I suspect you're right -- or at least that you have the more likely explanation.
The flaw in my explanation is that, if they really want to make sure a truly metric 300 m roll contains no less than 300 m (assuming the tolerance I suggested), they'll measure out a nominal 305 m, but still call it a 300 m roll, rather than calling it 305 m. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Hillger, Don >Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 14:48 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:32196] Re: AWG wire sizes > > >I'll suggest that the 305 m roll is actually a 1000 foot roll! > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf >> Of Bill Potts >> Sent: Thursday, 2005 February 03 15:46 >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:32195] Re: AWG wire sizes >> >> Chris Keenan wrote: "Even more bizarrely, such cable can be bought from >> European manufacturers in 100 m etc. reels, but the largest reel is '305 >> m'!! I can find no rational explanation for this." >> >> If we assume a tolerance on large reels of �5 m, providing a >nominal 305 m >> should guarantee that nobody gets less than 300 m. The really lucky ones >> will, of course, get 310 m. >> >> (By the way, in case it doesn't come through correctly, that's a >> plus-or-minus symbol in front of the 5.) >> >> Bill Potts, CMS >> Roseville, CA >> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >
