wardd
09-19-2009, 08:44 AM
contrary to popular belief Japanese arms of the time were not first rate
View Full Version : Metric vs Imperial poll
Pages : 1
[2]
hoytedow
09-19-2009, 09:20 AM
I think you served Molotov one hell of a cocktail. :)
boat fan
09-20-2009, 02:39 AM
haha. :D I wish we would though. It would make my life so much easier. It would probably make everyones lives easier.
Absolutely.
Nothing compares to the simplicity of units of ten.
Even the English abandoned that archaic "imperial "system decades ago...
and they " invented " it in the first place!:confused:
Absolutely.
Nothing compares to the simplicity of units of ten.
Even the English abandoned that archaic "imperial "system decades ago...
and they " invented " it in the first place!:confused:
TeddyDiver
09-20-2009, 03:44 AM
Quote from Wikipedia
"Evidence for Unit Measures
The best and clearest evidence is found on Egyptian ceremonial rulers where it is carved in stone and where even those not fluent in reading hieroglyphic writing can observe the mh or foot cubit glyph spanning 15 fingers (3 hands) and 16 fingers (four palms = 300 mm).
The ceremonial ruler identifies the foot cubit mh placed across 15 and 16 fingers allowing a foot to be measured in palms or hands the remen has the nibw glyph above 20 fingers.
5 palms = 1 remen = 375 mm
The Romans, whose uncia became the English inch, made their remen 15" or 381 mm. The Egyptian inch was the basis for the Romans' Uncia and English inch."
"Evidence for Unit Measures
The best and clearest evidence is found on Egyptian ceremonial rulers where it is carved in stone and where even those not fluent in reading hieroglyphic writing can observe the mh or foot cubit glyph spanning 15 fingers (3 hands) and 16 fingers (four palms = 300 mm).
The ceremonial ruler identifies the foot cubit mh placed across 15 and 16 fingers allowing a foot to be measured in palms or hands the remen has the nibw glyph above 20 fingers.
5 palms = 1 remen = 375 mm
The Romans, whose uncia became the English inch, made their remen 15" or 381 mm. The Egyptian inch was the basis for the Romans' Uncia and English inch."
hoytedow
09-20-2009, 08:37 AM
So the English DIDN'T invent the English system? Then they weren't stupid for inventing it, just stupid for borrowing it from the most succesful military empire in human history, who borrowed it from the Egyptians. Huh!
"My dog was dying inch by inch and I was taking it hard, so I took him out to the alley so he could die by the yard."
"My dog was dying inch by inch and I was taking it hard, so I took him out to the alley so he could die by the yard."
ancient kayaker
09-20-2009, 09:56 AM
So the English DIDN'T invent the English system? ...
It isn't the English system, it's the Imperial System. show some respect for antiquity please!
Then they weren't stupid for inventing it, just stupid for borrowing it ...
There wasn't anything better around at the time. The English used to have a horror of anything new, and were not under any obligation to justify a bloody revolution unlike the French.
The SI has only been around in its current form about 50 years, having gone through countless redefinitions over a couple of centuries. As an expatriate Englishman with a proper sense of tradition and history, I am still waiting to see how it turns out before I adopt it.
It isn't the English system, it's the Imperial System. show some respect for antiquity please!
Then they weren't stupid for inventing it, just stupid for borrowing it ...
There wasn't anything better around at the time. The English used to have a horror of anything new, and were not under any obligation to justify a bloody revolution unlike the French.
The SI has only been around in its current form about 50 years, having gone through countless redefinitions over a couple of centuries. As an expatriate Englishman with a proper sense of tradition and history, I am still waiting to see how it turns out before I adopt it.
Boston
09-20-2009, 10:05 AM
die by the yard ?
I need more coffee before I can read any more
I need more coffee before I can read any more
boat fan
09-20-2009, 10:47 AM
Quote from Wikipedia
"Evidence for Unit Measures
The best and clearest evidence is found on Egyptian ceremonial rulers where it is carved in stone and where even those not fluent in reading hieroglyphic writing can observe the mh or foot cubit glyph spanning 15 fingers (3 hands) and 16 fingers (four palms = 300 mm).
The ceremonial ruler identifies the foot cubit mh placed across 15 and 16 fingers allowing a foot to be measured in palms or hands the remen has the nibw glyph above 20 fingers.
5 palms = 1 remen = 375 mm
The Romans, whose uncia became the English inch, made their remen 15" or 381 mm. The Egyptian inch was the basis for the Romans' Uncia and English inch."
Sorry , but that`s NOT the " imperial " foot/ inches measure !:rolleyes:
"Evidence for Unit Measures
The best and clearest evidence is found on Egyptian ceremonial rulers where it is carved in stone and where even those not fluent in reading hieroglyphic writing can observe the mh or foot cubit glyph spanning 15 fingers (3 hands) and 16 fingers (four palms = 300 mm).
The ceremonial ruler identifies the foot cubit mh placed across 15 and 16 fingers allowing a foot to be measured in palms or hands the remen has the nibw glyph above 20 fingers.
5 palms = 1 remen = 375 mm
The Romans, whose uncia became the English inch, made their remen 15" or 381 mm. The Egyptian inch was the basis for the Romans' Uncia and English inch."
Sorry , but that`s NOT the " imperial " foot/ inches measure !:rolleyes:
TeddyDiver
09-20-2009, 02:47 PM
Sorry , but that`s NOT the " imperial " foot/ inches measure !:rolleyes:
I know.. they lost the original foot/inch model during Decree of Theodosius.
In 391, Christian Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all "pagan" (non-Christian) temples, and the Christian Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. The original model was saved from the fire of Library of Alexandria and placed in Serapeum.. So eventually after this incident and the unfortunate attack of the Vandals to Rome when the only copy of the original model was cut in pieces.. Some sources indicate that the origina model was formed after Hand of Ramesses the Third
:P :P
I know.. they lost the original foot/inch model during Decree of Theodosius.
In 391, Christian Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all "pagan" (non-Christian) temples, and the Christian Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. The original model was saved from the fire of Library of Alexandria and placed in Serapeum.. So eventually after this incident and the unfortunate attack of the Vandals to Rome when the only copy of the original model was cut in pieces.. Some sources indicate that the origina model was formed after Hand of Ramesses the Third
:P :P
Boston
09-20-2009, 09:43 PM
I wouldnt take Wikipedia as "gospel" there friend
they have been famous for there not so occasional gaffs in the past
thing to remember is
I dont think any of there info is reviewed before its published
they have been famous for there not so occasional gaffs in the past
thing to remember is
I dont think any of there info is reviewed before its published
ancient kayaker
09-20-2009, 11:50 PM
It is supposed to be subject to peer review, but I recall carefully checking and correcting erroneous information in one page and finding it had been subsequently changed back, presumably by its originator. It's a bit of a jungle, and once errors get in they tend to propagate. However, I have found it to be generally OK when I have double checked through another resource such as a recognized encyclopedia.
TeddyDiver
09-21-2009, 12:09 AM
My previous message was a completely fictional with a fraction of historical thruth as a clue to keep the fabrication together :D
But it could have happened ;)
But it could have happened ;)
masrapido
09-21-2009, 05:02 AM
It isn't the English system, it's the Imperial System. show some respect for antiquity please!
There wasn't anything better around at the time. The English used to have a horror of anything new, and were not under any obligation to justify a bloody revolution unlike the French.
The SI has only been around in its current form about 50 years, having gone through countless redefinitions over a couple of centuries. As an expatriate Englishman with a proper sense of tradition and history, I am still waiting to see how it turns out before I adopt it.
Both incorrect somewhat. The system was the same in whole of Europe, but the sizes were different. Spanish called pulgada (the thumb), what english called an inch. Russians called it palats, or to that effect, and it was again of different size. Not to mention that french and austrians had their own sizes. Only english called it "imperial", as always, to be different.
So metric, which was around for hundreds of years before, was suggested by French to become one single standard for all. It was both a compromise because no country could claim it and claim that "their" measurement was dominant over the others. And metric is simpler and easier to work with as there no fractions, as they exist in the old system, to reckon with.
There wasn't anything better around at the time. The English used to have a horror of anything new, and were not under any obligation to justify a bloody revolution unlike the French.
The SI has only been around in its current form about 50 years, having gone through countless redefinitions over a couple of centuries. As an expatriate Englishman with a proper sense of tradition and history, I am still waiting to see how it turns out before I adopt it.
Both incorrect somewhat. The system was the same in whole of Europe, but the sizes were different. Spanish called pulgada (the thumb), what english called an inch. Russians called it palats, or to that effect, and it was again of different size. Not to mention that french and austrians had their own sizes. Only english called it "imperial", as always, to be different.
So metric, which was around for hundreds of years before, was suggested by French to become one single standard for all. It was both a compromise because no country could claim it and claim that "their" measurement was dominant over the others. And metric is simpler and easier to work with as there no fractions, as they exist in the old system, to reckon with.
hoytedow
09-21-2009, 07:25 AM
I use metric 1/64th of the time.
ancient kayaker
09-21-2009, 11:27 AM
Fractions are easy, it's the decimals that are hard!
Boston
09-21-2009, 10:09 PM
I use metric 1/64th of the time.
or 0.015625 % of the time
or 0.015625 % of the time
Mikey
09-21-2009, 10:27 PM
I was searching the internet for the legal thread depth of tyres in different countries and found something strange. Can someone please explain to me why on earth fractionists (i.e., Americans and Burmese) say 2/32" and not 1/16"
By the way, note the British English spelling of tyre, no spelling mistake here :)
Mikey
By the way, note the British English spelling of tyre, no spelling mistake here :)
Mikey
ancient kayaker
09-22-2009, 12:40 AM
I was searching the internet for the legal thread depth of tyres in different countries and found something strange. Can someone please explain to me why on earth fractionists (i.e., Americans and Burmese) say 2/32" and not 1/16"
By the way, note the British English spelling of tyre, no spelling mistake here :)
Mikey
It's probably because the US tire tread gauges are calibrated in 1/32" intervals and the legislators don't trust people to figure out which mark is 1/16"
By the way, note the British English spelling of tyre, no spelling mistake here :)
Mikey
It's probably because the US tire tread gauges are calibrated in 1/32" intervals and the legislators don't trust people to figure out which mark is 1/16"
Boston
09-22-2009, 12:58 AM
while back I had some fool pencil pusher come out to this job site I was working on and after getting his picture taken in a hard hat ( brain buckets were not required on this job ) in front of the prints ( which we had to supply cause he forgot to bring the office set ) kept spouting off about something that was a third of an inch
uh ya
I tried to act like I was listening but finally I just couldn't help but pull out a tape and ask him to show me a third of an inch
guy never came out to the job again
if I had known it was that easy Ild ask long ago for him to find a third of an inch on these prints that Im supposed to be "field verifying"
uh ya
I tried to act like I was listening but finally I just couldn't help but pull out a tape and ask him to show me a third of an inch
guy never came out to the job again
if I had known it was that easy Ild ask long ago for him to find a third of an inch on these prints that Im supposed to be "field verifying"
hoytedow
09-22-2009, 07:14 AM
I use metric 1/64th of the time.
Was a joke.
Was a joke.
hoytedow
09-22-2009, 07:20 AM
Good on you, Boston, for educating that guy. A little humility is good for the soul. Being a product of public education, myself, I find these boatbuilding threads very challenging, but enjoyable.
Actually, I hardly ever use metric, except for figuring out my daily med dosage.
Actually, I hardly ever use metric, except for figuring out my daily med dosage.
Boston
09-22-2009, 02:49 PM
ya dont say :D
boat fan
09-23-2009, 08:33 AM
Fractions are easy, it's the decimals that are hard!
So how could .1 or .2 or .3 etc be hard ?????????:confused:
Units of TEN.......how could that possibly be hard ?
So how could .1 or .2 or .3 etc be hard ?????????:confused:
Units of TEN.......how could that possibly be hard ?
hoytedow
09-23-2009, 09:43 AM
Ever try to get change at fast food joint?
Boston
09-23-2009, 03:49 PM
Im guilty as all hell
I cant work in metric to save my life
its a constant struggle to not convert everything to what Im familiar with
oh I can do it
but its a pain in the ass to mix systems
I once hired a German guy to help out of a project
he was a great carpenter but dam did he ever have a hard time with imperial
I felt bad and gave him what mistakes were based on the difficulties
cause other than that he did a great job
assuming whatever it was fit
I tend to build things modular and then fit em together all at once
sorta worked on that job
sorta didnt
all in all was kinda humorous cause the guy really was a good carp
he just had trouble with the idea that it was 12 inches to a foot and not 10
that and I had to take his metric tape away from him eventually
I cant work in metric to save my life
its a constant struggle to not convert everything to what Im familiar with
oh I can do it
but its a pain in the ass to mix systems
I once hired a German guy to help out of a project
he was a great carpenter but dam did he ever have a hard time with imperial
I felt bad and gave him what mistakes were based on the difficulties
cause other than that he did a great job
assuming whatever it was fit
I tend to build things modular and then fit em together all at once
sorta worked on that job
sorta didnt
all in all was kinda humorous cause the guy really was a good carp
he just had trouble with the idea that it was 12 inches to a foot and not 10
that and I had to take his metric tape away from him eventually
iWill
09-23-2009, 04:48 PM
I much prefer metric over imperial. That being said, I can work with imperial when working on construction type projects. Mainly because everything is already in imperial units anyway.
Some days I wish imperial would just die already though.
Metric doesn't complicate units by having more than one way to express distance (or any other quantity for that matter.) There's only one quantity (metre, gram, etc) with modifiers such as micro, milli, centi, kilo. To me this isn't truly appreciated until you have to mix units such as in density. I've had to briefly use imperial with mixed unit equations and only after 10 minutes I wanted to bash in my skull with a sledge hammer (but than again, I am used to metric). I guess this is why science mostly uses metric.
Some days I wish imperial would just die already though.
Metric doesn't complicate units by having more than one way to express distance (or any other quantity for that matter.) There's only one quantity (metre, gram, etc) with modifiers such as micro, milli, centi, kilo. To me this isn't truly appreciated until you have to mix units such as in density. I've had to briefly use imperial with mixed unit equations and only after 10 minutes I wanted to bash in my skull with a sledge hammer (but than again, I am used to metric). I guess this is why science mostly uses metric.
rxcomposite
09-23-2009, 05:14 PM
Would Imperial die inch by inch or will metric lose point by point?
boat fan
09-23-2009, 08:20 PM
Im guilty as all hell
I cant work in metric to save my life
its a constant struggle to not convert everything to what Im familiar with
oh I can do it
but its a pain in the ass to mix systems ..........
"" but its a pain in the ass to mix systems """
There lies the problem !!!!!:p
I cant work in metric to save my life
its a constant struggle to not convert everything to what Im familiar with
oh I can do it
but its a pain in the ass to mix systems ..........
"" but its a pain in the ass to mix systems """
There lies the problem !!!!!:p
ancient kayaker
09-23-2009, 09:41 PM
Joking apart, I don't see much difference between the 2 systems. it's more a question of what you are accustomed to, and of course having the right tape/rule. No question metric/SI is much more pleasant to use for such things as medications and scientific measurement, and conversion between volumetric and mass units is simpler. Not surprising really, that's why it was developed.
For building a boat, again either system will do but in NA where all the material still comes in imperial units why make things difficult by working in metric? Imperial is very hard to dislodge from hands-on stuff like building houses and boats because, when all is said and done, that's what it was developed for and it is very well suited.
For building a boat, again either system will do but in NA where all the material still comes in imperial units why make things difficult by working in metric? Imperial is very hard to dislodge from hands-on stuff like building houses and boats because, when all is said and done, that's what it was developed for and it is very well suited.
dobsong
09-24-2009, 12:32 AM
A standardwould be great! Any standard but I prefer Knots, Nautical Miles and metric measurements (Metres, Kgs, Kw etc)
I'm sick and tired of doing conversions. Also it drives me nuts when boating magazines use land miles, nautical miles and Km interchangably! Also gallons is confusing as well... US gallons or imperial gallons?
I'm all for some standardisation!!!
I'm sick and tired of doing conversions. Also it drives me nuts when boating magazines use land miles, nautical miles and Km interchangably! Also gallons is confusing as well... US gallons or imperial gallons?
I'm all for some standardisation!!!
Mikey
09-24-2009, 01:11 AM
It may be a surprise to some but the majority of the people in the world thinks that the World Trade Centre attack happened on the 9th of November, not in September...
Who cares if history remembers that correctly? Quite a few I would think so standardisation is fairly important indeed... :)
Shall we include date formats?
Mikey
Who cares if history remembers that correctly? Quite a few I would think so standardisation is fairly important indeed... :)
Shall we include date formats?
Mikey
masrapido
10-05-2009, 07:01 AM
Mikey, how did you come to that conclusion?
Wynand N
10-05-2009, 07:18 AM
Would Imperial die inch by inch or will metric lose point by point?
pun noted but, if I may say so, it is basically just the USA that clings to the prehistoric imperial system, and the rest of the world is metricated. Doesn't that say something:?:
pun noted but, if I may say so, it is basically just the USA that clings to the prehistoric imperial system, and the rest of the world is metricated. Doesn't that say something:?:
dobsong
10-05-2009, 07:39 AM
pun noted but, if I may say so, it is basically just the USA that clings to the prehistoric imperial system, and the rest of the world is metricated. Doesn't that say something:?:
Sure does..... :)
Sure does..... :)
ancient kayaker
10-05-2009, 09:11 AM
pun noted but, if I may say so, it is basically just the USA that clings to the prehistoric imperial system, and the rest of the world is metricated. Doesn't that say something:?:
Touching faith in democracy ...
Touching faith in democracy ...
rxcomposite
10-05-2009, 03:06 PM
I am currently working as a surveyor working with different ships from different nationalities and ships built from different parts of the world.
Even the builders are confused. The trim and stability booklet/tank calibration tables I see are sometimes in metric (soundings) with US gallons (volume), or measurements are in inch but reports have to be in metric ton. To top it all, tanks are filled here using Imperial Gallon which is larger than the US gallon.
In trying to please the world, they also got confused.
Even the builders are confused. The trim and stability booklet/tank calibration tables I see are sometimes in metric (soundings) with US gallons (volume), or measurements are in inch but reports have to be in metric ton. To top it all, tanks are filled here using Imperial Gallon which is larger than the US gallon.
In trying to please the world, they also got confused.
murdomack
10-05-2009, 03:21 PM
Given that we will all have our preferences, there is nothing to fear in learning to work with either system. I have had to teach the Imperial system to people brought up in Metric and they all manage fine. Lots of us 'Imperial" people had to learn the metric system back in the 70's and most managed it.
The problems start when someone gets drawings in one system and starts converting to the other. This is a recipe for errors, it is best to stick with the one you are given.
The problems start when someone gets drawings in one system and starts converting to the other. This is a recipe for errors, it is best to stick with the one you are given.
ancient kayaker
10-05-2009, 10:41 PM
Given that we will all have our preferences, there is nothing to fear in learning to work with either system ... The problems start when someone gets drawings in one system and starts converting to the other. This is a recipe for errors, it is best to stick with the one you are given.
Conversion is where the problem begins especially where there is confusion. The biggest problem is when a person is not familiar with one of the systems being used; the automatic mental check "is that reasonable" doesn't work then, so errors don't get picked up. Conversion should be done in a computer if it's really important.
I am currently working as a surveyor working with different ships from different nationalities and ships built from different parts of the world.
Even the builders are confused. The trim and stability booklet/tank calibration tables I see are sometimes in metric (soundings) with US gallons (volume), or measurements are in inch but reports have to be in metric ton. To top it all, tanks are filled here using Imperial Gallon which is larger than the US gallon.
In trying to please the world, they also got confused.
Now that is a recipe for disaster! There was a case of a new plane with metric instruments that needed refuelling. The fuelling truck operator had to do a double conversion to get from what the truck showed him (volume) to what the airport worked with (imperial weight) and from there to the metric weight that the aircraft instruments reported. The aircrew also was not familiar with metric so they took off with N lb instead of N kg. They didn't get far; miraculously the pilot managed to land the big glider at a disused airfield.
Conversion is where the problem begins especially where there is confusion. The biggest problem is when a person is not familiar with one of the systems being used; the automatic mental check "is that reasonable" doesn't work then, so errors don't get picked up. Conversion should be done in a computer if it's really important.
I am currently working as a surveyor working with different ships from different nationalities and ships built from different parts of the world.
Even the builders are confused. The trim and stability booklet/tank calibration tables I see are sometimes in metric (soundings) with US gallons (volume), or measurements are in inch but reports have to be in metric ton. To top it all, tanks are filled here using Imperial Gallon which is larger than the US gallon.
In trying to please the world, they also got confused.
Now that is a recipe for disaster! There was a case of a new plane with metric instruments that needed refuelling. The fuelling truck operator had to do a double conversion to get from what the truck showed him (volume) to what the airport worked with (imperial weight) and from there to the metric weight that the aircraft instruments reported. The aircrew also was not familiar with metric so they took off with N lb instead of N kg. They didn't get far; miraculously the pilot managed to land the big glider at a disused airfield.
pamarine
10-06-2009, 01:53 AM
Metric with Knots and Nautical Miles.
ancient kayaker
10-06-2009, 09:38 AM
Metric with Knots and Nautical Miles.
Nautical miles, cables (1/10 nm), fathoms (1/1000 nm) already exist. Introduce the nautical inch (1/100 fathom or 0.7296 imperial inches), and redefine the furlong (1/10 nm), then we would finally have a truly logical and consistent system. Might cause a little bit of an upset of course, but no more than the SI did.
Nautical miles, cables (1/10 nm), fathoms (1/1000 nm) already exist. Introduce the nautical inch (1/100 fathom or 0.7296 imperial inches), and redefine the furlong (1/10 nm), then we would finally have a truly logical and consistent system. Might cause a little bit of an upset of course, but no more than the SI did.
hoytedow
10-06-2009, 07:13 PM
That nautical inch thing would be quite useful, especially when braggin' meself up to the fairer ones.;) ;)
pamarine
10-06-2009, 07:36 PM
Nautical miles, cables (1/10 nm), fathoms (1/1000 nm) already exist. Introduce the nautical inch (1/100 fathom or 0.7296 imperial inches), and redefine the furlong (1/10 nm), then we would finally have a truly logical and consistent system. Might cause a little bit of an upset of course, but no more than the SI did.
Not a bad idea, especially since it's all based off natural measures (well, degrees). But I'm confused why we need both furlongs and cables to be 1/10 nm?
Not a bad idea, especially since it's all based off natural measures (well, degrees). But I'm confused why we need both furlongs and cables to be 1/10 nm?
ancient kayaker
10-07-2009, 01:10 AM
Oops! 1 cable = 1/10 (nautical) furlong = 1/10 nm. But you knew that already!
hoytedow
10-07-2009, 07:14 AM
I'll say po-tay-to, and you say po-tah-to.
ancient kayaker
10-07-2009, 09:00 AM
Soon one of the pro-metrics will jump in and attempt to destroy the Nautical Unit Mile (NUM) system concept with faultless logic. There is something about the metric system that nums the humour centers of the brain.
rambo!
10-07-2009, 04:57 PM
Looking at wiki: one num in metric (agreed in 1929) is 1852 m, in US it was defined as 1853,248 m (6080 US feet) and in UK 1853,184 m (6080 UK feet).
One inch was (among other anecdotes) defined as a "the with of a normal sized mans thumb at the base of the nail".
A sea mile (nautical mile) is at the equator 1842,9 m and 1861,7 m at the poles, the mean is 1852,3m. The international nautical mile was choosen to be the integer number of meters closest to the mean sea mile.
So its not a question of how you chose to measure, its all about how you agree upon how to convert between different systems.
So to us metric´s there is a lot of humour and wierdness in the imperial system, but both seems to work pretty well, so maybe we shall try to keep this little obscurity as long as possible.
One inch was (among other anecdotes) defined as a "the with of a normal sized mans thumb at the base of the nail".
A sea mile (nautical mile) is at the equator 1842,9 m and 1861,7 m at the poles, the mean is 1852,3m. The international nautical mile was choosen to be the integer number of meters closest to the mean sea mile.
So its not a question of how you chose to measure, its all about how you agree upon how to convert between different systems.
So to us metric´s there is a lot of humour and wierdness in the imperial system, but both seems to work pretty well, so maybe we shall try to keep this little obscurity as long as possible.
bjviking
10-07-2009, 05:13 PM
Option 2 for me.
ancient kayaker
10-07-2009, 10:53 PM
pouce (fr), inch, thumb
maxsalgado
10-11-2009, 10:16 PM
Metris is deffinately the way to go, I have built boats in imperial and worked in one metric and it is so much sompler, altough imperial units have something metric doest, that is that it is so much easier to estimate thickness of up to 5 inches in imperial than in metric, I dont know I just think its more of a real worlf unit, to bad the had to go and make 12 = 1 and all that nonsense
ancient kayaker
10-11-2009, 11:57 PM
Historical reasons probably. 1 inch - width of thumb, 1 foot = length of foot, 1 yard = length of stride or nose to tip of finger with arm held to one side, as when measuring cloth. Later someone set standards and it just came out with 3 feet to the yard and 12 inches to the foot.
SI was set up using the base of 10, which is the number of fingers careful workers generally have. More happenstance.
What I never understood was why the metric folk did not, while they were at it, decimalise circular measure (degrees) and time units.
SI was set up using the base of 10, which is the number of fingers careful workers generally have. More happenstance.
What I never understood was why the metric folk did not, while they were at it, decimalise circular measure (degrees) and time units.
Mikey
10-12-2009, 05:32 AM
Mikey, how did you come to that conclusion?
Masrapido,
Most of Europe, Asia and Africa are on dd-mm-yyyy and not mm-dd-yyyy. I have worked professionally in Asia for the last 17 years and contact people in more countries than I can remember, not often North and South America though.
I write dates dd-MMM-yyyy (12-Oct-2009) because I am bored with the unnecessary misunderstandings, there are few people who see the date 9/11 and think it’s 11-Sep I can tell you. Same when you hear nine / eleven.
Standardisation is good...
Mikey
Masrapido,
Most of Europe, Asia and Africa are on dd-mm-yyyy and not mm-dd-yyyy. I have worked professionally in Asia for the last 17 years and contact people in more countries than I can remember, not often North and South America though.
I write dates dd-MMM-yyyy (12-Oct-2009) because I am bored with the unnecessary misunderstandings, there are few people who see the date 9/11 and think it’s 11-Sep I can tell you. Same when you hear nine / eleven.
Standardisation is good...
Mikey
rxcomposite
10-12-2009, 06:22 AM
What I never understood was why the metric folk did not, while they were at it, decimalise circular measure (degrees) and time units.
The radians (unit of angular measure) confused them.
The radians (unit of angular measure) confused them.
hoytedow
10-12-2009, 07:20 AM
I knew a guy with 12 fingers, once. Be glad he didn't set up the metric system.
I don't know how many toes he had, but it could have gotten complicated.:)
I don't know how many toes he had, but it could have gotten complicated.:)
masrapido
10-12-2009, 05:06 PM
Masrapido,
Most of Europe, Asia and Africa are on dd-mm-yyyy and not mm-dd-yyyy. I have worked professionally in Asia for the last 17 years and contact people in more countries than I can remember, not often North and South America though.
I write dates dd-MMM-yyyy (12-Oct-2009) because I am bored with the unnecessary misunderstandings, there are few people who see the date 9/11 and think it’s 11-Sep I can tell you. Same when you hear nine / eleven.
Standardisation is good...
Mikey
Good point. We use dd.mm.yyyy. format that so never occured to me.
Standardisation is good.
Most of Europe, Asia and Africa are on dd-mm-yyyy and not mm-dd-yyyy. I have worked professionally in Asia for the last 17 years and contact people in more countries than I can remember, not often North and South America though.
I write dates dd-MMM-yyyy (12-Oct-2009) because I am bored with the unnecessary misunderstandings, there are few people who see the date 9/11 and think it’s 11-Sep I can tell you. Same when you hear nine / eleven.
Standardisation is good...
Mikey
Good point. We use dd.mm.yyyy. format that so never occured to me.
Standardisation is good.
capt vimes
10-19-2009, 10:32 AM
Historical reasons probably. 1 inch - width of thumb, 1 foot = length of foot, 1 yard = length of stride or nose to tip of finger with arm held to one side, as when measuring cloth. Later someone set standards and it just came out with 3 feet to the yard and 12 inches to the foot.
SI was set up using the base of 10, which is the number of fingers careful workers generally have. More happenstance.
What I never understood was why the metric folk did not, while they were at it, decimalise circular measure (degrees) and time units.
nobody has a yard-long stride... ;-)
the average stride used in constructions - i.e. for getting a 'good' width/height relation for stairs (2*height + width) - is 63 cm... not a yard...
circular messaruments has been brought to metric as well - it is the radiant... 400 for the full circle, but nobody is using it at all...
a couple of pages earlier the military system was mentioned and it is based somewhat on the radiant...
it has 6400 'strich' (in german, do not know the english term) for the full circle...
you know where this derives from?
take a circle with 2 km diameter and calculate the circumference = 6284.something... so 1 strich is roughly 1 m at 1000 m of distance... making even the dumbest soldier able to estimate the distance of a known object when looking through his military-issued binocular which has a strich-scale in it... 6 m long tank meassures 3 strich = 2 km of distance ;-)
it is by the way also roughly the resolution of our eys... 2 points 1 mm apart at 1 m distance are just distinguishable as 2 points.
degrees and time measuring is still a remnant to history... it makes no sense but was established in the past by some folks and everybody got used to it...
the imperial system is the same with the disadvantage that its smallest unit is the inch... you want to messarure smaller units - you have to use millimeter, mikrometer etc...
so why not taking the metric system in the first hand?
now weights... the biggest imperial unit i know of is stones... anything getting realy heavy is meassured in tons...
so why not taking the metric gramm in the first hand?
1 liter of freshwater weighs 1 kg... the displacement of a ship calculated in m³ gives you without converting anything its weight in tons!
isn't that beautiful?
but i will definitely stick to nautical miles and knots because it is so easy to plot distances on sea-charts for 1 nm is 1 minute latitude... perfect
for land-charts there is a international standard - derives from nato to my knowledge - which is a grid-system... although from the nato its grid-squares are 1 km of lenght...
and still the US is determined to stick to their miles.... :confused:
SI was set up using the base of 10, which is the number of fingers careful workers generally have. More happenstance.
What I never understood was why the metric folk did not, while they were at it, decimalise circular measure (degrees) and time units.
nobody has a yard-long stride... ;-)
the average stride used in constructions - i.e. for getting a 'good' width/height relation for stairs (2*height + width) - is 63 cm... not a yard...
circular messaruments has been brought to metric as well - it is the radiant... 400 for the full circle, but nobody is using it at all...
a couple of pages earlier the military system was mentioned and it is based somewhat on the radiant...
it has 6400 'strich' (in german, do not know the english term) for the full circle...
you know where this derives from?
take a circle with 2 km diameter and calculate the circumference = 6284.something... so 1 strich is roughly 1 m at 1000 m of distance... making even the dumbest soldier able to estimate the distance of a known object when looking through his military-issued binocular which has a strich-scale in it... 6 m long tank meassures 3 strich = 2 km of distance ;-)
it is by the way also roughly the resolution of our eys... 2 points 1 mm apart at 1 m distance are just distinguishable as 2 points.
degrees and time measuring is still a remnant to history... it makes no sense but was established in the past by some folks and everybody got used to it...
the imperial system is the same with the disadvantage that its smallest unit is the inch... you want to messarure smaller units - you have to use millimeter, mikrometer etc...
so why not taking the metric system in the first hand?
now weights... the biggest imperial unit i know of is stones... anything getting realy heavy is meassured in tons...
so why not taking the metric gramm in the first hand?
1 liter of freshwater weighs 1 kg... the displacement of a ship calculated in m³ gives you without converting anything its weight in tons!
isn't that beautiful?
but i will definitely stick to nautical miles and knots because it is so easy to plot distances on sea-charts for 1 nm is 1 minute latitude... perfect
for land-charts there is a international standard - derives from nato to my knowledge - which is a grid-system... although from the nato its grid-squares are 1 km of lenght...
and still the US is determined to stick to their miles.... :confused:
murdomack
10-19-2009, 01:15 PM
Dear Me, Capt Vimes,
You have obviously never got into the Imperial system very deeply or you would not have made some of the statemennts that you have.
1. I have a Yard long stride. I could pace out Fifty and would expect a high degree of accuracy. To step out Fifty Metres, I would need to extend each step and it would all be "a bit of a hit and miss". It would also probably lead to a muscle injury.
2. Have you never heard of a hundredweight. There are 20 of the in every Imperial Ton. It's 14 Lbs= 1 stone; 8 stones= 1 Cwt (that's the short way of writing hundredweight) and 20 Cwt's = 1 ton. Multiply them all together and you get 2240 Lbs in a Ton. Easy Peasy.
3. Your ship will displace its own weight in any fluid, even in an EU wine lake. One Imperial gallon of Fresh Water weighs 10 lbs exactly.
4. In the end you admit that you will stick with the existing angular and time measures, except when ranging tanks through your Stritch system. This is the correct approach and you should adopt both Metric and Imperial systems. They are both faily simple when you get used to them.
You have obviously never got into the Imperial system very deeply or you would not have made some of the statemennts that you have.
1. I have a Yard long stride. I could pace out Fifty and would expect a high degree of accuracy. To step out Fifty Metres, I would need to extend each step and it would all be "a bit of a hit and miss". It would also probably lead to a muscle injury.
2. Have you never heard of a hundredweight. There are 20 of the in every Imperial Ton. It's 14 Lbs= 1 stone; 8 stones= 1 Cwt (that's the short way of writing hundredweight) and 20 Cwt's = 1 ton. Multiply them all together and you get 2240 Lbs in a Ton. Easy Peasy.
3. Your ship will displace its own weight in any fluid, even in an EU wine lake. One Imperial gallon of Fresh Water weighs 10 lbs exactly.
4. In the end you admit that you will stick with the existing angular and time measures, except when ranging tanks through your Stritch system. This is the correct approach and you should adopt both Metric and Imperial systems. They are both faily simple when you get used to them.
Fanie
10-19-2009, 01:55 PM
Good grief !!!
I thought I resolved the issue previously in this thread. Now the late comers start the fire back up again. Do check the previous posts, I'm sure you would find some insight there.
There is nothing that says you absolutely have to use the metric system. You don't have to use the imperial either. You can just as well develop and use your own, really, nothing wrong with that.
The only reason why the metric is the system of choice is for the reasons posted previously, and so we all know what each other is talking about.
Historical reasons probably. 1 inch - width of thumb, 1 foot = length of foot, 1 yard = length of stride
Probably... and who knows what he looked like. I see you guys still use terms like 'stone'... was it from the stone age ?? Shouldn't we move beyond the primitive ways... I know it's hard to let go ;) I'm sure I have some monkey blood im me left too, you can tell when I'm swinging in the rigging :rolleyes:
I thought I resolved the issue previously in this thread. Now the late comers start the fire back up again. Do check the previous posts, I'm sure you would find some insight there.
There is nothing that says you absolutely have to use the metric system. You don't have to use the imperial either. You can just as well develop and use your own, really, nothing wrong with that.
The only reason why the metric is the system of choice is for the reasons posted previously, and so we all know what each other is talking about.
Historical reasons probably. 1 inch - width of thumb, 1 foot = length of foot, 1 yard = length of stride
Probably... and who knows what he looked like. I see you guys still use terms like 'stone'... was it from the stone age ?? Shouldn't we move beyond the primitive ways... I know it's hard to let go ;) I'm sure I have some monkey blood im me left too, you can tell when I'm swinging in the rigging :rolleyes:
rambo!
10-19-2009, 02:00 PM
capt vimes
there is a gunning and positionen system adopted by all NATO-countries that is in "millirads". definition is $\pi=3,2$ giving $6400$ millirads (mrad) in a full circle.
Thats equal to an accuraty of 1 meter in 1000 meter distance.
There is also microrad (equal to 1 mm at 1000 meter) and nanorad (equal to 0,001mm at 1000 m), but those are used in astronomy.
I found one possible problem for us metrics as I´ve just got som beatuiful handmade boat drawings made in imperial. You imperials have a "probably" a cleaver system when you use and switch between 4-, 8-, 16-th.
The upper digits used are only odd numbers...but do You normally use all options...like 7/8 or 15/16...a minor different I know...but I don´t have a natural feel for the precision in imperial...it´s there..but that´s the hardest part for me doing coversion to metric.
there is a gunning and positionen system adopted by all NATO-countries that is in "millirads". definition is $\pi=3,2$ giving $6400$ millirads (mrad) in a full circle.
Thats equal to an accuraty of 1 meter in 1000 meter distance.
There is also microrad (equal to 1 mm at 1000 meter) and nanorad (equal to 0,001mm at 1000 m), but those are used in astronomy.
I found one possible problem for us metrics as I´ve just got som beatuiful handmade boat drawings made in imperial. You imperials have a "probably" a cleaver system when you use and switch between 4-, 8-, 16-th.
The upper digits used are only odd numbers...but do You normally use all options...like 7/8 or 15/16...a minor different I know...but I don´t have a natural feel for the precision in imperial...it´s there..but that´s the hardest part for me doing coversion to metric.
ancient kayaker
10-19-2009, 03:45 PM
I too have a yard-long (36") stride (not boasting) and striding out a length in yards has been used since time immemorial. I well recall 22 yards for a cricket pitch, having been raised in the UK. The Romans used the pace, defined in the same way, it is 30" but folks were smaller then.
Capt. Vimes: either you need spectacles or you are unfamiliar with the use of fractions. The resolution of a typical human eye is 2 minutes of arc, which is about 1 in 2000 or 0.5 mm at 1 m. This applies to the ability to separate parallel lines; visual acuity varies with the type of target and task. Also, for information, the inch can be subdivided every bit as finely as the millimeter. Machinists commonly measure using the "thou" which is 1/1000" and "tenths" which are 1/10,000" or 1.54 micrometers.
The Stone is no longer in legal use in the UK although it is still commonly used for expressing body weight. I recall going to a seaside resort where for one penny one could be weighed on the most magnificent set of scales imaginable, at least 8 feet high (sorry, 2.5 m) and tricked out in gold leaf, in Stones, Pounds, Ounces and pennyweights, whatever those were. Historically there were several different stone weights depending on the commodity being weighed, 16 lb for cheese, 8 lb for meat etc., but 14 lb was the most common. There are many stories about the origin of the stone unit, my favorite is, the heaviest weight a strong man can hold at arm's length. I guess butcher's were not as strong as cheese purveyors, which I find hard to believe having done both.
The millirad is used for gunnery; 64000 to the circle. It is also a unit of nuclear radiation, or more specifically of exposure of a human body to nuclear radiation, but that is not used much these days.
Today I was drilling holes in my boat's tapered sprit booms, which had to be centered across the width. It was easy to find a unit that exactly fit the width of the booms with my imperial rule, which happened to be 1/16ths, then simply number off the same in 1/32nds! I wasn't trying very hard as the rule goes down to 1/128ths. If a metric rule were available it might have been more difficult to get the same precision.
The Imperial system is a practical system developed over many years for doing practical things. It should be no surprise that it is superior in some ways (not all) to a system developed by theoreticians like SI. The Imperial system is not very practical for scientific purposes.
For myself, I use whichever system is the best for the job at hand. The Inuit people had a system for measuring based on the human body; a kayak for a specific task (hunting, exploring, beaching dead animals) would have its various measurements defined in this way, the width of the hips plus a the width of a fist might define the cockpit width for a particular type of boat tailored to a specific person, for example. Very practical for boat making using undimensioned material found lying on the beach, not very practical for trade.
Capt. Vimes: either you need spectacles or you are unfamiliar with the use of fractions. The resolution of a typical human eye is 2 minutes of arc, which is about 1 in 2000 or 0.5 mm at 1 m. This applies to the ability to separate parallel lines; visual acuity varies with the type of target and task. Also, for information, the inch can be subdivided every bit as finely as the millimeter. Machinists commonly measure using the "thou" which is 1/1000" and "tenths" which are 1/10,000" or 1.54 micrometers.
The Stone is no longer in legal use in the UK although it is still commonly used for expressing body weight. I recall going to a seaside resort where for one penny one could be weighed on the most magnificent set of scales imaginable, at least 8 feet high (sorry, 2.5 m) and tricked out in gold leaf, in Stones, Pounds, Ounces and pennyweights, whatever those were. Historically there were several different stone weights depending on the commodity being weighed, 16 lb for cheese, 8 lb for meat etc., but 14 lb was the most common. There are many stories about the origin of the stone unit, my favorite is, the heaviest weight a strong man can hold at arm's length. I guess butcher's were not as strong as cheese purveyors, which I find hard to believe having done both.
The millirad is used for gunnery; 64000 to the circle. It is also a unit of nuclear radiation, or more specifically of exposure of a human body to nuclear radiation, but that is not used much these days.
Today I was drilling holes in my boat's tapered sprit booms, which had to be centered across the width. It was easy to find a unit that exactly fit the width of the booms with my imperial rule, which happened to be 1/16ths, then simply number off the same in 1/32nds! I wasn't trying very hard as the rule goes down to 1/128ths. If a metric rule were available it might have been more difficult to get the same precision.
The Imperial system is a practical system developed over many years for doing practical things. It should be no surprise that it is superior in some ways (not all) to a system developed by theoreticians like SI. The Imperial system is not very practical for scientific purposes.
For myself, I use whichever system is the best for the job at hand. The Inuit people had a system for measuring based on the human body; a kayak for a specific task (hunting, exploring, beaching dead animals) would have its various measurements defined in this way, the width of the hips plus a the width of a fist might define the cockpit width for a particular type of boat tailored to a specific person, for example. Very practical for boat making using undimensioned material found lying on the beach, not very practical for trade.
rambo!
10-19-2009, 05:02 PM
Hey ancient K,
If 1/32 is 0,8 mm...for what use is a ruler of 1/128...thats close to 0.2mm..half of a 0.5 normal Bic pencil.
So I do not dobt you can build a very good boat in either metric or imperial but a ruler marked in 1/128 imperial or tenths of an mm in metric will be a black line of no use.
No if 180 degrees is $3,2 radians$ then $6.4 times 1000$ will be 1000 times bigger equals $6400$, now radiation exposure is another thing, not covered in this thread
If 1/32 is 0,8 mm...for what use is a ruler of 1/128...thats close to 0.2mm..half of a 0.5 normal Bic pencil.
So I do not dobt you can build a very good boat in either metric or imperial but a ruler marked in 1/128 imperial or tenths of an mm in metric will be a black line of no use.
No if 180 degrees is $3,2 radians$ then $6.4 times 1000$ will be 1000 times bigger equals $6400$, now radiation exposure is another thing, not covered in this thread
marshmat
10-19-2009, 06:07 PM
For angular measure, radians (or milliradians, etc.) are the SI standard, and are the only "units" you'll find physicists and mathematicians using. I say "units" in quotes, because the radian is dimensionless: it is, by definition, the ratio of arc length to radius.
The trigonometric functions are intrinsically related to the constant Pi and the arc length / radius ratio, independent of whatever number system or base we choose to use; thus, radians are the natural units to use for this purpose. Any other system would introduce unit-system-dependent constants into all sorts of equations that, frankly, are hideous enough as they are. They are, however, quite inconvenient for engineering and building (how do you make a protractor with an irrational number of gradations?). So we stick with degrees when all we're worried about is the angle itself.
There is a unit of angular measure known as a grad, of which there are 100 in a right angle, but these aren't seen much in everyday practice.
The trigonometric functions are intrinsically related to the constant Pi and the arc length / radius ratio, independent of whatever number system or base we choose to use; thus, radians are the natural units to use for this purpose. Any other system would introduce unit-system-dependent constants into all sorts of equations that, frankly, are hideous enough as they are. They are, however, quite inconvenient for engineering and building (how do you make a protractor with an irrational number of gradations?). So we stick with degrees when all we're worried about is the angle itself.
There is a unit of angular measure known as a grad, of which there are 100 in a right angle, but these aren't seen much in everyday practice.
murdomack
10-19-2009, 06:11 PM
Hey ancient K,
If 1/32 is 0,8 mm...for what use is a ruler of 1/128...thats close to 0.2mm..half of a 0.5 normal Bic pencil.
This will be one of these 6" steel rules that percision engineers, and some posers, carry in their coat pocket and produce with a flourish when some intricate marking is called for.
The 1/128th scale has a use. Lets say that you are scribing a dimension of 2-9/64" straddling a centreline. This would be common enough in a precision workshop.
You would have to mark 1-9/128" on either side of the centre.
If 1/32 is 0,8 mm...for what use is a ruler of 1/128...thats close to 0.2mm..half of a 0.5 normal Bic pencil.
This will be one of these 6" steel rules that percision engineers, and some posers, carry in their coat pocket and produce with a flourish when some intricate marking is called for.
The 1/128th scale has a use. Lets say that you are scribing a dimension of 2-9/64" straddling a centreline. This would be common enough in a precision workshop.
You would have to mark 1-9/128" on either side of the centre.
ancient kayaker
10-20-2009, 12:01 AM
The SI unit of radiation dose is the Gray, equals 100 rad. Not sure if the Rad is imperial or just some older unit. As a measure of human absorbtion of radiation it is a more practical unit than the Gray which is just too large.
Well, Rambo, I have at least one rule calibrated in 1/128th inch and I assure you it is not just a black line. Howewer, I would not want to go down another factor of 2. Buy one and take a look; they are not expensive.
Because the SI standards people are obsessed with the 1:10 ratio they would not countenance a scale with 1/5th mm, and yet the mm is too big for handmade precision work and 1/10 mm would be virtually impossible to read without magnification. For that matter, 1/128th inch is to small for most purposes but it comes in handy on occasion.
My last post had an error, it is 6400 millirad to the circle.
Well, Rambo, I have at least one rule calibrated in 1/128th inch and I assure you it is not just a black line. Howewer, I would not want to go down another factor of 2. Buy one and take a look; they are not expensive.
Because the SI standards people are obsessed with the 1:10 ratio they would not countenance a scale with 1/5th mm, and yet the mm is too big for handmade precision work and 1/10 mm would be virtually impossible to read without magnification. For that matter, 1/128th inch is to small for most purposes but it comes in handy on occasion.
My last post had an error, it is 6400 millirad to the circle.
capt vimes
10-20-2009, 04:44 AM
1. I have a Yard long stride. I could pace out Fifty and would expect a high degree of accuracy. To step out Fifty Metres, I would need to extend each step and it would all be "a bit of a hit and miss". It would also probably lead to a muscle injury.
i don't know about your stride or your leglength.... but making strides of 91,44 cm isn't easy either... stridelength as posted is in average 63 cm.
2. Have you never heard of a hundredweight. There are 20 of the in every Imperial Ton. It's 14 Lbs= 1 stone; 8 stones= 1 Cwt (that's the short way of writing hundredweight) and 20 Cwt's = 1 ton. Multiply them all together and you get 2240 Lbs in a Ton. Easy Peasy.
i had to laugh! ;-)
you call that easy-peasy....
how much ounces in 1 lb? 16 i guess...
16 * 14 * 8 * 20... from the smallest imperial weight to the highest... this is nuts!
now in metric:
10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10... from the gramm to the ton... now that's easy peasy! ;-)
3. Your ship will displace its own weight in any fluid, even in an EU wine lake. One Imperial gallon of Fresh Water weighs 10 lbs exactly.
oh suddenly your metric? ;-)
4. In the end you admit that you will stick with the existing angular and time measures, except when ranging tanks through your Stritch system. This is the correct approach and you should adopt both Metric and Imperial systems. They are both faily simple when you get used to them.
i would not call the imperial system easy....
i don't know about your stride or your leglength.... but making strides of 91,44 cm isn't easy either... stridelength as posted is in average 63 cm.
2. Have you never heard of a hundredweight. There are 20 of the in every Imperial Ton. It's 14 Lbs= 1 stone; 8 stones= 1 Cwt (that's the short way of writing hundredweight) and 20 Cwt's = 1 ton. Multiply them all together and you get 2240 Lbs in a Ton. Easy Peasy.
i had to laugh! ;-)
you call that easy-peasy....
how much ounces in 1 lb? 16 i guess...
16 * 14 * 8 * 20... from the smallest imperial weight to the highest... this is nuts!
now in metric:
10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10... from the gramm to the ton... now that's easy peasy! ;-)
3. Your ship will displace its own weight in any fluid, even in an EU wine lake. One Imperial gallon of Fresh Water weighs 10 lbs exactly.
oh suddenly your metric? ;-)
4. In the end you admit that you will stick with the existing angular and time measures, except when ranging tanks through your Stritch system. This is the correct approach and you should adopt both Metric and Imperial systems. They are both faily simple when you get used to them.
i would not call the imperial system easy....
masrapido
10-20-2009, 04:55 AM
I find it funny how 'democrats' of all colours in those three underdeveloped countries still using that archaic and clumsy system, love calling it "imperial".
One would think metric would be perfect for 'democrats" to cut the ties with their empires.
The price of living in the stone age...
One would think metric would be perfect for 'democrats" to cut the ties with their empires.
The price of living in the stone age...
masrapido
10-20-2009, 05:03 AM
The Inuit people had a system for measuring based on the human body; a kayak for a specific task (hunting, exploring, beaching dead animals) would have its various measurements defined in this way, the width of the hips plus a the width of a fist might define the cockpit width for a particular type of boat tailored to a specific person, for example. Very practical for boat making using undimensioned material found lying on the beach, not very practical for trade.
Do you realise that "imperial" system is based on the body as well? inch is thumb, then the foot, and what is the measure based on the forearm's lenght...?
Do you realise that "imperial" system is based on the body as well? inch is thumb, then the foot, and what is the measure based on the forearm's lenght...?
capt vimes
10-20-2009, 06:21 AM
to all who are in the opinion that a metric ruler is not accurate enough...
1/16th for example is 1,5875 mm and thats quite easy to read from a m-ruler... it is also quite easily possible to read 0,5 mm from such a ruler and that would be less than 1/32nd inch...
some rulers even have 0,5 mm markers on them....
if you want or have to be more accurate and precise like in machinery or something there are calipers and gauges used..
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messschieber
with a caliper you are able to meassure in the 1/10th of mm quite accuratly (1/100th with the ones featuring a digital reading)... and no fussing around with 1/128th of an inch and stuff...
but i know that everybody is used to the units he learned to use... everything apart from it 'feels' weird...
and i am personally at a total loss when it comes to units for pressure, torque and such given in imperial...
i just have absolutely no 'feeling' for psi, lbs (i do not even know what that stands for... pound*second?), lbft and all of those calculated units because i was brought up using SI units like N/m² (Pa, bar) or Nm...
there i do have the biggest problem with imperial and the unlogical units for weight and distance in imperial is only the root of the whole thing...
1/16th for example is 1,5875 mm and thats quite easy to read from a m-ruler... it is also quite easily possible to read 0,5 mm from such a ruler and that would be less than 1/32nd inch...
some rulers even have 0,5 mm markers on them....
if you want or have to be more accurate and precise like in machinery or something there are calipers and gauges used..
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messschieber
with a caliper you are able to meassure in the 1/10th of mm quite accuratly (1/100th with the ones featuring a digital reading)... and no fussing around with 1/128th of an inch and stuff...
but i know that everybody is used to the units he learned to use... everything apart from it 'feels' weird...
and i am personally at a total loss when it comes to units for pressure, torque and such given in imperial...
i just have absolutely no 'feeling' for psi, lbs (i do not even know what that stands for... pound*second?), lbft and all of those calculated units because i was brought up using SI units like N/m² (Pa, bar) or Nm...
there i do have the biggest problem with imperial and the unlogical units for weight and distance in imperial is only the root of the whole thing...
murdomack
10-20-2009, 07:29 AM
to all who are in the opinion that a metric ruler is not accurate enough...
1/16th for example is 1,5875 mm and thats quite easy to read from a m-ruler... it is also quite easily possible to read 0,5 mm from such a ruler and that would be less than 1/32nd inch...
some rulers even have 0,5 mm markers on them....
if you want or have to be more accurate and precise like in machinery or something there are calipers and gauges used..
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messschieber
with a caliper you are able to meassure in the 1/100th of mm quite accuratly... and no fussing around with 1/128th of an inch and stuff...
but i know that everybody is used to the units he learned to use... everything apart from it 'feels' weird...
and i am personally at a total loss when it comes to units for pressure, torque and such given in imperial...
i just have absolutely no 'feeling' for psi, lbs (i do not even know what that stands for... pound*second?), lbft and all of those calculated units because i was brought up using SI units like N/m² (Pa, bar) or Nm...
there i do have the biggest problem with imperial and the unlogical units for weight and distance in imperial is only the root of the whole thing...
When I was a Fabrication apprentice many years ago, we were allowed to be no more than 1/32" out in any size. That was on welded work as well. The checker would ask to borrow your hammer and with a very short explanation start breaking loose the offending part. Today I see drawings and "standards" that allow 4mm. Whatever else Metric has done for us, it has certainly not maintained quality at the old Imperial Standard.
I am totally opposite your position, I dont really understand things like Newtons and Pascals. I know what they are but I have no feel for them like I have for Pounds. I know my pounds intimately, when I was a kid everything arrived at our house in either 56lb(1/2cwt), 112lb(cwt), 140 lbs(Bole) or 144lb(Gross) sacks. If I went to the shop and purchased anything, it was always Ozs, Lbs and Stones. We would usually be carrying home 1/2 a stone each of potatoes and oatmeal in tall brown paper bags. Bags of sweets were 4 ozs or a quarter pound. Packaged sugar came in 2 Lb bags.
When it comes to Pressure, I know that the atmosphere supports 30" Hg, or about 34 ft of water and that it is at about 14.7 psi. From this I can work out most of the things I need to know about pressures and vacuums, water collumn's, head of water, and so on. I can understand everything I am doing and I don't need to look anything up. Pascals mean nothing to me.
1/16th for example is 1,5875 mm and thats quite easy to read from a m-ruler... it is also quite easily possible to read 0,5 mm from such a ruler and that would be less than 1/32nd inch...
some rulers even have 0,5 mm markers on them....
if you want or have to be more accurate and precise like in machinery or something there are calipers and gauges used..
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messschieber
with a caliper you are able to meassure in the 1/100th of mm quite accuratly... and no fussing around with 1/128th of an inch and stuff...
but i know that everybody is used to the units he learned to use... everything apart from it 'feels' weird...
and i am personally at a total loss when it comes to units for pressure, torque and such given in imperial...
i just have absolutely no 'feeling' for psi, lbs (i do not even know what that stands for... pound*second?), lbft and all of those calculated units because i was brought up using SI units like N/m² (Pa, bar) or Nm...
there i do have the biggest problem with imperial and the unlogical units for weight and distance in imperial is only the root of the whole thing...
When I was a Fabrication apprentice many years ago, we were allowed to be no more than 1/32" out in any size. That was on welded work as well. The checker would ask to borrow your hammer and with a very short explanation start breaking loose the offending part. Today I see drawings and "standards" that allow 4mm. Whatever else Metric has done for us, it has certainly not maintained quality at the old Imperial Standard.
I am totally opposite your position, I dont really understand things like Newtons and Pascals. I know what they are but I have no feel for them like I have for Pounds. I know my pounds intimately, when I was a kid everything arrived at our house in either 56lb(1/2cwt), 112lb(cwt), 140 lbs(Bole) or 144lb(Gross) sacks. If I went to the shop and purchased anything, it was always Ozs, Lbs and Stones. We would usually be carrying home 1/2 a stone each of potatoes and oatmeal in tall brown paper bags. Bags of sweets were 4 ozs or a quarter pound. Packaged sugar came in 2 Lb bags.
When it comes to Pressure, I know that the atmosphere supports 30" Hg, or about 34 ft of water and that it is at about 14.7 psi. From this I can work out most of the things I need to know about pressures and vacuums, water collumn's, head of water, and so on. I can understand everything I am doing and I don't need to look anything up. Pascals mean nothing to me.
Astute Boats
10-20-2009, 07:55 AM
Metric is the way... for boat builders here in Europe that is, even the straight edges lost the Inch graduations some time ago... working in 10ths of a mm is the norm. I like working with optical surveying levels to achieve this during the whole boat build.
ancient kayaker
10-20-2009, 04:28 PM
I find it funny how 'democrats' of all colours in those three underdeveloped countries still using that archaic and clumsy system, love calling it "imperial".
One would think metric would be perfect for 'democrats" to cut the ties with their empires.
The price of living in the stone age...
Which underdeveloped countries are democratic? I thought they all had "esteemed and beloved life-long leaders" by now.
One would think metric would be perfect for 'democrats" to cut the ties with their empires.
The price of living in the stone age...
Which underdeveloped countries are democratic? I thought they all had "esteemed and beloved life-long leaders" by now.
MikeJohns
10-21-2009, 02:28 AM
....... I dont really understand things like Newtons and Pascals. I know what they are but I have no feel for them ...
I'm equally happy with either system and tend to use whatever fits best for the things i'm doing. But for engineering the SI system is significantly more user friendly,and is actually very easy to work with and very logical.
It is a very good idea to get an understanding of the fundamental unit of force called after Isaac Newton
( Newton's work in the 1600's was on par with Einstein's for sheer deductive brilliance ).
The Newton(N) is close to the force experienced from holding a decent sized cooking apple on the Earths surface. It’s very easy to relate to.
One pound force is 'four and a half' Newtons (4.5N)
Material strength is given in Newtons per square millimeter otherwise known as megapascals (MPa)
Just to illustrate this
Consider how many apples (N) can I support with a mild steel wire 2mm in cross sectional area with a yield strength of 300 apples(N) per square millimeter ( or 300MPa yield ).
.After about 5 minutes of exposure the Newton becomes a real and useful unit which anyone can grasp.
And it’s really useful for working with apples :)
I'm equally happy with either system and tend to use whatever fits best for the things i'm doing. But for engineering the SI system is significantly more user friendly,and is actually very easy to work with and very logical.
It is a very good idea to get an understanding of the fundamental unit of force called after Isaac Newton
( Newton's work in the 1600's was on par with Einstein's for sheer deductive brilliance ).
The Newton(N) is close to the force experienced from holding a decent sized cooking apple on the Earths surface. It’s very easy to relate to.
One pound force is 'four and a half' Newtons (4.5N)
Material strength is given in Newtons per square millimeter otherwise known as megapascals (MPa)
Just to illustrate this
Consider how many apples (N) can I support with a mild steel wire 2mm in cross sectional area with a yield strength of 300 apples(N) per square millimeter ( or 300MPa yield ).
.After about 5 minutes of exposure the Newton becomes a real and useful unit which anyone can grasp.
And it’s really useful for working with apples :)
capt vimes
10-21-2009, 08:55 AM
....Material strength is given in Newtons per square millimeter otherwise known as megapascals (MPa)...
thats also something i did not even think of since i don't know anything else...
how can someone work without knowing what those numbers actually mean - or do you have any other weird unit for material strength in your nutshell called imperial?
some other things..
in the electric world we have Volts and Ampere and everybody knows that Watt = V*A
now Watt is generally spoken the SI unit for power... where W = Joule/seconds
J = Nm... so W = Nm/s = VA
nowhere fits any lbft or something in...
i really do not know how someone can work in imperial... it would drive me mad... ;-)
thats also something i did not even think of since i don't know anything else...
how can someone work without knowing what those numbers actually mean - or do you have any other weird unit for material strength in your nutshell called imperial?
some other things..
in the electric world we have Volts and Ampere and everybody knows that Watt = V*A
now Watt is generally spoken the SI unit for power... where W = Joule/seconds
J = Nm... so W = Nm/s = VA
nowhere fits any lbft or something in...
i really do not know how someone can work in imperial... it would drive me mad... ;-)
ancient kayaker
10-21-2009, 11:18 AM
I thought the Newton was a type of apple and the Pascal a type of pear that comes from France.
rambo!
10-21-2009, 02:25 PM
I think murdomack gave the aswer..."both are just as good when you are use to it".
I can never remember IP-numbers, and my young colleagues has it all in their head. My excuse is, my brain was not programmed to store 12-digit numbers, I don´t have a map for that many columns and digits. It´s like going from the old area code and 5 to 6-digits into mobile 10+ digits in a row...no way I can remember such a number.
I can never remember IP-numbers, and my young colleagues has it all in their head. My excuse is, my brain was not programmed to store 12-digit numbers, I don´t have a map for that many columns and digits. It´s like going from the old area code and 5 to 6-digits into mobile 10+ digits in a row...no way I can remember such a number.
ancient kayaker
10-21-2009, 11:41 PM
I shocked a cop a few years back. He wanted to see my driving licence which I discovered I had left home with my wallet. So I gave him the 15 digit number from memory, together with my name, address etc. He entered it into his little computer and was so amazed that it was correct he let me off with a warning. I suspect what shocked him was not the fact that I had memorized it as much as the thought that anyone would bother.
Fanie
10-22-2009, 03:16 AM
So I gave him the 15 digit number from memory,
Thankfully it was a metric number. If it was an imperial combination... :D
Thankfully it was a metric number. If it was an imperial combination... :D
ancient kayaker
10-22-2009, 10:42 AM
Thankfully it was a metric number. If it was an imperial combination... :D
There was also a letter or two. If it had been in miles-furlongs-chains-yards-feet-inches, guineas-pounds-crowns-shillings-pence-farthings or tons-hundredweight-stones-pounds-ounces it might have been easier to remember ...
There was also a letter or two. If it had been in miles-furlongs-chains-yards-feet-inches, guineas-pounds-crowns-shillings-pence-farthings or tons-hundredweight-stones-pounds-ounces it might have been easier to remember ...
Fanie
10-22-2009, 01:30 PM
Actually I'm fascinated by the measurements the impurialists :D are using.
Who decided things like the 'stones' and inches. I bet it comes from before they had rulers or scales or units for that matter. I'm surprised they don't have sheep and cows and whales in it there somewhere.
Ok, how many guineas in a sheep or in a cow. How many in an elephant :D
Who decided things like the 'stones' and inches. I bet it comes from before they had rulers or scales or units for that matter. I'm surprised they don't have sheep and cows and whales in it there somewhere.
Ok, how many guineas in a sheep or in a cow. How many in an elephant :D
ancient kayaker
10-22-2009, 03:56 PM
... Who decided things like the 'stones' and inches ... :D
Maybe the same folk that decided to use a poetry term to name the meter.
... how many guineas in a sheep or in a cow. How many in an elephant ... :D
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you ;)
Maybe the same folk that decided to use a poetry term to name the meter.
... how many guineas in a sheep or in a cow. How many in an elephant ... :D
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you ;)
hoytedow
10-22-2009, 08:28 PM
Actually I'm fascinated by the measurements the impurialists :D are using.
Who decided things like the 'stones' and inches. I bet it comes from before they had rulers or scales or units for that matter. I'm surprised they don't have sheep and cows and whales in it there somewhere.
Ok, how many guineas in a sheep or in a cow. How many in an elephant :D I believe the Fahrenheit thermometer was based upon the imperialist dairy industry, where 0d F is the freezing point of milk and 100d F is the normal body temp of a cow. I believe those were the 2 most important temps to that industry at the time of the development of that scale. Stones may have been a military measurement for standardising the weight of projectiles for range calculations during the age of catapults and trebuchets.
Who decided things like the 'stones' and inches. I bet it comes from before they had rulers or scales or units for that matter. I'm surprised they don't have sheep and cows and whales in it there somewhere.
Ok, how many guineas in a sheep or in a cow. How many in an elephant :D I believe the Fahrenheit thermometer was based upon the imperialist dairy industry, where 0d F is the freezing point of milk and 100d F is the normal body temp of a cow. I believe those were the 2 most important temps to that industry at the time of the development of that scale. Stones may have been a military measurement for standardising the weight of projectiles for range calculations during the age of catapults and trebuchets.
capt vimes
10-23-2009, 04:09 AM
and thats the _historical_ reason why at the end of the 18th century on proposal from the 'Académie des sciences' the metric system got implemented - initially only in france!
at that time europe was nothing but a patchwerk of small earldoms, every each had their own scales and measurementsystems - even their own currency - very often with the same names but differnet lengths and weights behind them... can you imagine how this was compromising economy and scientific exchange?
it took europe (england excluded) until the end of the 19th century to fully agree on the metric system.. in the meantime countrys were adopting their own systems to the metric... a foot became 30 cm for instance, a pound 500 g...
and what was the reason for all this confusion?
everywhere clever people thought of standards and named them with all their creativity... a lot of clever people came up with different standards which were good for the local market since everybody there knew what they were dealing with... 50 km away in the next country everything was different..
luckily only 2 standards survived and nowadays with the world coming closer together by the hour and global business, science and cooperation is becoming imperative we should realy standarise systems worldwide...
and if the outcome would be something completely new - as the gramm and the meter has been in the 18th century - it's fine for me... ;)
at that time europe was nothing but a patchwerk of small earldoms, every each had their own scales and measurementsystems - even their own currency - very often with the same names but differnet lengths and weights behind them... can you imagine how this was compromising economy and scientific exchange?
it took europe (england excluded) until the end of the 19th century to fully agree on the metric system.. in the meantime countrys were adopting their own systems to the metric... a foot became 30 cm for instance, a pound 500 g...
and what was the reason for all this confusion?
everywhere clever people thought of standards and named them with all their creativity... a lot of clever people came up with different standards which were good for the local market since everybody there knew what they were dealing with... 50 km away in the next country everything was different..
luckily only 2 standards survived and nowadays with the world coming closer together by the hour and global business, science and cooperation is becoming imperative we should realy standarise systems worldwide...
and if the outcome would be something completely new - as the gramm and the meter has been in the 18th century - it's fine for me... ;)
ancient kayaker
10-23-2009, 10:52 AM
I believe the Fahrenheit thermometer was based upon the imperialist dairy industry, where 0d F is the freezing point of milk and 100d F is the normal body temp of a cow ...
“The normal core body temperature of a healthy, resting cow is stated on average to be 101.5 degrees Fahrenheit” according to an Internet source, so you might be correct.
However, I always figured big F took the human body temperature as 100 deg but just picked a feverish individual. I read someplace he used a salt-water mix to set the zero degree point. So he was trying to get a zero to 100 scale - he was trying to be metric, just a little before his time! he was the giant upon whose shoulders folk like Celcius stood later, in order to see further.
My! We do range far and wide on this forum don't we!
“The normal core body temperature of a healthy, resting cow is stated on average to be 101.5 degrees Fahrenheit” according to an Internet source, so you might be correct.
However, I always figured big F took the human body temperature as 100 deg but just picked a feverish individual. I read someplace he used a salt-water mix to set the zero degree point. So he was trying to get a zero to 100 scale - he was trying to be metric, just a little before his time! he was the giant upon whose shoulders folk like Celcius stood later, in order to see further.
My! We do range far and wide on this forum don't we!
hoytedow
10-23-2009, 06:55 PM
Terry, considering the age in which Fahrenheit lived, a 1.5d discrepancy probably wasn't inexcusable. I wouldn't be surprised if the freezing point of milk isn't exactly 0d, either.
ancient kayaker
10-23-2009, 08:11 PM
... I wouldn't be surprised if the freezing point of milk isn't exactly 0d, either.
I'd be very surprised if that were so; milk freezes very close to the freezing point of water inmy experience. The zero F point is closer to the freezing point of concentrated brine.
I'd be very surprised if that were so; milk freezes very close to the freezing point of water inmy experience. The zero F point is closer to the freezing point of concentrated brine.
hoytedow
10-23-2009, 08:24 PM
You are right; I somehow mixed up old memories. Now I don't know how Fahrenheit settled on 0d F unless frozen brine is or was used in dairy processing. My bad. WAIT! Homemade ice cream, that's it!
ancient kayaker
10-24-2009, 01:16 AM
Silly old Fahrenheit, wasting his time putting out ideas on temperature measurement when he could have been getting rich selling frosties!
hoytedow
10-27-2009, 08:51 PM
....:)....
Jenny Giles
11-02-2009, 12:08 AM
Biased poll!
What's wrong with Reamur?
What's wrong with Reamur?
ancient kayaker
11-02-2009, 09:30 AM
Nothing at all, though I would have thought an Oz bloke would have put the alcohol to better use ...
View Full Version : Metric vs Imperial poll
Legal •
Boat Design Forums •
Gallery •
Directory •
Boat Design & Boatbuilding Bookstore •
Powerboat Ads •
Sailboat Ads
powered by vBulletin which is copyright ©2000-2012 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999-2012 Boat Design Net
powered by vBulletin which is copyright ©2000-2012 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999-2012 Boat Design Net