Author Topic: Metric vs Inferial  (Read 32666 times)

Offline Admiral_dk

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3777
  • Søften - Denmark
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2016, 10:22:18 PM »
OK OK - I admitted it somewhere else before, I'm very much metric- but there are exception for me too :

I still have to convert measurements of wood for building material into inches for me to instinctly know if it is strong enough to use in a certain application when I roam the local DIY marked for materials. I still route PCB traces in mills (0.001") in my CAD programs and last but not least I use Kg/M for torque but have to convert KW to HP to get a feeling for the "true" power of an engine ...  :Doh: - Why you might ask - well probably for the same reason most of the rest of us prefers one system to another : It's the one we are used to / grew up with.

None of this is anything less amusing on the rare occasion where I visit the UK or Ireland and enter the local supermarket - The milk is sold in the old amount converted into liters => funny number and the same goes for a lot of other items there  ;D

 :NotWorthy: To Marv - for the best explanation on the subject I seen so far  :NotWorthy:

And I'm sorry to Vixen for thinking he was making a political statement  :facepalm2:

Best wishes

Per

Offline Tennessee Whiskey

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3781
  • Springfield, Tennessee. USA
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2016, 10:43:56 PM »
Just a redneck POV.  A piece of stock is a certain size,  you can call it 21.987654321mm or whatever that converts to in inferial or vIsa versa.  Point being,  it ain't gonna change the diameter of the stock,  it's always gonna be the same size,  either in .ooooooooooooo1 " or. 000000000000000001mm. I'm getting really sick and tired of people telling me that what we've been doing forever  ( and working) is just wrong.  You eat chocolate and I eat vanilla,  so, neither one of are wrong. I notice Tom Lipton now states dimensions in metric first and just kinda guesses at the Imperial dimension,  but hey,  he is from California . I guess I better just shut up,  but,  y'all see what I'm saying. 

Cletus

Offline 10KPete

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
  • Nordland, WA, USA
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2016, 10:52:17 PM »
Never judge a man as wrong for using the light he has available to illuminate the problem in front of him. He's probably just trying
to see his way out of the hole he's in!

I think my Dad said that.....

Pete
Craftsman, Tinkerer, Curious Person.
Retired, finally!
SB 10K lathe, Benchmaster mill. And stuff.

Offline Tennessee Whiskey

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3781
  • Springfield, Tennessee. USA
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2016, 11:12:04 PM »
Exactly what I was trying  to say Pete, a feller just works with what he's used to, ain't no right or wrong

Cletus

Offline steam guy willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3247
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2016, 11:34:49 PM »
what i want is a measuring system that lets a rod of two thingy's  actually go into a hole of two thingy's.....!!

Offline Tennessee Whiskey

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3781
  • Springfield, Tennessee. USA
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2016, 12:46:30 AM »
Once again Willy, I really don't care whether it be a "thou" or a "milli" as long as it fits

Cletus

Offline Dave Otto

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Boise, Idaho USA
    • Photo Bucket
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2016, 01:09:52 AM »
Now where did I put that 12.7mm 5C collet?  :lolb:

Offline 10KPete

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
  • Nordland, WA, USA
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2016, 01:39:11 AM »
what i want is a measuring system that lets a rod of two thingy's  actually go into a hole of two thingy's.....!!

A 'squishy' system that automatically lets parts fit! Hmmmmm......

 :lolb: :lolb: :lolb: :facepalm:

Pete
Craftsman, Tinkerer, Curious Person.
Retired, finally!
SB 10K lathe, Benchmaster mill. And stuff.

Offline 10KPete

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
  • Nordland, WA, USA
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2016, 01:40:30 AM »
Exactly what I was trying  to say Pete, a feller just works with what he's used to, ain't no right or wrong

Cletus

 :ThumbsUp: :ThumbsUp: :ThumbsUp:

Pete
Craftsman, Tinkerer, Curious Person.
Retired, finally!
SB 10K lathe, Benchmaster mill. And stuff.

Offline crueby

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18681
  • Rochester NY
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2016, 01:44:45 AM »
what i want is a measuring system that lets a rod of two thingy's  actually go into a hole of two thingy's.....!!

A 'squishy' system that automatically lets parts fit! Hmmmmm......

 :lolb: :lolb: :lolb: :facepalm:

Pete

You machine parts out of Jello?

Offline paul gough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
  • Tropical Queensland, Australia
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2016, 01:45:00 AM »
Marv and Jo, Thankyou very much for the insights you have provided, Marv your succinct and easily understood overview of the S.I. clarified the thread situation for me. Jo the history snip-its on the production of the old physical standard pieces was fascinating. I really appreciate learning a little each time I tune in to a thread. Regards Paul Gough.

Offline bp

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 80
  • Adelaide, SA
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2016, 04:55:56 AM »
When I was a draftsman, I had a bit of an argument with the Sheet Metal Shop foreman.  He didn't like the way that I dimensioned things, in a fit of rage he jumped up and down and shouted that I could jolly well dimension the things in Cubits for all he cared, they would still be hard to read, and impossible to make.  So guess what, the next lot of sheet metal drawings I did were dimensioned in cubits.  In a mood of conciliation I did include a variety of conversion factors to things like fathoms, rods, chains etc, oh and millimeters.
To give him his due, he saw the funny side................eventually!
cheers
Bill

Online Jo

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15305
  • Hampshire, england.
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2016, 07:00:38 AM »
Now where did I put that 12.7mm 5C collet?  :lolb:

Mr Silky keeps his in the hole between where he intends on me putting his 12.6mm and the 12.8mm ones  :embarassed:

Jo
Enjoyment is more important than achievement.

Offline derekwarner

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
  • Wollongong ...... Australia
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #43 on: May 12, 2016, 07:13:25 AM »
Well bp...... :facepalm:

We can get confirmation to 4 decimal places with the units of 'fathoms, rods & chains' .....but I am not sure how you toleranced the Drawing with your or anyone else's cubit  :lolb:................Derek
Derek L Warner - Honorary Secretary [Retired]
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op - Australia
www.ils.org.au

Offline Allen Smithee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
  • Mordor, Middle Earth
Re: Metric vs Inferial
« Reply #44 on: May 12, 2016, 10:46:03 AM »
The brief time many years ago when *I* had control of a drawing office I introduced apparently novel concepts around "when you're doing a manufacturing drawing think about the poor sod who's got to make it and inspectit". Things like referencing all dimensions to points that could actually be measured (a face, edge, corner etc) rather than the previous fetish for having a four foot long bronze block with 14 tightly-toleranced stepped bores whose position and concentricity requirements were referenced to a bore centre, a couple of inches below the front face (an undefined point in fresh air)...

AS
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum sonatur

 

SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal