US switching to metric system?

[Clev]

Originally Posted by MechEngVT

In my years in the workforce any calculations requiring notebook solutions I've always done in metric, even though my current company is rather stubborn about keeping US-sourced designs imperial.

That must suck having to cut a 2,438.4 mm board into thirds, then. My ruler comes out at a nice even 32 inches.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by tjts1

No, the American system is far superior. You just fail to understanding because you're in love with the number 10.

I think TJ is just messing around here Everyone who uses base 10 numbers (numbers comprised of the digits 0 through 9), which is everyone, "loves" the number 10.

You would have to be a masochist to prefer to work in sae

You have to be a sadist to want to inflict it on any more generations

[ShadeTreeMech]

Ya know, I might be in love with ten. I have ten fingers, ten toes, a family of ten (7 people and 3 dogs) and am about to celebrate my 10th wedding anniversary.

All joking aside though, a superior measuring system is one that can be easily used, therefore making accuracy easier to attain more consistently. Most people struggle with fractions and fractions are the cornerstone of the SAE system.

[ShadeTreeMech]

Originally Posted by Ford Man

Maybe you understand the metric system better than our current system. There are 2 pints in a quart. 16oz in a pint, 32oz in a quart.

See how easy it is to mess up?

[gone-ot]

...the ancient Babylonians used base-60 (the basis for our 'minutes' and degrees).

...not many people that I know have ten fingers on one hand and six on the other (wink,wink).

[MechEngVT]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...the ancient Mesopotamians used base-60 (the basis for our 'minutes' and degrees).

...not many people that I know have ten fingers on one hand and six on the other (wink,wink).

But it is still a fully logical system using the fingers-counting methods, you just have to count each hand in a different method - a higher level concept. One hand has 6 states (closed fist, plus each of five digits), while the other has ten (five digits raised, then lowered). Difficult to explain, but I can see how it would work.

Splitting materials evenly is best done not by multiplying their widths by a fraction, but by placing a ruler diagonally across the material to a dimension easily divisible into a whole number by the number of pieces you want to wind up with. Your 96" sheet goes into thirds at 32". I don't know what metric-unit plywood sheets are produced at, but I would venture to guess it isn't an inch measurement. Probably either 2 or 2.5m. Splitting it has little to do with how easily or evenly the number divides as you can force it to divide evenly. If you have a 2.5m sheet to go into thirds is 833.33mm, but if you tilt the measure diagonally until it measures 2550mm and mark it at 850 and 1700 and strike a line across your marks using a square you have divided it into thirds nice and evenly.

[dcb]

Why do you bring up the messopotatoemans Tele?

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by dcb

Why do you bring up the messopotatoemans Tele?

...first, mia culpa (Latin: my error), it was the Babylonians not the Mesopotamians

...now, my answer -- for three (3) distinct reasons:

1) they're no longer around, ie: extinct.

2) they made base-60 "work" for them, ie: it's doable.

3) I work with number systems and "history-of-numbers" provides understanding and insight, ie: because I can (ha,ha).

[dcb]

Do you mind if I put 1 and 2 in the correct chronological order?

1) they made base-60 "work" for them.

2) they're no longer around, ie: extinct.

[gone-ot]

...because YOU can!