Over the years, I have acquired several metal rulers, some of them, very
detailed.
However, while they are engraved, it's become very difficult to read the
increments on the rulers.
Anyone have any ideas on how I could re-ink the rulers to bring back the
contrast? (How do they do it at the factory?)
James...
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Amused" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Over the years, I have acquired several metal rulers, some of them, very
>>detailed.
>>
>>However, while they are engraved, it's become very difficult to read the
>>increments on the rulers.
>>
>>Anyone have any ideas on how I could re-ink the rulers to bring back the
>>contrast? (How do they do it at the factory?)
>>
>>James...
>
>
> They're rules..not rulers. I seldom comment on grammar or typos, but this one is
> as wide-spread as 'irregardless', the use of which makes my skin crawl.
> Sorry about that Amused..*IF* that's your real name <G>
>
> Rules. I bought 2 of these from Lee Valley some 20 years ago;
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=1&p=32567&cat=1,43513
> I guard them like the last line of cocaine at a Willy Nelson concert.
>
> I'm, totally obsessional about these rules, I'd die without them. When I lose
> track of one of them, I get cold chills.
> The biggest deal about them is that the end, is the end, and therefore the first
> increment actually measures that 1/8 or 1/16 indicated. They also mark up real
> nice with pencil, and wipe clean easily with a little methyl hydrate.
>
> Highly recommended. Just don't even THINK about touching mine.
>
> *growls*
Don't even THINK of calling them "rulers" or "rules" in front of a
machinist or aircraft mechanic. They are "scales".
Dale Scroggins
"Dale Scroggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> Don't even THINK of calling them "rulers" or "rules" in front of a
> machinist or aircraft mechanic. They are "scales".
IIRC a rule has one measurement. A scale had multiple scales of
measurement. No?
A halyard holds the sails up. Sheets hold the sails in (trim them and
hold them to catch the wind). Lines are both the bits of rope that
hold the boat to the wharf (pier or dock, can also be called warps) and
what a boat looks like (as in she's got nice lines). Rope is what is
waiting to be used as something useful, like sheets, lines, or
halyards. Generally found with the ships cat sleeping on it.
"Amused" <[email protected]> wrote
> Over the years, I have acquired several metal rulers, some of them, very
> detailed.
>
> However, while they are engraved, it's become very difficult to read the
> increments on the rulers.
>
> Anyone have any ideas on how I could re-ink the rulers to bring back the
> contrast? (How do they do it at the factory?)
Try to obtain a stick of 'Engraver's Black', something similar to the sticks
of red sealing wax. Probably obtainable from a polish supplier.
I assume that the ruler should be gently heated and the stick rubbed over
the gravings
Jeff G
--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net
Swingman nonetheless and irregardless of sound principle hoists his
petard against pedants, and says:
"As long as a word communicates it is "real", and only the pedants get
their panties twisted."
But if by "pedants" you mean people who are smarter than you are,
perhaps you ought to give them a listen. They might have good reason.
Good reasoning is "real" too.
Regardlessly yours, and with panties feeling great,
H
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Amused" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I figure it was a lithium kind of day, and his prescription had expired.
>
> Now was there any reason for this?
> If you can't take a friendly, constructive jab on the upper arm, maybe your
> daddy hasn't taught you how to play with others?
>
> A king is a ruler.
> A rule is a measuring device.
Then there's college ruled paper:
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~parker/college-ruled-paper.html
To paint something, use a painter.
To rule something, use a ruler.
:q
Swingman wrote:
"As long as a word communicates it is "real", and only the pedants get
their
panties twisted."
> "hylourgos" wrote in message
>
> > But if by "pedants" you mean people who are smarter than you are,
> > perhaps you ought to give them a listen. They might have good reason.
> > Good reasoning is "real" too.
> >
> > Regardlessly yours, and with panties feeling great,
>
> If you don't know what I meant by the word "pedant", look it up, in any
> dictionary, then check your panties again.
Knowing the etymology for pedant is more useful than looking up some
lexicographer's entry. My panties are still pretty and dry, but at my
age I appreciate your interest anyway.
And since you're the one who used the word with negative connotations
despite its rather positive etymology, perhaps you ought to tell us why
you don't like pedants, or at least why we shouldn't listen to them.
You might also note the tone of my post above, especially as it begins
(and which you unwisely and w/o attribution snipped: "Swingman
nonetheless and irregardless of sound principle hoists his
petard against pedants, and says:"). It was, in other words, meant as a
gentle and facetious response to your nonsensical assertion. If you
prefer to make this into a serious argument about words and
definitions, hey, I'm game.
H.
sondar wrote:
> I was taught that a rule is for measuring with and a ruler is for
> drawing lines with. Granted that was 50-odd years ago, but I
> see no reason to change.
May as well pitch in my $.02.
According to my drafting class (about 10 years back), you measure with a
scale and draw lines with a straightedge.
Chris
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "noonenparticular" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> but this one is
> >>
> >>>as wide-spread as 'irregardless', the use of which makes my skin crawl.
> >>
> >>
> >>What's wrong with irregardless?
> >
> >
> > The word doesn't exist.
>
> If it is in the dictionary and it now is in some,
> it is a word. Nonetheless, what's wrong with it
> is using it marks one as an ignorant person.
It used to be safe to consider that if a word was in the dictionary, it was
a real word, but these days that measurement can't be trusted. Look up the
word "Ax" in the dictionary - use dictionary.com and if memory serves me
correctly, try webster.com. That a word shows up in the dictionary is not
really proof it's a proper word. Words are sometimes defined in the
dictionary as improper variations of a "real" word.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Brooks Moses wrote:
> Amused wrote:
>
>> However, I have no clue what he's on about with the "rule" and "ruler"
>> business. I checked definitions. I even looked at some Brit sites,
>> just in case it was one of those "separated by a common language"
>> thingee. No joy.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure it's one of those things like the difference between
> "ropes" and "lines" on a ship. Talking about the rope that holds the
> sails up is a sure mark of a non-sailor, even though it's perfectly fine
> by the dictionary definitions.
>
> I'm not sure if the "rule"/"ruler" thing applies to most old-time
> professional carpenters, or if it's just Robatoy, though.
>
> - Brooks
>
>
Woodworking books use rule. Also saying you have
a 10 foot tape ruler sounds really strange, as
does "6-foot wooden folding ruler."
Ruler is for kid, rule is for grownups.
Amused wrote:
> However, I have no clue what he's on about with the "rule" and "ruler"
> business. I checked definitions. I even looked at some Brit sites, just in
> case it was one of those "separated by a common language" thingee. No joy.
I'm pretty sure it's one of those things like the difference between
"ropes" and "lines" on a ship. Talking about the rope that holds the
sails up is a sure mark of a non-sailor, even though it's perfectly fine
by the dictionary definitions.
I'm not sure if the "rule"/"ruler" thing applies to most old-time
professional carpenters, or if it's just Robatoy, though.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:12:51 GMT, "Pop" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Personally, I enjoyed the article and have found
>verification/confirmation plus more details very easy to find.
Electrolysis using a stainless steel electrode in a 12V tank is _not_
going to produce hexavalent chromium. Please cite any reputable
reference that claims otherwise.
Leon wrote:
> "Dale Scroggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>
>>Don't even THINK of calling them "rulers" or "rules" in front of a
>>machinist or aircraft mechanic. They are "scales".
>
>
>
> IIRC a rule has one measurement. A scale had multiple scales of
> measurement. No?
>
>
Nope, think architects or engineers rule--the
three sided kind.
Leon wrote:
> "Dale Scroggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>
>>Don't even THINK of calling them "rulers" or "rules" in front of a
>>machinist or aircraft mechanic. They are "scales".
>
>
>
> IIRC a rule has one measurement. A scale had multiple scales of
> measurement. No?
>
>
As I recall, scales have incised lines for units and their divisions.
These aid in setting dividers accurately. Drafters, machinists, and
aircraft mechanics often use dividers, thus the preference for the term
"scale", I suppose. Machinist and mechanic scales always include
decimal divisions, but may only measure inches; those used by
woodworkers often do not include decimal divisions. Nowadays many do
have metric units along with inches (here in the U.S.), but many of my
older ones (35+ years) only measure inches. And were called scales when
I bought them.
Dale Scroggins
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>If there is a point to this, would you mind getting to it?
>>
>>All you just proved is that there are others with bad language skills.
>
>
> No - He (IMHO) defended your statement, by looking at both common
> usage and companies I consider to be authorities.
>
> Look at those that say the proper term is "rule" and not "ruler":
>
> General
> Stanley
> Lufkin
> Starrett
>
> *I* consider (most of) these to be authorities. They probably made the
> "rule" you are using. And they *agree* with you.
>
> I think you owe Amused an apology for backing up your claim with more
> than opinion, and doing it in a way that was polite and allows people
> to make up their own mind.
>
> Thank you, Amused, for providing some facts and resolving the issue -
> in my mind. Or course, if you consider Rhinotools or The Ruler
> Company to be an authority, you may have a different opinion. That's
> okay as well.
>
> We are allowed to pick those we consider to be authorities, and to
> make up our own mind based on that.
Sure you are, doesn't mean you will be right.
Toolmakers may well go along with a popular shift
in language usage. Look to the practitioners of
specific technologies for terminology. Some are a
little arcane, but the terms are usually developed
to avoid misunderstandings.
For example, people here often describe something
using the terms front and rear of a table saw,
which no one seems to agree on. Of course not,
there is no front and not rear to a table saw,
there is, however an infeed and an outfeed that is
clear to anyone.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 15:13:54 -0600, "Amused" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>This article is very long, but detailed.
>http://users.andara.com/~pspencer/nsaeta/electrolysis.html
Shame it's so ignorant - there are better guides around. The hexavalent
chromium scare is flown again, and apparently you can clean aluminium if
you're careful (you can't).
Good process, but a bad page on it.
Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>According to my drafting class (about 10 years back), you measure with a
>scale and draw lines with a straightedge.
Pencil works better.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"noonenparticular" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> but this one is
>> as wide-spread as 'irregardless', the use of which makes my skin crawl.
>
>
> What's wrong with irregardless?
>
It should be "regardless". <shrug>
However, I have no clue what he's on about with the "rule" and "ruler"
business. I checked definitions. I even looked at some Brit sites, just in
case it was one of those "separated by a common language" thingee. No joy.
I figure it was a lithium kind of day, and his prescription had expired.
Either that or he has a REALLY bad skin condition.
James..
I always get hung up on "capitol" and "capital".
"If there is a 50/50 choice to be made, 90 percent of the time, you'll make
the wrong choice. It'll probably take years of analysis to prove that the
other 10 percent were wrong, too." Unwritten rule #8 of statistical
analysis.
alexy wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce Barnett wrote:
>>
>>>"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>For example, people here often describe something using the terms
>>>>front and rear of a table saw, which no one seems to agree on. Of
>>>>course not, there is no front and not rear to a table saw, there is,
>>>>however an infeed and an outfeed that is clear to anyone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That may be, but IMHO those that MAKE the tools can tell us what the
>>>proper name is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Maybe? You sound like the idiot in the phone
>>advertisement where he says he is sticking it to
>>the man. Top, bottom, front, rear, left, right,
>>etc. are often used as descriptors when they are
>>inappropriate and meaningless to the item
>>described.
>
> Best example I saw of that was some oil-absorbent material. It was not
> the usual kaolin, but some very light powder. The manufacturer claimed
> it was lighter than air. Even though I had no oil drips on the ceiling
> of my garage, I went ahead and bought it, confident that I could
> capture the package contents before they floated off, and force them
> down to the garage floor! <g>
Har! :)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Whose dictionary?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881524396/102-0998583-3313728?v=glance&n=283155
>
> As long as a word communicates it is "real", and only the pedants get
> their
> panties twisted.
Yeah... A friend and I were conversating. LOL I think it is when you try
to define the word it gets tricky.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "noonenparticular" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>but this one is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>as wide-spread as 'irregardless', the use of which makes my skin crawl.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's wrong with irregardless?
>>>
>>>
>>>The word doesn't exist.
>>
>>If it is in the dictionary and it now is in some,
>>it is a word. Nonetheless, what's wrong with it
>>is using it marks one as an ignorant person.
>
>
> It used to be safe to consider that if a word was in the dictionary, it was
> a real word, but these days that measurement can't be trusted. Look up the
> word "Ax" in the dictionary - use dictionary.com and if memory serves me
> correctly, try webster.com. That a word shows up in the dictionary is not
> really proof it's a proper word. Words are sometimes defined in the
> dictionary as improper variations of a "real" word.
>
Trust, there is nothing to trust. A dictionary
just catalogs use. Are you saying that new
dictionaries "lie" about use?
What is a proper word? you mean a word used
properly, an acceptable spelling? Not sure what
you mean by a proper word.
How do you define what a word is and is not?
Simple, any combination of sounds or letters in
written form that coveys some meaning (which means
there is some agreement on the meaning by a group
of people) is a word. And dictionaries usually
define the type of use, e.g., colloquial, slang,
regional, rare, standard, substandard, etc.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Amused" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> http://www.rulerco.co.uk/rulers/ruler.html
>> This British company calls them "rulers". Under "metal rulers" you can
>> see
>> several examples of what I'm talking about.
>>
>> http://www.generaltools.com/directory.asp?action=ppage&pnum=29§ionid=3
>> General tools calls them steel "rules". (Not surprisingly, neither of
>> my
>> two old examples are listed.)
>>
>> http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?TYPE=CATEGORY&CATEGORY=MEASURING+TOOLS
>> Stanley calls their steel tapes, "rules"
>>
>> http://www.brownandsharpe.com/index.asp
>> I have one example of a Brown and Sharpe , but apparently they no longer
>> manufacture and steel rules or rulers, as the case may be.
>>
>> (In searching some old attic boxes, yesterday afternoon, I happened upon
>> a
>> Brown & Sharpe #4 rule(r), in pristine condition. I have no idea where I
>> acquired it. Double sided, it has four scales, graduated in 1/8, 1/16,
>> 1/32
>> and 1/64's. It is heavy like steel, but has some type of anodized or
>> brushed surface, and presents with a light gun-metal gray surface with
>> black
>> printing. It does not appear to be engraved.)
>>
>>
>> http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/tools.asp?tool=hand&Group_ID=1120&store=snapon-
>> store
>> Snap-On tools refers to them as "steel rules" in their online catalog,
>> but
>> calls them "rulers" in their stock listings
>>
>> http://www.gaebel.com/SSOneZ.htm
>> Gaebel calls them "steel rulers"
>>
>> http://www.dickblick.com/categories/rulers/
>> I have a Fairgate 24" zero-center rule, that I use often. It says so
>> right
>> on it. However, on their WEB site, they are all referred to as "rulers"
>>
>> http://www.draftingsteals.com/catalog-rulers---measuring-aides-aluminum-straig
>> htedge-rules.html
>> Lufkin consistently refers to them a "rules" including the folding rules.
>>
>> http://www.rhinotools.com/rhinoRulers.html
>> Rhino consistently refers to both "folding rulers" and their steel tapes
>> as
>> "rulers"
>>
>> http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groups.asp?GroupID=210
>> Starrett consistently refers to "rules" in all instances.
>>
>> Phillip Stanley, in his "Source Book for Rule Collector" says that "rule"
>> is
>> proper in all instances, except for school "rulers"
>
> If there is a point to this, would you mind getting to it?
>
> All you just proved is that there are others with bad language skills.
Consider,
"Precise rules are necessary for precision work."
"Precise rulers are necessary for precision work."
Does precision in language trump precision in communication? I would submit
that in this particular case (admittedly a contrived example), a rigid
adherence to a specialized definition, could well create confusion in a
non-specialized audience.
If you feel the need, you may express your opinion at length and I would
stipulate that whatever opinion you express would have it's passionate
defenders, only noting that entirely opposite opinions would be able to
muster supporters, too.
BTW, the only reason I've bothered with all the research is that I happen to
believe that precision in language is important, as long as a rigid
adherence to the rules is not used as a bludgeon to stop all language
development.
So, after some research, I am quite prepared to accept that "rules" is
probably preferred, in some arenas, but would argue that "rulers" is
accepted in others. (It's a machinist's rule, it's a graphic artist's
ruler)
I remain unconvinced that in the general USENET format, (specifically
rec.woodworking) "rule" is superior to "ruler". I am willing to accept that
in another NG, rec.machinist (if there is such a group) "ruler" might be
totally unacceptable.
However, a question does emerge.
"Why would "rulers" be considered correct in schools, (a primary training
arena for language), but incorrect in all other applications?"
James...
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>That may be, but IMHO those that MAKE the tools can tell us what the
>>>proper name is.
>>
>>The people that write the words (advertisements, instruction manuals,
>>etc.) often don't know anything about the tool or how to use it, and
>>the writers get confused and may make mix ups, especially if the
>>writings are not reviewed by the real technicians.
>
>
> Starrett sells rules. Stanley sells rules. They are allowed to tell us
> what the NAME of the product is. Who said anything about
> advertisements or instruction manuals? Sheesh!
>
>
>>You sound like the idiot in the phone advertisement where he
>>says he is sticking it to the man.
>
>
> I don't go around making up names for the products I buy.
> I can hear it now.
>
> George: How do you like my new BMW?
> Fred: It says Hyundai.
> George: That's those writers they hire. They always get
> confused and mixed up.
>
>
>
Very interesting, have you had your meds for the
day? Or do you always randomly mix up things?
"Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b2qDf.5036$J81.4569@trndny01...
> What I did.... I cleaned the ruller very well with a tooth brush and
> laquer thinner, washed it off thus removing any left over paint. CLeaned
> it again with alcohol, let it dry. painted it with black spray paint and
> let it dry. After it was dry I used 0000 steel wool and removed the paint
> but left the paint in the scribed lines and numbers. When I was finished
> the metal was clean and the numbers were nice and dark. THen I sprayed
> clear lacquer over the whole ruler.
>
> Searcher
I will do one of the rulers this afternoon!
SNIP
>
> "Why would "rulers" be considered correct in schools, (a primary training
> arena for language), but incorrect in all other applications?"
>
> James...
>
Schools are funny things. In Oz they teach the kids to do measurements
in centimetres. Very few "real world" uses, with the exception of
fabrics and possibly a few others.
All most all trades use millimetres and metres. The Cabinet trade uses
Millimetres or "mils". eg, 2400 mil, Building uses metres eg 2.4
Regards
John
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 15:13:54 -0600, "Amused"
<[email protected]>
: wrote:
:
: >This article is very long, but detailed.
: >http://users.andara.com/~pspencer/nsaeta/electrolysis.html
:
: Shame it's so ignorant - there are better guides around. The
hexavalent
: chromium scare is flown again, and apparently you can clean
aluminium if
: you're careful (you can't).
:
: Good process, but a bad page on it.
Good destructive criticism, too; got anything along the lines of
positive criticism? Or don't you know what that means?
Personally, I enjoyed the article and have found
verification/confirmation plus more details very easy to find.
Pop
No.
"Dale Scroggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:74%Df.40725
>Machinist and mechanic scales always include
> decimal divisions,
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Amused wrote:
> ((snipped))
>>
>> Consider,
>>
>> "Precise rules are necessary for precision work."
>>
>> "Precise rulers are necessary for precision work."
>>
>> Does precision in language trump precision in communication? I would
>> submit that in this particular case (admittedly a contrived example), a
>> rigid adherence to a specialized definition, could well create confusion
>> in a non-specialized audience.
>>
>> If you feel the need, you may express your opinion at length and I would
>> stipulate that whatever opinion you express would have it's passionate
>> defenders, only noting that entirely opposite opinions would be able to
>> muster supporters, too.
>>
>> BTW, the only reason I've bothered with all the research is that I happen
>> to believe that precision in language is important, as long as a rigid
>> adherence to the rules is not used as a bludgeon to stop all language
>> development.
>>
>> So, after some research, I am quite prepared to accept that "rules" is
>> probably preferred, in some arenas, but would argue that "rulers" is
>> accepted in others. (It's a machinist's rule, it's a graphic artist's
>> ruler)
>>
>> I remain unconvinced that in the general USENET format, (specifically
>> rec.woodworking) "rule" is superior to "ruler". I am willing to accept
>> that in another NG, rec.machinist (if there is such a group) "ruler"
>> might be totally unacceptable.
>>
>> However, a question does emerge.
>>
>> "Why would "rulers" be considered correct in schools, (a primary training
>> arena for language), but incorrect in all other applications?"
>>
>> James...
>
> I started to make a list of answers to your last question but it became
> too surreal.
>
> For example, teachers are the rulers in school so call the stick of wood a
> ruler and use it to enforce the rules.
>
> Won't bother to add more.
Boy oh, boy.
In some academic circles, that care about that kind of thing, it seems that
there is a developing theory that language
mutation/migration/development/whatever is accomplished by ... females.
Females traditionally, and still, are the primary source of language
learning, and in addition, females are still the primary teachers in the
lower school grades when most of the language is learned.
Can you see it coming, now?
Most non-technical females probably wouldn't know about a rule/ruler
specialized definition, and it wouldn't be until much later in the
educational process, when highly trained technical males assume control of
the training, maybe even in a post-secondary training, when the distinction
would be made. For everyone not in those particular disciplines, there is
every likelihood that they would have never be exposed to proper
definitions. That would also provide one possible explanation why, in some
of the "softer" disciplines, where precision is not so emphasized, that the
distinction is not as recognized as in some other disciplines.
BTW, this particular theory is mine, alone, developed from an afternoon
reading various language development sites. I wouldn't want to share it in
any serious psychological newsgroup for fear of inducing catatonic howls of
laughter.
Well, it's a working theory until a better one comes along.
Disconnect...
I've been reading a ShopNotes article on using electrolysis to clean rusty
steel tools. I have all the necessary equipment, except "washing soda",
(NOT detergent!) I have no idea what that is, nor does SWMBO. Tomorrow, I
will visit the local store and see if anyone THERE knows what it is.
http://www.rulerco.co.uk/rulers/ruler.html
This British company calls them "rulers". Under "metal rulers" you can see
several examples of what I'm talking about.
http://www.generaltools.com/directory.asp?action=ppage&pnum=29§ionid=3
General tools calls them steel "rules". (Not surprisingly, neither of my
two old examples are listed.)
http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?TYPE=CATEGORY&CATEGORY=MEASURING+TOOLS
Stanley calls their steel tapes, "rules"
http://www.brownandsharpe.com/index.asp
I have one example of a Brown and Sharpe , but apparently they no longer
manufacture and steel rules or rulers, as the case may be.
(In searching some old attic boxes, yesterday afternoon, I happened upon a
Brown & Sharpe #4 rule(r), in pristine condition. I have no idea where I
acquired it. Double sided, it has four scales, graduated in 1/8, 1/16, 1/32
and 1/64's. It is heavy like steel, but has some type of anodized or
brushed surface, and presents with a light gun-metal gray surface with black
printing. It does not appear to be engraved.)
http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/tools.asp?tool=hand&Group_ID=1120&store=snapon-store
Snap-On tools refers to them as "steel rules" in their online catalog, but
calls them "rulers" in their stock listings
http://www.gaebel.com/SSOneZ.htm
Gaebel calls them "steel rulers"
http://www.dickblick.com/categories/rulers/
I have a Fairgate 24" zero-center rule, that I use often. It says so right
on it. However, on their WEB site, they are all referred to as "rulers"
http://www.draftingsteals.com/catalog-rulers---measuring-aides-aluminum-straightedge-rules.html
Lufkin consistently refers to them a "rules" including the folding rules.
http://www.rhinotools.com/rhinoRulers.html
Rhino consistently refers to both "folding rulers" and their steel tapes as
"rulers"
http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groups.asp?GroupID=210
Starrett consistently refers to "rules" in all instances.
Phillip Stanley, in his "Source Book for Rule Collector" says that "rule" is
proper in all instances, except for school "rulers"
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "noonenparticular" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> but this one is
>>
>>>as wide-spread as 'irregardless', the use of which makes my skin crawl.
>>
>>
>>What's wrong with irregardless?
>
>
> The word doesn't exist.
If it is in the dictionary and it now is in some,
it is a word. Nonetheless, what's wrong with it
is using it marks one as an ignorant person.
J T wrote:
> Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 6:54am (EST+5) [email protected]
> (George E. Cawthon) doth irregardlessly burble:
> If it is in the dictionary and it now is in some, it is a word.
> Nonetheless, what's wrong with it is using it marks one as an ignorant
> person.
>
> Wouldn't "irregardless" be more proper than "nonetheless"?
>
>
>
> JOAT
> Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.
>
Hardly, nonetheless is an old well established
adverb, while irregardless is nonstandard. Guess
you don't use a dictionary much!
Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 6:54am (EST+5) [email protected]
(George=A0E.=A0Cawthon) doth irregardlessly burble:
If it is in the dictionary and it now is in some, it is a word.
Nonetheless, what's wrong with it is using it marks one as an ignorant
person.
Wouldn't "irregardless" be more proper than "nonetheless"?
JOAT
Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.
Amused wrote:
> "Amused" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Over the years, I have acquired several metal rulers, some of them, very
>>detailed.
>>
>
>
> I received several useful suggestions, but stumbled on a solution, that is
> awesome.
>
> Shop Notes had an article on using electrolysis to clean steel tools.
> Sounds crazy, I know, but I tried it this afternoon and it worked amazingly
> well.
>
> Using a auto battery charger, you immerse the steel tool in a solution of
> water an sodium carbonate, (a water softener found in cheaper detergents)
> and BINGO. In an hour or so, the tool is covered in a black soot-like gunk.
> Rinse and scrub lightly with a scotch brite, and the tool LOOKS BRAND NEW.
> I've done two rules this afternoon, with tremendous success. The numbers
> pop out on the shiny *new* surface. (It will not "fill in pits" but they
> won't have any rust in them, either)
>
> This morning, I "cleaned" an old Craftsman block plane. (You have to remove
> any wood or brass parts, BTW) Again, it took two hours but the results were
> most pleasing.
>
> CAUTION: We're talking water and electricity here. If you do something
> stupid, it's gonna hurt!
>
> This article is very long, but detailed.
> http://users.andara.com/~pspencer/nsaeta/electrolysis.html
>
>
I read some of that article. Hexavalent chromium was mentioned, which
IIRC was the subject of "Erin Brockovich". Not such a good byproduct of
when stainless steel and electolysis meet!
dave
Leon wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3gDDf.313767$qk4.183027@bgtnsc05->>
>
>
>>Woodworking books use rule. Also saying you have a 10 foot tape ruler
>>sounds really strange,
>
>
> As does 10 foot tape rule. Now 10' tape measure sounds correct.
>
>
Depends on your associates and associations as you
grew up. I use tape measure, but tape rule sounds
ok.
You brought up a good point because people here
are discussing rule or ruler, and the use is
obviously slipping toward ruler, but an even
greater slip is from rule or ruler toward measure.
In everyday life, for most Americans (BTW that
is the appropriate shortening for people who are
citizens of the United States of America)
rules and rulers are not used for making lines (a
basic idea of rule) but for measuring. I would
suspect that "measure" will slip into the name of
every type of measurement device unless something
else is obvious and shorter.
What I did.... I cleaned the ruller very well with a tooth brush and laquer
thinner, washed it off thus removing any left over paint. CLeaned it again
with alcohol, let it dry. painted it with black spray paint and let it dry.
After it was dry I used 0000 steel wool and removed the paint but left the
paint in the scribed lines and numbers. When I was finished the metal was
clean and the numbers were nice and dark. THen I sprayed clear lacquer over
the whole ruler.
Searcher
Mon, Jan 30, 2006, 3:13pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Searcher) doth
explain:
What I did.... <snip of complex and detailed stuff>
Or, slather it with a brush full of paint, wipe off the excess. No
prob.
JOAT
Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.
I know Robatoy, I'm just allowing you to rant. ;-)
jc
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "noonenparticular" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> but this one is
>> > as wide-spread as 'irregardless', the use of which makes my skin crawl.
>>
>>
>> What's wrong with irregardless?
>
> The word doesn't exist.
"Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b2qDf.5036$J81.4569@trndny01...
> What I did.... I cleaned the ruller very well with a tooth brush and
> laquer thinner, washed it off thus removing any left over paint. CLeaned
> it again with alcohol, let it dry. painted it with black spray paint and
> let it dry. After it was dry I used 0000 steel wool and removed the paint
> but left the paint in the scribed lines and numbers. When I was finished
> the metal was clean and the numbers were nice and dark. THen I sprayed
> clear lacquer over the whole ruler.
>
> Searcher
finally someone who knows what they are doing..........kudos
In article <1%[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dale Scroggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
> >
> > Don't even THINK of calling them "rulers" or "rules" in front of a
> > machinist or aircraft mechanic. They are "scales".
>
>
> IIRC a rule has one measurement. A scale had multiple scales of
> measurement. No?
I suppose a scale could have just one set of ratios, but the ones all over my
desk are triangular and have many ratios, in metric and in Imperial.
Taking info off drawings, as I often do, makes it obvious that the scale of
drawings have lost a lot of accuracy over the years.
I have backwards traced why some of that happens.
In the old days, a drawing was made to scale then copied 1 : 1 in a blue print
machine. The scale remained intact. Now, with CAD generated drawings, the
relative scale remains intact, but the absolute scale can vary quite a bit
depending on the digitized version of the originals. I have a client who has his
raster density set for his plotter, and he sends his files to me via e-mail
where mine has a HP engine and his a Canon (300 basic DPI and multiples thereof
vs 360 DPI) and sure-as-shit, his stuff is always off by 20%.
My large format (bigger than C) plotter print shop always asks for a 50cm
reference line so that my drawings are at least true to my manual scales.
Architects have little problem with things like that, but the rogue "kitchen
designer" who has bought a CAD package for a few hundred dollars are not to be
trusted when it comes to scale.
And all along I thought that scale was what the union said what I should get
paid for doing a gig. :)
In article <[email protected]>,
Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you owe Amused an apology for backing up your claim with more
> than opinion, and doing it in a way that was polite and allows people
> to make up their own mind.
I might consider that once I get an explanation why he felt the need to call me
a schizophrenic with a skin condition after my making a comment on word usage.
In article <[email protected]>,
Brooks Moses <[email protected]> wrote:
> Amused wrote:
> > However, I have no clue what he's on about with the "rule" and "ruler"
> > business. I checked definitions. I even looked at some Brit sites, just
> > in
> > case it was one of those "separated by a common language" thingee. No joy.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's one of those things like the difference between
> "ropes" and "lines" on a ship. Talking about the rope that holds the
> sails up is a sure mark of a non-sailor, even though it's perfectly fine
> by the dictionary definitions.
They'd be called sheets? Foot ropes and a bell rope. The rest are sheets AFAIK
Where is Lew when you need him?
>
> I'm not sure if the "rule"/"ruler" thing applies to most old-time
> professional carpenters, or if it's just Robatoy, though.
I'm one of the younger ones in this group, Brooks, so it must just be me? :)
In article <[email protected]>,
"Amused" <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.rulerco.co.uk/rulers/ruler.html
> This British company calls them "rulers". Under "metal rulers" you can see
> several examples of what I'm talking about.
>
> http://www.generaltools.com/directory.asp?action=ppage&pnum=29§ionid=3
> General tools calls them steel "rules". (Not surprisingly, neither of my
> two old examples are listed.)
>
> http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?TYPE=CATEGORY&CATEGORY=MEASURING+TOOLS
> Stanley calls their steel tapes, "rules"
>
> http://www.brownandsharpe.com/index.asp
> I have one example of a Brown and Sharpe , but apparently they no longer
> manufacture and steel rules or rulers, as the case may be.
>
> (In searching some old attic boxes, yesterday afternoon, I happened upon a
> Brown & Sharpe #4 rule(r), in pristine condition. I have no idea where I
> acquired it. Double sided, it has four scales, graduated in 1/8, 1/16, 1/32
> and 1/64's. It is heavy like steel, but has some type of anodized or
> brushed surface, and presents with a light gun-metal gray surface with black
> printing. It does not appear to be engraved.)
>
>
> http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/tools.asp?tool=hand&Group_ID=1120&store=snapon-
> store
> Snap-On tools refers to them as "steel rules" in their online catalog, but
> calls them "rulers" in their stock listings
>
> http://www.gaebel.com/SSOneZ.htm
> Gaebel calls them "steel rulers"
>
> http://www.dickblick.com/categories/rulers/
> I have a Fairgate 24" zero-center rule, that I use often. It says so right
> on it. However, on their WEB site, they are all referred to as "rulers"
>
> http://www.draftingsteals.com/catalog-rulers---measuring-aides-aluminum-straig
> htedge-rules.html
> Lufkin consistently refers to them a "rules" including the folding rules.
>
> http://www.rhinotools.com/rhinoRulers.html
> Rhino consistently refers to both "folding rulers" and their steel tapes as
> "rulers"
>
> http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groups.asp?GroupID=210
> Starrett consistently refers to "rules" in all instances.
>
> Phillip Stanley, in his "Source Book for Rule Collector" says that "rule" is
> proper in all instances, except for school "rulers"
If there is a point to this, would you mind getting to it?
All you just proved is that there are others with bad language skills.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Amused" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Over the years, I have acquired several metal rulers, some of them, very
> detailed.
>
> However, while they are engraved, it's become very difficult to read the
> increments on the rulers.
>
> Anyone have any ideas on how I could re-ink the rulers to bring back the
> contrast? (How do they do it at the factory?)
>
> James...
They're rules..not rulers. I seldom comment on grammar or typos, but this one is
as wide-spread as 'irregardless', the use of which makes my skin crawl.
Sorry about that Amused..*IF* that's your real name <G>
Rules. I bought 2 of these from Lee Valley some 20 years ago;
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=1&p=32567&cat=1,43513
I guard them like the last line of cocaine at a Willy Nelson concert.
I'm, totally obsessional about these rules, I'd die without them. When I lose
track of one of them, I get cold chills.
The biggest deal about them is that the end, is the end, and therefore the first
increment actually measures that 1/8 or 1/16 indicated. They also mark up real
nice with pencil, and wipe clean easily with a little methyl hydrate.
Highly recommended. Just don't even THINK about touching mine.
*growls*
In article <[email protected]>,
"Amused" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I figure it was a lithium kind of day, and his prescription had expired.
Now was there any reason for this?
If you can't take a friendly, constructive jab on the upper arm, maybe your
daddy hasn't taught you how to play with others?
A king is a ruler.
A rule is a measuring device.
Hard, eh?
You little puke.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Glenn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> A halyard holds the sails up. Sheets hold the sails in (trim them and
> hold them to catch the wind). Lines are both the bits of rope that
> hold the boat to the wharf (pier or dock, can also be called warps) and
> what a boat looks like (as in she's got nice lines). Rope is what is
> waiting to be used as something useful, like sheets, lines, or
> halyards. Generally found with the ships cat sleeping on it.
Nice! Thank you for that. Especially the image of the cat.
r
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> sondar wrote:
> > I was taught that a rule is for measuring with and a ruler is for
> > drawing lines with. Granted that was 50-odd years ago, but I
> > see no reason to change.
>
> May as well pitch in my $.02.
>
> According to my drafting class (about 10 years back), you measure with a
> scale and draw lines with a straightedge.
>
> Chris
NEVER use a scale to draw a line. ( I have had my knuckles rapped)
In article <[email protected]>,
"noonenparticular" <[email protected]> wrote:
> but this one is
> > as wide-spread as 'irregardless', the use of which makes my skin crawl.
>
>
> What's wrong with irregardless?
The word doesn't exist.
Robatoy <[email protected]> writes:
> If there is a point to this, would you mind getting to it?
>
> All you just proved is that there are others with bad language skills.
No - He (IMHO) defended your statement, by looking at both common
usage and companies I consider to be authorities.
Look at those that say the proper term is "rule" and not "ruler":
General
Stanley
Lufkin
Starrett
*I* consider (most of) these to be authorities. They probably made the
"rule" you are using. And they *agree* with you.
I think you owe Amused an apology for backing up your claim with more
than opinion, and doing it in a way that was polite and allows people
to make up their own mind.
Thank you, Amused, for providing some facts and resolving the issue -
in my mind. Or course, if you consider Rhinotools or The Ruler
Company to be an authority, you may have a different opinion. That's
okay as well.
We are allowed to pick those we consider to be authorities, and to
make up our own mind based on that.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
> For example, people here often describe something using the terms
> front and rear of a table saw, which no one seems to agree on. Of
> course not, there is no front and not rear to a table saw, there is,
> however an infeed and an outfeed that is clear to anyone.
That may be, but IMHO those that MAKE the tools can tell us what the
proper name is.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
>> That may be, but IMHO those that MAKE the tools can tell us what the
>> proper name is.
>
> The people that write the words (advertisements, instruction manuals,
> etc.) often don't know anything about the tool or how to use it, and
> the writers get confused and may make mix ups, especially if the
> writings are not reviewed by the real technicians.
Starrett sells rules. Stanley sells rules. They are allowed to tell us
what the NAME of the product is. Who said anything about
advertisements or instruction manuals? Sheesh!
>You sound like the idiot in the phone advertisement where he
>says he is sticking it to the man.
I don't go around making up names for the products I buy.
I can hear it now.
George: How do you like my new BMW?
Fred: It says Hyundai.
George: That's those writers they hire. They always get
confused and mixed up.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
>> I don't go around making up names for the products I buy.
>> I can hear it now.
>> George: How do you like my new BMW?
>> Fred: It says Hyundai.
>> George: That's those writers they hire. They always get
>> confused and mixed up.
>>
>
> Very interesting, have you had your meds for the day? Or do you
> always randomly mix up things?
I'll use small words for you. American rule makers have been using
the same terms for 160 years. Stanley, Starrett, General and Lufkin
all agree the proper term is "rule." Philip E. Stanley, who has
familiarity with the Stanley family business, is an author of at least
four books about this subject, also says th propr term is "rule."
You disagreed, and responded with
>The people that write the words (advertisements,
>instruction manuals, etc.) often don't know
>anything about the tool or how to use it, and the
>writers get confused and may make mix ups,
>especially if the writings are not reviewed by the
>real technicians.
And then you accuse ME of getting confused? I'm not the one claiming
that Stanley, etc. has been using the wrong term for 160 years, and that
it was never EVER reviewed by "real technicians."
Stanley sells "rules" and has done so for more than 100 years.
They MAKE the tools the technicians use.
You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the NAME of
the product.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
> Definitely confused, because I never claimed that Stanley used the
> wrong term, I never claimed that "rule" was incorrect. In fact I
> suggest the references that you could use to find the acceptable term.
> I suggest you go back in the comment tree to Amused's 1/31 comment
> showing that different manufacturers use different names.
Sigh..
Only Snap-on and DickBlick were inconsistent.
Stanley, Starrett, Lufkin and General all use "rule" consistently, and
I pointed this out. I own products by these manufacturers, and as I
said, I consider them authorities on the subject.
I don't hear people bragging about the Snap-on, DickBlick or Rhino
ruler they own, and I don't consider them authorities.
I said:
> That may be, but IMHO those that MAKE the tools can tell us what the
> proper name is.
----
And you relied:
>Maybe? You sound like the idiot in the phone advertisement where he
>says he is sticking it to the man. Top, bottom, front, rear, left,
>right, etc. are often used as descriptors when they are inappropriate
>and meaningless to the item described. Now you be sure to hold the
>football with the left side nearest you.
So apparently I'm an idiot for considering Stanley et al to be authority.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>I don't go around making up names for the products I buy.
>>>I can hear it now.
>>> George: How do you like my new BMW?
>>> Fred: It says Hyundai.
>>> George: That's those writers they hire. They always get
>>> confused and mixed up.
>>>
>>
>>Very interesting, have you had your meds for the day? Or do you
>>always randomly mix up things?
>
>
> I'll use small words for you. American rule makers have been using
> the same terms for 160 years. Stanley, Starrett, General and Lufkin
> all agree the proper term is "rule." Philip E. Stanley, who has
> familiarity with the Stanley family business, is an author of at least
> four books about this subject, also says th propr term is "rule."
>
>
> You disagreed, and responded with
>
>
>>The people that write the words (advertisements,
>>instruction manuals, etc.) often don't know
>>anything about the tool or how to use it, and the
>>writers get confused and may make mix ups,
>>especially if the writings are not reviewed by the
>>real technicians.
>
>
>
> And then you accuse ME of getting confused? I'm not the one claiming
> that Stanley, etc. has been using the wrong term for 160 years, and that
> it was never EVER reviewed by "real technicians."
>
> Stanley sells "rules" and has done so for more than 100 years.
> They MAKE the tools the technicians use.
> You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the NAME of
> the product.
>
>
Definitely confused, because I never claimed that
Stanley used the wrong term, I never claimed that
"rule" was incorrect. In fact I suggest the
references that you could use to find the
acceptable term. I suggest you go back in the
comment tree to Amused's 1/31 comment showing that
different manufacturers use different names.
This is by far too tedious and you are too
confused to continue.
"hylourgos" wrote in message
> But if by "pedants" you mean people who are smarter than you are,
> perhaps you ought to give them a listen. They might have good reason.
> Good reasoning is "real" too.
>
> Regardlessly yours, and with panties feeling great,
If you don't know what I meant by the word "pedant", look it up, in any
dictionary, then check your panties again.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
Amused wrote:
> "Brooks Moses" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Amused wrote:
>>
>>>However, I have no clue what he's on about with the "rule" and "ruler"
>>>business. I checked definitions. I even looked at some Brit sites, just
>>>in case it was one of those "separated by a common language" thingee. No
>>>joy.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure it's one of those things like the difference between
>>"ropes" and "lines" on a ship. Talking about the rope that holds the
>>sails up is a sure mark of a non-sailor, even though it's perfectly fine
>>by the dictionary definitions.
>>
>>I'm not sure if the "rule"/"ruler" thing applies to most old-time
>>professional carpenters, or if it's just Robatoy, though.
>>
>>- Brooks
>>
>
>
> Interesting. My Dad is a retired cabinet-maker and trim (finish?)
> carpenter, and I'll ask him, if I remember. (I'm pretty certain he's in bed
> by now.)
>
>
Great reference, pick one old guy and believe what
he says. Look in several tool catalogs or books
on carpentry.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Amused wrote:
:
: > "Amused" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: >
: >>Over the years, I have acquired several metal rulers, some of
them, very
: >>detailed.
: >>
: >
: >
: > I received several useful suggestions, but stumbled on a
solution, that is
: > awesome.
: >
: > Shop Notes had an article on using electrolysis to clean
steel tools.
: > Sounds crazy, I know, but I tried it this afternoon and it
worked amazingly
: > well.
: >
: > Using a auto battery charger, you immerse the steel tool in a
solution of
: > water an sodium carbonate, (a water softener found in cheaper
detergents)
: > and BINGO. In an hour or so, the tool is covered in a black
soot-like gunk.
: > Rinse and scrub lightly with a scotch brite, and the tool
LOOKS BRAND NEW.
: > I've done two rules this afternoon, with tremendous success.
The numbers
: > pop out on the shiny *new* surface. (It will not "fill in
pits" but they
: > won't have any rust in them, either)
: >
: > This morning, I "cleaned" an old Craftsman block plane. (You
have to remove
: > any wood or brass parts, BTW) Again, it took two hours but
the results were
: > most pleasing.
: >
: > CAUTION: We're talking water and electricity here. If you
do something
: > stupid, it's gonna hurt!
: >
: > This article is very long, but detailed.
: > http://users.andara.com/~pspencer/nsaeta/electrolysis.html
: >
: >
: I read some of that article. Hexavalent chromium was
mentioned, which
: IIRC was the subject of "Erin Brockovich". Not such a good
byproduct of
: when stainless steel and electolysis meet!
:
: dave
Yeah, that's what the article says. Your point is?
"Amused" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Over the years, I have acquired several metal rulers, some of them, very
> detailed.
>
I received several useful suggestions, but stumbled on a solution, that is
awesome.
Shop Notes had an article on using electrolysis to clean steel tools.
Sounds crazy, I know, but I tried it this afternoon and it worked amazingly
well.
Using a auto battery charger, you immerse the steel tool in a solution of
water an sodium carbonate, (a water softener found in cheaper detergents)
and BINGO. In an hour or so, the tool is covered in a black soot-like gunk.
Rinse and scrub lightly with a scotch brite, and the tool LOOKS BRAND NEW.
I've done two rules this afternoon, with tremendous success. The numbers
pop out on the shiny *new* surface. (It will not "fill in pits" but they
won't have any rust in them, either)
This morning, I "cleaned" an old Craftsman block plane. (You have to remove
any wood or brass parts, BTW) Again, it took two hours but the results were
most pleasing.
CAUTION: We're talking water and electricity here. If you do something
stupid, it's gonna hurt!
This article is very long, but detailed.
http://users.andara.com/~pspencer/nsaeta/electrolysis.html
"mike hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:b2qDf.5036$J81.4569@trndny01...
>> What I did.... I cleaned the ruller very well with a tooth brush and
>> laquer thinner, washed it off thus removing any left over paint. CLeaned
>> it again with alcohol, let it dry. painted it with black spray paint and
>> let it dry. After it was dry I used 0000 steel wool and removed the paint
>> but left the paint in the scribed lines and numbers. When I was finished
>> the metal was clean and the numbers were nice and dark. THen I sprayed
>> clear lacquer over the whole ruler.
>>
>> Searcher
> finally someone who knows what they are doing..........kudos
>
Personal preference, I use gloss white paint but same method. I find it
easier to read the white against the metal background.
Gary
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bruce Barnett wrote:
>> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>For example, people here often describe something using the terms
>>>front and rear of a table saw, which no one seems to agree on. Of
>>>course not, there is no front and not rear to a table saw, there is,
>>>however an infeed and an outfeed that is clear to anyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> That may be, but IMHO those that MAKE the tools can tell us what the
>> proper name is.
>>
>>
>>
>Maybe? You sound like the idiot in the phone
>advertisement where he says he is sticking it to
>the man. Top, bottom, front, rear, left, right,
>etc. are often used as descriptors when they are
>inappropriate and meaningless to the item
>described.
Best example I saw of that was some oil-absorbent material. It was not
the usual kaolin, but some very light powder. The manufacturer claimed
it was lighter than air. Even though I had no oil drips on the ceiling
of my garage, I went ahead and bought it, confident that I could
capture the package contents before they floated off, and force them
down to the garage floor! <g>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> It used to be safe to consider that if a word was in the dictionary, it
was
> a real word, but these days that measurement can't be trusted. Look up
the
> word "Ax" in the dictionary - use dictionary.com and if memory serves me
> correctly, try webster.com. That a word shows up in the dictionary is not
> really proof it's a proper word. Words are sometimes defined in the
> dictionary as improper variations of a "real" word.
Whose dictionary?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881524396/102-0998583-3313728?v=glance&n=283155
As long as a word communicates it is "real", and only the pedants get their
panties twisted.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 7:07am (EST-1) [email protected] (Swingman) wisely
sayeth:
<snip> As long as a word communicates it is "real", and only the pedants
get their panties twisted.
Twisted panties? No big deal. Beats the Hell outa gettin' yer
pendants twisted..
JOAT
Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.
"Brooks Moses" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Amused wrote:
>> However, I have no clue what he's on about with the "rule" and "ruler"
>> business. I checked definitions. I even looked at some Brit sites, just
>> in case it was one of those "separated by a common language" thingee. No
>> joy.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's one of those things like the difference between
> "ropes" and "lines" on a ship. Talking about the rope that holds the
> sails up is a sure mark of a non-sailor, even though it's perfectly fine
> by the dictionary definitions.
>
> I'm not sure if the "rule"/"ruler" thing applies to most old-time
> professional carpenters, or if it's just Robatoy, though.
>
> - Brooks
>
Interesting. My Dad is a retired cabinet-maker and trim (finish?)
carpenter, and I'll ask him, if I remember. (I'm pretty certain he's in bed
by now.)
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>For example, people here often describe something using the terms
>>front and rear of a table saw, which no one seems to agree on. Of
>>course not, there is no front and not rear to a table saw, there is,
>>however an infeed and an outfeed that is clear to anyone.
>
>
>
> That may be, but IMHO those that MAKE the tools can tell us what the
> proper name is.
>
>
>
Maybe? You sound like the idiot in the phone
advertisement where he says he is sticking it to
the man. Top, bottom, front, rear, left, right,
etc. are often used as descriptors when they are
inappropriate and meaningless to the item
described. Now you be sure to hold the football
with the left side nearest you.
The people that write the words (advertisements,
instruction manuals, etc.) often don't know
anything about the tool or how to use it, and the
writers get confused and may make mix ups,
especially if the writings are not reviewed by the
real technicians. Hell, just think of all the
silly and stupid mistakes you find in newspaper
articles about something in your field of
specialization.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3gDDf.313767$qk4.183027@bgtnsc05->>
> Woodworking books use rule. Also saying you have a 10 foot tape ruler
> sounds really strange,
As does 10 foot tape rule. Now 10' tape measure sounds correct.
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 15:13:54 -0600, "Amused" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>This article is very long, but detailed.
>>http://users.andara.com/~pspencer/nsaeta/electrolysis.html
>
> Shame it's so ignorant - there are better guides around. The hexavalent
> chromium scare is flown again, and apparently you can clean aluminium if
> you're careful (you can't).
>
> Good process, but a bad page on it.
Shop Notes #72 is the one I used. I was just searching for a WEB page that
explained the process, and that one came up first.
Pop wrote:
> : I read some of that article. Hexavalent chromium was
> mentioned, which
> : IIRC was the subject of "Erin Brockovich". Not such a good
> byproduct of
> : when stainless steel and electolysis meet!
> :
> : dave
>
>
> Yeah, that's what the article says. Your point is?
>
>
>
uh, "be careful"?
Dave
Amused wrote:
((snipped))
>
> Consider,
>
> "Precise rules are necessary for precision work."
>
> "Precise rulers are necessary for precision work."
>
> Does precision in language trump precision in communication? I would submit
> that in this particular case (admittedly a contrived example), a rigid
> adherence to a specialized definition, could well create confusion in a
> non-specialized audience.
>
> If you feel the need, you may express your opinion at length and I would
> stipulate that whatever opinion you express would have it's passionate
> defenders, only noting that entirely opposite opinions would be able to
> muster supporters, too.
>
> BTW, the only reason I've bothered with all the research is that I happen to
> believe that precision in language is important, as long as a rigid
> adherence to the rules is not used as a bludgeon to stop all language
> development.
>
> So, after some research, I am quite prepared to accept that "rules" is
> probably preferred, in some arenas, but would argue that "rulers" is
> accepted in others. (It's a machinist's rule, it's a graphic artist's
> ruler)
>
> I remain unconvinced that in the general USENET format, (specifically
> rec.woodworking) "rule" is superior to "ruler". I am willing to accept that
> in another NG, rec.machinist (if there is such a group) "ruler" might be
> totally unacceptable.
>
> However, a question does emerge.
>
> "Why would "rulers" be considered correct in schools, (a primary training
> arena for language), but incorrect in all other applications?"
>
> James...
I started to make a list of answers to your last
question but it became too surreal.
For example, teachers are the rulers in school so
call the stick of wood a ruler and use it to
enforce the rules.
Won't bother to add more.
I enjoy the etymology of words and phrases. Many come from the
age of sail.
One of my favorites has always been "3 sheets in the wind". The
true meaning only comes clear when one knows that sheets are lines
that control the angle of a sail. To lose the line over the side,
ripped loose by a strong wind and flying proudly out of reach off
the side of the ship allowing the sail to whip back and forth
creates a strong image. Having 3 sheets flying in the wind and 3
sails out of control . . . ..!!!
(top posted for your convenience)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)
[email protected]
"Glenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>A halyard holds the sails up. Sheets hold the sails in (trim
>them and
> hold them to catch the wind). Lines are both the bits of rope
> that
> hold the boat to the wharf (pier or dock, can also be called
> warps) and
> what a boat looks like (as in she's got nice lines). Rope is
> what is
> waiting to be used as something useful, like sheets, lines, or
> halyards. Generally found with the ships cat sleeping on it.
>
[email protected] wrote:
> One can call day night and night day. That is a privilege accorded to
> those living in a free society. If you wish to know the true meaning
> of a word, there is one source, the Oxford English Dictionary.
>
I think a dictionary was one of the things I
suggested, along with longtime tool makers and
technical books on the techniques that use the tools