This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.


--
Jeff

On 4/5/14, 3:45 PM, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement
can appear it's remarkable.



I'm glad I picked up on the Canadian accent, because the guy kept saying
"mil" when referring to his measurements. It wasn't until he showed the
reading on his gauge that I realized he was talking millimeters and not
thousandths of an inch.

Do all Canadians really say "mil" in reference to millimeters?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 8:56:32 PM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
On 4/5/14, 3:45 PM, woodchucker wrote:

This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail



Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement

can appear it's remarkable.







I'm glad I picked up on the Canadian accent, because the guy kept saying

"mil" when referring to his measurements. It wasn't until he showed the

reading on his gauge that I realized he was talking millimeters and not

thousandths of an inch.



Do all Canadians really say "mil" in reference to millimeters?

It's not a Canadian thing, but a metric thing. In the lab when working with milliliters, it's common to refer to them as 'mils'. A 'mil' is commonly used but the context must be known for it to have meaning (i.e length, volume, mass).








--



-MIKE-



"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"

--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)

--

http://mikedrums.com



---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Somebody wrote:

This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail
------------------------------------------------------------
Just illustrates what every engineering student is taught
about column loading.

Euler column formula. P = n ? 2 E I / L 2 (1)


Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Somebody wrote:

This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail
------------------------------------------------------------
Just illustrates what every engineering student is taught
about column loading.

Euler column formula. P = n ? 2 E I / L 2 (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------
This will help clarify things.

http://tinyurl.com/obu22nw

Lew

wrote:

It's not a Canadian thing, but a metric thing. In the lab when working
with milliliters, it's common to refer to them as 'mils'. A 'mil' is
commonly used but the context must be known for it to have meaning (i.e
length, volume, mass).

A 'mil' is also an angular measurement (milliradian) commonly used in the
military for adjusting rifle/sniper and artillery fire, among other things.

An artillery 'Forward Observer" bets his life in close combat on the fact
that: "1 mil of angle subtends an arc of 1 meter (+/-) at 1,000 meters."
(actually it is the chord of the arc he is attempting to correctly
calculate to get rounds on target, but close counts when the effective
burst radius of a 105mm round is 50 meters). For (American) military
purposes there are 6400 'mils' in a circle ... actually a bit less
mathematically, but close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and
artillery fire.

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On Saturday, 5 April 2014 21:45:09 UTC+1, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Interesting, cheers!

On Sunday, 6 April 2014 01:56:32 UTC+1, -MIKE- wrote:

I'm glad I picked up on the Canadian accent, because the guy kept saying
"mil" when referring to his measurements. It wasn't until he showed the
reading on his gauge that I realized he was talking millimeters and not
thousandths of an inch.

Mil, short for milli. Milli just means "one-one thousandth of". It needs context to fully clarify.

In the UK millimetres were abbreviated (when spoken) to "milli" whilst "mil" referred to 1/1000 of an inch. This is according to my grandad who was in the trade up until the 1950s or so. I have no idea what the it is now, but I am pretty certain it's all metric, so mil or milli would refer to millimetres.

In article , -MIKE-
wrote:

I'm glad I picked up on the Canadian accent, because the guy kept saying
"mil" when referring to his measurements. It wasn't until he showed the
reading on his gauge that I realized he was talking millimeters and not
thousandths of an inch.

Do all Canadians really say "mil" in reference to millimeters?

I typically say "thou" or "ten thou" for imperial, and "mil" for
metric, eh?

--
³Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness
sobered, but stupid lasts forever.² -- Aristophanes

On 4/7/14, 9:31 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , -MIKE-
wrote:

I'm glad I picked up on the Canadian accent, because the guy kept
saying "mil" when referring to his measurements. It wasn't until
he showed the reading on his gauge that I realized he was talking
millimeters and not thousandths of an inch.

Do all Canadians really say "mil" in reference to millimeters?

I typically say "thou" or "ten thou" for imperial, and "mil" for
metric, eh?


I guess I wonder how we could be in such a hurry to save syllables.
Are we that lazy we can't say the whole word? :-)

It's kind of like (the opposite) when people speak initialisms or
acronyms that are much longer to say than the actual words they shorten
in writing.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 4:45:09 PM UTC-4, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail



Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can

appear it's remarkable.



Some years ago, I was getting equipment made for my company (American) in the UK. I learned that the UK company used the term "mil" to refer to millimeters and the term "thou" to refer to thousandths of an inch. All went well dimensionally until we started to do flow measurements. The UK company even hooked up an old flow meter that measured gallons per minute. It took us a while to figure out that the poor performance we got was because they were measuring in Imperial Gallons and I was used to using US Gallons. Afetr we realized that, all was well.

Bill


--

Jeff

woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.

Well, it is interesting, but not very true to real life. For one, wood does
not move as much in that direction as it does against the grain. For
another - his video does not take into consideration the constraints on the
wood. If his video were to be taken as gospel, there is not a wooden floor
in the world that would remain stable through the changing seasons. Yet
another theoretical exercise that does not reflect the real world.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:12:01 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 4/7/14, 9:31 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , -MIKE-
wrote:

I'm glad I picked up on the Canadian accent, because the guy kept
saying "mil" when referring to his measurements. It wasn't until
he showed the reading on his gauge that I realized he was talking
millimeters and not thousandths of an inch.

Do all Canadians really say "mil" in reference to millimeters?

I typically say "thou" or "ten thou" for imperial, and "mil" for
metric, eh?


I guess I wonder how we could be in such a hurry to save syllables.
Are we that lazy we can't say the whole word? :-)

It's nothing more (or less) than jargon. It makes for more efficient
communication among people who have learned the dialect. Those silly
syllables do add up.

It's kind of like (the opposite) when people speak initialisms or
acronyms that are much longer to say than the actual words they shorten
in writing.

What, and stop creating new words? Where would we be without the
"laser".

Now, where did I put my "laser"? ;-)

On 4/7/2014 12:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.

Well, it is interesting, but not very true to real life. For one, wood does
not move as much in that direction as it does against the grain. For
another - his video does not take into consideration the constraints on the
wood. If his video were to be taken as gospel, there is not a wooden floor
in the world that would remain stable through the changing seasons. Yet
another theoretical exercise that does not reflect the real world.


Actually you should watch his other video, what he does, is setup a test
across the grain. He cuts a piece of wood, cutting across the grain. He
puts it in a box to dry it out. Just a box with a light bulb.
He measures the difference between the original piece and the dried
piece. That is where he is using his offset amount from.

So yes it does move that much. His example is just taking the difference
in wood movement that he measured, and also less than what he measured.

So it is really enlightening. A small sliver adds up to lots of bending.

--
Jeff

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:070420140831505537%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:


I typically say "thou" or "ten thou" for imperial, and "mil" for
metric, eh?


The sooner we can eliminate the "mil" unit, the better. It's just uncommon
enough that those unfamiliar with the unit assume it means millimeter, and
close enough that the error won't be obvious.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

wrote:
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 01:56:32 UTC+1, -MIKE- wrote:

I'm glad I picked up on the Canadian accent, because the guy kept saying
"mil" when referring to his measurements. It wasn't until he showed the
reading on his gauge that I realized he was talking millimeters and not
thousandths of an inch.
Mil, short for milli. Milli just means "one-one thousandth of". It needs context to fully clarify.

In the UK millimetres were abbreviated (when spoken) to "milli" whilst "mil" referred to 1/1000 of an inch. This is according to my grandad who was in the trade up until the 1950s or so. I have no idea what the it is now, but I am pretty certain it's all metric, so mil or milli would refer to millimetres.

Like Swingman said, there are about 6400 mils in a full revolution. It
was explained to me that the idea was to *avoid fractions* out in the
field. Remember the pre-calculator days?

In article om,
Puckdropper wrote:

The sooner we can eliminate the "mil" unit, the better. It's just uncommon
enough that those unfamiliar with the unit assume it means millimeter, and
close enough that the error won't be obvious.

Makes more sense for the USA to join the rest of the world...

--
³Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness
sobered, but stupid lasts forever.² -- Aristophanes

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:070420141833299273%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

In article om,
Puckdropper wrote:

The sooner we can eliminate the "mil" unit, the better. It's just
uncommon enough that those unfamiliar with the unit assume it means
millimeter, and close enough that the error won't be obvious.

Makes more sense for the USA to join the rest of the world...


Sure would be nice to eliminate the dual system. I don't care if the
rest of the world joins us or we join the rest of the world, simply not
having two systems would help quite a bit.

I'll still have to have two sets of wrenches, taps, nuts, etc, but maybe
my great grandchildren won't have to. Let's do it, it's for the
children!

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

On 4/7/2014 10:06 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
I'll still have to have two sets of wrenches, taps, nuts, etc, but maybe
my great grandchildren won't have to.

No kidding .... and if you don't carry both, guaranteed the ones you
have on hand aren't the ones you need.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 4/6/2014 11:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
wrote:

It's not a Canadian thing, but a metric thing. In the lab when working
with milliliters, it's common to refer to them as 'mils'. A 'mil' is
commonly used but the context must be known for it to have meaning (i.e
length, volume, mass).

A 'mil' is also an angular measurement (milliradian) commonly used in the
military for adjusting rifle/sniper and artillery fire, among other things.

An artillery 'Forward Observer" bets his life in close combat on the fact
that: "1 mil of angle subtends an arc of 1 meter (+/-) at 1,000 meters."
(actually it is the chord of the arc he is attempting to correctly
calculate to get rounds on target, but close counts when the effective
burst radius of a 105mm round is 50 meters). For (American) military
purposes there are 6400 'mils' in a circle ... actually a bit less
mathematically, but close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and
artillery fire.



And I always thought a mil was a ton of money!

On 4/7/2014 7:33 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article om,
Puckdropper wrote:

The sooner we can eliminate the "mil" unit, the better. It's just uncommon
enough that those unfamiliar with the unit assume it means millimeter, and
close enough that the error won't be obvious.

Makes more sense for the USA to join the rest of the world...


We are not ready for mediocre yet! ;~)

On 4/8/2014 5:36 AM, Leon wrote:
On 4/6/2014 11:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
wrote:

It's not a Canadian thing, but a metric thing. In the lab when working
with milliliters, it's common to refer to them as 'mils'. A 'mil' is
commonly used but the context must be known for it to have meaning (i.e
length, volume, mass).

A 'mil' is also an angular measurement (milliradian) commonly used in the
military for adjusting rifle/sniper and artillery fire, among other
things.

An artillery 'Forward Observer" bets his life in close combat on the fact
that: "1 mil of angle subtends an arc of 1 meter (+/-) at 1,000 meters."
(actually it is the chord of the arc he is attempting to correctly
calculate to get rounds on target, but close counts when the effective
burst radius of a 105mm round is 50 meters). For (American) military
purposes there are 6400 'mils' in a circle ... actually a bit less
mathematically, but close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and
artillery fire.



And I always thought a mil was a ton of money!
or a tiny amount of money - $.001
mahalo,
jo4hn

Good example. I used to calculate the 'increase of diameter' of
a band placed around the world. It was set up to put a tight belt
and then add a 12" extension of the band. Question - how high would
the belt rise over the earth... ?

Lesson - just leave a little room for wood expansion.

Martin

On 4/5/2014 3:45 PM, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.

Martin Eastburn wrote:
Good example. I used to calculate the 'increase of diameter' of
a band placed around the world. It was set up to put a tight belt
and then add a 12" extension of the band. Question - how high would
the belt rise over the earth... ?

Lesson - just leave a little room for wood expansion.

Martin

On 4/5/2014 3:45 PM, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.



I recall that question. I never could really believe the answer that came
with it. For perspective on the answer that I heard I compared the result
of adding 12" to a man's belt. Oddly the earth answer was greater than the
mans belt example. I highly suspect that the earth answer that I heard was
missing some digits to the right of the decimal point.
Basically you are adding 1/12,672,000 to the diameter in the earth example.

In article
Martin Eastburn writes:
Good example. I used to calculate the 'increase of diameter' of
a band placed around the world. It was set up to put a tight belt
and then add a 12" extension of the band. Question - how high would
the belt rise over the earth... ?

About 2".
Diameter and circumference are linearly related.
You add 1 to diameter, you add pi to circumference.
You add 12 to circumference, you add 12/pi to diameter.
That's about 4", 2" on each side of the planet.

I've heard the claim that it is some huge difference, but never
seen anyone show their work.


Lesson - just leave a little room for wood expansion.

Martin

On 4/5/2014 3:45 PM, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.




--
Drew Lawson What would Brian Boitano do?

On 4/9/2014 3:07 AM, Leon wrote:
Martin Eastburn wrote:
Good example. I used to calculate the 'increase of diameter' of
a band placed around the world. It was set up to put a tight belt
and then add a 12" extension of the band. Question - how high would
the belt rise over the earth... ?

Lesson - just leave a little room for wood expansion.

Martin

On 4/5/2014 3:45 PM, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.



I recall that question. I never could really believe the answer that came
with it. For perspective on the answer that I heard I compared the result
of adding 12" to a man's belt. Oddly the earth answer was greater than the
mans belt example. I highly suspect that the earth answer that I heard was
missing some digits to the right of the decimal point.
Basically you are adding 1/12,672,000 to the diameter in the earth example.



Hummmmmmm Seems to be just shy of 4" added to the radius.

On 4/9/2014 8:22 AM, Leon wrote:
On 4/9/2014 3:07 AM, Leon wrote:
Martin Eastburn wrote:
Good example. I used to calculate the 'increase of diameter' of
a band placed around the world. It was set up to put a tight belt
and then add a 12" extension of the band. Question - how high would
the belt rise over the earth... ?

Lesson - just leave a little room for wood expansion.

Martin

On 4/5/2014 3:45 PM, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.



I recall that question. I never could really believe the answer that came
with it. For perspective on the answer that I heard I compared the
result
of adding 12" to a man's belt. Oddly the earth answer was greater
than the
mans belt example. I highly suspect that the earth answer that I heard
was
missing some digits to the right of the decimal point.
Basically you are adding 1/12,672,000 to the diameter in the earth
example.



Hummmmmmm Seems to be just shy of 4" added to the radius.

Make that diameter.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 06:12:22 -0700, jo4hn
wrote:

On 4/8/2014 5:36 AM, Leon wrote:
On 4/6/2014 11:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
wrote:

It's not a Canadian thing, but a metric thing. In the lab when working
with milliliters, it's common to refer to them as 'mils'. A 'mil' is
commonly used but the context must be known for it to have meaning (i.e
length, volume, mass).

A 'mil' is also an angular measurement (milliradian) commonly used in the
military for adjusting rifle/sniper and artillery fire, among other
things.

An artillery 'Forward Observer" bets his life in close combat on the fact
that: "1 mil of angle subtends an arc of 1 meter (+/-) at 1,000 meters."
(actually it is the chord of the arc he is attempting to correctly
calculate to get rounds on target, but close counts when the effective
burst radius of a 105mm round is 50 meters). For (American) military
purposes there are 6400 'mils' in a circle ... actually a bit less
mathematically, but close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and
artillery fire.



And I always thought a mil was a ton of money!
or a tiny amount of money - $.001

Unless it's the mil rate of your house. It can add up to some real
cash.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 07:37:53 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/7/2014 7:33 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article om,
Puckdropper wrote:

The sooner we can eliminate the "mil" unit, the better. It's just uncommon
enough that those unfamiliar with the unit assume it means millimeter, and
close enough that the error won't be obvious.

Makes more sense for the USA to join the rest of the world...


We are not ready for mediocre yet! ;~)

It would be a step up from the last half-decade.

THe calculated the difference by using only symbols. Never
used real numbers until the end.

Martin

On 4/9/2014 3:07 AM, Leon wrote:
Martin Eastburn wrote:
Good example. I used to calculate the 'increase of diameter' of
a band placed around the world. It was set up to put a tight belt
and then add a 12" extension of the band. Question - how high would
the belt rise over the earth... ?

Lesson - just leave a little room for wood expansion.

Martin

On 4/5/2014 3:45 PM, woodchucker wrote:
This guy Jack Houweling puts it in perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11FS...em-uploademail

Geez I knew it moved, but when you see how a trapped wood movement can
appear it's remarkable.



I recall that question. I never could really believe the answer that came
with it. For perspective on the answer that I heard I compared the result
of adding 12" to a man's belt. Oddly the earth answer was greater than the
mans belt example. I highly suspect that the earth answer that I heard was
missing some digits to the right of the decimal point.
Basically you are adding 1/12,672,000 to the diameter in the earth example.