2002-04-19 Something doesn't add up here! 17 inches is 43.2 cm. What doesn't seem right is the visible area description of 41 cm. If the maximum effective image size is 310 x 232.5 m, the diagonal distance is (310^2 + 232.5^2)^0.5 and that equals 387.5 mm. Thus the maximum visible area should almost 39 cm, not 41 cm. Unless what they mean by visible is what is not covered up by the plastic housing of the monitor, which would be about 1 cm all around.
BTW, since most monitor and TV screens are made in Asia, do you really think they are made to rational inches? Or is this the same situation as the 3.5 inch floppy? Where, something truly metric is converted to FFU in name only. What is the truth? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis JOURDAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2002-04-19 11:49 Subject: [USMA:19535] Re: Monitor sizes > At 10:44 -0400 02/04/19, Duncan Bath wrote: > >In Dell's advertisements, running in the Globe & Mail, we see such as: > >"15" E551 Monitor (13.8" v.i.s.)" > >"17" E771 Monitor (16.0" v.i.s.)" > > > >1) What does "v.i.s." mean? > >2) Why are there (apparently) two dimensions given for the same screen? > >3) Why not make a CLEAN break from this (apparent) chicanery and provide > > honest measurements for the active screen: [eg. 35 cm]? > > I just purchased a IImaya Vision Master LM704UT monitor. The > specification sheet reads: > Tube size: 17" (41 cm visible) > Maximum effective image size: 310 mm x 232,5 mm > > Even when using SI there is always the reference in inches ! > > Louis > >
