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

[Rich Grise on Google grou]

On Jun 14, 10:09 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:38:18 -0700, Archimedes' Lever

 It is an applied force, regardless of how you attack my grammatical
error in describing it.

Torque is not force. The units are different.

Well, mass isn't weight either, but people use them interchangeably.
So there
are two different words, depending on whether the load is being
twisted, but
you certainly can't have torque without any force! =:-O

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:02:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


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?

---
Yow!!!

They'd probably get splinters in their knickers.

Maybe I should have said 'A bunch of rabid beavers?' ;-)


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

 

[Tim Watts]

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

Don't the Brits still use stones?

Yep - or at least those of us who are old farts ;->

Don't you?


--
Tim Watts

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

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"

No, because the inch is defined as being 25.4mm. The metric measure is not a
derivative of the English.

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.

Imperial units are defined using the metric system. Does that mean that the
US uses the metric system?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:16:05 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

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.

AlwaysWrong is *always* so wrong. I no longer drink alcohol so I likely
couldn't tell the difference anymore. Since you, and everyone else here, know
you're wrong before you write anything, why do you bother?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:18:39 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

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.

Gee, AlwaysWrong, where do you suppose lumber yards get lumber?

They STOCK all three types, however, depending on geographic location and
demand, of course.

Irrelevant attempt at moving goal posts noted.

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

No, AlwaysWrong. Lying is your forte. Now, shut down mommy's computer and
get back to her hamper, where you're more comfortable. ...still *very* wrong,
but you're comfortable there.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry <pomerado@hotmail.com>
wrote:

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.

....which was larger than 1.5" x 3.5".

The
trimming/planing process has improved enough with modern equipment
that the first cuts are now made below nominal dimension.

The finished size of dimensional lumber has shrunk over time, too. They never
made 1.5" x 3.5" 2x4s out of 2" x 4" lumber.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:48:27 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net> wrote:

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?

Nope.

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.

Not dimensional (construction) lumber in the US, anyway. They're not throwing
away 35%. Not happening. Hardwoods start out life their nominal dimensions
(a 1" board is 3/4" finished) but dimensional lumber does not.

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.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:11:44 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:02:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


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?

---
Yow!!!

They'd probably get splinters in their knickers.


Maybe I should have said 'A bunch of rabid beavers?' ;-)

That's even scarier!

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:21:23 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

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.

IOW, you don't know. We know you're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. You don't
have to prove it with every post.

Do you
get your 8' lumber free?

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

Woosh!

You are an idiot.

What did mommy tell you about being wrong, AlwaysWrong!

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net> wrote:

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.

Yeah, here buildings that old would be grand fathered into code compliance.
;-)

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.

Generally two horizontals, here. Fewer joints and sheetrock is available in
various lengths so a wall can often be done without vertical joints, only
tapered horizontal joints. Sheetrock is stronger when hung horizontally
(fewer end studs).

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:05:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Gee, AlwaysWrong, where do you suppose lumber yards get lumber?

From the mill house, idiot.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:14:30 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

IOW, you don't know. We know you're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. You don't
have to prove it with every post.

I have framed 50 more Joe Plumber El Cheapo pre-fab houses than you
have and ten more full custom rich fucker houses than you. I also have
done some drywall, and you are again, wrong, as usual.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:33:06 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net>
wrote:

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


Don't the Brits still use stones?

Yep - or at least those of us who are old farts ;-

Don't you?

Not in the USA. Most USians have no idea how much a stone is. The only
time I encounter it is in Lord Peter mysteries and such.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:08:17 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/d011f294be7b5aa0?hl=en

Archimedes Lever in Oceanside, CA using yet another nym wrote:
AL > Humans, being the contrary, savior murdering
AL > f[]s we are, will surely go with the stubborn
AL > path. Before we get settled on things and ever
AL > become a truly civil society, he'll be back, and
AL > none of it will matter any more anyway.

This is an example of how a sociopath learns
to pretend that they have emotions or beliefs
that other people do.

Sociopaths like you do not really believe in God.
You know how to posture as if you do.
Sociopaths commonly place themselves in the
position of being God.
We're all just bugs in your jar.

I am closer to God than an incompetent "personal assessment dumbfuck"
like you could ever be.

Wow, talk about self-cancelling statements!

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:44:39 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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

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.

---
Sorry, but no.

The result of the measurement is caused by a force acting on a mass,
the product of which is called a "newton" if the mass is 1kg and the
force is the attraction due to gravity, 9.8m/s˛.

Entirely wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:25:52 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:05:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Gee, AlwaysWrong, where do you suppose lumber yards get lumber?


From the mill house, idiot.

I see you're trying to move the goal posts again, AlwaysWrong.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:28:34 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:14:30 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

IOW, you don't know. We know you're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. You don't
have to prove it with every post.


I have framed 50 more Joe Plumber El Cheapo pre-fab houses than you
have and ten more full custom rich fucker houses than you. I also have
done some drywall, and you are again, wrong, as usual.

What a dummy, DimBulb. YOU are AlwaysWrong, not me! A liar, too, but that's
been obvious, too, for years.

 

[Winston]

On 6/15/2010 1:42 PM, Rich Grise on Google groups wrote:
(...)

Well, you seem to be the only one having particular trouble with the
system here.

There's a 'system'?

In other conversations on this thread, folks are having trouble defining:
torque
the real meaning of the word 'mass'
if the 'inch' should be considered metric
if the 'carat' is metric or not
the true dimensions of lumber
and other ponderables

Sloppy definitions apparently trouble others as well.

--Winston

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:25:01 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:28:34 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:14:30 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

IOW, you don't know. We know you're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. You don't
have to prove it with every post.


I have framed 50 more Joe Plumber El Cheapo pre-fab houses than you
have and ten more full custom rich fucker houses than you. I also have
done some drywall, and you are again, wrong, as usual.

What a dummy, DimBulb. YOU are AlwaysWrong, not me! A liar, too, but that's
been obvious, too, for years.

Are you saying that I never worked as a carpenter, framing houses?