Post by: gunsmith on October 15, 2006, 02:05:37 PM
just say to my self is it's (say) 3ft and three little lines.
I need this job so is there any tutorials or contracters that can tell me ?
Post by: Ron on October 15, 2006, 02:24:17 PM
There are 16 lines = 16ths of an inch
There are 8 lines larger or taller than the little lines = 1/8ths of an inch
There are 4 lines even larger yet = 1/4 of an inch
The biggest line in the middle is half an inch
What you may need is a refresher on fractions. You will never see something like 6/16 in a measurement because it is really 3/8. If you don't understand why then the fractions refresher is what you need.
Post by: Car Knocker on October 15, 2006, 07:38:54 PM
Post by: Art Eatman on October 16, 2006, 03:02:22 AM
I guess I was lucky, paddling around under my grandfather's feet when I was maybe six or so as he would do carpentry work. I'd mess with his six-foot folding ruler and he'd explain the fractions.
Hey, gunsmith: Count the lines which subdivide an inch. Sixteen of them? Okay, one line = one-sixteenth. Two lines = two-sixteenths or one-eighth, or 1/8. Just divide the top number (2) into both itself and into the bottom number (16). Four lines = four-sixteenths or one-quarter, or 1/4. If the measurement calls for a half-inch, that's 1/2 or eight of the lines. You'll need to know the odd-numbered stuff; it's easy: For instance, 3/8, times two is 6/16, or six lines.
Write it down and carry the "cheat-sheet" with you. You'll learn.
Art
Post by: brimic on October 16, 2006, 03:46:06 AM
(its not quite 19 3/16, but closer to 19 7/32") I haven't been able to figure out what they are for.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 16, 2006, 04:05:58 AM
Quote from: brimic
Bonus question for the experts: What are the black diamonds that are located at roughly 19 3/16" and multiples of that number on a tapemeasure used for?
(its not quite 19 3/16, but closer to 19 7/32") I haven't been able to figure out what they are for.
I believe those are the studs in the wall. That is about the standard distance between studs.
(its not quite 19 3/16, but closer to 19 7/32") I haven't been able to figure out what they are for.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 16, 2006, 04:26:22 AM
Post by: mfree on October 16, 2006, 04:31:45 AM
Post by: TarpleyG on October 16, 2006, 04:49:40 AM
http://www.asktooltalk.com/home/qanda/faq/tools/tapemeasure.htm
Oh, and the black diamonds are explained at the same site...
Quote
The black diamond on the top scale starting at 19.2 inches is for truss layouts for 8-foot sheet goodsalso referred to as the "black truss" markings. Originally the 19.2 was used in metric layouts. If you divide five into 96 inches (8 feet), it will give 19.2 inchesin other words, 5 trusses per sheet.
Greg
Post by: Ben on October 16, 2006, 05:08:19 AM
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on October 16, 2006, 05:12:47 AM
- NF
Post by: HankB on October 16, 2006, 06:17:04 AM
Quote from: Nathaniel Firethorn
And heaven help 'em if they ever had to read a vernier scale.
Funny you should bring this up.Back in my high school days, I worked after school and weekends as a shipping clerk at a small manufacturing plant. One day "Rich", one of the "engineers" from the front office, fresh out of college, showed up in the warehouse with a clipboard and calipers to measure the thickness of some of the metal our product was made out of. I was asked to help him locate the items and pull them out of inventory in the warehouse
So I did . . . and it was almost funny to see the expression on his face when he opened up the caliper case and saw it wasn't a dial, but a vernier caliper.
I asked if there was a problem . . . he said "Well, Joe gave me these, and I don't know how to read a vernier . . . I'll have to go get a set of dial calipers."
I said "Here, no problem" and took the calipers out of his hands and proceeded to take the measurements, explaining the use of the vernier as I went along.
SO he got his measurements, and went back up front. He told "Joe" that next time he wanted a set of dial calipers, as it was pretty embarassing to have some young high school kid in the shipping department show him how to do his job. And the kid rubbed it in by saying his Dad taught him how to read calipers when he was "just a little kid" in grammar school.
Other guys started laughing . . . and asked him what the clerk looked like. (He described me.) This set off more hoots and hollers. "Sounds like Joe's son bailed you out!"
Yep. :grin:
Post by: Laurent du Var on October 16, 2006, 06:49:02 AM
10 mm = 1 cm,
100 cm = 1 m,
1000 m = 1km.
Voila.
How you guys ever get to build doors that would fit into the doorframes is beyond me...
Post by: Tallpine on October 16, 2006, 06:53:34 AM
)I don't ever remember learning how to read a ruler. Maybe I was born knowing how...?
I thought it was something that everybody (at least every man and boy;) ) knew how to do.
Just like lining up the sights on a gun ... I don't think anybody ever taught me that. I just seemed to figure it out or it was totally obvious
Or maybe a previous life ................
Post by: client32 on October 16, 2006, 07:10:40 AM
Someone mis-diagnosed the black diamonds as stud markings. Stud are typically 16" or 24" apart. Most tape measures will have the multiples of 16" marked in red for finding the 16" centers easier.
Post by: JonnyB on October 16, 2006, 07:21:47 AM
Quote from: client32
Wow, the things you don't realize you know. I grew up doing carpentry work.
Someone mis-diagnosed the black diamonds as stud markings. Stud are typically 16" or 24" apart. Most tape measures will have the multiples of 16" marked in red for finding the 16" centers easier.
The black diamonds aren't for studs, typically (though you could use 'em that way, I guess). They're for floor joists on 19.2" centers. Two by 10 or two by twelve joists are on 12 or 16 inch centers but the wood "I-beam" joists can be spaced wider, as they're stronger than two-bys. The truss joists, made up of bridged 2 x 4s can be spaced at 24 inches and still provide enough support.Someone mis-diagnosed the black diamonds as stud markings. Stud are typically 16" or 24" apart. Most tape measures will have the multiples of 16" marked in red for finding the 16" centers easier.
I, too, am stunned that there are those among us ignorant of these things. I thought *everyone* could read rules, tapes and vernier scales.
jb
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 16, 2006, 07:27:59 AM
Laurent, it takes a special kind of intelligence to use English measurements. That's why Anglophones run the world.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 16, 2006, 07:34:18 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 16, 2006, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: fistful
Laurent, it takes a special kind of intelligence to use English measurements. That's why Anglophones run the world.
+one baker's dozen!
Post by: Art Eatman on October 16, 2006, 12:23:59 PM
Art
Post by: Nightfall on October 16, 2006, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Go Metric!
Agreed. If you have to do any mathematical work with your measurements, metric makes life just a bit easier...
Post by: esheato on October 16, 2006, 03:33:58 PM
I didn't even know what a vernier caliper was. Now I not only know what it is...but I know how to read one.
Ed
Post by: Art Eatman on October 17, 2006, 06:48:56 AM
Art
Post by: HankB on October 17, 2006, 07:03:36 AM
From http://www.woodjig.com/Gage%20tips2.htm
Quote
A little History of Calipers...Although calipers were around since the first century or earlier in China, the "graduated" caliper is credited to Pierre Vernier.
Pierre Vernier (1584-1683) (note: other sources place the dates as 1580-1637) was taught mathematics and science by his father who was a lawyer and engineer. He worked on cartography and on surveying. His interest in surveying led to developing instruments for surveying and this prompted the invention for which he is remembered by all scientists, the "graduated" vernier. In his book he describes his most famous invention, that of the vernier caliper, an instrument for accurately measuring length. It has two graduated scales, a main scale like a ruler and a second scale that slides parallel to the main scale and enables readings to be made to a minute fraction of a division on the main scale.
If this source is correct, verniers on surveying instruments and the vernier caliper both came about in the early 1600's . . .
Pierre Vernier (1584-1683) (note: other sources place the dates as 1580-1637) was taught mathematics and science by his father who was a lawyer and engineer. He worked on cartography and on surveying. His interest in surveying led to developing instruments for surveying and this prompted the invention for which he is remembered by all scientists, the "graduated" vernier. In his book he describes his most famous invention, that of the vernier caliper, an instrument for accurately measuring length. It has two graduated scales, a main scale like a ruler and a second scale that slides parallel to the main scale and enables readings to be made to a minute fraction of a division on the main scale.
Post by: Mabs2 on October 17, 2006, 08:42:41 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 17, 2006, 09:27:41 AM
Quote
Shock.
+1Quote
Go metric!
If only...Brad
Post by: Iain on October 17, 2006, 09:49:06 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 17, 2006, 09:55:52 AM
Maybe I'm just off my rocker, but I think it symbolizes the difference between the American Revolution and classical American progressivism/liberalism, and the French Revolution and European progressivism/socialism. That is, the French Revolutionaries overthrew everything they could possibly uproot - even their calender. The American Revolutionaries were more intellectual, building on traditions they admired while overthrowing opposing tradition. Thus they kept their religion, language, calender, English common law and units of measurement.
I'd rather stay in that vein.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 17, 2006, 10:04:53 AM
Quote
Wherein lies the incentive to change?
um.. because it's a better system?Brad
Post by: grampster on October 17, 2006, 10:42:23 AM
Post by: Nightfall on October 17, 2006, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Brad Johnson
Quote
Wherein lies the incentive to change?
um.. because it's a better system?Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 17, 2006, 11:15:09 AM
Quote from: Brad Johnson
um.. because it's a better system?
Explain.
Post by: Marnoot on October 17, 2006, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: Nightfall
Apparently the simple math you need to do to convert between the two (that only needs to be done once, at that) is beyond the effort many are willing to put into making a switch.
I think that's exactly the problem. People have no desire to put forth effort where they don't see it as necessary, or at least see some sufficient benefit in it for them. And really to the average Joe Six-pack, there is no significant advantage to the metric system. I'm personally apathetic about it. If it becomes the standard in the US, I'll probably conform. If not? Meh.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 17, 2006, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: Brad Johnson
um.. because it's a better system?
Explain.In the metric system 1 of something equals something else in units of 10, and all you have to do to change the units is change the prefix - 'kilo' is one thousand, 'milli' is one thousandth, 'mega' is one million, micro is one millionth.
You use the metric system every day more than you realize. The prefix examples above for some things that you probably use every day. Once you get the prefixes down everything else falls into place. Americans hang onto the English system out of pride and traditionalism.
Furthermore, pretty much the entire world has gone to the metric system because it is a better system. As a result, any of our products designed for export have to be converted, redesigned, or homogenized for use in metric-only countries. The added cost and complexity of doing so makes our products even less competitive in an already competitive market. The products imported into our markets have to be converted to the English system, adding to the consumer cost on goods that might not be available domestically.
Brad
Post by: 280plus on October 17, 2006, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: Art Eatman
Messin' with cars makes shifting back and forth from metric to SAE real easy. But the the Engllish dreamed up Whitworth nuts and bolts--which even a Cresccent wrench won't fit.
Art
I had a AMC Eagle, actually a pretty darn good car, holding the master cylinder to the firewall was one metric bolt and one english bolt. Art
Don't ask me why...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 17, 2006, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: Brad Johnson
You use the metric system every day more than you realize.
Explain.
Post by: Art Eatman on October 17, 2006, 03:58:09 PM
And most of our 300 million people THINK in English/SAE. Highway miles is obvious.
Going metric is the tail wagging the dog. Those who can get along in both systems do so. For the rest, leave them in comfort. Sure, soft drinks and whiskey now come in metric. Ask somebody how much are they getting, though, and they either don't care, or don't really know.
Art
Post by: meinbruder on October 17, 2006, 06:25:35 PM
Quote from: Tallpine
I am astounded ... I opened this thread thinking it must be a joke ("Queen Elizabeth was also a ruler..." :D )
I don't ever remember learning how to read a ruler. Maybe I was born knowing how...?
Tallpine speaks for me, also. I first opened the thread to read and was surprised to even see the question. (No offense intended gunsmith.) While I wasnt born knowing how to read a tape, fractions were covered in grade school and I had no problem the day a tape rule was handed to me as an implement of employment. The first few responses were accurate and helpful so I left it alone. I don't ever remember learning how to read a ruler. Maybe I was born knowing how...?
I bought a 16 tape with one edge printed in metric for my first job, it was on sale, and I baffled most of the crew by being able to read it both ways. My come-uppence was the day a customer doubted my measurements and placed his tape along side mine and disputed my dimensions. He knew metric well enough but wanted to doublecheck for himself. He was retired from Union Pacific Railroad; they measured everything in tenths of an inch. Somewhere around here is a ten-foot tape in engineers markings as a souvenir of that day.
I think that knowing there is more than one way of looking at things is more important than being an expert in looking at something. Understanding a different point of view and being flexible enough to switch back and forth is whats important. Suddenly I find myself writing about life instead of a tape rule.
English standard, metric, engineers? Cant we all get along?
Nevermind. :)
Mike
}:)>
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 17, 2006, 07:18:11 PM
Post by: gunsmith on October 17, 2006, 10:19:04 PM
Lucky for me my first day was ok, working a cut off saw in a machine shop, 8th's and 16th's...so far so good.
Post by: Iain on October 18, 2006, 02:55:36 AM
In terms of shorter distances, the width of a room, a field or a desk I tend to think in mm's, cm's and metres. Weight is probably where I am most interchangeable, I know my bodyweight in kg's, lbs and stones. Recipe books here use both imperial and metric, with the advice that if you weigh your flour with one, you should weigh the sugar with the same system. I'm probably of an age when I was taught metric at school and imperial was most often used at home, except that my father is an engineer and so doesn't even use cm's, everything is mm or metres. The time will come when imperial won't mean a lot to the parents, and metric will be used at home and nobody will mourn the passing too much. Some are trying to force the transition, but it will probably just happen on its own. There is no move that I am aware of to change road signs to km, so some things will remain.
Some mourned the passing of old British money, I'm just glad I wasn't alive for the changeover.
fistful - just remember that as far as a metric-sexual is concerned, the average is 12.7cm.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 03:03:28 AM
Quote from: Iain
Some mourned the passing of old British money, I'm just glad I wasn't alive for the changeover.
fistful - just remember that as far as a metric-sexual is concerned, the average is 12.7cm.
Hehe. You vely funny man, Mr. Iain. fistful - just remember that as far as a metric-sexual is concerned, the average is 12.7cm.
I thought the pound was in use until just a few years ago. The Euro currency is not that old, is it?
Post by: Iain on October 18, 2006, 03:17:17 AM
Britain still has the pound, the euro is unlikely here just yet. Convenient when I go across the Channel though.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 03:39:36 AM
Post by: roo_ster on October 18, 2006, 04:37:34 AM
Reading rulers was just part of working on a project with dad.
As far as the metric system goes, keep it out of everyday measurements. Sure, I prefer it when doing physics/engineering work, but English/Standard measurements are superior to the metric system due to the installed base in this country.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 06:23:54 AM
Quote from: Iain
fistful - just remember that as far as a metric-sexual is concerned, the average is 12.7cm.
After that 12.7 figure settled into my warm and fecund intelligence, I finally remembered why it is so familiar. Eastern Bloc "fifty-cals" are of 12.7 mm caliber. So, obviously 12.7cm would be five inches. So, I wonder if a lot of other American gunnies know metric measurements best from comparing 7.62 with .308, etc.
Post by: HankB on October 18, 2006, 06:36:25 AM
The temperature outside is most conveniently expressed in Fahreneheit rather than centigrade, at least for normal temperatures - two digit centigrade temperatures aren't as precise. (OK, if it gets to -40 degrees, go ahead and use centigrade.)
I find it easier to express tire inflation pressures in pounds per square inch, rather than kilopascals.
You CAN take metrification too far . . . I remember a skit on Saturday Night Live (when it was still sometimes funner) when Dan Ackroyd, playing some bureaucrat, was explaining the new, ten-letter metric alphabet . . .
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 07:27:13 AM
Quote from: HankB
I deal almost exclusively in metric units at work -
Then you are clearly a traitor and will be dealt with. We've got to stop these metric-Americans. First, they take over our workplaces with their metrification, so a decent, inches-and-miles-speaking working man can't get a decent job. Soon, they'll be after our pure, virginal American women with their metric-miscegination. And the women like them for their large, metric units - even though 12.7cm is actually no bigger than our good old American five inches.
Post by: HankB on October 18, 2006, 07:42:42 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: HankB
I deal almost exclusively in metric units at work -
Then you are clearly a traitor and will be dealt with.Not convinced? OK . . . today I'll do my part by sending telegrams to NHTSA and the DOT demanding that speed limits on interstate highways henceforth be expressed in furlongs per fortnight, and begin the task of demetrifying the lab at work. (Hmmm . . . what's the conversion factor to go from nanometers to rods . . . using fractions?)
Post by: Iapetus on October 18, 2006, 09:02:28 AM
Quote from: fistful
So, I wonder if a lot of other American gunnies know metric measurements best from comparing 7.62 with .308, etc.
Except 7.62mm is actually exactly 0.3 inches (and 0.223 inches is not actually 5.56mm).I am of an age to have been more or less indoctrinated with the Metric system at school (although we did occasionally touch on the Imperial system, as its normally called here). My parents, or the other hand, always use Imperial, and my father is really against the Metric system
Quote
Or rather, the French metric system, because "metric" simply means "measurement", so to call it The Metric System, as if it's the only one, is grossly arrogant.
One criticism he makes is that any innumerate idiot can use the metric system, and consequently you get lots of innumerate idiots empolyed in jobs that require you to have a reasonable head for numbers.Personally, I tend to use a rather random mixture of the two systems:
* miles for distances, and feet and inches for heights of people (as almost everyone in the UK still does)
* feet for altitude of clouds, hills and aeroplanes (because I used to work in meteorology, and that's what they use).
* metres, feet, centimetres and inches interchangeably for most other lenghts and distances depending which gives the simplest value (e.g. if something is 1m long, I'll call it 1m; if something is 1ft long, I'll call it 1ft, and if something is 1ft long and 2mm thick, I'll call it that as well).
I'm currently working in the UK Hydrographic Office, making sea charts. I'm in the department that makes charts of the Americas, and since almost all the US data is supplied in feet and fathoms, we use those. (And distances are in Sea Miles the world over).
My main gripe with the metric system - apart from it being generally soul-less - is the authoritarian and quasi-ideological attitude of many of its proponents, who almost seem to think that the salvation of the world depends on its adoption, and that anyone who prefers the old system is guilty of Opposing Progress and trying to keep people in the dark ages. This is worst when it actually gets legislated for - a few years ago, the British government actually passed a law making it a criminal offence not only for a shop to give the price of goods either in Imperial units alone, but also to put the Imperial lable in larger text than the Metric one if both were used.
The justification for this would be that "people might get confused", and that the government had to protect them from that. (The fact that most people understood Imperial, and some only understood it, didn't make a difference. Nor the notion that even if people were confused, the market would just encourage shops to do what their customers prefered. I think I even heard someone actually using that as a justification for the legislation - to protect shopkeepers from loosing business if their customers went to someone else).
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 18, 2006, 09:02:53 AM
Quote from: "HankB"
OK . . . today I'll do my part by sending telegrams to NHTSA and the DOT demanding that speed limits on interstate highways henceforth be expressed in furlongs per fortnight
1.79988e12 furlongs per fortnight. It's not just a good idea; it's the law.My favorite quote on the difficulty of getting people to convert from one measuring scheme to another is courtesy Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett:
Quote from: "Gaiman and Pratchett"
NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:
Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and one Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated.
So it's not just us Yanks who are opposed to change. Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and one Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated.
-BP
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 18, 2006, 09:30:35 AM
Quote
Quote
Brad Johnson wrote:
You use the metric system every day more than you realize.
Explain.You use the metric system every day more than you realize.
'Mega' is one million of something. How many megabytes of RAM does your computer have?
'Giga' is one billion. Same computer, but now we're talking hard drive capacity.
What caliber handguns do you have? Chances are you have at least on 9mm in there somewhere.
Ever used a micrometer?
Also, have you ever noticed that scientific measurements, even done with English units, are in tenths and not fractions? Besides, a 1/2" S&W Magnum just doesn't sound right.
Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 10:58:03 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 18, 2006, 11:04:02 AM
Quote
Cents have nothing to do with the metric system, nor do byte measurements.
The prefixes are common to the metric system, and so directly apply. The commonality of usage, especially in the electronics industry, is a direct descendant of the development that took place for these products in metric-only countries.I still am more comforable with SAE measurements because that's what I grew up with, but the fact remains that the metric system is a better all around system of measurment.
Brad
Post by: HankB on October 18, 2006, 11:11:29 AM
Quote from: BrokenPaw
1.79988e12 furlongs per fortnight. It's not just a good idea; it's the law.
You rounded that a bit, but what the heck, it's all relative . . . and you'd really have to be warped to break that speed limit . . .
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 18, 2006, 11:17:36 AM
Quote from: "HankB"
You rounded that a bit, but what the heck, it's all relative . . . and you'd really have to be warped to break that speed limit . . .
Hey, I was just trying to make light of an otherwise serious subject.I figured you'd just wave that particle-ar rounding error through.
-BP
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 12:15:14 PM
Quote from: Brad Johnson
Quote
Cents have nothing to do with the metric system, nor do byte measurements.
The prefixes are common to the metric system, and so directly apply. The commonality of usage, especially in the electronics industry, is a direct descendant of the development that took place for these products in metric-only countries.I still am more comforable with SAE measurements because that's what I grew up with, but the fact remains that the metric system is a better all around system of measurment.
Brad
Post by: Marnoot on October 18, 2006, 12:25:42 PM
Quote from: fistful
But were the prefixes originally brought into the language for the metric system, or did we already have them?
They're all latin prefixes, and thus predate the metric system by over 2500 years. Don't know about their original importation into English. But I'm pretty sure that linguistic importation also predates the metric system. Words like "cent", etc., far predate the metric system in the english language.
Post by: Art Eatman on October 18, 2006, 12:32:02 PM
I don't think so.
A "meter" is defined as the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar, stored in an inert atmosphere somewhere in France, I forget the location. It's possible that it was re-defined by the wavelength of a certain width in the light spectrum, but it's been a long, long time. I can't remember ALL this danged stuff, and I'm too sorry to look it up. That's for you young guys.
A sillymilli-meter is, technically, 0.03937 inches, so everybody rounds it off to forty thousandths and you can change jets in the carburetor and grind crankshafts and bore cylinders without being confused at all.
A 75mm cannon shows about a three-inch hole, which is more than I want to stand in front of, anyhow. It's a known fact that one round from the 75mm sundown cannon at Cullver Academy did Bad Things to somebody's yacht down at the marina. It was supposed to have been a blank round, but some evil student had an imagination, which, when coupled with curiosity, resulted in a notable amount of perturbation. Not me; a guy named Yates.
My car's odometer is in miles. The speedometer is in miles per hour. I don't want to unendingly have to do conversions while driving from Terlingua to Tallahassee. No. And I ain't gonna change cars anytime soon. Scroom.
You might have gathered that I don't take all this SAE/metric stuff seriously.
That's astute of you; I don't.
, Art
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 18, 2006, 12:55:42 PM
Quote
A "meter" is defined as the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar, stored in an inert atmosphere somewhere in France, I forget the location.
And an inch was the distance between the tip and first joint of the king's finger. A foot was, well, his foot. Since the dang kings kept dying off and new ones replacing them, sure made for some confusion. "Whaddya mean? It was a foot last week!! Yeah, well the king this week has bigger feet! I want a refund!"Brad
Post by: Iain on October 18, 2006, 12:57:10 PM
I think Brad's point is about the base 10 (that's the correct term, right?) system. Those latin prefixes refer to a system that uses 10's, 1,000's and so on, rather than there being 16oz to a pound, 14 pounds to a stone and 25 stone to a Giant Haystacks. Do believe that the Roman's used a 12 inch foot though (see link below).
Just been reading about troy pounds and avoirdupois pounds.
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/custom.html - all sorts of bits and pieces like that at the link. edited to add - Recommend reading the bit on volume, I was unaware that there are three different gallons - US dry, US liquid and British Imperial.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 18, 2006, 12:58:49 PM
Quote
I think Brad's point is about the base 10 (that's the correct term, right?) system. Those latin prefixes refer to a system that uses 10's, 1,000's and so on, rather than there being 16oz to a pound, 14 pounds to a stone and 25 stone to a Giant Haystacks. Do believe that the Roman's used a 12 inch foot though (see link below).
'zactly.Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 08:46:33 PM
Wikipedia:
Quote
In the decimal (base-10) Hindu-Arabic numeral system, each position starting from the right is a higher power of 10. The first position represents 100 (1), the second position 101 (10), the third position 102 (10 × 10 or 100), the fourth position 103 (10 × 10 × 10 or 1000), and so on.
Fractional values are indicated by a separator, which varies by locale. Usually this separator is a period or full stop, or a comma. Digits to the right of it are multiplied by 10 raised to a negative power or exponent.
Consider 348.5 Fractional values are indicated by a separator, which varies by locale. Usually this separator is a period or full stop, or a comma. Digits to the right of it are multiplied by 10 raised to a negative power or exponent.
The 3 has a value of 3 hundreds, the 4 has a value of 4 tens and the 8 has a value of eight ones. the 5 has a value of 5 tenths.
The same number in the binary system (base 2) used by computers is:
101011100 So, the left-most number has a value of 1 times 256,
the next has a value of zero times 128,
the next has a value of 1 times 64,
then zero again,
then 16,
8,
4
and two zeros.
348
Or, that's as close as I can get.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 18, 2006, 08:50:46 PM
I can talk about 37.76454 inches all day long, and I don't see how I'm any closer to the metric system. If I say 3 1/4 km's, am I no longer metric? And when did America start using cents? Can that be shown to have a French, "metric" influence?
And what about these metric-Americans lusting after our women?
Post by: HankB on October 19, 2006, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: Iain
. . .Just been reading about troy pounds and avoirdupois pounds. . . .
Had some trouble with a teacher back in grammar school about that - she made the mistake of asking "Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or sixteen one ounce gold coins?" and didn't like my answer.She liked it even less when I PROVED she was wrong . . . in front of the class. (This was pre-Internet; good thing we had a decent reference library in the school.)
BTW, nuns don't like to be proven wrong - probably has something to do with the surgical removal of their sense of humor when they join a nunnery.
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 19, 2006, 04:57:02 AM
It bakes their noodles just a little bit more when you tell them that sixteen ounces of gold weighs more than sixteen ounces of feathers, but that a pound of gold weighs less than a pound of feathers.
-BP
Post by: Art Eatman on October 19, 2006, 08:08:15 AM
Oh, well, 7,000 grains in a pound, so I can get 140 loads from a can of 3031 with a 110-grain bullet in an '06. And a helluva lot more .38 Special loads when using Bullseye.
My only point, earlier, was that the decimal system was around long before anybody thought up metric measurements.
If you really want some fun, watch somebody try to figure out the distance between two points on a map. The USGS maps come in several different scales. Fortunately, there are "rulers" ("scales", in engineering-speak) which are scaled off to match the maps.
For instance, the commonly-seen 7-1/2-Minute Topographic Sheets are 1:24,000; 1" on the map = 24,000" inches on the ground. 24K inches is 2K feet, which is awkward whether you think in miles or klicks. And "two-and-a-half inches, plus a smidgen" isn't a good way to measure a mile...
, Art
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 19, 2006, 08:39:14 AM
Quote
And "two-and-a-half inches, plus a smidgen" isn't a good way to measure a mile...
It's not!!?? Uh-oh... Brad
Post by: Art Eatman on October 20, 2006, 02:59:22 AM
Art
Post by: 280plus on October 20, 2006, 03:09:50 AM
Post by: 280plus on October 20, 2006, 03:10:52 AM
Post by: gunsmith on October 24, 2006, 10:38:02 PM
I love it when my threads do this, I am working in a machine shop, not really making a bundle or anything
but one of the guys sau
id if I stick around a little while and get plans, that he could probably
make an AR reciever out of any metal I like...he seems to think Titanium would be cool.
Plenty of gun friendly folks, and gear heads. Plus they are very patient with my lack
of math know how.
Post by: 280plus on October 25, 2006, 02:43:25 AM