I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
Morris Dovey wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>
>> ..65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40
>>
>> You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?
>
> Lots of us use calipers that split that into 25 parts.
Agreed, I can also make a mark at half a millimeter with a pencil, but
what have I got when I actually make the cut?
>
>> More importantly, can you use it?
>
> I can, but generally only use the measuring tools to check the results -
> my primary cutting tool is good to +/-0.001, all by itself.
>
We all don't have a CNC, and you will still have movement larger than
what we are talking about.
>> Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
>> woodworking.
>
> Not really. Imagine gluing up a table top with that much difference
> between the heights of adjacent boards...
ROS
;-)
>
> ...or assembling a M&T joint when the tenon was 0.025" oversize and the
> mortise was 0.025" undersize.
>
That can be tweaked, pick one and adjust.
However if the tenon was 0.025 undersize. and the mortise was 0.025
oversize, then we have a problem.
--
Froz...
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>> archaic system?
>>
>> Oh, I think the US has adopted the metric system more than we realize,
>> given the success of the 9mm bullet.
>> (Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer the .45.)
>
> Uh, 9mm is just .38 caliber misspelled.
9mm is actually closer to a .357
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>
>
0.10433070866141732283464566929134 inch.
Floating point error might have occurred.
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
notbob <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
*snip*
>
> I've worked with French engineers and scientists. They have a lot of
> weird characteristics and some bizarre facets to their culture, but
> stupidity isn't in it. They're some sharp cookies when they put their
> minds to it.
>
> nb
Beware sharp cookies. Sometimes they bite back when you bite in to them!
Just stick with the safe rounded ones like homemade chocolate chip!
(Yum, Yum!)
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
Kevin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>
>
> -Kevin
It's 6.(5/3).
It's valid... just unusual. You'd probably trip up quite a few computer
programs with it.
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote in news:4aa96712$0$11392
[email protected]:
> On 9/10/2009 1:44 PM FrozenNorth spake thus:
>
>> Leon wrote:
> >
>>> "Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> It's 6.(5/3).
>>>
>>> Wouldn't 6.(5/3) x 3 = 23?
>>>
>> Note sure what the point was but I am pretty sure it was a
>> typo, or a bad handle on how to represent mathematical equations.
>>
>> Probably meant 6"+(0.5"/3) i.e. 6 1/6"
>
> I thought it was intentional, and rather clever at that; I read it as a
> made-up notation that meant "5/3rds of a tenth" (or 0.16666666 ...).
> Interesting mix of fractions and decimals.
>
Just trying to be too clever. It should be 6.(.5/3)
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>
> Really? What is the metric unit for weight?
>
>> Just yankin your chain. ;~)
>
> Bakatcha :)
>
Newtons. But no one uses Newtons (except certain PDA users). Mass is
usually confused for weight. Just wait until we find life on other
planets and go there, just wait!
We'll probably be using a different measuring system by then. :-)
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to
> the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre
> French system crammed down its throat.
>
The trouble really isn't the origin of the system, but the fact that the
old one still works perfectly well. When you get past 1/32", you might
as well switch the decimal representation of the value, it'll be
difficult any way.
Between feet, inches, and miles, just about every distance most people
want expressed is expressed. It's not broken, it's just not always easy
to convert between magnitudes... but points where one magnitude is equal
to another in use are few. (And at points where the math is relatively
easy.)
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
On Sep 19, 5:42=A0pm, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> =A0 =A0Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly
> > different versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion an=
d
> > errors. Why is the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?
>
> Because most adults can drink a litre of beer but would struggle with a
> cubic metre?
A cubic meter would take a little longer.
Don't read well...
It was the Yard in the Bible. A cubic...
Martin
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>> There were at least three metric systems. It isn't a French
>> system. It is a standard - a unified German, British, French and Japanese.
>> Oh - the US had people there - and they agreed. And yes
>> the standard is generated in France.
>>
>> It was the measure used in the bible. It is much older than
>> England or Britain.
>
> The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
On Sep 8, 9:04=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> > can quote on them.
> > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> > the purpose of them are.
> > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> > hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> > Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> > both metric and imperial.
> > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > archaic system?
>
> >http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
That'd be 0.1043307", Leon. (BTW, I do get your point. )<G>
On Sep 8, 5:32=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> can quote on them.
> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> the purpose of them are.
> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> both metric and imperial.
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
>
> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
XXICVIII
On Sep 19, 2:48=A0pm, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> =A0 =A0HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 1 meter =3D one ten-millionth of the distance from the pole to the equa=
tor
> > measured along the prime meridian.
>
> Except that the french, being french, got it wrong as usual. It was
> supposed to be but they measured it incorrectly!
I thought it was along the equator, not a meridian. The equatorial
circumference being a lot bigger that the pole-to-pole one.
I suppose I could look it up...but who really, really cares?
Jim Weisgram wrote:
>>But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>archaic system?
>
>Well, I think it is pretty complicated stuff to move from Imperial to metric.
The easiest way would be to repeal the laws that forbid voluntary full
metrication and trade in metric only products.
For example, the FPLA is a Federal law covers packaged goods that you
see in the supermarket. It mandates non-metric units on the label. A
two liter bottle with a label that says "2 L" is legal in all
countries except the USA. There is a proposal to change the FPLA. Many
manufacturers want the freedom to offer metric-only labels (as you can
see with wine and liquor) and don't want to pay the costs of
relabeling just for the US.
Many Americans are unaware that non-metric units are mandatory.
On Sep 10, 1:43=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>
> Lady Liberty's design metrics and, to a lesser extent, her place of
> origin lost importance as she transitioned from being an object in New
> York to a treasured symbol for all people everywhere (something I hadn't
> much thought about until I saw her in Tiananmen Square in '89, and have
> thought about a lot since).
>
A much nicer image to think about than the big one in Vegas.
My comment had more to do with that hatred hang-over from France's
rejection to join an obviously unnecessary war.
A lot of good things have come from France and it irks me that even
that goodwill had to be tainted.
France has always been a very complex country.
On Sep 8, 9:08=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> > can quote on them.
> > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> > the purpose of them are.
> > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> > hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> > Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> > both metric and imperial.
> > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > archaic system?
>
> >http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> It all boils down to time Robatoy. =A0It takes you longer to say metric s=
tuff
> than inche stuff. =A0Time is money.
>
> In the time we can say 1/2 inch and measure it. =A0You are still listenin=
g to
> the guy calling out, =A0gimme Twelve m =A0i =A0l =A0l =A0 - =A0i =A0- =A0=
m =A0e =A0t =A0e =A0r =A0s.
> Or drive one mile vs. drive one k =A0 i =A0 l =A0 l =A0- =A0o =A0- =A0 m =
=A0 e =A0 t =A0 e =A0 r .
>
> Too many dang syllables in that metric stuff.
LOL...not so!
I drive at 100 K on the highway or 50 K in town, 40 K at a school
zone..
In normal conversation: " I drove a buck-twenty most of the way here."
We never speak of millimeters..we speak of 'little stripes'.
On Sep 8, 11:49=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > I think Obama needs to know about this. We need some more "change" we c=
an
> > believe in. We need a Metric Czar.
>
> Been there Done that. =A0Jimmy C tried that and that is why we deal with =
a
> mixed up mess today expecially in the auto industry. =A030 years later an=
d
> American cars still have a mix of metric and imperial parts.
Well, now you got another Jimmy C...*WEG*
On Sep 8, 5:32=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> can quote on them.
> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> the purpose of them are.
> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> both metric and imperial.
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:
PRO IMPERIAL:
There is absolutely no question; traditional imperial measurements are
far superior for woodworking. Most wreckers use it for very good
reasons:
PRO METRIC:
There is absolutely no question; metric measurements are far superior
for woodworking. Most woodworkers in the world use it for very good
reasons:
Intuitiveness:
1. Imperial is much more intuitive and natural. Feet and inches
(thumbs) have been used throughout human history as they are related
to human body parts (fingers and feet). As Michelangelo said: man is
the measure of all things.
1. Metric is much more intuitive and natural. Humans always use a base
10 system as it is related to human body parts (number of fingers &
toes). As Michelangelo said: man is the measure of all things.
Communicating measurements:
2. Imperial is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Someone
calls out a measurement for a piece of wood, & before you notice it,
you cut 10mm instead of 10cm.
2. Metric is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Quickly now,
is 19/32" bigger or smaller than 5/8"? On the other hand, it is
immediately obvious that 15mm is smaller than 16mm.
Ease of learning:
3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.
3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.
Arithmetic:
4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.
4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
calculates inches and fractions.
Division:
5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in imperial measurements. What do
you call half a millimeter? Ever try to divide 304.8mm by four? A foot
is real easy - 12" divided by four is 3".
5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in metric measurements. Ever try
to divide 39 9/16 inches by four? While 1000mm divided by four readily
gives 250mm.
Accuracy:
6. Imperial is more accurate. You can easily go to 1/32 which is more
precise than 1mm.
6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
precise than 1/32"
The REAL Reason:
7. Metric is a stupid cowardly French system. You don't want to
support those smelly unwashed arrogant ingrates, do you? GOD BLESS
AMERICA!
7. Inches and feet are a stupid warmongering American imperialist
system. The rest of the world and all scientists use the much more
rational metric system. It's about time the US gets into the 19th
century, never mind the 21st! VIVE LA FRANCE!
On Sep 9, 5:35=A0pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, new question: how big is an RCH? (Sorry if this has been covered
> here before ad nasueam.)
>
> I read one comment on a web page[1] that claimed it was 1/200" (OK, for
> those who prefer fake units of measurement, that's 0.127mm).
The point is that a RCH is not convertible into other units. It's an
RCH.
Luigi
On Sep 10, 7:27=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > whackadoodle as the Francophone Quebecois who go around measuring signs=
to
> > make sure that the French is more prominent than the English.
>
> Now, that's a poor comparison. Metric conversion has only come to the
> forefront as more and more manufacturing becomes a worldwide concern and
> largely over the past 50 years. Whereas, Quebec French have always been
> screwed up. After all, they're French, they're largely anti Canadian and
> they think strangely. Thank God my father moved our family from Montreal =
to
> Toronto when I was eleven and I didn't have to suffer my teenage years
> through a totally crazy society. Growing up is tough enough. Doing it in
> Quebec as an English speaking youth is totally whacked.
What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
original post.
Practically the whole world runs on metric.
Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
of the planet?
Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
World Dimension Order?
Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?
Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (OMG, what'll I do if they stop making 10" blades for my Unisaur?
> > Yikes!)
>
> Use 254mm blades same as I do on my table saw :-)
or use the 250mm blade that is about the real size of your 10" blade
after its first sharpening ;-) ;-)
Or the size it really is but is only marked 10" as a Linus Blanket thing
--
>replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me
>Pics at http://www.meekings.net/diving/index.shtml
>and http://www.meekings.net/photo-groups/nui/index.shtml
J. Clarke wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Robatoy" wrote:
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Yup. We do frown on illegal handguns coming into Canada.
>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>> So how do they get in?
>
> They need to start arresting smugglers instead of just frowning at
> them.
It would be considerably less expensive to change the law on handguns.
"Larry C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
>>
>> I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
>> serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
>>
>> Tom Veatch
>> Wichita, KS
>> USA
>>
>>
>
> It was a joke
Exactly. It is the Knights Templar.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:04:34 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
Nor do I. I really wouldn't use the Bible as a scientific/engineering
guide. A cursory reading implies Pi = 3.000. KJV, I Kings 7: 26ff and
II Chronicles 4: 2ff
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Sep 9, 8:02=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> > I dunno... =A0they hire French engineers to do the hard work? =A0The wo=
rk
> > that requires thought?
>
> "French engineers" is an oxymoron.
Hmm? TGV, Exocet, Pont de Millau, efficient and inexpensive nuclear
power, Rafale, etc., for very recent examples.
You can go back to French leadership aeronautical & automotive
engineering in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Don't forget the
Eiffel tower.
If you want to go even further back, just go to Reims, Chartres,
Rouen, Ile de la Cit=E9 in Paris, Sens, Beauvais, etc.
Not quite an oxymoron.
On Sep 9, 9:54=A0am, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> -the force due to gravity on earth of 1kg is very close to 10 newtons
Thank you Chris. For the first time in my life I have an intuitive
feel for what a friggin Newton is: it's 100 grams or the amount of dry
pasta needed for a regular plate or the amount of prosciutto I would
buy for lunch.
Yes I know the difference between mass and weight. But for most
practical purposes on the face of the earth, the difference doesn't
matter. And I knew that a Newton was one kilogram-metre per second
squared. & I could do some calculations with it, but I didn't know
what it was!
Thanks!
Luigi
Luigi
On Sep 8, 10:32=A0pm, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 6:08=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > >I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> > > can quote on them.
> > > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> > > the purpose of them are.
> > > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> > > hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> > > Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> > > both metric and imperial.
> > > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > > archaic system?
>
> > >http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> > It all boils down to time Robatoy. =A0It takes you longer to say metric=
stuff
> > than inche stuff. =A0Time is money.
>
> > In the time we can say 1/2 inch and measure it. =A0You are still listen=
ing to
> > the guy calling out, =A0gimme Twelve m =A0i =A0l =A0l =A0 - =A0i =A0- =
=A0m =A0e =A0t =A0e =A0r =A0s.
> > Or drive one mile vs. drive one k =A0 i =A0 l =A0 l =A0- =A0o =A0- =A0 =
m =A0 e =A0 t =A0 e =A0 r .
>
> > Too many dang syllables in that metric stuff.
>
> Sorry Leon, but I can say "three mils" faster than you can say "three
> sixteenths. :-)
Yabbut.. is a 'mil' a millimeter?
On Sep 8, 1:24=A0pm, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 5:32=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> > can quote on them.
> > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> > the purpose of them are.
> > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> > hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> > Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> > both metric and imperial.
> > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > archaic system?
>
> Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:
>
> PRO IMPERIAL:
> There is absolutely no question; traditional imperial measurements are
> far superior for woodworking. Most wreckers use it for very good
> reasons:
>
> PRO METRIC:
> There is absolutely no question; metric measurements are far superior
> for woodworking. Most woodworkers in the world use it for very good
> reasons:
>
> Intuitiveness:
> 1. Imperial is much more intuitive and natural. Feet and inches
> (thumbs) have been used throughout human history as they are related
> to human body parts (fingers and feet). As Michelangelo said: man is
> the measure of all things.
> 1. Metric is much more intuitive and natural. Humans always use a base
> 10 system as it is related to human body parts (number of fingers &
> toes). As Michelangelo said: man is the measure of all things.
>
> Communicating measurements:
> 2. Imperial is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Someone
> calls out a measurement for a piece of wood, & before you notice it,
> you cut 10mm instead of 10cm.
> 2. Metric is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Quickly now,
> is 19/32" bigger or smaller than 5/8"? On the other hand, it is
> immediately obvious that 15mm is smaller than 16mm.
>
> Ease of learning:
> 3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
> memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
> deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.
> 3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
> all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
> fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.
>
> Arithmetic:
> 4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
> grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
> prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
> something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.
> 4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
> calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
> calculates inches and fractions.
>
> Division:
> 5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in imperial measurements. What do
> you call half a millimeter? Ever try to divide 304.8mm by four? A foot
> is real easy - 12" divided by four is 3".
> 5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in metric measurements. Ever try
> to divide 39 9/16 inches by four? While 1000mm divided by four readily
> gives 250mm.
>
> Accuracy:
> 6. Imperial is more accurate. You can easily go to 1/32 which is more
> precise than 1mm.
> 6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
> precise than 1/32"
>
> The REAL Reason:
> 7. Metric is a stupid cowardly French system. You don't want to
> support those smelly unwashed arrogant ingrates, do you? GOD BLESS
> AMERICA!
> 7. Inches and feet are a stupid warmongering American imperialist
> system. The rest of the world and all scientists use the much more
> rational metric system. It's about time the US gets into the 19th
> century, never mind the 21st! VIVE LA FRANCE!
That is an explanation I can live with.
On Sep 16, 9:20=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 9:37=A0am, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipped a whole bunch of stuff]
>
>
>
> > I'm not in favor of passing laws. I'm in favor of using a system that a=
llows
> > me to deal effectively in WORLD markets. Just smart business.
>
> It will be interesting to see now that GM has sold controlling
> interest to European Opel brand to a Canadian company.
> GM used metric in Europe, but not here?
> Ford builds a great (Fiesta Econetic) car in Europe. Diesel. Safe. 65
> MPG VERY economical.... but alas... not for sale here. Would that be a
> metric car, I wonder....
Some American built cars are metric, some not. It's been that way for
over thirty years. The body of my (Ford) Ranger is metric and the
engine SAE. My '74 (Ford) Rustang-II was the opposite.
On Sep 9, 9:04=A0pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/8/2009 7:29 PM Lew Hodgett spake thus:
>
> > "Robatoy" wrote:
> > ----------------------------------------
> > and so do crack, guns and hookers. This fucking casino is nothing but
> > an asshole magnet.
> > --------------------------------
>
> > You have a definite opinion on the matter I see.
>
> > BTW, thought you folks frowned on guns coming in to Canada, especially
> > from the USA.
>
> Sounds like you didn't see "Bowling for Columbine" (Michael Moore's
> movie). One thing he pointed out is that Canucks actually own more guns
> (per capita, I b'leeves) than Merkins, and yet there isn't half as much
> violent crime up there. (The reason for this is not even what Moore
> himself expected to find. I won't give any spoilers; rent the flick.)
>
> I especially loved the sequence where Moore knocks on doors in Toronto,
> and then tries the latches and opens them (none were locked). Priceless.
>
> --
> Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
The mayor of my city was in "Bowling". We still tease him about his
'stardom'..
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the
inch,
> 4" ~ 100mm.
> 1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
> 1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
> 1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm
When you get down to it as far as I'm concerned, it's all what sounds
better. I've got to tell you, 75° F sounds a whole lot warmer than 24°C. The
older I get, the colder it seems to get.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I work with metric these days. Frankly, in 20 years I've never seen
> anything 5.3mm called out. Nor have I seen .20866 inches. (Quick, what
> is half of that?)
>
> One of the beauties of the system is things tend to be more whole numbers
> rather than 21/64 and 17/32. There is no logical reason that we could not
> comfortably change and use metric other that we don't want to change. The
> rest of the world manages to build some rather complex and sophisticated
> machines with it and I bet we could too.
>
Yeah but! ;~) Isn't Ikea stuff metric?
On 09/08/2009 04:00 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
> Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
> : typist
>
> That's a myth. And a quite interesting one at that:
>
> http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html
>
> It's not only NOT faster than a QWERTY keyboard for a trained typist,
> it's arguably slower, and Mr. Dvorak was a bit of a huckster.
I should note up front that I use QWERTY and have never tried Dvorak.
There are arguments against that article. This post for instance is
quite interesting and seems to bring up several easily-verifiable points:
http://www.dvorak-keyboard.com/dvorak2.html
I got my 10% figure from Donald Norman's book, "The Design of Everyday
Things". He notes that Dvorak affectionados claim higher improvements
but that he could not substantiate them.
Quite a few people have indicated that Dvorak results in less stress on
their joints.
> : Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the US
> : it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.
>
> Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
> intuitive to work with?
No, I'd find 2400x1200 panels easier to work with. Why stick with 8'
ceilings if we're truly going metric? But that would require redoing
all the building standards for 400mm or 600mm centers instead of 16" or 24".
Chris
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
Oh, I think the US has adopted the metric system more than we realize,
given the success of the 9mm bullet.
(Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer the .45.)
I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson was initially responsible for
rejection of the metric system. He wanted the meter to be the length
of a pendulum with a period of one second at sea level.
On Sep 16, 9:37=A0am, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped a whole bunch of stuff]
>
> I'm not in favor of passing laws. I'm in favor of using a system that all=
ows
> me to deal effectively in WORLD markets. Just smart business.
It will be interesting to see now that GM has sold controlling
interest to European Opel brand to a Canadian company.
GM used metric in Europe, but not here?
Ford builds a great (Fiesta Econetic) car in Europe. Diesel. Safe. 65
MPG VERY economical.... but alas... not for sale here. Would that be a
metric car, I wonder....
On Sep 8, 10:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 10:19=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Upscale wrote:.
>
> > When the Michiganians look at the weather channel and see that it is
> > 70 in Port Huron Michigan and 20 in Sarnia Ontario...a lot of them
> > stay home.
>
> > "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> > We like that.
>
> > Yabutts so does their money.
>
> > Lew
>
> and so do crack, guns and hookers. This fucking casino is nothing but
> an asshole magnet.
I need to add that there is a 2 year difference in minimum drinking
age restriction. Michigan is 21, we are 19 and seem to handle it a lot
better.
The official SI website is:
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/
* SI was created in 1960. The SI authority calls it "the modern form
of the metric system". Of course, 'modern' is a relative word in
something that is 49 years old.
* Like most standards, SI gets modified from time to time. Units and
prefixes may be added, modified, or deleted.
metric_trade wrote:
> Dan Coby wrote:
>> Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants and conversion
>> factors. (The pro metric people claim that they don't but they are there. I.e.
>> how many calories are there in a joule:
>
> I don't understand. The relationship between calorie and joule isn't a
> feature of SI. It's a conversion between two different systems.
Are you saying that you do not think that joules, ergs, calories, and Calories
are not all part of the metric system?
My point is that the metric system includes two different base systems (mks and cgs).
As a result it has a dual set of units for almost everything. Why anyone would
think that is a good idea is beyond me. Why is the mks system based upon the kilogram
instead of the gram? Why is the cgs system based upon the centimeter instead of the
meter? Why is the metric system not based upon the meter, gram, second, (and coulomb)?
Can you tell me the conversion factor between a joule and an erg? (Before we started
this thread, I thought it was 1000 but I see that it is 1000000. Then some genius
decided to add the calorie as another unit of energy. Then another genius decided
to call the kilocalorie a Calorie. That is just plain silly.
The dual nature of the metric system creates all sorts of hidden power of ten
conversion factors. Then another genius decided that the unit of volume is the
liter instead of the cubic meter. Another hidden conversion factor of 1000. Why?
There are many examples of where the hidden powers of 10 factors in metric can
cause problems. An example: Back in July, I was having a discussion about the
size of a drop of ink from an ink jet printer. The finer drops are about 1 picoliter.
That is 10^-12 liters. The cube root of 10^-12 is 10^-4 so I said that is a volume
of a cube which is 100 um on a side. About an hour later, I realized that answer
is too large by factor of 10. (Did you remember that hidden conversion factor?)
Frankly for a system that was 'designed to be rational', the metric system is not
very well designed. (Yes. The 'English' system has many faults also.)
Dan
On Sep 8, 10:29=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------
> and so do crack, guns and hookers. This fucking casino is nothing but
> an asshole magnet.
> --------------------------------
>
> You have a definite opinion on the matter I see.
>
> BTW, thought you folks frowned on guns coming in to Canada, especially
> from the USA.
>
> Lew
Yup. We do frown on illegal handguns coming into Canada.
Leon wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>> can quote on them.
>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>> the purpose of them are.
>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>> both metric and imperial.
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>>
>> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
2.65 mm
What's half of 5.3 inches?
Leon wrote:
> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>>>> can quote on them.
>>>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>>>> the purpose of them are.
>>>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>>>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>>>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>>>> both metric and imperial.
>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>>> archaic system?
>>>>
>>>> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>>>
>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>
>> 2.65 mm
>
> Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?
>
>
>> What's half of 5.3 inches?
>
> 2.65 "
So, six of one and half a dozen of the other... :-)
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:04 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings
> > > so I can quote on them.
> > > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what
> > > they're the purpose of them are.
> > > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime
> > > it is hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these
> > > parts are. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is
> > > used as I work in both metric and imperial.
> > > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
> > > an archaic system?
> >
> > > http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
> >
> > Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>
> That'd be 0.1043307", Leon. (BTW, I do get your point. )<G>
I used to design business forms. Most typewriters (remember those) and
computer printers were based on the inch systems but used many strange
scales. I ended up having to work with line spacing of 1/8", 1/4", 1/3" and
1/2", character spacing varied from 1/12", 1/10", 1/8", 1/6" and up to
5/32". The biggest problem is that the typesetting equipment all ran on
another scale traditionally used by typesetters and printers, picas and
points. While conversion is not precise, a pica is very close to 1/6" and
there are 12 points to a pica which works out to about 72 points to the
inch.
When you work in all these scales for many years it becomes natural to you
and you can convert back and forth in your head easily. I still have
stainless steel rulers in all these spacings and scales, and often use them
when one of them will work better for me. When it works correctly I will
even use metric.
One of the reasons that the old Imperial system is dying is that different
countries used different standards. I learned many years ago that Imperial
measurements are useless in precision work because England, Canada,
Australia and the US all had different lengths of inches. Granted this was
at the 5th or 6th decimal but it was unuseable. Another example is the
gallon. Do you prefer it to liters? But which gallon? In the printing
business we had to mix photo chemicals for our litho camera film. You would
have to check where the Kodak chemicals were made because if they said add
30 ounces of concentrate to a gallon of water, you needed to know which
ounces and which gallon. A US Gallon contains 128 ounces which is 4 quarts
of 32 ounces each, a Canadian Gallon contains 160 ounces which is 4 quarts
of 40 ounces each. Even the ounces were slightly different. In this regard
metric is much easier.
On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:
> dpb wrote:
>
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>> archaic system?
>>
>> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>
> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
> will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French system
> crammed down its throat.
Amen.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/8/2009 6:27 PM Puckdropper spake thus:
> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>>
>> Really? What is the metric unit for weight?
>>
>>> Just yankin your chain. ;~)
>>
>> Bakatcha :)
>
> Newtons. But no one uses Newtons (except certain PDA users). Mass is
> usually confused for weight. Just wait until we find life on other
> planets and go there, just wait!
>
> We'll probably be using a different measuring system by then. :-)
I know there's a certain amount of chain-yanking going on here, and that
I myself am contributing to it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters on
the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.
Who cares how much a bucket of cement weighs on the planet Snorlax?
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 9:58 AM Steve Turner spake thus:
> Luigi Zanasi wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 10:34 am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>>> For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
>>> mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.
>>
>> How could I forget RCHs???? That is the only relevant and important
>> measurement in wooddorking. The rest just has to fit, how long or wide
>> or deep doesn't need to be expressed in any kind of system.
>
> My hat's off to the man who first discovered that a RCH could be used as a system of
> measurement. I'd like to shake his hand (after he washes it first).
Please pardon my ignorance: what's an RCH? All Google gives is
"Recognised Clearing Houses" (using define:rch).
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 11:10 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
> Please pardon my ignorance: what's an RCH? All Google gives is
> "Recognised Clearing Houses" (using define:rch).
Aaargh; never mind. Wikipedia provided the answer. (I guess it's good
for *something* after all.)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 11:12 AM notbob spake thus:
> On 2009-09-09, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Please pardon my ignorance: what's an RCH? All Google gives is
>> "Recognised Clearing Houses" (using define:rch).
>
> Heh heh....
>
> I almost got caught, too. Try googling for rch unit of measure. ;)
Gotcha.
OK, new question: how big is an RCH? (Sorry if this has been covered
here before ad nasueam.)
I read one comment on a web page[1] that claimed it was 1/200" (OK, for
those who prefer fake units of measurement, that's 0.127mm).
[1]
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/01/30/fun-and-unusual-units-of-measurements,
which has interesting units like the "jerk" and the "sagan".
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 4:21 PM Dan Coby spake thus:
> Likewise the use of decimal (base 10) for representing numbers is
> based on the minor detail that people have 10 fingers. Since most
> people have stopped doing arithmetic on their fingers, we should
> switch to a more rational base for our number system. Ask any
> computer and it will tell you that binary is much more rational. The
> only disadvantage of binary is that it takes a bunch of digits to
> represent anything useful. Hexadecimal reduces the binary digit count
> by a factor of four. Most numbers take fewer digits in hex than in
> decimal.
OK, I want to see how adept you are at hex arithmetic. Quick: what are
1. A09E + B1AF
2. 79 * AAAA
3. 2179 / 9D2
Show your work.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/8/2009 6:27 PM Upscale spake thus:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message [...]
>
>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>
> Depends on where you live. Up here in the great white north, metric is and
> has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food that we
> export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our food comes from the
> US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding how to allocated all those
> pounds and quarts of food.
Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a lot
of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy most of my
food at Traitor Joe's, and it's surprising how much stuff says "product
of Canada".
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 5:44 PM Luigi Zanasi spake thus:
> On Sep 9, 5:35 pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> OK, new question: how big is an RCH? (Sorry if this has been covered
>> here before ad nasueam.)
>>
>> I read one comment on a web page[1] that claimed it was 1/200" (OK, for
>> those who prefer fake units of measurement, that's 0.127mm).
>
> The point is that a RCH is not convertible into other units. It's an
> RCH.
Ah, sui generis. I see.
Now I just need to find me one ...
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/8/2009 7:29 PM Lew Hodgett spake thus:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> ----------------------------------------
> and so do crack, guns and hookers. This fucking casino is nothing but
> an asshole magnet.
> --------------------------------
>
> You have a definite opinion on the matter I see.
>
> BTW, thought you folks frowned on guns coming in to Canada, especially
> from the USA.
Sounds like you didn't see "Bowling for Columbine" (Michael Moore's
movie). One thing he pointed out is that Canucks actually own more guns
(per capita, I b'leeves) than Merkins, and yet there isn't half as much
violent crime up there. (The reason for this is not even what Moore
himself expected to find. I won't give any spoilers; rent the flick.)
I especially loved the sequence where Moore knocks on doors in Toronto,
and then tries the latches and opens them (none were locked). Priceless.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 6:36 PM Upscale spake thus:
> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a lot
>> of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy most of my
>> food at Traitor Joe's, and it's surprising how much stuff says "product
>> of Canada".
>
> When you see Canadian grown food, is it measured in metric? Your US food
> comes here in quarts, pints, pounds and ounces.
Nope; typical packaging. F'rinstance, some crackers I regularly buy:
"Wheat Crisps"; 9 oz. (255 g.). Customary units first, pretend units second.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 7:02 PM Doug Miller spake thus:
> In article <[email protected]>, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a lot
>>of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy most of my
>>food at Traitor Joe's,
>
> Whattsamatter, you don't like Joe very much?
I shop there every week. It's just a funny way of referring to them
(plus an antidote to how their stores seems to be metastasizing all over
the goddamn place).
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>
> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
Easy; 6-1/6".
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 7:34 PM Robatoy spake thus:
> On Sep 9, 10:29 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
>>
>> There are 10 commandments but most people use only a fraction of them.
>
> I thought there were 613 commandments.
613 - 603 (# of commandments universally ignored) = 10.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/9/2009 8:02 PM J. Clarke spake thus:
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>
>> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and
>>>> packagers figure it out?
>>
>> I dunno... they hire French engineers to do the hard work? The work
>> that requires thought?
>
> "French engineers" is an oxymoron.
Really? Can you say "TGV"? "European extremely large telescope"?
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/10/2009 5:42 AM Robatoy spake thus:
> What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
> original post.
> Practically the whole world runs on metric.
> Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
> as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
> of the planet?
> Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
> World Dimension Order?
> Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
> metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
> Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?
In the interest of actually addressing the point of yourstarting post in
this thread, let me say this [harrumph]:
While I may appear to have something of a laissez-faire attitude
concerning metrification in the U.S.--in fact, I'm basically against it,
for a number of reasons--to answer your question, I think there's only
one logical explanation.
American Exceptionalism. Plain and simple.
As in so many other aspects of policy, it's the overweening hubris and
the belief that we, the Merkin People, are specially endowed by our
Creator with Speshul Magical Powerz that render us immune to the natural
laws that bind other, lesser peoples.
(But I still oppose forced metrification here.)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/10/2009 1:44 PM FrozenNorth spake thus:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> "Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Kevin <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>>>>
>>> It's 6.(5/3).
>>
>> Wouldn't 6.(5/3) x 3 = 23?
>>
> Note sure what the point was but I am pretty sure it was a
> typo, or a bad handle on how to represent mathematical equations.
>
> Probably meant 6"+(0.5"/3) i.e. 6 1/6"
I thought it was intentional, and rather clever at that; I read it as a
made-up notation that meant "5/3rds of a tenth" (or 0.16666666 ...).
Interesting mix of fractions and decimals.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/10/2009 11:11 AM Robatoy spake thus:
> On Sep 10, 1:43 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>
>> Lady Liberty's design metrics and, to a lesser extent, her place of
>> origin lost importance as she transitioned from being an object in New
>> York to a treasured symbol for all people everywhere (something I hadn't
>> much thought about until I saw her in Tiananmen Square in '89, and have
>> thought about a lot since).
>
> A much nicer image to think about than the big one in Vegas.
>
> My comment had more to do with that hatred hang-over from France's
> rejection to join an obviously unnecessary war.
> A lot of good things have come from France and it irks me that even
> that goodwill had to be tainted.
> France has always been a very complex country.
Never misunderestimate the idiocy and ignorance of American Yahoos and
such; I'm sure there are plenty (and even some reading this) who still
refuse to use the term "French fries" because of the perceived anti-U.S.
bias of that nation.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:
> krw wrote:
>
>> There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
>> arithmetic and those who can't.
>
> But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one
> arithmetic. :)
Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no?
I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess
is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must
have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.
Unless you could represent unary numbers by something like this:
1 111 11 1111
but of course you still have two possible symbols (call them a mark and
a space).
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
> On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>
>>> There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
>>> arithmetic and those who can't.
>>
>> But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one
>> arithmetic. :)
>
> Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no?
> I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
> arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess
> is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must
> have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.
Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.
Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
the number of marks made.
Duh.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 9/10/2009 4:18 PM Morris Dovey spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:
>>>
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
>>>>> arithmetic and those who can't.
>>>>
>>>> But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base
>>>> one arithmetic. :)
>>>
>>> Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility,
>>> no? I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
>>> arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head
>>> guess is that it isn't possible because each position in a written
>>> number must have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.
>>
>> Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.
>>
>> Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
>> of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
>> the number of marks made.
>
> I think you were right the first time. A tally system and Roman numerals
> do provide a way to express non-zero integer values, but neither
> supports what we'd be willing to accept as a complete set of arithmetic
> operations.
Well, we're both right. A simple tally is a valid base-1 representation,
but it's certainly not practical to do arithmetic using it.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
"steve robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>>
>> What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
>> original post.
>> Practically the whole world runs on metric.
>> Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
>> as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
>> of the planet?
>> Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
>> World Dimension Order?
>> Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
>> metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
>> Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?
>
> The UK still uses both systems so do many other countries and ex colonies
>
> The uk switched to metric to bring us in line with the EEC as it was then
> however
> most people over 45 still tend to use imperial measurements because thats
> what we
> are used too although most can use metric if they need to
>
> Road speed signs are still in imperial as are clothes sizes with the
> metric
> equivelent written next to them Shops were supposed to switch to metric
> however
> most still advertise foodweights in pounds and ounces as well
>
> Time is rarely displayed in metric.
>
> Alcohol is sold in imperial and metric measurements , fuel is now sold in
> litres so
> it looks cheaper on the forcourt (£1.05p a litre sounds better than £4.80p
> a gallon
> as does a penny a litre rise against a 5 p a gallon rise )
>
>
>
Australia began the process of converting to the metric system in 1970.
(The use of metric measurement has been legal here since 1947 and our
currency went metric in 1966.) It was completed in stages in various
sections of government and industry over a period of about 18 years.
Most of us, (me included,) stubbornly resisted the change at first. This was
followed by a period of grudging acceptance of that which was foisted upon
us. For a short while I coped by thinking in terms of imperial measurements
and converting those to metric when necessary.
It was not until I decided to start visualising in metric terms that it
became easy. After couple of years I found that I liked it. It's simple and
logical.
For woodworking, I use only metres and millimetres. Up to 2m in length, I
use millimetres. Beyond that it's metres, taken to the third decimal. e.g.
3.750m, 1755mm. With a standard tape measure or rule, it is easy enough to
measure to within .5mm. (Approximately 20 thousandths of an inch) Beyond
that I would need to consider ambient temperature and moisture content and
who knows what else. I find that degree of accuracy is more than adequate
for my humble needs.
There is no denying that it was confusing and difficult for the aged part of
our population. It took many years for my Mother to come to terms with
Kilograms,Grams, Litres and Millilitres in the supermarket. She never did
adapt to Kilometres, Metres and Centimetres. However, she coped.
And there was a cost to the everyday man in the street. As an example,
during the changeover period, It became necessary to to purchase metric
spanners, tape measures and various other measuring instruments. I guess the
upside of that was a boost to the economy from purchases that otherwise
would not have been made.
Everyday units of measurements are commonly expressed as follows:
Length - Metres, centimetres, or millimetres. e.g. 1.325m = 132.5cm =
1320mm. For everyday household use, centimetres are used. e.g. SWMBO is
172cm tall, the TV has a 30cm screen. I have yet to see anyone use
decimetres and decametres. They seem to be superfluous.
Mass - Kilograms, grams, milligrams e.g. 3.5kg = 350g = 3500mg
Volume - Litres, millilitres 1.3l = 1300ml
Fuel Consumption - litres/100km. (I still prefer to visualise miles per
gallon, but I had to get over it.)
Common hardware items in other than metric sizes are still available in many
places, although becoming less common. - Whitworth, UNC and UNF bolts for
example.
Almost forty years later, with our daily lives and commerce based on the
metric system, I believe that it was a farsighted decision for us to
convert. We now live in a global economy. Having a common global system of
measurement makes economic sense.
I, for one, would not wish to go back to the Imperial system.
Notwithstanding the above, I can understand why the US populace would be
reluctant to change, (as we once were.) For that matter, I see no reason why
they should if they have no wish to.
"Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly
> different
> versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and errors. Why
> is
> the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?
The first thing that comes to mind is that a cubic metre is 1000 litres ; )
"Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> diggerop wrote:
>> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly
>>> different
>>> versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and errors.
>>> Why is
>>> the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?
>>
>> The first thing that comes to mind is that a cubic metre is 1000 litres
>> ; )
>
> Yes, an example of a 'hidden' power of ten conversion factor i.e. 1000.
> Why
> chose a cubic decimeter as a unit of volume? For the mks system it should
> be
> a cubic meter. For the cgs system it should be the cubic cm. For those
> people
> the really really like the size of litres, they could use either milli-m^3
> or
> kilo-cm^3. (One of the things that I like about the metric system is the
> various
> prefixes (pico, micro, milli, kilo, mega, giga, etc.) fo handling scaling
> issues.)
>
> Once again I really dislike that there are two separate but similar
> systems.
> That maximizes the chances of mixing units from the two systems or a
> conversion
> error. The silliness about the base mass unit for the mks being a
> kilo-something
> and the base length unit for cgs being centi-something just emphasizes the
> confusion.
>
>
> Dan
You could take it up with the International Committee for Weights and
Measures. ; )
The committee is a worldwide body composed of member countries who are
signatories to the "metre convention" (Australia signed the convention in
1947,) which attempts to standardise units of measurement worldwide.
My understanding is use of both cgs and mks have been largely superseded by
the International System of Units or S I (le Système international
d'unités,) except for some areas of science. This was adopted around 1960.
For my mundane purposes, I find SI to be simple, logical and
straightforward, but then I'm no rocket scientist.
On Sep 9, 4:03=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 9:54 am, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> -the force due to gravity on earth of 1kg is very close to 10 newtons
>
> > Thank you Chris. For the first time in my life I have an intuitive
> > feel for what a friggin Newton is: it's 100 grams or the amount of dry
> > pasta needed for a regular plate or the amount of prosciutto I would
> > buy for lunch.
>
> > Yes I know the difference between mass and weight. But for most
> > practical purposes on the face of the earth, the difference doesn't
> > matter.
>
> That's only because you don't have one of my gee-whiz passive solar
> heating panels yet. :)
>
> > And I knew that a Newton was one kilogram-metre per second
> > squared. & I could do some calculations with it, but I didn't know
> > what it was!
>
> Now the challenge is to find a (bathroom/postal/deli/freight) scale
> calibrated in Newtons. ;)
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Personally...I don't give a fig about Newtons.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:133b7e2f-fb00-43bc-841a-5e873faa8708@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 9:08 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It all boils down to time Robatoy. It takes you longer to say metric stuff
> than inche stuff. Time is money.
>
> In the time we can say 1/2 inch and measure it. You are still listening to
> the guy calling out, gimme Twelve m i l l - i - m e t e r s.
> Or drive one mile vs. drive one k i l l - o - m e t e r .
>
> Too many dang syllables in that metric stuff.
LOL...not so!
I drive at 100 K on the highway or 50 K in town, 40 K at a school
zone..
Still got you beat. I drive 65 or 40 in town or 20 in school zone. We
never indicate MPH.
In normal conversation: " I drove a buck-twenty most of the way here."
In normal conversation; " I drove 90 most of the way here.
We never speak of millimeters..we speak of 'little stripes'.
Oh Gaud, the wemen's never indicate fractions of an inch they say 4 little
thingies past the first big one.
On Sep 9, 12:06=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/09/2009 12:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> > Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
> > distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
> > nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters o=
n
> > the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.
>
> Try and stop a submarine at flank speed and you'll care a lot about mass
> vs weight.
>
> Ditto figuring out the acceleration of a blimp.
Both are things I have to be concerned about every day.
Luigi
On Sep 8, 10:19=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:.
>
> When the Michiganians look at the weather channel and see that it is
> 70 in Port Huron Michigan and 20 in Sarnia Ontario...a lot of them
> stay home.
>
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> We like that.
>
> Yabutts so does their money.
>
> Lew
and so do crack, guns and hookers. This fucking casino is nothing but
an asshole magnet.
In article <[email protected]>,
Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mr. Dvorak was a bit of a huckster.
I thought he was a composer ;-)
In article
<[email protected]>,
Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:
<SNIP>
Love it, that's one for the archive :-)
In article <[email protected]>,
dadiOH <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2. Precision? The metric scales I have seen are marked in
> millimeters... 1/25.4 inch. It is not uncommon to have an imperial
> scale marked in 1/32 or even 1/64.
Nor is it uncommon to find metric rules marked in 1/2mm.
However, this is a woodwork group not an engineering group and such
accuracy has no use when dealing with a material that shrinks and expands
so much with temperature and humidity
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yards, feet, and Inches sound way different than meters, decimeters,
> centimeters, and millimeters
But in the writen word there is no confusion and in the spoken "mil" is
quite different from "metre".
(Decimetres are never used and centimetres shouldn't be either as they are
non SI units)
In article <[email protected]>,
HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1 meter = one ten-millionth of the distance from the pole to the equator
> measured along the prime meridian.
Except that the french, being french, got it wrong as usual. It was
supposed to be but they measured it incorrectly!
In article <[email protected]>,
d.williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> Get me a 2 x 4 sounds way better than get me a 5.08 x 10.16. (nominal of
> course actually a 3.81 x 8.89) What do they call a stud in the metric
> speaking countries. (there's a straihght line for ya)
50x100 but still just as nominal!
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> We really only use feet, yards, miles and inches with any common
> regulirity.
And metric countries only use millimeters, meters and kilometers in normal
every day life so what's your argument
(thats one less to worry about and simple conversion between any of them)
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the time we can say 1/2 inch and measure it. You are still listening
> to the guy calling out, gimme Twelve m i l l - i - m e t e
> r s.
Actually he would say 12 mil and instead of "an inch and 15
thirty-seconds" "37 mil"
Your point was?
> Or drive one mile vs. drive one k i l l - o - m e t e
> r .
He would say drive "one kay"
Actually I don't know what they do say in France, Germany, Italy,
Holland...... because I don't speak any foriegn languages (though I do
have a broad understanding of American). It's what we would say in the UK
except that we use miles :-)
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> or 20 ounces.
> Or 16 ounces.
> A gallon
> of water (a real one, not the wimpy American kind) is 10 lbs., so one
> eighth of 10 lbs is not one pound.
> No you are wimpy. ;~) You muscles are so weak you think a gallon of
> water feel like 10 lbs. We Americans are so strong a gallon of water
> only feel like about 8 pounds.
And you can't hold your liquor so you have to have your beer in smaller
pints. :-)
In article
<25a1f7cf-1239-4c96-8430-d4ad529f6c70@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yabbut.. is a 'mil' a millimeter?
It is when you don't mean a "thou" (0.001")
In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> >Personally...I don't give a fig about Newtons.
> What about dynes or Joules?
> Probably not much interest in them either.
Except that Mr Joule was involved in the brewing of beer - and that's
important!
:-)
In article
<[email protected]>,
Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not quite an oxymoron.
Unfortunatly we bought some TV transmitters from LGT (Laboratoire General
les Telecommunications) now Thomcast.
I have never seen anything so badly made and thrown together and this was
supposed to be professional broadcast equipment.
In article
<cc1b01ec-8383-4862-9d56-9049db1eb103@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> A few decent wines and cheeses.
A few wines are OK yes but German and even Californian are better :-)
You can't beat a good blue Stilton though, from Melton Mobray in
Leicestershire. The White Stilton is pretty good too, especially the white
Stilton with Ginger.
Anyway, who needs wine when we have good english Ale [1] and cider.
[1] I mean the properly brewed stuff not that which comes out of the big
chemical factories
In article <[email protected]>,
steve robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> The UK still uses both systems so do many other countries and ex
> colonies
> The uk switched to metric to bring us in line with the EEC as it was
> then however most people over 45 still tend to use imperial measurements
> because thats what we are used too although most can use metric if they
> need to
Funny, I'm 62 but in about the last year I have found myself using metric
measurement in my woodwork (keeping it on topic) more and more.
> Road speed signs are still in imperial
And they had darned well better stay that way.
> as are clothes sizes with the metric equivelent written next to them
> Shops were supposed to switch to metric however most still advertise
> foodweights in pounds and ounces as well
Remember the "metric martyrs" - traders who continued to sell in imperial
because that's what most customers wanted and found themselves in court?
> Time is rarely displayed in metric.
> Alcohol is sold in imperial and metric measurements
Imperial in pubs for draught ales, metric for cans and bottles in the
supermarket.
> , fuel is now sold in litres so it looks cheaper on the forcourt (£1.05p
> a litre sounds better than £4.80p a gallon as does a penny a litre rise
> against a 5 p a gallon rise )
But I still calculate my fuel consumption in miles per gallon.
Now, here's a queer thing.
When I weigh out my rice to go with a curry I use ozs but when ask in the
butchers for the meat to make it I ask for a kilogram. When I weigh out my
flour to make bread I use g [1], the water I use for my bread I measure in
fl oz
Am I mixed up or what
[1] more sensible than the peculiar american measure called "cups" which
is what the recipe book that came with the bread-maker uses.
In article <[email protected]>,
Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> (OMG, what'll I do if they stop making 10" blades for my Unisaur?
> Yikes!)
Use 254mm blades same as I do on my table saw :-)
In article <[email protected]>,
David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Never misunderestimate the idiocy and ignorance of American Yahoos and
> such; I'm sure there are plenty (and even some reading this) who still
> refuse to use the term "French fries" because of the perceived anti-U.S.
> bias of that nation.
We don't either but that's because chips (the proper name) were invented
in Yorkshire ;-)
In article <[email protected]>,
diggerop <toobusy@themoment> wrote:
> And there was a cost to the everyday man in the street. As an example,
> during the changeover period, It became necessary to to purchase metric
> spanners, tape measures and various other measuring instruments. I guess
> the upside of that was a boost to the economy from purchases that
> otherwise would not have been made.
I guess our closer proximity to Europe and the regular import of cars made
in France, Germany, Italy etc meant that tool kits including both metric
and imperial spanners etc were common place long before official, legally
enforced, metrication here. I recall the first socket set I bought, in
around 1970, had both, although my car at the time was exclusively A/F
fasteners. (possibly some BA in small size screws). I think my father had
a couple of imperial-only tape measures but by the time I started buying
dual scaling was the norm.
In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
> The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly
> different versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and
> errors. Why is the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?
Because most adults can drink a litre of beer but would struggle with a
cubic metre?
In article
<41a24c2e-3481-401b-81ab-b1cf256a5843@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ford builds a great (Fiesta Econetic) car in Europe. Diesel. Safe. 65
> MPG VERY economical.... but alas... not for sale here. Would that be a
> metric car, I wonder....
Yes.
In article <[email protected]>,
basilisk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Because most adults can drink a litre of beer but would struggle
> > with a cubic metre?
> speak for yourself :)
I hereby challange you to drink one cubic metre of beer in 24hrs and put
the results up on utube!
I will sit and enjoy my one litre over the same period.
(only kidding - honest)
In article
<e89a4306-da04-40b0-a5db-c053a284eab4@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> You mean like a 28" TV that measures 25.5"
Rather depends on how you measure it. The stated size is always the
diagonal of the tube or panel.
What you see is always less because they always put a "pretty" border
round it of plastic casing.
On Sep 8, 10:56=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Yup. We do frown on illegal handguns coming into Canada.
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> So how do they get in?
>
> Lew
Can you think of a more porous border?
On Sep 8, 3:12=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Leon wrote:
> >> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]..=
.
> >>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> >>> can quote on them.
> >>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> >>> the purpose of them are.
> >>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> >>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> >>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> >>> both metric and imperial.
> >>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> >>> archaic system?
>
> >>>http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> >> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>
> > 2.65 mm
>
> Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?
>
> > What's half of 5.3 inches?
>
> 2.65 "
http://snickrit.se or very soon diyfurnitureplans.com
In my fathers workshop in the 40ies (myself 13 years old) we handled
both inperial (25.4 mm) and english (27 mm) inches plus naturally
the metric system that was standard for all but the timber and
woodwork industry at that time.
The lumber was measured and sold by english inches in cubic foot, the
workshop workers often spoke of imperial measuremenst, Plans where all
in
the metric system most in centimeters and millimeter thus an inch was
said to be 2 centimeter and 5.4 millimeter.
Today all is in millimeter.
French got metric at the revolution 1889 The imperial Russia got
metric at the revolution1918 We in Scandinavia got officially metric
sometimes 188? without a revolution why the change was not complete
before sometim e in 60ies.
I recommend to buy a measuring tape marked in both imperial and metric
and slowly go metric.
Klas
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message the Duke
> Of Gloucester on Yonge might be closer.... but that is in an iffy area...
Extremely close to where I live, but unfortunately it's on the second floor.
The first few years here I visited the Pilot Tavern on occasion until they
added several steps in the front door. However, if it's that type of pub
atmosphere that you're into, I know of several locations nearby that are
similar. Or, if you're ok for a dive, there's the Burgundy bar and grill ~
less than five minutes away.
On Sep 9, 12:00=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> > "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
> >> It's 2.65mm.
>
> >> Jaysus! =A0If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
> >> gradeschool math.
>
> >> nb
>
> > Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indi=
cate
> > that distance.
>
> OMG Leon. =A0Everybody knows that .5mm =3D 1RCH.
>
> Or at least now everybody knows.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 yr hmbl numerologist,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 jo4hn
Ah yes, the Pubic Scale.Then there are the Smidges, Tiches, Tads.
On Sep 11, 11:29=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 5:32=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> > can quote on them.
> > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> > the purpose of them are.
> > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> > hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> > Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> > both metric and imperial.
> > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > archaic system?
>
> >http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> XXICVIII
That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.
Why bother changing system?
L.
On Sep 8, 4:12=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry C wrote:
>
> > "Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
>
> >> I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
> >> serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
>
> >> Tom Veatch
> >> Wichita, KS
> >> USA
>
> > It was a joke
>
> An unadulterated joke.
>
Then what is an adulterated joke?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> whackadoodle as the Francophone Quebecois who go around measuring signs to
> make sure that the French is more prominent than the English.
Now, that's a poor comparison. Metric conversion has only come to the
forefront as more and more manufacturing becomes a worldwide concern and
largely over the past 50 years. Whereas, Quebec French have always been
screwed up. After all, they're French, they're largely anti Canadian and
they think strangely. Thank God my father moved our family from Montreal to
Toronto when I was eleven and I didn't have to suffer my teenage years
through a totally crazy society. Growing up is tough enough. Doing it in
Quebec as an English speaking youth is totally whacked.
T24gU2VwIDEyLCAzOjMzoHBtLCBEYXZpZCBOZWJlbnphaGwgPG5vYi4uLkBidXQudXMuY2hpY2tl
bnM+IHdyb3RlOgo+IE9uIDkvOC8yMDA5IDU6MzIgQU0gUm9iYXRveSBzcGFrZSB0aHVzOgo+Cj4g
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KPiCgIKAgoCCgVEhSRUFE
IFNBVFVSQVRJT04gTUFSS0VSCj4gPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT0KPgo+IC0tCj4gRm91bmQtLXRoZSBnZW5lIHRoYXQgY2F1c2VzIGJlbGllZiBpbiBnZW5l
dGljIGRldGVybWluaXNtCgpUaGVuIHN0b3AgcmVhZGluZyB0aGUgZnVja2luZyB0aGluZy4=
On Sep 8, 11:14=A0pm, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2009-09-09, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So how do they get in?
>
> Well, they don't actually stop them, they just "frown" a lot.. =A0
>
> nb
And we write angry letters and speak loudly sometimes.
On Sep 9, 2:07=A0pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/8/2009 6:27 PM Puckdropper spake thus:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> >> Leon wrote:
>
> >>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>
> >> Really? What is the metric unit for weight?
>
> >>> Just yankin your chain. =A0;~)
>
> >> Bakatcha :)
>
> > Newtons. =A0But no one uses Newtons (except certain PDA users). =A0Mass=
is
> > usually confused for weight. =A0Just wait until we find life on other
> > planets and go there, just wait!
>
> > We'll probably be using a different measuring system by then. :-)
>
> I know there's a certain amount of chain-yanking going on here, and that
> I myself am contributing to it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
> distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
> nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters on
> the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.
>
> Who cares how much a bucket of cement weighs on the planet Snorlax?
>
A: 1123 fnorgs.
On Sep 8, 10:15=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:55=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the
> > inch,
> > > 4" ~ 100mm.
> > > 1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
> > > 1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
> > > 1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm
>
> > When you get down to it as far as I'm concerned, it's all what sounds
> > better. I've got to tell you, 75 F sounds a whole lot warmer than 24 C.=
The
> > older I get, the colder it seems to get.
>
> When the Michiganians look at the weather channel and see that it is
> 70 in Port Huron Michigan and 20 in Sarnia Ontario...a lot of them
> stay home.
>
> We like that.
..and by 'We Like that'..I, of course, mean that we think it is
funny.........*smirk*
On Sep 8, 9:51=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> notbob <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]=
bob.com:
>
> > On 2009-09-09, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food that
> >> we export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our food comes
> >> from the US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding how to
> >> allocated all those pounds and quarts of food.
>
> > We're bound to go metric pretty soon. =A0After all, isn't Mexico on the
> > metric system. =A0
>
> > nb =A0
>
> Metric or not, a pound is half a kilo, an ounce is 100 g or 1/1 a kilo. =
=A0At
> least when I was a child. =A0I think now they are getting confused ... =
=A0Must
> be because of the =80 ...
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Een ons vlees. was 100 gram/ 500 gram 'een pond'.
My grandfather always talked about 'duim' (thumb)..I guess about an
inch.
At our house in The Netherlands, the indoor temp was always in degrees
F.
Everything else was metric.
a 100mm x 100mm x100mm cube of water weighs 1 KG and is one liter. (At
max density 4C)
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Sep 9, 10:24=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> > On 9/9/2009 6:36 PM Upscale spake thus:
>
> >> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a lo=
t
> >>> of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy most of m=
y
> >>> food at Traitor Joe's, and it's surprising how much stuff says "produ=
ct
> >>> of Canada".
>
> >> When you see Canadian grown food, is it measured in metric? Your US fo=
od
> >> comes here in quarts, =A0pints, pounds and ounces.
>
> > Nope; typical packaging. F'rinstance, some crackers I regularly buy:
> > "Wheat Crisps"; 9 oz. (255 g.). Customary units first, pretend units
> > second.
>
> =A0 I've started referring to them as "real people units". =A0As in when =
someone
> tells me "that's about 90 cm tall", my response is, "what is that in
> real-people units?"
So, the 95% or so of the world's population who would say 90cm are not
real people????
Luigi
On Sep 9, 2:06=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/09/2009 12:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> > Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
> > distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
> > nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters o=
n
> > the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.
>
> Try and stop a submarine at flank speed and you'll care a lot about mass
> vs weight.
Weight the submarine before it leaves dry dock.
> Ditto figuring out the acceleration of a blimp.
> Chris
On Sep 11, 11:31=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:29=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 5:32=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> > > can quote on them.
> > > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> > > the purpose of them are.
> > > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> > > hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> > > Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> > > both metric and imperial.
> > > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > > archaic system?
>
> > >http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> > XXICVIII
>
> That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.
>
> Why bother changing system?
>
> L.
CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
drink in your favourite watering hole?
Luigi
On Sep 8, 3:09=A0pm, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
>
> I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
> serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS
> USA
I'm still trying to figure out what adulterated horseshit is. :-}
On Sep 9, 10:34=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message =A0the Duke
> > Of Gloucester on Yonge might be closer.... but that is in an iffy area.=
..
>
> Extremely close to where I live, but unfortunately it's on the second flo=
or.
> The first few years here I visited the Pilot Tavern on occasion until the=
y
> added several steps in the front door. However, if it's that type of pub
> atmosphere that you're into, I know of several locations nearby that are
> similar. Or, if you're ok for a dive, there's the Burgundy bar and grill =
~
> less than five minutes away.
Van Morrison, The Cult, David Gray are all coming through this fall,
I'll be catching a couple of those...so I'll be in touch.
On Sep 8, 9:37=A0am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't feed 'em ...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/18/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Your cynicism is starting to make you look silly.
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> comfortably change and use metric other that we don't want to change. The
> rest of the world manages to build some rather complex and sophisticated
> machines with it and I bet we could too.
Yeah, but you're talking about changing life long habits and that's not so
easy a thing to do. The only way to realistically do anything is to teach
the young how to use metric and let the old folks consign themselves to
history.
Not saying it can't be done, just that there may be more prudent things to
learn in the time the good old folks have left to them. :)
"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:
>
>> dpb wrote:
> >
>>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>
>>> ...
> >>
>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>>> archaic system?
>>>
>>> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>>
>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
>> will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French
>> system crammed down its throat.
>
> Amen.
>
>
Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the thumb of
some long dead English king.
Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated horseshit...
downright bizarre, if you ask me.
LOL... sometimes I think the stuff here is akin to really poorly done
comedy.
Ed
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:
>>>
>>>> dpb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
>>>>>> an archaic system?
>>>>>
>>>>> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>>>>
>>>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive
>>>> to the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some
>>>> bizarre French system crammed down its throat.
>>>
>>> Amen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
>> measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the
>> thumb of some long dead English king.
>
> It's only stupidly bizarre to those who didn't grow up with it. And it
> goes
> back to Rome or earlier, not to "some long dead English king".
>
I think the yard as we know it dates back to Henry I of England. And I
*did* grow up with it. I'm kind of pissed about that. It is a stupid
system, regardless of how I can relate to it.
>> Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated
>> horseshit... downright bizarre, if you ask me.
>
> It's not bizarre only if you grew up with it.
It isn't bizarre... it's based on science. I should have grown up with it
as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of manufacturing and
packaging is done with metric... why is my country so stinking backwards it
can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it (effectively) in schools?
Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.
Ed
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
>>Personally...I don't give a fig about Newtons.
>
> What about dynes or Joules?
>
> Probably not much interest in them either.
>
> Lew
>
Depends on what you mean... family Joules?
"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and packagers
>> figure it out?
>
I dunno... they hire French engineers to do the hard work? The work that
requires thought?
> They actually use their brains to THINK, a simple function of higher
> animals that seems to be rapidly falling out of favor.
>
> nb
They do it out of desperation, hoping they can recover some small part of
the business they've lost to foreign manufacturers who changed over 50 years
ago.
Ed
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and
>>>> packagers figure it out?
>>>
>>
>> I dunno... they hire French engineers to do the hard work? The work
>> that requires thought?
>
> "French engineers" is an oxymoron.
>
>>> They actually use their brains to THINK, a simple function of higher
>>> animals that seems to be rapidly falling out of favor.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> They do it out of desperation, hoping they can recover some small
>> part of the business they've lost to foreign manufacturers who
>> changed over 50 years ago.
>
> And you think that metric had something to do with that?
Yes.
And I also think that at this point, you are acting dense for effect.
Ed
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 05:32:40 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>can quote on them.
>Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>the purpose of them are.
>Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>both metric and imperial.
>But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>archaic system?
>
>http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
Well, I think it is pretty complicated stuff to move from Imperial to
metric. Here's one small example.
I used to work for Oregon DOT (retired now). While I was with ODOT,
there were 2 times where we and other DOT's were mandated by the
Federal government to move from Imperial to metric with respect to our
construction projects - which effectively meant for all our work.
All standards for measurements, materials, legal documents, etc, were
to be changed to use the metric system.
The first time, the mandate was rescinded before we completed the
change. This was part of the effort that was going to switch the
entire US system to metric, but was abandoned before it really got
going. Making that kind of switch would pay in the long run, but short
term it is difficult.
The second time, the mandate was for DOT's and I imagine other related
agencies. The mandate started out, um, mandatory but was made optional
before we completed the change... ODOT went ahead and finished that
work and became "metrified". We maintained our work in metric for
several years. It took several years to make that transition, you
can't believe the amount of things that have to be redone. I believe a
few other state DOT's did the same, but most DOT's never completed the
change to metric.
This was not popular with contractors. All work and materials they did
for us had to also be in metric, , but for anything else they would
use Imperial. I am sure that was awkward and increased overhead costs.
Eventually the contractors lobbied the legislature and, I assume, the
Governor's office, to switch back to Imperial. Which we did.
As I understand it, all the DOT's that made the changeover to metric
eventually switched back. Not because the DOT wanted to change;
changing such standards is an exhaustive and expensive process. They
changed because of outside (read: political) pressure.
On Sep 10, 4:14=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 5:06=A0pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
>
> > > On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:
>
> > >> krw wrote:
>
> > >>> There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
> > >>> arithmetic and those who can't.
>
> > >> But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base =
one
> > >> arithmetic. :)
>
> > > Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, =
no?
> > > I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
> > > arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head gue=
ss
> > > is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number m=
ust
> > > have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.
>
> > Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.
>
> > Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
> > of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
> > the number of marks made.
>
> > Duh.
>
> > --
> > Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
>
> Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 =3D IV
> has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII
"IV" is a relatively recent invention.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> When you see Canadian grown food, is it measured in metric? Your US food
> comes here in quarts, pints, pounds and ounces.
No matter where is comes from, it is usually sold that way here, with a few
expectations for pre-packed stuff.
The big controversy, IMO, comes down to resistance to change. If you fear
the change it will be difficult. Travel to another country and you'll be
amazed at how you can adapt. I can buy food using Euros per kilo just as
easily as dollars per pound. I either learned how or starved for a couple
of weeks.
On Sep 8, 6:44=A0pm, "d.williams" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Get me a 2 x 4 sounds way better than get me a 5.08 x 10.16. (nominal of
> course actually a 3.81 x 8.89) What do they call a stud in the metric
> speaking countries. (there's a straihght line for ya)
An aldulterated stud or an unadulterated one?
On Sep 8, 10:34=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
> For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
> mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.
How could I forget RCHs???? That is the only relevant and important
measurement in wooddorking. The rest just has to fit, how long or wide
or deep doesn't need to be expressed in any kind of system.
In article <[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>can quote on them.
>Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>the purpose of them are.
>Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>both metric and imperial.
>But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>archaic system?
Tevye says: TRADITION!!
On 09/09/2009 12:07 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
> distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
> nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters on
> the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.
Try and stop a submarine at flank speed and you'll care a lot about mass
vs weight.
Ditto figuring out the acceleration of a blimp.
Chris
On Sep 8, 3:09=A0pm, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
>
> I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
> serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS
> USA
I need more info. Whose tongue in whose cheek? Which cheek..come on..
I'm trying to understand..
=3D0)
On Sep 8, 10:12=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:133b7e2f-fb00-43bc-841a-5e873faa8708@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 8, 9:08 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It all boils down to time Robatoy. It takes you longer to say metric st=
uff
> > than inche stuff. Time is money.
>
> > In the time we can say 1/2 inch and measure it. You are still listening=
to
> > the guy calling out, gimme Twelve m i l l - i - m e t e r s.
> > Or drive one mile vs. drive one k i l l - o - m e t e r .
>
> > Too many dang syllables in that metric stuff.
>
> LOL...not so!
>
> I drive at 100 K on the highway or 50 K in town, 40 K at a school
> zone..
> Still got you beat. =A0 I drive 65 or 40 in town or 20 in school zone. =
=A0We
> never indicate MPH.
>
> In normal conversation: " I drove a buck-twenty most of the way here."
> In normal conversation; =A0" I drove 90 most of the way here.
>
> We never speak of millimeters..we speak of 'little stripes'.
> Oh Gaud, the wemen's never indicate fractions of an inch they say 4 littl=
e
> thingies past the first big one.
Yup, they're aka 'tic'.
On Sep 12, 8:11=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 10:35=A0am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > On Sep 11, 2:32 pm, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
> > >> drink in your favourite watering hole?
>
> > >> Luigi
>
> > > What does it cost to rent a Beaver and a bush pilot to come and fetch
> > > you from your cabin?
>
> > Don't forget the dogsled and the guy that says "mush".
>
> > --
> > Froz...
>
> Mebbe he can hitch a ride with one of them there Iceroad truckers?
I don't need a Beaver (the plane, that is), 6 passengers is too big
for nothing as there is only me. I'll save you a lot of cash & charter
a super cub. Coming to think of it, maybe I'll get my neighbour to fly
me. Where can you land a float plane in Sarnia?
BTW, the ice roads are in the NWT. All we have is a couple of ice
bridges here. And drivers are called mushers, not "guys who say mush"!
Sheesh!
Luigi
On 9/8/09 8:34 AM, "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> ...
>
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>
> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
Translation -> laziness.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>
> Really? What is the metric unit for weight?
>
>> Just yankin your chain. ;~)
>
> Bakatcha :)
Hey it was the other guy that said
Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
Leon wrote:
> "Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Kevin <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>>>
>>>
>>> -Kevin
>> It's 6.(5/3).
>
>
> Wouldn't 6.(5/3) x 3 = 23?
>
Note sure what the point was but I am pretty sure it was a
typo, or a bad handle on how to represent mathematical equations.
Probably meant 6"+(0.5"/3) i.e. 6 1/6"
--
Froz...
"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
>
> I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
> serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS
> USA
>
>
It was a joke
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to a
>> system of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?
>>
>> Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
>> decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.
>
>
> I the the jury is still out on the metric CLOCK. ;~)
>
It would be smarter to use a 24H clock though.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
<snip>
>
> Who cares how much a bucket of cement weighs on the planet Snorlax?
>
The Snorlaxian Labor Union! ;-)
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the
> inch,
>> 4" ~ 100mm.
>> 1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
>> 1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
>> 1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm
>
> When you get down to it as far as I'm concerned, it's all what sounds
> better. I've got to tell you, 75° F sounds a whole lot warmer than 24°C.
> The
> older I get, the colder it seems to get.
>
>
LOL, Move down to Houston. 24 sounds a lot cooler than 75. 98 is HOT.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Uh, 9mm is just .38 caliber misspelled.
>>
>>
>>
>> 9mm is actually closer to a .357
>
> So's a .38.
?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> can quote on them.
> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> the purpose of them are.
> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> both metric and imperial.
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
>
> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
It all boils down to time Robatoy. It takes you longer to say metric stuff
than inche stuff. Time is money.
In the time we can say 1/2 inch and measure it. You are still listening to
the guy calling out, gimme Twelve m i l l - i - m e t e r s.
Or drive one mile vs. drive one k i l l - o - m e t e r .
Too many dang syllables in that metric stuff.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I see you now understand my point, the answer to why we still use
>> fractions of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge
>> City rules that are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those
>> graduations is 128 ths of an inch. That measurement is much easier to
>> mark than 2.65 mm. Thanks for helping me better understand why I
>> perfer fractions of an inch over metric measurements. Apparently you
>> need much more sufisticated measuring devices than a rule to measure
>> sizes smaller than 1 mm. 1/64" is easily marked with a rule.
>>
>
> Leon, that is a good description of the need for finer graduations on your
> metric rulers. Has nothing to do with whether metric or US measurements
> are more convenient (except, what you're used to fits best, of course!).
Perhaps if the metric measurement were more widely used in th US we would
see rules with finer graduations.
Multiply the two numbers below and find the mean and standard deviation
in Roman numerals!
Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:29 am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 5:32 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>>> can quote on them.
>>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>>> the purpose of them are.
>>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>>> both metric and imperial.
>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>> archaic system?
>>> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>> XXICVIII
>
> That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.
>
> Why bother changing system?
>
> L.
"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I see you now understand my point......
>
>> of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge City rules
>> that
>> are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those graduations is 128 ths
>> of
>> an inch.
>
> And just what do you use them for, Leon? Measuring freeze blocks
> and step stringers. I'm a machinist and seldom use them for measuring
> anything, certainly not 1/128".
>
> You have no point. You just want to argue.
>
> nb
I am sorry to have troubled you notbob. Clearly you shoud refrain from
answering my questions as they seem to throw you into a tizzy.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Kevin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>>>>> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>>>>> Easy; 6-1/6".
>>>> Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?
>>> Yes. <g>
>>>
>> Business forms design?
>>
> You got it.
I got one of those too.
;-)
--
Froz...
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> I'll answer honestly. YES!!! I was taught fractions. Ad nauseam. But
> it was more esoteric and academic then woodworking practicality. There
> were no woodworking classes in first through 4th grade in Holland.
> Certainly after that you were supposed to be able to do all the fractions
> "in your head". Getting rusty now ...
Well ther was no wood working in 4th grade here either. LOL.. But it was
fractions fractions fractions. I suppose it helps to learn fractions when
every measurement is done in fractions.
>
> But that really is not your question. For me the problem is whether 5/16
> is bigger or smaller than 1/4. Or similar problems, and I have to always
> back calculate that to identical denominators, and that isn't (anymore)
> automagical!!
Is 5/16 bigger than 4/16? Granted I have to think a bit to deal with 64ths
and smaller increments.
Well fractions can be tough to recognize as a specific amount. In school I
studied Mechanical and Archetectural drafting with a scale, no pocket
calculators or computers back then. Fractions became second nature.
>> snip
>>
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, miles, feet, inches come pretty natural to me now, as
>>> do meters, centimeters and nanometers. To interchange them, I need a
>>> calculator calibrated to about 2.54 (cm/inch).
>>
>> In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the
>> inch, 4" ~ 100mm.
>> 1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
>> 1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
>> 1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm
>
> Obviously I use very similar guestimates.
>
> I do appreciate your discussion, Leon!!!
Thank you Han!
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>
>> It's 2.65mm.
>>
>> Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
>> gradeschool math.
>>
>> nb
>
> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
> indicate that distance.
I work with metric these days. Frankly, in 20 years I've never seen
anything 5.3mm called out. Nor have I seen .20866 inches. (Quick, what is
half of that?)
One of the beauties of the system is things tend to be more whole numbers
rather than 21/64 and 17/32. There is no logical reason that we could not
comfortably change and use metric other that we don't want to change. The
rest of the world manages to build some rather complex and sophisticated
machines with it and I bet we could too.
"pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The easiest way would be to repeal the laws that forbid voluntary full
> metrication and trade in metric only products.
>
> For example, the FPLA is a Federal law covers packaged goods that you
> see in the supermarket. It mandates non-metric units on the label. A
> two liter bottle with a label that says "2 L" is legal in all
> countries except the USA.
>
> Many Americans are unaware that non-metric units are mandatory.
You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know what is
best for us. We should do as the say.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> Uh, 9mm is just .38 caliber misspelled.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 9mm is actually closer to a .357
>>>
>>> So's a .38.
>>
>>
>> ?
>
> Get out your reloading manual and check the bullet dimensions for the more
> popular of the cartridges normally described as ".38".
OK, I am aware that actual sizes are different than indicated sizes. I
thought you may have been referring to actual sizes. The 9mm is slightly
smaller than .357 and the .38 family varies in size just slightly larger
than the .357 but under the an actual .38 measurement.
Way back in the EARLY 70's, when we were teens, a friend and I did a lot of
target shooting. At the range we shot mostly .22, .38 Special, .357, AND
.45. Because the .357 was a "cruel to the shooter" gun we often shot less
agressive rounds through it. Typically we went through a couple hundred
rounds weekly. We often ran wad cutter .38 rounds through the .357. We
spent hours melting down wheel weights and pouring our own wad cutter
bullets. Hot Job!
J. Clarke wrote:
> While you make some interesting points, if you are going to whine about the
> calorie being part of the metric system, please find an official statement
> by anybody to the effect that it actually _is_ part of the metric system.
Interesting.
Gee, one of the first things that every class that I have ever seen on the
metric system mentions is the calorie and that it is the amount of heat
required to raise one gram of water one degree centigrade (when I took classes
it was centigrade and not celsius).
Microsoft in it's Encarta Encyclopedia says that the calorie is metric.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567840/calorie.html
Wikipedia says that the calorie is metric but that it predates the "Système
International d'Unités" version of the metric system and that it has been
replaced by the joule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
This is the first mention that I have ever seen that the calorie was not
part of the metric system. To add to the argument that the calorie is not
part of the current metric system, it is not mentioned in either the NIST
site:
http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
or the site for the Bureau International ds Poids et Mesures:
http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/11/12/
Okay. The next time that someone tries to tell me that the calorie is part
of the metric system, I will tell them that it is not any longer.
The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly different
versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and errors. Why is
the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?
Dan
A final note: Wikipedia also says that the metric system was not originally
French.
"The metric system, including the metre, was first fully described
by Englishman John Wilkins in 1668 in a treatise presented to the
Royal Society, some 120 years before the French adopted the system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system
"d.williams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Get me a 2 x 4 sounds way better than get me a 5.08 x 10.16. (nominal of
> course actually a 3.81 x 8.89) What do they call a stud in the metric
> speaking countries. (there's a straihght line for ya)
>
I just bet the 2x4 equivalent in metric would be the rounded also. We don't
say give me the 1.5 x 3.5.
They would say give me the 50 x 100 eh!
"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry C wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
>>>
>>> I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
>>> serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
>>>
>>> Tom Veatch
>>> Wichita, KS
>>> USA
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It was a joke
>
> An unadulterated joke.
>
I meant to say Stone Cutters - a Simpsons reference but I typed quicker than
I thought. The Freemasons are the guys who have all that treasure hidden
somewhere in the US.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7164361c-ef5d-47db-963e-be9ac6937060@s39g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 3:09 pm, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
>
> I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
> serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS
> USA
I'm still trying to figure out what adulterated horseshit is. :-}
manure from an unfaithful horse? Is the unadulterated stuff better?
RE: Subject
Everytime this subject comes up, I'm reminded of my first day of
Physics class.
Prof announced that during the quarter, he would be giving quizes to
test our progress.
"The answer to every question will be "1 Me".
Your job will be to define the units of "Me".
As you can see, it made an impression.
Lew
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kevin <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>>
>>
>> -Kevin
>
> It's 6.(5/3).
Wouldn't 6.(5/3) x 3 = 23?
"steve robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements
> as the
> numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in
> different
> countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres
> others
> millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games
> sometimes .
In the same situation, I believe that all the metric measurements being
"53??????meter." could easily be confused with "53?????meters. Basically
the units of measure sound too much the same.
Yards, feet, and Inches sound way different than meters, decimeters,
centimeters, and millimeters
>
> The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built
> to
> imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or
> plasterboard , in
> europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800
> by 900
> which creates problems in refit works specs etc
I wonder if that is a valid assumption. Seldom do you pull out a 4x8 of any
thing and replace it as a unit. More often it is patched and cut to fit.
>
> 6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm
But what makes 6' or 72 inches easier to remember than 1800 mm?
"Larry C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I meant to say Stone Cutters - a Simpsons reference but I typed quicker
> than I thought. The Freemasons are the guys who have all that treasure
> hidden somewhere in the US.
And are plotting to take over the world. :)
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>>> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>>> Easy; 6-1/6".
>> Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?
>
> Yes. <g>
>
Business forms design?
--
Froz...
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to a
> system of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?
>
> Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
> decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.
I the the jury is still out on the metric CLOCK. ;~)
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
There are 10 commandments but most people use only a fraction of them.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bc73d$4aa6ed80$cef88bc5$5362
@TEKSAVVY.COM:
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> 6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm
>
> Guessing that we see 2.5 meter lengths in the place of 2x4x8's in the not
> too distant future.
Make that 243.84 cm, please.
<grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to
>> the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre
>> French system
>> crammed down its throat.
>
> So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to a
> system of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?
>
> Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
> decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.
As mentioned, it is all what you are used to. As a born Hllander who
came to the US in '69 at 25 yoa, I should tell you that getting used to
inches and feet is not that easy at first, and I still have trouble with
the farting fractions of an inch. The metric system, once you get used
to it is much easier (IMNSHO) than the US system. An important thing to
get under your hat is the idea of order of magnitude (1, 10, 100, 1000,
etc). This will make it much easier to estimate whether your
calculations were right, or that you forgot to enter a digit on your
calculator, which then very accurately gave you an undesired answer.
Know our orders of magnitude, and whoosh goes that problem.
Nevertheless, miles, feet, inches come pretty natural to me now, as do
meters, centimeters and nanometers. To interchange them, I need a
calculator calibrated to about 2.54 (cm/inch).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"basilisk" <[email protected]> wrote in news:h85kph$gaj$1
@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:a0c7c3a5-74b9-475f-8cb0-7c31169ca4b1
@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>> can quote on them.
>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>> the purpose of them are.
>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>> both metric and imperial.
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>>
>> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QTj45cTB4U
>
> basilisk
Hilarious!!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> As mentioned, it is all what you are used to. As a born Hllander who
>> came to the US in '69 at 25 yoa, I should tell you that getting used
>> to inches and feet is not that easy at first, and I still have
>> trouble with the farting fractions of an inch.
>
> I am sure you are right. But respectfully I ask, if you have trouble
> with fractions of an inch, did you study fractions at all when growing
> up? Absolutely no disrespect is intended with that question.
> In the US we are taught fractions early in school, that may be why we
> prefer fractions of a measurement rather than a whole number portion
> of a measurement.
I'll answer honestly. YES!!! I was taught fractions. Ad nauseam. But
it was more esoteric and academic then woodworking practicality. There
were no woodworking classes in first through 4th grade in Holland.
Certainly after that you were supposed to be able to do all the fractions
"in your head". Getting rusty now ...
But that really is not your question. For me the problem is whether 5/16
is bigger or smaller than 1/4. Or similar problems, and I have to always
back calculate that to identical denominators, and that isn't (anymore)
automagical!!
> snip
>
>>
>> Nevertheless, miles, feet, inches come pretty natural to me now, as
>> do meters, centimeters and nanometers. To interchange them, I need a
>> calculator calibrated to about 2.54 (cm/inch).
>
> In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the
> inch, 4" ~ 100mm.
> 1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
> 1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
> 1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm
Obviously I use very similar guestimates.
I do appreciate your discussion, Leon!!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
notbob <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I the the jury is still out on the metric CLOCK. ;~)
>
> Heh.....
>
> I have no prob with metric, but I'll stick with Fahrenheit, too.
>
> nb
>
Fahrenheit, centigrade, it's the same. I like Fahrenheit because "tomorrow
it'll be in the high sixties" is more (im)precise than saying it'll be 17
to 21 degrees. I like centigrade because -40 is -40. Because zero is
freezing, and 100 boiling, 36.8 is body temp, 42 a rather high fever.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
notbob <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 2009-09-09, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food that
>> we export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our food comes
>> from the US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding how to
>> allocated all those pounds and quarts of food.
>
> We're bound to go metric pretty soon. After all, isn't Mexico on the
> metric system.
>
> nb
Metric or not, a pound is half a kilo, an ounce is 100 g or 1/1 a kilo. At
least when I was a child. I think now they are getting confused ... Must
be because of the ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Well fractions can be tough to recognize as a specific amount. In
> school I studied Mechanical and Archetectural drafting
You got me there! I was going in a different direction, and nothing like
any kind of drafting was offered in my schools :(
> with a scale,
> no pocket calculators or computers back then. Fractions became second
> nature.
>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I see you now understand my point, the answer to why we still use
> fractions of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge
> City rules that are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those
> graduations is 128 ths of an inch. That measurement is much easier to
> mark than 2.65 mm. Thanks for helping me better understand why I
> perfer fractions of an inch over metric measurements. Apparently you
> need much more sufisticated measuring devices than a rule to measure
> sizes smaller than 1 mm. 1/64" is easily marked with a rule.
>
Leon, that is a good description of the need for finer graduations on your
metric rulers. Has nothing to do with whether metric or US measurements
are more convenient (except, what you're used to fits best, of course!).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sep 8, 9:51 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> notbob <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:[email protected]
> bob.com:
>>
>> > On 2009-09-09, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food
>> >> that we export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our
>> >> food comes from the US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding
>> >> how to allocated all those pounds and quarts of food.
>>
>> > We're bound to go metric pretty soon. After all, isn't Mexico on
>> > the metric system.
>>
>> > nb
>>
>> Metric or not, a pound is half a kilo, an ounce is 100 g or 1/1 a
>> kilo.
> At
>> least when I was a child. I think now they are getting confused ...
> Must
>> be because of the ...
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Han
>> email address is invalid
>
> Een ons vlees. was 100 gram/ 500 gram 'een pond'.
Indeed
> My grandfather always talked about 'duim' (thumb)..I guess about an
> inch.
Yes, that was very, very old-fashioned/obsolete when I was a kid
> At our house in The Netherlands, the indoor temp was always in degrees
> F.
Well, we had dual scales on the thermometer (or was it triple, with
Reaumur <sp?> too)
> Everything else was metric.
Everything was always metric.
>
> a 100mm x 100mm x100mm cube of water weighs 1 KG and is one liter. (At
> max density 4C)
Makethat 1 dm cubed.
I had one "uncle" (neighbor from way back) who still used degrees F in
his thinking. But he was the only one, and that was in the late forties
as I recall. His house is to be demolished now, next to the old KRO
studios in Hlversum, to make way for an apartment building.
And there was this childrens story about birds dropping dead off the
telegraph wires because it was over 100 in the shade (in Holland!!??)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> The easiest way would be to repeal the laws that forbid voluntary
>> full metrication and trade in metric only products.
>>
>> For example, the FPLA is a Federal law covers packaged goods that you
>> see in the supermarket. It mandates non-metric units on the label. A
>> two liter bottle with a label that says "2 L" is legal in all
>> countries except the USA.
>>
>> Many Americans are unaware that non-metric units are mandatory.
>
> You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know
> what is best for us. We should do as the say.
Ed, you are as confused as most Americans. Except the lobbyists. They
know everything much better.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> While you make some interesting points, if you are going to whine
> about the calorie being part of the metric system, please find an
> official statement by anybody to the effect that it actually _is_ part
> of the metric system.
It's a trivially small measure of heat. That amount of heat necessary to
raise the temperature of 1 ml or 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
Fudge with starting temperature and standard pressure to get a bit more
accurate.
When talking calories, I believe, the prefix kilo is often discarded, hence
the notion that the above 1 gram should be replaced by 1 kilogram.
However, the 1 gram, 1 degree thing is the "official" definition.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
>> indicate
>> that distance.
>
> 2.65 millimeters = 0.104330709 inches
>
> http://tinyurl.com/luowee
>
> Now that I've provided an answer as ludicrous as your challenge, what's
> your point?
>
> nb
You have obviousely missed my point, as what you pointed out is not metric.
I wanted to see the rule that indicates your answer, 2.65 mm.
My point is it is easier to measure halves in inperial than in metric.
Regardless of an imperial rule marked in 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, or 1/64 of an
inch, 1/2 is alway easy to see. It is going to be tough to see 2.65 mm
markings.
On 09/08/2009 06:32 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
The cost for wholesale switchover would be a huge one-time cost, while
the cost for staying is paid incrementally. There isn't enough
incentive to make it worthwhile in the minds of regulators.
Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
typist, but the cost of switching is too high to make it worth doing.
I'm in Canada, so we get everything...metric, US, and Imperial.
Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the US
it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.
Chris
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> can quote on them.
> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> the purpose of them are.
> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> both metric and imperial.
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
>
> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
diggerop wrote:
> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly different
>> versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and errors. Why is
>> the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?
>
> The first thing that comes to mind is that a cubic metre is 1000 litres ; )
Yes, an example of a 'hidden' power of ten conversion factor i.e. 1000. Why
chose a cubic decimeter as a unit of volume? For the mks system it should be
a cubic meter. For the cgs system it should be the cubic cm. For those people
the really really like the size of litres, they could use either milli-m^3 or
kilo-cm^3. (One of the things that I like about the metric system is the various
prefixes (pico, micro, milli, kilo, mega, giga, etc.) fo handling scaling
issues.)
Once again I really dislike that there are two separate but similar systems.
That maximizes the chances of mixing units from the two systems or a conversion
error. The silliness about the base mass unit for the mks being a kilo-something
and the base length unit for cgs being centi-something just emphasizes the
confusion.
Dan
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>> can quote on them.
>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>> the purpose of them are.
>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>> both metric and imperial.
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>>
>> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>
Irrelevant if you've truly converted to metric. Just like learning a
foreign language. When you've truly gotten it, you don't translate in your
head, you *think* in the language in which you're speaking. No different
here. 5.3mm=5.3mm. period.
On Sep 8, 9:55=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the
> inch,
> > 4" ~ 100mm.
> > 1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
> > 1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
> > 1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm
>
> When you get down to it as far as I'm concerned, it's all what sounds
> better. I've got to tell you, 75 F sounds a whole lot warmer than 24 C. T=
he
> older I get, the colder it seems to get.
When the Michiganians look at the weather channel and see that it is
70 in Port Huron Michigan and 20 in Sarnia Ontario...a lot of them
stay home.
We like that.
On Sep 9, 9:36=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a lot
> > of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy most of my
> > food at Traitor Joe's, and it's surprising how much stuff says "product
> > of Canada".
>
> Well, much of it is true, but maybe not as much as I intimated. I think i=
t
> depends on the type of food. I notice many of the fruits I eat originate
> from Florida or California while vegetables and beef often come from
> somewhere in Canada. Obviously a climate thing. I've also noticed a
> significant amount of fruits coming from South America. There's a march o=
n
> to advance home grown foods with the advertising lauding how fresh Canadi=
an
> produce is because it gets to the dinner table faster because it doesn't
> have to travel so far to get here. But it seems like there's a whole lot =
of
> inter-country food commerce going on when there doesn't really need to be=
.
> Maybe it advances trade in other areas where bigger profits are made.
>
> When you see Canadian grown food, is it measured in metric? Your US food
> comes here in quarts, =A0pints, pounds and ounces.
DINGDINGDINGDING!!!! YOU are the 200 th caller. Free pints for you at
the Duke of Richmond (The next to Old City hall...or..wait, the Duke
Of Gloucester on Yonge might be closer.... but that is in an iffy
area...
On Sep 8, 3:58=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/08/2009 04:00 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
>
> > Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > : Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
> > : typist
>
> > That's a myth. =A0And a quite interesting one at that:
>
> >http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html
>
> > It's not only NOT faster than a QWERTY keyboard for a trained typist,
> > it's arguably slower, and Mr. Dvorak was a bit of a huckster.
>
> I should note up front that I use QWERTY and have never tried Dvorak.
>
> There are arguments against that article. =A0This post for instance is
> quite interesting and seems to bring up several easily-verifiable points:
>
> http://www.dvorak-keyboard.com/dvorak2.html
>
> I got my 10% figure from Donald Norman's book, "The Design of Everyday
> Things". =A0He notes that Dvorak affectionados claim higher improvements
> but that he could not substantiate them.
>
> Quite a few people have indicated that Dvorak results in less stress on
> their joints.
>
> > : Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the =
US
> > : it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.
>
> > Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
> > intuitive to work with?
>
> No, I'd find 2400x1200 panels easier to work with. =A0Why stick with 8'
> ceilings if we're truly going metric? =A0But that would require redoing
> all the building standards for 400mm or 600mm centers instead of 16" or 2=
4".
>
> Chris
We tried that for a few years in Canada in the early 80s, with stuff
on 400mm centres. Gave it up pretty quickly. Went back to 2440 by 1220
mm plywood, 16" centres and 38X89s.
Luigi
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
>
> 1 pound = "A pint's a pound the world around"
>
which I think means 16oz in a lb and 16oz in a pint, but only in the US. An
Imperial pint is 20 fl oz the world around.
Tim W
"Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sorry Leon, but I can say "three mils" faster than you can say "three
sixteenths. :-)
You got me!
On Sep 8, 8:34=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > archaic system?
>
> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>
> --
Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?
Dan Coby wrote:
>Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants and conv=
ersion
>factors. =A0(The pro metric people claim that they don't but they are ther=
e. =A0I.e.
>how many calories are there in a joule:
I don't understand. The relationship between calorie and joule isn't a
feature of SI. It's a conversion between two different systems.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Yeah but! ;~) Isn't Ikea stuff metric?
What do you expect? It's 99% sawdust. Metric has to figure in there
somewhere.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm
Guessing that we see 2.5 meter lengths in the place of 2x4x8's in the not
too distant future.
"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>
> It's 2.65mm.
>
> Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
> gradeschool math.
>
> nb
Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
that distance.
"Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>>> can quote on them.
>>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>>> the purpose of them are.
>>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>>> both metric and imperial.
>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>> archaic system?
>>>
>>> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>>
>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>
> 2.65 mm
Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?
> What's half of 5.3 inches?
2.65 "
On Sep 9, 12:47=A0pm, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 10:34=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
> > For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
> > mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.
>
> How could I forget RCHs???? That is the only relevant and important
> measurement in wooddorking. The rest just has to fit, how long or wide
> or deep doesn't need to be expressed in any kind of system.
Two systems there too. R =3D Red or R=3D Royal.
"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a lot
> of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy most of my
> food at Traitor Joe's, and it's surprising how much stuff says "product
> of Canada".
Well, much of it is true, but maybe not as much as I intimated. I think it
depends on the type of food. I notice many of the fruits I eat originate
from Florida or California while vegetables and beef often come from
somewhere in Canada. Obviously a climate thing. I've also noticed a
significant amount of fruits coming from South America. There's a march on
to advance home grown foods with the advertising lauding how fresh Canadian
produce is because it gets to the dinner table faster because it doesn't
have to travel so far to get here. But it seems like there's a whole lot of
inter-country food commerce going on when there doesn't really need to be.
Maybe it advances trade in other areas where bigger profits are made.
When you see Canadian grown food, is it measured in metric? Your US food
comes here in quarts, pints, pounds and ounces.
On Sep 12, 10:35=A0am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 2:32 pm, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sep 11, 11:31 am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 11, 11:29 am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 8, 5:32 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so=
I
> >>>>> can quote on them.
> >>>>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> >>>>> the purpose of them are.
> >>>>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it =
is
> >>>>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> >>>>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work =
in
> >>>>> both metric and imperial.
> >>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> >>>>> archaic system?
> >>>>>http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
> >>>> XXICVIII
> >>> That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.
> >>> Why bother changing system?
> >>> L.
> >> CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
> >> drink in your favourite watering hole?
>
> >> Luigi
>
> > What does it cost to rent a Beaver and a bush pilot to come and fetch
> > you from your cabin?
>
> Don't forget the dogsled and the guy that says "mush".
>
> --
> Froz...
Mebbe he can hitch a ride with one of them there Iceroad truckers?
On Sep 9, 7:18=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote innews:5fb179ec-6aef-4798-8eb1-99=
[email protected]:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 9:51=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> notbob <[email protected]> wrote
> >> innews:[email protected]
> > bob.com:
>
> >> > On 2009-09-09, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food
> >> >> that we export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our
> >> >> food comes from the US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding
> >> >> how to allocated all those pounds and quarts of food.
>
> >> > We're bound to go metric pretty soon. =A0After all, isn't Mexico on
> >> > the metric system. =A0
>
> >> > nb =A0
>
> >> Metric or not, a pound is half a kilo, an ounce is 100 g or 1/1 a
> >> kilo.
> > =A0At
> >> least when I was a child. =A0I think now they are getting confused ...
> > =A0Must
> >> be because of the =80 ...
>
> >> --
> >> Best regards
> >> Han
> >> email address is invalid
>
> > Een ons vlees. was 100 gram/ 500 gram 'een pond'.
>
> Indeed
>
> > =A0My grandfather always talked about 'duim' (thumb)..I guess about an
> > inch.
>
> Yes, that was very, very old-fashioned/obsolete when I was a kid
>
> > At our house in The Netherlands, the indoor temp was always in degrees
> > F.
>
> Well, we had dual scales on the thermometer (or was it triple, with
> Reaumur <sp?> too)
>
> > Everything else was metric.
>
> Everything was always metric.
>
>
>
> > a 100mm x 100mm x100mm cube of water weighs 1 KG and is one liter. (At
> > max density 4C)
>
> Makethat 1 dm cubed.
>
mm's are confusing enough. dm's are WAY over the top. <G>
On Sep 10, 1:07=A0am, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/9/2009 8:02 PM J. Clarke spake thus:
>
>
>
> > Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>
> >> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and
> >>>> packagers figure it out?
>
> >> I dunno... =A0they hire French engineers to do the hard work? =A0The w=
ork
> >> that requires thought?
>
> > "French engineers" is an oxymoron.
>
> Really? Can you say "TGV"? "European extremely large telescope"?
>
> --
> Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Fully aerodynamic body. Front-wheel drive, Oil over air fully
adjustable suspension. Crumple zones, collapsable steering wheel,
constant velocity transmission, steerable headlights, elevated rear-
end-collision-avoidance brake- and turning signal lights etc., etc.
(Btw... all in one 1950-ish Citroen.)
Brigit Bardot.
A few decent wines and cheeses.
Not everyrhing coming from France is all bad...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>> can quote on them.
>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>> the purpose of them are.
>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>> both metric and imperial.
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>>
>> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
>Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
What's 18.5" divided by 3?
-Kevin
"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I the the jury is still out on the metric CLOCK. ;~)
>
> Heh.....
>
> I have no prob with metric, but I'll stick with Fahrenheit, too.
>
> nb
A N D I can live with metric also. But the only ones that seem so concerned
about the US still using inches are the ones that use the "easier" metric
system. Easier is not always the best path to take.
On Sep 8, 6:08=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> > can quote on them.
> > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> > the purpose of them are.
> > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> > hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> > Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> > both metric and imperial.
> > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > archaic system?
>
> >http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> It all boils down to time Robatoy. =A0It takes you longer to say metric s=
tuff
> than inche stuff. =A0Time is money.
>
> In the time we can say 1/2 inch and measure it. =A0You are still listenin=
g to
> the guy calling out, =A0gimme Twelve m =A0i =A0l =A0l =A0 - =A0i =A0- =A0=
m =A0e =A0t =A0e =A0r =A0s.
> Or drive one mile vs. drive one k =A0 i =A0 l =A0 l =A0- =A0o =A0- =A0 m =
=A0 e =A0 t =A0 e =A0 r .
>
> Too many dang syllables in that metric stuff.
Sorry Leon, but I can say "three mils" faster than you can say "three
sixteenths. :-)
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> As mentioned, it is all what you are used to. As a born Hllander who
> came to the US in '69 at 25 yoa, I should tell you that getting used to
> inches and feet is not that easy at first, and I still have trouble with
> the farting fractions of an inch.
I am sure you are right. But respectfully I ask, if you have trouble with
fractions of an inch, did you study fractions at all when growing up?
Absolutely no disrespect is intended with that question.
In the US we are taught fractions early in school, that may be why we prefer
fractions of a measurement rather than a whole number portion of a
measurement.
snip
>
> Nevertheless, miles, feet, inches come pretty natural to me now, as do
> meters, centimeters and nanometers. To interchange them, I need a
> calculator calibrated to about 2.54 (cm/inch).
In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the inch,
4" ~ 100mm.
1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm
On Sep 13, 11:23=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> > Where can you land a float plane in Sarnia?
>
> If you really don't like airports, there's a big pond just north of town
> that should do...
But I don't want to have to walk too far to the drinking hole.
Luigi
On Sep 8, 7:00=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Barss wrote:
> > Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
> > intuitive to work with?
>
> Oh oh - I just finished a drawing for a parabolic trough concentrator
> using dimensions of 2438.4 x 1219.2 mm :(
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
I can expect to seem some aircraft-hangar walls flying overhead soon?
On Sep 8, 10:15=A0am, "steve robinson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 8:34=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Robatoy wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > > > archaic system?
>
> > > Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>
> > > --
>
> > Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
> > bring comfort, no?
>
> feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements=
as the
> numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in d=
ifferent
> countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres othe=
rs
> millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games =
sometimes .
>
> The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built=
to
> imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or plasterbo=
ard , in
> europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800=
by 900
> which creates problems in refit works specs etc
>
> 6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm
All valid points. Thanks for those.
On Sep 11, 2:32=A0pm, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:31=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 11:29=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 5:32=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so=
I
> > > > can quote on them.
> > > > Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> > > > the purpose of them are.
> > > > Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it =
is
> > > > hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> > > > Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work =
in
> > > > both metric and imperial.
> > > > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > > > archaic system?
>
> > > >http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>
> > > XXICVIII
>
> > That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.
>
> > Why bother changing system?
>
> > L.
>
> CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
> drink in your favourite watering hole?
>
> Luigi
What does it cost to rent a Beaver and a bush pilot to come and fetch
you from your cabin?
On Sep 9, 10:29=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
>
> There are 10 commandments but most people use only a fraction of them.
I thought there were 613 commandments.
On Sep 8, 4:42=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> However if the tenon was 0.025 undersize. and the mortise was 0.025
> oversize, then we have a problem.
Not really. Plane shavings are your friend. DAMHIKT
Luigi
On Sep 29, 8:33=A0am, [email protected] (Jerome Meekings)
wrote:
> Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > =A0 =A0Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > (OMG, what'll I do if they stop making 10" blades for my Unisaur?
> > > Yikes!)
>
> > Use 254mm blades same as I do on my table saw :-)
>
> or use the 250mm blade that is about the real size of your 10" blade
> after its first sharpening ;-) ;-)
>
> Or the size it really is but is only marked 10" as a Linus Blanket thing
> --
>
>
>
> >replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me
> >Pics athttp://www.meekings.net/diving/index.shtml
> >andhttp://www.meekings.net/photo-groups/nui/index.shtml
You mean like a 28" TV that measures 25.5"
On Sep 8, 12:26=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm still trying to figure out what adulterated horseshit is. :-}
Oddly, there's an old answer to this, from Russia.
"Govno c smetanoi" or somesuch, a common expression
meaning crap with sour cream...
It predates the internet, but is SO well suited to describe elements
of modern life...
On Sep 10, 5:06=A0pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
>
> > On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:
>
> >> krw wrote:
>
> >>> There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
> >>> arithmetic and those who can't.
>
> >> But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base on=
e
> >> arithmetic. :)
>
> > Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no=
?
> > I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
> > arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess
> > is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number mus=
t
> > have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.
>
> Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.
>
> Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
> of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
> the number of marks made.
>
> Duh.
>
> --
> Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 =3D IV
has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII
Leon wrote:
> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
>>> indicate
>>> that distance.
>> 2.65 millimeters = 0.104330709 inches
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/luowee
>>
>> Now that I've provided an answer as ludicrous as your challenge, what's
>> your point?
>>
>> nb
>
> You have obviousely missed my point, as what you pointed out is not metric.
> I wanted to see the rule that indicates your answer, 2.65 mm.
> My point is it is easier to measure halves in inperial than in metric.
> Regardless of an imperial rule marked in 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, or 1/64 of an
> inch, 1/2 is alway easy to see. It is going to be tough to see 2.65 mm
> markings.
>
>
Ok, you take a measurement and it comes to 13 25/64 with a really good
rule, where are we now?
Mark it accurately.
;-)
Now cut it, without a CNC.
--
Froz...
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
Depends on where you live. Up here in the great white north, metric is and
has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food that we
export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our food comes from the
US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding how to allocated all those
pounds and quarts of food.
"David Nebenzahl" wrote:
> Sounds like you didn't see "Bowling for Columbine" (Michael Moore's
> movie). One thing he pointed out is that Canucks actually own more
> guns (per capita, I b'leeves) than Merkins, and yet there isn't half
> as much violent crime up there. (The reason for this is not even
> what Moore himself expected to find. I won't give any spoilers; rent
> the flick.)
>
> I especially loved the sequence where Moore knocks on doors in
> Toronto, and then tries the latches and opens them (none were
> locked). Priceless.
Nope, not a flick person
Comment was based on mt experiences sailing across Lake Erie or Lake
Huron to various ports in Ontairo and checking in with customs.
Lew
On Sep 10, 9:28=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
> > original post.
> > Practically the whole world runs on metric.
> > Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
> > as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
> > of the planet?
> > Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
> > World Dimension Order?
> > Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
> > metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
> > Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?
>
> No. =A0:-)
>
You could have saved us all a lot time by posting that right away,
Steve.
"FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
> Ok, you take a measurement and it comes to 13 25/64 with a really good
> rule, where are we now?
>
> Mark it accurately.
> ;-)
I have rules in the shop that indicate that. Not a problem. But still I
asked about a rule indicating 1/2 of 5.3 mm.
As for the 13 25/64, It is 13 inches plus the "only" mark in between 12/32"
and 13/32", easily marked with a knife. But is there a rule that shows
2.65mm? Better yet, is there a rule that would indicate 5.3 mm let alone
half of that distance?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
> will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French
> system
> crammed down its throat.
So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to a system
of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?
Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.
Robatoy wrote:
> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> can quote on them.
> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> the purpose of them are.
> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> both metric and imperial.
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
>
> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
I think that we should stop using both the 'English' system of measurements
(which is used in the US) and the metric system. At the same time we should
also stop using decimal notation for representing numbers.
All of the present measurements systems are based upon silly anthropomorphic
considerations. Instead we should switch to using Planck units and hexadecimal.
Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants and conversion
factors. (The pro metric people claim that they don't but they are there. I.e.
how many calories are there in a joule: 0.239005736 or erg: 2.39005736x10^-8 .
How many calories are there in a Calorie: 1000 (Calling the kilocalorie a Calorie
is really silly), etc.). Planck units simplify things. For instance, Einstein's
famous equation e = m*c^2 is simply e = m. (The c^2 is in the equation simply
because we measure energy and mass in different funny units.)
For more information on Planck units see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
Likewise the use of decimal (base 10) for representing numbers is based on
the minor detail that people have 10 fingers. Since most people have stopped
doing arithmetic on their fingers, we should switch to a more rational base
for our number system. Ask any computer and it will tell you that binary
is much more rational. The only disadvantage of binary is that it takes a
bunch of digits to represent anything useful. Hexadecimal reduces the binary
digit count by a factor of four. Most numbers take fewer digits in hex than
in decimal.
Some of the other discussions in this thread have pointed out that the decimal
system (and the metric system) is great if you want to scale by 10 but is a
pain if you are only trying to scale down by 2. Binary (and hexadecimal)
works well for scaling by 2, 4, 8, or 16, etc.
For more information on Hexadecimal see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal
Dan
On Sep 8, 8:36=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1 pound =3D "A pint's a pound the world around"
>
> Now I ask you: which is more meaningful to the average person?
Too bad it's wrong. A pint is 1/8 of a gallon or 20 ounces. A gallon
of water (a real one, not the wimpy American kind) is 10 lbs., so one
eighth of 10 lbs is not one pound.
Same goes for the silly Yankee gallon, which is eight point something
pounds.
Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.
I was trying to figure out how much rain on my roof it took to fill a
45-gallon drum (55 gallons to you, Bubba). How many cubic inches in a
gallon??? While translated in to metric system, it was all
straightforward once I knew how many litres in a gallon.
Luigi
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:56:51 -0700, David Nebenzahl
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/9/2009 5:44 PM Luigi Zanasi spake thus:
>
>> On Sep 9, 5:35 pm, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>>> OK, new question: how big is an RCH? (Sorry if this has been covered
>>> here before ad nasueam.)
>>>
>>> I read one comment on a web page[1] that claimed it was 1/200" (OK, for
>>> those who prefer fake units of measurement, that's 0.127mm).
>>
>> The point is that a RCH is not convertible into other units. It's an
>> RCH.
>
>Ah, sui generis. I see.
>
>Now I just need to find me one ...
Betcha can't eat just one.
On 09/09/2009 09:42 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On what "science" is it based? What research was conducted to show that the
> units selected for the Metric system were of greater utility than other
> units?
I suspect none. However, it was invented by scientists who tried to
come up with logical and practical standard units.
On the other hand, having used both it is much easier to carry out unit
conversions with the metric system. Certain physical constants work out
nicely in metric:
-a liter of water masses almost exactly 1kg
-the force due to gravity on earth of 1kg is very close to 10 newtons
-a 1 meter pendulum has a period of very close to 2 seconds
-standard atospheric pressure is very close to 100 kPa
-speed of light in vacuum is very close to 3x10^8 m/s
I do find it interesting that since 1893 the inch and pound are actually
defined in terms of metric values. Thus, an inch is defined as 25.4mm,
while the pound is defined as 0.45359237 kilogram.
Chris
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:58:54 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>The Legislature of the State of Indiana didn't do much better, four thousand
>years later:
>http://www.agecon.purdue.
>edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm
Interesting! I'd heard of something like that, but in that tale it was
the Alabama or Tennessee legislature and I'd considered it just
another Urban Legend. Glad to see it was a Yankee legislature instead
of another dumb redneck Southerner story.
In one sense, that's a fun story. In another sense, it's a little
scary to see what could happen when legislators debate and vote on
things they don't understand. It's very comforting to know that, in
these enlightened times, our legislators in the state houses and
congress never, never do that!
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> can quote on them.
> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> the purpose of them are.
> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> both metric and imperial.
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
>
> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QTj45cTB4U
basilisk
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Don't feed 'em ...
>
I can't stand to see anyone go hungry :)
basilisk
dpb wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> ...
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>
> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French system
crammed down its throat.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 8, 8:34 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>> archaic system?
>> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>>
>> --
>
> Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
> bring comfort, no?
On a personal level, no...
OTOH, enterprises engaged in large-scale and/or routine trade _do_ use
mks routinely. I'm guessing you're dealing essentially w/ individuals
not sizable corporate engineering groups.
I'm a NE by training and 40+ years experience so know mks for
engineering work intimately. Yet, for routine day-to-day living I'm far
more comfortable w/ English units simply because they're still what have
that innate feeling over.
It's no different than your familiarity w/ daily temp's in C and sheet
goods in mm--that was what you grew up with; it's what you unconsciously
think in. OTOH, while you "know" what an inch is, it takes actual
effort to relate that. We're precisely the other way 'round (and I
suspect will continue to be for the foreseeable future as there isn't
the mechanism in the States to coerce the changeover).
--
--
dpb wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 8:34 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>>> archaic system?
>>> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
>> bring comfort, no?
>
> On a personal level, no...
>
> OTOH, enterprises engaged in large-scale and/or routine trade _do_ use
> mks routinely. I'm guessing you're dealing essentially w/ individuals
> not sizable corporate engineering groups.
>
> I'm a NE by training and 40+ years experience so know mks for
> engineering work intimately. Yet, for routine day-to-day living I'm far
> more comfortable w/ English units simply because they're still what have
> that innate feeling over.
>
> It's no different than your familiarity w/ daily temp's in C and sheet
> goods in mm--that was what you grew up with; it's what you unconsciously
> think in. OTOH, while you "know" what an inch is, it takes actual
> effort to relate that. We're precisely the other way 'round (and I
> suspect will continue to be for the foreseeable future as there isn't
> the mechanism in the States to coerce the changeover).
>
> --
>
> --
>
I think Obama needs to know about this. We need some more "change" we
can believe in. We need a Metric Czar.
Larry C wrote:
>
> "Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:16:02 GMT, "Larry C" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Freemasons are the ones keeping the Metric system out of the US.
>>
>> I assume that's tongue in cheek, 'cause if it was intended as a
>> serious statement, it's unadulterated horseshit.
>>
>> Tom Veatch
>> Wichita, KS
>> USA
>>
>>
>
> It was a joke
An unadulterated joke.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
: dpb wrote:
:> Robatoy wrote:
:> ...
:>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
:>> archaic system?
:>
:> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
: The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
: will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French system
: crammed down its throat.
No country has ever voluntarily adopted the metric system.
-- Andy Barss
Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 09/08/2009 06:32 AM, Robatoy wrote:
:> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
:> archaic system?
It's not archaic!
: The cost for wholesale switchover would be a huge one-time cost, while
: the cost for staying is paid incrementally. There isn't enough
: incentive to make it worthwhile in the minds of regulators.
: Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
: typist
That's a myth. And a quite interesting one at that:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html
It's not only NOT faster than a QWERTY keyboard for a trained typist,
it's arguably slower, and Mr. Dvorak was a bit of a huckster.
: Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the US
: it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.
Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
intuitive to work with?
-- Andy Barss
Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> On Sep 8, 5:32 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>> can quote on them.
>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>> the purpose of them are.
>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>> both metric and imperial.
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>
> Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:
>
> PRO IMPERIAL:
> There is absolutely no question; traditional imperial measurements are
> far superior for woodworking. Most wreckers use it for very good
> reasons:
>
> PRO METRIC:
> There is absolutely no question; metric measurements are far superior
> for woodworking. Most woodworkers in the world use it for very good
> reasons:
>
> Intuitiveness:
> 1. Imperial is much more intuitive and natural. Feet and inches
> (thumbs) have been used throughout human history as they are related
> to human body parts (fingers and feet). As Michelangelo said: man is
> the measure of all things.
> 1. Metric is much more intuitive and natural. Humans always use a base
> 10 system as it is related to human body parts (number of fingers &
> toes). As Michelangelo said: man is the measure of all things.
>
> Communicating measurements:
> 2. Imperial is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Someone
> calls out a measurement for a piece of wood, & before you notice it,
> you cut 10mm instead of 10cm.
> 2. Metric is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Quickly now,
> is 19/32" bigger or smaller than 5/8"? On the other hand, it is
> immediately obvious that 15mm is smaller than 16mm.
>
> Ease of learning:
> 3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
> memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
> deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.
> 3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
> all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
> fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.
>
> Arithmetic:
> 4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
> grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
> prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
> something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.
> 4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
> calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
> calculates inches and fractions.
>
> Division:
> 5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in imperial measurements. What do
> you call half a millimeter? Ever try to divide 304.8mm by four? A foot
> is real easy - 12" divided by four is 3".
> 5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in metric measurements. Ever try
> to divide 39 9/16 inches by four? While 1000mm divided by four readily
> gives 250mm.
>
> Accuracy:
> 6. Imperial is more accurate. You can easily go to 1/32 which is more
> precise than 1mm.
> 6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
> precise than 1/32"
>
> The REAL Reason:
> 7. Metric is a stupid cowardly French system. You don't want to
> support those smelly unwashed arrogant ingrates, do you? GOD BLESS
> AMERICA!
> 7. Inches and feet are a stupid warmongering American imperialist
> system. The rest of the world and all scientists use the much more
> rational metric system. It's about time the US gets into the 19th
> century, never mind the 21st! VIVE LA FRANCE!
>
I think we just found the CZAR of metric. I'll call Obama. Thanks for
volunteering Luigi!
FrozenNorth wrote:
> ..65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40
>
> You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?
Lots of us use calipers that split that into 25 parts.
> More importantly, can you use it?
I can, but generally only use the measuring tools to check the results -
my primary cutting tool is good to +/-0.001, all by itself.
> Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
> woodworking.
Not really. Imagine gluing up a table top with that much difference
between the heights of adjacent boards...
...or assembling a M&T joint when the tenon was 0.025" oversize and the
mortise was 0.025" undersize.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
FrozenNorth wrote:
> Ok, you take a measurement and it comes to 13 25/64 with a really good
> rule, where are we now?
>
> Mark it accurately.
> ;-)
>
> Now cut it, without a CNC.
NBD - I have a 24" scale that'll handle the measurement accurately. I'd
mark it with a knife and split the mark with my RAS. If I needed more
than one I'd set a stop - look at the bottom of
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/RadialArmSaw/
for a setup that allows setting multiple stops on the RAS at one time
(handy when there's expectation of doing another run of the same part or
set of parts).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
In article <[email protected]>, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:
>
[...]
>
>The REAL Reason:
>7. Metric is a stupid cowardly French system. You don't want to
>support those smelly unwashed arrogant ingrates, do you? GOD BLESS
>AMERICA!
>7. Inches and feet are a stupid warmongering American imperialist
>system. The rest of the world and all scientists use the much more
>rational metric system. It's about time the US gets into the 19th
>century, never mind the 21st! VIVE LA FRANCE!
>
ROTFLMAO!
Excellent post, Luigi. Thanks!
Robatoy wrote:
> I can expect to seem some aircraft-hangar walls flying overhead soon?
I'm kinda hoping to keep the walls in place. :)
FYI - I've posted the latest bit of solar "zen" at
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/HTAbsorber/
which is what has struggling to speak metric, physics, and French all at
the same time.
My head hurts. :(
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:
>>
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
>>>>> an archaic system?
>>>>
>>>> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>>>
>>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive
>>> to the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some
>>> bizarre French system crammed down its throat.
>>
>> Amen.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
> measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the
> thumb of some long dead English king.
It's only stupidly bizarre to those who didn't grow up with it. And it goes
back to Rome or earlier, not to "some long dead English king".
> Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated
> horseshit... downright bizarre, if you ask me.
It's not bizarre only if you grew up with it.
> LOL... sometimes I think the stuff here is akin to really poorly done
> comedy.
Perhaps I shoud have used a smiley?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to
>> the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre
>> French system
>> crammed down its throat.
>
> So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to a
> system of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?
Why should we change _anything_?
> Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
> decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.
Are they the majority? If not then what right do they have to impose their
system on the majority?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> The easiest way would be to repeal the laws that forbid voluntary
>> full metrication and trade in metric only products.
>>
>> For example, the FPLA is a Federal law covers packaged goods that you
>> see in the supermarket. It mandates non-metric units on the label. A
>> two liter bottle with a label that says "2 L" is legal in all
>> countries except the USA.
>>
>> Many Americans are unaware that non-metric units are mandatory.
>
> You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know
> what is best for us. We should do as the say.
Uh, Ed, I don't see how requiring "2L (2.1 QT)" instead of just "2L" or just
"2.1 QT" is an example of "only Congress would know what is best for us".
[email protected] wrote:
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>
> Oh, I think the US has adopted the metric system more than we realize,
> given the success of the 9mm bullet.
> (Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer the .45.)
Uh, 9mm is just .38 caliber misspelled.
> I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson was initially responsible for
> rejection of the metric system. He wanted the meter to be the length
> of a pendulum with a period of one second at sea level.
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> It isn't bizarre... it's based on science. I should have grown up with
> it as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of manufacturing
> and packaging is done with metric... why is my country so stinking
> backwards it can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it (effectively) in
> schools?
>
> Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.
>
> Ed
Because time and time again the cost of migrating has been shown to outweigh the benefits?
--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>> It isn't bizarre... it's based on science. I should have grown up with
>> it as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of manufacturing
>> and packaging is done with metric... why is my country so stinking
>> backwards it can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it (effectively) in
>> schools?
>>
>> Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.
>>
>> Ed
>
> Because time and time again the cost of migrating has been shown to
> outweigh the benefits?
>
It will happen over time when it becomes cost effective.
The mill I work for, produces hundreds of thousands of parts a day
made from southern pine, the buyers dimensions and specs and final
inspections
are in millimeters and all the buyers reps use metric in any discussions.
It was far easier and cheaper to adopt metric measurements than constantly
make conversions and add another place in the system for errors.
basilisk
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>>> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>> dpb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
>>>>>>> an archaic system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive
>>>>> to the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some
>>>>> bizarre French system crammed down its throat.
>>>>
>>>> Amen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
>>> measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the
>>> thumb of some long dead English king.
>>
>> It's only stupidly bizarre to those who didn't grow up with it. And
>> it goes
>> back to Rome or earlier, not to "some long dead English king".
>>
>
> I think the yard as we know it dates back to Henry I of England. And
> I *did* grow up with it. I'm kind of pissed about that. It is a
> stupid system, regardless of how I can relate to it.
>
>>> Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated
>>> horseshit... downright bizarre, if you ask me.
>>
>> It's not bizarre only if you grew up with it.
>
> It isn't bizarre... it's based on science.
On what "science" is it based? What research was conducted to show that the
units selected for the Metric system were of greater utility than other
units?
> I should have grown up
> with it as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of
> manufacturing and packaging is done with metric... why is my country
> so stinking backwards it can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it
> (effectively) in schools?
>
> Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.
Interesting--on the one hand you say that the US is backward and doesn't
teach it, but on the other, you say that it's used in the majority of
manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and packagers
figure it out?
In any case, I learned it in school and never really found a reason to use
it in everyday life. It's just some silly system that some silly people
made up.
Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> On Sep 8, 10:34 am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>> For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
>> mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.
>
> How could I forget RCHs???? That is the only relevant and important
> measurement in wooddorking. The rest just has to fit, how long or wide
> or deep doesn't need to be expressed in any kind of system.
My hat's off to the man who first discovered that a RCH could be used as a system of
measurement. I'd like to shake his hand (after he washes it first).
--
Repeat after me:
"I am we Todd it. I am sofa king we Todd it."
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/8/2009 6:27 PM Puckdropper spake thus:
>
>> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>>>
>>> Really? What is the metric unit for weight?
>>>
>>>> Just yankin your chain. ;~)
>>>
>>> Bakatcha :)
>>
>> Newtons. But no one uses Newtons (except certain PDA users). Mass is
>> usually confused for weight. Just wait until we find life on other
>> planets and go there, just wait!
>>
>> We'll probably be using a different measuring system by then. :-)
>
> I know there's a certain amount of chain-yanking going on here, and that I
> myself am contributing to it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that this
> distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
> nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters on
> the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.
>
> Who cares how much a bucket of cement weighs on the planet Snorlax?
a snorlaxian?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/8/2009 6:27 PM Puckdropper spake thus:
>
>> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really
>>>> shines.
>>>
>>> Really? What is the metric unit for weight?
>>>
>>>> Just yankin your chain. ;~)
>>>
>>> Bakatcha :)
>>
>> Newtons. But no one uses Newtons (except certain PDA users). Mass
>> is usually confused for weight. Just wait until we find life on
>> other planets and go there, just wait!
>>
>> We'll probably be using a different measuring system by then. :-)
>
> I know there's a certain amount of chain-yanking going on here, and
> that I myself am contributing to it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that
> this distinction here between weight and mass is a bunch of irrelevant
> nitpicking by pointy-headed scientist types. To *most* human critters
> on the planet, they're the same thing, practically speaking. Sheesh.
>
> Who cares how much a bucket of cement weighs on the planet Snorlax?
Many places in engineering you care about the mass, not the weight--most
fluid dynamic calculations for example require knowing the density of the
fluid in mass/volume.
Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> On Sep 9, 9:54 am, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> -the force due to gravity on earth of 1kg is very close to 10 newtons
>
> Thank you Chris. For the first time in my life I have an intuitive
> feel for what a friggin Newton is: it's 100 grams or the amount of dry
> pasta needed for a regular plate or the amount of prosciutto I would
> buy for lunch.
>
> Yes I know the difference between mass and weight. But for most
> practical purposes on the face of the earth, the difference doesn't
> matter.
That's only because you don't have one of my gee-whiz passive solar
heating panels yet. :)
> And I knew that a Newton was one kilogram-metre per second
> squared. & I could do some calculations with it, but I didn't know
> what it was!
Now the challenge is to find a (bathroom/postal/deli/freight) scale
calibrated in Newtons. ;)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-09-09, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now the challenge is to find a (bathroom/postal/deli/freight) scale
>> calibrated in Newtons. ;)
>
> What challenge? Found it on the first Google search page:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mgxf2w
Nicely done! I'd have bet against finding one from anyone other than a
lab supplier
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>>> archaic system?
>>>
>>> Oh, I think the US has adopted the metric system more than we
>>> realize, given the success of the 9mm bullet.
>>> (Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer the .45.)
>>
>> Uh, 9mm is just .38 caliber misspelled.
>
>
>
> 9mm is actually closer to a .357
So's a .38.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/9/2009 4:21 PM Dan Coby spake thus:
>
>> Likewise the use of decimal (base 10) for representing numbers is
>> based on the minor detail that people have 10 fingers. Since most
>> people have stopped doing arithmetic on their fingers, we should
>> switch to a more rational base for our number system. Ask any
>> computer and it will tell you that binary is much more rational. The
>> only disadvantage of binary is that it takes a bunch of digits to
>> represent anything useful. Hexadecimal reduces the binary digit count
>> by a factor of four. Most numbers take fewer digits in hex than in
>> decimal.
>
> OK, I want to see how adept you are at hex arithmetic. Quick: what are
>
> 1. A09E + B1AF
A09E
+B1AF
-----
1524D
> 2. 79 * AAAA
(79 * A = 4BA)
4BA
4BA
4BA
4BA
------
50AA5A
> 3. 2179 / 9D2
(division by repeated subtraction)
2179
-9D2
----
17A7
-9D2
----
DD5
-9D2
----
403
3 R403
> Show your work.
Hmm - do you really have a calculator phobia?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
In article <[email protected]>, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a lot
>of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy most of my
>food at Traitor Joe's,
Whattsamatter, you don't like Joe very much?
In article <[email protected]>, "Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>There were at least three metric systems. It isn't a French
>system. It is a standard - a unified German, British, French and Japanese.
>Oh - the US had people there - and they agreed. And yes
>the standard is generated in France.
>
>It was the measure used in the bible. It is much older than
>England or Britain.
The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
In article <[email protected]>, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sounds like you didn't see "Bowling for Columbine" (Michael Moore's
>movie). One thing he pointed out is that Canucks actually own more guns
>(per capita, I b'leeves) than Merkins, and yet there isn't half as much
>violent crime up there. (The reason for this is not even what Moore
>himself expected to find. I won't give any spoilers; rent the flick.)
Typical Michael Moore "facts". The truth is that gun ownership per capita in
the U.S. is almost _three times_ the rate in Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and
>>> packagers figure it out?
>>
>
> I dunno... they hire French engineers to do the hard work? The work
> that requires thought?
"French engineers" is an oxymoron.
>> They actually use their brains to THINK, a simple function of higher
>> animals that seems to be rapidly falling out of favor.
>>
>> nb
>
> They do it out of desperation, hoping they can recover some small
> part of the business they've lost to foreign manufacturers who
> changed over 50 years ago.
And you think that metric had something to do with that?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
>
> There are 10 commandments but most people use only a fraction of them.
When you say "10", I don't know whether you're talking binary, octal,
decimal, hexadecimal, or what. At least have the common courtesy to
specify what number base you're using! Sheesh. :-)
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
: In article <[email protected]>, "Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
: [...]
:>There were at least three metric systems. It isn't a French
:>system. It is a standard - a unified German, British, French and Japanese.
:>Oh - the US had people there - and they agreed. And yes
:>the standard is generated in France.
:>
:>It was the measure used in the bible. It is much older than
:>England or Britain.
: The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
Yeah, it's right after the section on how to write iPhone apps.
Corinthians, I think.
You musta missed it somehow.
-- Andy Barss
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:> Why should we change _anything_?
: Dollars are 10 based, just like metric, and it works. You seem to think is
: is bizarre.
Well, it's base 10, like the metric/SAI system (actually the dollar is
base 100, as witness the penny, the nickel, and the 25-cent and
50-cent pieces, none of which correspond to a power-of-ten division
of a dollar).
There's two separate things in the metric/Imperial debate (aka the wrong
vs. right way debate). These often get confused.
One is the numeric base. The Imperial system is a mix of base 12 and base
16. Metric is base 10. It's easier to divide Imperial units into thirds,
quarters, and so on than metric; and easier to divide metric amounts by
powers of 10. Both 12 and 16 have more integral divisors than 10 does,
and so Imperial makes it easier, one may argue, to divide lengths and
areas and so on into equal-sized parts.
The other is the relative utility/ergonomicness/intuitiveness of the size
of the basic units. In metric, the basic unit is the gram and kilogram;
the millimeter and meter; and so on. tghere is a 1000-fold jump between
the official units.
Some people feel, and I am one of
them, that these central units are clunky, too far apart in their ratios,
and don't corespond to the size discriminations I find useful to make.
Money is a very different thing, in that's it's a totally abstract system,
and isn't subject to the same usability constraints that physical
measurement systems are.
-- Andy Barss
Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
:>Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
: What's 18.5" divided by 3?
What's 18.5 mm divided by 3?
-- Andy Barss, quizzical
David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
: Nope; typical packaging. F'rinstance, some crackers I regularly buy:
: "Wheat Crisps"; 9 oz. (255 g.). Customary units first, pretend units second.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}:-}
-- Andy Barss
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Uh, 9mm is just .38 caliber misspelled.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 9mm is actually closer to a .357
>>
>> So's a .38.
>
>
> ?
Get out your reloading manual and check the bullet dimensions for the more
popular of the cartridges normally described as ".38".
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive
>>>> to the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some
>>>> bizarre French system
>>>> crammed down its throat.
>>>
>>> So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to
>>> a system of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?
>>
>> Why should we change _anything_?
>
> Dollars are 10 based, just like metric, and it works. You seem to
> think is is bizarre.
If you grew up in England then you might think it so.
>>> Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
>>> decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.
>>
>> Are they the majority? If not then what right do they have to impose
>> their
>> system on the majority?
>>
>
> They are your health care providers for starters.
So you're saying that we now live in a doctorocracy where "health care
providers" get to tell us how to live our lives?
> Metric users are becoming the majority.
Fine. When they do then they'll vote to change the system and it will get
changed. Meanwhile, get a life or take some Ritalin or do whatever you need
to do in order to obtain some _PATIENCE_.
> Forward looking companies are
> making their products with metric hardware so they can export them.
> Too often, people lose sight of the world economy and the
> requirements of some countries with standards. They don't want inches
> any more than we wanted metric imported cars. That has been a
> sticking point with exporting in the automobile industry for many
> years.
Yeah, like people walk into a car showroom and the first thing the do is
pull a fastener and check the threads to see if it's metric.
> When our company started buying Austrian made machines, it was a
> little learning curve. Like others I was a bit apprehensive about
> learning a new system. Once I did, I found it easier to work with, as
> have all of our supervisors, maintenance people, and so forth. Some
> are just afraid of change, afraid of having to learn a new different
> system.
You had to learn a new system in order to use Austrian made machines? What
system was that, or didn't you already know metric?
Please be aware that I've been USING metric for going on 40 years. I just
don't find it this totally wonderful life-improving convenience that its
advocates claim it to be.
> Some of our industry tooling suppliers resisted the change and
> started to lose a lot of business.
What change did they resist? Did the simply not make tooling for machinery
that was becoming popular? If so that's stupidity having nothing to do with
a measurement system.
> There has not been a US maker of
> our type of equipment for over 25 years so it was adapt or lose. A
> few went out of business, the others easily adapted and are doing
> well. In the future, it will be adapt or die.
I don't see where buying the tools you need is "adapting". You're making
far too big a deal out of the metric system. I have tools that are English
system and tools that are metric and a few that are neither. I use
whichever tool I need for a job and don't really worry about it.
> Do you want to be a
> part of the rest of the world? Perhaps you don't have to, but with
> more and more of our business being international, I prefer to adapt.
> Doing our little part of offset the trade imbalance.
"Adapt" all you want to. JUST DON'T GO AROUND PASSING LAWS THAT TELL OTHER
PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE TO.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/9/2009 6:36 PM Upscale spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a
>>> lot of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy
>>> most of my food at Traitor Joe's, and it's surprising how much
>>> stuff says "product of Canada".
>>
>> When you see Canadian grown food, is it measured in metric? Your US
>> food comes here in quarts, pints, pounds and ounces.
>
> Nope; typical packaging. F'rinstance, some crackers I regularly buy:
> "Wheat Crisps"; 9 oz. (255 g.). Customary units first, pretend units
> second.
I'm seeing a lot of foods marked in decimal pounds, pounds and ounces, and
metric. The people who want it in metric only or metric first are as
whackadoodle as the Francophone Quebecois who go around measuring signs to
make sure that the French is more prominent than the English.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .
>>>
>>> You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know
>>> what is best for us. We should do as the say.
>>
>> Uh, Ed, I don't see how requiring "2L (2.1 QT)" instead of just "2L"
>> or just
>> "2.1 QT" is an example of "only Congress would know what is best for
>> us".
>>
>
> Look up John, something just flew over your head.
Obviously it did--would you be kind enough to explain it?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/9/2009 8:02 PM J. Clarke spake thus:
>
>> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> >
>>> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
> >>
>>>> On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and
>>>>> packagers figure it out?
>>>
>>> I dunno... they hire French engineers to do the hard work? The
>>> work that requires thought?
>>
>> "French engineers" is an oxymoron.
>
> Really? Can you say "TGV"? "European extremely large telescope".
JEEZUS, would you people get a humor transplant or something?
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:04:34 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
>
>Nor do I. I really wouldn't use the Bible as a scientific/engineering
>guide. A cursory reading implies Pi = 3.000. KJV, I Kings 7: 26ff and
>II Chronicles 4: 2ff
The Legislature of the State of Indiana didn't do much better, four thousand
years later:
http://www.agecon.purdue.
edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm
In article <[email protected]>, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>>
>>> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>>
>>Easy; 6-1/6".
>
>Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?
Yes. <g>
Robatoy wrote:
> What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
> original post.
> Practically the whole world runs on metric.
> Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
> as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
> of the planet?
> Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
> World Dimension Order?
> Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
> metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
> Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?
No. :-)
--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Andrew Barss a écrit :
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Why should we change _anything_?
>
>> Dollars are 10 based, just like metric, and it works. You seem to think is
>> is bizarre.
>
>
> Well, it's base 10, like the metric/SAI system (actually the dollar is
> base 100, as witness the penny, the nickel, and the 25-cent and
> 50-cent pieces, none of which correspond to a power-of-ten division
> of a dollar).
You forgot one (intentionally?) :-)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_(United_States_coin)>
> There's two separate things in the metric/Imperial debate (aka the wrong
> vs. right way debate). These often get confused.
>
> One is the numeric base. The Imperial system is a mix of base 12 and base
> 16. Metric is base 10. It's easier to divide Imperial units into thirds,
> quarters, and so on than metric; and easier to divide metric amounts by
> powers of 10. Both 12 and 16 have more integral divisors than 10 does,
> and so Imperial makes it easier, one may argue, to divide lengths and
> areas and so on into equal-sized parts.
2, 3, 4, and 6 are just special cases. What if you have to cut
something in 5 or 7 parts?
> The other is the relative utility/ergonomicness/intuitiveness of the size
> of the basic units. In metric, the basic unit is the gram and kilogram;
> the millimeter and meter; and so on. tghere is a 1000-fold jump between
> the official units.
>
> Some people feel, and I am one of
> them, that these central units are clunky, too far apart in their ratios,
> and don't corespond to the size discriminations I find useful to make.
You can shorten the gap by using hecto-, deca-, deci-, and centi- for
everyday measures.
When you buy cheese in Poland, you buy it in decagrams (dag):
"ProszÄ piÄtnaÅcie deka sera."
In Germany you can give your waist size or body height in cm:
"Mein Bauchumfang beträgt 127 Zentimeter."
Not my true girth, btw. but not much missing. :-)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix#General_use_of_prefix_names_and_symbols>
> Money is a very different thing, in that's it's a totally abstract system,
> and isn't subject to the same usability constraints that physical
> measurement systems are.
Well, the Imperial "system" is nothing to write home about.
Rejnold Byzio <[email protected]> wrote:
:>none of which correspond to a power-of-ten division of a dollar).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: You forgot one (intentionally?) :-)
: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_(United_States_coin)>
No, didn't forget it. See above. I did mistakenly include the penny.
-- Andy Barss
Robatoy wrote:
> Practically the whole world runs on metric.
> Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
> as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
> of the planet?
> Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
> World Dimension Order?
> Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
> metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
> Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?
You missed the easiest answer, that the people on the other side of the
bridge are simply more comfortable with an old system - and a very large
majority aren't enthusiastic about losing that comfort.
I suspect that if you were to take a poll, the result would be that
we're comfortable with what we've got and can't see any good reason to
throw that comfort away and struggle to cope with something else.
It has a lot less to do with France than it does with the fact that Aunt
Emily's recipe for the family's favorite dessert may not come out quite
right when ingredients are measured differently, or that any of a
zillion other recipes, designs, plans, may stop working if the
underlying measurement system changes. (OMG, what'll I do if they stop
making 10" blades for my Unisaur? Yikes!)
Lady Liberty's design metrics and, to a lesser extent, her place of
origin lost importance as she transitioned from being an object in New
York to a treasured symbol for all people everywhere (something I hadn't
much thought about until I saw her in Tiananmen Square in '89, and have
thought about a lot since).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 10, 1:43 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>> Lady Liberty's design metrics and, to a lesser extent, her place of
>> origin lost importance as she transitioned from being an object in New
>> York to a treasured symbol for all people everywhere (something I hadn't
>> much thought about until I saw her in Tiananmen Square in '89, and have
>> thought about a lot since).
>
> A much nicer image to think about than the big one in Vegas.
I haven't seen the one in Vegas. Only those in New York and Paris. The
TV shot of the Chinese version took my by surprise - I would never have
guessed she'd become important to anyone in China. Ignorant me, huh?
> My comment had more to do with that hatred hang-over from France's
> rejection to join an obviously unnecessary war.
Sparkle sparkle little bait! (I haven't time to waste on hate.)
> A lot of good things have come from France and it irks me that even
> that goodwill had to be tainted.
A lot of good things have, and I met a fair number of French on their
home turf - and brought back only good memories and a desire to visit again.
Interestingly, the French with whom I've been working on solar
technology haven't shown any lessening of goodwill or willingness to
engage in cooperative problem-solving. I appreciate that.
> France has always been a very complex country.
Of course. It's occurred to me that there aren't any simple countries,
only simplistic views of countries.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
In article <[email protected]>, FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Kevin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>>>> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>>>> Easy; 6-1/6".
>>> Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?
>>
>> Yes. <g>
>>
>Business forms design?
>
You got it.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
>
>> On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
>>>> arithmetic and those who can't.
>>>
>>> But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base
>>> one arithmetic. :)
>>
>> Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility,
>> no? I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
>> arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head
>> guess is that it isn't possible because each position in a written
>> number must have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.
>
> Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.
>
> Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
> of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
> the number of marks made.
I think you were right the first time. A tally system and Roman numerals
do provide a way to express non-zero integer values, but neither
supports what we'd be willing to accept as a complete set of arithmetic
operations.
Consider how you might represent pi, or even just 1/2 with either
notation. I don't even want to think about calculating the square root
of II (or //).
A base n system provides a set of digits {0..n-1}, so a base 1 system
could only provide the digit 0. As soon as you attempt to increment a
zero value you'd find yourself in the predicament of propagating a carry
forever.
But it is kinda handy to toss (like a petard) into discussions of number
systems. ;)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Dan Coby wrote:
> metric_trade wrote:
>> Dan Coby wrote:
>>> Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants
>>> and conversion factors. (The pro metric people claim that they
>>> don't but they are there. I.e. how many calories are there in a
>>> joule:
>>
>> I don't understand. The relationship between calorie and joule isn't
>> a feature of SI. It's a conversion between two different systems.
>
> Are you saying that you do not think that joules, ergs, calories, and
> Calories
> are not all part of the metric system?
>
> My point is that the metric system includes two different base
> systems (mks and cgs).
> As a result it has a dual set of units for almost everything. Why
> anyone would
> think that is a good idea is beyond me. Why is the mks system based
> upon the kilogram
> instead of the gram? Why is the cgs system based upon the centimeter
> instead of the
> meter? Why is the metric system not based upon the meter, gram,
> second, (and coulomb)?
>
> Can you tell me the conversion factor between a joule and an erg?
> (Before we started
> this thread, I thought it was 1000 but I see that it is 1000000.
> Then some genius
> decided to add the calorie as another unit of energy. Then another
> genius decided
> to call the kilocalorie a Calorie. That is just plain silly.
>
> The dual nature of the metric system creates all sorts of hidden
> power of ten
> conversion factors. Then another genius decided that the unit of
> volume is the
> liter instead of the cubic meter. Another hidden conversion factor
> of 1000. Why?
>
> There are many examples of where the hidden powers of 10 factors in
> metric can
> cause problems. An example: Back in July, I was having a discussion
> about the
> size of a drop of ink from an ink jet printer. The finer drops are
> about 1 picoliter.
> That is 10^-12 liters. The cube root of 10^-12 is 10^-4 so I said
> that is a volume
> of a cube which is 100 um on a side. About an hour later, I realized
> that answer
> is too large by factor of 10. (Did you remember that hidden
> conversion factor?)
>
> Frankly for a system that was 'designed to be rational', the metric
> system is not
> very well designed. (Yes. The 'English' system has many faults
> also.)
While you make some interesting points, if you are going to whine about the
calorie being part of the metric system, please find an official statement
by anybody to the effect that it actually _is_ part of the metric system.
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
: Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV
: has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII
The Roman system is an interesting example of an astonishly bad notation
that arguably held the culture back. No way to divide or multiply, for
example. Or even a general method for adding and subtracting.
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>, "Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Don't read well...
>
>It was the Yard in the Bible. A cubic...
Ummm.... no, it wasn't. The "yard" dates from medieval England. The
length measurements used in the Bible were cubits and spans.
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Martin H.
> Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> There were at least three metric systems. It isn't a French
>>> system. It is a standard - a unified German, British, French and Japanese.
>>> Oh - the US had people there - and they agreed. And yes
>>> the standard is generated in France.
>>>
>>> It was the measure used in the bible. It is much older than
>>> England or Britain.
>>
>> The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.
In article <[email protected]>, Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
>diggerop wrote:
>> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly different
>>> versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and errors. Why is
>>> the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?
>>
>> The first thing that comes to mind is that a cubic metre is 1000 litres ; )
>
>Yes, an example of a 'hidden' power of ten conversion factor i.e. 1000. Why
>chose a cubic decimeter as a unit of volume?
For the same reason that the Imperial system uses the quart or the gallon for
most everyday volume measurements, instead of the cubic yard: because it's a
convenient size.
> For the mks system it should be
>a cubic meter.
Things that are measured in cubic yards in the Imperial system *are* measured
in cubic meters in the metric system.
diggerop wrote:
> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> diggerop wrote:
>>> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two
>>>> slightly different
>>>> versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and
>>>> errors. Why is
>>>> the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?
>>>
>>> The first thing that comes to mind is that a cubic metre is 1000
>>> litres ; )
>>
>> Yes, an example of a 'hidden' power of ten conversion factor i.e.
>> 1000. Why
>> chose a cubic decimeter as a unit of volume? For the mks system it
>> should be
>> a cubic meter. For the cgs system it should be the cubic cm. For
>> those people
>> the really really like the size of litres, they could use either
>> milli-m^3 or
>> kilo-cm^3. (One of the things that I like about the metric system
>> is the various
>> prefixes (pico, micro, milli, kilo, mega, giga, etc.) fo handling
>> scaling issues.)
>>
>> Once again I really dislike that there are two separate but similar
>> systems.
>> That maximizes the chances of mixing units from the two systems or a
>> conversion
>> error. The silliness about the base mass unit for the mks being a
>> kilo-something
>> and the base length unit for cgs being centi-something just
>> emphasizes the confusion.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>
>
> You could take it up with the International Committee for Weights and
> Measures. ; )
>
> The committee is a worldwide body composed of member countries who are
> signatories to the "metre convention" (Australia signed the
> convention in 1947,) which attempts to standardise units of
> measurement worldwide.
>
> My understanding is use of both cgs and mks have been largely
> superseded by the International System of Units or S I (le Système
> international d'unités,) except for some areas of science. This was
> adopted around 1960.
Yep, and according to NIST, the unit of volume in the SI is the cubit meter,
with the liter being a unit that is recognized but not part of the system.
>
> For my mundane purposes, I find SI to be simple, logical and
> straightforward, but then I'm no rocket scientist.
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 =
>> IV has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII
>
>
> The Roman system is an interesting example of an astonishly bad
> notation that arguably held the culture back. No way to divide or
> multiply, for example. Or even a general method for adding and
> subtracting.
Actually they did have a way to multiply. Google "Roman Numeral
Multiplication" and you'll find a number of descriptions of it.
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> While you make some interesting points, if you are going to whine
>> about the calorie being part of the metric system, please find an
>> official statement by anybody to the effect that it actually _is_ part
>> of the metric system.
>
>It's a trivially small measure of heat. That amount of heat necessary to
>raise the temperature of 1 ml or 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
>Fudge with starting temperature and standard pressure to get a bit more
>accurate.
>
>When talking calories, I believe, the prefix kilo is often discarded, hence
>the notion that the above 1 gram should be replaced by 1 kilogram.
>However, the 1 gram, 1 degree thing is the "official" definition.
It depends on who's doing the talking. To a physicist or chemist, "calorie"
refers to heating 1 gram of water, as stated above. What a nutritionist calls
a "calorie" (e.g. what you see on the label of a can of beans) refers to
heating 1 kg of water, and the scientist calls it a kilocalorie.
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> While you make some interesting points, if you are going to whine
>> about the calorie being part of the metric system, please find an
>> official statement by anybody to the effect that it actually _is_
>> part of the metric system.
>
> It's a trivially small measure of heat. That amount of heat
> necessary to raise the temperature of 1 ml or 1 gram of water by 1
> degree centigrade. Fudge with starting temperature and standard
> pressure to get a bit more accurate.
>
> When talking calories, I believe, the prefix kilo is often discarded,
> hence the notion that the above 1 gram should be replaced by 1
> kilogram. However, the 1 gram, 1 degree thing is the "official"
> definition.
Yes, we all know what a calorie _is_. Are you next going to define the
British Thermal Unit in an effort to show that _it_ is part of the metric
system?
The fact that something is defined in metric units doesn't make it part of
the system.
Consider the definition of calorie that you gave above. Substitute "mineral
oil" or "mercury" or "grits" or "cat hair" for "water" and you get a
different unit, which you can give a name. Does that make each of those
units part of the metric system?
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Luigi Zanasi wrote:
>
>> Where can you land a float plane in Sarnia?
>
> If you really don't like airports, there's a big pond just north of
> town that should do...
If there's a grass strip a floatplane (not a flying boat) should be able to
handle that as well. Pavement and gravel will chew up the floats, but they
work on grass as long as you aren't loaded down too heavily.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> They are your health care providers for starters.
>>
>> So you're saying that we now live in a doctorocracy where "health
>> care providers" get to tell us how to live our lives?
>>
>
> No, you are saying that. I"m saying many people work with metric as
> their standard for thier industry. It is not t he strange and scary
> unit that some people are afraid to use.
Straw man. If you want to use metric use it. It's a free country.
>>> Metric users are becoming the majority.
>>
>> Fine. When they do then they'll vote to change the system and it
>> will get changed. Meanwhile, get a life or take some Ritalin or do
>> whatever you need
>> to do in order to obtain some _PATIENCE_.
>
>
> Why would I want to take drugs when I can just push your buttons?
<plonk>
<remainder snipped>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>> can quote on them.
>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>> the purpose of them are.
>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>> both metric and imperial.
>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>> archaic system?
>
> Tevye says: TRADITION!!
Another example from angle measuring...
Most math people like to use radians to measure angles.
The military, at least, the army, often likes to use mills (6400 in a
circle).
Most people prefer degrees, or, the less formal, "about like that".
At least in the first 2 systems there are, or were, advantages. Using
mills was designed, I think, to eliminate the need for decimal points.
Bill
Stuart wrote:
> However, this is a woodwork group not an engineering group and such
> accuracy has no use when dealing with a material that shrinks and expands
> so much with temperature and humidity
Unless, of course, such accuracy is actually needed...
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/JBot/
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/LLJ/
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Bevel/
...sometimes engineering and woodworking /do/ overlap. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Stuart wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two
>> slightly different versions is still relevant and a great source of
>> confusion and errors. Why is the unit of volume a litre and not a
>> cubic meter?
>
> Because most adults can drink a litre of beer but would struggle
> with a cubic metre?
speak for yourself :)
--
http://www.welshpembrokecorgis.com
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> .
>>>>
>>>> You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know
>>>> what is best for us. We should do as the say.
>>>
>>> Uh, Ed, I don't see how requiring "2L (2.1 QT)" instead of just "2L"
>>> or just
>>> "2.1 QT" is an example of "only Congress would know what is best for
>>> us".
>>>
>>
>> Look up John, something just flew over your head.
>
> Obviously it did--would you be kind enough to explain it?
How about this :) :) :) :)
Get the idea?
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2:32 pm, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 11:31 am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 11, 11:29 am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 8, 5:32 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>>>>> can quote on them.
>>>>> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>>>>> the purpose of them are.
>>>>> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>>>>> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>>>>> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>>>>> both metric and imperial.
>>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>>>>> archaic system?
>>>>> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
>>>> XXICVIII
>>> That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.
>>> Why bother changing system?
>>> L.
>> CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
>> drink in your favourite watering hole?
>>
>> Luigi
>
> What does it cost to rent a Beaver and a bush pilot to come and fetch
> you from your cabin?
Don't forget the dogsled and the guy that says "mush".
--
Froz...
"Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fbc553ef-cb6b-4067-9928-bd06ba15ec1c@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 8:36 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1 pound = "A pint's a pound the world around"
>
> Now I ask you: which is more meaningful to the average person?
Too bad it's wrong. A pint is 1/8 of a gallon
Correct
or 20 ounces.
Or 16 ounces.
A gallon
of water (a real one, not the wimpy American kind) is 10 lbs., so one
eighth of 10 lbs is not one pound.
No you are wimpy. ;~) You muscles are so weak you think a gallon of water
feel like 10 lbs. We Americans are so strong a gallon of water only feel
like about 8 pounds.
Same goes for the silly Yankee gallon, which is eight point something
pounds.
I'll give yo a little there, the Yanks gallons are mostly from NEW YORK
CITY. We Southerners think a gallon feels like 7.8 pounds.
Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.
Cuz it is easier for the "challenged" to figger out? ;~)
I was trying to figure out how much rain on my roof it took to fill a
45-gallon drum .
It would take, ummm 45 gallons I bet'cha
How many cubic inches in a
gallon??? While translated in to metric system, it was all
straightforward once I knew how many litres in a gallon.
How many cubic mm's in a gallon? ;~)
Just yankin your chain. ;~)
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:55:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 9, 7:18 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 8, 9:51 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> notbob <[email protected]> wrote
>> >> innews:[email protected]
>> > bob.com:
>>
>> >> > On 2009-09-09, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food
>> >> >> that we export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our
>> >> >> food comes from the US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding
>> >> >> how to allocated all those pounds and quarts of food.
>>
>> >> > We're bound to go metric pretty soon. After all, isn't Mexico on
>> >> > the metric system.
>>
>> >> > nb
>>
>> >> Metric or not, a pound is half a kilo, an ounce is 100 g or 1/1 a
>> >> kilo.
>> > At
>> >> least when I was a child. I think now they are getting confused ...
>> > Must
>> >> be because of the ...
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Best regards
>> >> Han
>> >> email address is invalid
>>
>> > Een ons vlees. was 100 gram/ 500 gram 'een pond'.
>>
>> Indeed
>>
>> > My grandfather always talked about 'duim' (thumb)..I guess about an
>> > inch.
>>
>> Yes, that was very, very old-fashioned/obsolete when I was a kid
>>
>> > At our house in The Netherlands, the indoor temp was always in degrees
>> > F.
>>
>> Well, we had dual scales on the thermometer (or was it triple, with
>> Reaumur <sp?> too)
>>
>> > Everything else was metric.
>>
>> Everything was always metric.
>>
>>
>>
>> > a 100mm x 100mm x100mm cube of water weighs 1 KG and is one liter. (At
>> > max density 4C)
>>
>> Makethat 1 dm cubed.
>>
>mm's are confusing enough. dm's are WAY over the top. <G>
Especially around Easter when they are pastel colored.
Mark
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.
>>
>> You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know
>> what is best for us. We should do as the say.
>
> Uh, Ed, I don't see how requiring "2L (2.1 QT)" instead of just "2L" or
> just
> "2.1 QT" is an example of "only Congress would know what is best for us".
>
Look up John, something just flew over your head.
Science has been using the metric system since early on.
The inch foot pound ... is clunky when dealing in volumes.
For the apple crate maker - do as he wants.
When dealing with numbers, the base 10 is always easier than
some base this and some that and gradients in this and that ....
Science in the US is metric. It is the home folk and the
building trades - general trades that remain that way.
Wood and metal people have different resolutions that cause
issues. A metal person is in 1/10000 while a wood guy might
be 1/16 1/8 1/4 and so forth e.g. more or less.
Schools taught metric, but they themselves don't use it.
It is a classroom exercise not a way of life. Teachers
don't want to learn it and use it like anyone else.
Slowly it is creeping into food storage. Machine bolts and
such are mandated to go metric - and at first were Imperial
just denoted in metric values. Sucky way at best.
There were at least three metric systems. It isn't a French
system. It is a standard - a unified German, British, French and Japanese.
Oh - the US had people there - and they agreed. And yes
the standard is generated in France.
It was the measure used in the bible. It is much older than
England or Britain.
I use metric all the time. I use Imperial all the time. I don't
stick to one or the other. I have tools of both houses.
Martin
[ any electrical, electronic, physics, and engineers in general are metric ]
J. Clarke wrote:
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>>>> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dpb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with
>>>>>>>> an archaic system?
>>>>>>> Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
>>>>>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive
>>>>>> to the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some
>>>>>> bizarre French system crammed down its throat.
>>>>> Amen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
>>>> measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the
>>>> thumb of some long dead English king.
>>> It's only stupidly bizarre to those who didn't grow up with it. And
>>> it goes
>>> back to Rome or earlier, not to "some long dead English king".
>>>
>> I think the yard as we know it dates back to Henry I of England. And
>> I *did* grow up with it. I'm kind of pissed about that. It is a
>> stupid system, regardless of how I can relate to it.
>>
>>>> Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated
>>>> horseshit... downright bizarre, if you ask me.
>>> It's not bizarre only if you grew up with it.
>> It isn't bizarre... it's based on science.
>
> On what "science" is it based? What research was conducted to show that the
> units selected for the Metric system were of greater utility than other
> units?
>
>> I should have grown up
>> with it as opposed to having it as a sideline. The majority of
>> manufacturing and packaging is done with metric... why is my country
>> so stinking backwards it can't (or more accurately, won't) teach it
>> (effectively) in schools?
>>
>> Yes it's *my* country, but I really wonder about it sometimes.
>
> Interesting--on the one hand you say that the US is backward and doesn't
> teach it, but on the other, you say that it's used in the majority of
> manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and packagers
> figure it out?
>
> In any case, I learned it in school and never really found a reason to use
> it in everyday life. It's just some silly system that some silly people
> made up.
>
Leon wrote:
> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>> It's 2.65mm.
>>
>> Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
>> gradeschool math.
>>
>> nb
>
> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
> that distance.
>
>
.65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40
You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?
More importantly, can you use it?
Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
woodworking.
--
Froz...
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:91381956-c6c6-4f67-9b41-c256fbb818a2@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 6:44 pm, "d.williams" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Get me a 2 x 4 sounds way better than get me a 5.08 x 10.16. (nominal of
> course actually a 3.81 x 8.89) What do they call a stud in the metric
> speaking countries. (there's a straihght line for ya)
An aldulterated stud or an unadulterated one?
They would call a stud a "mate" wouldn't they?
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Yabbut.. is a 'mil' a millimeter?
Nah. It's a tenth of a percent on my property taxes.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/9/2009 6:36 PM Upscale spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Interesting (that most of your food comes from here); seems like a lot
>>> of the food I buy here in the U.S. comes from Canada. I buy most of my
>>> food at Traitor Joe's, and it's surprising how much stuff says "product
>>> of Canada".
>>
>> When you see Canadian grown food, is it measured in metric? Your US food
>> comes here in quarts, pints, pounds and ounces.
>
> Nope; typical packaging. F'rinstance, some crackers I regularly buy:
> "Wheat Crisps"; 9 oz. (255 g.). Customary units first, pretend units
> second.
>
>
I've started referring to them as "real people units". As in when someone
tells me "that's about 90 cm tall", my response is, "what is that in
real-people units?"
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> They are your health care providers for starters.
>
> So you're saying that we now live in a doctorocracy where "health care
> providers" get to tell us how to live our lives?
>
No, you are saying that. I"m saying many people work with metric as their
standard for thier industry. It is not t he strange and scary unit that
some people are afraid to use.
>> Metric users are becoming the majority.
>
> Fine. When they do then they'll vote to change the system and it will get
> changed. Meanwhile, get a life or take some Ritalin or do whatever you
> need
> to do in order to obtain some _PATIENCE_.
Why would I want to take drugs when I can just push your buttons?
>
>> Forward looking companies are
>> making their products with metric hardware so they can export them.
>> Too often, people lose sight of the world economy and the
>> requirements of some countries with standards. They don't want inches
>> any more than we wanted metric imported cars. That has been a
>> sticking point with exporting in the automobile industry for many
>> years.
>
> Yeah, like people walk into a car showroom and the first thing the do is
> pull a fastener and check the threads to see if it's metric.
Evidently, people in other countries used that as one of the reason they did
not want to import US build cars. Univerality (and the associated money
savings) allows for the ease of use of the same component for a car build in
Detroit, Tokyo, or Berlin.
>
>> When our company started buying Austrian made machines, it was a
>> little learning curve. Like others I was a bit apprehensive about
>> learning a new system. Once I did, I found it easier to work with, as
>> have all of our supervisors, maintenance people, and so forth. Some
>> are just afraid of change, afraid of having to learn a new different
>> system.
>
> You had to learn a new system in order to use Austrian made machines?
> What
> system was that, or didn't you already know metric?
I had little exposure to metric. It was not taught in schoold in the 50's
and 60's and I never had reason to use it on a regular basis. With new
machines, I had to use it every day. Pressure gauges in bars, linear mesure
in mm, etc.
>
> Please be aware that I've been USING metric for going on 40 years. I just
> don't find it this totally wonderful life-improving convenience that its
> advocates claim it to be.
>
>> Some of our industry tooling suppliers resisted the change and
>> started to lose a lot of business.
>
> What change did they resist? Did the simply not make tooling for
> machinery
> that was becoming popular? If so that's stupidity having nothing to do
> with
> a measurement system.
They did not want to work with metric. Aluminum plate has to be 10mm thick
so you either buy it or machine down the outer perimeter, an extra step.
It meant u sing metric fasteners, and the resulting extra inventory. Their
loss.
>
> "Adapt" all you want to. JUST DON'T GO AROUND PASSING LAWS THAT TELL
> OTHER
> PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE TO.
I'm not in favor of passing laws. I'm in favor of using a system that allows
me to deal effectively in WORLD markets. Just smart business.
"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>> It's 2.65mm.
>>>
>>> Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
>>> gradeschool math.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
>> indicate that distance.
> OMG Leon. Everybody knows that .5mm = 1RCH.
>
> Or at least now everybody knows.
"Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Oh, I gotta call you on some of these. LOL
Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:
Communicating measurements:
2. Imperial is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Someone
calls out a measurement for a piece of wood, & before you notice it,
you cut 10mm instead of 10cm.
2. Metric is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Quickly now,
is 19/32" bigger or smaller than 5/8"? On the other hand, it is
immediately obvious that 15mm is smaller than 16mm.
Easier to hear? Which is smaller, 15 $%imeter or 16 @%imeter. Do I need
to repeat that? :!)
Ease of learning:
3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.
No friggen kidden, I only knew about 4 or 5 of those, the last one because
of my hard drive.
3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.
We really only use feet, yards, miles and inches with any common regulirity.
But a good rod is needed for fishin, and cables for TV.
Arithmetic:
4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.
Exactly
4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
calculates inches and fractions.
What fun is that?
Accuracy:
6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
precise than 1/32"
Not if what you are measuring is 1/32" long.
"Robatoy" wrote:
----------------------------------------
and so do crack, guns and hookers. This fucking casino is nothing but
an asshole magnet.
--------------------------------
You have a definite opinion on the matter I see.
BTW, thought you folks frowned on guns coming in to Canada, especially
from the USA.
Lew
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=weight+scales
The tall scale on the right. select it - comes in metric if wanted - software.
Martin
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-09-09, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now the challenge is to find a (bathroom/postal/deli/freight) scale
>> calibrated in Newtons. ;)
>
> What challenge? Found it on the first Google search page:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mgxf2w
>
> nb
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:00:34 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 9/9/2009 4:21 PM Dan Coby spake thus:
>>
>>> Likewise the use of decimal (base 10) for representing numbers is
>>> based on the minor detail that people have 10 fingers. Since most
>>> people have stopped doing arithmetic on their fingers, we should
>>> switch to a more rational base for our number system. Ask any
>>> computer and it will tell you that binary is much more rational. The
>>> only disadvantage of binary is that it takes a bunch of digits to
>>> represent anything useful. Hexadecimal reduces the binary digit count
>>> by a factor of four. Most numbers take fewer digits in hex than in
>>> decimal.
>>
>> OK, I want to see how adept you are at hex arithmetic. Quick: what are
>>
>> 1. A09E + B1AF
>
> A09E
>+B1AF
>-----
>1524D
>
>> 2. 79 * AAAA
>
>(79 * A = 4BA)
>
> 4BA
> 4BA
> 4BA
>4BA
>------
>50AA5A
>
>> 3. 2179 / 9D2
>
>(division by repeated subtraction)
>
>2179
>-9D2
>----
>17A7
>-9D2
>----
> DD5
>-9D2
>----
> 403
>
>3 R403
>
>> Show your work.
>
>Hmm - do you really have a calculator phobia?
There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
arithmetic and those who can't.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/9/2009 4:21 PM Dan Coby spake thus:
>
>> Likewise the use of decimal (base 10) for representing numbers is
>> based on the minor detail that people have 10 fingers. Since most
>> people have stopped doing arithmetic on their fingers, we should
>> switch to a more rational base for our number system. Ask any
>> computer and it will tell you that binary is much more rational. The
>> only disadvantage of binary is that it takes a bunch of digits to
>> represent anything useful. Hexadecimal reduces the binary digit count
>> by a factor of four. Most numbers take fewer digits in hex than in
>> decimal.
>
> OK, I want to see how adept you are at hex arithmetic. Quick: what are
>
> 1. A09E + B1AF
> 2. 79 * AAAA
> 3. 2179 / 9D2
>
> Show your work.
11
A09E
+ B1AF
-----
1524D
AAAA
x 79
-----
5FFFA
4AAA6
------
50AA5A
3.6894
______
9D2 | 2179
1D76
-----
4030
3AEC
-----
5440
4E90
----
5B00
5862
----
29E0
2748
----
298
Robatoy wrote:
> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> can quote on them.
> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> the purpose of them are.
> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> both metric and imperial.
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
>
> http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
One has to look at the basics for each system:
1 meter = one ten-millionth of the distance from the pole to the equator
measured along the prime meridian.
1 pound = "A pint's a pound the world around"
Now I ask you: which is more meaningful to the average person?
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>>> It's 2.65mm.
>>>>
>>>> Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
>>>> gradeschool math.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>
>>> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
>>> indicate that distance.
>> .65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40
>>
>> You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?
>> More importantly, can you use it?
>>
>> Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
>> woodworking.
>
>
>
>
> No, I wnat to se the metric rule that will indicate 2.65mm.
It is on the opposite side of the rule that has .20866 inches. Just flip it
around
On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
It's 2.65mm.
Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.
nb
On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
> that distance.
2.65 millimeters = 0.104330709 inches
http://tinyurl.com/luowee
Now that I've provided an answer as ludicrous as your challenge, what's
your point?
nb
On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have rules in the shop that indicate that. Not a problem. But still I
> asked about a rule indicating 1/2 of 5.3 mm.
I'm pretty sure there are rules that mark .5mm, which is about .020',
which is only .005" more tha 1/64. Your attempt to get someone to
meet your absurd challenge of half of .3mm (.011) on a rule is as
ridiculous as having a scale reading in 128ths. Who could use such a
rule even if someone was stupid enough to make one. Besides, there
are many other ways to measure other than with a rule. None of them
have any use in woodworking. Give it a rest.
nb
On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I the the jury is still out on the metric CLOCK. ;~)
Heh.....
I have no prob with metric, but I'll stick with Fahrenheit, too.
nb
On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> replied with what is half of 5.3mm. YOU gave the answer but tried with out
> success to show me a ruler with that marking.
That's because NO ONE! makes a RULE in that small a graduation, in
either Imperial or Metric. They don't make it cuz no one can use it!!
There are other measuring instruments that can easily make that
measurement in metric. What don't you understand?
nb
On 2009-09-09, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> What do you expect? It's 99% sawdust. Metric has to figure in there
> somewhere.
LOL...
On 2009-09-09, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> has been invading most everything. That is, except for the food that we
> export up from the US. And, considering that 90% of our food comes from the
> US, it's a wonder we don't all starve deciding how to allocated all those
> pounds and quarts of food.
We're bound to go metric pretty soon. After all, isn't Mexico on the
metric system.
nb
On 2009-09-09, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> So how do they get in?
Well, they don't actually stop them, they just "frown" a lot..
nb
On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I see you now understand my point......
> of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge City rules that
> are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those graduations is 128 ths of
> an inch.
And just what do you use them for, Leon? Measuring freeze blocks
and step stringers. I'm a machinist and seldom use them for measuring
anything, certainly not 1/128".
You have no point. You just want to argue.
nb
On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and packagers
> figure it out?
They actually use their brains to THINK, a simple function of higher
animals that seems to be rapidly falling out of favor.
nb
On 2009-09-09, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Please pardon my ignorance: what's an RCH? All Google gives is
> "Recognised Clearing Houses" (using define:rch).
Heh heh....
I almost got caught, too. Try googling for rch unit of measure. ;)
nb
On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am sorry to have troubled you notbob. Clearly you shoud refrain from
> answering my questions as they seem to throw you into a tizzy.
In your dreams.
nb
On 2009-09-09, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now the challenge is to find a (bathroom/postal/deli/freight) scale
> calibrated in Newtons. ;)
What challenge? Found it on the first Google search page:
http://tinyurl.com/mgxf2w
nb
On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 9mm is actually closer to a .357
So is a .38 Special.
nb
On 2009-09-09, Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
> system (and the metric system) is great if you want to scale by
> 10....
Counter argument in support of base ten:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9g-WoezG8
nb
On 2009-09-10, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> ?
(sigh)
OK. What is it you don't understand, this time, Leon?
HINT: no one makes rules for bullet calibers, either.
nb
On 2009-09-10, David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Really? Can you say "TGV"? "European extremely large telescope"?
...or the fact France supplies 78% of their electrical power through
safe nuclear powerplants vs our shakey 18%. They were the first to
isolate and identify the aids virus.
I've worked with French engineers and scientists. They have a lot of
weird characteristics and some bizarre facets to their culture, but
stupidity isn't in it. They're some sharp cookies when they put their
minds to it.
nb
On 2009-09-10, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> I've started referring to them as "real people units". As in when someone
>> tells me "that's about 90 cm tall", my response is, "what is that in
>> real-people units?"
>>
>
> It's about 9 hands.
Donchya mean "short people units"?
nb
On 2009-09-19, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Except that Mr Joule was involved in the brewing of beer - and that's
> important!
It's practically the cradle of civilization!
http://beeradvocate.com/articles/673
nb
"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> replied with what is half of 5.3mm. YOU gave the answer but tried with
>> out
>> success to show me a ruler with that marking.
>
> That's because NO ONE! makes a RULE in that small a graduation, in
> either Imperial or Metric. They don't make it cuz no one can use it!!
> There are other measuring instruments that can easily make that
> measurement in metric. What don't you understand?
>
> nb
I see you now understand my point, the answer to why we still use fractions
of an inch originated by the OP. I have a couple of Bridge City rules that
are in 64 th graduations. Half way between those graduations is 128 ths of
an inch. That measurement is much easier to mark than 2.65 mm. Thanks for
helping me better understand why I perfer fractions of an inch over metric
measurements. Apparently you need much more sufisticated measuring devices
than a rule to measure sizes smaller than 1 mm. 1/64" is easily marked with
a rule.
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>
>> What's 18.5" divided by 3?
>
>Easy; 6-1/6".
Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?
What happens when the calc spits out 5.2917364? Got your decimal
equivalents of the 32nds all memorized, do ya?
Imperial does powers of 2 really nicely, but metric does everything
equally well.
-Kevin
Robatoy wrote:
> I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
> can quote on them.
> Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
> the purpose of them are.
> Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
> hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
> Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
> both metric and imperial.
> But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> archaic system?
1. Though a PITA, it is what we are used to.
2. Precision? The metric scales I have seen are marked in millimeters...
1/25.4 inch. It is not uncommon to have an imperial scale marked in 1/32 or
even 1/64.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Leon wrote:
> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>> It's 2.65mm.
>>
>> Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
>> gradeschool math.
>>
>> nb
>
> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
> that distance.
>
>
OMG Leon. Everybody knows that .5mm = 1RCH.
Or at least now everybody knows.
yr hmbl numerologist,
jo4hn
in 113640 20090910 064102 Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "French engineers" is an oxymoron.
>
>Hmm? TGV, Exocet, Pont de Millau, efficient and inexpensive nuclear
>power, Rafale, etc., for very recent examples.
IKIANB the Pont de Millau was designed by Norman Foster, an Englishman.
But I suppose building it was a lot harder than designing it.
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 05:32:40 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
>can quote on them.
>Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
>the purpose of them are.
>Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
>hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
>Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
>both metric and imperial.
>But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
>archaic system?
>
>http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
Reason? Most people do not like this kind of change (nor the Obama
kind.) Now we are stuck with two systems. Woodworkers are usually
skilled in adding fractions.
Stuart wrote:
> In article
> <e89a4306-da04-40b0-a5db-c053a284eab4@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You mean like a 28" TV that measures 25.5"
>
> Rather depends on how you measure it. The stated size is always the
> diagonal of the tube or panel.
>
> What you see is always less because they always put a "pretty" border
> round it of plastic casing.
>
My 46" LCD measures exactly 46" diagonal of actual picture and 40"
horizontal of picture. The pretty plastic border adds another inch on
each side and the top and several inches on the bottom.
- Doug
"Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> I think Obama needs to know about this. We need some more "change" we can
> believe in. We need a Metric Czar.
Been there Done that. Jimmy C tried that and that is why we deal with a
mixed up mess today expecially in the auto industry. 30 years later and
American cars still have a mix of metric and imperial parts.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 2009-09-08, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>> It's 2.65mm.
>>>
>>> Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
>>> gradeschool math.
>>>
>>> nb
>> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
>> indicate that distance.
>
> I work with metric these days. Frankly, in 20 years I've never seen
> anything 5.3mm called out. Nor have I seen .20866 inches. (Quick, what is
> half of that?)
>
> One of the beauties of the system is things tend to be more whole numbers
> rather than 21/64 and 17/32. There is no logical reason that we could not
> comfortably change and use metric other that we don't want to change. The
> rest of the world manages to build some rather complex and sophisticated
> machines with it and I bet we could too.
>
>
Exactly, being Canadian of sufficient age, I grew up based on the
Imperial system, but the change happened when I was in high school, or
was it junior high, sorry can't remember. Some things to this day are
better in imperial, others make sense in metric.
But I still by 2x4s , and 4x8s as that is what they come in.
--
Froz...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> I've started referring to them as "real people units". As in when someone
> tells me "that's about 90 cm tall", my response is, "what is that in
> real-people units?"
>
It's about 9 hands.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to
>>> the will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre
>>> French system
>>> crammed down its throat.
>>
>> So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to a
>> system of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?
>
> Why should we change _anything_?
Dollars are 10 based, just like metric, and it works. You seem to think is
is bizarre.
>
>> Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
>> decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.
>
> Are they the majority? If not then what right do they have to impose
> their
> system on the majority?
>
They are your health care providers for starters.
Metric users are becoming the majority. Forward looking companies are
making their products with metric hardware so they can export them. Too
often, people lose sight of the world economy and the requirements of some
countries with standards. They don't want inches any more than we wanted
metric imported cars. That has been a sticking point with exporting in the
automobile industry for many years.
When our company started buying Austrian made machines, it was a little
learning curve. Like others I was a bit apprehensive about learning a new
system. Once I did, I found it easier to work with, as have all of our
supervisors, maintenance people, and so forth. Some are just afraid of
change, afraid of having to learn a new different system.
Some of our industry tooling suppliers resisted the change and started to
lose a lot of business. There has not been a US maker of our type of
equipment for over 25 years so it was adapt or lose. A few went out of
business, the others easily adapted and are doing well. In the future, it
will be adapt or die. Do you want to be a part of the rest of the world?
Perhaps you don't have to, but with more and more of our business being
international, I prefer to adapt. Doing our little part of offset the trade
imbalance.
The worst thing I have SI do is change the name of a unit.
e.g. kill off this name and put on a new name.
Serious not invented by my friends stuff.
Martin
pat wrote:
> The official SI website is:
> http://www.bipm.org/en/si/
>
> * SI was created in 1960. The SI authority calls it "the modern form
> of the metric system". Of course, 'modern' is a relative word in
> something that is 49 years old.
>
> * Like most standards, SI gets modified from time to time. Units and
> prefixes may be added, modified, or deleted.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 8, 8:34 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
> > > archaic system?
> >
> > Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.
> >
> > --
>
> Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
> bring comfort, no?
feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements as the
numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in different
countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres others
millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games sometimes .
The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built to
imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or plasterboard , in
europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800 by 900
which creates problems in refit works specs etc
6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm
Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:27 am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > whackadoodle as the Francophone Quebecois who go around measuring signs to
> > > make sure that the French is more prominent than the English.
> >
> > Now, that's a poor comparison. Metric conversion has only come to the
> > forefront as more and more manufacturing becomes a worldwide concern and
> > largely over the past 50 years. Whereas, Quebec French have always been
> > screwed up. After all, they're French, they're largely anti Canadian and
> > they think strangely. Thank God my father moved our family from Montreal to
> > Toronto when I was eleven and I didn't have to suffer my teenage years
> > through a totally crazy society. Growing up is tough enough. Doing it in
> > Quebec as an English speaking youth is totally whacked.
>
> What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
> original post.
> Practically the whole world runs on metric.
> Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
> as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
> of the planet?
> Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
> World Dimension Order?
> Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
> metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
> Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?
The UK still uses both systems so do many other countries and ex colonies
The uk switched to metric to bring us in line with the EEC as it was then however
most people over 45 still tend to use imperial measurements because thats what we
are used too although most can use metric if they need to
Road speed signs are still in imperial as are clothes sizes with the metric
equivelent written next to them Shops were supposed to switch to metric however
most still advertise foodweights in pounds and ounces as well
Time is rarely displayed in metric.
Alcohol is sold in imperial and metric measurements , fuel is now sold in litres so
it looks cheaper on the forcourt (£1.05p a litre sounds better than £4.80p a gallon
as does a penny a litre rise against a 5 p a gallon rise )
"FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>> Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
>>> It's 2.65mm.
>>>
>>> Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
>>> gradeschool math.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
>> indicate that distance.
> .65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40
>
> You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?
> More importantly, can you use it?
>
> Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
> woodworking.
No, I wnat to se the metric rule that will indicate 2.65mm.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Hey it was the other guy that said
>>
>> Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
>
> So he did. Sorry - attributions got all screwed up somehow.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Blame it on your news reader! LOL... I blame my news reader and it's
Spell Checker, that only works when I spell words correctly, and does not
when I don't.
"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It was a joke
>
> An unadulterated joke.
>
OK, here we go,
I wood'a been funnier if it had been ,,,,,
"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2009-09-09, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I have rules in the shop that indicate that. Not a problem. But still I
>> asked about a rule indicating 1/2 of 5.3 mm.
>
> I'm pretty sure there are rules that mark .5mm, which is about .020',
> which is only .005" more tha 1/64. Your attempt to get someone to
> meet your absurd challenge of half of .3mm (.011) on a rule is as
> ridiculous as having a scale reading in 128ths. Who could use such a
> rule even if someone was stupid enough to make one. Besides, there
> are many other ways to measure other than with a rule. None of them
> have any use in woodworking. Give it a rest.
>
> nb
Give it a rest? Give it a rest? The OP asked why we hang on to imperial. I
replied with what is half of 5.3mm. YOU gave the answer but tried with out
success to show me a ruler with that marking. ;~) If you give up fine, you
can give it a rest. I was only asking 2 reasonable questions.