Grinding One
Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 40
So thats how you guys plan for the next war,the opposition won`t be able to get thru the doors ;D now I get it,oh by the way ,you put coffin hinges on windows??
metric v. inches
- Thread starter HowardH
- Start date
dirtydeeds
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,009
simple
if they dont duck they are alright.................................... otherwise
if they dont duck they are alright.................................... otherwise
About two years ago, I posed the same question on the Australian woodworking forum. But I live in California. Why, then Australia? Because I am just starting out on woodworking and the Australians recently (25 years ago) converted from inches/feet to metric. So many of the people on the forum have experience of intimate knowledge of the two systems. Along with that, they remember (some painfully) the learning process.
Boy, did I start a firestorm with my post. Given that it is no longer a choice between the two systems, here was the concensus.
1) Don't keep or use dual-reading rulers or tapes. Dive headfirst into metric measuring equipment exclusively. You'll learn faster.
2) Many of the forum responders agree that they much prefer the simplicity of metrics when working small. Working formulas and not having fractions are the appeal. But, when working large --- mainly in carpentry and homebuilding --- feet and inches give a person a better mental picture of the size. For instance, 3500cm is a meaningless abstraction, whereas 18 and 1/2 feet is comprehensible.
3) Especially in the world of Euro cabinet-building with no face frames, metrics offer a simple 'building block' approach to constructing cabinets.
4) Start out by memorizing a few key inch/metric conversions dictated by the standards already fixed in woodworking: such as, 1/2, 3/4 stock. Ceiling height, door width.
5) People who went through the complete Australian school system from K-12 found it a no-brainer. They were young. Older folks, especially those with a history in the trades in English-speaking countries, found it more difficult, and still use both systems.
So, have a cup of Starbucks, throw away those tapes with a dual scale, and start sawing wood.
Gary Curtis
Northern California
Boy, did I start a firestorm with my post. Given that it is no longer a choice between the two systems, here was the concensus.
1) Don't keep or use dual-reading rulers or tapes. Dive headfirst into metric measuring equipment exclusively. You'll learn faster.
2) Many of the forum responders agree that they much prefer the simplicity of metrics when working small. Working formulas and not having fractions are the appeal. But, when working large --- mainly in carpentry and homebuilding --- feet and inches give a person a better mental picture of the size. For instance, 3500cm is a meaningless abstraction, whereas 18 and 1/2 feet is comprehensible.
3) Especially in the world of Euro cabinet-building with no face frames, metrics offer a simple 'building block' approach to constructing cabinets.
4) Start out by memorizing a few key inch/metric conversions dictated by the standards already fixed in woodworking: such as, 1/2, 3/4 stock. Ceiling height, door width.
5) People who went through the complete Australian school system from K-12 found it a no-brainer. They were young. Older folks, especially those with a history in the trades in English-speaking countries, found it more difficult, and still use both systems.
So, have a cup of Starbucks, throw away those tapes with a dual scale, and start sawing wood.
Gary Curtis
Northern California
extiger said:
You even confused me (being a dutch guy) with 3500cm. Hardly anyone would use that here. That would be 35 meters. To me 35 meters is something i can relate to where as 3500cm would make me think twice, and the equivalent in feet (114.8293963255) would make me run for my calculator. I doubt one system is better than the other it's just what you re used to. I for one would have a hard time dealing with the fractions you guys use.
mastercabman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,854
i'm with johne on this one.i grew up with the metric system,and i never use any measurement like 3500cm for home building,or for anything.johne said:
having to learn imperial,has been pretty confusing,but i got pretty good at it.
i do like the metric better!
nickao
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,617
1) Don't keep or use dual-reading rulers or tapes. Dive headfirst into metric measuring equipment exclusively. You'll learn faster.
Well this I totally disagree with this!
I used the dual tape for about 2 weeks and now I know just by looking that 300 mm is about a foot and how many mm are about an an inch etc, without having to grab a chart or anything. Everytime I used the tape I would glance at the metric and after awhile just remebered the comparisons. Without having to refer to a chart.
It's a fact, in America if you use exclusively metric you are going to have to convert at some point between the two. To me the dual tape is the fastest way to ingrain the comparable measurements into your head.
If you knew you would never have to do a conversion then just jumping into metric will work, but ultimately you will be looking up comparable measurements at some point if you live in the US.
So use the dual tape and one day all of a sudden without even realizing it you will know many of the comparable measurements, without even thinking about it or trying to memorize..
99% of the time I use imperial. I see no benefit to one over another. The projects all come out the same whichever system I use. Everyone thinks differently and what works for one should not be a condition that it is better or worse for another.
Well this I totally disagree with this!
I used the dual tape for about 2 weeks and now I know just by looking that 300 mm is about a foot and how many mm are about an an inch etc, without having to grab a chart or anything. Everytime I used the tape I would glance at the metric and after awhile just remebered the comparisons. Without having to refer to a chart.
It's a fact, in America if you use exclusively metric you are going to have to convert at some point between the two. To me the dual tape is the fastest way to ingrain the comparable measurements into your head.
If you knew you would never have to do a conversion then just jumping into metric will work, but ultimately you will be looking up comparable measurements at some point if you live in the US.
So use the dual tape and one day all of a sudden without even realizing it you will know many of the comparable measurements, without even thinking about it or trying to memorize..
99% of the time I use imperial. I see no benefit to one over another. The projects all come out the same whichever system I use. Everyone thinks differently and what works for one should not be a condition that it is better or worse for another.
Michael Kellough
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 7,101
johne said:
Different operations are more favorable to different metrics. For medium long distances like the above I like the way the Imperial system scales down through feet to inches to fractions. On the cardboard box Brooklyn Bridge project I had to lash fine lines to a 100 foot rope. The problem was that the lines held cardboard mailing tubes at angles to simulate an arch (the support cable of the suspension bridge) so the lengths of the fine lines had to be precisely cut and were moderately long distances like 21 feet 5 and 7/16 inches. Starting with the end of the line clamped at zero it was easy and somehow satisfying to traverse the scales, briskly walking through the feet range to slowing down to find the right inch mark to peering closely to find the small fractional increment. Once used to the process it was easy to keep the distance in mind as 21-5-7.
dirtydeeds
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,009
mk, your comments make me smile
here in england "lashed" means something different
a cowboy would "lash it up"
oh................. and "being lashed" or "lashed" also means youve have one over the eight
being obvious "going on the lash" is the process............... ;D
starting at 1500 on friday
here in england "lashed" means something different
a cowboy would "lash it up"
oh................. and "being lashed" or "lashed" also means youve have one over the eight
being obvious "going on the lash" is the process............... ;D
starting at 1500 on friday
I was the original poster, and I was repeating the advice given to me in about 30-40 posts on the Australian WW-ing website. Throwing out dual-reading measuring devices was their advice. I must say, however, that I tried it and in about 3 weeks of rambling around in my shop, I started being able to 'think metric'.
As to Greg, you mention Nautical Miles being useful to sailors. The commercial planes you see flying overhead every day (and night) exclusively rely on Nautical miles. Yes, they do represent 1 second of one minute of Arc of the Earth's circumference. Their usefulness to aviation is that you fly an aircraft to and from map coordinates given in degrees. When the tower radios that you are 45 miles from an airfield, you can immediately divide that into your airspeed (always given in NM) and know how long before you arrive.
Our kids in school would profit greatly if our country would 'Go Metric'. The effect on us woodworkers would be minimal. Until we add up the dimensions (with fractions) on 26 pieces from a cutlist.
Gary Curtis
As to Greg, you mention Nautical Miles being useful to sailors. The commercial planes you see flying overhead every day (and night) exclusively rely on Nautical miles. Yes, they do represent 1 second of one minute of Arc of the Earth's circumference. Their usefulness to aviation is that you fly an aircraft to and from map coordinates given in degrees. When the tower radios that you are 45 miles from an airfield, you can immediately divide that into your airspeed (always given in NM) and know how long before you arrive.
Our kids in school would profit greatly if our country would 'Go Metric'. The effect on us woodworkers would be minimal. Until we add up the dimensions (with fractions) on 26 pieces from a cutlist.
Gary Curtis
