Metric?

[WotEver]

48 minutes ago, Jerra said:

... it really is time the country got into the 21st Century and stopped faffing about with one and a half 1.5 systems of measurement

Fixed

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

 

Not even using your calculator?!!

[rusty69]

Thank gawd for the decimel system. 

 

Royale with cheese anyone? 

[Jerra]

Just now, WotEver said:

Fixed

ROFLMAO

[mrsmelly]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Not even using your calculator?!!

I aint got one onboard  and mi fones flat...............

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, mayalld said:

As a counterpoint to the Decimal is best example;

If I sell something for £100 including VAT @20% what is the Nett and VAT

• In £sd
• In decimal

Sometimes decimal isn't best!

 

£100/1.2 = £83.33

Therefore the ex VAT sale was £83.33 and the VAT was £17.67, pennies rounded. 

 

 

 

Edit to remove the duplicate worms.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[Jerra]

16 minutes ago, mayalld said:

4d = 0.25s

Is there something wrong with my memory or my maths?

12 pence in a Shilling means that 4d =0.33 (recurring) of a Shilling

3d would be 0.25 Shillings

[rusty69]

And you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?

They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?

No, they got the metric system there, they wouldn't know what the f*** a Quarter Pounder is.

What'd they call it?

They call it Royale with Cheese.

Royale with Cheese. What'd they call a Big Mac?

Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it Le Big Mac.

Le big Mac! Ahhaha, what do they call a Whopper?

I dunno, I didn't go into a Burger King. But you know what they put on french fries in Holland instead of ketchup?

What?

Mayonnaise.

[WotEver]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Is there something wrong with my memory or my maths?

12 pence in a Shilling means that 4d =0.33 (recurring) of a Shilling

3d would be 0.25 Shillings

Your memory is better than Dave's

24 minutes ago, mayalld said:

OK, and breaking it down into steps that can be easily done in the head

First convert to Shillings;

£17 x 20 = 340s

4d = 0.25s

so, our starting amount is 353.25s

... etc  

So... you decimalise it in order to calculate 20%...

nuff said. 

[dor]

Another interesting anomaly is that timber is still sold, by length, in "metric feet".  I.e. Lengths are in multiples of 30cm;  2.4m, 2.7m etc.  So even though your 4 x 2 is now 100 x 50, the length is still basically measured in feet.

[Jerra]

26 minutes ago, dor said:

Another interesting anomaly is that timber is still sold, by length, in "metric feet".  I.e. Lengths are in multiples of 30cm;  2.4m, 2.7m etc.  So even though your 4 x 2 is now 100 x 50, the length is still basically measured in feet.

No it it is measured in metric but happens to be sold for the convenience of old fashioned buyers in multiples of 30cm to equate roughly to feet.

Just as a lot of canned goods and bottled goods are given weights/volumes in strange metric numbers, because they haven't changed the machinery and so just put on the metric conversion of the weight the machine packs.

[monkeyhanger]

1 hour ago, Robbo said:

Did it actually say kph?  As that isnt a recognised speed measurement.

Yes.

[David Schweizer]

1 hour ago, dor said:

Another interesting anomaly is that timber is still sold, by length, in "metric feet".  I.e. Lengths are in multiples of 30cm;  2.4m, 2.7m etc.  So even though your 4 x 2 is now 100 x 50, the length is still basically measured in feet.

Not where I buy my timber it isn't, they stock it in random lengths - trees don't grow in neat convenient metric heights! You just cut off whatever length you require, but they do charge in multiples of 10cm.

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by David Schweizer

[monkeyhanger]

55 minutes ago, dor said:

Another interesting anomaly is that timber is still sold, by length, in "metric feet".  I.e. Lengths are in multiples of 30cm;  2.4m, 2.7m etc.  So even though your 4 x 2 is now 100 x 50, the length is still basically measured in feet.

I was very annoyed one day when I went to a timber merchant to buy a metre of very expensive hardwood, only to be told that I couldn't buy a metre, I had to buy 4 metric feet. I offered to buy only one metre length and pay for 4 metric feet so as not to waste the timber, but they wouldn't let me. I got the one metre of timber I wanted, with a large extra piece attached, which became very expensive firewood.

[nb Innisfree]

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

Very probably but it is indicative of the way some people desperately hang on to an outdated and clumsy system.

It's not about any sort of logic, it's about magic, the magic of going down the pub to have a 'pint',  no other word will complete that magic. 

For me that is. 

Edited June 9, 2017 by nb Innisfree

[Robbo]

2 hours ago, monkeyhanger said:

Yes.

It's not quite clear speed measurement then as it could mean knots per hour and as been on water this is what I would regard it to be.

The standard for kilometres per hour is km/h and for knots is kn or kt 

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Robbo

[MtB]

6 hours ago, nb Innisfree said:

It's not about any sort of logic, it's about magic, the magic of going down the pub to have a 'pint',  no other word will complete that magic. 

For me that is. 

 

Oh dear, you've put your foot in it now...

[MtB]

5 hours ago, Robbo said:

It's not quite clear speed measurement then as it could mean knots per hour and as been on water this is what I would regard it to be.

The standard for kilometres per hour is km/h and for knots is kn or kt 

 

 

Point of Order M'Lud...

A "knot" is already a unit of speed, so doesn't need "per hour" tagged onto it.

One knot is defined as one nautical mile per hour, so "knots per hour" would be a unit of acceleration, and is more or less meaningless in the world of boating. A bit like "Amps per hour" in electrical engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit)

 

[Robbo]

35 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Point of Order M'Lud...

A "knot" is already a unit of speed, so doesn't need "per hour" tagged onto it.

One knot is defined as one nautical mile per hour, so "knots per hour" would be a unit of acceleration, and is more or less meaningless in the world of boating. A bit like "Amps per hour" in electrical engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit)

 

I know that's why I said the abbreviation for knots is kn. 

[mross]

11 hours ago, Jerra said:

I was also being educated in the north and then teaching in the north.  Fascinating the north should be so progressive.

I suspect you will see more and more use of metric measures as it really is time the country got into the 21st Century and stopped faffing about with one and a half systems of measurement. One and a half as we are basically metricated apart from the emotional attachment to pints of beer and the use of miles because too many "old farts" won't make the change.

Yes, the difference was minute and only significant in large or precision items.  http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/on-what-basis-is-one-inch-exactly-equal-to-25.4-mm-has-the-imperial-inch-been-adjusted-to-give-this-exact-fit-and-if-so-when-(faq-length)

[X Alan W]

It seems to be a needs must,some are keen to expand their knowledge, some couldn't care lees or want to change, when I first started boating some of the old boaters were very limited in their ability in regard to reading /writing, but I never met one who couldn't workout money /change,deduct scores from totals in games of darts & be as quick as the best in domino games.

[howardang]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Point of Order M'Lud...

A "knot" is already a unit of speed, so doesn't need "per hour" tagged onto it.

One knot is defined as one nautical mile per hour, so "knots per hour" would be a unit of acceleration, and is more or less meaningless in the world of boating. A bit like "Amps per hour" in electrical engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit)

 

Ah- but is that an Imperial Hour or a Metric Hour?

 

Howard

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I completely agree. Metric is way easier than imperial but that doesnt make it better. If we excercise our brains more they work better. Many youngsters today dont use theirs and cannot now even add in metric without their calculator or " Hand held device "

Same argument could be use to weave or knit one's own cloth and sew one's own clothing - or raise, slaughter and butcher your own meat or . . . 

One of the things said about the election was that for some it was about voting for hope, hope that the future might just be better than the past.

Me, basically a mathematician/scientist/theologian, I really do hope that our collective endeavours do move our collective knowledge forward and that engineering uses the knowledge to build better mousetraps.

In regard to measurement systems it is not only a choice between imperial (!) and metric, but also which metric system is more consistent. 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, mross said:

Yes, the difference was minute and only significant in large or precision items.  http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/on-what-basis-is-one-inch-exactly-equal-to-25.4-mm-has-the-imperial-inch-been-adjusted-to-give-this-exact-fit-and-if-so-when-(faq-length)

There are (or rather were) inches and inches...Like Hanoverian inches, Viennese inches etc.

It's not just academic. I have a Hanoverian muzzle-loader rifle and a Viennese revolver. Both made to inch dimensions. In mm the sizes are weird. For instance, the barrel length of my M. 70/74 Gasser revolver is 184.4 mm - very odd - or 7.26" (imperial) - no it's not supposed to be 7-1/4"!
In fact, it is 7.000 VIENNESE INCHES.
Of course, you need to know that the Viennese inch (used until 1871) was 26.3401mm. Divided into 12 lines of 2.195mm. Which in their turn were divided into 12 points of 0.182917mm.

Armed with this knowledge, a pocket calculator, and a bit of patience, the oddball cylinder diameter of 48.32mm becomes a straightforward 1inch 10 lines - Viennese!

Fortunately, mid-19th C. European gunmakers appear to have used mostly Whitworth threads, at least for serious items like breech plugs and barrel threads. This was, of course, before the Americans had a bad attack of the "not invented here" syndrome and came up with Sellers threads to confuse the rest of the world.

There is even a discrepancy between the 'Enfield Inch' and the 'Imperial Inch' - it is not a lot, but just enough to stop threads working properly. As the taps & dies for the Enfield Inch are now like rocking horse poo, they generally get 'cleaned up' using BA taps & dies. By the 1940's  Enfield rifles used BA & Whitworth threads, and the 'Imperial Inch'.

As an example an Enfield Inch bolt of 0.144" x 37 tpi was replaced by 4BA (0.1417" x 38.5 tpi) on later models.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, howardang said:

Ah- but is that an Imperial Hour or a Metric Hour?

 

Howard

Depends on the time of day. Imperial days were much longer just after sundown.