# Pirates! - Why the US doesn't use the metric system.



## CluelessNewB

http://www.sciencealert.com/pirates-are-to-blame-for-why-the-us-doesn-t-use-the-metric-system


----------



## higgite

Well, shiver me timbers, we can thank pirates for the foot long hot dog!

Tom


----------



## Greebles

Honestly having learned both Metric and Imperial I have to say the metric system is MUCH easier to learn and remember. Just multiple and divide by 10. Nothing could be easier than adding or removing a trailing zero. 

-Denzil


----------



## higgite

Greebles said:


> Honestly having learned both Metric and Imperial I have to say the metric system is MUCH easier to learn and remember. Just multiple and divide by 10. Nothing could be easier than adding or removing a trailing zero.
> 
> -Denzil


Yeah, but you have to admit, “453.592 grams of flesh” just doesn’t have the same zing to it.

Tom


----------



## hermetic

Good article, but not entirely true, as the UK have only partially accepted the metric system, and even that was under pressure from them thare ferringers fra Europe!! The system used in the USA is the earlier English system of weights and measures which were in use in England up to 1824, when they were all revised by the Weights And Measures act . The USA carried on using the old system. I can work quite happily in both, and even when using a tape measure, always pick the system that gives me the easiest to remember round figures. My two lathes are imperial, My Harrison H/V mill is metric, My Raglan mill is imperial. I have micrometers in both, but my large range micrometers are imperial. TBH I find more problems in the metric system, because of  anomalies like different pitches on the same diameter bolt, and different types of metric thread, like ISOmetric. I don't really think either of the systems is better than the other! We are now leaving EC, and what will happen when we do is anybodies guess, but we have had cases of shopkeepers being heavily fined for using the imperial system of weight to sell goods, a system which was used in this country for many years without a problem. All the prosecutions achieved was a very high level of bad publicity for the EC and the government that were promoting the change. In my own field of electrical engineering, when cable sizes were metricated, the equivalent cable to out old 7/029 (7 strands twisted together, each strand .029" thick) was 2.5mm, which is a single core 2.5mmcsa. It carries less current than the stranded cable, is much more rigid, and harder to handle and install neatly, but of course, it is a lot cheaper to make!


----------



## Holescreek

I work with both systems every day at work and at home.  What I can't figure out is why the question still pops up randomly about once a year. That ship sailed in the 70's.  The USA won't ever officially change.


----------



## wrmiller

My only issue with our system is the silly fractions used in linear measurement. Fractions? Really? 

When I started using metal working machines I started thinking of everything in yards/feet/inches/tenths/hundredths/thousandths/ten thousandths. I've saved quite a number of brain cells over the years. Or at least I think I have...


----------



## higgite

I like fractions when sawing or cutting paper, wood, cloth, etc. I find that intervals of 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, etc., are easier to make out on a rule or scale than 100ths of an inch. It's only going to be as accurate as a pencil lead width anyway.

BUT, for lathe and mill work where I get to cheat with digital calipers, mics, DTIs, etc., with direct readouts, gimme thousandths of an inch every time. (Or hundredths of a millimeter if I'm working from a drawing generated in one of the more advanced civilizations, like the 18th century French, who are confused by such complex terms as 1/8".)

Tom


----------



## Charles Spencer

hermetic said:


> Good article, but not entirely true, as the UK have only partially accepted the metric system



You mean you don't ask for 1/2 a liter of lager?


----------



## Joncooey

One of the biggest things 'bout the Metric system that our petroleum companies (and others, I'm sure) have taken advantage of is the Litre; in my humble opinion. In the U.S. you may get cheezed because the cost of gas is up 10 cents per gallon on the long weekend; up here in Canada it goes up 10 cents per litre.  That's 40 cents per gallon.  Wonder why antidepressants are so popular these days.  Makes it easier when you realize that you're being made a fool of.


----------



## cjtoombs

The argument that was always put forward in the past to promote the metric system is that it was in increments of 10, which made the math easy.  From an engineering standpoint the advent of computers made that arguement a mute point, as they could just as easily convert inches to feet as millimeters to meters.  From a pure engineering standpoint, a base 2 system would be much better, since base 2 math is much faster on a computer (you just shift right or lef by one bit to multiply or divide).  It's a bit of a pain to change over, so I doubt that we will now that the main reason for doing it  is gone.


----------



## Forty Niner

We ARE going metric........................"inch by inch!"  Just takes awhile.


----------



## Holescreek

If metric is so wonderful, how come clocks  worldwide are still fractional (even in metric countries) ?


----------



## cvairwerks

Only way the US will go totally metric is when the military aviation system does it. Only way that happens is when we quit flying anything but pocket drones.


----------



## aliva

Gasoline is at $1.18 a liter or $4.46 a US gallon. As said above an easy way for the oil companies and government to hide the real impact.


----------



## savarin

If you think about it American machinists are already using the metric system, they talk of tenths, hundredths and thousandths.
Now we just have to get them to let go of their base unit.


----------



## rgray

Holescreek said:


> If metric is so wonderful, how come clocks worldwide are still fractional (even in metric countries) ?



And look at socket drive sizes. 3/8 1/2 . In metric countries do you ask for a 9.525mm ratchet for a 3/8 and a 12.7mm if you want a 1/2 ratchet.
Hey Jo grab me that 9.525 ratchet and a 9.525 drive 10mm deep socket will ya.


----------



## hermetic

You mean you don't ask for 1/2 a liter of lager?
 Lager, filthy foreign muck that tastes like P*ss We drink PINTS of bitter!, or as the Hob Goblin advert says


----------



## higgite

Holescreek said:


> If metric is so wonderful, how come clocks  worldwide are still fractional (even in metric countries) ?


That's a good question. Would a metric day have 25.4 hours?

Tom


----------



## Tozguy

As long as we don't have to drive on the metric side of the road, wheel be OK


----------



## petcnc

A funny thing happens with plummers! In my country we all use metric system! Plummers use imperial.
In the UK everyone use imperial plummers use metric! It's a funny world.


----------



## savarin

rgray said:


> And look at socket drive sizes. 3/8 1/2 . In metric countries do you ask for a 9.525mm ratchet for a 3/8 and a 12.7mm if you want a 1/2 ratchet.
> Hey Jo grab me that 9.525 ratchet and a 9.525 drive 10mm deep socket will ya.


Nahh, we just ask for the size socket for the bolt we need to shift.
I think that as a sop to our American cousins who cannot come to "grips" with the metric system we have decided to keep the drivers as standard imperial to help them out.
Standard sizes of square drives around the world include 1/4", 3/8", 1/2", 3/4", 1", 1-1/2", 2-1/2" and 3-1/2" square drive sizes along with some lesser used drivers such as 5/8" square drive, and both #4 and #5 spline drives.


----------



## dlane

It's a funny world.
Yes it is, 
sometimes Not so funny


----------



## Terrywerm

Gee whiz you guys, if we switched over to metric we could no longer carry on a thread such as this one. See, there is a purpose!


----------



## higgite

terrywerm said:


> Gee whiz you guys, if we switched over to metric we could no longer carry on a thread such as this one. See, there is a purpose!


Yeah, if we switched to metric, the next thing you know they'd want us to learn French.

Tom


----------



## savarin

Dis donc, qu'est-ce qui ne va pas avec le français parlant?


----------



## Tozguy

On écoute. Quoi?


----------



## RJSakowski

We have virtually converted to metric.  Most of our manufacturing uses metric dimensioning.  The medical and scientific community has been metric for decades.  The automotive industry, likewise.

I suspect that the building trades will be the last big holdout.  Much of this has to do with legacy systems.  With "2 x 4's" and 4' x 8' sheets of sheet products having been standard sizes for many decades, the majority of our residential structures are built to those standards.  Stud or joist spacing at 16" or 24" fits nicely  with 4"' x 8' sheeting.  Any repair or remodeling work using newly adopted metric  products would cause match up issues.

As I look at EU lumber (timber) and sheet goods,  I see a hodge podge of different sizes catering to the older legacy structures and new building.  Far from the metric order they would have us believe.  Looking at sheet goods, I saw 1200mm x 2400mm, 1220mm x 2440mm,  1250mm x 2500mm, and 1500 x 3000mm.

Just specifying dimensions in the metric system doesn't mean that you have converted, IMO.  We could specify our 2 x 4's as 38mm x 89mm too.  I, for one, prefer to deal with the inch measure where I can work out all my cut lines and allowances without having to carry a calculator.

It's a different story when machining metal.  My CAD, CAM, and DRO's don't care whether I'm working in Imperial or metric.  Nice, whole numbers aren't as convenient as they once were.  I have worked so long with both systems that the conversion from on to the other comes fairly effortlessly.  I design and work in either, the choice depending on materials and tooling at hand.


----------



## higgite

savarin said:


> Dis donc, qu'est-ce qui ne va pas avec le français parlant?


That's easy for you to say.

Tom


----------



## Eddyde

While I do use and like the Metric System, I think there is a certain natural practicality to the relative measurements, ½ inch, ¼ cup etc, that seems to get lost using metric.


----------



## savarin

Eddyde said:


> While I do use and like the Metric System, I think there is a certain natural practicality to the relative measurements, ½ inch, ¼ cup etc, that seems to get lost using metric.


As an ex chef I have to say American recipes using cups for the measurement of items other than liquids is abominable, I mean how can you work out the cup equivalent of "err, about that much!"


----------



## Eddyde

savarin said:


> As an ex chef I have to say American recipes using cups for the measurement of items other than liquids is abominable, I mean how can you work out the cup equivalent of "err, about that much!"


Um, about 250 cc of chopped onions?  Though it doesn't sound too appetizing....


----------



## GA Gyro

Which system we use... seems a mute point...

My concern... is we use one system or the other... and not mix them.

Remember a service van I had years ago... there was no telling whether a bolt or nut would be metric or SAE... until you put a socket on it and determined if the socket fit or was just a little loose.  Literally one bolt of the engine accessories (belt driven things on the front of the engine) would be 13MM... the next 1/2".  

So either way is good... just please do not mix them on the same product!!!


----------



## hermetic

petcnc said:


> A funny thing happens with plummers! In my country we all use metric system! Plummers use imperial.
> In the UK everyone use imperial plummers use metric! It's a funny world.



Ah yes, but it only applies to soldered copper, in which the most common sizes are 15mm, 22mm and 28mm. As soon as you start with threaded fittings or pipework, it is back to imperial, sink taps are 1/2" bath taps 3/4", and a threaded adapter will be quoted as 15mm to 1/2 inch, or 22mm to 3/4"etc!


----------



## GA Gyro

And here is another oddity:

In the USA:  Copper water pipe is the inside diameter... while refrigeration pipe is the outside diameter.

So a 3/4 water pipe is in reality 7/8 outside...
While a 3/4 refrigeration pipe is in reality closer to 5/8 inside.

Standards... do not always seem so standard...


----------



## Joncooey

That's pipe vs. tube standards probably.


----------



## GA Gyro

Could well be...

I used to run a remodeling co... we specialized in basement finishes.  Did the water with copper pipe...
Then switched to heating and AC... noticed the copper pipe is a different size, yet called the same.
We have done a little commercial refrigeration (convenience store stuff)... even rigid pipe (tubing?) for refrigeration is the smaller size noted in the previous post.

Curious how sizes become 'standard'...


----------



## Brian Hutchings

Just be thankful that you don't live in England, I've just bought some 12mm plywood, and it comes in a size of 8ft X 4 ft!
Brian


----------



## GA Gyro

Brian Hutchings said:


> Just be thankful that you don't live in England, I've just bought some 12mm plywood, and it comes in a size of 8ft X 4 ft!
> Brian



So does it match in thickness the current plywood... 
Even in the USA... going from one manufacturer to another... could cause a difference of as much as a 1/16" in thickness... both are called 3/4 BCX at the big box stores.  
Point to remember... always start and finish a project with the same brand of lumber...


----------



## higgite

Eddyde said:


> Um, about 250 cc of chopped onions?  Though it doesn't sound too appetizing....


Anything measured in cc's should be injected with a hypodermic needle, not eaten.

Tom


----------



## mcostello

Bought 3/8" plywood ,size was .200, bought 1/4" plywood size was 3/16". Some cheapness going on here.


----------



## tq60

We hate the new "way of doing things"

Before you order 3/4 inch plywood and by golly it was 3/4 inch thick.

Now it is close to 3/4 but to some 32 of an inch.

Same brand?

Forget that!

When we built the shop it has second floor with 16 centers on the joists and we wanted more heavy duty and after much homework selected 1 1/8 plytanium subfloor as it was APA rated 48 span meaning it on 48 inch joists were same as normal on 16 so given we had 16 span good to go.

Ordered 2 pallets of them and there were noticeable differences in thickness and there was no way to reasonably sort and size them.

We just used a 20 inch floor polisher with sanding disks to level it out and called it a day.

When we looked into it the responses were that size varied due to international standards and metric along w the many other excuses for lack of quality control.

Next time you are at the big box store look at the sheet stock and everything is just a bit thinner than standard and it is same as the 1.75 quart ice cream instead of 1/2 gallon or smaller cans of product that cause cooks grief and metric gets blamed sometimes but we know it is about profit....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk


----------



## Terrywerm

mcostello said:


> Bought 3/8" plywood ,size was .200, bought 1/4" plywood size was 3/16". Some cheapness going on here.



You actually found 3/8" plywood??  Wow. I haven't been able to find it around here for a while now, at least not at the big box stores. Time to start doing business at the local lumber yard again!


----------



## mcostello

If it would only have been 3/8"...................


----------



## savarin

I got it the other way round yesterday.
Bought a one metre length of 150mm steel tube but when I measured it back home it was 152.
Where does this come from?
neither 150 nor 152 is 6" so it wasnt just a straight swap.


----------



## Smithy

the metric system was introduced in australia before i was born and i grew up on a farm where we had a sawmill as well so i ended up learning both from a young age. to be honest both systems have their positives and negatives. for some things i prefer metric and for others imperial.


----------



## crazypj

I'm British, grew up with feet and inches. Living in USA I had to do some research. USA has used feet and inches based on Meter and Kilogram since 1864 Act of Congress which means USA HAS used kilo's and meters for over 150 years without even knowing it. Prior to 1864 act, the only standardised measurement was for gold and silver (Troy  ounce)
 Australia went metric 14th Feb 1966 if I remember the annoying jingle they used correctly? 
Also had various rhyme's, 'liter of water a pint and three quarter' (UK pint, 20 fl. oz.)
'Two and quarter pots of jam, weigh about a kilogram'  This was on British TV in the early 70's, almost 50 yrs later, it's still stuck in my head
Judging by the amount of students I had while teaching, US Military has used metric system for years


----------



## cvairwerks

crazypj said:


> Judging by the amount of students I had while teaching, US Military has used metric system for years



Only the ground pounders use metric, and that's only for some things. Aviators and the boat people still use inch/foot/mile/gallons and pounds.


----------



## Dan_S

cvairwerks said:


> Only the ground pounders use metric, and that's only for some things. Aviators and the boat people still use inch/foot/mile/gallons and pounds.



Telling some your speed in knots always draws a huh look!


----------



## westsailpat

I once had Whitworth tools because I had a J.A.P. speedway bike .


----------



## westsailpat

Also I'm a sailboat guy and the knot thing and nautical mile thing always trip me up . And don't even get me started on magnetic compass readings .


----------



## Mutt

hermetic said:


> You mean you don't ask for 1/2 a liter of lager?
> Lager, filthy foreign muck that tastes like P*ss We drink PINTS of bitter!, or as the Hob Goblin advert says





Man, I wish I could get a 6 pints of that King Goblin over here in Texas !!!!!


----------



## higgite

I use metrics when I have to, but the only metric that I really like to use is 9mm. 

Tom


----------



## whitmore

GA Gyro said:


> My concern... is we use one system or the other... and not mix them.
> 
> Remember a service van I had years ago...
> Literally one bolt of the engine accessories (belt driven things on the front of the engine) would be 13MM... the next 1/2".



Yeah, I've been there.   Due to a committee of contributors, our product had fasteners to be cataloged before
production, and (after some grousing and grumbling) mostly got sorted out.   Everything was metric,
except one inserts-in-sheet-metal, so we rationalized at the toolkit.   Four metric Allen wrenches, two or three
hex wrenches, and (for the lonely inch screws) Phillips head driver.   The hard part was, one
or two socket heads could just barely be seen, and took a 18" (half meter) extension shaft driver
if you didn't want to skin your knuckles.   Other than that, the whole multikilobuck
gizmo only needed the tools you could fit in a shirtpocket.

Three of the fasteners had to be done 'cleverly' (I hate that, SOMEONE a few years from now 
won't get it right), so I felt a little ... unclean... about the design, but at least there wasn't a
wrong-measure-system wrench issue.


----------



## bfk

When I was teen I worked construction during the summer. This was in Scotland in the late 60's, just as they were changing to the metric system. The new system worked fine and the change was surprisingly smooth. Except for all the rules of thumb. I was frequently told to cut a piece of wood to (say) 1478mm. Less 1/4".


----------



## eastokie

i was trained on the inch (imperial) system as a machinist in 1977-79, never learned metric, never needed it,dont see me learning it in the last half of my life either..in 1969 NASA put Neil Armstrong on the moon and brought him safely back to earth using the INCH system!!! if it was good enough f NASA and Neil Armstrong its still good enough f me !!!!!!!  another story, last machine shop i worked in we had a russian lathe ,big long one 3o"x10ft because it had a power feed on the compound,it had a coolant pipe outlet on the carrige, pipe stuck up about a ft and had a swivaling extention on it so u could put coolant pouring on just the right spot where u were cutting,anyway i was cleaning the back side of lathe ,slipped and grabed coolant pipe ,it snapped in two like a twig !!! looked closer  at it and it was pot metal, full of holes and air bubbles !!! anyway i removed it all and found some typical american plumbing pipe 3/4 and it threaded into the russian carrige hole like it was made for it !!! worked great, no leaks.


----------



## Downwindtracker2

The old imperial system was based on the human body, one foot, duh.  The Japanese and the Russians, even the French, had their own versions. For building furniture it's still a better system. Houses have been 16" OC for almost 200 years. For machinery,  it's silly.  Say the shaft is 80mm ,a pretty standard  machine size, so I can  grab a bearing just using the bearing's last two numbers and the type. Machinery is international . If a machinist makes a new shaft, instead of simple 80mm, he has to convert it to ????.  . Now don't tell me that's not silly.


----------



## magicniner

hermetic said:


> TBH I find more problems in the metric system, because of  anomalies like different pitches on the same diameter bolt



Like 1/2" UNC-13tpi/UNF-20tpi/UNEF-28tpi/BSW-12tpi/BSF-16tpi ???


----------



## bob308

all that  and yet with our out dated system we saved the world twice  and put a man on the moon twice.


----------



## eugene13

When my son was going through his apprenticeship he had to study the whole metric thing, that included learning to read a metric micrometer, only problem was there wasn't a metric mic anywhere on the plant site so he could practice


----------



## Downwindtracker2

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"


----------



## Downwindtracker2

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


----------



## dlane

, I think the Hubble scope wouldn’t of needed space fixin except the metric system messed  it up


----------



## savarin

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


----------



## HBilly1022

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.


----------



## Downwindtracker2

Pressure, horse power, and miles to imperial gallon. I'm finally able to think in terms of litres per hundred.


----------



## mcostello

The Mars Rover would still be Rovering except for Metric. Now it's a big center punch mark.


----------



## hermetic

magicniner said:


> Like 1/2" UNC-13tpi/UNF-20tpi/UNEF-28tpi/BSW-12tpi/BSF-16tpi ???


 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 all


----------



## core-oil

hermetic said:


> You mean you don't ask for 1/2 a liter of lager?
> Lager, filthy foreign muck that tastes like P*ss We drink PINTS of bitter!, or as the Hob Goblin advert says
> 
> View attachment 250799


Correct Hermetic  The British beer especially from the small  breweries takes a lot of beating


----------



## crazypj

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


----------



## Downwindtracker2

Gas prices are fun for us when buy gas in the States. US gallon to litres then US $ to Canadian $ . We didn't have much of a increase when we went to litres. Everybody was up in arms, so I guess they didn't dare. Though it's amazing how they can find any excuse to raise prices. 

What I don't understand is why when ISO standardized pipe threads, they used the British straight instead of the American taper.

I think I've seen a 1/128" once . I have cheap 1/64", but I only use it as a inside /outside on the wood lathe, never using the numbers.


----------



## Charles Spencer

Everybody knows that the metric system is bad for the environment.  It takes nearly four time as many litres of gasoline to travel as far as a given number of gallons.  And it takes way more fuel to heat a house to 60 degrees celsius than it does to heat it to 60 degrees fahrenheit.


----------



## dtsh

I use imperial regularly, but I prefer metric when I can use it.

A joke about imperial measure I drag out from time to time...
How big is 1 acre? It's 10 square chains, obviously. What's a chain? A chain is 4 rods long, of course. What's a rod? 16.5 feet, naturally.


----------



## Gwil

I'm 64, grew up with imperial in the Uk, but I went metric completely when I moved here in 2000. Found it much easier. A small thing maybe, but you can use both sides of a tape measure!

I have to say I'd gone completely native.....then I bought a Harley. The swines, bolts are seemingly at random imperial and metric, anything sourced from, ahem, outside the US, is metric, the rest imperial.

 I'm saving up for a big tap and die set to send to Milwaukee. Anyone care to contribute?!


----------



## Dabbler

I started Imperial, then Canada went 'Metric' in the 60s...  Most of my machining is still in imperial, and all of my stock is still bought in imperial sizes.  Although we sometimes like to kid about the US being Imperial and thus archaic, Most 'metric' countries still carry forward a lot of imperial deadwood.

Metric is the universal system for scientific measurement - it would be easier if machining was all metric, as it is a lot easier to work in and less error prone.  That being said I'm not trading in my inch-based measuring equipment any time soon!


----------



## gaston

I dislike the metric system, but use what system needed to get the job done. 
as for the " building materials , when was the last time you measured a "2x4" ?  it hasnt been a 2x4 for a long time , also a sheet of 1/2" plywood is no longer 1/2" thick its sized metric in thickness only the  4x8 still applys so like it or not the metrics are sneaking up on us!


----------



## RJSakowski

Compatibility with legacy systems has always been a headache for manufacturers.  And one of the reasons for clinging to archaic systems of measurement.  

I recall when GM went metric, they used a 16mm head on the tensioner for the serpentine belt.  Their strategy seemed to be one of trying to make fastener sizes close enough to be able to use SAE tools.  The 5/8" SAE wrench wouldn't quite fit the 16mm head and an 11/16" wrench was way oversized.  Most metric wrench sets at the time jumped from 15mm to 17mm so you had to buy the 16mm wrench separately, if you could find it.

Probably the best example of compatibility issues was Johnny Cash and his Cadillac..


----------



## projectnut

hermetic said:


> You mean you don't ask for 1/2 a liter of lager?
> Lager, filthy foreign muck that tastes like P*ss We drink PINTS of bitter!, or as the Hob Goblin advert says
> 
> View attachment 250799


By admitting you drink anything in pints you may be subjecting yourself to the same fine as those imposed on the shop keeper for selling goods in imperial measurements.  If drinking something from the US you should be drinking 473.1755 mL.  If drinking something made in Great Britain you should be drinking 454.6090 mL.  So much for minding your P's nd Q's


----------



## MozamPete

I've been metric all my life (New Zealand started to change in 1969 the year I was born), but I have brought old machinery so I'm really only coming to terms with having to think of small units in imperial latter in life (being a member of a predominately American forum helps).

The one things which seem erratic to me about the imperial system is you can't seem to decide if you want to use fractions or decimals to divide you units - you go 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 ...etc but then jump to thousands on a inch.  Logically you should be using 1/1024th of an inch.  At least metric sticks to decimals, you would never see something called up as 1/8 mm.

Strangely enough timber will always be 2 x 4 to me even thought I've never really used inches.


----------



## Alan H.

Base 10 in mathematics is much easier for most all of us to deal with.


----------



## cmantunes

eastokie said:


> in 1969 NASA put Neil Armstrong on the moon and brought him safely back to earth using the INCH system!!!



Not true, all the navigation was effectively done in metric. Had it been done in inches, the result would have been the same, of course, but with a lot more (error prone) conversion factors.

From https://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html:

"With respect to units, the LGC was eclectic. Inside the computer we used metric units, at least in the case of powered-flight navigation and guidance. At the operational level NASA, and especially the astronauts, preferred English units. This meant that before being displayed, altitude and altitude-rate (for example) were calculated from the metric state vector maintained by navigation, and then were converted to feet and ft/sec."


----------



## Downwindtracker2

I'm not old enough , I'm 68, to remember when a 2x4 was 2" x 4" . They say it was before planeing. I don't know about that,we cut as close to 3 1/2" x 1 1/2" as we could, when I worked in a sawmill. I do remember 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" . In fact I'm able to get something of a date on a shop built shaper by it's 2x4 and angle iron stand.


----------



## Bob Korves

2 x 4 boards were once rough cut 2" by 4".  They were brought to finished size from there.  I have measured old stock 2" boards that were finished at 1 3/4", five decades ago.  Later, I saw 1 5/8", and now 1 1/2" on a good day, with green wood.  None of those numbers were exact, and no two boards seem to dry to exactly the same size even if they were cut to identical sizes.  What you measure is what you have.  Work with it!


----------



## Moper361

Quite an interesting and humorous thread ,I live in Thailand and have found that most machining products are in metric Taps, dies, hand tools , Lathes Mills etc ,However were I buy my material for machining and fabrication shaft flat bar etc etc are all imperial sizes and it mostly comes from China ,So if you want to reem out a hole to take a 10 mm pin you have to buy 7/16 material and turn it down and your good to go as to buy a 10mm reemer is a piece of cake but to buy a imperial reemer is difficult .Its a pain at times


----------



## lagweezle

Read through this whole thread swinging back and forth between amusement and cringing. I was going a bit nuts after seeing mention of the dimensional lumber sizes in the customary system and it was only just short of the last post when we finally got near the actual reason for the absurd sizes the lumber is marked vs the size it actually is when purchase.



gaston said:


> I dislike the metric system, but use what system needed to get the job done.
> as for the " building materials , when was the last time you measured a "2x4" ?  it hasnt been a 2x4 for a long time , also a sheet of 1/2" plywood is no longer 1/2" thick its sized metric in thickness only the  4x8 still applys so like it or not the metrics are sneaking up on us!





Downwindtracker2 said:


> I'm not old enough , I'm 68, to remember when a 2x4 was 2" x 4" . They say it was before planeing. I don't know about that,we cut as close to 3 1/2" x 1 1/2" as we could, when I worked in a sawmill. I do remember 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" . In fact I'm able to get something of a date on a shop built shaper by it's 2x4 and angle iron stand.



These left me going a bit nuts. I may have looked into woodworking a biiiiit too much for it to be healthy...



Bob Korves said:


> 2 x 4 boards were once rough cut 2" by 4".  They were brought to finished size from there.  I have measured old stock 2" boards that were finished at 1 3/4", five decades ago.  Later, I saw 1 5/8", and now 1 1/2" on a good day, with green wood.  None of those numbers were exact, and no two boards seem to dry to exactly the same size even if they were cut to identical sizes.  What you measure is what you have.  Work with it!



Thankfully Bob saved what little sanity I came here with. 

Rough cut at the size it's marked in the store, but finishing work and drying shrink them down at a relatively predictable rate. However, Downwind2 is right in that the sizes have gotten smaller for the post-processed, post-dried state, but only when it's green is it the actual nominal size. Traditional Japanese length measurements, still used for some of their current construction, and definitely used for all of their temple maintenance, is almost as insane as our customary measurement system. The base unit is the Shaku. For smaller units, it's fine where you divide by ten for each smaller unit, but going the other way ... next size up is 6 shaku, after that, the next unit is 10 shaku, after that is 360, and after that is 12,960 ...

The customary system drives me nuts, but at least we're not measuring things as stones, chains, or butts for the most part. Although you can still ask someone how many furlongs to the hogshead their car gets ... although I'm not sure if that volume would be that used for claret, port, sherry, madeira, or beer, as they are all different... So uh, it could be worse, I guess...


----------



## RJSakowski

I live in a 100+year old house.  A 2 x 4  measures 1-5/8" x 3-1/2", a 2 x 8 measures 1-5/8" x 7-1/2", and a 4 x 4 measures 3-1/2" x 3-1/2". 1" boards measure around 7/8" in thickness.  There is a strong likelihood that the lumber was purchased from Sears & Roebuck as there is a persistent rumor that the house was a Sears & Roebuck house (I had met the builder of the house and he was the father of the person that I bought the property from).

The barn was built in 1906 and is of post and beam construction with 4 x 4's measuring 3-3/4" x 3-3/4".  The granary is most likely 19th century and also of post and beam construction with rough cut lumber cut with a circular saw rather than band saw and measuring the full 2" x 4" and 4" x 4".  Square cut nails were used in its construction

Other construction lumber on the property measures 1-3/4" x 3-3/4" but is obviously reclaimed from old nail holes and the stripes from lath and plaster so no way of positively dating it.

I recall 1-9/16" x 3-1/2" 2x4's when I first started remodeling in the 1960's.


----------



## Latinrascalrg1

Old post with a very interesting  Old Pirate story that had a direct effect on this little hobby we share, how cool is that!


----------

