PDA

View Full Version : Why 68 Deg. for inspection



loose nut
07-08-2019, 03:37 PM
Why was 68F (20C) chosen as the temp for measuring parts for inspection. I understand why you want a constant temp but why 68 and not 70 or 72???

lynnl
07-08-2019, 03:43 PM
I'm gonna guess that 20C, as a nice round number, entered into the thinking.

old mart
07-08-2019, 03:46 PM
It has to be some temperature or other. That particular one is a comfortable working temperature, not too extreme for heating or air conditioning to work economically.
I may be wrong, but I thought the Tesa ring gauge that I have says Standard at 25C. I will have a look at it on Wednesday.

Doozer
07-08-2019, 04:25 PM
In QC at work, the new quality guy raised the temp in the lab thermostat
from 68 to 69 one day, and the old quality guy had a thermonuclear meltdown!
He proceeded to rip the thermostat off the wall. :confused:
Me being Doozer, I said, "Well now that the A/C is broke, it is gunna get a whole
lot hotter in here than 69"!!! :o
All that drama, and I was NOT in the middle of it this time.

--Doozer

ed_h
07-08-2019, 05:08 PM
So called "room temperature" has historically often been defined as 20 degC. That converts to 68 degF.

Ed

Mcgyver
07-08-2019, 06:30 PM
So called "room temperature" has historically often been defined as 20 degC. That converts to 68 degF.


good luck getting that one to fly with the ladies in the office

nickel-city-fab
07-08-2019, 08:25 PM
It goes back to when Johanssen created his gage blocks. The common average temp in European QC labs at the time was 68F or 20C. When Johanssen lapped his first block, he sent it to the Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres and asked them to determine the temperature when it was at a nominal length. He then used the coefficient of expansion to hit his exact number, and create the rest of the blocks in the set.

john hobdeclipe
07-08-2019, 09:12 PM
For what it may be worth, 68* is also the correct temperature for developing camera film. Variations above or below that target require longer or shorter developing times.

thaiguzzi
07-09-2019, 01:07 AM
It goes back to when Johanssen created his gage blocks. The common average temp in European QC labs at the time was 68F or 20C. When Johanssen lapped his first block, he sent it to the Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres and asked them to determine the length of it when it was at 20C. He then used the coefficient of expansion to hit his exact number, and create the rest of the blocks in the set.

Thankyou.
Again, the 'Mercans are the odd ones out.
Most of the Rest of the World is Centigrade.
Most people in the world would just look at you weird when you say 68 Fahrenheit.
Fahenwhat?

epicfail48
07-09-2019, 03:11 AM
Thankyou.
Again, the 'Mercans are the odd ones out.
Most of the Rest of the World is Centigrade.
Most people in the world would just look at you weird when you say 68 Fahrenheit.
Fahenwhat?

Much as I hate the imperial system, Fahrenheit actually makes a bit of sense. It more accurately encompasses the range of temperatures that humans live in, inside that 0-100f range, and rounds easier. Saying "its in the 70's" covers a narrower range than "its in the 10's c".

That's said, imperial measurements deserve to die a painful death. 100 centimeters to the meter, 1000 meters to the kilometer makes more sense than 12 inches to the for, 3 feet to a yard 5612 or some such nonsense feet to the mile, its a mess

RB211
07-09-2019, 05:52 AM
Aviation settled on 15c and 29.92 inches as the "standard day".

Lew Hartswick
07-09-2019, 06:47 AM
That's said, imperial measurements deserve to die a painful death. 100 centimeters to the meter, 1000 meters to the kilometer makes more sense than 12 inches to the for, 3 feet to a yard 5612 or some such nonsense feet to the mile, its a mess
Yes BUT With all the hullaboo over the GREAT METRIC system they seem to have something wrong with the factor TEN .
Tne bloody idiots seem to have forgotten DECI and DECA in their prefixes. SO! if youre so all hipped up on this factors of ten you had better start using the "forgotten" to of them. BAH!
...lew...

lynnl
07-09-2019, 06:55 AM
Aviation settled on 15c and 29.92 inches as the "standard day".

That 29.92 comes from the standard atmospheric pressure, with a 10 ft adjustment made to represent an approximated height of the altimeter sensor's mounting location in the plane above the runway. Ten feet was reasonable back when the altimeter standard was established, now not so much.

Don't know about the temperature. Maybe it was the temperature used as the mean in converting station pressure to sea level. ...in fact, that kinda makes sense.

Doozer
07-09-2019, 08:46 AM
Thankyou.
Again, the 'Mercans are the odd ones out.
Most of the Rest of the World is Centigrade.
Most people in the world would just look at you weird when you say 68 Fahrenheit.
Fahenwhat?

Your use of 'Mericans instead of Americans I find highly derogatory.
You find it weird and have a problem with the name Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit.
You apparently are accepting of the name Anders Celsius, possibly because he
uses ten based numbers for freezing and boiling.
Are your rationale's based on emotion or selfish needs for fulfillment?

-Doozer

Doozer
07-09-2019, 08:49 AM
...

That's said, imperial measurements deserve to die a painful death. 100 centimeters to the meter, 1000 meters to the kilometer makes more sense than 12 inches to the for, 3 feet to a yard 5612 or some such nonsense feet to the mile, its a mess

Sounds to me that you are too lazy to remember things like one miles is 5280 feet.
Are you afraid your brain will leak out your ear????

-Doozer

Willy
07-09-2019, 09:15 AM
Aviation settled on 15c and 29.92 inches as the "standard day".

Odd that they didn't settle on either, 59F and 14.7 lb/in2 or 15C at 1013.25 hPa. :)

What is the "standard" for density?

jdedmon91
07-09-2019, 09:57 AM
It goes back to when Johanssen created his gage blocks. The common average temp in European QC labs at the time was 68F or 20C. When Johanssen lapped his first block, he sent it to the Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres and asked them to determine the length of it when it was at 20C. He then used the coefficient of expansion to hit his exact number, and create the rest of the blocks in the set.

Thats interesting. I always wondered also. Now at Eaton before I retired a Gage master needed at least 2 of them, because the master needed 24 hours in the Gage lab to adjust to temperature before calibration could be done. Actually the masters was rotated so as not to disrupt production. Of course some masters was onesies because one failed and the volume was so low they wouldnt replace them because of the cost, then QC would have to keep them for a day, but since we didnt need them but maybe once a year it could be scheduled.

My question would be in shops that outside calibration service does the micrometers etc. They dont use 68 degrees or do they?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

rjs44032
07-09-2019, 10:33 AM
It just occurred to me that I own several micrometers. They do not measure millionths. I wonder if the Metric world uses micrometers. If so, do they call them micrometers?


Best Regards,
Bob

BCRider
07-09-2019, 11:31 AM
Odd that they didn't settle on either, 59F and 14.7 lb/in2 or 15C at 1013.25 hPa. :)

What is the "standard" for density?

That's because pilots don't care about air density.... At least not directly. They are after a setting for their barometer so they can set "zero" for their altimeters. This is so important for them that pilots are given the local barometric pressure during talks with the tower both before takeoff and again before landing at the destination. The altimeters have a little calibration window that they use to set the value.

Now the "why inches of Hg instead of Pascals?" question would be a good discussion. Perhaps because so many aircraft had already been made with instruments calibrated for inches of Hg?

BCRider
07-09-2019, 11:34 AM
It just occurred to me that I own several micrometers. They do not measure millionths. I wonder if the Metric world uses micrometers. If so, do they call them micrometers?


Best Regards,
Bob

At least for some materials measured in millionths of a meter the term is microns. And I agree that it's rather meaningless at first glance. Micrometers would be a much better tie in to the system.

chipmaker4130
07-09-2019, 11:46 AM
. . .What is the "standard" for density?

It is 'Sea Level' density at 29.92 and 59 deg.



That's because pilots don't care about air density.... . . .They are after a setting for their barometer so they can set "zero" for their altimeters. . .

Density is of ultimate importance to a pilot. It is the main factor affecting aircraft and engine performance. And pilots don't 'zero' their altimeters unless they are exactly at sea level. (American Airlines used to set their altimeters so that at touchdown wherever they were the altimeter would read zero, but I think they gave that up decades ago.) The Kollsman window (where the altimeter adjustments are made) has been marked in both hPa and in.Hg for at least 75 years. Those adjustments are used to obtain the most accurate possible actual altitude above sea level as the aircraft moves through areas of varying barometric pressure and temperature.

BCRider
07-09-2019, 11:54 AM
You're right, "zero" was the wrong word to use. They dial the local barometric pressure into the altimeter so it provides the proper local altitude rather than "zero".

lynnl
07-09-2019, 12:28 PM
As to why inches of mercury, rather than other expressions of atmospheric pressure, it almost certainly stems from the fact that the mercurial barometer has long been the standard for the actual pressure measurement, and remains so today.
Yes, on a day-to-day basis readings will be taken and used from an aneroid barometer or a barograph, but those devices are required to be regularly calibrated against a mecurial barometer.
It's also convenient that .01 of that 29.92 in. of mercury very closely corresponds to 10 feet of altitude.

For helicopter pilots, particularly in hot climates, density (in the form of density altitude) is of PRIMARY concern. Density altitude being simply pressure altitude adjusted for temperature.

nickel-city-fab
07-09-2019, 12:35 PM
Why not just use "bar" for air pressure?? and then specify a temperature with that, to get the density??

lynnl
07-09-2019, 12:58 PM
Why not just use "bar" for air pressure?? and then specify a temperature with that, to get the density??

Well, in day-to-day meteorological measurements and transmitted weather reports, the "bar" is what's used ...except it's expressed in thousandths, i.e. millibar. The weather man only converts it to inches of mercury for consumption by the aviation community.

But when you see a weather map, with Highs and Lows, and isobars, that was generated from the reported sea level pressure from a network of stations such as North America, all expressed in millibars, not in" of Hg.

(added) I guess I didn't really address your main point. As to rotary wing operations, I'm not really sure of all the details, as to why they need density altitude expressed as such, rather than just taking pressure and applying a temperature adjustment themselves. Probably purely as a matter of convenience to the chopper pilots. "It's easier to have the weather man do it and pass it along to us."
Tho that's a bit of an unkind statement. The weather guy is already in possession of all the data need to make the calculation; it's only natural to have him do it one time and feed to all who need that DA value.

Georgineer
07-09-2019, 01:00 PM
At least for some materials measured in millionths of a meter the term is microns. And I agree that it's rather meaningless at first glance. Micrometers would be a much better tie in to the system.

The SI unit of length is the micrometre, which can't be confused with anything else, unlike micrometer and micron.

George

Willy
07-09-2019, 03:59 PM
It is 'Sea Level' density at 29.92 and 59 deg.




Duh!:o

lynnl
07-09-2019, 04:08 PM
I'm not aware of any standard for air density. But it would have to account for water vapor, e.g. dry air is denser than moist air ...other factors being equal.

Willy
07-09-2019, 04:12 PM
I'm not aware of any standard for air density. But it would have to account for water vapor, e.g. dry air is denser than moist air ...other factors being equal.

Thanks Lynnl for the clarification, this is probably along the lines of my thinking when I first raised the question earlier.

epicfail48
07-09-2019, 05:37 PM
Sounds to me that you are too lazy to remember things like one miles is 5280 feet.
Are you afraid your brain will leak out your ear????

-Doozer

Nope, just worried that if I fill my head with fluff that I don't use in daily life, I'll turn into an obnoxious jerk who entertains myself by insulting strangers on the internet

loose nut
07-09-2019, 07:13 PM
Thankyou.
Again, the 'Mercans are the odd ones out.
Most of the Rest of the World is Centigrade.
Most people in the world would just look at you weird when you say 68 Fahrenheit.
Fahenwhat?

Where as "mericans look at the rest of the world as just weird. May have something to do with the system of measurement you use!

wyop
07-09-2019, 07:24 PM
Thankyou.
Again, the 'Mercans are the odd ones out.
Most of the Rest of the World is Centigrade.
Most people in the world would just look at you weird when you say 68 Fahrenheit.
Fahenwhat?

Perhaps some perspective is in order.

There's exactly one country that has landed men on the moon and then returned them to earth - alive. This is the very country that uses Fahrenheit for common temperature measurement.

Then there's all the countries in the world who measure temperature in Centigrade or Celsius, who have not landed men on the moon, despite it being nearly an exact half-century since Americans showed the rest of the world how to do it.

chipmaker4130
07-09-2019, 07:52 PM
I'm not aware of any standard for air density. But it would have to account for water vapor, e.g. dry air is denser than moist air ...other factors being equal.


With regard to aviation in the United States, the FAA says this: "Humidity alone is usually not considered an essential factor in calculating density altitude and aircraft performance; however, it does contribute."

They then go on to say that in excessively hot and humid conditions, performance expectations must be lowered to account for the effects of humidity. I flew commercially for 36 years, and never saw any information that would help a pilot quantify that variable with regard to performance. It may well be that the air-data computers take humidity into account in the calculations they perform, but as a pilot I was never trained any differently that that stated above.

Bented
07-09-2019, 07:52 PM
Where as "mericans look at the rest of the world as just weird. May have something to do with the system of measurement you use!

It is better then 69 Degrees and better then 67 Degrees, you really should know this (-:

nickel-city-fab
07-09-2019, 07:59 PM
Since this thread is rapidly degenerating from the original topic I'll toss in my 2 bits: I'm familiar and comfortable with SI prefixes etc. and well aware that the US is a metric country *for new manufacture*. However, there is a vast amount of legacy applications using Imperial and this will continue for a few more generations most likely. In my own work everything is Imperial unless it involves electronics or scientific applications. Everyday life is Imperial, and I have no problem remembering the relevant facts, units, or doing the math if any is required (not likely). I live on the Canadian border, so I get the weather reports in both systems --however I still struggle to understand what -31C is. Even tho I experience it routinely.

RB211
07-09-2019, 08:13 PM
That 29.92 comes from the standard atmospheric pressure, with a 10 ft adjustment made to represent an approximated height of the altimeter sensor's mounting location in the plane above the runway. Ten feet was reasonable back when the altimeter standard was established, now not so much.

Don't know about the temperature. Maybe it was the temperature used as the mean in converting station pressure to sea level. ...in fact, that kinda makes sense.In practical terms, it sets the standard that all aircraft performance specs are based on, was particularly important during WW2 and for VMC.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

SLK001
07-09-2019, 08:38 PM
Most of the Rest of the World is Centigrade.
Most people in the world would just look at you weird when you say 68 Fahrenheit.
Fahenwhat?

Most of the rest of the world doesn't have indoor plumbing, either.

Mcostello
07-09-2019, 09:43 PM
We are also the only Nation to tagged Saturn with anything. Probably converted Metric to Imperial, worked for Mars. :)

Willy
07-09-2019, 10:55 PM
Why was 68F (20C) chosen as the temp for measuring parts for inspection. I understand why you want a constant temp but why 68 and not 70 or 72???

Back to the original question, much as I like the metric vs. imperial debates or what type of oil should I use in my scooter.:)

Below a link to a 23 page answer published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2007.


20 CA Short History of the Standard
Reference Temperature for Industrial
Dimensional Measurements (https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=823211)

thaiguzzi
07-10-2019, 12:40 AM
Your use of 'Mericans instead of Americans I find highly derogatory.
You find it weird and have a problem with the name Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit.
You apparently are accepting of the name Anders Celsius, possibly because he
uses ten based numbers for freezing and boiling.
Are your rationale's based on emotion or selfish needs for fulfillment?

-Doozer

Well, i have no problem with you calling me a Brit instead of British, nor a Limey instead of an Englishman, nor an Australian calling me a Pom instead of British, but then i'm not a thin skinned, easily offended colonial.
By the way, we use both imperial & metric in measurements and fasteners, weights and measures, but we measure temperature in C.
Because we can.

Barrington
07-10-2019, 06:21 AM
Perhaps some perspective is in order.

There's exactly one country that has landed men on the moon and then returned them to earth - alive. This is the very country that uses Fahrenheit for common temperature measurement.Some additional perspective:-

From: TALES FROM THE LUNAR MODULE GUIDANCE COMPUTER by Don Eyles


With respect to units, the LGC was eclectic. Inside the computer we used metric units, at least in the case of powered-flight navigation and guidance. At the operational level NASA, and especially the astronauts, preferred English units. This meant that before being displayed, altitude and altitude-rate (for example) were calculated from the metric state vector maintained by navigation, and then were converted to feet and ft/sec.

Cheers :p

loose nut
07-10-2019, 10:37 AM
Since this thread is rapidly degenerating from the original topic I'll toss in my 2 bits: I'm familiar and comfortable with SI prefixes etc. and well aware that the US is a metric country *for new manufacture*. However, there is a vast amount of legacy applications using Imperial and this will continue for a few more generations most likely. In my own work everything is Imperial unless it involves electronics or scientific applications. Everyday life is Imperial, and I have no problem remembering the relevant facts, units, or doing the math if any is required (not likely). I live on the Canadian border, so I get the weather reports in both systems --however I still struggle to understand what -31C is. Even tho I experience it routinely.

Great. Someone had to go and get all logical, that will just take the fun out of this.

What the great unwashed of the world (metric users) don't understand is that both systems are used here in NA and people have become bi-measurable. We use metric when we have to and still use the Imperial system because we want to and can do so, if that starts your teeth grinding then walk it off because nothing is going to change. There is the additional benefit to using the Imperial system in that it really gets under the skin of some of you and it is fun to listen to you squirm.

nickel-city-fab
07-10-2019, 11:07 AM
Great. Someone had to go and get all logical, that will just take the fun out of this.

What the great unwashed of the world (metric users) don't understand is that both systems are used here in NA and people have become bi-measurable. We use metric when we have to and still use the Imperial system because we want to and can do so, if that starts your teeth grinding then walk it off because nothing is going to change. There is the additional benefit to using the Imperial system in that it really gets under the skin of some of you and it is fun to listen to you squirm.

Personally I use imperial and thats not about to change. For me, the fun went out of the room when the discussion drifted away from the original question, and devolved into yet another debate about measuring systems. And then people started getting all emotionally involved....

Baz
07-10-2019, 05:03 PM
Don't know about the mechanical dimensions but I have specified loads of electrical equipment at a reference temperature of 25C. We used this on the basis that it was above normal room temperature most of the time in the UK and test houses where it mattered would have airconditioning. Then you could easily have a test rig that held the 25 c with gentle heating and not have the complication of having a coolant system.

For the off topic part of the thread. Do you change the clocks? That is daylight saving as the USA call it but we in the UK don't have a proper phrase for it. Check the rest of the world. Most countries do not apply it and don't understand it very well. Add to that that the official time of day when the clock is changed is different in the UK from the rest of Europe.

rjs44032
07-10-2019, 05:08 PM
Personally I use imperial and thats not about to change. For me, the fun went out of the room when the discussion drifted away from the original question, and devolved into yet another debate about measuring systems. And then people started getting all emotionally involved....

That's when it became fun for me. The OPs question was answered in the first few posts. Then someone had to burn someone else from across the pond and the fun began. I do admit that I participated in the measuring system discussion. Hopefully no harm done.

Best Regards,
Bob

RB211
07-10-2019, 06:54 PM
As an American, I wished we went metric. Something about using a base 10 numbering system just makes sense!

nickel-city-fab
07-10-2019, 07:44 PM
As an American, I wished we went metric. Something about using a base 10 numbering system just makes sense!

Last I heard, we *are* metric, the Feds mandated it for all new purchases in the 80's. The metric system was first recognized by Congress in 1865 but never really utilized save for scientific work.

Rich Carlstedt
07-10-2019, 08:30 PM
I find the Metric versus Imperial discussion rather amusing.
First, I use both and think in both forms of measurement and have been hired specifically by one employer
because of this ability. So before you get your knickers in a twist, consider this"
The Imperial System was founded by the length of a Kings foot - I HAVE BEEN TOLD.
Sounds plausible except did he have 12 toes ? sic !
The Metric system was found based on the calculation of the Diameter of Earth or Pole distance -I HAVE BEEN TOLD
But the Earth constantly changes size (Night/Day ,point of orbit around the Sun) so has someone measured it with a tape ? and....What time of day was used for the standard ?

Lets take temperature and use the freezing point of water as "0" ......but the largest amount of water in the world is Salt Water and it does not freeze at "0" WOW ! And it changes with Pressure ( The Titanic is in 28 deg F water and it isn't frozen !)

Now who is right on atmospheric pressure , is it 29.92 Inches or 759.968 mm of Mercury ?
Ahh, since neither system works, lets call it a Bar.......

See what I mean ?
No system is perfect and personal preferences make "my" system the best
Water to an Eskimo is different than water to dessert dweller. No System is perfect
No coin is perfect ( Euro versus Dollar versus Pound ect)
The secret is know the systems and use them to their best advantage.
Rich

loose nut
07-10-2019, 09:07 PM
The meter was original defined by the distance between the north pole and Paris divided by "something" to get a meter. Problem, at that time that distance wasn't really known. Best guess maybe.

The litre, weighing 1 KG, was set up that way because some bright fool decided that the quantity of water held in a standard 1 litre container could be used as a standard weight instead of sending sets of weights around the country. Problem, they didn't have anyway to make accurate containers and it only works at a set temp. and altitude.

Not very scientific. Of course today they use a so many wavelengths of a specific colour of light to set the length of the meter. Now that is really handy isn't it. The metric system was made by bureaucrats for bureaucrats and the imperial system was made by people for people.

Go ahead start shooting I can take it.

loose nut
07-10-2019, 09:11 PM
As an American, I wished we went metric. Something about using a base 10 numbering system just makes sense!

The whole world uses the base 10 numbering system except for computers, base 2 and to tell time, base 60.

nickel-city-fab
07-10-2019, 09:42 PM
Actually NIST re-defined the Meter a while back "The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds." however the old krypton light wavelength standard is still in common use.

For myself, I'll just have to settle for a set of gauge blocks and a cheap surface plate.

RB211
07-11-2019, 07:08 AM
2.54, very handy number to have.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

cameron
07-11-2019, 07:44 AM
The Imperial System was founded by the length of a Kings foot - I HAVE BEEN TOLD.
Sounds plausible except did he have 12 toes ? sic !

Rich

No, that was the old French system. The "pied du roi" may still be found on some old property deeds in Quebec, if I'm not mistaken.

I presume the length of the king's foot would have been measured from the big toe to the heel, and would have been independent of however many number of toes resulted from generations of royal inbreeding.

The Imperial system has a much more democratic foundation, based on the average length of the feet of the first ten men out of church after the service on Whitsunday morning- or so I've been told. And certainly more sensible than the metric system- no need to spend the equivalent of hundreds of millions if not several billions of today's dollars or euros on a survey a quarter of the way around the globe-which they got wrong, anyway.

What a waste to determine "scientifically" the magnitude of an arbitrarily chosen standard of length. So much for the much vaunted "logic" of the metric system.

Lew Hartswick
07-11-2019, 08:24 AM
The Imperial system has a much more democratic foundation, based on the average length of the feet of the first ten men out of church after the service on Whitsunday morning- or so I've been told. And certainly more sensible than the metric system- no need to spend the equivalent of hundreds of millions if not several billions of today's dollars or euros on a survey a quarter of the way around the globe-which they got wrong, anyway.

What a waste to determine "scientifically" the magnitude of an arbitrarily chosen standard of length. So much for the "logic" of the metric system.

The best rebuttal of the system I've seen . :-)
...lew...

rjs44032
07-11-2019, 08:25 AM
2.54, very handy number to have.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

As is 127

lynnl
07-11-2019, 08:26 AM
Actually NIST re-defined the Meter a while back "The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds." however the old krypton light wavelength standard is still in common use.
.

This illustrates the arbitrariness of this stuff. That's not really 'defining' the meter, that's a matter of already having a specific dimension (length) on hand and then looking around for some other corresponding units to match it. It's plain silly! ...as bad as the length as the king's foot or dic... never mind.

Now if they'd have defined it as "....light in a vacuum in 1/300,000,000 seconds.." that would've made some sense, and added some respectability to the occasion. ...not to mention stimulating the world economies with the sky rocketing increase in sales of new mics and such.

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 10:52 AM
Here is a very readable account of the history of the meter, through 1960:

https://www.wired.com/story/book-excerpt-the-perfectionists-history-meter/

(The biggest advances, however, came after 1960 with the development of frequency-stabilized lasers and optical combs.)

Galaxie
07-11-2019, 12:55 PM
I don't understand most of the criticisms of the metric system. There is simply no question that the methods used to define the metric measures are superior and there is nothing arbitrary about it. That is why all U.S. customary measures have long been officially defined in terms of metric units (i.e. the yard is officially 0.9144 meters and there is no physical U.S. yard standard anymore.) Now, if you want to argue that the method of defining, say, the meter was beyond the capabilities of the time, then go right ahead, but the fact that the definition has been continually improved is a feature, not a bug. It's certainly better than having a bunch of iridium (or whatever) rods laying about that don't actually agree with each other.

cameron
07-11-2019, 01:28 PM
I don't understand most of the criticisms of the metric system. There is simply no question that the methods used to define the metric measures are superior and there is nothing arbitrary about it. That is why all U.S. customary measures have long been officially defined in terms of metric units (i.e. the yard is officially 0.9144 meters and there is no physical U.S. yard standard anymore.) Now, if you want to argue that the method of defining, say, the meter was beyond the capabilities of the time, then go right ahead, but the fact that the definition has been continually improved is a feature, not a bug. It's certainly better than having a bunch of iridium (or whatever) rods laying about that don't actually agree with each other.

Superior to what?

According to what you yourself stated in this post, the methods used to define the metric units ipso facto define the Imperial units.

Why is one system superior to the other?

If a reasonably intelligent person uses the metric system properly, it works O.K.

If a reasonably intelligent person uses the Imperial system properly, it works O.K.

And a reasonably intelligent person can use the metric system, or the Imperial system, or both systems at the same time if he or she wishes to.

Are the arguments about the superiority of one system or the other addressed to idiots?

nickel-city-fab
07-11-2019, 02:12 PM
Superior to what?
........
Are the arguments about the superiority of one system or the other addressed to idiots?

Pretty much this. Divide and conquer.

Galaxie
07-11-2019, 02:21 PM
Superior to what?
According to what you yourself stated in this post, the methods used to define the metric units ipso facto define the Imperial units.
Why is one system superior to the other?
The metric system is superior to all the previous systems. All the units are related to each other in a rational way. The old systems were a mess of different units with different conversions between them and the standards were based on physical objects. (The metric system tried to avoid this and failed - well, until technology advanced anyway.) In theory, the meter (for example) could be calculated by anyone with the right tools and skills; something that was impossible for the inch/foot/yard.

If a reasonably intelligent person uses the metric system properly, it works O.K.
If a reasonably intelligent person uses the Imperial system properly, it works O.K.
And a reasonably intelligent person can use the metric system, or the Imperial system, or both systems at the same time if he or she wishes to.
They both work okay now. That wasn't always the case. The U.S. system was a mess at one time with factories basing their work on different standards, not to mention the Canadian and British standards which were also not in agreement. Moore's book "Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy" covers this issue. Nothing was settled until everything was redefined in international agreements.

I'm not saying the U.S. system is bad, it works after all and I use it in preference to metric, I'm just saying the metric system is better. The logic behind it is better.

Are the arguments about the superiority of one system or the other addressed to idiots?
Idiots don't care about measuring things. Idiots don't make anything except trouble. IMO one has to know a bit of the history of measurement and science in order to understand why the metric system is better.

Galaxie
07-11-2019, 02:23 PM
Pretty much this. Divide and conquer.

Divide and conquer what exactly?

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 02:28 PM
Superior to what?

According to what you yourself stated in this post, the methods used to define the metric units ipso facto define the Imperial units.

Why is one system superior to the other?

If a reasonably intelligent person uses the metric system properly, it works O.K.

If a reasonably intelligent person uses the Imperial system properly, it works O.K.

And a reasonably intelligent person can use the metric system, or the Imperial system, or both systems at the same time if he or she wishes to.

Are the arguments about the superiority of one system or the other addressed to idiots?

If one is concerned primarily with calculating or measuring length, as most people on this forum are, then either system works fine. If, however, you are making calculations that involve lots of different units (velocity, mass, energy, power, force, temperature, etc.) then the metic system is much easier to use.

J Tiers
07-11-2019, 02:37 PM
There is absolutely no "logic" to a measuring system just because it is based on the number 10.

Just face that fact, because it is one.

That does not mean I dislike "metric", so long ass you REALLY mean "SI", which is based on "metric". I like that. It is useful because it is universal, AND MOSTLY because it was set up with easily interconnected units of measure. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBER TEN,

The only reason "ten" and the "decimal" counting system has any special meaning is that most people can count up to 10 on their fingers, and then they run out of fingers, so they have to start again. THAT'S IT. NO MORE TO SEE HERE.

It is exactly as easy to set up a system as useful as SI, using ANY OTHER rational and non-prime number. I think it would be less convenient to use a prime, but I have not tried any such system out.

If people had 12 toes, then we would consider the 12 inch per foot system to be quite reasonable and the decimal metric system to be odd and difficult to work with. Counting systems can be based on any number you please, and they can all work just fine, IF you are used to them, and do not have to learn them later in life.

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 03:00 PM
There is absolutely no "logic" to a measuring system just because it is based on the number 10.


You're confusing systems of units with counting systems. A measuring system based on 10 is special because our numbering system is based on 10.

cameron
07-11-2019, 03:37 PM
You're confusing systems of units with counting systems. A measuring system based on 10 is special because our numbering system is based on 10.

That's a complete non-sequitor. Makes as much sense as saying cats should be dogs because they have four legs.

cameron
07-11-2019, 03:46 PM
They both work okay now. Idiots don't care about measuring things. Idiots don't make anything except trouble. IMO one has to know a bit of the history of measurement and science in order to understand why the metric system is better.

Ah, there's my problem, I know more than a bit!

Jim Stewart
07-11-2019, 03:47 PM
It is exactly as easy to set up a system as useful as SI, using ANY OTHER rational and non-prime number. I think it would be less convenient to use a prime, but I have not tried any such system out.

Bet you have! Two is a prime.

-js

Galaxie
07-11-2019, 03:51 PM
That's a complete non-sequitor. Makes as much sense as saying cats should be dogs because they have four legs.
How is that a non-sequitur? J Tiers alluded to it with his talk about counting systems

Galaxie
07-11-2019, 03:54 PM
Ah, there's my problem, I know more than a bit!

Then tell us all why the metric system is inferior or whatever it is you're getting at

cameron
07-11-2019, 03:55 PM
If one is concerned primarily with calculating or measuring length, as most people on this forum are, then either system works fine. If, however, you are making calculations that involve lots of different units (velocity, mass, energy, power, force, temperature, etc.) then the metic system is much easier to use.

And engineers don't do that, right?

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 04:04 PM
And engineers don't do that, right?

I don't recall stating that engineers don't make calculations.

cameron
07-11-2019, 04:09 PM
Then tell us all why the metric system is inferior or whatever it is you're getting at

I thought I had made it clear that I don't consider one or the other system to be significantly superior to the other.

I'd like to make it just as clear that I consider the claims for the superiority of one system or the other that have been made on this thread to be almost entirely fatuous.

loose nut
07-11-2019, 04:09 PM
You're confusing systems of units with counting systems. A measuring system based on 10 is special because our numbering system is based on 10.

If from day one we used a different counting system like binary (very unlikely) then being forced to learn to count in base 10 would be a bitch. It is a matter of what you know and are used to. As it is we learn base 10 and for most people binary is a bitch. J tiers said it was a matter of toes, be glad we have 10 and not 8 or 7.

cameron
07-11-2019, 04:25 PM
I don't recall stating that engineers don't make calculations.

Oh dear.

I am an engineer.

I make calculations.

I don't find the metric system to be easier, rather the converse. That's because I have more familiarity with Imperial dimensions. But I don't find the metric system difficult.

If I grew up in a country which used the metric system, the opposite would be true.

That says nothing whatsoever about the superiority of one system or the other.

loose nut
07-11-2019, 04:26 PM
Then tell us all why the metric system is inferior or whatever it is you're getting at

You like the metric system, good for you. Many don't and chose not to.

To someone trained to use imperial as the main measuring system, from a young age, metric will seem to be inferior and no amount of bullying by the metric-philes is going to change that. If you drive a car from A to B it doesn't matter whether it is a Ford or Chevy they will both get you there.

I watch a lot of British documentaries, history and science mostly and for the a country who caved into the metric menace they still use Imperial all the time. You see them talking in feet and inches, miles/hr, gallons etc just as much or more then the metric system. Same in Canada where Imperial measurement had to be reintroduced into school curriculum so grads could get by in the real world. You can legislate change but implementation is much harder if the people don't want it.

Most here are used to both systems and get by. I was taking to the wife, I have to do that some times, about the temp. outside. I was quoting Deg F and she was using Deg C, we both understood each other and neither cared.

Galaxie
07-11-2019, 04:28 PM
I'd like to make it just as clear that I consider the claims for the superiority of one system or the other that have been made on this thread to be almost entirely fatuous.
You think it's silly and pointless to have a system where the units have rational relationships to one another? Agree to disagree on that.

Galaxie
07-11-2019, 04:31 PM
You like the metric system, good for you. Many don't and chose not to.
Actually I don't like it; the meter is too big, and the kilometer and centimeter are too small. I only use it when I have to. That doesn't mean it isn't a better system.

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 04:34 PM
I don't find the metric system to be easier, rather the converse. That's because I have more familiarity with Imperial dimensions. But I don't find the metric system difficult.

No problem. You have more familiarity with Imperial units, so it's easier for you to use. By any objective measure, however, metric units are easier to use.

loose nut
07-11-2019, 04:48 PM
[QUOTE=Galaxie;1246701

They both work okay now. QUOTE]


That is the point isn't it. They both work fine and they get the job done. We got along with numerous system for century's so why change now. Because some anal types can't stand it that we all don't use the same system. That is as good a reason to not switch to the metric system as there is.

If you want everyone to be on the same page then lets start a new system that everyone can agree one. Weight can be based on Pounds per square fortnight.

P.S. the reason I detest the Metric system so much is that it uses the comma for the point. It is called a decimal point not the decimal comma. Fix that and we can talk.

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 04:54 PM
P.S. the reason I detest the Metric system so much is that it uses the comma for the point. It is called a decimal point not the decimal comma. Fix that and we can talk.

The metric system does not dictate whether you use a decimal or a comma. That is a country-by-country convention.

cameron
07-11-2019, 05:11 PM
You think it's silly and pointless to have a system where the units have rational relationships to one another? Agree to disagree on that.

You don't think the foot, second, pound (force), and slug (mass) have a rational relationship to each other?

Think again.

lynnl
07-11-2019, 05:47 PM
If you want everyone to be on the same page then lets start a new system that everyone can agree one. Weight can be based on Pounds per square fortnight.
.

".... lets start a new system that everyone can agree one."

Agree on? ...or argue about? :D

Galaxie
07-11-2019, 05:49 PM
You don't think the foot, second, pound (force), and slug (mass) have a rational relationship to each other?

Think again.
That's a good example, they may be "rational" in the sense they are real numbers and one is derived from the others, but not rational as in good sense when 1 slug = 32.1740 pounds (mass). Oops, now we've got two units with the same name: pounds (mass) and pounds (force). What about ounces (weight), ounces (Troy), and ounces (fluid)? That's one of the reasons the metric system is superior.

Edit to add: Sorry everyone, that last bit should have had ounces (mass) or ounces (force); don't want to confuse anyone. Are you all having fun yet? What a thread, huh? :p

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 06:04 PM
You don't think the foot, second, pound (force), and slug (mass) have a rational relationship to each other?

Think again.

Well, then it should be pretty simple to calculate the kinetic energy (E = 1/2 * m * v * v) of a 1 slug object moving at 1 foot per second, in any commonly-used unit of energy.

J Tiers
07-11-2019, 06:24 PM
You're confusing systems of units with counting systems. A measuring system based on 10 is special because our numbering system is based on 10.

YOU are confusing many things......

WE think of TEN as special SIMPLY because we count by tens... as you say. We count to 9, and then make the next symbol in the column to the left.....the tenth finger. Counting systems and units seen more "rational" when they are based on the same numbers.

Metric is "ten based" and therefore seems more "sensible" ONLY because we use 10 based counting... "decimal places". There is no point in you even TRYING to separate them as far as what seems "easy" , "sensible" etc etc.

If you want to argue that a counting, numbering or measuring system based on 3, or 21, or 18 is just as good as one based on "ten" I will agree with you.

But the bias of "people" toward "ten" as a good number for measuring, counting etc is purely due to the fact that people as a rule have 10 fingers. We count to ten, and then have to keep track of how many times we did that.... which we do in the next column.

If we had twelve fingers, we would count to twelve, and only THEN would we need to make a mark in the next column.... twelve would seem normal to us...

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that if people had twelve fingers, that we would STILL count by ten, and have "decimal" places in out numbers?

I have been trying to separate "10" from "ten".... "10" is the next symbol for the series 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, But it is also potentially the next symbol for the series "1", or "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A.B.C.D.E,F", and so on. If you are confusing the symbol for the "number", that would cause you to go astray.

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 06:53 PM
There is absolutely no "logic" to a measuring system just because it is based on the number 10.


YOU are confusing many things......

WE think of TEN as special SIMPLY because we count by tens... as you say. We count to 9, and then make the next symbol in the column to the left.....the tenth finger. Counting systems and units seen more "rational" when they are based on the same numbers.

Metric is "ten based" and therefore seems more "sensible" ONLY because we use 10 based counting... "decimal places". There is no point in you even TRYING to separate them as far as what seems "easy" , "sensible" etc etc.

If you want to argue that a counting, numbering or measuring system based on 3, or 21, or 18 is just as good as one based on "ten" I will agree with you.

But the bias of "people" toward "ten" as a good number for measuring, counting etc is purely due to the fact that people as a rule have 10 fingers. We count to ten, and then have to keep track of how many times we did that.... which we do in the next column.

If we had twelve fingers, we would count to twelve, and only THEN would we need to make a mark in the next column.... twelve would seem normal to us...

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that if people had twelve fingers, that we would STILL count by ten, and have "decimal" places in out numbers?

I have been trying to separate "10" from "ten".... "10" is the next symbol for the series 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, But it is also potentially the next symbol for the series "1", or "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A.B.C.D.E,F", and so on. If you are confusing the symbol for the "number", that would cause you to go astray.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing again. First you state there is no logic to a measuring system based on the number 10, then you provide a long (and correct) rational for why it is logical.


A measuring system based on 10 is special because our numbering system is based on 10.

epicfail48
07-11-2019, 07:05 PM
Actually I don't like it; the meter is too big, and the kilometer and centimeter are too small. I only use it when I have to. That doesn't mean it isn't a better system.

Decimeter

loose nut
07-11-2019, 07:45 PM
What if we drop the foot and yard and just use the inch divided by 10, 100 1000 10,000 etc. Oh wait that is exactly what we do now. Silly me.

I guess since we use a decimal system the what is the point of going metric.

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 07:59 PM
What if we drop the foot and yard and just use the inch divided by 10, 100 1000 10,000 etc. Oh wait that is exactly what we do now. Silly me.

I guess since we use a decimal system the what is the point of going metric.

Nothing wrong with that, but what happens when you want to measure long distances? kilo-inches? mega-inches?

nickel-city-fab
07-11-2019, 08:28 PM
Nothing wrong with that, but what happens when you want to measure long distances? kilo-inches? mega-inches?

Miles. Miles have a definite relation to yards, feet, and inches.

cameron
07-11-2019, 08:44 PM
Well, then it should be pretty simple to calculate the kinetic energy (E = 1/2 * m * v * v) of a 1 slug object moving at 1 foot per second, in any commonly-used unit of energy.

Yep. Do you know anything about dimensional analysis?

Mass =force/acceleration, so the dimensions of mass are pound.second squared/foot, and E is 0.5 pound.foot.

Pretty easy to convert that to whatever unit of energy you like.

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 09:04 PM
Yep. Do you know anything about dimensional analysis?

Mass =force/acceleration, so the dimensions of mass are pound.second squared/foot, and E is 0.5 pound.foot.

Do you routinely give the mass of common objects in units of (pound) * (second) * (second) / (foot)?


Pretty easy to convert that to whatever unit of energy you like.

Great. Show me how easy it is to convert pound-feet to any common imperial unit of energy.

doctor demo
07-11-2019, 10:08 PM
Back to the original question, much as I like the metric vs. imperial debates or what type of oil should I use in my scooter.:)

Below a link to a 23 page answer published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2007.


20 CA Short History of the Standard
Reference Temperature for Industrial
Dimensional Measurements (https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=823211)

I didn't have anything better to do the other night so I read the link you provided. I found some of it very interesting and other parts, well, not so much. But I did learn a lot.

As far as your scooter oil question, isn't it obvious that you should use metric scooter oil:p

Steve

nickel-city-fab
07-11-2019, 10:12 PM
Great. Show me how easy it is to convert pound-feet to any common imperial unit of energy.

Sure. One Joule is .737 pound-feet. One Joule per second equals one Watt. One Watt equals 3.41 BTU's per hour.

It pays to know your history.

Now, a few years ago I converted all my energy usage into a common basis (joules) to calculate the lowest possible heating bills in February.... e.g BTU's/CF of NatGas vs Elec all expressed in Joules/hr rate of consumption.... NatGas won by the slimmest of margins only because my insulation is so horrible.

Bented
07-11-2019, 10:25 PM
The question is.
Why not 68 Deg.?

The people that wrote the standard may have simply liked that temperature (-:

"Hey Fred what temp should we specify?"
"I find 75 to warm and 60 to cold so lets make it 68 Deg."
"That works for me Fred, let it be so"

I suspect that the group that specified the OD of numbered screws worked in the same fashion.

"Hey Fred how do we write the standards for your non-fractional screw standard?"
"How about the major diameter = the screw number X .013" + .06", this should keep people confused for decades"
"I like it Fred so lets run with it"

History was made with bourbon I suspect (-:

tomato coupe
07-11-2019, 10:44 PM
Sure. One Joule is .737 pound-feet. One Joule per second equals one Watt. One Watt equals 3.41 BTU's per hour.

It pays to know your history.

Now, a few years ago I converted all my energy usage into a common basis (joules) to calculate the lowest possible heating bills in February.... e.g BTU's/CF of NatGas vs Elec all expressed in Joules/hr rate of consumption.... NatGas won by the slimmest of margins only because my insulation is so horrible.

You've just nicely illustrated why the metric system is often easier than the imperial system.

Imperial:
In order to calculate the kinetic energy of a 1 slug mass with a velocity of 1 foot per second, you need to do two conversions. First, you have to convert slugs to (pound) * (second) * (second) / (foot), and then you have to convert the result from (pound) * (feet) to BTU.

Metric:
Calculating the kinetic energy of a 1 kg mass with a velocity of 1 m/s is trivial. The energy is 0.5 J

Edit: Oops, forgot the 1/2 factor

J Tiers
07-12-2019, 01:06 AM
Tomato...

Your own "argument" here seems to be to attack various statements, and then at the end, agree with it.

People make much of the base ten nature of "metric" or"SI", claiming it is "so logical" and obviously correct due to the decimal units.

My point is, first, that the ONLY reason "SI" is "more correct" or logical, is that it happens to be deliberately made to BE easy, with easy relations between units.

BUT, there is really nothing special about "ten" that affects the way "SI" works.... The same sort of logical relations could be set up using a base thirty system, or base twelve, etc. The super specialness of ten just comes from our fingers, and not some logical argument from the nature of the universe, as many seem to be claiming.

Essentially, what is "blamed on" the base ten nature, is really nothing much to do with it, the "magic" is in the relation between units, which is not dependent on base ten in any way other than being more familiar due to "traditions" that people in western society (at least) tend to share. Folks are looking in the wrong place.

tomato coupe
07-12-2019, 01:54 AM
Tomato...

Your own "argument" here seems to be to attack various statements, and then at the end, agree with it.

People make much of the base ten nature of "metric" or"SI", claiming it is "so logical" and obviously correct due to the decimal units.

My point is, first, that the ONLY reason "SI" is "more correct" or logical, is that it happens to be deliberately made to BE easy, with easy relations between units.

BUT, there is really nothing special about "ten" that affects the way "SI" works.... The same sort of logical relations could be set up using a base thirty system, or base twelve, etc. The super specialness of ten just comes from our fingers, and not some logical argument from the nature of the universe, as many seem to be claiming.

Essentially, what is "blamed on" the base ten nature, is really nothing much to do with it, the "magic" is in the relation between units, which is not dependent on base ten in any way other than being more familiar due to "traditions" that people in western society (at least) tend to share. Folks are looking in the wrong place.

I have not attacked various statements. I made one simple statement


A measuring system based on 10 is special because our numbering system is based on 10.

in response to your post:


There is absolutely no "logic" to a measuring system just because it is based on the number 10

Your have a bad habit of distorting what others state.

loose nut
07-12-2019, 11:03 AM
Nothing wrong with that, but what happens when you want to measure long distances? kilo-inches? mega-inches?

That is where the "fortnight" comes in. The distance that a three legged dog can travel in 1 fortnight will be the standard for long distances. For shorter distances we use a cat.

If that doesn't work then why not use the deca-inch (100 inches?) instead of the yard and what ever 10,000 inches would be instead of the mile. Then we will convert the standard day to 10 hours divided by 100 minutes each. 10 month each year with 36 days each, there will have to be some kind of leap year adjustment for the 1/2 days or change the orbit of the planet to a 360 day cycle. Of course what happens when part of the world refuses to change over to the new system.

It would just be much simpler for those that wish to continue to use the Imperial system to do so and those that want everyone to only use the metric system to bugger off.

cameron
07-12-2019, 01:46 PM
Do you routinely give the mass of common objects in units of (pound) * (second) * (second) / (foot)?



Great. Show me how easy it is to convert pound-feet to any common imperial unit of energy.

It's apparent that the answer to my question "Do you know anything about dimensional analysis?" is
"What's dimensional analysis?".

When I use the foot,second, pound, slug units I give the mass of common objects in slugs. I would do the same for uncommon objects.

I don't quite understand why you keep asking these questions. It seems to me that this imperial system which you insist is so inferior is actually something of an unknown entity to you.

Foot pound, or pound foot, IS a common imperial unit of energy.

old mart
07-12-2019, 02:05 PM
I love the way these discussions degenerate into rows, its just as well the rest of the world lives out of range of the average USA citizens guns, or we be in for it.
It must be so hard for people in the USA to understand shows like Star Trek as they are metricised.

loose nut
07-12-2019, 02:15 PM
No, you metric lovers don't get that we do understand the metric system we just don't want to use it.

If Star Trek was real they wouldn't use the metric system either, they would have some Federation approved system probably based on the distance travelled by a beam of light over a fortnight. Spock would approve.

Your right about the guns though they would shoot you but for a different reason.

rzbill
07-12-2019, 08:46 PM
Miles. Miles have a definite relation to yards, feet, and inches.

A mile is an excellent measure. 1000 paces (1 mille) of a Roman Legionaire. I've checked my pace and it is darned close. Makes me want to wear a skirt and carry a sword.

Why did the force of gravity in the metric systeme have to be 9.81 for crying out loud? Since the metre was arbitrarily wrong in the first place, why wasn't it adjusted to make gravity a TEN like all the other wonderful tens in metric? Or come up with a metric time slice to make it a ten?

Pounds is force ,slugs is mass. Kilograms is mass (supposedly), Newtons is force. A bathroom scale measures FORCE. How many blokes tell their weight in Newtons. More likely to hear it in Stones.

Like others here, I find the two measurement systems equivalent in functionality. Usage depends on the task at hand.

nickel-city-fab
07-13-2019, 07:49 AM
I love the way these discussions degenerate into rows, its just as well the rest of the world lives out of range of the average USA citizens guns, or we be in for it.
It must be so hard for people in the USA to understand shows like Star Trek as they are metricised.

Actually thats why these things aggravate me so much -- I've seen dozens if not hundreds of *the exact same dispute* over the years and they all follow the same pattern. They never solve anything, if indeed anything needs to be solved. Some people simply enjoy a good fight, much like mud wrestling with a pig. I try to avoid those, because life's too short already.

lynnl
07-13-2019, 08:46 AM
.... *the exact same dispute* over the years and they all follow the same pattern. They never solve anything,......
...
Some people simply enjoy a good fight, much like mud wrestling with a pig.

You're right of course, but I'm not sure "enjoy" is the right word. I think many are powerless to let issues like this rest. It starts on the play ground in first grade. :D

loose nut
07-13-2019, 09:18 AM
Could be some people get all bent out of shape about it and some of us enjoy egging them on.

One of life's simple pleasures.

nickel-city-fab
07-13-2019, 10:24 AM
Could be some people get all bent out of shape about it and some of us enjoy egging them on.

One of life's simple pleasures.

I have to admit that it bugs me when the metric folks assume an air of smug superiority. And then go and start $#!t over it..... Instead of replying I usually just let it ride. After all, THEY are the new kids on the block -- the imperial system was established in ancient Roman times and has been used successfully ever since. Trade with the rest of the world ? Why do we care about that? This isn't practical machinist, this is home shop machinist.

As far as egging others on, or being egged on, just NOPE. seeya. I lost that habit back in high school and prefer to leave it there.

old mart
07-13-2019, 01:45 PM
The inch, foot, yard furlong, mile and so on are all British measurements, metric measurements are of French origin, is there anything at all which originated in the USA?

cameron
07-13-2019, 01:57 PM
The inch, foot, yard furlong, mile and so on are all British measurements, metric measurements are of French origin, is there anything at all which originated in the USA?

No, over here, in Canada as well as the U.S., we're pretty happy with most of the old British measurements.

No need to reinvent the wheel, as they say.

Shouldn't forget the herring barrel, the herring tub, the salt cart and the salt tub (also called the sand barrel), though. They may have been made in Newfoundland, can't say for sure.

loose nut
07-13-2019, 02:44 PM
As far as egging others on, or being egged on, just NOPE. seeya. I lost that habit back in high school and prefer to leave it there.

As we get older there are fewer and fewer joys in life so you shouldn't pass up an opportunity to give them the screws. It may be meaningless but it can be fun.

Mark Rand
07-13-2019, 07:34 PM
Just remember that 'a pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter' none of your bloody short beer measures please! :D

boslab
07-13-2019, 08:16 PM
I suppose that the imperial system was what was in use in America before independence, it was just a case of carrying on using it after the Declaration of Independence, odd really I suppose there was an opportunity to adopt somthing else at that point but probably there was already enough going on without adding even more problems, your lucky you did get rid of the pound, shilling and all the weird coinage at least, I reckon if there had been a whole set of measurements adopted we would all be using it now, like the dollar it would have spread, (thank heavens we didn’t adopt the euro in the U.K., I’d rather we used pesetas or yen ( ok I spelled it wrong )
Mark

nickel-city-fab
07-13-2019, 08:32 PM
The inch, foot, yard furlong, mile and so on are all British measurements, metric measurements are of French origin, is there anything at all which originated in the USA?

A time-honored tradition at MIT is for the under-classmen to try and create a new unit in various ways, books have been published about their various escapades.... one such unit of volume is called the "piano" wherein they shoved a piano off a 6th floor roof and then measured the volume of the resulting crater below.

McDonalds could be a measure of obesity.

Then there is the Smoot Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot

In the Midwest and upper plains travel is measure in hours, regardless of velocity (whatever you can get away with, I've turned on the cruise control at 90 MPH and 5000 RPM and been overtaken by 1-ton trucks at that speed...)

I don't know.

nickel-city-fab
07-13-2019, 08:36 PM
As we get older there are fewer and fewer joys in life so you shouldn't pass up an opportunity to give them the screws. It may be meaningless but it can be fun.

:D yes, I can give them 1/2-12 TPI, sit back and watch the fun....

cameron
07-13-2019, 09:05 PM
Just remember that 'a pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter' none of your bloody short beer measures please! :D

Yeah, and an imperial gallon of water weighs 10 pounds. The only thing the metric guys have to compare with that is the Newton, exactly the same weight as the apple that fell on old Isaac's head just before he invented gravity.

loose nut
07-13-2019, 09:32 PM
I suppose that the imperial system was what was in use in America before independence, it was just a case of carrying on using it after the Declaration of Independence, odd really I suppose there was an opportunity to adopt somthing else at that point but probably there was already enough going on without adding even more problems, your lucky you did get rid of the pound, shilling and all the weird coinage at least, I reckon if there had been a whole set of measurements adopted we would all be using it now, like the dollar it would have spread, (thank heavens we didn’t adopt the euro in the U.K., I’d rather we used pesetas or yen ( ok I spelled it wrong )
Mark

There where localized measurement systems all around the world but the Imperial system was probably the most used since it went everywhere with the British. It makes sense that the treasonous colonials would keep what they where used to, kind of like not wanting to change over now.The metric system wasn't around yet.

epicfail48
07-14-2019, 05:32 AM
Yeah, and an imperial gallon of water weighs 10 pounds. The only thing the metric guys have to compare with that is the Newton, exactly the same weight as the apple that fell on old Isaac's head just before he invented gravity.

A cubic centimeter of water weighs one gram, seems a pretty fair comparison to me!

thaiguzzi
07-14-2019, 08:32 AM
12 pages and counting on what started out as 68F=20C.
Nothing bar fluoride in the water, Socialism, kneeling for the flag, and Commie infiltrators, will get a tough crowd (American) so wound up as that word invented by Lucifer himself - "metric".....

loose nut
07-14-2019, 09:45 AM
whats wrong with fluoride?

nickel-city-fab
07-14-2019, 10:13 AM
12 pages and counting on what started out as 68F=20C.
Nothing bar fluoride in the water, Socialism, kneeling for the flag, and Commie infiltrators, will get a tough crowd (American) so wound up as that word invented by Lucifer himself - "metric".....

11 pages of which was just wasted hot air.

loose nut
07-14-2019, 08:32 PM
So to answer the original question, someone just pulled it out of their butt.

thaiguzzi
07-15-2019, 01:28 AM
So to answer the original question, someone just pulled it out of their butt.

LOL.

The fluoride thing was that 50's McCarthy / FBI Commie Infiltrator thing about fluoride in the water.
Remember the weed paranoia propaganda and the first of the governments tactics at advertising their war on drugs?
Us Europeans and Brits being bang next door to the Wicked Evil Soviet Empire thought that more American paranoia musings were rather amusing.

boslab
07-15-2019, 07:30 AM
Only what I was told, 68/20 after discussions over nearly 20 years was the average dimensional lab temp between US and Europe,
https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=823211
Apparently 15 was popular before interesting read btw
Fluoride might help dumb down the contents of the cranium though
Mark

loose nut
07-15-2019, 10:22 AM
Back when the town I live in was on well water the natural fluoride levels where far above what you would get from fluoridated treated water and it didn't have any effect on us.us.us.us.us.us................................