I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?


If asked why I'm interested... I just can't see Boeing shifting to the SI
system when they lead the world in technology using ft, lbs, thrust, Mach
speed, known strengths of material in thousands of pounds per square inch,
BTU required for the thrust, drag, gravity, air pressure in the tires in
lbs/sq/in, and everything they have been designing since that first biplane
that flew the mail from San Fran to Alaska to keep up with the steamships
mail delivery, and later the famous Boeing School of Aeronautics in Oakland
where virtually every world-class aeronautical enterprise used to leverage
themselves into leadership roles.

Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history and
library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the
world myopic desire to metricate?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:06 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:



If asked why I'm interested... I just can't see Boeing shifting to the SI
system when they lead the world in technology using ft, lbs, thrust, Mach
speed, known strengths of material in thousands of pounds per square inch,
BTU required for the thrust, drag, gravity, air pressure in the tires in
lbs/sq/in, and everything they have been designing since that first biplane
that flew the mail from San Fran to Alaska to keep up with the steamships
mail delivery, and later the famous Boeing School of Aeronautics in Oakland
where virtually every world-class aeronautical enterprise used to leverage
themselves into leadership roles.

Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history and
library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the
world myopic desire to metricate?




What makes you think that they do (lead the world, that is)?

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:06 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:


"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Though 3rd angle projection is customary in the US and 1st angle is
more common in Europe and Asia; the choice of one or the other has
nothing to do with the units used. Title blocks include the truncated
cone symbol to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.

...Mach speed ...

Mach numbers are unitless.


Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history and
library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the
world myopic desire to metricate?

A pragmatic recognition of the need to compete in the international
marketplace?

--
Ned Simmons

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:06 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:


"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection
to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Though 3rd angle projection is customary in the US and 1st angle is
more common in Europe and Asia; the choice of one or the other has
nothing to do with the units used. Title blocks include the truncated
cone symbol to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.

...Mach speed ...

Mach numbers are unitless.


Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history
and
library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the
world myopic desire to metricate?

A pragmatic recognition of the need to compete in the international
marketplace?

--
Ned Simmons

Ned, have you looked at the engineering manuals that fill wall to wall
libraries... all in the HP, Lbs, Inch doctrine? Why in the world would we
give it all up when we are the leaders in technology, innovation, invention?

The SI is an elitist figment of imagination with zero value in itself. All
SI units have been copied from other knowledge and add nothing of value to
engineering.

Wake up!

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:06 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:


"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...

I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection

to

be

for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Though 3rd angle projection is customary in the US and 1st angle is
more common in Europe and Asia; the choice of one or the other has
nothing to do with the units used. Title blocks include the truncated
cone symbol to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.


...Mach speed ...

Mach numbers are unitless.


Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history

and

library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the
world myopic desire to metricate?

A pragmatic recognition of the need to compete in the international
marketplace?

--
Ned Simmons


Ned, have you looked at the engineering manuals that fill wall to wall
libraries... all in the HP, Lbs, Inch doctrine? Why in the world would we
give it all up when we are the leaders in technology, innovation, invention?

The SI is an elitist figment of imagination with zero value in itself. All
SI units have been copied from other knowledge and add nothing of value to
engineering.

Wake up!



It was one of the little things the commies did to undermine the US
economy. There was no reason for it.. the system works. Its just like
the present government has started a war that will only cost the average
american over half of his savings in real buying power.

John

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?

Ironically, different divisions of Boeing have different drawing
standards for different reasons, and the standards evolve constantly, as one
would expect, given the different tools available for design. Facilities
uses Autocad, Commercial Aircraft uses CATIA (forgot the name of the system
the 787 uses, which is a bit different) and my tiny little lab uses
Solidworks. You'll find just about every system and standard that exists
all in use at this enormous company that isn't micromanaged so tightly that
someone cares about such things.
Aerospace equipment and standards, having been developed using the
traditional units, are still being made that way, and since they're
expensive due to regulatory issues. Imagine what the price of a rivet would
be now that it has to be redesigned using metric standards and then find
someone who wants to buy them... just so they can pay more? Airbus,
Embraer, and Bombardier all use inch fasteners. Would you as a passenger
think you need to pay more for the plane just because the drawings are done
using one standard over the other.
On the other hand, NASA has made the announcement that all future space
missions will be metric. Don't know how much of that design dictates metric
fasteners, but it'll be interesting. They'd like to avoid the unit
conversion that has resulted in a few embarrassing accidents. My lab will
ask for quotes in both metric and inch, sometimes a mix of both, depending
on the project, the materials, the customer, and the designer. I'm getting
used to working with mixed units, although I'm not to the point I prefer one
over the other.

"Carl McIver" wrote in message
...
"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?

Ironically, different divisions of Boeing have different drawing
standards for different reasons, and the standards evolve constantly, as
one would expect, given the different tools available for design.
Facilities uses Autocad, Commercial Aircraft uses CATIA (forgot the name
of the system the 787 uses, which is a bit different) and my tiny little
lab uses Solidworks. You'll find just about every system and standard
that exists all in use at this enormous company that isn't micromanaged so
tightly that someone cares about such things.
Aerospace equipment and standards, having been developed using the
traditional units, are still being made that way, and since they're
expensive due to regulatory issues. Imagine what the price of a rivet
would be now that it has to be redesigned using metric standards and then
find someone who wants to buy them... just so they can pay more? Airbus,
Embraer, and Bombardier all use inch fasteners. Would you as a passenger
think you need to pay more for the plane just because the drawings are
done using one standard over the other.
On the other hand, NASA has made the announcement that all future space
missions will be metric. Don't know how much of that design dictates
metric fasteners, but it'll be interesting. They'd like to avoid the unit
conversion that has resulted in a few embarrassing accidents. My lab will
ask for quotes in both metric and inch, sometimes a mix of both, depending
on the project, the materials, the customer, and the designer. I'm
getting used to working with mixed units, although I'm not to the point I
prefer one over the other.

That's an interesting story, Carl. I think a lot of pro-metrification folks
fail to separate the advantages metrics offer in scientific and some
engineering calculations from their complete *lack* of advantage in
measurement -- which is what we're talking about, in manufacturing. As soon
as someone starts talking about the conversion of odd, old units in the
traditional "Imperial" system, you realize they aren't talking about the
issue as it really exists. Where it matters, metrics are used in the US.
When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress

Wayne Lundberg wrote:
I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?


Does anyone know? I thought they had been fully converted to
metric for some time. I do have a customer who does a lot of
work for Boeing, I'll ask him next time I'm in contact.

Jon

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

On Sep 15, 2:19 pm, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:
"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message

... I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?

If asked why I'm interested... I just can't see Boeing shifting to the SI
system when they lead the world in technology snip

Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history and
library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the
world myopic desire to metricate?

Thanks!


"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Wayne Lundberg wrote:
I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?


Does anyone know? I thought they had been fully converted to
metric for some time. I do have a customer who does a lot of
work for Boeing, I'll ask him next time I'm in contact.

Jon

Ed Huntress wrote:

That's an interesting story, Carl. I think a lot of pro-metrification folks
fail to separate the advantages metrics offer in scientific and some
engineering calculations from their complete *lack* of advantage in
measurement -- which is what we're talking about, in manufacturing. As soon
as someone starts talking about the conversion of odd, old units in the
traditional "Imperial" system, you realize they aren't talking about the
issue as it really exists. Where it matters, metrics are used in the US.
When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress



Ed

I couldn't agree more. I've worked with both systems as a machinist in
the industry (it's been awhile back) and couldn't really see much
difference other than I was more comfortable with inches as that's what
I used the most. The one exception was really old prints that were
still in fractional inches but nobody serious has used that system since
what, the fifties?

When it comes to typical size parts who really cares if the unit of
measure divides evenly into miles or leagues or rods or whatever. I
suppose as an exercise in metrification one could dimension his parts in
kilometers just to show how cool powers of ten work...

Regards
Paul


--
-----------------------------------------
It's a Linux world....well, it oughta be.
-----------------------------------------

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:4hcHi.1822$fz2.1760@trndny03...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

Sure. If you're doing a calculation involving, say, force, volume, and mass,
metrics usually (but not always) make your work easier. If you're measuring
the diameter of a crankshaft journal, metrics provide no advantage
whatsoever.

Most manufactured metal parts can be measured in inches; we don't get
involved with feet, yards, etc., and the rest of the red herrings that the
pro-metrics folks toss into the discussion. It's mostly inches and decimal
inches.

So the units don't matter. Mathematically, we handle them the same, whether
they're inch or metric. And most of the occasions we have in manufacturing
to use inch (or Imperial) units versus metric ones are cases of linear
measurement.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:37:07 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:4hcHi.1822$fz2.1760@trndny03...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

Sure. If you're doing a calculation involving, say, force, volume, and mass,
metrics usually (but not always) make your work easier. If you're measuring
the diameter of a crankshaft journal, metrics provide no advantage
whatsoever.

Most manufactured metal parts can be measured in inches; we don't get
involved with feet, yards, etc., and the rest of the red herrings that the
pro-metrics folks toss into the discussion. It's mostly inches and decimal
inches.

So the units don't matter. Mathematically, we handle them the same, whether
they're inch or metric. And most of the occasions we have in manufacturing
to use inch (or Imperial) units versus metric ones are cases of linear
measurement.

There is no benefit at all in using metric measure... other than the fact that
pretty well the entire rest of the world uses it. In modern manufacturing
outside the USA, Imperial measure is an historical curiosity and children
haven't been taught Imperial measure for two or three decades even in the UK.
If you want to sell to the rest of the world, think metric. If you want to buy
from the rest of the world, think metric.

I'll even have a dual inch/metric machine in the workshop when I finish
refurbishing it... it's a Hardinge HLV :-). everything else is Imperial, but I
do have metric micrometers up to 100mm for when they're needed.


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:37:07 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:4hcHi.1822$fz2.1760@trndny03...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

Sure. If you're doing a calculation involving, say, force, volume, and
mass,
metrics usually (but not always) make your work easier. If you're
measuring
the diameter of a crankshaft journal, metrics provide no advantage
whatsoever.

Most manufactured metal parts can be measured in inches; we don't get
involved with feet, yards, etc., and the rest of the red herrings that the
pro-metrics folks toss into the discussion. It's mostly inches and decimal
inches.

So the units don't matter. Mathematically, we handle them the same,
whether
they're inch or metric. And most of the occasions we have in manufacturing
to use inch (or Imperial) units versus metric ones are cases of linear
measurement.

There is no benefit at all in using metric measure... other than the fact
that
pretty well the entire rest of the world uses it.

Yeah, that's what I said. There's no benefit to it, the rest of the world
uses it. g

In modern manufacturing
outside the USA, Imperial measure is an historical curiosity and children
haven't been taught Imperial measure for two or three decades even in the
UK.
If you want to sell to the rest of the world, think metric. If you want to
buy
from the rest of the world, think metric.

We're doing one hell of a lot of each and we think in both inch and metric.


I'll even have a dual inch/metric machine in the workshop when I finish
refurbishing it... it's a Hardinge HLV :-). everything else is Imperial,
but I
do have metric micrometers up to 100mm for when they're needed.

So do I.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 15, 4:03 pm, Mark Rand wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:06 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"





wrote:

If asked why I'm interested... I just can't see Boeing shifting to the SI
system when they lead the world in technology using ft, lbs, thrust, Mach
speed, known strengths of material in thousands of pounds per square inch,
BTU required for the thrust, drag, gravity, air pressure in the tires in
lbs/sq/in, and everything they have been designing since that first biplane
that flew the mail from San Fran to Alaska to keep up with the steamships
mail delivery, and later the famous Boeing School of Aeronautics in Oakland
where virtually every world-class aeronautical enterprise used to leverage
themselves into leadership roles.

Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history and
library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the
world myopic desire to metricate?

What makes you think that they do (lead the world, that is)?

Mark Rand
RTFM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What system does China use?

That will be the future.

TMT

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?


Actually, the dimensioning thing is not my concern. But since Boeing flew
his first biplane from Seattle to Alaska to deliver the mail to steamships
going to the orient, they have used ft/lb/hp in the design of their
aircraft. I've heard their technical library which contains info on every
accident, every experiment, every change in design covers at least one acre,
almost as big as the Library of Congress.

To think of having to go in there and edit every experiment, every discovery
to metrics is absolutely absurd if not insane. Why in the world would the
worlds leader in aviation technology give away their power to Airbus and the
like?

In fact... someplace else in this thread I started in several newsgroups,
somebody said airbus designers use ft/lb/hp.

It's not the fasteners nor miles per liters in the common fodder environment
of sheeple, its in the basic design of the stuff we invent and lead the
world in.

Again... why would we in the US convert all our technology into metrics so
the rest of the world will have it easier in copying it?

That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!

OK... got carried away there. Delete last sentence if it offends you.

Wayne

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:4hcHi.1822$fz2.1760@trndny03...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

Sure. If you're doing a calculation involving, say, force, volume, and
mass, metrics usually (but not always) make your work easier. If you're
measuring the diameter of a crankshaft journal, metrics provide no
advantage whatsoever.

Most manufactured metal parts can be measured in inches; we don't get
involved with feet, yards, etc., and the rest of the red herrings that the
pro-metrics folks toss into the discussion. It's mostly inches and decimal
inches.

So the units don't matter. Mathematically, we handle them the same,
whether they're inch or metric. And most of the occasions we have in
manufacturing to use inch (or Imperial) units versus metric ones are cases
of linear measurement.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, thanks for the insight. I do agree that most machining can be done in
inches and decimal parts thereof. However, at some point you still have to
reach for a drill and get involved with fractions and letter designations.
That part of the process could use some improvement. Why don't they simply
make/package drills in decimal inches?

Ivan Vegvary

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:hMjHi.1854$fz2.67@trndny03...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:4hcHi.1822$fz2.1760@trndny03...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

Sure. If you're doing a calculation involving, say, force, volume, and
mass, metrics usually (but not always) make your work easier. If you're
measuring the diameter of a crankshaft journal, metrics provide no
advantage whatsoever.

Most manufactured metal parts can be measured in inches; we don't get
involved with feet, yards, etc., and the rest of the red herrings that
the pro-metrics folks toss into the discussion. It's mostly inches and
decimal inches.

So the units don't matter. Mathematically, we handle them the same,
whether they're inch or metric. And most of the occasions we have in
manufacturing to use inch (or Imperial) units versus metric ones are
cases of linear measurement.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, thanks for the insight. I do agree that most machining can be done in
inches and decimal parts thereof. However, at some point you still have
to reach for a drill and get involved with fractions and letter
designations. That part of the process could use some improvement. Why
don't they simply make/package drills in decimal inches?

Ivan Vegvary

Actually, they do, if you're buying in quantity and you buy from somebody
who supplies volume manufacturers. But the answer to your question is that
it's one of those old traditions that are hard to break.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:24:55 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:



Again... why would we in the US convert all our technology into metrics so
the rest of the world will have it easier in copying it?

That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!


Oh, come on. Do you think anyone with the smarts to take advantage of
US technological advances will be discouraged if they have to multiply
by 25.4?

I work in both systems every day designing factory automation and
tooling. Most of the products I deal with are competing globally and
are specified in metric units. The equipment I build is designed, for
the most part, in US customary units. My CAD system deals seamlessly
with mixed units, my machines have DROs, and though I have a better
intuitive feel for a half-thou than 10 microns, working in metric
doesn't slow me down. I bet there are folks overseas every bit as
clever as me - in fact I've even met a few.

--
Ned Simmons

Ivan Vegvary wrote:



Ed, thanks for the insight. I do agree that most machining can be done in
inches and decimal parts thereof. However, at some point you still have to
reach for a drill and get involved with fractions and letter designations.
That part of the process could use some improvement. Why don't they simply
make/package drills in decimal inches?

Ivan Vegvary


Your drill indexes and wall charts do not list decimal sizes?

The three indexes in my tool box, all have the decimal equivalent on
them. The wall chart I use most, has a list of all the "normal" drills
in decimal inch, as well as decimal mm from smallest to largest, showing
the sequence of sizes, of normally stocked drills in the 4 systems that
we use (number, letter fraction, metric).

I am pretty sure we could ****can the whole thing, if we just stocked
the metric sizes in tenths all the way up to, say 25mm, but there would
be a lot that never got used, eh!

Cheers
Trevor Jones

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...

I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to

be

for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?



Actually, the dimensioning thing is not my concern. But since Boeing flew
his first biplane from Seattle to Alaska to deliver the mail to steamships
going to the orient, they have used ft/lb/hp in the design of their
aircraft. I've heard their technical library which contains info on every
accident, every experiment, every change in design covers at least one acre,
almost as big as the Library of Congress.

To think of having to go in there and edit every experiment, every discovery
to metrics is absolutely absurd if not insane. Why in the world would the
worlds leader in aviation technology give away their power to Airbus and the
like?

In fact... someplace else in this thread I started in several newsgroups,
somebody said airbus designers use ft/lb/hp.

It's not the fasteners nor miles per liters in the common fodder environment
of sheeple, its in the basic design of the stuff we invent and lead the
world in.

Again... why would we in the US convert all our technology into metrics so
the rest of the world will have it easier in copying it?

That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!

OK... got carried away there. Delete last sentence if it offends you.

Wayne



You should explain your theories on metrication to the folks at the GM
plant and see how it fits in.

There's lots of room in the human brain for learning a new thing or
two. Like it or not, metric is all around you.

It's the great thing about standards! There are so many to choose
from! :-)

Just another standard.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:48:24 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:37:07 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:4hcHi.1822$fz2.1760@trndny03...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

Sure. If you're doing a calculation involving, say, force, volume, and mass,
metrics usually (but not always) make your work easier. If you're measuring
the diameter of a crankshaft journal, metrics provide no advantage
whatsoever.

Most manufactured metal parts can be measured in inches; we don't get
involved with feet, yards, etc., and the rest of the red herrings that the
pro-metrics folks toss into the discussion. It's mostly inches and decimal
inches.

So the units don't matter. Mathematically, we handle them the same, whether
they're inch or metric. And most of the occasions we have in manufacturing
to use inch (or Imperial) units versus metric ones are cases of linear
measurement.

There is no benefit at all in using metric measure... other than the fact that
pretty well the entire rest of the world uses it. In modern manufacturing
outside the USA, Imperial measure is an historical curiosity and children
haven't been taught Imperial measure for two or three decades even in the UK.
If you want to sell to the rest of the world, think metric. If you want to buy
from the rest of the world, think metric.

I'll even have a dual inch/metric machine in the workshop when I finish
refurbishing it... it's a Hardinge HLV :-). everything else is Imperial, but I
do have metric micrometers up to 100mm for when they're needed.


Mark Rand
RTFM
SWMBO is currently baby sitting 3 grand daughters in the other London,
having one hell of a time trying to cook in metric. She has been
ignoring the metric system here in the dominion in the hope that it
will go away. She says they don't have measuring cups or spoons or
anything useful to work with there! Even the ovens are all wrong and
she burns things.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:03:23 -0700, the renowned Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Sep 15, 4:03 pm, Mark Rand wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:06 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"





wrote:

If asked why I'm interested... I just can't see Boeing shifting to the SI
system when they lead the world in technology using ft, lbs, thrust, Mach
speed, known strengths of material in thousands of pounds per square inch,
BTU required for the thrust, drag, gravity, air pressure in the tires in
lbs/sq/in, and everything they have been designing since that first biplane
that flew the mail from San Fran to Alaska to keep up with the steamships
mail delivery, and later the famous Boeing School of Aeronautics in Oakland
where virtually every world-class aeronautical enterprise used to leverage
themselves into leadership roles.

Why would there be a reason for them to go through their whole history and
library of data from endless successes and failures in order to meet the
world myopic desire to metricate?

What makes you think that they do (lead the world, that is)?

Mark Rand
RTFM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What system does China use?

That will be the future.

TMT

Metric, which is fine with me, but also first-angle orthographic
projection (as opposed to North American 3rd angle projection), which
I really don't like.

They also will happily make stuff with Imperial fasteners, NPT
fittings etc. if export markets demand it and pay enough for it to be
worthwhile.

This seems like a non-issue to me. Any modern 3D modelling system
works in internal units than can be switched to whichever system you
like (including dual units) without changing the underlying model. I
am designing some systems for aircraft, and we use a mix of mm and
inches, usually kg for mass, usually Imperial fasteners (because
they're cheaper and more available), but it's not really much of an
issue in this corner of the real world. Getting used to GD&T seems
like more of a hassle.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Sep 16, 3:24 pm, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:
"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message

... I've seen a few RFQs from Boeing subs showing CAD drawings using the
traditional right-side-up cone indicating the orthographic projection to
be
for standard Imperial ft/inch/lb.

Has anybody seen any RFQs from Boeing calling for metric dimensioning?

Actually, the dimensioning thing is not my concern. But since Boeing flew
his first biplane from Seattle to Alaska to deliver the mail to steamships
going to the orient, they have used ft/lb/hp in the design of their
aircraft. I've heard their technical library which contains info on every
accident, every experiment, every change in design covers at least one acre,
almost as big as the Library of Congress.

To think of having to go in there and edit every experiment, every discovery
to metrics is absolutely absurd if not insane. Why in the world would the
worlds leader in aviation technology give away their power to Airbus and the
like?

In fact... someplace else in this thread I started in several newsgroups,
somebody said airbus designers use ft/lb/hp.

It's not the fasteners nor miles per liters in the common fodder environment
of sheeple, its in the basic design of the stuff we invent and lead the
world in.

Again... why would we in the US convert all our technology into metrics so
the rest of the world will have it easier in copying it?

That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!

OK... got carried away there. Delete last sentence if it offends you.

Wayne


That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!


Who's the queen?

Senator Craig?

Metric is here to stay...and as globalization increases, American
companies will be at a serious disadvantage trying to keep two
different inventories.

TMT

"Trevor Jones" wrote in message
news:tzlHi.55419$bO6.18635@edtnps89...
Ivan Vegvary wrote:



Ed, thanks for the insight. I do agree that most machining can be done
in inches and decimal parts thereof. However, at some point you still
have to reach for a drill and get involved with fractions and letter
designations. That part of the process could use some improvement. Why
don't they simply make/package drills in decimal inches?

Ivan Vegvary
Your drill indexes and wall charts do not list decimal sizes?

The three indexes in my tool box, all have the decimal equivalent on
them. The wall chart I use most, has a list of all the "normal" drills in
decimal inch, as well as decimal mm from smallest to largest, showing the
sequence of sizes, of normally stocked drills in the 4 systems that we use
(number, letter fraction, metric).

I am pretty sure we could ****can the whole thing, if we just stocked the
metric sizes in tenths all the way up to, say 25mm, but there would be a
lot that never got used, eh!

Cheers
Trevor Jones

Thanks Trevor,
I have all the charts and indexes. Since a 64th is approximately 15 thou
why don't we simply label drills in increments of either ten thousandths or
15 thousandths. It would eliminate all of the charts.

Ivan Vegvary

Ivan Vegvary wrote:
"Trevor Jones" wrote in message
news:tzlHi.55419$bO6.18635@edtnps89...

Ivan Vegvary wrote:



Ed, thanks for the insight. I do agree that most machining can be done
in inches and decimal parts thereof. However, at some point you still
have to reach for a drill and get involved with fractions and letter
designations. That part of the process could use some improvement. Why
don't they simply make/package drills in decimal inches?

Ivan Vegvary

Your drill indexes and wall charts do not list decimal sizes?

The three indexes in my tool box, all have the decimal equivalent on
them. The wall chart I use most, has a list of all the "normal" drills in
decimal inch, as well as decimal mm from smallest to largest, showing the
sequence of sizes, of normally stocked drills in the 4 systems that we use
(number, letter fraction, metric).

I am pretty sure we could ****can the whole thing, if we just stocked the
metric sizes in tenths all the way up to, say 25mm, but there would be a
lot that never got used, eh!

Cheers
Trevor Jones


Thanks Trevor,
I have all the charts and indexes. Since a 64th is approximately 15 thou
why don't we simply label drills in increments of either ten thousandths or
15 thousandths. It would eliminate all of the charts.

Ivan Vegvary



We could, and then we would need charts and indexes that told us which
one was the one that matched up with the required hole size, esp when
dealing with legacy standards. That would also leave out a pile of sizes
that would not fit nicely into the spacing, sorta like why we have
number and letter sizes, instead of just 64ths or 128ths fractional sets.

Making a law that "Thou sall be Metric henceforth!!) did not change
any of the stuff that was already in place. Houses built to inch
dimensions will be around for a while yet. The land survey of Canada (at
least the prairies) is laid out in neat 1 mile by 2 mile grids.
Etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum. (my latin for the day!:-))

Canada tried that. Metric by decree. Then they found that, in order to
be of any use at all, civil engineers, for example, had to be able to
read the drawings that were done 100 or so years back, and make sense of
them, so they started teaching both systems again. I can buy a
yardstick, if I want to!!



If I get the ghist of it right, that was the intent of the metric
system in the first place, to reduce the number of systems in use. It
just added another.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

Ivan Vegvary wrote:
"Trevor Jones" wrote in message
news:tzlHi.55419$bO6.18635@edtnps89...

Ivan Vegvary wrote:



Ed, thanks for the insight. I do agree that most machining can be done
in inches and decimal parts thereof. However, at some point you still
have to reach for a drill and get involved with fractions and letter
designations. That part of the process could use some improvement. Why
don't they simply make/package drills in decimal inches?

Ivan Vegvary

Your drill indexes and wall charts do not list decimal sizes?

The three indexes in my tool box, all have the decimal equivalent on
them. The wall chart I use most, has a list of all the "normal" drills in
decimal inch, as well as decimal mm from smallest to largest, showing the
sequence of sizes, of normally stocked drills in the 4 systems that we use
(number, letter fraction, metric).

I am pretty sure we could ****can the whole thing, if we just stocked the
metric sizes in tenths all the way up to, say 25mm, but there would be a
lot that never got used, eh!

Cheers
Trevor Jones


Thanks Trevor,
I have all the charts and indexes. Since a 64th is approximately 15 thou
why don't we simply label drills in increments of either ten thousandths or
15 thousandths. It would eliminate all of the charts.

Tradition and tolerance buildup.

Ivan Vegvary wrote:
.. Why don't they simply
make/package drills in decimal inches?

Mostly, they do. All of my drill index boxes have the decimal
inch size listed right by the size "designator". I have number,
letter and fraction series drills, but the fractions are
basically just another "size designator", like #43, or letter M.
I work by the decimal inch size.

Jon

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:31:25 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:


That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!

OK... got carried away there. Delete last sentence if it offends you.

Wayne



You should explain your theories on metrication to the folks at the GM
plant and see how it fits in.

There's lots of room in the human brain for learning a new thing or
two. Like it or not, metric is all around you.

It's the great thing about standards! There are so many to choose
from! :-)

Just another standard.

Cheers
Trevor Jones


I wish someone would tell the Big Three to make up their minds.

I need both standard and metric to work on just about any car made
after 1985

Gunner

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

Again... why would we in the US convert all our technology into metrics so
the rest of the world will have it easier in copying it?

Brilliant copy protection! :-)))

But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank
God!

You need a reality-update!
http://www.metalworkinginsider.info/scoreboard.htm



Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:04:10 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:





If I get the ghist of it right, that was the intent of the metric
system in the first place, to reduce the number of systems in use. It
just added another.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

the intent was to base the systems on interrelated values rather than
arbitrary values with conversion factors between them.

a litre of water is a thousand cc's and weighs a kilo.

as opposed to 23 and a half kilderkirkins weighing 2 cwt 56 lbs 31
ounces in king james footric measures. :-) ....sorta thing

I do most of my work with a vernier marked out in mm and in 128ths of
an inch. it is wonderful and direct. whichever system gives me
fractionless numbers gets the nod.

Stealth Pilot

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:31:25 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:


That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!

OK... got carried away there. Delete last sentence if it offends you.

Wayne



You should explain your theories on metrication to the folks at the GM
plant and see how it fits in.

There's lots of room in the human brain for learning a new thing or
two. Like it or not, metric is all around you.

It's the great thing about standards! There are so many to choose
from! :-)

Just another standard.

Cheers
Trevor Jones



I wish someone would tell the Big Three to make up their minds.

I need both standard and metric to work on just about any car made
after 1985

Gunner


Yeah.

Another case of legacy, biting a manufacturer in the ass. The tooling
on the line is still working, so they keep pounding out parts at the
subcontractor level, and they keep getting installed at the assembly plant.

GM has been using metric bolts in their trannys since when, mid
seventies? IIRC their trannies went all metric, quite a while before the
rest of the chassis did.

The Brit bike industry went through a similar mish-mash approach, when
they went Unified in the late 60's. Lots of Whitworth and Ba threads
showing up on them well into the last days of their industry.

I do know that a friend of mine called me in the wee hours of the
morning, swearing, as he needed a 17mm socket to reach the flywheel
bolts on his GM truck. He also, was a metric holdout. He's starting to
see the necessity, though he does not like it.

Digital measuring tools make it a push of the button to check the
dimension to see where it fits into the scheme best.


Cheers
Trevor Jones

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:04:10 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:





If I get the ghist of it right, that was the intent of the metric
system in the first place, to reduce the number of systems in use. It
just added another.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

the intent was to base the systems on interrelated values rather than
arbitrary values with conversion factors between them.

a litre of water is a thousand cc's and weighs a kilo.

as opposed to 23 and a half kilderkirkins weighing 2 cwt 56 lbs 31
ounces in king james footric measures. :-) ....sorta thing

I do most of my work with a vernier marked out in mm and in 128ths of
an inch. it is wonderful and direct. whichever system gives me
fractionless numbers gets the nod.

How do you get "fractionless numbers" in inch, when your vernier is marked
in fractions? I don't get it.

As for the arbitrary units, I don't know of any that actually involve
conversions in practical use. The units in practical use generally have
whole-number relationships.

And beyond the largely illusory advantages of metrics in dimensional
measurement, the supposed advantages of metrics' "interrelatedness" break
down. Units of force, for example: the Newton equals roughly 0.101 972
kilograms of force (kgf). The cussedness of natural phenomena (defining a
unit in terms of acceleration, for example, when its common use is as a
measure of force) gets in the way of numerical elegance. Note the "roughly."
Also note the lengthy decimal. There are many other such examples.

I'm not suggesting that the metric system is in any way "inferior." I'm just
pointing out that its supposed advantages are vastly overblown.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Units of force, for example: the Newton equals roughly 0.101 972
kilograms of force (kgf).

There is no such thing as "kgf". Outdated since decades and no
longer "legal".

The cussedness of natural phenomena (defining a
unit in terms of acceleration, for example, when its common use is as a
measure of force) gets in the way of numerical elegance.

It's no wonder. The gramm is a unit of mass. Period. Never was different. It
certainly is inelegant when used as force. The only thing getting in the
way is an unknowing user. :-))



Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de

"Nick Mueller" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Units of force, for example: the Newton equals roughly 0.101 972
kilograms of force (kgf).

There is no such thing as "kgf". Outdated since decades and no
longer "legal".

Pffft. That wasn't the point. The micron isn't "legal," under the SI either,
but everybody uses it, because "micrometer" can be ambiguous, since it's
also the name of an instrument. Neither are the calorie, torr, gauss,
maxwell, or oersted "legal," but they're all widely used in different
sciences.

The point is that the standard units don't necessarily relate *in whole
numbers* to the things we actually measure. Trying to be neat and tidy,
metrics sometimes shoots itself in its own foot.


The point is

The cussedness of natural phenomena (defining a
unit in terms of acceleration, for example, when its common use is as a
measure of force) gets in the way of numerical elegance.

It's no wonder. The gramm is a unit of mass. Period. Never was different.
It
certainly is inelegant when used as force. The only thing getting in the
way is an unknowing user. :-))

Nonsense. The Newton is defined in terms of kilograms, as well. It's just
that it's defined in terms of acceleration rather than as force itself.

You sound like one of those pro-metrics folks who make up all of this
supposed neatness of the metric system, Nick, and then wonder how everyone
else doesn't agree with you. Those of us who don't agree with you are the
ones who actually have used those units. They aren't all that neat.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

The point is that the standard units don't necessarily relate *in whole
numbers* to the things we actually measure. Trying to be neat and tidy,
metrics sometimes shoots itself in its own foot.

The "problem" is the acceleration on earth (depending on *where* you measure
it). It is 9.81m/s^2. Thus the factor of 0.1... to "convert" (it is *no*
conversion) mass to force.
F = m * a

Maybe you find a planet where a = 10 m/s^2. :-)


Nonsense. The Newton is defined in terms of kilograms, as well. It's just
that it's defined in terms of acceleration rather than as force itself.

You didn't understand the SI-system. It is based on **as** **few** **as**
**possible** units, the rest is derived/partially defined by them.
They a kg, s, K


You sound like one of those pro-metrics folks who make up all of this
supposed neatness of the metric system, Nick, and then wonder how everyone
else doesn't agree with you.

I don't wonder of anybody who doesn't agree but at the same time doesn't
understand the difference between mass and force.

I only have to look at the domain-dependant units of pound, pondal, pound
force and whatever to see what mess it is.

Read about the SI-system before you talk about it.

Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de

"Nick Mueller" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

The point is that the standard units don't necessarily relate *in whole
numbers* to the things we actually measure. Trying to be neat and tidy,
metrics sometimes shoots itself in its own foot.

The "problem" is the acceleration on earth (depending on *where* you
measure
it). It is 9.81m/s^2. Thus the factor of 0.1... to "convert" (it is *no*
conversion) mass to force.
F = m * a

Maybe you find a planet where a = 10 m/s^2. :-)

There probably is no such planet, which makes my point. The natural world
and natural phenomena do not succumb to attempts to make "rationalized"
multi-dimensional systems of measurement, most particularly systems that try
to build everything from a minimum (seven, in the case of the SI) number of
base units, which are themselves derived from only three fundamental units.

It works great in theory and doubtless it's an aid to many scientists
working in many fields. For others, including the field of medicine, where
I've been writing for the past few years, it simply results in a lot of
clumsy derived units. Thus, you'll see older CGS units mixed with SI units
in many fields, as a simple matter of practicality.



Nonsense. The Newton is defined in terms of kilograms, as well. It's just
that it's defined in terms of acceleration rather than as force itself.

You didn't understand the SI-system. It is based on **as** **few** **as**
**possible** units, the rest is derived/partially defined by them.
They a kg, s, K

Yes, from which the base units of the metre, the kilogram, the second, the
ampere, the kelvin, the mole, and the candela are defined. And then dozens
of other units are derived.

It's a theoretically elegent system. By using those base units, the SI
committee has developed a system that is theoretically coherent and
conceptually minimalist, but which also forces you to keep things in your
head that are far abstracted from what you're actually measuring, or to
memorize the system without thought -- which obviates any "rational"
advantage the system may have, in much practical use.

Again, we're not arguing over the advantages of the SI system to a scientist
performing elaborate calculations about celestial bodies and their
photometric properties, or remotely measuring their mass and angular
velocity. We're talking about the everyday measurements that make up the
vast majority of numerical evaluations made by people in the world. For
them, defining the unit of force in terms of acceleration, when they're
interested in how big they'll have to make a support to keep a cistern off
the ground, forces them to use (if they're using SI units), abstractions
that they'll have to memorize or convert roughly into something sensible --
the weight of that cistern when it's full of water. They're forced to use
Newtons, when what they're dealing with is kilograms of force, or pounds, if
they're so inclined.



You sound like one of those pro-metrics folks who make up all of this
supposed neatness of the metric system, Nick, and then wonder how
everyone
else doesn't agree with you.

I don't wonder of anybody who doesn't agree but at the same time doesn't
understand the difference between mass and force.

I understand it quite well, thank you very much. The traditional units of
force have been defined quite precisely in terms that are perfectly
acceptable to the stickiest proponent of the SI. The latter just don't like
those derived units. They're inelegant. They're also very useful.


I only have to look at the domain-dependant units of pound, pondal, pound
force and whatever to see what mess it is.

I don't know anyone who uses pondals, and the pound, both as a unit of force
and as a unit of mass, is quite handy within its domain.

I am not domain-independent. I am not trying to write the General Theory of
Relativity. Neither are you, and neither is (almost) anyone else.


Read about the SI-system before you talk about it.

You really can be annoying at times, Nick. It's very unlikely that you've
read as much about the SI system as I have, unless you spent more than a
year, as I did, outlining a book on quality assurance.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:24:55 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:



Again... why would we in the US convert all our technology into metrics
so
the rest of the world will have it easier in copying it?

That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank
God!


Oh, come on. Do you think anyone with the smarts to take advantage of
US technological advances will be discouraged if they have to multiply
by 25.4?

I work in both systems every day designing factory automation and
tooling. Most of the products I deal with are competing globally and
are specified in metric units. The equipment I build is designed, for
the most part, in US customary units. My CAD system deals seamlessly
with mixed units, my machines have DROs, and though I have a better
intuitive feel for a half-thou than 10 microns, working in metric
doesn't slow me down. I bet there are folks overseas every bit as
clever as me - in fact I've even met a few.

--
Ned Simmons

I'm with you Ned, I can convert at will and it does not bother me. But my
question has yet to be answered by anybody in this long and interesting
thread.

Has Boeing gone metric? Not only in machined details, but basic design
critera as to load, power, thrust, weight, HP requirements, fuel
consumption, etc. For example... are hydraulic systems now labeled in
Newtons or still in lbs/sq/in?

Because nobody in the US, nor repair centers around the world know what the
heck a Newton is on a machine label. They sure understand HP and PSI.

Wayne