Re: stupid question:  What's the difference between mil and mm?

Moved to UserChat from Support

"Tilmann Reh"  wrote

James Morrison schrieb:

 

I highly recommend never using the term "mil"--it is too ambiguous.

...

If you 1/1000 of an inch then we use the term "thou".

 

Sorry, but in my eyes "thou" is exactly as ambiguous as "mil". :-\

It could mean a thousandth of about /everything/.

 

Maybe it's from my european background, but additionally I have never

heard "thou" before, except for Olin's post and yours - but "mil" is

pretty common and (for me) unambiguous for tens of years... I never

would have imagined someone could misinterpret it - one more evidence of

small differences in language that can be dangerous...

 

Tilmann

This is a great coffee break discussion.

As with any language,  interpretation  lies in the context.

Additionally the context is affected by the history of a country, its

culture.

Within a culture colloquialisms  and phrase shortening occurs. This was

acceptable in days of old where your interaction tended to be quite local

and the risks of using the same sounding word to express something entirely

different was low .  Now days with the global community  the risks and costs

of misinterpretation are high so we need to ensure clarity for the receiver.

Here in New Zealand, being an English Commonwealth country, my schooling

involved the imperial measure. Small measurements below about 1/64 inch were

done in thousands of and inch (Thou). It was handy to know that the

thickness of a hacksaw blade was 25 thou., a handy size for setting spark

plug gaps and engine tappets. In those years most product came from England

or USA. Eventually we metricated and tape measures and rulers had both

measures along their edges and imported product can be of either measure

but predominately metric these days.   Now when I measure ,say, a table  I

use millimetres but as I remember it I say 'mils' as the shortening of the

word millimetre. Likely I am saying 'mill-s'  but it sounds the same. In my

context, to me, I know what I mean. If I quoted the phrase 15mils to most

people in this country they would interpret it as meaning 1.5 centimetres

and not 15 milli-inches. To someone here in the PCB trade the interpretation

would be 15 milliinches so long as the surrounding conversation supported

that context but because of our history they would likely ask for

confirmation. Currently any conversation with an engineering trade using

'Thou' would be understood. In the future, if the entire world goes metric,

thou will disappear from common use here just as yards have.

Personally I have not heard 'thou' used in any other way.

'Milli' immediately conveys 1/1000 to me.

'mil' and 'mils' I know as 1/1000 inch but I need to confirm everytime it's

not a shortening of millimetre.

mil used with inch appears to be a mix of metric qualifier with an imperial

measure, I could be wrong about this.

Hope you enjoyed your coffee.

Warren

"Warren Brayshaw" <warrenbrayshaw@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message

news:hsndo1$oaa$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

Moved to UserChat from Support

 

"Tilmann Reh"  wrote

James Morrison schrieb:

 

I highly recommend never using the term "mil"--it is too ambiguous.

...

If you 1/1000 of an inch then we use the term "thou".

 

Sorry, but in my eyes "thou" is exactly as ambiguous as "mil". :-\

It could mean a thousandth of about /everything/.

 

Maybe it's from my european background, but additionally I have never

heard "thou" before, except for Olin's post and yours - but "mil" is

pretty common and (for me) unambiguous for tens of years... I never

would have imagined someone could misinterpret it - one more evidence of

small differences in language that can be dangerous...

 

Tilmann

 

This is a great coffee break discussion.

 

As with any language,  interpretation  lies in the context.

Additionally the context is affected by the history of a country, its

culture.

Within a culture colloquialisms  and phrase shortening occurs. This was

acceptable in days of old where your interaction tended to be quite local

and the risks of using the same sounding word to express something

entirely

different was low .  Now days with the global community  the risks and

costs

of misinterpretation are high so we need to ensure clarity for the

receiver.

 

Here in New Zealand, being an English Commonwealth country, my schooling

involved the imperial measure. Small measurements below about 1/64 inch

were

done in thousands of and inch (Thou). It was handy to know that the

thickness of a hacksaw blade was 25 thou., a handy size for setting spark

plug gaps and engine tappets. In those years most product came from

England

or USA. Eventually we metricated and tape measures and rulers had both

measures along their edges and imported product can be of either measure

but predominately metric these days.   Now when I measure ,say, a table  I

use millimetres but as I remember it I say 'mils' as the shortening of the

word millimetre. Likely I am saying 'mill-s'  but it sounds the same. In

my

context, to me, I know what I mean. If I quoted the phrase 15mils to most

people in this country they would interpret it as meaning 1.5 centimetres

and not 15 milli-inches. To someone here in the PCB trade the

interpretation

would be 15 milliinches so long as the surrounding conversation supported

that context but because of our history they would likely ask for

confirmation. Currently any conversation with an engineering trade using

'Thou' would be understood. In the future, if the entire world goes

metric,

thou will disappear from common use here just as yards have.

 

Personally I have not heard 'thou' used in any other way.

'Milli' immediately conveys 1/1000 to me.

'mil' and 'mils' I know as 1/1000 inch but I need to confirm everytime

it's

not a shortening of millimetre.

 

mil used with inch appears to be a mix of metric qualifier with an

imperial

measure, I could be wrong about this.

 

Hope you enjoyed your coffee.

Warren

 

 

How big is your coffee cup? 275 mls

Greg Erskine wrote:

"Warren Brayshaw" <warrenbrayshaw@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message

news:hsndo1$oaa$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

Moved to UserChat from Support

 

"Tilmann Reh"  wrote

James Morrison schrieb:

 

I highly recommend never using the term "mil"--it is too ambiguous.

...

If you 1/1000 of an inch then we use the term "thou".

Sorry, but in my eyes "thou" is exactly as ambiguous as "mil". :-\

It could mean a thousandth of about /everything/.

 

Maybe it's from my european background, but additionally I have never

heard "thou" before, except for Olin's post and yours - but "mil" is

pretty common and (for me) unambiguous for tens of years... I never

would have imagined someone could misinterpret it - one more evidence of

small differences in language that can be dangerous...

 

Tilmann

This is a great coffee break discussion.

 

As with any language,  interpretation  lies in the context.

Additionally the context is affected by the history of a country, its

culture.

Within a culture colloquialisms  and phrase shortening occurs. This was

acceptable in days of old where your interaction tended to be quite local

and the risks of using the same sounding word to express something

entirely

different was low .  Now days with the global community  the risks and

costs

of misinterpretation are high so we need to ensure clarity for the

receiver.

 

Here in New Zealand, being an English Commonwealth country, my schooling

involved the imperial measure. Small measurements below about 1/64 inch

were

done in thousands of and inch (Thou). It was handy to know that the

thickness of a hacksaw blade was 25 thou., a handy size for setting spark

plug gaps and engine tappets. In those years most product came from

England

or USA. Eventually we metricated and tape measures and rulers had both

measures along their edges and imported product can be of either measure

but predominately metric these days.   Now when I measure ,say, a table  I

use millimetres but as I remember it I say 'mils' as the shortening of the

word millimetre. Likely I am saying 'mill-s'  but it sounds the same. In

my

context, to me, I know what I mean. If I quoted the phrase 15mils to most

people in this country they would interpret it as meaning 1.5 centimetres

and not 15 milli-inches. To someone here in the PCB trade the

interpretation

would be 15 milliinches so long as the surrounding conversation supported

that context but because of our history they would likely ask for

confirmation. Currently any conversation with an engineering trade using

'Thou' would be understood. In the future, if the entire world goes

metric,

thou will disappear from common use here just as yards have.

 

Personally I have not heard 'thou' used in any other way.

'Milli' immediately conveys 1/1000 to me.

'mil' and 'mils' I know as 1/1000 inch but I need to confirm everytime

it's

not a shortening of millimetre.

 

mil used with inch appears to be a mix of metric qualifier with an

imperial

measure, I could be wrong about this.

 

Hope you enjoyed your coffee.

Warren

 

 

 

How big is your coffee cup? 275 mls

 

27.5 table spoons? SCNR

Anyhow, this mils business has cost a pretty penny once at a company. We

had hired several UK engineers and they thought of mils as millimeters.

While our machine shop thought it was ... and made the part "to order".

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.

Use another domain or send PM.

warrenbrayshaw wrote on Sat, 15 May 2010 20:15

if the entire world goes metric,

thou will disappear from common use here just as yards have.

I doubt yards have dissappeared.  If the center circle of your soccer

fields is 9.14m in radius, then you're only pretending yards are gone.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

warrenbrayshaw wrote >

if the entire world goes metric,

thou will disappear from common use here just as yards have.

"Olin Lathrop"  wrote>

I doubt yards have dissappeared.  If the center circle of your soccer

fields is 9.14m in radius, then you're only pretending yards are gone.

 

Use of that measurement standard has gone. The distance/dimension remains

but what units we use to specify it by can be anything and will be the

system that is in vogue.

The groundsman would currently layout the field using a metric rule although

the dimension equates to exact yards.

Changing the sport to cricket, the pitch is one chain long (20.1168m) and I

doubt the groundsman has a ruler marked in chains.

You believed using the dimensions of a soccer field was a good way to

illustrate your point.  I get your point but an earlier point was the

importance of understanding the culture of the recipient when communicating.

To illustrate, although growing in presence, soccer is not a big sport in

New Zealand. Only this year has there been a marked increase in television

coverage of international football activities.

If asked, I could not have told you the dimension of the centre circle. With

consideration I could have probably deduced that its origins would have

dictated the field be measured in yards.

Hence, getting back to mils, mm inch and mic, usage of terms is only valid

if familiarity is similar.

Warren

Warren Brayshaw wrote:

warrenbrayshaw wrote >

if the entire world goes metric,

thou will disappear from common use here just as yards have.

 

"Olin Lathrop"  wrote>

I doubt yards have dissappeared.  If the center circle of your soccer

fields is 9.14m in radius, then you're only pretending yards are gone.

 

 

Use of that measurement standard has gone. The distance/dimension remains

but what units we use to specify it by can be anything and will be the

system that is in vogue.

Here in the US the "yard" is by no means gone. When we recently had our

house re-roofed all the estimates quoted the material in square-yards.

--

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.

Use another domain or send PM.

Warren Brayshaw wrote:

warrenbrayshaw wrote >

if the entire world goes metric,

thou will disappear from common use here just as yards have.

 

"Olin Lathrop"  wrote>

I doubt yards have dissappeared.  If the center circle of your soccer

fields is 9.14m in radius, then you're only pretending yards are gone.

 

 

Use of that measurement standard has gone. The distance/dimension

remains

but what units we use to specify it by can be anything and will be the

system that is in vogue.

"Joerg"  wrote.

Here in the US the "yard" is by no means gone. When we recently had our

house re-roofed all the estimates quoted the material in square-yards.

 

Exactly. Yards are still in vogue for US.

Joerg's reply is a good example of conveying culture and context to increase

the probability that the recipient interprets the message correctly.

"US" conveys culture context

"house re-roofed" conveys scale/subject and provides a reference to check

the used unit (square-yards) against thus increasing the confidence in ones

understanding.

Warren