I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch. I was tired of having to replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements. Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:57:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch. I was tired of having to replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements. Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.

Good grief, just use 16ths (or 32nds, if you need the resolution) and
stick with it. There is nothing magic about the number 10, unless you
have to use your fingers to count.

In article ,
" wrote:

I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden
slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch. I was tired of having to
replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the
weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many
equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the
scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in
16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric
ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why
I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements.
Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.

Yes! Metric is very much easier in almost every respect... wish the US
had bit the bullet and completely converted eons ago.

My only complaint is that the Celsius degree is a tad too big (a degree
C = 1.8F), but I'll gladly deal with that.

One trick for toning down the math dealing when forced to deal with
imperial units is to convert all the fractions to to their decimal
equivalents, do the math with a calculator, then convert what ever
result/s you need back to the closest suitable fraction with a decimal
equivalent chart.

Such charts are easy to find & download. Here's one that has metric
equivalents and tap die info as well... there are thousands of these
things available...

http://www.imperialsupplies.com/pdf/...alent&TapDrill
Chart.pdf

Erik

The problem you had wasn't just that you were using Imperial measurements of feet and inches, you were also using fractions like 16ths, 32nds and 64ths of an inch. The metric system doesn't have fractions. In metric, all fractions become decimals, and decimals are inherently easier for calculators to crunch.

Just thank your lucky stars that you didn't have to do those calculations using Roman numerals.

It's amazing that some of the greatest engineering in history was done using Roman numberals. The buildings, aquaducts, roads, bridges and weapons of war built by the Romans were all designed and built using Roman numerals rather that the Arabic numbers we use today.

PS: One of the biggest problems with the Roman numeral system is that it had no numeral for the number "zero", and that was problematic. If, for example, a census taker noted that one farmer had no cattle, he would simply not say anything about cattle owned by that farmer, and that led to ambiguity. Anyone reading that census wouldn't know for sure if it meant the farmer had no cattle, or that the census taker simply forgot to ask that farmer about his cattle. A number for the concept of "zero" clears up that ambiguity.

1/16 and 1/32 for a park bench? Are you sure you weren't building a
piano?
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic/fractions

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 02:59:27 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 22:13:00 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:57:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch. I was tired of having to replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements. Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.

Good grief, just use 16ths (or 32nds, if you need the resolution) and
stick with it. There is nothing magic about the number 10, unless you
have to use your fingers to count.

The problem with using english numbers on wood products is they are
increasingly being made in metric sizes
That is why that, except for specialty cabinet material, 1/2" plywood
is now 15/32" ... or 12MM

So what? Use 1/32nds, if you must. Sheets are still 48" x 96".
That's usually the more important measurement. If the thickness
matters, it has to be measured and it varies quite a lot. :-( If you
need a tight fit (dados, etc.), it has to be measured and fit.

Your handy dandy 2x4 is not exactly 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" anymore. it is
32mmx95mm

It's good you measure framing to the hundredth millimeter but most of
us do not. 1/16th inch is good enough for most.

" wrote in
:

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many
equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank,
including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was
calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out
even.



You're flummoxed by a measurement system that has been used to build just
about everything under the English-speaking sun for over 1,000 years? Maybe
it's you and not the measurement system.


--
Tegger

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:53:01 AM UTC-7, Tegger wrote:
" wrote in
:

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many
equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank,
including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was
calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out
even.

You're flummoxed by a measurement system that has been used to build just
about everything under the English-speaking sun for over 1,000 years? Maybe

it's you and not the measurement system.
Tegger

Had you ever _used_ the metric system for anything you would see how ridiculous the English system is.

I lived in Germany for 6 years and did all my work in metric. Cursed our stupid system the day I got back here and am still doing it some 40 years later.

One of the stupidest arguments against going metric I heard was from a mechanic. "I won't know what wrench to use with out looking at the size marking"

"Hey, stupid you don't look at the size marking on a 9/16 now, why would you have to on an 11mm?. You just reach for "that" wrench now just as you would in mm size"

One of the big advantages of metric for mechanics is there are a lot fewer bolt/nut sizes to deal with.

Harry K

On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 20:08:45 -0700, Erik wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden
slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch. I was tired of having to
replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the
weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many
equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the
scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in
16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric
ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why
I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements.
Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.

Yes! Metric is very much easier in almost every respect... wish the US
had bit the bullet and completely converted eons ago.

The way to switch is to just start teaching Metric in school. Forget
about teaching conversions. Most measures can be used without needing
to know the English equivalent. Anytime you need to know the exact
conversion, Google it.

The English system made sense when you are dealing with a few people.
Just take a pail of milk and divide it in half. Take a measure of
grain and divide it in half. But if you have to do that for more than
a few people, the math gets hard.

I can remember trying to lay out a floor plan where the engineer used
3/16 inch = 1 foot. I had to keep one of these in my tool box.
http://goo.gl/KUgL7x
I kept one of these in my tool box in case I ever met the architect
responsible.
http://goo.gl/xW76XK

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 22:13:00 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:57:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch. I was tired of having to replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements. Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.
Good grief, just use 16ths (or 32nds, if you need the resolution) and
stick with it. There is nothing magic about the number 10, unless you
have to use your fingers to count.

The problem with using english numbers on wood products is they are
increasingly being made in metric sizes
That is why that, except for specialty cabinet material, 1/2" plywood
is now 15/32" ... or 12MM

Your handy dandy 2x4 is not exactly 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" anymore. it is
32mmx95mm

But then they can't call it a tubafor.

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On 10/05/2013 11:34 AM, willshak wrote:
But then they can't call it a tubafor.

What's a tubafor?

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:44:48 -0400, Straight Mann
wrote:

On 10/05/2013 11:34 AM, willshak wrote:
But then they can't call it a tubafor.

What's a tubafor?

Oompah, Oompah, Oompah.

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 12:53:01 +0000 (UTC), Tegger
wrote:

" wrote in
:

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many
equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank,
including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was
calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out
even.



You're flummoxed by a measurement system that has been used to build just
about everything under the English-speaking sun for over 1,000 years? Maybe
it's you and not the measurement system.

Public schools don't teach arithmetic anymore. 2+2 is whatever makes
you feel good.

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 07:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:53:01 AM UTC-7, Tegger wrote:
" wrote in
:

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many
equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank,
including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was
calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out
even.

You're flummoxed by a measurement system that has been used to build just
about everything under the English-speaking sun for over 1,000 years? Maybe

it's you and not the measurement system.
Tegger

Had you ever _used_ the metric system for anything you would see how ridiculous the English system is.

A lie.

I lived in Germany for 6 years and did all my work in metric. Cursed our stupid system the day I got back here and am still doing it some 40 years later.

Irrelevant.

One of the stupidest arguments against going metric I heard was from a mechanic. "I won't know what wrench to use with out looking at the size marking"

Stupid people say stupid things.

"Hey, stupid you don't look at the size marking on a 9/16 now, why would you have to on an 11mm?. You just reach for "that" wrench now just as you would in mm size"

After many years, he probably knows which wrench to reach for without
looking.

One of the big advantages of metric for mechanics is there are a lot fewer bolt/nut sizes to deal with.

Yeah, right. sheesh

On 2013-10-05, Metspitzer wrote:

Yes! Metric is very much easier in almost every respect... wish the US
had bit the bullet and completely converted eons ago.

Agree.

grain and divide it in half. But if you have to do that for more than
a few people, the math gets hard.

The other problem, is, too many Americans (Eng) have no clue of the
difference between volume and weight. I can't tell you the number of
times this has come up on rec.food.cooking, when ppl jes do not know
the difference between fl oz and wt oz. Jes this morning I ran
across a baking recipe on King Arthur Mills website. It gave a bread
recipe in ounces for both flour and water, but didn't specify what
measure the water was in, fluid or weight. Fortunately, it had a
radio button that instantly converted the recipe to grams. It was
weight for both.

If you get any higher education and take any science/eng majors, you
WILL learn metric. If not, yer pretty much screwed and gotta learn it
on yer own. Not good mojo.

nb

On 10/04/2013 09:57 PM, wrote:
I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch.

Be careful when you sit on your bench the first time. Trex decking is not very strong.

I was tired of having to replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements. Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.


Yes, the metric system is superior in every way.

On 10/5/2013 1:59 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 22:13:00 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:57:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch. I was tired of having to replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements. Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.

Good grief, just use 16ths (or 32nds, if you need the resolution) and
stick with it. There is nothing magic about the number 10, unless you
have to use your fingers to count.

The problem with using english numbers on wood products is they are
increasingly being made in metric sizes
That is why that, except for specialty cabinet material, 1/2" plywood
is now 15/32" ... or 12MM

Your handy dandy 2x4 is not exactly 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" anymore. it is
32mmx95mm


Um, could it be called a three by nine? A 3.5cm X 9.5cm could also be
called, affectionately, a threesie ninesie o_O

TDD

On 10/5/13 10:44 AM, Straight Mann wrote:
On 10/05/2013 11:34 AM, willshak wrote:
But then they can't call it a tubafor.

What's a tubafor?

To keep the accordion player in line.

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:47:59 -0400, wrote:




"Hey, stupid you don't look at the size marking on a 9/16 now, why would you have to on an 11mm?. You just reach for "that" wrench now just as you would in mm size"

After many years, he probably knows which wrench to reach for without
looking.


Of course he does, just like the mechanics that use metric on a
regular basis. Some people are just afraid of change, but in a couple
of weeks, it is just as simple, maybe more so.

On 10/5/2013 1:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:47:59 -0400, wrote:




"Hey, stupid you don't look at the size marking on a 9/16 now,
why would you have to on an 11mm?. You just reach for "that"
wrench now just as you would in mm size"

After many years, he probably knows which wrench to reach for
without looking.


Of course he does, just like the mechanics that use metric on a
regular basis. Some people are just afraid of change, but in a
couple of weeks, it is just as simple, maybe more so.


I imagine anyone who's been in the military would have no problem with
The Metric System since the military converted to metric many years ago.
Of course if any readers of the newsgroup left any of the engineering
and construction corps of the military in recent years, they could tell
us how things are. I wonder if there is still a 2&1/2 ton truck and 40'
trailer or has everything gone metric? ^_^

TDD

Straight Mann wrote:
On 10/05/2013 11:34 AM, willshak wrote:
But then they can't call it a tubafor.

What's a tubafor?

We're not making any headway.

What's a headway?

Oh, about 8 pounds.

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 11:25:42 AM UTC-7, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 10/5/2013 1:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:47:59 -0400, wrote:









"Hey, stupid you don't look at the size marking on a 9/16 now,

why would you have to on an 11mm?. You just reach for "that"

wrench now just as you would in mm size"



After many years, he probably knows which wrench to reach for

without looking.





Of course he does, just like the mechanics that use metric on a

regular basis. Some people are just afraid of change, but in a

couple of weeks, it is just as simple, maybe more so.





I imagine anyone who's been in the military would have no problem with

The Metric System since the military converted to metric many years ago.

Of course if any readers of the newsgroup left any of the engineering

and construction corps of the military in recent years, they could tell

us how things are. I wonder if there is still a 2&1/2 ton truck and 40'

trailer or has everything gone metric? ^_^

Too bad the rest of the American economy has not caught up with what you say is military practice.

We are disadvantaging ourselves by clinging to an old-fashioned metric that is virtually alone in the developed (and underdeveloped) world.

Many years ago the government highway folks tried an experiment. They put up signs giving the speed limit in Olde English and metric. Big mistake! Of course most people went with the familiar, and the experiment died.

By contrast, Australia went cold turkey, overnight. Nobody rioted in the streets. The older Aussies adjusted in time and the younger ones never knew anything different.

Hard to figure WHO is behind this stubborn, continuing nonsense. One guess might be business -- especially the Big Business that really rules the country. Maybe they don't want the expense of converting. But aren't they cutting off their nose to spite their face? A short-term view.

Whaddya think?

HB

On 10/5/2013 2:24 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 11:25:42 AM UTC-7, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 10/5/2013 1:00 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:47:59 -0400, wrote:









"Hey, stupid you don't look at the size marking on a 9/16
now,

why would you have to on an 11mm?. You just reach for
"that"

wrench now just as you would in mm size"



After many years, he probably knows which wrench to reach for

without looking.





Of course he does, just like the mechanics that use metric on a

regular basis. Some people are just afraid of change, but in a

couple of weeks, it is just as simple, maybe more so.





I imagine anyone who's been in the military would have no problem
with

The Metric System since the military converted to metric many years
ago.

Of course if any readers of the newsgroup left any of the
engineering

and construction corps of the military in recent years, they could
tell

us how things are. I wonder if there is still a 2&1/2 ton truck and
40'

trailer or has everything gone metric? ^_^

Too bad the rest of the American economy has not caught up with what
you say is military practice.

We are disadvantaging ourselves by clinging to an old-fashioned
metric that is virtually alone in the developed (and underdeveloped)
world.

Many years ago the government highway folks tried an experiment.
They put up signs giving the speed limit in Olde English and metric.
Big mistake! Of course most people went with the familiar, and the
experiment died.

By contrast, Australia went cold turkey, overnight. Nobody rioted in
the streets. The older Aussies adjusted in time and the younger ones
never knew anything different.

Hard to figure WHO is behind this stubborn, continuing nonsense. One
guess might be business -- especially the Big Business that really
rules the country. Maybe they don't want the expense of converting.
But aren't they cutting off their nose to spite their face? A
short-term view.

Whaddya think?

HB


Funny thing, the most resistant to the change over to The Metric System
have been my overly religious friends. Perhaps it's because it breaks
with tradition and their mindset is one that is more resistant to
change? o_O

TDD

I thought that there had been some legislation afew years ago mandating a change over to the metric system about a 10-year period. But that seems to have died.

As an electrical engineer, I have learned to think in more than one language/metrology system. I can convert lengths pretty much in my head. But weights and volumes/measures still require me to stop and try to remember the conversion factors. The liquid oz and the volume oz still give me fits when reading something and I don't know the exact context so I don't know which the author means.

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:44:48 -0400, Straight Mann
wrote:

What's a tubafor?

Oktoberfest

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:30:58 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Funny thing, the most resistant to the change over to The Metric System
have been my overly religious friends. Perhaps it's because it breaks
with tradition and their mindset is one that is more resistant to
change?

.... if the SAE socket slips I get a metric socket out

Something fits without a slip

"Oren" wrote in message
...

... if the SAE socket slips I get a metric socket out

Something fits without a slip

Reminds me of the first time I was going to change the spark plugs in my old
Datsun. Went to the Autozone (or whatever) and picked up the plugs. Asked
the man behing the counter about a metric spark plug wrench. He did not
know so we went to the wrench display and did not see a special wrench for
the plugs. Tried several metric sockts and none of them seemed to fit like
they should. Tried a standard American plug wrench and it fit just fine.
Had a few of them at home, so did not buy a a metric wrench that almost fit.
Worked fine. Found out later all plugs at that time were American size.

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 18:23:43 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .

... if the SAE socket slips I get a metric socket out

Something fits without a slip

Reminds me of the first time I was going to change the spark plugs in my old
Datsun. Went to the Autozone (or whatever) and picked up the plugs. Asked
the man behing the counter about a metric spark plug wrench. He did not
know so we went to the wrench display and did not see a special wrench for
the plugs. Tried several metric sockts and none of them seemed to fit like
they should. Tried a standard American plug wrench and it fit just fine.
Had a few of them at home, so did not buy a a metric wrench that almost fit.
Worked fine. Found out later all plugs at that time were American size.


I keep a set of Metric/SAE hex keys (Allen wrenches tm) for set
screws. Find the tool that fits.

Changing a brake caliber on the truck, sent me back to the tool box
already, just for a metric wrench.

On 10/5/2013 4:39 PM, wrote:
I thought that there had been some legislation afew years ago mandating a change over to the metric system about a 10-year period. But that seems to have died.

As an electrical engineer, I have learned to think in more than one language/metrology system. I can convert lengths pretty much in my head. But weights and volumes/measures still require me to stop and try to remember the conversion factors. The liquid oz and the volume oz still give me fits when reading something and I don't know the exact context so I don't know which the author means.


As a chemist, it would have been practically impossible to work in a lab
encumbered by the English system.

notbob wrote in :

The other problem, is, too many Americans (Eng) have no clue of the
difference between volume and weight. I can't tell you the number of
times this has come up on rec.food.cooking, when ppl jes do not know
the difference between fl oz and wt oz. Jes this morning I ran
across a baking recipe on King Arthur Mills website. It gave a bread
recipe in ounces for both flour and water, but didn't specify what
measure the water was in, fluid or weight. Fortunately, it had a
radio button that instantly converted the recipe to grams. It was
weight for both.

No, you stated that particular problem backward. The problem there is that *you* don't
know something that most other Americans who cook *do* know, namely, that for cooking
purposes, it doesn't matter at all whether you measure 'x' ounces of water by volume or by
weight, because they're almost exactly the same.

To be precise: One quart of water has a volume of 32 fluid ounces or 946 cubic centimeters.
946 cc of water has a mass of 946 grams. One pound (16 ounces weight) is 453.6 grams, so
946 cc of water weighs 946 / 453.6 = 2.08 pounds = 33.37 ounces weight.

Now divide that into 32 fluid ounces volume, and you get -- drum roll, please -- 1 fluid ounce
of water weighs 0.96 ounces.

That's more than close enough for cooking. Nobody cares, because it doesn't matter. The
ignorance on display here is yours, not everyone else's.

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 14:00:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:47:59 -0400, wrote:




"Hey, stupid you don't look at the size marking on a 9/16 now, why would you have to on an 11mm?. You just reach for "that" wrench now just as you would in mm size"

After many years, he probably knows which wrench to reach for without
looking.


Of course he does, just like the mechanics that use metric on a
regular basis. Some people are just afraid of change, but in a couple
of weeks, it is just as simple, maybe more so.
If he's done it a for a lifetime, he knows exactly which wrenches are
used for each nut. Changing that isn't a couple of weeks.

" wrote in news:c7185afe-328d-4dfc-
:

I thought that there had been some legislation afew years ago mandating a change over to
the metric system about a 10-year period. But that seems to have died.

As an electrical engineer, I have learned to think in more than one language/metrology
system. I can convert lengths pretty much in my head. But weights and volumes/measures
still require me to stop and try to remember the conversion factors. The liquid oz and the
volume oz still give me fits when reading something and I don't know the exact context so I
don't know which the author means.

Rule of thumb: when you're talking about water, ounces volume and ounces weight are
interchangeable. The difference is less than four percent.

And if you needed higher precision than that, you wouldn't be using Imperial measurements for
volume and weight anyway. g

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:49:20 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:47:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 07:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:53:01 AM UTC-7, Tegger wrote:
" wrote in
:

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many
equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank,
including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was
calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out
even.

You're flummoxed by a measurement system that has been used to build just
about everything under the English-speaking sun for over 1,000 years? Maybe

it's you and not the measurement system.
Tegger

Had you ever _used_ the metric system for anything you would see how ridiculous the English system is.

A lie.

I lived in Germany for 6 years and did all my work in metric. Cursed our stupid system the day I got back here and am still doing it some 40 years later.

Irrelevant.

One of the stupidest arguments against going metric I heard was from a mechanic. "I won't know what wrench to use with out looking at the size marking"

Stupid people say stupid things.

"Hey, stupid you don't look at the size marking on a 9/16 now, why would you have to on an 11mm?. You just reach for "that" wrench now just as you would in mm size"

After many years, he probably knows which wrench to reach for without
looking.

One of the big advantages of metric for mechanics is there are a lot fewer bolt/nut sizes to deal with.

Yeah, right. sheesh

The real reason is we are in an international world now and fewer
things will be available in "American" sizes. You can't even call it
english because they converted to metric years ago.

Did you have a point?

Your mechanic has needed metric tools for years unless he only works
on 20 year old American cars. Even most of those had significant
metric content.

Oh, good grief. ...and this has to do with cutting slats, how?

In article ,
Frank wrote:

On 10/5/2013 4:39 PM, wrote:
I thought that there had been some legislation afew years ago mandating a
change over to the metric system about a 10-year period. But that seems to
have died.

As an electrical engineer, I have learned to think in more than one
language/metrology system. I can convert lengths pretty much in my head.
But weights and volumes/measures still require me to stop and try to
remember the conversion factors. The liquid oz and the volume oz still
give me fits when reading something and I don't know the exact context so I
don't know which the author means.


As a chemist, it would have been practically impossible to work in a lab
encumbered by the English system.

Didn't NASA loose a Mars probe 3 or 5 years back?

If I recall correctly they think they tracked it down to an incorrect
english to metric conversion (or perhaps vice versa). Also pretty sure
they mandated Metric (or SI) for all future projects at that time.

Remember being astounded that they of all people were still piddling
with imperial units... and to make matters even worse were using both!

Wonder if they have any Whitworth stuff flying. Anyone remember that
mess???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Standard_Whitworth

(BTW, just looked, believe it or not, Snap-On still makes Whitworth
combination wrenches! They're listed as 'British Standard' on their web
site)

Erik

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:57:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I needed to rip some Trex decking into narrow strips to replace the wooden slats in a "park" bench we have on our front porch. I was tired of having to replace the painted wood slats every few years as it is exposed to the weather.

After trying for the better part of an hour to figure out how many equal-sized slats I could get from a particular width of plank, including the scrap caused by the width of the cutting blade, I was calculating things in 16ths and 32nds of an inch and not coming out even. I got out my metric ruler and solved the problem in a matter of a few minutes. I don't know why I didn't think of that after the first few minutes of English measurements. Hopefully I will have learned my lesson.

Works like this. Say your plank is 6". Your plank is 96/16.
Your saw kerf is 3/16".
Let's say you think getting 3 slats from that is about right.
That's simple eyeball work, and your feel for what looks good.
You'll lose 6/16 from the 2 kerfs.
Leaves 90/16. Divide by 3. 30/16 is 1 7/8" per slat.
Mark the plank, and cut there, with the kerf outside of your mark.
Repeat. No scrap.
You can get real close to same sized slats.
If you need more precision, use 192/32 as you plank starting number.
But getting anything to 1/32 precision is about the best you can do
with a typical saw and that kind of material.
It's not micrometer metal working.
Doesn't matter at all if it's metrics or inch.
You just have to be able to multiply and divide.
They taught that in grade school when I was a kid.

On 10/5/2013 7:46 PM, wrote:


Of course he does, just like the mechanics that use metric on a
regular basis. Some people are just afraid of change, but in a couple
of weeks, it is just as simple, maybe more so.
If he's done it a for a lifetime, he knows exactly which wrenches are
used for each nut. Changing that isn't a couple of weeks.


Right, he'd already know since US cars have had a mix of sizes since at
least the 80's. If a mechanic does not have the ability to use both
imperial and metric he is probably out of work.

Smart people can make the change in a day, I was liberal with a couple
of weeks. I still have a couple of Whitworth wrenches too. Needed them
for the Triumph MC

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:44:23 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

notbob wrote in :

The other problem, is, too many Americans (Eng) have no clue of the
difference between volume and weight. I can't tell you the number of
times this has come up on rec.food.cooking, when ppl jes do not know
the difference between fl oz and wt oz. Jes this morning I ran
across a baking recipe on King Arthur Mills website. It gave a bread
recipe in ounces for both flour and water, but didn't specify what
measure the water was in, fluid or weight. Fortunately, it had a
radio button that instantly converted the recipe to grams. It was
weight for both.

No, you stated that particular problem backward. The problem there is that *you* don't
know something that most other Americans who cook *do* know, namely, that for cooking
purposes, it doesn't matter at all whether you measure 'x' ounces of water by volume or by
weight, because they're almost exactly the same.

To be precise: One quart of water has a volume of 32 fluid ounces or 946 cubic centimeters.
946 cc of water has a mass of 946 grams. One pound (16 ounces weight) is 453.6 grams, so
946 cc of water weighs 946 / 453.6 = 2.08 pounds = 33.37 ounces weight.

Now divide that into 32 fluid ounces volume, and you get -- drum roll, please -- 1 fluid ounce
of water weighs 0.96 ounces.

That's more than close enough for cooking. Nobody cares, because it doesn't matter. The
ignorance on display here is yours, not everyone else's.

My wife is a long time chef, so I asked her how she dealt with recipe
measurements. No measurement that she has used is metric.
It's pretty simple with weight vs volume.
Doesn't matter if it's dry or liquid.
If the recipe says teaspoon, cup, pint, quart, gallon that's the
measure. Volume.
If the recipe says ounces, pounds, it goes on the scale. Weight.
She often weighs flour, rice, etc, and very rarely weighs fluids.
In thousands of recipes she can only remember weighing a fluid a
couple times. Only one she remembers was vinegar.
But you're right that is sometimes doesn't matter.
She said she takes shortcuts with well known recipes.
Like using a scoop she knows contains close to 2 lbs of rice.
Never touches the scale.

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 18:23:43 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .

... if the SAE socket slips I get a metric socket out

Something fits without a slip

Reminds me of the first time I was going to change the spark plugs in my old
Datsun. Went to the Autozone (or whatever) and picked up the plugs. Asked
the man behing the counter about a metric spark plug wrench. He did not
know so we went to the wrench display and did not see a special wrench for
the plugs. Tried several metric sockts and none of them seemed to fit like
they should. Tried a standard American plug wrench and it fit just fine.
Had a few of them at home, so did not buy a a metric wrench that almost fit.
Worked fine. Found out later all plugs at that time were American size.


Spark plugs are hanging on to SAE. I don't much care, but would
rather have one wrench measurement standard.
Why have 2 sets of wrenches?
I can eyeball the needed wrench, except when inch and metric wrenches
are mixed. Some are interchangeable, but others are sloppy or tight
if you grab the wrong one.

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 21:09:12 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 18:23:43 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..

... if the SAE socket slips I get a metric socket out

Something fits without a slip

Reminds me of the first time I was going to change the spark plugs in my old
Datsun. Went to the Autozone (or whatever) and picked up the plugs. Asked
the man behing the counter about a metric spark plug wrench. He did not
know so we went to the wrench display and did not see a special wrench for
the plugs. Tried several metric sockts and none of them seemed to fit like
they should. Tried a standard American plug wrench and it fit just fine.
Had a few of them at home, so did not buy a a metric wrench that almost fit.
Worked fine. Found out later all plugs at that time were American size.


Spark plugs are hanging on to SAE. I don't much care, but would
rather have one wrench measurement standard.
Why have 2 sets of wrenches?
I can eyeball the needed wrench, except when inch and metric wrenches
are mixed. Some are interchangeable, but others are sloppy or tight
if you grab the wrong one.

One think they could do would to make the metal in metric look
different from "standard" bolts. It works with electrical terminals.

In article ,
Vic Smith wrote:

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 18:23:43 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .

... if the SAE socket slips I get a metric socket out

Something fits without a slip

Reminds me of the first time I was going to change the spark plugs in my old
Datsun. Went to the Autozone (or whatever) and picked up the plugs. Asked
the man behing the counter about a metric spark plug wrench. He did not
know so we went to the wrench display and did not see a special wrench for
the plugs. Tried several metric sockts and none of them seemed to fit like
they should. Tried a standard American plug wrench and it fit just fine.
Had a few of them at home, so did not buy a a metric wrench that almost fit.
Worked fine. Found out later all plugs at that time were American size.


Spark plugs are hanging on to SAE. I don't much care, but would
rather have one wrench measurement standard.
Why have 2 sets of wrenches?
I can eyeball the needed wrench, except when inch and metric wrenches
are mixed. Some are interchangeable, but others are sloppy or tight
if you grab the wrong one.

Curious... does anyone know if socket drive sizes are standardized
imperial world wide? You know, 1/4", 3/8", 1/2", 3/4"...

Don't recall ever seeing or hearing of others

Erik