| Discussion Forum: Thread 355122 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | SWIMS  | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2024 13:19 | | Subject: | Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is it possible to add a decimal for the reference weights for pieces (or at least
optional for very small pieces like the 1x1 round tiles (id 98138).
In the catalogue there is a 0.11g but I assume it is something just rounded up
to 0.11g (not sure the correct number.
Background id that I thought that checking a delivery (or simply counting stock
of a higher number) is much more efficient by checking the weight. Then I checked
my last order which just arrived of supposed 3100 pieces but the overall weight
was 320g. So either the weight is more like 0.10322g (then als 0.11g would be
rounded wrong) or I received significantly less items.
So I guess I will need to manually count quiet some to have a good sample estimation
myself
Or does anyone know out there how much 1000 or 10'000 of these should weight?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2024 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SWIMS writes:
| | Is it possible to add a decimal for the reference weights for pieces (or at least
optional for very small pieces like the 1x1 round tiles (id 98138).
In the catalogue there is a 0.11g but I assume it is something just rounded up
to 0.11g (not sure the correct number.
Background id that I thought that checking a delivery (or simply counting stock
of a higher number) is much more efficient by checking the weight. Then I checked
my last order which just arrived of supposed 3100 pieces but the overall weight
was 320g. So either the weight is more like 0.10322g (then als 0.11g would be
rounded wrong) or I received significantly less items.
So I guess I will need to manually count quiet some to have a good sample estimation
myself
Or does anyone know out there how much 1000 or 10'000 of these should weight?
|
Weight depends on mould (unrecognized variants) and colour.
The catalogue only registers the heaviest.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2024 13:37 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, SWIMS writes:
| | Is it possible to add a decimal for the reference weights for pieces (or at least
optional for very small pieces like the 1x1 round tiles (id 98138).
In the catalogue there is a 0.11g but I assume it is something just rounded up
to 0.11g (not sure the correct number.
Background id that I thought that checking a delivery (or simply counting stock
of a higher number) is much more efficient by checking the weight. Then I checked
my last order which just arrived of supposed 3100 pieces but the overall weight
was 320g. So either the weight is more like 0.10322g (then als 0.11g would be
rounded wrong) or I received significantly less items.
So I guess I will need to manually count quiet some to have a good sample estimation
myself
Or does anyone know out there how much 1000 or 10'000 of these should weight?
|
Weight depends on mould (unrecognized variants) and colour.
The catalogue only registers the heaviest.
|
+1 the weight is used to figure out shipping costs not to count. If you need
to count using weight then buy a counting scale then you just need to count several
tell the scale how many and then dump in the rest until you hit the right count.
The weight in bricklink wouldn’t work even for the same part for multiple reasons
such as color, variations, year produced, plastic composition, etc so odds are
whatever one you have in stock is a different weight then the one on bricklink
as bricklink just records the heaviest version found
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2024 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Weight depends on mould (unrecognized variants) and colour.
The catalogue only registers the heaviest.
|
+1 the weight is used to figure out shipping costs not to count. If you need
to count using weight then buy a counting scale then you just need to count several
tell the scale how many and then dump in the rest until you hit the right count.
The weight in bricklink wouldn’t work even for the same part for multiple reasons
such as color, variations, year produced, plastic composition, etc so odds are
whatever one you have in stock is a different weight then the one on bricklink
as bricklink just records the heaviest version found
|
Very true!
But still allergic to Paragraphs, Nubs?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2024 14:00 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Weight depends on mould (unrecognized variants) and colour.
The catalogue only registers the heaviest.
|
+1 the weight is used to figure out shipping costs not to count. If you need
to count using weight then buy a counting scale then you just need to count several
tell the scale how many and then dump in the rest until you hit the right count.
The weight in bricklink wouldn’t work even for the same part for multiple reasons
such as color, variations, year produced, plastic composition, etc so odds are
whatever one you have in stock is a different weight then the one on bricklink
as bricklink just records the heaviest version found
|
Very true!
But still allergic to Paragraphs, Nubs?
|
I thought it was 1 paragraph 😭😭😭😭😭
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 17, 2024 09:09 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Weight depends on mould (unrecognized variants) and colour.
The catalogue only registers the heaviest.
|
+1 the weight is used to figure out shipping costs not to count. If you need
to count using weight then buy a counting scale then you just need to count several
tell the scale how many and then dump in the rest until you hit the right count.
The weight in bricklink wouldn’t work even for the same part for multiple reasons
such as color, variations, year produced, plastic composition, etc so odds are
whatever one you have in stock is a different weight then the one on bricklink
as bricklink just records the heaviest version found
|
Very true!
But still allergic to Paragraphs, Nubs?
|
I thought it was 1 paragraph 😭😭😭😭😭
|
It seems like a paragraph content-wise, but I think the first line should have
been indented, right?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2024 00:11 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Weight depends on mould (unrecognized variants) and colour.
The catalogue only registers the heaviest.
|
+1 the weight is used to figure out shipping costs not to count. If you need
to count using weight then buy a counting scale then you just need to count several
tell the scale how many and then dump in the rest until you hit the right count.
The weight in bricklink wouldn’t work even for the same part for multiple reasons
such as color, variations, year produced, plastic composition, etc so odds are
whatever one you have in stock is a different weight then the one on bricklink
as bricklink just records the heaviest version found
|
Very true!
But still allergic to Paragraphs, Nubs?
|
I thought it was 1 paragraph 😭😭😭😭😭
|
It seems like a paragraph content-wise, but I think the first line should have
been indented, right?
|
Maybe I should have paid attention in English class 😭😭😭😭
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SWIMS | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2024 13:47 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, SWIMS writes:
| | Is it possible to add a decimal for the reference weights for pieces (or at least
optional for very small pieces like the 1x1 round tiles (id 98138).
In the catalogue there is a 0.11g but I assume it is something just rounded up
to 0.11g (not sure the correct number.
Background id that I thought that checking a delivery (or simply counting stock
of a higher number) is much more efficient by checking the weight. Then I checked
my last order which just arrived of supposed 3100 pieces but the overall weight
was 320g. So either the weight is more like 0.10322g (then als 0.11g would be
rounded wrong) or I received significantly less items.
So I guess I will need to manually count quiet some to have a good sample estimation
myself
Or does anyone know out there how much 1000 or 10'000 of these should weight?
|
Weight depends on mould (unrecognized variants) and colour.
The catalogue only registers the heaviest.
|
+1 the weight is used to figure out shipping costs not to count. If you need
to count using weight then buy a counting scale then you just need to count several
tell the scale how many and then dump in the rest until you hit the right count.
The weight in bricklink wouldn’t work even for the same part for multiple reasons
such as color, variations, year produced, plastic composition, etc so odds are
whatever one you have in stock is a different weight then the one on bricklink
as bricklink just records the heaviest version found
|
Wow thats some quick and good responses for me to understand. Very much appreciated
your inputs.
Coming from a background where bigger loose metal parts were always counted on
weight in higher amounts I did not account for the impact on tiny plastic parts
for even the color and/or differences in the composition.
But then I will at least count 100 and see where this takes me from weight for
this exact color and piece (assuming the come all from the same batch of production
to at least come close to counting them with a full manual count
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 17, 2024 09:08 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SWIMS writes:
| | Is it possible to add a decimal for the reference weights for pieces (or at least
optional for very small pieces like the 1x1 round tiles (id 98138).
In the catalogue there is a 0.11g but I assume it is something just rounded up
to 0.11g (not sure the correct number.
Background id that I thought that checking a delivery (or simply counting stock
of a higher number) is much more efficient by checking the weight. Then I checked
my last order which just arrived of supposed 3100 pieces but the overall weight
was 320g. So either the weight is more like 0.10322g (then als 0.11g would be
rounded wrong) or I received significantly less items.
|
My scale only goes to 2 decimal places. I expect this is true for most people
here. I have some at work that are much more precise, but that takes frequent
calibration or the "precision" is garbage.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 17, 2024 09:11 | | Subject: | Re: Reference weight of small pieces like 98138 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, SWIMS writes:
| | Is it possible to add a decimal for the reference weights for pieces (or at least
optional for very small pieces like the 1x1 round tiles (id 98138).
In the catalogue there is a 0.11g but I assume it is something just rounded up
to 0.11g (not sure the correct number.
Background id that I thought that checking a delivery (or simply counting stock
of a higher number) is much more efficient by checking the weight. Then I checked
my last order which just arrived of supposed 3100 pieces but the overall weight
was 320g. So either the weight is more like 0.10322g (then als 0.11g would be
rounded wrong) or I received significantly less items.
|
My scale only goes to 2 decimal places. I expect this is true for most people
here. I have some at work that are much more precise, but that takes frequent
calibration or the "precision" is garbage.
|
I meant to add that Bricklink's system won't accept any more than 2 decimals
anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Switzerland, Zürich
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, Ontario
USA, Oklahoma