did anyone catch this
- Thread starter kd0afk
- Start date
Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:
Swifty
Well-Known Member
I can't see any error, it's a shame that the reflection on the photo is right where the first readings are taken from.
As far as I can make out, 146.68mm looks OK.
Paul.
As far as I can make out, 146.68mm looks OK.
Paul.
kd0afk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 52
I see the stars as being at 146.66. The third line would be .06.
kd0afk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 52
So how did you arrive at that number?
Swifty
Well-Known Member
On the main scale I counted back down from 160, into the area with the reflection, until I reached zero on the sliding scale, this gave me 146mm, then added on the reading from the sliding scale.
From your initial posting, I thought that there must have been some gross error with the picture, so was not looking out for a slight line misalignment. I can see now what you were referring to.
Paul.
jwcnc1911
-jwcnc191
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2013
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 86
The stars are in the correct place. Two sets of stars is missing, must have been an oversight by some one in a department that gets catalogs out rather than reads instruments. Or, they assumed you can figure out the hundreds, tens, ones part. Also, you must disregard the stars on the left, they are for our useless American units, formerly known as inches. Your using the bottom "0" on the right of the sliding scale to take the 100's, 10's, and 1's places, then the sliding scale for the 0.1's and the 0.01's places. The top set of stars marks everything to the right of the decimal which reads at 0.68. The bottom "0" on the sliding scale marks everything to the left of the decimal, which reads at 146. It is blurred by a glare as mentioned but I read this as 146.68. The glare is beautifully hiding the 150 marker.
Clear as mud?
If you buy that instrument, you will be pleased. I greatly prefer Vernier over dial, actually I greatly prefer digital but I have not cared for dial gages other than indicators since trade school. I am also of the opinion that if you pony up the cash for such a gage you'll be glad you didn't waste time on "economy" gages.
Clear as mud?
If you buy that instrument, you will be pleased. I greatly prefer Vernier over dial, actually I greatly prefer digital but I have not cared for dial gages other than indicators since trade school. I am also of the opinion that if you pony up the cash for such a gage you'll be glad you didn't waste time on "economy" gages.
kd0afk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 52
Yes it's not a mistake in reading it was a mistake in the print layout. And both the imperial and metric side is the same way. It was a registration issue at the printers. My point is that it can cause confusion. I was confused myself at first.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stuart S50 - Replacing mild steel shafts with stainless steel shafts.- Latest: Jens Eirik Skogstad
