OT: Why the US will never go metric....

[George Herold]

On Jun 14, 3:56 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:09:23 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry





pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:48 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:28:52 -0700, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net
wrote:

On 6/13/2010 1:45 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston<Wins...@bigbrother.net>  wrote:

(...)

It saddens me to think of all the bright technical minds in
'imperial measurment' countries that got turned off to applied
physics because of our insistence on awkward, self-
destructive measurement systems.

Complete nonsense.  Because you can't figure this stuff out, and aren't bright
enough to find a calculator that can, doesn't mean the average college kid
can't.

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost.  Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

Beijing must be very happy about this.

--Winston<--Slugs? Poundals? Foot-pounds?  You're joking, right?

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity.  Seems
you're the dense one here.

I am *far* from the sharpest knife in the drawer, that is true.

However, it is not a good defense to insist "we always did it
that way".

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in

Give or take an interplanetary probe or two.

It is shocking that anyone in the aerospace business would still be
using pounds-force, or pounds-anything, any more. I think mechanical
engineers and architects are still behind the curve on this.

The only thing we use pounds for is UPS shipments.

Don't the Brits still use stones? Gold is still traded in troy ounces,
I think, and diamonds come in carats.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I need my torque wrench to measure foot pounds when I crank the nuts
on the head of my tractor. "nuts, crank, head. snert... 'south part
snigger'

George H.

 

[George Herold]

On Jun 14, 4:21 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com
wrote:

and torque is
not exactly force.

  Read what I said Torque is a specifically applied force.
  It IS exactly a force.  An applied force.  Just look at the units with
which it needs to be quantisized with.  duh.

What?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:23:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:04:39 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:57:06 -0700, VWWall <vwall@large.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:05:21 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:31:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wibbled:

At least we are not measuring things by 'curling stones' or the like.
It is still possible AFAIK here to go to a small time brewery and buy a
firkin (8 gallons) of beer. Or a barrel (4 firkins). If you're areal
pissartist, you'd probably want a hogshead, butt or tun though.

Bulk beer here comes in kegs and, for quiet get-togethers, half-kegs.

A keg is 15 gallons. Or maybe 10.


See: http://www.cockeyed.com/inside/keg/keg.html

We once did a bar-top taste test of Michelob vs Bud. Nobody could tell
the difference. All these A-B rice beers give me a headache.

Bud is a rice beer. Michelob is not. I can, or at least could, tell the
difference, easily.

Acknowledgement of the onset of senility.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:27:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:37:13 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:31:56 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry <pomerado@hotmail.com
wrote:

On Jun 14, 8:23 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry

pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:
one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish.  Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches.  What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?

  Sorry, but a 'rough cut' 2x4 DOES measure 2 inches by 4 inches.

  If yours didn't your mill house was off.

Mine (just measured) are 1.5 x 3.5 smooth and 1.75 x 3.75 rough.
Perhaps there is a "rougher" grade?

No, AlwaysWrong is wrong, again. It's amazing that he can't get *anything*
right.

According to Tim Watts, I am right on the money, and a third mode is
available and being used. You fucking retarded twit.

A 2x4 you find in a lumber yard was *never* 2" x 4". They're not about to
waste 35% of the tree for shavings. You'll never get anything right,
AlwaysWrong.

Funny, I mentioned a 'mill house', but I do not remember ever
mentioning a lumber yard, which, BTW does not do any milling typically.
They STOCK all three types, however, depending on geographic location and
demand, of course.

So, as usual, you are wrong again, Satan. You cannot keep from lying.
Good job, though more than a bit transparent. Try harder.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:34:12 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:16:53 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:11:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 4:36 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:39:21 -0700, Archimedes' Lever



OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 10:41 am, "Tim Williams" <tmoran...@charter.net> wrote:
As I recall, it's a 50x100, even though theirs are also smaller...

What are the dimensions of a full-size plywood panel?

"Richard Henry" <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:cf950c18-e846-4159-906f-3713e26fa14b@s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:

one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish. Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches. What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?
4 feet by 8 feet.

 Falls into place with other industries, like roofing and siding.

 Roffing "squares".

"Roffing" squares?  ROTFL!  

DimBulb, what a flaming hypocrite!

 Easy for any grunt to carry two on their back too.

 Much wider, and only tall folks can frame houses.

 Standard US room size is an eight foot ceiling.

Nine foot ceilings are also quite normal, AlwaysWrong (no DimBulb, not you,
the ceilings).   ...standard enough that sheetrock comes in 54" widths.

Still have my ruler here on the table - This room is 8 feet, the
kitchen over my shoulder is 7.5, the laundry room next is 7.


Standard enough that lumber is stocked in 8 foot cut lengths, but NOT
nine foot. Ten footers have to be bought, and then one gets scrap.

So tell me, AlwaysWrong, why does sheetrock come in 54" wide sheets?

For reasons you are too clueless to grasp.

Do you
get your 8' lumber free?

No, but I do not lop off 10% of them either.

You are an idiot.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:56:07 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Don't the Brits still use stones? Gold is still traded in troy ounces,
I think, and diamonds come in carats.

---
"Carat" is a metric term, 1 carat being equal to 0.2 gram.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:03:08 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:56:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Don't the Brits still use stones? Gold is still traded in troy ounces,
I think, and diamonds come in carats.

---
"Carat" is a metric term, 1 carat being equal to 0.2 gram.

Cool. "Inch" is a metric term, 1 inch being equal to 25.4 mm.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure. Many use Newtons.


Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale

 

[Richard Henry]

On Jun 14, 8:27 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:37:13 -0700, Archimedes' Lever



OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:31:56 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com
wrote:

On Jun 14, 8:23 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry

pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:
one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish.  Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches.  What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?

  Sorry, but a 'rough cut' 2x4 DOES measure 2 inches by 4 inches.

  If yours didn't your mill house was off.

Mine (just measured) are 1.5 x 3.5 smooth and 1.75 x 3.75 rough.
Perhaps there is a "rougher" grade?

No, AlwaysWrong is wrong, again.  It's amazing that he can't get *anything*
right.

 According to Tim Watts, I am right on the money, and a third mode is
available and being used.  You fucking retarded twit.

A 2x4 you find in a lumber yard was *never* 2" x 4".  They're not about to
waste 35% of the tree for shavings.  You'll never get anything right,
AlwaysWrong.

Old-fashioned sawmills used to cut 2x4's to more or less nominal
dimensions and then trim or plane them down to the retail size. The
trimming/planing process has improved enough with modern equipment
that the first cuts are now made below nominal dimension.

 

[Tim Watts]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:27:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

A 2x4 you find in a lumber yard was *never* 2" x 4". They're not about
to waste 35% of the tree for shavings.

Presumably that depends on whether your buying (rough)sawn or planed/
regularised?

As I said, the planed over here is about 1/8" - 1/4" smaller as it starts
life from the sawmill as 4x2" more or less exactly.

Outside timber which is tanalised by default pretty much is still true to
the inch here. Pre about-1970s untreated sawn timber was also true to the
inch - my house is full of it.


--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

 

[Tim Watts]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:32:09 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

My Vermont house, other than the living and family rooms (cathedral
ceilings) had 7' 2" ceilings; definitely not standard.

This first floor of this house has 9' ceilings and the two bedrooms
upstairs 8', with the great room 18', and higher. ;-)

You should try my village, which dates back to 1066 - in fact the Battle
of Hastings was fought and shamefully lost (especially when you visit the
field and see the massive tactical advantage Harold had), 3 miles down
the road in a town called "Battle" (hmm) and not actually in Hastings
which is rather further down the road.

I digress...

Ceilings you can brush your head on and 5' front doors or less on some of
the old timber framed houses.

Mine is regular modern, 2.4m ceilings which is, erm, a shade under 8' -
fairly typical.

I think they like 8' here - means really modern (ie crap) houses can be
drywalled with one sheet of plasterboard/sheetrock on the vertical.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:20:45 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:03:08 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:56:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Don't the Brits still use stones? Gold is still traded in troy ounces,
I think, and diamonds come in carats.

---
"Carat" is a metric term, 1 carat being equal to 0.2 gram.



Cool. "Inch" is a metric term, 1 inch being equal to 25.4 mm.

---
Then, by your "logic", "millimeter" is an Imperial term since
1mm = 0.03937"

In actuality, what makes the carat a metric term is that the weight of
gemstones is measured using the metric system and described in metric
units.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:35 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure. Many use Newtons.


Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale

Most people in the world use SI units, and they weigh things in
kilograms. A kg is a unit of mass.

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

John

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:39:12 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:20:45 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:03:08 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:56:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Don't the Brits still use stones? Gold is still traded in troy ounces,
I think, and diamonds come in carats.

---
"Carat" is a metric term, 1 carat being equal to 0.2 gram.



Cool. "Inch" is a metric term, 1 inch being equal to 25.4 mm.

---
Then, by your "logic", "millimeter" is an Imperial term since
1mm = 0.03937"

In actuality, what makes the carat a metric term is that the weight of
gemstones is measured using the metric system and described in metric
units.

And the roots of the original gem classification system was also
European and metric.

I wish they could standardize more things these days. Even things that
have standards have vast differences in production and "feature" sets.

Like hard drive mounting systems.

Maybe the new 1.5" SAS drives will all have a like stainless slide
mount that the whole industry embraces.

All these cameras and steel cased phones and DVD drive mechs and all
with the tiny pressed sheet steel parts inside. So it would not be a
cost issue. If the whole industry did it, it would actually become
cheaper and cheapest to make the mounts. Instead, we currently have a
mish-mash of designs, and they are all cheap Chinese case maker
proprietary, and mostly crap design wise.

Odd, the direction the world has gone in the last twenty years.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:46:53 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 10:31 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

 Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure.  Many use Newtons.

Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale

That's true, but if the weighing scale is correctly calibrated, the
weight measurement is equivalent to that of a mass balance.

Only if it got calibrated where it got used.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:00:03 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

John

Wrong. The spring scale AND the load cell are calibrated against this
planet's gravity, and are 100% altitude of use bound. The balance
operates exactly the same regardless of altitude or even what planetoid
it is on. The measure can only be called the object's "weight".

The spring scale (and load cell) weighs "weight" and that only at the
same altitude at which it was calibrated.

The balance weigh mass, as compared against a known, calibrated mass,
and the result is a measure of mass, and can be referred to as weight or
mass of the object, and will perform that task whether it is on Earth or
the Moon.

I'll let you do the math. I'd start with Newton's Principia.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:00:03 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

John

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-G-force.png

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:02:35 -0700, Richard Henry <pomerado@hotmail.com
wibbled:

Mine (just measured) are 1.5 x 3.5 smooth and 1.75 x 3.75 rough. Perhaps
there is a "rougher" grade?

Two mediaeval peasants and a sawpit?

Or a bunch of trained beavers?

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:31:57 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:00:03 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

John

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-G-force.png

Does your bathroom scale report newtons? Most of the weighing devices
in the world report kilograms.

John

 

[Richard Henry]

On Jun 14, 10:31 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

 Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure.  Many use Newtons.

Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale

That's true, but if the weighing scale is correctly calibrated, the
weight measurement is equivalent to that of a mass balance.