3 ms·
> The metric system doesn't have a nice mil-like unit for those scales; the millimetre is way too crude, and micrometres are too fine. This kind of absurd clai
by Jedd 4y ago
> The metric system doesn't have a nice mil-like unit for those scales; the millimetre is way too crude, and micrometres are too fine.
This kind of absurd claim would be more compelling if you hadn't just used 3 decimal places and a quotation mark to define a distance in a format used by at most ~5% of all the people working in such scales:
> ... 0.046"
My point - metric can also use decimals. More adroitly, too, I'd argue, because of the consistency.
- kazinator 4y agoThat 0.046" is just called 46 mils though, or just 46 when that is understood. Those guitar strings are just "nine to forty-sixes" and that's it. If you're routing a circuit board, you have a grid that is a multiple of the mil: e.g. 25 mils, so if have a part with 100 mil pin spacing, that is four grid lines. Trace widths are multiples of a mil: 6 mil, 8 mil, ... through holes are mils: 25 mil, 40 mil, ... no decimal point or " mark in sight. Sure, a tenth of a mm would be a useful unit. Problem is, 0.1 mm has no name. It's either 0.1 mm or 100 microns, which are too small. I've not seen anyone define such a unit in practice; they just plod along with multiples of 0.1.