"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I remember that I bought some from Tandy once. There seemed to be a lot of
keys I thought, and as you say, when I checked we had both imperial and
metric. Obviously, Tandy being a US company had sourced sets with all the
keys in all the places it sold.
The keys were fine, but the way of attaching tem to the large ring they
were on was cruddly a kind of coiled spring around the hex , which meant
you could take them off of course, but it was a sod of a job to put them
back again which in the end meant a lot of them got lost!

Yes those Allen keys on springs are a pain. The best set of Allen keys I
have has them all attached to a common shaft on a hand-sized handle. You
fold out the one you want and have a nice big handle to use to turn it. I
still use the small spring ones if I need to work in a confined space, but
the ones on a handle are much easier for everything else.

https://i.postimg.cc/0NwL238b/Img-1753-small.jpg (that's a photo of the
Allen key set)

Yes it is a real sod trying to fit Allen keys back into their springs.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:51:20 +1100, FMurtz
wrote:

snip

In my circle I have never heard 2x4 from anyone but yanks

Agreed.

It's that in just the same way it's not 'chips and fish' or 'brush and
dustpan' (or a 'Robin Reliant'). ;-)

But then the Yanks are a bit backward like that ... calling something
that is obviously a liquid, 'gas'. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 11/01/2019 08:52, PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:33:35 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 10/01/2019 22:55, alan_m wrote:
On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet sold
in metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

No. It was 4" x 2"

SteveW

Had a problem when re-roofing a brick-built shed (timbers going/gone and
sheets cracked a bit). The timbers were ~70 years old and 2x3, so
unobtainable nowadays. Combined with the hard mortar that had been shovelled
in to fill all the gaps, I spent ages with a an SDS chisel getting it even
enough for a full timber frame and to fit the 'generous' 46x72 mm.
Even as a smallish child I was upset that 2" wood wasn't 2" - what part of
lying is acceptable in trade descriptions?


As a child I was told it's best to think of it as the _name_ of the
timber. When it's sawn it measures 4x2 so it's called 4x2. By the time
it's sold it's very possibly drier and smaller. If it's planed it's
smaller still. But it's name stays the same.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Friday, 11 January 2019 10:00:56 UTC, NY wrote:
Would you prefer to add up a column of prices in £p or in £sd, with
all the latter's carry-after-you-reach-12 and carry-after-you-reach-20
complications.

It's actually divide-and-carry which is worse if you don't know your 12 times table properly.

51d is 3d down and carry 4s over.

The "Back in time for school" programme last night (BBC2 I think) was teaching in centimetres "in the 1940s" which is wrong in so many ways.

Owain

In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 10/01/2019 19:55, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:15:24 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 10/01/19 19:10, ARW wrote:
Third year apprentice (one of the best we have had) was having trouble
putting the meter tails into the mains isolator on some new builds.

He was having difficulty tightening up the hex screws.

One answer in the office was "You have a **** set of Allen keys"

In his defence he replied "They are brand new I only got them on
Saturday and I paid for the most expensive of the two pairs available as
I don't want **** tools"

Anyone care to guess what went wrong:-)?

Imperial vs metric?

+1


Indeed.

But at least he came in and said he had a problem. And the problem is
now sorted.

Obviously never heard of the word imperial before and was amazed at the
markings on the tool that he had never noticed.

I'm surprised he didn't wonder why there were two sets of apparently
identical allen keys to choose from in the shop.

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
NY wrote:
Yes those Allen keys on springs are a pain. The best set of Allen keys I
have has them all attached to a common shaft on a hand-sized handle.
You fold out the one you want and have a nice big handle to use to turn
it. I still use the small spring ones if I need to work in a confined
space, but the ones on a handle are much easier for everything else.

I far prefer a sort of socket set with allen 'sockets' IMHO, less likely
to lose the odd one. And far more convenient to use.

--
*WOULD A FLY WITHOUT WINGS BE CALLED A WALK?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/01/2019 10:00, NY wrote:
"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet
sold in metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

Always was and still is here.

Always been 4 be 2 here.

Bull****.
In my circle I have never heard 2x4 from anyone but yanks

I think I would tend to specify the larger of the two dimensions first -
4x2, rather than 2x4 - irrespective of whether the units were inches or
centimetres. But that's only a convention, not a hard-and-fast rule.

That has always been the UK convention, although no doubt US style
terminology has crept in a bit in some circles.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:14:20 +1100, FMurtz
wrote:
snip

Where the h does your brainless boss get these kids?

They have to get knowledge from somewhere.

I was fortunate to grow up in an environment with a workshop full of
all sorts of (mainly woodworking) tools and a Father who had both
inherited loads and bought more of his own.

I was also 'press ganged' into helping him use them and using them for
him when helping him.

And with my Uncle who did more stuff with / for me, like building my
go-cart for / with me and helping me update / repair it etc.

So, our daughter has grown up being more aware of such things and
often surprises people by the things (tools / processes) she knows
something about.

The, the other day someone held up a brick and asked 'what is this bit
called?', (pointing to the hollow). 'Frog', she replied. ;-)

The problem with being aware of the range of tools available to allow
people to do a job better / easier / quicker is when others don't have
them. ;-(

Like the other day, when helping someone do some engineering work she
asked if they had a (hand) de-burring tool. She asked because I have
one and she has used it quite a bit, not only helping me or me helping
her but on her own projects.

By allowing her to help me (or try stuff) when she asked when she was
young also helps her judge just how difficult a particular job might
be and what the chances are of her (or whoever she is with) being able
to complete it successfully (tools / facilities / materials / skills
etc) now she's older.

As you say they have to learn somewhere. I started off with an
imperial set of feeler gauges and then bought a metric set because the
world was changing that way. Because many of us here *have* lived
though the imperial to metric conversion we are better placed when
dealing with things to be ready for some of the stuff that has come
about historically. 1220mm x 2440mm sheet materials anyone? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

NY wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I remember that I bought some from Tandy once. There seemed to be a
lot of keys I thought, and as you say, when I checked we had both
imperial and metric. Obviously, Tandy being a US company had sourced
sets with all the keys in all the places it sold.
The keys were fine, but the way of attaching tem to the large ring
they were on was cruddly a kind of coiled spring around the hex ,
which meant you could take them off of course, but it was a sod of a
job to put them back again which in the end meant a lot of them got lost!

Yes those Allen keys on springs are a pain. The best set of Allen keys I
have has them all attached to a common shaft on a hand-sized handle. You
fold out the one you want and have a nice big handle to use to turn it.
I still use the small spring ones if I need to work in a confined space,
but the ones on a handle are much easier for everything else.

https://i.postimg.cc/0NwL238b/Img-1753-small.jpg (that's a photo of the
Allen key set)

Yes it is a real sod trying to fit Allen keys back into their springs.
Easy if you turn the right way,sort of screw them in

On 10/01/2019 21:08, ARW wrote:
On 10/01/2019 19:55, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:15:24 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 10/01/19 19:10, ARW wrote:
Third year apprentice (one of the best we have had) was having trouble
putting the meter tails into the mains isolator on some new builds.

He was having difficulty tightening up the hex screws.

One answer in the office was "You have a **** set of Allen keys"

In his defence he replied "They are brand new I only got them on
Saturday and I paid for the most expensive of the two pairs
available as
I don't want **** tools"

Anyone care to guess what went wrong:-)?

Imperial vs metric?

+1


Indeed.

But at least he came in and said he had a problem. And the problem is
now sorted.

Obviously never heard of the word imperial before and was amazed at the
markings on the tool that he had never noticed.



And credit for being prepared to spend a bit more.

Rod Speed wrote:


"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet
sold in metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

Always was and still is here.

Always been 4 be 2 here.

Bull****.

In my circle I have never heard 2x4 from anyone but yanks

Then you need a new circle, bad.


I just posed the question in Australian woodwork Forums (which is full
of woodwork people and carpenters) and overwhelmingly 4x2 (only one
dissenter)

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:58:15 +1100, FMurtz
wrote:

NY wrote:

snip

Yes it is a real sod trying to fit Allen keys back into their springs.

Easy if you turn the right way,sort of screw them in

+1

It just 'unwinds' the spring enough to allow the tool back in.

I prefer tool-rolls now though for that sort of thing.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, 11 January 2019 10:00:56 UTC, NY wrote:
Would you prefer to add up a column of prices in £p or in £sd, with
all the latter's carry-after-you-reach-12 and carry-after-you-reach-20
complications.

It's actually divide-and-carry which is worse if you don't know your 12
times table properly.

51d is 3d down and carry 4s over.

The "Back in time for school" programme last night (BBC2 I think) was
teaching in centimetres "in the 1940s" which is wrong in so many ways.

I was taught about centimeters in physics in the 1940s.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

John Rumm wrote:
On 11/01/2019 10:00, NY wrote:
"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet
sold in metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

Always was and still is here.

Always been 4 be 2 here.

Bull****.
In my circle I have never heard 2x4 from anyone but yanks

I think I would tend to specify the larger of the two dimensions first
- 4x2, rather than 2x4 - irrespective of whether the units were inches
or centimetres. But that's only a convention, not a hard-and-fast rule.

That has always been the UK convention, although no doubt US style
terminology has crept in a bit in some circles.



From wikki
Dimensional lumber is lumber that is cut to standardized width and
depth, specified in inches. Carpenters extensively use dimensional
lumber in framing wooden buildings. Common sizes include 2×4 (pictured)
(also two-by-four and other variants, such as four-by-two in Australia,
New Zealand, and the UK), 2×6, and 4×4. The length of a board is usually
specified separately from the width and depth. It is thus possible to
find 2×4s that are four, eight, and twelve feet in length. In Canada and
the United States, the standard lengths of lumber are 6, 8, 10, 12, 14,
16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 feet (1.83, 2.44, 3.05, 3.66, 4.27, 4.88, 5.49,
6.10, 6.71 and 7.32 meters). For wall framing, "stud" or "precut" sizes
are available, and are commonly used. For an eight-, nine-, or ten-foot
ceiling height, studs are available in 92 5�„8 inches (235 cm), 104 5�„8
inches (266 cm), and 116 5�„8 inches (296 cm). The term "stud" is used
inconsistently to specify length; where the exact length matters, one
must specify the length explicitly.

From Wiktionary,


Re the wood cross section mentioned above, 4x2 is commonly used in
Australia, and that is what I thought the listing was about when I first
saw it. To be honest, it is used enough to be listed as a definition in
its own right, but I'll think it over during the weekend. --Dmol 21:52,
26 January 2007 (UTC)

four by two is definitely UK for a length of wood of this
cross-section in inches. It has sometimes been used as rhyming slang for
Jew (I seem to remember). SemperBlotto 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
(p.s. I was expecting that to be a red link)

It's two by four for wood in US, or at least in the Midwest.
Cerealkiller13 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anywhere in the US, it's 2x4. 4x2 will get you strange
looks. Very strange looks, like maybe you need to be hit with a
clue-by-four ;-) Robert Ullmann 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's two by four in the United States. In the UK,
Australia and NZ and other commonwealth countries its four by two.

"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
NY wrote:
Yes it is a real sod trying to fit Allen keys back into their springs.
Easy if you turn the right way,sort of screw them in

Ah. I'll try that.

Talking of tools which are a pain, how about those sets of miniature
screwdrivers for jewellers and precision engineering. Firstly the blades
(especially the Philips/Posidriv cross-ended ones) are made of very soft
metal so they get chavelled up as you use them. Secondly, the handles are so
thin and with such shallow knurls on them that you can't get a good purchase
on them in your hand: Often I have to resort to a pair of pliers around the
handle to undo a screw that doesn't want to budge.

"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
four by two is definitely UK for a length of wood of this
cross-section in inches. It has sometimes been used as rhyming slang for
Jew (I seem to remember).

As in Ronnie Barker's famous Rhyming Slang Vicar monologue, in which someone
was described as "a rich four-by-twoish merchant".

Having been schooled in imperial measurements with metrication coming in during my student days, I tend to use both, imperial where I need to divide lengths in halves, quarters or eights which in metric soon ends up in measurements needing to be calculated and often involving fractions of a mm.

In defence of schools teaching only metric measurements, imperial is going nowhere so why teach something that will only add to confusion. After all was it not NASA that missed Mars because someone mixed up imperial and metric, so if some of the top scientists and engineers can confuse things what chance have kids got.

An awareness of imperial is needed but only in those areas of work where legacy products exist and in those cases it is beholding on the industries involved to train their operatives in the skills required.

Richard

On 11/01/2019 11:03, FMurtz wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:


"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet
sold in metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

Always was and still is here.

Always been 4 be 2 here.

Bull****.

In my circle I have never heard 2x4 from anyone but yanks

Then you need a new circle, bad.


I just posed the question in Australian woodwork Forums (which is full
of woodwork people and carpenters) and overwhelmingly 4x2 (only one
dissenter)

But are the actual dimensions of what you buy 4 inches by 2 inches? In
my experience over 40+ of purchasing wood for DIY it has always been
smaller, albeit sold as 4x2.

On my 1900s house when I've occasionally needed to match existing timber
(floorboards etc.) I've had to buy oversize and had it planed down.
Rough sawn or planed standard sizes on sale today always seem to be just
the bit too small compared to what was used 120 years ago.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 11/01/2019 11:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:

Would you prefer to add up a column of prices in £p or in £sd, with
all the latter's carry-after-you-reach-12 and carry-after-you-reach-20
complications.

Which, when they were in use, never gave anyone any trouble at all.


That is not my recollection. I recall all too clearly:

a. the time taken to calculate in LSD

b. the complexity of a mechanical calculator capable of dealing with LSD
direct

c. the complexity of using a decimal calculator to multiply LSD amounts

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 11/01/2019 10:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 10/01/2019 19:55, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:15:24 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 10/01/19 19:10, ARW wrote:
Third year apprentice (one of the best we have had) was having trouble
putting the meter tails into the mains isolator on some new builds.

He was having difficulty tightening up the hex screws.

One answer in the office was "You have a **** set of Allen keys"

In his defence he replied "They are brand new I only got them on
Saturday and I paid for the most expensive of the two pairs available as
I don't want **** tools"

Anyone care to guess what went wrong:-)?

Imperial vs metric?

+1


Indeed.

But at least he came in and said he had a problem. And the problem is
now sorted.

Obviously never heard of the word imperial before and was amazed at the
markings on the tool that he had never noticed.

I'm surprised he didn't wonder why there were two sets of apparently
identical allen keys to choose from in the shop.


There were not identical. He "paid for the most expensive of the two".
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:
On 10/01/2019 21:23, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:08:43 +0000, ARW wrote:

On 10/01/2019 19:55, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:15:24 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 10/01/19 19:10, ARW wrote:
Third year apprentice (one of the best we have had) was having
trouble putting the meter tails into the mains isolator on some new
builds.

He was having difficulty tightening up the hex screws.

One answer in the office was "You have a **** set of Allen keys"

In his defence he replied "They are brand new I only got them on
Saturday and I paid for the most expensive of the two pairs available
as I don't want **** tools"

Anyone care to guess what went wrong:-)?

Imperial vs metric?

+1


Indeed.

But at least he came in and said he had a problem. And the problem is
now sorted.

Obviously never heard of the word imperial before and was amazed at the
markings on the tool that he had never noticed.

Oh dear, how will he cope when £sd and feet inches and roods come back ?


My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet sold in
metre lengths so you get things like :-

"two metres of 4 bay 2"

4 x 2 doesn't exist. It will be 95mm by 45mm and so soft you
can use a hand screwdriver to force screws in without drilling.

On 11/01/2019 11:03, FMurtz wrote:

I just posed the question in Australian woodwork Forums (which is full
of woodwork people and carpenters) and overwhelmingly 4x2 (only one
dissenter)

isn't there something to do with the direction it was cut from the log
that determined if it were 2x4 or 4x2?
I don't see many DIYers knowing there was a difference.

On 11/01/2019 10:31, Robin wrote:
On 11/01/2019 08:52, PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:33:35 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 10/01/2019 22:55, alan_m wrote:
On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet sold
in metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

No. It was 4" x 2"

SteveW

Had a problem when re-roofing a brick-built shed (timbers going/gone and
sheets cracked a bit). The timbers were ~70 years old and 2x3, so
unobtainable nowadays. Combined with the hard mortar that had been
shovelled
in to fill all the gaps, I spent ages with a an SDS chisel getting it
even
enough for a full timber frame and to fit the 'generous' 46x72 mm.
Even as a smallish child I was upset that 2" wood wasn't 2" - what
part of
lying is acceptable in trade descriptions?


As a child I was told it's best to think of it as the _name_ of the
timber.Â* When it's sawn it measures 4x2 so it's called 4x2.Â* By the time
it's sold it's very possibly drier and smaller.Â* If it's planed it's
smaller still.Â* But it's name stays the same.


My 1976-built garage used 8 x 2 timbers and they are still that size,
i.e. a full 2 inches wide, ...

And the timber is far denser and heavier than a new '8 x 2'.

On 11/01/2019 04:28, wrote:

If they've got to 16 or 18 without realising there are imperial measurements, I doubt they're about to get any knowledge anywhere.

What may be obvious to older contributors on the group may not be so for
someone who has only been educated using metric conventions.

My secondary school and college education 45 years ago was using SI
units which I've continued to use throughout my career. My early
experience of using imperial tools was working on 10 year old cars when
I was in my late teens and later with plumbing with a DIY renovation a
house.



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 11/01/2019 09:17, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Roger Hayter
writes
alan_m wrote:

On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet
sold in
metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

Yes.Â*Â* Before it was planed.

Likely before it was sawn: the saw kerf included in the measurement.
Trees have exceptionally funny rules:-)



C16 is nearer to 4 x 2 than C24 4 x 2, but may turn
banana-shaped when it dries unconstrained.

On 11/01/2019 08:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet
sold in metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

Always was and still is here.

Always been 4 be 2 here.

Bull****.

In my circle I have never heard 2x4 from anyone but yanks

Then you need a new circle, bad.

2 x 4 must be an Aussie thing.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , NY
wrote:

Would you prefer to add up a column of prices in £p or in £sd, with
all the latter's carry-after-you-reach-12 and carry-after-you-reach-20
complications.

Which, when they were in use, never gave anyone any trouble at all.

Interesting. I would have thought that adding up numbers where you are
always carrying tens from one column to the next was easier than numbers
where sometimes you are carrying twelves, sometimes twenties etc - even if
the latter is allegedly "no trouble", the former would be *even* easier.

Mind you, mental arithmetic has always been a failing of mine: I have a
complete mental block because I cannot visualise the digits in my mind's eye
to be able to add them up and to remember the sum-so-far; I need a pen and
paper to do any calculations beyond fairly simple two-digit addition or
subtraction of simple combinations which I do by learning lookup tables.

I'm probably just a couple of years too young to have dealt with £sd money:
I was 7 when decimalisation happened so the only things I'd have been buying
were comic and sweets at the corner newsagent. (*)

I remember my school had some maths workbooks, and we were told to ignore
the addition/subtraction of £sd and ounces/pounds/stones/hundredweights/tons
because that was old-hat - in the 1970s it seemed that people expected that
the changeover to metric would be quick and total, and that no-one would use
imperial, even as folk units, within a few years.

A lot of the scorn about the metric system yielding silly numbers is because
we persist in making things to approximately imperial sizes and convert to
metric, rather than working to round numbers of centimetres instead of
previously round numbers of inches.

It was like when supermarkets began selling loose food in metric units. In
the early 90s, my local Tesco announced that it would only sell weighed (ie
not pre-packed) food by the gramme. Most people panicked, but I simply
learned that 1 ounce is about 30 grammes, so 4 ounces / quarter of a pound
is about 120 grammes - or *very roughly* 100 g. I really don't care whether
I receive 90, 100 or 110 grammes, as long as I pay for what I get - I just
want *about* 100 grammes. Likewise for a pint of beer - I don't care whether
I am served 500 ml or 568 ml (1 pint) as long as I am charged for what I
get.


(*) I can remember that there was a parade of shops about 200 yards from our
house: in order, hairdresser, newsagent, grocer, greengrocer, off-licence.
One by one they closed down and the shop-fronts were bricked up to turn the
shops into ground-floor flats. Only the hairdresser still survives; the
off-licence (Milligans) was the last casualty some time in the 2000s. Now
everyone goes to the local Tesco which is probably a mile away.

On 11/01/2019 10:44, wrote:
On Friday, 11 January 2019 10:00:56 UTC, NY wrote:
Would you prefer to add up a column of prices in £p or in £sd, with
all the latter's carry-after-you-reach-12 and carry-after-you-reach-20
complications.

It's actually divide-and-carry which is worse if you don't know your 12 times table properly.

51d is 3d down and carry 4s over.

The "Back in time for school" programme last night (BBC2 I think) was teaching in centimetres "in the 1940s" which is wrong in so many ways.

Owain


cgs system was around then even if in science.

builders wouldn't be using it much.

"Robin" wrote in message
...
I'm surprised he didn't wonder why there were two sets of apparently
identical allen keys to choose from in the shop.

There were not identical. He "paid for the most expensive of the two".

And they were the more expensive because they probably sold in smaller
volumes and came from a more specialised supplier.

If they aren't clearly labelled and if you have never learned that imperial
sizes are still sold, you would tend to think they were identical apart from
one being "better quality" than the other.

In article , FMurtz
writes
Rod Speed wrote:
"FMurtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 10/01/2019 21:54, soup wrote:

My favourite is 4 X 2 wood (nominally 4 inches by 2 inches) yet
sold in metre lengths so you get things like :-


Was it ever 2" x 4"?

Always was and still is here.

Always been 4 be 2 here.
Bull****.
In my circle I have never heard 2x4 from anyone but yanks
Well they even get their dates wrong way round
--
bert

In article , NY
writes
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Obviously never heard of the word imperial before and was amazed at
the markings on the tool that he had never noticed.

I can understand it. Modern engineering uses metric for all official
measurements (as opposed to "folk units" such as "oh, about 4 foot
eight and a half"). I'm 55 years old - old enough to have grown up with
imperial as folk units and to estimate in those units. But young enough
that if I have to measure anything with a ruler or scales, I always use
millimetres or grammes (and being British rather than American, I spell
the latter "gramme", not "gram", but that's another story!).

Nowadays I'd expect tools, plumbing pipes, drills etc to be sold in
metric sizes - or else to have fairly clear wording that they were
imperial, for use with existing legacy installations.

This only applies to the UK; the USA clings to the imperial system like
grim death, even sometimes in scientific and engineering fields. I've
seen scientific papers which use units such as slugs and poundals.

I'm probably weird that I know my height in feet and inches but not in
centimetres, but if I had to measure my height I'd always do so in
centimetres. Younger people probably have less "feel" for measurements
in feet and inches; in a few more generations the imperial system may
have been forgotten about, which is a shame because it has served us
well, even if numerically it is a crap system because no two units for
the same physical quantity are related by the only base that is
meaningful to us - base 10, because we have 10 fingers (inc thumbs) and
10 toes - so calculation is tedious. Would you prefer to add up a
column of prices in £p or in £sd, with all the latter's
carry-after-you-reach-12 and carry-after-you-reach-20 complications.
I read an article recently arguing that base 12 would be better than 10
because it has more factors.
--
bert

In article , Robin
writes
On 11/01/2019 11:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:
Would you prefer to add up a column of prices in £p or in £sd, with
all the latter's carry-after-you-reach-12 and
carry-after-you-reach-20 complications.
Which, when they were in use, never gave anyone any trouble at all.


That is not my recollection. I recall all too clearly:

a. the time taken to calculate in LSD

b. the complexity of a mechanical calculator capable of dealing
with LSD direct

c. the complexity of using a decimal calculator to multiply LSD amounts

SO why isn't the clock metric? I still have my Casio calculator from the
70s which could work in hrs and mins.
--
bert

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 11/01/2019 04:28, wrote:

If they've got to 16 or 18 without realising there are imperial
measurements, I doubt they're about to get any knowledge anywhere.

What may be obvious to older contributors on the group may not be so for
someone who has only been educated using metric conventions.

My secondary school and college education 45 years ago was using SI units
which I've continued to use throughout my career. My early experience of
using imperial tools was working on 10 year old cars when I was in my late
teens and later with plumbing with a DIY renovation a house.

The last time I used imperial "in anger" (emphasis on "anger") was when I
was helping my dad fit a new hot water cylinder at their holiday cottage. We
were trying to work out whether the baulks of wood (maybe the eponymous 4x2)
would be strong enough to take its weight. We only had a tape measure
calibrated in inches - and no calculator. I knew that 1 litre of water
weighed a kilogramme or that a gallon of water weighs 10 lb. But how do you
go from measurements of height and circumference in inches to weight of
water?

Not knowing the magic 277 cu in = 1 gallon (= 10 lb) factor (a number I've
now committed to memory!), the easiest way was to convert to centimetres
(using gross approximations like 2 cm to 1 in and pi=3), do the pi R^2 L
calculation, convert to litres (divide by 1000) and hence to kilogrammes.
All we needed was an order of magnitude value - neither of us knew to the
nearest 10 gallons / 10 lb how big and heavy a typical cylinder is.

We obviously estimated correctly the amount of wood needed to support the
cylinder, because it's still there 40 years later.

"bert" wrote in message
...
I read an article recently arguing that base 12 would be better than 10
because it has more factors.

Definitely. If we'd been born with 12 digits, we'd have learned to count in
base 12, and we'd have invented two extra symbols for what in base 10 we
write as 11 and 12. I can do base 16 arithmetic more easily than base 12,
and that's partly because there's only ever one digit (numeric or letter) in
each column.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
Everyone should be able to do mental arithmetic, and even more
importantly, be able to quickly work out an approximate answer to a
calculation, which will tell you whether your final calculation is
*reasonable*.

I wish I'd been taught how to do *mental* arithmetic and how to process the
carry/borrow digits and to retain a mental running total. I never was: I was
taught how to do it on paper, with rules for carrying/borrowing digits which
I can do fine (albeit slowly and laboriously).

My wife worked in a bakery as a summer job during school, so she quickly
became adept at adding up prices of five doughnuts at 13p each, two loaves
of bread at 27p each, 7 seven flapjacks at 17p each, *without having to
write it down and add up on paper*. I marvel at that skill.

I'm OK at estimating an approximate value - or at least knowing when a
calculator answer is clearly ridiculous due to mis-keying.

I'm not one of those people who needs a calculator to perform simple
calculations like adding 2 and 3 or multiplying by 10, and I am lightning
fast with lookup-table things like times tables up to 12, but for anything
else I do at least need a pencil and paper to act as a visible short-term
memory to handle the running total and carry digits.


At my school, one of the teachers had a bizarre punishment for minor
offences - like being caught cheating in weekly tests: "Tarthur's Cubes".
He'd decide that an offence merited a three-digit cube or, if it was more
serious, a four- or five-digit cube. He'd get members of the class to call
out the required number of digits to make up the number. For the next
lesson, the culprit then had to perform long multiplication, showing all the
carry digits, and then multiply that answer by itself to end up with
(number)^3. Then you had to perform long-division (showing all the working)
and divide that answer by itself. You know that you should end up with the
number you started with, but the punishment was that it was so slow and
laborious and tedious that you would think twice about committing the
offence that was being punished.

The prefects had similar slow-and-laborious punishments:

- Minor things merited "columns of The Times", for which you were given a
page of yesterday's newspaper and you had to go through the required number
of columns of newsprint, inking-in every letter with a "counter" (an
enclosed space, such as in "a", "b", "d", "e" etc), with a standard rate of
so many column-inches of the following day's paper for every letter that you
missed.

- More serious offences rated "an impo" (imposition) which involved writing
lines ("I must not lie to a prefect") on special "impo paper" which had red
and green lines ruled on it at about 5 mm spacing. The body of the letters
had to fit exactly within the green lines; the ascenders (of "b", "d", "l")
had to rise to the upper red line and the descenders (of "p", "q", "y") had
to go down to the lower red line: this involved writing more slowly and
laboriously than normal handwriting. It was the job of the master-on-duty
each day to make himself available during lunch break to hand out pages of
"impo paper" and to check this against notes that the prefects had given him
("Smith has been given an impo of 50 lines").

Corporal punishment was allowed (this was the 1970s) but could only be
administered by masters, not prefects, and was more often threatened than
actually performed. One master who taught us English but also taught sport
would produce "Mini Whacker" (a size 5 trainer shoe), "Tiger Whacker" (a
size 7 with go-faster stripes) and "Super Whacker" (a size 10 on which he
would draw an "S" in chalk and keep hitting you until all the chalk had
transferred itself from shoe to backside. I never saw him *use* these, but
he often *threatened* to.

I was only actually "tanned" once, and that was for what we euphemistically
called "master-baiting" (!) - imitating and taunting teachers. I did a very
good impression of the Nelly, the biology teacher, as we were getting
changed from swimming and he walked through the changing room from the
biology lab. You could see him debating with himself whether to let it go or
to make a big issue of it, and he decided that he had officially heard what
I'd said. "Brrrrrrinnnngg meeee a slippppperrrrrrrrrr", he yelled.
"Bennnnnnn Doverrrrrrrrr". And he got hold of my hair at the front and
pushed my head down (making my bum stick out) as he raised his arm to get a
good swing, then he yanked my head up as he brought his arm down on my bum
which retreated from his arm - his actions, always rather robot-like, were
180 degrees out of phase! Every time he brought his arm up for another
swing, he bashed his knuckles on the locker doors - I could hear him
muttering and cursing "Ouch, ****" each time he did it. I had to make all
the right sounds of pain, though the only pain I was in was through trying
to stop myself bursting out laughing at how ludicrous it must have looked to
be tanned by "a robot". I learned later from my mates that Nelly was beside
himself with fury and they feared for my safety at one point and were about
to intervene because he looked as if he was going too far. I saw him years
later and recounted the incident, which he still remembered, and he said the
deciding factor in him deciding not to ignore it was that I'd used his
surname: in a mechanical voice, I'd said "Eek! Look. There goes Nelly
[surname]. I wonder if he's going to feed his crock-oh-dile (*)", but if I'd
omitted his name, he'd have ignored it. Grrr.


(*) It was reputed that he kept a pet crocodile in the school pond and fed
it on first-years. The word was always said with very exaggerated stress on
all three syllables - crock-oh-dile.

"bert" wrote in message
...
SO why isn't the clock metric? I still have my Casio calculator from the
70s which could work in hrs and mins.

I remember seeing articles in magazines which discussed in all seriousness
whether the world should devise new units of 50 metric seconds in a metric
minute, 50 of those minutes in a metric hour and 25 metric hours in a day.
Or some such calculation which resulted in a metric second being
*reasonably* close to a real second.

On 11/01/2019 13:02, NY wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...
I read an article recently arguing that base 12 would be better than
10 because it has more factors.

Definitely. If we'd been born with 12 digits, we'd have learned to count
in base 12, and we'd have invented two extra symbols for what in base 10
we write as 11 and 12. I can do base 16 arithmetic more easily than base
12, and that's partly because there's only ever one digit (numeric or
letter) in each column.

Why, many people already work in base 16.

0-9 A B C D E F.

On 11/01/2019 12:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:

On 11/01/2019 11:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:

Would you prefer to add up a column of prices in £p or in £sd, with
all the latter's carry-after-you-reach-12 and
carry-after-you-reach-20 complications.

Which, when they were in use, never gave anyone any trouble at all.


That is not my recollection.Â* I recall all too clearly:

a.Â* the time taken to calculate in LSD

b.Â* the complexity of a mechanical calculator capable of dealing with
LSD direct

c.Â* the complexity of using a decimal calculator to multiply LSD amounts

Most people could do mental arithmetic back then.


I'd like to see you draw up using mental arithmetic the invoice for

14 wotsits at £21 15s 11d
37 widgets at £13 4s 6d (less 7.5% discount for order over 2 dozen)
2 gross round tuits at £1 3s 7d (less 6% discount for order over a gross)

I grew up "back then" and people who had to do that sort of thing
routinely were bloody glad not to have to do so by hand. Even the
calculators designed for Sterling usually only handled addition and
subtraction. And while there were tables to convert from LSD to
fractions of a pound and back again so as to use decimal calculators it
weren't for the faint-hearted.

And then until 1969 there was the halfpenny.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 11/01/2019 12:29, Tim Streater wrote:

Most people could do mental arithmetic back then.


I don't believe that was true unless you regularly handled money or
played darts.

Even with people handling money the trick was not to necessarily
calculate the change but to count it up from the bill amount to the
amount tendered.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:51:21 -0000, "NY" wrote:

I remember seeing articles in magazines which discussed in all seriousness
whether the world should devise new units of 50 metric seconds in a metric
minute, 50 of those minutes in a metric hour and 25 metric hours in a day.
Or some such calculation which resulted in a metric second being
*reasonably* close to a real second.

There was French Revolutionary Decimal Time, which "divided the day into 10
decimal hours, each decimal hour into 100 decimal minutes and each decimal
minute into 100 decimal seconds".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time

which has other interesting tidbits about decimal time, i.e. Chinese decimal
time used in the 1 century BC.


Thomas Prufer