I'm using some Accuride 3832 draw slides in a face framed cabinet.
http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=1499#moreinfo
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".
http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=5690&cs=1
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.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:37:51 GMT, Nova <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I'm using some Accuride 3832 draw slides in a face framed cabinet.
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=1499#moreinfo
>
>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".
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=5690&cs=1
>
>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.
decimal inches is standard for aircraft stuff.
In article <[email protected]>,
Eric Tonks <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Eric Tonks <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote:
>> >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
>> >per inch.
>>
>> 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
>> real-world work.
>>
>> _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.
>>
>I did mostly precision typesetting, but the precision was in the placement
>of rules and boxes for computer imprinting of data. Since we never used lead
>type requiring shim stock to align, 72 points to the inch was the
>measurement that we used. We found that humidity and temperature could
>throw measurements off by more than the variation between true points and
>nominal 72 per inch points. Since we were using hand ruled artwork, then
>photo-typesetting and finally computer typesetting direct to film (and
>plate), we would have to add or subtract an occasional 1/4 point in order to
>effect the precision spacing.
>
>
I never found temperature to be much of an issue. Humidity, on the other
hand, could be a _real_ bugbear.
Just wait till you get involved in publishing straight technical graphics.
<grin>
An early project involved producing charts on a 36" (wide) roll-feed pen
plotter, overlaid with a graph-paper grid transparency for shooting the
plates. _Moderate_ humidity changes could cause things to 'move' by a _full_
grid square. When the data value for point 224 ends up on the line for 223
this *isn't* good. Not to mention point 112, which is "smack dab in the middle"
of the box between the grid-lines for points 111 and 112.
A later project involved computer-driven photo-typesetting directly to film
positive, several layers of which got 'sandwiched' together for the actual
plate-making. (It wasn't practical to set everything at once; one of the
overlays -- used on almost every page, naturally -- took more than an _hour_
_per_page_ to render on the typesetter; this was a time-critical production
run, I only had about 5 hrs from the time I could start composing until the
press had to be running. For a 64-page 'book', of which only 4-5 pages could
be composed in advance.)
A quarter of a point was a _big_ error, in -that- environment. The typesetter
I was using had a command language that "officially" supported addressing
to 0.06 point increments. Unfortunately it was somewhat "inconsistent" in
it's handling of those units. Found out the "why and wherefore" of that, when
talking with the service engineer one day. The actual hardware resolution
was 0.025 pt increments. Now, fortunately for me, the typesetter involved
was somewhat on the "dumb" side -- when it encountered a command that was
outside the range of valid movement/scaling commands, it turned on a light
on the console that read "Illegal Instruction", and then went ahead and
_DID_IT_ANYWAY_, to the best of it's ability. "Abusing" that 'feature' let
me write files that reliably positioned to 1/40 pt. I couldn't hit 1/25th
of a point, but I _could_ hit 1/40th. <grin>
Other, similar 'abuse of the rules' allowed me to produce honest-to-goodness
*gray-scale* output on *Ortho* film. Not half-tone, but _gray_. Even the
vendor maintenance engineer didn't want to believe that _that_ came off his
machine. :)
In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]>, who still has "sense-organ cluster all jammed
up ventral orifice", wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> CW <[email protected]> -- with his head jammed so far up his ass
>that
>> _everything_ looks like crap to him -- wrote:
>> >
>> >"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote a load of crap
>> >
>> >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.
>
>So now you say there is a standard. Can't even keep your story strait.
I stated that there was not an "exact relationship between points and inches."
*YOU* claimed that -- absent a definition in other units -- a standard
didn't exist.
>> 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.
>
>Which all had standards.
Do you know what the definition of a kilogram is?
Can you recite it here?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>True. Comparison to a known standard.
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>But you claimed there was no standard.
Liar. Take your head out of your ass, and go re-read the thread to this
point --
I said:
"True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
You responded:
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?
To which, I replied:
That's exactly right. They're *NOT* defined in any 'theoretical' manner.
They are _measured_.
Whereupon, *YOU* said:
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.
That is the first mention of a standard, or lack there of. Introduced by
_YOUR_ lack of comprehension. I made no such claim. However, it _is_
true that there is *NOT* a "single, internationally-accepted" standard.
The printing industries in various locales have settled on a reference
standard for -their- locale. And are -not- necessarily consistent with
each other. The old remark about "the nice thing about standards is that
there are _so_many_ to choose from" applies with a vengeance in printing.
> Can't have consistency without it. So
>which is it. Did you not know what you were talking about when you said
>there was no standard or do you not now know what you are taking about when
>you say that printing is done with precision?
Since the premise is false -- that I said there was no standard -- the rest
of your question is meaningless. In case it has escaped you, "precision"
is a _relative_ term. If, in one area, an accuracy of 1:10**3 is generally
acceptable, than a 1:10**5 can be regarded as high-precision. On the
other hand, if the 'normal' accuracy is 1:10**8, then 1:10**5 is 'very
crude'.
For a *lot* of printing, accuracy "+/- 1/2 pt" is 'good enough'. Measured
against _that_ "standard", a job that _uses_ increments of "0.025 pt" _is_
"precision" printing. Don't take my word for it -- ask the platemakers,
and the pressmen that had to _run_ that job. Ask why the 'composing' and
'paste-up' department was _completely_ bypassed.
To clarify:
0) "what's the definition of a 'point'?" "1/12 of a 'pica'"
1) "What's the definition of a 'pica'?" "THAT big (pointing)"
2) "How long is it?" "exactly 1 pica"
3) "What's that in inches?" "Measured as .166044 +/- .0000005 in."
4) "What's that in millimeters?" "Measured as 4.21752 +/- .000005 mm"
5) "Why not an exact value?" "it's *NOT* defined in terms of any
other physical unit"
EVERYTHING I have said is absolutely consistent with those facts.
You persist in reading into my words things that I *did*not*say*. Followed
by arguing against _your_ mis-interpretations.
And then *you* wonder out loud if _I_ am "trying to be an asshole or are
really that stupid".
In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>If that is the case, then "true printers points" are not accurately defined.
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
results.
>What you are describing is an approximation
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'.
> 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?
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.
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>
>> "True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
>
>
In news:[email protected],
Nova <[email protected]> typed:
> I'm using some Accuride 3832 draw slides in a face framed cabinet.
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=1499#moreinfo
>
> 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".
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=5690&cs=1
>
> 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.
Yep. Got one with decimal, fraction and metric.
or you can try this. http://users.erols.com/mazel-18/stocks/fdchart.html
"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> 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.
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
than forwards.
I remember watching that darned Linotype for hours, still an amazing work of
engineering.
Apparently, they do come in various sizes. :)
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.photographic-vision.net/pica.htm
>
> Bottom right includes a review of this thread.
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So what's the definitoin of a pica?
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Eric Tonks <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote:
>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
>per inch.
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
real-world work.
_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.
Tom Watson wrote:
> I've used a lot of 3832 slides and IIRC, the first hole from the front
> of the cabinet needs to be centered at 37mm, in order to provide the
> proper setback of the slide. From there the rest of the holes should
> follow a 32mm pattern to the back of the slide.
The measurements I referred to are the hole spacing in the brackets to
center the bracket vertically in the opening. The brackets are indented to
index off the inside of the face frame to give the proper set back.
> The last time I made a template, I printed out a CAD sheet with the
> 37mm hole and then 32mm spacing, spray adhesived to some 1/4" MDF,
> centerpunched and drilled, and it worked fine.
>
> I never bothered with the bracket kit and simply milled pieces to pack
> out the sides to the inside edge of the face frame.
I'm retro-fitting some existing cabinets. They're are two drawer in each
cabinet. The unit is open across the full width, except for the face
frame. There is nothing inside the cabinet, between the drawers, to attach
any blocking.
> (Of course, my 32mm line borer is for sale - if you're going to be
> doing a lot of these.)
Not if I can help it. I'm not particularly fond of doing retro's, but the
original cabinet construction is pretty good. The drawers were molded
plastic and have always sucked.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
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
softer early
5. I didn't have a calculator.
Hell, it's 1 1/8 "fat" in my head
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm using some Accuride 3832 draw slides in a face framed cabinet.
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=1499#moreinfo
>
> 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".
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=5690&cs=1
>
> 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.
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
per inch.
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm using some Accuride 3832 draw slides in a face framed cabinet.
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=1499#moreinfo
>
> 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".
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=5690&cs=1
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
>
>
Especially when they were invented over (I think) a hundred years ago.
"mttt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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
> than forwards.
>
> I remember watching that darned Linotype for hours, still an amazing work
of
> engineering.
>
>
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Eric Tonks <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote:
> >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
> >per inch.
>
> 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
> real-world work.
>
> _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.
>
I did mostly precision typesetting, but the precision was in the placement
of rules and boxes for computer imprinting of data. Since we never used lead
type requiring shim stock to align, 72 points to the inch was the
measurement that we used. We found that humidity and temperature could
throw measurements off by more than the variation between true points and
nominal 72 per inch points. Since we were using hand ruled artwork, then
photo-typesetting and finally computer typesetting direct to film (and
plate), we would have to add or subtract an occasional 1/4 point in order to
effect the precision spacing.
As I said in an earlier posting, in my 39 years of precision business forms,
I have found that the difference between the old true point and a nominal 72
point per inch point really doesn't matter much. There are more variances in
dot spread, paper swelling in humidity, and film size changes after drying,
not to mention plate stretch or blanket distortion on the printing press.
When doing precision computer form printing these all must be allowed for,
with various adjustments and quality control checks, it is the finished
product that counts as there will always be an assorted number of
adjustments that have to be made in the pre-press or work-up materials, just
as one would do in woodworking. We tried to work to be within .003" across
the entire printed image which could be up to 11" x 17". This is similar to
the accuracy that people who worked in four colour printing aimed for.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
>
> "Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>
> > "True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
>
>
Yes, we all have learned how to "bend" the capabilities of equipment, but no
more than in computers and computer driven equipment.
All this brings back the first computer driven typesetter that I had
purchased. I managed to automate the typesetting of a 36pp booklet with
month calendars split over the binding. Today that is simple, but when you
have to code all the rules and dates in commands, and get it all to run on a
computer with 1k of memory available for the coding. It ran so slow that
each page took 45 minutes to output. We would start it up when we went home
and came in the morning to wait for it to finish, if there was a power
problem or thunderstorm overnight, we had to start from the start again. The
computer ran "core" memory, you could turn the power off and it would still
remember its programs. However a thunderstorm would scramble the program, so
you would have to reload from a paper tape.
I am glad after 39 years to be out of that business. The pressures of
juggling 100 or more deadlines simultaneously were killing me. Now I do
woodworking for a rest.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Eric Tonks <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote:
> >
> >"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Eric Tonks <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote:
> >> >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
> >> >per inch.
> >>
> >> 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
> >> real-world work.
> >>
> >> _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.
> >>
> >I did mostly precision typesetting, but the precision was in the
placement
> >of rules and boxes for computer imprinting of data. Since we never used
lead
> >type requiring shim stock to align, 72 points to the inch was the
> >measurement that we used. We found that humidity and temperature could
> >throw measurements off by more than the variation between true points and
> >nominal 72 per inch points. Since we were using hand ruled artwork, then
> >photo-typesetting and finally computer typesetting direct to film (and
> >plate), we would have to add or subtract an occasional 1/4 point in order
to
> >effect the precision spacing.
> >
> >
>
> I never found temperature to be much of an issue. Humidity, on the other
> hand, could be a _real_ bugbear.
>
> Just wait till you get involved in publishing straight technical graphics.
> <grin>
>
> An early project involved producing charts on a 36" (wide) roll-feed pen
> plotter, overlaid with a graph-paper grid transparency for shooting the
> plates. _Moderate_ humidity changes could cause things to 'move' by a
_full_
> grid square. When the data value for point 224 ends up on the line for
223
> this *isn't* good. Not to mention point 112, which is "smack dab in the
middle"
> of the box between the grid-lines for points 111 and 112.
>
> A later project involved computer-driven photo-typesetting directly to
film
> positive, several layers of which got 'sandwiched' together for the actual
> plate-making. (It wasn't practical to set everything at once; one of the
> overlays -- used on almost every page, naturally -- took more than an
_hour_
> _per_page_ to render on the typesetter; this was a time-critical
production
> run, I only had about 5 hrs from the time I could start composing until
the
> press had to be running. For a 64-page 'book', of which only 4-5 pages
could
> be composed in advance.)
>
>
> A quarter of a point was a _big_ error, in -that- environment. The
typesetter
> I was using had a command language that "officially" supported addressing
> to 0.06 point increments. Unfortunately it was somewhat "inconsistent"
in
> it's handling of those units. Found out the "why and wherefore" of that,
when
> talking with the service engineer one day. The actual hardware resolution
> was 0.025 pt increments. Now, fortunately for me, the typesetter involved
> was somewhat on the "dumb" side -- when it encountered a command that was
> outside the range of valid movement/scaling commands, it turned on a light
> on the console that read "Illegal Instruction", and then went ahead and
> _DID_IT_ANYWAY_, to the best of it's ability. "Abusing" that 'feature'
let
> me write files that reliably positioned to 1/40 pt. I couldn't hit 1/25th
> of a point, but I _could_ hit 1/40th. <grin>
>
> Other, similar 'abuse of the rules' allowed me to produce
honest-to-goodness
> *gray-scale* output on *Ortho* film. Not half-tone, but _gray_. Even the
> vendor maintenance engineer didn't want to believe that _that_ came off
his
> machine. :)
>
http://www.photographic-vision.net/pica.htm
Bottom right includes a review of this thread.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So what's the definitoin of a pica?
>
> --
>
> FF
In article <[email protected]>,
Bridger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>you know Robert, what I find hilarious is that you, as a person so
>well versed in the typesetting world over punctuate to the point that
>your writings are painful to read.
>
>wassap wit' that?
Traditional USENET stuff. One doesn't have type-sizes, faces, or any of the
other traditional means of indicating degree-of-emphasis/mood/intonation/etc.,
so one has to make do with what _is_ available. (example: that sentence
can have quite different connotations when read aloud; depending on whether it
is read with or without emphasis on the word "is".)
In addition, "Spoken" English, and "written" English are actually _separate_
languages. (This is true, by the way, of many languages besides English.)
The 'rules' are generally similar, but there are significant differences.
Traditional USENET style is much closer to the spoken word than formal writing,
but without the benefit of inflection, intonation, emphasis, accent, and the
raft of other 'hints' present in actual verbalizations. Attempting to convey
such nuances leads to use of lots of "supplemental grammatical symbols".
Yes, one _could_ regard this as a "smart-ASCII" answer. *grin*
Nova <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Has anyone ever seen a ruler where inches are broken down to decimal?
> Smart thinking Accuride.
I have been using a tape measure for the last year or so in which the
inches are broken down in decimals. I like it a lot. It makes a lot
more sense to me.
Dick Durbin
Tallahassee
In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>That's what I asked him. He would say it was undefined, then defined, then
>undefined, ect.
Liar.
Facts:
No uniform "theoretical" definition (in terms of a different unit of measure)
exists.
No _single_ international standard exists.
"Trade associations", or similar, in various locales have agreed on a
standard for _their_ locale. These 'agreements' are not necessarily
consistent, nor do they necessarily even use the same methodology.
Many use a 'mark' as the official reference.
The low-end computerized typesetting trade uses a "derived" definition,
wherein a pica is _exactly_ 1/6 of an inch. this is about 1/3 of 1%
larger than the 'traditional' unit in North America.
>
>"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> So what's the definitoin of a pica?
>>
>> --
>>
>> FF
>
>
There you go again. Claiming that it is defined then claiming it's not. You
still don't know what you are talking about. I doubt you ever will. It's
time I plonk you under the heading of hopeless. You're beginning to get
boring.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
[.. munch ..]]
>
>Look at the posts on here. Apparently, this "traditional USENET stuff "isn't
>to traditional or we have a bunch of ultra modern types here. Seems more
>like the stuff seen in teenage chatrooms.
For those of us who have been on USENET for nearly 20 years, _yeah_, 'ultra
modern' is an accurate description of "more than most" (i.e. more than 95%)
of those using it today.
The USENET version of the 'older than dirt' survey --
Do you remember:
1) What a telebit trailblazer is?
2) The "Great Renaming"?
3) Mark V. Shaney?
4) "Bang path" email addresses
5) Where "cbosgd" was?
6) Who owned the original "ihnp4"
7) Who said "Always mount a scratch monkey"?
8) Kibo?
9) UUCP?
10) The names of (at least) three of the CABAL?
11) When did the first message originating from KREMVAX appear?
12) The deployment of DNS and hierarchical domain names?
13) acoustic couplers?
14) "talk", "finger", "who", and "write"
15) what "biff" does, and where the name comes from"
16) Who CJKIII was?
17) Where did Henry Spencer work?
18) What color was the LA-120?
19) What did the shift key on an ADM-3 do?
20) How many columns on a Burroughs punch card?
21) who A, W, and K, of AWK fame, are?
22) when the USENET 'flame' was an _art_form_?
23) Which government agency formerly owned the internet?
24) Where was 'seismo', and why was it important?
25) What does 'ick ack uck' refer to?
If you've never, for Internet access, used anything besides a: PC, Mac,
Amiga, Commodore, or webtv, you're automatically disqualified.
In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>> I stated that there was not an "exact relationship between points and
>inches."
>
>True. You stated that it was an approximation.
I stated:
"True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
72.27 points for one inch is a 'good enough' approximation for almost all
real-world work.
*YOU* are the one that claimed that that made the 'definition' of a point
an "approximation".
To wit
"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 physical object has an 'exact' size _only_ in the system of measurement
for which it _defines_ the size of a unit, and in secondary systems derived
from that system.
Comparison with any system of measurement based on a _different_ physical
standard, are, *BY*DEFINITION* approximations. Since the -only- way to
establish the relationship is _by_ measurement, with the ensuing *unavoidable*
errors and uncertainties.
Thus _any_ attempt to express the size of a printers point in inches (or even
mm) _is_ an approximation.
That does *not* mean that the unit _itself_ is ill-defined, or an
"approximation", in any way.
And it also should be obvious that 'the lack of an exact relationship' to
a different system of measurement does _not_ preclude the existence of a
reference standard for _this_ system of measurement.
However, that IS apparently what you believe. Since, based solely on
my statements that:
"True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
and
They're *NOT* defined in any 'theoretical' manner. They are _measured_.
You state as incontrovertible fact:
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.
>> To clarify:
>> 0) "what's the definition of a 'point'?" "1/12 of a 'pica'"
>> 1) "What's the definition of a 'pica'?" "THAT big (pointing)"
>> 2) "How long is it?" "exactly 1 pica"
>> 3) "What's that in inches?" "Measured as .166044 +/- .0000005 in"
>> 4) "What's that in millimeters?" "Measured as 4.21752 +/- .000005 mm"
>> 5) "Why not an exact value?" "it's *NOT* defined in terms of
>> any other physical unit"
>
>Now you claim that it is not an approximation.
Either you are blind, or you are a deliberate liar, or both.
The value of _any_ "measurement" of a physical object is an approximation
of it's true dimensions, *except* when that physical object _defines_ the
system of measurement used.
If one _compares_ two physical objects, one can say:
(A) they're the same size _within_the_limits_of_measurement_
(which does *not* mean that they are exactly the same)
or
(B) one is 'definitely' longer than the other, although we can't
say "exactly" how much longer it is. (i.e. the _actual_ difference
in size is greater than the possible measurement error.)
However, the reference object *itself* is not an approximation.
Since the measure in question _is_ defined by a reference object, and not
in terms of any other unit of measure, then:
(a) describing an _exact_ relationship between it and any other unit of
measure is thus impossible. Because the _only_ way to determine the
relationship is _to_measure_it. With unavoidable uncertainties and
errors therein.
(b) "approximations" *ARE* used in the real world.
(c) The accuracy of the approximation that is required is determined by
the nature of the work for which it is used.
I only stated that "72.27 points to the inch is a good enough approximation
for almost all real-world work."
The pica does have an exact size.
Any attempt to express _what_ that size is, except in units _derived_ from
the pica is an "approximation"
"Inches are derived from millimeters, which are derived from a _different_
physical standard than are picas."
Hence, any attempt to express the quantitative relationship between the two
units of measurement is an approximation.
Using 2-place precision for the approximation, vs 4-place precision, makes
a difference, across the entire width of a 21" display, of about 4 pixels.
Or about 10 pixels, down the length of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper, on a 300DPI
laser printer. It _is_ definitely noticeable, if you're looking for it. But
usually _not_ enough to be a 'problem'. This is "why" low-end computer-based
composing systems used 72 pts/in. instead of the 'closer' 72.27 pts/in.
the math was 'simpler', and the system could be made 'less expensively'.
The 'size error' wasn't enough to be a problem _to_the_target_customers_.
Go roughly another order of magnitude larger (say a 48" wide wall-chart),
And impose an 'accuracy' requirement of less than 3 pixels (because you're
drawing lines that are only 5 pixels wide), and the 4-place precision
approximation isn't good enough any more. Almost, but not quite.
Double the size again, with the same 'absolute' precision required, and
the 4-place approximation is "nowhere near" good enough.
>>
>> EVERYTHING I have said is absolutely consistent with those facts.
>
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> 1.175" (29.85 mm) from center.
>
> Has anyone ever seen a ruler where inches are broken down to decimal?
> Smart thinking Accuride.
Yes. I have several in lengths from 6" to 18". Smallest division is .010.
>
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> CW <[email protected]> -- with his head jammed so far up his ass
that
> _everything_ looks like crap to him -- wrote:
> >
> >"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote a load of crap
> >
> >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.
So now you say there is a standard. Can't even keep your story strait.
>
> 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.
Which all had standards.
>
>
> 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.
True. Comparison to a known standard.
>
>
> 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.
But you claimed there was no standard. Can't have consistency without it. So
which is it. Did you not know what you were talking about when you said
there was no standard or do you not now know what you are taking about when
you say that printing is done with precision?
>
>
>
>
So how old were you when you ceased to progress?
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
I use decimals more than 1/8 (etc) inch rulers. I find it easier to add
dimensions, divide into sections, etc. Buy yourself a decimal
straightedge and I bet you'll like using it.
--
Larry C in Auburn WA
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm using some Accuride 3832 draw slides in a face framed cabinet.
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=1499#moreinfo
>
> 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".
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=5690&cs=1
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
>
>
"Dick Durbin" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> I have been using a tape measure for the last year or so in which the
> inches are broken down in decimals. I like it a lot. It makes a lot
> more sense to me.
>
> Dick Durbin
> Tallahassee
This could revive the metric versus imperial thread.
Ed
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?
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> "True printers points" vs. inches is -not- an exact relationship.
Christopher Biggs <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Nova <[email protected]> moved upon the face of the 'Net and
> spake thusly:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.
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(*).
John
(* 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.)
I have no doubt that you did.
"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
. We tried to work to be within .003" across
> the entire printed image which could be up to 11" x 17". This is similar
to
> the accuracy that people who worked in four colour printing aimed for.
>
In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> -- with his head jammed so far up his ass that
_everything_ looks like crap to him -- wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote a load of crap
>
>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.
Dear Robert Bonomi,
I just wanted to _thank_you_ for reminding me of a typesetting story
that I have forgotten to tell my grandchildren. You reminded me about
seeing my great-uncle making slugs on a Linotype, and reminded me of
the clatter of the Linotype, the smell of the lead and the ink in his
newspaper shop, and of picas, em's and en's too.
Thanks,
--
Al K
A CDC 1604 was a Univac 1103
made at 501 Park Ave.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[snip]
> Traditional USENET stuff. One doesn't have type-sizes, faces, or
any of the
> other traditional means of indicating
degree-of-emphasis/mood/intonation/etc.,
> so one has to make do with what _is_ available. (example: that
sentence
> can have quite different connotations when read aloud; depending on
whether it
> is read with or without emphasis on the word "is".)
>
> In addition, "Spoken" English, and "written" English are actually
_separate_
> languages. (This is true, by the way, of many languages besides
English.)
> The 'rules' are generally similar, but there are significant
differences.
>
> Traditional USENET style is much closer to the spoken word than
formal writing,
> but without the benefit of inflection, intonation, emphasis, accent,
and the
> raft of other 'hints' present in actual verbalizations. Attempting
to convey
> such nuances leads to use of lots of "supplemental grammatical
symbols".
>
> Yes, one _could_ regard this as a "smart-ASCII" answer. *grin*
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>So what's the definitoin of a pica?
>
As stated earlier: "THAT big (pointing)."
Where the thing is that is being pointed at depends on the locale.
In North America, the 'thing' is approximately .166044 inches in length.
In most of Continental Europe, the equivalent thing is about 6.5% bigger.
In article <[email protected]>,
mttt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Like "em's" and "en's"? :)
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
type employed.
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.
>One of my most fortunate opportunities was to work as a Print Devil.
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.
>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.
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.
>
>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.
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
full-time.
>Old Bob used to joke that he could read upside-down and backwards better
>than forwards.
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
reading right-to-left.
>
>I remember watching that darned Linotype for hours, still an amazing work of
>engineering.
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
content.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:37:51 GMT, Nova <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I'm using some Accuride 3832 draw slides in a face framed cabinet.
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=1499#moreinfo
>
>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".
>
> http://www.rockler.com/ecom7/product_details.cfm?&sku=5690&cs=1
>
>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.
Jack:
I've used a lot of 3832 slides and IIRC, the first hole from the front
of the cabinet needs to be centered at 37mm, in order to provide the
proper setback of the slide. From there the rest of the holes should
follow a 32mm pattern to the back of the slide.
The last time I made a template, I printed out a CAD sheet with the
37mm hole and then 32mm spacing, spray adhesived to some 1/4" MDF,
centerpunched and drilled, and it worked fine.
I never bothered with the bracket kit and simply milled pieces to pack
out the sides to the inside edge of the face frame.
(Of course, my 32mm line borer is for sale - if you're going to be
doing a lot of these.)
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> 1.175" (29.85 mm) from center.
> >
> > Has anyone ever seen a ruler where inches are broken down to decimal?
> > Smart thinking Accuride.
>
> Yes. I have several in lengths from 6" to 18". Smallest division is .010.
> >
very common Starrete and mititoyo make very fine squares that run from 6
inch to 36 inch
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:48:12 GMT, Nova <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> I've used a lot of 3832 slides and IIRC, the first hole from the front
>> of the cabinet needs to be centered at 37mm, in order to provide the
>> proper setback of the slide. From there the rest of the holes should
>> follow a 32mm pattern to the back of the slide.
>
>The measurements I referred to are the hole spacing in the brackets to
>center the bracket vertically in the opening. The brackets are indented to
>index off the inside of the face frame to give the proper set back.
>
>> The last time I made a template, I printed out a CAD sheet with the
>> 37mm hole and then 32mm spacing, spray adhesived to some 1/4" MDF,
>> centerpunched and drilled, and it worked fine.
>>
>> I never bothered with the bracket kit and simply milled pieces to pack
>> out the sides to the inside edge of the face frame.
>
>I'm retro-fitting some existing cabinets. They're are two drawer in each
>cabinet. The unit is open across the full width, except for the face
>frame. There is nothing inside the cabinet, between the drawers, to attach
>any blocking.
>
>> (Of course, my 32mm line borer is for sale - if you're going to be
>> doing a lot of these.)
>
>Not if I can help it. I'm not particularly fond of doing retro's, but the
>original cabinet construction is pretty good. The drawers were molded
>plastic and have always sucked.
were the original drawer guides center undermounted? in any case
either type can be bracket mounted without screwing directly to the
side of the cabinet- although I prefer to directly mount them. it's a
more solid attachment.
Bridger
That's what I asked him. He would say it was undefined, then defined, then
undefined, ect.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So what's the definitoin of a pica?
>
> --
>
> FF
Nova <[email protected]> moved upon the face of the 'Net and spake thusly:
> 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.
>
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.
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:48:12 GMT, Nova <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The measurements I referred to are the hole spacing in the brackets to
>center the bracket vertically in the opening. The brackets are indented to
>index off the inside of the face frame to give the proper set back.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with them.
>I'm retro-fitting some existing cabinets. They're are two drawer in each
>cabinet. The unit is open across the full width, except for the face
>frame. There is nothing inside the cabinet, between the drawers, to attach
>any blocking.
Perfect opportunity to use the pocket hole jig.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
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.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote a load of crap
Look at the posts on here. Apparently, this "traditional USENET stuff "isn't
to traditional or we have a bunch of ultra modern types here. Seems more
like the stuff seen in teenage chatrooms.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bridger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >you know Robert, what I find hilarious is that you, as a person so
> >well versed in the typesetting world over punctuate to the point that
> >your writings are painful to read.
> >
> >wassap wit' that?
>
> Traditional USENET stuff. One doesn't have type-sizes, faces, or any of
the
> other traditional means of indicating
degree-of-emphasis/mood/intonation/etc.,
> so one has to make do with what _is_ available. (example: that sentence
> can have quite different connotations when read aloud; depending on
whether it
> is read with or without emphasis on the word "is".)
>
> In addition, "Spoken" English, and "written" English are actually
_separate_
> languages. (This is true, by the way, of many languages besides English.)
> The 'rules' are generally similar, but there are significant differences.
>
> Traditional USENET style is much closer to the spoken word than formal
writing,
> but without the benefit of inflection, intonation, emphasis, accent, and
the
> raft of other 'hints' present in actual verbalizations. Attempting to
convey
> such nuances leads to use of lots of "supplemental grammatical symbols".
>
> Yes, one _could_ regard this as a "smart-ASCII" answer. *grin*
>
>
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> I stated that there was not an "exact relationship between points and
inches."
True. You stated that it was an approximation.
>
> To clarify:
> 0) "what's the definition of a 'point'?" "1/12 of a 'pica'"
> 1) "What's the definition of a 'pica'?" "THAT big (pointing)"
> 2) "How long is it?" "exactly 1 pica"
> 3) "What's that in inches?" "Measured as .166044 +/- .0000005
in."
> 4) "What's that in millimeters?" "Measured as 4.21752 +/- .000005
mm"
> 5) "Why not an exact value?" "it's *NOT* defined in terms of
any
> other physical unit"
Now you claim that it is not an approximation.
>
> EVERYTHING I have said is absolutely consistent with those facts.
Very true. You have been, and continue to, go back and forth.
You will not stick to one story. Which is it? Are you a puzzle maker by
chance?