The super macro guessing game (5)

Is the apparent asymmetry related to camera angle? (Sorry if this is posted twice)

The background is not part of the object, which from this view is what would be called round. The background isn't really misleading, but ignore it. There was distracting rubbish when I took it.

ECC233 wrote in post #18352863
Is the apparent asymmetry related to camera angle? (Sorry if this is posted twice)

No.

Chris.R wrote in post #18352978
The background is not part of the object, which from this view is what would be called round. The background isn't really misleading, but ignore it. There was distracting rubbish when I took it.

Does this mean the object is oval

Pastie or other nipple cover?

ECC233 wrote in post #18352982
Does this mean the object is oval

I don't think it means that,
But I'm not sure how out-of-round it is.
"Round" wouldn't be misleading.

When I said normal view, I meant ordinary, not "parallel to the principal axis" or at 90º to any particular part of what you see in the image.

Chet wrote in post #18352990
Pastie or other nipple cover?

You know, none of mine are shiny.

Is the outer ring actually dished or is does it only appear to be?

Chet wrote in post #18352998
Is the outer ring actually dished or is does it only appear to be?

As dished as it appears, I'd say.
And I measured the outside diameter - round enough to be "round".

So a calibrated device in good standing was not used to measure the concentricity of this piece? Does this thing even serve a practical purpose other then as a foot on the bottom of an item?

Chet wrote in post #18353025
So a calibrated device in good standing was not used to measure the concentricity of this piece? Does this thing even serve a practical purpose other then as a foot on the bottom of an item?

I am just relieved that Chris' reply indicates that we are not going to have a transatlantic discission on the meaning of draughts and checkers!

Chet wrote in post #18353025
So a calibrated device in good standing was not used to measure the concentricity of this piece?
Does this thing even serve a practical purpose other then as a foot on the bottom of an item?

1. Invalid assumption. Relevance of considered parameter unclear, observational interpretation faulty.
2. Invalid assumption. in spite of conflicting evidence - this item does not "face down", but allowing for ECF, yes.
3. QWC , -1 (sp).

Could do better. Candidate is advised to follow other avenues of investigation.


(Standard terms: Error Carried Forward, Quality of Written Communication, Spelling).

ECC233 wrote in post #18353042
I am just relieved that Chris' reply indicates that we are not going to have a transatlantic discission on the meaning of draughts and checkers!

Ah, well if you meant Chequers - no, those are for silly people who waste their time playing games.

Chris.R wrote in post #18353059
Ah, well if you meant Chequers - no, those are for silly people who waste their time playing games.

Do you know, I oroginally wrote chequers and then deferred to wiki.

Anyway, would you normally find this item in a bathroom

Chris.R wrote in post #18353055
1. Invalid assumption. Relevance of considered parameter unclear, observational interpretation faulty.
2. Invalid assumption. in spite of conflicting evidence - this item does not "face down", but allowing for ECF, yes.
3. QWC , -1 (sp).

Could do better. Candidate is advised to follow other avenues of investigation.

(Standard terms: Error Carried Forward, Quality of Written Communication, Spelling).

As I'm currently experiencing issue in translating above legal jargon, I'll kindly be off to play a rousing game of chequers.