Hi to all woodworking friends,
I am doing a little bit of furniture design. I would like to know if
metric measurments would be acceptable for the US woodworker?
You may request a sample drawing from me.
Keep on your good work.
Best wishes from Sweden and Klas

Klas from Creum wrote:
Hi to all woodworking friends,
I am doing a little bit of furniture design. I would like to know if
metric measurments would be acceptable for the US woodworker?

I can only answer for myself... Metric is fine!

Klas from Creum wrote:
Hi to all woodworking friends,
I am doing a little bit of furniture design. I would like to know if
metric measurments would be acceptable for the US woodworker?
....

Think that would depend on what/who you're after -- for the
casual/hobby/weekender, I'd think "not so much". Most folks w/o
technical training in the US just aren't familiar enough w/ metric to be
comfortable thinking in those units (and even I, though a NucE for 30+
yrs w/ still think natively in English outside the specialized environment).

--

"Klas from Creum" wrote in message
...
Hi to all woodworking friends,
I am doing a little bit of furniture design. I would like to know if
metric measurments would be acceptable for the US woodworker?
You may request a sample drawing from me.
Keep on your good work.
Best wishes from Sweden and Klas


If you want to appeal to more than a few people, No!

"Leon" wrote in news:byRwk.412$Z64.123
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:


"Klas from Creum" wrote in message
news:2f9a922f-60ca-413f-918c-80c384125c92
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Hi to all woodworking friends,
I am doing a little bit of furniture design. I would like to know if
metric measurments would be acceptable for the US woodworker?
You may request a sample drawing from me.
Keep on your good work.
Best wishes from Sweden and Klas


If you want to appeal to more than a few people, No!

Many would (or rather should) be comfortable but are not, in part because
a simple divide by 2.5 doesn't work exactly. Mostly the problem is
visualizing the distances/measurements. Having grown up long ago in
metric, I still find the intricacies of US measurements confounding, but
on the other hand, more easy to draw in my mind.

I wouldn't mind seeing metric drawings ... And I am sure there are some
here who can easily transpose them into US measurements, although for
precise drawings, they may need to be redone. Morris Dovey, any
comments?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

I wouldn't mind seeing metric drawings ... And I am sure there are some
here who can easily transpose them into US measurements, although for
precise drawings, they may need to be redone. Morris Dovey, any
comments?

I'd very much prefer inch measurements, but if the plan was for
something that I found especially beautiful/exciting, I'd probably shrug
and take the time to convert the measurements.

If the plan requires metric hardware, then it might be important to make
that absolutely clear - and a list of sources would bring you much good
karma.

I'm not sure I'm the right guy to ask since I don't build much furniture
and almost nothing that I do build is likely to be thought beautiful by
any normal person... :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Han" wrote in message
...


Many would (or rather should) be comfortable but are not, in part because
a simple divide by 2.5 doesn't work exactly.

Even if 2.5 did divide exactly, there is bound to be a miscalculation at
least one time when manually converting a metric drawing into US
measurements.




Mostly the problem is
visualizing the distances/measurements. Having grown up long ago in
metric, I still find the intricacies of US measurements confounding, but
on the other hand, more easy to draw in my mind.

I wouldn't mind seeing metric drawings ... And I am sure there are some
here who can easily transpose them into US measurements, although for
precise drawings, they may need to be redone. Morris Dovey, any
comments?

I think I could go with a metric drawing If all my equipment had metric
measurements.

"Leon" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...


Many would (or rather should) be comfortable but are not, in part
because a simple divide by 2.5 doesn't work exactly.

Even if 2.5 did divide exactly, there is bound to be a miscalculation
at least one time when manually converting a metric drawing into US
measurements.




Mostly the problem is
visualizing the distances/measurements. Having grown up long ago in
metric, I still find the intricacies of US measurements confounding,
but on the other hand, more easy to draw in my mind.

I wouldn't mind seeing metric drawings ... And I am sure there are
some here who can easily transpose them into US measurements,
although for precise drawings, they may need to be redone. Morris
Dovey, any comments?

I think I could go with a metric drawing If all my equipment had
metric measurements.

I really like metric. Dividing or multiplying by 10 is so much easier
than 2. However, I like my son-in-law's T-shirt that says:
There are only 10 kinds of people:
Those who understand binary and those who don't.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote in
:

I really like metric. Dividing or multiplying by 10 is so much easier
than 2.

To which I always ask, what is half of 1 mm?

Han wrote in news:Xns9B12A227B8226ikkezelf@
199.45.49.11:

I really like metric. Dividing or multiplying by 10 is so much easier
than 2. However, I like my son-in-law's T-shirt that says:
There are only 10 kinds of people:
Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The one real advantage of the U.S. system is that it allows for nicely
graded levels of precision. Each successive division of the unit doubles
the precision, whereas the metric system increases precision by a factor of
10 - not necessarily to advantage in construction.

If I'm laying out a foundation, I can work to the nearest 1/4". Squaring
up the deck, 1/8". Framing walls are measured to th 16th, and trim details
to the 32nd. The divisions are clearly delineated on the tape. Metric
gives me the choice of centimeters and millimeters - using anything in
between means counting millimeters on the tape, a sure source of error.

Just my 1/50 of a dollar -

Scott

Han wrote:


Many would (or rather should) be comfortable but are not, in part because
a simple divide by 2.5 doesn't work exactly. Mostly the problem is
visualizing the distances/measurements. Having grown up long ago in
metric, I still find the intricacies of US measurements confounding, but
on the other hand, more easy to draw in my mind.

Does ANYONE not own _a_ ruler and tape that doesn't have metric markings?

Anyone who has NOTHING with metric units, speak up!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
Han wrote:


Many would (or rather should) be comfortable but are not, in part because
a simple divide by 2.5 doesn't work exactly. Mostly the problem is
visualizing the distances/measurements. Having grown up long ago in
metric, I still find the intricacies of US measurements confounding, but
on the other hand, more easy to draw in my mind.

Does ANYONE not own _a_ ruler and tape that doesn't have metric markings?


I have several with out the two markings. Oddly they are kinda hard to
find. IIRC FastCap makes a couple now. Working with a Festool Domino which
is only metric is a bit tough at times when wanting to cut a mortise in the
exact middle of a 3/4" thick piece of wood. Sooo I have been looking tape
measures with the dual markings.

My Rules have standard on one side and metric on the other. :~(

Leon wrote:

I have several with out the two markings. Oddly they are kinda hard to
find. IIRC FastCap makes a couple now. Working with a Festool Domino which
is only metric is a bit tough at times when wanting to cut a mortise in the
exact middle of a 3/4" thick piece of wood.

Why measure?

Divide, and units become irrelevant.

A combo square used similar to a depth gauge makes a great divider. I
do this with my mortiser. Set the square to protrude ~ 1/2 the board
thickness. Scribe a line, flip the square to the other side, scribe
again. Exactly between those two lines is the center. Use the board to
set the tool.

Klas from Creum wrote:
Hi to all woodworking friends,
I am doing a little bit of furniture design. I would like to know if
metric measurments would be acceptable for the US woodworker?
You may request a sample drawing from me.
Keep on your good work.
Best wishes from Sweden and Klas


I live in Canada, ostensibly a metric country. Despite that, and because
of our proximity to the US, most of our lumber at the yard is sized in
the old imperial way.

I drive in kilometers per hour, read celcius temps, and buy sliced meat
by the gram. I'm used to it.

But reading metric plans and using inch-based lumber would be very
difficult. It would add to my errors, and I don't need any help in that
department. Converting isn't a difficult process for me, but I think I'd
avoid it because I'd end up with a measurement like 3.6984".

My $0.02000000000000

--

Tanus

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

Tanus wrote in :

Klas from Creum wrote:
Hi to all woodworking friends,
I am doing a little bit of furniture design. I would like to know if
metric measurments would be acceptable for the US woodworker?
You may request a sample drawing from me.
Keep on your good work.
Best wishes from Sweden and Klas


I live in Canada, ostensibly a metric country. Despite that, and
because of our proximity to the US, most of our lumber at the yard is
sized in the old imperial way.

I drive in kilometers per hour, read celcius temps, and buy sliced
meat by the gram. I'm used to it.

But reading metric plans and using inch-based lumber would be very
difficult. It would add to my errors, and I don't need any help in
that department. Converting isn't a difficult process for me, but I
think I'd avoid it because I'd end up with a measurement like 3.6984".

My $0.02000000000000


To add to that confusion, lumber I saw in Holland was sold in metric
measurements, but acursory examination clearly showed that the plywood
panels etc were 4x8 feet ... Still they measure everything in m and cm.

My €0,02 grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Stuart" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tanus wrote:

But reading metric plans and using inch-based lumber would be very
difficult. It would add to my errors, and I don't need any help in that
department. Converting isn't a difficult process for me, but I think I'd
avoid it because I'd end up with a measurement like 3.6984".

But surely your Lumber sizes are only nominal anyway? When you want a
specific size you plane it yourself to exact size. Like in the UK, if you
bought "2x2" planed you got something around 1.3/4"x1.3/4" plus and minus
about 1/16". These days its 44mmx44mm and that's the finished size you
buy.

Actually in the US, you can commonly buy rough cut, S2S, and S2S1E/S3S.
Surfaced 2 sides and Surfaced 2 sides 1 edge ripped straight. All are
commonly nominal and are intended to be resurfaced/planed to the desired
normal thickness.

There is also a very common S4S designation for lumber and this lumber is
uniform in width and thickness and not normally intended to be resurfaced to
aquire the common thickness of 3/4" from 4/4 stock.






Speaking personally, at age 61, I've only just started using metric units
for measuring timber as I always used to like imperial measure. However,
trying to work out the centre of a piece of timber that is 1.13/16" thick
requires more brain exercise, tiresome for my old brain, than halving
50mm.

Half of 1-13/16" Convert all to the lowest common deniminator, add, then
double the common deniminatior. 1" = 16/16" + 13/16" = 29/16". Half of
that is 29/32". But I hear you, several years of the old fashoned way of
creating mechanical drawings mades one quick with fractions. ;~)

Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Tanus wrote:

But reading metric plans and using inch-based lumber would be very
difficult. It would add to my errors, and I don't need any help in that
department. Converting isn't a difficult process for me, but I think I'd
avoid it because I'd end up with a measurement like 3.6984".

But surely your Lumber sizes are only nominal anyway?

Yes it is. I didn't mention that because it would add another layer of
confusion.

When you want a
specific size you plane it yourself to exact size. Like in the UK, if you
bought "2x2" planed you got something around 1.3/4"x1.3/4" plus and minus
about 1/16". These days its 44mmx44mm and that's the finished size you buy.

Speaking personally, at age 61, I've only just started using metric units
for measuring timber as I always used to like imperial measure. However,
trying to work out the centre of a piece of timber that is 1.13/16" thick
requires more brain exercise, tiresome for my old brain, than halving 50mm.

Why convert - just get a metric rule :-)

You've been more successful with that than I. I tried that a few times,
for the same reason, but imperial thinking got in the way and I gave it
up. With the work that I do, halving 13/16" normally isn't an issue.

Think currency, you guys should be used to working in 10s, here in the UK
we used to have to put up with 12 pennies to the shilling and twenty
shillings to the pound.



--

Tanus

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/