Subject: Re: Metric system in the USA?

From: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:45:23 GMT

Actually, the US gallon, is the old Imperial gallon.  Somewhere in the 
last century, the Imperial gallon was changed to rationalise it with a 
given weight of water at standard temp. & pressure.  My foggy memory says 
it is 10 Lb. of water.

In Canada we are partly metric.  Fluids, including gasoline ( Petrol ) 
are sold in liters.  Cars have metric fasteners, and speedometers.  
Temperatures are now given in celsius ( Centigrade ).  All other changes were
resisted by the populace, so a lot of food is sold by the pound, and the 
cash register computes the price in dollars per Kg.  Hmmm, all of the 
canned goods are in smaller cans, but at a higher price.  We now seem to 
have a lot of goods in US containers, labeled in " Soft metric ".  The 
telescopes at the observatory here are now signed in metric, but there 
isn't a metric screw in them!

In a previous article, [email-masked] (Joshua_Putnam) says:

>In <[email-masked]> Steve Wellcome <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>>I think it's officially called the "Imperial" system.
>
>Not in the U.S. -- some Imperial units aren't the same as their
>U.S. equivalents.  Gallons come to mind -- my outboard motor's
>gas tank is old enough to have its capacity listed in both U.S.
>and Imperial gallons  (Impreial gallon = 1.20 U.S. gallons, thus
>the standard 6 gallon outboard motor gas tank, 5 Imperial gallons,
>so that in both systems you use whole gallons when figuring out
>how many ounces of oil to add at X oz per gallon.)
>
>Bushels are different between U.S. and Imperial systems, too, as
>are hundredweights, and of course there are three types of tons.
>
>--
>
> [email-masked]  is  Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
>                       "My other bike is a car."                   
>

-- 
Steve.

**************  BE ALERT, THE WORLD NEEDS MORE LERTS ************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Blake Malkamaki)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 16:59:19 +0100

}all of their automobiles are 99.9% metric.  The only non-metric
}thread on my '92 car, to my knowledge, is the spark plug.
}
}Tim. ([email-masked])

We (Americans) have used metric size spark plugs since the 40's.  Long
before anything else went to it on automobiles.

Blake Malkamaki, Little Mountain Ironworks, Concord, Ohio <[email-masked]>
>>Steam engines - Cletrac Crawler Tractors - Maple Syrup - Silhouette Metal Signs - "Tall Tall Birds" - Ostriches: The Better Red Meat<<
http://www.ncweb.com/users/blake

---

From: Adam Whiteson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:19:46 -0700

Joshua_Putnam wrote:
> 
> This was also the reasoning behind many non-decimal currencies:
> before calculators, multi-radix systems were much more convenient
> for everyday calculations, no need for long division or rounding
> in most cases.

I dont buy this.  The imperial weights and measures system was a
conglomeration of historical conventions that more or less just
happened.  No one designed it for convenience.  Tis true that
240 (# pennies in a pound - before the UK went metric) is divisible
by more factors than 100 but even the worst system has some advantage.

As a child in the UK I spent two years of my life learning to do
long multiplication and long division in pounds shillings and
pence.  I also mastered yards, rods furlongs, pecks bushels
hundredweights and much more arcania.  

I recall that apart from cashiers and shopkeepers, most
people were not competent doing elementary calculations with
money.  There was a lot of guessing and a lot of mistakes.
Not being able to divide a cent three ways is a small price
to pay for a system that is easy to use.

Don't forget that machinists like carpenters belong to that
small section of the population whose work requires a certain
skill with numbers.  Most people, even before calculators,
could not handle much more than the simplest calculations.

When I returned to the UK for a visit in 1980 they had 
switched to the metric system.  My hard earned skills
at manipulating all these awkward units are totally 
worthless!

                       Adam

---

From: Dan Bollinger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 15:32:09 -0700

Walter Preg wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> pls. could somebody explain the meaning of the metric
> system in the USA especially in the field of metalworking?
> According to my current information the linear metric system
> is actually known but (totaly) unused. Is this right?

As I understand it, the US is officially metric, that is the yard is defined by the U.S. Government Bureau of 
Standards as a fraction of a meter.  There is no standard other than the meter for the length of a yard, foot, 
etc.

> Would also like to know how the US system is actually
> named - "inch" system or "foot" system ...?

It's call the "English" system

> 
> When working with a milling machine or with a lathe please
> what is the foundation unit you use? It is 1 inch or 0.1 inch
> or because the US system is non linear is it 1/12 inch and
> so how do you call for instance 1/12 inch?

Most machinists use thousandths of an inch.  one millimeter is about .039 inches.
Most surveyors use hundreths of a foot.
Most carpenters us fractions of an inch, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16th, etc.  

> BTW, this system is really confusing to an European. 12 inches
> makes 1 foot, 3 feet makes 1 yard .... on the other hand if it
> is used from the childhood onward it's probably just natural.

Thanks Walter!  (he said sarcastically)  It was invented by Europeans, dropped off in the new world and 
abandoned like an orlphan.  Great.

Dan Bollinger
Industrial Designer

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Pollard)
Date: 16 Sep 1996 03:10:05 GMT

Qkjfioasdn ([email-masked]) wrote:
: If possible would you want the US to start using the metric system?  Why
: or why not?
Well if we went metric engineering calcualtions for mechanical engineers
would match those of the electrical engineers which are already metric.
I find it is eaasier to get the right answers for any sort of dynamics.
Engineers would spend a lot less time doing silly conversions between
rod.fortnights and metre/sec.
Harware stores would not need to carry as many sizes.

---

From: [email-masked] (John W. Hall)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 12:58:32 GMT

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960911125413.5952B-100000@reliant>,
   "John R. Johnson" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>I suspect your spark plug has been metric longer than anything else 
on
>your car.  Spark plugs have been a 14mm thread as long as I can 
remember
>playing with spark plugs, and I started with a Model T Ford!
>
>John
>
Model T plugs had a 1/2 inch pipe thread.

another John

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:39:35 GMT

Well, 10 Lb. of water is 1 Imperial gallon, so who needs a pencil?  In 
the metric system, it's too easy to misplace a decimal point.  A 
hundredth of a MM is a very small unit, but bigger than a thou.  The 
celsius degree is too large for a comfort scale at 17.22222- F.  Most 
goods in Canada are sold in soft metric measure.  Metric sized metals are 
hard to get.  By soft metric, I mean Imperial, or US packaging with the 
metric equivalent on the label.  Why else does it say something like 
" 225 grams " on a label?  This is realy 8 US ounces rounded to the 
nearest whole number.  Sure, some things are in metric packaging, that's 
one reason why we pay so much more for goods, than in the US.  We shouldn't
have gone metric until the US made the change.  

I too can use both systems, but until the US metricates, Canada will have 
a dual system.  When Canada adopted the ISO Metric system, many people 
found out that fasteners from Japan, Switzerland, and East European countries
would not interchange.

In a previous article, [email-masked] (dal wagner) says:

>
>
>I understand your reluctance to change to the metric system. I used to feel 
>the same way you did.
>I was educated in Canada and when I first went to school everything was done
>in the inch system. I too learned with difficulty the manipulations of fractions.
>I even remember Russian school teachers visiting our schools to learn teaching 
>techniques etc. This was during the time of the cold war period and most Russians
>would not normally admit that some of our methods were better. In fact when they 
>saw how we were able to do calculations with fractions they were amazed. Children
>in Russia did not do fractions untill they were twice the age of ourselves.
>Fractions to them were treated as a subject on ratios and proportions they
>had nothing to do with measuring lengths or distances.
>I didn't realize untill much later that most of the Russian surprise came from
>the disbelief that we would use such a "Backward" system to measure distances.
>
>Canada went completely metric about 20 years ago. 
>
>The inch system now is so backward to me that I simply wouldn't go back even though
>I am completely at ease with both systems.
>You never change units with Metric system. You simply move the  decimal point around.
>
>1 Meter has 1000mm Which is also equal to  100cm. I simply move the decimal point.
>1000 Meters = 1 Kilometer
>
>Even weight and volume have a unique relationship with metric. 1 litre of water 
>weighs 1 Kilogram.
>Quickly tell me how much does one pint of water weigh? 
>Tell me how large a container do you need to hold 20 pounds of water?
>A 2 year old kid raised with the metric system would have those answers before
>you could find a pencil.
>
>Try dialling in 3-21/32 diameter on your lathe cross feed dial. You can't.
>unless you know your decimal equivilents or look them up. Even then you don't
>have an exact number. You end up with 3.65625
>
>Now try dialling in 75 mm on your lathe cross feed. Instant positioning plus
>and exact number to 20 million decimal places if you desire.
>
>
>
>Just some thoughts from someone who knows both systems 
>
>Dal Wagner
>

-- 
Steve.

---

From: Albrecht Kadlec <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Sep 1996 19:21:36 +0200

[email-masked] (Scott Logan) writes:

> In article <[email-masked]. ac.at> , From Albrecht 
> Kadlec <[email-masked]> , the following was written:
> > It's obvious, that 1 000 000 mm = 1 km,
> > but what is 1 000 000 inches?
> > 
> > WHITHOUT calculator !!!!!
> >
> > you`ve 1 minute time.
> 
> 15 miles, 1377 yds, 2 ft, 4 in.
> or
> 13.715 nautical miles
> or
> 4.5716 leagues
> or
> 25 km, 400 m
> or
> 111111.1111 spans
> or
> 126.2626 furlongs
> or
> 1262.6262 chains
> or
> 126262.6263 links
> or
> 13888.8889 fathoms
> 
> Whew, with 13 seconds to spare <VBG>!

you're quite good, doing that without electronic tool, just with your
constant table, shifting the decimal point 6 times. (simply THE point
for the metric system)

I should have said:
1 234 567 890 inches, to include real calculation.

any takers?

albrecht

---

From: [email-masked] (W. Kaiser)
Date: 16 Sep 1996 17:41:22 GMT

Albrecht Kadlec ([email-masked]) wrote:

[ ... ]

> It's almost ridiculous, that people defend a system, that has several
> ways to state the same distance. 
> It's obvious, that 1 000 000 mm = 1 km, but what is 1 000 000 inches?

> you`ve 1 minute time.

Easy, a thousand kilo-inches, or 1 kkinch.

How many eggs in a metric dozen?  10?

--
Bill Kaiser
[email-masked]

There are three ways to do a job: good, cheap, and quick.
You can have any two.
A good, cheap job won't be quick.
A good, quick job won't be cheap.
A cheap, quick job won't be good.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Logan)
Date: 13 Sep 1996 18:06:21 GMT

--
 ----------------------------------------
 Scott Logan [email-masked]
 09/13/96 13:06
 http://www.loganact.com

---

From: [email-masked] (Qkjfioasdn)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 17:04:25 -0400

If possible would you want the US to start using the metric system?  Why
or why not?

=David Ryder

Please send e-mail.
Please E-me directly or preferably to:

[email-masked]

---

From: Albrecht Kadlec <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Sep 1996 18:45:04 +0200

[email-masked] (Joshua_Putnam) writes:

> In <[email-masked]> Jeffrey Prothero <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> >The U.S. is the only country besides Nauru that uses the English system.
> >We are losing the economic race by a furlong per fortnight because of it
> >( except in electronics, because we do use metric there ).
> 
> The U.S. is definitely not the only country still using
> English-based measurements, though in some places the simple
> English measurements may be expressed as long, ugly metric
> decimals.
> 
> Some of the ugliest standards use hybrid measurements.  For
> example, the Italian standard for threading on the bottom
> bracket bearing cups on a bicycle is 36mm diameter x 24 threads
> per inch.  Luckily this standard has been largely displaced by
> the standard used in Japan and Britain, which is entirely
> English, not metric, 1.370 x 24 TPI.  The French developed an
> entirely metric bottom bracket thread, 35mm x 1.0, but even the
> French have mostly stopped using it on high-quality bicycles.

ever seen SHIMANO components: 9mm or (newer 11mm) front hub axle with
1mm thread "Steigung" (voc?) 
The italians (campagnolo) had 24 TPI which was just so slightly off
that it cought after some turns.

Pipe threads and hours are the only domain, where we're not fully
decimal.
No one wants to change hours/mins/secs (which are just definitions),
and no one can change years/months/days, as they are physical
constants (tilt of earth axis/lunar rotation -ok, not exactly, but
still similar-/earth rotation).

If you talk about the english system, try to get an explanation of
their old currency system (before going decimal).
Farthings/Shillings/halfpences/pences/.... and not two factors are
equal. It's so complicated that nobody can remember without looking it
up.

It's so much simpler just using the ten as a base.

you`ve 1 minute time.

- just my $0.02, i've got to follow this almost all british newsgroup,
being all metric.
My xcalc only terminates, when I log out.

I hope you can understand my position - I can understand that any
crap seems natural, once you're accustomed to it.

There're physical constants, and there're useless constants.

albrecht

---

From: "Randy R. Cox" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:54:04 -0500

Stephen C. Gallagher wrote:
> Qkjfioasdn wrote:
> Yes, I would like the US to start using the metric system. I'm an
> American whose been living in Canada for nine months. I've had no
> problem adjusting to using the metric system.  The hardest part
> was getting used to the weatherman give the temperatures in
> degrees celsius.  But I've even gotten used to that.
> 
> There are some valid arguments for not changing in the US.
> The first is cost.  It will be very expensive for the states
> to have to convert every highway sign reference from
> miles to kilometers.  Speed limit signs, highway markers,
> etc would all have to be changed and that's a monumnental
> task.  Some states have plans in place to implement
> metrication of their highway signs.  Alabama has gone so far
> as to replace their existing highway signs with using
> metric distances, however the metric has been overlayed
> with miles.  The benefit of this will be that when metric
> highway signs need to be deployed, all that will be required
> is that they remove the overlay to expose the metric
> distance.
> 
> Stephen Gallagher

To all,

I am an IBEW electrician, and I definitely believe the U.S. must adapt
to the metric system.  Constantly adding fractions in the field leads
to  many mistakes.  Painful as it might be, we have to do it.  Even the
discussion as an option is absurd.  Consider similar discussions 80 or
90 years ago when cities had extensive infrastructure for gas lighting. 
Many thought electric wiring was a mistake...too costly.

Republicans in Congress are currently sponsoring a bill to allow certain
industries exemption from the law requiring conversion.  Such backward
opposition to long term progress in favor of the short term is
threatening to destroy our two hundred year old advantage over other
commercial nations.

I have more faith in America than that, but if they don't get it
together we are in danger of losing our two party system.  Wake up guys
(Republicans)!  Get your head out of the grave and join the twenty first
century.  America can move forward as soon as these old farts get out of
our way.

My opinion only,
Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Pollard)
Date: 16 Sep 1996 21:45:20 GMT

Chris Kantarjiev ([email-masked]) wrote:

: 	1 fluid oz of water (U.S.) weighs 1 oz avoirdupois.  So a pint (16 fl.
: 	oz.) weighs 1 pound (16 oz. av.).  Didn't even need my calculator for
: 	that. :)  

: Or, more simply put, "A pint's a pound the world around."
Sorry that's only true in the US - apint is 20 fl oz in the rest of the
world. And their ton is different too - it's 2240 pound.  So NOW what ARE
you talking about.

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Kantarjiev)
Date: 16 Sep 1996 18:47:56 GMT

1 fluid oz of water (U.S.) weighs 1 oz avoirdupois.  So a pint (16 fl.
	oz.) weighs 1 pound (16 oz. av.).  Didn't even need my calculator for
	that. :)  

Or, more simply put, "A pint's a pound the world around."

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:10:47 GMT

1 Imperial gallon = 10 Lb @ 15C = 160 fluid ounces = 1.20094 US gallons
1 Imperial Fluid Ounce = 28.4130 CC  
1 Imperial Pint = .56825 liter

1 Ton ( short ) 2,000 pounds
1 long ton      2,240 pounds  ( not used much )

In a previous article, [email-masked] (Chris Kantarjiev) says:

>>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: godzilla.studio.sgi.com
>
>
>	:Or, more simply put, "A pint's a pound the world around."
>Really? Far out! I thought the "pint's a pound" saying came from the UK.
>So Imperial Quarts are 40 oz instead of 32, and that's where the Imperial
>gallon difference comes from?
>

-- 
Steve.

---

From: [email-masked] (Honor� de Gronckel)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:33:18 GMT

>Industrial Designer

Well it were also europeans that were dropped of in the new world.
Can't help it that you maintain(ed) the system. We (left over
europeans) got rid of it in time <g>.

Honoré.

---

From: [email-masked] (dal wagner)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 22:28:57 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Henry W Miller) says:
>
>Eduardo Haddad Filho ([email-masked]) wrote:
>
>: America used the British system (yard, inch, etc) and most of the world, 
>: after the II World War (I think) decided to go metric.
>
>No reason to change.  Also see my comments below.
>
>: Metric has enormous advantages over the US system, but why should a 
>
>What?  in metric you have to change units all the time, the "english" system
>provides for whatever fraction is convenient.  Metric has only a minor 
>advantage.  Granted if you don't know the system things are weird, and metric
>may be slightly easier to learn, but so what?  It truely doesn't matter what
>system you use.  If it works don't break it is the big reason we haven't 
>switched.

Dal Wagner replies:

Dal Wagner

---

From: "John R. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:12:44 -0500

Actually, when I was in Great Britain a few years ago, I noticed that
a Pint generally was a Pound.  Then the last time I was there it had
gone up to a pound 30 or even in some pubs a pound 80!

John

---

From: [email-masked] (Greg Lewis)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 03:46:11 -0700

Gentlemen, gentlemen! What is all this fuss about measurement? Such
trivia makes life so much more complicated. Since I subscribed to the
TLAR method, I've had no sleepless nights trying to convert bleats
to milliburps or back. The TLAR method (That Looks About Right) not
only saves time, but materials, too, as one no longer suffers holes
worn through the trousers from rulers or tapes poking out. 

If I need a piece of hose, I simply hold my arms out and check the
length. At the hardware store, I hold my arms out again, and the clerk
puls out the required length. He can figure the price... that's his
job! Visits to the lumbaryard are similarly easy. All lumber comes in
standard sizes, so it is easy to select a piece that will fit. Cutting
to length is done by holding the board up to its location, marking
with a pencil and making the cut. To turn a shaft to fit a hole: Put
shaft in lathe. Turn it. Try it in the hole. If too big, file it down,
or use emery paper or a hammer. That's what they're made for!  If it's
too small, use Epoxy. 

There are no measurement units in this system, because, as you can
see, measurement is not necessary and there are no units of any kind.
However terms such as "whisker" "skosch" and "bissel" are used when
doing precision work.

The TLAR method is the foundation of eyeball engineering.

(Just in case there is someone out there who can't see me grinning as
I type this, read it into a tape recorder and play it backwards.)
___________________________________________________________________
[email-masked]      	   	     They don't
Photojournalism sequence      	   	     Call this place
Department of Mass Communication   	     An institution
     and Journalism 	      	   	     For nothing
CSU Fresno, Fresno, CA 93740-0010

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 Sep 1996 11:35:37 GMT

>   Steve Wellcome <[email-masked]> writes:

NIST (The folks in charge of weights and measures in the US) call feet, gallons (US), and so on: 
"US customary units".

---

From: [email-masked] (Justin M Sanders)
Date: 16 Sep 1996 00:57:22 GMT

dal wagner ([email-masked]) wrote:
> Even weight and volume have a unique relationship with metric. 1 litre
> of water weighs 1 Kilogram.
> A 2 year old kid raised with the metric system would have those answers
> before you could find a pencil.

There is a similar relationship with the U.S. fluid volumes and weights.

[Note: this relationship, though close, is not exact-- a fluid oz of
water is really heavier by about 4% than an avoirdupois oz.]

> Try dialling in 3-21/32 diameter on your lathe cross feed dial. You
> can't.  unless you know your decimal equivilents or look them up. Even
> then you don't have an exact number. You end up with 3.65625

> Now try dialling in 75 mm on your lathe cross feed. Instant positioning 
> plus and exact number to 20 million decimal places if you desire.

But, if your lathe is only accurate to 0.0005 (inches) anyway, then all
those additional decimal places are meaningless.  Even if the cross feed
dial was scaled in 32nds, so that we could put it on the exact number of
32nds, it wouldn't really matter-- It might give us a warm and cozy
feeling to line those marks up, but I wouldn't bet the house that it would
be 3.65625000000000 (20 million zeroes deleted) despite the fact that it
is "exact".  Same thing with a metric machine. 

Now, let's take our 1 inch and our 1 cm and lay them out on our machines
in 3 equal parts.  Neither fraction (neither 1/3 in nor 1/3 cm) is going
to terminate, so both of us will have to round to the nearest fraction
that our machine can measure or to the nearest fraction within our
tolerance.  No matter what system one uses, there will frequently be times
when one will have to lay out a fraction that doesn't have a terminating
(or short) decimal equivalent, and everyone will have to round in that
situation.

The convenience of metric tools, bolts, etc. is that they have been chosen
to work well with decimal fractions.  The English system is has more
situations where long decimal fractions will appear, but once you know
where to round, it really doesn't matter. 

--
Justin M. Sanders           "I shot an arrow into the air.  It fell 
Dept. of Physics               to earth I know not where." --Henry
Univ. of South Alabama           Wadsworth Longfellow confessing
[email-masked]     to a sad ignorance of ballistics.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Logan)
Date: 16 Sep 1996 17:46:55 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, From 
[email-masked] (Steve Rayner), the following was written:
> The 
> celsius degree is too large for a comfort scale at 17.22222- F.

Check your math (or your calculator), Steve.  A change of one degree
centigrade is 1.8 degrees farenheit.  OTOH, +1 degree centigrade is
+33.8 degrees farenheit.

 09/16/96 12:46
 http://www.loganact.com

---

From: "Stephen C. Gallagher" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Sep 1996 19:51:42 GMT

Stephen Gallagher

---

From: [email-masked] (William L. Brown Jr.)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:44:03 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>The TLAR method is the foundation of eyeball engineering.

And, for extreme precision, there's the ever popular "RCH".

Altho it can be difficult to find a genuine item for a standard, depending,
or not.

-bill
[email-masked]
concord, CA

---

From: [email-masked] (Kurt Rieder)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 15:13:32 GMT

Sombody wrote:
: >The U.S. is the only country besides Nauru that uses the English system.
: >We are losing the economic race by a furlong per fortnight because of it
: >( except in electronics, because we do use metric there ).

Electronic integrated circuit manufactures ALL OVER THE WORLD adhere
to the USA developed standard packages which are based on 0.1 inch
pin spacing.  What makes it work... it was ridgedly and well designed.
It really amounts to less than a hill of beans what system is used, 
as long as people understand it, and use it the same way.

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Kantarjiev)
Date: 16 Sep 1996 22:40:34 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (William L. Brown Jr.)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:56:36 GMT

Somebody (for whatever reason!) wrote:
> I think however if you wish to continue with the  "inch-lb-sec system",  
> new hybrid units  called the Kilo-gallon and Mega-gallon should be 
> proposed.

Actually, in that range we use acrefeet.

Always my pleasure to bring enlightenment to the unenlightened.  Or
something like that.

-bill
[email-masked]
Concord, CA

---

From: [email-masked] (James Wilkins)
Date: 16 Sep 1996 16:58:07 GMT

> puls out the required length.

If it's exactly a yard from your nose to your fingertips, you can be the King.

---

From: [email-masked] (DUFQ80A)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 23:26:08 -0400

Deja vue all over again!  Thats how foot, yard, rod, link, stone,
pennyweight etc.
all started, isn't it?

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Brooks)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 23:41:35 GMT

Speaking of mixed units, in semiconductors, we got used to the idea of mixing
between English and Metric units beyond belief.  It's slowly going metric, but when
I started (in 1974--AKA. -1 PC) we measured junction depths in microns (millionths
of a meter), pressures in Torr (1 Torr = 1mm of mercury, 760Torr at 1 atm), geometry
sizes in mils, and die sizes in mils.  (and take-home pay in peanuts, but that was
another company, long ago.)

Now that we are in the enlightened(?) 90s, we measure geometries in microns, die
sizes either in microns or mm, thickness is still in mils, while I've seen some
equipment calibrated in Pascals for pressure.  (Take home pay went up to filberts.)

BTW, as far as Fords are concerned, I think that the fastener size is largely due to
where the component is made.  My Ranger V6 is metric, which seems to make sense,
because it was a German designed engine.  The trans is Japanese, also metric, while
the alternator is still US, and is ANSI.  I got used to having two sets of wrenches
years ago when I had a British car and a Japanese bike, neither of which ran terribly
well.....

Pete Brooks

---

From: [email-masked] (dal wagner)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 17:46:15 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Justin M Sanders) says:

J. Sanders writes"

>Dal wagner relies:

I must confess that I have learned something today. I had no idea that 
the relationship between the pound and pint existed.  Where have I been 
all these years?

It could be a useful piece of information if  you wished to determine 
the approximate weight of a fluid filling  a vessel, not too much larger 
than a coffee cup, and were prepared to  accept that a 4% error in your 
calculation was unavoidable. 

It is difficult however to visualize what size a water reservoir would 
be required that was capable of holding 275,267,349 pints of fluid.  
It's obviously larger than a coffee cup  but is it bigger than an 
Olympic swimming pool?  Your conversion method tells me that the water 
weighs approximately 275,267,349 pounds with an unquestionable certain 
error of 1,101,069 pounds. Because pints are a strange unit of measure 
for large volumes you would  probably have to convert these pints to  
gallons before you gave me some indication of the reservoir dimensions. 
No matter how you slice it you will have to do several calculations 
using various conversion factors to arrive at your answer. At the very 
least someone will have to convert those pints to a suitable container 
having it's dimensions in  feet , inches, yards or miles.  
(I could swear there are a couple more units of length in the 
"Lb-Ft-Sec system.")  Forgive me if I missed a few.
You  don't have to do this with the metric  "Kg-Meter -Sec. system". 
Volumes of water relate directly to cubic measure.
As I mentioned, two year olds can convert, between cubic millimeters, 
cubic centimeters and cubic meters, and determine the weights of these 
volumes of water all without a pencil, paper or calculator. 
Try  converting the 275,267,349  pints to quarts then gallons,  and at 
the same time  tell me at each stage the respective weights of these 
volumes of water. You will now see why most of the world, given the 
option, prefers moving those decimal points. It's just an effortless 
" no brainer".

I think however if you wish to continue with the  "inch-lb-sec system",  
new hybrid units  called the Kilo-gallon and Mega-gallon should be 
proposed. These new units could further be adjusted to make provision 
for both the Imperial and the slightly different US gallon. Perhaps 
they could be averaged out.
A problem will still be apparent however because if you use gallons, 
you will continually be  multiplying by 8 to convert the gallons to 
pints in order to tell me the weight of those volumes of water. 
The ability to convert a volume of water , called a pint, to an 
approximate weight called a pound has limitations not only when speaking 
of large volumes but also for smaller volumes.

By definition  a liter is the volume occupied by one kg of water at 4 
degrees C and every unit of volume, or equivalent weight, larger or 
smaller are simply  multiples of 10. 
For the smaller metric volumes I know, without calculation, that 1 
cubic millimeter of water weighs exactly 1 mg and one cubic centimeter 
weighs exactly 1 cg.
 
Additional possible hybrid units to cover the smaller volumes for the 
"inch-lb-sec system" might be the deci-pint, centi-pint, mili-pint and 
come to think of it if you will want to relate these to weights , the 
deci, centi, and mili-pound will have to be established as well. Then 
again the cubic inch and the fluid oz, are additional units of volume 
that could be used in this area of measurement. Two more unrelated 
conversion factor shouldn't make all that much difference. Now we have 
5 different units in the inch system to indicate volume. We have the 
cubic inch, the fluid oz. ,the pint, the quart and the US gallon. Each 
of these units cannot be compared directly unless suitable conversion 
factors are applied.
Metric has one and only one unit of volume and it is simply called the 
"LITER". Larger and smaller units of the liter are simply multiples of 
10. 

How clever could those metric people get?  From the numbers I wrote in 
the previous paragraph it becomes obvious that  the  weight density of
water in the metric system now becomes 1.0 gf/cubic mm. You will also 
note that if you drop the units from this expression , the value 1.0 is 
also the specific gravity of water .  Clever . It sort of appears as 
though someone did some thinking when they developed the metric system.
This interesting feature ( It wasn't an accident) now permits anyone 
who knows the metric system to automatically calculate without pencil,
paper, or calculator the buoyant forces on submerged objects. Perhaps 
the 2 year olds couldn't do this but I think the metric trained 6 year 
olds would impress you.
Keep the water weight density of  62.4 lbs/cubic foot. I'll keep the 
1.0 gf/cubic mm . If  I challenged someone to  some speed calculations in 
this area I would even handicap myself by removing the batteries from my 
calculator. Still no contest! I won't be using the calculator.
########################################################################

Dal Wagner replies:

I have to agree completely with your analysis. I still have a slight 
problem however. I don't remember the decimal equivalent for 17/32. I 
don't believe this to be a reflection of inadequate education nor the 
result of sleeping in class that day. 
In fact most people would be forced to look it up in a table or  book 
and then round off 0.53125 to the appropriate number of decimal places. 
This problem just doesn't happen with the metric system.
Each one of these steps introduces time delay and potential errors.
If productivity or the potential for introducing errors are ignored the 
inch system works.
########################################################################

Dal Wagner replies:

I realize you are asking a hypothetical question which makes it quite 
difficult for me to answer.
If  someone asked me to divide a unit of metric length into 3 pieces and 
that length was not a multiple of three, I would come up with a metric 
dimension requiring me to round off my decimal points. Just as there is 
no geometrical solution to trisect an angle I too would be stumped when 
someone throws a fraction at me and asks me to relate it to an exact 
metric equivalent.
In real life  however , people trained in the metric system just don't 
think in terms of fractions and the question simply wouldn't exist. We 
could carry this position to the ultimate extreme and ask people to 
divide the part into equal divisions of 1/343.  It is possible to do but 
I don't think this happens too often even in the in the world of 
fraction devotees.
There is a lot of flexibility when designing parts . If something 
required dividing into 3 parts the designer would be certain that his 
dimension was a multiple of 3. This is no problem with the metric 
system . I have seldom seen more than 2 digits following a mm dimensions. The second decimal position if altered by one unit only changes the dimension by 0.0006 inches. Metric designers have no problem altering that last digit to make the over all length divisible by  three.

I cannot think of any time I have had to do any calculating when  
working from a metric drawing.
To start with, if any designer made a drawing that required the 
machinists do calculations, he or she would soon be in charge of 
sharpening the pencils and nothing else. 
This philosophy is held not because the machinist is incapable of doing 
the calculations, but to make machinists  more productive and insure 
quality. The information if complete and accurate only goes on a drawing 
once. If the information is incomplete on the drawing  the machinist 
must make the same calculations and provide the opportunity for new 
errors each time the drawing is used.  It simply is unfair to place this 
burden on Machinists.
I can't think of any designer that would put something on a drawing that 
required dividing something in thirds. Not even someone who uses 
fractions unless the dimension was a multiple of  3.
Designers don't make dimensions to fit parts. They make parts to fit 
dimensions.

It's amazing how far we can drift from rec.crafts.metalworking. 
All in good fun nevertheless. Physics dept. knocking the metric
system. Heresy I say! Heresy!

Regards

Dal Wagner

######################################################################
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 *****************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Boris Beizer)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:39:51

1. Pressure should always be expressed in stone-furlongs per hectare.

2. Capacitance in miles-per-hour or stadia per candle: I have also favored
   micro-versts/millenia.  

3. Douziemes should replace millimeters where possible.  

4. An even more basic approach would be to revert to biblical mensuration, as follows:

  Length:  
    4 fingers = 1 palm
    3 palms   = 1 span
    2 spans   = 1 cubit
    1 stadion = 400? cubits = 202 yards

  Volume:
    4 log     = 1 qab
    3 qab     = 1 hin
   10 'omer   = 1 'epha
    2 hin     = 1 s'ah
    3 s'ah    = 1 'epha
   10 'epha   = 1 homer = 1340 liters

  Weights:
    20 gera   = 1 shekel
    60 shekel = 1 mina
    60 mina   = 1 talent
     1 pim    = 2/3 shekel
     1 bq     = 1/2 shekel

   But as my old physics professor used to say: "There are only two mensuration
systems--the metric and the barbaric."

Boris

Boris Beizer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boris Beizer                                                  Seminars and Consulting on
1232  Glenbrook Road                                      Software Testing & QA
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006, USA
TEL:     215-572-5580     FAX:  215-886-0144     Email:  [email-masked]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (dal wagner)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 21:09:03 GMT

>I type this, read it into a tape recorder and play it backwards.)

I see you smiling Greg.
 
It sort of reminds me of the carpenter who said,
"I can't believe it!" I've cut this same board twice and it's still too 
short!"

Salutations

Dal Wagner

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 Sep 1996 11:36:13 GMT

---

From: burt lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:19:30 +0000

> Or, more simply put, "A pint's a pound the world around."

If a pint is a pound how come a US Gallon (8 pints) of water weighs
8.26xx pounds????????  A pint (US) is 16 fl oz (US) but I think you will
find that 1 fl oz (US) of water does NOT weigh 1 oz avoirpois.

Just to confuse matters :  1 In (US) is not equal to 1 in (brit).

Burt>>>

---

From: Jeffrey Prothero <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:12:31 -0700

> Actually, in that range we use acrefeet.
And in between we use barrels and hogsheads.
		Cheers,

---

From: "John R. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:04:27 -0500

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Russ Kepler wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960917141146.337K-100000@reliant>,
> John R. Johnson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago it was 2 Pounds/pint.  Makes you want to swear
> off drinking, almost.
> 
Either that, or start brewing your own from Beer Kits!

John

---

From: [email-masked] (Jens)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:17:41 -0700

>I see you smiling Greg.

Hey, I have lived by that methods for many years - it works !!!
Don't knock it til you tried it.

(And I am not smiling)

PS.: I am now starting to measure things and it's a real pain .....

Jens

---

From: [email-masked] (dal wagner)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 20:23:34 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked](J.A.Harvey) says:
>
>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (dal wagner) writes: 
>
>>inch system Canada and the US could indeed trade with each other. The
>>problem is that there is a larger world out there that only uses
>metric.
>>Nobody is going to pull your head out of the sand. You'll have to do
>that
>>yourself. 
>>*****************************************************************
>
>Well for what it's worth, this is really a non issue in my opinion.
>
>less than 30 years ago, if you had to do a complex math problem, you
>either used a slide rule or a lot of paper and time consuming
>calculations. The advent of the electronic calculator eliminated the
>pen and paper aspect. Complex Trig, geometry, and analysis is now
>available by punching a couple of keys and reading the result. ( To the
>detriment of a full understanding of the process) People now simply
>memorize or keep handy the formulae for entry into the machine rather
>than KNOWING how to work out the problem.
>
>Similarly, with Digital readouts becoming commonplace in even the
>smallest shops, conversion to metric is accomplished at the touch of a
>button. If the print calls for metric dimension you set the machine to
>metric mode. If yolu ahve to do the conversion, you enter the numbers
>in "English" and hit the "convert" button and Voila!
>
>We have developed a generation of young people who can do incredibly
>complex math without knowing how to add or subtract. Amazing!
>
>Jim Harvey
>[email-masked]
>http://hre.com/

Dal Wagner replies:

Jim I have to agree with many of your observations.

I have often looked at the situation from your perspective and to this
day I can't say if the youngsters are being short changed or are far 
ahead of us.
I have done all of the things you mentioned including using that slide 
rule. I quickly however saw the benifit of a calculator. My first
calculator was a Texas Instrument . It cost me $124.00 . It could add,
multiply and divide. That was it. A calculator of the same capacity 
purchased today would cost $1.98 
You can snap the mickey mouse ears off that unit and still use it in most
offices today. 
Because I all ready knew how to add subtract multiply and divide I don't
think I lost too much by taking that uncharted leap toward progress. 
When I recieved a more powerful calculator I was delighted.
After having tried to do some fairly complicated Thermodynamics type
calculations using a slide rule and log book, I knew this new calculator
would not only increase my speed, it would also give me results with
fewer errors. No more "part marks" on an exam because I had 
unfortuneatelylooked upan incorrect value in a table with 1500 bits of 
information.
I then had a try at one of those mechanical computers. We were told
never to divide a number by zero when using these machines. We all tried
it nevertheless and quickly found that the only way to turn if off was
to pull the plug from the wall. This I must confess was an instrument
that was slower than pencil or paper. An invention of the devil!

My son now uses a programable graphics calculator for his calculus
classes. I wish I had that when I went to school. To graphically
put several functions on a calculator and visually see the solving
of 15 simultaneous equations is absolutely impressive. This is giving him
a far more in deapth understanding of these abstract ideas. He 
understands Calculus far better than I do because of this tool.
This calculator isn't even optional. You must have it inorder to take
the course.
Examiners can test over a much broader subject area because students
aren't wasting time adding Logs etc. When I went to school there were
30 questions on the exam. My son gets 150 questions.

I guess only time will tell.

Regards  Dal Wagner

---

From: [email-masked] (James Wilkins)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 17:40:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Steve Rayner) wrote:

> I used to gap the points in my cars with my thumbnail!  
> 

How crude of you! The correct setting is the thickness of a matchbook
cover. Then you set the static timing with a precision test instrument
made from a tail light socket and two alligator clips.

---

From: [email-masked] (dal wagner)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 17:57:00 GMT

>> you`ve 1 minute time.

 Excuse me but don't you  mean 60,000 milliseconds?

D.Wagner

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Pollard)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 18:21:25 GMT

ffnet.net>

Distribution: 

Kurt Rieder ([email-masked]) wrote:
: to the USA developed standard packages which are based on 0.1 inch
: pin spacing.  What makes it work... it was ridgedly and well designed.
: It really amounts to less than a hill of beans what system is used, 
: as long as people understand it, and use it the same way.  
I don't think that too many of the new chips are this way though so th
eboard layout guys have a mixture of inch and metric to contend with.  A
lot of new connectors are mm spacing.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Winterbon)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 96 11:08:09 GMT

>Or, more simply put, "A pint's a pound the world around."
Wrong on all counts. 1 Imperial fl. oz weighs 1 avoirdupois ounce. 1 US ounce 
weighs more. Water weighs 10 lb/Imperial gallon=160 fl oz, but more than 
8lb/US gallon=128 US fl oz. An Imperial pint is 20 fl oz. Thus in NO part of 
the world is a pint a pound.

Bruce Winterbon
[email-masked]
http://intranet.ca:80/~bwinterb

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:43:19 GMT

The silliest metric unit has to be the one for the fuel consumption  of 
motor vehicles.  Liters per 20 kilometers.  Ugh!  It seems the kilometer 
is too short to use liters per kilometer.  This causes all kinds of 
confusion.  A localy produced motorcycle magazine praised the economy of 
a small Japanese motorcycle.  When I converted to miles per Imperial Gallon,
the result was less than 30 miles per gallon.  Terrible mileage!  My 
Harley gets over 60 miles/Imperial Gallon!

-- 
Steve.

---

From: [email-masked] (Justin M Sanders)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 21:46:32 GMT

[Many well-taken points about the difficulty of converting U.S. customary
units.]

> smaller are simply  multiples of 10. 

This is not true anymore.  Although the original definition of a gram
connected the gram to the mass of a 1 centimeter cube; since the late
1800's it has been defined in terms of the prototype kilogram maintained
in Paris.  The effect is that the density of water is never exactly 1
g/cm^3.  At greatest density, the difference is only 0.003%, but at room
temperature 1 cc of water has a mass that is 0.3% less than a gram.  Thus,
for example a cubic meter of water at 25 C has a mass of 997.07 kg (not
1,000).

I provide this information in a spirit of good-natured pedantry and not to
suggest that the typical person need worry about the small difference.

> It's amazing how far we can drift from rec.crafts.metalworking. 

Indeed.

> All in good fun nevertheless. 

Indeed. :)

> Physics dept. knocking the metric system. Heresy I say! Heresy!

Oh, I'm not knocking the metric system in any way-- I'm just defending the
U.S. customary system to the extent that it can be defended (which isn't
much). 

In physics class, however, I'm quite orthodox and stick to metric units
(usually).

---

From: [email-masked] (Russ Kepler)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:44:31 GMT

-- 
Russ Kepler							[email-masked]

                    Please Don't Feed the Engineers

---

From: [email-masked] (Andy Dingley)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:30:29 GMT

>If it's exactly a yard from your nose to your fingertips, you can be the King.

Or if it's a foot from nose to earlobe, you can be heir to the throne.

---

From: [email-masked] (dal wagner)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 18:58:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Steve Rayner) says:
**********************************************************************
Steve says:
>Well, 10 Lb. of water is 1 Imperial gallon, so who needs a pencil? 

Dal wagner replies:
The USA because they use a US gallon. Topic is Metric system in the US.
***********************************************************************
Steve says:
 
>In the metric system, it's too easy to misplace a decimal point.  A 
>hundredth of a MM is a very small unit, but bigger than a thou.
 
Dal Wagner replies:

1mm =0.039... inches so 1/100th of that is 0.00039 inches.
Since when is 0.00039 inch bigger than 0.001 inch 
You've  certainly demonstrated your ability to loose those decimal points.
I know exactly what you mean I just found two of those damn things
in a small compartment at the back of my desk.
*************************************************************************
Steve says:
 
>The celsius degree is too large for a comfort scale at 17.22222- F.  Most 

Dal Wagner replies:

Not to sure what a comfort scale is ? All I do know is that water boils
at 100C and freezes at 0C. I'll let you keep 32F for freezing and 212F for 
boiling. 
Yes their are problems converting to metric. If we had stayed with the 
inch system Canada and the US could indeed trade with each other. The
problem is that there is a larger world out there that only uses metric.
Nobody is going to pull your head out of the sand. You'll have to do that
yourself. 
*****************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked](J.A.Harvey)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 21:12:44 GMT

In <[email-masked]> jack yates <[email-masked]> writes: 

>And demijohns, firkins and tuns....
>
>...{snrkle}...
>
>				Jack
>
Don't forget Magnums, Jeroboams & Methuselas  ( hic.... )

Jim Harvey
[email-masked]
http://hre.com

---

From: [email-masked] (Kurt Rieder)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 15:49:59 GMT

: 1 Ton ( short ) 2,000 pounds
: 1 long ton      2,240 pounds  ( not used much )

The "long ton" is actually still used quite a bit in world commerce
where it is more common than the more familiar "short ton".  Prices 
of such things as Manganese ore and Ferromanganese as well as many other
items of commerce are sold and bought in "long ton" units.  The metric
ton is replacing it to some extent, however

---

From: [email-masked] (John W. Hall)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 01:24:20 GMT

>made from a tail light socket and two alligator clips.

On Fords you set the points with a worn liberty head dime and the 
plugs with a folded match book.

John

---

From: [email-masked](J.A.Harvey)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 13:54:44 GMT

metric.
that

Jim Harvey
[email-masked]
http://hre.com/

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:29:34 GMT

In a previous article, [email-masked] (DUFQ80A) says:

>aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: [email-masked] (DUFQ80A)
>Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
>Subject: Re: Metric vs. inch: Don't use either
>Date: 17 Sep 1996 23:26:08 -0400
>Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>Lines: 3
>Sender: [email-masked]
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>References: <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked] (DUFQ80A)
>NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
>

-- 
Steve.

---

From: jack yates <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:11:41 -0700

...{snrkle}...

				Jack

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Winterbon)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 96 11:12:09 GMT

>> is that they remove the overlay to expose the metric
Presumably it's for similar reasons that in the US nails are referred to by 
their price in a currency which has not been legal tender for about 200 years.

Perhaps as a start to metrication they could start measuring nails in mm.

Bruce Winterbon
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Alan Frisbie)
Date: 18 Sep 96 08:59:36 PDT

> However terms such as "whisker" "skosch" and "bissel" are used when

Don't forget the ever-popular RCH.   :-)

--  Alan E. Frisbie               [email-masked]
--  Flying Disk Systems, Inc.
--  4759 Round Top Drive          (213) 256-2575 (voice)
--  Los Angeles, CA 90065         (213) 258-3585 (FAX)

---

From: Janos ERO <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:24:34 GMT

Peter Brooks wrote:

> I got used to having two sets of wrenches

Sorry, Pete, but the bikes aren't fully metric in the continental Europe either.
Not only in most European countries - except France, the birthplace of the metric 
system - are the wheel sizes given in inch. A full size bike is 28" in the metric world 
too. But unfortunately, I don't know why, the bike manufacturers use wrench sizes 
different from the metric standard: 

Screw      Standard      Bike
M5           8mm          9mm
M6          10mm         11mm
M8          13mm         15mm

And the japanese manufacturers aren't better. My Toyota needs for his M8 screws a 12mm 
wrench ! (Fortunately included in the toolbox.)

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles Stroom)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:48:41 GMT

On this USA/metric topic, has someone already asked what the
convenience is of a lathe, which is in USA units (1 rev == 0.1 inch),
but than the handle scales are subdivided in hundreds.  What if I need
to turn 15/16", or even 5/8"?  I believe most imperial lathes
are like that, admittedly I know only 2 :-)

-- 
Charles Stroom, ESTEC/YCV

[email-masked]
European Space Technology Centre, Noordwijk, the Netherlands

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Logan)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 17:38:31 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, From [email-masked] 
(Charles Stroom), the following was written:
> What if I need

Charles,

That's when you have to start converting into decimal inches.  Also, if
you need to move the handle, say, 3-5/16" (3.3125), it's probably easier
to remember 33 turns plus 12-1/2 graduations then 26 turns plus 62-1/2
graduations, if it were an 8 pitch screw (0.125"/rev.)

Just my 2¢ worth.

 09/20/96 12:38
 http://www.loganact.com

---

From: [email-masked] (Honor� de Gronckel)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:08:42 GMT

>motor vehicles.  Liters per 20 kilometers.  Ugh!  It seems the kilometer 

This isn't a unit, actually. It's a combination of units.  Auto
manufacturers used to compare the fuel consumption in km per liter.
For some reason they changed to liters per 100  (not 20) km.
Best, Honoré.

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Kantarjiev)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 23:17:19 GMT

The classic TV news mistake is where they say "a 15,000 ton (nnnnnn
	metric Tonne) ship has run aground on a reef".  The shipping ton
	is a measure of VOLUME, related to the cargo capacity - i.e. how
	many tons the ship can carry. Converting that is a nonsense.

Well, sort of. What it started out as was the weight of the
water it displaced when fully laden (before sinking, of course).

---

From: [email-masked] (Ken Knaell)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 18:04:05 -0400

>How many eggs in a metric dozen?  10?

I dunno but then a bakers metric dozen would be 11, wouldn't it?

ken
bethesda, md

---

From: [email-masked] (W. Kaiser)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 16:59:14 GMT

I once heard of a fine old unit called the shaftmund (shaftmond?).  It's 
approximately 6-1/2".

Make a fist, extend the thumb.  A shaftmund is the distance from the tip 
of the thumb to the knuckle of the little finger.

You can give people an inch.  You can give people a centimeter.  When you 
give them a shaftmund, though, you're really giving them something.

BTW, I just discovered that the ardeb has been standardized in Egypt to 
be 198 liters, but still varies widely elsewhere.  Does anyone support 
a world standard for the ardeb?

---

From: [email-masked] (David William Jenkins)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:17:03 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Kurt Rieder ([email-masked]) writes:
>where it is more common than the more familiar "short ton".  

I have seen this regularly in newspapers as well.

David Jenkins              -- aka --             Lathyrus Computers Ltd
***********************************************************************
* All incorrect spelling and grammar is intentional.  Corrections are *
* superfluous and will be ignored.  So there.                         *

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles Gallo)
Date: 20 Sep 96 01:17:27 -0700

>http://intranet.ca:80/~bwinterb

Bruce,
	According to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 60th Ed, The 
weight of one US Gallon of water in dry air at 1 Atm ranges from 
8.33590 lbs, to 7.9894 lbs (100 Deg C).  Now if we figure that one 
Pint is 1/8 Gal, and that one Oz = 1/16 lb, and that one Gal = 128 
FlOz then Water weighs in at between 1.042 lbs/pint to .999 lbs/pt 
(Read 1 lb 0.672 oz to 15.984 ozs). I'd say that Chris is right 1pt = 
1lb

Charlie

---

From: adam_w <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:18:22 -0600

> ........................

Hmmm.... Shouldn't we be using the metric kilobeans instead of the
imperial hillo'beans?

                            Adam

---

From: [email-masked] (Alan Frisbie)
Date: 19 Sep 96 09:25:45 PDT

In article <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked] (James Wilkins) writes:

>> If I need a piece of hose, I simply hold my arms out and check
>> the length.   At the hardware store, I hold my arms out again,
>> and the clerk pulls out the required length.

> If it's exactly a yard from your nose to your fingertips, you

I thought that to be the King, you had to be able to play the
guitar and sing.   :-)

---

From: [email-masked] (Honor� de Gronckel)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:50:46 GMT

>Just to confuse matters :  1 In (US) is not equal to 1 in (brit).

 No, they are equal. Both inches were made equal when they defined the
inch to be 25.4 mm. The only unit  that is the same in the british and
american system?

Honoré.

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:24:20 GMT

The feedscrew dials are calibrated in THOUSANDTHS!  
15/16" = .9375"    5/8" = .625"

-- 
Steve.

---

From: Jim Dincau <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Sep 1996 00:12:03 GMT

One of the reasons the U.S. hasen't made the change may be the
aerospace industry. At the old lazy L we always used inches and
decimal parts thereof to dimention airplanes, no feet, yards, furlongs
or cubits were involved. Changing all the machine tools and measuring
instruments would not have any cost justification. If you can make a
mistake with decimal parts of an inch you can make the a mistake
with decimal parts of a meter. 
Jim

---

From: [email-masked] (John Ingham)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 03:34:04 GMT

On 15 Sep 1996 03:46:11 -0700, [email-masked] (Greg Lewis)
wrote:

>TLAR method....

Oh yes... that is tough bridge to cross but it is on the road to
master to be sure...

I told a Phd candidate onst that I could "see" a thousands of an inch
( 1/4 of a pubic hair) and he laughed...

But then I grabbed two gage pins one thou appart and ask him to
shuffle them... I was able to "see" the difference... as I know other
experienced machinists can also.

As a Mech-la-magician (mechanician) for UCB College of Chemistry we do
an incredible amount of precision work and have to shift gears
instantly to save money.... hank'n and a hewing and a eye balling

The eye is an amazing tool.... if more machinists used it more
carefully fewer mistakes would be made... 

"..if I put that hole there will it LOOK like the print?..."

Nuff Said....

The Machinists Exchange Online

On the Web:
http://www.machinists-exchange.com

email:
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Ray Spinhirne)
Date: 24 Sep 1996 05:02:39 GMT

James Wilkins ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>,
: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner) wrote:

: > I used to gap the points in my cars with my thumbnail!  
: > 

: How crude of you! The correct setting is the thickness of a matchbook
: cover. Then you set the static timing with a precision test instrument
: made from a tail light socket and two alligator clips.

On old GM products that had an adjustment you could make while the 
engine was running we always turned it in (less gap I think) 'till it 
died and then backed off 1/2 turn.  Seemed to work pretty well.

---

From: [email-masked] (James Wilkins)
Date: 23 Sep 1996 17:49:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Charles

> are like that, admittedly I know only 2 :-)

Yes, the two systems don't play well together. 

Fractions are for carpenters. I don't believe that fractions are used much
in mechanical engineering.  Free wall charts, the backs of rulers, and
almost every drill index list the conversions, so you don't have to
remember them.

When I was a draftsman, the rule was that all dimensions were to be
decimal. One old standard is that fractional dimensions are only used if
the tolerance is looser than the 0.020" of a 2-place decimal. 

Shafts and pulleys come in only a few simple fractional sizes like 1/2",
5/8", or 3/4". If you are boring out a bearing for fractionally
dimensioned shafting, the running clearance will change the decimal value
anyway. Measure shaft, look up clearance, add to get bore size, all in
thousandths or tenth-thousandths. 

The long string of decimals doesn't really matter - it gets lost in
tolerances and clearances. 

What is REALLY annoying is an import milling machine where the table screw
pitch is sooo helpfully 1/8 inch. Counting turns: 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
0.625 0.750 0.875 1.000 1.125 etc.

---

From: "John R. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:12:51 -0500

> water it displaced when fully laden (before sinking, of course).

Well, no, not really.  Early on, french wine was shipped to england in
large barrels called "tuns."  One of these "tuns" occupied about 100 
cubic feet.  Ships were "measured" by the Admiralty according to how
many of these "tuns" they could hold.  Later on, they used the cubic
foot equivalent and counted some of the odd corners they couldn't get
a barrel into.  Ship "tonnage" was always a measurement of volume,
not of weight, and while it may correspond roughly with displaced water,
it had more to do originally with the hold capacity than with the size
of the ship.

John

---

From: [email-masked] (Harvey Freeman)
Date: 24 Sep 1996 08:59:22 GMT

Greg Lewis ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>,
: Tim Shoppa <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >Really?  Which decade are you living in?  GM began converting over
: >their auto production to metric in the late 70's and by now most
: >all of their automobiles are 99.9% metric.  The only non-metric
: >thread on my '92 car, to my knowledge, is the spark plug.
: >
: >Tim. ([email-masked])

: And on my Ford F250, some fasteners are metric and some are inch, and
: there seems no logic to it. One of the alternator mount bolts is inch,
: one is metric. Go figure....

About ten years ago A Snap-on-Tools salesman told me that when the car 
plants went metric they converted one side of the assembly line to metric 
first and left the other side Imperial.  This meant that one side of the 
bell housing, as an example, was put together with metric bolts and the 
other half with Imperial.  They used everything up before totally 
converting.  The mechanic at the first repair was the one to throw all 
the bolts he did not like away and change to a uniform pattern. The 
result may be either system and not match the next identical car repaired 
that day.

: ___________________________________________________________________
: [email-masked]      	   	     They don't
: Photojournalism sequence      	   	     Call this place
: Department of Mass Communication   	     An institution
:      and Journalism 	      	   	     For nothing
: CSU Fresno, Fresno, CA 93740-0010

: Don't worry... it's only a flesh wound.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Freeman, Arch.  !    Home of the Precision 50 Table Saw Fence
123 School Ave.        !    1-902-445-2832 (R)
Halifax, Nova Scotia.  !    1-902-429-4100 (W)
Canada, B3N 2E1        !    1-902-423-3063 (F)
______________________________________________________________________________

Precision 50 Table Saw Fence Page www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ac258/Precision_50.html
______________________________________________________________________________

---

From: "Tony P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:53:47 -0700

My point exactly when I started all this (I am also 76257.3632 @ 
Compuserve.com).  I think the fellow inquiring failed to recognize that 
anybody needing precision, or even needing to regularly add measures such
as draftsmen or surveyors, already used decimals instead of 1/8ths, etc.

   Thus there is absolutely no accuracy advantage either way and any base 
unit will do, but the conversion we make from fractions to decimals does 
invite error (which is why we avoid them, except in carpentry).  I defy 
any carpenter to achieve accuracy greater than 1/32" (heck, I can hardly 
do that with metal much less wood!)

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:36:28 GMT

You want crude?  When the old English Lucas distributors were worn ( 
common problem )  I used the lightbulb trick, after setting the points by 
eye, with an extra large gap!  Effectively setting the dwell.  Did the 
same thing a few years ago on a lady friends Toyota.  A service station 
told her the car couldn't be tuned, without a new distributor!  I had it 
running fine in jig time.

In a previous article, [email-masked] (Ray Spinhirne) says:

>du!aux.stedwards.edu!admin.stedwards.edu!rays
>From: [email-masked] (Ray Spinhirne)
>Date: 24 Sep 1996 05:02:39 GMT
>Organization: St. Edward's University, Austin, TX
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.214.144.2
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>

-- 
Steve. 

******************Knowledge is wasted if it is not shared.*******************

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Rayner)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:30:09 GMT

Whenever I do drawings for my projects, most if not all fractions are 
expressed as decimals.  Exceptions may be halves, quarters, 8ths, and 16ths,
which I had to learn in school, so I instantly think of the decimal 
equivalent.  

-- 
Steve.

---

From: "Tony P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 21:39:33 -0700

Ah, but they weren't mechanics: just technicians.  Many 
newer-generation (especially factory-trained) service people  have gone 
so far in the direction of using the factory manuals and instructions 
(not a bad thing, believe me) that they have no independent judgment.
In fact, the solution is often dredged up by a computer without the tech 
even truly understanding the nature of the problem.  He is not required 
to understand: merely follow directions.

   Also, the emissions standards are so stringent that service people are 
likely instructed that once out of tolerance, it's junk.

    You, on the other hand, probably subscribe to the same philosophy I 
do:  when the consequence of failure is the same as the consequence of 
not trying (i.e. replacing the part) WHAT THE HECK DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE BY 
TRYING IT FIRST?  (Answer: sale of a new part, if you're a dealer).

       Face it: we're an endangered species.

						Tony

---

From: [email-masked] (Honor� de Gronckel)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:23:01 GMT

Charles Lamont <[email-masked]> wrote:

> writes

>>Just what *is* an EMU,
>>anyway?

>An idiotic Franco-German socialist idea for buggering up the whole of
>the European economy at one swell foop! 

Well, it's close but they prefer to call it an ECU (european currency
unit :-)).
Emu means: electromagnetic unit. It's used to measure e.g.
magnetization and magnetic susceptibility. The problem is that the
same 'unit', viz. emu, is used for physical properties which are
uncomparable. It's a $%&/ unit to deal with. (officially it has been
abandoned, but a lot of people keep using it because they are used to
it, their equiment reads emu's and if they want to convert it they
usually don't know if they used the formula for the right emu!)

Best, Honoré.

P.S.: My provider seems to be two weeks out of phase regarding this
thread, so sorry for the occupied bandwidth if this has already been
answered.

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Brooks)
Date: 24 Sep 1996 19:01:36 GMT

Janos ERO ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Peter Brooks wrote:

: > I got used to having two sets of wrenches
: > years ago when I had a British car and a Japanese bike, neither of which ran terribly
: > well.....

: Sorry, Pete, but the bikes aren't fully metric in the continental Europe either.

Oops, I *should* have said "motorcycle".  The Honda From Hell generally used
metric bits, exept when the exhaust header studs stripped out (regularly)
and I ended up replacing them with 1/4 x 20 all-thread.  Actually, the
coarse thread seemed to work fairly well in the fairly soft aluminum
head casting.

To make matters more confusing, I now own a recumbent trike.  That mixes
all manner of fasteners between the metrics mused mostly by Shimano and
the Ansi used by the maker.  My own contributions generally have been
Ansi, such as the headlight housings and such.

Pete Brooks

---

From: [email-masked] (Joshua_Putnam)
Date: 24 Sep 1996 19:43:41 GMT

>it had more to do originally with the hold capacity than with the size

It often has very little to do with the real weight or volume of
the ship.  The rules for determining what is cargo space and what
isn't are complex, and since licensing fees are based on rated
tonnage, many commercial vessels have otherwise useless
partitions added to turn "cargo" space into voids that don't
count towards cargo capacity.  For a freighter, a few little
partitions here and there won't make much difference, but for a
passenger vessel or yacht the difference between actual
displacement and rated tonnage can be huge.

(This got a bit of newspaper coverage here a few years ago when
the state government was buying new passenger ferries.)

--