# i'm giving up metric



## tombo (9 Jan 2007)

Prompted by a comment from senior that as its the 21st century and i should use mm got me thinking. I am ambidextrous when it comes to measurement switching between inches and mm as the situation suits. 

But in furniture making i have now decided it is much easier to give in and and use inches, The usa dominates so much that you cant get away from it.


Router cutters are 1/4 and 1/2 inch shank hardly any interesting cutters in 8mm.
My table saw takes a 10 inch blade on a 5/8 arbour the mitre slots are 3/8 by 3/4.
For right handed peeps like me my tape measure has inches at the bottom by far the easier side to use.
My steel rule is the same and guess what its exactly 1 inch wide.
Ball bearing drawer slides need 12.7mm clearance...
I could go on..

unless i make kitchens my tools prefer inches and i am not gonna fight any more :? 

Tom


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jan 2007)

I was brought up with imperial measures and find it very hard to think in metric. Even when I try to work in metric I find myself automatically thinking in imperial. I've concluded that it doesn't matter much which system you use. What's more important is to use what you are comfortable with.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## milkman (9 Jan 2007)

I was brought in metric and deciaml currency and not suprisingly am almost innumerate.

I have absolutley no evidence for this but I always get the feeling that inches reflect a more human scaled view of the world.


----------



## houtslager (9 Jan 2007)

Being a child of the sixties :lol: I was educated first in Imperial and I mean Imperial including Land measurements, fluid measurements  
Then half way through my Senior school, it was changed :shock: :? so I then learned the "new" metric system.
Throughout my working life I have used both, depending on the employer, but in general measuring I refer to the imperial system as IT IS BASED on HUMAN body sizes if you doubt me look at one's thumbs width ,hand lenght and span of ones open arms = 1 Fathom  

But here in Europe its mixed still, though for timber I can order in Imprial or the German version 1 SOLL etc......

laughing on my way out

hs


----------



## Shultzy (9 Jan 2007)

Like houtslager I was a child of the 60's. I went to a technical school and we had to learn the metric system. They were called SI (System Internationale) units and measurements were in mm. Because of this I have the added disadvantage of having to "convert" cms to mm and then to ft/ins. I suppose that with 8x4' sheets and timber in 4x2" format it will take a long time to change, if ever.


----------



## Shivers (9 Jan 2007)

houtslager":2ctxmp81 said:


> Being a child of the sixties :lol: I was educated first in Imperial and I mean Imperial including Land measurements, fluid measurements
> Then half way through my Senior school, it was changed :shock: :? so I then learned the "new" metric system.
> Throughout my working life I have used both, depending on the employer, but in general measuring I refer to the imperial system as IT IS BASED on HUMAN body sizes if you doubt me look at one's thumbs width ,hand lenght and span of ones open arms = 1 Fathom
> 
> ...




i was brought up on imperial,then metric was introduced at age 10 yrs,

first woodworking job imperial.
next woodworking job metric --& so on.
then i worked in the states for several yrs & come to the conclusion that imperial is far easier to use.
It's easier to visualize 6ft rather than 1.83 meter, even in finish carpentry.

another thing i learned from the states was to drop feet & inches, it's far faster to work in pure inches(for example rather than say 8'4" --call it 100" instead),this enables speedy calculations.although you might visualize in feet---the conversion to pure inches should be automatic after several years experience.



regards 

shivers.


----------



## Jake (9 Jan 2007)

Metric foremost, for distances under a mile. Can do inches and feet for rough guesses. I can't visualise anything imperial smaller than 1/8" - 32nds 64ths are gibberish, never mind 'thou', and fractions are so vulgar. And make maths much slower than sensible decimals.


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jan 2007)

Just a quick anecdote. At about the time the Government introduced metric measurements, my Mother-in-Law asked me to build some built-in wardrobes. I calculated all the measurements in imperial and went to the woodyard. The bloke there said "Sorry mate, only sell it in metric". So I went back and re-calculated everything in metric. Returned to the woodyard and asked for the wood in metric. "OK mate, how many feet's that?" was his reply :shock: :shock: Is it me :? :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Evergreen (9 Jan 2007)

Tombo

I had the imperial system hammered into me at school in the 1950s but, strangely, I prefer to use metric measurements for woodwork _up to 1 metre._ For anything longer than 1 metre, my old brain trips out and defaults to the imperial system. And I mean inches, not feet. So, for example, I end up thinking of a piece of wood as being 25mm x 50mm but 30 inches long!

And yet when I'm driving, I find myself thinking "Another 200 metres and I've got to turn left....."

Regards.


----------



## Shivers (9 Jan 2007)

back in the 80's i used to work in home depot part time whilst at college,i worked on the panel saw,---people would come up with sizes,--oh yeah i'd like it cut 433mm x 22 1/4 inches.


----------



## wrightclan (9 Jan 2007)

Jake":cd52de6j said:


> ... fractions are so vulgar. And make maths much slower than sensible decimals.



Perhaps slightly slower for addition and subtraction; but just as quick and sometimes more useful for division and multiplication. 

I can use both and was educated to use both. (Contrary to the belief that backward Yanks only know Imperial). As I've said before in a similar thread, I primarily use Imperial, because the measurements mean something to me. If you quote a metric figure to me, it'll take me a few seconds to visualise what you're talking about. If you quote me an Imperial measurement, I can immediately visualise it. In practical terms, this means if I try to work in metric, I may not 'catch' a discrepancy in my figures until at the assembly stage. Whereas if I work in Imperial, I'm much more likely to catch it at the planning stage.

Work with whatever system you're most comfortable. Don't let comments about the 21st century, etc. keep you from using whatever *works*. Accuracy has to do with repeatability and reliable measuring tools (and using the same tool throughout the job.) The reliable tool can be metric, imperial, or cubits for all I care. Or you can use a rod or 'story stick.' You can even come up with your own system of measurement as long as the units are always repeatable.

Brad


----------



## CHJ (9 Jan 2007)

Having started with and having gone through my engineering exams in Imperial, then enforced change to MKS followed by a conversion to SI (for and during national certificate exams) I find myself using whichever sticks in the mind when transferring dimensions, sadly sometimes a mixture of both on any given piece.

The most errors I have ever encountered in misread drawings etc. has been with metric, where because of the differing conventions between long standing european MKS users who did not appreciate the differing definitions of SI, cms often got confused with mm and parts made an order of magnitude bigger or smaller.
Feet and Inches are a little more obvious in this respect.
The 'Golden Rule'  I suppose is to work in the lowest denomination in whatever the system.


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jan 2007)

Because I think in miles rather than kilometres, when I drive in other European countries, where road distances are marked in kilometres, I seem to get everywhere much quicker \/ 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jan 2007)

wrightclan":4r7mntfc said:


> Yanks only know Imperial



Purely as a matter of interest, Brad, have you any idea why some of the American imperial measurements are slightly different from the UK imperial measurements? For example, a UK quart is 40 UK fluid ounces, whereas an American quart is 32 UK fluid ounces :? :? I used to use some American photographic developers and always had to be careful not to over-dilute them when the instructions said "add water to make up to one quart".

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Shivers (9 Jan 2007)

with metric i've found most mistakes made amongst a group of workers lay in the 1000,1001,1010,1011,1100,1101,1110,1111mm area, this is a very bad area when checking panels sizes,to many similar sizes grouped together.


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

houtslager":idn9oywz said:


> But here in Europe its mixed still, though for timber I can order in Imprial or the German version 1 SOLL etc......



In my opinion metricalisation has been collectively enforced to facilitate easier operation of a single currency/trading market etc.

Like Shivers and houtlager, I too am a child of the 60s, a strange time to be a kid when all the decimal EU continental conformity was being conned onto us in the UK roll: I had the confusion of starting in inche's and ending in minimeters as far as measuring goes. My Grandmother, god rest her soul, had a shop at that time and the weights and measures police jumped her because she initially refused to work in "pounds and new pee" as it was then termed (she couldnt get to grips with it). I still prefer good old organic ounce/uncial/inch romano-British INCHES if I have to get a measurement for a joist length or something; but I usually transfer sizes with a pair of sticks or dividers etc, and use rod's and sometimes never need to know a component's actual length at all. The only exception was for working out roofing calculation's mini meters I find easier for that. I cannot multiply fractions, result of math's lessons turning their attention to metric C1969/70?? Can anyone sudgest a source to learn how to multiply fraction's please? I'd like to learn that.

JUST as a matter of interest Houtslager, what is the state of play in germany etc with attitudes to metric? Until you mentioned I had no idea there was a different unit "solls" in Germany I thought theyd have outlawed any such thing!?? In France they have "pouces" (thumbs) and _they_ vary depending on which region your in :roll: :lol: :lol: . I never knew about this until very recently. To hear the EU supporters talk, its only the dumb old UK that still lags behind being reluctant to fully embrace greater harmonisation blah blah blah. Is there folk in Germany who like the fruit man from Sunderland, dare to defy the weights and measures police mein gott :shock: 
Oh and Brad dont take on board all that oh so fashionable (but ignorant and racist) "dumb yank" rubbish. I have been to America, and have been struck by the wit, inventive "can do" attitude and sheer professionalism of very many of your fellow countrymen. I find it extremely inspiring that whatever an American does, they aim to do it to the max and be GOOD at it 8) (wether a legal or illegal activity :wink: )

Cheers Jonathan


----------



## CYC (9 Jan 2007)

It seems from reading everyone's post that's the preference is actually the first scale you were brought up with. I have not heard anyone brought up with metrics say they prefer using imperial. I can't think it possible personaly.

I was brought up in metrics and cannot understand how can anyone find body parts an easier and more reliable way to measure. It's certainly not LOGICAL as imperial uses fractions which means calculations are far more difficult as Jake said.
I can understand you prefer using what you are confortable with which is nearly always what you learned as a little man/woman. Also there is the fact that in the UK (and ireland) a lot of the tools are designed with imperial in mind, like the example of the steel ruler from tombo. If you are logical you will use Metrics.

Metrics rules (get it?! Okay I'll get my coat...)


----------



## Colin C (9 Jan 2007)

CYC

I am one of them people that was brought up with metrics say they prefer using imperial but I do use metric more now.

I have been a furniture restorer for :shock: ( 23 years, had to add a years as I am a year older now :roll: ) and for most of that I have used imperial, so I guess it is what you are used too  .


----------



## wrightclan (9 Jan 2007)

Paul Chapman":1890eftd said:


> wrightclan":1890eftd said:
> 
> 
> > Yanks only know Imperial
> ...



Well there's the simple answer, and the not so simple answer. The simple answer is that the American pint is based on the pound (weight). 16 fl.oz (water)= 16 oz. dry weight. Of course it's not that simple as weights of fluids are different at different temperatures... Additionally, I recently discovered that in different industries within America, the pint can be slightly different. But basically for consumers a pint is 16 fl. oz., a quart is 32 fl.oz., and a U.S. gallon is 128 fl. oz.

Actually, I guess I'm trilingual as systems of measurements go. :wink: I'm conversant in Imperial, metric, and the American version of Imperial. (There's a few other differences.)

Brad


----------



## CYC (9 Jan 2007)

Mr Spanton, France does only use mi*LL*imeters (metrics). 
If you heard "pouces", it's only the translation for inches.

Colin, now I can say I heard someone raised with metrics say they prefer imperial. I don't get though 8-[


----------



## Steve Maskery (9 Jan 2007)

Although I started in feet and inches, I use metric almost entirely, although I agree that 30" is easier to visualise than, well, however many millimetres that is.

But as to the point about being comfortable with what you are used to, when I was making a lot more furniture than I am doing at the moment, a few years ago, say, I discovered I was very good a something. I could look at a a piece of wood and tell you, pretty accurately, how thick it was. 21mm. 22mm. Between 16 and 17mm. Ooh, about 27mm. It got as I was so confident that I didn't need to get out the ruler to measure it. I was in a fairly tight range, but I could easily tell you if it was 19mm or 20. Get above 30mm and it didn't work, but I guess it was becasue I was using the stuff every day, and simply got used to the fine differences in thickness.

I can't do it anymore


----------



## Alf (9 Jan 2007)

CYC":2a8nfshh said:


> I have not heard anyone brought up with metrics say they prefer using imperial.


You have now  I was metric through and through but what with the 'Murrican influence on all things woodworking, old tools being pre-metric etc etc, well I was always fighting a losing battle - so I gave in and been happier ever since. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (9 Jan 2007)

houtslager":l79wsood said:


> But here in Europe its mixed still, though for timber I can order in Imprial or the German version 1 SOLL etc......


So you didn't pick up the Dutch "duim" (or thumb, 25mm) or "onz" (pronounced onse. 100 grams)?

Scrit


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jan 2007)

wrightclan":yndfd7gw said:


> Paul Chapman":yndfd7gw said:
> 
> 
> > wrightclan":yndfd7gw said:
> ...



Thanks Brad.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

As yet another child of the sixties (are we all the same age on here?) I visualise in feet and inches but work in millimetres simply because calculations are easier.

I agree though, that imperial measurements are somehow more human and natural in scale. 
I would also contend that it is unfortunate that our forebears selected the number 10 as the base for their numerical system.

It would have been far better if they had set us all off using base twelve .i.e have another two digits representing ten and eleven respectively with twelve being 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x y 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1x 1y 20 and so on

This would mean that 10 would easily be divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6

No silly recurring decimals every time you divide by three.

You probably think I'm being ridiculous but I really think the Romans missed a trick here. Base ten is completely unnatural wheras base twelve would work beautifully.

And everyone would be happy using metric measurements!

Cheers
Brad


----------



## DomValente (9 Jan 2007)

I'm with the metric up to 30 inches brigade,even though I was definitely brought up in the Imperial class.
Interestingly in some parts of Italy, within the plumbing industry,they use something called a pollice (pronounced pol-e-che{the ch pronounced as in Church} this is the equivalent to one inch. There's more, pollice also means thumb and as every good carpenter knows,from the tip of your thumb to the first knuckle is approximately one inch.
Exciting or what?

No Brad just us old gits


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

CYC":3ktr8v9r said:


> Mr Spanton, France does only use mi*LL*imeters (metrics).
> If you heard "pouces", it's only the translation for inches.



Well they invented the stupid things didnt they? :lol: :lol: 

I call them fart-o-meters if I like dont mean I have to use or even resepct them as a unit of measuring :roll: :wink: 

Pouce is the french for thumb, it can also mean inch. Now just maybe there's some kinda connection here? 

Any system of measurement from pinch rod's to laser measure, inch cubitt mini meter etc is just that, a method of getting an abstract way to reliably represent and reproduce the physical dimension of an object. What I take exception to is the politically driven beuracratic determination to impose this continental metric system on every one around the world wether they like it or not or want it or not, never mind the confusion, extra expense, over ruling and destroying cherished cultural preference's etc with no real benefit to anyone (ecxept the beauracrat's who make a living from inventing and imposing these sort of stupid arrangement's :roll: )

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/estatopia/inch.htm#intro


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

I can't believe it, I'm a child of the sixties but you've got to move with the times, anyone who says measuring in imperial is easier is BONKERS.


----------



## Alf (9 Jan 2007)

Okay, so I'm bonkers. But I'm also younger than you, so ya boo  :lol:


----------



## wrightclan (9 Jan 2007)

senior":f10vck9w said:


> I can't believe it, I'm a child of the sixties but you've got to move with the times, anyone who says measuring in imperial is easier is BONKERS.



Like a Frenchman who says reading French is easier than reading English *must* be BONKERS :?: :roll: 

Brad


----------



## wrightclan (9 Jan 2007)

Alf":3jflvzqv said:


> Okay, so I'm bonkers. But I'm also younger than you, so ya boo  :lol:



Same here. :wink: 

Brad


----------



## Gill (9 Jan 2007)

How about a politically correct solution - let's all agree to discard both imperial and metric in favour of ... binary!

After all, there's only 10 types of people - those who understand binary and those who don't.



Gill (who's conveniently ignoring the fact that there isn't a basic binary unit of measurement)


----------



## woodbloke (9 Jan 2007)

I find it easier to vislulise a room size say, in imperial but always make stuff in metric - all drawings etc are done to mm sizes as its just _*so*_ much easier - Rob


----------



## David C (9 Jan 2007)

Born in 1951, I got subjected to about four different sets of units between primary school and university.

Anyone who has read my books will be aware that I still fluctuate between three systems.

Up to 0.3 mm I use thousandths of an inch. (0.001")
0.1mm is almost exactly 0.004"

very happy with 1/10 ths of a millimetre and millimetres up to about 30 mm.

Then sudden reversion to inches and feet, which are so much more anthropo (something)

This is seriously crazy but useful to me. I no longer want to have to think about drill bits of 13/64" etc.

Of course engineers used decimals of an inch and then there were those wonderful drill sets in letters and numbers.

How about the *Bob *which makes lots of sense?

http://www.bobsrule.com

David Charlesworth


----------



## wrightclan (9 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":2brm8slh said:


> Oh and Brad dont take on board all that oh so fashionable (but ignorant and racist) "dumb yank" rubbish. ...
> 
> Cheers Jonathan



Nah, I don't take it too seriously. When I do my 'backward Yank' bit, my tongue is firmly implanted in cheek.

I just decided awhile ago, that I wouldn't be one of those Americans who feel the need to apologise for being American. (I think I'm in the minority on that count this side of the pond.) At the same time I don't feel the need to ram my ways down other's throats. I'll defend the reasons why I do things the way I do, and the way Americans do certain things and think in certain ways. But I won't tell you, that you have to do it my way. I'll just strongly suggest that my way is as legitimate as yours and that my way is sometimes quite effective, and has been proven to be so by many others before me.

As an example, as a resident of Scotland, I have changed my spelling and sometimes my pronunciation, to better communicate and fit in to my adopted home. But I won't put on a false affected Scottish accent. Maybe not the clearest example; but hopefully you get the idea. :wink: 

Brad


----------



## Colin C (9 Jan 2007)

senior":2txjd8j4 said:


> I can't believe it, I'm a child of the sixties but you've got to move with the times, anyone who says measuring in imperial is easier is BONKERS.



I must be bonkers too but I think I am younger too ( It is my birthday today, 39 :shock: )


----------



## Alf (9 Jan 2007)

ccasion4: Colin! Ooo-err, the big four-oh next year huh? Not that I want to spoil your day or nuffink... 8-[ :lol:


----------



## Alf (9 Jan 2007)

P.S. I should have asked - what unit is that 39 in....? :lol:


----------



## Colin C (9 Jan 2007)

Alf

My wife's best friends would have have said it but she is in the land of Devonwoody so I missed it this year ( well almost ) :roll: :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jan 2007)

ccasion4: Happy birthday, Colin ccasion4: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

1/2, 15/16 inch, 2 thou, 2 guineas, 6 shillings and a farthing, steam engines, horse drawn carts, caravans, bar-humbug ban the lot. Anyone caught using or talking about the previous items should be tarred and feathered and be paraded about town as an example. :shock: 

Embrace the 21st century and all its modern glorys not the rose tinted halcyon days :lol:


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jan 2007)

Ah guineas - always seemed to add a bit of class 8) 8) 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## seaco (9 Jan 2007)

I am of an age where I got taught both I too imagine sizes in feet but usually find metric easier to use...

1mm = 10 to a cm
1cm = 100 to a mtr
1mtr = 1000 to a klm

This all seems easier to work out than inches and feet to me?


----------



## Scrit (9 Jan 2007)

David C":2glnr6vw said:


> How about the *Bob *which makes lots of sense?


I'm glad you mentioned that, David. All in favour of the Bob, then? :lol: 

Scrit


----------



## Lord Nibbo (9 Jan 2007)

All this talk of "I use metric" "I use feet and inches"...... 


There is an easy test..... 

. 
. 
. 
.
..
.
.
.
.
.

. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
I'll ask you one question and be honest with your first thoughts for the answer 
. 
. 
. 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. How far is it to your nearest pub? 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
So what was it? Yards! Miles! or Metres! kilometers


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

senior":1rim1n9y said:


> I can't believe it, I'm a child of the sixties but you've got to move with the times, anyone who says measuring in imperial is easier is BONKERS.



Whatever. But_ I_ havent actually said that measuring in imperial is nessesarily easier, frankly I dont care what system anyone uses as long as the work comes out right size and fits etc. But I certainly _do_ resent the metricalisation which is being imposed for no good reason other than to establish enforced global collectivism and keep beauracrat's busy. I'd feel exactly the same if inche's/cubitts/cun's etc were being imposed the same way. I wouldnt object to mini meter's if I had a CHOICE as to wether I wanted to use them, or not as the case may be. So long live the inch, in all its variously named european form's. To me mini meter's represent a new form of imperialistic euro centrism which we once saw in the supposed "superiority" of greek architecture, or the "superiority" of western classical scales and interval's in music. Now the beauracrat's are telling us their metric system is "superior" And sadly lots of people believe it .

PS You dont necessarily _Have_ to move with the times, (or is that another new EU rule?) Otherwise why do some woodworker's still use hand tools? In fact why make anything by hand when a computer and a cnc robot can do it? :wink: :lol: :lol: 
cheers Jonathan


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

No you don't have to move with the times, refer to my post on page 3


----------



## Colin C (9 Jan 2007)

Alf":187zfg67 said:


> P.S. I should have asked - what unit is that 39 in....? :lol:



Not sure but it feels like dog years some time :roll: :shock:


----------



## seaco (9 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":2v05e8t3 said:


> senior":2v05e8t3 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe it, I'm a child of the sixties but you've got to move with the times, anyone who says measuring in imperial is easier is BONKERS.
> ...



I totally agree Johnathon and I won't let metric be forced on me but since it's here I thought I'd try it and found it an easier system to use.

The thing is that piece of wood is the same size whether in metric or imperial so just go with what works best for you... :wink:


----------



## Shultzy (9 Jan 2007)

Surely it depends on what we are comfortable with at the time a project is started. Some of my plans are in metric and for those I use the metric system because converting would make no sense. Similarly for imperial plans.


----------



## tombo (9 Jan 2007)

wow, this has turned out to be a can of worms :shock: 

i personally prefer metric and want to use metric, but my point was that the tool industry is so dominated by the USA, that it is almost impossible to buy metric only tools the most fundamental of which is tape measures. No matter what you do some aspect will have a non metric component. it easier if you give in :twisted: 

first it was a 1/2 inch here and there 
all my friends were doing it 
the more i used them the more i needed them 
then it was whole inches and feet 
i use them every day, i cant live without them 

i can handle it, i've just got a cold thats all :roll: 

Tom


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

Tombo, don't let the power of the dark side tempt you, use the force and venture forth with the decimal people.


----------



## Rod (9 Jan 2007)

I too was brought up using both measurements and seem to use whatever seems best at the time,but a question for everyone if asked your shoe size would you allways say size 11 ?or does anyone actually use say the european size 46 for example. I don`t know anyone who uses these new measurements.


----------



## Shivers (9 Jan 2007)

interesting thread, 
i think both systems are easy to work with on solid dimensions of products say a door opening or a cabinet,--but when it comes to detail ie-gaps around doors stile,rail sizes ect--my brain switches to imperial as this is the way i visualize,(my pub is 3/4 of a mile away),metric was brought in when i was around 10-11 yrs old at school so my theory is that if you happened to be one of these inbetweenies whom were in their 1st yr at high school 1970-1971 you fall within the category of having a lot of confusion as this changeover happened,so if you run into any 45,46,47 yr olds & they have a perplexed,confused disposition you now know the reason. 

solls,pouces,whats all that(i musta missed school that day). 

mini meters is that like esperanto in measuring or something. 

regards -shivers.


----------



## Lord Nibbo (9 Jan 2007)

We might think we use metric, but how heavy are you? and How tall are you? I bet both your answers won't be metric, not unless you got a conversion chart handy to cheat... :lol:


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jan 2007)

senior":tkznb472 said:


> Tombo, don't let the power of the dark side tempt you, use the force and venture forth with the decimal people.



LOL you sound like comic book man off the simpson's :lol: 



Shivers":tkznb472 said:


> solls,pouces,whats all that(i musta missed school that day).
> 
> mini meters is that like esperanto in measuring or something.



Mini meters is just mini me being cheeky taking the **** out of millimeters. I dislike metric as you may well have been able to ascertain :wink: :lol: solls pouces etc just 2 of many expressions derived from a long tradition of _genuine_ european cultural diversity, of different non metric ways of expressing dimension's. 

I worked 4 years doing motorway signs-in metric, 4 years screen printing-in metric; over a year refurbing pallet's again in metric, 7 years making upvc windows-in metric. Despite this I _still_ cannot visualise dimension's in metric. EG what is 820 mm OK ....erm, lets see, right 100 mm = 4 inch =8 x 4 = 32 20 mm = 1 inch = 32 + 1 = 33 inches = bit less than a yard, about half my height, right I can see it now :roll: :wink:


----------



## Shivers (9 Jan 2007)

see jonathan--a double post inbetweenie syndrome had to make sure ,lol.

regards


----------



## RogerS (9 Jan 2007)

Anyone still using the pole-grain-fortnight system of measurement?


----------



## mel (10 Jan 2007)

tombo
i use both 
depends on what im doing really 
if we read drawings there all in metric 
we order materials in imperial
luckily im conversant with both :shock: 
but wouldnt want to choose


----------



## engineer one (10 Jan 2007)

being an old pipper, ie before 1950, (well actually 1948) i was taught in imperial, and then i make and design models that are scaled to 4mm =1foot, but the drawings are in imperial, so i draw in full size on the computer, then scale the export to the printer for the metric output.

however, in woodworking i do find inches easier to live with, especially when i have to buy the wood in cubic metres of 2x1 :lol: 

as for multiplying fractions, i was taught the following.
place them all along a piece of paper then multiply the top lot together,
write down the answer on the right hand side. 
then underneath multiply the bottom lot together, and write that answer down under neath on the right hand side. you'll end up with a number of 64ths, which you can round up, or leave as they are.

or,

you can multiply the decimal. divide the lower number into the upper one, as you go along the line, and then add them together.

or have i gone too far to the other dark side :twisted: :roll: 

paul


----------



## Anonymous (10 Jan 2007)

Further to my post on page 2 advocating the dozenal numerical system and David C's post I have just ordered a Bobsrule - sounds like the answer to me!

Brad


----------



## Shivers (10 Jan 2007)

Brad Naylor":18126lhi said:


> Further to my post on page 2 advocating the dozenal numerical system and David C's post I have just ordered a Bobsrule - sounds like the answer to me!
> 
> Brad


 

hey brad that is a good system,& should be excellent for your own work,but if for instance you have to copy something made in metric/imperial,---or work off designer/architech plans then the translation is going to be horrendous.imagine programing machines for this if the product design comes in already made out in either of the former, 
It'll be a hard job also getting cad programs to adopt this as an alternative because engineers/designers/architechs aren't woodworkers so there will be no emphasis on bobcad. 
Another one would be contracting work from builders,you'd be sure to get some sideways glances if bob is mentioned, 

It is a good system--but alas not transfereable across all trades/disciplines. 


regards 

shivers.


----------



## Vormulac (10 Jan 2007)

Paul Chapman":1zg461yl said:


> Ah guineas - always seemed to add a bit of class 8) 8)
> 
> Paul


Is a counterfeit one a guinea-foul?
Sorry.

Ok, it's all been covered here, but for sake of joining in, here's my twopennorth. 
Born in the early 70's, so educated in Metric, but absolutely everything outside school was Imperial - so I have an incredibly bizarre mismatch of measuring conventions in my head.

I know my weight in stones and pounds, not kilos, but when I'm cooking I have to convert everything to grams before I know where I am. 
I am six feet and two inches tall and I couldn't begin to tell you what that is in metres - however - if I am required to do any measuring, or anything I do in diy or woodworking it has to be in millimetres.
Long distance is miles, short distances (under half a mile or so) in metres (and I really do hate seeing car speedometers in kph, it's just *wrong* somehow).

I have tried to get on board with Imperial in respect to woodworking, but it's just un-natural to want to measuring something in 1/32ths of something; I mean seriously, what's easier, looking at something and realising you want an 8mm drill bit, or a sixteen and three quarter sixty fourths drill bit? Obviously you prefer the system you grew up with, but anyone who can objectively say the latter in the example above is clearly not well. :lol: And I do say that with a grin on my face and it is meant affectionately, you may all be completely barking but I loves ya! :wink:

Vormulac (who, after consulting a calculator would seem to be 1.8796 Metres tall - there we go, much easier than 6'2"...)


----------



## Alf (10 Jan 2007)

senior":114b05rq said:


> Tombo, don't let the power of the dark side tempt you, use the force and venture forth with the decimal people.


Ah hah, you see that's why metric is ultimately doomed - decimal people go round in tens while imperialists go round by the dozen and can overwhelm them with superior numbers. :lol: :wink:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Shivers (10 Jan 2007)

Alf":10phxe1i said:


> senior":10phxe1i said:
> 
> 
> > Tombo, don't let the power of the dark side tempt you, use the force and venture forth with the decimal people.
> ...




& remember in spinal tap that going to eleven is better than ten--so twelve has to be better---we need some bobamps now!!.

shivers.


----------



## wrightclan (10 Jan 2007)

Vormulac":24p5rx5m said:


> ... I mean seriously, what's easier, looking at something and realising you want an 8mm drill bit, or a sixteen and three quarter sixty fourths drill bit? Obviously you prefer the system you grew up with, but anyone who can objectively say the latter in the example above is clearly not well. :lol: ...



Ah but, that's because the latter in your example is a fictitious conglomeration of numbers and fractions that makes no sense. :wink: Real numbers and fractions make as much sense as real numbers and decimals; because thay both represent real values. BTW 8mm is basically 5/16. :wink: 

Brad

P.S. Happy Birthday Colin. \/ \/


----------



## Anonymous (10 Jan 2007)

FWIW :roll: 
I have tried, really I have to get on with metric, but it is too abstract, the system doesnt help you by relating measurement to the actual physical scale of the world around you in useful increment's or units. to make any sense of metric I STILL have to break up a metre say into smaller more useful units (or fraction's) that I can relate to the physical world about me for comparison. EG 350 mm same as hi hat cymbal's diam (to get a visual help as I know that size in my minds eye), 100 mm = 4 inches, 2.5 meter "same" as a sheet of ply etc. I like subdivision its natural cells divide and subdivide

Can you imagine saying lets go down the pig and trumpet for a swift demi-demi-litre :roll: 

PS WHY does the decimal zero have so much power it is NOTHING yet increase's a number 10 fold or reduces it tenfold depending on which direction it goes?


----------



## Shivers (10 Jan 2007)

Summary for me --- imperial is faster to work with. 

metric is easy to make grand mistakes with--it's not that i can't use it--it's just more fussy/time consuming, 
the increments are to small,- & one has the tendency to try & make components to the mm which invariably never comes out accurate,- more often than not comes out undersized. 

with imperial i can aim for a slight oversized piece using imperical judgement & if it does come out oversized- trim it. 

Probably my idiocentric ways but it works for me. 


shivers


----------



## Vormulac (10 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":269miyfj said:


> FWIW :roll:
> I have tried, really I have to get on with metric, but it is too abstract,


That does make me laugh (in a good way, Mr Spanton), it clearly comes down to what everyone says about the best system being one that suits you; but the concept that measurements based on 1/32ths or 1/64ths of something are somehow less abstract than a denary system (the basis of our numerical system for hundreds of years) I find rather odd.  
This is not a criticsm in any way, Hell, from my earlier post you can tell I'm in no position to talk! :lol: 

Perhaps we are all just pleasantly quirky?

V.


----------



## Scrit (10 Jan 2007)

Shivers":22rmmki9 said:


> .....then the translation is going to be horrendous.imagine programing machines for this if the product design comes in already made out in either of the former,
> It'll be a hard job also getting cad programs to adopt this as an alternative because engineers/designers/architechs aren't woodworkers so there will be no emphasis on bobcad.


CAD programs and CNC machines can easily accommodate any mearurement system you like, so long as there is a values conversion factor. The only downside is that CAD and CNCs tend to like decimal everything, e.g. 1,03in 3.55mm, etc - even BobCAD - bot that's because it's much quicker th key-in decimals IMHO

I sidestep the issue a lot of the time by simply using a rod........ no measurement system at all :lol: 

Scrit


----------



## Shivers (10 Jan 2007)

Scrit":139itynv said:


> I sidestep the issue a lot of the time by simply using a rod........ no measurement system at all :lol:
> 
> Scrit


 
Agree ,otoh this works nicely with a small shop,imagine having a large plant where everybody has different backgrounds in the trade,a bit of a nightmare to convey info(bobsize this is). 


The rod is also great for small/medium sized jobs,but impossible to implement on a very large & varied custom comercial job where 10 15 guys are working on same job(too many rods needed)


----------



## Anonymous (10 Jan 2007)

Shivers":1d7wnry2 said:


> Brad Naylor":1d7wnry2 said:
> 
> 
> > Further to my post on page 2 advocating the dozenal numerical system and David C's post I have just ordered a Bobsrule - sounds like the answer to me!
> ...



Not a problem for me, Shivers!

I don't use CAD
I don't use CNC
Every time I've had to work off architects' plans so much has been changed by the time I get to work that the plans are in the bin!

And I'm well used to sideways glances from builders when they see me using a mallet instead of a hammer. :lol: 

Generally, I use rods and don't use measurements much at all - just for calculating sizes of componants.

Cheers
Brad


----------



## CYC (10 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":29lgjfca said:


> FWIW :roll:
> I have tried, really I have to get on with metric, but it is too abstract, the system doesnt help you by relating measurement to the actual physical scale of the world around you in useful increment's or units. to make any sense of metric I STILL have to break up a metre say into smaller more useful units (or fraction's) that I can relate to the physical world about me for comparison.



You can't adapt to it, you were raised with imperial, that's it. Don't blame the metrics for it. As many tried to say you visualise with what you were thought first.
My parents still speak in Old French francs for currency! This is 2 currency ago!!!! (New francs then Euro). They just can't adapt. May be age doesn't help :wink: 



mr spanton":29lgjfca said:


> I certainly do resent the metricalisation which is being imposed for no good reason other than to establish enforced global collectivism and keep beauracrat's busy. I'd feel exactly the same if inche's/cubitts/cun's etc were being imposed the same way. I wouldnt object to mini meter's if I had a CHOICE as to wether I wanted to use them, or not as the case may be.



Who's forcing you? In fact many have said all the tools are imperial centric coming from the USA.



mr spanton":29lgjfca said:


> Now the beauracrat's are telling us their metric system is "superior" And sadly lots of people believe it .



I don't know about telling us it's superior, but I believe it's easier to learn. what's easier to understand and learn for a little child:
2+3=5
or 
3/16 + 18/32 = Wait where's my calculator!


----------



## promhandicam (10 Jan 2007)

CYC":2rfbcdb7 said:


> 3/16 + 18/32 = Wait where's my calculator!



I think your example is part of the problem - I guess those used to using imperial would never think of using a calculator (a slide rule perhaps). Even though I, like many use both and probably tend towards metric I can still work out in my head that the above is 3/4. It amazes me that for many people even the 2 + 3 example requires the use of a calculator. On many occasions I've bought 10 of a particular item at say 25p each and the shop assistant has been amazed that I have already put down the correct change before they have entered the amount in to the till!!

FWIW I think the problem in the UK is that we have tried, unsuccessfully, to convert from imperial to metric, but on the manufacturing side it was too costly to convert all the production lines. So we now have a 454g jar of jam, because it was cheaper to change the label than it was to change the production of the jars. I just can't see that imperial measurements will ever be completely obsolete as even in countries that in theory only use the metric system, you can generally only buy cloth in yards - to give just one example. 

After all that, I'm in need of a 568ml 

Steve


----------



## Adam (10 Jan 2007)

promhandicam":3akp0wte said:


> a 454g jar of jam, Steve



Cough, splutter, as we hurdle headlong into an entirely new area of thread. Oh well, now you've opened the can...... I can only sell Honey in 1Lb jars, or multiples of 4 oz, 8oz, 12 oz etc, although I label them 454g, 340g, 227g etc.

Lets open it up to pints vs half or (litres) glasses of beer?

And pints of milk just to open it up a bit.

Adam


----------



## wrightclan (10 Jan 2007)

CYC":gk93zhl0 said:


> I don't know about telling us it's superior, but I believe it's easier to learn. what's easier to understand and learn for a little child:
> 2+3=5
> or
> 3/16 + 18/32 = Wait where's my calculator!



Ok, which is easier: 

Divide 5/16 by 5.

or

Divide 8mm by 5?

:wink: 

By the way, the correct way to write your above fraction example is:

3/16 + 9/16. Much easier now, isn't it? :-k 

Actually, I find this whole idea of equating imperial with fractions and metric with decimals a bit odd. I was taught at school to do maths in decimals and fractions. I was taught to use imperial measurements and metric measurements and to convert between the two. It never occurred to me, until I lived over here and heard widespread usage of terms such as 'decimalisation,' that the metric/imperial debate had anything to do with a fraction/decimal debate. Do they even teach fractions over here anymore? Guess I should ask my kids? :-k 

If the whole issue is decimalisation, why don't we go the whole hog and make a circle 100 degrees? Or make a clock 10 very long hours? Or try and do something about the pesky fact that our earth orbits the sun in 365-1/4 days? Surely with modern technology, we could put our brains together and develop technology to change the earth's orbit?

Brad :wink:


----------



## Shivers (10 Jan 2007)

wrightclan":233mpg3g said:


> CYC":233mpg3g said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about telling us it's superior, but I believe it's easier to learn. what's easier to understand and learn for a little child:
> ...



I think the problem has more to do with those in mid forties whom were subjected to changing the plan mid stream in the early days,the kids back then(myself included)had done 5,6 yrs of one system -but were then told to drop that & learn another,this maybe lead to being master of neither until trade work came along.

A hiccup of the system.


regards ---shivers.


----------



## wrightclan (10 Jan 2007)

Shivers,

I guess my question is: why did the powers that be think you need to drop one to learn the other?

Brad


----------



## promhandicam (10 Jan 2007)

Adam":qd85dfba said:


> promhandicam":qd85dfba said:
> 
> 
> > a 454g jar of jam, Steve
> ...



:? the title of the thread is "i'm giving up metric" so I thought it OK to talk about things other than mm, cm, m, km, thou, inches, feet, yards, furlongs, miles.

Oh and dividing 8mm by 5 = 8/5 = 1 3/5 = 1.6mm (hope my train of thought makes sense) so either is easy if you understand fractions and mental arithmetic - or is should that be arithmetric :lol:

Steve


----------



## Jake (10 Jan 2007)

They didn't.


----------



## wrightclan (10 Jan 2007)

promhandicam":1jb5ofmz said:


> Oh and dividing 8mm by 5 = 8/5 = 1 3/5 = 1.6mm (hope my train of thought makes sense) so either is easy ...
> 
> 
> Steve



Makes perfect sense to me.  

Brad


----------



## Jake (10 Jan 2007)

Or just 80/5, and move the point.


----------



## Shivers (10 Jan 2007)

wrightclan":kou0zp9w said:


> Shivers,
> 
> I guess my question is: why did the powers that be think you need to drop one to learn the other?
> 
> Brad



they didn't it was along with joining europe ,there were lots of other changes coming in thick & fast ,the monetary system changed ,esperanto was being introduced(common euro language), weights measures all changed,--it wasn't so much the math was difficult--it just got buried amongst all the other big pile of changes --so those whom remember that time will tell you that we were forced to play catchup,instead of being taught from 5 yrs old & onwards it was thrust upon us.

jest of it anyway.



shivers.


----------



## wrightclan (10 Jan 2007)

Jake":801i13bc said:


> They didn't.



Who didn't what?

Brad


----------



## Jake (10 Jan 2007)

It was a response to your question about teaching metrics and teaching fractions, but Steve's post intervened.


----------



## wrightclan (10 Jan 2007)

Shivers,

Sorry, you seemed to indicate in your first post that they did drop one in favour of the other.

Jake, I think Shivers answered my question to you.

Brad


----------



## CYC (10 Jan 2007)

Shivers":36hgkucg said:


> I think the problem has more to do with those in mid forties whom were subjected to changing the plan mid stream in the early days,the kids back then(myself included)had done 5,6 yrs of one system -but were then told to drop that & learn another,this maybe lead to being master of neither until trade work came along.
> 
> A hiccup of the system.



Wise words here, I think.
I didn't face this but am now hitting a wall with imperials since I moved to Ireland.


----------



## Anonymous (10 Jan 2007)

Come off it CYC if metiric weights and measures are _not_ seen as a superior standard as far as EU directives go, then why do businessmen get hefty fines/nasty threats for non compliance if they prefer to use non metric. The architects of the EU must think metric is best or else why would they put so much determined effort into forcing it onto all euro citizens, or is it true they really ARE all barmy if they persist in imposing what they know to be an inferior system?

Like I explained I worked in various industrial setting's over an almost 20 year period where metric was compulsory, like it or lump it. Material's only available metric, customers demand in metric....._machines_ calibrated to metric etc etc. At the moment greengrocers, butchers, tesco's etc ARE definately compelled by the weights and measure's police to use metric even if they and their customers prefer otherwise. Eventually someone will inevitably get pinched for putting up a fence with 8 foot boards instead of 2.4 meter's. And OK maybe some tools from America _are_ still imperial sized (good) but maybe thats because our sensible American colleauges have more sucessfully spurned the suposedly inevitable onward march of the "fart-o-meter" :lol: and been happy to retain inches, feet, yards etc 

I think your being a tad cussid cos you know as well as I do that metric weights and measure's (along with single currency and other elements of enforced harmonisation :roll: ) are being imposed as a centralising EU standard wether folk like it or not. Thats my MAIN objection to it, theres no real reason to have it other than to forcibly make all alike. Just because "some" people happen to assert that metric is easier to learn, doesnt mean it should automatically be pre eminent. Plenty of "little children" learnt the imperial fraction method with no bother and went on to use it very sucessfully in manufacturing, engineering, design etc, in fact as Promhandicam sudgests folk nowadays seem incapable of mental arithmetic. Ultimate test serving rowdy customers behind a bar when theyre deliberatley trying to get you mixed up-I have been there (almost 30 years ago now) :wink: Now they have the price's _in the computer_. When I was in the window factory there was a young lad decimal-metric trained couldnt multiply even 2x3 type stuff "cos ar hav nee fooken _calcyeelatah_" It shocked me that 16/17 year old lads should need compulsory basic math's lesson's as part of a joinery course as they had no concept of volume/distance/area etc etc. I am no expert in fact I decided to take practical steps to improve my own learning in this respect (thanks Shultzy, I'll keep in contact) but when you cant do 2x3 or 4 x 10 something's wrong. And I DO most definately blame metric for causing me a lot of confusion in the 28 years since I left school. If people cant adapt to it (as you have said in your post), it cant be a very user friendly system can it? :wink: If it was that good its benefit's would become obvious with repeated use. 
Cheers Jonathan


----------



## Scrit (10 Jan 2007)

mr spanton":359w5trf said:


> Come off it CYC if metiric weights and measures are _not_ seen as a superior standard as far as EU directives go, then why do businessmen get hefty fines/nasty threats for non compliance if they prefer to use non metric. The architects of the EU must think metric is best or else why would they put so much determined effort into forcing it onto all euro citizens, or is it true they really ARE all barmy if they persist in imposing what they know to be an inferior system?


It's obviously the ghost of old Boney having the last laugh on this nation of shopkeepers :wink: 

Scrit


----------



## engineer one (10 Jan 2007)

as anyone who has walked around paris will tell you the french still think boney won something or other. you have his blo*dy great tomb at les invalides, all these blo*dy great "N"'s on bridges and buildings, and of course we killed him with arsenic :lol: (wonder where that name came from :twisted: )

the use of calculators in exams has caused one of the many sets of problems, but in fact it is the lack of proper teaching methods, because there are now too many targets. 

you do wonder why we still have 12 hours and 60 seconds/minutes,
and the 24 hour clock, and still people can't tell the time :lol: :lol: 

i do however think that with the present education standards decimals for money are a good thing, but everything else well i don't know :roll: :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Jake (10 Jan 2007)

engineer one":1nex8inb said:


> you do wonder why we still have 12 hours and 60 seconds/minutes,
> and the 24 hour clock, and still people can't tell the time :lol: :lol:



Here's a weird one for you. At work, I have to record my time, how much, doing what, for what client/matter, etc. We use software for this. We've just changed systems, and the new one (unlike the old one) doesn't recognise minutes, it demands that you put your time in in decimal hours.

I'm getting used to it, just about.


----------



## engineer one (10 Jan 2007)

so now you are not actually using minutes and seconds, your'e using 10ths which don't exist.

stupidly of course the software is probably american :twisted: 

but then they built the space shuttles which crashed, with modern software, and yet sent the apollo's to the moon with the equivalent of a modern calculator. :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Scrit (10 Jan 2007)

engineer one":razjk7js said:


> stupidly of course the software is probably american :twisted:


No, it was designed by a programmer. After all who else would be incapable of dealing with a real world measure like the minute? :wink: 

Scrit


----------



## Escudo (10 Jan 2007)

Only the other evening I was flicking through a copy of a woodworking magazine from the sixties. It was given to me by the father-in-law years ago.

Stumbled on an aticle about decimalisation....interesting, and how ironic that the main thrust of that article, the thoughts and comments then, have been repeated here, some forty years later! :shock: 

Esc.


----------



## Jake (10 Jan 2007)

Escudo":3l7y4u7f said:


> how ironic that the main thrust of that article, the thoughts and comments then, have been repeated here, some forty years later! :shock:



I suspect it reflects a certain age distribution, and also to some extent a certain disposition which is attracted to woodwork.



engineer one":3l7y4u7f said:


> american



yes, but so was our old software, made by the same company



scrit":3l7y4u7f said:


> programmer



erm, yes but so was...


----------



## martlewis (10 Jan 2007)

Just to get my shilling's worth... I was brought up entirely on metric but when woodworking imperial just seems right. I never use metric in my workshop


----------



## Wanlock Dod (10 Jan 2007)

Just to chip in my thoughts, for approximate distances I use metric and imperial measurements interchangeably, because errors from approximate conversions don't matter.

If I want to make something a particular size then I will use metric. I like the way you can use the same units for very different things (nm for sizes of molecules and Gm for the distance to the moon or something). I don't understand the fixation with mm when cm will do :shock: . But I think what I really like about the metric system is the relationship with other units, particularly volume but also pressure and things like that. Inches of mercury anyone?  

Cheers,

Dod


----------



## mailee (10 Jan 2007)

Well here we go again. I am a child of the sixties too! I was schooled in Imperial and used it in the early part of my career. I started to use Metric when I took up Scuba diving as all the calculations were much easier in it. I can for instance tell you that 10mtrs is around 33' but I still use Imperial for my measurements in woodwork, up to a point. If the measurement is below 1/4" I will use Metric as this is easier. I do however find it a pain buying wood in Metric as nothing seems to equate to a regular size! You can't just buy 2mtr lengths of timber it has to be 2.1 or 3.2????? I also find it very strange buying an 8' X 4' sheet of 18mm ply?????????? I can visualise a size if it is given in Imperial but have no idea of it in Metric. What a strange world we live in. :lol:


----------



## Niki (10 Jan 2007)

I was "born" in metric, in the army I worked on French aircraft and everything was metric.

After the army, I started to work in EL-AL and we had the Britania (somebody remembers), that was a big change because of the Imperial but the engineers knew how to complicate it even more by incorporating a few measuring systems (that I don't remember) and we had a few sets of wrenches, one that I remember, was the 2BA and 4BA wrenches (can you guess what is the size).

At that time we were saying "why to make it complicated, if you can make it impossible my dear"...

In WW as in life, I measure in what I see on the ruler or the measuring tape - centimeters.
I write dimensions as 56.4 cm or 112.5 cm
The only mistakes that I have are "1+1=3" but that's why I use calculator.

Here, in main land Europe (like most of the world), if you use the Imperial, you will have very big communication problems and the only thing that you will be able to buy is...water tubes, that are still in "Zall".

niki


----------



## Fecn (11 Jan 2007)

I'm a child of the 70s and was schooled entirely in metric, but use a mixture of impreial and metric for everyday life.

Less than an inch, I use millimetres- Drillbits are always in millimetres
Less than a millimetre and I use decimal points (0.78mm etc)
Between 1/2 inch and about 12 feet, I use feet and inches. 'Twelve feet, two inches' is easier to visualise (and normally to say) than "three point seven metres" 
Over 12 feet long, and I tend to switch back to metres/millimetres.
I don't find a metre to be that useful a distance.. whereas a foot is rather conveniently about the size of my foot. I think feet and inches work very well for human-sized objects (like most of the things I build/make) and it's very easy to slip into using them when I'm in my little shed.

I'm happy with miles or kilometres for long distances - my car says miles, so I use miles generally. I know how many miles per gallon my car gets, but I buy my petrol in litres for my 80-litre tank.

I measure my temperatures in Celcius, but my wife only uses Celcius for cold weather - Hot weather she measures in Farenheit.

I'm typing this message now on my 120 dots-per-inch 30" screen, and it's going to be posted to a webserver that is almost certainly in a 19" rackmount case. The microprocessors running the server have been designed in nanometres.

Perhaps I should give in and start measuring with hexidecimal furlongs.


----------



## CYC (11 Jan 2007)

Wanlock Dod and Niki bring up and important point I should have made also. I use centimeters in woodworking and not millimeters like the "pros" appear to do even when dealing with long distances or large furnitures.

It's easy, the figures are not large and adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying is simple mathematics. Dimensions get big, swith to meters just like that  312cm -> 3.12m


----------



## dedee (11 Jan 2007)

How come so many of you lot got educated in the 60s and actually learnt something.

According to my father the 60s is where it all went wrong, spelling, hand writing etc did not matter so long as the ideas and content were good.

I'm glad we don't buy petrol by the gallon anymore, can you imagine how much it would cost? 90 pence a litre seems so cheap :wink: 

Andy


----------



## Scrit (11 Jan 2007)

dedee":1hbeqvdi said:


> How come so many of you lot got educated in the 60s and actually learnt something.
> 
> According to my father the 60s is where it all went wrong, spelling, hand writing etc did not matter so long as the ideas and content were good.


I was, although my education started back in the late 1950s in Scotland where we used to have a spelling book (10 words to be learned every night, including weekends, for 6 years). By the time I was doing an HNC in the 1970s I recall people being pulled off ONC and HNC courses to do additional English and Maths classes before being allowed to continue due to numeracy/literacy problems. This literacy/numeracy issue is therefore not new, IMHO. I think the big change came when certain examination boards such as the JMB decided that it was unimportant that a student couldn't spell or was illegible or ungrammatical in their scribblings, so long as they could get the gist of the idea across in their papers. Prior to that it was actually possible to drop 10% or more of your marks for poor literacy/legibility and/or lack of arithmetic ability. I'm afraid that I'm old enough not to agree with that - surely if your communictions are illiterate then you are always running the risk of misunderstandinmg?

Scrit


----------



## Paul Chapman (11 Jan 2007)

Scrit":12l7qhu7 said:


> Prior to that it was actually possible to drop 10% or more of your marks for poor literacy/legibility and/or lack of arithmetic ability.



It's even worse now. I know several people who have great difficulty writing with a pen because they spend so much time using computers. They have actually forgotten how to write and form letters :shock: :shock: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## wrightclan (11 Jan 2007)

Paul Chapman":1d1fjvh0 said:


> Scrit":1d1fjvh0 said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to that it was actually possible to drop 10% or more of your marks for poor literacy/legibility and/or lack of arithmetic ability.
> ...



Scrit,

I'm much younger than you, but where I went to school and university, you could lose a full grade (i.e. A to B, B to C, etc.) for 2 mistakes per page. Those mistakes could be spelling, punctuation, grammar or even just typos. So 8 per page could cause a fail, no matter how well thought out and researched your essay might otherwise be.

Paul, 

My penmanship has always been atrocious no matter how hard I tried, so computers are a godsend. :wink: 

Brad


----------



## mudman (11 Jan 2007)

I can remember decimilisation and like others here started off with imperial and then switched to metric. My education was all science based and this leads you very much into using the metric system that is so much more sensible for such things.

However, I like imperial and do use it quite often.

Anyway, we have to keep imperial, jokes such as: 'Why can't women park cars? Because men tell them this (holds hands apart) is 203.2mm' Doesn't really have the same impact as it's imperial version. :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (11 Jan 2007)

wrightclan":y5jf58fd said:


> Paul,
> 
> My penmanship has always been atrocious no matter how hard I tried, so computers are a godsend. :wink:
> 
> Brad



You are right, computers are a godsend in many ways. But I think it's a pity that the personal, handwritten note seems to have almost died out - I always felt it was a delightful way of communicating.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## promhandicam (11 Jan 2007)

Scrit":2eryannf said:


> . . . I'm afraid that I'm old enough not to agree with that - surely if your _*communictions*_ are illiterate then you are always running the risk of _*misunderstandinmg*_?Scrit



I do so love irony :lol: 

Steve


----------



## Scrit (11 Jan 2007)

Perzackerly! :wink: 

Scrit


----------



## Nick W (11 Jan 2007)

Just bought a new tyre for the wife's car.

165/65/13

Thats 165*mm* wide, 65% aspect ratio, 13*" *wheel.


----------



## Shivers (11 Jan 2007)

Nick W":3efvhe5m said:


> Just bought a new tyre for the wife's car.
> 
> 165/65/13
> 
> Thats 165*mm* wide, 65% aspect ratio, 13*" *wheel.



& they'll use an imperial 4 way nut spinner & make a mess of the metric wheel nuts.


----------



## wrightclan (12 Jan 2007)

As you can see by my avatar, I'm a bit of a cyclist (or at least I still like to think of myself as one.) :roll: 

Anyway, virtually everything on decent modern bikes are metric(and have been for decades). The one thing that is almost always Imperial (BSC) is the bottom bracket. That's the axle and bearing assembly to which the crankset is fitted. It's threaded 1-3/8 x 24 tpi(threads per inch.) No matter where in the world, a bike is made, it will probably use this standard. The only exception being Italy (and even then, some use BSC). On most high end Italian bikes, they use the Italian standard which is 36mm x 24tpi(*threads per inch.* :shock: :wink: 

Brad


----------



## Nick W (12 Jan 2007)

Thanks Brad, I love a laugh on a Friday morning. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Dewy (12 Jan 2007)

There is a misconception about metric that has resulted the UK using the wrong base measurements.
We were told that metric was decimalm in the same way that we were told that the new money (since 1971) was decimal.
Strange, I always thought that decimal = 10 as the base.
Money is in units of 100 not 10. 100 pence to the pound.
Metric is in units of 1000 not 10 or 100.
Centimetres are not one of the internationally recognised units of length.
S.I. (metric) uses millimetre, metre and kilometre.
Centimetres were only put on school rulers because they were the closest to the inch, approx 2½cm = 1". Millemetres are too small for kids to see and the metre rule couldn't be carried without being used as swords :lol: 
I have seen a lot of mistakes when using centimetres & millimetres. I once saw some house building measurements containing 2 decimal points put on a planning application for an extension. It took me a long time to correct the errors to put them all in metres.
Metric was based on an error anyway. The kilometre was based on a calculation of the diameter of the Earth which the Napolionic French mathematicians got wrong.
The mile was based on the circumference of the Earth with 1,000 being equal to 1 hour. This was only an approximation. The true unit of 1 hour = 1,000 is the nautical mile (knot)
The metric units do not have the divisors in imperial.
If you use the base ten you can have half or one fifth.
With the imperial foot based on the duodecimal system you can half, quarter, eighth, thirty second etc as well as a third, sixth, twelfth etc.
I worked with imperial until metric became the standard in the 70s and found little difference with machining practice. The metric micrometre used 1/10th mm (4 thou) with the vernier scale at 1/10 of that. This was massive compared to my inch micrometre that measured in thousandths and the vernier measure went to 1/10th of a thou.
Given the choice, its feet and inches everytime for me, especially working with wood. My house was built in imperial and I hate having to buy 2.7m when I want 8' then cut the excess off for the scrap bin.

Long live Imperial and bring back pounds, shillings and pence.


----------



## gidon (12 Jan 2007)

Dewy - metres are the SI unit of length. Both cm, mm, km just apply standard multiples to that base unit. And they are all perfectly acceptable.
Cheers
Gidon


----------



## CHJ (12 Jan 2007)

Dewy":3mvgekee said:


> ...snip...
> Long live Imperial and bring back pounds, shillings and pence.



Which first started its move to decimalisation in Queen Victoria’s time when in 1847 a proposal for decimalisation of the pound resulted in the Florin (2shilling) piece being issued in 1849 as the start of the move to dividing the pound into 100 units. 

This caused an adverse reaction even to the point of having to withhold the minting of the Half Crown for a period to encourage the new coins acceptance.

I believe the public opposition to this move was so great because it was perceived as a means of upping prices by raising the smallest denomination coin value that the conversion was dropped until we had a more gullible population.

I suspect that it might be a similar period of time before the mixed standards show a similar order of magnitude of prominence of metrication.


----------



## Shultzy (12 Jan 2007)

For what its worth - it seems that our inches are not the length they used to be.

Every country in the world uses the metric system although many products are still manufactured in common sizes for public use. The metric system was devised by French scientists in the late 18th century to replace the chaotic collection of units then in use. The goal of this effort was to produce a system that did not rely on a miscellany of separate standards, and to use the decimal system rather than fractions.

To obtain a standard of length a quadrant of the earth (one-fourth of a circumference) was surveyed from Dunquerque in France to Barcelona in Spain along the meridian that passes through Paris. The distance from the North Pole to the equator was divided into ten million parts to constitute the meter (spelled metre in some countries). The definition of the meter has become more and more precise through the years since, even though its length has not changed. Currently the meter is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second.

The nautical mile used in modern navigation, in relation to which boat speeds and wind velocities are measured (one knot is one nautical-mile-per-hour), is approximately one minute of latitude. A degree of latitude therefore is about 60 nautical miles. The quadrant of the earth measured by the French, being 90 degrees, measures 90x60 or 5400 nautical miles. Therefore: 5400 nautical miles equal about 10-million meters, or 10 000 kilometers.

Aviation maps (WAC), scaled to one-millionth actual size, can be measured with an ordinary "ruler." One millimeter on the map equals one kilometer on the ground. Curiously, one sixteenth of an inch on the same map represents almost exactly one statute mile on the ground (within 1.38%).

On April 5, 1893 the inch was redefined as precisely 1/39.37 meter, and in a very real sense we have been using the metric system ever since. In 1959 the length of the inch was shortened slightly to its present definition of 2.540 000 000 centimeters.

The centimeter is about the width of your little finger. The "hand" (used for measuring horses) is about 10 centimeters, or a decimeter.

The speed of light, a universal constant, is almost exactly 300 megameters per second.

The circumference of the earth is 40 megameters (by the original definition of the meter in the eighteenth century). 

Which other countries, besides the U.S., do not use the metric system?

According to a survey taken by USMA many years ago, the only other countries that have not officially adopted the metric system are Liberia (in western Africa) and Burma (also known as Myanmar, in Southeast Asia).


----------



## Alf (12 Jan 2007)

Shultzy":1xtjsoav said:


> The goal of this effort was to produce a system that did not rely on a miscellany of separate standards, and to use the decimal system rather than fractions. *<snip>* Currently the meter is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second.


I think the goal to eliminate fractions maybe a way off yet.... :wink:


----------



## CHJ (12 Jan 2007)

:lol:


----------



## mudman (12 Jan 2007)

Shultzy,

That was fascinating (okay, je suis un anorak  ).
I never realised that our imperial measures were actually now defined in realtion to SI units. .

A bit of searching found: 


> In the United Kingdom, the use of the international pound was implemented in the Weights and Measures Act 1963.[1]
> 
> “ The yard or the metre shall be the unit of measurement of length and the pound or the kilogram shall be the unit of measurement of mass by reference to which any measurement involving a measurement of length or mass shall be made in the United Kingdom; and- (a) the yard shall be 0·9144 metre exactly;(b) the pound shall be 0·453 592 37 kilogram exactly.”
> 
> Weights and Measures Act, 1963, Section 1(1)



I always wondered why the inch was exactly 2.54cm. :?


----------



## Shultzy (12 Jan 2007)

"In 1959 the length of the inch was shortened slightly to its present definition of 2.540 000 000 centimeters. "

That must mean that any tapes made before 1959 are longer than those of today, has anbody got one :lol: :lol:


----------



## engineer one (13 Jan 2007)

but what it really means is that 6inches is not what it was :twisted: :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Dewy (13 Jan 2007)

mudman":18gj64bg said:


> I always wondered why the inch was exactly 2.54cm. :?


I always thought it was 25.4mm lol


----------



## MikeW (13 Jan 2007)

I probably shouldn't mention I mostly use metric when I build furniture :lol: 

At least when not working off of other's plans, which is rare. I find metric for building furniture much easier/quicker.

Building on larger scale like carpentry et al I use imperial. But I suspect that's because my longer tapes are all imperial...

Take care, Mike


----------



## engineer one (13 Jan 2007)

so we are saying that 6 inches ain't what it was, and miles are still longer :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Shivers (13 Jan 2007)

Shultzy":2gsauqu3 said:


> "In 1959 the length of the inch was shortened slightly to its present definition of 2.540 000 000 centimeters. "
> 
> That must mean that any tapes made before 1959 are longer than those of today, has anbody got one :lol: :lol:



yes i saw that earlier--but i resisted,---is it a matter of the cm getting lengthened ?--how can one be adjusted & not the other--what was the reasoning behind this.What alien influence would cause the inch to be diminished--- it's not a male member thing again is it.


shivers


----------



## Shadowfax (13 Jan 2007)

gidon":13x238gy said:


> metres are the SI unit of length. Both cm, mm, km just apply standard multiples to that base unit. And they are all perfectly acceptable.
> Cheers
> Gidon



Surely the standard multiple is 1000 so where does the cm fit in?
This little unit, which is not part of the SI system is the one thing that causes the most confusion, in my opinion. There is no need for the centimetre at all.
And I wasn't even going to join this thread! Damn!!

Cheers

SF


----------



## wrightclan (13 Jan 2007)

Shadowfax":1tfecyzx said:


> Surely the standard multiple is 1000 so where does the cm fit in?
> This little unit, which is not part of the SI system is the one thing that causes the most confusion, in my opinion. There is no need for the centimetre at all...
> 
> SF



Eh? Where does this myth come from that the centimetre is not part of the SI system? SI prefixes

Brad


----------



## Shadowfax (13 Jan 2007)

I knew this would get me into trouble!
All the prefixes are in the SI system - they have to be - but the basic multiple should always 1000 for everyday measurements.
I was taught that to use anything else would lead to confusion. This is for woodwork. The cm is just not necessary. It seems to be used because it is liked, perhaps for the reason that it is "close" to other units in the imperial system. 
You don't need to use cm to measure in metric. Millimetres and metres are all you need for woodwork. Simple and possibly less confusing for some. But if you like imperial measurement, that's fine.
When is this thread going to die? It seems to be set for a record.

Me? I use whatever is convenient, but mostly metric. I hate fractions!
A rod is the way to go for most projects, for me, anyway.
So, measure twice, use whatever measuring system floats your boat, and if you have to cut more than once, make sure you made it too long the first time!
Cheers.

SF


----------



## Paul Barrett (13 Jan 2007)

As a child of the sixties, I too am 'ambidextrous' but it has to be said that in many cases imperial is easier to use, and provides more redily recordable units. A third = 1/3 or .333333333333333333333333(shall I go on?)3333333333333(more?)3333333333333(ok I'll stop now).

And how about pi? 22/7 or 3.14however far you want to go

BTW, I can't recall the exact date and title, but under a law passed in about 1984, the US formally adopted the metric system for commercial purposes. But everyone just ignored it.


----------



## Dewy (13 Jan 2007)

Paul Barrett":lrr8j8l3 said:


> under a law passed in about 1984, the US formally adopted the metric system for commercial purposes. But everyone just ignored it.


Which is why one of the Nasa Mars shots failed. The calculations had been done in Europe using kilometres and the Nasa mathematicians who worked on the rest used miles.


----------

