I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

Thanks.

"George" wrote in message
...
I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

Thanks.



71.375 inches = 1812.925mm

65.875 inches = 167.225mm

Source - Microsoft Calculator Plus

"George" wrote in message
...
I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

Thanks.



Take a look at this:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

A useful tool for your PC

"George" wrote in message
...
I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

Thanks.



Nearly.


71 3/8" = 1812.925mm;
65 7/8" = 1673.225mm

--
Ron

In message , John
writes

"George" wrote in message
m...
I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

Thanks.



71.375 inches = 1812.925mm

65.875 inches = 167.225mm

Source - Microsoft Calculator Plus


65.875 inches = 1673.225 mm

Source: not missing a digit when typing the number I just calculated...
:-)
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

The message
from "George" contains these words:

I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

1" is exactly 25.4mm.

ergo 71.375" = 1812.925mm.
65.875" = 1673.225mm.

1823.4 mm is about 71.787".

--
Roger Chapman

Gawd! who's right here? I think John is? as it almost spot on with my calcs.

"George" wrote in message
. ..
Gawd! who's right here? I think John is? as it almost spot on with my
calcs.



Sorry,my calcs are wrong just borrowed a tape from next door, it is
813,925mm ;-)

"George" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
. ..
Gawd! who's right here? I think John is? as it almost spot on with my
calcs.



Sorry,my calcs are wrong just borrowed a tape from next door, it is
813,925mm ;-)



Balls....1,813.925

Time for a rest.

George wrote:
I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

Thanks.



No other software needed, don't even need to change from fractions to
decimals - just type "65 7/8 inches in mm" or "65.875 inches in mm" into
a Google search box. You get back:

(65 7/8) inches = 1 673.225 millimeters

65.87500 inches = 1 673.225 millimeters

Or type "71.375 inches in mm" or "71 3/8 inches in mm" and get:

71.37500 inches = 1 812.925 millimeters

(71 3/8) inches = 1 812.925 millimeters

--
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

George wrote:
I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

Thanks.


Type into Google
71 3/8 inch to mm
Answer: (71 3/8) inch = 1 812.925 millimeters
Google can do lots of calculations/conversions

--
Corporal Jones
"I don't like it up me"

On 2008-06-07 17:12:33 +0100, "George" said:

I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Must get a tape with mm on,bloody french.

Thanks.

Just throw away all of your ancient imperial measuring items and switch
entirely to the use of millimetres. This avoids these silly fractions
and conversions which will almost certainly lead to errors.

You can buy metric only tapes quite easily now or even dual ones if you
want to continue to be confused

On 2008-06-07 17:42:50 +0100, "George" said:

Gawd! who's right here? I think John is? as it almost spot on with my calcs.

This is the trouble.

They are all wrong.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:35:37 +0100, Roger wrote:

1" is exactly 25.4mm.

It is now but wasn't always...

I find that http://www.onlineconversion.com is a very useful place, though
not for such a simple conversion.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article 484ac99c@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Just throw away all of your ancient imperial measuring items and switch
entirely to the use of millimetres. This avoids these silly fractions
and conversions which will almost certainly lead to errors.

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.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

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

On 2008-06-07 19:55:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 484ac99c@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Just throw away all of your ancient imperial measuring items and switch
entirely to the use of millimetres. This avoids these silly fractions
and conversions which will almost certainly lead to errors.

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.


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



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

True, just having to deal with fractions involving 3,4,12, 16 and so on.

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.

--
Roger Chapman

The message et
from "Dave Liquorice" contains these words:

1" is exactly 25.4mm.

It is now but wasn't always...

Has been for quite a while though.

"The (international) inch has been exactly 25.4 mm since July 1959. At
this point in time the (international) yard was redefined as 0.9144
metre - until this time the ratio between the US yard and the metre was
different to the ratio between the UK yard and the metre. For more
information, see Engineering Metrology by K J Hume (2 ed) Macdonald
London 1967. The American inch changed by 2 millionths of an inch and
the UK inch by 1.7 millionths of an inch. The international inch falls
mid way between the old UK and US inch."

--
Roger Chapman

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.

But gets lees confused.

George - buy a metric tape - Axminsters own label are to die for....



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

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:55:45 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You jest, of course? Some use centimetres and some mm without stating
which.

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.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.

But gets lees confused.

See, I'm less confused now. Never confused....





George - buy a metric tape - Axminsters own label are to die for....

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.


From the B&Q website:

Product Features
Width (mm): 38
Length (mm): 2400
Thickness (mm): 25
Length (cm): 240
Length (ft): 7.87
Length (inch): 94.49
Length (m): 2.4
Thickness (cm): 2.5
Thickness (inch): .98
Width (cm): 3.8
Width (ft): .12
Width (inch): 1.5
Width (m): .38
Product Type: Sawn Kiln Dried Timber

Five widths
Five lengths
Three thicknesses

Confusing? Or what?

--
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

Rod wrote:
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.


From the B&Q website:

Product Features
Width (mm): 38
Length (mm): 2400
Thickness (mm): 25
Length (cm): 240
Length (ft): 7.87
Length (inch): 94.49
Length (m): 2.4
Thickness (cm): 2.5
Thickness (inch): .98
Width (cm): 3.8
Width (ft): .12
Width (inch): 1.5
Width (m): .38
Product Type: Sawn Kiln Dried Timber

Five widths
Five lengths
Three thicknesses

Confusing? Or what?

Not really confused, in my apprenticeship I had to learn inches,Thous,
mm, microns, Whitworth, BSF, BSC, Acme,UNF, UNC, BSP......
So that's why my brain hurts!!!

--
Corporal Jones
"I don't like it up me"

In message , George
writes
I dont like metric but are my calculations right?


Inches 71 3/8 = 1,823.4mm
65 7/8 = 1,673mm

Why don't you just type "convert 71.375 inches into mm" into google and
ask it ?


--
geoff

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:55:45 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You jest, of course? Some use centimetres and some mm without stating
which.

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.

--
Cheers
Dave.




18" is also easier to see than measuring 457mm...na then I'll have to
measure that agin cos me eye's went a a bit dodgy then. ;-)

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.

I am glad you posted that. It makes me feel better.

Dave

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.

--
Frank Erskine

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:30:14 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:



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.

But gets lees confused.

George - buy a metric tape - Axminsters own label are to die for....

I have a tape measure marked on one side in feet and inches, and on
the other side in hands :-)

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

In article ,
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.

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

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

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

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.

Doctors describing cysts and tumour masses.

Derek

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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.

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.

--
Mike Barnes

In message , Mike Barnes
writes
In uk.d-i-y, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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.

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


--
geoff

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 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.

--
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

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

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.

Doctors describing cysts and tumour masses.


I am not disagreeing with you - you are obviously reporting your
experience of doctors using cm. In my relatively recent forays into such
things, I have most often seen them use mm. (This is from international
resources - the UK could be out of step with the world and I possibly
would not have noticed.) And it is this inconsistency that really
doesn't help.

I mean, the most common thing I see is some lump/growth on the thyroid
being "less than 4mm". On the basis that the selfsame organ could easily
develop a growth of 40mm, that does leave the door open to someone
seeing the number '4' and just assuming it is tiny. We do often remember
things visually and I think it likely that we are more likely to
remember the number than the unit.

In a similar context, I keep seeing reports of people taking, say, 175
mcg of a particular hormone. Some write that. Others write 175 mg. Some
others write 0.175 mg or .175 mg - or mcg. And, somehow, 0.2 looks to be
*less* than .175. At least with that mess it is possible to have a best
guess interpretation. If they mixed in (sub)multiples of 10 at the unit
level it would be really horrible.

But another related hormone pill is still sold in grains. (Actually, it
has relatively recently changed to 30 mg as the 'metric equivalent'.)
Together with halves and quarters.

--
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

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 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.



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

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

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

There is nothing inherently wrong with Imperial units either.

Cm are not preferred units in SI metric and belong in the dustbin of
history along with dynes, ergs, calories and other obsolete units from
the pre SI age.

Calories of course are in widespread use even by those who deprecate the
use of obsolete units which tends to be a double whammy. 99.99% of those
who actually use the term really mean kilocalories.

--
Roger Chapman

On 2008-06-08 08:29:44 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:



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 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.

Would you?

If mm were used, both are very obvious.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-08 08:29:44 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:



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 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.

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



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

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

--
Mike Barnes

In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

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

There is nothing inherently wrong with Imperial units either.

Cm are not preferred units in SI metric and belong in the dustbin of
history along with dynes, ergs, calories and other obsolete units from
the pre SI age.

So the SI doesn't "prefer" them? Why should that matter to a furniture
salesman?

You forgot hectares, by the way. They're not going to die out anytime
soon either.

Calories of course are in widespread use even by those who deprecate the
use of obsolete units which tends to be a double whammy. 99.99% of those
who actually use the term really mean kilocalories.

I know. But that 99.99% uses calories for comparative purposes only so
the absolute value is meaningless to them. Anyone who needs to relate
calories to other units probably appreciates the distinction.

--
Mike Barnes