converting

[xander9727]

I believe that when building it is much easier to work in units that are smaller and divisable by more than two numbers. Maybe I'm just resistant to change.

By smaller I mean 16 units to one inch, twelve units to one foot. Not comparing inches to mm.

 

[glens]

Originally posted by Stumper
THe Metric System is scientific (based upon the diameter of the earth) ...

That was the original intent, but after several unequal attempts it finally fell to the wavelength of some argon-helium isotope or something, all of them nothing which a typical human could possibly identify with if they didn't have an official measure with them.

But it really <i>does</i> boil down to what you're used to and merely moving decimal places in a number <i>is</i> relatively painless, even for the math-challenged.

Glen

 

[xander9727]

Originally posted by glens
But it really <i>does</i> boil down to what you're used to and merely moving decimal places in a number <i>is</i> relatively painless, even for the math-challenged.

Glen

This is true when converting within the metric system. To arrive at the measurement you're converting is far more cumbersome. IMO.

 

[canguy21]

I grew up on the English system but after having had the metric rammed down my throat by government edict for thirty years, I now think in metric (for the most part) Heck, when I go to the U.S. I convert miles into km's because the other does not mean anything anymore. 90-60-90 doesn't do anything for me though

 

[Tonka56]

The metric system really is superior, but it takes practice to become comfortable. I'm pretty comfortable with both systems since I grew up in the United States, but majored in engineering in college. Plus I took advanced science courses in high school. Take the time to become familiar with both systems. Don't be afraid of knowledge. If you can go back and forth between systems, you'll be at a tremendous advantage.

 

[Tonka56]

That was the original intent, but after several unequal attempts it finally fell to the wavelength of some argon-helium isotope or something.

Glen

Right on! Other metric units are based on the properties of water.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

One thing that doesn't convert to good, is the good old 36-24-36, doesn't sound as good in metric what ever that converts to.

Larry

That's it! Discussion over! Larry has put the argument to rest. Metric has got to go!

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

This is true when converting within the metric system. To arrive at the measurement you're converting is far more cumbersome. IMO.

Xander, that is very true, and all should take note. You have made a very telling point, and it is a very strong argument...


...for dumping the ridiculous English system completely, and letting it fade into history, furlongs, rods, and all.

Problem solved. No more ridiculous conversions.

 

[turnkey4099]

This is true when converting within the metric system. To arrive at the measurement you're converting is far more cumbersome. IMO.

And right there is the crux of the problem. Conversion from one to the other. Why bother? If you're using metric stick with it. If you're using foot/inch, stick with that. What is the point of converting? Having pulled several tours overseas and using metric there I gaurantee you that once you use it, you will hate going back.

Most of the arguments I have seen against metric boil down to "but I won't know what size it is in metric" or variations. Truth is in most cases you don't know what size it is now. Quick, how big is a loaf of bread? How big will it be in metric? Why would it matter? You would do the same as now, buy the loaf of bread, carton of milk, wrench etc. that is on the shelf. Comes to tools, the metric is simpler - fewer sizes and a bigger difference between sizes of wrenches for one.

Harry K

 

[Finnbear]

This one works pretty well. Google "Metric Conversion" and you'll come up with all sorts of ways to do this.
Finnbear
http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm

 

[xander9727]

Right on! Other metric units are based on the properties of water.

Who cares when water freezes or boils? Why use that as a standard? The Fahrenheit system uses tangible limits. 0 degrees is the coldest temperature the average human will encounter. 100 degrees is the hottest temperature the average human will encounter. I know that the equator and the artic defy these limits but.........most of the world lives in more temperate regions.

With measurement the metric system is based on ten. It is divisable by 2 and 5. The English system is based on twelve. It is divisable by 2,3,4, and 6. This makes quarting, halving, dividing by 3's, etc. simpler.

I'm sure if you're used to a system than it is the easiest for you. On their own merits the engish system is far more common sense and practically designed. Metric is nice on paper because is a system of ten. However, in real life application I like it less.


My $.02

 

[cord arrow]

Converting English to metric is horribly cumbersome

huh? very easy in either direction.

my living is carved of reverse engineering. so, perhaps i'm a tad more immersed in these formulations.

however, it IS extremely easy. my kids would REALLY be laughing at you guys.........

 

[cord arrow]

This makes quarting, halving, dividing by 3's, etc. simpler

double HUH?

i'm relatively certain that 25%, 33.3333333333%, 50%, 66.6666666666%, 75%, 100% of ANYTHING is still 25%, 33.3333333333%, 50%, 66.6666666666%, 75%, of anything.

 

[turnkey4099]

With measurement the metric system is based on ten. It is divisable by 2 and 5. The English system is based on twelve. It is divisable by 2,3,4, and 6. This makes quarting, halving, dividing by 3's, etc. simpler.

I'm sure if you're used to a system than it is the easiest for you. On their own merits the engish system is far more common sense and practically designed. Metric is nice on paper because is a system of ten. However, in real life application I like it less.


My $.02

Oh yeah! The Enlish system is so simple. Why figuring the square footage of a rectangle 13' 5" x 7' 7" is a snap...not. It isn't even simple to find the midpoint of the 13' 5" side.

Harry K

 

[cord arrow]

well....i dunno.....not so hard, really. granted, i do this day in and day out.

however, 161" X 91" = 14651".

14651 divided by 144 (SQUARE FEET) = 101.74 square feet

dernit, i need that in FEET & INCHES!!!

well, got the feet. 101.

whadda' 'bout the REST of it.

lesse'.......i know, i need some sort of ratio. yeah, that's it!

hmmmmmm....

OK....let's try 74 is to 100 as (some number we wish to find) is to 12.

looks like this:

74 : 100 = X : 12

here comes the hard part.

means time the extremes.

WHAT??????????????

this means we reduce the equation by multiplying the innermost numbers, then the outermost numbers.

so.... 74 X 12 = 100X

and...888 = 100X

if you remember ANYTHING about grade school math, you know what to do from here.

8.88 inches. 8 & 7/8ths.......leave the line........

i hate my endless condescending tirade's on this subject, but really, HOW HARD CAN IT BE???????

 

[xander9727]

double HUH?

i'm relatively certain that 25%, 33.3333333333%, 50%, 66.6666666666%, 75%, 100% of ANYTHING is still 25%, 33.3333333333%, 50%, 66.6666666666%, 75%, of anything.

I'm sure NASA really misses you!

I was referring to smaller linear measurments (i.e. construction). When your talking hundreds of yards or meters it's all in what you're used to. As far as miles or kilometers it's still just simple addition and subtraction. When you are building a home or a trailer etc. fractional math is simple. For me, to lay out walls, build stairs, etc. it is easier to use the system I grew up with. For laying out designs on paper metric works well because the graph paper works well for a factor of ten. I notice the emphasis is on the measurements....... what about the temperature? I'm sure the state of matter of water is the center of the universe as well.

What are the metric board thicknesses? What are the metric stud lengths for home building? What is the metric measurement for ceiling height? What is a standard metric counter top height?

I'm sure they are easy to remember......

 

[Finnbear]

Oh yeah! The Enlish system is so simple. Why figuring the square footage of a rectangle 13' 5" x 7' 7" is a snap...not. It isn't even simple to find the midpoint of the 13' 5" side.

Harry K

Lets see here. 5/12=.416667 and 7/12=.583333 so 13'5"x7'7" is 13.416667x 7.583333=101.74301 sq ft. Takes longer to type than to figure out.
Without using a calculator the midpoint of 13'5" is 6'6" plus 2-1/2" which is 6'8-1/2". I think they taught my 12 year old this a couple years ago in grade school.
Finnbear

 

[turnkey4099]

Lets see here. 5/12=.416667 and 7/12=.583333 so 13'5"x7'7" is 13.416667x 7.583333=101.74301 sq ft. Takes longer to type than to figure out.
Without using a calculator the midpoint of 13'5" is 6'6" plus 2-1/2" which is 6'8-1/2". I think they taught my 12 year old this a couple years ago in grade school.
Finnbear

So you do two divisions plus one additon.

Metric = 1 division

The point was not that it can be done, the point is that it is not 'simple'

Harry K

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

Lets see here. 5/12=.416667 and 7/12=.583333 so 13'5"x7'7" is 13.416667x 7.583333=101.74301 sq ft. Takes longer to type than to figure out.

And did you do that without a calculator?


In metric, you could.

 

[Finnbear]

So you do two divisions plus one additon.

Metric = 1 division

The point was not that it can be done, the point is that it is not 'simple'

Harry K

My point was that my 12 year old could do it when he was 10 so how hard could it be?