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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

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.

--

On Sep 8, 8:34*am, 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.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

Robatoy wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:34*am, 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.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements as the
numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in different
countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres others
millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games sometimes .

The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built to
imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or plasterboard , in
europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800 by 900
which creates problems in refit works specs etc

6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm

"steve robinson" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:


feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements
as the
numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in
different
countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres
others
millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games
sometimes .

In the same situation, I believe that all the metric measurements being
"53??????meter." could easily be confused with "53?????meters. Basically
the units of measure sound too much the same.

Yards, feet, and Inches sound way different than meters, decimeters,
centimeters, and millimeters



The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built
to
imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or
plasterboard , in
europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800
by 900
which creates problems in refit works specs etc

I wonder if that is a valid assumption. Seldom do you pull out a 4x8 of any
thing and replace it as a unit. More often it is patched and cut to fit.


6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm

But what makes 6' or 72 inches easier to remember than 1800 mm?

On Sep 8, 10:15*am, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:34*am, 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.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

feet and inches are often far easier to remember than metric measurements as the
numbers get larger , you also have the problem that different trades in different
countries use different protocols , some use metres some centimetres others
millimetres but they dont always identify which , leads to fun and games sometimes .

The other issue is that in the us as well as the uk most homes were built to
imperial standard dimensions so you use 8 by 4 sheets of ply or plasterboard , in
europe most plasterboard sheet material is now metric 1200 by 2400 , 1800 by 900
which creates problems in refit works specs etc

6 feet /72 inches is often easier to remember than 1828mm

All valid points. Thanks for those.

"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.

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:34 am, 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.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

On a personal level, no...

OTOH, enterprises engaged in large-scale and/or routine trade _do_ use
mks routinely. I'm guessing you're dealing essentially w/ individuals
not sizable corporate engineering groups.

I'm a NE by training and 40+ years experience so know mks for
engineering work intimately. Yet, for routine day-to-day living I'm far
more comfortable w/ English units simply because they're still what have
that innate feeling over.

It's no different than your familiarity w/ daily temp's in C and sheet
goods in mm--that was what you grew up with; it's what you unconsciously
think in. OTOH, while you "know" what an inch is, it takes actual
effort to relate that. We're precisely the other way 'round (and I
suspect will continue to be for the foreseeable future as there isn't
the mechanism in the States to coerce the changeover).

--

--

dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:34 am, 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.

--

Interfacing easily with almost all other nations on earth would also
bring comfort, no?

On a personal level, no...

OTOH, enterprises engaged in large-scale and/or routine trade _do_ use
mks routinely. I'm guessing you're dealing essentially w/ individuals
not sizable corporate engineering groups.

I'm a NE by training and 40+ years experience so know mks for
engineering work intimately. Yet, for routine day-to-day living I'm far
more comfortable w/ English units simply because they're still what have
that innate feeling over.

It's no different than your familiarity w/ daily temp's in C and sheet
goods in mm--that was what you grew up with; it's what you unconsciously
think in. OTOH, while you "know" what an inch is, it takes actual
effort to relate that. We're precisely the other way 'round (and I
suspect will continue to be for the foreseeable future as there isn't
the mechanism in the States to coerce the changeover).

--

--

I think Obama needs to know about this. We need some more "change" we
can believe in. We need a Metric Czar.

"Chuck" wrote in message
...

I think Obama needs to know about this. We need some more "change" we can
believe in. We need a Metric Czar.


Been there Done that. Jimmy C tried that and that is why we deal with a
mixed up mess today expecially in the auto industry. 30 years later and
American cars still have a mix of metric and imperial parts.

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.

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

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

"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

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"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.

It's only stupidly bizarre to those who didn't grow up with it. And it goes
back to Rome or earlier, not to "some long dead English king".

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

It's not bizarre only if you grew up with it.

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

Perhaps I shoud have used a smiley?

"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
:


"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.

As mentioned, it is all what you are used to. As a born Hllander who
came to the US in '69 at 25 yoa, I should tell you that getting used to
inches and feet is not that easy at first, and I still have trouble with
the farting fractions of an inch. The metric system, once you get used
to it is much easier (IMNSHO) than the US system. An important thing to
get under your hat is the idea of order of magnitude (1, 10, 100, 1000,
etc). This will make it much easier to estimate whether your
calculations were right, or that you forgot to enter a digit on your
calculator, which then very accurately gave you an undesired answer.
Know our orders of magnitude, and whoosh goes that problem.

Nevertheless, miles, feet, inches come pretty natural to me now, as do
meters, centimeters and nanometers. To interchange them, I need a
calculator calibrated to about 2.54 (cm/inch).


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:

As mentioned, it is all what you are used to. As a born Hllander who
came to the US in '69 at 25 yoa, I should tell you that getting used to
inches and feet is not that easy at first, and I still have trouble with
the farting fractions of an inch.

I am sure you are right. But respectfully I ask, if you have trouble with
fractions of an inch, did you study fractions at all when growing up?
Absolutely no disrespect is intended with that question.
In the US we are taught fractions early in school, that may be why we prefer
fractions of a measurement rather than a whole number portion of a
measurement.


snip


Nevertheless, miles, feet, inches come pretty natural to me now, as do
meters, centimeters and nanometers. To interchange them, I need a
calculator calibrated to about 2.54 (cm/inch).

In the times that I use metric and inches I just "round" 25 mm to the inch,
4" ~ 100mm.
1/2 inch ~ 12.5 mm or 6 1/2 mm
1/4 inch ~ 6.25mm or 6 1/4 mm
1/8 inch ~ 3.125mm or 3 1/8 mm

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...


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.


I the the jury is still out on the metric CLOCK. ;~)

On 2009-09-09, Leon wrote:

I the the jury is still out on the metric CLOCK. ;~)

Heh.....

I have no prob with metric, but I'll stick with Fahrenheit, too.

nb

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...


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.


I the the jury is still out on the metric CLOCK. ;~)

It would be smarter to use a 24H clock though.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"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?

Why should we change _anything_?

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

Are they the majority? If not then what right do they have to impose their
system on the majority?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"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?

Why should we change _anything_?

Dollars are 10 based, just like metric, and it works. You seem to think is
is bizarre.



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

Are they the majority? If not then what right do they have to impose
their
system on the majority?


They are your health care providers for starters.

Metric users are becoming the majority. Forward looking companies are
making their products with metric hardware so they can export them. Too
often, people lose sight of the world economy and the requirements of some
countries with standards. They don't want inches any more than we wanted
metric imported cars. That has been a sticking point with exporting in the
automobile industry for many years.

When our company started buying Austrian made machines, it was a little
learning curve. Like others I was a bit apprehensive about learning a new
system. Once I did, I found it easier to work with, as have all of our
supervisors, maintenance people, and so forth. Some are just afraid of
change, afraid of having to learn a new different system.

Some of our industry tooling suppliers resisted the change and started to
lose a lot of business. There has not been a US maker of our type of
equipment for over 25 years so it was adapt or lose. A few went out of
business, the others easily adapted and are doing well. In the future, it
will be adapt or die. Do you want to be a part of the rest of the world?
Perhaps you don't have to, but with more and more of our business being
international, I prefer to adapt. Doing our little part of offset the trade
imbalance.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:


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.


The trouble really isn't the origin of the system, but the fact that the
old one still works perfectly well. When you get past 1/32", you might
as well switch the decimal representation of the value, it'll be
difficult any way.

Between feet, inches, and miles, just about every distance most people
want expressed is expressed. It's not broken, it's just not always easy
to convert between magnitudes... but points where one magnitude is equal
to another in use are few. (And at points where the math is relatively
easy.)

Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

On 9/8/09 8:34 AM, "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.

Translation - laziness.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

2.65 mm

What's half of 5.3 inches?

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

2.65 mm

Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?


What's half of 5.3 inches?

2.65 "

Leon wrote:
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

2.65 mm

Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?


What's half of 5.3 inches?

2.65 "

So, six of one and half a dozen of the other... :-)

On Sep 8, 3:12*pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Greg Neill" wrote in message

...



Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
....
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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

2.65 mm

Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?

What's half of 5.3 inches?

2.65 "

http://snickrit.se or very soon diyfurnitureplans.com
In my fathers workshop in the 40ies (myself 13 years old) we handled
both inperial (25.4 mm) and english (27 mm) inches plus naturally
the metric system that was standard for all but the timber and
woodwork industry at that time.
The lumber was measured and sold by english inches in cubic foot, the
workshop workers often spoke of imperial measuremenst, Plans where all
in
the metric system most in centimeters and millimeter thus an inch was
said to be 2 centimeter and 5.4 millimeter.
Today all is in millimeter.
French got metric at the revolution 1889 The imperial Russia got
metric at the revolution1918 We in Scandinavia got officially metric
sometimes 188? without a revolution why the change was not complete
before sometim e in 60ies.
I recommend to buy a measuring tape marked in both imperial and metric
and slowly go metric.
Klas

On Sep 8, 9:04*am, "Leon" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...

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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

That'd be 0.1043307", Leon. (BTW, I do get your point. )G

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:04 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...

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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

That'd be 0.1043307", Leon. (BTW, I do get your point. )G

I used to design business forms. Most typewriters (remember those) and
computer printers were based on the inch systems but used many strange
scales. I ended up having to work with line spacing of 1/8", 1/4", 1/3" and
1/2", character spacing varied from 1/12", 1/10", 1/8", 1/6" and up to
5/32". The biggest problem is that the typesetting equipment all ran on
another scale traditionally used by typesetters and printers, picas and
points. While conversion is not precise, a pica is very close to 1/6" and
there are 12 points to a pica which works out to about 72 points to the
inch.

When you work in all these scales for many years it becomes natural to you
and you can convert back and forth in your head easily. I still have
stainless steel rulers in all these spacings and scales, and often use them
when one of them will work better for me. When it works correctly I will
even use metric.

One of the reasons that the old Imperial system is dying is that different
countries used different standards. I learned many years ago that Imperial
measurements are useless in precision work because England, Canada,
Australia and the US all had different lengths of inches. Granted this was
at the 5th or 6th decimal but it was unuseable. Another example is the
gallon. Do you prefer it to liters? But which gallon? In the printing
business we had to mix photo chemicals for our litho camera film. You would
have to check where the Kodak chemicals were made because if they said add
30 ounces of concentrate to a gallon of water, you needed to know which
ounces and which gallon. A US Gallon contains 128 ounces which is 4 quarts
of 32 ounces each, a Canadian Gallon contains 160 ounces which is 4 quarts
of 40 ounces each. Even the ounces were slightly different. In this regard
metric is much easier.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
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?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?


Irrelevant if you've truly converted to metric. Just like learning a
foreign language. When you've truly gotten it, you don't translate in your
head, you *think* in the language in which you're speaking. No different
here. 5.3mm=5.3mm. period.

"Leon" wrote in
:


Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?



0.10433070866141732283464566929134 inch.

Floating point error might have occurred.

Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

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

"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.

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...

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/

"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.

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