As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely "2.4
metres of 2 x 1.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted from
the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

On 27/06/2015 11:06, David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely "2.4
metres of 2 x 1.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted from
the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

Interesting read http://www.metric.org.uk/uk-metric-time-line

David Lang wrote:

what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240.

Like plasterboard ...

Huge wrote:

David Lang wrote:

Interesting read http://www.metric.org.uk/uk-metric-time-line

Is that an ironic site, because it just sits there indefinitely on my
machine?

How high up on your list of features for the next house
is "decent broadband"? :-P

In article ,
David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

Many things like that are made in a size arrived at over the years.

Not much point in changing say plasterboard to a nice round metric figure
if it no longer fits existing stud centres.

Imperial measurements were based on the human body - so no surprise
building materials are in a convenient size relative to that.

Metric is more of a scientific or theoretical measurement. There are pros
and cons for both. My guess is the change to metric made it easier for
early computer systems to calculate. But not for humans.

--
*I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public

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

On 27/06/2015 11:06, David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely "2.4
metres of 2 x 1.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted from
the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

IIRC in the early 70s I was forced to buy timber by the 'metric foot'
or 300mm, just under the Imperial foot. 300mm now persists asthe
measure & pricing unit

Malcolm

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:06:04 +0100, David Lang
wrote:

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe?

In metric. Some seem to be something-hundred-and-a-bit, i.e. 207 cm. This may be
to allow some of the edge to break in transport, or have some othe rreason.

Chipboard white melamine:
280x205 cm, 280x207 cm

Multiplex russian birch I/II: 250x125, 152,50x152,50

Multiplex ii/ii: 125 or 150 by 250 or 300

Chipboard raw:
v20: 207 or 210 by 250/280/285/411/561
v100: mostly 207 by 280




Thomas Prufer

On 27/06/2015 11:06, David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

[...]

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.


Actually in France it's very normal to go to a bar for a 'demi' eg
literally a 'half'. What you get is 250ml, but it's always been a
'demi', I presume since before Napoleon introduced the metric system.

Tim W

In article , Malcolm Race
scribeth thus
On 27/06/2015 11:06, David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely "2.4
metres of 2 x 1.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted from
the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

IIRC in the early 70s I was forced to buy timber by the 'metric foot'
or 300mm, just under the Imperial foot. 300mm now persists asthe
measure & pricing unit

Malcolm


The railways are very olde world when it comes to measurements they've
managed to hang onto miles and chains and Yards quite well tho;!...

--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:06:04 +0100, David Lang
wrote:

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe?

In metric. Some seem to be something-hundred-and-a-bit, i.e. 207 cm.
This may be to allow some of the edge to break in transport, or have
some othe rreason.

Chipboard white melamine:
280x205 cm, 280x207 cm

Multiplex russian birch I/II: 250x125, 152,50x152,50

Multiplex ii/ii: 125 or 150 by 250 or 300

Chipboard raw:
v20: 207 or 210 by 250/280/285/411/561
v100: mostly 207 by 280


Since they have used metric for rather longer than the UK, I'd guess
fixing centres are based around those sort of sizes. But a large amount of
work in the UK is still refurbishment, so changing to 'pure' metric sizes
would be a nightmare.

--
*If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

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

On Saturday, 27 June 2015 11:57:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

Many things like that are made in a size arrived at over the years.

Not much point in changing say plasterboard to a nice round metric figure
if it no longer fits existing stud centres.

Imperial measurements were based on the human body - so no surprise
building materials are in a convenient size relative to that.

Metric is more of a scientific or theoretical measurement. There are pros
and cons for both. My guess is the change to metric made it easier for
early computer systems to calculate. But not for humans.


From Barlow's New Mathematical Tables of 1814 - the column is headed 'Number of each equal to 100 Engish feet:'

Aix la Chapelle... Feet................ 105.18
Amsterdam......... ditto............... 107.62
Anspach........... ditto............... 102.38
Ancona............ ditto............... 78.02
Antwerp........... ditto............... 106.76
Aquileia.......... ditto............... 88.69
Augsburg.......... ditto............... 103.
Basil............. ditto............... 102.22
Bavaria........... ditto............... 105.08
Bergamo........... ditto............... 69.89
Berlin............ ditto............... 98.44
Bern.............. ditto............... 103.98
Bologna........... ditto............... 80.05
Bremen............ ditto............... 105.45
Brescia........... Bracci.............. 64.10
Breslaw........... Feet................ 107.24
Brunswick......... ditto............... 106.85
Brussels.......... ditto............... 104.80
Cagliari.......... Palmi............... 150.52
Calemberg......... Feet................ 104.34
Carrara........... Palmi............... 125
Chamberry......... Feet................ 90.36
China............. Mathematical feet... 91.46
Cleves............ Feet................ 103.18
Cologne........... ditto............... 110.80
Copenhagen........ Legal feet.......... 97.17
Dantzic........... Feet................ 106.28
Ruthes.............. 7.08


NT

David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

Only in the halfwit handyman's brain.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

Thank common sense that it didn't - it still fits the 16" centres on
studding and noggins,

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely
"2.4 metres of 2 x 1.

Handyprat brain in first gear - as always.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted
from the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

ROTFLMAO - but I suppose that always happened when the Medway Handprat was
posting.

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Bloody hell, I dislike the Yanks, but they cannot be blamed for your
ineptness surely in you not being able to avoid worrying about such simple
issues?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

What, 0.9995403 of a pint? Now that's the sign of an incurable alcoholic! Or
you should have said "568.261mils" if you are such a pedant about trifling
and long-standing issues.

BTW, your business gone bust then handyprat - or did you fight a trademark
battle and lost? Or more than likely, you found the paperwork of a Limited
Company too onerous to handle.

Time to put David Lang in the spare prats bin with his Medway Handyman alter
ego.

On 27/06/2015 22:01, Unbeliever wrote:
David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

Only in the halfwit handyman's brain.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

Thank common sense that it didn't - it still fits the 16" centres on
studding and noggins,

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely
"2.4 metres of 2 x 1.

Handyprat brain in first gear - as always.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted
from the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

ROTFLMAO - but I suppose that always happened when the Medway Handprat was
posting.

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Bloody hell, I dislike the Yanks, but they cannot be blamed for your
ineptness surely in you not being able to avoid worrying about such simple
issues?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

What, 0.9995403 of a pint? Now that's the sign of an incurable alcoholic! Or
you should have said "568.261mils" if you are such a pedant about trifling
and long-standing issues.

BTW, your business gone bust then handyprat - or did you fight a trademark
battle and lost? Or more than likely, you found the paperwork of a Limited
Company too onerous to handle.

Time to put David Lang in the spare prats bin with his Medway Handyman alter
ego.



I was going to reply and make you look like a bitter, twisted idiot.
But you've done such a good job yourself.

and don't even mention wire gauges. that nearly sent me over the edge when
buying equivalents around the world.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"David Lang" wrote in message
...
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely "2.4
metres of 2 x 1.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted from
the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated the
sheet materials market?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

Yes, home goal comes to mind. While talking about Metric, and the lack
thereof, I overheard a conversation from a chap who now lives in France, and
he does the odd plumbing job over there. He was saying that there are a
surprising number of installations using Imperial sized pipes unions and
taps over there. This seems odd to me, is there some reason for this? Maybe
our chaps fixing plumbing after the war?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/2015 22:01, Unbeliever wrote:
David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

Only in the halfwit handyman's brain.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

Thank common sense that it didn't - it still fits the 16" centres on
studding and noggins,

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely
"2.4 metres of 2 x 1.

Handyprat brain in first gear - as always.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted
from the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

ROTFLMAO - but I suppose that always happened when the Medway Handprat
was
posting.

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Bloody hell, I dislike the Yanks, but they cannot be blamed for your
ineptness surely in you not being able to avoid worrying about such
simple
issues?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

What, 0.9995403 of a pint? Now that's the sign of an incurable alcoholic!
Or
you should have said "568.261mils" if you are such a pedant about
trifling
and long-standing issues.

BTW, your business gone bust then handyprat - or did you fight a
trademark
battle and lost? Or more than likely, you found the paperwork of a
Limited
Company too onerous to handle.

Time to put David Lang in the spare prats bin with his Medway Handyman
alter
ego.



I was going to reply and make you look like a bitter, twisted idiot. But
you've done such a good job yourself.

"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
...
Yes, home goal comes to mind. While talking about Metric, and the lack
thereof, I overheard a conversation from a chap who now lives in France,
and he does the odd plumbing job over there. He was saying that there are
a surprising number of installations using Imperial sized pipes unions
and taps over there. This seems odd to me, is there some reason for this?
Maybe our chaps fixing plumbing after the war?

Unlikely, its much more likely to have been due to a shortage
of metric fittings after the war or something like that.

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/2015 22:01, Unbeliever wrote:
David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

Only in the halfwit handyman's brain.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

Thank common sense that it didn't - it still fits the 16" centres on
studding and noggins,

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely
"2.4 metres of 2 x 1.

Handyprat brain in first gear - as always.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted
from the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

ROTFLMAO - but I suppose that always happened when the Medway Handprat
was
posting.

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Bloody hell, I dislike the Yanks, but they cannot be blamed for your
ineptness surely in you not being able to avoid worrying about such
simple
issues?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

What, 0.9995403 of a pint? Now that's the sign of an incurable
alcoholic! Or
you should have said "568.261mils" if you are such a pedant about
trifling
and long-standing issues.

BTW, your business gone bust then handyprat - or did you fight a
trademark
battle and lost? Or more than likely, you found the paperwork of a
Limited
Company too onerous to handle.

Time to put David Lang in the spare prats bin with his Medway Handyman
alter
ego.



I was going to reply and make you look like a bitter, twisted idiot. But
you've done such a good job yourself.

On 27/06/2015 11:06, David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely "2.4
metres of 2 x 1.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted from
the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

I have had sheet goods in 1200 x 2400 before - i.e. just short of a full
8x4.

Floor boarding is often 2400 x 600 as well.

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

Much like those 500 ml cans and bottles - not quite the full pint!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Unbeliever" wrote in message
...
David Lang wrote:
As we all know, we didn't really go metric, just token metric.

Only in the halfwit handyman's brain.

e.g. what was an 8' x 4' of plywood is now a 122cm x 244cm. If we had
gone metric it would be 120 x 240. Or even 200 x 100.

Thank common sense that it didn't - it still fits the 16" centres on
studding and noggins,

But I still think "I need an 8 x 4 sheet of 18mm ply" or conversely
"2.4 metres of 2 x 1.

Handyprat brain in first gear - as always.

But how are sheet materials sold in Europe? In 122 x 244 converted
from the old Imperial system, or 100 x 200?

ROTFLMAO - but I suppose that always happened when the Medway Handprat was
posting.

I'm guessing Europe uses 122 x 244 because the USA probably dominated
the sheet materials market?

Bloody hell, I dislike the Yanks, but they cannot be blamed for your
ineptness surely in you not being able to avoid worrying about such simple
issues?

Must go. Nipping down the pub for a couple of 568mls.

What, 0.9995403 of a pint? Now that's the sign of an incurable alcoholic!
Or you should have said "568.261mils" if you are such a pedant about
trifling and long-standing issues.

0.9995403 of a pint does not leave much room for the head - the head being
an integral and important part of any decent pint of beer.

Such facts are well known by us Northerners:-)



--
Adam

In article ,
ARW wrote:
0.9995403 of a pint does not leave much room for the head - the head
being an integral and important part of any decent pint of beer.

Such facts are well known by us Northerners:-)

'Have you got room for a whisky in there?'

'Yes'

'Fill it up, then.'

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
Imperial measurements were based on the human body - so no surprise
building materials are in a convenient size relative to that.

Metric is more of a scientific or theoretical measurement.

Well, my index fingers are very close to 100mm long, little
fingers about 10mm wide at the tip. If I stick my arm out to one
side and turn my face away, the dist from the tip of my middle
finger to the end of my nose is close to 1m.

There are pros and cons for both. My guess is the change to
metric made it easier for early computer systems to calculate.

I dont believe that was significant. Calculating with metric
units is easier for humans, if perhaps more prone to slipping
into the wrong band of unit, but that€�s a problem with the
naming system rather than the relative sizes of the units.

--
Jón Fairbairn
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2014-04-05)

In article ,
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
There are pros and cons for both. My guess is the change to
metric made it easier for early computer systems to calculate.

I don‘t believe that was significant.

Eh? Trivial job to use a calculator etc with metric systems. Different
matter with yards feet and inches.

Calculating with metric
units is easier for humans, if perhaps more prone to slipping
into the wrong band of unit, but that•s a problem with the
naming system rather than the relative sizes of the units.

You'd be amazed how many 'average' people don't seem to be able to
differentiate between mm and cm. Don't remember so many getting confused
between feet and inches and fractions of an inch.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

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

On 29/06/2015 10:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
There are pros and cons for both. My guess is the change to
metric made it easier for early computer systems to calculate.

I don‘t believe that was significant.

Eh? Trivial job to use a calculator etc with metric systems. Different
matter with yards feet and inches.

Calculating with metric
units is easier for humans, if perhaps more prone to slipping
into the wrong band of unit, but that•s a problem with the
naming system rather than the relative sizes of the units.

You'd be amazed how many 'average' people don't seem to be able to
differentiate between mm and cm. Don't remember so many getting confused
between feet and inches and fractions of an inch.

The thing that annoys me is medics using 'mcg' for microgrammes instead
of 'ug' (or µg if that works out). I wonder how many massive over or
underdoses have been covered up.

It also annoys me that they use 'fluid' instead of 'liquid', but there's
less scope for harm there. 'No fluids' would be a tough one.

Cheers
--
Syd

On 29/06/15 11:31, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 29/06/2015 10:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
There are pros and cons for both. My guess is the change to
metric made it easier for early computer systems to calculate.

I don€˜t believe that was significant.

Eh? Trivial job to use a calculator etc with metric systems. Different
matter with yards feet and inches.

Calculating with metric
units is easier for humans, if perhaps more prone to slipping
into the wrong band of unit, but that€¢s a problem with the
naming system rather than the relative sizes of the units.

You'd be amazed how many 'average' people don't seem to be able to
differentiate between mm and cm. Don't remember so many getting confused
between feet and inches and fractions of an inch.

The thing that annoys me is medics using 'mcg' for microgrammes instead
of 'ug' (or µg if that works out). I wonder how many massive over or
underdoses have been covered up.

It also annoys me that they use 'fluid' instead of 'liquid', but there's
less scope for harm there. 'No fluids' would be a tough one.


Try 'nil by mouth' with extremely blocked sinuses.

Cheers


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 29/06/2015 10:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
There are pros and cons for both. My guess is the change to
metric made it easier for early computer systems to calculate.

I don‘t believe that was significant.

Eh? Trivial job to use a calculator etc with metric systems. Different
matter with yards feet and inches.

Calculating with metric
units is easier for humans, if perhaps more prone to slipping
into the wrong band of unit, but that•s a problem with the
naming system rather than the relative sizes of the units.

You'd be amazed how many 'average' people don't seem to be able to
differentiate between mm and cm. Don't remember so many getting confused
between feet and inches and fractions of an inch.

Or New Scientist confusing metres and kilometres, in their recent spam

In message , Syd Rumpo
writes
On 29/06/2015 10:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
There are pros and cons for both. My guess is the change to
metric made it easier for early computer systems to calculate.

I don€˜t believe that was significant.

Eh? Trivial job to use a calculator etc with metric systems. Different
matter with yards feet and inches.

Calculating with metric
units is easier for humans, if perhaps more prone to slipping
into the wrong band of unit, but that€¢s a problem with the
naming system rather than the relative sizes of the units.

You'd be amazed how many 'average' people don't seem to be able to
differentiate between mm and cm. Don't remember so many getting confused
between feet and inches and fractions of an inch.

The thing that annoys me is medics using 'mcg' for microgrammes instead
of 'ug' (or μg if that works out). I wonder how many massive over or
underdoses have been covered up.

Probably no more than any other possibility to be confused by units. If
that is the convention in a particular field then it's fine.

My wife is doctor, but I've no idea what she does re this.

It also annoys me that they use 'fluid' instead of 'liquid', but
there's less scope for harm there. 'No fluids' would be a tough one.

Ever considered being less annoyed ;-)
--
Chris French

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:57:35 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


... My guess is the change to metric made it easier for
early computer systems to calculate. But not for humans.




For measurements I agree with you that imperial is more 'human' and easier to get right. But for physics and engineering calculations SI units are far more straightforward.

There were no computers in Napoleon's time.

The metre is (was) one ten-millionth of the distance from pole to equator.

Robert

In article ,
RobertL wrote:
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:57:35 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


... My guess is the change to metric made it easier for
early computer systems to calculate. But not for humans.




For measurements I agree with you that imperial is more 'human' and
easier to get right.

Same here. Even although I use both - and have done for ages. Someone
brought up on metric is unlikely to know the advantages of imperial for
DIY around the house.

But for physics and engineering calculations SI
units are far more straightforward.

Quite.

There were no computers in Napoleon's time.

But there were when the UK changed to metric.

The metre is (was) one ten-millionth of the distance from pole to
equator.

Which means precisely nothing to a human, in terms of relating to it.
Might as well be the distance to the moon.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

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

On 29/06/2015 14:35, RobertL wrote:
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:57:35 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


... My guess is the change to metric made it easier for
early computer systems to calculate. But not for humans.




For measurements I agree with you that imperial is more 'human' and easier to get right. But for physics and engineering calculations SI units are far more straightforward.

There were no computers in Napoleon's time.

The metre is (was) one ten-millionth of the distance from pole to equator.

Given the accuracy of its day, being 2km out in 10,000km can't be bad!

In article , RobertL
wrote:
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:57:35 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:


... My guess is the change to metric made it easier for early computer
systems to calculate. But not for humans.




For measurements I agree with you that imperial is more 'human' and
easier to get right. But for physics and engineering calculations SI
units are far more straightforward.

There were no computers in Napoleon's time.

The metre is (was) one ten-millionth of the distance from pole to
equator.

They must have had a very long piece of string.

On 29/06/2015 14:48, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/06/2015 14:35, RobertL wrote:
....
The metre is (was) one ten-millionth of the distance from pole to
equator.

Given the accuracy of its day, being 2km out in 10,000km can't be bad!

Accuracy was probably not helped by the surveyors regularly being
arrested and their white flags removed. Revolutionaries didn't take
kindly to people planting flags in the Royalist colours on hill tops.

--
Colin Bignell

On Monday, 29 June 2015 10:42:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
There are pros and cons for both. My guess is the change to
metric made it easier for early computer systems to calculate.

I don't believe that was significant.

Eh? Trivial job to use a calculator etc with metric systems. Different
matter with yards feet and inches.

I remeber when a calculator came out that could do fractions.


Calculating with metric
units is easier for humans, if perhaps more prone to slipping
into the wrong band of unit, but that*s a problem with the
naming system rather than the relative sizes of the units.

You'd be amazed how many 'average' people don't seem to be able to
differentiate between mm and cm.

Maybe true but them cm isn't a true SI unit.

Don't remember so many getting confused
between feet and inches and fractions of an inch.

Probbaly due to a few generations practising, but my mum could never work out what a third of anything was. And as for fluid ounces and hectares to fathoms
on to grains and troy anouces. How about short tons and long tons ?

On 29/06/2015 15:16, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 10:42:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
There are pros and cons for both. My guess is the change to
metric made it easier for early computer systems to calculate.

I don't believe that was significant.

Eh? Trivial job to use a calculator etc with metric systems. Different
matter with yards feet and inches.

I remeber when a calculator came out that could do fractions.


Calculating with metric
units is easier for humans, if perhaps more prone to slipping
into the wrong band of unit, but that*s a problem with the
naming system rather than the relative sizes of the units.

You'd be amazed how many 'average' people don't seem to be able to
differentiate between mm and cm.

Maybe true but them cm isn't a true SI unit.

Nor is the gramme, but a 1,000g is!

On Monday, 29 June 2015 15:15:02 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 29/06/2015 14:48, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/06/2015 14:35, RobertL wrote:
...
The metre is (was) one ten-millionth of the distance from pole to
equator.

Given the accuracy of its day, being 2km out in 10,000km can't be bad!

Accuracy was probably not helped by the surveyors

Talking of accuracy you do know that tomorrow just before midnight time will be frozen for one second to add a leap second.
So make sure you're sitting down, but not on the toilet as that could be painful. ;-)

On 29/06/2015 15:28, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 29 June 2015 15:15:02 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 29/06/2015 14:48, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/06/2015 14:35, RobertL wrote:
...
The metre is (was) one ten-millionth of the distance from pole to
equator.

Given the accuracy of its day, being 2km out in 10,000km can't be bad!

Accuracy was probably not helped by the surveyors

Talking of accuracy you do know that tomorrow just before midnight time will be frozen for one second to add a leap second.
So make sure you're sitting down, but not on the toilet as that could be painful. ;-)




How long is a leap second? (g)

On 29/06/2015 16:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Jon Fairbairn
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
Imperial measurements were based on the human body - so no surprise
building materials are in a convenient size relative to that.

Metric is more of a scientific or theoretical measurement.

Well, my index fingers are very close to 100mm long, little
fingers about 10mm wide at the tip. If I stick my arm out to one
side and turn my face away, the dist from the tip of my middle
finger to the end of my nose is close to 1m.

Why would anyone measure it with their face turned away. Facing
forwards (makes much more sense), makes it more like a yard nose to
finger tip.

It was a measure used by cloth merchants and turning their face away
avoided accusations of giving short measure. For the size of people at
the time, this made it about three feet, which became known as the cloth
yard since the Saxon yard was four feet long.

And a yard was supposed to be the Roman soldier's stride,

The Roman pace was standardised by Agrippa at five Roman feet.

and a foot is oddly enough the length of your foot...

Looking at the multitude of different versions of the length of the foot
across Europe, people in ancient times obviously did not have a standard
size of foot.


--
Colin Bignell

On 29/06/2015 14:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RobertL wrote:
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:57:35 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


... My guess is the change to metric made it easier for
early computer systems to calculate. But not for humans.




For measurements I agree with you that imperial is more 'human' and
easier to get right.

Same here. Even although I use both - and have done for ages. Someone
brought up on metric is unlikely to know the advantages of imperial for
DIY around the house.


There are no advantages for either metric or feet and inches.
You use either or both.

On 29/06/15 20:02, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 29/06/2015 16:19, Tim Streater wrote:

and a foot is oddly enough the length of your foot...


If you are a size 12!
Shoe sizes: 12 inches to one foot. size 12 is 12 inches. But shoe sizes
are in barleycorn units (1/3 of an inch) so a size 9 is 11 inches.



Looking at the multitude of different versions of the length of the foot
across Europe, people in ancient times obviously did not have a standard
size of foot.

In message . com,
lid writes
On 29/06/2015 14:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RobertL wrote:
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:57:35 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


... My guess is the change to metric made it easier for
early computer systems to calculate. But not for humans.




For measurements I agree with you that imperial is more 'human' and
easier to get right.

Same here. Even although I use both - and have done for ages. Someone
brought up on metric is unlikely to know the advantages of imperial for
DIY around the house.


There are no advantages for either metric or feet and inches.
You use either or both.


I'm not sure what Dave means by the advantages of imperial for DIY
around the house really. I mostly use metric nowadays (as I tend to in
cooking as well. Though some things are easier remembered in imperial -
lie a basic sponge cake recipe

--
Chris French

On 29/06/2015 15:16, whisky-dave wrote:

Maybe true but them cm isn't a true SI unit

Yes it is.

From the horse's mouth:
http://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/ & select 'SI prefixes'

--
Andy

On 29/06/2015 23:04, Chris French wrote:

I'm not sure what Dave means by the advantages of imperial for DIY
around the house really. I mostly use metric nowadays (as I tend to in
cooking as well. Though some things are easier remembered in imperial -
lie a basic sponge cake recipe

Basic sponge cake (victoria) is based on weighing against the eggs -
even easier :-)