New Zealand I'm sure you too will make unexpected blunders.

That is an interesting comment - other than the previous redefinition of the current metric system I was unaware of others.

Reply to
Greg Procter

I have limited access to pre-1850 French railway books, living as I do on the opposite side of the world. Had you mentioned it at the time I would have accessed your vast library of such books.

We who live in areas outside Europe also know of such things, although we generally become aware by coming into contact with them.

When you visit New Zealand I'm sure you too will make unexpected blunders.

That is an interesting comment - other than the previous redefinition of the current metric system I was unaware of others.

Reply to
Greg Procter

Ahh, the old "you have to know before you find out" system. ;-)

Reply to
Greg Procter

Beowulf, the bottom lines are as follows:

European HO is defined as 1:87 scale. That is _not_ 3.5mm to 1 foot nor

1:87.1. UK HO is defined as 3.5mm to one foot. That is _not_ 1:87. US HO is defined as 1:87.1. That is _not_ 1:87 nor 3.5mm to one foot.

If the three were the same then the model standards bodies would not feel the need to define them differently. Certainly the differences are tiny but they _are_ differences. If the NMRA had considered the differences to be insignificant then they would not have added that '0.1' to their scale factor. It does after all add two additional key strokes to every scale length conversion of which there are hundreds to be made in constructing a model of an item of rolling stock.

Any person with mathematics experience knows that rounding is done _after_ the relevant calculation, not before as such rounding is itself multiplied in any such multiplication.

Non-standard measuring systems in Europe are a 'red heering' to the basic discussion, and are of course irrelevant to the scaling factor.

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg Procter

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 08:10:49 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Greg yet again demonstrating how he never, ever nitpicks a point to the death of the point.

Go away, kid. You bother me.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

I know of four:

  1. The current SI (Système Internatinale) system that uses meter (length), kilogram (mass), second (time), Ampere (electric current), Kelvin (absolute temperature), Candela (light intensity) and mol (amount of material) as base units. Newton (force) is a derived unit.

  1. The earlier physical measurement system that among others used centimeter (length), gram (mass), seconds (time) as base units. Dyn (force) was a derived unit.

  2. The old technical measurement system that among others used meter (length), kilogram (force), seconds (time) as base units. Kilogram (force) was a base unit.

  1. The newer technical measurement system (1939) that among others used meter (length), kilopond (force), seconds (time) as base units. Kilopond (force) was a base unit.

Reply to
Erik Olsen DK

You deserve to be bothered!

Reply to
Greg Procter

Really? South Germany equals all of Europe does it? And you'd rather I believe you on this than a European modeller? You're having delusions of relevance.

My oath I can. Funny how the other blokes here with operating experience on real railroads sided with me, not you...

Reply to
Mark Newton

This from a bloke who *STILL* can't understand the basic premise of timetable and train order working... LOL!

Reply to
Mark Newton

You really shouldn't be involved with railways if you can't understand such basics Mark - still we can't expect any better from you.

Reply to
Greg Procter

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:16:25 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

That's all it took, mate. You guys aren't that complicated. You find your sheep, marry her, have kids, New Zealand goes on.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

"Ray Haddad" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Salvé About a year ago due to crossposting on another group I found an NZ site that explained how to build a functional cruise missile capable of carrying a half ton payload , and all for 5000 dollars USA, how much do your cruise missiles cost? I guess those Kiwis arent so dum after all..... Beowulf

Reply to
Beowulf

Salvé

The problem is Greg that for modellers any reduction for scale purposes is going to be a compromise, because a reduction will have to by necessity compromise in certain areas, ie if the original object to be reduced is in certain areas measured in thou (imperial inches) are you going to try to modell that part to its scale equivalent... not unless you are extremely wealthy no one will reduce it to a millionth of an inch +/- 20 mill just for accuracies sake especially when like early locos such as "The Rocket" tolerances were measured in inches (piston slap really meant something back then!) so for my part if it looks right then it is right, paints never do accurately reproduce the real thing in scale just approximate but the rest of us that enjoy models , be they planes or boats or trains are happy that they do an HONEST job as far as is reasonably possible. Being British I was brought up on truly archaic measurement rods and perches etc not to mention the delights of 240 penny's to a pound not to mention 480 halfpennies 80 threpences, 40 sixpences, 20 shillings , 10 florins, 8 halfcrowns , 4 crowns , 2 tenshilling notes and golden guineas and if I'd been born a year earlier 960 farthings or even earlier 1920 groats toa pound, so I can appreciate the problem which you apparently are not taking as serriously as the British who for many years delayed the introduction of the metric system in the UK untli the EU had standardised upon a SINGLE (there were at least three!) metric system, and that only happened a couple of years ago! Beowulf

Reply to
Beowulf

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:55:54 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Beowulf" instead replied:

I never implied that they were all dumb. Just Greg.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

And when ewer sex life gets a little humdrum, you can run down to the new branch of Frederiks of Christchurch where they have crotchless panties for sheep. No longer do you need to live in Kalispell, Laramie or Brisbane to find exciting undies for the one ewe love.

Reply to
Steve Caple

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:33:23 -0800, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Steve Caple instead replied:

LOL

What scale are they?

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

ROFL! Good one!

Reply to
Mark Newton

PolyTech Forum website 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.