Metric Vs Imperial

**kando** · 1st February 2005, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by simon c

If I went into a bar and they told me they were metric and sold drinks by the litre then I would buy a half litre - it's really quite simple and happens all the time in continental europe. Victorians who go to NSW order schooners or midis when there - they don't try to get the barman to sell them a pot.

Not sure how much of the world you've included but very little of the airforces, airlines, navies etc use imperial - probably just the US and people who were taught and still speak in the "old language". And when selling precious metals, prices are normally converted to metric first.

But don't get me wrong, I'm NOT trying to say that metric is better - I just disgree that imperial is better.

Yes mate! You would ask for, receive and pay for half a litre, you would not be forced to pay for 3/4 of a litre knowing you would be chucking a lot down the drain!

Having been on “unlimited time stay holidays” or having lived and worked in a heck of a lot of countries, including England, Ireland, Wales, Germany, Belgium, France, Spain, the old Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India (Delhi and Madras, S.E. India) Australia, the US of A, (All states bar Alaska and Florida) Canada, Brazil, British Honduras, S. Africa, E. Africa, N. Africa, United Arab Imarets, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, and a couple of other places/small countries that I can’t think of at present.
Anyway! On my travels one of the items I picked-up was an inshore passenger skippers ticked to pilot a 45 foot fishing vessel carrying up to 12 passengers in the inshore waters of Torquay Bay.
This licence was issued to me, after a pretty strict test, by the port Captain of Brixham harbour in Devon, England back in about 1975.
I have always loved the sea and boating or yachting, during my three year “holiday” stay in Greece, I worked for a time as a yacht delivery skipper (captain) delivering rich peoples yachts to ports around the Med’ and Adriatic Sea.
I have also worked in the maritime service under many flags and in “all” my experience of working at sea…We always dealt with weight in Tons, cargo as Cubic Feet and Inches, ship/vessel speed was measured in Knots and water depth was measured in leagues or fathoms! All were…and still are I believe “Imperial” measurements!
As to world air forces and airlines, I have a number of friends in many countries who earn a living flying…some are in the service of their respective countries…some are freelancers doing their own thing, some of these pilots are Aussies and I see them regularly…one of my pilot mates just flew back from Cains last Saturday and in conversation at a barby’ he stated that he had been flying at around 25,000 FEET…NOT 7,620 meter…at a speed of around XXX knots! Not XXX kilometres!
All my pilot mates…from whatever country talk in feet for height and knots for speed…that goes for aircraft speed and wind speed!

On top of that, during my lifetime I have flown extensively throughout the world on many airlines…just a couple of months back, I flew to Los Angeles in the US of A with Philippines Airlines, in LA I changed flights to United Airways and flew down to Little Rock, Arkansas.
After doing what I had to do in Arkansas, I boarded a Canadian airline plane and flew to Toronto, Canada. After visiting my brother in Canada, I boarded a KLM and flew back to Melbourne. On "all" flights the airline captain informed us that we would be climbing to a cruising height of 32,000 feet, or there about…Not 9,753.6 meter!
Not once from that last flight, from Canada back to Melbourne, to my first flight back in 1958 can I ever recall a captain informing us passengers that we would be flying at 9,753.6 meter or whatever metres! But I do recall captains informing us passengers that we would be flying at around 32,000 or whatever thousands of feet at a speed of whatever knots!

As to buying timber, I build chests, nothing fancy, I also do some fencing and build carports, pergolas, decking, timber sheds, Arbores, Dog Kennels, Picnic Tables and seats, I do not build any of the beautiful pieces I have seen on the net, I do not have the knowledge and I don’t believe I have the patience to learn how to build such beautiful works in timber, so in working with wood…I stick to what I can do that people say looks good and they are happy to pay for.

Okay! So in just about everything I build in timber, my measurements come if feet and inches…mostly as feet…the project I want to start last week is a 12’X16’ timber shed/bird-room, so I trots off to three timber yards in Geelong.
Mitre 10, Bunnings and Bernie Leens…all supply the timbers I require…but not in the lengths I require!
Below is their offerings:
16 feet = 4.8768 meter: Three Timber yards offer 16 feet as 4.8. With this I will be 2.519685 feet short of my 16 feet!
12 feet = 3.6576 meter: Three Timber yards offer 12 feet as 3.6. With this I will be 1.8897638 feet short!
7 feet = 2.1336 meter: Three Timber yards offer 7 feet as 2.1. With this I will be 1.1023622 feet short!

If I want to stick and work with the shed plans I have, I must go up to much larger lengths of timber! Okay so nothing has changed there! That has always been the way of things…and I don’t mind paying for a piece of timber that is 2 inch = 50.8 millimetre or 3 inch = 76.2 millimetre or even 4 inch = 101.6 millimetre longer than I need…BUT I do object strongly to paying for 1 foot = 304.8 millimetre, 1.5 feet = 457.2 millimetre or more of timber that is destined for the rubbish bin!
It just seems to me that since the introduction of the metric system in timber supply yards and mills, we can no-longer purchase the useful lengths of timbers that we bought in the past, i.e. 6’ 12’ 16’ 24’ and so-on.
With the great…for some…metric system, we are now forced to purchase much longer lengths…a large section of which will go into the garbage!
An 8x4 sheet of ply, chipboard or whatever is still sold and charged as an 8x4…but that 8x4 sheet is no-longer 8x4! It is now 2440 millimetre = 8.0052493 feet X 1216 millimetre = 3.9895013 feet and that’s quite a bit smaller than the old 8x4 sheets!
So you have to purchase more sheets! And that increases the cost to me and the client dramatically and I don’t enjoy charging people for timber that ends-up in the rubbish bin!
Just because something is new don’t mean it’s better and you can bet a million bucks to ten cents…if the timber mills, wholesalers and retailers jumped at the chance to go with the metric system, they are the ones who are making a packet from the new system! Not You or I!

Kando from Geelong. :confused:

PS. I bought some white gold and yellow gold rings for my female family members at Christmas, the gold contents were listed as: material gold, item weight: 10.9GR, colour WHT, quality 18K.
The diamonds were listed as ct, all are "imperial" weights and descriptions, only the stone dia’ was listed as metric, 15-4MM.

**silentC** · 1st February 2005, 08:21 AM

It just seems to me that since the introduction of the metric system in timber supply yards and mills, we can no-longer purchase the useful lengths of timbers that we bought in the past, i.e. 6’ 12’ 16’ 24’ and so-on.
With the great…for some…metric system, we are now forced to purchase much longer lengths…a large section of which will go into the garbage!

I don't think you can blame the metric system for that. I wonder how many of those 'useful' lengths would still be around if we still had the old imperial system of measurement? I think it fits more into the "why do I have to buy 10 screws when I only want 3?" problem.

You also make a great point of including the decimal points in your example conversions. I wonder if a plane flying at 32,000 feet is really flying at 32,000 feet, or whether it is flying at 31,999' 6 3/4"?

Another thing - I'm not surprised that the commercial airline world has stuck with feet and knots. Can you imagine the catastrophes if they tried to convert to metric? There are enough stuff ups on the ground with the confusion between metric and imperial without it happening in 3 dimensional space between airliners packed with hundreds of people.

**Iain** · 1st February 2005, 08:24 AM

Also Neil would have to rewrite THAT page in the polishers handbook

**simon c** · 1st February 2005, 08:28 AM

This is probably going to keep going on and on, but what the hell.

One of the reasons that you get quoted feet when you fly is because they and you are speaking English and most English speakers are American or British who still prefer feet. If the KLM pilot was to speak in Dutch (or any of the other languages he probabaly knows), he would give the flying altitude in metres - and most Australian airline pilots these days quote both. Most airlines use metric for their measurements, they just translate it back to feet when they read it out to the passengers. Like most of us, they still prefer imperial units for conversation, because - as most of us agree - the imperial system is better for quoting nice round numbers but for most people it becomes unwieldy for calculations.

I was loading oil tankers in Scotland in the early 90's and we measured the oil in metric. We talked about the amount of oil in barrels when we were rounding it off but when we wanted to quote the correct, accurate amount - we used metric.

As for your shed plans, you live in a country that uses the metric system and has done for decades - why are you so surprised that you can't buy lengths in imperial. I can't agree to your argument that 6ft is a useful length but 1.8m isn't. I'm sure your clients don't say "I specifically asked for this to be 6ft long and I've measured it and it is only 5ft11in."

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that the metric system is any way better than the imperial system - but in Australia (and most countries of the world) we use the metric system and if you try and force the imperial system into it, then it will always fail

PS precious stones are now universally measured in <I>metric carats</I> which are exactly 200 milligrams. The grain, which is defined as 1/4 of a carat is now exactly 50 mg. SO they are no longer imperial weights.

**bitingmidge** · 1st February 2005, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by kando

Y16 feet = 4.8768 meter: Three Timber yards offer 16 feet as 4.8. With this I will be 2.519685 feet short of my 16 feet!
12 feet = 3.6576 meter: Three Timber yards offer 12 feet as 3.6. With this I will be 1.8897638 feet short!
7 feet = 2.1336 meter: Three Timber yards offer 7 feet as 2.1. With this I will be 1.1023622 feet short!....
Just because something is new don’t mean it’s better and you can bet a million bucks to ten cents…

Hmmm kando...are you sure you aren't a battery short of being a functioning calculator???

Last time I did the sums (in my head so pardon any slight inaccuracy) 2.1336 metres (a meter is something that is used to measure electricity) minus 2.1 metres = .0336 metre or 33.6mm or something like one and a quarter inches. How did you make it

1.1023622 feet short!...

???? And so on.....?

And wasn't the metric system formalised before the imperial one??

Give someone an inch and they'll take a yard, when they've got a yard they won't stop till they've got a swimming pool........

Cheers,

P

**simon c** · 1st February 2005, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by kando

Just because something is new don’t mean it’s better and you can bet a million bucks to ten cents…

Not sure I know what this new fangled 10 cents is? Shouldn't you be quoting 10 cents in it equivalent shillings, pennies and farthings and a million bucks should be quoted in guineas. Or are you selective in which bits of the metric system you want to use.

**Bob Willson** · 1st February 2005, 10:06 AM

Hi Kando
It seems to me that most of your troubles are self inflicted. If you INSIST on building a shed that is made to strict multiples of 1ft then you are going to continue to have many troubles with the purchase of timber.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to make your shed a tad different in its overall dimensions? 12 feet is close as dammit to 3.6 metres it doesn't really make any difference (12 feet = 3.6576 meter) and the 16 foot is 5 metres (16 feet = 4.8768 meter). The next standard size up is 5.2 metres. This would give you a bigger and better shed.

For you to argue that you don't want to rip off your customers by making them pay for something that you yourself are refusing to use or adapt to, seems to me to be a little bit precious of you.

Now you've got me interested in what you were doing in all strange countries where you were on “unlimited time stay holidays” . You seem a bit coy about it all

**Bob Willson** · 1st February 2005, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by simon c

PS precious stones are now universally measured in metric carats which are exactly 200 milligrams. The grain, which is defined as 1/4 of a carat is now exactly 50 mg. SO they are no longer imperial weights.

Simon c may have hit on the answer to all our problems here. Instead of calling them centimetres, we will henceforth call them "New inches" (ala "new pence" ) each New Inch will be divided into tenths of a New Inch and these subdivisions will be called "Tenths of a New Inch"

**vsquizz** · 1st February 2005, 10:49 AM

I work with a bunch of wo.... european migrants

and they all look at me funny if I mention something in imperial. They have been on metric since the pyramids.

Some industries have to remain on both sides of the fence because of the stubborn refusal of the yanks to convert.

Try and find an imperial fitting on an Airbus, a volvo, Scania, mercedes, Fiat etc. Sorry buddy but bar the yanks imperial is dead as the door knocker. Its only inability to work with a simpler system that will cause confusion by always trying to convert back or think in imperial.

Interestingly last time I was sitting back in Cattle Class reading one of those boring brochures for a BAE 146, or whatever I was flying in, the specs were listed in Metric with the imperial equivalent in brackets:eek: .

Having spent many years at sea I always work in knots because that is the standard unit adopted. No unit has officially replaced it, according to the IMO anyway. Anyway, tonnage and Loadline are determined in tonnes but ship's draught marks (used in the calcs) are still in feet and inches for many older ships. We have to work with both. I don't see what the problem is.

As wisely stated before, just because somebody else is doing something doesn't mean its better.

Cheers Baaaa (both sides of the fence but not yet cross dressing

)

**silentC** · 1st February 2005, 11:04 AM

Sorry buddy but bar the yanks imperial is dead as the door knocker.

Isn't it more common to say "dead as a doornail"? But is that a 4" doornail or 100mm? And why did it die? Must've been 4" and it was made redundant. But then shouldn't we say "as redundant as a doornail"? I dunno. Maybe you should just say "dead as a dodo". No confusion there. Right??

**vsquizz** · 1st February 2005, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by silentC

I dunno. Maybe you should just say "dead as a dodo". No confusion there. Right??

No there is still a few Dodo's around, apparently they work in woodworking shops

but..has anybody seen Elvis??

Cheers

**Termite** · 1st February 2005, 11:16 AM

Well I've lived and worked and partied in every country on this earth, and I've flown everywhere (sometimes even in a plane) and I've done everything, and I know everything, and if I want something or I want something done, IT WILL BE DONE MY WAYor I'll stamp my feet and cry untill it is.

**simon c** · 1st February 2005, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by silentC

Isn't it more common to say "dead as a doornail"? But is that a 4" doornail or 100mm? And why did it die? Must've been 4" and it was made redundant. But then shouldn't we say "as redundant as a doornail"? I dunno. Maybe you should just say "dead as a dodo". No confusion there. Right??

From thefreedictionary.com
Dead as a doornail: Useless, very distinctly dead. A doornail is the strikeplate for most door knockers. To hold it in place, after it was driven through the door, the pointed end was bent over and buried in the door, to prevent movement. This nail was unrecoverable, so was considered dead to future reclamation, which was apparently common before modern time.

**craigb** · 1st February 2005, 11:19 AM

Well the Yank's imperial isn't even the same as British imperial when it comes to measurement of volume.

Like a 44 gallon drum to us is a 55 gallon drum to them.

And a fifth of Burbon is about a quart right?

**silentC** · 1st February 2005, 11:27 AM

This nail was unrecoverable, so was considered dead to future reclamation, which was apparently common before modern time.

My Grandfather used to reuse nails, even in modern times! He would pull them out and then spend a few minutes straightening them. He would wipe them in his hair before driving them in. The idea of this was to make them easier to drive into hardwood, which was about all they used to use for house frames. Must've been the Brylcream - a little dab'll do you.

Thread: Metric Vs Imperial

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Metric V Imperial

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions