 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2010-05-13 20:08
i always get these confused. i want thick mouthpiece patch. would that be the 3mm?
thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-05-13 20:15
8 is more than 3. That being said 8mm sounds awfully thick.
James
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2010-05-13 20:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-05-13 20:23
8 tenths is still more than 3 tenths. Go for the 8!
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GLHopkins
Date: 2010-05-13 21:13
This may help to determine whether or not clarinet players are geniuses.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2010-05-13 21:47
Yeah - 0.8mm is thicker (and softer) than 0.3mm.
I've no idea what that is in thous.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2010-05-13 22:48
As a rough rule of thumb if you remember that...
1mm is approx 40 thou
.02(5)mm is approx .001"
its quite easy to make mental metric/imperial conversions
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jasperbay
Date: 2010-05-13 23:18
In 'chick speak', .8mm is the thickness of a credit card, .3mm is the thickness of three bounced checks. ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif) Can't wait to show this question to my wife!!
Clark G. Sherwood
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-05-14 03:50
>> Except that we tend to use powers of two (1/16, 1/32, etc.) for inches, not thousandths... <<
I see that American repairers tend to speak in thousands often. The smallest measurement I remember seeing anyone use with the method you mentioned was 1/64. I've never seen anyone using /128, then they change to thousands.
Re the conversion, if you're on the computer you have a calculator anyway. From mm to inch it's x25.4 and reverse for inch to mm.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2010-05-14 15:00
At one time the metric system seemed to make sense.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2010-05-14 15:11
BobD wrote:
> At one time the metric system seemed to make sense.
I very faintly remember my parents speaking of Pound, Shilling and Pence when they were in England. I can imagine countless children being tortured with various market women's calculations prior to decimalization. <shudder>
(I know, metric isn't decimalization, but the idea behind this is the same)
How do Imperial calculators work? Do they have a Pound key? ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2010-05-14 16:20
When I worked on Computers and Data Processing Machines (the electro mechanical precursor) in the early 1960's there were specially adapted counter plates on the mechanical devices and specially developed circuitry and later sub-programs for the computers to cater for the UK currency.
Imagine a mechanical device having to handle 12 pence = 1 shilling, and 20 shillings = 1 Pound sterling). I think IBM were very glad when 1971 came and UK went metric money.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
