#106
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Yes the standard dimensions will have to change but it's much easier to do now with CNC etc. than it was 50 years ago. You won't find a sheet of 1219mm x 2438mm of ply available it will be 1200 x 2400mm & everyone will get used to it.
__________________
Mick Martin D-28 Maton EA808 Australian Maton EBG808 Performer Cole Clark FL2-12 Suzuki Kiso J200 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
In the US, 2x4 aren't nearly as close to being 2 inches x 4 inches as your 50mm x 100mm. They're 1.5 inches x 3.5 inches here. That always strikes me as humorous.
__________________
Original music here: Spotify Artist Page |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
I’m all for switching over to a decimal system for linear measurements. It is such a pain to try and read 24 17/32 inches. I have made plenty of errors in transferring fractional measurements. Just a ridiculous system.
I am cautious of a complete switch to the metric system, though. Some metric units are not as intuitive. Look at pressure, for example. Pounds per square inch ie easier to picture mentally than a kilopascal. I’d love to see us move away from fractional linear measurements and leave rest alone. |
#109
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
If you currently own a vintage Brit car, I'll bet that set of spanners is not "stashed".
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When I started out working as an engineer in 1970 there were no calculators. I was using a slide rule in those days. Doing fractions in my head was certainly an invitation to making an error, so I felt it was important to simply memorize these numbers so I could avoid messing up. It seems the world is full of pitfalls no matter what we do. Regarding pressure, like you, I find working in kilopascals to be somewhat awkward compared to psi. But, people can get used to most anything under the right circumstances. Some people see change as nothing but stress and resist it with all their might; some people see change as a challenge and seem to relish the adventure. I enjoy a reasonable level of change and challenge. - Glenn
__________________
My You Tube Channel |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
The US government tried using "soft metric" equivalents with round number mm's (like 120 mm x 240 mm for sheets of plywood) on their projects for a while in the 80's and 90's to promote the conversion in building trades. It has been years since I've seen that in a project specification or on drawings, and I still work on government buildings all the time.
|
#113
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Emerald X20 Emerald X20-12 Martin D18 Martin 000-15sm |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
However, I already think it's terrible they are misnamed. In engineering, I **HATE** when the nominal size name of a product is different than its actual size. I hate needing to learn the history of the product and/or its manufacturing process to understand its non-intuitive, obsolete, legacy naming convention. Like pipe, for example. It's obnoxious and I just don't think mis-naming dimensional products is an answer to the problem. In the end, all the construction guys would keep calling them 2x4s anyway - so what would the advantage be, here?? Last edited by HodgdonExtreme; 05-27-2020 at 11:45 AM. |
#115
|
||||
|
||||
At this stage of the game, especially in building trades, I'd say there is no point. In fields that require and deal with much smaller tolerances and precision measurement, I would think that the metric system would be preferable...
__________________
Emerald X20 Emerald X20-12 Martin D18 Martin 000-15sm |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
What we know as a 2 x 4 is based on rough-sawn dimensions. When sanded to finished size it then becomes 1.5" x 3.5" and everyone in the industry knows that. And calls it a 2 x 4.
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Usually, we are dealing with precision on the order of a handful of thousandths of an inch, which we refer to as "thou" for short. It's effectively a base-10 system when dealing with imperial at this level. Tighter tolerances yet require tenths of a thousandth, which we call "tenths" for short. Again it's effectively a base-10 system. These same numbers are a bit annoying in metric, because mm is too big a unit. 5 thousandths of an inch (or "5 thou") is 0.127mm. So you wanna have to say "this part is .127mm too big" all the time? Or, even better, would you introduce fractions to the metric system and say "this part is an 1/8th of a mm too big". Alternatively you could say it's "127 microns too big", but I still do not see how that is an improvement over saying "5 thou"... Again, not saying imperial is the superior system. Both imperial and SI have their advantages and a lot of the time it comes down to the size/magnitude of what you are dimensioning! |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
A friend sent my this on face book. Thought it was relevant ;
Edit - Can't upload - W10!
__________________
Silly Moustache, Just an old Limey acoustic guitarist, Dobrolist, mandolier and singer. I'm here to try to help and advise and I offer one to one lessons/meetings/mentoring via Zoom! Last edited by Kerbie; 12-25-2020 at 05:08 PM. Reason: Profanity |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But as regards things actually being the nominal size, no. It's just not practical. Are we talking dressed timber or undressed? They are both "90 by 45" (or "4 by 2" where you are) but they are different sizes because of the dressing process. You have to allow for that. The old "2 by 1", for example, which would be 50 by 25, when dressed id 45 by 19. And yes, it drive me spare too, but I've learned, if ever in doubt, to have the actual timber in hand and measure it myself.
__________________
Tacoma Thunderhawk baritone, spruce & maple. Maton SRS60C, cedar & Queensland Maple. Maton Messiah 808, spruce & rosewood. Cole Clark Angel 3, Huon Pine & silkwood. Cole Clark Fat Lady 2 12-string, Bunya & Blackwood. |
#120
|
||||
|
||||
I believe that is referred to as a nominal measurement. If is not descriptive. It represents what that piece of wood measured before it was milled down. All milled lumber if identified by the nominal measurement. Rough lumber is the measure size. If you were to go in to the lumber yard and order a 2x4 rough, you would get an actual 2x4. My dad was a carpenter and explained it to me when I was probably the years old.
|