24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
Originally Posted by New_2_99s
Originally Posted by rickt300
Originally Posted by Jerryv
Originally Posted by rickt300
The world needs to come to grips with the fact that the inch/foot/yard measuring system is far better than the damned metric system!



I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong!


Jerry


Ok wise guy divide a meter by 3, divide the meter by 4, What is the metric equal of .001? Notice anything here?


1 Metre = 100cm/3 = 33.3cm or 333mm

1 Metre - 100cm/4 = 25cm or 250mm

1" = 2.54cm/1000 = 0.00254mm

Don't see your problem



Well the foot is not run off the number ten as we all know. Compare;

1 Yard divided by 3 = 1'

1 yard divided by 4 = 9"

.001 = .0254


I see you ducked the test just by listing equivalents inch to metric.


1 meter / 3 = 0.3333 m

1 meter / 4 = 0.25 m


As a mechanic I was first pissed that I had to keep two sets of tools When that fugging Nixon decided we need to go metric that meant another set of sockets and wrenches. Taking up more space and making my life heavier. The metric sockets are harder to tell just by looking what size metric you have in your hand. 11mm, 12mm, 13mm, 14mm and 15mm could be happily covered with three sizes sort of like we do it here with the inch. 7/16, 1/2 and 9/16, these are easy to look at and size with out looking for the socket markings. The suck part is every car built on the semi metric system of both inch and metric or even just metric those stupid jerks use every size of bolthead from 8mm through 18mm!

As a machinist I was stunned that we would have to get prints for parts in metric sometimes. Some of the math required to program a CNC machine is pretty complicated. Metric generally takes more numbers and simply because you have to type them in setup takes longer. Not to mention the added complication of having to use a calculator to add, subtract, calculate an angle. Add to that having to put mm at the end! Stupid. Especially after you do that you have to convert it to inch anyway! The vast amount of precision measuring tools are in inch almost everywhere so I know there are people out there in Europe converting inch to metric, good screwm! The only people that think the metric system is even ok never used the inch to any degree.

Last edited by rickt300; 06/21/19.

Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]



GB1

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
Where is the counter argument? Crickets........


Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]



Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,765
C
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
C
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,765
A 38 Special should be a 357 Special.

A 32-20 should be a 312-20.

A 44 Mag should be a 429 Mag.

The list is long.


Old Corps

Semper Fi

FJB
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
Originally Posted by Craigster
A 38 Special should be a 357 Special.

A 32-20 should be a 312-20.

A 44 Mag should be a 429 Mag.

The list is long.


Why? And since when has naming cartridges become an exact science. I am talking about working with math and which system is easier to use, especially when precision is considered.

In metric a 38 special could be called the 9mm special, a 44 magnum would be called the 10.896mm magnum. In every instance there is at least one extra number and the fuggin mm! The 32-20 would be the 7.924mm - 20! There is absolutely no basis for calling the metric system better than SAE.


Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]



Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,083
T
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
T
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,083
Originally Posted by rickt300
Originally Posted by Craigster
A 38 Special should be a 357 Special.

A 32-20 should be a 312-20.

A 44 Mag should be a 429 Mag.

The list is long.


Why? And since when has naming cartridges become an exact science. I am talking about working with math and which system is easier to use, especially when precision is considered.

In metric a 38 special could be called the 9mm special, a 44 magnum would be called the 10.896mm magnum. In every instance there is at least one extra number and the fuggin mm! The 32-20 would be the 7.924mm - 20! There is absolutely no basis for calling the metric system better than SAE.

Just admit that both are like unto rancid lark's vomit compared to the wonder that is the Whitworth standard. You know it to be true.

IC B2

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
Originally Posted by trplem
Originally Posted by rickt300
Originally Posted by Craigster
A 38 Special should be a 357 Special.

A 32-20 should be a 312-20.

A 44 Mag should be a 429 Mag.

The list is long.


Why? And since when has naming cartridges become an exact science. I am talking about working with math and which system is easier to use, especially when precision is considered.

In metric a 38 special could be called the 9mm special, a 44 magnum would be called the 10.896mm magnum. In every instance there is at least one extra number and the fuggin mm! The 32-20 would be the 7.924mm - 20! There is absolutely no basis for calling the metric system better than SAE.

Just admit that both are like unto rancid lark's vomit compared to the wonder that is the Whitworth standard. You know it to be true.


Whitworth was my first entry, argh the bain of the early Triumph motorcycle!


Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]



Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,765
C
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
C
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,765
When has naming cartridges become an exact science ?

Never was, never will be.


Old Corps

Semper Fi

FJB
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
A good example of why the inch is better, look at the chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Standard_Whitworth

nches to millimeters conversion table
Inches (") Millimeters (mm)
0.01 ″ 0.254000 mm
1/64 ″ 0.396875 mm
1/32 ″ 0.793750 mm
1/16 ″ 1.587500 mm
0.1 ″ 2.540000 mm
1/8 ″ 3.175 mm
1/4 ″ 6.35 mm
1/2 ″ 12.7 mm
1 ″ 25.4 mm
2 ″ 50.8 mm
3 ″ 76.2 mm
4 ″ 101.6 mm
5 ″ 127.0 mm
6 ″ 152.4 mm
7 ″ 177.8 mm
8 ″ 203.2 mm
9 ″ 228.6 mm
10 ″ 254.0 mm
20 ″ 508.0 mm
30 ″ 762.0 mm
40 ″ 1016.0 mm
50 ″ 1270.0 mm
60 ″ 1524.0 mm
70 ″ 1778.0 mm
80 ″ 2032.0 mm
90 ″ 2286.0 mm
100 ″ 2540.0 mm

The metric system is a joke!


Last edited by rickt300; 06/22/19.

Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]



Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,416
J
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
J
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,416
If you worked in metric there would be no reason to convert.

But speaking of conversions

1 inch = .0833333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... Ft
1 inch = .0277777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777... Yd

How precise do you want to be?

Jerry


Minnesota; Land of 10,000 Taxes
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
Originally Posted by Jerryv
If you worked in metric there would be no reason to convert.

If the metric system were ditched there would be no reason to convert.

But speaking of conversions

1 inch = .0833333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... Ft Or 1.00
1 inch = .0277777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777... Yd Or 1.00 Strange there would never be any reason to convert 1" using the inch system like that. You ducked metric completely.

How precise do you want to be?

Jerry



Still the metric system uses too many symbols! And the beauty of the inch is that the foot and yard are based on the number 12, the inch itself is based on the number 10. The point that you missed it is that the inch system uses fewer numbers to get to the same place.


Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]



IC B3

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,476
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,476
There's no doubt the metric system is superior and makes more sense...………………………….just ask the rest of the world.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800
M
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
M
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800
Originally Posted by Elvis
There's no doubt the metric system is superior and makes more sense...………………………….just ask the rest of the world.



I agree.

Imperial has too many numbers:

1 centimeter = 0.393700787 inches
1 meter = 3.2808399 feet = 1.0936133 yards

What's that all about?

Just kidding - I can speak both imperial and metric linear measurements, thanks to shooting of course.


Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.

That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.

Well?
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,416
J
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
J
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by rickt300
Originally Posted by Jerryv
If you worked in metric there would be no reason to convert.

If the metric system were ditched there would be no reason to convert.

But speaking of conversions

1 inch = .0833333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... Ft Or 1.00
1 inch = .0277777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777... Yd Or 1.00 Strange there would never be any reason to convert 1" using the inch system like that. You ducked metric completely.

How precise do you want to be?

Jerry



Still the metric system uses too many symbols! And the beauty of the inch is that the foot and yard are based on the number 12, the inch itself is based on the number 10. The point that you missed it is that the inch system uses fewer numbers to get to the same place.


You missed the point being that with 12ths and 36ths you get into irrational numbers when converting to decimal (base 10). If humans had evolved with 12 fingers and we used a base 12 system I could agree with you.

Not sure how yards are based on the number 12 though? From Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by
The introduction of the yard (0.9144 m) as a unit of length came later, but its origin is not definitely known. Some believe the origin was the double cubit, others believe that it originated from cubic measure. Whatever its origin, the early yard was divided by the binary method into 2, 4, 8, and 16 parts called the half-yard, span, finger, and nail. The association of the yard with the "gird" or circumference of a person's waist or with the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the thumb of King Henry I (reigned 1100–1135) are probably standardizing actions, since several yards were in use in Britain. There were also Rods, Poles and Perches for measurements of length.



Jerry


Minnesota; Land of 10,000 Taxes
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404



Still the metric system uses too many symbols! And the beauty of the inch is that the foot and yard are based on the number 12, the inch itself is based on the number 10. The point that you missed it is that the inch system uses fewer numbers to get to the same place.[/quote]

You missed the point being that with 12ths and 36ths you get into irrational numbers when converting to decimal (base 10). But why would you even have to do this? How often are you going to use 1/12 or 1/36? Do the same thing with metric and you come out the same way. You go from feet to inches like this; 1' 2.250 just as 1/36 of a yard is 1., what is irrational there? If humans had evolved with 12 fingers and we used a base 12 system I could agree with you.


I am not at all inclined to believe our measuring system is based on the number of fingers or toes we have.



Interestingly you get into irrational numbers every time you make an effort at fractions using metric, exactly why 12 is the better number to work with than 10. A yard is 3 times 12. The impressive part is that you won't admit that the extra numbers and the m, cm and mm added make metric unnecessarily clumsy. The metric system doesn't actually use fractions which are pretty useful overall.




Not sure how yards are based on the number 12 though? From Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by
The introduction of the yard (0.9144 m) as a unit of length came later, but its origin is not definitely known. Some believe the origin was the double cubit, others believe that it originated from cubic measure. Whatever its origin, the early yard was divided by the binary method into 2, 4, 8, and 16 parts called the half-yard, span, finger, and nail. The association of the yard with the "gird" or circumference of a person's waist or with the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the thumb of King Henry I (reigned 1100–1135) are probably standardizing actions, since several yards were in use in Britain. There were also Rods, Poles and Perches for measurements of length.



I say the yard is based on three times 12".


The meter is based on a truly odd distance!


Paris Panthéon

As a result of the French Revolution, the French Academy of Sciences charged a commission with determining a single scale for all measures. On 7 October 1790 that commission advised the adoption of a decimal system, and on 19 March 1791 advised the adoption of the term mètre ("measure"), a basic unit of length, which they defined as equal to one ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator.[19][20][21][22] In 1793, the French National Convention adopted the proposal.[12] Witty! See if you can find anything commonly available that comes close in real life.




So you have a system where fractions are not used coherently, where a millimeter is .0393, a bit more than 3/8ths of a tenth of an inch, a CM is .393 is a bit more the 3/8ths of an inch and them jumps to a meter which is a bit more than a yard. Big gap. Note that when getting into really small tolerances say down to .001 the metric equivalent is .0254mm, now which would you prefer to add or subtract? I often made parts for helicopters with tolerances as small as + or - .0003 which is .00762mm, once again which would you rather add or subtract when setting the offset in a CNC machine?

Last edited by rickt300; 06/23/19.

Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]



Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,404
Originally Posted by Elvis
There's no doubt the metric system is superior and makes more sense...………………………….just ask the rest of the world.


Hate to say it but the rest of the world is run by leftist dupes who willingly gave up most of their gun right. So in light of that I am not asking them anything.


Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]



Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,476
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,476
But the US chose the metric system for your currency. One hundred cents make a dollar. It can't be too bad then.


Who would want to go back to 12 pennies make a shilling and 20 shillings make a pound and 21 shillings make a guinea? Not likely.

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,796
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,796
Roller skate axles come in two sizes, 7mm and 8mm.
So needing bearings for my daughter's skates, I pull a wheel
and Mic an axle.

Then I start looking for a conversion chart online.
For some reason I can't find one, I looked for over an hour,
pissed off I took a break and went to the thinking room.

Then it hit me.
I knew 5.5 6, 6.5, 7, 8, 9, 9.3, and 10mm.

I didn't need a chart, I already knew the answer!

Funny how I can go down a rabbit hole, and not see the obvious.


Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,107
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,107
Quote
And the beauty of the inch is that the foot and yard are based on the number 12, the inch itself is based on the number 10.


Inch is based on 10 what? In my surveying days I have used the Foot-tenth, foot-inch and metric. Had no problem with any of them. I can't say the same for a lot of my crew members. At times we used two or all three on the same jobs. It was a relief when they went back to just two of them. smile
I was told when I started surveying that only Whores and Carpenters dealt in inches, but years later I was doing Bridge surveys and some were to widen the existing bridges. They wanted those measured in Inches, to see if the as built, matched the build plans. My crews always had trouble going back from tenths of a foot to inches. miles


Look out for number 1, don't step in number 2.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,089
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,089
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Roller skate axles come in two sizes, 7mm and 8mm.
So needing bearings for my daughter's skates, I pull a wheel
and Mic an axle.

Then I start looking for a conversion chart online.
For some reason I can't find one, I looked for over an hour,
pissed off I took a break and went to the thinking room.

Then it hit me.
I knew 5.5 6, 6.5, 7, 8, 9, 9.3, and 10mm.

I didn't need a chart, I already knew the answer!

Funny how I can go down a rabbit hole, and not see the obvious.

Multiply by 4.

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 965
W
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
W
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 965
And a 7mm bullet (.284") converts to 7.2mm. Does that make any sense?

Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

647 members (160user, 10gaugeman, 10ring1, 10gaugemag, 007FJ, 17CalFan, 65 invisible), 2,988 guests, and 1,302 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,191,847
Posts18,478,431
Members73,948
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.164s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9106 MB (Peak: 1.0899 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-04-30 02:52:35 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS