I don't get it, why is metric better?

Page 14 of 16  


Yay! A conversion that doesn't cut off the resolution to something useless! I was looking at wire grommets (for desks and the like) today, and they stated 50mm/2". They were 50mm, but that means the fit will be sloppy if you drill for 2". Either give me a reasonably precise conversion or don't give me one at all.
Some countries have banned the use of imperial units in their metrificiation efforts, which is why you get moronic stuff like this.
Rule of thumb: If there's no decimal points in a dual-system dimension, one of the measurements is wrong.
Puckdropper
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/6/2016 1:21 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

If you are shipping to Quebec, don't forget the label in French too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
[,,,]

Well, usually, anyway. Some fractional measurements come out pretty close to exact, e.g. the difference between 5/32" and 4mm is only a bit over a thousandth of an inch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Give the answer.
A mile minus 1/16"
5279', 11-15/16"
A kilometer minus 1mm.
Hint, the answer can easily be misunderstood.
9999999999 somethingmeter
Or
999999999999999 anothermeter
:-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/6/16 7:47 AM, Leon wrote:

Nahhhhh, that would just be "a mile, cut the line."
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/06/2016 8:47 AM, Leon wrote:

999999.9999 meters
.9999999999 kilometers
Where would you find a situation where you would want to subtract a 1mm firn a kilometer or 1/16 from a mile?
Even with GPS you can not measure a kilometer to that degree of accuracy. The last time I checked GPS was accurate to about 100 feet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/6/2016 4:48 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Well, here, just above. But does it matter? It is an easy calculation in imperial.
It's a math problem.

What has a GMO go to do with anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/06/2016 4:48 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote: ...

Au contraire...at least w/ a little help... :)
Field guidance systems are 1-sigma absolute accuracy of about 4.5 cm. In other words, can locate within 4.5 cm of a specific point 65% of the time, and to under 10 cm around 95% of the time (2-sigma). Relative as opposed to absolute accuracy is about 2.5 cm.
With the current self-guiding systems, absolute accuracy is now down to about 2 cm, and relative accuracy in the millimeters.
Of course, this is done in firmware in the receiver using multiple inputs, not a single satellite as used in the run-of-the-mill auto GPS systems (altho I thought they were closer to 10-ft now rather than 100?).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/6/2016 7:09 PM, dpb wrote:

The GMS in my 4 year old iPad is withing 20' I sorta follows me around in the house when I have a map program running.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since they turned off the "selective availabilty" (or whatever they called it - the intentional error that the US military insisted be inserted into the GPS signal for non-military uses) 10 feet (or 3000mm) would be about right for horizontal measurement. GPS it quite a bit less accurate vertically without special processing.
Reliably resolving below 10 ft without using differential (or "relative") techniques is still a bit of a problem.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

That must have been a _long_ time ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nah, it's 63359-15/16". ;-)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/6/2016 5:13 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

And I seriously believe this is the king of answer you get when dealing with metric measurements.
Fortunately with Imperial feet and inches and fraction of an inch IMHO make things a bit easier to visualize, sorta. Especially when dealing with measurements for building a room or home.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:

What it all boils down to is that the average adult is resistant to change and, in the US, is afraid of the metric system. No amount of reasoning will change him/her. Graham
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/06/2016 8:02 AM, graham wrote: ...

I think "afraid" is erroneous; "stubborn" and "independent" is more accurate I believe.
While a trained engineer and thus very conversant with and comfortable using metric units, I am also one who is comfortable with the status quo of imperial units in every-day life and would not welcome change. It's comfortable to have things like the temperature and windspeed innately relate to what one is used to as opposed to having to convert from some differently-scaled unit that just "don't seem right!" 20 degrees outdoor air temperature is (and should always be) cold, thank you very much! :) OTOH, that that same air is at STP in some computation involving it is also ok; they're just two different locales and keeping them in their own context is far more natural.
Pressure is another; in the power industry, "balance of plant" calculations around the reactor core were/are typically imperial. 2250 psia and ~650F saturation temperature for primary coolant has real context as well; it just isn't natural in metric. OTOH, inside the core for nuclear cross-sections and all, metric units are de rigueur.
Manufacturing can (and has) converted almost entirely other than for the issues addressed elsethread of the fact that so much was done before the need to convert and that it still isn't cost-effective to actually make the hard, physical change (else't they'd have done so on their own, no government mandate needed if economics is left to drive the decision).
In the US in general public, there's a very strong tradition of independence and resistance against be forced into any position (albeit with the aim by the progressives of weakening that as much as possible).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is a very significant point, and is why in the UK so many things are still sold in the odd size of 453g (otherwise known as 1 pound). If your whole plant is tooled to use 1 pound boxes or tins, it's simpler just to change the marking from 1lb to 453g than it is to change the plant to make 500g or 1kg packages.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/6/2016 9:31 AM, dpb wrote:

True, but it works against us at times. We want to buy cheap stuff from Asian countries then bitch because it is metric. The little manufacturing we have left wants to sell to other countries then bitch because they don't buy our products because they are not metric.
It is not always about being forced, it is about being sensible to enrich yourself.
Used to buy from a local hydraulics shop when we had older US made machines. Starting in 1989 we added metric. When we needed something for them, the guys at the shop said "if its metric, you're on your own". They went out of business keeping strong traditions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/06/2016 10:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

...

That's also a type of forcing but it's more nearly free will as being your choice to continue to play in the game as opposed to being told by a central government that as of tomorrow all road signs (say) will be in km, not miles...that, as we've seen, did _not_ succeed in US owing mostly I think to the above general tendency of American psyche being resistive of direct edict.

Any manufacturing that is exporting anything with compatibility issues has already converted and I posit the hydraulic shop of which you speak wouldn't have lasted for other reasons besides simply non-SAE hose fittings as there are a seemingly unlimited number of those. A link
<http://www.discounthydraulichose.com/v/vspfiles/downloadables/thread_guide.pdf
--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's a couple of other factors that come into play on that particular example.
One is that, someone who's grown up with a given system developes facility at estimating in that system, so US drivers can estimate distances in miles, and not in km, and so naturally resisted the more "difficult" system.
The other is the random coincidence that highway speed works out to roughly 60mph (this was particularly true when they tried metric roads, since the double-nickle was in effect). Since our time system works on an increment of 60, that's mile-a-minute, and you can easily figure how long it'll take to get somewhere. 100kph doesn't work out that way.
Fortunately, no-one has seriously suggested metric time.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can go either way. The only metric I do not like is temperature. SAE temp is more granular than metric.
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.