Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 77

Thread: Gone metric?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Hartland of Michigan
    Posts
    7,628
    Holy crimaninny people. Just carry 2 crescent wrenches around.
    Good ones, so you don't round off the corners.
    Never, under any circumstances, consume a laxative and sleeping pill, on the same night

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    976
    Imperial for everything, except anything under a 1/16th of an inch, in which case I use my Starret dial indicator, which now that I think about it, is imperial, too, except in thousands.
    Regards,

    Tom

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,971
    You should really only see the "interesting" metric measurements on things that have been converted. When you do your own work and design as metric from the start, that's really not a factor. And the same is true in reverse. So when you need to match a particular size "something", use the measurement units that make the most sense. That's why when I'm working for a client, I use their dimensioning choice if they have one. For my own work...I'm 100% metric now and outside of some CNC things with greater precision, I've not had to do anything smaller than a half-millimeter
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,971
    And...I really, really, REALLY, don't understand why some folks get so angry in a discussion like this. USE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU! There's no "wrong" with either Metric or Imperial unless you, the user, screws up. You still have to measure twice and cut once with both systems...
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Cambridge Vermont
    Posts
    2,295
    Quote Originally Posted by mreza Salav View Post
    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.
    You missed my point. Rarely do you work with a board exactly 1 meter or 1 foot. With the imperial system you break the number up. For example you don't say a board is 1 meter, 3 decimeters, 2 centimeters, and 5 millimeters. You just say 1.325 meters or 132.5 centimeters. With imperial it's broken up. 3 feet 2 1/16 inches. Either is fine but when you are use to breaking it up, aka imperial style, seeing the large numbers used by the metric system can be hard to get comfortable with.

    There's no doubt that there's compromises with the imperial system. When laying out a bookshelf you have to accept that you need to work to the nearest 1/16 of an inch. Adding and subtracting fractions can be difficult if you are not comfortable doing so. Using what you feel is right for you is the answer. When your brain is condition to drive on the left side of the road and all your life driving on the left is all you've done the rest of the world driving on the right you have to relearn. Not impossible but clearly it's easier for some.

  6. #66
    And then there's the old carpenter's measuring system - cut it 16 inches strong.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Alex, I totally agree everybody is more comfortable to use the system they are used to. I am a mathematician and am very comfortable with numbers in any system. I am grown up with metric but use imperial for construction and even often for woodworking, but I don't agree any of the arguments put forward for imperial system. If one is used to it and finds it difficult to switch, by all means use it. Just don't claim numbers are easier in that system. Numbers are numbers.
    The drawback of working with fractions (in imperial system) is that it is inherently based on powers of 2 (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc), it is like trying to work with numbers in binary (base 2), compared to decimal base (base 10) which the metric system is mostly based on. Each of mm, cm, meter, etc are based on division in base 10. Nice thing is if you want smaller than mm you can simply write 0.02 (which is again base 10 divisions). Feet is 12 inch and then you break inch into fractions of base 2 and if it becomes too small then you work with fractions of base 10 (0.01" or 0.002"), etc.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    7,308
    Blog Entries
    7
    I typically do layout in fractions but cutout in decimal inches. Decimal inches, being the finer scale, are quite helpful in that regard.

    I like the metric system for its logical progression (move the decimal place to change the unit) and imperial for practicality in building and layout. A lot of layout is division, so to me it makes sense to use a factional system for that.
    Bumbling forward into the unknown.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ouray Colorado
    Posts
    1,405
    Interesting discussion, and I agree it should be a discussion and not a argument. If you want to switch to metric I think it depends on a lot of things. If you are a hobby woodworker, a one man artisan or a company with employees there will be much pro and con for each situation.

    I have been working mostly metric for about 15 years now. What drove me to it was using European tooling on a NC shapers, profilers and tenoners and building Euro type windows and doors where all the rebates, overlaps clearances etc are in mm. We built cabinets and interior millwork for several years using decimal inch’s. At that time we were just starting to use machines with DROs and software to calculate cut lists. That system worked well and would probably still be doing that if we had not got into the euro windows and doors.

    I think it is unfortunate the US did not convert with the rest of the world. If you want to go metric here you will have to be a little bilingual.
    Dont ask me why but I still field measure in fraction inches. When I draw in line by line cad I use mm and when using software to calculate cut lists and drawings I convert my inch field measurements before imputing to the software. When I layout on a story pole I usually go fraction inch. Like I said don’t ask me why... Most software will convert drawings back and fourth from mm to inch. This is helpful as contractors, architects and homeowners will rarely be working or thinking in mm.
    after 15 years I still find the large mm numbers hard to picture. Anything over 1500mm and I have to see it in inches. Most shops in Europe work in mm and the machines are set up that way. I believe carpenters there work more in cm.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michiana
    Posts
    3,085
    Nope. I'm a decimal inch guy. I've had all the fractional equivalents memorized for years.
    Sharp solves all manner of problems.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    7,308
    Blog Entries
    7
    Going fully metric is difficult in the US, I recall when restoring the Maka, very simple things like a length of flexible conduit required me to either import from Europe or convert to imperial.

    The same was true for most of the pipe fittings, I found the offerings available in British Standard were limited by comparison to imperial. If I had wanted to do so, every small part would have needed to be custom made to have BSPT fittings. Rather I used npt to metric air hose. The wrench sizes for those are metric.

    I ran shop air lines in NPT then converted to metric at the ‘push to connect’ lines.
    Bumbling forward into the unknown.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Holcombe View Post
    Going fully metric is difficult in the US
    I really do agree with this, although I think it's easier now than even a few years since more metric hardware is actually stocked in more places (out of necessity due to global manufacturing) and metric measuring tools are "slightly" easier to find now. Much of what I have in that regard is dual-scale which is spot on for my needs to support both.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  13. #73
    Searching through various industries online - automobile, pharmacy, aiirplanes, science, space, guns, and many more it appears that the USA has mostly converted to metric.

    My GMC truck is all metric

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by John Gornall View Post
    Searching through various industries online - automobile, pharmacy, aiirplanes, science, space, guns, and many more it appears that the USA has mostly converted to metric.

    My GMC truck is all metric
    I would question this but really don't know. For example, autos and trucks. Hardware may in fact have converted to mettic (nothing worse than mixed hardware sizings IMO), but are the fabricated parts designed and made to metric?

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tippecanoe County, IN
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    I would question this but really don't know. For example, autos and trucks. Hardware may in fact have converted to mettic (nothing worse than mixed hardware sizings IMO), but are the fabricated parts designed and made to metric?
    When I was involved with supplying components to the automotive market all of the drawings and specs were metric. That was about 25 years ago. Global manufacturing works best with a global system of units. That's the whole point of standardization. The standard is metric. AFAIK the only industry segment still clinging to Imperial is home building and related.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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