I don't get it, why is metric better?

[Leon]

So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?

More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.

I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.

For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".

Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.

Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
diameter of 3.57mm?

And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to
work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot
hole at 7/16"?

[John McCoy]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:f-ydnasS4tGHnzjKnZ2dnUU7-
SPN...@giganews.com:

> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?

This argument usually appears from people who are confused
about the difference between metric/imperial and the
difference between decimal/fractional.

There is no "better" between decimal and fractional. Which
to use depends on the task at hand. The way nature works
it is often convenient to divide things by halves. But when
great precision is needed, decimal is clearly the way to go.

As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
proportioned units.

Along those lines, I am always amused by people who point out
the sequence of metric subdivisions by 10, apparently totally
unware that almost none of them are used. Take length - the
two metric units of length are mm and km. Very rarely will
you find something in meters (it's more likely to be 1000mm),
even more rarely will you find something in cm. The same
applies the other metric units, one or two prefixs will be
used, and the remainder totally ignored.

(and don't get me started on the mangled mixture of metric
and imperial units used in China...)

John

[graham]

Those fractions are probably due to conversion from Imperial Measure.
I've seen analogous measurements in cookbooks for the US market where
they have obviously converted metric to imperial weights and
measurements. For example, I've seen a recipe asking for 1.76oz instead
of the original 50g.
Honestly, metric is MUCH easier if you work in it from scratch.
Graham

[graham]

On 8/5/2016 3:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:f-ydnasS4tGHnzjKnZ2dnUU7-
> SPN...@giganews.com:
>
>> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
> This argument usually appears from people who are confused
> about the difference between metric/imperial and the
> difference between decimal/fractional.
>
> There is no "better" between decimal and fractional. Which
> to use depends on the task at hand. The way nature works
> it is often convenient to divide things by halves. But when
> great precision is needed, decimal is clearly the way to go.
>
> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
> proportioned units.
>

Really? The foot used to be just that - the length of one's foot - until
it was standardised.Graham

[dpb]

On 08/05/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:f-ydnasS4tGHnzjKnZ2dnUU7-
> SPN...@giganews.com:
>
>> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>

...

> Along those lines, I am always amused by people who point out
> the sequence of metric subdivisions by 10, apparently totally
> unware that almost none of them are used. Take length - the
> two metric units of length are mm and km. Very rarely will
> you find something in meters (it's more likely to be 1000mm),
> even more rarely will you find something in cm. The same
> applies the other metric units, one or two prefixs will be
> used, and the remainder totally ignored.

...

Well, not hardly...we're just getting started with one where there'll be
100, 200, 400, 800 m events just to name only a few... :)

While not totally ubiquitous, certainly the other units are reasonably
common in every-day usage; it's scientific and to a lesser degree,
engineering where the "power of 3" rule is prevalent, not everyday use.

--



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[dpb]

On 08/05/2016 4:16 PM, Leon wrote:
...

> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT?

> ... And drill the hole

> diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill diameter of
> 3.57mm?

3.57/25.4*64 = 8.99528... or, going backwards,

9/64*25.4 = 3.57187500...

It's just some idiot converting their original design documents from
imperial to write them in metric to make them "acceptable" for the EU
rules to be able to export product w/o having duplicate documentation.

It's much cheaper to reprint the datasheets and leave the product
unchanged than retool to the nominal nearest whole mm so they do the
former rather than the latter.

Likewise the 4.37 mm is 11/64" -- 11/64*25.4 = 4.365625000...

(Although I'm sure you knew this, "just venting"...)

[Doug Miller]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:f-ydnasS4tGHnzjKnZ2dnUU7-
SPN...@giganews.com:

> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>
> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.

That's because they were made to Imperial dimensions which were then converted to
metric. Hardware made to metric dimensions isn't like that.

>
> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".

LIke I said... made to Imperial dimensions.

>
> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>
> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
> diameter of 3.57mm?

No, of course not. But 4.37 mm is 11/64", 3.57 mm is just about exactly 9/64" -- and both are
the result of some idiot making something in Imperial dimensions, then converting the
dimensions to metric.

Why didn't they just make it metric in the first place??

[dpb]

On 08/05/2016 6:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
...

> Why didn't they just make it metric in the first place??

...

'Cuz it was already made and it's much cheaper to markup and print new
materials to satisfy the mommy-state of the EU than retool...

[John McGaw]

3.57mm = 9/64". Such odd numbers show up because the original design of the
hardware was done in imperial not metric. If you are using truly metric
hardware you will find nice numbers like 5mm a lot but never a fraction in
my experience.

[dpb]

On 08/05/2016 5:37 PM, dpb wrote:
...

> 9/64*25.4 = 3.57187500...
>
> It's just some idiot converting their original design documents from
> imperial to write them in metric to make them "acceptable" for the EU
> rules to be able to export product w/o having duplicate documentation.

...

And I suppose there's probably some EU regulation that requires them to
be precise to some level such that rounding to 4 is outside of allowable
tolerances as if 1/64" is going to make a hill of beans in the screw
location; you'll be lucky to keep it within that owing to grain unless
it's a fully automated production system that pays no attention to such
niceties by being full CNC-controlled or the like in a production
facility. By hand, it's in the noise...

Or, if may just be as noted first, just gave the job to some flunky to
compute the numbers and plug 'em in and nobody ever gave it a thought as
to whether it made any sense or not...you can see the same insanity in
the spec's for almost everything that is an existing product or made to
match up in building trades to the common use of feet-inches in layout
such as the 16" OC stud spacing leads to 4x8 ply and then the nominal
thicknesses for it and on and on and on. It'd one-up the Caterpillar in
Wonderland for riddles...

[Leon]

On 8/5/2016 5:23 PM, graham wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:
>> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>>
>> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
>> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>>
>> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
>> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>>
>> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
>> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>>
>> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
>> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
>> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
>> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>>
>> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
>> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
>> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
>> diameter of 3.57mm?
>>
>> And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
>> Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to
>> work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot
>> hole at 7/16"?

> Those fractions are probably due to conversion from Imperial Measure.

That would be a logical explanation but they the Leigh Jig and the
slides are manufactured in a metric country and the slide have
measurements that are clearly even number mm's and are made to the 35mm
system. And the measuring of the holes on the slides don't really need
to be any specific measurement at all.

[Leon]

I think yo may have hit the nail on the head there. ;~)

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/5/2016 5:16 PM, Leon wrote:

> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>
> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>
> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>
> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.

As already mentioned, that is a bastardized imperial translation. I've
been working with metric machines using metric tooling to make usually
metric dimensioned parts. It is rare to ever see a decimal and it is
always .5 on some small items.

Many people here bitch about having to use metric, but on the occasion
we give Imperial measurements of parts for tooling made in China, they
have no problem translating. Once you use it for a couple of week it is
really easy. You never have to wonder if you need a 23/64 or 3/8 wrench.

[Leon]

On 8/5/2016 6:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:f-ydnasS4tGHnzjKnZ2dnUU7-
> SPN...@giganews.com:
>
>> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>>
>> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
>> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>>
>> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
>> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>
> That's because they were made to Imperial dimensions which were then converted to
> metric. Hardware made to metric dimensions isn't like that.

And while that sounds like a reasonable explanations there are some
metric standard measurements on the slides that are a common metric
standard. These slides are designed to be used with the 35mm system and
does have some dimensions in whole mm's. But then there is a
measurement that is 4.6mm (.18in.)
Maybe they got converted back and forth so many times common
measurements of either have become skewed because of rounding.

>>
>> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
>> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>
> LIke I said... made to Imperial dimensions.

Yes but 4.6mm converts to .18" that is a little less than 3/16"

>>
>> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
>> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
>> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
>> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>>
>> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
>> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
>> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
>> diameter of 3.57mm?
>
> No, of course not. But 4.37 mm is 11/64", 3.57 mm is just about exactly 9/64" -- and both are
> the result of some idiot making something in Imperial dimensions, then converting the
> dimensions to metric.

I think it was made to one standard and probably converted back and
forth too many times with the previous results.

[Leon]

Actually 3.57mm rounds down to 9/64. If you want the accuracy to be
that fine of resolution why not use easier to measure units. 1/8" would
have been fine instead of 9/64" If the hole spacing/placement needs to
be that fine they should specify what size screw to use in the hole also
as a smaller screw will allow movement. But hole spacing is not "that"
critical in this instance.

[graham]

On 8/5/2016 7:54 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 5:23 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>
>> Those fractions are probably due to conversion from Imperial Measure.
>
> That would be a logical explanation but they the Leigh Jig and the
> slides are manufactured in a metric country

It depends on when it was made.
Graham

[graham]

The strange thing about oil companies is that in most of their
international operations, drilling is in metres but in the US it is in
feet. The situation in South America is weird. Although the countries
have long been metric, they still drill in feet.
Graham

[Leon]

Actually I believe the biggest problem with the metric system is that
meter is used in every instance of resolution.
Micrometer, millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter , kilometer.....

How often do you suppose Bob yells, cut that piece of cable to 10
centimeters and it gets cut at 10 millimeters or decimeters?

Now one might suggest that they do away with any resolution more coarse
than millimeters to cut down on confusion. Bob yells, cut that piece of
cable to 19,800 mm's and I also need 4 cut at 1,980 mm's.

Remember the space craft that crash into one of the moons/planets
several years ago? It was blamed on a conversion error.
I bet their calculation from "x" miles to "x" kilometers ended up being
converted to "x" meters. :~)

[Leon]

October 14, 2014. ;~) Does that shed more light? LOL

[Leon]

So are you saying that the metric system is like not being able to use
all of the letters of the alphabet to spell all of the words? LOL

I realize that metric is just as easy to use as imperial but I can see
how there can be some confusion if you are measuring a large difference
in values. It seems to me that if all resolutions of metric
measurements did not all have the suffix that they would be easier to
differentiate.

Working with Festool tools you learn quickly to measure and convert
between metric and imperial. There I said it, Festool! Get your points
while they are hot! LOL ;~)

[graham]

They've been on the market for over 30 years. I would imagine he hasn't
bothered to retool.

[Unknown]

dpb <no...@non.net> wrote in news:no3b0l$77g$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 08/05/2016 6:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> ...
>
>> Why didn't they just make it metric in the first place??
> ...
>
> 'Cuz it was already made and it's much cheaper to markup and print new
> materials to satisfy the mommy-state of the EU than retool...

There's another thing to consider here: when you retool, you risk breaking
all your customer's jigs or CNC programs.

Puckdropper

[Unknown]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:f-ydnasS4tGHnzjK...@giganews.com:

Yay! A conversion that doesn't cut off the resolution to something
useless! I was looking at wire grommets (for desks and the like) today,
and they stated 50mm/2". They were 50mm, but that means the fit will be
sloppy if you drill for 2". Either give me a reasonably precise
conversion or don't give me one at all.

Some countries have banned the use of imperial units in their
metrificiation efforts, which is why you get moronic stuff like this.

Rule of thumb: If there's no decimal points in a dual-system dimension,
one of the measurements is wrong.

Puckdropper

[Just Wondering]

On 8/5/2016 8:32 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> How often do you suppose Bob yells, cut that piece of cable to
> 10 centimeters and it gets cut at 10 millimeters or decimeters?
>

Since 10 centimeters is just under 4 inches and a 10 mm length of
cable would be just over 3/8", I suppose that would never happen
- who would ever cut a 3/8" length of cable, or a 4" cable for
that matter?

[Leon]

The other possibility was about 40 inches.

[Keith Nuttle]

On 08/05/2016 10:32 PM, Leon wrote:
> Actually I believe the biggest problem with the metric system is that
> meter is used in every instance of resolution.
> Micrometer, millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter , kilometer.....
>
> How often do you suppose Bob yells, cut that piece of cable to 10
> centimeters and it gets cut at 10 millimeters or decimeters?
>
> Now one might suggest that they do away with any resolution more coarse
> than millimeters to cut down on confusion. Bob yells, cut that piece of
> cable to 19,800 mm's and I also need 4 cut at 1,980 mm's.

That is the beauty of the metric system, every thing is based on the meter.

You mentioned Micrometers, millimeters, etc. but for got the
nanometers, picometers, Femtometers, etc.

Metric ton 1000 kilograms. If I do something on a small scale and it
produces 1 kilogram. I know if I scale it up by a factor of 1000, then
it will produce a metric ton.

If the English system would you give some one an 8' length of lumber if
he asked for one 8" long. 8 yards for the 8'piece. Works the same in
the metric system

If Bob wants a piece of cable 10 centimeters long, and the person who is
cutting the pieces cuts it to 10 decimeters, ,or 10 millimeters he
should be fired as the pieces would be much to short, when he can see
the length that is need fits the centimeter range rather than the other two.

[Leon]

Keith Nuttle <Keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 08/05/2016 10:32 PM, Leon wrote:
>> Actually I believe the biggest problem with the metric system is that
>> meter is used in every instance of resolution.
>> Micrometer, millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter , kilometer.....
>>
>> How often do you suppose Bob yells, cut that piece of cable to 10
>> centimeters and it gets cut at 10 millimeters or decimeters?
>>
>> Now one might suggest that they do away with any resolution more coarse
>> than millimeters to cut down on confusion. Bob yells, cut that piece of
>> cable to 19,800 mm's and I also need 4 cut at 1,980 mm's.
>
> That is the beauty of the metric system, every thing is based on the meter.
>
> You mentioned Micrometers, millimeters, etc. but for got the
> nanometers, picometers, Femtometers, etc.
>
> Metric ton 1000 kilograms. If I do something on a small scale and it
> produces 1 kilogram. I know if I scale it up by a factor of 1000, then
> it will produce a metric ton.
>
> If the English system would you give some one an 8' length of lumber if
> he asked for one 8" long. 8 yards for the 8'piece. Works the same in
> the metric system

But inches, feet, yards, or miles do not sound the same.

Suppose imperial was simply sillinches, billinches, centinches?

>
> If Bob wants a piece of cable 10 centimeters long, and the person who is
> cutting the pieces cuts it to 10 decimeters, ,or 10 millimeters he
> should be fired as the pieces would be much to short, when he can see
> the length that is need fits the centimeter range rather than the other two.
>
>
>
>

Well what makes you think 10 decimeter would be too short? The cutter and
Bob are "union" workers. The cutter is not paid to think, he is paid to do
what he thinks his boss said and to make the cut precisely.

[Leon]

Give the answer.

A mile minus 1/16"

5279', 11-15/16"

A kilometer minus 1mm.


Hint, the answer can easily be misunderstood.

9999999999 somethingmeter

Or

999999999999999 anothermeter

:-)

[dpb]

On 08/06/2016 12:08 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

> There's another thing to consider here: when you retool, you risk breaking
> all your customer's jigs or CNC programs.

True, the latter of which is one possibility for the reason in keeping
the precision in the conversion; at least for the slides that could
conceivably be used in such an application.

[graham]

On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:

> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>
> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>
> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>
> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>
> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>
> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
> diameter of 3.57mm?
>
> And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
> Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to
> work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot
> hole at 7/16"?

What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
reasoning will change him/her.
Graham

[Bill Gill]

On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
> proportioned units.

That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
through Paris. It has been redefined in terms of physical
quantities, but that doesn't make it 'better'. In fact it is
just more convenient because it is all decimal. That makes it
easier to make arithmetical calculations.

Bill

[dpb]

On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
...

> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
> reasoning will change him/her.

I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
accurate I believe.

While a trained engineer and thus very conversant with and comfortable
using metric units, I am also one who is comfortable with the status quo
of imperial units in every-day life and would not welcome change. It's
comfortable to have things like the temperature and windspeed innately
relate to what one is used to as opposed to having to convert from some
differently-scaled unit that just "don't seem right!" 20 degrees
outdoor air temperature is (and should always be) cold, thank you very
much! :) OTOH, that that same air is at STP in some computation
involving it is also ok; they're just two different locales and keeping
them in their own context is far more natural.

Pressure is another; in the power industry, "balance of plant"
calculations around the reactor core were/are typically imperial. 2250
psia and ~650F saturation temperature for primary coolant has real
context as well; it just isn't natural in metric. OTOH, inside the core
for nuclear cross-sections and all, metric units are de rigueur.

Manufacturing can (and has) converted almost entirely other than for the
issues addressed elsethread of the fact that so much was done before the
need to convert and that it still isn't cost-effective to actually make
the hard, physical change (else't they'd have done so on their own, no
government mandate needed if economics is left to drive the decision).

In the US in general public, there's a very strong tradition of
independence and resistance against be forced into any position (albeit
with the aim by the progressives of weakening that as much as possible).

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/6/2016 1:21 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

>
> Some countries have banned the use of imperial units in their
> metrificiation efforts, which is why you get moronic stuff like this.
>

> Puckdropper
>

If you are shipping to Quebec, don't forget the label in French too.

[John McCoy]

Keith Nuttle <Keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:no4k70$1m42$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> Metric ton 1000 kilograms. If I do something on a small scale and it
> produces 1 kilogram. I know if I scale it up by a factor of 1000,
> then it will produce a metric ton.

See, there's an excellent example. The only metric weight
units in actual use are grams and kilograms (and mg/ug in
science and medicine). By rights big weights should be in
megagrams. But they're not, everything bigger than a kg is
still measured in kg. The "metric tonne" is just a slang
term, which came into popularity because it's essentially
the same as a traditional ton of 2240 lbs. Since ton=tonne
everyone immediately knew what weight was being talked about.

(doesn't work for Americans, of course, since they're stuck
with the short ton of 2000lbs, but ton=tonne works for
everyone else).

John

[John McCoy]

Bill Gill <bill...@cox.net> wrote in news:no4nvd$obg$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>> proportioned units.

> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
> through Paris.

An arbitrary fraction of the distance from the pole to the
equator is not a useful definition in the real world. No
person can visualize what 1/10000000 of the distance from
pole to equator is. Everyone can visualize how long a foot
is, or the distance from nose to fingertips (a yard).

I'm sitting here drinking a cup of coffee. A cup, 8 oz, is
a useful real world measurement, being about 1 serving of
liquid. A cubic meter is neither easy to visualize nor
particularly usefully sized (the liter, 1/1000 of a cubic
meter, is no longer an official metric unit).

John

[John McCoy]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:pNidnd9XMaqu0TjKnZ2dnUU7-
enN...@giganews.com:

> Actually I believe the biggest problem with the metric system is that
> meter is used in every instance of resolution.
> Micrometer, millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter , kilometer.....

That's probably why, in the real world (and Olympics
games excepted :-) ) pretty much everything is measured
in mm and km. Hard to get those two crossed up. Altho
I do find it amusing to see something specified as being
23400 mm long.

John

[John McCoy]

graham <gst...@shaw.ca> wrote in news:no33k8$khd$1...@dont-email.me:

> Those fractions are probably due to conversion from Imperial Measure.

That was my first thought, because that's a common problem.
The examples Leon gives don't seem to translate to any
sensible fraction of an Imperial unit. 3.57mm isn't one of
the letter/number system of drill sizes either, altho it's
a little bigger than a #28.

Possibly the odd values are accumulated rounding error, due
to going metric to imperial and back to metric.

John

[John McCoy]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:qISdnV8kkt0j3jjKnZ2dnUU7-
S2d...@giganews.com:

> On 8/5/2016 8:29 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 08/05/2016 5:37 PM, dpb wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> 9/64*25.4 = 3.57187500...

> I think yo may have hit the nail on the head there. ;~)

I think so too...I didn't go as far as 64ths when I looked for
a match yesterday.

John

[John McCoy]

dpb <no...@non.net> wrote in news:no4osb$r6t$1...@dont-email.me:

> Manufacturing can (and has) converted almost entirely other than for the
> issues addressed elsethread of the fact that so much was done before the
> need to convert and that it still isn't cost-effective to actually make
> the hard, physical change (else't they'd have done so on their own, no
> government mandate needed if economics is left to drive the decision).

This is a very significant point, and is why in the UK so many
things are still sold in the odd size of 453g (otherwise known
as 1 pound). If your whole plant is tooled to use 1 pound
boxes or tins, it's simpler just to change the marking from
1lb to 453g than it is to change the plant to make 500g or 1kg
packages.

John

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/6/2016 9:31 AM, dpb wrote:

>
> In the US in general public, there's a very strong tradition of
> independence and resistance against be forced into any position (albeit
> with the aim by the progressives of weakening that as much as possible).
>

True, but it works against us at times. We want to buy cheap stuff from
Asian countries then bitch because it is metric. The little
manufacturing we have left wants to sell to other countries then bitch
because they don't buy our products because they are not metric.

It is not always about being forced, it is about being sensible to
enrich yourself.

Used to buy from a local hydraulics shop when we had older US made
machines. Starting in 1989 we added metric. When we needed something
for them, the guys at the shop said "if its metric, you're on your own".
They went out of business keeping strong traditions.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/6/2016 10:37 AM, John McCoy wrote:

> A cubic meter is neither easy to visualize nor
> particularly usefully sized

Hint: Its a tad larger than a cubic yard. In the back of a dump truck
you can't tell them apart.

[John McCoy]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:auCdnWpLOYKI0jjK...@giganews.com:

> So are you saying that the metric system is like not being able to use
> all of the letters of the alphabet to spell all of the words? LOL

We seem to do alright in that regard. The Roman alphabet has
several letters that we don't use, which other languages like
German and Icelandic do.

John

[-MIKE-]

Nahhhhh, that would just be "a mile, cut the line."


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[Unknown]

Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote in news:lrmdnULdX_XmYTjKnZ2dnUU7-
WfN...@giganews.com:

I've found a handy way to estimate from meters to feet is to multiply the
number by 3 then divide the number by 3 and add the two results.

So, if you have a measurement of 100 m:
100 * 3 = 300
100 / 3 = 33.333
100 m ~= 333.333 ft
100m = 328.084ft

Not bad at all for something that takes only a few seconds to calculate
in your head.

Puckdropper

[dadiOH]

"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:1977702253.492178487.40...@news.giganews.com...

There is an easy, simple soultion for confusion...adopt "about yay"... :)

[dpb]

On 08/06/2016 9:47 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> graham<gst...@shaw.ca> wrote in news:no33k8$khd$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Those fractions are probably due to conversion from Imperial Measure.
>
> That was my first thought, because that's a common problem.
> The examples Leon gives don't seem to translate to any
> sensible fraction of an Imperial unit. 3.57mm isn't one of
> the letter/number system of drill sizes either, altho it's
> a little bigger than a #28.

...

As I showed earlier, it's 9/64"...

9/64*25.4 = 3.571875000...

The other is 7/64"; both are common pilot-hole drill sizes...

[dpb]

On 08/06/2016 10:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 8/6/2016 9:31 AM, dpb wrote:
>
>>
>> In the US in general public, there's a very strong tradition of
>> independence and resistance against be forced into any position (albeit
>> with the aim by the progressives of weakening that as much as possible).
>>
>

...

> It is not always about being forced, it is about being sensible to
> enrich yourself.

That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told by
a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will be in
km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US owing
mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche being
resistive of direct edict.

> Used to buy from a local hydraulics shop when we had older US made
> machines. Starting in 1989 we added metric. When we needed something for
> them, the guys at the shop said "if its metric, you're on your own".
> They went out of business keeping strong traditions.

Any manufacturing that is exporting anything with compatibility issues
has already converted and I posit the hydraulic shop of which you speak
wouldn't have lasted for other reasons besides simply non-SAE hose
fittings as there are a seemingly unlimited number of those. A link

<http://www.discounthydraulichose.com/v/vspfiles/downloadables/thread_guide.pdf>

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:12:22 AM UTC-7, keith_...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> Metric ton 1000 kilograms. If I do something on a small scale and it
> produces 1 kilogram. I know if I scale it up by a factor of 1000, then
> it will produce a metric ton.

That's a weak argument, of course; anyone with a slide rule can lay
out any ratio he wants, and read the scale straightaway for a factor
of 683, 880, 1000... whatever

> If the English system would you give some one an 8' length of lumber if
> he asked for one 8" long. 8 yards for the 8'piece.

That's the strong argument: changing units from inch to foot, foot to yard,
yard to fathom, fathom to nautical mile, nautical mile to statute mile... is annoying.

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:37:40 AM UTC-7, John McCoy wrote:
> Bill Gill <bill...@cox.net> wrote in news:no4nvd$obg$1...@dont-email.me:
>

> > ... The meter was originally based on

> > the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
> > through Paris.
>
> An arbitrary fraction of the distance from the pole to the
> equator is not a useful definition in the real world. No
> person can visualize what 1/10000000 of the distance from
> pole to equator is.

When the meter was defined, it was a different world, of course. Louis XV
ran up debt, Louis XVI tried a number of ways to pay it all off. Notably,
one year the king's 'rent collectors' collected their bushels of wheat from
farms, using a brand new 'royal bushel' measure which was rather
larger than the one used the year before.

The size of the Earth was beyond the power of any king to adjust. They
didn't WANT a measure basis that could be fabricated and held up as an example.

[John McCoy]

Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote in news:lrmdnULdX_XmYTjKnZ2dnUU7-
WfN...@giganews.com:

OK, run down to the store and get me 4/10000 cubic meters
of milk, please :-)

John

[John McCoy]

whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cdce9cfb-a689-4bc2...@googlegroups.com:

> When the meter was defined, it was a different world, of course.
> Louis XV ran up debt, Louis XVI tried a number of ways to pay it all
> off. Notably, one year the king's 'rent collectors' collected their
> bushels of wheat from farms, using a brand new 'royal bushel' measure
> which was rather larger than the one used the year before.

Well, that's the French for you, isn't it. They could have
done what the English did, and mark a stick and call it the
"official" foot...given the impracticality of actually
measuring the distance from the pole to the equator, it
would have been just as valid (oh wait - that is what the
actually did).

John

[John McCoy]

dpb <no...@non.net> wrote in news:no55dp$4k3$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 08/06/2016 9:47 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> graham<gst...@shaw.ca> wrote in news:no33k8$khd$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Those fractions are probably due to conversion from Imperial Measure.
>>
>> That was my first thought, because that's a common problem.
>> The examples Leon gives don't seem to translate to any
>> sensible fraction of an Imperial unit. 3.57mm isn't one of
>> the letter/number system of drill sizes either, altho it's
>> a little bigger than a #28.
> ...
>
> As I showed earlier, it's 9/64"...

Yeah, I read Graham's post before yours.

John

[John McCoy]

dpb <no...@non.net> wrote in news:no586j$e3p$1...@dont-email.me:

> That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being
> your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told
> by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will
> be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US
> owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche
> being resistive of direct edict.

There's a couple of other factors that come into play on
that particular example.

One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system
developes facility at estimating in that system, so US
drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km,
and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.

The other is the random coincidence that highway speed
works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true
when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was
in effect). Since our time system works on an increment
of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure
how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't
work out that way.

Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.

John

[notbob]

On 2016-08-06, John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.

I can go either way. The only metric I do not like is temperature.
SAE temp is more granular than metric.

nb

[Leon]

On 8/6/2016 9:47 AM, John McCoy wrote:

> Possibly the odd values are accumulated rounding error, due
> to going metric to imperial and back to metric.
>
> John
>

Yeah!

[Leon]

Hawaiian, 12 letters, IIRC.

[Leon]

On 8/6/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:
>> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>>
>> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
>> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>>
>> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
>> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>>
>> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
>> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>>
>> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
>> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
>> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
>> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>>
>> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
>> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
>> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
>> diameter of 3.57mm?
>>
>> And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
>> Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to
>> work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot
>> hole at 7/16"?

>
> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
> reasoning will change him/her.

> Graham


Or the rest of the world needs a simple way to measure so that they can
function. I use the metric system every time I am in the shop, and I
mix it with imperial. But put me in the real world where distances
become greater and the sounds of all the resolutions are just too
similar, or you get in to huge numbers, or you have to know where to put
the decimal point.

[Leon]

I have. :~)


> John
>

[Leon]

On 8/6/2016 8:31 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
> ...

>
>> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>> reasoning will change him/her.
>

> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
> accurate I believe.


Yeah!

[graham]

Precisely! Ask several people to estimate the distance to, say, your
town centre in miles and you will get widely different answers.
45 years ago, I moved to W. Australia and shortly afterwards the
authorities announced "as of next Monday, the Celsius scale will replace
Fahrenheit". We soon got used to it. I can no longer think in Fahrenheit
terms and if I visit the US and see the weather forecast, I have to
convert the temps to Celsius.
Graham

[graham]

I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
"Independence" is just used to disguise them.
Graham

[Keith Nuttle]

On 08/06/2016 8:47 AM, Leon wrote:
> Give the answer.
>
> A mile minus 1/16"
>
> 5279', 11-15/16"
>
> A kilometer minus 1mm.
>
>
> Hint, the answer can easily be misunderstood.
>
> 9999999999 somethingmeter
>
> Or
>
> 999999999999999 anothermeter
>
> :-)
>
>
>

999999.9999 meters

.9999999999 kilometers

Where would you find a situation where you would want to subtract a 1mm
firn a kilometer or 1/16 from a mile?


Even with GPS you can not measure a kilometer to that degree of
accuracy. The last time I checked GPS was accurate to about 100 feet.

[Leon]

On 8/6/2016 4:48 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 8:47 AM, Leon wrote:
>> Give the answer.
>>
>> A mile minus 1/16"
>>
>> 5279', 11-15/16"
>>
>> A kilometer minus 1mm.
>>
>>
>> Hint, the answer can easily be misunderstood.
>>
>> 9999999999 somethingmeter
>>
>> Or
>>
>> 999999999999999 anothermeter
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>
> 999999.9999 meters
>
> .9999999999 kilometers
>
> Where would you find a situation where you would want to subtract a 1mm
> firn a kilometer or 1/16 from a mile?

Well, here, just above. But does it matter? It is an easy calculation
in imperial.

It's a math problem.

>
>
> Even with GPS you can not measure a kilometer to that degree of
> accuracy. The last time I checked GPS was accurate to about 100 feet.

What has a GMO go to do with anything.

[Leon]

I think you are wrong. ;~)

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 11:16:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

For woodworking, I use the inch (except when fooling with Festools).
6' 2-5/8" is much easier thought of as 74-5/8".

[graham]

On 8/6/2016 8:37 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Bill Gill <bill...@cox.net> wrote in news:no4nvd$obg$1...@dont-email.me:
>

>> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>>> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>>> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>>> proportioned units.
>
>> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on

>> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
>> through Paris.
>
> An arbitrary fraction of the distance from the pole to the
> equator is not a useful definition in the real world. No
> person can visualize what 1/10000000 of the distance from

> pole to equator is. Everyone can visualize how long a foot
> is, or the distance from nose to fingertips (a yard).
>
> I'm sitting here drinking a cup of coffee. A cup, 8 oz, is
> a useful real world measurement, being about 1 serving of
> liquid.
Really? is that by weight or volume?:-)
Then there's:
16oz=1lb
112lb = 1 hundredweight (cwt)
20cwt or 2240lbs + 1 ton.
12" = 1'
3'= 1yd
45"=1 ell (obsolete)
22 yds = 1 chain
10 chains = 1 furlong
8 furlongs = 1 mile

And you talk of the original definition of the kilometre being arbitrary?
Graham

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:40:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:pNidnd9XMaqu0TjKnZ2dnUU7-
>enN...@giganews.com:
>
>> Actually I believe the biggest problem with the metric system is that
>> meter is used in every instance of resolution.
>> Micrometer, millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter , kilometer.....
>
>That's probably why, in the real world (and Olympics
>games excepted :-) ) pretty much everything is measured
>in mm and km. Hard to get those two crossed up. Altho
>I do find it amusing to see something specified as being
>23400 mm long.

Not true. Meteorology uses the meter quite extensively. Electronics
uses the micron, and medicine still uses the centimeter.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 14:37:38 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Bill Gill <bill...@cox.net> wrote in news:no4nvd$obg$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
>>> is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
>>> not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
>>> proportioned units.
>
>> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
>> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing
>> through Paris.
>
>An arbitrary fraction of the distance from the pole to the
>equator is not a useful definition in the real world. No
>person can visualize what 1/10000000 of the distance from
>pole to equator is. Everyone can visualize how long a foot
>is, or the distance from nose to fingertips (a yard).
>
>I'm sitting here drinking a cup of coffee. A cup, 8 oz, is
>a useful real world measurement, being about 1 serving of

>liquid. A cubic meter is neither easy to visualize nor
>particularly usefully sized (the liter, 1/1000 of a cubic
>meter, is no longer an official metric unit).

That's why coffee cups are 5oz? ;-)

An easier measurement to grasp is the ounce or pint. Gets two
measurements for the price of one. Cubic feet aren't obvious for the
same reason that cubic meters aren't. We don't think in volume (a
cubic foot looks nothing like 8 gallons).

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 07:47:30 -0500, Leon <lcb1...@swbell.net> wrote:

>Give the answer.
>
>A mile minus 1/16"
>
>5279', 11-15/16"

Nah, it's 63359-15/16". ;-)

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 07:02:42 -0600, graham <gst...@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:
>> So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
>>
>> More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
>> wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
>>
>> I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
>> Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
>>
>> For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
>> mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
>>
>> Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
>> Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
>> a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
>> There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
>>
>> Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
>> instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
>> hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
>> diameter of 3.57mm?
>>
>> And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
>> Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to
>> work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot
>> hole at 7/16"?
>

>What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>reasoning will change him/her.

Afraid? Hardly. It's just not useful to waste the money on the
conversion. Calculators made it a fools errand.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Sure, there are times when I only had an hour to do something that
would have been much easier to do in 100 minutes. ;-)

[Bill Gill]

Because I keep writing stuff that will be seen by an
international audience I sat down and wrote a little
utility to convert between Fahrenheit and Celsius
temperatures. That way I can give the temperature in
both units so everybody can see what I am talking about.

Bill

[Ed Pawlowski]

I was able to lern temperature quickly. We rented a villa in Italy in
March. The owner said he'd program the thermostat for us before he
left. He asked if 14 was Ok. I nodded yes. Next morning I learned to
convert and set it for 20.

[dpb]

On 08/06/2016 4:48 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
...

> Even with GPS you can not measure a kilometer to that degree of
> accuracy. The last time I checked GPS was accurate to about 100 feet.

Au contraire...at least w/ a little help... :)

Field guidance systems are 1-sigma absolute accuracy of about 4.5 cm. In
other words, can locate within 4.5 cm of a specific point 65% of the
time, and to under 10 cm around 95% of the time (2-sigma). Relative as
opposed to absolute accuracy is about 2.5 cm.

With the current self-guiding systems, absolute accuracy is now down to
about 2 cm, and relative accuracy in the millimeters.

Of course, this is done in firmware in the receiver using multiple
inputs, not a single satellite as used in the run-of-the-mill auto GPS
systems (altho I thought they were closer to 10-ft now rather than 100?).

--

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ed Pawlowski]

Cant. It comes in 5/10000 bottles. Costs 167 Rupee

[Leon]

Wow! Is a cubic foot really 8 gallons? I would have imagined 2~3 gallons.

[Leon]

On 8/6/2016 7:09 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 4:48 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> ...
>
>
>> Even with GPS you can not measure a kilometer to that degree of
>> accuracy. The last time I checked GPS was accurate to about 100 feet.
>
> Au contraire...at least w/ a little help... :)
>
> Field guidance systems are 1-sigma absolute accuracy of about 4.5 cm. In
> other words, can locate within 4.5 cm of a specific point 65% of the
> time, and to under 10 cm around 95% of the time (2-sigma). Relative as
> opposed to absolute accuracy is about 2.5 cm.
>
> With the current self-guiding systems, absolute accuracy is now down to
> about 2 cm, and relative accuracy in the millimeters.
>
> Of course, this is done in firmware in the receiver using multiple
> inputs, not a single satellite as used in the run-of-the-mill auto GPS
> systems (altho I thought they were closer to 10-ft now rather than 100?).

The GMS in my 4 year old iPad is withing 20' I sorta follows me around
in the house when I have a map program running.

[Leon]

On 8/6/2016 5:13 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 07:47:30 -0500, Leon <lcb1...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Give the answer.
>>
>> A mile minus 1/16"
>>
>> 5279', 11-15/16"
>
> Nah, it's 63359-15/16". ;-)

And I seriously believe this is the king of answer you get when dealing
with metric measurements.

Fortunately with Imperial feet and inches and fraction of an inch IMHO
make things a bit easier to visualize, sorta. Especially when dealing
with measurements for building a room or home.

[notbob]

What I learned, during this thread, is that most ppl in rw do not have
a degree.

Major in any of the hard sciences and you WILL learn metric. ;)

nb

[k...@attt.bizz]

C or F?

>Major in any of the hard sciences and you WILL learn metric. ;)

Learning <> using, or liking it, for everyday use. There's no reason
to change and billions of reasons not to.

[k...@attt.bizz]

OK, you got me. It's really 7.5 gallons. ;-)

[Doug Miller]

Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in news:57a573f5$0$51809$c3e8da3
$f626...@news.astraweb.com:

[,,,]
> Rule of thumb: If there's no decimal points in a dual-system dimension,
> one of the measurements is wrong.

Well, usually, anyway. Some fractional measurements come out pretty close to exact, e.g. the
difference between 5/32" and 4mm is only a bit over a thousandth of an inch.

[Doug Miller]

Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in news:57a61232$0$31233$c3e8da3
$dd96...@news.astraweb.com:

[...]
> I've found a handy way to estimate from meters to feet is to multiply the
> number by 3 then divide the number by 3 and add the two results.
[...]
> Not bad at all for something that takes only a few seconds to calculate
> in your head.

It's even faster to multiply by 10, then divide by 3 -- which produces exactly the same result in
fewer steps.

[Doug Miller]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:MuudnUZzJMY9HTvKnZ2dnUU7-
Vud...@giganews.com:

>
> Wow! Is a cubic foot really 8 gallons?

Not quite. It's actually a bit under seven and a half.

[J. Clarke]

In article <no4n5c$kjp$2...@dont-email.me>, gst...@shaw.ca says...

>
> On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:
> > So the argument gos on and on, metric or imperial, which is better?
> >
> > More and more I have been paying attention to metric measurements and
> > wonder how it is better. It appears to have some short comings.
> >
> > I first started seeing this on full extension slide schematics.
> > Almost all hole locations are on fractions of a mm.
> >
> > For example hole locations are located a distant of 4.4mm, 4.6 mm, 6.4
> > mm, 34.3mm and so on. And then the width of the whole thing is 1/2".
> >
> > Could those holes not be at 4,6,or 34mm??? Why the fractions of a mm.
> > Can you actually measure or see markings on a rule that are at 10ths of
> > a mm? FWIW a tenth of a mm is slightly under 4 thousands of an inch.
> > There would be 100 marks in a centimeter.
> >
> > Now you might say that is an odd case but take Leigh Jigs DT
> > instructions to upgrade. Drill hole at 4.37mm, WHAT? And drill the
> > hole diameter at 3.57mm. Seriously, has any one ever seen a drill
> > diameter of 3.57mm?
> >
> > And then there are threaded inserts to accept 5/16" coarse thread bolts.
> > Drill pilot hole with 11mm diameter bit. In so much that you want to
> > work with imperial sized bolts, couldn't they have just said drill pilot
> > hole at 7/16"?
>
> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
> reasoning will change him/her.

> Graham

Afraid? Hardly. Just don't see the point of it.

[Unknown]

Doug Miller <doug_at_mil...@example.com> wrote in
news:XnsA65CD88A5AB...@213.239.209.88:

Looks like that method's easily reversable, too. Cool!

Puckdropper

[J. Clarke]

In article <no5lps$q0n$2...@dont-email.me>, gst...@shaw.ca says...

>
> On 8/6/2016 7:31 AM, dpb wrote:
> > On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
> > ...
> >

> >> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
> >> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
> >> reasoning will change him/her.
> >

> > I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
> > accurate I believe.
> >
> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
> "Independence" is just used to disguise them.

Stubborness yes. But people with multiple degrees in the sciences and
engineering and decades of engineering experience are not "afraid" of
some damned numbers.

[J. Clarke]

In article <no4nvd$obg$1...@dont-email.me>, bill...@cox.net says...

>
> On 8/5/2016 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> > As for the actual metric/imperial question, clearly imperial
> > is better, since it's units are based on the physical world,
> > not on abstract reasoning that gives inconveniently
> > proportioned units.
> That isn't any kind of an argument. The meter was originally based on
> the distance from the equator to the north pole on a line passing

> through Paris. It has been redefined in terms of physical
> quantities, but that doesn't make it 'better'. In fact it is
> just more convenient because it is all decimal. That makes it
> easier to make arithmetical calculations.

How does it make it easier to divide something into thirds?
>
> Bill

[J. Clarke]

In article <e0ne8m...@mid.individual.net>, not...@nothome.com
says...

That's what you _think_ you learned. Majoring in the hard sciences
means that you learn to use it. It doesn't mean that you ever _like_ it
or prefer it to the English system.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/6/2016 9:04 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

>
>> Major in any of the hard sciences and you WILL learn metric. ;)
>
> Learning <> using, or liking it, for everyday use. There's no reason
> to change and billions of reasons not to.
>

Really? Will your 1.4" film work in my 35mm camera?

Like it or not, metric is here and not going away. Most of us use metric
in our daily lives and have no idea that we do. We think nothing of it
when we buy a 750 ml bottle of wine or 2 liter bottle of soda. Most of
the manufactured products we buy are metric but unless we need a tool or
replacement screw we have no idea.

In 1960 many auto shops could not work on imported cars but the guys
that bought a set of metric wrenches charged a premium. Smart they were.

I agree there is no reason to change road signs. It does take a couple
of days to get used to kilometers.

If you want to do business with the rest of the world you will use
metric. Aside from stubbornness, there is no good reason not to.

[J. Clarke]

In article <no5lul$1do2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Keith_...@sbcglobal.net
says...

>
> On 08/06/2016 8:47 AM, Leon wrote:
> > Give the answer.
> >
> > A mile minus 1/16"
> >
> > 5279', 11-15/16"
> >

> > A kilometer minus 1mm.
> >
> >
> > Hint, the answer can easily be misunderstood.
> >
> > 9999999999 somethingmeter
> >
> > Or
> >
> > 999999999999999 anothermeter
> >
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
>

> 999999.9999 meters
>
> .9999999999 kilometers
>
> Where would you find a situation where you would want to subtract a 1mm
> firn a kilometer or 1/16 from a mile?

>
>
> Even with GPS you can not measure a kilometer to that degree of
> accuracy. The last time I checked GPS was accurate to about 100 feet.

That must have been a _long_ time ago.

[Leon]

Still 2 to 3 times more than I would have guesstimated.

[Ed Pawlowski]

The eye deceives. A five gallon pail of paint is roughly 12 x 17.
Looking at it and not counting the corners that is more than a cubic
foot to the eye, but you still have 2 1/2 gallons to go.

[dpb]

On 08/07/2016 7:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 12:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/6/2016 8:22 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:MuudnUZzJMY9HTvKnZ2dnUU7-
>>> Vud...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow! Is a cubic foot really 8 gallons?
>>>
>>> Not quite. It's actually a bit under seven and a half.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Still 2 to 3 times more than I would have guesstimated.

And a good rough estimate for most purposes...

> The eye deceives. A five gallon pail of paint is roughly 12 x 17.
> Looking at it and not counting the corners that is more than a cubic
> foot to the eye, but you still have 2 1/2 gallons to go.

The deception is at least partially caused by the volume of the
"missing" distance being the cube of that linear distance not simply
directly proportional nor even squared for the area, which at least is
also roughly outlined for a visual clue...

OTOH, the volume of something _under_ 1 of whatever units is normally
grossly over-estimated for the same reason excepting that since the
number >1 is in the denominator, it reduces the quotient more than is
intuitive... 1/2" --> 1/8 cu-in/unit length whereas 1/4 --> 1/64. Just
looking doesn't tend to lead to that additional 8X reduction...one
"knows" it, yet it isn't always intuitive.

[Keith Nuttle]

On 08/07/2016 8:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> The eye deceives. A five gallon pail of paint is roughly 12 x 17.
> Looking at it and not counting the corners that is more than a cubic
> foot to the eye, but you still have 2 1/2 gallons to go.

The volume of a cylinder is Pi X the radius Squared X the height.

(12/2)squared*Pi*17= 4.45 square feet

[Keith Nuttle]

On 08/07/2016 8:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> The eye deceives. A five gallon pail of paint is roughly 12 x 17.
> Looking at it and not counting the corners that is more than a cubic
> foot to the eye, but you still have 2 1/2 gallons to go.

The volume of a cylinder is Pi X the radius Squared X the height.

(12/2)squared*Pi*17= 1.1 square feet

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 23:15:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:

>On 8/6/2016 9:04 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>>
>>> Major in any of the hard sciences and you WILL learn metric. ;)
>>
>> Learning <> using, or liking it, for everyday use. There's no reason
>> to change and billions of reasons not to.
>>
>
>Really? Will your 1.4" film work in my 35mm camera?

That's really dumb. 1/4" would be a change. How many times, in my
life, am I going to care about the size of 35mm film. It's a name.

>Like it or not, metric is here and not going away. Most of us use metric
>in our daily lives and have no idea that we do. We think nothing of it
>when we buy a 750 ml bottle of wine or 2 liter bottle of soda. Most of
>the manufactured products we buy are metric but unless we need a tool or
>replacement screw we have no idea.

Nice strawman. Consider it vanquished.

>In 1960 many auto shops could not work on imported cars but the guys
>that bought a set of metric wrenches charged a premium. Smart they were.
>
>I agree there is no reason to change road signs. It does take a couple
>of days to get used to kilometers.

It takes a lot more than that, even with both scales on the
speedometer.

>
>If you want to do business with the rest of the world you will use
>metric. Aside from stubbornness, there is no good reason not to.

Again, with the strawman.

[dpb]

On 08/06/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote:

> On 8/6/2016 4:45 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 8/6/2016 7:31 AM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to
>>>> change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of
>>>> reasoning will change him/her.
>>>
>>> I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more
>>> accurate I believe.
>>>
>> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
>> "Independence" is just used to disguise them.

>> Graham
>>
>
>
> I think you are wrong. ;~)

+1

[Leon]

Learning your SS number to get your grades is harder than learning metric,
I learned metric in grade school. It is not hard at all.
It is more likely that those that learned Imperial and fractions first
have a much easier time learning metric than those that learned metric
first and later tried to learn the Imperial and working with fractions.

As I have stated earlier, I use both in my shop because my Festool tools
use metric and I design for imperial measurements. Can those that learned
metric first do that ?

So reading the answers here no one has proven that metric is better so much
as simply easier to some degree.
Oddly those that think metric is better tend to work with only one
resolution vs multiple resolutions on a given project. I suppose that is
because working with multiples of 10 is more confusing when you have to
start using decimal points and or as I have also stated the sounds of each
resolution differ slightly compared to Imperial so to cut down on the
possibility of verbal miscommunication only one resolution is commonly
used.

[dpb]

On 08/06/2016 4:45 PM, graham wrote:
...

> I still think fear and a certain stubbornness are the main factors.
> "Independence" is just used to disguise them.

I posit that the stubbornness is an outward symptom of independence in
thought/action in resisting externally-imposed mandates seen as
nonessential and/or affecting their currently-satisfied status quo
negatively.