Code 100 is 1/10 of 1". So....

[wcfn100]

You confused Pete so bad, he hasn't even noticed this is in the wrong forum.

Jason

[MarkInLA]

Guys, please see my post at 07:01:20 Pg.1
Pete, I assume you mean 6.5/64 (6 and one half sixty-fourths inches )..Yes ? And which would then be 12/128"....Cool !
Also, group, what was so confusing about my initial OP, to begin with ?
I asked a simple innocent measurement question and resistance to it or testiness seemed to hover in...
Please. No more replies necessary... My question has been answered...
Thanks, M

[MarkInLA]

skip this

[wcfn100]

I asked a simple innocent measurement question and resistance to it or testiness seemed to hover in...

Your question was a bit confusing.

Something like - "How would you represent 1/10th of an inch as 32nds or 64ths" would have been much clearer.

Jason

[Point353]

Something like - "How would you represent 1/10th of an inch as 32nds or 64ths" would have been much clearer.

But then it wouldn't have sounded like a common core curriculum math question.

[Cajonpassfan]

Don’t you guys have some modeling to do? Metric or other?
Just sayin’....
Otto K.

[ednadolski]

Aaaaaaaaaand this is one of the many reasons the metric system is better.

[thomasjmdavis]

I think all Code 100 discussions should be ported to the HO section.  And the OP should put a digital caliper on his Christmas list.

[Cajonpassfan]

Right....with respect to the moon landing post.
Except for the scientists, engineers, medical researchers, nuclear physicists, and of course good old Coca-Cola and Baked Beans marketers who had gone metric ages ago.... dream on, in English measurements, if you like...😁
But I do acknowledge, a forty foot box car will always be a forty foot box car....
Otto K.

[Steveruger45]

I just save myself the headache and Use thousandths for my less than whole inch measurements.

[Angus Shops]

Guys, please see my post at 07:01:20 Pg.1
Pete, I assume you mean 6.5/64 (6 and one half sixty-fourths inches )..Yes ? And which would then be 12/128"....Cool !
Also, group, what was so confusing about my initial OP, to begin with ?
I asked a simple innocent measurement question and resistance to it or testiness seemed to hover in...
Please. No more replies necessary... My question has been answered...
Thanks, M

Well, wouldn’t 1/10” be equal to 12.8/128”? Or 6.4/64”?

[nkalanaga]

Peteski was right the first time, for my rounded-off 6.5/64ths.  Multiply both sides by 2 and you get 13/128ths.  I gave the 64ths because I've never found a ruler marked in 128ths.  There may be one out there, but I don't know who'd use it, as it would almost require a magnifier.

[DKS]

...Except for the scientists, engineers, medical researchers, nuclear physicists... who had gone metric ages ago...

Um... the Mars Climate Orbiter, built at a cost of $125 million, burned and broke into pieces all because the navigation team at JPL used the metric system, while Lockheed Martin, who designed and built the spacecraft, provided crucial acceleration data in the English system...

https://www.simscale.com/blog/2017/12/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/

[Maletrain]

As an engineer, I have used all sorts of units for all sorts of things - it is just part of the process for dealing with information from the real world. 

The problem with metric units is that people have the tendency to try to move the decimal point in their heads, and move it wrong, or forget to move it.  It is certainly not fool proof.  At least the people who use the English system are well versed in keeping track of units and using conversion factors that are not powers of 10 ( e.g., 12 inches per foot, 1 slug of mass weights 32.1740 lbs of force in a 1G environment, etc.) And, there is the dichotomy between the cgs and the MKS sets of "metric" units, not to mention the degrees Celsius (centigrade) and the degrees Kelvin, all within the "metric system".

And, especially for NASA, there is also "frame of reference", which is rotating here on earth.  NASA once fired the reentry rockets on a crewed Gemini orbiter way too early, because some "engineer" put into a computer (located on the ground in Houston) that the earth rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours. WRONG!!!  The earth rotates 360 + 360/365.2422 degrees in 24 hours in an inertial (not rotating) frame of reference.  At least the on-board computer knew where it really was and used the little bit of "lift" available for the capsule during reentry to make up for a lot of the short-fall, but the splash-down target for the ground computer was hundreds of miles short of the actual location of the recovery ships.

If you can't keep your units and frame of reference straight, you can't be a good engineer.  But, even if you can do that, there are still plenty of other mistakes you can make. 

[mmagliaro]

https://ukma.org.uk/why-metric/myths/metric-internationally/the-moon-landings/
Pretty horrifying.  Apparently, the mission control was indeed all done in metric units, and converted for the purposes of the interface with the astronauts to English units because that's what we Americans are used to.   As a software developer who has worked primarily in scientific and military domains, I can promise you that this sort of thing is an open invitation to an errant conversion error somewhere along the line, no matter how careful people think they are.