How should we describe non-metric tooling?

Many suppliers use the term 'imperial' for tooling based on inch measurements. The term actually means 'to do with an empire' and is quite helpful when referring to whitworth threads - which date to the time when we really did have an empire. But not for anyone from outside the empire, surely? We ex-imperialists might stretch the point to BSF and BA* - but NOT to threads from the USA such as UNF and UNC, or any of their predecessors or derivatives.

Can I suggest that if you are selling inch-sized collets, or cutters, or similar things sized in fractions of an inch, the correct adjective is 'inch' ?

*BA is a quandary, here, as its dimensions are metric, although it was standard throughout the empire (while we had one). So, BA spanners ought to be listed under 'metric' although few of them match any other metric sizes.

Just a thought

Cheers, Tim

I think "Imperial" is an excellent description; everyone knows what it means. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Brian

Agreed!

Andrew.

I'm sorry, Brian, but none of my dictionaries concur with your view. And they should know, surely, if 'everyone knows'.

The Chambers Technical & Scientific dictionary gives eight meanings of imperial, and does not apply the term at all to threads or spanners or other tooling.

Tim

Edited By Tim Stevens on 31/05/2017 22:30:59

.

The USA as everyone knows still uses the 'imperial' system. But I hear on many Youtube videos them still calling it 'the English system'

While slightly off topic-ish I was taught metric at school but for engineering I feel far more comfortable using Imperial.

Nick

I've always liked "footric" but I don't suppose it will catch on, let's just stick with "proper"

Andy

We could call non imperial ( esp. 'merican ) the " colonial system " and see what reaction we get.

The US term is USCU United States Customary Units which was based on the English units before they were revised to Imperial (1824) and are defined it terms of metric units

Some Americans I have met don't accept the Imperial tag at all.

Steve

I believe in 1948 there was an international agreement between the U.S and U.K to tie up their systems so that you could easily switch between the two.

If you consider the fact that the U.S (13 colonies) was a colony started by and large the british as well as governed. With the capital in Virginia as opposed to Columbia like it is now. They are kinda using the same system. and even more so when you consider the above stated.

'The British Standards Institute defined the inch as 25.4mm in 1930 in the document "Metric Units in Engineering: Going SI". In March 1932 the American Standards Association were asked to rule on whether to adopt the same value (at the time the American inch was 1/.03937 mm which approximated to 25.400051 mm). Because the values were so close, and because Britain has already settled on that value, the ASA adopted this value on March 13, 1933.'

​​There was apparently a Scottish Inch at one point too. One might say that the units themselves, pertaining to latin in origin, are older than the term for the whole system. And hence why they crop up in pre-metricated European nations too. 

Michael W

Edited By Michael-w on 31/05/2017 23:09:21

I understand that over the pond, inches, gallons etc. are officially known as "US Customary Units". They aren't imperial as they rebelled before the British Empire was formed, hence their use of Queen Anne's wine gallon instead of the 1824 Imperial Gallon. Within Europe, and particularly Germany, pre-metric inches can vary significantly from country to country or even city to city. **LINK** Interestingly, the 25.4mm inch is described there as the "Imperial Inch".

Brian

Why are we always looking to find new ways of describing what has been around for decades or centuries, Imperial units were defined in The Weights and Measures Act of 1824, Why does anyone feel the need to find an alternative description. It is what it is.

Scottish inch, Royal mile - not the same size as a southern one, and lots of other variations of weight, length, Oh and the Scots pound, might get more popular after leaving the Eeeyou and we stay.

.

I know that yappy dog Sturgeon does not look very tall but surly she cannot be that small.?

Nick

I've always liked "footric" but I don't suppose it will catch on, let's just stick with "proper"

ooh, I like that one.

Proper imperial that is, yoop

Scottish inch

Proper imperial units

Edited By Ady1 on 01/06/2017 01:19:35

Imperial is imperial, why try to fog it?

Rik

A quiz question one, a chain

10 chains in a furlong

80 chains in a mile

10 square chains is an acre

Edited By Ady1 on 01/06/2017 01:28:28

The chain also survives as the length of a cricket pitch, being the distance between the stumps.

Tim,

Have you been to Trafalgar Square ?

MichaelG.

.

Edit: Oops,  Ady's link has already referenced the Imperial Standards.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 01/06/2017 06:47:04

ISTR from when I lived in the USA for several years that almost nobody there knew or cared what the Imperial system was. And even fewer seemed to know the metric system existed. To them, there was just the system -- the inch system they used daily.

But for me, Imperial works just fine. It's what it has always been called and seems to work. The empire may be gone but the echoes still reverberate across the world via a multitude of old machines.