Decimal dimension help
 

I just finished looking at the plans to build Jake's Chair. The
dimensions were given in decimal form. There were several decimals
though that I didn't recognize such as .9 and .6. How are these
measurements figured?

In article .com,
wrote:
I just finished looking at the plans to build Jake's Chair. The
dimensions were given in decimal form. There were several decimals
though that I didn't recognize such as .9 and .6. How are these
measurements figured?


"Badly". grin

You can get strange things like that if the original was in metric units,
with a 'clueless' conversion to ft/inches.

And, of course, there _are_ rulers marked in decimal fractions of an inch.
Relatively uncommon, but they *do* exist.

If somebody uses 1 decimal place for things in "1/8ths", you typically
get decimal parts of: .0 .1 .2 .4 .5 .6 .8 (sometimes .7) and .9

What you're actually dealing with is anybody's guess.

I think they are rounded off. .9 is likely .875 or 7/8, .6 is likely .625,
or 5/8.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I just finished looking at the plans to build Jake's Chair. The
dimensions were given in decimal form. There were several decimals
though that I didn't recognize such as .9 and .6. How are these
measurements figured?

In article .com, wrote:
I just finished looking at the plans to build Jake's Chair. The
dimensions were given in decimal form. There were several decimals
though that I didn't recognize such as .9 and .6. How are these
measurements figured?

Probably converted from metric measurements.

If you want them in fractional inches, multiply by 64 to get 64ths, e.g. 0.9 *
64 = 57.6 so 58/64 or 29/32. Similarly, 0.6 * 64 = 38.4 so 38/64 or 19/32.

Double-checking: 29/32 = 0.906; 19/32 = 0.594. Within six-thousandths each
time - probably close enough.

If not, multiply by 128 instead: 0.9 = 115/128, and 0.6 = 77/128 (both
accurate within two thou).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
"Rumpy" wrote:

I think they are rounded off. .9 is likely .875 or 7/8, .6 is likely .625,
or 5/8.

If they're not rounded then I do it when I made it - just figure .9 is
7/8" and .4 is close enough to 7/16" to not make much difference in
building the chairs. It's not a matter of following the actual
dimensions in the plans to the decimal point, but making components with
the same specs the same dimensions.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

On 14 Jul 2005 10:26:05 -0700, wrote:

I just finished looking at the plans to build Jake's Chair. The
dimensions were given in decimal form. There were several decimals
though that I didn't recognize such as .9 and .6. How are these
measurements figured?

Here's a site that might help.
http://www.cjtkoolcarb.com/catalog/T...conversion.htm

Mike O.

I've got a 6 footer, marked in 1/100.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
ink.net...
An "Engineers Scale" is calibrated in decimel form; however, It is only
12" long.

99.999999% of the time .875 is .88 in 2 decimal places, and one place is
most likely .9.
Brian.

--
www.members.cox.net/bsnikitas
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I just finished looking at the plans to build Jake's Chair. The
dimensions were given in decimal form. There were several decimals
though that I didn't recognize such as .9 and .6. How are these
measurements figured?

That sucks if in inches--if metric, makes sense....

To convert to nearest 8th, 16th or 32nd...

0.9*8 = 7.2

0.9*16 = 14.4

0.9*32 = 28.8

Depending on how anal you are you can choose...

For me, I'd look at the 0.8 and figure it was sorry CAD formatting and
figure it was actually 0.875 rounded which would have been 7/8". 0.6
was probably 5/8".