Theme editor

Scale Model Shop

"Not fit for purpose"

Strange that metric system was brought up. As a design engineer, I worked for a British Company, we were totally metric, and I was tasked with designing a gas engine conversion - we made diesel engines, so I had to do different pistons etc etc. As a diesel, there were no spark plugs, or electric ignition system, so I had to work up a system from scratch. I value engineered everything, even going for over specced bearings, as they were the cheapest I could find. It worked nicely, looked elegant & was within budget. UNTIL our US subsidiary started bleating about metric bearings! What was the cheapest bearing in Europe was one of the most expensive in the US, and they had to have a certain percentage of American produced parts to qualify as 'US Made' . The US was geared up to large diesels, and I had to redo the design to use clunky parts designed for engines 3 times the size! All because the US is one of the 3 countries in the world that have not accepted the metric system! ( The other two are Liberia & Myanmar! ). The design looked terrible, patched together with oversized parts - I always kept quiet when anyone asked who has designed the monstrosity! Consolation was that it worked pretty well!
Dave
In my experience North Americans don’t seem to use A4 as a paper standard either. Many years back we were carrying out contract pharmaceutical manufacturer for a Canadian company who (reasonably) wanted copies of all documentation, including SOPs etc. Trouble is, when we sent the electronic copies they wouldn’t format properly on their standard paper, which was smaller. They wanted us to reformat all the docs onto the smaller standard, which was a huge amount of reworking. When the meeting started getting a little “precious “ I suggested a work around which generated a bit of a sense of humour failure . I said “why don’t we scan some blank A4, Fax it over, and then you can photocopy as much as you want for use in printing”……..
 
In my experience North Americans don’t seem to use A4 as a paper standard either.
They’ve got their Letter and Legal standards for paper size, both of which are slightly wider than A4 as well as a bit shorter (Letter) or longer (Legal). Letter is by far the most common, and most American “A4”-size books you may come across, are Letter-size. A4 paper is apparently about as hard to get in North America as Letter paper in much of the rest of the world.

More than you probably care to learn about this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes

I suggested a work around which generated a bit of a sense of humour failure . I said “why don’t we scan some blank A4, Fax it over, and then you can photocopy as much as you want for use in printing”……..
So did they take you up on that offer? ;)
 
Nice and fully enjoyable summer talk!
It gave me the chance to learn another shade of the English language: square meters and meters squared... In Italian there is nothing similar; we just have "metri quadrati" for "square meters" but no equivalent to "meters squared". If we have to say that a number/measure is "squared" we say "...al quadrato" meaning that we are multiplying that number/measure by itself or "...al cubo" when we mean "cube"... but I'm getting tedious so...
... have the most possible fresh day and stay safe.
Andrea.
 
A friend who work in IT support, had a colleague at another site with a problem opening an important file, so he asked them to copy it onto a floppy disk and send it to him (pre internet here). About 10 mins later a picture of a floppy disk appeared on his fax machine
 
It gave me the chance to learn another shade of the English language: square meters and meters squared... In Italian there is nothing similar
Pretty much exactly the same as in Dutch. We have vierkante meters (vierkant meaning “square”, literally “fourside”) which is equivalent to English “square metres” but a translation of “metres squared” would be something like “meter in het vierkant” — which implies the shape under discussion is actually square, or almost so.
 
See 570 ,none of the illustrious members on here will have any idea of the stick method of measurement.
No ruler needed, no tape, just two sticks, one longer than the other a pencil and a note pad.

Now that's the clue so ?
 
See 570 ,none of the illustrious members on here will have any idea of the stick method of measurement.
No ruler needed, no tape, just two sticks, one longer than the other a pencil and a note pad.
Taint measuring, tis fettlin’ boy….
 
I must admit to have never come across it before John. Sounds useful. I did once learn how to measure the distance from earth to the moon using a yardstick and a coin. It was surprisingly accurate as well.
 
I did once learn how to measure the distance from earth to the moon using a yardstick and a coin. It was surprisingly accurate as well.
At a guess: sight along the yardstick towards the moon, move the coin along it so that it covers the whole of the moon exactly, look how far it is on the yardstick, then work out the distance to the moon using that and the diameter of the coin via simple geometry?
 
At a guess: sight along the yardstick towards the moon, move the coin along it so that it covers the whole of the moon exactly, look how far it is on the yardstick, then work out the distance to the moon using that and the diameter of the coin via simple geometry?
mm I just look it up on Wikipedia.

Saves the brain for PE, SA, Cement applications.

Actually I think there is a bend in space which cocks up calculations.
The bend goes around the moon over mars then back to the moon
& just hits the edge of Dover during dusk.

Laurie
 
The sticks & pencil method works just fine even w/o paper if the sticks or the work are flat. Used it several times on the train layout.
 
The sticks & pencil method works just fine even w/o paper if the sticks or the work are flat. Used it several times on the train layout.
[/QUOTE
A man after my own heart.Great to see someone else has knowledge of this method .
 
The sticks & pencil method works just fine even w/o paper if the sticks or the work are flat. Used it several times on the train layout.

More advanced than that.

At school 1943 our only implements were a slate with a wooden surround & a finger of white chalk.
No paper no pencils

Oh yes & a duster to clean the slate. Luxury of of course you could use both sides of the slate.

So my destiny learn to write & draw chalk on slate. Imagine about 30 kids in a class all drawing with
chalk on this little slate less in size than an A4

Laurie
 
At a guess: sight along the yardstick towards the moon, move the coin along it so that it covers the whole of the moon exactly, look how far it is on the yardstick, then work out the distance to the moon using that and the diameter of the coin via simple geometry?
It’s actually much simpler than that. It follows Eratosthenes method of artificial eclipse by coin derived from Ancient Greece. The diameter of the earth, and hence the diameter of the moon had already been calculated by the time he did this. Sight along the measuring stick, moving the coin until the moon is “just” eclipsed. Mathematics then tells us that the diameter of the moon divided by the diameter of the coin equals the distance to the moon divided by the distance to the coin. As three of these values are known, the fourth one, distance to the moon, can be calculated. And not a calculator in sight!
 
Um … that’s exactly what I said :) I’d never heard of this method, let alone that it was invented in Ancient Greece — it just seemed the logical way to do it, assuming you know the diameter of the moon, of course.
 
Back
Top