- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 428
If he had to practice with a vernier , he would have pulled his hair out. I know I did. .02mm is lot fussier than .001"
-
Welcome back Guest! Did you know you can mentor other members here at H-M? If not, please check out our Relaunch of Hobby Machinist Mentoring Program!
Pirates! - Why the US doesn't use the metric system.
- Thread starter CluelessNewB
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pirates metric
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 428
Now that I got back from helping the wife with her shopping, I can finish my thoughts on metric
Bob said "all that and yet with our out dated system we saved the world twice and put a man on the moon twice " There was a time when the word machinery meant American made. I read somewhere both the Messerschmitt 109 and Spitfire were both made with American machinery, Pratt and Whitney I think it was. For both wars United States supplied huge amounts of material . But where are the successors to those factories now?
If you were thinking about fighting that's different. Not to minimize the sacrifices but:
From 1917 to 1918 the American army and the Canadian army captured about the same number of guns, prisoners and territory . The Canadian army was 1/10th the size of the American. The Canucks had the advantage of both three years of practice and greatest general of the war.
In the Second World War, the Russians did most of the fighting of Germans, the numbers are just staggering. Mind you, the Russians went to battle in Studebaker trucks. A Russian general said "We still would have won, but it would have taken us longer." He's right there.
What's it been, half a century since the moon shots? Certainly ages us doesn't it ?
The compliant about thread pitches in metric is a bit valid, they were only standardized in '71 or '72
Bob said "all that and yet with our out dated system we saved the world twice and put a man on the moon twice " There was a time when the word machinery meant American made. I read somewhere both the Messerschmitt 109 and Spitfire were both made with American machinery, Pratt and Whitney I think it was. For both wars United States supplied huge amounts of material . But where are the successors to those factories now?
If you were thinking about fighting that's different. Not to minimize the sacrifices but:
From 1917 to 1918 the American army and the Canadian army captured about the same number of guns, prisoners and territory . The Canadian army was 1/10th the size of the American. The Canucks had the advantage of both three years of practice and greatest general of the war.
In the Second World War, the Russians did most of the fighting of Germans, the numbers are just staggering. Mind you, the Russians went to battle in Studebaker trucks. A Russian general said "We still would have won, but it would have taken us longer." He's right there.
What's it been, half a century since the moon shots? Certainly ages us doesn't it ?
The compliant about thread pitches in metric is a bit valid, they were only standardized in '71 or '72
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 4,115
Heres a very good report of what actually happened with hubble.
Well worth a read particularly all the telescope nuts here.
https://www.ssl.berkeley.edu/~mlampton/AllenReportHST.pdf
Well worth a read particularly all the telescope nuts here.
https://www.ssl.berkeley.edu/~mlampton/AllenReportHST.pdf
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2015
- Messages
- 561
I grew up using the Imperial system of measurement but later start using metric, when our country mandated the change. The change was not complete and now we have a bastardized system with some stuff in Imperial and some in metric. I like metric because of the ease of calculating using a base of 10. I still use both systems but find it more involved to add or subtract a bunch of mismatched fractions than using metric measurements. One thing I still don't like about the metric system is the pressure measurements. I can visualize 10 lbs on a square inch but for the life of me I cannot visualize a kilopascal. So I still convert those just so I have a better feel for it.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 428
Pressure, horse power, and miles to imperial gallon. I'm finally able to think in terms of litres per hundred.
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 813
But they are all different systems, the metric system is supposed to be a single system, 1.0 1.5 and 2.0 I can live with, but what about all the oddballs like ISOmetric? I tend to use BSW and BSF, because I have full sets of taps and dies to cover a large range, and you can make the single point tools easy enough. The metric system, and metric threads is in no way better, it's just different, people are lazy! God knows my maths is generally lousy, but I work in both, but prefer imperial, that is allLike 1/2" UNC-13tpi/UNF-20tpi/UNEF-28tpi/BSW-12tpi/BSF-16tpi ???
Correct Hermetic The British beer especially from the small breweries takes a lot of beating
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2016
- Messages
- 108
I had to buy my own micrometer for metric practice, ended up with a 0.001mm 0-25 mm. One total anachronism that should be allowed to disapear without trace is the 1/128" vernier caliper, that is way more difficult to learn or teach, particularly when combined with 'ordinary 0.001" ,plus metric.
I learned 1/128" but never once used it (between 1974 and 2000). I had to buy a cheap one to re-learn.
It kinda pisses me off when Americans say they 'don't understand' metric system. I used to ask students if they had ever bought anything with cash money.
I guess USA should go back to using pounds instead of dollars, remove metric system entirely?
One of te links led to a different link and a pretty good article from1969 on why the Imperial system should be used. I used to switch between either system without difficulty but like everything, 'use it or lose it' I'm so out of practice I use a calculator to convert and have to write stuff down
As for beer, USA uses old French system designed for wine, real pint is 20 fl. oz not 16 oz , litres are a handy way to compare though, 3.88 litres to US gallon and 4.54 (?) to Imperial gallon. Biggest con ever was when UK started using litres for fuel measure, allowed price to be substantially increased with minimal outcry
I learned 1/128" but never once used it (between 1974 and 2000). I had to buy a cheap one to re-learn.
It kinda pisses me off when Americans say they 'don't understand' metric system. I used to ask students if they had ever bought anything with cash money.
I guess USA should go back to using pounds instead of dollars, remove metric system entirely?
One of te links led to a different link and a pretty good article from1969 on why the Imperial system should be used. I used to switch between either system without difficulty but like everything, 'use it or lose it' I'm so out of practice I use a calculator to convert and have to write stuff down
As for beer, USA uses old French system designed for wine, real pint is 20 fl. oz not 16 oz , litres are a handy way to compare though, 3.88 litres to US gallon and 4.54 (?) to Imperial gallon. Biggest con ever was when UK started using litres for fuel measure, allowed price to be substantially increased with minimal outcry
Last edited: