#10 screw and 3/16 screw

[loose nut]

mardtrp --

Your calling the U.S. monetary system "metric" caught me off guard, so I looked up the word "metric". The relevant definitions can be summarized either as 1) a measurement system having meters, kilograms, and second as the basic units, or 2) a standard for measurement.

Since the U.S. monetary system isn't commonly measured in meters, kilograms, or seconds, I have to presume that the second definition is appropriate to the thought you expressed.

Now that I understand what you have said, I can reply.

Thank you. Although only one of a large number of people concerned about the world's present economic situation, I certainly hope that the U.S. monetary system continues to set the standard against which other monetary systems are measured and judged.

Incidentally, it's an interesting coincidence that the basic units of the meter-kilogram-second metric system are decimally divided, as is the basic unit of the U.S. monetary system, the U.S. dollar.

John

People confuse Metric with decimal.

Metric, Imperial measurement and U.S. money are all decimal but only Metric is Metric.

The Imp./Metric argument is like talking about different and or lack of religions, best not to go there, you will never agree on anything, because the other guy is always wrong.

Here is a question for the Brits or Aussies/kiwi's, if you go to a lumber yard to buy some studs do you ask for 50 x 100 mm's or do you still ask for 2 x 4's.

[vpt]

I'm with John from the UK, metric is easier.

It is overtaking the US more and more. The sooner you learn it and except it the better off you will be.

7/16, 1/2, 9/16, 5/8, 11/16, 3/4, 13/16, 7/8, 15/16, 1

Or

10mm, 11mm, 12mm, 13mm, 14mm, 15mm...

[John Garner]

mardtrp --

Your calling the U.S. monetary system "metric" caught me off guard, so I looked up the word "metric". The relevant definitions can be summarized either as 1) a measurement system having meters, kilograms, and second as the basic units, or 2) a standard for measurement.

Since the U.S. monetary system isn't commonly measured in meters, kilograms, or seconds, I have to presume that the second definition is appropriate to the thought you expressed.

Now that I understand what you have said, I can reply.

Thank you. Although only one of a large number of people concerned about the world's present economic situation, I certainly hope that the U.S. monetary system continues to set the standard against which other monetary systems are measured and judged.

Incidentally, it's an interesting coincidence that the basic units of the meter-kilogram-second metric system are decimally divided, as is the basic unit of the U.S. monetary system, the U.S. dollar.

John

[nheng]

Somewhere in the bowels of this forum is a thread on where the "10" in 10-32 comes from.

I considered going completely metric in the home shop since I use it heavily at work (fiber / optics) too. I found that the hardware just ain't there (in many ways) although the prices are.

Den

[Peter N]

Mark,
it would appear that you started the whole pissing match back in post # 5
by inferring the Imp. system to be inferior.
If you find it to be so difficult to use by all means don't strain your tiny cranium in attempting to do so. We wouldn't want you to stroke out....
As it has been noted and stated we have no difficulty using both systems,
and switching back and forth is done with relative ease.
Except for you and some others who insist on bashing us "dumb yanks" for NOT using YOUR preferred or perhaps only known way of measuring, I only see us "Dumb yanks" showing you the folly of your ASSertion that yours makes sense and ours doesn't.
Now , don't be such a wanker and go piss off eh ?

Actually I think I'd probably have to agree with all that
As another one who uses both and finds them equally as good in most cases, I'd also have to say that in the majority of cases I think metric measurements are simpler to use.
However I still flick the DRO onto inches when I'm using the edge finder then switch back to mm after it's zero-ed, it just seems easier that way but perhaps it's a personal quirk.

Whilst I wouldn't try hard to persuade anyone to change from the system they understand well and are comfortable with, it's worth asking the dyed-in-the-wool sceptics on both sides to try and understand the 'other' system better before dismissing it out of hand as useless.

Peter

[Uncle O]

Wow, has this thread gone way of topic or what ?

It seems that this argument about imperial and metric will be around for many years to come and the main 'stayers' for imperial measurment are/is the 'dumb' Yanks.
They seem to be a bit bone headed about the imperial measurement and seem to throw all sorts of arguments up as to why it is better than metric.

If that's the case, then why do they have a METRIC monetry system ?

Somewhere in the distant past, they were using the Pounds, Shilling and Pence, but with a bit of an argument with the Pommies, they decided to go it alone.

So, where and when, did they swipe the metric monetry system from?

If metric is Ssooo bad, then why do they persist with the almighty METRIC dollar, why not just go right back to the bloody ridiculous Pounds, Shillings and Pence system that they were using ?

mark

Mark,
it would appear that you started the whole pissing match back in post # 5
by inferring the Imp. system to be inferior.
If you find it to be so difficult to use by all means don't strain your tiny cranium in attempting to do so. We wouldn't want you to stroke out....
As it has been noted and stated we have no difficulty using both systems,
and switching back and forth is done with relative ease.
Except for you and some others who insist on bashing us "dumb yanks" for NOT using YOUR preferred or perhaps only known way of measuring, I only see us "Dumb yanks" showing you the folly of your ASSertion that yours makes sense and ours doesn't.
Now , don't be such a wanker and go piss off eh ?

[mardtrp]

Can anyone visualize 798949 KG's.

Yep, real simple, a tad under 799 ton.

mark

[mardtrp]

Wow, has this thread gone way of topic or what ?

It seems that this argument about imperial and metric will be around for many years to come and the main 'stayers' for imperial measurment are/is the 'dumb' Yanks.
They seem to be a bit bone headed about the imperial measurement and seem to throw all sorts of arguments up as to why it is better than metric.

If that's the case, then why do they have a METRIC monetry system ?

Somewhere in the distant past, they were using the Pounds, Shilling and Pence, but with a bit of an argument with the Pommies, they decided to go it alone.

So, where and when, did they swipe the metric monetry system from?

If metric is Ssooo bad, then why do they persist with the almighty METRIC dollar, why not just go right back to the bloody ridiculous Pounds, Shillings and Pence system that they were using ?

mark

[tyrone shewlaces]

J Tiers
A foot could have been 10 inches rather than 12, but it was extremely likely created on purpose to have 12. For the common man (you know, the guy who makes and/or grows things and takes them to market to sell, etc.) base 10 doesn't work out as well. This is even more true the less literate folks are. It seems a small thing, but the simple act of dividing things up is a big deal in the concrete world, so 12 rises up to be more functional than 10. It can be divided by 2,3,4 and 6 and can be divided in half twice before you get into fractions. 10 can be divided by 2 and 5 and you're into fractional amounts right away.
Having said that, dividing by 2 and 5 might be handy enough. If the metric pushers of yore would have come up with a prefix or suffix for 1/2 and 1/5 of a unit (like meterak and meterpoo for example), it may have been easier to sell. Still not as good as base 12, but a little more serviceable for the common man.
I still say the base 10 is great for figuring things on paper, but in the physical world it is too far down on the list as choices go.
Metric - Shmetric.
Actually the best thing would have been for the world to just pick one and run with it. I personally wouldn't care much. Well I do now since I'm better than half a life through the units that I have been dealing with so far, but starting out young with a single standard would have been kinda handy. A "standard" isn't a standard when you have more than one of them. Metric was a good effort. They tried but the spaghetti didn't stick to the wall.

[J Tiers]

Well - let's see.


0.01mm ~ 0.0004" ("four tenths") - just under 0.0005" ("half a thou") and well with the reach and capability of most HSM-ers and 0.10mm ~ 0.004" ("four thou") - also easily related to.

it's within reach, but typically isn't done much.... a couple thou is common, 5 thou is getting 'loose", and under a thou is "pretty tight".

but, 4 tenths IS 10 microns..... getting to "Evan territory" there...... Normally for that sort of measurement you folks all start talking about unrealistic tolerances for the home shop, and thermal effects etc...... Why the silence now?

it may be 40% of a thou, but its more than twice as fine a measurement...... well into thermal error territory. Normally a tolerance reserved for bearing fits etc.

It's all in what you are used to, you can measure with anything...

John S.....

Of course you CAN use any unit, and some do, often to get a bigger and more impressive number....

But to have no intermediate measuring unit between two that are a factor of 1000 apart , is un-handy.

When that 'gap" is right in the area of 'people-sized" things, where decent accuracy is useful, it's more un-handy.

it would be better to have a unit about a half metre in length.

With all its faults, and I won't deny them, the inch/foot/yard series gives a number of useful measurement units in the "people-size" area. And all of them are easily related, all just really common names for multiples of inches. A foot could as easily been 10 inches...... in which case we might not be having this conversation.

metric WOULD have a reasonable sized unit, IF the "decimeter" had not been "deprecated"...... a decimeter would be about 4", and would be a useful subdivision......

And, by simply messing with the decimal places, you CAN get there..... "about 1.3 metre"......

if you are satisfied to "pollute" metric with fractions, you can do better...... "about a half metre"......... "about 2/3 metre"........ I like to do that just to mess with the tight decimalized minds of the metric advocates....... It's like asking a symphony violin player to improvise........ you are never quite sure if you will see a real case of human spontaneous combustion as a result.

People have odd ideas of the US..... I sent a fellow in europe a picture of some machine part or another, and included a metre stick in the picture for a size reference. He was astounded that I would possess such a thing. But they aren't that uncommon.

[spope14]

3.5 metric tons is what I tell my students when they ask something. Sounds pretty large.

[loose nut]

Can anyone visualize 798949 KG's.

[John Stevenson]

No. For 92,000 pounds we'd say 46 tons.

From a current post on Heavy hauling pic's by Dockrat there is a link to another move where it states;-

Check out this load. They are hauling a coker that was built in Edmonton and hauling it to Fort McMurray. There is one truck pulling and two pushing. Total weight is 1,757,688 lbs. Have a good look at the bridge as it goes over.

Read more: http://www.dieselbombers.com/show-te...#ixzz0cjEm441D

Some one else post a pic about a large move within the last month all in pounds, can anyone visualise 1,757,688 lbs ?

.

[loose nut]

oldtiffie and all the rest of you --

Because the fundamental geometry of the ISO Metric threadform exactly matches that of the older Unified threadform, it can be fairly argued that the ISO Metric standard is simply a special case of the Unified standard.

John

Oh boy, are you going to get it now

[John Garner]

oldtiffie and all the rest of you --

I find it particularly ironic that a text intended to describe in great detail the geometry of some particular threadform gets the name of the threadform wrong.

The case in point? The text shown in Post 41 of this Thread.

The basic geometry -- sixty degree angle between flanks measured in a plane containing the axis of the screwthread, with a 1/8 Pitch flat at the Major Diameter and a 1/4 Pitch flat at the Minor Diameter -- is that of the Unified screwthread, which was developed jointly by the U.S., Canadian, and British in 1949 to preclude recurrence of the WWII logistics problems created by the differences between U.S. Standard and British Standard screwthreads and fasteners.

In standardizing their newly-developed Unified threadform, the U.S., Canadian, and British authorities developed two series of Diameter and Pitch pairings, one relatively coarser than the other. The coarser of the two series was termed the Unified Coarse series, the finer was termed the Unified Fine series.

The abbreviation for the Unified Coarse series of standard screwthreads is UNC, that for the Unified Fine series of standard screwthreads is UNF.

The U.S. Government made the Unified threadform the official standard U.S. threadform, replacing the earlier standard, which was designed and had been proposed as the U.S. Standard threadform by William Sellers in 1864.

Over its lifetime, that earlier U.S. Standard threadform had collected a variety of different names, including 1) Sellers, 2) U.S. Standard, and 3) American National. Like the later Unified threadform, the Sellers / U.S. Standard / American National was standardized in two series of Diameter - Pitch combinations, a Coarse series and a Fine series.

In common U.S. use, the two series were termed [American] National Coarse and [American] National Fine, abbreviated NC and NF, respectively.

Despite oldtiffie's textbook -- and many other textbooks -- there is no "Unified National" screwthread standard. "Unified" is one standard threadform, "National" is another.

Then, for what it's worth . . . in 1959, a full decade after the British, Canadian, and U.S. jointly developed the Unified threadform for their common use, the ISO incorporated the geometry of the Unified threadform into their new screwthread standard, which they named ISO Metric. A number of European nations -- including France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy -- officially replaced their earlier (and largely NOT interchangeable) national standard threadforms with the ISO Metric standard.

Because the fundamental geometry of the ISO Metric threadform exactly matches that of the older Unified threadform, it can be fairly argued that the ISO Metric standard is simply a special case of the Unified standard.

John