Does size really matter?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
Philipp
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 591
Joined: 24 January 10 3:08 pm
Twitter: derfuzzel
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Philipp » 26 October 10 2:13 pm

caughtatwork wrote:That's a choice.
Totally agree - if you're between the size of a 35mm film canister and a 0.1 L sistema you basically can go either side >> This is how I read it.

I would just choose the second definition.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17017
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by caughtatwork » 26 October 10 2:22 pm

See, now, that will just drive pprass insane.
Hide identical container, one micro and one small.
Bwhahahahaha :mrgreen:

User avatar
Cached
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 March 04 4:32 pm
Location: Launceston, Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Cached » 26 October 10 3:01 pm

caughtatwork wrote: If it's 35mm or larger, then it's a small.
Being pedantic I know, but if it's larger than 35mm, then it's a small. Not 35mm or larger.

Tuena
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 541
Joined: 17 November 06 11:38 am

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Tuena » 26 October 10 3:02 pm

I once found a cache described thus: This is a regular size micro cache.

It was neither a micro nor a regular but to big for a small so the description was quite accurate. :)

User avatar
pprass
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 911
Joined: 18 December 03 11:52 pm
Location: Port Macquarie

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by pprass » 26 October 10 3:58 pm

caughtatwork wrote:See, now, that will just drive pprass insane.
#-o :? [-(

Philipp
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 591
Joined: 24 January 10 3:08 pm
Twitter: derfuzzel
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Philipp » 26 October 10 5:06 pm

Cached wrote:Being pedantic I know, ...
... but the guidelines aren't that pedantic:

volume of a film canister = 24 ml <> 3 ounces = 88 ml <> 100 ml

User avatar
the farmers 5
4500 or more caches found
4500 or more caches found
Posts: 271
Joined: 15 July 08 7:33 am
Location: Wagga Wagga,Riverina,NSW. Home of Australia's ......OZ MEGA WAGGA WAGGA..
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by the farmers 5 » 26 October 10 5:57 pm

caughtatwork wrote:See, now, that will just drive pprass insane.



:

I think he is already there.Last time we saw him ,he thought he was asking a blonde out for date !

Dont know what the result was .




Image

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17017
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by caughtatwork » 26 October 10 6:16 pm

Philipp wrote:
Cached wrote:Being pedantic I know, ...
... but the guidelines aren't that pedantic:

volume of a film canister = 24 ml <> 3 ounces = 88 ml <> 100 ml
24ml? Wow that's small, sorry micro.
So what about something that's larger than a film canister yet is less than 100ml?
This makes my brain hurt.

User avatar
Yurt
4500 or more caches found
4500 or more caches found
Posts: 1509
Joined: 01 May 09 10:08 pm
Location: Northern Suburbs, Sydney

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Yurt » 26 October 10 7:37 pm

What volume are those urine sample containers? Well that's what I call them. Clear round plastic with yellow screw top lid. I've seen them as micros and smalls.

User avatar
darth trader
800 or more hollow logs searched
800 or more hollow logs searched
Posts: 117
Joined: 21 November 09 1:53 pm
Twitter: darthtrader77
Location: hunter valley NSW

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by darth trader » 26 October 10 8:10 pm

to my line of thinking...

if it only fits a log and or a pencil = micro.

if you can fit swag and or trackables = small.

If I have a TB to move, or kids with me, I don't aim at anything under a small. I (and the kids) hate it when we find an eclipse mint tin (or such like) listed as a small because we think we are going to find some room in the cache for something more than paper and a pencil.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17017
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by caughtatwork » 26 October 10 8:35 pm

Yurt wrote:What volume are those urine sample containers? Well that's what I call them. Clear round plastic with yellow screw top lid. I've seen them as micros and smalls.
UUSC is a clear plastic urine collection cup with a capacity of up to 120 ml of urine.
Small, by definition.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17017
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by caughtatwork » 26 October 10 8:57 pm

Philipp wrote:<snip>
* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)
<snip>
An eclipse tin measures 40mm x 22mm x 78mm (external dimensions)
That's 0.06864 cubic mm
That's = 68.64ml

Larger than a 35mm film canister (at 24ml), but less than the suggested .1l (100ml).
So, depending on how far you read down the sentence as quoted above it's a micro or small.
And we wonder why some people don't know how to classify their caches.
Oh, my aching head.

User avatar
Facitman
1400 or more caches found
1400 or more caches found
Posts: 463
Joined: 18 June 04 3:58 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Facitman » 26 October 10 9:46 pm

caughtatwork wrote:
Philipp wrote:<snip>
* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)
<snip>
An eclipse tin measures 40mm x 22mm x 78mm (external dimensions)
That's 0.06864 cubic mm
That's = 68.64ml

Larger than a 35mm film canister (at 24ml), but less than the suggested .1l (100ml).
So, depending on how far you read down the sentence as quoted above it's a micro or small.
And we wonder why some people don't know how to classify their caches.
Oh, my aching head.
The Facit Laboratory performed detailed analysis of an Eclipse tin and Kodak 35mm film canister this evening to determine internal volume.
In our clean room we carefully weighted each empty container to +/- 0.00000000001g and determined the following internal measurements by filling each with double-distilled water and observing the weight change.

35mm container - 38ml
Eclipse Tin - 58ml




Ok, so it was using kitchen scales and tap water on our kitchen bench.

User avatar
Cached
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 March 04 4:32 pm
Location: Launceston, Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Cached » 26 October 10 10:04 pm

Facitman wrote:
35mm container - 38ml
Eclipse Tin - 58ml
So, by definition, an eclipse tin is bigger than a 35mm film canister, and is therefore small?

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17017
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by caughtatwork » 26 October 10 10:09 pm

Cached wrote:
Facitman wrote:
35mm container - 38ml
Eclipse Tin - 58ml
So, by definition, an eclipse tin is bigger than a 35mm film canister, and is therefore small?
But is less than approximately .1 L and so is micro.

Post Reply