Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was wondering, how many of my English measuring countrymen  (or country ladies) have found that working in the metric system is easier.  I have a scientific and medical bacground, so I am comfortable with both.  Finding centers, intervals and multiples are much easier in a 10 based system.  

 

Just a thought.

J. Diven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.

While working in Germany now, I've become reacquainted with working in the metric system. It is easier to work in. But the harder part is getting a feel for the sizes or, "Just how small is 0,25 mm really?". In terms of modeling, it all comes down to scale. 1/64 or 1/48 don't lend themselves to decimals very well. I appreciate that many modelers must put up with the English system due to the predominate kit scales.

 

Honestly, I could work either way. I would just have to get new scales and calipers. Hey, more tools! What's wrong with that?

 

Dave B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The math is certainly easier.  And also coming from a similar background, I can utilize either.  Volume, I can "see" either.  Weight,  up to pound, I am more comfortable with metric, grains are absurd.  Pounds and tons I "see" better than metric.  Distance - kilometers I do not "see" - miles I do.   1/32" - 1/8" - 1/4"  etc I "see" much better than mm or cm. 

 

For wood thickness, an electronic digital caliper beats any sort of calculation.

 

 

For English and US vessels,  English data is what we get.  For other European, before Napoleon, it is an idiosyncratic  national measure per country,  but the only scantlings that I have seen are English.   Since the physical properties of wood, iron and copper are universal,  using the English data for any ship of comparable size should not take us too far astray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even I am not from English measuring territory, my plans are 

 

I feel totally lost in space when see something like this

 

post-4738-0-02327200-1463601395.jpg

 

To much mathematics to calculate how particular part has to be in millimeters in all it`s dimensions

 

It was more easy to re-scale plans which I have as *.pdf file to my scale as precise it can be, and then, at zoom level 100% use ruler or Adobe tools to measure what I need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well really gentlemen can we use the correct titles  Metric or Imperial !! :D

 

I think really its all what you you brought up to be familiar with or what you started using in the world of work.

 

But the old system certainly made your mental arithmetic better - coal is £3, 7s , 6p per hundredweight what is the price of  4 and three quarter tons .

 

Ahhh the good old  age of 11+ exams !!

 

But consistency is all - was it not a cm  to inch confusion which made a lander miss Mars completely ?

 

Metric is definitely easier to calculate with but a major advantage on our world is that smaller units are easier to deal with. 

 

But as someone mentioned before my calipers have a cms/inches switch !! Makes it easier !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imperial was fine growing up, but did not like the fractions even if working with them is not a problem to me. Then I learned about using decimal feet, which is my preference today, like it for the same reasons noted about the advantages of the metric system, base 10. Have no trouble with metric other than  today when working on equipment when both metric and imperial sizes are use for fasteners on the same machine, autos being the worst, need two sets of tools to work on many of them. Converting some plans I received a few days ago to cad, WW2 design so feet, inches and fractions of an inch are used, they get converted to decimal feet quickly.

jud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK, picture this..........

 

You are the CEO of a major corporation based in the United States, with many sattelite businesses around the globe.  You make the decision to make the conversion from Imperial to Metric in all of your US factories (the global enterprises are already metric, of course).  So, you call in your top advisors to explain what you would like to do adjust your businesses to match the rest of the world.

 

The first problem that popped up was the cost of converting all of the existing billions of drawings and blueprints to metric.  Next came the VP of Manufacturing who commented on the cost of changing all of the tooling to metric, instructing hundreds of thousands of factory workers how to adjust their thinking when using the metric system (which most never before had to use), and the added rework costs to repair parts made wrongly due to Drafting errors made during the change over.

 

When the long and grueling meeting with all of his cronies was finally over, and they realized the costs related to this project, what do you think the decision would be?  I wonder if this is why the US never crossed over to metric........

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the old system certainly made your mental arithmetic better - coal is £3, 7s , 6p per hundredweight what is the price of  4 and three quarter tons .


 


Ahhh the good old  age of 11+ exams !!


 


 


20 cwt = 1 ton 12 pence = 1 shilling 20 shillings = 1 pound. 


so


[(20 x 4) + 15] x  3 pound 7s 6d = ?


Quite simple really.


:D


 


Rick


Link to comment
Share on other sites

 o dear I am just an old got moaning robin

 

Not hardly, Robin!  I have, over my various endeavors for the past too many years of my working life, had the need to work in metric, imperial, and the International System of Units (successor to the metric system).  Each has it's place.  As others have noted, I can "see" a foot, a yard and so on.  I grew up using the imperial system (though I never did get the difference back in the day between a US and a Canadian gallon, but I digress).

 

I like the precision of metric, but do not like the loss of fidelity when converting.  Most period ship plans were laid out in some variety of imperial units (although those varied over time and across nations), as were the ratios and derived dimensions (such as keel for tunnage).  Those don't always convert so nicely to metric - try converting a number like 127 & 87/95 tun (note this is not to be confused with a weight of a ton/tonne, but rather a cargo capacity of a tun, as determined by the regulations of the time) to a metric equivalent!

 

I guess what I am saying is that, as has been pointed out by others, working in a measurement system that one is familiar with is the most important - fighting a measurement system while also trying to get reasonable measurements for a build is counter-productive.  Trying to convert some measurements from old systems to others is, likewise, a potential source for error to creep in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I live the metric system I still find it difficult to think of flight altitude and -speed other than in feet and knots. The only finicky thing is to transmit speed in my head from knots into mph (have to work via kmh). It all depends what you are used to.

 

However, it doesn't need different measurement systems to screw things up. Some 10 years ago they built a bridge across the Rhine river with one end in Germany and the other one in Switzerland. About to meet in the middle they found a difference in deck height of 54cm (21 1/4 ")! After some hard head scratching and deep recalculating they found that Germany and Switzerland indeed use different reference levels - Germany using sea level based on the North Sea and Switzerland on the Mediterranean. Now the good thing was that somebody realised in the planning stage that this difference exists and is exactly 27cm (10 3/4"). Unfortunately the correction was added on the wrong side...

 

Cheers

peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please don't misunderstand my ranting and raving about the metric system; I am definitely in favor of the adoption, but as most Americans can and do understand, it is cost prohibitive.  We just thank God that we don't have to put up with the pound of British Sterling....... long live the US dollar.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having moved hither and thither between the 'Continent' and the Uk for the past thirty years, I am reasonably familiar with both systems (I even remember the six pence, thre'pence, and shilling coins from my first visit to England and the confusion it caused, when new and old coins were used in parallel ...). However, values such as 5/32 get me - I can cope, though, with quarters, eighths, sixteens ... and pints of course.

 

What few people realise: the Imperial system has gone metric a long time ago ! In fact it is defined, using the metric system as a reference, the guardian of which is the International Institute of Weights and Measures in Sévres near Paris (a stone-throw from where I live).

 

Talking about stones: giving a person's weight in stones absolutely gets me - no feel at all for that measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an aid in your future endeavors in converting measurements, I offer the three tables below extracted from the 1838 edition of The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle... a Journal of Papers on Subjects Connected with Maritime Affairs. Simpkin, Marshall & Company. https://books.google.com/books?id=QAV1riauZOQC.

 

post-18-0-14359700-1463826068_thumb.jpg

 

post-18-0-01760300-1463826071_thumb.jpg

 

post-18-0-60661400-1463826069_thumb.jpg

 

Remember - not all feet are created equal!

 

:P :P :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the adoption of the metric system throughout (continental) Europe in the last quarter of the 19th century, every major city had its own 'foot'. One has to pay attention when using old books and drawings to verify which 'foot' was actually used. The location of publishing or the nationality of the writer does not necessariyl mean that the respective foot was used. I remember preparing a drawing for a model from an 1860s book published in Hamburg and naively assuming that Hamburg Feet were used - when everything was ready, I discovered the small-print saying, that the author used Imperial measures (probably to be make things easier for international readers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...