Forum sponsored by:

Metric vs Imperial - Practical or Traditional?

Search for: in Thread Title in

<< First < Prev 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next > Last >>

chris stephens	06/11/2010 20:18:49
1049 forum posts 1 photos	Hi Chris, While I agree with you about no compulsion to change, you might be putting some peoples back up by the way you imply they are stick-in-the-mud, make that sand. People can use Imp units for as long as there are measuring instruments that can read in those units. I am sure that there would be some people still using cubits or whatever if you could still buy rulers at B&Q marked in those units. I don't see the scale train people changing their name to metric any time soon. Re your last Para, I think you are forgetting that nobody who uses a micrometer works in fractions. IMP can be in either expressed as fractions or decimal as you can with metres, 1/2metre is just a valid as 0.5metre. So your thought falls down a bit, 7.5mm does not have to be put into a fraction of an inch, as it can justifiably be put in decimal, 7.5/25.4=0.295" not a "standard" figure I grant you but hardly mind mangling conversion. It must be remembered that All units of length are arbitrary as there are no accurately measurable natural constants for length, even in the metric system. Even when using light waves to measure something the wave length first had to be defined as a distance. There are physical constants involved for things like temperature, boiling or freezing of water etc but weight and length, no. If the Earth were a perfect sphere you could perhaps use 1/10,000,000th of the equator to the north pole distance, but it isn't and so even here some element of averaging and theoretical calculation is needed. As for light travelling so far in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second, hardly an easy number to use. Even a second is now a theoretical one, as the sixtieth of a sixtieth of a twenty-fourth of a day is variable by modern measurement capabilities. You can't define a Metre except by calculation. I don't suppose you are volunteering to walk from the equator to the north pole with a steel tape are you? Whereas three barley corns, or whatever an inch was defined by, are a physical , not a theoretical, unit that was fairly universal and on a "human understanding" scale. Yes, Yes, I know it is not up to engineering precision as it stands, but it worked OK as a starting point. Once you have set your arbitrary value for a metre then distance and weight are easy and dare I say it logical, but a metre is a hypothetical unit first and foremost, despite what some would say. Please take the above in a the spirit it was intended ie not too seriously, just a bit of fun as a diversion from tonight's fireworks. Can our nice new bit of Eye Candy , sorry web editor, put a time limit on this topic so we can think of a new excuse for poking fun at each other. I do so hope she has a sense of humour or my posts might never see the light of day again, OK let me say it before you lot do, Yippee and thank heavens for small mercies. chriStephens PS Just had a thought, which is more honest a standard based on a few bits of vegetation or a standard based on a falsehood? That is a rhetorical question I'm not expecting or wanting to start another round of posts. Now, unless seriously provoked, I shall shut up on the subject. I feel a circular argument naturally goes nowhere, and must therefore be pointless.
Ian Abbott	06/11/2010 20:23:53
279 forum posts 21 photos	You have to understand here Hansrudolph, that I am incapable of grasping the figures on any readout, metric, Imperial or fraction, correctly. DRO's in my hands are a deadly weapon and I started using a magnifying glass to read a vernier thirty years ago to narrow down the available numbers to the few inside the lens. Not that my eyesight is bad, it's just the connection with my brain which can't accept any measurement with numbers in the tens of thousands. At least an inch generally limits the options to a thou. or two. Decimal points are optional with me and in the time it takes to scroll the screen back to the line I'm writing, the figure that I've just read had disappeared into the ether. Given the potential for catastrophe when placing the decimal point in a number such as 68580 compared to fifty feet plus 25 thou. I'll take the inch any time. And yes, of course I use metric constantly alongside imperial and "this long", I just don't find it has the same warm feeling as a nice comfortable 1/64", three chains or a furlong. Ian
Ian Abbott	06/11/2010 20:28:00
279 forum posts 21 photos	And, I did enjoy putting a sign up saying "1/3 of a kilometer" pointing to our business. (Which was in engineering, fortunately I gave that up in 1983) Ian
Chris Trice	07/11/2010 00:50:52
1376 forum posts 10 photos	Posted by Stub Mandrel on 06/11/2010 20:15:21: Chris Can you explain the scientific logic behind the hectare? Neil In all honesty, no.
dcosta	07/11/2010 01:15:33
496 forum posts 207 photos	Hello. The hectare has the same purpose as the acre which is to measure areas. See, please, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare. Dias Costa Edited By Dias Costa on 07/11/2010 01:16:03
Chris Trice	07/11/2010 01:28:44
1376 forum posts 10 photos	Posted by chris stephens on 06/11/2010 20:18:49: Hi Chris, While I agree with you about no compulsion to change, you might be putting some peoples back up by the way you imply they are stick-in-the-mud, make that sand. "SNIP" PS Just had a thought, which is more honest a standard based on a few bits of vegetation or a standard based on a falsehood? That is a rhetorical question I'm not expecting or wanting to start another round of posts. Now, unless seriously provoked, I shall shut up on the subject. I feel a circular argument naturally goes nowhere, and must therefore be pointless. No offence taken or intended. Just to be clear, I've said earlier that I use imperial so I'm potentially tarring myself as a stick in the mud except I also work in metric and can see that fundamentally, looking at it without the familiarity/comfort filter in place, it is a more rational and easier to use system. For that reason, it will inherit the Earth and Imperial will wither and die. As you say, people will continue to use it for as long as tools and machinery include it but there will come a time when the machinery manufacturers ask themselves why they're bothering to include imperial measures for the ever dwindling percentage of customers that will use them. You can't work in imperial if you have no means to measure your output. It's more than likely that imperial will continue until this generation have curled up their toes so no reason why anyone here today shouldn't use imperial but there will come a time when an inch will be as meaningful to a young engineer starting out as a groat is to a young banker today and like the groat, imperial will be remembered purely as a currency people used to use. I'm not campaining or trying to convert anyone. I'm just saying I use both and one is clearly easier to use if you start from basics. It was touched upon earlier that those who like imperial do so because it's familiar and it's what they know but that's not a reason to resist a change that makes logical sense. I suppose in that respect, imperialists are by definition stick in the muds but the difference is that the rest of the world doesn't care since they can't alter the fact that metric is coming. I'm sorry if anyone finds it uncomfortable or threatening. I'm just stating what seems obvious. Edited By Chris Trice on 07/11/2010 01:30:56
Stub Mandrel	11/11/2010 22:06:55
4318 forum posts 291 photos 1 articles	Hi Dias > The hectare has the same purpose as the acre which is to measure areas. > See, please, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare. I live and breathe hectares in my day job - its about the size of a football pitch But 1 hectare = 10,000m2 or 0.01 km2. Logically we should use the are as a unit of area, 1000 square metres but (a) it's a bit too small, only a tennis court (and tennis is a silly game), and (b) it would be a square with sides a bit longer than 31.6m long - all far to awkward for estate agents, unlike sensible acres a furlong long by a chain wide. Now the hectare is exactly 1 olympic sprint long on each side, which is sensible, but it just dosen't fit with nice ten-to-the-power-of-three metric, so much so that it (and the are) have been cast out of the metric fold and really have no more legitimacy than good, sold acres. Neil
Terryd	12/11/2010 10:40:01
1946 forum posts 179 photos	Posted by Stub Mandrel on 11/11/2010 22:06:55: Hi Dias .............. Logically we should use the are as a unit of area, 1000 square metres but (a) it's a bit too small, only a tennis court (and tennis is a silly game), and (b) it would be a square with sides a bit longer than 31.6m long - all far to awkward for estate agents, unlike sensible acres a furlong long by a chain wide............... Neil, Out of interest, It is thought that a furlong was the length of a furrow (220 yards) which could be ploughed by a team of 2 oxen without stopping and the rod (4 to a chain) is thought to have been the length of an ox goad. Hence it was easy to measure the acre with implements and animals at hand. How accurate that was is a matter of conjecture. The modern international acre is defined as 4840 sq yards - unfortunately worldwide there are different definitions of the yard. Now that surveyors use lasers and sonar devices, how easy is it to get an actual surveyors chain. The only applications I know of is measuring a cricket pitch and the radii of railway curves. Any other suggestions? Terry Edited By Terryd on 12/11/2010 10:49:45
Stub Mandrel	14/11/2010 20:54:48
4318 forum posts 291 photos 1 articles	A dumpy level? Great fun to be had by all! Actually a dumpy level would be a good project for ME and ideal for laying out railways or anything with a limited vertical component.. Neil
Chris Trice	01/12/2010 01:03:53
1376 forum posts 10 photos	Market forces always have the last say. When demand becomes too small to justify filling the imperial niche, it will wither away. While there's money in it, imperial will survive. As soon as imperial stuff starts sitting on shelves unsold, it'll be quietly discontinued. That's already happening with many suppliers. They're motivation is not about keeping imperial alive. They're only interest is in what products turnover in a reasonable time.
Ian S C	01/12/2010 08:57:44
7468 forum posts 230 photos	Chris, they'v got me going metric on such as bearings, imperial ones are about twice the price of metric, have'nt compaired nuts and bolts. Ian S C
Versaboss	01/12/2010 09:16:47
512 forum posts 77 photos	Posted by Stub Mandrel on 11/11/2010 22:06:55: Logically we should use the are as a unit of area, 1000 square metres but (a) it's a bit too small, only a tennis court (and tennis is a silly game), and (b) it would be a square with sides a bit longer than 31.6m long - all far to awkward for estate agents, unlike sensible acres a furlong long by a chain wide. Oh my, I thought I will restrain from further answers here, but it starts to make me angry reading stuff from people who don't even know simple arithmetic. Yes, the are is an area unit, but it is 100 sqm (10 by 10) and not 1000. 1 HECTare is, as the name says, 100 ares!!! And 100 times 100 gives 10000, as I learned in Miss Nicolet's class about 60 years ago. Sorry for that rant. But if you want to honestly discuss something, then first get your numbers right and check thrice what you write. (Well I just do...) Greetings from a somewhat angry Hansrudolf (now disappearing into the workshop)
James fortin	01/12/2010 09:30:03
46 forum posts 12 photos	i often use metric as it is easier to work in 10s but find it ironic that after trying to standardise all the witworth threads and then making a new standard of metric thread, engineers still have to use imperial threads for specialised parts or mechanics which require a non standard thread. i prefer to use inches when do ing diy as it is a smaller number i.e. 2540mm or 100inches. no doubt a new thread standardisation will be invented in 50 years or so and then the model engineers will be calling metric 'old' and 'traditional' Edited By James fortin on 01/12/2010 09:32:39
John Stevenson	01/12/2010 09:40:43
5068 forum posts 3 photos	Because engineering has evolved thru time and standards we will always have these differing measures. Just learn to live with whatever suits. If the whole world changed this week to metric non of this would go away as the old machinery / goods / equipment would still be around. For a nearly complete change to take effect would require all countries to change and a time span of many decades. You know it's not going to happen so why get upset over it. Use what you prefer and can get on with. John S.
DMB	06/12/2010 10:45:02
1585 forum posts 1 photos	Hi All, I have a cork notice board in my workshop weith various notes drawing-pinned on, mainly laminated to keep `em clean. Possibly of interest in the metric/imp section is something I cribbed from I cannot remember where;- 3 Horizontal lines, the first marked "inches" and reads left to right, .39 .79 1.18 1.57 1.97 2.36 2.76 3.15 3.54 3.94 4.33 4.72 Second line; 1 2 3 4 consecutively to 12 Third line reads "cm" (centimetres) 2.54 5.08 7.62 10.16 12.70 15.24 17.78 20.32 22.86 25.40 27.94 30.48 Obviously, in the vertical, the .39 is directly above "1" in next lower line and in turn, directly above "2.54" in the bottom line. Suppose you want to know what 6cm is, in inches. Look @ "6" in middle row and read up to top row = 2.36 inches. What`s 8" in metric? Look @ "8" in middle row again and read down to bottom row = 23.32cm/203.2mm How easy is this.
DMB	06/12/2010 10:52:27
1585 forum posts 1 photos	Hi All, Having said what I have in last post, I try to keep to one or other system as required by what`s offered on drawing/in book, rather than constantly trying to convert. I think the hardest work on say, loco-building, is coping with a drawing which says 16G brass sheet in stock is 1/16" and the angle to join it is say, 2mm thick. To find length of screw/rivet needed to join them, I would reduce everything to decimal parts of an inch. John.
Terryd	06/12/2010 13:55:38
1946 forum posts 179 photos	Posted by John Stevenson on 01/12/2010 09:40:43: Because engineering has evolved thru time and standards we will always have these differing measures. Just learn to live with whatever suits. If the whole world changed this week to metric non of this would go away as the old machinery / goods / equipment would still be around. John S. Hi John, Wikipedia quotes the CIA world handbook "According to the CIA (World) Factbook only Burma (Myanmar), Liberia, and the United States have yet to adopt the International System of Units as their official system of measurement. However, they all have adopted metric measures to some degree through international trade and standardisation. The United States mandated the acceptance of the metric system in 1866 for commercial and legal proceedings, without displacing their customary units. Both Liberia and Myanmar are substantially metric countries, trading internationally in metric units. Visitors also report that they use metric units for many things internally with exceptions such as old petrol pumps in Myanmar, calibrated in British Imperial gallons." So we are in line with Myanmar eh, that makes me feel better about myself. Regards Terry
Dinosaur Engineer	06/12/2010 16:24:25
147 forum posts 4 photos	There is no one system that provides all the answers or satisfies all the needs .Engineers will always find another solution ( system ) if one system doesn't offer what they want. Until such time that the metric system satisfies ALL needs, engineers will always find something else to do the job. For the model engineer , the prices and availabilty in small quantities of minature metric screws ( incl. taps / dies etc) is a real problem . Also metric scale hex sizes are not available. Is it it any wonder that we use B.A. threads / fasteners ( some times with non std. heads) ?
Terryd	06/12/2010 16:55:59
1946 forum posts 179 photos	Hi Dinosaur Engineer, Model engineers will use what system they can, but only while it is available. Systems have come and gone and probably always mourned by the diehards. My old mum still tried to convert decimal prices to £sd while she was alive and she was only 40 when it was introduced. She probably used the decimal currency for more years than the old. When measures were standardised there were complaints that they would be unworkable because people could no longer use their arm or finger for measuring I expect. metric scale hex sizes certainly are available, I buy them regularly at exhibitions, I actually find it more difficult to buy BA sizes locally and have to go to a very old fashioned hardware store 10 miles away to get them. I'm not sure how long the shop can last as he is quite expensive. I must admit that anything smaller than 3mm has to be bought on the internet but I don't find them more expensive than BA etc. In fact I think that imperial fasteners are becoming more expensive than metric as the latter are used worldwide now, even by NASA (albeit to their own spec) but the need for BA is quite a specialised market. Terry Edited By Terryd on 06/12/2010 17:04:50
Dinosaur Engineer	06/12/2010 19:21:26
147 forum posts 4 photos	Hi ! Terry, I've found that as soon as I get below M1.6 the price rises exponentially and trying to get high tensile grade 8 or better, difficult. The BA stockist you mention must be the same expensive shop I go to !

<< First < Prev 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next > Last >>

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy

Latest Forum Posts

*Oct 2023: FORUM MIGRATION TIMELINE*
05/10/2023 07:57:11
Making ER11 collet chuck
05/10/2023 07:56:24
What did you do today? 2023
05/10/2023 07:25:01
Orrery
05/10/2023 06:00:41
Wera hand-tools
05/10/2023 05:47:07
New member
05/10/2023 04:40:11
Problems with external pot on at1 vfd
05/10/2023 00:06:32
Drain plug
04/10/2023 23:36:17
digi phase converter for 10 machines.....
04/10/2023 23:13:48
Winter Storage Of Locomotives
04/10/2023 21:02:11
More Latest Posts...
View All Topics

Support Our Partners

Shopping Partners

Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads

Reeves** - Rebuilt Royal Scot by Martin Evans
by John Broughton
£300.00
BRITANNIA 5" GAUGE James Perrier
by Jon Seabright 1
£2,500.00
Drill Grinder - for restoration
by Nigel Graham 2
£0.00
WARCO WM18 MILLING MACHINE
by Alex Chudley
£1,200.00
MYFORD SUPER 7 LATHE
by Alex Chudley
£2,000.00
More "For Sale" Ads...

Latest "Wanted" Ads

D1-3 backplate
by Michael Horley
Price Not Specified
fixed steady for a Colchester bantam mark1 800
by George Jervis
Price Not Specified
lbsc pansy
by JACK SIDEBOTHAM
Price Not Specified
Pratt Burnerd multifit chuck key.
by Tim Riome
Price Not Specified
BANDSAW BLADE WELDER
by HUGH
Price Not Specified
More "Wanted" Ads...

Get In Touch!

Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?

You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.

Click THIS LINK for full contact details.

For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.

Digital Back Issues