Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gages?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Toolguy View Post
    Originally posted by 3 Phase Lightbulb View Post
    How come all of the shot bounced back and hit me in the face then?
    Silly boy - you have to use a slug for that, not shot.
    How come the slug bounced back and smacked me in the face then?

    Comment


    • #17
      Bad Karma

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Doc Nickel View Post
        -Wait, so something one inch long isn't really one inch long? When I drive two miles to the gas station and buy twenty gallons of gas, i didn't really drive two miles nor purchase twenty gallons?

        All measurements are arbitrary, all names of measurements are arbitrary.

        Doc.
        I agree all measurements are arbitrary things that are somehow agreed upon, but I would have to agree with Marv with respect to things like a 1/2" pipe having no dimension that measures 1/2" and the like. Just seems silly.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by alanganes View Post
          I agree all measurements are arbitrary things that are somehow agreed upon, but I would have to agree with Marv with respect to things like a 1/2" pipe having no dimension that measures 1/2" and the like. Just seems silly.
          well, the pipe of that size has a consistent OD, which makes perfect sense, since it would be particularly silly if different types of threaded "1/2" pipe" would not even screw together..

          And, so, the ID is dependent on the wall thickness. Sch 40 pipe is 0.622 ID, but sch 80 pipe is 0.546 ID. One type of 1/2" pipe has an ID of 0.252..... Presumably at one time, the standard pipe was about 1/2" ID with the OD of 0.84".

          Pick your inconsistency, because for sure there WILL be one.
          CNC machines only go through the motions

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Rich Carlstedt View Post
            So our Math is to the Base 10 and we are told that Metrics is proper also because it is a Base 10 system, however, computer logic is to the base 2 ?
            Since we are moving that way, why not change to that ?
            Our bakeries use the Base 12 ( I'll have a Dozen Donuts")
            and our Hardware stores use a Base 144 system ( Those nuts come in a "Gross" box.)
            Our Gasoline and Oil come in barrels, and so do Cranberries or Sugar, or Butter and Cheese, all of which have different volumes ??

            All this information is printed on Reams of paper---but that also uses another numbering system !

            Rich
            Gross or 144 is just part of base 12 system, "dozen of 12" =144.
            Just realized that base 12 might work better in larger scale if it wouldn't use base 10 arabic symbols to start with!
            10 should be * and 11 should be for example ¤. And 12 should be then 10
            Dividing and multiplying would be as easy as in base 10 or base 2, just shift the comma/dot around. Was going to write decimal separator but its what, duodecimal separator?

            Seem like machinists in US are pretty well adapted also to metric system. Carpenters or construction workers probably not that much.
            In science and engineering the imperial system is gets even more rare. Magnetic field calculations in imperial units anyone?
            Location: Helsinki, Finland, Europe

            Comment


            • #21
              Well, we once 'standardized'- sort of- on a 55MPH speed limit. Why such an arbitrary number? It doesn't relate to anything, since the distance you travel on average is rarely exactly 55 miles or lasts exactly an hour. It's no even multiple of car lengths, or distances between destinations.

              So clearly we should "metricify" it, call it "Speed Ten". In residential areas, it might be Speed Five. Out on the highway, raise it to Speed Fifteen.

              See how much more clear and obvious that would be? You could use it to rate everything from racehorses ("Speed 200") to bullet trains ("Speed 2200".)

              Clearly it's obviously a better solution- "better" in this case meaning we actually based the new unit on a common constant- the average speed limit. SO much better than using random, arbitrary numbers...



              Doc.
              Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Doc Nickel View Post
                Well, we once 'standardized'- sort of- on a 55MPH speed limit. Why such an arbitrary number? It doesn't relate to anything, since the distance you travel on average is rarely exactly 55 miles or lasts exactly an hour. It's no even multiple of car lengths, or distances between destinations.

                So clearly we should "metricify" it, call it "Speed Ten". In residential areas, it might be Speed Five. Out on the highway, raise it to Speed Fifteen.

                See how much more clear and obvious that would be? You could use it to rate everything from racehorses ("Speed 200") to bullet trains ("Speed 2200".)

                Clearly it's obviously a better solution- "better" in this case meaning we actually based the new unit on a common constant- the average speed limit. SO much better than using random, arbitrary numbers...



                Doc.
                Some systems are just more arbitrary and random than others. Or do you want to show easy way to calculate 1 US. dry pint to cubic inches without google and 500 pages of conversion tables?
                fl oz. to cubic inches?
                Location: Helsinki, Finland, Europe

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by MattiJ View Post
                  Gross or 144 is just part of base 12 system, "dozen of 12" =144.
                  Just realized that base 12 might work better in larger scale if it wouldn't use base 10 arabic symbols to start with!
                  10 should be * and 11 should be for example ¤. And 12 should be then 10
                  Dividing and multiplying would be as easy as in base 10 or base 2, just shift the comma/dot around. Was going to write decimal separator but its what, duodecimal separator?
                  That system has been around for many years. The terms are "Dec" for what use to be ten , "El" for eleven and "Do" for ten. I even played with it in high school in the 40's . It certainly has a lot of advantages but you can see from the bruhaw over the metric system what would happen if anyone tried to use it. :-)
                  ...lew...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    It absolutely does not matter what system is used. As long as everyone uses it, or at least recognizes it officially.

                    You can start with an inch, and build up a system every bit as self consistent as metric. you could start with ANY length and do that.

                    Please just stop fussing over it. Them as wants what metric offers will use it. There will be more over time.
                    CNC machines only go through the motions

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Doc Nickel View Post
                      -Wait, so something one inch long isn't really one inch long? When I drive two miles to the gas station and buy twenty gallons of gas, i didn't really drive two miles nor purchase twenty gallons?

                      All measurements are arbitrary, all names of measurements are arbitrary.
                      Sensible measurement systems pick a standard (meter for distance in metric) and label all other distances in multiples (powers of ten in metric) of that standard. With this arrangement each measurement (e.g. 30 centimeters) carries size information for the user.

                      The inferial has no accepted length *standard*. If we chose the foot, then a yard would become a trifoot, but a mile would become an impossible 5280foot. We can't make up generally understood prefixes for all the weird factors in the inferial system, e.g., 231 cubic inches in a gallon, so we're stuck memorizing a whole collection of unrelated numbers. Most Usonians solve the problem by not memorizing most of them (Try asking a millennial how many furlongs in a mile.) and so can't use the measurement system they profess to love and cherish.
                      Regards, Marv

                      Home Shop Freeware - Tools for People Who Build Things
                      http://www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz

                      Location: LA, CA, USA

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        That's actually funny.

                        Furlongs are a unit that went out with the British firkin and hogshead (and equivalent French and German units). You are a couple hundred years late in mentioning them.

                        "Impossible" 5280?

                        My good man.... the ONLY thing "natural" about the number ten is that it corresponds with the number of fingers most people have. In other words, the number ten simply comes from the ability to laboriously count off things by touching each finger in turn as you note each item being counted, like an illiterate person might do. If you had twelve fingers, the base twelve would be used.

                        So the basis of the metric system might be said to derive from how an illiterate person counts. So much for it having a grand scientific basis for using multiples of ten.

                        Of course your 5280 is expressed in that base 10 that is claimed to be laid down by scientific principles.

                        And, there is nothing wrong with base 10, or the so called "metric system", although even the metric system had, back when it was actually used, some odd features.

                        But, metric is obsolete. Now it is "SI", which actually IS usable and convenient for all scientific uses. I cannot imagine chemistry, for instance, being more convenient with drachms and minims.... which thankfully are long gone. Nor ounces etc either.

                        SI is very useful, but that is not surprising, it took the arbitrary unit called the "metre" and built up an internally consistent system around it. The same could have been done with the foot, or yard, or furlong. It is not the unit, but the system, AND using a common system agreed upon by all.

                        If Danish farmers want to use the old "pound weight" amongst themselves, what's it to you?

                        The folks who insist that every person must use SI for every purpose strike me as simple control freaks. I am surprised, because your expressed political views do not agree with jamming a system down everyone's throat.. a Federal over-reach, it would seem. If other units etc are not illegal (and they should not be) then people will use what suits their purposes, or what they know. They will avoid, out of laziness, learning or spending money to convert to a new system unless it benefits them.

                        If it becomes easier to use SI, for whatever reason, then they will use it. I do. I expect that will be the case, and most industry in the US does already use SI if they have any international exposure. The "customary units" will, however, persist as long as folks have to replace pieces of pipe, and want them to fit without re-plumbing the entire house, or need to replace a "2 x 4", etc. We cannot tear down every house because it is made of inch-based materials.

                        Of course, there are always those extreme bigots who believe that everything must be in mm or tenths thereof, and that specific numbers, such as 25.4 mm, must be stamped out because they equal the despised "inch" or other "forbidden" unit. Apparently you are one such person. But in reality, 25.4 , or 5280, or 12, or 3, are all just numbers.

                        Let me ask you:

                        You post on a hobby machining forum, so presumably you own machines. I assume you have changed the leadscrews and dials on all your machines to metric? If you have not, or if you have simply "patched" the issue with a DRO, then you are denounced by your own actions as inconsistent.
                        Last edited by J Tiers; 10-27-2017, 12:36 PM.
                        CNC machines only go through the motions

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The question asked has nothing to do with metric or imperial or what have you. The question is just plain and simple: Why do we need a "Gage" of some kind when we still have to go back to a decimal number - be it metric or imperial - in order to find out how thick, long, heavy etc. a certain "Gage" is? Why do they tell us the body of a car is made from X Gage steel? Why not 0.5mm or 0.020" steel? If you need a tool to cut that piece of steel than you want to know how thick it is and what kind of steel it is. Knowing a "Gage Nr." does not help you at all.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Juergenwt View Post
                            The question asked has nothing to do with metric or imperial or what have you. The question is just plain and simple: Why do we need a "Gage" of some kind when we still have to go back to a decimal number - be it metric or imperial - in order to find out how thick, long, heavy etc. a certain "Gage" is? Why do they tell us the body of a car is made from X Gage steel? Why not 0.5mm or 0.020" steel? If you need a tool to cut that piece of steel than you want to know how thick it is and what kind of steel it is. Knowing a "Gage Nr." does not help you at all.
                            Answered LONG ago....

                            Because european guilds and companies used a literal "gauge", a tool, to check the sizes of sheet metal, and help produce it to a standard size.

                            The micrometer was not yet invented back then, and there was no way to GIVE a decimal, hexadecimal, binary or any other number to the size. When later, actual decimal numbers were standardized, folks continued to use the name as opposed to the number.

                            The actual thicknesses were presumably decided upon by whoever made the gauges, or perhaps by simply filing each "gauge tool" until it fit one of the common sizes of material. Then that would be a standard. As they did not have any means of measuring inches or other units to that small an increment, they simply stamped a number of the tool, and you used the "#6" gauge to measure metal, which then became known as "6 gauge", etc, etc.

                            We have outgrown that, but it is convenient to refer to "18 ga", as opposed to giving a 4 place decimal upper and lower limit as a description. The "18 ga" has known limits, and when you ask for it, you know what those are, or at least you know that is the thickness you want, which is all that is required.

                            http://www.coyotesteel.com/resources...ceranges.shtml
                            Last edited by J Tiers; 10-27-2017, 01:37 PM.
                            CNC machines only go through the motions

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Lew Hartswick View Post
                              That system has been around for many years. The terms are "Dec" for what use to be ten , "El" for eleven and "Do" for ten. I even played with it in high school in the 40's . It certainly has a lot of advantages but you can see from the bruhaw over the metric system what would happen if anyone tried to use it. :-)
                              ...lew...
                              Cool. Would be interesting brain-twister if we had another half of population using base-12 for everything.
                              It has quite potential but the base-12 measurement units in base-10 math is just crazy
                              Location: Helsinki, Finland, Europe

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by MattiJ View Post
                                Cool. Would be interesting brain-twister if we had another half of population using base-12 for everything.
                                It has quite potential but the base-12 measurement units in base-10 math is just crazy
                                That's pretty funny also.

                                EVERY number you can think of is a "unit" in some base-XXXXXX system. It would be a very poor number system that could NOT express a number just because it is something particular in a different number system.

                                It is a logical inconsistency to think that any particular size group must use a number system based on the "unit group".
                                CNC machines only go through the motions

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X