What unit is this?

Millimetres, the 4 and 5 on the bottom are inches.

>>933109
Upper row is most likely millimeter.
Lower row (4, 5; cut off) seems to be inch, as it aligns to about 25,5 of the above.
100-125 would be 2,5 centimeters, or ~1 inch then.

You moron.

divided into tenths = metric
divided into half/quarter/eighth/sixteenth = imperial

File: image.jpg (150KB, 800x572px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 800x572px

>>933224
Not necessarily.

>>933229
I'm not okay with this.

>>933229
haha i actually have a caliper like this. it actually makes things way easier. just because we aren't used to decimals in inches doesnt make it worse. fractions are fucking stupid.

>>933253
Engineers tend to be the only ones who use it, as I understand. No need to worry about it catching on.

>>933264
>implying 1/10 isn't a fraction

>>933265
>implying 1/10 isnt a fraction
wrecked

why the fuck would anyone not use metric... anything else just seems like a pain in the dick.

Thanks to all.

>>933111
Love you too <3

I'm suposed too make some replica of viking mail rings for a univerity project. In full work studiing how mail is built.

File: 95242c late15th-resized.jpg (845KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

845KB, 3000x2000px

>>933665
I assume you've looked at Martijn A. Wijnhoven's research papers?

https://www.academia.edu/19694568/The_Iron_Tunic_from_Vimose_Funen_Denmark_Further_Research_into_the_Construction_of_Mail_Garments
and
https://www.academia.edu/16593628/Filling_in_the_Gaps_Conservation_and_Reconstruction_of_Archaeological_Mail_Armour

will do for a start.

>>933229
i kinda want this

>>933665
>Can't spell university
>Can't work out a measurement scale of mm or inch
What other scales are their?
You're in uni? Fuck I thought the UK education system was shit.

I'm at the start of the project. Not rely staring before in tree weeks. And was thinking that the rings was looking to small. Some of them are only 3-4 mm wide. I dis however find material suporting that after asking.

I'm writhinh on a phone. So I don't go back to correct. And Ænglich is not requierd for University here. Deal with it.

Thanks to the one posting links. My task reqiers mostly knowlage of construction of single rings.

I have goten mostly the info i need by now. But there are some strange things. The rivert holding the wire togeter shal be between 0.3 and 0.7 mm wide. With top quality toolsteel a have managed to punch the hole. But not whith anything that was likly to be awalable to the vikings. It bends. Punching a hole 0.5mm in iron is tricky.

>>933708
> But not whith anything that was likly to be awalable to the vikings. It bends.

What material are you punching into?

Steel?
what sort of steel?

>>933829
Some wire that is suposed to be technical iron. If that is a term. But I think it bends a bit wirdly, so I cosidering that it may have goten mixed up with something else. The school forge is out of gas, and it wil take some time to get new. If not I would have made some wire. But the mail armour has iron with very low carbon content. And more slag then what is in comersaly avalable iron. That is not important for me at the moment. But something I may return to later.

I have no previous knowlage or interest in chainmail. But is becomming verry intriguing.

File: 20160121_174215.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

Fist test ring made.

>>934049
> But the mail armour has iron with very low carbon content. And more slag then what is in comersaly avalable iron. That is not important for me at the moment. But something I may return to later.

I would. We have viking and saxon drawplates, do we know that they were wire-drawing. You need to do some hot work on proper bloomery wrought, shape it out to a barstock, anneal it, and draw it out into wire, and you'll find that the silica stringers in wrought, instead of mild steel, or pure iron, result in it being far more malleable, and it shapes far easier. There's items which I've made reproductions of in wrought where the peining and riveting would've been simply impossible to do in modern mild steels, as the metal deforms in a completely different way.

(also, you probably want to be using two punches, one a flat V shape punch, and one a round punch. dont try punching right through with the round one.)

>>934107

If what you say about bloomery wrought is correct. Then that explanes a lot. If not... Then we must accept that the Vikings had help from aliens.

I have used a round punch, but earlyer studies of the rings suport the idea that the punch was likely a drawn out/diamond shaped scuare, in lack of better was to describe it <>. Maybe to make it stronger,. The rivert/bolt was round however, so it do not properly fitt. The hole is ofthen more like a long slit. It may also indicate that they made a much larger hole, than closed it sideways around the rivert. But that It just speculation.

This is the article I base most of my experimentation on:
http://www.erikds.com/pdf/tmrs_pdf_11.pdf

I will buy some bloomery wrought iron. But now I think its the wrong time of year.

I have earlyer learned that the vikings were poor smiths. That do not seen justefied when you start doing some hands on experimentation.

File: DSCN1161.jpg (206KB, 605x878px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 605x878px

>>934152
>I have earlyer learned that the vikings were poor smiths. That do not seen justefied when you start doing some hands on experimentation.

compared to the franks, they were average - their pattern-welding is a bit simpler.

but to say they were poor is utterly incorrect, they're doing stuff you or I struggle with.

>>933549
Metric is designed to be accurate. Imperial was (originally) designed to be useable. half of half of a distance (1/4 in.) is a lot easier to picture than 3/10ths. or 1/5. And, of course, when handworking with wood or metal (as opposed machining) the accuracy that you work with is much less, so metric doesn't really have an advantage unless you are building engines or the like.