Learning process:
Years ago I bought a nice Vernier caliper made by Catic in
China. Made of a very hard stainless steel. As far as I can
tell it matches-up to the graph of figure 3 on this webpage:
http://www.rit.edu/~uphysics/uncertainties/Uncertaintiespart1.html
"A complete vernier caliper". I am glad for this and glad
I found this page. I never figured how to read it beyond the
most basics, as well I have no real education because of
ADHD and two other brain imbalances, not pleasant for me,
39yo.
I love old classic woodworking tools such as handplanes
and chisels and saws. I bought an antique plane blade
and cap-iron assembly ($8, yes tapered and laminated)
and decided to measure the blade's width. I am sure the
Ohio Tool Co. meant for this blade to be 2 1/2 inches but
the reading says less* than 2" and 3/40's plus 17. The 17
is the closest match-up on the "-Vernier scale, does this
mean that the measurement is 2.417 inches? Exact scale
in text:
2" + 2(8/40) + 4(8/40) (=16/40) + less than 3/40 and 17
is match-up on the "-Vernier. or 2"-2-4-less than 3/40
+ 17 = 2.417"?
Metric: 6.2cm + less than 3mm m-Vernier match-up is 31
= 6.231cm, or 62.31 mm, 6.321? (Metric seems simpler!
Big discovery!)
Metric converter for free download: http://vaibhavweb.tripod.com/
So now I used the software to compare, result as shown:
2.417" = 61.3918mm
62.31mm = 2.45314960629921"
6.231cm = 2.45314960629921"
6.2.31cm = 2.44094488188976" (defunct and kaput)
How do you like that beeswax, ay? Or did I get my
decimels in the wrong places?
Many thanks all,
Alex
AArDvarK wrote:
> Learning process:
>
> Years ago I bought a nice Vernier caliper made by Catic in
> China. Made of a very hard stainless steel. As far as I can
> tell it matches-up to the graph of figure 3 on this webpage:
> http://www.rit.edu/~uphysics/uncertainties/Uncertaintiespart1.html
> "A complete vernier caliper". I am glad for this and glad
> I found this page. I never figured how to read it beyond the
> most basics, as well I have no real education because of
> ADHD and two other brain imbalances, not pleasant for me,
> 39yo.
>
> I love old classic woodworking tools such as handplanes
> and chisels and saws. I bought an antique plane blade
> and cap-iron assembly ($8, yes tapered and laminated)
> and decided to measure the blade's width. I am sure the
> Ohio Tool Co. meant for this blade to be 2 1/2 inches but
> the reading says less* than 2" and 3/40's plus 17.
If I understand you, it would be 2" + .075 (3/40) + .017 = 2.092
The 17
> is the closest match-up on the "-Vernier scale, does this
> mean that the measurement is 2.417 inches? Exact scale
> in text:
>
> 2" + 2(8/40) + 4(8/40) (=16/40)
You lost me here
+ less than 3/40 and 17
> is match-up on the "-Vernier. or 2"-2-4-less than 3/40
> + 17 = 2.417"?
>
Instead of referring to x/40, why not just use .025"? 1/40 = .025"
I used to use a vernier all the time, but now everything is digital. A
nice compromise (money wise) is a dial caliper. It's just too damned
easy to misread a vernier. And yes, metric is much easier....
Mark L.
http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/tutorials/measure/