On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb

J. Clarke wrote:
: dpb wrote:
: Robatoy wrote:
: ...
: But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
: archaic system?
:
: Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

: The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
: will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French system
: crammed down its throat.


No country has ever voluntarily adopted the metric system.

-- Andy Barss

Chris Friesen wrote:
: On 09/08/2009 06:32 AM, Robatoy wrote:

: But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
: archaic system?

It's not archaic!


: The cost for wholesale switchover would be a huge one-time cost, while
: the cost for staying is paid incrementally. There isn't enough
: incentive to make it worthwhile in the minds of regulators.

: Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
: typist

That's a myth. And a quite interesting one at that:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html

It's not only NOT faster than a QWERTY keyboard for a trained typist,
it's arguably slower, and Mr. Dvorak was a bit of a huckster.


: Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the US
: it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.

Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
intuitive to work with?

-- Andy Barss

On Sep 8, 12:26*pm, Robatoy wrote:


I'm still trying to figure out what adulterated horse**** is. :-}

Oddly, there's an old answer to this, from Russia.

"Govno c smetanoi" or somesuch, a common expression
meaning crap with sour cream...

It predates the internet, but is SO well suited to describe elements
of modern life...

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
that distance.

Get me a 2 x 4 sounds way better than get me a 5.08 x 10.16. (nominal of
course actually a 3.81 x 8.89) What do they call a stud in the metric
speaking countries. (there's a straihght line for ya)

On Sep 8, 6:44*pm, "d.williams" wrote:
Get me a 2 x 4 sounds way better than get me a 5.08 x 10.16. (nominal of
course actually a 3.81 x 8.89) What do they call a stud in the metric
speaking countries. (there's a straihght line for ya)

An aldulterated stud or an unadulterated one?

Leon wrote:
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
that distance.


..65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40

You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?
More importantly, can you use it?

Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
woodworking.

--
Froz...

On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:

dpb wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French system
crammed down its throat.

Amen.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 09/08/2009 04:00 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:

: Kind of like keyboard layout...Dvorak is 10-15% faster for a trained
: typist

That's a myth. And a quite interesting one at that:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html

It's not only NOT faster than a QWERTY keyboard for a trained typist,
it's arguably slower, and Mr. Dvorak was a bit of a huckster.

I should note up front that I use QWERTY and have never tried Dvorak.

There are arguments against that article. This post for instance is
quite interesting and seems to bring up several easily-verifiable points:

http://www.dvorak-keyboard.com/dvorak2.html

I got my 10% figure from Donald Norman's book, "The Design of Everyday
Things". He notes that Dvorak affectionados claim higher improvements
but that he could not substantiate them.

Quite a few people have indicated that Dvorak results in less stress on
their joints.

: Personally I like metric for most things, but living so close to the US
: it's just easier to use US units for construction/woodworking.

Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
intuitive to work with?

No, I'd find 2400x1200 panels easier to work with. Why stick with 8'
ceilings if we're truly going metric? But that would require redoing
all the building standards for 400mm or 600mm centers instead of 16" or 24".

Chris

Andrew Barss wrote:

Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
intuitive to work with?

Oh oh - I just finished a drawing for a parabolic trough concentrator
using dimensions of 2438.4 x 1219.2 mm

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

On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will indicate
that distance.

2.65 millimeters = 0.104330709 inches

http://tinyurl.com/luowee

Now that I've provided an answer as ludicrous as your challenge, what's
your point?

nb

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...



It was a joke

An unadulterated joke.




OK, here we go,

I wood'a been funnier if it had been ,,,,,

Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:32 am, Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:

PRO IMPERIAL:
There is absolutely no question; traditional imperial measurements are
far superior for woodworking. Most wreckers use it for very good
reasons:

PRO METRIC:
There is absolutely no question; metric measurements are far superior
for woodworking. Most woodworkers in the world use it for very good
reasons:

Intuitiveness:
1. Imperial is much more intuitive and natural. Feet and inches
(thumbs) have been used throughout human history as they are related
to human body parts (fingers and feet). As Michelangelo said: man is
the measure of all things.
1. Metric is much more intuitive and natural. Humans always use a base
10 system as it is related to human body parts (number of fingers &
toes). As Michelangelo said: man is the measure of all things.

Communicating measurements:
2. Imperial is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Someone
calls out a measurement for a piece of wood, & before you notice it,
you cut 10mm instead of 10cm.
2. Metric is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Quickly now,
is 19/32" bigger or smaller than 5/8"? On the other hand, it is
immediately obvious that 15mm is smaller than 16mm.

Ease of learning:
3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.
3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.

Arithmetic:
4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.
4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
calculates inches and fractions.

Division:
5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in imperial measurements. What do
you call half a millimeter? Ever try to divide 304.8mm by four? A foot
is real easy - 12" divided by four is 3".
5. It's a lot easier to divide stuff in metric measurements. Ever try
to divide 39 9/16 inches by four? While 1000mm divided by four readily
gives 250mm.

Accuracy:
6. Imperial is more accurate. You can easily go to 1/32 which is more
precise than 1mm.
6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
precise than 1/32"

The REAL Reason:
7. Metric is a stupid cowardly French system. You don't want to
support those smelly unwashed arrogant ingrates, do you? GOD BLESS
AMERICA!
7. Inches and feet are a stupid warmongering American imperialist
system. The rest of the world and all scientists use the much more
rational metric system. It's about time the US gets into the 19th
century, never mind the 21st! VIVE LA FRANCE!


I think we just found the CZAR of metric. I'll call Obama. Thanks for
volunteering Luigi!

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 9/8/2009 6:32 AM J. Clarke spake thus:

dpb wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

...

But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Comfort...it's what people grew up with so it's what's natural.

The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French
system crammed down its throat.

Amen.



Yeah, the US would much rather hold out for some stupidly bizarre
measurement that had to do with the distance from the nose to the thumb of
some long dead English king.

Bizarre French system? Talk about your basic unadulterated horse****...
downright bizarre, if you ask me.

LOL... sometimes I think the stuff here is akin to really poorly done
comedy.

Ed

"Luigi Zanasi" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 8:36 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

1 pound = "A pint's a pound the world around"

Now I ask you: which is more meaningful to the average person?

Too bad it's wrong. A pint is 1/8 of a gallon

Correct


or 20 ounces.

Or 16 ounces.


A gallon
of water (a real one, not the wimpy American kind) is 10 lbs., so one
eighth of 10 lbs is not one pound.

No you are wimpy. ;~) You muscles are so weak you think a gallon of water
feel like 10 lbs. We Americans are so strong a gallon of water only feel
like about 8 pounds.


Same goes for the silly Yankee gallon, which is eight point something
pounds.

I'll give yo a little there, the Yanks gallons are mostly from NEW YORK
CITY. We Southerners think a gallon feels like 7.8 pounds.


Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.
For linear distances, it doesn't really matter what you use: inches,
mm, cm, feet, cubits, whatever.

Cuz it is easier for the "challenged" to figger out? ;~)



I was trying to figure out how much rain on my roof it took to fill a
45-gallon drum .

It would take, ummm 45 gallons I bet'cha



How many cubic inches in a
gallon??? While translated in to metric system, it was all
straightforward once I knew how many litres in a gallon.

How many cubic mm's in a gallon? ;~)


Just yankin your chain. ;~)

"Luigi Zanasi" wrote in message
...


Oh, I gotta call you on some of these. LOL



Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:




Communicating measurements:
2. Imperial is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Someone
calls out a measurement for a piece of wood, & before you notice it,
you cut 10mm instead of 10cm.
2. Metric is easier to hear and leads to less confusion. Quickly now,
is 19/32" bigger or smaller than 5/8"? On the other hand, it is
immediately obvious that 15mm is smaller than 16mm.

Easier to hear? Which is smaller, 15 $%imeter or 16 @%imeter. Do I need
to repeat that? :!)



Ease of learning:
3. Imperial measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to
memorize all those crazy prefixes: femto, nano, micro, milli, centi,
deci, deka, hecto, kilo, mega, myria, giga, etc.


No friggen kidden, I only knew about 4 or 5 of those, the last one because
of my hard drive.

3. Metric measurements are easier to learn. You don't have to remember
all those crazy measures like inches, hands, feet, cubits, yards,
fathoms, rods, cones, chains, furlongs, cables, miles, etc.

We really only use feet, yards, miles and inches with any common regulirity.

But a good rod is needed for fishin, and cables for TV.


Arithmetic:
4. Imperial uses simple fractional arithmetic which we all learned in
grade school. Not like metric where you need to know all those
prefixes and can easily make a mistake on your calculator & cut
something 10 times too big or 10 times too small.

Exactly


4. Metric uses simple decimal arithmetic where you can use your
calculator directly without springing big bucks for one that
calculates inches and fractions.

What fun is that?




Accuracy:
6. Metric is more accurate. You can easily go to 0.5mm which is more
precise than 1/32"

Not if what you are measuring is 1/32" long.

On Sep 8, 7:00*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Otherwise, you'd find 2440 x 1220mm plywood panels easier and more
intuitive to work with?

Oh oh - I just finished a drawing for a parabolic trough concentrator
using dimensions of 2438.4 x 1219.2 mm

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

I can expect to seem some aircraft-hangar walls flying overhead soon?

FrozenNorth wrote:

..65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40

You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?

Lots of us use calipers that split that into 25 parts.

More importantly, can you use it?

I can, but generally only use the measuring tools to check the results -
my primary cutting tool is good to +/-0.001, all by itself.

Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
woodworking.

Not really. Imagine gluing up a table top with that much difference
between the heights of adjacent boards...

....or assembling a M&T joint when the tenon was 0.025" oversize and the
mortise was 0.025" undersize.

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

Leon wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.

Really? What is the metric unit for weight?

Just yankin your chain. ;~)

Bakatcha

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

"FrozenNorth" wrote in message
...
Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
indicate that distance.
.65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40

You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?
More importantly, can you use it?

Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
woodworking.




No, I wnat to se the metric rule that will indicate 2.65mm.

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
indicate
that distance.

2.65 millimeters = 0.104330709 inches

http://tinyurl.com/luowee

Now that I've provided an answer as ludicrous as your challenge, what's
your point?

nb

You have obviousely missed my point, as what you pointed out is not metric.
I wanted to see the rule that indicates your answer, 2.65 mm.
My point is it is easier to measure halves in inperial than in metric.
Regardless of an imperial rule marked in 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, or 1/64 of an
inch, 1/2 is alway easy to see. It is going to be tough to see 2.65 mm
markings.

Morris Dovey wrote:
FrozenNorth wrote:

..65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40

You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?

Lots of us use calipers that split that into 25 parts.

Agreed, I can also make a mark at half a millimeter with a pencil, but
what have I got when I actually make the cut?

More importantly, can you use it?

I can, but generally only use the measuring tools to check the results -
my primary cutting tool is good to +/-0.001, all by itself.

We all don't have a CNC, and you will still have movement larger than
what we are talking about.

Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
woodworking.

Not really. Imagine gluing up a table top with that much difference
between the heights of adjacent boards...

ROS
;-)


...or assembling a M&T joint when the tenon was 0.025" oversize and the
mortise was 0.025" undersize.

That can be tweaked, pick one and adjust.

However if the tenon was 0.025 undersize. and the mortise was 0.025
oversize, then we have a problem.

--
Froz...

Subject

Everytime this subject comes up, I'm reminded of my first day of
Physics class.

Prof announced that during the quarter, he would be giving quizes to
test our progress.

"The answer to every question will be "1 Me".

Your job will be to define the units of "Me".

As you can see, it made an impression.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote in message
6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm

Guessing that we see 2.5 meter lengths in the place of 2x4x8's in the not
too distant future.

Leon wrote:
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
indicate
that distance.
2.65 millimeters = 0.104330709 inches

http://tinyurl.com/luowee

Now that I've provided an answer as ludicrous as your challenge, what's
your point?

nb

You have obviousely missed my point, as what you pointed out is not metric.
I wanted to see the rule that indicates your answer, 2.65 mm.
My point is it is easier to measure halves in inperial than in metric.
Regardless of an imperial rule marked in 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, or 1/64 of an
inch, 1/2 is alway easy to see. It is going to be tough to see 2.65 mm
markings.


Ok, you take a measurement and it comes to 13 25/64 with a really good
rule, where are we now?

Mark it accurately.
;-)

Now cut it, without a CNC.

--
Froz...

FrozenNorth wrote:

Ok, you take a measurement and it comes to 13 25/64 with a really good
rule, where are we now?

Mark it accurately.
;-)

Now cut it, without a CNC.

NBD - I have a 24" scale that'll handle the measurement accurately. I'd
mark it with a knife and split the mark with my RAS. If I needed more
than one I'd set a stop - look at the bottom of

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/RadialArmSaw/

for a setup that allows setting multiple stops on the RAS at one time
(handy when there's expectation of doing another run of the same part or
set of parts).

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

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
indicate that distance.

I work with metric these days. Frankly, in 20 years I've never seen
anything 5.3mm called out. Nor have I seen .20866 inches. (Quick, what is
half of that?)

One of the beauties of the system is things tend to be more whole numbers
rather than 21/64 and 17/32. There is no logical reason that we could not
comfortably change and use metric other that we don't want to change. The
rest of the world manages to build some rather complex and sophisticated
machines with it and I bet we could too.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"FrozenNorth" wrote in message
...
Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb

Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
indicate that distance.
.65 millimeters = 0.0255905512 inches, approx 1/40

You got a rule accurate to 2.5 one hundredths of an inch?
More importantly, can you use it?

Not doubting your skill, but that is getting ridiculously precise for
woodworking.




No, I wnat to se the metric rule that will indicate 2.65mm.

It is on the opposite side of the rule that has .20866 inches. Just flip it
around

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

The hold-out is that the US is still at least somewhat responsive to the
will of the people and the public doesn't _want_ some bizarre French
system
crammed down its throat.

So instead of getting paid in dollars and cents should we change to a system
of farthings, shillings, or ringgits?

Much of our country happily works with metric every day and have for
decades. Those people don't look any worse for wear.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
comfortably change and use metric other that we don't want to change. The
rest of the world manages to build some rather complex and sophisticated
machines with it and I bet we could too.

Yeah, but you're talking about changing life long habits and that's not so
easy a thing to do. The only way to realistically do anything is to teach
the young how to use metric and let the old folks consign themselves to
history.

Not saying it can't be done, just that there may be more prudent things to
learn in the time the good old folks have left to them.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Leon" wrote in message
...
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-08, Leon wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
It's 2.65mm.

Jaysus! If you can't divide 5.3 by 2 in your head, you just flunked
gradeschool math.

nb
Now that you have told me the answer, point me to a rule that will
indicate that distance.

I work with metric these days. Frankly, in 20 years I've never seen
anything 5.3mm called out. Nor have I seen .20866 inches. (Quick, what is
half of that?)

One of the beauties of the system is things tend to be more whole numbers
rather than 21/64 and 17/32. There is no logical reason that we could not
comfortably change and use metric other that we don't want to change. The
rest of the world manages to build some rather complex and sophisticated
machines with it and I bet we could too.


Exactly, being Canadian of sufficient age, I grew up based on the
Imperial system, but the change happened when I was in high school, or
was it junior high, sorry can't remember. Some things to this day are
better in imperial, others make sense in metric.

But I still by 2x4s , and 4x8s as that is what they come in.

--
Froz...

In article , Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Here are the main arguments for both sides of the debate:

[...]

The REAL Reason:
7. Metric is a stupid cowardly French system. You don't want to
support those smelly unwashed arrogant ingrates, do you? GOD BLESS
AMERICA!
7. Inches and feet are a stupid warmongering American imperialist
system. The rest of the world and all scientists use the much more
rational metric system. It's about time the US gets into the 19th
century, never mind the 21st! VIVE LA FRANCE!

ROTFLMAO!
Excellent post, Luigi. Thanks!

"FrozenNorth" wrote in message
...


Ok, you take a measurement and it comes to 13 25/64 with a really good
rule, where are we now?

Mark it accurately.
;-)


I have rules in the shop that indicate that. Not a problem. But still I
asked about a rule indicating 1/2 of 5.3 mm.

As for the 13 25/64, It is 13 inches plus the "only" mark in between 12/32"
and 13/32", easily marked with a knife. But is there a rule that shows
2.65mm? Better yet, is there a rule that would indicate 5.3 mm let alone
half of that distance?

Robatoy wrote:

I can expect to seem some aircraft-hangar walls flying overhead soon?

I'm kinda hoping to keep the walls in place.

FYI - I've posted the latest bit of solar "zen" at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/...ng/HTAbsorber/

which is what has struggling to speak metric, physics, and French all at
the same time.

My head hurts.

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

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I work with metric these days. Frankly, in 20 years I've never seen
anything 5.3mm called out. Nor have I seen .20866 inches. (Quick, what
is half of that?)

One of the beauties of the system is things tend to be more whole numbers
rather than 21/64 and 17/32. There is no logical reason that we could not
comfortably change and use metric other that we don't want to change. The
rest of the world manages to build some rather complex and sophisticated
machines with it and I bet we could too.


Yeah but! ;~) Isn't Ikea stuff metric?

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.

Really? What is the metric unit for weight?

Just yankin your chain. ;~)

Bakatcha


Hey it was the other guy that said

Actually, volume and weight is where the metric system really shines.

"d.williams" wrote in message
...
Get me a 2 x 4 sounds way better than get me a 5.08 x 10.16. (nominal of
course actually a 3.81 x 8.89) What do they call a stud in the metric
speaking countries. (there's a straihght line for ya)


I just bet the 2x4 equivalent in metric would be the rounded also. We don't
say give me the 1.5 x 3.5.

They would say give me the 50 x 100 eh!

"Upscale" wrote in news:bc73d$4aa6ed80$cef88bc5$5362
@TEKSAVVY.COM:


"Robatoy" wrote in message
6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm

Guessing that we see 2.5 meter lengths in the place of 2x4x8's in the not
too distant future.

Make that 243.84 cm, please.




grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 6:44 pm, "d.williams" wrote:
Get me a 2 x 4 sounds way better than get me a 5.08 x 10.16. (nominal of
course actually a 3.81 x 8.89) What do they call a stud in the metric
speaking countries. (there's a straihght line for ya)

An aldulterated stud or an unadulterated one?


They would call a stud a "mate" wouldn't they?