Benedikt Farsmann Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I know it was discussed many times but I can't find the thread about it: how do you convert RGC to CoC numbers? Let's say you calibrate a gripper to 167lb. What we use for a base #3 is 150lb, so subtract 150 from 167. Now divide that number by the difference between an average #3 and an average #4 (which is 59lb). That gives you 0.288, which you then add to 3.00. You now have the CoC value of your gripper - 3.29. Thanks, Frank! How does it work if I want to rate a gripper under a #3 or a #2 or even under a #1? Also that tool can't convert decimal numbers, for example: 90.5 kg converts to 34,204 on the CoC-Scale!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) I know it was discussed many times but I can't find the thread about it: how do you convert RGC to CoC numbers? Let's say you calibrate a gripper to 167lb. What we use for a base #3 is 150lb, so subtract 150 from 167. Now divide that number by the difference between an average #3 and an average #4 (which is 59lb). That gives you 0.288, which you then add to 3.00. You now have the CoC value of your gripper - 3.29. Thanks, Frank! How does it work if I want to rate a gripper under a #3 or a #2 or even under a #1? Also that tool can't convert decimal numbers, for example: 90.5 kg converts to 34,204 on the CoC-Scale!? Decimals work okay for me. For 90.5, I got 3.83. For grippers under 3, it works the same, but you use the values of the grippers in that range. I.e, a #2 is 110lb, and a #3 is 150, so if the gripper was 132lb, you'd divide 22 by 40 and get 0.55. So, your gripper is a 2.6. For #1-#2, you'd use 83 and 110lb. Edited June 4, 2009 by Magnus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted June 4, 2009 Author Share Posted June 4, 2009 I know it was discussed many times but I can't find the thread about it: how do you convert RGC to CoC numbers? Let's say you calibrate a gripper to 167lb. What we use for a base #3 is 150lb, so subtract 150 from 167. Now divide that number by the difference between an average #3 and an average #4 (which is 59lb). That gives you 0.288, which you then add to 3.00. You now have the CoC value of your gripper - 3.29. Thanks, Frank! How does it work if I want to rate a gripper under a #3 or a #2 or even under a #1? Also that tool can't convert decimal numbers, for example: 90.5 kg converts to 34,204 on the CoC-Scale!? Huh only way I could get it to show like what your saying is if you left out the decimal and put in 905Kg. works fine for #1 and up. will not do under #1 it shows up as a zero. PM me if you need to and we can work it out. - Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedikt Farsmann Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 For grippers under 3, it works the same, but you use the values of the grippers in that range. I.e, a #2 is 110lb, and a #3 is 150, so if the gripper was 132lb, you'd divide 22 by 40 and get 0.55. So, your gripper is a 2.6. For #1-#2, you'd use 83 and 110lb. Thanks, Frank! Huh only way I could get it to show like what your saying is if you left out the decimal and put in 905Kg. works fine for #1 and up. will not do under #1 it shows up as a zero. PM me if you need to and we can work it out. - Aaron 90.5 kg and 905kg both convert to 35,204 on the CoC-Scale. I also tried some other numbers and it's always the same problem. It seems like dots are simply ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 For grippers under 3, it works the same, but you use the values of the grippers in that range. I.e, a #2 is 110lb, and a #3 is 150, so if the gripper was 132lb, you'd divide 22 by 40 and get 0.55. So, your gripper is a 2.6. For #1-#2, you'd use 83 and 110lb. Thanks, Frank! Huh only way I could get it to show like what your saying is if you left out the decimal and put in 905Kg. works fine for #1 and up. will not do under #1 it shows up as a zero. PM me if you need to and we can work it out. - Aaron 90.5 kg and 905kg both convert to 35,204 on the CoC-Scale. I also tried some other numbers and it's always the same problem. It seems like dots are simply ignored. Does the . show up when you enter it or are you using a , for the decimal? - Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankyBoy Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 AC, it must be a country setting thing. The lower textbox (CoC scale) works fine when using a , : Screen Shot 1 Its faulty when using a . : Screen Shot 2 The upper text box (Measured weight) also works faulty when using the . : Screen Shot 3 AND it obviously filters the ','-Key Events so that if you enter 9-0-,-5 is shows 905. Just allow the , key in the lower textbox and it will work fine. Hope that helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 AC, it must be a country setting thing.The lower textbox (CoC scale) works fine when using a , : Screen Shot 1 Its faulty when using a . : Screen Shot 2 The upper text box (Measured weight) also works faulty when using the . : Screen Shot 3 AND it obviously filters the ','-Key Events so that if you enter 9-0-,-5 is shows 905. Just allow the , key in the lower textbox and it will work fine. Hope that helps. Yep, I was thinking it must be a country thing and yes I was filtering text in the upper box for ascii character numbers related to 0-9 and . I will add , character and recompile. I'll let you guys know when its done. Thanks Franky. - Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 Code adjusted to allow for the , character as a decimal for country specific character sets. If you need this please re-download tool and let me know if it is working for you now. - Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankyBoy Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Works! Thanks. Nice little app btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedikt Farsmann Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Works for me too. Thank you, Aaron! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty1230ty Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Thank U very much ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilliman64 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 very cool Aaron! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted May 29, 2012 Author Share Posted May 29, 2012 Glad you guys find it useful. - Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berean73 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Always working on something! Good stuff Aaron! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwwm Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Zach - isn't this thread from 2009? I'd say it's vintage goodness ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berean73 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Zach - isn't this thread from 2009? I'd say it's vintage goodness ;-). Oh snap..... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Rechsteiner Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Love the app Aaron. Can you make an adjustment for stricter number calibrations like Eric's? He has told me his number's are the lowest. Ok that was a kind of silly thread addition, sorry all who are annoyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.