Wacky new form of measurement.

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Having grown up post-metrification, I am much more familliar with mm etc. However it does seem that imperial is more intuitive for some measures, say, inches or mph but strangely when baking kg/g is much more useful than lbs/oz.

I'll leave this here.
iDOzAa5.jpg


Cheers,
Adam
 

Attachments

  • iDOzAa5.jpg
    iDOzAa5.jpg
    59.1 KB
Kalimna":1fogqwbx said:
Having grown up post-metrification, I am much more familliar with mm etc. However it does seem that imperial is more intuitive for some measures, say, inches or mph but strangely when baking kg/g is much more useful than lbs/oz.

I'll leave this here.


Cheers,
Adam

Now I want to know what Violet decided! :D
 
DiscoStu":sms6fqkw said:
Mm is straight forward. 12mm + 24mm = 36mm

1/12 + 1/15 = 2/27 or rather it doesn't. You can't easily use a calculator to work it out.

It's just a bizarre system.
I agree metric is better, but your sum is off.

From my vague recollection of maths 1/12 + 1/15 should sum to 27/180, which equals 0.15. I just did the sums separately to check and the decimals for 1/12 and 1/15 do add up to the same, near enough, 0.149999999 etc.
 
woodbrains":1r8bxle7 said:
But these fractions are never used, no imperial rule is calibrated in wacky fractions; you have no argument there, I'm afraid!
Yes but the basic argument does hold Mike.

Unless you've been fully trained to do this nearly on autopilot (which I'd bet money is extremely rare today, even in the US) nobody can figure out what something like 23/64" plus a sixteenth would be in their head. I've seen numerous questions posted online by Americans which prove that even everyday users of "freedom units" find this sort of thing challenging in practice. And by challenging I mean the project grinds to a halt because they can't work it out. Bloody hard to get stumped when adding together decimals 8)

The fractional calculator thing isn't really a defence, since they were until quite recently not common and not cheap. Why do you think they were needed anyway?!

woodbrains":1r8bxle7 said:
A measuring system that uses units by the thousands, in divisions that you need an eyeglass to see, to calibrate a thing that I can just say 'it is 8ft' is a nonsense, actually.
That's no argument either. An arbitrarily chosen exact Imperial measurement like 8ft can be easily countered by an arbitrarily chosen exact metric measurement as bugbear pointed out a short while ago.

Even if you did need to express the length of something that size conversationally, you'd say it like "Oh that's 8 feet." But you seem to be under the impression that a person who thinks in metric would be stumped, which isn't the case. The fully metricated would have no problem with having a gut feeling for that same same length, they'd just say "Oh that's 2.4 metres." instead.

As for accurate equivalents between metric and Imperial, in either direction, I'm afraid that argument has been won a thousand times over in favour of metric. 8', and every single other Imperial measurement, can be calculated very simply if needed (e.g. 8 x 12 x 2.54), and the resulting number can be expressed in m, cm or mm depending on preference. But as bugbear's example shows doing the reverse can be bloody awkward to say the least, and more importantly may not be dead on because the attempt would be made to express it in 8ths, 16ths, 32nds or 64ths, which involves some rounding.
 
Does anyone in the imperial world work in 12ths and 15ths?

But people do work in 10ths.

So more realistically, what is 3/10th + 1/4 (ply thickness) for example.
 
Wasn't it so, that the metric system was based on the longitudinal distance from pole to pole, divided by 1,000, in order to arrive ar the length of a kilometer; and then further divided to arrive at metres, centimetres and millimetres?

What puzzles me about that is, what did they use to measure the distance in the first place? Perhaps they used a piece of string! :mrgreen:
 
Benchwayze":u1err80t said:
Wasn't it so, that the metric system was based on the longitudinal distance from pole to pole, divided by 1,000, in order to arrive ar the length of a kilometer; and then further divided to arrive at metres, centimetres and millimetres?

What puzzles me about that is, what did they use to measure the distance in the first place? Perhaps they used a piece of string! :mrgreen:
Triangulations using a Borda Cirkle.

Unfortunately the gravity disturbances caused bu the montains of northern Spain together with a loose screw on the Borda Cirkle caused the kilometre to become a bit different from what it should have been.
 
In my job we work in metres, fathoms, nautical miles, cables, hours minutes and seconds of arc used as a measurement of distance. This is easy, the confusion happens when dealing with americans when we have to convert m3 to barrels. Which despite what you would imagine is not a exact conversion as specific density of the liquid effects the answer.
 
Andrewf":2bb8oyu6 said:
In my job we work in metres, fathoms, nautical miles, cables, hours minutes and seconds of arc used as a measurement of distance. This is easy, the confusion happens when dealing with americans when we have to convert m3 to barrels. Which despite what you would imagine is not a exact conversion as specific density of the liquid effects the answer.
I suspect you also have to allow for the specific density of the American brain as well!
 
We won an empire under the imperial system and lost it under the metric.
Am I missing something about twenty inches and a half, BTW.
 
heimlaga":17fttiud said:
Unfortunately the gravity disturbances caused bu the montains of northern Spain

More EU interference.....sorry wrong thread( or should that be wrong string)
 
heimlaga":h832nb2b said:
Benchwayze":h832nb2b said:
Wasn't it so, that the metric system was based on the longitudinal distance from pole to pole, divided by 1,000, in order to arrive ar the length of a kilometer; and then further divided to arrive at metres, centimetres and millimetres?

What puzzles me about that is, what did they use to measure the distance in the first place? Perhaps they used a piece of string! :mrgreen:
Triangulations using a Borda Cirkle.

Unfortunately the gravity disturbances caused bu the montains of northern Spain together with a loose screw on the Borda Cirkle caused the kilometre to become a bit different from what it should have been.

Thanks H.

I forgot about triangulation. You wouldn't think I'd circumnavigated the globe. Mind you it was the officers who did all the head-work! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Thanks
 
I've always been able to quickly convert from imperial to metric and visa versa, but yesterday I had a customer pop in for a quote for fencing in her garden.

"What measurement is your boundary" asked I...

"Well it takes me about 1 minute and a half to walk to the end, and it's about as wide as 4 or 5 cars" said she...

I love serving retail customers - you couldn't make it up!
 
Stiggy":2msozam5 said:
I've always been able to quickly convert from imperial to metric and visa versa, but yesterday I had a customer pop in for a quote for fencing in her garden.

"What measurement is your boundary" asked I...

"Well it takes me about 1 minute and a half to walk to the end, and it's about as wide as 4 or 5 cars" said she...

I love serving retail customers - you couldn't make it up!

Is it any quicker on the walk back? It's always good to double check your measurements!

Cheers Peter
 
It's always quicker on the way home because now you know the way.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top