Owain Sutton wrote:
Plllllease.....have you any evidence at all, other than anecdotal carpenter say-so, that the exact milling of inch divisions was omitted for that one stage?
The one explanation I would understand would be that the 'zero' point had been so overused that it was worn down, and was no longer accurate.
This was one of the reasons I was taught that it was better to start from "one"; the other was that often because of specifics of the the manufacturing process, if the rule was manufactured so that the "0" mark co-incided with the end of the ruler, that the corner of the rule might be rounded , or that (and this is the case with the three six inch rules I own), the rule may be slightly mis-registered, so that the zero line does not exactly coincide with the end of the rule. If I compare the span of the first inch of the three rules I own with the span of the second of each of the other two, I find that on one of them there appears to be exactly one inch between zero and one; of the other two, one is just noticeably shorter (perhaps one hundredth of an inch), the other is just noticably longer, by about the same amount. Comparng the span between one and two, on the other hand, each of thel three seems to be to the eye in exact agreement with the other two.
ns _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
