Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 156

Thread: Imperial or metric?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    63
    10 fingers may have something to do with that. Now that is somewhat arbitrary I guess. Interesting question for a biologist.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Thomas Runyan View Post
    The question is one of base. The Base 10 of metric is actually quite poor for general calculation... it only seems convenient because we count in decimal. If we counted in hexadecimal, all the imagined strength of millimeters could be given to inches. Unfortunately, we're never going to start counting in hexadecimal, so it's currently the most convenient to calculate in metric. In a strange turn of events, metric lovers insist on giving grief to the imperialists for being stuck in illogical and antiquated ways, when in reality, counting in 10s is about as arbitrary as it gets.
    This is bizarre. Perhaps you can explain why we should switch to hexadecimal

  3. #63
    The inch is dived in 16ths (or 32s or 64ths). The feet is divided in 12 inches. The yard in 3 feet. The mile in 1760 yards, which is 110 x 16. The gallon is 57.75 cubic inches.

    I have difficulty to find a rythm in these numbers.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,029
    Metric is A designed base 10 system. Base 10 is convenient as it's our primary system for doing math. Sort of. Time and dates are base 6. Should we switch to a superior base 10 system. 10 months in year, 10 weeks in a month, 10 days in a week, 10 hours, minutes, seconds... Perhaps we could introduce a 5th season to help the system work. Imperial is, to a large degree, a system of measurements that evolved over time. Metric, wile quite rational, is not objectively superior is just more common and perhaps requires less mental effort. The world turned before imperial or metric existed.

    Also, it's a misunderstanding that an imperial inch is divided by 16ths, 32nds, etc. It is a progression by halves and has an obvious rhythm.

    To further confuse things, in the US we don't actually use the imperial system. For example a US gallon and an imperial gallon are different.
    Last edited by Daniel Rode; 11-19-2015 at 9:15 AM.
    -- Dan Rode

    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,534
    In 1790, in the midst of the French Revolution, the National Assembly of France requested the French Academy of Sciences to "deduce an invariable standard for all the measures and all the weights."

    The Commission appointed by the Academy created a system that was, at once, simple and scientific. The unit of length was to be a portion of the Earth's circumference. Measures for capacity (volume) and mass were to be derived from the unit of length, thus relating the basic units of the system to each other and to nature. Furthermore, larger and smaller multiples of each unit were to be created by multiplying or dividing the basic units by 10 and its powers. This feature provided a great convenience to users of the system, by eliminating the need for such calculations as dividing by 16 (to convert ounces to pounds) or by 12 (to convert inches to feet). Similar calculations in the metric system could be performed simply by shifting the decimal point Thus, the metric system is a "base-10" or "decimal" system.

    https://standards.nasa.gov/history_metric.pdf


  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Essex, MD
    Posts
    421
    In addition to Dan's observation that the foot is divided by halves to get its rhythm (and think about it, it's easier for you to eyeball equal half- divisions and come close to the actual increments than it is for you to divide something equally by 10 by eye), the reason that so many other non-metric standards of measure are oddball sizes, weights, and lengths is that the American and Imperial measurements are "modernized" versions of mostly Imperial Roman units of measure. For example, the original mile was 5000 Roman feet/ paces (pes or something like that). A Roman foot measure was a little smaller than what became the British Imperial foot, so when they measured the Roman mile standard, they ended up with less than 5000, but then the King or his Agents decided a mile should be measured in an even number of furlongs, ergo they made the mile a little longer than the original. Gallons, pounds, yards, have all gone through similar conversions, and so, the original rhythms are lost in translation.

    On the rare occasions that it comes up, I can impress my European metric-bound wife with my ability to easily rattle off even divisions of something based on halving...but it's hard to convince her that 1/64th is easier to use than, say, .5mm. I stick with the eyeball theory - if I can mark an inch relatively accurately, I can halve that down to at least 1/32 by eye with pretty good accuracy, and I think most people could because of our human wiring. Taking a foot down to inches is a little trickier when you get to the conversion from 3 inches to the individual inch. Technically, we should have 8 or 16 inches to the foot to maintain equal divisions, but 12 probably had some mystical meaning to the Romans, as theirs was 12 inches too.
    Karl
    Last edited by Karl Andersson; 11-19-2015 at 9:55 AM.

  7. #67
    Some amazing responses, on one side if I can read English (being Texan there is some question on that) are the folks like me that point out that for them it is easier, cuts math errors and is the standard everywhere other than the States. At least for some on the other side you would think the use of whatever you call it, Imperial, Fractional, USSU, or SAE is protected by a sub clause of the Second Amendment, sent men to the moon, plus won WWII. That metric is a plan to steal all our golfs.... besides....France.

    ken

  8. #68
    Since getting a Domino and a European jointer/planer, I've been converting more to metric. For me imperial is more visually intuitive, but calculations are more intuitive in metric for me. \

    The thing that I haven't seen mentioned as a minor nuissance for metric is using rulers. For imperial, the 1/8" and 1/16" increments are easy to see and precise enough for most of my work, especially when you get comfortable thinking in "1/16 strong, or a smidge less than 1/16". My eye works well and accurately here.

    But on a metric ruler, my 45 year old eyes can't see the difference between 22mm and 23mm tick marks. It takes effort to count and recount the little tick marks.

    Domino and my Hammer planer rely on digital scales and, preset stops to eliminate that. But it's a new way of working for me. I do like rulers.

  9. If we should switch to anything, it's duodecimal, not hex. Base 12 is awesome for basic calculation--ie, the type that comes up in woodworking--because it divides so easily.

    A really clear example of the ugliness of bases comes up in time-telling. We have 24 hours in a day, in two twelve hour cycles, but we count them in 10s, so 19:00 is one cycle later than 7:00, which is sort of insane. If we counted in base 12, 17:00 would be one cycle later than 7:00. Which at first glance is also insane, but after a bit of jostling, becomes wonderfully sensible.

    I think people tend to question arbitrary things when they're difficult to use, but don't extend their skepticism to all the arbitrary things they've been doing their whole life. If you look at it deeply, most of our systems of measurement and maths are the craziest stew you've ever seen.
    Last edited by Joel Thomas Runyan; 11-19-2015 at 11:05 AM.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Kees Heiden View Post
    The inch is dived in 16ths (or 32s or 64ths). The feet is divided in 12 inches. The yard in 3 feet. The mile in 1760 yards, which is 110 x 16. The gallon is 57.75 cubic inches.

    I have difficulty to find a rythm in these numbers.
    Actually we don't use miles or yards in woodworking. I did once see that Lee Valley planed 1.6 miles to test Pmvii (maybe about as much planing as someone like Kees does in a week of spare time). The mile is based on a thousand paces, which is very handy if one wants to know how far he has walked. I will keep the metre in mind the next time I walk from the equator to the north pole. The way we divide the inch is based on actual usage in woodworking. We are constantly dividing measurements in half, not very often diving into tenths.

    Likewise we don't use cubic inches when dealing with cider or milk or gasoline. The only ones who have to know these are people who design containers.

    My guess is that no one will change to ten hours a day, with centidays, millidays and microdays. Or change to 100 degrees in a circle or a 8.333, 16.667, 25 triangle. or have each time zone have 4.167 degrees of longitude.

    For working wood, we don't need to know how many inches it is to the moon.

  11. #71

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Thomas Runyan View Post
    If we should switch to anything, it's duodecimal, not hex. Base 12 is awesome for basic calculation--ie, the type that comes up in woodworking--because it divides so easily.

    A really clear example of the ugliness of bases comes up in time-telling. We have 24 hours in a day, in two twelve hour cycles, but we count them in 10s, so 19:00 is one cycle later than 7:00, which is sort of insane. If we counted in base 12, 17:00 would be one cycle later than 7:00. Which at first glance is also insane, but after a bit of jostling, becomes wonderfully sensible.

    I think people tend to question arbitrary things when they're difficult to use, but don't extend their skepticism to all the arbitrary things they've been doing their whole life. If you look at it deeply, most of our systems of measurement and maths are the craziest stew you've ever seen.
    You might as well be speaking Klingon because none of this makes any sense to me at all. Question - what does a duodecimal or for that matter hexadecimal ruler look like?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,029
    Not Klingon at all. Working in different bases is pretty simple.

    Duodecimal
    would be a system with 12 or 16 equal divisions between "units" rather than the 10 of metric.

    So A duodecimal a decimeter would contain 12 centimeters, a meter would contain 12 decimeters. Each centimeter would have 12 millimeters. Clearly unit the naming would need to change Hex would be identical but with 16 divisions. 1, 2, 3...9, a, b, etc.
    -- Dan Rode

    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

  14. #74
    A duodecimal ruler looks like these two scales from Roubo, B one foot (pied), C Half foot. The foot is divided into 12 inches, the inch is divided into 12 lines. This is the way craftsmen in France worked before the government started telling them what to do.
    roubo scale.png
    Last edited by Warren Mickley; 11-19-2015 at 1:20 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,029
    The obvious advantage the comes to my mind is that 12 lines makes dividing something into thirds simple. 1/3 of an inch is not so simple nor is a 1/3 of a centimeter.
    -- Dan Rode

    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •