Imperialists!

[Andrew]

When I was young, living in the UK, I used to help? my father in his shed. Many a time he would ask me to hand him the 5/8 open ended spanner or the 7/16 socket. I understood that the fractions were measurements, but didn't have a clue why the sizes seemed to go up then down 1/4 - 3/8 - 7/16 - 1/2.

Then at school I learnt all about the metric system and what a joy it was. Everything was in powers of 10 and decimals of 10. No more fooling with those fractions :x now I could use .25 and .775 :? and they seemed to just 'click' with me and my calculator - and so it went on through my (modest) home renovations.

But now, having read the weekender plans dozens of times, buying myself an Imperial 'yard stick' and lofting the keel (3 times just to be sure :? ) I'm starting to lapse back into this OLD! system.

I've just finished drawing a design for my cleats that I'll be hand carving and found that paper ruled to 1/4 inch squares seems to 'fit' with the designing process better that the 1 mm sheet I tried with earlier in the day (and just couldn't seem to get right).

I was wondering... (and my US friends will be of very little help here) is anyone else in metric land suffering from the same 'relapse', or is it a 'boat' thing?

Maybe I'm just getting swept up in the whole nostalgic feeling of building my own boat - or maybe the system 'just works'.

Andrew

[Simon]

The imperial system has never caused me any particular problems, but I would definitely say that the metric system is superior in every aspect. Those who prefer the imperial system have inevitably been brought up on it, but not all who have been brought up on it prefer it. The rest of us tolerate this as ecentricity. I'd be keen to hear from any one who has a reason for liking it other than "it just seems right" or somesuch.

How about buying some graph paper with 5mm squares?

[Andrew]

Buying graph paper - 'not for me!' says Cap'n cheap - I have a much more devious way of aquiring such things.....

When I am in need of such, I wait 'till I'm at work - fire up Visio and plot a n by n grid using whichever measuring scale I choose, then print it on laser up to A3 size

et voila 'cheap' graph paper

(its also great for the kids school work!)

[waynemunro]

I have to admit that I found the imperial units to be a bit awkward. I have never worked in other than metric before, though rather than converting the plans I went out and bought the imperial measuring tape (had to go to three different stores to find one). And while measuring you can find me spending a few seconds thinking about each measurement, and trying to remember how many more of the little notches is 7/16 over 1/4...

Also it seems that a lot of the plywood sold down here is in metric size, 1200x2400 mm, rather than 4' x 8'. However the place I got my marine ply from seemed to sell in imperial sizes (or actually 1220 x 1440), which I am sure saved some minor adjustments during construction.

[MikeStevenson]

I don't want to start a whole wrangle about the Metric system (which I don't particularly like for everyday use, but which I remember enjoying for science classes), but I can't agree with the statement that the Metric system is "superior in every aspect". For navigating, the Nautical Mile is far more useful and reality-based. It's a minute of a degree at the Equator. What this means is that if you're taking a reading with a sextant, all of the stuff you work out ends up being easily translated on to your charts. I know no one uses a sextant anymore, but there it is. A real-life basis for one of our measurements. Personally, I'm quite happy with the Imperial system.

Mike

[Simon]

For navigating' date=' the Nautical Mile is far more useful and reality-based. It's a minute of a degree at the Equator. What this means is that if you're taking a reading with a sextant, all of the stuff you work out ends up being easily translated on to your charts. I know no one uses a sextant anymore, but there it is. A real-life basis for one of our measurements.[/quote']

Fair enough, although I was mainly talking about feet and inches, pounds and ounces etc. Time is another one which makes sense to measure in hours and minutes - also angles (although there's alot to be said for radians). On the other hand:

Personally' date=' I'm quite happy with the Imperial system. [/quote']

I rest my case.

[Dave R1]

uh, Mike? A nautical mile as well as being aminute of arc of longitude at the equator, is a minute of arc of latitude anywhere on the planet. :wink:

[MikeStevenson]

uh, Mike? A nautical mile as well as being aminute of arc of longitude at the equator, is a minute of arc of latitude anywhere on the planet.

That's why I always pulled measurements off the right and left edges of the chart w/the dividers... :wink: Sorry, I couldn't help being smart-aleck-ey. The coffee's strong this morning.

As far as my personal comfort level with Imperial measures, I grew up with my father building all of these machines, so I got a big dose of fractions at an early age. They've never bothered me, but it is wierd watching people struggle with everyday things like "Okay...half of 2 5/8ths is???? " The thing about fractions is: They're still around, even in a decimal system. Measurements aside, there are times when one needs to be able to work with fractions. I suddenly realised though, this may be a moot point for those of you in other countries where basic education still exists.

Angles I agree about: Radians make a lot of sense. I guess it depends on the application. Temperature I like Fahrenheit, as the divisions are smaller. It's not a big deal, but I've noticed that our car hasa digital thermometer in it and even F

[Gordy Hill]

My first clue that my vote for Reagan was a mistake came in the first month of his presidency when he eliminated the commission for the transition to the metric system. Since then Canada has changed and left us as the last major holdout.

If we were merely an average sized country, we'd be the laughing stock of the planet.

[Phil Gowans]

I'd be keen to hear from any one who has a reason for liking it other than "it just seems right" or somesuch.

When I was in school the metric system was touted to be the thing of the future and the United States would shortly be forced to into switching over to it because it was so superior to the arbitrary system we had inherited from the provincial English. I for one was ready for the change and couldn't understand why many couldn't see this coming eventuality. Older people especially seemed to be the most stubborn. Well time has passed and now I are one of them - (older that is). I still feel that the metric system is nice to use since it matches our system of arithmetic (base 10).

I wouldn't say the metric system is completely superior in every respect.

• Natural systems of measurement also have some advantages. Take for instance measuring rope in fathoms. People (even though many are different) have a natural way to measure a fathom of rope. Stretch out your arms and you have a fathom. How do you do that with meters?

• Measuring with a foot / inch scale offers many easy ways to divide up distances. For instance to find the midpoint of 3/4" object you have to measure 3/8". It takes no real thought to compute and with a scale marked with quarters' date=' eighths, sixteenths marked it is even easier. Doing such types of things with a metric scale isn't near as nice. Ten divisions on a scale just so we have base 10 arithmetic is not necessarily better.[/list']
  • Doing certain types of processes don't always lend themselves well to a different way of doing things. For instance with measuring in the kitchen. Most old recipes used common types of objects for measuring. For instance every kitchen had a cup, a teaspoon, and a tablespoon. Precision was not the issue - convenience was. When something works find why switch over to metric? When I lived in New Zealand, I never could figure out their system of recipes. Perhaps it is because they did everything based on weight not volume. (A question for you kiwis - Do you use weight because you are metric or is it unrelated?).

I'm sure there are more ideas out there. This is all that come to mind.

At this point of over 50 years of experience with the imperial system and relating everything to it, I don't mind if the US does not change. I was in N.Z. when they converted from pounds to dollars and I remember the horrible time many of the older kiwis had with that change. They felt lost and many had more trouble than I did with pounds & shillings. They would hold out their hand with money in it and say "take what you want".

Look at this web site for an interesting view: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s11563.htm

[Johannah]

Phil, that's a wonderful link, right down to the Ozite spelling of the great logician we learned as John of Occam (= Ockham). The idea that duality in measuring systems might be an advantage is appealing and worth consideration. Like many others, I loved the metric system on first acquaintance for science but find it fairly useless for a world of halves and quarters. Who thinks in tenths? Take a look at a pizza and try it.

[Phil Gowans]

FYI: I couldn't see that the anti metric side had much to stand on, but for those interested there are some out there with other ideas. I looked around and found this: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Metrication/metrication.htm

[Johannah]

By the way, where did you find Steamboat Willie?

[Frank Hagan]

I'll admit to fitting into Simon's description of someone who likes Imperial measurements just because they are familiar. I'm sure I could adapt to metric, but I don't have to so I haven't. It would be strange for me to work in millimeters rather than 32nds in woodworking. What's a tenth of a millimeter? I don't even know.

Temperature is the one thing where I think the Celcius scale isn't as good. It isn't used in science, and like Mike, I think the measurements are too gross to be of any use. We should all change to Kelvin or whatever it is the eggheads use. Or stick with good old Dr. Farenheit's scale where zero is really, really cold!

[Phil Gowans]

By the way' date=' where did you find Steamboat Willie?[/quote']

I found a black and white on the internet a few years ago. I don't remember where now. It looks like it may have come right from the cartoon.

I look at Frank's picture with his Sou'wester and think professional, then I look at Steamboat Willie and think I'm driving a toy. Oh, well I'm happy on my toy boat anyway.

[Sailor3356]

Metric, US standard, Wentworth. It real doesn't matter if you don't have the right wrench any way. :shock: In another few years they will come out with a new standard because no one goverment can stand to leave it alone. And besides, just the time you need it on your boat it will fall overboard.

Would some one pass the coffee over here?

[Robert Cox]

Being someone that has delt with both metric and imperial I'll throw this out attcha'.

My last job (before moving to Florida and working for myself) was setup and opperating CNC lathes and mills that made transmition parts for Honda and Saturn cars. My line made the automatic transmition clutch plates for Honda Civics and Accords.

When dealing with something that has to be withing tollerances smaller than 1/1000th the metric system is better. We ran down to within 5 decameters. It's easier in this small of a measurement to use metric.

When dealing with larger measurements, often times 1 centimeter is not small enough, not when you can work to within 1/64 from an average tape measure. Of course I will admit to having gotten used to dealing with imperial and have a hard time dealing with 1/10 ths of something bigger than 1/8 th. :?

I have had to deal with the metric system on some larger work and have not had a problem if I had something to measure with that had the metric system on it. I have a metric ruller just for building R/C boats because so many are made in Japan and are measured in metric. It takes me a little while to get back into a metric mind set but it really doesn't take too long.

Now that I've said all this, I see the advantages and disadvantages to both and personally, I would rather stick to imperial most of the time. BUT, if required, I can use the metric system and have no problem doing so. I guess I should count myself luck, I have and can use both. 8)

Bob

[Barry Pyeatt]

On a good day I can chew gum and walk at the same time.

On an exceptional day I can rub my tummy and pat my head at the same time. :roll:

But I still have trouble with Imperial Gallons! :?

I can deal with liters or with quarts. :wink:

[Knut]

Interesting discussion that is illustrating that our likes and dislikes are very much linked to what we grew up with and got used to and what we have been working with. I think Bob used the word 'mindset' at that hits the nail. Anyone can switch from one system to the other (I did when building the Weekender) if there is a good reason to do so. The normal resistance is mostly linked to our mindset in the form of mental experience pictures about how large is a certain given dimension. Without this experience database as a reference you have to THINK every time you read a measurement and when doing a job you normally have other things to THINK about than the measure itself.

I also guess this is one of those subjects where we will never make everybody agree. Fortunately, there is no reason to even try convincing the 'other side' because it is your choice and no-one elses business what system you use for a given task.

That said, I think the 'voting' would look a bit different if this website would have a fair share of participants from Europe. To avoid any misunderstandings: I worked Imperial building my Weekender, but it also convinced me of the advantages of Metric!

(Sorry, I have been partly without contact after first having my laptop stolen and thereafter experiencing a total system crash with the new one)

[Robert Cox]

Here's a good one for you Barry.

Why do most car manufactures now measure engine displacement in Liters instead of cubic inches and yet we fill our fuel tanks in gallons rather than Liters? :?

The old '73 Grand Am I had in High School had on Oldsmobile 400 cubic inch Rocket engine and said so right on the filter cover, yet on the hood intake it said 4.8 liters. Go figure.

I think it's a government conspiracy to keep us all confused.

Bob