Imperial measurement

[Templatetom]

It seems that anyone who wishes to purchase template guides are restricted to the imperial sets that are produced. Recently I had been approached to see if I would be prepared to write and convert my articles, which are based mainly on the use of the guides,from metric to imperial. I asked myself would it be worth while for a 78years old to make the changes? I did and I must confess it was not the least bit easy even though I used the imperial measurements for over 20 years before making the change to metric. It is evident that the larger template guides are seldom used and therefore they remain in the box. Also the guides are mainly used with the straight cutters from the number of articles published in a number of magazines or books. Very little is shown where a 'face/edge' cutter is used.

Here is a simple project for consideration: Inserting an inlay 50mm/2" diameter into a solid piece of material

Has anyone considered the number of guide and cutter combinations that can be used to complete the simple project. ?

 

[condeesteso]

Here's a nice example. A Hibernia Marples b/e chisel, with a very fine London-pattern handle in box. So it's a few years old then.
Is it a 1 1/2? Nope. A 1 1/4" then. Nope.
It might be a 1 and 5/16ths and a bit, but it's not a 1 11/32nds.

(It does happen to be a 34mm though, and I can remember that.)
No sign it has ever been narrowed either. Mighty fine chisel from a great Marples period... I don't care what it measures but it will be the 34 for me.

 

[bugbear]

Here's a nice example. A Hibernia Marples b/e chisel, with a very fine London-pattern handle in box. So it's a few years old then.
Is it a 1 1/2? Nope. A 1 1/4" then. Nope.
It might be a 1 and 5/16ths and a bit, but it's not a 1 11/32nds.

(It does happen to be a 34mm though, and I can remember that.)
No sign it has ever been narrowed either. Mighty fine chisel from a great Marples period... I don't care what it measures but it will be the 34 for me.

Yeah - I tend to view chisels sizes as "nominal" in the same sense that no-one's ever seen a 2x4 that was 2 inches by 4 inches.

BugBear

 

[condeesteso]

That's right BB, it doesn't matter (I just thought it was quite funny). And back to the thread topic, the numbers don't really matter I think. When we can leave the rules aside, and use our eye, a rod for copying, the first part to mark the other three, etc... it's more precise but also quite liberating I think.

 

[marcros]

it's more precise but also quite liberating I think.

I agree

 

[DTR]

it's more precise but also quite liberating I think.

I agree

Me too

 

[Benchwayze]

Talking of standards that are taken as 'read', I know I'm going to put my foot (in my mouth) with Tony, but criteria are plural, criterion is singular......


Yes, I know, I came across as an irritating pedant, in the Jacob corner perhaps , but as a classically educated Latinist and biologist who also wants to throw things at the telly when some talking head says (about a specific species) 'the bacteria has..' GRRRRRRR! "BACTERIUM HAS - BACTERIA HAVE"!!, I feel I have to express a mild whinge!

Tony, please feel free to object to this rant, it's Monday and 9B1 were particularly........challenging today.....

Sam

When you see the 'non-word Forums' at the top of each UKW page that must annoy you too Sammy?
It does me, but to whom do I complain? :lol:

 

[Sawyer]

Talking of standards that are taken as 'read', I know I'm going to put my foot (in my mouth) with Tony, but criteria are plural, criterion is singular......


Yes, I know, I came across as an irritating pedant, in the Jacob corner perhaps , but as a classically educated Latinist and biologist who also wants to throw things at the telly when some talking head says (about a specific species) 'the bacteria has..' GRRRRRRR! "BACTERIUM HAS - BACTERIA HAVE"!!, I feel I have to express a mild whinge!

Tony, please feel free to object to this rant, it's Monday and 9B1 were particularly........challenging today.....

Sam

When you see the 'non-word Forums' at the top of each UKW page that must annoy you too Sammy?
It does me, but to whom do I complain? :lol:

Quod importet? Hic non Latinam sed Anglicam loquamur!

 

[Jacob]

Talking of standards that are taken as 'read', I know I'm going to put my foot (in my mouth) with Tony, but criteria are plural, criterion is singular......


Yes, I know, I came across as an irritating pedant, in the Jacob corner perhaps , but as a classically educated Latinist and biologist who also wants to throw things at the telly when some talking head says (about a specific species) 'the bacteria has..' GRRRRRRR! "BACTERIUM HAS - BACTERIA HAVE"!!, I feel I have to express a mild whinge!

Tony, please feel free to object to this rant, it's Monday and 9B1 were particularly........challenging today.....

Sam

Haven't been following this thread but I just happened to notice my name being taken in vain again.
A "pedant" is someone who raises issues in discussion which aren't to the point but are about marginal details such as spelling mistakes or other nit-picky irrelevant details. So you yourself are a pedant without a doubt. Education is no excuse - and your spelling ain't too good either - see your profile - what is an optomist! :lol: an optimistic optician?
I don't think I am a pedant - on the whole I'm telling people not to get obsessed with details (all those bevels and microns :roll: ) but to just get on with it.
There are some things which I think are important but when I raise them they usually are at least to the point, right or wrong. Of course this might look like pedantry to the uninformed.

Metric/imperial - I use both, and mix them. I tend to use metric for precision and don't often refer to imperial units smaller than 1/4" so e.g. I might be doing glazing bars 15" x 44mm x 14mm. I'd stick to imperial if using say a 1/2" mortice chisel as it is neither 12 nor 13mm.
As for odd sized chisels - except for mortice chisels there are very occasions in use where a precise specific width would be required.

PS I found a definition of "optomist"; someone who thinks that everything will be alright, even though they can't spell. :lol:

 

[Benchwayze]

And a pint was supposed to be the capacity of a man's bladder!

Roy.

I always thought the pint measure came in when brewers first weakened their product. The customers began drinking it in pints rather than in the normal halves. Thus pointing out the pineappling obvious to the Government of the time, when they legislated on the amount of alcohol that was permitted in ale. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Benchwayze]

Just wondered about measuring chisels.

Doesn't it depend on the ambient temperature when one measures them?
Yesterday my 2" chisel was a shade under 2 and 1/16th inches. And it was ruddy 'ot!
When SWIMBO has gone out today, I'll stick it in the 'fridge for a bit then check it again! :lol:

 

[condeesteso]

crikey John... that is some coefficient of expansion you have there.

 

[Benchwayze]

Well it could have been my eyes Douglas! :lol: :lol: :lol:

It was just a thought that crossed my mind TBH. And considering how chisels are made, there must be a certain craft in knowing how to arrive at the final size from white-hot metal, without too much waste off the grinder. So it isn't surprising there might be some differences in measured sizes.

As someone pointed out, a good chisel is a good chisel, and speaking personally, I take the one I know will fit into the space I need to pare, or chop etc., without damaging the stock elsewhere. So in the end be it MMs or inches, it's the chisel 'that fits'. so to speak!

 

[SammyQ]

"When you see the 'non-word Forums' at the top of each UKW page that must annoy you too Sammy?"

Yes it does!But, I also apply the law of diminishing returns..is it worth the effort?


Jacob, Thank you for the mis-spelling spotting; I'm offering no excuse,no fight-back, no whining, caught on my own petard n'est ce pas? I was going to mildly remonstrate at being labelled a pedant for correct use of English (Greek root) plurals, then realised you were playing your usual game of drawing people in to a 'flame war' as I (pedantically?) think it used to be called, for no good reason than enjoying yourself. Good day, evening or night, whatever the time is when you get this.

Sawyer? illud super efficio woodwork tutus vos!! \/

Sam

 

[Jacob]

.... then realised you were playing your usual game of drawing people in to a 'flame war' as I (pedantically?) think it used to be called, for no good reason than enjoying yourself....

That's very unfair.
I wasn't interested in this thread until I happened to see your post accusing me of being a pedant. Am I not entitled to respond? It's you yourself who appears to be trying to start a flame war by being gratuitously insulting, not to mention boringly pedantic.
I haven't previously insulted you as far as I am aware. If you don't like disagreements you shouldn't make disagreeable remarks.

Boring pedants who comment on others' spelling and grammar are always good for a laugh - you don't need to search very far to find that they can't spell either! I wonder if that's what turns them into spelling pedants in the first place? Personally I couldn't give a monkey's about other peoples' spelling.

 

[bugbear]

Talking of standards that are taken as 'read', I know I'm going to put my foot (in my mouth) with Tony, but criteria are plural, criterion is singular......


Yes, I know, I came across as an irritating pedant, in the Jacob corner perhaps , but as a classically educated Latinist and biologist who also wants to throw things at the telly when some talking head says (about a specific species) 'the bacteria has..' GRRRRRRR! "BACTERIUM HAS - BACTERIA HAVE"!!, I feel I have to express a mild whinge!

Tony, please feel free to object to this rant, it's Monday and 9B1 were particularly........challenging today.....

Sam

Haven't been following this thread but I just happened to notice my name being taken in vain again.
A "pedant" is someone who raises issues in discussion which aren't to the point but are about marginal details such as spelling mistakes or other nit-picky irrelevant details. So you yourself are a pedant without a doubt. Education is no excuse - and your spelling ain't too good either - see your profile - what is an optomist! :lol: an optimistic optician?
I don't think I am a pedant - on the whole I'm telling people not to get obsessed with details (all those bevels and microns :roll: ) but to just get on with it.
There are some things which I think are important but when I raise them they usually are at least to the point, right or wrong. Of course this might look like pedantry to the uninformed.

Metric/imperial - I use both, and mix them. I tend to use metric for precision and don't often refer to imperial units smaller than 1/4" so e.g. I might be doing glazing bars 15" x 44mm x 14mm. I'd stick to imperial if using say a 1/2" mortice chisel as it is neither 12 nor 13mm.
As for odd sized chisels - except for mortice chisels there are very occasions in use where a precise specific width would be required.

PS I found a definition of "optomist"; someone who thinks that everything will be alright, even though they can't spell. :lol:

Thank you for the long and very detailed explanation of why you're not a pedant.

BugBear

 

[Sawyer]

Sawyer? illud super efficio woodwork tutus vos!! \/

Sam

Eh? Sententia non sequere videtur.

 

[SammyQ]

Sawyer? Sorry, try: "Those about to do woodwork salute you"....least that's what I tried to conjure up in the best Gallic Wars tradition. I had my last formal Latin lesson in 1972.....but I have its roots in my job every day; just got too lazy to check declensions and cases I guess


BugBear? Paul? Irony epitomised! =D>

Sam

 

[Sawyer]

Reckon I'd go for Lignarii te salutant.

 

[Eric The Viking]

I saw someone use "criterium" for the plural the other day.

Nice. That's actually for when you don't know which to use!

I know we're drifting helplessly off-topic, but...

... I often write for public consumption, as part of my living. Although I know 'data' is a plural noun, it's still really difficult to avoid treating it as a singluar. I sometimes expand it to "the data set", to avoid the issue entirely, but often it feels really odd to treat it as a plural, even though it's technically correct. This is IT usage, rather than scientific, but even so.

I love the weirdnesses of English.

On Latin, presumably anticipation of woodworking was the reason we were all taught to decline Mensa at school.