Metric vs Imperial poll [Archive]

Polarity

04-15-2002, 06:57 PM

...excuse me while I get on my soapbox !

As an engineer on big yachts and now a supplier of parts I would like to propose that all nominal sizes should be banned!

Metric /imperial conversions are bad enough but when 2"/50mm pipe:

a) is different sizes in Europe and the USA (and therefore on european and US products)

b) contains not a single measurement that is either 2" or 50mm

c) 2" is not 50mm anyway!

"Ha" I hear you cry, all you need is decent set of conversion tables... right - now try finding them. Then try explaining the above 3 things to the customer who is sure he wants a 1 1/2" pipe/valve/hose - because ... he measured it...

If people are truly incapable of measuring the ID or OD of something then at least let's call the sizes small, medium, large and larger or even Abdul, Bob, Charlie and Dehlila for all I care. Just NOT anything supposedly relating to graduations on a measuring device.
If we must have this system at least the manufacturers should be good enough to write the size and the system on the bloody part. After all if it says 2" how are we suppose to know if thats 2" USA or 2" European ... MEASURE IT???? (b above!)

Ok I'll get down now, before I fall off!

Paul

Willallison

04-15-2002, 07:50 PM

Here Here!!:D :mad: :confused:

8knots

04-17-2002, 01:53 AM

Sorry guys I am a rock head and will allways use imperial even if the rest of the world does convert to the dark side! Just to stubborn to learn to use it in a second nature. I have to deal with it when I do sign proposals for (British petroleum) luckily my software converts the jibberish to Real measurements like rods and furlongs!:p :p :p :p :p come on guys take it lite! 8Kts

Mike D

09-15-2002, 03:27 AM

I totally agree with the sentiments expressed here that we should all stay with the good old pounds – feet system instead of that silly metric system.

Give me a 2” pipe every time and keep your 50 mm thing! Just look at our 2” pipe, nice round numbers - oops that’s 2” Nominal and they’re all 2.375” OD with a wall thickness from 0.154” to 0.436” Good grief, the now standard metric sizes conform to DIN and most pipes are identical to ours!

OK, but our engines are better. GADZOOKS, they’re metric now too. Golly, toothpaste tubes metric.

But our general measurements are much more natural and easy to apply, just a second while I measure and write down a waterline half-breadth ……..three feet four and three sixteenths (he said) and 3’ 4 3/16” (he wrote). Sorry, I’m back that’s straightforward enough now to convert it to decimals for calculations = 3.348958333, times 42.125 times 43.145833 = 6,086.793 cubic feet divided by 36 = 169.078 long tons times 2240 = 378,734.72 pounds. I think that should be good enough.

Damn these metric measures one point three seven five metres = 1.375 times 15.2 times 27.85 = 582.065 cubic metres = 582.065 tonnes of fresh water = 582,065 kilos. What a nuisance, cumbersome!

http://C:\aaaLL My Files\AAAAACMD\Forums\Boat Design\scale.png

But has anyone a scale like this one?:D

I laughed at the adoption of the metric nautical mile, the US adopted it 50 years ago and have been publishing charts using the International Nautical Mile for years. In practical terms it's no different to the old UK nm, but the advantage is you're going faster! Now 25.02 knots versus 25. There's a downside of course to all of this. Like the guy said, "Now I have to drive 250 km to see my girl friend but it was only 150 m yesterday.":p

My only difficulty with the metric system is that now I must 2.54 cm my car back into the drive. When I decide to just proceed and damn them all I find that "In for 2.4 cents, in for 0.454 kilos" just doesn't hack it.

Try a little experiment with your wife/girl-friend/mother/sister/daughter. In the supermarket ask her what size of packet she is buying, or can or toothpaste and why she rarely buys apples by the pound - she'll swear she does but she buys whatever they weigh and pays per pound, she probably picks 4 or 5 anyway. My wife buys big, medium or little ones.

So the 2" inch pipe is really 2.375 OD or 60.325 mm:D

Bite the bullet, go metric;)
Michael

Polarity

09-15-2002, 07:29 AM

A year or so back I did a yacht race Barcelone/Ibiza, when the fog came down coming back into Barcelona and they had to use something other than the GPS to navigate they asked me to help ... thats when I discovered they had ... METRIC CHARTS.... aaarrrrggghh! - confused ? completely!

I love the metric system .. but there is a limit!

Paul

Polarity

09-15-2002, 07:34 AM

PS Honest,
Michael, 2" pipe might be 2.375 OD or 60.325 mm where you come from but 2" European pipe will be a different size - and not 2" either!:confused:

Paul

Mike D

09-15-2002, 03:48 PM

Paul

I don't know what size UK, Aus, NZ, Spain and a few other places use but the US and Canada work with the US standards and the 2" Nominal pipe is as I described it.

About 25 years ago the North Sea oil boom started and it was really driven by Americans who had the experience in offshore drilling. When their design engineers began to try and use European standards they threw them out because there were so many it would have created havoc in trying to build modules in different places. (There was also the usual crap that ABS and USCG MODU regs weren't good enough for the Europeans who all began to write their own standards anyway.)

So they began to use the normal API and ANSI standards common on rigs. This accelerated moves in European yards to standardise as there was no such thing as a metric standard in the same way that there was no inch standard.

(The last offshore project I worked on was a re-construction of a drilling rig into a production rig. So here was a rig with an original basic design from the US, detail design done in Singapore, built in Italy. The production system and mods to the structure etc were engineered in the UK, detailed by my yard, with design approvals in Italy, UK, Canada, US and South America. And you're complaining about metric charts :rolleyes: )

For the same reason that MacDonalds sells burgers in Paris and Coke in Seville the US piping began to make inroads into Europe. The best European Standards group was the German DIN which grouped the US standards into three lots depending on the scope and availability of associated fittings. So the groups were Full range of fittings for a wide range of pipes
Medium range
Small rangeThis became the new DIN standard and the sizes were the US standards simply converted into mm. For some reason I could never 1.8288m they changed a few, I think out of all the US sizes up to 10" Nominal they used a different 6" and 8" but I am not sure now.

I must admit that I don't know what was adopted throughout Europe but I know yards in France, Germany, Holland and Norway that were using the DIN standards. Machine manufacturers were also trying to standardise on the pipe connection fittings.

This is common on ships but I confess I do not know what happens on boats where tubes are the norm I suppose, not the bigger and heavier pipes.

So you be careful! If you call in at the local marina in the Arctic and ask the Inuit repair boss if he can fix a Spanish standard doo-hickey I think he'll tell you ........................... (fill in the blanks)

What's wrong with Spanish charts being metric, by the way. Did you mistake a rock for a fish perhaps and forgot that a miss is as good as 1.609344 km?:D

Happy daze
Michael

Jorgoz

02-17-2003, 04:40 AM

Option 2

Over here everything is metric, except when i go out to buy wood :D .

George

Mike H

04-01-2003, 02:41 PM

If you have imperial! why not have Experial?

Polarity

04-01-2003, 03:11 PM

Re wood...

Last time I was in the Uk people ordered their 2 x 4 ' s by the meter...

04-02-2003, 04:15 AM

What'sa 2 x 4 ?

04-02-2003, 04:28 AM

In the US, 1.5" x 3.5" for framing lumber...

You mean is a 2x4 still a 2x4 or is it a 38x89 (mm) :D

Mike H

04-03-2003, 02:06 AM

You lads have it all wrong, its larger preceding smaller i.e. "4 x 2"
Noah did it the other way - 2 x 2 and 2 x 4

Polarity

04-03-2003, 02:23 PM

I seem to remember that 2 x 4 is not 2 or 4 in any direction. Its one of those Nominal things again....

Any more of this and we'll have to move it to the new wood boat section!

Example of nominal/metric conversion in wood:
http://www.southernpine.com/metricinfo.htm

gonzo

04-05-2003, 10:35 AM

I don't know about you guys! My dad taught me thirtyfive years ago how to boil the end of a metric hose and make it standard. It only takes about an hour of sweating and cussing. How do Europeans do it? :)

yipster

04-05-2003, 11:35 AM

35 years ago the usa was intensely going metric i recall, stil is? and "we" dont boil ends of metric hoses to make them standard! or do we? (actually i do). beeing from the "earth" i can and have used both systems, each has its own logic, still i prefer metric if that someday may become universal????
:D

gonzo

04-07-2003, 09:31 AM

Yes, the USA is going metric (somehow). There are many odd situations arising from it. For example a GM engine has a metric starter with metric bolts. The head bolts have metric heads but standard threads and hardness markings. Fords have brake lines which are metric in one end and standard in the other. Lumber is standard but there is more metric plywood. Also a 3 1/2 inch piston has a clearance of 15 thousands. Wait a minute! How many thousnads in 1/128th? :)

04-07-2003, 02:05 PM

7.8125

Peter_T

05-24-2003, 05:59 PM

Metric is for the world, it started in Europe. A easier way to dimension drawings even without quoting units if expressed in mm numerals. For longer dimensions quote meter with unit. Weight from kg to tonnes is really easy. In fact International Convention Stability have to be performed in metric.

If you buy steel from a metric country, you may for some year back ask for ft x ft x mm. Now, just buy their standard size or you will face higher quotes.

For scientific formulations, if you once use imperial, you may be stuck with it. Since converting means you have to buy new books, change the coefficients etc.

In every day life, we buy or sell in either lbs. or in a lesser number in kg at a higher price rate on the tag. You will see weather report in C and not F. Your weight number suddenly drop to under half when using kg instead of lbs., how nice !!!.

To change we have to be forced to have a sudden change. In the States, we live between the two. The Classification societies quote the rule formulation first in metric, then another metric in Newtons "N", then go to lbf. with gravitation acceleration impact. You can't state force in lb but lbf or Newtons "N".

One of the universal unit is weight in tons or tonnes. They only differ by a slight 1.6%. What a coincidence. You can almost take it for granted as tons. Avoid using short tons, that is the unit for river transportation.

The new generation will be truely full metric. I go for metric.

Guest

10-22-2003, 10:52 PM

A friend once told me when you look at all the most beautiful building's in the world , remember they were built in feet and inche's .

gonzo

10-23-2003, 08:39 AM

The romans built in rods and cubits. Metric is much easier to learn and use. Try telling an apprentice that he needs to substract 3' 7 3/16" from 9' 5 1/8. Dividing is even more complicated.

Bryan P

06-01-2004, 10:30 AM

Full metric requires the use of grads (400 to the circle). In this system, the kilometre and km/h make sense, but this system is so rubbish that even in metric countries you will more often than not find degrees used instead. If degrees are used, then the knot and nautical mile must be. And if the nautical mile is used, why not the fathom, too? [the fathom being equal to very nearly 1/1000nm] And therefore, if the fathom, why not just make things easy on yourself by using the rest of English measures?

Corpus Skipper

06-01-2004, 11:41 PM

Try telling an apprentice that he needs to substract 3' 7 3/16" from 9' 5 1/8.

Dad taught me to read a tape when I was 10 years old. by the way, it's 5' 9 15/16" :D

Jimboat

06-08-2004, 03:21 PM

OK, Ok....

Your POLL has convinced me...We've released the new version of the Tunnel Boat Design Software (http://www.aeromarineresearch.com/tbdp6.html) with the new feature allowing for BOTH METRIC and IMPERIAL units; and auto conversion of variable inputs and performance output results (Metric<=>Imperial). Seemed like the best way to satisfy everyone's needs!

rlewis

09-29-2004, 03:44 PM

Metric, just in case we intend to land it on mars some day

gonzo

09-29-2004, 04:42 PM

Re-reading "The War of The Worlds", I don't see any mention to Martians using the Metric system.

FAST FRED

10-08-2004, 06:15 AM

I much prefer Knots and NM as they can be directly used on a chart.

Also much of the early marine writing is ALL in Knots and NM , so reading of past exploits is easier to visualize.

FAST FRED

plain_sailing

10-08-2004, 11:11 AM

Immortal Metric

fireball

10-09-2004, 10:51 AM

Why is everyone so hung up on using a set of units that offer no consistency for conversions. One kilogram weight 1000 grams, this to me seems to me obvious as does 1000mm is 1m.

The only thing that should be accepted when expressing units is the use of nautical miles and knots. I am sick of hearing that my tyre pressure should be 34 PSI!!

What is so good about inches and feet?? They seem to me to be just a force of habit and nothing else.

Corpus Skipper

10-11-2004, 09:26 PM

am sick of hearing that my tyre pressure should be 34 PSI!!
Being told mine should be 2.3 bar makes no sense to me! :D

mistral

10-12-2004, 02:59 PM

I waste a couple of month in my university career to learn how to manipulate inches, pounds, psi, feet and yards, and i'm convinced they're just a wreckage of the past!!! how can you deal with measures that didn't have a rational conversion factor ????? not to mention the two (or threee) different miles, Mph and knots, the fluid oz, solid oz......
a pressure unit like bar is related with atmospheric pressure (30 meters underwater 4 bar, easy....), I don't think psi is related to anything.....

Mistral

asathor

10-17-2004, 11:59 AM

It is all very simple; look around you in the sailing and boating industry/sport/recreation arena and see how many thumbs the average boatowner and builder have, observe how easily they stick their foot in their mouth and how much trouble they have figuring out the money part.

Money these days are in metric and that is the root of the problem. A mesument system based on counting a fraction of your bodys appendages is too difficult - most people never learn fractions that well. And if you include bums, knockers, etc, men and woment don't even have the same count and to make matters worse the count sometimes change over time or even more or less instantaneusly.

Then again only the women seem to agree with the 12 inches to a foot but at least all men know that that is an arbitrary unit used on rulers and that real inches are much smaller.

Hopefully the designers and engineers master both and state the chosen units on the blueprints including an sample scale drawing of their inches.

asathor

10-17-2004, 12:03 PM

It is all very simple; look around you in the sailing and boating industry/ sport/ recreation arena and see how many thumbs the average boatowner and builder have, observe how easily they stick their foot in their mouth and how much trouble they have figuring out the money part.

Money these days are in metric and that is the root of the problem. A measument system based on counting a fraction of your bodys appendages is too difficult - most people never learn fractions that well. And if you include bums, knockers, etc, men and woment don't even have the same count and to make matters worse the count sometimes change over time or even more or less instantaneusly.

Then again only the women seem to agree with the 12 inches to a foot but at least all men know that that is an arbitrary unit used on rulers and that real inches are much smaller.

I think the simplest way to shore up this flaw in an otherwise excellent and very intuitive measument system is to ask the designers and engineers to include a sample scale drawing of their inches on all blue prints.

Corpus Skipper

10-17-2004, 03:15 PM

I don't think psi is related to anything.....
Ah.... but it is! 1 psi= 1 pound of force exerted upon 1 square inch. Easy! 2 bar just doesn't sound right to me, no picture comes to mind. But say 29.4 psi, and I can see, even feel my little dog standing on one foot on my leg or something (they always want to stand on you where it hurts the most, don't they?) :D It's all a matter of how you were brought up. Some on metric, some on imperial. Some speak English, some speak Portugese. To each his own says I!

RThompson

10-21-2004, 02:34 AM

To each his own says I!

Ah yes. I totally agree.
(I can accept other people have different ideas from me, just so long as they realise they are wrong) :p

Rob

Wynand N

11-05-2004, 02:19 PM

It mystifies my mind how the yanks put a man on the moon with the imperial system. :confused:

Once we were also in the dark ages but luckily in the early 1960's we stepped into the light.

What is easier than the metric system. you just move the decimal.
1 kilometer = 1000meter (1.6 mile) 1meter =1000mm, or 100cm or 10dm

eg: 1200mm+64mm +3800mm = 5064mm or 5.064m or 50.64dm or 506.4cm

Try to add feet, inches, and fractions of inches this easy? No way

Same apply to mass: 1 ton = 1000kg. 1 kilogram (kg) = 1000gram (g)
Liquids: 1 liter = 1000ml, No gallons, pints and quarts to confuse you.

Except for the Americans, how many countries still steer the horse by the tail.

Lovies

Wynand

gonzo

11-05-2004, 07:51 PM

We must remember the moon was built in feet and inches. It pre-dates the metric system :)

MikeJohns

11-06-2004, 07:09 PM

These days with calculating machines its easy to work in any measurement system. The physical distance is absolute there nothing absolute about the measurement system.

With a boat I feel feet make more intuitive measurement for length beam and draft. But displacement is better in metric tonnes due the UK, US differing values leading to confusion.
I'd be lost without mm and the mm lends itself very well on boats to scantling thicknesses and reduces errors due to misreading fractions.

As for Nuatical miles and knots vs km/hr...how many detractors have actually navigated? the nautical mile is here to stay forever as a very sensible logical measurement.

How many adopt the new angle measurement (radian) that excel defaults to? How many can relate to a measurement that tends to give you meaningless fractions. I would think everyone here prefers 128 degrees to 2.234 radians. Confusion over angular measurement has led to several errors that I have witnessed over the years. Yet the radian is the sensible logical measurement.

Time mesaurement works in a relativley complicated sytem that we all grasp without trouble. So it is with inches feet and yards, they have been, and remain good intuitive measurements for many people in the world.

If you want to relate to the wealth in older knowledge bases you need to be conversant with most measurement systems.

Budding designers would be well advised to be able to design in either.

Now shall i have 14.326m or a 13.716m on the waterline .............?

lakerunner

01-09-2005, 12:37 AM

Ok Metric it is...............don't buck the votes .........We all learn from it ......
can we start?

RWL

04-18-2005, 08:11 PM

Thought some of you might be interested in some trivia. A number of years back I worked on a US Navy contract for small boats, and we had to have our measuring instruments checked against a national standard. The boat was being built in imperial even though the propulsion system was metric and the tubes (it was Rigid Inflatable) were metric. I checked out what was the national standard for length, and lo and behold the only official standard for the U.S. of A is the metre. (spelled meter). I would have to look up the source again, but apparently about the time of the Boston Tea Party the government of the US put the metre into law as the only official length measure. They then said that because they were doing so much business with Great Britain, they made an official conversion factor to inches. Of interest, our company guessed that we would be selling the boat to more countries than the US, so did all the CAD drawings with two dimension layers, one imperial and one metric. When the US Navy came back a year or two later and wanted the boat in metric to work out with the other NATO countries etc, it was pretty simple to redo the drawings. I think we just gave them the drawing set we did for Canada, France and a couple of other countries. All in all it wasn't much trouble working with both.

yokebutt

04-20-2005, 04:48 AM

When is America going to shed the oppressive Imperial yoke imposed by Britain?

By the way, official definition of an inch is 25.4 millimeters.

Yoke(bi-metric)butt.

cyclops

04-20-2005, 04:36 PM

Global markets now make no system close to being STANDARD. We are stuck with all of them forever. USN ships & planes speeds are knots, every thing else is yards. " Speed 300knts @ range 6000yds @ elevation 600 feet-- Pilot weighs 6 stones".

Mikey

04-21-2005, 05:14 AM

Came to think of the ISO/DIS 12215-5.2 (ISO scantling rules for mono hulls) I read I while back when reading this thread. Most of the countries in the developed world are actually planning to require new yachts sold in their country to comply with at least some of the ISO rules to be allowed to be sold. It’s not going to come tomorrow but it will come one day. And they are in metric; only exception I have found is knots.

Will we get American translations of the standards? You can still put 2’ pipes in the boats and make them 40 foot long but you must at least try a bit. I wouldn’t want to see the American boatbuilding business locked out from a big chunk of the world market.

Always smile when I watch CNBC and see that its 52 degrees in CHIna (big country China, can you be a bit more specific, Tibet or the Gobi desert), 46 degrees in BOSnia, 80 in INDia, 66 in the PHiLippines. Not even 40 year old Brits have been taught Fahrenheit in school, 5% of the world uses Fahrenheit, the rest Celsius, almost the same for gallons and miles per hour. Ever thought of feeling lonely? :D ;) :D

By the way, I agree that piping dimensions probably never will change. There is simply too much money invested. But it doesn't mean that nots and bolts can't. We should all at least be willing to try to standardise.

:D :D :D
Mikey

Mikey

04-21-2005, 05:49 AM

When is America going to shed the oppressive Imperial yoke imposed by Britain?
Since America seems to like the imperial and dislike the decimal measurement system so much, why not have it all, 1 dollar = 20 dimes = 240 cents. Let’s see, that would make 1 nickel = 0.020833333333333333333333333333333 dollars. Na, you can have it.

:D :D

RWL

04-21-2005, 09:55 AM

I always thought to be consistent, there should be 12 pennies in a dime and three dimes in a quarter and four quarters of course in the dollar. Then the nickel would be 6/144 ths of a dollar.

Na, it would never work. It is too simple.

RWL

Mikey

04-25-2005, 12:51 AM

OK, I admit, I can’t do it – And why on earth make life more difficult than it has to be, isn’t it difficult enough as it is? But I want to know, why then do I want to know??? Well, I just want to know, that’s it. Long Live Complicity.

I have no idea how to divide in foot and inches :confused: anyone wants to give me a quick lesson?

Mikey

rxcomposite

11-13-2005, 10:55 AM

I have two hands with ten fingers. I think i can count in metric better. Otherwise i will have to find the 12's and the 16's.

Rx

RHough

11-13-2005, 12:58 PM

If designers have a clue about materials and construction methods it makes no difference what system is used.

You can't just convert the numbers.

Designers are often clueless, they just look dumber when they send a blueprint to the shop that's been converted from Imperial to metric.

I'm a rigger. I work in 1/32's for wire diameter and 1/8's for lengths. 1 1/2" to 1' scale prints are easy to work in 1/8's.

I love it when I get handed an order for 1/16" 7x19 wire with swagged fittings that needs to be 3048mm +6 -0 (That's 10 feet). I can stretch 1/16 7x19 more than 6mm in 10 feet by hand. If the designer had a clue about the properties of the material, they wouldn't send such crap out of their office. So I ask, "3048mm under what tension?" :confused: , they respond "What?" :?: I build it within 1/8" of 10 feet.

I do understand that many people find the metric system easier to work with, I have a sign that reads "5/4ths people can't do fractions". I'm sure that 17/15th's of those are the ones that prefer metric. :D

Thunderhead19

11-13-2005, 02:33 PM

I always found imperial to be a bit goofy (even though I've resigned myself to using it all the time). I mean, my god, a Pound mass equals a Pound force, even though a pound mass times 32.2Ft/s^2 equals 32.2 Lbs-Ft/s^2 (or Poundals, if you prefer).....it just annoys me.

It annoyed so much of us in college that we unanimously voted to "switch off" imperial units. That's right. Just throw the switch and shut them off permanently.

Now I see people specifying absurd things like Kilograms-force and I know that its you imperial-ists who are to blame!!!! Bah! I'm not going to waste the time ranting about how lumber is measured.

Metric has fewer unit-conversion factors and coefficient-multipliers as you move from mass to acceleration to energy and back again. Me Like!!!

RHough

11-13-2005, 03:05 PM

Now I see people specifying absurd things like Kilograms-force and I know that its you imperial-ists who are to blame!!!! Bah! I'm not going to waste the time ranting about how lumber is measured.

Metric has fewer unit-conversion factors and coefficient-multipliers as you move from mass to acceleration to energy and back again. Me Like!!!

LOL ... until we have metric time we are still stuck with at least one unwieldy system. Km/Hour to M/S springs to mind. :D Not as bad as MPH to FPS I'll grant but still a hassle.

cyclops

11-13-2005, 04:25 PM

I picked 1 --40 years ago. Did no good.

cleblanc

11-15-2005, 12:34 PM

I agree with you,

I am often working with plans in BOTH metric and Imperial system.

I have come to choose that metric system is good for measurement but when quoting the material, you should quote the specific material size. If the supplier only had an imperial designation for the material, it should be quoted in imperial.

For example, a few years back, I recieved bid plans for a 200' smoke stack, the plans were in metric. Here iin Canada, it is very difficult to get metric plate thickness unless you think that 6.35mm amd 12.7mm are metric measurement. The weight difference of using the next imperial plate thickness was 4000 pounds.

Another issue, while working on the repair of an Icebreaker, I got into an argument with the inspector because I wanted to use 5/16 plate for a structure that calls for 8m plates. 5/16 equals to 7.9375mm. The next thickness is 3/8" or 9.525mm. It is not so much the weight but all of the structural connection had to be modified after the substitution.

I always try to do my plans in metric but I will always quote the specific material dimension

If designers have a clue about materials and construction methods it makes no difference what system is used.

You can't just convert the numbers.

Designers are often clueless, they just look dumber when they send a blueprint to the shop that's been converted from Imperial to metric.

I'm a rigger. I work in 1/32's for wire diameter and 1/8's for lengths. 1 1/2" to 1' scale prints are easy to work in 1/8's.

I love it when I get handed an order for 1/16" 7x19 wire with swagged fittings that needs to be 3048mm +6 -0 (That's 10 feet). I can stretch 1/16 7x19 more than 6mm in 10 feet by hand. If the designer had a clue about the properties of the material, they wouldn't send such crap out of their office. So I ask, "3048mm under what tension?" :confused: , they respond "What?" :?: I build it within 1/8" of 10 feet.

I do understand that many people find the metric system easier to work with, I have a sign that reads "5/4ths people can't do fractions". I'm sure that 17/15th's of those are the ones that prefer metric. :D

pashbe1

06-10-2006, 06:07 PM

I grew up metric. Then I started building boats in the US. Now all I can picture is imperial. But metric is so easy for almost everything. There are several free converter programs available on the web that convert any unit you can imagine to any other. I tried to attach one but its not a valid file.

yipster

01-08-2007, 06:57 PM

If you think in pounds and miles instead of kilograms and kilometers, you're in the minority. Only the United States, Liberia, and Burma still primarily use English units -- the rest of the world is metric. And now the Moon will be metric too.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/images/metricmoon/map_strip2.gif
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/08jan_metricmoon.htm?list54216

Mikey

01-08-2007, 09:26 PM

Yipster,
You didn't tell us that what you wrote was an exact copy and paste from a NASA site :)

Mikey

Gerard DeRoy

02-08-2007, 11:26 PM

Than how do you know it was from a nasa site?

Mikey

02-09-2007, 12:09 AM

January 8, 2007: If you think in pounds and miles instead of kilograms and kilometers, you're in the minority. Only the United States, Liberia, and Burma still primarily use English units -- the rest of the world is metric. And now the Moon will be metric too.

Follow this link http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/08jan_metricmoon.htm?list54216

I found it interesting that a NASA site actually contained those words :)

Mikey

02-09-2007, 12:18 AM

I emailed NASA asking them if technical drawings of e.g. space shuttle parts were in feet and inches or decimal feet, adding something like "for parts designed in the US of course, the rest of the world, except the US, Burma and Liberia is already metric"

NASA's contact page says "Kindly allow 10 to 15 business days for processing" but I guess they didn't like the content because they never answered :)

safewalrus

02-16-2007, 05:48 PM

Yeah but were they 'metric' days

stonebreaker

02-16-2007, 11:26 PM

The metric system can only be divided into halves and fifths because it's base 10. The English system, as a base 12 system, can be divided into halves, thirds, quarters, and sixths without having to deal with decimals - makes it lots easier to do math in my head when I'm building something, probably because I'm a visual thinker instead of an analytical thinker.

raminb

04-17-2007, 02:52 AM

I think 70% of Rules & Standards in the world are in Metric.

openboater

04-17-2007, 04:50 PM

METRIC ??

lets see, you still divide by 60 to meters per second from meters per minute.

January still has 31 days, not 10.

a year still has 12 months not 10

Do you guy's get time and a half pay for overtime over 8 hours worked or 10 hours . Oh thats right, metric countries never work more than 10 hours.

a meter is what ?? the wave length of what ?? Oh, that's readily understood by a ditch digger. If I want a ditch 3 feet deep, I just look down and at least I have an idea what 2 feet deep looks like.

Sorry guy's just couldn't help it, but Metric is for the mathimatically challenged.

While were talking about it, why do metric countries put the day first and the month second when they write dates ??

and why does February get the extra day every 4 years, whats wrong with the 32nd of July ?

lazeyjack

04-18-2007, 02:38 AM

cant believe there is even a debate
ever tried building a boat is feet and fractions of a inch!!
one measure, mm and to those who question this , I beg to say you can not be a tradesman, a turner, a machinist

lazeyjack

04-18-2007, 02:44 AM

there are 10 billion people in this world, 9.6 billion use metrics, so whose out of step? still 9.3 ban guns, so whose uncivilzed? um er can we guess?

Pericles

04-18-2007, 04:17 AM

6.3 billion people at the last count, I venture to add and be glad we are not using ells, versts or Roman numerals. http://www.convert-me.com/en/

Using metric and avoirdupois interchangeably is similar to being fluent in 2 or more languages. Some can do it and other use their fingers and toes:p :p :p

http://phrontistery.info/unit.html for extra ammunition. Personally I would like to see the UK adopt the Old English Mark, worth 13/4 (13 shillings and fourpence). In any case why did the USA adopt the Thaler and cents? That's metric isn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar

Regards,

Pericles

Paulo

04-25-2007, 10:42 PM

Hi guys,

I vote for option 2: metric with knotts and nautical miles!

Try this for size:
I buy a boat that is 29 feet long, has a beam of 3.15 metres, a displacemente of 2650kg and the engine has 250hp!!
I buy my wood in metric sizes, but the screws are all imperial!
The length of a pipe is 2m but its size is 1"!!

How about that for crazy mixing!?!?

ps.: I write my date as days/months/years, because it seems more logic to do so. The same goes to writting the name of the street first and then the number of my house!

At the end of the day, we all like boats!!! :cool:

Roly

04-26-2007, 03:38 AM

I vote for u Paulo. That I can understand.

lazeyjack

04-26-2007, 03:46 AM

i wonder, how many of you are hands on tradesmen?
you take a tape measure, the designer says the girder is 13500mm
easy you just read it off, or does he say 43 foot one ferkin inch and a half and a 32 tooth
come on

Pericles

04-26-2007, 06:36 AM

When I first tried my hand at carpentry, standing by my father as he worked and locating and handing him the correct tool from the confusion on the bench. I learned how to cut and join wood within 1/2" accuracy. Hey, I was five, ok?

I got better at it, but who would have thought that inaccuracy (within limits) would have be a highly regarded trait when building stitch and glue boats?

Some odds.

Pericles

Roly

04-26-2007, 07:10 AM

13500mm
easy you just read it off, or does he say 43 foot one ferkin inch and a half and a 32 tooth
Ok, ok,ok lets get specific. 98% of the time I work metric,but I get screws in imperial (some) SS tube in imperial, boats are in imperial, I used to shape surfboards in imperial (a coupla thousand) so metric doesn't mean much for s/bd dim.. Glass weights in grm/m^2 but I'm always converting them back to a comparison with 6oz surfboard cloth to get any sort of relativity.
As for month/day/yr that is downright illogical. Wind spd/boat speed gotta be knts, or km/hr or i'm lost, house area in m^2 & all materials in m or mm.
It works

rayk

04-26-2007, 08:05 AM

I built boats in feet inches and eighths +/-.
I dont mind metric or imperial really, but imperial speaks to me.

Except for a 24' plywood sailboat. Plans called for 4x8 sheets but local supply was 1200mmx2400mm. Scarfing in another 4 inches of ply each side of the boat was a pain.

Most construction material here is still the old imperial sizes but with metric dimensions.

lazeyjack

04-27-2007, 12:14 AM

Mychael

04-28-2007, 07:29 PM

I find it's more how I can "visualise" in a particular scale.
For instance in weight I can get a better idea if someone tells me they weigh xxx kilos as opposed to xxx stone/pounds.
For Height if I'm told you are 5'11" I get it better then xxxcm.
Litres or Gallons makes not a lot of difference to me. Same for MPH or KPH but if I'm flying or sailing it's gotta be in knots. Same for navigation, although for calculating time/distance when driving everything in metric makes it easy.
Farenhight or Celcius means the same to me until I get past the freezing/boiling temperatures.
I only understand PSI in my tyres not KPA.

It all comes down to use and familiarity, working on my car I do find it easier these days to go up one size in a spanner in metric then to remember the next fractional size.
I feel metric bolts are easier, hose sizes, not sure.

I recall when you could get plans for some homebuilt aircraft that were either marked in both imperial or metric or you could order plans in your choice of measurement.

Mychael

yipster

07-23-2007, 09:51 AM

when miles are mentioned in for example ocean voyages,
how to know if it are land miles or sea miles, estimate?

nancur373

07-23-2007, 10:48 AM

I am 25 years old and grew up in Newfoundland Canada. I was taught nothing but the Metric system from day one but....When it comes to construsting anything or talking height and distance is all Imperial for me. It's easier for me to picture 6 inches than 150mm.

Gerard DeRoy

07-23-2007, 11:22 AM

when miles are mentioned in for example ocean voyages,
how to know if it are land miles or sea miles, estimate?

There is only one easy way, enter the trip waypoints and ask your gps.
:D

Pericles

07-23-2007, 12:11 PM

A nautical mile, sea mile or nautimile is a unit of length. It is accepted for use with the International System of Units (SI), but it is not an SI unit.[1] The nautical mile is used around the world for maritime and aviation purposes. It is commonly used in international law and treaties, especially regarding the limits of territorial waters. It developed from the geographical mile. Since the nautical mile is roughly equal to one minute of angle at the equator, the length of the equator is roughly 21,600 nautical miles.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile

1 nautical mile = 1852 metres exactly. It is also 6076.1155 feet, but I just work with 6080 feet. A land mile is 1760 yards or 5280 feet

murdomack

08-03-2007, 12:04 PM

A Nautical Mile is 1 minute of Latitude anywhere on earth, but it is a minute of Longtitude only at the Equator. A minute of Longtitude at 60deg N or S is only 1/2 a Nautical Mile. That is why the sun sinks twice as fast at the Equator and why you will get twice as drunk going for a Sundowner in Shetland or in Norway as you will in, Equatorial Guinea.
It is so simple, I don't know why anyone needs to measure in Metric.

murdomack

08-03-2007, 06:12 PM

As one who was fabricating to API and ANSI standards in the UK long before the oil was discovered I can tell you that in the glorious period before we went Metric, we did work for the oil industry to API/ANSI both for the UK refineries and for worldwide export. We also used a BS code which was more wide ranging than the American system, but contained similar standards if required. Our threads were different of course, but our pipe was Imperial Nominal Bore. The difference in the pipe OD definitely applied to the 6" nb which is 6-1/2" against your 6-5/8". I thought for years that the BS 8" was different OD as well but it does not appear to be. I am not sure if there was, then, a separate BS standard for 6-5/8" OD or if we had to specify API/ASME, but it was very common and we used it every day on oil industry contracts. There was and still is a difference in some other sizes, notably 2-1/2" and 5", but the 6" was the more obvious as it was used a lot. I have found that the KS and JIS standards still use an OD for 8" pipe that is slightly over 8-1/2", so it may be that BS also used this tooling in the past.

I went over to Germany in 1972 to work on a copper smelter, just about the time we were converting to Metric. All my life I had been told about the great German engineering standards, how you could drive a VW beetle off the production line at 70 mph and not damage the engine, and ever since that day I have seen Metric as second rate to Imperial. They had no standards. They used to measure all the fittings individually as they were all different. In the UK we had factories turning out fittings to the standards we have today and I know that the US had the same. What really struck me was that we had quick methods of measuring and setting out which had been developed through the Imperial system, but they had no smart craft knacks. The tradesmen brought up in the UK in the post Metric era try to show me smart tricks that have been developed, but when I get my chalk out and we do the sums I can get more accurate answers more quickly with my old Imperial tricks.
The Europeans and the Japanese based a lot of their dimensions on BS and their pipe threads are still BSP with a new name, ISO. All they have that is different is the Metric dimensions of their flanges.

I am fortunate enough to have spent the last seven years working for an American Oil Project overseas. I am delighted to say that the Imperial system is still alive and a delight to work with and would encourage all sane Americans to stick with it or they will end up like the UK with a lower standard of workmanship and no pride in their trades. Paul

About 25 years ago the North Sea oil boom started and it was really driven by Americans who had the experience in offshore drilling. When their design engineers began to try and use European standards they threw them out because there were so many it would have created havoc in trying to build modules in different places. (There was also the usual crap that ABS and USCG MODU regs weren't good enough for the Europeans who all began to write their own standards anyway.)

So they began to use the normal API and ANSI standards common on rigs. This accelerated moves in European yards to standardise as there was no such thing as a metric standard in the same way that there was no inch standard.

For the same reason that MacDonalds sells burgers in Paris and Coke in Seville the US piping began to make inroads into Europe. The best European Standards group was the German DIN which grouped the US standards into three lots depending on the scope and availability of associated fittings. So the groups were Full range of fittings for a wide range of pipes
Medium range
Small rangeThis became the new DIN standard and the sizes were the US standards simply converted into mm. For some reason I could never 1.8288m they changed a few, I think out of all the US sizes up to 10" Nominal they used a different 6" and 8" but I am not sure now.

I must admit that I don't know what was adopted throughout Europe but I know yards in France, Germany, Holland and Norway that were using the DIN standards. Machine manufacturers were also trying to standardise on the pipe connection fittings.

Happy daze
Michael

ancient kayaker

04-05-2009, 07:14 PM

Lovely thread; don't know how I missed it so long. The mob has spoken, metric it is. Probably for the best really, as the guys brought up in Imperial units had a good enough education to work in either :)

Wynand N

04-06-2009, 12:39 AM

I am delighted to say that the Imperial system is still alive and a delight to work with and would encourage all sane Americans to stick with it or they will end up like the UK with a lower standard of workmanship and no pride in their trades.

Bullshit, how can a measuring system bring about lower standard of workmanship:?: Bad artisans always blame poor workmanship on the tools... Perhaps is is the punk generation that started during the 70' in the UK that bears fruit now :confused:

Ad Hoc

04-06-2009, 01:02 AM

Wynand N

Exactly...whether one wishes to use, Chain, Birch, Pole, Cable, Furlong, Inch, Yard, Metre, Angstrom, par sec etc makes no difference. Crap is crap, whatever system one uses.

DMacPherson

04-06-2009, 01:17 PM

Imperial is "organic", SI is not. SI is easy to numerically manipulate, Imperial is not.

I recently read a very interesting book about the history of surveying. Basically, it was an "homage" to the chain. One point made very clear, however, was that the historical move to SI was about political power. While the populace was comfortable getting to one-eight by dividing something in half three times, the "bean counters" of the aristocracy pushed for a decimal-based system to better keep track of taxes. Then, to distinguish themselves from the monarchy, the new republics reverted to something more akin to Imperial. And then, as new countries emerged from the republics in the late 1800's they wanted to "play with the big dogs" and formally adopted SI - even though the transactions in shops typically remained with whatever traditional system they had in place.

As a recent poster nicely stated, the system of units should not be an excuse for anything. As we move to a decimal society, SI just makes sense for doing calculations. Having said that, all of my clocks and watches are analog. A "quarter to five" is more meaningful to me than "4:45". I divide my pizza into eights, not tens. Even in thinking about a propeller blade's angle into the flow during its rotation makes more sense in quarters or eights, as there are singular positions (min, max) at the one-quarter and three-quarter positions.

Imperial is more "natural", SI is more "mathematical". Use what you will.

Regards,

Don MacPherson

Fanie

04-06-2009, 01:28 PM

As a kid we used the inches and feet thing. Switched shortly after and never looked back. The only time you still use inches is when you tell a chick what she's in for... you know, so many inches.

Other than that the old system is pretty useless. Imo the US will pick up their economy when they come right and start the metric system :D

The English are said to have switched to metrics, but they are still clinging to their pound ;)

Boston

04-06-2009, 01:40 PM

there is a great book called civilization one in which it is reveled that the metric system has actually been used for thousands of years
with most ancient measures being made in metric
thing is that with a minor understanding of pendulums and a knowledge of ones latitude it can be determined fairly easily with completely primitive tools what a meter is

the pint
divides into two cubic meters with an accuracy of 1/100000
Stonehenge
the Sarson stones when measured center to center are on a metric grid
and on and on

real interesting stuff
Ild recomend that book to anyone

best
B

ancient kayaker

04-06-2009, 02:18 PM

It's the decimal system that's at the heart of the problem. If the metric proponents had the sense to change to an octal or hexadecimal system we would have all been computer literate years earlier. Dividing things by ten just because of the number of fingers and toes we have doesn't make a lot of sense. Repetitively dividing by 2 is a very practical thing to do and is at the heart of the binary arithmetic used by computers.

Binary doesn't lend itself well to adding columns of money expressed in decimals, however, so the tax collectors had their way. Decimal based systems aren't all that dominant historically speaking, 12-base and 20-base as reflected in the old British currency system were inherited from earlier cultures.

The British used to work comfortably to bases of 4 (farthings to a penny), 12 (pennies per shilling), 14 (pounds to a stone), 16 (ounces to the pound), 20 (shillings per pound) every day. Lets not even discuss their liquid measures. It may sound horrible but from schoolboy to grandmother they could all convert effortlessly from one system to another. Some of the currency elements were a riot of tourist-befuddling confusion: 12 pennies to the shilling, 24 to the florin, 30 to the half-crown, nobody ever saw a crown of course but there was a four-shilling piece just for the heck of it.

Wynand N

04-06-2009, 02:32 PM

Fact of the matter is you cannot beat the metric system for simplicity and ease to use. What is easier than moving a decimal point left or right? Easy to add, subtract, multiply and divide. Basically, its like 1, 2, 3, 4....

The big question; I think only the USA still uses the prehistoric imperial system fulltime - now who would be correct - The imperialist Yankees or rest of the world metrics?

Boston

04-06-2009, 02:47 PM

Gotta go with Wynand on that one Mr Yaker
the metric system is dam simple and nearly universal already
so to get that last hold out on board is just a mater of time

I think it was the Sumerians who used the base six system and its still with us today though
so no telling what will happen

ancient kayaker

04-06-2009, 06:17 PM

;) Well, I'll do my bills in decimal and my boats in imperial, as nature intended:!:

DMacPherson

04-08-2009, 08:52 AM

Wynand:

Don't you find it a bit unseemly to damn the "prehistoric imperial system" yet you list your location in degrees and minutes? Tsk, Tsk... ;)

Don MacPherson

ancient kayaker

04-08-2009, 09:44 AM

Decades ago working on an ancient military system I noted that it was calibrated in milliradians - 64,000 to the circle. Not exactly 1/1000 of a radian but I thought it was a sensible unit for circular measure, but the scientist in me felt it was unseemly at the time.

Boston

04-08-2009, 12:03 PM

I had to work in radians before
what a pain in the ass

it was in a calculation of gyroscopic energies based on mass speed ( measured in radians pr sec ) diameter bla bla bla

Wynand N

04-08-2009, 12:09 PM

Wynand:

Don't you find it a bit unseemly to damn the "prehistoric imperial system" yet you list your location in degrees and minutes? Tsk, Tsk... ;)

Don MacPherson

but not in feet and inches :D :D

TeddyDiver

04-08-2009, 01:25 PM

As a carpenter I'm still using inches in timber dimension.. It's just convinient to say 2x4 insted of 98x48 :D
Length however in (milli)metric.
But whats really weird are paper sizes like "letter" or "legal" :confused:

Mikey

04-08-2009, 10:14 PM

Come on guys, 6.7 billion people in the world (6,700,000,000) and only US, Burma and Liberia still thinks 100 degrees is a hot day, the rest of us expects water to boil by then :)

306,177,706/6,772,087,814 = 0.0452. You 4.52% ever thought of feeling lonely?

It is time, it will take a couple of generations but it is time...

Mikey

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html

Landlubber

04-08-2009, 10:51 PM

Mikey, forgive them mate, they are slow learners!

murdomack

04-10-2009, 02:18 PM

Bullshit, how can a measuring system bring about lower standard of workmanship:?: Bad artisans always blame poor workmanship on the tools... Perhaps is is the punk generation that started during the 70' in the UK that bears fruit now :confused:

I may have been writing a little tonque in cheek, but it was very clear to me in my work that standards changed for the worse when the UK changed to the Metric system. There is no doubt that there are, and were, good and bad artisans in every generation and they are the same irrespective of the measuring system in use.

I remember one day in the mid seventies when everyone fitting out a pair of new boilers kept coming in to report that the exhausts, blowdowns etc, were all clashing with each other. After checking all the drawings and the fabrications and finding everything right, I was left with only one remaining reason that it could be, one or both of the boilers was welded down in the wrong spot.

It turned out that they were meant to be centred on 3500mm, but had been installed on 3050mm. Very close to 10ft, but I never found out if this was part of the reason.

When I arrived in my present job, a lot of the drawings were in ft & ins. Most of the lads we had were very smart, schooled by the Spannish, but had been trained by a French contractor, so our engineers used to change the dimensions into metric before they were issued to the shop. There were a lot of costly mistakes, mostly by the engineers making dyslexic errors in Metric, eg 5236 would become 5326. I had two ex-pat trainers, but they were Metric orientated as well, so I trained everyone, including the trainers, in fractions, decimals and how to add, subtract, multiply and divide staying with the dimensions given, Imperial or Metric, no converting. Applying their new knowledge directly to their work they were soon all fluent in both systems and the mistakes became a rarity.

Taking the two dimensions above in Ft & Ins we would get 17ft 2-9/64ins and 17 ft 5-11/16ins respectively. It's not impossible to make mistakes in Imperial, I've made a few myself, but you must admit it is a lot harder.

Fanie

04-10-2009, 04:07 PM

I work with measurements that is from fractures of a mm to meters long. Using anything other than the metric system would have been a disater to say the very least.

Bullshit, how can a measuring system bring about lower standard of workmanship
It is very easy to see why a measuring system actually does bring about lower standards. The person working with it has to use more complex calculations to calculate answers, hence takes more time to acomplish and the risk of error is increased. Using the metric system calculations is a lot easier and can even be logic when a calculation is made to see if it is at fault or correct.

I see many of the US guys are beginning to use metric measurements which seems logical if the rest of the world is already there. Rather stupid to go on in one standard if your customer uses another. It's like speaking another language.

It's not a matter of being right for using one specific system, it's about what works the best and the easiest. Everything we do today revolves around time and money. It then is just common sense to use what offers the biggest advantage.

Fanie

04-10-2009, 04:13 PM

Mikey, if it is announced officially that you are changing to the metric system it will be done so almost overnight. Many hands I mean minds make light work. If you do it alone... well it's gonna take a while :D

Luckless

04-10-2009, 04:38 PM

Taking the two dimensions above in Ft & Ins we would get 17ft 2-9/64ins and 17 ft 5-11/16ins respectively. It's not impossible to make mistakes in Imperial, I've made a few myself, but you must admit it is a lot harder.

Wait, just how is it any harder to make mistakes in Imperial? I couldn't tell you the number of times someone has called out a measurement to me on a job site, reading 16'5" + 3/16th, and giving me 16'3" + 5/16th. Not to mention the easy errors in adding up fractions.

Yes, if you try to convert drawings from Imperial to Metric for your crews to build with, you're going to have problems. If your crew works in Metric, then the designs should have started in Metric in the first place. Didn't you say you reduced error after teaching your crews proper methods for working in metric?

As a Canadian born in the mid 80s, I'm well versed in both systems, but greatly prefer metric.

The only advantage I find to Canada still making use of Imperial in construction is that it can be great fun to steal someone's measuring tape and replace it with a metric one. Keeps the old guys on their toes. Even better when you get time before the project starts to get the architect to run you off extra copies of plans with metric notation.

murdomack

04-10-2009, 06:34 PM

Luckless,

You should never pass information by word of mouth, there are courses that you can attend that demonstrate how this invariably leads to errors.

I said that I reduced error by teaching the local workforce to use Imperial methods if that was what was on the original drawings.

I'll bet that these old timers that you laugh at could lay out a 22-1/2 Deg angle without any calculator or even a square, but I would be amazed if you could. Imperial has ways of letting you do things straight from your brain to the table.

Fanie,

People who are up to speed with the Imperial system will tell you that it is faster than Metric. Being able to instantly convert fractions to decimals in your head allows you to use calculators just as easily as in the Metric system. The Metric system is a lazy system in that you require to know less.

When the monetary system in the UK was Pounds, Shillings and Pence you could ask a bus conductress for six different tickets, some single, some retuns and she would give you the total cost as soon as you stopped speaking. Today they need a machine to work it out in decimal currency, and tell what the individual fares are. I hardly call that progress, but it's where the Metric system has led us.

ancient kayaker

04-10-2009, 07:55 PM

... I see many of the US guys are beginning to use metric measurements which seems logical if the rest of the world is already there. Rather stupid to go on in one standard if your customer uses another ...

Actually changing units is not much of a problem in this largely computerized world, it's just a touch of a mouse button away. It allows us dinosaurs to think in our favorite units and send the customer something they can comprehend. Only problem, I can't find software that will convert to cubits.

Luckless

04-10-2009, 08:54 PM

Luckless,

You should never pass information by word of mouth, there are courses that you can attend that demonstrate how this invariably leads to errors.

Anytime you make a reading, or record a reading, or read a recorded reading, you will eventually make an error. Call-Reply-Confirm-Acknowledge is only going to get you the wrong number if the guy sending out the reading has read it wrong to begin with.

There are many times in construction when it simply isn't safe for one person to take a measurement and record it themselves, and I couldn't tell you how many times I've watched one of those vaunted 'old timers' climb up a ladder to get a measurement, climb back down to make a cut, then climb back up only to find out they were off by 1/16th.

The only time I laugh at them is when they refuse to accept that maybe metric is just as usable as imperial and just how mad a few of them seem to get when someone suggests anything to do with metric. And as for "doing it straight in your head", you want to talk about something prone to error? I'll never understand some people's insistence on how if you can get something done with fewer tools, it Must be better. Having done flint napping and bog iron smelting I tend to laugh at such ideas. They can free to go on working with just one or two tools, and I'll be happy with using newer and more accurate tools when they're suitable, and making use of the same old tools they do when they're better suited.

Boston

04-10-2009, 09:26 PM

well it sure screwed up the NASA boys on one of there Mars missions
a few hundred million in metal ended up a smoldering wreck in its own personal crater

ancient kayaker

04-11-2009, 12:48 AM

Then there's the plane that ran out of fuel and had to glide in for an emergency landing because the pilot and the fueler got their units mixed up.

I was always taught, measure twice and cut once. If it's really important getting two people to measure seems a sensible precaution. I used to get my calculations checked for really important stuff, someone's life seemed more important than my pride.

Reminds me of a big industrial robot that we were designing way back: the structural guy reported that it would sag like boiled spagetti with the projected load. The mechanical team were well into a total redesign when I wandered up. My reaction on being told the news was, it's built like a crane and should act like one, no crane would bend that far under that load.

As the electrical guy I didn't get much respect in that department and nobody had time to talk so I glanced at the guys calculation and he had a value for Young's modulus for steel about 10 times too low. I saved them weeks of work, thousands in costs and a hell of a lot of embarrassment but never got a thank you.

Boston

04-11-2009, 02:53 AM

welcome to the world of business
when I started building windows I worked for a company that was run like a fine watch
every one checked everyone's work in a system of checks and balances that was stellar in both its simplicity and its effectiveness
then I went out on my own and carried that principal with me into my own biz
worked like a charm
and many years later
when biz began dying out I began consulting again at a glass plant that wanted to begin manufacturing windows for there glass
I never realized that either collectively or individually you could have such a group of screw ups actually manage to feed themselves let alone hand anyone a window
no checks and balances
no paperwork of who does what
no system of any kind to keep one hand informed of what the other is doing
it was a miracle of stupidity
I quit in disgust after I predicted every screw up that occurred over the course of an out of town job that I was placed in charge of
the trucking company took a week and a half to deliver the materials
stuff arrived same day I was supposed to leave
even though I called four or five times as I drove the route the trucks were supposed to take and told em they needed to take the other way round as this snow storm was bound to close the roads behind me
bla bla bla
every thing that went wrong
was fully predictable
the girl who was in charge of sizing and ordering the glass
who screwed up a solid 1/3 of every piece she touched
got the glass wrong on the one out of town job she did for me
I ended up waiting a week and a half only to end up getting the wrong size glass
and when I handed em the bill back at the office
they looked at me like what
you didnt do any work

it doesn't take a genius to develop and work within a system of checks and balances
its just common sense

oh
I hear those clowns at the glass plant are still looking for someone to do there off site work

Landlubber

04-11-2009, 04:22 AM

Murdo mack,

"The Metric system is a lazy system in that you require to know less."

I rest my case your honour, precisely why Metric is better.......

murdomack

04-11-2009, 06:17 AM

Murdo mack,

"The Metric system is a lazy system in that you require to know less."

I rest my case your honour, precisely why Metric is better.......

How on earth is knowing less better?

The old timers used to say to me as an apprentice, "You have to learn all the tricks of the trade, know everything in your head, one day you might be out in the desert or in the jungle, you can't draw anything down like in the shop, that's when your knowledge will get you through." We boys all used to laugh at the time, but a lot of it came true and what they taught us gained us much respect. Even today, with access to information via the web available practically at any spot on earth, it is the guys who can look at the job and spot the problems at an early stage that are in demand when time is money.

I've got nothing against the Metric system, I use it every day, but it is not as good as the Imperial system when it comes to learning and storing information in your brain. I like working with the American ANSI system, it's far superior for my kind of work at least.

peter radclyffe

04-11-2009, 06:56 AM

Wait, just how is it any harder to make mistakes in Imperial? I couldn't tell you the number of times someone has called out a measurement to me on a job site, reading 16'5" + 3/16th, and giving me 16'3" + 5/16th. Not to mention the easy errors in adding up fractions.

Yes, if you try to convert drawings from Imperial to Metric for your crews to build with, you're going to have problems. If your crew works in Metric, then the designs should have started in Metric in the first place. Didn't you say you reduced error after teaching your crews proper methods for working in metric?

As a Canadian born in the mid 80s, I'm well versed in both systems, but greatly prefer metric.

The only advantage I find to Canada still making use of Imperial in construction is that it can be great fun to steal someone's measuring tape and replace it with a metric one. Keeps the old guys on their toes. Even better when you get time before the project starts to get the architect to run you off extra copies of plans with metric notation.

AND YOU WONDER WHY YOU HAVE NO LUCK WITH YOUR TROUBLEMAKING ATTITUDE

murdomack

04-11-2009, 06:59 AM

I can't find software that will convert to cubits.

There are a few on the web, but make your own in Excel. The biggest problem is which Cubit to choose:D

Fanie

04-11-2009, 02:03 PM

Murdomack, "How on earth is knowing less better? "

It is not a matter of knowing less :D It seems that way because it is so easy to use, logical for humans if you want.

My work is to use processors on a component level. The use of metrics wrt the dimentions of the actual hardware is greatly simplified.

Computers, no matter however advanced they will become always work in the binary format, which is a bit like the male brain, either a 1 or a 0 :D

In the software the use of hex (count to 8, 16, 24, 64, 128 or whatever) to point to a 'word' of information is simplified by simply using the value in decimal, not in hex. So you would use the value 10 decimal instead of A hex. The same is applied to any of the numeric systems.

I know there are people that can read the hieroglyphics fluently, but it is a more complicated thing than using text as we know it today. Compare the Chinese alphabet with ours. The same kind of difference exist between the metric system and the others.

Don't know if the Chinese will come over to our alphabeth tho ;)

Fanie

04-11-2009, 02:10 PM

Fanie

04-11-2009, 02:13 PM

He he...

It is not a matter of knowing less It seems that way because it is so easy to use, logical for humans if you want.

Actually it's a matter of knowing more - once you know the metric system works better, it is one more thing you know :D

peter radclyffe

04-11-2009, 02:40 PM

Hi Peter Radclyffe,

I fail to see how Luckless deserved the comment "AND YOU WONDER WHY YOU HAVE NO LUCK WITH YOUR TROUBLEMAKING ATTITUDE"

I fully agree with what he said, and find nothing offensive or negative in it. I'm sure you must have misunderstood what he was saying.

if someone replaced your tape, & caused you to almost make a several thousand dollar mistake, would you find that funny

Fanie

04-11-2009, 02:53 PM

Ok I see... Luckless ran out of luck when he replaced your imperial tape with a metric one...

Isn't this something you should take up with him personally ? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Metric vs imperial thread...

Anyway, I'm glad you didn't make the thousand dollar mistake, not that it's much worth from what I hear off late ;) In ZAR it's like nothing... Gets even better in Zim dollars.

I have two tapes (Metric of course) and I bloody well never can seem to find any of them. The advantage of course is you cannot make any expensive mistakes if you cannot find the tape can you :D

murdomack

04-11-2009, 03:44 PM

if someone replaced your tape, & caused you to almost make a several thousand dollar mistake, would you find that funny

This reminds me of a collossal mistake I saw happen on an oil platform. Two guys had come on board that day and had drawn new measuring tapes from the stores. They were put on a very highly important job of tying-in a riser, that is a pipe coming up from the sea on the platforms jacket, and joining it with a straight pup piece to another pipe already installed on the deck structure. Not a hard job but a very important one as the adjoining three pieces will all have already been hydrotested and once welded and X-rayed they would go straight into service.

Well they got stuck in and cut and prepped the fixed ends, then measured the gap, compared sizes and agreed that they had both got the same size. They then cut and prepped the pup-piece and offered it up only to find a sizeable gap.

What had happened was that one of the tapes that had been issued to them was marked in feet and decimal feet. Apparently these are used by drillers, I had never seen one in my life and have not seen another since. They must have used that one for their measure and the other ft & ins tape for marking their cut size. There was hell on about it, with many people saying they should have noticed. Needless to say the stores was searched for other similar tapes but none was found.

Fanie

04-11-2009, 03:55 PM

You also get these ornamental things that is some kind of a replica, like a key holder with a tape on it. If it's a toy it can also have faulty measurements on it.

Depends what you measure though. In some cases I can imagine you could score a bit like when you measure your 500mm long fish and you see it is almost 900mm in length ;)

Boston

04-11-2009, 08:40 PM

oh dam decimal feet
used by surveyors round here
every once in a while when Im laying out benchmarks I have to deal with those
what a pain
I keep all the decimal equivalents in my nogin but its a pain to have to convert on the fly
not hard
but just unnecessary
might as well be using cubits again
or rods and chains

ancient kayaker

04-11-2009, 10:00 PM

AND YOU WONDER WHY YOU HAVE NO LUCK WITH YOUR TROUBLEMAKING ATTITUDE

Guys like me and Luckless don’t complain about lack of luck and we don’t expect other people to complain about our attitudes either. Besides, I don’t have one, any more than I have an accent, like any other (ex)Brit. :eek:

... the biggest problem is which Cubit to choose:D

No problem: I choose my own. That’s the beauty of the system, don’t need a tape measure. :confused:

He he...Actually it's a matter of knowing more - once you know the metric system works better, it is one more thing you know :D

I think the issue here is how well YOU can work, not the metric system. Once the boat (satellite, automobile, dildo etc) is built it doesn’t matter what system was used. :D

if someone replaced your tape, & caused you to almost make a several thousand dollar mistake, would you find that funny

Actually, there you have me. It’s not like you can trust one tape to be exactly the same as another, and the first inch or centimeter is likely to be different from all the others on the same tape. :mad:

There! I think I got them all. If I missed anyone you can think yourself lucky! :)

Fanie

04-11-2009, 10:58 PM

Once the boat (satellite, automobile, dildo etc) is built it doesn’t matter what system was used
You won't believe it, but I actually had someone that wanted me to make them dildo's :D We never discussed the system that would be used, but some technique was discussed :D Bit of an exciting time in our otherwise dull existence. I already imagined how I was going to test all the various models... You can't sell something if it wasn't tested and a very braud public opinion was gained, right ;)

I think the issue here is how well YOU can work, not the metric system
The intent was to do it extremely well. 6" really is 150mm... although 9" was by far more popular :D

Luckless

04-11-2009, 11:21 PM

if someone replaced your tape, & caused you to almost make a several thousand dollar mistake, would you find that funny

That is unlikely, seeing as I work in a wide range of measuring systems and actually look at my tapes and check scales before using them. (And for the record, anytime I would swap someone's tape on them is when I'm working right with them and can point it out to them before they start cutting if they don't start cursing out the metric system the second they see cm listed on the tape. I worked with one guy that accidentally picked up my own tape measure that was listed as both Imperial and Metric, but it was a prototype with digital recording and storage of upto 20 numbers. He saw metric, cursed, and pitched it off the roof of a three story house and over the edge of the cliff. It would have been an impressive pitch if it hadn't put a friend out nearly a grand,... He picked my tape off the lunch table, then said I should thank him for getting rid of that piece of garbage.)

My tool belt usually carries at least 3 tapes, two matched tapes in the systems the current project is in, and one in the other for if something comes up that needs it.

TeddyDiver

04-12-2009, 02:38 AM

I find cubit far superior than feet in boat building. I have no interest trying to walk along a gunnel of a inverted boat. Feets are actually better suited for walking distances and with some remarks for houses. Span is still the most handy way for mesurements anywhere and it really easy to convert to finger inches. Anything over a fathom is easier to measure with a ones lap :P
Seriously, if anything else except bodyparts is used then the metric is the way to go..

murdomack

04-12-2009, 04:29 AM

No problem: I choose my own. That’s the beauty of the system, don’t need a tape measure. :confused:

You said you couldn't find software to convert Cubits. You can make your own in Excel and even have a variable Input for your chosen base dimension. If you are not wanting to use a tape measure then your conversions must be into other body part units which you will also need to Input as variables, unless the convertor is for your own use only, in which case you do not need to enter variables, just enter the conversion factors directly into your formulas.

Although I am an Imperial supporter, I would use Metric measurements to determine the conversion factors in this instance ;)

Wynand N

04-12-2009, 08:46 AM

Then there's the plane that ran out of fuel and had to glide in for an emergency landing because the pilot and the fueler got their units mixed up.

If I'm not mistaken, the fuck-up happened in Canada when refueling the Boeing 767...correct me if I am wrong.

Wynand N

04-12-2009, 08:50 AM

Depends what you measure though. In some cases I can imagine you could score a bit like when you measure your 500mm long fish and you see it is almost 900mm in length ;)

I have one of those special fishing tapes in my bait box, and the metric scale that goes with it:D

Ps; Fanie, are you going to the Bloemhof Bonanza end of this month?

Fanie

04-12-2009, 09:22 AM

Dunno, almost doubt it. If I do I'll let you know.

ancient kayaker

04-12-2009, 01:36 PM

Fanie: in your place, I would certainly insist on assisting with the launch of a new dildo.

Teddy: the Inuit have an entire range of dimensions for sizing a kayak to the paddler, using various body measurements. A bit like getting a bespoke suit.

Wynand: yes, it was in Canada, land of opportunity to excel in all kinds of things like gliding a jetliner. Recently, that skill got a workout in New York, courtesy of some (Canada) geese, I think. Sorry about that!

.

Fanie

04-12-2009, 01:43 PM

Fanie: in your place, I would certainly insist on assisting with the launch of a new dildo.
Hi Ancient, thanks for volunteering but I had (at the time) only females in mind to test them on :D

He he... would have worked in inches only :D

masrapido

04-12-2009, 07:28 PM

Has anyone noticed that many new US movies, like Star Treck and off-spring among others, actually speak in SI units?

It would be rather stupid of Spock to say "The Vulcan intestelar ship is 20 millions of stones in weight", wouldn't it. I mean, he would lose all his credibility on the spot... How big is a "stone"?

Imperial is stone-age measurement system.

ancient kayaker

04-12-2009, 08:48 PM

... How big is a "stone"? ...

Depends if it is a metric or imperial stone.

Fanie

04-12-2009, 09:11 PM

He he he... Good answer :D

Fanie

04-12-2009, 09:15 PM

Counting is also metric. 1, 2, 3 and so on. So why would one count in metric but measure in another system ?

Luckless

04-12-2009, 10:17 PM

Counting is also metric. 1, 2, 3 and so on. So why would one count in metric but measure in another system ?

No, not really. To say that 'counting' is 'metric' is to use the word metric in the same way as you would to say that the Imperial system of measures is a 'Metric'. It actually works the other way around, Metric uses Decimal to work the way it does.

We count in Decimal, that is Base Ten. This means we use ten digits, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. However this isn't the only way we count, those of us in Computer Science often use base 8 or base 16 for easy ways to deal with base 2. However these systems can do some very weird things if you apply Decimal ideas to the Metric system when dealing in different number bases.

Base 8 is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. After 7 you get 10 as 8, and writing numbers works the same. The issue with other bases is that we 'count' in decimal. 100 in base 8 is only 64 in base 10. As you can see this will do "Very Bad Things" if you try to do Metric in a different base. Multiplying 10 by 10 in base 8 gets you from "Eight" to "Sixty-Four", you have to do 12*12=144 (base eight) to get 10*10=100 (base ten).

Now, there are lots of fun properties you can play with by quickly switching your bases around, but this is an advanced issue for Comp.Sci. that is out of my realm of research.

Fun side note, all number systems but one are "Base 10", but only Decimal is "Base Ten".

Fanie

04-12-2009, 10:29 PM

Luckless, you're out of luck again :D

We count in Decimal, that is Base Ten. This means we use ten digits
Here you acknowledge what I just said :D That is exactly what the decimal system is, normal (note NORMAL) counting.

I have never heard anyone count 1 2 3 4 ... 7 , 10... unless you're four and a half years old :D

If you have 3/8ths... however long that was :D then you don't dount up to three and then count 8 backwards. It's problematic everywhere :D To prove it that's the way our finances work, get three and spend eight :D

masrapido

04-12-2009, 11:07 PM

Actually, ye bunch of ignorant pirates, the decimal system starts with zero and stops with 9.

Which I find rediculous because zero, by definition, is not a mathematical number. It is a "natural" number. It counts nothing, null, nada. It symbolises the absence of something.

Mathematical numbers' role is to count and calculate something.

And what if a stone is 2 metres high, three metres wide and one metre long? And then you say that you are 6 stones in weight...? (just screwing around. do not answer this one...)

(like that is going to stop anyone...)

ancient kayaker

04-13-2009, 12:12 AM

The metric system (SI) and the use of decimal arithmetic are different things. Quit confusing them! SI is based on the metre and the mass of water, both arbitrary. Also the second, also arbitrary and not even part of a decimal time system. The foot is just as arbitrary, but I have a couple I can use if I don't have a tape measure handy. Ditto the inch (thumb width), yard (nose to fingertip) and cubit (elbow to fingertip), all available with modest accuracy to anyone with an average body. Can't say that for the metre and centimetre although my hand is a decimetre wide, but the decimetre has fallen out of official use even though the cubic decimetre is the litre.

Anyone familiar with the Imperial system has no problem using duodecimal and hexadecimal as I have said before. Perhaps a messy illogical set of units is an advantage in a messy illogical world.

Zero is a relatively modern concept, the ancient greeks were debating whether it had a use and the romans got along without it just fine. If you need a challenge, try designing your next boat using roman numerical notation! Yet the romans beat the world for a long time.

peter radclyffe

04-13-2009, 01:25 AM

peter radclyffe

04-13-2009, 01:40 AM

Fanie

04-13-2009, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by masrapido
Which I find rediculous because zero, by definition, is not a mathematical number
Correct, but for general discussion purposes it is easier.

Same with colour, black is not really a colour, yet we refer to the colour black.

ancient kayaker

04-13-2009, 10:45 AM

This thread is slipping inexporably down into philosophy and metaphysics as it inevitably approaches senility. Sigh. :rolleyes:

Fanie

04-13-2009, 10:53 AM

Hi Ancient,

That is because everyone is now convinced :rolleyes: that the metric system is the way to go and there is nothing much left to say about it :D

It's just a matter of easing one's ego into admitting the change is going to be ok for the better... and no one says 'I told you so' :D

Luckless

04-13-2009, 11:29 AM

Luckless, you're out of luck again :D

Here you acknowledge what I just said :D That is exactly what the decimal system is, normal (note NORMAL) counting.

I have never heard anyone count 1 2 3 4 ... 7 , 10... unless you're four and a half years old :D

If you have 3/8ths... however long that was :D then you don't dount up to three and then count 8 backwards. It's problematic everywhere :D To prove it that's the way our finances work, get three and spend eight :D

The Decimal System is NOT Metric. Metric is done In Decimal. And 3/8th is a fraction, represented using decimal numbers. You'll see the difference if you look at 3/16th.
in decimal: 0.1875
If the fraction was in hexadecimal then the fraction is actually 3/22.
That works out to: 0.136363636363636363636....

0 0 0
1 1 1
2 2 10
3 3 11
4 4 100
5 5 101
6 6 110
7 7 111
8 10 1000
9 11 1001
10 12 1010
11 13 1011
12 14 1100
13 15 1101
14 16 1110
15 17 1111
16 20 10000
17 21 10001
18 22 10010
19 23 10011
20 24 10100

Three series of numbers, (and assuming I didn't make a typo somewhere, I'm still waking up) where all three numbers on a given line represent the same value, each in a different 'base'. And I count in these systems a lot. If you are wondering why these are important to modern life, it is because of how computers work, a series of 'switches', on and off, 1 and 0. If you pad the binary digits with leading 0s, you can see how there is a connection between the digits 0 through 7 that will match up with binary digits. This means if you know binary numbers 0 through 7, 000 to 111, then you know that 0001000 is 10 in octal. This is furthered by the use of Hexadecimal, where we add A through F to our 'digits', and 10 in Hex is 16 in normal numbers.

murdomack

04-13-2009, 12:22 PM

Hi Ancient,

That is because everyone is now convinced :rolleyes: that the metric system is the way to go and there is nothing much left to say about it :D

Well, I remain unconvinced, must be the last man standing:D

Somebody mentioned stones above, most people in the UK still weigh themselves in stones and pounds. They say "I put on a stone on that holiday with all the beer and the eating I did". The US guys don't use them and go straight with pounds.

When I have a load of steel plate in various bundles stacked in a yard and I have to send it on by road, I don't measure the thickness of each plate individually to get the weight, I just measure the bundle thickness in inches and multiply it by 4. If the plates are 20ft X 10ft (the normal sizes supplied from the US) then this figure is the weight in Tonnes Metric Or Tons Long with an allowance for dunnage, pallets, etc.

If for some reason the weight is required in Lbs or in Short Tons, maybe a US supplied forklift is at the other end, I have to be more careful and calculate. What I do then is multiply a factor of 1.1 to my figure and this keeps my safety margin intact.

I can do all this without a pencil or a calculator.

If the plates are Metric sized I measure the thickness in Metres, eg 0.125 for 125mm thk. and multiply this by the length and breadth and the specific gravity. I have not worked out a way of doing this in my head as I do with Imperial, but there must be a knack there somewhere. Maybe I'm too long in the tooth to bother working one out.:D

TeddyDiver

04-13-2009, 02:36 PM

I have not worked out a way of doing this in my head as I do with Imperial, but there must be a knack there somewhere. Maybe I'm too long in the tooth to bother working one out.:D

Total sqm's x thickness mm x 7,86 = total kg :D

murdomack

04-13-2009, 06:52 PM

Total sqm's x thickness mm x 7,86 = total kg :D

That's what I do except I take it to Cu. mtrs and get the answer in tonnes, but my point is, I need a calculator or have to do a multiplication with a pencil, etc. With Imperial it is all done with mental arithmetic.

For quick calculations the Imperial system is a lot simpler.;)

ancient kayaker

04-13-2009, 07:08 PM

Mack, there are lots of us still standing imperiously, we just make less noise.

Teddy: that's mighty dense wood!

Fanie

04-13-2009, 07:09 PM

Luckless,
There are 10 types of people in the world.
Those who understand binary, and those who don`t.

You forgot to add the roman numeric system beside those.

ancient kayaker

04-13-2009, 07:27 PM

Fanie

04-13-2009, 07:33 PM

The metric tape has a decimal scale on it you read directly.

Luckless

04-13-2009, 08:09 PM

A properly marked Imperial rule or tape measure has the 16ths scale marked so the 1/2 line is longer than the 1/4's which are longer than the 1/8's and so forth. This makes finding a specific diemsion easier and reduces likelyhood of error. It can't be done in decimal, whether imperial or SI.

:confused:

What?

Whole numbers have their tick line at 100% length, x.5 is at 75%, x.2, x.4, x.5, x.8 are at 50%, x.1, x.3, x.7, x.9 are at 25%.

x.0 and x.5 are labeled. Add a 10% tick between all points, and you get a finer scale than standard carpenter's tapes that is just as easier to read, if not easier.

Yes, cheap decimal tapes are likely to be ticked off clearly at whole and halves, with the rest the same size, but you get what you pay for.

murdomack

04-14-2009, 03:03 AM

Tapes have improved considerably in my lifretime. When I started my apprenticeship, we were not allowed to bring our own tape into the shop, there were some available from the foreman's desk that had been checked and approved. They were a relatively expensive tool in those days.

We needed to supply a wooden 3ft folding rule and a 2ft folding steel rule. One of the apprentices got sent home one day because his wooden rule had been broken for three days and he had not replaced it. He had to borrow money to go and buy a new one. There were less Human Rights back then, but you learnt quickly that your trade had a high priority in your life.

ancient kayaker

04-14-2009, 10:04 AM

Luckless: I was looking at opposite sides of the same tape. Must have been made by an imperialist!

TeddyDiver

04-14-2009, 12:50 PM

that's mighty dense wood!
It would be perfect for deadwood, thou Mack was loading steel plates..
Anyways.. :)

Boston

04-14-2009, 05:45 PM

my old grand dad swore by those old folding wooden tapes and hated the palm tapes when they came out
said the metal expanded and contracted to much

Fanie

04-14-2009, 05:50 PM

He he... your kids are going to say the same about you guys who wants to stick to the old systems.

My grand dad swore by the imperial system and hated the metric... :D

Al.

06-30-2009, 06:52 AM

Good morning all

Sorry to jump in with no introduction.

METRIC ??

lets see, you still divide by 60 to meters per second from meters per minute.

January still has 31 days, not 10.

a year still has 12 months not 10

Do you guy's get time and a half pay for overtime over 8 hours worked or 10 hours . Oh thats right, metric countries never work more than 10 hours.

In your first example one actually works the other way in MOST applications of the metric system. m/s is a defined measurement and readily understood. m/minute would be used in only a few specialised circumstances. But you are dead right one would still multiply by 60.

Days in a week, days in a month, days in a year, etc follow lunar and solar cycles rather than either imperial or metric system.

Some fractions are certainly easier with Imperial. Decimals (almost by defintion! make more sense with Metric)

A Half is just as easy in Metric as it is in Imperial.

Plenty of people in nations with Metric systems work more than 8 hours. And just as in the US many of those are stung by 'salaried' rather than 'paid by the hour' contract, so they don't even get the benefit of being paid for that work.

I have been struck by how little annual leave US citizens are entitled to (and the complete lack of statutory maternity leave for working mothers) but I don't think that I would either
a) think that this is a good thing for the US economy
b) think that is a good thing for US citizens
c) blame it on the Imperial system.

a meter is what ?? the wave length of what ?? Oh, that's readily understood by a ditch digger. If I want a ditch 3 feet deep, I just look down and at least I have an idea what 2 feet deep looks like.

In a society using Imperial (or both as in the UK) it is certainly easy to estimate with Imperial measurements. However I know people who were only brought up on metric measurements who can happily use metres to estimate.

Sorry guy's just couldn't help it, but Metric is for the mathimatically challenged.

Absolute bilge. Just because you have not been brought up to use a certain system that does not make it rubbish by definition.

While were talking about it, why do metric countries put the day first and the month second when they write dates ??

Why do Imperial (read: US almost uniquely) put month/day/year. That makes no sense either go small to big day/month/year or big to small year/month/day. Why mix it up?

I find the discrepancy amusing rather than abhorrent. But I confess that (just as with US citizens not pronouncing the h in herb) when someone claims that the opposite is clearly superior or more logical it does make my blood boil somewhat.

and why does February get the extra day every 4 years, whats wrong with the 32nd of July ?

Again days in a week, days in a month, days in a year, etc follow lunar and solar cycles rather than either imperial or metric system.

I ASSUME that the reason for February's 1/4 day is that it does the least damage there! I quite like the sound of a 32nd July myself. :cool: How much effort would be required to get global recognition and acceptance I dont know. I also don't know what the actual benefit would be.

Al

murdomack

06-30-2009, 07:37 AM

Hi Al, and welcome,

A lot of this thread is light hearted banter, but some of the points are taken seriously. We all learn from throwing our ideas, likes, dislikes and experiences back and fore. At least I hope we do.

Like you, the US way of writing the date was odd for me but I've got used to it over the years. They tend to speak the date with the month first, e.g. May 23rd, so I guess it is the American English standard way. At work I use my computer on American English and I am used to entering dates this way, but when I try to do the same at home (in Excel etc) on my UK English computer I get gobledegook.

Your last point makes me wonder how the months ended up with different amounts of days, I am sure that someone must have mentioned it in school, maybe I was off that day :o)

I've googled it but it's all a bit much, makes the Imperial system look simple.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-are-the-number-of-days-in-a-month-not-equal.htm

wardd

06-30-2009, 07:48 AM

Real men don't use metric

masrapido

06-30-2009, 08:44 AM

Real men don't use metric

How childlish and ignorant. Like those that use calendar to rubbish the metric system. You HAVE TO be stupid to do that...Calendar is not based on any measuring system.

There's no debating with people who only accept one side of the issue, particularly when it is a wrong one.

That's called fundamentalism. Osama is a good example how stupid fundamentalists are. Metric system is superior to "imperial" simply because it is SIMPLER.

usanian scientists only work in metric system, so ignorants making a political posture in a forum like this one look like their "imperial" system: a relic from stone age.

masrapido

06-30-2009, 08:50 AM

That's what I do except I take it to Cu. mtrs and get the answer in tonnes, but my point is, I need a calculator or have to do a multiplication with a pencil, etc. With Imperial it is all done with mental arithmetic.

For quick calculations the Imperial system is a lot simpler.;)

24/16 X 3/12 is simple?

Being reasonable is one thing, but being wrong is a difficult concept to grasp, isn't it?

"imperial" system (what an irony to have it so stuck in a "republic"...) is fractional system and unles you are trained in it, it is NOT simpler for quick maths. That is why the world had gone into metric system some century and a bit ago. Except in some distant and mentally isolated countries of the fourth world, where people still live in stone age, and measure the distance with thumbs and feet...How high-tech is that.

wardd

06-30-2009, 09:10 AM

let me try to explain this to the unenlightened

take the inch which is broken down into fractions such as 1/64, 1/32/, 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 etc

take 1/16 v 1/8 1/16 is smaller than 1/8 even though 16 is greater than 8

the inch system is a real thinking man system not something left to young children or the faint of heart, and to add fractions is a real mans feat prone to error by those of lessor abilities

so to those that have mastered the inch, you are the few, the proud, the brave

gunship

06-30-2009, 11:23 AM

one inch is just 2,543 centimeters, nothing complicated there :P

however, one centimeter is 0,3937007874015748031496062992126 inches or 1/2,54th of an inch.

what is easier, dividing by 2,54 or 0,3937007874015748031496062992126?

metric system for the win :P

wardd

06-30-2009, 12:08 PM

sure if your into safe and simple

but we're into boats whats simple about them?

murdomack

06-30-2009, 01:04 PM

24/16 X 3/12 is simple?

Being reasonable is one thing, but being wrong is a difficult concept to grasp, isn't it?

"imperial" system (what an irony to have it so stuck in a "republic"...) is fractional system and unles you are trained in it, it is NOT simpler for quick maths. That is why the world had gone into metric system some century and a bit ago. Except in some distant and mentally isolated countries of the fourth world, where people still live in stone age, and measure the distance with thumbs and feet...How high-tech is that.

It is so simple the biggest dunce in our school, honest it wasn't me, could do it in his head and ride a unicycle at the same time. Switch the denominators and you get 24/12=2 times 3/16 which is 3/8 or .375 if you wanted decimals.

There is no right or wrong about it. Most people have had the misfortune to have not been trained in the Imperial system and believe it is outdated.

I have worked with both Imperial and Metric for 45 years a lot of that time in supervisory and inspection roles. From my own experience and what I have seen of other peoples work, I believe that the former is the best.

gunship

06-30-2009, 02:46 PM

i have no problem in measurement with inches for lenght instead of centimeters, but how many cubic inch is there on a gallon? how many cubic feet goes per pound? how many sqare inch is there per square mile?

also, how many inches is YOUR foot? no need to answer, but its not exactly twelve, is it?

murdomack

06-30-2009, 04:09 PM

Hi Gunship,

For someone taught Imperial Measures at school, your questions will not be any problem. Just to keep it confusing. our gallon was different from the US Gallon. All we had to remember was that one of our gallons of water weighed 10 lbs and a cubic foot of water weighed 62.5 lbs. This told us that gallons divided by 6.25 equals cu.ft. Multiply by 12*12*12 for cu. ins.
For pounds per cu. ft. of any substance it is 62.5 * Spec Gravity.
1 mile = 1760 yards = 5280 ft = 63,360 ins, so 1sq. mile = 63,360 * 63,360 sq. inches.
We would have worked that out on our slide rule or with logarithms before the silicon chip came along. Either that or a very long division with a pencil or a bit of chalk.
Square roots with a chalk, I can still do it as well, you never forget as it was drummed into your head.

The Imperial guys in the US will carry the lbs/US Gal conversion figure in their brain so they will get a different answer to me. I would have to look it up as I was not taught it, it's 8. something, but it does the same thing.

wardd

06-30-2009, 05:42 PM

i have 10 toes, does that mean i have metric feet?

gunship

06-30-2009, 08:14 PM

apex1

06-30-2009, 08:23 PM

I have worked with both Imperial and Metric for 45 years a lot of that time in supervisory and inspection roles. From my own experience and what I have seen of other peoples work, I believe that the former is the best.

If you have done so, I´m impressed about your statement. In my 42 years in business I have not met a single person going back to imperial once trained in metric. And not one either, calling imperial superior.

Luckless

06-30-2009, 09:57 PM

i have 10 toes, does that mean i have metric feet?

Nope, unless you hold up a finger for 0.

Toes/fingers are base 11.

You hold up nothing for your zero, then you have digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and "A", aka 10. If you and a friend stand side by side you can count, with your friend being the left hand digit,...

But if you want to get into more complex math, then you can represent far more digits. All fingers down for 0, all but right pinky down for 1, all but right ring finger down for 2, all but right ring and pinky down for 3, etc, etc, counting your primary digits in binary on your fingers, this gets you to base 1024,... ish? I'm tired and not nearly bored enough to scribble things out to be sure just what base that comes out to.

wardd

06-30-2009, 10:23 PM

i thought metric was base 10 and 0 is a digit though a place holder, so 10 toes 10 digits = metric feet

Luckless

06-30-2009, 11:01 PM

metric is done in base Ten (little note, all numbers are base "10", base two is base 10, as 10 in base two is 2,...)

However base ten, decimal, has 10 digits, 0 through 9, as base two has two digits, 0 and 1.

Most humans have 10 fingers, representing digits 1 through '10', but it would be written as A in standard notation. No fingers up would be your 0, giving you 11 digits to work with.

wardd

06-30-2009, 11:18 PM

so i cut one toe off, no problem

Mikey

06-30-2009, 11:49 PM

I am amazed that this discussion is still on. Shouldn’t it be enough to point out that 95.5% of the world is on metric and that America is in the company of sophisticated countries like Burma and Liberia. Only…

4.5% of the world thinks that milk must be kept at less than 100degrees, 95.5% thinks – Wow, Americans must have strong stomachs to take that without having to spend the rest of the day in the toilet

4.5% of the world thinks that 100 degrees is a hot day, 95.5% thinks that water boils then

Not to mention what happened the Ninth of November

Shall we standardise?

Mikey

murdomack

07-01-2009, 03:03 AM

well, on the other hand all i have to do put metric unit in to calculation, and out comes metric unit. and since pretty much all science is based on metric nowsays, such units as amps, joule and other stuff is also metric units. i understand that if you were schooled with the imperial system its easy, but i can easily apply all kinds of science to common measurements, and solve it all whith one simple formula. after that i can convert it between Giga/Mega/Kilo/Base unit/deci/centi/milli/micro/nano etc. for a conventiently long number, which can also be aproximated by 10^ for example -2 for centi.

I agree with you that Metric is easier to work with in many instances, but why does that make it better. In school we were taught science through the Imperial system, then we would be taught the Metric way at the end.

I always thought that learning in Imperial give us a better understanding.

It is not coincidental that the websites of suppliers from the US are far more informative than those from all these countries that take the easy route to everything. Being Imperial trained, they understand what their customers need to know and publish that in detail. Long may they keep it up.

gunship

07-01-2009, 11:22 AM

@ informative and easy way: I have no experience on that point, but i have never found any shortcomings in metric websites. allthough, i think it should be mentioned that there are only three countries who oficcially doesent use the metric system.

masrapido

07-02-2009, 06:01 AM

"Informative" and "easy" are personal views from someone who doesn't like the metric simply because they donot even understand it. Earlier nebulous "explanation" and a comment like "it's a real man's system" are further proof of ignorance, nothing else.

If the "imperial"system were really good, the world would have adopted it. It didn't. Smart real men looked at both and went with the better one. For those who still think they know better, just look at the pool. The tendency is towards the metric. To say that the lonely 4 imperialists are the only men in this forum, is childlish and frankly plain stupid.

Imperial system is complex and cumbersome. You deal with fractions and it takes a lot of time just to convert fractions into a common one just to be able calculate something. Only the fourth world countries are still using the "imperialist" system (the word intended).

usanian scientists also use metric system. There's a reason for that. For one, they are smarter than the "real men" who like the obsolete and useless system. Educated people know the other many reasons.

dskira

07-02-2009, 06:49 AM

I work with both, I don't see any problem of co-existance.
each one as its advantage, and I like using the imperial for the wood construction and the metric for steel construction. Beside its easy to go from one to an other. make my brain stay alert!

yipster

07-02-2009, 09:08 AM

as said i work with both also but do see problems in co-existance
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Metrication/mars_orbiters_demise_avoidable.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Metric_system.png
[url]
Smart people can make stupid mistakes. In fact, this happens all the time

murdomack

07-05-2009, 09:51 AM

Yipster, I hope the people reading that link that you put up do not use the scales in the title for converting or there could be another $125M "Metric Error". They have 15mm to the inch.

It's true that having both systems is not clever. A lot of the problem is that standards have adopted metric while lots of their dimensioning is still in inches. Take a look at the table of pipe threads posted which tells us that a 2" pipe thread or a G2 (I think that's its new name) has 11 threads per 25.4mm. This is one of the main reasons that I cling to Imperial, if industry would tool up from afresh in Metric instead of this mish-mash everyone would adopt it.

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Flanges/Pipe_Threads.html

ancient kayaker

07-28-2009, 11:52 AM

My metric rule has cm, usually too big to use for an approximation, and mm, sometimes too small to see. Because of the metric system's obsession with decimal scales the next highest precision would be 0.1 mm which could not be seen with the naked eye. That's it, just 2 levels of precision, take it or leave it; whether I am working with low accuracy or high precision makes no difference.

My 1 ft imperial rule has 1/8ths, 1/16ths, 1/32ths and 1/64ths. My 6 inch rule also has 1/128ths, which gets hard to read but it's there if I need it and it's 4 times as precise as the mm's on the metric rule. I can have either precision or clarity I need with imperial.

This is a binary progression - that’s 2:1 for you under-educated anti-imperialists - the entirely logical, efficient and natural scheme that your computer uses internally. Computer folk have to be logical, they deal in logic; they also work in octal (1:8) and hexadecimal (1:16).

Decimal systems are appropriate for those who must count with their fingers if a calculator is not handy. People tout decimal systems because it seems to be easier to add and subtract and do other arithmetic on the numbers, but that’s because they can only handle decimals.

I even have a rule calibrated in 1/12ths - handy if I need to divide accurately into 3's for example. You can’t do that using a 1:10 scale. We “imperialists” are comfortable with other scales and it often pays off. Sure I have metric rules and know how to use them, and sometimes I do, but they are just not as useful.

When the rulers of the galaxy finally decide to take humanity under their guidance, they will be shocked to find that some of this supposedly intelligent species are using a decimal scale for the arbitrary reason that they have 10 fingers. Hopefully they will decide that there is hope for us all when they discover some of us using the superior and natural binary scale of the imperial system.

Why do they call it imperial anyway? The SI system was initially imposed on an unwilling world as a by-product of Napoleon's imperialistic ambitions!

dskira

07-28-2009, 12:21 PM

Ancientkayaker,
Next time you go to an hospital, try your thought!:idea:
To be honnest I don't know in Canada, but here in the US the medical community use the metric system. Of course doctors doesn't know how to count, and always look at there fingers. Mostly the major one, with a plastic glove:P

marshmat

07-28-2009, 12:23 PM

I think it's safe to say that everyone will continue using the units they're comfortable with for as long as they live.

For me, that's metres, kilograms and newtons for everyday things and for most design work. It's inches and fractional inches where stock fasteners, lumber, pipe and fittings are involved. It's electron-volts, barns, coulombs and nanoseconds in the lab.

Now, just to see if we can really confuse anyone who's only fluent in imperial, or only fluent in metric:

What boat am I describing here?
LOA 0.20202 chains
LWL 1.2347x10^-7 nanoparsecs
Beam 225.7 jows
Displacement, in race trim, without crew 3.55x10^28 amu
Sail area in racing trim 7.06x10^28 barns
Speed record for the class 102.9 hands per microfortnight

No Google Converter, guys, you have to figure this out for yourselves to truly feel like you won the challenge!

The answer will be posted... let's say tomorrow or Thursday. Take yer guesses!

yipster

07-28-2009, 12:55 PM

cubing is where i prefer metric and fractioning goes complicated, there is more offcourse
where's that upside down piramid before "3.55x10^28 amu" or can we use mol as well?
isnt it hard enough as it is? i'm never to old to learn something tho, so go rite ahead

Fanie

07-28-2009, 04:09 PM

The metric system is the international system of measurement. It was designed with several goals in mind.

Neutral and universal

Any laboratory can make a model of the base units. Starting with length, the meter was determined by the distance between two lines of latitude. This can be measured at any location on earth with the proper instruments. Once the length is established, a cube can be constructed that is 1/10 km on each edge. The volume of this cube is the liter. Everyone has access to water, so fill this cube with water and you have a kilogram of weight at 3.98 degrees celsius. Oh, yes, you also had to develop a thermometer by dividing the difference between water's freezing and boiling points into 100 equal parts.

Decimal multiples

The metric system is decimal. The next larger unit is always 10 times as large, the next smaller always 1/10 as large. You don't have to remember 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, are there four pints in a quart or only two, etc. To convert, simply move the decimal point.

Prefixes

All derived units use a common set of prefixes for each multiple. "Kilo" means 1000 whether it is used both for mass (kilogram) or length (kilometre). A few units such as the tonne (megagram) and quintal (100 kilograms) survive from old units but have been rounded to metric. The prefixes which come from the Greek language (kilo, mega, giga) are multipliers and those with Latin origins (centi, milli) are divisors.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Four_advantages_of_the_metric_system_over_the_american_system_of_measurements

As you can see the link reads advantages of the metric friggin measurements :D

Someone started thinking and the metric system came to be.

On a positive note, some of the US manufacturers are actually beginning to use the metric system which is encouraging. There may be hope for the US after all :D Masalai will be delighted ;)

Fanie

07-28-2009, 04:21 PM

Stolen from someone on the net -

What are the advantages of the metric system?
-------------------------------------------------

This question comes up in misc.metric-system usually in discussions
with US Americans who see no compelling reason for why the United
States should make a serious effort to abandon their customary
inch-pound units and move on to the metric system.

The most frequently given answers include:

- Because practically everyone uses it

Americans who have never left their country may not realize that
their customary system of inch-pound units is today practically
unknown in most countries. For more than 95% of the world
population, the metric system is the customary system of units,
and for more than half of the industrialized world, it has been
for at least a century. Products designed in non-metric units or
using non-metric standards can cause serious maintenance and
compatibility problems for customers in major world markets and do
place a manufacturer at a disadvantage.

- Because using two incompatible systems causes unnecessary friction

The United States lacks a coherent system of units. Economic
realities, international standards, and the short-comings of the
inch-pound system (e.g., lack of electrical and chemical units,
lack of small subunits) force it already to use the metric system
alongside its customary inch-pound units. American students waste
at least half a year of mathematics education with developing
unit-conversion skills (both within the inch-pound system and
between inch-pound and metric) that are utterly irrelevant in the
metric-only rest of the world. [The study "Education System
Benefits of U.S. Metric Conversion", by Richard P. Phelps,
published in Evaluation Review, February 1996, claimed that
teaching solely metric measurements could save an estimated 82
days of mathematics instruction-time annually, worth over 17
billion dollars.]

- Because it dramatically reduces conversion factors in calculations

In spite of a significant amount of secondary school time being
wasted in the United States in science and math education with
training the use of conversion factors between the bewildering set
of units in use there, only few educated Americans know by heart
how to convert between gallons and cubic feet or inches and miles.
The inch-pound system suffers from a bewildering, random and
completely unsystematic set of conversion factors between units
for the same quantity, for instance 1 mile = 1760 yards and 1 US
gallon = 231 cubic inches. It also suffers from the use of too
many different units for the same quantity. Energy alone, for
example, is measured in the US in calories, british thermal units,
ergs, feet pound-force, quads, therms, tons of TNT,
kilowatt-hours, electron volts, and joules, and power is measured
in ergs per second, foot pound-force per second, several types of
horsepowers, and watts.

Users of the metric system, on the other hand, have to use
conversion factors only where there are significant physical
reasons for using alternative units to express some situation. An
example is the choice between molar concentration (a count of
molecules better describes a chemical reaction balance) and a mass
concentration (which describes better how a pharmacist prepares
medication) in medicine. The main other reason for using
conversion factors in the metric world is the continued use of
non-decimal multiples of the second (hour, day, year).

- Because metric dimensions are easier to divide by three

A commonly brought up -- but misleading -- claim is that the
inch-pound system supports division by three. While it is true
that the factor three appears in the inch-foot and foot-yard
conversion factors, this argument fails for the rest of the
system. In practice, people find that metric dimensions are far
easier to subdivide by various factors, as it is easier to move to
smaller subunits and as it is more common in the metric world to
use standardized preferred number sequences. For example, in the
British building industry (see British Standard BS 6750), it is
customary to chose major design dimensions (e.g., grid lines on a
building plan) as multiples of 300, 600, or 1200 mm. As a result,
common building dimensions can be divided by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
12, 15, 20, 24, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 75, 100, 120, 150, 200, and
300, without having to resort to millimetre fractions. Even
without such precautions, it is instantly obvious that one
kilometre divided by three is 333 1/3 metres and 1/3 L = 333 1/3
mL. On the other hand, even inch-pound enthusiasts are a bit
pressed when asked what 1/3 mile is in yards (answer: 586 2/3) or
what 1/3 lb is in ounces (5 1/3). Furthermore, while the use of
decimal fractions is preferred in the metric system, because this
simplifies the mental conversion between different unit prefixes,
there is no reason why vulgar fractions cannot be used where it
seems appropriate.

- Because it is the only properly maintained system

The inch-pound system used in the United States has essentially
stopped evolving more than 200 years ago when the metric system
emerged. Although it would, in principle, have been possible to
extend the inch-pound system into a coherent and even decimal
system of units, this never happened. The US customary system of
units uses the inch and pound only for mechanical quantities. It
had to copy, for example, all its electrical units (volt, ampere,
watt, ohm) from the metric system. The length of the inch still
differed noticeably between several English-speaking countries as
late as World War II, which interfered with the exchange of
precision equipment. It had to be redefined in 1959, when 1 inch
finally became 25.4 mm. At this point, industries in all
English-speaking countries -- apart from the United States --
decided to abandon the inch entirely for precision work, and later
also for general use.

dskira

07-28-2009, 04:23 PM

For construction I love Imperial.
1 by 2 by, 4 by and so on, board feet, pipe, and fasteners dimensions. It is so practical.
Daniel

Fanie

07-28-2009, 04:24 PM

In case you didn't know :rolleyes:

A) Humans

Typical height of an adult: 1.60-1.90 m
Typical weight of an adult: 50-90 kg

[The "body mass index (BMI)" is the weight in kilograms divided by
the height in metres squared. BMI values of 18-25 kg/mÂ² are
considered normal, values outside this range can mean an increased
disease risk.]

Keeping in mind that the size of most adults varies by about 20%,
the following are easy to remember estimates for typical values:

Width of an adult hand or foot: 10 cm

Width of the nail of the small finger: 1 cm

Maximum distance between elbows: 1 m

Height of the hip above ground: 1 m

Length of a moderately large step: 1 m

Foot length: 25 cm

Daily energy needed: 10 MJ (men)
8 MJ (women)

Energy of a healthy meal: 2 MJ

Daily water needed: 2 L

Blood volume: 5 L

Lung capacity: 5 L

B) General Physics

Speed of sound (in air): 340 m/s

Speed of light (in air or vacuum): 300 000 km/s

Acceleration of free fall (Earth): 10 m/sÂ²

Atmospheric pressure (Earth): 100 kPa

Density of water: 1000 kg/mÂ³ = 1 kg/L

C) Geology and Astronomy

Distance pole to equator (Earth): 10 000 km = 10 Mm

Length of the Earth equator: 40 000 km = 40 Mm

Altitude of geostationary Earth orbit: 36 000 km = 36 Mm

Distance Earth-Sun: 150 Gm

Diameter of solar system: 12 Tm

Diameter of our galaxy: 1 Zm

Distance to most distant visible objects: 100 Ym

D) Traffic

Walking speed 5 km/h

Cycling speed 20 km/h

Speed limit in traffic-calmed areas: 30 km/h

Speed limits on urban roads: 50-60 km/h

Speed limits on rural roads: 60-80 km/h

Speed limits on highways: 90-130 km/h

Long-distance average car speed: 100 km/h

Cruise speed of passenger planes: 600-800 km/h

Cruise altitude of passenger planes: 10 km

Official altitude boundary between Earth's
atmosphere and space ("Karman line"): 100 km

E) Temperatures

Lowest possible temperature: -273.15 Â°C = 0 K

Typical freezer temperature: -18 Â°C

Freezing water/melting ice: 0 Â°C

Drink with many ice cubes: 0 Â°C

Temperature of highest density of water: 4 Â°C

Typical refrigerator temperature: 4-8 Â°C

Comfortable office room temperature: 20-25 Â°C
(same for swimming-pool water)

Hot day (for Britain): 25-35 Â°C
(same for baby bath water)

Body temperature: 37 Â°C

Fever temperatures: 38-40 Â°C

Deadly fever: 41-42 Â°C

Proteins denaturate starting from: 45-50 Â°C
(in cooking: egg becomes solid)

Food poisoning bacteria might grow: 5-55 Â°C

Food poisoning bacteria die: 60 Â°C

Flour absorbs most water starting at: 70 Â°C
(minimum temperature dough/batter needs
to reach in any kind of baking)

Alcohol boils: 78 Â°C

Best temperature for green tea (Japan): 80 Â°C

Water boils (at sea level): 100 Â°C

Typical baking-oven air temperature: 150-220 Â°C

Washing machine settings: 30, 40, 50, 60, 95 Â°C

F) Angles

While degrees remain popular and useful for large angles (30Â°, 45Â°,
60Â°, 90Â°, etc.), the radian is extremely convenient and intuitive
for small angles, for example those covered by a pixel of a digital
camera.

1 mm seen from 1 m distance: 1 mrad
1 mm seen from 1 km distance: 1 Âµrad
1 m at the "end of the universe" (100 Ym): 0.01 yrad

The steradian is used mostly in the context of describing the
intensity of radiation.

1 mmÂ² seen from 1 m distance: 1 Âµsr
1 mmÂ² seen from 1 km distance: 1 psr

apex1

07-28-2009, 04:25 PM

[url] a cube can be constructed that is 1/10 km on each edge. The volume of this cube is the liter.

Fanie, how many liters of beer can you drink before you get tipsy?:D

Fanie

07-28-2009, 04:28 PM

nd even more... :D

length: metre (m)

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

[Originally, the metre was chosen to approximate the distance
between the north pole and the equator divided by ten million, such
that a unit that is roughly the size of a step can also help to
visualize large distances on the surface of the earth easily.]

mass: kilogram (kg)

The kilogram is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of the
international prototype of the kilogram.

[No independent lab experiment is known yet that provides a more
stable reference for mass than the regular comparison with a lump of
platinum-iridium alloy kept in a safe at the BIPM in Paris.]

[Originally, the kilogram was chosen to approximate the mass of one
litre (1/1000 mÂ³) of water. This choice, combined with the second,
also led to very convenient numbers for the Earth's gravity (about
10 m/sÂ²) and atmospheric pressure (about 100 kPa).]

time: second (s)

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of
the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

[In other words: if you want to know how long a second is, buy an
atomic clock that uses caesium, such as the classic Agilent/HP 5071A.]

[Originally, the SI second was chosen to approximate the length of
the astronomical second (1 day divided by 60 Ã— 60 Ã— 24) around 1820.]

electric current: ampere (A)

The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two
straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible
circular cross-section, and placed 1 m apart in vacuum, would
produce between these conductors a force equal to 2 Ã— 10^-7 newton
per metre of length.

[In other words, the ampere is defined by setting the magnetic
permeability of free space to 4Ï€ Ã— 10^-7 H/m. This way,
electromagnetic equations concerning spheres contain 4Ï€, those
concerning coils contain 2Ï€ and those dealing with straight wires
lack Ï€ entirely.]

thermodynamic temperature: kelvin (K)

The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction
1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of
water.

[The celsius temperature scale divides the temperature interval of
liquid water into 100 steps. The kelvin has the same size as the
degree celsius, but its origin is moved to the lowest possible
temperature (0 K = -273.15 Â°C) to simplify gas calculations and
avoid negative numbers. The triple point of water at 0.01 Â°C is a
more well-defined reference temperature than its melting temperature
at some arbitrarily chosen pressure.]

amount of substance: mole (mol)

1. The mole is the amount of substance of a system which contains as
many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of
carbon 12.

2. When the mole is used, the elementary entities must be specified
and may be atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles, or
specified groups of such particles.

[No technique is known yet to accurately count the number of
molecules in a macroscopic amount of matter, therefore the current
definition of the mole is no better than the definition of the
kilogram.]

luminous intensity: candela (cd)

The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a
source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 Ã— 10^12
hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683
watt per steradian.

[This is a psychophysical unit for describing how bright an average
human eye perceives some electromagnetic radiation in the optical
frequency bands. As such, it differs very much from the purely
physical nature of the other units. The definition of the SI base
unit for luminous intensity provides merely a calibration value that
replaces an older one based on a reference candle. It has to be used
together with sensitivity models of an average human eye that have
been standardized by CIE. Many other physiological units are in use,
such as the "phon" for perceived loudness and the "bark" for
perceived audio frequency in acoustics, but none of these have made
it into the SI, possibly because it is much more difficult to reach
a consensus in audiology.

Fanie

07-28-2009, 04:29 PM

Fanie, how many liters of beer can you drink before you get tipsy?
You would know when you know the metric system :D

Fanie

07-28-2009, 04:37 PM

I read here
Although the introduction of
the metric system is clearly slowest in the US, compared to any other
developed country, it is widely used today in the US in selected
areas.

Bloody hell, I didn't know the US had slow and fast areas. Which area are you from :D

ancient kayaker

07-28-2009, 04:51 PM

Chuckle! Fanie wasn't drunk, he just mixed up m and km. Easy to do. I hardly ever mix up a yard and a mile. Mind you, if that's the kind of the liters he buys his wine in ...

I seem to have stirred the (pint) pot up!

murdomack

07-28-2009, 04:59 PM

Fanie at 9:09

That's the thing about the metric system, it does not take a lot of thinking. You just believe what they tell you and move the decimal points along.

This can be a dangerous way to work and your post above proves the point.

Which two lines of Latitude are 1 metre apart? I know that every minute of Latitude is 1 Nautical Mile, or 1852 mtrs. This means that a metre is 5.3995680345572354211663066954644e-4 minutes of Latitude. A second of Latitude is 30.86666666666666666666667 metres so that one does not fit either. Maybe the Metric world is 100 degrees from pole to equator:( Maybe there is a Metric degree:D

Moving on, a cube with sides of 1/10th km would be a very big litre, in fact it would be 1,000,000,000 litres, I think.

That's the beauty of the Imperial system, you have to think first.

ancient kayaker

07-28-2009, 05:14 PM

From a nautical perspective, a better base unit would have been the nautical mile. A slight tweak of the fathom would make 1000 of those to a nm, and a 1/1000 f unit would be about 1.8 mm. The entire thing was arbitrary after all, why not choose something useful?

Why do we still have 60 seconds to the minute and so forth, couldn't that have been decimalized while they were about it? Do people have problems computing times because it isn't decimalized?

murdomack

07-28-2009, 05:18 PM

Fanie at 09:24

"Distance pole to equator (Earth): 10 000 km = 10 Mm", my convertor says it is 10000.8 km.

Everyone knows it's a lot simpler to step out distances in yards, well at least the Imperialists do ;)

apex1

07-28-2009, 05:21 PM

Chuckle! Fanie wasn't drunk, he just mixed up m and km. Easy to do. !

I have to contradict you here Terry. When you are used with the metric system, as I am, it is as impossible to mix up a meter and a kilometer as it is for you to mix up a inch and a mile.
BTW, not Fanie mixed it up, but the (US americans?) who produced the article on wiki!:D

Fanie

07-28-2009, 05:41 PM

I'm so sorry, I really have to apologise :o I only realised now that the facts that I posted is common knowledge and this thread is not really about who's right and who's wrong, it's there soly for argument's sake.

Lets face it. The statement that the inches system had no small measurements is not true. Again, as Murdomack indicated you had to think, and now that I think about it the inches system actually caters for a whole lot of different levels of society.

If you wanted to work more accurate than inces you would switch to the Angstrom. Most of you building boats and did a good job fitted parts with angstrom accuracy. Just to explain, this is when you saw the handle off your toothbrush to save weight and you can measure it on the boat's draft, ok.

If this however is a bit out of your league - and not everyone can be a boat builder - some have to fiddle on stock markets and trade gold bars :D - and if you heard of the fist moon landing then the Armstrong is your measure.

Again if this is over your head and find the above a bit confusing then Arm Strong like in serious muscles is something any one can grasp (I hope). Understandably you need strong arms to slap together a couple of planks you single handedly sawed out of a few trees one afternoon and you can sail off into the sunset happily ever after the same day.

No I know no one can argue with that. We cannot all be experts in everything although that is another debatable point. Some of us have to talk crap too you know :D

Fanie

07-28-2009, 05:50 PM

but the (US americans?) who produced the article on wiki!

Have faith, they are coming around. I bet they are going to turn around afterwards and say yeah but remember it was us writing that article in the first place ;)

murdomack

07-28-2009, 05:56 PM

Really, I like the Metric system, but I love the Imperial more :)

Let's see, You can sing in metre, but you can dance with your feet :D

Fanie

07-28-2009, 06:01 PM

Distance pole to equator (Earth): 10 000 km = 10 Mm", my convertor says it is 10000.8 km.

Have you taken into acount the polar caps are melting so the distance pole to equator has been shortened. 10 000 km it is :D I suggest you switch your calculator from imperial mode to metric mode to calculate :D

Fanie

07-28-2009, 06:03 PM

Let's see, You can sing in metre, but you can dance with your feet
I'm trying to inch my way out of this one ! :D

apex1

07-28-2009, 07:11 PM

I'm trying to inch my way out of this one ! :D

How do I fathom out what you meant here?
.......do´nt pound me for my ignorance yeah?

murdomack

07-28-2009, 07:34 PM

Have you taken into acount the polar caps are melting so the distance pole to equator has been shortened. 10 000 km it is :D I suggest you switch your calculator from imperial mode to metric mode to calculate :D

Hey, this is interesting. The original minite of arc of latitude mile, which when you think about it is not a distance but a projection of an angle, is now called the sea mile according to the attached Wiki file. It varies quite a bit from the poles and the equator as the world is not a perfect sphere. What the Metric whizzes have done is they have hi-jacked the term "international nautical mile" and taken a nearest round figure to the mean size and ended up with 1852 mtr.

Why did they do this when this metric nautical mile X 90 X 60 = 10000.8 km? 800 mtrs off target in 5400 nautical miles, I hope the Trident missiles are not on this system:mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile

ancient kayaker

07-28-2009, 09:50 PM

... is as impossible to mix up a meter and a kilometer as it is for you to mix up a inch and a mile ...
:D
-gee, Apex, we're just kidding around here ...

... this thread is not really about who's right and who's wrong, it's there soly for argument's sake ...
:D
-by George, he's got it!

... I hope the Trident missiles are not on this system
:D
-don't worry, they go back a long way, I'm sure they use good old degrees, minutes and seconds, invented in way back in Babylon, for the Trident guidance system. Wouldn't want any of them newfangled systems!

apex1

07-28-2009, 09:59 PM

-gee, Apex, we're just kidding around here ...

hear, hear... and I did´nt "fathom that out" ?:P

Boston

07-28-2009, 10:40 PM

masrapido

07-29-2009, 03:24 AM

Really, I like the Metric system, but I love the Imperial more :)

Let's see, You can sing in metre, but you can dance with your feet :D

You are overdoing it now. How can one sing in metres...? I'd love to hear you doing that. Audio post please.

murdomack

07-29-2009, 10:47 AM

You are overdoing it now. How can one sing in metres...? I'd love to hear you doing that. Audio post please.

No audio, but this may help;) Just scroll down the page a bit and you will find a song that you know. Imagine I'm singing it for you. No, better not:o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_metre

apex1

07-29-2009, 11:14 AM

Imagine I'm singing it for you. No, better not:o

Thanks!:D
and then there was "lovely Rita, meter maid............" you remember?

ancient kayaker

07-29-2009, 11:29 AM

sounds like the Titanic to me

I don't recall the Titannic's sail area, but it seems awfully short for its speed.

M-Sasha

07-29-2009, 12:51 PM

I don't recall the Titannic's sail area, but it seems awfully short for its speed.

I recall the area she sailed! Does that help?

Fanie

07-29-2009, 01:18 PM

What the Metric whizzes have done is they have hi-jacked the term "international nautical mile" and taken a nearest round figure to the mean size and ended up with 1852 mtr.
Who measured the nautical mile in the first place. Since it's on water do you measure it over the suface of the water... and how about if there are waves - or is that why it is 1852m...

Also, if measured from the beach, exactly where does the nautical mile starts ? Seems to me the water edge position changes all the time, or does all the nautical miles from here to over there shifts in and out with the water edge :rolleyes:

How about if there are waves from two beaches facing (it is possible you know) each other. does the distance change all the time ? How about if the waves are out of sink and they go in oposite directions.

If you think the 5 meter a wave can rinse out on the sand is not much, just try to miss a tanker by 5 meter short.

marshmat

07-29-2009, 01:34 PM

Fanie,
The nautical mile is a relativistic measure of distance. It is equal to 1852 m in good sailing conditions on a sunny day. The nautical mile becomes longer in direct proportion to the probability of impending bad weather. It also increases inversely with the mean velocity of a calm breeze, approaching infinity at Beaufort 0.

Fanie

07-29-2009, 01:55 PM

Hi Matt,

It is equal to 1852 m in good sailing conditions on a sunny day.
What happens if it not sunny :D You find yourself sailing there but elsewhere ?

The nautical mile becomes longer in direct proportion to the probability of impending bad weather.
I agree with this. Especially with a strong head wind when you're low on fuel and cannot use the sails then that nm seems to stretch out into infinity :D

What is beyond infinity ? Another infinity ? Where does it stop :D and what is the metric for infinities. May sound rediculous but last time the wife was PO with me she said she is never (into many infinities) going to talk to me again. She didn't lie. She only shouts at me now :D

apex1

07-29-2009, 05:26 PM

and what is the metric for infinities. :D

This:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Infinite.svg/150px-Infinite.svg.png

Fanie

07-29-2009, 06:21 PM

Yeah right

masrapido

07-30-2009, 06:18 AM

No audio, but this may help;) Just scroll down the page a bit and you will find a song that you know. Imagine I'm singing it for you. No, better not:o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_metre

:eek:

The choice of songs is shocking...

By the way, there was someone who complained that metre is barely 200 years old. Bloody imperialist ignorant... Metre as a measure has been officially (as in recognised and adopted - there were no standards back then) around since 1675. And under the name of "metre catollico"...Of all things, the christians promoted one good thing...

Antic greeks, and possibly even Egyptians, identified it when they calculated the earth's circumference. The word itself is greek word. So, it is really OLDER than that inadequate "imperialist" system. Mind you, imperialists,do not get to proud, russians used their own "imperial" measurement system, and their "vrsta" (like a mile) is bigger than english.

Rasputin had something to do with it, women of that era are believed to have said...

;)

Fanie

07-30-2009, 06:23 AM

Rasputin had something to do with it, women of that era are believed to have said...
I'm with Godzilla on this - size does count.

masrapido

07-30-2009, 07:12 AM

I'm with Godzilla on this - size does count.

godzilla...?

darn, got nothing funny to reply...

Metres rule!
nah, not working...

darn...fanie, I owe you one!

marshmat

07-30-2009, 09:08 AM

Now, just to see if we can really confuse anyone who's only fluent in imperial, or only fluent in metric:

What boat am I describing here?
LOA 0.20202 chains
LWL 1.2347x10^-7 nanoparsecs
Beam 225.7 jows
Displacement, in race trim, without crew 3.55x10^28 amu
Sail area in racing trim 7.06x10^28 barns
Speed record for the class 102.9 hands per microfortnight

No Google Converter, guys, you have to figure this out for yourselves to truly feel like you won the challenge!

The answer will be posted... let's say tomorrow or Thursday. Take yer guesses!

Chains - One chain is 66 feet, or 1/80 of a statute mile (in metric, that's 20.1168 m). Thus our little boat is 4.06 m, or 13'10", long.

Nanoparsecs - This is a bit of an absurd unit. A parsec, 3.0857x10^16 m, is the distance from our Sun at which a star has a parallax of one arc-second, viewed from Earth. Thus, a nanoparsec is 30,857 km, or about three-quarters of the circumference of the Earth. Our mystery boat, then, is 3.81 m (12'6") on the waterline.

Jows- this is an obsolete Indian unit of length, roughly equal to 6.3 mm or 1/4 inch. Our boat's beam, then, is 1.42 m or 4'7".

amu, or atomic mass units- one amu is defined as 1/12 the mass of an isolated Carbon-12 atom at rest in its ground state. That is to say, it is the approximate mass of a proton or neutron, 1.660x10^-27 kg. This puts our mystery boat's dry weight at about 59 kg.

Barns- A barn is 10^-28 square metres, roughly the cross-sectional area of a uranium nucleus. It's commonly used in nuclear medicine and high-energy physics to calculate collision probabilities. The name comes from a few American nuclear physicists joking during the Second World War that shooting things at uranium nuclei was like "hitting the broad side of a barn". (See also the harder-to-hit "shed", equal to 10^-24 barns). So our little boat has, you guessed it Chris, a 7.06 square metre (75 sq.ft) sail in its normal configuration.

Hands per microfortnight- Here I'm just messing with you A hand is 1/3 of a foot (or 4"), a fortnight is two weeks (1,209,600 seconds). Therefore a microfortnight is 1.21 seconds, and a hand per microfortnight is 0.275 feet per second. So our boat's "unofficial" speed is 16.8 knots, the current claimant being Mark Denzer of Honolulu. Interestingly, the microfortnight is a fairly common unit in computing science, dating from the VMS operating system; it is used to force users to really, really think before they mess around with settings.

The winning post was on http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/identify-boat-weird-units-challenge-metric-imperial-debaters-28575.html#post289732 . Chris Tucker, you win a free pint next time you're in Kingston, Ontario

It is, indeed, a Laser.

yipster

07-30-2009, 01:33 PM

ugh, no without checking i would not have guessed "amu, or atomic mass units- one amu is defined as 1/12 the mass of an isolated Carbon-12 atom at rest in its ground state. That is to say, it is the approximate mass of a proton or neutron, 1.660x10^-27 kg. This puts our mystery boat's dry weight at about 59 kg." and the others, start wondering nowtho if its a good thing the poll is closed :-D

masrapido

08-02-2009, 06:50 AM

Apparently even in the usa they use metric system. Look at the New Scientist page with puzzles:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327191.100-enigma-number-1556.html

They are the peoples who published the work of some Australian biophysicist who, while working with NASA, discovered in 1990's that they couldn't have possibly sent humans to the Moon due to super ultra high levels of radiation. According to her experiments, such a technology even today (1990's) is not available. (Sept. issue 1998, if I recall correctly. The yellow front page). But to read that article you need to subscribe first. I ain't givn' you my username and a password.

But I digress...They do use metric however. It is a small step for humanity, but a big one for usanians. Ole'!

Fanie

08-02-2009, 08:02 AM

Apparently even in the usa they use metric system.
Of course they do. They are just hiding it. It takes guts to admit when you're wrong :D

rambo!

08-02-2009, 02:30 PM

Doesn´t matter if you use metrics or imperial, as soon as the boat gets in the hands of the sales/ad departments they have their own conversion factors that nobody understands anyway...;-)

Maybeone reason to stick to what you are used to is the calculations you do in your head, "raw estmates", to check if your spreadsheets are ok...that could be hard if you change system. Like when EU changed to Euros.

Rgds
Olle

rambo!

08-02-2009, 02:45 PM

By the way, the worlds biggest wood chuch is located in Keirimäki, Finland it is said that that the drawings were in foot but it was built in meter....
They should have discovered the misstake when it was time to build the benches for the public.....
If it´s true...don´t know but its a small town with a very very big church...

regds
O

tkk

08-03-2009, 09:40 AM

It is a big church indeed and the tale about inches and meters could be true.

Another secret I heard was about metric and the US: it is rumored that finally they are slowly going to metric, inch by inch.

rxcomposite

08-10-2009, 10:12 AM

Another secret I heard was about metric and the US: it is rumored that finally they are slowly going to metric, inch by inch.

They have. The cent is now 1/100 of a dollar.

Rx

apex1

08-10-2009, 10:42 AM

They have. The cent is now 1/100 of a dollar.
Rx

Which at present means nothing! And nothing is´nt metric!.........:D

ancient kayaker

08-11-2009, 03:09 PM

Aw, cumon! The only thing metric and Imperial can agree on is nothing!

apex1

08-11-2009, 05:19 PM

Aw, cumon! The only thing metric and Imperial can agree on is nothing!

Hmmm, ja..................from that viewpoint. I would say ten points! Decimal.......

MikeJohns

08-24-2009, 02:02 AM

By the way, the worlds biggest wood chuch is located in Keirimäki, Finland it is said that that the drawings were in foot but it was built in meter..................

That sounds like an urban myth not worthy of a good boat forum :)

Structural requirements go up by the square of the span of a structural member. the structural side of things, floor joists beams lintels etc don't scale linearly. Iin otherwords if the dimensions were 3 times over the design then much of the structure would need to be be 9 times bigger for the same stresses. Otherwise it would have fallen down.

ancient kayaker

08-24-2009, 01:38 PM

Don't agree: this is just the ideal thread for an urban myth! There are pictures of the church at http://www.globosapiens.net/davidx/picture-worlds-largest-wooden-church-21482.html

-the pews in the inside photo look normal size but the bbuilding certainly has a chunky look!

kmartyr

09-14-2009, 09:41 PM

Another secret I heard was about metric and the US: it is rumored that finally they are slowly going to metric, inch by inch.

haha. :D I wish we would though. It would make my life so much easier. It would probably make everyones lives easier.

Paul Kotzebue

09-17-2009, 06:47 PM

Structural requirements go up by the square of the span of a structural member. the structural side of things, floor joists beams lintels etc don't scale linearly. Iin otherwords if the dimensions were 3 times over the design then much of the structure would need to be be 9 times bigger for the same stresses. Otherwise it would have fallen down.

Not exactly. If the design pressure remains constant, the bending moment on the floor joists will increase by the cube of the scale factor (spacing x span^2). However, the section modulus of the joist will also increase by the cube of the scale factor (width x height^2), so it evens out.

Boston

09-17-2009, 09:45 PM

that and the Fins have monstrous trees to play with
I dated a Fin at one point and ended up there on vacation
I saw a number of log cabins
the logs were enormous
the place is like a Walt Disney movie setting
even the ferns were over my head

ps
that girl could drink most drunks under the table and not even belch

TeddyDiver

09-18-2009, 12:29 PM

that and the Fins have monstrous trees to play with Had, being precise.. Nowadays those big logs are imported from Russia..
Once I were helping a friend to restore old house he bought.. floor boards were 4" x 10-14" and the beams 7" x 16". The oven and the chimney were built directly on the floor boards without any additional foundation. Some 3 to 4 tons of bricks and mortar..
It's funny after all metric and SI units etc the building industry is producing most materials as modul lengths. One modul being 300mm :rolleyes: It would've been easier to remain feet..

hoytedow

09-18-2009, 01:59 PM

I will try to refrain from putting my 304.8mm in mouth here, but I mostly use imperial, simply because it is most commonly used in U.S. Metric is not a bad system, though, and I am comfortable with it.

wardd

09-18-2009, 07:17 PM

inches are better because they're bigger than mm or cm

Boston

09-18-2009, 10:08 PM

thats right Wardd
when you told that girl in the bar 8 up and 8 around you didnt specify inches or millimeters
so she had no business being disappointed now did she

Teddy I didnt know you were in Finland
dam beautiful country mate
its been about twenty five years but wow
what beautiful place you have there
and a tremendous history to it as well
I have read numerous accounts of the Fins defense of there land in ww2
stopped the Russians cold and that just after beating the crap out of the Germans
hell they beat the Russians with stuff taken from the Germans
Anna ( my Fin friend ) and I always had some great conversations about our histories
both her people and mine were best not to piss off

TeddyDiver

09-19-2009, 01:39 AM

Actually the Russians were stopped twice and then the Germans were thrown out..
For us fins they were three separate wars, winter 39-40 against the russians who were "kind of allied" with the germans.. All we had that time was sympathy from the west but germans and swedes stopped most of the arms coming to Finland.. My grandfather destroyed a russian tank with the last shot of this 120mm (japanese) navy cannon at Taipale.. Take a look at the pipe to know why it was the last shot ;)

TeddyDiver

09-19-2009, 01:46 AM

That was th first one.. Second war we were allied with Germany and tried take back what was ours.. after the treaty with the allies we had the third war against the germans who were still in Lappland..

Boston

09-19-2009, 04:26 AM

nice crack in that barrel
must have been a hot round
although its also got a few pretty good dents in it
looks almost like some fool dropped it when they were moving it

ya the part that always impressed me was the "take back what was ours part"
if I remember that was a slow grind against the largest army by far Europe had ever seen
and a well equipped one as well
man dont screw with Finland
Im not even sure you folks produced any weapons at all
just used whatever you could get your hands on

the Iroquois did something similar
after the pequot massacre we allied with the french who provided arms as did the colonists
the english were out of there element in heavy woods and deep snow
were not able to form any effective defense to an intense gorilla type war
that
and the Iroquois immediately realized the benefit of the riffle
something new at the time
the Iroquois were not traditionalists and took on new technology probably faster than any other Indian tribe
the English and later the Americans discovered the difficulty in performing complex military maneuvers in such a diverse terrain
oh we were on the run a few times but always took back what was ours as well

I have a lot of respect for the Fins history
they didnt take anything that wasnt there's in the first place
and they beat the snot out of some of the largest players in the game

B