Talk:Vernier scale

External Links

http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/htmltag.php?code=users.sgeducation.lookang.AAPTVernierCaliper_pkg.AAPTVernierCaliperApplet.class&name=AAPTVernierCaliper&muid=14019 can someone check if this link is acceptable? it is definitely better than http://members.shaw.ca/ron.blond/Vern.APPLET/ i feel.

http://members.shaw.ca/ron.blond/Vern.APPLET/ is down This webpage is not available The connection to members.shaw.ca was interrupted. Here are some suggestions: Reload this webpage later. Check your Internet connection. Restart any router, modem, or other network devices you may be using. Add Google Chrome as a permitted program in your firewall's or antivirus software's settings. If it is already a permitted program, try deleting it from the list of permitted programs and adding it again. If you use a proxy server, check your proxy settings or contact your network administrator to make sure the proxy server is working. If you don't believe you should be using a proxy server, adjust your proxy settings: Go to the wrench menu > Options > Under the Hood > Change proxy settings... > LAN Settings and deselect the "Use a proxy server for your LAN" checkbox. Error 101 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET): The connection was reset.

(Lookang (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Older Image

I have replaced this image with better quality ones from German wikipedia which have a greater explanatory value. Lumos3 23:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vernier scale on a slide rule?

I have never come across this and the Slide rule article makes no mention of it. I think it should be deleted. Lumos3 08:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

see: http://sliderulemuseum.com/Patents/US/2424713.pdf 99.199.121.190 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True,it uses a vernier on the non logarithmic of the slide rule. Was it just a patent or was it ever manufactured. Lumos3 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make much sense; a vernier would only work against a linear scale and there's usually only one linear scale on a slide rule; the rest are logarithmic scales.

Atlant 12:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replaced slide rule by theodolite as an example. Lumos3 13:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

linear scale, zero point

linear vs logarithmic, not linear vs angular. this should be clarified

I don't understand how the zero point of the vernier/indicating scale is coincident with the start of the data scale. It is coincident with the index of the "slider".

I have added some clarifications to the article which I hope explains things. Please come back if its not clear as this dialogue can only improve the article for new readers. Lumos3 13:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic?: On a slid rule you use logarithmic marks, but even on an angular scale (ie precision goniometer) the marks are still liniar around the curved slipline. The Vernier scale is also liniar, only off by a constant ratio to give the next fractional digit.
Zero point?: Obviously, by definition, when the instrument is closed and empty, the start (zero point) of the Vernier scale must be coincident with the zero point of the main scale. However, it is not necessary for there to be any particular relationship of the marks with the jaw contact faces (althouth there are practical considerations). If you had a caliper with unmarked surfaces, you could use any needle to scratch a random perpendicular line across the (jaw closed) slipline, and call that zero, then use that scratch to lay out the precision liniar main and Vernier scales.

Perhaps it is also worth noting that at Zero (or any exact alignment of the vernier 0 with a main scale mark, the Vernier end (9 or 11) mark is also aligned. This double alighment is also one indication of scale quality (If four marks don't align everywhere, don't buy it!)

A Vernier scale also makes it easier to guess at another additional decimal of precision with reasonable accuracy, as you can see when none of the marks align, the true measure is between the two vernier marks that are enclosed by (or enclose) 2 marks on the main scale. It is easy to see how 'balanced' that enclosure is, and therby to estimate the next digit.
--Wikidity (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misreading?

On the closup picture (with the 2 red markings), you can see that on the vernier scale, the line that matches up exactly, is the ",6" line and not the ",58" one.

So the measurment should be 3,6 mm and not 3,58 mm.

Unless with "closest alignment" is really meant that one that comes the closest, but doesn't line up exactly. (Which is what I learned).

Vernier scales are hard enough to read in real life; the only person who could say with any certainty which mark lined up is the photographer at the time of the photograph. Parallax error for the win. - Toastydeath 02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Have added a note to this effect. This is also noted on the German article. Lumos3 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A way to avoid parallax would be to place the callipers on a scanner and digitise them like a document (using a tranparency sheet to protect the scanner).128.240.225.9 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also misleading because it doesn't read 3.58, it reads 0.358. The (unlabeled) scale appears to be marked in cm, not mm. Yet the label adhered to it is in mm, as is the caption. Maybe it's because I'm American, but this took me a bit to decipher, and I already knew how to use Vernier scales. I may have to take and submit a photo from the scale on my barometer. Skintigh (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor's Name

The inventor is Pierre Vernier not Augustus Vernier (that is how he is called in his native village Ornans (25) where the main street is named after him) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernier (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Shouldn't "vernier" be capitalized because it's named after a person? Wizard191 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a physics instructor, and I use vernier calipers often. I've seen it written both ways, capitalized and lowercase. I think both are acceptable. There is a precedent in physics of lowercasing people's names. For example, the standard unit of force is newtons, named after Isaac Newton, and in physics textbooks, it's always written as "newtons," as in, "a force of 3 newtons," always with a lowercase letter n. Navigatr85 14:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigatr85 (talk • contribs)

The unit is called a newton (lower case) but things that we attribute to Newton, like Newtonian mechanics and the Newton-Raphson method, involve his name uppercase. This rule applies also to other people whom units and other things are named after. So it would be consistent to call this gadget "a Vernier scale" (uppercase V), and to shorten that to "a vernier" (lower case). I have seen precedent for lower-case "vernier" (without "scale") in print as early as 1894.

Woodframe (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JIF image

The image showing a retrograde vernier is really a direct reading vernier.Redding7 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zero error

There is a slight lack of clarity in the following sentence:
Zero error may arise due to knocks that cause the calibration at the 0.00 mm when the jaws are perfectly closed or just touching each other.
Perhaps it could be altered to:
Zero error may arise due to knocks that cause the 0.00 mm marks to be misaligned when the jaws are perfectly closed i.e. just touching each other.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SayWordsToMe (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the unnecessary digression and improved this wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.111.13 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus should be the scale, not the calipers

The article as written is really about calipers, not Vernier scales, and needs to be re-written so the scale is the main topic.

And isn't the Lalande reference a primary source, not a secondary source?

Woodframe (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--174.21.246.94 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)== Too many images ==[reply]

- - I'm not sure if there are too many images, but I wish there was a way to stop all of the animations. Having something change periodically right next to a paragraph of text is REALLY distracting. Perhaps the automatic loops could be replaced with left and right arrow buttons so the user has control over the display. 2015-12-10 RGM ***

I count six images that all depict the same thing, how to read the vernier scale. Are they all necessary? --Janke | Talk 13:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plus, they are all about calipers, and all ten-part decimal. The page needs examples of arc-measuring verniers as well, and verniers measuring half-millimetre and twenty-minute intervals as well.

A proposed outline to get us started on a better track:

Brief definition
History based on the angle-measuring problem where it actually originated, then subsequent transfer to calipers
Theory
1. 'simple' vernier
2. exploitation of Vernier acuity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodframe (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. variations such as reverse-reading
4. variations to cover partial units
How to read one
Examples - caliper, screw micrometer, sextant, spectrometer, what else?

Instead of a section on calipers zero error, it would be more appropriate to have a section on Vernier scale errors more generally, addressing zero error, irregularity in engraving the scale, misalignment, visibility, parallax, proneness to heat sensitivity and so on. None of these are unique to Vernier scales, but how they are handled in Vernier scale design is worth including here. The "how-to" section on correcting for zero error is just inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodframe (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woodframe (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how does it ?

I've read every section in this several times, and I still can't grasp how it works. Okay, so you read the big measurement off of the big scale, and the finer one of the vernier scale. But how does the vernier scale know where to indicate? The animation shows a caliper measuring a bolt's width; when it closes, the scale is at 2.4. Then, magically, a little red mark appears and moves along the vernier scale and stops at the 7, indicating 0.07. Add the two together, great, I get it. But how does the little red mark "know" that it's supposed to stop at the 7 mark? Is this a mechanical thing? Gearing down? Could we get a basic, simple explanation of how the thing works, not just how to read it? I'm trying to visualize this, and all I can think is that there must be two adjusting knobs on the caliper...one "coarse" knob for adjusting the main scale, and a "fine" knob for adjusting the vernier scale. You close the coarse knob until it hits the last big unit possible...say you reach 3.1cm and can tell the jaws will touch the object before it reaches 3.0. So you stop on 3.1cm, and adjust the fine knob, which closes the jaws. When you stop, it says "6" on the vernier, so you know that it's 3.06cm. Is this correct? The vernier is mounted to the main scale, moves with it, staying at "0". Once you stop the main scale, the vernier measures the distance remaining? I think "coarse" and "fine" would be the most obvious way of saying it. Because it doesn't make any sense to someone who's never used one, the way it's written here. AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the page is very badly written. Being a novice you get to see it with fresh eyes unlike most of us. So when you figure this out, perhaps you could write it!

I am a novice as well. You sometimes see the trees and not the forest. "Course" and "Fine" should be redefined as linear and rotational mathematics. Both sets are beholden to forces. Mechanics follow.--lbeben 01:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The little red mark "knows" where it's going because of the vernier spacing. Can I ask you to try following up some of the references? Do any of them do a good job of explaining how it works? If you can identify two or three good sources, they can become the basis for rewriting the explanation on this page.

Woodframe (talk) 09:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The little red marker is only pointing out at which point the marks of the two scales (main and vernier) precisely coincide. There will be only one such point and it can be found by eye alone. Then forget about the main scale and count how many vernier scale marks there are up to the place they coincide. That is you fractional reading. Lumos3 (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Anna's suggestion to distinguish between 'coarse' and 'fine' is very likely to be helpful. Her question shows that it isn't even clear that there is typically only one knob. If the red marker or any explanatory aid needs to be explained in its own right, that's a very strong sign that it's not appropriate for the article. Woodframe (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vernier scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090202101843/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org:80/Navigation to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Navigation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at

Metalworking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

{{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vernier scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831052938/http://history.cultural-china.com/en/56H2758H7991.html to http://history.cultural-china.com/en/56H2758H7991.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/science/other/micrometer-and-calipers-physics. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 11:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

@Plorpy: what's your source for this pronounciation edit? All my dictionaries (AHD, M-W, OED) agree the stress belongs on the first syllable, not the second. That said, I have frequently heard it both ways (including among those people who refer to a digital caliper as a vernier caliper, ahem), and I have to imagine Pierre Vernier pronounced the final phoneme somewhat differently. jhawkinson (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]