The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > Other Discussions > Open Mic

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #106  
Old 05-27-2020, 05:21 AM
saxonblue saxonblue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubcapsc View Post
I think it would be a disaster for the building trade.

A 4x8 sheet of plywood becomes 121.92 X 243.84 centimeters.

16 inch centers become 40.64 centimeter centers.

Change the size of dimensioned lumber and remodeling
becomes a nightmare.

-Mike
It's not a disaster it's an adaptation, we managed it down here in the 70s when the conversion happened without too much drama.

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
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 05-27-2020, 06:45 AM
RedJoker RedJoker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly Moustache View Post
All building materials have been metric for years!
a "2x4" has been a 50 x 100 for as long as I've been buying wood.
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
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 05-27-2020, 07:44 AM
Mdinterman Mdinterman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Williamsburg, Va
Posts: 369
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 05-27-2020, 08:20 AM
rllink's Avatar
rllink rllink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nama Ensou View Post
Most people now have an assortment of both metric and standard wrenches, and even seem to have a grasp of what either one looks like when guessing which one is needed.

In other news, Rome will never fall, Constantinople's walls will never be breached and Neil Young will never stoop to playing electric.
And If you work on vintage British cars and motorcycles you probably have a set of Whitworth wrenches stashed somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 05-27-2020, 08:30 AM
HodgdonExtreme HodgdonExtreme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rllink View Post
And If you work on vintage British cars and motorcycles you probably have a set of Whitworth wrenches stashed somewhere.
If you currently own a vintage Brit car, I'll bet that set of spanners is not "stashed".
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 05-27-2020, 10:14 AM
Glennwillow Glennwillow is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Coastal Washington State
Posts: 44,927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdinterman View Post
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.
In the world I worked in carpenters and welders, folks who used tape measures, worked in fractions of an inch. Machinists I worked with used micrometers and calipers and measured in decimals in thousands of an inch. Because I routinely had to work back and forth with these folks and also because I started off working on a drafting board and measured my drawings in decimals using an engineer's scale, I memorized all the decimal equivalents to fractions at every 32nd of inch. I did this in my first year of working as an engineer at age 22 and used this information pretty much every day of my working life.

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
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 05-27-2020, 10:45 AM
Earl49 Earl49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubcapsc View Post
I think it would be a disaster for the building trade.

A 4x8 sheet of plywood becomes 121.92 X 243.84 centimeters.
16 inch centers become 40.64 centimeter centers.
Change the size of dimensioned lumber and remodeling
becomes a nightmare.

-Mike
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.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 05-27-2020, 11:22 AM
RP's Avatar
RP RP is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 21,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl49 View Post
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.
I think that the problem was that we didn't go all in but left a "back door" in case it didn't take, and of course it didn't. As for the building trades, you wouldn't need to change the size of dimensional lumber, just how it's measured. Let's face it, houses and buildings aren't crashing down because the things we call 2x4s are not 2" by 4"...
__________________
Emerald X20
Emerald X20-12
Martin D18
Martin 000-15sm
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 05-27-2020, 11:38 AM
HodgdonExtreme HodgdonExtreme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RP View Post
I think that the problem was that we didn't go all in but left a "back door" in case it didn't take, and of course it didn't. As for the building trades, you wouldn't need to change the size of dimensional lumber, just how it's measured. Let's face it, houses and buildings aren't crashing down because the things we call 2x4s are not 2" by 4"...
I believe the actual sizes of lumber have proven effective and no need to physically change their geometry. So in this case we're talking about simply re-NAMING them. Considering they are already misnamed "2x4" when in fact they are 1.5x3.5, I guess renaming them 50x100, or 38x89 wouldn't be so soo bad.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 05-27-2020, 11:45 AM
RP's Avatar
RP RP is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 21,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme View Post
...Plus, in the end, all the construction guys would keep calling them 2x4s anyway - so what would the advantage be, here??
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
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 05-27-2020, 11:49 AM
Earl49 Earl49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,982
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 05-27-2020, 12:18 PM
HodgdonExtreme HodgdonExtreme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RP View Post
In fields that require and deal with much smaller tolerances and precision measurement, I would think that the metric system would be preferable...
Not really, no. I run a machine shop and we make all kinds of stuff including aerospace stuff.

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!
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 05-28-2020, 05:24 AM
Silly Moustache Silly Moustache is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Isle of Albion
Posts: 22,068
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 05-28-2020, 06:19 AM
Tannin Tannin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Huon Valley, Tasmania
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme View Post
I believe the actual sizes of lumber have proven effective and no need to physically change their geometry. So in this case we're talking about simply re-NAMING them. Considering they are already misnamed "2x4" when in fact they are 1.5x3.5, I guess renaming them 50x100, or 38x89 wouldn't be so soo bad.

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??
Actually, they are called "90 by 45s". The building trade calls them that too. All the time. It's only old fogies like me who do *not* work in the trade and haven't learned better that ever say "4 by 2". (Yes, "4 by 2" - you say it backwards in the States, we always say the big number first here.) If I walk into a timber yard and ask for "4 x 2" they go a bit blank for a moment until they figure out what I must be asking for, and they translate it into standard measurements to check that it's really what I want.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 05-28-2020, 06:41 AM
rllink's Avatar
rllink rllink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJoker View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > Other Discussions > Open Mic

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=