OOPS... Actually, I meant oversized tape. Sorry about that... Marcus
--- mavi fibe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've used a couple of metric tapes here in the past > to > assess the "true" size of these floppies and in both > of them I've got 90 mm (exactly) as a result with > remarkable consistency... > > Therefore, it is possible Gavin may have a slightly > undersized metric tape... > > Marcus > > --- Gavin Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > Most all of my 3.5" inch disks have the > dimmensions > > I indicated, namely 89 mm x > > 93 mm, including my orginal Microsoft and Apple > > Computer operating system > > software disks. Those software disks have > copyright > > dates of 1990 to 1997. > > Today I noticed that some of the disks measure > 89.5 > > mm by 93 mm, but none > > appear to be as big as 90 mm x 94 mm. > > > > 89 mm = 35.03937 inches and that appears to be the > > size of most of my disks. > > Have you measured your disks, if so what size are > > they? > > > > When was this ISO standard made and is it binding? > > Afterall there is an ISO > > date and 24 hour time standard, but most > businesses > > in the USA are not > > exclusively using it (if they are using it at > all). > > > > Quoting BigChimp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as a 3.5 inch floppy > disc. > > > The term 3.5 inch floppy disc is in fact a > > misnomer. Whilst the specification > > > for 5.25 inch floppy discs employs Imperial > units, > > the later specification > > > for the smaller floppy discs employs metric > units. > > > > > > > > The standards for these discs are ISO/IEC > > 8860-1:1987 (double density), > > > ISO/IEC 9529-1:1989 (high density) and ISO > > 10994-1:1992 (extra-high density); > > > all of which specify the measurements in metric. > > These standards explicitly > > > give the dimensions as 90.0mm by 94.0mm. > > > > > > In most countries, the national standard is > simply > > derived from the ISO > > > standard. In the U.S., however, the applicable > > standard is instead ANSI > > > X3.171-1989. That, too, specifies the > measurements > > in metric, though. It > > > specifies the catridge dimensions as 90.0mm by > > 94.0mm by 3.3mm and the > > > diameter of the magnetic disc material itself as > > 85.80mm. > > > > > > If you have a floppy disc catridge that does not > > measure 90mm, then you have > > > one manufactured by someone that is not careful > > about manufacturing > > > tolerances. (And you should beware. If their > > product isn't up to > > > specification in one area, it may not be so in > > others.) If the disc measures > > > 3.5 inches, then it is the wrong size. 90.0mm is > > 3.5433 inches. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > > > > > � Copyright 2003-2003 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. > > All rights reserved. "Moral" > > > rights asserted. > > > Permission is hereby granted to copy and to > > distribute this web page in its > > > original, unmodified form as long as datestamp > > information is preserved. > > > > > > From: > > > > > > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/floppy-discs-are-90mm-not-3- > > and-a-half-inches.html > > > > > > > > > How did you measure the disks? Did you use a > ruler > > or a set of micrometers? > > > > > > > > > If you insist your disks are really not > > dimensioned to the ISO/IEC standard, > > > then refer to the 4-th paragraph above. > > > > > > Euric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Gavin Young" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, 2004-04-05 14:28 > > > Subject: [USMA:29441] Re: USMA digest 1568 - > > floppies really are 3.5 in. on > > > one side > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand why people say that a 3.5 > > inch floppy is not really 3.5 > > > > > > > inches. When I measure my floppy disks to the > > nearest 1/32 of an inch, the > > > > > > > dimentions are 3 1/2 in. by 3 5/8 inches. Thus > > one side is truly 3.5 > > > inches. > > > > Some prometric websites say that instead of > 3.5 > > inches it is really 90 mm, > > > > > > > however my disks measure 89 mm x 93 mm. It is > > the opening to the floppy > > > drive > > > > bay that is 90 mm wide (the disk has to be > > slightly smaller or else it > > > won't > > > > slide into the drive)! Prometric people need > to > > get the facts straight if > > > they > > > > are to be credible to nonmetric people. > > > > > > > > Likewise the diagonal measure of computer > > monitors and TV screens are still > > > > > > > stated exclusively in inches in the USA, even > > though the dot pitch is > > > stated in > > > > mm. Since the dot metric is stated in metric, > I > > wonder why the diagonal > > > measure > > > > is not also stated in metric. I guess it is > > because people don't pay much > > > > attention to the dot pitch except when > comparing > > specs, but the diagonal > > > > meausure is something they visualize when they > > see advertising. > > > > > > > > Trade Name! > > > > > > > > It's just a trade name. Just like a half-inch > > pipe is not really a half > > > > inch nor is a 3.5 inch floppy really 3.5 > inches. > > > > > > > > I have an idea. Why don't you take the pot > back > > to the shop you bought it > > > > from or call them on the phone, explain what > you > > did and ask them how a 2 > > > L > > > > pot can be called a gallon pot! Then report > > here. I'd be surprised to > > > read > > > > clerk's answer. > > > > > > > > BTW. when you measured it as 2.25 L, were you > > filling it to the rim with > > > > something? If you were, that is wrong. > Flower > > pots are never filled > > > full. > > > > There has to be some space for debris and > === message truncated === ===== Jesus ONLY settles for THE best, so what excuse can you possibly give to NOT go SI??? ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
