What can I do with these rulers?

[brockrwood]

I have a Staedtler 987 19-1 “metric” ruler, a Staedtler-Mars 987 18-31 “architect” ruler, and a number 240BP “architect” ruler. See pic. Got these at thrift store for less than a dollar (US) each.

I figured there has to be a model rocket use for these fancy rulers.

Any suggestions?

 

[jmasterj]

You can use them like aluminum angle with length markings on body tubes bigger than 1" or so.

 

[neil_w]

Measure stuff?

 

[brockrwood]

Measure stuff?

You funny. ;-). I mean, are there any particular rocket measuring needs where these might come in handy?

I was hoping that the metric one would have an edge that is marked with 0.5 mm hashmarks. Doesn’t look like it.

 

[waltr]

The architect scale (not ruler) is good for scaling drawing like when doing a scale model.

These are not good to use as a straight edge for cutting, only for laying out dimensions.
I have an assortment of triangle scales but never used them for rockets. For rockets I use two plastic scale, a 6" and an 12" with fractional inches and millimeters. Then two longer aluminum scales, 18" and 1 meter to use as straight edges and measuring.

 

[rharshberger]

Those rulers are actually known as archirect/draftsmans scales, because well 5 of the sides are scales of x=meter/feet.

Edit: Waltr and I simul-posted. I still have my scales (Architect fractional inch, Engineers decimal inch, and Engineers/Architects metric) from college and high school. Today they are like slide rules in the digital design age.

 

[PDawg]

Should be perfect for drawing fin lines once you have the marks.

 

[lakeroadster]

I have a number of these... relics from my years of old school drawing board drafting.

The best thing to use them for is accurate measurements. Their shape is a big reason for that.

Another thing they are handy for is tearing paper, wax paper, aluminum foil, etc. Their shape makes it easy to hold them down and apply pressure. And the width of the tri-sided scale ensures the paper doesn't slip.

 

[teepot]

I use an architect scale for drawing rockets. I'm old school. I use graph paper the scale and triangles. As has been said. Very accurate.

 

[BABAR]

Thinking outside the box, when you are using Carpenters Wood Filler on BOTH sides of a fin, you can use clothes pins to attach the root edges to the upward edge of the rulers while they dry.

 

[BABAR]

You can also use them to gently whap the kid/dog/cat if they get too close to rockets in critical stages of building and finishing.

 

[lakeroadster]

They also make a nice rubber band shooter.... "3 in the chamber, locked and loaded".

 

[Blast it Tom!]

You can certainly use them to lay out scale models, i.e. 1/4"=1ft would be a 1/48 scale model...

 

[Woody's Workshop]

Tape 3 Mini's around them and add a LL.
And hope you don't get a bad one and CATO!

 

[modeltrains]

You can certainly use them to lay out scale models, i.e. 1/4"=1ft would be a 1/48 scale model...

60 divisions on the Engineer scale gives you feet in 1/72 scale, though each foot is subdivided in units of 10 as opposed to 12.
40 divisions side gives 1/48 scale feet.
20 divisions side gives 1/24 scale feet.

At the moment I can't offer a specific model rocket use for them other than marking tube locations, as I mostly build from kits, but my old and yellowing ones remain on the model building table and do get used at times.

(Oddly enough the black metal one doesn't seem to be yellowing like the white plastic ones are)

 

[MetricRocketeer]

Hi TRF colleagues,

If we used the metric system, we wouldn't need special architect's scales and engineer's scales along with regular rulers. We would just have rulers that had marked on them millimetrers or centimetres. That's it. All linear measurements would be in decimals.

And scaling things up or down using a base-ten system is a piece of cake.

Stanley

 

[Blast it Tom!]

Hi TRF colleagues,

If we used the metric system, we wouldn't need special architect's scales and engineer's scales along with regular rulers. We would just have rulers that had marked on them millimetrers or centimetres. That's it. All linear measurements would be in decimals.

And scaling things up or down using a base-ten system is a piece of cake.

Stanley

Not if you want 1/3 scale... but then, that stinks in Imperial, too!

 

[MetricRocketeer]

Not if you want 1/3 scale... but then, that stinks in Imperial, too!

Hi @Blast it Tom!,

Please give an example of such a situation, and then let's see how we might be able to work our way through it.

Thank you.

Stanley

 

[Blast it Tom!]

Hi @Blast it Tom!,

Please give an example of such a situation, and then let's see how we might be able to work our way through it.

Thank you.

Stanley

Aww, I'm just pulling your chain! 1/3 = 0.333333 etc, how many decimal places can one reasonably measure? And good luck finding 1/3 of an inch as well!

 

[Blast it Tom!]

I have a number of these... relics from my years of old school drawing board drafting.

The best thing to use them for is accurate measurements. Their shape is a big reason for that.

Another thing they are handy for is tearing paper, wax paper, aluminum foil, etc. Their shape makes it easy to hold them down and apply pressure. And the width of the tri-sided scale ensures the paper doesn't slip.
View attachment 519139

Wait a minute! Is that a wiffle ball with a tube and fins?!?!

 

[lakeroadster]

Wait a minute! Is that a wiffle ball with a tube and fins?!?!

Well, yes, but in actuality it's a TIE Advanced X1 Fighter. They built them from wood, similar to a de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito.

More... HERE

 

[MetricRocketeer]

Aww, I'm just pulling your chain! 1/3 = 0.333333 etc, how many decimal places can one reasonably measure? And good luck finding 1/3 of an inch as well!

Hi @Blast it Tom!,

Please understand that I don't mind a joke here and there. That's fine.

But measurement is a highly important issue. Everyone knows that, including of course rocketeers.

Thus, I am glad to respond if you have a serious rejoinder to my comment. Actually, therefore, I don't know if you want to follow through with your statement about 1/3 scale, or if you are just joking.

Stanley

 

[Blast it Tom!]

Hi @Blast it Tom!,

Please understand that I don't mind a joke here and there. That's fine.

But measurement is a highly important issue. Everyone knows that, including of course rocketeers.

Thus, I am glad to respond if you have a serious rejoinder to my comment. Actually, therefore, I don't know if you want to follow through with your statement about 1/3 scale, or if you are just joking.

Stanley

Naw, just joking around... of course, now that I think back more than 50 years, I recall one of those geometry constructions - remember, you could only us a compass and a straightedge, no scales? And there was a crazy one for trisecting a line. I'll have to look that one up some day. Bisecting, I can still do 'cause it's easy.

And scales? Did you ever wonder who came up with O scale (1:43.5 or 1:48). and then HO (1:87)? What, so you go looking for prime numbers to base your scale from?! Wikipedia says O scale is either 7 mm to a foot or 6.35 mm (0.25 in) to a foot. Really? And armor is in 1:35 scale, but aircraft in 1/32, 1/48, 1/72...and cars in 1/24...

 

[bjphoenix]

If we used the metric system, we wouldn't need special architect's scales and engineer's scales along with regular rulers. We would just have rulers that had marked on them millimetrers or centimetres. That's it. All linear measurements would be in decimals.

And scaling things up or down using a base-ten system is a piece of cake.

An architect's scale is based on feet and inches. An engineer's scale is more decimal based, however it is used for scaling things way down. It wouldn't be useful for rockets unless you are building small models of really big rockets.

 

[MetricRocketeer]

An architect's scale is based on feet and inches. An engineer's scale is more decimal based, however it is used for scaling things way down. It wouldn't be useful for rockets unless you are building small models of really big rockets.

Hi @bjphoenix,

We are not disagreeing, are we?

Let's say that a real-life rocket has a length of, oh say, 76 metres. If you want a one-thousandth scale drawing, then the size of the rocket would be 7.6 centimetres, or 76 millimetres. Using the foot-pound system, the calculations would be much more complicated.

Stanley

 

[BABAR]

Hi @bjphoenix,

We are not disagreeing, are we?

Let's say that a real-life rocket has a length of, oh say, 76 metres. If you want a one-thousandth scale drawing, then the size of the rocket would be 7.6 centimetres, or 76 millimetres. Using the foot-pound system, the calculations would be much more complicated.

Stanley

And if we go to a metric clock we only work a ( roughly) 3.5 hour day!

 

[Sandy H.]

Hi @bjphoenix,

We are not disagreeing, are we?

Let's say that a real-life rocket has a length of, oh say, 76 metres. If you want a one-thousandth scale drawing, then the size of the rocket would be 7.6 centimetres, or 76 millimetres. Using the foot-pound system, the calculations would be much more complicated.

Stanley

Sure, for working on any project it is smart to establish the units of measure for things up front. Personally, I don't care about the units, just make sure everyone is on the same page.

On a more philosophical note, computer guys seem to be pretty decent in binary and hex and it would be hard to argue their contribution to space, science, society etc. Part of me says that if you can work a system of 1/12, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64 and also 2^4, 2^8, 2^12, 2^16 and more, then your brain might be more exercised in math than just 'moooove the decimal this many points'.

Would a unified base 10 system be easier for people? Sure. I find that more metric-centric people complain about imperial units vs people who work with imperial units struggling with the metric version. Areas and volumes absolutely get a bit more complex, but if you can work with the massively abominated imperial/fractional system efficiently, the 'moooove the decimal this many points [squared or cubed]' is also not that hard.

Strive to be good with the 1/3 ratios and the rest get easy. There's a lot of math that is done outside of 1/10.

No, I'm not arguing that the imperial system is better than the metric system, but given our history, be fluent in both instead of arguing. And for boo-boo's sake, pick a unit system before starting the project and stick to it!!!! Or make BT-20 a standard which is unfortunate in both systems. Or BSPP. Or NPT. Or furlongs per fortnight. Knots. . .it really never ends.

Sandy.

 

[rharshberger]

Sure, for working on any project it is smart to establish the units of measure for things up front. Personally, I don't care about the units, just make sure everyone is on the same page.

On a more philosophical note, computer guys seem to be pretty decent in binary and hex and it would be hard to argue their contribution to space, science, society etc. Part of me says that if you can work a system of 1/12, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64 and also 2^4, 2^8, 2^12, 2^16 and more, then your brain might be more exercised in math than just 'moooove the decimal this many points'.

Would a unified base 10 system be easier for people? Sure. I find that more metric-centric people complain about imperial units vs people who work with imperial units struggling with the metric version. Areas and volumes absolutely get a bit more complex, but if you can work with the massively abominated imperial/fractional system efficiently, the 'moooove the decimal this many points [squared or cubed]' is also not that hard.

Strive to be good with the 1/3 ratios and the rest get easy. There's a lot of math that is done outside of 1/10.

No, I'm not arguing that the imperial system is better than the metric system, but given our history, be fluent in both instead of arguing. And for boo-boo's sake, pick a unit system before starting the project and stick to it!!!! Or make BT-20 a standard which is unfortunate in both systems. Or BSPP. Or NPT. Or furlongs per fortnight. Knots. . .it really never ends.

Sandy.

+1, pick a standard for the project and stick with it. I am not a fan of the metric system, as I prefer imperial for most stuff, but I know how to use either system as needed. You are 100% correct the people who prefer the metric system are way more vociferous than those us who prefer the others, but in the US we outnumber them (most likely).

 

[mh9162013]

I use whatever system works for a given project. And by works, I mean whatever system allows me to use as many whole numbers as possible.

 

[lakeroadster]

Hi @bjphoenix,

We are not disagreeing, are we?

Let's say that a real-life rocket has a length of, oh say, 76 metres. If you want a one-thousandth scale drawing, then the size of the rocket would be 7.6 centimetres, or 76 millimetres. Using the foot-pound system, the calculations would be much more complicated.

Stanley

It's not complicated, it's just different.