Nowadays I work mainly in metric. I'm right handed. Using a steel tape
measure on a board or similar I'll hook the tape over the left hand edge
and pull it across to the right.
On all the imperial metric tape measures I've ever seen the Inches scale
is always runs along the top edge and the metric scale runs along the
bottom when running from left to right.

But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale for
accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a line on
a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top ?

O.K. so why not buy a metric only tape measure instead ? Except that all
the metric only tapes only have the scale on only the one edge - again the
bottom edge which is most inconvenient. They compensate for not giving the
you the imperial scale at the top by giving you bigger numbers. Basically
the metric only tape is the combination tape with the imperial scale
removed from the top edge of the printing plate.

Gold medal for prize chumps must go to B&Q. They do a nice two sided metre
rule in aluminium with the two scales on the two edges metric and inches.
Except the inches are at the top on both sides, they're identical.

Full marks to Wickes - theirs seem identical in every other respect including
price except the metric is on the top edge on one side.

Its just I've never noticed this before and was looking to replace some
steel tapes.


michael adams

Yeah - I've had the same issue - more or less.

I *want* my tapes marked metric both edges. It's so rare I need to
work with imperial, that I'm happy with metric only.

In fact as manufacturers internationalise their products, I would have
thought they would want to drop imperial scales too.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:13:27 -0700 (PDT), RubberBiker
had this to say:

Yeah - I've had the same issue - more or less.

I *want* my tapes marked metric both edges. It's so rare I need to
work with imperial, that I'm happy with metric only.

In fact as manufacturers internationalise their products, I would have
thought they would want to drop imperial scales too.

I'd hope not.

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

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:
But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale for
accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a line on
a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top ?

I suppose it'd be worth knowing what other markets the same tape measure's
exported to, and what they use. It's all Imperial here in the US still
(thankfully - even though I was brought up on Metric I find it a lot
easier to work in feet and inches when building things) so if the same
measure's also sold in the US you've got a potential market of 300 million
there using primarily inches vs. 60-odd million in the UK wanting cm.

In message , michael adams
writes
Nowadays I work mainly in metric. I'm right handed. Using a steel tape
measure on a board or similar I'll hook the tape over the left hand edge
and pull it across to the right.
On all the imperial metric tape measures I've ever seen the Inches scale
is always runs along the top edge and the metric scale runs along the
bottom when running from left to right.


I think this has come up a few times before, personally I'm
'ambidextrous' WRT to using mm or inches (and reading upside down or
right way up), tend to use which seems most convenient, I have been
known to use mixed measurements on the same piece of work. For me it
seems easier to hook the tape over the right hand edge extend it with
the left hand and pencil mark with the right hand, so that puts (upside
down) mm at the top.



--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

On 1 Oct, 20:06, "michael adams" wrote:

O.K. so why not buy a metric only tape measure instead ? Except that all
the metric only tapes only have the scale on only the one edge - again the
bottom edge which is most inconvenient. They compensate for not giving the
you the imperial scale at the top by giving you bigger numbers. Basically
the metric only tape is the combination tape with the imperial scale
removed from the top edge of the printing plate.

Fisco do metric only, with scales both edges, eg the Big T

"Bolted" wrote in message
...
On 1 Oct, 20:06, "michael adams" wrote:

O.K. so why not buy a metric only tape measure instead ? Except that all
the metric only tapes only have the scale on only the one edge - again the
bottom edge which is most inconvenient. They compensate for not giving the
you the imperial scale at the top by giving you bigger numbers. Basically
the metric only tape is the combination tape with the imperial scale
removed from the top edge of the printing plate.

Fisco do metric only, with scales both edges, eg the Big T


Thanks for that. I checked the Buck and Ryan website earlier and only checked
the Big T which seemed a bit unclear\doubtful, but on checking the Fisco Unimatic
just now it clearly does have markings on both edges.

http://www.buckandryan.co.uk/product...369/sn/FSCUM5M

So thanks again.




michael adams

michael adams wrote:
Nowadays I work mainly in metric. I'm right handed. Using a steel tape
measure on a board or similar I'll hook the tape over the left hand
edge
and pull it across to the right.

Me too.

On all the imperial metric tape measures I've ever seen the Inches
scale
is always runs along the top edge and the metric scale runs along the
bottom when running from left to right.

Never noticed that before, but you are dead right.

But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale for
accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a line on
a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top ?

Good point.

Just checked; Axminster own label, Wickes own label, Stanley Fat Max. All
as you describe, imperial on top edge.

I bought a tape today by the way (OK, I admit it, I'm a tape freak). Very
useful http://www.toolbank.com/302/p/ADVAGT5025 cos it measures internals by
flipping the tape over.

Only paid £6 for mine though at my local BM.


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

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:
But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale for
accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a line on
a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top ?

I suppose it'd be worth knowing what other markets the same tape measure's
exported to, and what they use. It's all Imperial here in the US still
(thankfully - even though I was brought up on Metric I find it a lot
easier to work in feet and inches when building things) so if the same
measure's also sold in the US you've got a potential market of 300 million
there using primarily inches vs. 60-odd million in the UK wanting cm.


In the UK Stanley probably still have the lions share of the market as being the
single biggest remaining prestige brand in hand tools. Including steel
tapes. And they probably sell the same lines in both markets. They certainly are
the leading name brand in at least one of the three biggest DIY shed chains B&Q .

I can't visualise in mm or cm to save my life. If asked how many cm tall I am
I'd have to work it out from being approx. two metres tall and do the multiplication.
However when it comes to marking stuff out from scale drawings metric is just
so much easier I find. Having to double check that I've not confused mm and cm
and not made anything ten times bigger or smaller than it needs to be is a bonus
in a way


michael adams

....

On 1 Oct, 22:24, "michael adams" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

On 1 Oct, 20:06, "michael adams" wrote:

O.K. so why not buy a metric only tape measure instead ? Except that all
the metric only tapes only have the scale on only the one edge - again the
bottom edge which is most inconvenient. They compensate for not giving the
you the imperial scale at the top by giving you bigger numbers. Basically
the metric only tape is the combination tape with the imperial scale
removed from the top edge of the printing plate.

Fisco do metric only, with scales both edges, eg the Big T

Thanks for that. I checked the Buck and Ryan website earlier and only checked
the Big T which seemed a bit unclear\doubtful, but on checking the Fisco Unimatic
just now it clearly does have markings on both edges.

http://www.buckandryan.co.uk/product...369/sn/FSCUM5M

So thanks again.

michael adams

I think most of their tapes are availaible in either format, give them
a call and find who has bought m/m stock of the one you want in the
last few months - and hope someone has!

michael adams wrote:
"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:
But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale
for accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a
line on a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top
?

I suppose it'd be worth knowing what other markets the same tape
measure's exported to, and what they use. It's all Imperial here in
the US still (thankfully - even though I was brought up on Metric I
find it a lot easier to work in feet and inches when building
things) so if the same measure's also sold in the US you've got a
potential market of 300 million there using primarily inches vs.
60-odd million in the UK wanting cm.


In the UK Stanley probably still have the lions share of the market
as being the single biggest remaining prestige brand in hand tools.
Including steel
tapes. And they probably sell the same lines in both markets. They
certainly are
the leading name brand in at least one of the three biggest DIY shed
chains B&Q .

I have noticed that US origin tapes like Stanley have Imperial in larger
font than metric & European tapes have larger Metric font.

I can't visualise in mm or cm to save my life. If asked how many cm
tall I am
I'd have to work it out from being approx. two metres tall and do the
multiplication. However when it comes to marking stuff out from scale
drawings metric is just
so much easier I find. Having to double check that I've not confused
mm and cm
and not made anything ten times bigger or smaller than it needs to be
is a bonus
in a way

Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?


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

In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
michael adams wrote:
"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:
But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale
for accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a
line on a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top
?

I suppose it'd be worth knowing what other markets the same tape
measure's exported to, and what they use. It's all Imperial here in
the US still (thankfully - even though I was brought up on Metric I
find it a lot easier to work in feet and inches when building
things) so if the same measure's also sold in the US you've got a
potential market of 300 million there using primarily inches vs.
60-odd million in the UK wanting cm.


In the UK Stanley probably still have the lions share of the market
as being the single biggest remaining prestige brand in hand tools.
Including steel
tapes. And they probably sell the same lines in both markets. They
certainly are
the leading name brand in at least one of the three biggest DIY shed
chains B&Q .

I have noticed that US origin tapes like Stanley have Imperial in larger
font than metric & European tapes have larger Metric font.

I can't visualise in mm or cm to save my life. If asked how many cm
tall I am
I'd have to work it out from being approx. two metres tall and do the
multiplication. However when it comes to marking stuff out from scale
drawings metric is just
so much easier I find. Having to double check that I've not confused
mm and cm
and not made anything ten times bigger or smaller than it needs to be
is a bonus
in a way

Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?


Either metres or mm; cm, although sometimes a convenient measure are
not.



--
geoff

The Medway Handyman wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:
But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale
for accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a
line on a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top
?
I suppose it'd be worth knowing what other markets the same tape
measure's exported to, and what they use. It's all Imperial here in
the US still (thankfully - even though I was brought up on Metric I
find it a lot easier to work in feet and inches when building
things) so if the same measure's also sold in the US you've got a
potential market of 300 million there using primarily inches vs.
60-odd million in the UK wanting cm.

In the UK Stanley probably still have the lions share of the market
as being the single biggest remaining prestige brand in hand tools.
Including steel
tapes. And they probably sell the same lines in both markets. They
certainly are
the leading name brand in at least one of the three biggest DIY shed
chains B&Q .

I have noticed that US origin tapes like Stanley have Imperial in larger
font than metric & European tapes have larger Metric font.

I can't visualise in mm or cm to save my life. If asked how many cm
tall I am
I'd have to work it out from being approx. two metres tall and do the
multiplication. However when it comes to marking stuff out from scale
drawings metric is just
so much easier I find. Having to double check that I've not confused
mm and cm
and not made anything ten times bigger or smaller than it needs to be
is a bonus
in a way

Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?

In the aerospace industry, we always used mm.


Dave

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Nowadays I work mainly in metric. I'm right handed. Using a steel tape
measure on a board or similar I'll hook the tape over the left hand edge
and pull it across to the right.
On all the imperial metric tape measures I've ever seen the Inches scale
is always runs along the top edge and the metric scale runs along the
bottom when running from left to right.


Yes, then the metric scale which I mostly use, is next to the work and the
numbers are the right way up.


--
Michael Chare

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
. com...
....
Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?

It depends on context. I usually give building dimensions in metres, my
height in centimetres and copper pipe in millimetres..

Colin Bignell

On Oct 2, 7:06 am, "michael adams" wrote:
Nowadays I work mainly in metric. I'm right handed. Using a steel tape
measure on a board or similar I'll hook the tape over the left hand edge
and pull it across to the right.

I'm right handed. When I want to use a circular saw to chop lots of
short pieces off a long bit of timber I hang the timber off to the
right of a bench and I hook the tape over the right hand end. The tape
markings are therefore upside down. I just read it upside down, but
it's easy to confuse a 6 with a 9. I don't suppose I can buy a tape
that is marked the other way up?

It doesn't matter much now that I have a dropsaw since the short bits
can be on the left.

On 02/10/09 00:09, geoff wrote:

Medway Handyman writes

Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?

Either metres or mm; cm, although sometimes a convenient measure are not.

TMH proves the perils of mixing decimals and cm, by ending up with the
wrong length. I find anything under 10m is pretty easy to cope with in mm

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:44:03 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
had this to say:


Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?

Centimetres aren't standard SI units, and seem to be mainly used in
schools.

--
Frank Erskine

In uk.d-i-y, michael adams wrote:
Except that all
the metric only tapes only have the scale on only the one edge - again the
bottom edge which is most inconvenient.

All my metric-only measures - of which there are *lots* - have scales on
both edges: e.g.

http://www.grossdepot.com/documents/...8E963BC702.jpg

Or is that not what you meant?

--
Mike Barnes

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:44:03 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
had this to say:


Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?

Centimetres aren't standard SI units, and seem to be mainly used in
schools.

My partner, who is originally German, uses metres and centimetres and has to
convert millimetres into centimetres to understand the measurement.

Colin Bignell

"Bolted" wrote in message
...
On 1 Oct, 22:24, "michael adams" wrote:
"Bolted" wrote in message

...

On 1 Oct, 20:06, "michael adams" wrote:

O.K. so why not buy a metric only tape measure instead ? Except that all
the metric only tapes only have the scale on only the one edge - again the
bottom edge which is most inconvenient. They compensate for not giving the
you the imperial scale at the top by giving you bigger numbers. Basically
the metric only tape is the combination tape with the imperial scale
removed from the top edge of the printing plate.

Fisco do metric only, with scales both edges, eg the Big T

Thanks for that. I checked the Buck and Ryan website earlier and only checked
the Big T which seemed a bit unclear\doubtful, but on checking the Fisco Unimatic
just now it clearly does have markings on both edges.

http://www.buckandryan.co.uk/product...369/sn/FSCUM5M

So thanks again.

michael adams

I think most of their tapes are availaible in either format, give them
a call and find who has bought m/m stock of the one you want in the
last few months - and hope someone has!


I'm lucky as I'm only a train ride away from Buck and Ryan's two branches in
London. And other similar outlets. Its only the local DIY sheds which are a first
port of call, that I find rather depressing. I've also sometimes ordered stuff on
the B&R* website which wasn't in stock in the shop and collected it few days later.

I've also noticed they stock a Stanley Metre Rule in stainless steel which has the
metric on the top, which is unusual, for Stanley. Although as a "metre rule" its maybe
intended for a purely European Market. Although being etched and shiny rather than
matt and simply printed like the cheap and cheerful Wickes aluminium rule its probably
a bit harder to read in all types of light, even if it will last for centuries.

http://www.buckandryan.co.uk/product...9/sn/STA035343

Maybe its just as well I only buy new rules and tapes every 20 years or so,

*This isn't puffing B&R as nowadays their shops which are smaller are mainly full
of top of the range powertools and high margin items and are a shadow of what the
main B&R shop used to be. Before a succession of buyouts and takeovers. Also you
can sometimes wait two weeks for stuff to arrive at the shop from the supplier.


michael adams

....

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Nowadays I work mainly in metric. I'm right handed. Using a steel tape
measure on a board or similar I'll hook the tape over the left hand edge
and pull it across to the right.
On all the imperial metric tape measures I've ever seen the Inches scale
is always runs along the top edge and the metric scale runs along the
bottom when running from left to right.


Yes, then the metric scale which I mostly use, is next to the work and the
numbers are the right way up.

Surely when running a tape across a board, both edges of the tape are next
to the work ? For really long lengths I myself use a large paper clip
to secure the tab thing to the edge on the left, and press down on the tape with
my left hand and mark against the scale. Now surely this should be easiest if
the scale you're marking against runs along the top edge of the tape.

The thing is I've been using the same three steel tapes now for around the last
20 years. I've only ever needed three to be sure of having one handy if the
others were temporarily mislaid. Now I know I've sawn up loads of panels in
that time using using homemade straight edges (factory edges of panels), clamps
and powersaws. But its only when I decided to replace one or more of the tapes
that I even noticed the metric which I always use ran along the bottom edge of the
tape. As I never filmed myself working I'm just puzzled how I did this at all,
all this time and never noticed just how awkward it is. Or maybe I'm just dumb,
dunno.


michael adams

....






--
Michael Chare

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, michael adams wrote:
Except that all
the metric only tapes only have the scale on only the one edge - again the
bottom edge which is most inconvenient.

All my metric-only measures - of which there are *lots* - have scales on
both edges: e.g.

http://www.grossdepot.com/documents/...8E963BC702.jpg

Or is that not what you meant?

Thanks. I've already been pointed towards Fisco by another poster.

Stanley and many of the other big manufacturers have the markings on
metric only tapes along only the bottom edge if the pictures on the Buck and Ryan
website are anything to go by.

While the DIY sheds which stock and sell everything in metric don't even
stock metric only tapes at all. Only combination tapes with imperial
running along the top edge.


michael adams

....





--
Mike Barnes

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

I've also noticed they stock a Stanley Metre Rule in stainless steel which
has the
metric on the top, which is unusual, for Stanley. Although as a "metre
rule" its maybe
intended for a purely European Market. Although being etched and shiny
rather than
matt and simply printed like the cheap and cheerful Wickes aluminium rule
its probably
a bit harder to read in all types of light, even if it will last for
centuries.

http://www.buckandryan.co.uk/product...9/sn/STA035343

That looks exactly like the one I have.
I have had it for years and bought it from a market stall for about £2.50.
I always thought it was backwards as I like to have the zero on the right.
Not that it matters much as I wanted a straight edge for cutting really.
It really is stainless as it has been abused by being left out in all sorts
of weather and its still perfect.

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:
But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale for
accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a line on
a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top ?

I suppose it'd be worth knowing what other markets the same tape measure's
exported to, and what they use. It's all Imperial here in the US still
(thankfully - even though I was brought up on Metric I find it a lot
easier to work in feet and inches when building things) so if the same
measure's also sold in the US you've got a potential market of 300 million
there using primarily inches vs. 60-odd million in the UK wanting cm.


Do any tape measures sold in the US have imperial and metric scales. The
one that I bought over there, made by Stanley, was imperial only.

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:44:03 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?

cm are the spawn of the devil... As you can see from your error:

150.2cm is *not* 1520mm or 1.52m but 1502mm/1.502m.

In my view mm or m only. Where one switches from mm to m I'm not
sure, probably greater than 5m. Sheet materials are all sized in mm
2400 x 1600 etc...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In uk.d-i-y, michael adams wrote:
Stanley and many of the other big manufacturers have the markings on
metric only tapes along only the bottom edge if the pictures on the
Buck and Ryan website are anything to go by.

I took a look at the site hoping to see what one of these bonkers tape
measures looked like, but I couldn't find any.

--
Mike Barnes

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

I've also noticed they stock a Stanley Metre Rule in stainless steel which
has the
metric on the top, which is unusual, for Stanley. Although as a "metre
rule" its maybe
intended for a purely European Market. Although being etched and shiny
rather than
matt and simply printed like the cheap and cheerful Wickes aluminium rule
its probably
a bit harder to read in all types of light, even if it will last for
centuries.

http://www.buckandryan.co.uk/product...9/sn/STA035343

That looks exactly like the one I have.
I have had it for years and bought it from a market stall for about £2.50.
I always thought it was backwards as I like to have the zero on the right.
Not that it matters much as I wanted a straight edge for cutting really.
It really is stainless as it has been abused by being left out in all sorts
of weather and its still perfect.


Another point I hadn't considered when comparing it to the Wickes aluminium
version is thinness. The Stanley one is only 1 mm thick whereas the Wickes
one was thicker - I didn't actually measure it. And the thinner it is the less
parallax error there's going to be. Unless you lay out big money for one with
a bevelled edge. Which is where steel tapes also score so highly being so thin.
You think there'd be a market for a truly flat and wide steel tape going up to
say 3 metres without all the gimmics belt hooks etc. Dunno.
My own straight edges used for cutting and testing etc are thick Maun jobs bought
decades ago. They're ordinary steel but have always been regularly treated with
furniture polish.


michael adams

....

My partner, who is originally German, uses metres and centimetres and has to
convert millimetres into centimetres to understand the measurement.

Possibly she learned in the era of CGS rather than SI?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ystem_of_Units

Andrew May wrote:

Do any tape measures sold in the US have imperial and metric scales. The
one that I bought over there, made by Stanley, was imperial only.

Yes - years ago, I ran a needlework business in the US, and the tapes we
sold (steel and 'soft') had both scales. That was my choice, though - my
suppliers also stocked imperial-only tapes.

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, michael adams wrote:
Stanley and many of the other big manufacturers have the markings on
metric only tapes along only the bottom edge if the pictures on the
Buck and Ryan website are anything to go by.

I took a look at the site hoping to see what one of these bonkers tape
measures looked like, but I couldn't find any.

--
Mike Barnes


And what do want me to do ? Give you a medal ?

Anyway, good for you. You've just wasted ten minutes of your life vainly trying
to prove that someone posting on Usenet was lying.

http://www.buckandryan.co.uk/product...69/sn/DRP69592

Any other hobbies, besides losing pointless arguments ?




michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

You think there'd be a market for a truly flat and wide steel tape going
up to
say 3 metres without all the gimmics belt hooks etc. Dunno.

If it's a retractable tape, the curve is used to make it work, ie you can't
have it flat.

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"michael adams" wrote in message
...

You think there'd be a market for a truly flat and wide steel tape going
up to
say 3 metres without all the gimmics belt hooks etc. Dunno.

If it's a retractable tape, the curve is used to make it work, ie you can't
have it flat.



I thought the retraction was achieved by a spring in the middle of the
tape while the sole purpose of the curved profile was to keep the tape
rigid when extended. Which wouldn't necessarily be an issue when
measuring panels on the horizontal. Or with the end of the tape secured.


michael adams

....

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:18:05 -0700, Matty F wrote:

On Oct 2, 7:06 am, "michael adams" wrote:
Nowadays I work mainly in metric. I'm right handed. Using a steel tape
measure on a board or similar I'll hook the tape over the left hand edge
and pull it across to the right.

I'm right handed. When I want to use a circular saw to chop lots of
short pieces off a long bit of timber I hang the timber off to the
right of a bench and I hook the tape over the right hand end. The tape
markings are therefore upside down. I just read it upside down, but
it's easy to confuse a 6 with a 9. I don't suppose I can buy a tape
that is marked the other way up?

You need a tape covered in that smart paper, and some sort of GPS
doohickey - the tape could detect where you are in relation to it, and
print the scale the correct way up for you. And if we all have RFID tags
implanted in our necks the tape would even know who was using it and could
show the scale in the user's preferred units.

;-)

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:30:51 +0100, Andrew May wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:
But when using a tape measure surely most people use the top scale for
accurate measurement ? Same as using a ruler when measuring a line on
a piece of paper. So why are the inches always still on top ?

I suppose it'd be worth knowing what other markets the same tape measure's
exported to, and what they use. It's all Imperial here in the US still
(thankfully - even though I was brought up on Metric I find it a lot
easier to work in feet and inches when building things) so if the same
measure's also sold in the US you've got a potential market of 300 million
there using primarily inches vs. 60-odd million in the UK wanting cm.


Do any tape measures sold in the US have imperial and metric scales. The
one that I bought over there, made by Stanley, was imperial only.

Yes, ISTR seeing ones for sale in the local 'shed.

They do teach metric in schools here, incidentally - our 11 year old came
home just the other day with homework where they were supposed to measure
various stuff in metric using a tape measure. At which point I discover
that I actually own four tape measures (five if I count a short non-steel
one) and all of them are inches-only :-)

cheers

Jules

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:39:16 +0100, michael adams wrote:
I can't visualise in mm or cm to save my life. If asked how many cm tall I am
I'd have to work it out from being approx. two metres tall and do the multiplication.
However when it comes to marking stuff out from scale drawings metric is just
so much easier I find. Having to double check that I've not confused mm and cm
and not made anything ten times bigger or smaller than it needs to be is a bonus
in a way

Yes, seems to be a spatial thing with me, too. I can use cm and mm happily
for stuff that's about the size of a sheet of paper or less, but if
building a shed, say, then the sorts of numbers that feet and inches cough
up just seem easier to work with.

I know I'm 5'10" tall, but I'd have to run the conversion to metric in my
head if someone asked. With weights I naturally seem to prefer lbs and
stone than kg (although I'm actually utterly crap at converting weights
between metric and imperial - unlike distances I never quite got the hang
of it).

Going the other way, I find it much easier to deal with engine-related
matters in cc, and now that I'm in the US I keep finding myself doing
mental calculations to covert to and from ci (although more and more US
vehicles seem to quote cc these days - presumably for marketing reasons,
because bigger numbers seem better :-)

cheers

Jules

In uk.d-i-y, michael adams wrote:

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
d...
In uk.d-i-y, michael adams wrote:
Stanley and many of the other big manufacturers have the markings on
metric only tapes along only the bottom edge if the pictures on the
Buck and Ryan website are anything to go by.

I took a look at the site hoping to see what one of these bonkers tape
measures looked like, but I couldn't find any.

--
Mike Barnes


And what do want me to do ? Give you a medal ?

Anyway, good for you. You've just wasted ten minutes of your life vainly trying
to prove that someone posting on Usenet was lying.

http://www.buckandryan.co.uk/product...69/sn/DRP69592

Any other hobbies, besides losing pointless arguments ?

It takes two to make an argument and I wasn't one of them.

I didn't say there weren't any, I said I couldn't find any (at least not
before I got bored looking at lots of pictures of metric+imperial tapes
that were open and metric-only tapes that were closed). I wasn't
contradicting you, I was hoping you might provide a link, since you knew
where to look. If it's any consolation you're a better looker than I am.
:-)

Anyway, thanks for the link if not the abuse, and what I'd like to know
now is, *why* would anyone design a measure like that? What's the point?

--
Mike Barnes

nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:44:03 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
had this to say:


Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should one
write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?
Centimetres aren't standard SI units, and seem to be mainly used in
schools.

My partner, who is originally German, uses metres and centimetres and has to
convert millimetres into centimetres to understand the measurement.

Where as I was re-educated in mm and metres. Give me a dimension in
centimetres, I have to convert it to mm to understand how big/long it
is. I can readily convert between metric and imperial, but only if the
metric is *not* in cm's.


Dave

RubberBiker wrote:
My partner, who is originally German, uses metres and centimetres and has to
convert millimetres into centimetres to understand the measurement.

Possibly she learned in the era of CGS rather than SI?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ystem_of_Units


;-) Sorry, I have to toss this into the pot.

Why has time not been metricated and used? :-)

Dave

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:44:03 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Whats the convention for metric measurement BTW? For example should
one write 150.2cm or 1520mm or 1.52m?

cm are the spawn of the devil... As you can see from your error:

150.2cm is *not* 1520mm or 1.52m but 1502mm/1.502m.

That was a typo rather than an error, but it does make the point nicely.


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