Large Scale Central

In the "Duh" department

General Discussion
#1

…

Picked up the June GR today and discovered in the “Letters to the Editor” that someone commented on the method to arrive at any scale ratio by simply dividing the proto gauge by the 45mm of the track gauge commonly used in LS.

So far so good 'til I got to the part that reads “What he fails to mention is you have to make sure you are using like units.”

“DUH!!!” Hmmmmm what a concept! I guess that would be quite obvious to some of us, but apparently not others.
Sure makes me wonder what schools some people attended!

Of course I am familiar with the time honoured tradition of the Brits who express things in a merry mixture i.e. 16mm/ft aka 16mm/12". But hey that’s OK, the Brits have a reputation for being slightly eccentric. But it wasn’t a Brit who wrote the letter, it was someone from OH. :wink: :slight_smile: :wink:

#2

But HJ, there IS a 16mm to the foot scale (1:19). See my previous post elsewhere. Quite popular with the Brits it is. They model 2’ gauge on 32mm track in that scale. Very popular with the guys that like the little Listers and also there are some beautiful Darjeeling locomotives (live steam) and coaches available in that scale.

Hey, if it runs and they are having fun…what the hell…!!

Of course I could really muddle things up. My cane trains that I’m currently working on are 610cm gauge on 45mm track. Now figure that one out…:confused: …and remember, I’m south of the border so I use that funny ft & in measurements.

#3
Warren Mumpower said:
But HJ, there IS a 16mm to the foot scale (1:19). See my previous post elsewhere. Quite popular with the Brits it is. They model 2' gauge on 32mm track in that scale. Very popular with the guys that like the little Listers and also there are some beautiful Darjeeling locomotives (live steam) and coaches available in that scale.

Hey, if it runs and they are having fun…what the hell…!!


Warren,

I’m well aware of that scale. I just find it very strange to express a ratio with units that belong to two different measuring systems. It’s like establishing a ratio between apples and oranges. Strange!!

OTOH I guess it wasn’t so long ago that accurate inch dimensions were expressed as 128th of an inch aka as 0.0078125" or some such.

PS Easy, it’s 1:13.5466 (if you use the proper 304.8mm for the 12") :wink: :slight_smile:

#4

It’s the unfortunate results of using an already existing track (32mm) and making the scale fit it just as my confusing mess works out to being 2 ft gauge on 45mm track at 7/8ths scale…especially since all the prototype drawings I have were done in ft & in and not metric even though they express gauge in cm for the prototype. Think modeling is nuts…well, what I’m running up against in the prototype world of the cane train is gauge in cm, distance in km, speed in km/h but construction dimensions in ft & in…:confused: Why? The only explanation I can come up with is simply…they’re Aussies. :smiley:

#5
Warren Mumpower said:
............................................

Think modeling is nuts…well, what I’m running up against in the prototype world of the cane train is gauge in cm, distance in km, speed in km/h but construction dimensions in ft & in…:confused: Why? The only explanation I can come up with is simply…they’re Aussies. :smiley:


Oh vey, we’ll hear about this one!! :lol: :lol:

#6
Warren Mumpower said:
.well, what I'm running up against in the prototype world of the cane train is gauge in cm, distance in km, speed in km/h but construction dimensions in ft & in....:/ Why? The only explanation I can come up with is simply...they're Aussies. :D
You got it in one, Warren! The reason for the mixed measurements is that Oz was an Imperial measure country until the early 70s (73?), then we converted to the sensible system but original prototype info wouldn't have been converted, any more than you'd convert Noah's Ark, measured in cubits, rather than rods, poles or perches. :)
#7

Try using the straight through, once around, whole ball system!

One Straight through is equal to the diameter of the earth measured in furlongs.

Once around is the time in fortnights that it takes Terra to revolve around Sol.

One Whole Ball is equal to the mass of Terra measured in Stone.

And you think that you have problems…

madwolf

#8
Phil Creer said:
Warren Mumpower said:
.well, what I'm running up against in the prototype world of the cane train is gauge in cm, distance in km, speed in km/h but construction dimensions in ft & in....:/ Why? The only explanation I can come up with is simply...they're Aussies. :D
You got it in one, Warren! The reason for the mixed measurements is that Oz was an Imperial measure country until the early 70s (73?), then we converted to the sensible system but original prototype info wouldn't have been converted, any more than you'd convert Noah's Ark, measured in cubits, rather than rods, poles or perches. :)
I figured that was most likely the real explanation, but I had no clue when Australia made the change. I now know why my locomotive is so confused.... It was built in '72. :(
#9

I’ve posted enough botched calculations over the years to know that’s a mistake I’d make :smiley:

#10
Tom Ruby said:
I've posted enough botched calculations over the years to know that's a mistake I'd make :D
Sheesh Tom ................ don't you use an abacus? Or at least a slide rule?? :lol: :lol:
#11

Was there not a spacecraft sent to Mars, several years ago, that it was not until it arrived at the Martian atmosphere that the engineers who built it, did not realise that the combination of metric and imperial measurements in the craft’s design did not complement each other? Many years work and many hundreds of millions of dollars (or Euros) lost as it descended into the atmosphere.

#12
Tim Brien said:
Was there not a spacecraft sent to Mars, several years ago, that it was not until it arrived at the Martian atmosphere that the engineers who built it, did not realise that the combination of metric and imperial measurements in the craft's design did not complement each other? Many years work and many hundreds of millions of dollars (or Euros) lost as it descended into the atmosphere.
Good point,

Of course here in Canada we also had the “Gimli Glider” which was an equally dumb instance, but it ended without the dire consquences.

Mix Imperial with Metric … why worry, be happy. :lol: :lol:

Of course most people still don’t get it. That’s OK, some learn much better the hard way. :wink: :slight_smile:

#13

Some time ago, when Australia was converting from Imperial to metric, I bought a Stanley hole saw. Went home, opened it up, and could not get the saws to fit into the base. Turned out to be Imperial saws, metric base, or vice-versa. The embarrassed salesman never told me which was which. I don’t think he cared, and neither did I.

More serious was the problem with the Ryobi half-inch router I bought about the same time, along with what I thought was the correct straight-cutter. When I use a big router free-hand, I usually start it at about a 45-degree angle to the bench top, then bring it to the work, and I am super-careful about setting up the machine before throwing the ON switch. This time, the bit flew off the router and ricocheted around our steel shed for several seconds before coming to rest not too far from my back. The problem turned out to be collet size - the cutter’s shank was just loose enough in the collett for the router to throw the bit, but not loose enough for me to notice a problem when tightening it down.

Hans, since I know you mess with PCs, here’s a measurement conundrum for you. Imagine a large number, say 50,000,000,000. Numbers like these are often expressed in scientific notation; e.g., 5E10. A few years back, I had to groom some data that used alphanumeric product codes. My algorithm kept failing on certain codes containing the letter E. Sure enough, Microsoft Visual Basic was interpreting the code as a number!

Three years ago, I wrote a VB routine to transfer some floating-point numbers from an Excel to a SQL database. The database values didn’t match the Excel values. The reason turned out to be that VB and Excel use two different rounding systems. Excel uses what most of us would consider “standard” rounding, but VB uses banker’s, or accountant’s rounding, which yields slightly different results. Fortunately, there is a function that gets around the problem.

I think the author’s injunction about ensuring comparisons between apples and apples is fair comment. Sometimes what we think is obvious ain’t.

#14
Dave Healy said:
Some time ago, when Australia was converting from Imperial to metric, I bought a Stanley hole saw. Went home, opened it up, and could not get the saws to fit into the base. Turned out to be Imperial saws, metric base, or vice-versa. The embarrassed salesman never told me which was which. I don't think he cared, and neither did I.

More serious was the problem with the Ryobi half-inch router I bought about the same time, along with what I thought was the correct straight-cutter. When I use a big router free-hand, I usually start it at about a 45-degree angle to the bench top, then bring it to the work, and I am super-careful about setting up the machine before throwing the ON switch. This time, the bit flew off the router and ricocheted around our steel shed for several seconds before coming to rest not too far from my back. The problem turned out to be collet size - the cutter’s shank was just loose enough in the collett for the router to throw the bit, but not loose enough for me to notice a problem when tightening it down.

Hans, since I know you mess with PCs, here’s a measurement conundrum for you. Imagine a large number, say 50,000,000,000. Numbers like these are often expressed in scientific notation; e.g., 5E10. A few years back, I had to groom some data that used alphanumeric product codes. My algorithm kept failing on certain codes containing the letter E. Sure enough, Microsoft Visual Basic was interpreting the code as a number!

Three years ago, I wrote a VB routine to transfer some floating-point numbers from an Excel to a SQL database. The database values didn’t match the Excel values. The reason turned out to be that VB and Excel use two different rounding systems. Excel uses what most of us would consider “standard” rounding, but VB uses banker’s, or accountant’s rounding, which yields slightly different results. Fortunately, there is a function that gets around the problem.

I think the author’s injunction about ensuring comparisons between apples and apples is fair comment. Sometimes what we think is obvious ain’t.


Dave,

I know for every rule there’s an exception, but mixing Imperial and Metric to me falls into the “Exceptionally dumb” department. I believe we learned something along a similar line when we did math with fractions … and that was a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g time ago. :wink: :slight_smile:

#15
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
I know for every rule there's an exception, but mixing Imperial and Metric to me falls into the "Exceptionally dumb" department. I believe we learned something along a similar line when we did math with fractions .......... and that was a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g time ago. ;) :)
And yet tens of thousands of HOers have no problem with 16mm= 4'8.5", I have no problem as an LSer in using 15mm= one foot, etc, etc, etc. If God hadn't meant us to mix measurements he wouldn't have given us cubits.
#16
Phil Creer said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
I know for every rule there's an exception, but mixing Imperial and Metric to me falls into the "Exceptionally dumb" department. I believe we learned something along a similar line when we did math with fractions .......... and that was a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g time ago. ;) :)
And yet tens of thousands of HOers have no problem with 16mm= 4'8.5", I have no problem as an LSer in using 15mm= one foot, etc, etc, etc. If God hadn't meant us to mix measurements he wouldn't have given us cubits.
Phil,

I always thought that it was 16.5mm gauge that represents 1435mm proto. Do the math and it’s pretty close 1:86.9696 just a very minor quibble off the 1:87 scale. :wink: :slight_smile:

#17

1 foot = 12 inches = 304.8 millimeters. They’re all just labels, and each relates to the other through a mathematical equation. Just because one is more commonly grouped with another doesn’t mean they’re not related.

Later,

K

#18

Just labels…and one comes from the distance from the frog king’s nose to the tip of his outstretched thumb.

I don’t use that stuff, ain’t interested, and especially if the second worse President we ever had tried to get us to use it.

Ever see what it takes to get your metric Beemer fixed?
Your Mecedes Buns?

Try a Ford.

BTW, MY Fords don’t use metric tools at all.

But, then, we have Whitworth, SAE, Metric, and then we get into TORX bits of both metric and SAE and if you’re one RCH off in your “guess” because the metric is a split RCH different than the SAE bit, well, then you find out what a standard US drill bit will do to the SOB.

Nope.
I never heard anyone call Half-Zero by it’s metric equivalency.
But then, when folks start speaking French, even Canuck French, I set the tuner to “ignore” anyway.
1.777"

#19

Ok, who was the first worst ?

Curmudgeon said:
Just labels....and one comes from the distance from the frog king's nose to the tip of his outstretched thumb.

I don’t use that stuff, ain’t interested, and especially if the second worse President we ever had tried to get us to use it.

Ever see what it takes to get your metric Beemer fixed?
Your Mecedes Buns?

Try a Ford.

BTW, MY Fords don’t use metric tools at all.

But, then, we have Whitworth, SAE, Metric, and then we get into TORX bits of both metric and SAE and if you’re one RCH off in your “guess” because the metric is a split RCH different than the SAE bit, well, then you find out what a standard US drill bit will do to the SOB.

Nope.
I never heard anyone call Half-Zero by it’s metric equivalency.
But then, when folks start speaking French, even Canuck French, I set the tuner to “ignore” anyway.
1.777"

#20

Some how I can’t imagine one worse than what we have. But a good firm 2nd place would be Ronnie the trickle down economist.