Howdy Apteryx,
I compared the examples you gave from the Silverspot.com website:
http://www.silverspot.com/stersilligfi.html
To these examples from the same site:
http://silverspot.com/stersilheavf.html
From these comparisons, and some other examples found on other web
pages, here is how to measure your current chain. I will use your
example of the 4mm Figaro 120. As you look at the image of the
chain on the Silverspot.com website, the width is the measure from
the top of one link to the bottom of that link. You will notice
that the Figaro 180 on that same page is around 1 1/2 times the
width (the measure in millimeters from the top of a link to the
bottom of that link) of the Figaro 120.
So, place your chain flat (stretched out) on a hard surface, take
a metric ruler and measure the width (as opposed to the length)
in millimeters (mm) to get the width you desire.
As for the "120" (and "150" etc.) you see associated with these
chains, that is the thickness of the "wire" that makes up each
of the links in decimeters. A decimeter is 1/100 of a millimeter,
so a "120" would have a "wire" that is equal to 1.2 millimeters.
In turn, measure the thickness (the gauge) of one of the "wires"
that makes up one of the links of your chain in millimeters and
express that in decimeter form. In other words, if one of the
"wires" that makes up one of the links of your chain measures
2mm in width (gauge) and the total width of one of the links was
6mm, you would have a 6mm Figaro 200 chain.
Using a caliper (used to measure the thickness of relatively thin
objects) from a engineering supply store, or borrowed from someone
that has one, would help you measure your chain's dimensions more
accurately than a metric ruler.
If you need any clarification, feel free to ask.
Search Strategy:
Compared (as well as roughly measuring off the screen) various
chains on the Silverspot.com website.
http://www.silverspot.com/
Looking Forward, denco-ga |
Clarification of Answer by
denco-ga
on
06 Oct 2003 11:25 PDT
Howdy Apteryx,
Apologies, but dancethecon is quite right about the measure
of the "wire" that makes up the chain being in micrometers
a/k/a microns, and not decimeters. The symbol used for
micrometers is "µm" and there is a device called a (really!)
micrometer, which can be used to measure, among other things,
micrometers.
You can still measure the thickness of the "wire" that makes
up your chain in millimeters, and then multiply that number
by 100 to get the reference number. You should substitute the
word micron, or micrometer, every time I reference a decimeter
in my original Answer.
So, if the "wire" that makes up your chain measures .8mm,
then it would be a "080" and likewise, if it measured 1.2mm,
it would be a "120" chain.
In my original answer, the word "gauge" is used to reference
the thickness of the "wire" that makes up the chain, and not
the standard of gauge measurement that dancethecon references.
Standard gauge numbers have nothing to do with the "080" and
"120" numbers used for these types of chains.
From the Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. Dictionary.com site.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gauge&r=67
"8. Thickness or diameter, as of sheet metal or wire."
Much thanks to dancethecon for clearing up my confusion.
Looking Forward, denco-ga
|
Clarification of Answer by
denco-ga
on
06 Oct 2003 11:33 PDT
Again, apologies, but I am off by a factor of 10 in my Answer
Clarification. 10 microns (micrometers), as dancethecon states,
is 1/1000 of a millimeter, and not 1/100 of a millimeter.
Just measure the width of the "wire" that makes up a link in
your chain in millimeters and multiply it by 100 to get the
reference number.
This is what I get for messing aroung with the metric system.
denco-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
apteryx-ga
on
06 Oct 2003 21:08 PDT
Thanks, denco. With a generous assist from dancethecon and a little
retracing of steps, I think that you have answered the question. But
before I let you go, I am completely arrested by the fact that you
managed to get a lowercase mu into your message. How did you do that?
The inability to achieve typographical effects such as italics and
diacritical marks seems a sore limitation of GA to me; but that mu
holds out the promise of more.
Apteryx
|
Clarification of Answer by
denco-ga
on
06 Oct 2003 23:14 PDT
Well, Apteryx, I cheated.
I cut and pasted a µ from another web page into my Answer,
since doing it the "legitimate" way is a bit of a pain.
Here is a Tripod based web page titled "Learn HTML - Special
Characters" that explains how to do it with the ALT key in
Windows. Be aware that some browsers (or fonts) might not
depict the characters correctly.
http://empire2001.tripod.com/help/characters.htm
"Here is the syntax: ALT + 0xxx, where 0xxx is a four digit
number with a zero followed by your desired character's
numeric entity, leaving out the &#. (&255; = 0255)
With double-digit numbers, add another zero. (@ = 0064)"
So, to type a mu, you would hold down your ALT key, then
type on your numberpad the numbers 0181 and then release
the ALT key: µ
You can produce diacritical characters the same way.
ALT0200 È
ALT0220 Ü
I use the following all of the time (I live near a city
that has a "tilde n" in its name) and have a cheat note
with the ALT key combination taped to my keyboard.
ALT0241 ñ
ALT0209 Ñ
These can be done on a Mac as well and this TypeArt Foundry
Inc. web page shows how it is done with the MAc OPT key.
http://www.typeart.com/special_characters.asp
"µ (mu) -- opt-m (Mac) -- alt-0181 (PC) -- & #181; (html)"
If you need any clarification, feel free to ask.
Search Strategy: Personal knowledge of ñ and Ñ.
Google search on: "special characters" Windows ALT mu
://www.google.com/search?q=%22special+characters%22+Windows+ALT+mu
Google search on: "special characters" Mac mu
://www.google.com/search?q=%22special+characters%22+Mac+mu
Looking Forward, denco-ga
|
