Inch to Metric conversion table.

[wow]

Hi.

did you work out ALL the fractions manually? A few typo's slipped past the "proofreader"...

Yes, they were entered manually. And I proofread it a half-dozen times at LEAST. Ooops! Thanks for catching that!

I even found another error other than the two you found. The errors have been corrected in my post above.

 

[ragstian]

Hi.

wow: I am not trying to "better you" in any way - your tables are great but here are my version -
fitting in with the "style" of my inch_2_mm conversion chart. (This was done mainly as a programming exercise.)
This table DOES have round-off errors - note that the inch fraction part has been computed to the nearest 32nd. (Chime back if any interest in going for 64th's - just one number to change in the program -  [smile])
I limited the inch decimal to four decimal places where the last digit represents 1/10000th of an inch.

Once again the files are in PDF format - in US letter and DIN A4 size to suit your printer.
Chime back if any other formats are wanted or with suggestions for improvements.

[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]

RGDS
Ragnar

 

[wow]

[attachimg=2]

wow: I am not trying to "better you" in any way - your tables are great but here are my version -
Ragnar

No worries. Some people will like ours (Willy's and mine) and some people will like yours. Choice is good!

And for those who don't want to download your pdf just to view it, here's a quick preview of Ragnar's table. NOTE - Per Ragnars request this preview is at 72 dpi so no one mistakenly uses it to print from. Download his pdf (above) if you want to print it at high resolution and also if you want the latest revision:

[attachimg=1]

Download and use whichever one you like - or both!

[big grin]

 

[ragstian]

Hi.

wow:
Thanks for making the "Preview" - by looking at it I found an error - text on left and right side not equal in size - check alignment at the bottom.

I have redone the files - can you please "redo" the preview as well? Might be an idea to make the image smaller as well to "prevent" printing the "preview" image - which is of "inferior" quality (PNG - raster) compared to the vector format (PDF) image. A raster image will always loose quality when scaled - even if the image format is "lossless" (PNG).
(It's a pity that this board does not accept SVG files which is now the standard everywhere else. They scale without any loss of quality.)

RGDS
Ragnar

EDIT:
wow:
Thanks -That was quick. Hopefully the pdf file looks (a lot) better than the last "preview"! [big grin]

 

[wow]

Did everything you asked, plus added a note to make sure people download your pdf in case you update it again.

Edit:

Hopefully the pdf file looks (a lot) better than the last "preview"! [big grin]

Per your request, I intentionally made it 'rougher' so that people wouldn't try to print the PNG by accident and would instead download your PDF. I can change it back to match the quality of ours if you think the new preview doesn't do yours justice? I certainly wasn't trying to make yours look worse or 'bias' it in any way...just trying to do what you asked?

 

[ragstian]

Hi

wow: Thanks - you're the man!

wow - Working on Wood?
- Where I used to work (offshore seismic oil exploration)  "wow" was an acronym for "Waiting on Weather"  [big grin]

RGDS
Ragnar

 

[wow]

Hi

wow: Thanks - you're the man!

wow - Working on Wood?
- Where I used to work (offshore seismic oil exploration)  "wow" was an acronym for "Waiting on Weather"  [big grin]

RGDS
Ragnar

Nothing so exotic - WOW is my initials. But if I get well enough to get back into woodworking as a business I might use something like you posited - Working On Wood, Wayne On Wood, Whacking On Wood [big grin] or something like that.

I always find it interesting that people use the same acronyms to mean different things, and how they can cause confusion. I'm thinking now of 'LOL' which to my parents generation meant 'Lots Of Love'.

BTW, I liked your idea to limit the decimals to 4 places so much that I stole it and changed my tables to match.

[thumbs up]

It's kind of silly to stop at 32nds of an inch increments but have decimals out to even 4 places - but it looks so 'accurate' doesn't it?

 

[ragstian]

Hi.

wow;

It's kind of silly to stop at 32nds of an inch increments but have decimals out to even 4 places - but it looks so 'accurate' doesn't it?

Fantastic - looks like we are playing the same tune! That's why i am skeptical to people trusting the accuracy of their five dollar digital multimeter - even with three decimals it can be very inaccurate!

RGDS
Ragnar