Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 77

Thread: Gone metric?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Zeller View Post
    Never realized it was much of a problem for people. When you deal with fractions on a regular basis it just makes sense to most people. Metric is nice as well but the numbers start to get big quickly. 6' 2 1/2" is much simpler for me to visualize than 1892 millimeters. Or 1.892 meters. Another example is measuring a storefront opening that's 48' wide. That's 14.6304 meters. When everything related to construction in the US in inch and foot dimensions that's what you grow accustom to (even yards aren't widely used).
    You picked your numbers because it works in your favor. The same thing can be said about inches: 1 meter is 39.3701inches. Which one is easier to remember?
    This way of comparing the two system is pointless. There is a reason that the rest of the world has gone metric.

  2. #47
    i'm going metric because much of our equipment and tooling is metric. as we've stepped up in quality of machines, with the digital scales and accuracy to measure in tenths or hundreds of mm, it has become clear that we should transition. our shaper cutters, for example, all come with specifications in metric, and we can enter those specs into our (metric) digital shaper to set the fence and spindle, and it's done - no fuss, no translation. so, i now prep my 3/4 stock to 19mm, per the DRO on the planer. tooling and tools has pushed us.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Leland, NC
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Sheridan View Post
    Ted, as you’re aware, most of the tooling in the world is metric.

    That can result in premium prices for oddball tools such as Whitworth or Imperial.

    You’ve also left out a lot of the fractional wrench sizes which increment in 32nds of an inch, so your comparison isn’t actually factual.

    I would have to spread both sets out and count them, however I have approximately the same quantity of wrenches and sockets in both my Metric and Imperial sets.

    I may even have more in the several British sets it requires to have a complete array......Regards, Rod
    I will agree that Whitworth are oddball tools, but Imperial? Give me a break! If they are so "oddball" then try tossing out your Imperial tools and see how things work out for you. They might since you are in Canada, but then again, maybe not.

    I did not leave out any standard wrench sizes, none. Standard hex head bolt sizes are as I listed them, try looking here: https://www.boltdepot.com/fastener-i...head-size.aspx and you will NOT see any wrenches in 1/32 sizes. Those were around when I was a kid about 60 years ago. Probably a hold over from when folks made things in weird sizes on automobiles.

    It pays to check your facts before you tell someone else they are not being "factual". Fact is there are no standard bolts made that have a head requiring a wrench in 32nds.

    But I can tell you this, I just assembled a shredder/chipper and it had bolt heads that required 13 and 14mm wrenches even though they were both 8mm bolts. One of the bolts was standard, the other had a flange type head.

    I stick with what I said above, for STANDARD sets of wrenches it requires more metric wrenches to cover the same range. A quick google search reveals that to be the case.

    Edit: Try doing a search on Amazon for wrenches in 32nds. . . . they are available in smaller sizes, but what I was talking about is a wrench set for the nuts and bolts sizes that are commonly encountered. Start fooling with things like instruments and gages and one can find all sorts of interesting sizes.
    Last edited by Ted Reischl; 12-15-2019 at 5:04 PM.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Leland, NC
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by mreza Salav View Post
    There is a reason that the rest of the world has gone metric.
    And what reason would that be?

    Over the years I have read several, among them:

    It made numbers easier for scientists like astronomers.
    Europe wanted to inflict a huge cost on changing over America's tooling to conform and make them more competitive.
    Because we have ten fingers and toes.
    the list may be endless. . . . what is stated as a reason is not always the real reason. something I have learned in my 70+ years on this planet.

  5. #50
    It made numbers easier for scientists like astronomers”

    Correct (for the most part) and because of their genius and practical thinking we can all now benefit from a coherent system of units for those that choose...LOL...



    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Reischl View Post
    And what reason would that be?

    Over the years I have read several, among them:

    It made numbers easier for scientists like astronomers.
    Europe wanted to inflict a huge cost on changing over America's tooling to conform and make them more competitive.
    Because we have ten fingers and toes.
    the list may be endless. . . . what is stated as a reason is not always the real reason. something I have learned in my 70+ years on this planet.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wayland, MA
    Posts
    3,655
    "Europe wanted to inflict a huge cost on changing over America's tooling to conform and make them more competitive."

    Invented in 1670, adopted in Europe (France) in 1790. Just how much standardized tooling was there to change over in 1790?

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Okotoks AB
    Posts
    3,495
    Blog Entries
    1
    Some people are just terrified of the metric system, even though they clearly don't understand it or its advantages.

  8. #53
    Correct, pretty much none in the US anyway. Don’t quote me on this but I think it wasn’t until the late 1800’s that measurements started to become standardized and not everything and also don’t quote me on this... i also don’t think it was until WWII that standards went full steam ahead.

    I will let the Googler’s out there comment and correct me...

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto Ontario
    Posts
    11,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel Fulks View Post
    Agree with Alex! If the metric SYSTEM is so good use it ! Seen to many plans with dimensions like: 27, 572 mm.
    Yeah, that's what happens when you convert 1,085 1/2 inches to metric...........Rod.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto Ontario
    Posts
    11,248
    Ted, I wind up using wrenches in Imperial about 1/3 of the time.

    And I use smaller fractional wrenches in the 32nds range often.

    There aren't a lot of 18 or 16mm head bolts any more, although I will admit that all my wrench and socket sets do have those in them.

    Regards, Rod.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto Ontario
    Posts
    11,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark e Kessler View Post
    Correct, pretty much none in the US anyway. Don’t quote me on this but I think it wasn’t until the late 1800’s that measurements started to become standardized and not everything and also don’t quote me on this... i also don’t think it was until WWII that standards went full steam ahead.

    I will let the Googler’s out there comment and correct me...
    The issue for science and measurement standards is that there aren't Imperial length standards.

    In the US, the Bureau of Standards uses the metric system standards for length, and then certifies Imperial devices based upon the metric equivalent.

    For guys who use a tape measure (like me) not having a reproducible standard isn't very important as I'm building a bird feeder, it can be much different if you're doing research or making precision objects.

    I always laugh at the discussions over Imperial/metric as most of us have no idea about both systems.

    If you put a piece of wood in my hand and asked me how many grams or ounces it is, I wouldn't know. Likewise in the Imperial system I know what the unit of weight is however I haven't a clue what the unit of mass is.

    I know what my body mass is in Kilograms, I know what my weight is in pounds, I can easily calculate my weight in Newtons if need be, however as I said I have no idea what my mass is in the Imperial system.

    I think that most of us understand very little of the measurement systems we use............Makes it kind of funny that we're so attached to them.......Rod.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Latham View Post
    I'm sticking with inches. Fractions can be a pain but I've got a fraction calculator on my phone that fixes that has fixed that issue. I think it's called FractionCalculator. 5/16" + 7/8" = 1-3/16".
    Yep, those are nice too. I have a physical one from Calculated Industries (the Measure Master Pro LINK) and their iOS app version as well (LINK). Comes in handy!
    They have this version now that is cheaper and still does fractions: LINK
    Last edited by Ben Rivel; 12-16-2019 at 4:40 PM.
    If at first you don't succeed, redefine success!

  13. #58
    Rod, I'm curious about "lack of standards" . I thought the government had platinum rods available for mfgs. to check
    product.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tippecanoe County, IN
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Sheridan View Post
    ... in the Imperial system I know what the unit of weight is however I haven't a clue what the unit of mass is.

    I know what my body mass is in Kilograms, I know what my weight is in pounds, I can easily calculate my weight in Newtons if need be, however as I said I have no idea what my mass is in the Imperial system...
    Yes, the Imperial system is kind of funny that way. There are two different units of mass, the pound-mass (lbm) and the slug. Likewise there are two different units of force, the pound-force (lbf) and the poundal. Doing dynamic calculations in imperial means constant conversions using the acceleration due to the average value of the earth's gravity at the surface (approx. 32.174f/s/s). Keeping those straight is a major pain. It's much easier in metric.

    If you're interested, a lbm is defined as a kilogram divided by 2.2. A lbf is the force exerted on 1lbm by the average earth gravity (it's weight). A slug is the mass that 1lbf accelerates 1f/s/s (foot per second-squared). A poundal is the force that accelerates 1lbm 1f/s/s.

    I think. Maybe.
    Beranek's Law:

    It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion.
    L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto Ontario
    Posts
    11,248
    Thanks David, I do now remember the poundal and slug however it's been more than 40 years since I last used them.............Regards, Rod.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •