In uk.d-i-y, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
Also seems common with haberdashery for want of a better word.

And furniture retailers.

There's nothing inherently wrong with cm as far as I can see.

Only if they don't specify it.

If you're describing a chest of drawers as H90 x W100 x D49 it should be
pretty obvious how big it is. In the overall scheme of things missing
off the "cm" is a pretty small problem.

If I give a metric measurement it will be
in mm or metres - say 2.4, etc.

Commendable, but for furniture sales, to the nearest mm is overkill,
fractions of a mm more so.

And you don't normally say it is
millimetres - if I said 255 x 450 most would assume mm - but as I said
some assume cm.

Agreed, that could be a problem, the combination of no units and no
common sense.

--
Mike Barnes

On 2008-06-08 09:37:35 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

If cutting MDF to box in pipes, I would assume mm, but if building a
deck I'd assume cm.

Would you?

If mm were used, both are very obvious.

But measurements like 1750 and 1705 are easily mixed up - by me anyway. 175
& 170.5 is clearer

Digital dyslexia?

175.0 and 170.5 would have the same issue as 1750 and 1705.

Anyway, measure twice, cut once applies...

In article et,
says...


Or don't know the difference in the first place. Personally I use what
ever produces "nice" numbers, 18" is easier to remember and measure than
457mm.

Agreed, and then there's the implied accuracy. "About 18 inches" and
"About 457mm" have different meanings to me. One I can cut quickly
without careful marking-out and the other needs a scribed line and
cutting on the waste side of it. I was taught to display enough figures
to define the implied accuracy required of the measurement. Putting
everything in mm implies working to about plus or minus 1/32" to me :-)

One day, we'll get rid of our silly metric equivalents and speak of
"About 450mm" as done in metric countries (or better - half a meter).
Why do we have to have stock timber lengths in mm rather than meters???
Even by eye, I can see they are all different lengths, when measured to
mm accuracy...

--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Only if they don't specify it. If I give a metric measurement it will
be in mm or metres - say 2.4, etc. And you don't normally say it is
millimetres - if I said 255 x 450 most would assume mm - but as I
said some assume cm.

I would, depending on the context.

If cutting MDF to box in pipes, I would assume mm, but if building a
deck I'd assume cm.

Why bother? Easier to simply use metres with a decimal point - ie 2.35 or
whatever. Centimetres just confuse.
But I know why they are attractive. The inch was chosen as it is
approximately the length of the top part of the thumb. (Rule of thumb). So
instinctively some go for a metric measure that they can visualise. And
that certainly isn't the mm. With the metre being too large.

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

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

On 2008-06-08 11:01:58 +0100, John Weston said:

In article et,
says...


Or don't know the difference in the first place. Personally I use what
ever produces "nice" numbers, 18" is easier to remember and measure than
457mm.

Agreed, and then there's the implied accuracy. "About 18 inches" and
"About 457mm" have different meanings to me. One I can cut quickly
without careful marking-out and the other needs a scribed line and
cutting on the waste side of it. I was taught to display enough figures
to define the implied accuracy required of the measurement.

That's true, although generally applies to decimal places.

Putting
everything in mm implies working to about plus or minus 1/32" to me :-)

I haven't used the deprecated imperial units for many years.

The correct way, in any system of measurement would be to quote a
tolerance with the measurement - e.g. thickness of 25mm +/- 0.2 and so
on



One day, we'll get rid of our silly metric equivalents and speak of
"About 450mm" as done in metric countries (or better - half a meter).
Why do we have to have stock timber lengths in mm rather than meters???

Because we still haven't truly abandoned the shackles of the past and
moved into the brave new world of metric.

If we had done so, then sheet materials would be supplied as 2500 x
1250 rather than 2440 x 1220. Pots of jam would all be in 500g
sizes rather than 454g and so on.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2008-06-07, geoff wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes

There's nothing inherently wrong with cm as far as I can see.

They are just not correct sub units

The metrication fascist's mask slips and we see what is beneath. The
bureaucrat. "Rules is rules". Never mind what *you* want, the rules are
there to be obeyed.

There are enough mistakes made through the wrong interpretation of
measurements without introducing more. What you use within your own house
etc of course doesn't matter.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

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

On 2008-06-08 11:52:31 +0100, Huge said:

On 2008-06-07, geoff wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes

There's nothing inherently wrong with cm as far as I can see.

They are just not correct sub units

The metrication fascist's mask slips and we see what is beneath. The
bureaucrat.
"Rules is rules". Never mind what *you* want, the rules are there to be obeyed.

But we could have had the fun of the Revolutionary Calendar....

Today is the 10th of Prairial; aka Fourche.

Weeks consist of ten days so that more can be done in the working week
and every 10th day is named after a tool. This was before bricolage
places were closed on Sundays.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-08 11:01:58 +0100, John Weston said:

In article et,
says...


Or don't know the difference in the first place. Personally I use what
ever produces "nice" numbers, 18" is easier to remember and measure than
457mm.

Agreed, and then there's the implied accuracy. "About 18 inches" and
"About 457mm" have different meanings to me. One I can cut quickly
without careful marking-out and the other needs a scribed line and
cutting on the waste side of it. I was taught to display enough figures
to define the implied accuracy required of the measurement.

That's true, although generally applies to decimal places.

Putting
everything in mm implies working to about plus or minus 1/32" to me :-)

I haven't used the deprecated imperial units for many years.

The correct way, in any system of measurement would be to quote a
tolerance with the measurement - e.g. thickness of 25mm +/- 0.2 and so on



One day, we'll get rid of our silly metric equivalents and speak of
"About 450mm" as done in metric countries (or better - half a meter).
Why do we have to have stock timber lengths in mm rather than meters???

Because we still haven't truly abandoned the shackles of the past and
moved into the brave new world of metric.

If we had done so, then sheet materials would be supplied as 2500 x 1250
rather than 2440 x 1220. Pots of jam would all be in 500g sizes
rather than 454g and so on.


And I for one would appreciate ceiling heights being raised by the 60mm
(or so) that is implied in using full, uncut sheets of the larger size.
Ceteris paribus.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
Also seems common with haberdashery for want of a better word.
And furniture retailers.
There's nothing inherently wrong with cm as far as I can see.
Only if they don't specify it.

If you're describing a chest of drawers as H90 x W100 x D49 it should be
pretty obvious how big it is. In the overall scheme of things missing
off the "cm" is a pretty small problem.

If I give a metric measurement it will be
in mm or metres - say 2.4, etc.

Commendable, but for furniture sales, to the nearest mm is overkill,
fractions of a mm more so.

And you don't normally say it is
millimetres - if I said 255 x 450 most would assume mm - but as I said
some assume cm.

Agreed, that could be a problem, the combination of no units and no
common sense.


So you have never ended up on a site thinking "That bit of furniture
will just fit nicely". And then found it was a doll's house site? :-)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:08:49 +0100, Rod wrote:

So you have never ended up on a site thinking "That bit of furniture
will just fit nicely". And then found it was a doll's house site? :-)

Whoa don't go there! No.1 Daughter is decorating the dolls house I built.
There is amazing confusion, they'll have a moulded plastic sheet of 150mm
tiles say 15 tiles wide and 20 long, the actual sheet is smaller than A3.
Yes it's all in the 1/12th scaling but refering to something with the same
number and units as the real thing really does boggle the mind, They
sometimes use real world size measurements and units but as the size of
scale objects so the tiles above would be refered to as 12.5mm... ARGH!

--
Cheers
Dave.

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Who does the approving, and more importantly, why should furniture
retailers care about their "approval"?

According to my reference book the details of SI metric were agreed at
an international conference in 1960 and adopted by the ISO
(International Standards Organisation) and the IEC (International
Electrotechnical Commission).

--
Roger Chapman

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:05:12 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:08:49 +0100, Rod wrote:

So you have never ended up on a site thinking "That bit of furniture
will just fit nicely". And then found it was a doll's house site? :-)

Whoa don't go there! No.1 Daughter is decorating the dolls house I built.
There is amazing confusion, they'll have a moulded plastic sheet of 150mm
tiles say 15 tiles wide and 20 long, the actual sheet is smaller than A3.
Yes it's all in the 1/12th scaling but refering to something with the same
number and units as the real thing really does boggle the mind, They
sometimes use real world size measurements and units but as the size of
scale objects so the tiles above would be refered to as 12.5mm... ARGH!

See all the bother caused by this 'metric' system?

Should stick to good old feet and inches - you know it makes sense.

:-)

--
Frank
Foot, pint and pound are perfectly sound.

In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
And you don't normally say it is
millimetres - if I said 255 x 450 most would assume mm - but as I said
some assume cm.

Agreed, that could be a problem, the combination of no units and no
common sense.

'Common sense' shouldn't be needed with a measurement which is an
absolute. What makes sense to you may not to another.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

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

The message
from Huge contains these words:

Who does the approving, and more importantly, why should furniture
retailers care about their "approval"?

According to my reference book the details of SI metric were agreed at
an international conference in 1960 and adopted by the ISO
(International Standards Organisation) and the IEC (International
Electrotechnical Commission).

And the answer to the second question?

Is probably irrelevant. It would help the manufacturers however if they
sang from the same hymn sheet as their suppliers, and the common hymn
sheet, for better or worse, is ISO metric.

--
Roger Chapman

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-08 11:01:58 +0100, John Weston
said:
In article et,
says...


Or don't know the difference in the first place. Personally I use
what ever produces "nice" numbers, 18" is easier to remember and
measure than 457mm.

Agreed, and then there's the implied accuracy. "About 18 inches" and
"About 457mm" have different meanings to me. One I can cut quickly
without careful marking-out and the other needs a scribed line and
cutting on the waste side of it. I was taught to display enough
figures to define the implied accuracy required of the measurement.

That's true, although generally applies to decimal places.

Putting
everything in mm implies working to about plus or minus 1/32" to me
:-)

I haven't used the deprecated imperial units for many years.

The correct way, in any system of measurement would be to quote a
tolerance with the measurement - e.g. thickness of 25mm +/- 0.2 and so
on



One day, we'll get rid of our silly metric equivalents and speak of
"About 450mm" as done in metric countries (or better - half a meter).
Why do we have to have stock timber lengths in mm rather than
meters???

Because we still haven't truly abandoned the shackles of the past and
moved into the brave new world of metric.

If we had done so, then sheet materials would be supplied as 2500 x
1250 rather than 2440 x 1220. Pots of jam would all be in 500g
sizes rather than 454g and so on.

But what would become of th 440ml can of beer?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 2008-06-08 16:26:07 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:



Andy Hall wrote:

If we had done so, then sheet materials would be supplied as 2500 x
1250 rather than 2440 x 1220. Pots of jam would all be in 500g
sizes rather than 454g and so on.

But what would become of th 440ml can of beer?

You'd drink it like you always do....

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Centimetres just confuse.
But I know why they are attractive. The inch was chosen as it is
approximately the length of the top part of the thumb. (Rule of thumb). So
instinctively some go for a metric measure that they can visualise. And
that certainly isn't the mm. With the metre being too large.

That most tape measures seem to be marked in cm might also have
something to do with it.

--
Mike Barnes

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Only if they don't specify it. If I give a metric measurement it will

be in mm or metres - say 2.4, etc. And you don't normally say it is
millimetres - if I said 255 x 450 most would assume mm - but as I
said some assume cm.


I would, depending on the context.


If cutting MDF to box in pipes, I would assume mm, but if building a
deck I'd assume cm.


Why bother? Easier to simply use metres with a decimal point - ie 2.35 or
whatever. Centimetres just confuse.

Agreed. When ever I come across cm's, I have to convert to mm's before I
can convert to feet and inches.

I was brought up with feet and inches and had to get up to speed with
metric back in the late seventies.

But I know why they are attractive. The inch was chosen as it is
approximately the length of the top part of the thumb. (Rule of thumb). So
instinctively some go for a metric measure that they can visualise. And
that certainly isn't the mm. With the metre being too large.

When I had to get up to speed on metric, it was in the aerospace
industry and everything was measured in mm. All X, Y and Z measurements
were all in mm.

Dave

Derek Geldard wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:15:01 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:


On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 20:46:24 +0100, Roger
wrote:


The message 484adeab@qaanaaq

from Andy Hall contains these words:

It's fairly obvious for most purposes whether a dimension is in cm or
mm, based on context

Anyone using cm for dimensions seems to have rather lost the plot as far
as SI units are concerned.

Just about the only people who seem to use centimetres are
education-types and the BBC.


Radio Amateurs ? Never heard one talking about the 700 mm band.

Radar bods.

Yes, but speaking as a radio ham, I don't use that as a measure of how
long it is. I might as well just call it 433.5 Mega Hertz and just be as
ignorant of the length.

Doctors describing cysts and tumour masses.

I'm surprised that they have moved on from the Greek and Latin these days.

Dave

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:20:47 +0100, Frank Erskine wrote:

See all the bother caused by this 'metric' system?

Should stick to good old feet and inches - you know it makes sense.

Wouldn't make any difference s/150mm/6\"/g and s/12\.5mm/1\/2\"/g

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , Mike Barnes
writes
In uk.d-i-y, geoff wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
In uk.d-i-y, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Just about the only people who seem to use centimetres are
education-types and the BBC.

Also seems common with haberdashery for want of a better word.

And furniture retailers.

There's nothing inherently wrong with cm as far as I can see.

They are just not correct sub units

The unit of length is the metre, this goes up and down in factors of
thousands -so millimetres and kilometres are approved, centimetres and
hundred metres are not

Who does the approving,

They are the standards set down under SI which defines the weights and
measures that we use



and more importantly, why should furniture
retailers care about their "approval"?

because they are the definitive accepted units

for the same reason you shouldn't measure in 4/5ths of a cubit

--
geoff

In message , Frank Erskine
writes
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:05:12 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:08:49 +0100, Rod wrote:

So you have never ended up on a site thinking "That bit of furniture
will just fit nicely". And then found it was a doll's house site? :-)

Whoa don't go there! No.1 Daughter is decorating the dolls house I built.
There is amazing confusion, they'll have a moulded plastic sheet of 150mm
tiles say 15 tiles wide and 20 long, the actual sheet is smaller than A3.
Yes it's all in the 1/12th scaling but refering to something with the same
number and units as the real thing really does boggle the mind, They
sometimes use real world size measurements and units but as the size of
scale objects so the tiles above would be refered to as 12.5mm... ARGH!

See all the bother caused by this 'metric' system?

Should stick to good old feet and inches - you know it makes sense.

The world has moved on

--
geoff

In message , John Weston
writes
In article et,
says...


Or don't know the difference in the first place. Personally I use what
ever produces "nice" numbers, 18" is easier to remember and measure than
457mm.

Agreed, and then there's the implied accuracy. "About 18 inches" and
"About 457mm" have different meanings to me. One I can cut quickly
without careful marking-out and the other needs a scribed line and
cutting on the waste side of it. I was taught to display enough figures
to define the implied accuracy required of the measurement. Putting
everything in mm implies working to about plus or minus 1/32" to me :-)

One day, we'll get rid of our silly metric equivalents and speak of
"About 450mm" as done in metric countries (or better - half a meter).
Why do we have to have stock timber lengths in mm rather than meters???
Even by eye, I can see they are all different lengths, when measured to
mm accuracy...

Last time I looked, they were in metre lengths by mm x-section



--
geoff

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Only if they don't specify it. If I give a metric measurement it will

be in mm or metres - say 2.4, etc. And you don't normally say it is
millimetres - if I said 255 x 450 most would assume mm - but as I
said some assume cm.


I would, depending on the context.


If cutting MDF to box in pipes, I would assume mm, but if building a
deck I'd assume cm.


Why bother? Easier to simply use metres with a decimal point - ie 2.35 or
whatever. Centimetres just confuse.

Agreed. When ever I come across cm's, I have to convert to mm's before I
can convert to feet and inches.

I was brought up with feet and inches and had to get up to speed with
metric back in the late seventies.

But I know why they are attractive. The inch was chosen as it is
approximately the length of the top part of the thumb. (Rule of thumb).
So
instinctively some go for a metric measure that they can visualise. And
that certainly isn't the mm. With the metre being too large.

When I had to get up to speed on metric, it was in the aerospace industry
and everything was measured in mm. All X, Y and Z measurements were all in
mm.

Dave

Does Boeing agree with you - as well and Pratt & Whitney and GE?

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:55:45 +0100, a particular chimpanzee, "Dave
Plowman (News)" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

You jest, of course? Some use centimetres and some mm without stating
which. Metres you can usually guess if they're being used without saying.

You didn't get that problem with feet and inches.

You've obviously never seen 'Spinal Tap'.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:15:01 +0100, a particular chimpanzee, Frank
Erskine randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

Just about the only people who seem to use centimetres are
education-types and the BBC.

Eastern European builders seem to prefer centimetres to millimetres
IME.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

In article ,
John wrote:
When I had to get up to speed on metric, it was in the aerospace
industry and everything was measured in mm. All X, Y and Z
measurements were all in mm.

Dave

Does Boeing agree with you - as well and Pratt & Whitney and GE?

And pretty well all electronics are still imperial.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

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

In article ,
Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote:
Eastern European builders seem to prefer centimetres to millimetres
IME.

Tolerance, I presume. ;-)

--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *

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