For decades I’ve been wondering why we’re still stuck with the feet, inches, and fractions of an inch archaic system. The tenths and hundredths of a foot is much more accurate and easier to add and subtract. Used to have to convert plans for form carps, excavators, blade men on every job. Carried around dozens of little rulers that would convert inches to decimals of a foot, and gave’em out. It’s not like the metric system. A foot is still a foot, it’s just got tenths instead of inches. You got ten fingers.
Any good reason that I’ve missed all these years?
Replies
and if the decmil is left out and you know that's gonna happen...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming
WOW!!! What a Ride!
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
Don't think so. It'd even be easier to see. Look, 6' 1-1/2", or 73-1/2", or 6.125". If you leave the 'mark out it'd look like 61 1/2". Just a learning experience.
AND it's a real PITA to enter into AutoCad, IMHO.
We did entire (optional) microwave lab report in college using only Old Testament measurements - cubits and spans and all - even like "nano-cubits"
Got an "F"
Forrest - cursed with unimaginative professors
LOL. Kinda like converting varas to decimals...of varas instead of feet.
Or Portugese to English.
Translations don't work...
One good thing about the domestic drug trade during the 60's and 70's
.
.
.
It taught a whole generation the metric system. <g>
and what's with this '24 hour day' and '60 minute hour'?time to move up to decimal time - Base units equivalent to decimal divisions of the day, such as 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, or 1/100,000 day, or other divisions of the day, such as 1/20 or 1/40 day with names such as tick, meck, chi, chron, moment, etc., and multiple and submultiple units formed with metric prefixes - handy, eh?A modified second = 1/100 000 of a day = 0.864 s could be a viable alternative. Any redefinition of the second, however, creates conflicts with anything based on its precise current definition. Another unit for time, more familiar than some other suggestions, could be 14.4 minutes, i.e. a shorter quarter of an hour, or a centiday. The centiday was used in China (called key in Chinese) for thousands of years, until the Jesuits had it redefined from 1/100th of a day to 1/96th of a day (i.e., 15 minutes) in the 17th century.personally, I don't see where recalibrating every scientific instrument is any real argument against the convenience of decimal time - The main problem of metric time lies in the units. The International System of Units has only developed prefixes regarding 10 units exponentially in both the multiple and submultiple directions. The first three multiples would be viable for use within a metric time system; they are 101 (decasecond = 10 seconds), 102 (hectosecond = 100 seconds; 1.666 minutes) and 103 (kilosecond = 1 000 seconds; 16.666 minutes) respectively. However, the fourth value in the SI Units is 106 (megasecond = 1 000 000 seconds; 16 666.666 minutes; 277.777 hours; 11.574 days). Followed by 109 (gigasecond = 1 000 000 000 seconds; 16 666 666.666 minutes; 277 777.777 hours; 11 574.074 days; 31.689 years); a relatively unviable unit to measure human time/life in. To make this system of prefixes work for metric time, standard units and prefixes would have to be developed for the 4th, 5th exponents to make metric time viable to human lifepshaw - nattering nabobs of negatizm - fight for your right to metric time!"there's enough for everyone"
Now I KNOW that apples and peaches are NOT your main crop.
I thunk only I thought those communistic thoughts witha percosette buzz and a bottle of mouthwash and sterno chaser.
LOL.Yeah, wait till the poles shift ( again, drat) and we all re-dimensionalize in the multiverse in the exact same place we just left, just a few million billion heartbeats from when we died.'ere...Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
"Success is not spontaneous combustion, you have to set yourself on Fire"
David,
You may argue for metric time, however I see a better arguement in favor of whitworth time..
(that way I'd never be late for the appointment) ;-)
"it's a real PITA to enter into AutoCad, IMHO."Why does ACAD make everything so hard?
They must have a whole floor of geniuses at Autodesk thinking up ways to induce operator fatigue!When setting up Softplan, I told the program to display on plan in feet/inches fractions, but I can make entries as a decimal ( easy memorized fractions for me) on the keypad. surely ACAD can offer a way to do that.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Yeah, you can set it up that way. When you're entering courses and distances, or legs of a figure it's easier to type 6.125 than 6'1-1/2".
Everything else uses engineering scales, why not the building trades?
I'm not trying to start any shid, just trying to find out something that's bugged me for years.
<Why does ACAD make everything so hard?>
AutoCAD no for girly-men.
Must be strong, like bull.
Forrest - waitin' for the snowmelt flooding
so how deep was your snow in autocad?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Must be strong, like bull.
We might ought not bring up the number of un-washed hours at CAD stations modern productivity levels seem to require . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"Why does ACAD make everything so hard?They must have a whole floor of geniuses at Autodesk thinking up ways to induce operator fatigue!
When setting up Softplan, I told the program to display on plan in feet/inches fractions, but I can make entries as a decimal ( easy memorized fractions for me) on the keypad. surely ACAD can offer a way to do that."
ACAD has an outstanding marketing department but has always been a little behind the curve when compared to other programs. For example, it wasn't until the late '90's that ACAD would let you modify text while Microstation has had that ability since '89.
As a current examples, ACAD has two different commands for extend and trim. Microstation has one, a trim is simply a negative extend. Small thing but when that command is used 400 times a day, it makes a BIG difference. And that's only one of a hundred small things where ACAD is clunky
Also, Autocad lacks a "clip" feature, standard in Microstation. "Clip" allows you, to say, delete everything inside a fence AT the fence line. ACAD only has "everything totally inside the fence" or "everything crossing and inside the fence".
ACAD rely's on the keyboard way to much (all the punching the "ENTER" key). Microstation is set up using a three button mouse. The equivalant of "ENTER" is the right button.
Even Softplan is much easier although with SF it's harder to draw large details. One feature I like with SF is the ability to temporily make the dimensions very large; it minimizes zooming.
Runnerguy
Autocad lacks a "clip" feature, standard in Microstation. "Clip" allows you, to say, delete everything inside a fence AT the fence line. ACAD only has "everything totally inside the fence" or "everything crossing and inside the fence".
Actually, they added "Fence" in R13/R14 as a sellection method. "Fence" selects all entities the fence line crosses. There is a "gotcha," naturally, Object snap and orthographic toggles affect how Fence promogulates. This has caused no end of User frustration. Autodesk added a sequential Select/Deselect i n the 2000s series of releases. For those actually taught that, it's kind of cool.
So, you can select by individual pick, by bounding box (only wholey contained), by crossing box (every entity within or touching), and by Fence (anything in contact).
There are two great unsung selections, though. One is Filter, the other is Select. Once a person embraces noun-verb, it's not a huge leap in the process--if a tad unlike other ACAD modification routines.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Capn: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Not to sidetrack the thread but I think we're talking about two slightly different things here.
I'm aware of the selection by bounding and crossing box and by fence. I was talking about a way to DELETE or "clip" if you will everthing in the fence EXACTLY at the fence line, a feature Microstation has had since 1995. From what I can figure, ACAD has no way to select just the parts of elements (excluding blocks) that exist inside the fence AT exactly the fence line thereby allowing me to delete or do what ever else with them. If a line crosses a "Clip Fence", only that part of the line within the fence is selected and not the part of the line outside the fence.
As an example I have a plan with wide deck stairs that now needs a 2" handrail in the center. With MS I would draw the new handrail and then to delete the riser lines that are now under where the new rail is I simply draw a clip fence exactly over the same lines of the new handrail and delete all the stair riser lines now within the clip fence. With one mouse click all the lines passing under the new handrail are gone. The only way I can figure out how to do this in ACAD is breaking and trimming each individual riser line as it interstcts the handrail line, a cumbersome, multistep process.
And that's an easy example. Placing new windows and doors in existing elevations are particulairly troublesome in ACAD compared to MS.
Runnerguy
From what I can figure, ACAD has no way to select just the parts of elements (excluding blocks) that exist inside the fence AT exactly the fence line thereby allowing me to delete or do what ever else with them. If a line crosses a "Clip Fence", only that part of the line within the fence is selected and not the part of the line outside the fence.
Ah, may just be a terminology issue.
Let's suppose some 36" tall lines in a horizontal array 11" apart. Let's then suppose we draw two horizontal line 1.5" apart centered on that array. Let's then presume that we wish to excise the vertical lines between the horizontals (and not by picking each one).
Best bet would be to use Trim. When asked for the "trim by" objects, the two horizontals are selected. When asked for the "objects to trim," entering "F" for fence then allows making a pick centered between the horizontal line. Fence then shows a "rubber band" as you move the cursor about. In this example, one need only pick a second point horizontally across all od the verticals.
Here's where most folk get sideways, Fence will make a continuous "crossing" line until terminated with a Return. Then, you are still "in" the Select mode of Trim, so you need one more Return to execute the command.
The whole "trim ought to be trim-or-extend" argument has been going on for a great long while. One can find proponents for either case. The nub of it is still that Autodesk came in second for writing the command that way, and they are not about to start paying royalties anytime soon, either. This has not stopped legions of AutoLisp coders from "fixing" that very problem with varying numbers of bells and whistles.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"Fence" I learned something new today, thanks.Though ProgeCad (I'm cheap) doesn't quite work the same way in my quick test, I still have to select each intity, But I don't have to Break and then Trim. Cool.TFB (Bill)
Edited 1/19/2008 10:40 am by ToolFreakBlue
Thanks Capn. Tried that and it worked ok. Still a little bit round and about.
Hopefully, with the advent of programs like Sketchup, software designers for existing programs will make them more intuitive.
Runnerguy
See above, This is for you. :)TFB (Bill)
See above
Hey, 27 years of fussing with ACAD, I ought to know something about it.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Damn, that's before....everything.
I see, refresh with a chisel....
that's before....everything.
The xeroxed list of updates from Version 1.82 to Ver 1.83 included the very spiffy new feature of being able to cast lines diagonally in the Z plane (only 90º extrusions being permissible before that). Oh, and the dimensions had become Associative, too (but you had to change the Point settings to make them visible so that you could Stretch them <sigh>
I remember, in the box with R5.2, there was a couple of xeroxed typed pages on this thing called AutoLisp. The pages mostly were a listing of unique-to-Acad subrs, you still had to be a LISP propellor-head to code anything <g>.
I remember using IRC to talk to people to learn about cooler bits of code (and what a 'subr' is <g>).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Tried that and it worked ok. Still a little bit round and about
Switching from verb-noun to noun-verb (and both) will do that to people.
Stupidly, the coders in Sausolito were first out of the gate with Entity-as-selector/fence, and then dropped it as "not being like everyone else."Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
AND it's a real PITA to enter into AutoCad, IMHO
Well, that depends on two things, really. First is whether or not you are comfortable with Command line entry (there are a goodly number who are not). Second, the Units you set the drawing to make a difference.
If you set Units to Architectural, ACAD will accept almost every method of unit input.
So, you can enter 73.5 units as:
73.5
6.125'
6'1.5 or 6'1-1/2
Say you needed to move an item. When ACAD asks for a starting point, you can just give the "delta" required. Which could be 27.5,73.5 or 2'3.5,6.125' or any other mix of valid input. When asked for the second point, just press enter--ACAD presumes that you mean to make a precision displacement versus 0,0, and does so.
Note too, that in Architectural and Fractional Units, either decimals or fractions are valid input. Suppose you want a 3/8" Circle. For that Radius dimension you can enter 3/8 or .375, both work. Also, ACAD 'knows' how to divide, at least in whole integer values. So, if you were copying something, you can enter 88/3, if you needed to be a third the way along 88 units (easier than 29.333333). However, 87.35/3 is a no-go; neither 2/55.1 or the like.
This, though, is all predicated on the Units used. This can be a pain in a drawing destined to be in Decimal feet with 1 Unit = 1 foot. For that, I have no cure. After I'm sent the drawing, I'm scaling it up by 12 and changing the angles back to decimal, no matter what you did anyway--just the way it is <g>.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I always use architectual for cab and woodwork, and Engineering mode for running boundries and figures.
Too bad it doesn't have varas, fathoms, rods, chains, and other archaic stuff.
Too bad it doesn't have varas, fathoms, rods, chains, and other archaic stuff.
It does, you just have to use an interpretive subr to get to them.
The file, acad.unt, contains a whole slew of comparative dimensions (like leagues, rods, light years, angstroms, even hands and chains). The subr (cvunit) will return a conversion between units. The form is (cvunit [n] [from] [to]) where n is eithe a real or integer, and 'from' and 'to' are recognized units in the unt file (most standard abbreviations are).
So, if a person wanted to, say, draw a 5mm shelf peg hole in a ft/in drawing, they could enter CIrcle, D (for diameter), then at the distance prompt enter
(cvunit 5.0 mm in)
Which would "return" 0.20481 to the Circle command for a person. If you were using Array to make a column of those 5mm holes, (cvunit 32.0 mm in) would give you a very precise spacing.
Here's the thing--that acad.unt file is "plain" ASCII text, it can be edited. If a person needed a conversion from or to varas, that can be added to the file. Just takes a bit of work is all.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
1-1/2" equals 0.125'. When you divide 1-1/2 inches by twelve inches, the answer is 0.125 feet. 1-1/2" is not the same as .125." 0.125 inches in fractions is 1/8 inch. 1-1/2" expressed in decimal form is 1.5." 1/8 inch expressed in decimal for is 0.125."
1-1/2" is 0.125' in the engineering scale with ten tenths to the foot instead of twelve inches. In this same scale, 1/8" is 0.104'. I've only been using it for close to 40 years. Conversion scales are available.
In this same scale, 1/8" is 0.104'. I've only been using it for close to 40 years.
Wouldn't 1/8" = .0104'??
Yep, but who misses a "0".... ;-)
tom... seriously , as a builder, i see no advantage to your engineering scale
<<<1/8" = .0104'>>>
i've worked in metric, found it very easy.. very easy to do math
but decimal feet does nothing for meMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Hey now, back it up.
I'm not the Tom proposing that this is a good idea.
All I have done is point out a couple places where the OP made mistakes in his examples. If he can't get it right, what are the odds of everyone else getting it right.
1-1/2" equals .125' is exactly what I wrote. The initial post "Why 1-1/2" instead of .125"? was wrong to begin with. Note, the writer used the " mark after .125 instead of the ' mark. The " mark denotes inches, the ' mark denotes feet.
OK, I'm gonna go hang myself now for the mistake of one '....
:)
Because we don't embrace change well!
Doug
Shouldn't that read .125' ?
I don't know, 1-1/2'' might be 1.5''. This higher math confuses me easily.A Great Place for Information, Comraderie, and a Sucker Punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
http://www.quittintime.com/
I thought he was comparing the two ways of denoting measurement- that they were the same length
So .125 of a foot is an inch and a half?
Beats the #### outta me, be buying stock in tapes if this comes to fore.
Thinking back to the sixties, "you'd better learn this, the world will pass you by."A Great Place for Information, Comraderie, and a Sucker Punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
http://www.quittintime.com/
I've bought dozens of metal 25' K&E tapes graduated in tenths and hundreths. Used to loan'em out to the lead carps on bridge and culvert jobs so they wouldn't have to call me on the radio to come make a conversion for'em.
Thievin' bastids never returned any of'em.
"Oh, that tape...I lost it..."
Every so often mm's come up on the job. I scramble looking for that one tape that has both. Think I can find it?
The other day the plumbing supply gave me a "gift" from the faucet co. Brizo. Thought maybe in the bag was something like the last time - a dream book...........
Nope-12' tape with mm's AND a small light at the thumb stop-
So now I can hunt all around for that lighted mm tape when I'm in a dark cabinet.A Great Place for Information, Comraderie, and a Sucker Punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
http://www.quittintime.com/
I'm getting it now, learn when to use apostrophe's and quotes-more english. Kind of ties it all together.A Great Place for Information, Comraderie, and a Sucker Punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
http://www.quittintime.com/
If you want to go decimal, you probably should go all the way and use centimeters and millimeters. To me, metric system isn't to human scale.
As for the reason to use feet and inches (base 12): The reason I've heard is that 12 inches is divisible by more than decimal system measurements are--quarters, thirds, halves--whereas base ten can only be divided easily by 2 or 5.
In surveying observations, we'd use both to mimimize errors. The observation would be written both in feet/decimals, and meters. The TS would make the conversion.
IMHO, the foot is here to stay, but keeping the inches and fractions thereof is just inaccurate.
To me, metric system isn't to human scale.
I really think that's just a function of familiarity. I doubt you'll ever hear someone from Europe come to this country and say "boy, you're system of measuring just feels right".
It's an archaic, illogical system that almost everybody else abandoned a long time ago. We ought to do the same. We may be bigger than anybody, but we're not bigger than everybody.
It's an archaic, illogical system that almost everybody else abandoned a long time ago. We ought to do the same. We may be bigger than anybody, but we're not bigger than everybody.
For the most part, the US has abandoned the "US Customary System" of measurements. When I was in high school in the mid-1960s, I worked as a clean-up boy in a machine shop. (Off the topic but: What's the chance of a 15-year-old working in a machine shop today?) One day, I asked one of the machinists if they worked in the metric system, a system I knew nothing about. He pointed to the to the mills and lathes in the shop and said every one of the machines was calibrated in decimal inches and that we could never change because it would render every machine in the shop obsolete. Guess what, the entire tool and die industry is now metric.
So is the auto industry, almost all engineering, science and medicine. Computer chips are designed in metric dimensions. I once asked a customer who designed computer chips for a living if the chips in the foot-inch calculators were specified in decimal inches or metric dimensions and he said he had no doubt but that they were specified in metric units. I find this a bit ironic.
Consumer items are gradually changing too. A huge number of the containers of consumer goods are now in ounces/liters or just liters. Half-liter bottles of coke are one example.
The Olympics have always been in metric units and American pools and tracks are now built in meters, not yards. The mile run is now a rare, nostagic event.
The mile run is now a rare, nostagic event.
Actually, it's not. The half-mile (880yds) and mile (1760yds) are still olympic track meets, they are just now better known as the 800m & 1600m.
Hard to tell if there would be much of an uproar to convert those. Probably, they'd become 750m & 1500m rather than a half-KM & KM race--due to the human factors of running long distance on a track, rather than "neatness" of distance covered.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
The mile run is now a rare, nostalgic event.
Actually, it's not. The half-mile (880yds) and mile (1760yds) are still Olympic track meets, they are just now better known as the 800m & 1600m.
Capn,
From the beginning the Olympics events in track have had races in 100M, 200M, 400M, 800M, 1500M, 5000M and 10,000M. The mile was run almost exclusively in the English-speaking world.
A mile is 1609.344M a half-mile is 804.672M. The mile, is about 120 yards longer than 1500M. It's a separate event from the 1500M race and the records are kept separate. The record for the mile is about 17 seconds more than the mile--an eternity for a middle-distance race. Same deal for the 800M and half-mile. Pretty close in distance but the records are still kept separate.
In the 1960s, most high school and college tracks were one quarter mile in length. Today, just about every track built is 400M. Same deal for high school and college swimming pools.
Edited 1/17/2008 3:59 pm ET by Mudslinger
Mudslinger,
Been to any 400M drag races lately? Adapt the Whitworth system I say!
In Canada, we typically do half-'n'-half imperial (that's right) and metric. Officially we're metric, but that hasn't really penetrated into the culture, so real-life experience is a kind of hybrid. Construction is all in imperial. Most weight is done in pounds, especially personal weight. Road signs are all in metric, though, so I think in kilometers and struggle with miles.The decimal system, though, is way better. How many times have I read 3/8 and remembered 3/4? I've made that mistake so many times that I've trained myself to think in decimal fractions.As far as I can see, the metric system has one excellent advantage: volume and mass with respect to water. A lot of products are mostly water, so you can approximate weight and volume easily. One cubic meter = 1000 liters = 1000 kilograms (2 200 pounds) of water. This is obviously an approximation. Would I build something using metric? No.Edited 1/17/2008 11:10 am ET by Biff_Loman
Edited 1/17/2008 11:11 am ET by Biff_Loman
Oh, I'll add a plug for the celsius system for measuring temperature. It's way easier, I think, because we live in a world full of water.100* = water boils/condenses
0* = water freezes/meltsObviously, it's hard to break way from whatever you're used to, but then again, I grew up with celsius but have no problems with fahrenheit.
Remember a multi-million dollar space craft missed Mars because the computer guidance system was programed to understand metric and the directions were in miles/feet/inches. Few years back I think. Mike
Biff,
Yeh but is that 70 degrees really really hot or just a pleasnat day? Why trust the French with anything? don't we eat freedom fries here in America? It's time we adapt the whitworth system!
Well, the French are just un-American, aren't they now.By the way, my mother's side of the family is all American, and I've heard the descriptor 'un-American' a few times. I think it's one of the most hilarious things a person can utter. It's like a subtle complaint that the rest of the world is out there, somewhere. Damn foreigners.Edited 1/18/2008 1:46 pm ET by Biff_Loman
Edited 1/18/2008 1:47 pm ET by Biff_Loman
Biff
The metric system as found in Canada is unique. It's a hermaphrodite: bit of this and a bit of that, and not able to interbreed with other metric systems.
Think of the milk case in the grocery store - two litres, one litre, half litre, quarter litre, even eighth litre containers.
Yet the building code seems to have no problem referring to a piece of lumber as a 39 x 89, implying an awful lot greater precision than I've ever seen in a lumberyard. Or is 39 x 89 no less nominal than 2 x 4?
Ron
Virtually every commercial/industrial print we get is metric.
Metric is far superior.
Once you learn metrics, it's 100x's more simple to use than fractions and decimal equivalents. We're fools in this country for not making it work like the rest of the world.
"I never met a man who didn't owe somebody something."
Metric is far superior.
Not necessarily for drafting, though.
Always lovely to juggle a drawing in CM with details in MM, and site info in M (or KM <eyeroll>), to discover that one of the supplying parties has actually "lied" and only scaled the dimensions to "read" metrically (but that the Unit the drawing is drawn to is some other size).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
M to CM to MM is as easy as moving the decimal point. Now, converting yards to feet to inches takes some skill and is far more likely to make errors.
"I never met a man who didn't owe somebody something."
as you know... all military is metric.. so we can coordinate and swap weapons with NATO
when i was immersed in artillery.... metric came easy... and when congress decided the US should go public in the '70's... i was all for it
today.... who cares ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
M to CM to MM is as easy as moving the decimal point
Except when dealing with embedded drawings <sigh>.
Nothing more fun than furniture Blocks in the drawings that are saved in inches after being drawn in mm, and inserted a few hundred times in CM. Oh, did I mention that the part-time jr drafter did not "get" that the original drawing needed to be scaled by 1/25.4, and not "eyeballed" somwhere closer to 1/23.6464. before having that dimension then scaled by 2.54 for the cm drawing . . . (did I mention this was modular furnishing, so any lack of dimensional exactitude is multiplied by every unit installed . . . ?) That was a long, bad, project. Did not help that I was "right" when I wanted to 'budget' rebuilding the entre drawing database "stack" (and still would have been only 1/2 of the hours actually spent)--not that bosses are ever wrong, mind you . . . <sigh>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Buttkicksi,
What? A republican willing to embrace a french method of measurement?
Next thing you know they will be thanking the French for helping America to become a nation free of the tyranny of English rule..
Then where will freedom fries be?
I'm glad bush doesn't read this post! You'll lose your republican priveledges
Who said I was a republican? I voted for Gore in 2000 and Clinton for his second term!
"I never met a man who didn't owe somebody something."
Buttkickski,
I'm surprised.. pleasantly but never-the-less surprised.. :-)
When I was a suit involved in product design, we always worked in decimal inches (00.000") and communicated thus with suppliers.
When I ran survey crews in industrial construction, we worked in decimal feet (0.00').
When I use Google Sketchup today, I can set my measurements to display in lots of ways, but when entering measurements as just numbers (decimals are OK), the program thinks "inches." The program allows entry of any english or metric figure, however, as long as the type is given.
Thus, if I enter 55.5, it understands it as inches. If 55.5mm is entered, Google SU gets it right, and figures millimeters. If I say 55.5', it knows I am talking feet. If I type 55'6 13/16, it interprets that as 55 feet 6 and 13/16 inches.
If you go onto a jobsite where carpenters are working in Europe, and dimensions are being called out, all you hear is whole numbers, and they are talking millimeters. I'll bet their surveyors go to decimal meters.
Tom,
Why ask me? I still like the whitworth method of measurement! These new fangeled feet and inches are a real challenge.
As to metric well it's French,, what more do I have to say?
Signed Frenchy!
Well, let's see ....
The same folks who gave us the metric system also came up with the 10 day week, and slaughtered their leaders. That kind of makes me question their wisdom.
More to the point, we don't use the same measures anywhere. Every trade has it's own system of measure. A 2x4 is not 2" x 4". A 1" pipe measures 1" in no dimension. Wires are measured in 'gauges,' not by diameter, or area. Even drill bits are called out by letter or number.
Confusing as these all seem at first glance, there IS a method to the madness.
Some of it comes from manufacturing details .... measuring wood before it dries, or the weight of a certain amount of product, etc.
Others are 'nominal' measures, where many different materials are made to work together, by varying the actual 'real' dimensions. Or, made NOT to work .... so you can't use fence rail in place of proper electrical EMT, for example.
Finally, there is the matter of tolerance. For example, there is NO metric equivalent to the "inch." OK- put away that calculator and conversion chart. An inch is NOT the same as 25.4 mm .... can you even see 4/10 of a millimeter? That figure is a figment of the mathematical imagination! Nor is such 'precision' appropriate. Make your measures fine enough, and materials will change size during the coffee break.
What is needed is a system of measure that 1) is easily understood, 2) is easy to work with, and, 3) is appropriate to the task at hand. Despite two centuries of 'metric' being around, it has not shown itself to be better than the "English" measures, at least in home building. Millimeters are too small, and meters are too big.
Moreover, as noted, metric is "base 10." What we build is based not on 10's, but on 2's. 2x4, 4x8, etc. It's much easier to determine the middle of something, than the third or the tenth. So, a half becomes a quarter becomes an eighth ... etc.
Decimal equivalents may make the math easier ... but can lead you astray. Do not confuse the two. When you say "half," you say you split something in half. When you say '0.500,' you're really saying that you split it into a thousand pieces, counted out 500 of them, and here they are. Rarely are you even capable of such a feat!
Well hell, there's 100 cents in a dollar. Half a dollar is 50 cents. I got ten fingers, so I CAN make change...
rensteinke,
Stop that! you had me with your arguement about adapting something that resulted in Marie Antonette losing her head. But your reasoned discourse about pipe sizes and wire guages was over the top!
Such logic won't do in this discussion.. Frankly we need to adapt the whitworth standard and be done with all this feet / inches stuff!
;-)
Am I missing something here?
How does 1- 1/2" = .125"?
.125 is 1/8", no?
doing the math on either fractional, or, decimal
equations is quite simple.
My 15 yr old daughter can do it in her head!!
being up here in Canada, we get alot of plans in metric (based on units of ten as you suggest.)
most of us still prefer to convert to imperial for practical purposes (cause thats what were used to.)
r2
There are 10 tenths in a foot. .125 is 1-1/2". .0104 is 1/8"...
Edited 1/17/2008 12:19 pm ET by TomT226
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=99614.4
It has something to do with the black diamonds on your tape measure every 19-5/32".
But I can't tell you what exacty or IMERC would have to kill us both...
Gosh I hope I didn't say too much already..
.
.
"After the laws of Physics, everything else is opinion"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
.
.
.
I have Transcended the need for a Humorous tagline...
"Why 1-1/2" instead of .125""
If you don't know the difference between 1 1/2" and .125" I would hate to live in a house that you built.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Excuse me. 1-1/2" and 0.125'.
Is that better?
Or do I have to hold yer hand?
tom... right off the bat... 1 1/2" is different than .125"
like .15" is not equal to .125"
Your right.. 1 1/2" is not .125" But 1 1/2" does = .125'
I did the same mistake (along with 10 others) Keep reading the posts
True, but his example had it wrong. He had it shown as 6.125" not 6.125'. If you are gonna promote using a different system, you should at least get it right in your examples.
Here is his example
Don't think so. It'd even be easier to see. Look, 6' 1-1/2", or 73-1/2", or 6.125". If you leave the 'mark out it'd look like 61 1/2". Just a learning experience.
Edited 1/17/2008 5:03 pm ET by TomW
I always thought that 1 1/2" equaled 1.5000000000 "(add as many 000's as you want after the decimal). The reason I assume that we are not metric is that huge re-tooling cost and the standardized width's of goods like drywall.
1 1/2" does equal 1.5" but is also equal to .125'.
1.5/12 = .125
See how confusing this is.
Yes, if yer using 12 decimal inches to the foot, and not 10, like engineering measuremets...
Yep, I agree. But when your listening to TomT, you have to listen to what he didn't say.
2 wrongs don't make a right........ but 3 lefts do.
Clear as mud??
Edit to go left...........hard to do for a rightwinger<g>
Edited 1/17/2008 6:30 pm ET by Boats234
That would be 3 lefts....
That would be 3 lefts
No, 3 lefts is a "pizza driver's" turn <g>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
You mean if yer going to pick nits, you'd best make sure that your own nits are pick-proof ?;o)
I'm gonna grow me some wings. And I'll learn how to fly !
Yes, I FU'd in the example.
Like ya'll have never made a mistake?
not that i care to admit to... too demeaningMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Evidently TomT226 cares.
"I never met a man who didn't owe somebody something."
Only went through the first 15 posts, so if this is repetitive I apologize.
I say we just switch to the metric system.
Pick a day & switch, no dual speed limit signs or markers. No weight equivalents just switch.
It's going to be a "broken arm" I'd rather have it snapped with a hammer verses in a vice turned slowly.
But that's just my 2 cents.
“We need to be a country of tall fences and wide gates.”
I worked in a factory assembling conveyor systems and we used decimal inch tapes. I have a nice one about 12' long. All the plans were decimal inch also.
it's easier to divide 12 than it is 10. 12 is divsible by 2 3 4 6. 10 is divisible by 2 5. Not sayin this is what we should base our whole measuring system on.