I would suggest that JHM, you search the internet for ¡°how to read a Vernier scale¡±, it¡¯s easy to do but harder to describe here in words than see in a sketch online. ?
(I¡¯m in my mid sixties and when I was in year 3 secondary school (13-14yo), one pupil had an electronic calculator with glowing red numbers. ?We learnt to read vernier callipers in Physics classes, but it would have dropped off the syllabus within a few years. ?I had a slide rule that my uncle, an eminent physicist, said, had more functions on it than he¡¯d ever used, but my fellow pupils scorned my claim to be able to read 4 significant figures off it. ?4 figure logarithm tables were the norm. But I still use my slide rule to take dimensions off an odd-scaled drawing of a model subject. )
?Digital devices give us a wonderful sense of precision, but the workpiece¡¯s actual precision is never better than its least accurate dimension.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 25 Jul 2022, at 21:43, sawbona@... wrote:
?Hello:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 02:07 PM, Bill in OKC too wrote:
This site may help you ...
Thanks for the link.
It
does read in mm I can read 25.4mm when I set it at 1.0" like in the photo I uploaded.
It is the lack of numbers in the lower scale is what seemed strange to me.
I found a Mauser-Messzeug catalogue from the early/mid 1950's with what would seem to be the complete Mauser line of measuring instruments.
My 25mm / 0.01 micrometer is there and now my 160mm caliper.
I'll upload it to the files section for reference.
Thanks for your input.
Best,
JHM
