The metric system sucks
in [Math]
|
Prev: connecting Luminet-Poincare Dodecahedral Space with AP-Reverse -Concavity for 10% #379 Correcting Math
Next: Cantor's Diagonal?
From: J. Clarke on 12 Feb 2010 09:57 jmfbahciv wrote: > Andrew Usher wrote: >> Bob Myers wrote: >> >>>> Drills already have interchangeable bits, >>> Ah, another person who's never seen the inside of >>> a machine shop... >> >> OK, perhaps I didn't use the right terminology; I used that which I >> am familiar. Nevertheless, my point stands that you don't normally >> need a different machine for each different size of drilling. > > Now ask the question why that is so. I'm not sure I see the point of this particular discussion. Most drills have three-jaw chucks that don't really require much of the drill bit other than that it be round and not so big that it won't fit in the hole or so small that the jaws won't close on it (typically about a 20:1 range). Certainly no drill press I have owned or worked with has had any trouble with bits that are fractional inch sizes, metric sizes, or sizes that are pretty much arbitrary. There are machines that require bits with tapered shanks or that use collets that require shanks of a specified dimension and form, or that require threaded shanks, but they are relatively rare--most drilling is done with the bits secured in a 3-jaw chuck and 3-jaw chucks are measurement-system agnostic. Now if you're dealing with very small drills, circuit board drills, and the like, they do often have a standard shank diameter, mainly because their small diameter would make them difficult to handle otherwise (like you'd need tweezers and a magnifier to change bits) and there the measurement system does matter, but swapping out a collet takes seconds.
From: Bob Myers on 12 Feb 2010 11:29 Andrew Usher wrote: > Bob Myers wrote: > >>> Drills already have interchangeable bits, >> >> Ah, another person who's never seen the inside of >> a machine shop... > > OK, perhaps I didn't use the right terminology; I used that which I am > familiar. Nevertheless, my point stands that you don't normally need a > different machine for each different size of drilling. > > And honestly you must know that. Right - but the point, which you keep ignoring, was that as long as there as two such redundant systems in use, shops need to keep two complete sets of such tooling in place and maintained, for no particularly good reason. Bob M.
From: Michael Stemper on 12 Feb 2010 13:02 In article <joo1n55f1f4is2notocvi6elvku27ar5q9(a)4ax.com>, Matt <30days(a)net.net> writes: >On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:39:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >Electricity and fields don't care what units we use. > >The engineers who design the equipment may care; or they may be more >interested in the project than a religious war about systems of units. Of course, all electrical engineering units are metric. Volts are joules/coulomb, and a joule is a kg-m^2/s^2. An Ampere is (or was) defined in terms of Newtons of force per meter on conductors separated by one meter. No pounds, slugs, or BTUs involved. >They may dismiss the metric crusaders as noise. Electrical engineering is already metric. We look with pity upon our brother (and sister) mechanical engineers, who through no fault of their own, still need to deal with BTUs and Farenheit degrees. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Life's too important to take seriously.
From: toby on 12 Feb 2010 18:24 On Feb 3, 12:04 am, "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >"Bart Goddard" <goddar...(a)netscape.net> wrote in message > >news:Xns9D13CCB0DF19Egoddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.81... > > "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote in > >news:tC4an.64378$PH1.2203(a)edtnps82: > > >> He prefers the metric. It's easier to learn and easier to use. > >> I also prefer metric for those same reasons. > > > Which is also a reason for choosing Cosmetology school > > over Engineering. > > > B. > > <chuckle> ...and lots of folks do just that. A good question > to ask is, "How do you get the most using the least amount of > energy?" If cosmetology earns one an adequate living, and it > requires less energy and effort, then why not? Because you'd rather be doing something else? > > Haven't you noticed that those who earn the most conserve > the most energy? Being an energy efficient person can be > rather quite profitable. ;-) > > Heidi
From: Andrew Usher on 12 Feb 2010 18:25
On Feb 12, 12:02 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > In article <joo1n55f1f4is2notocvi6elvku27ar...(a)4ax.com>, Matt <30d...(a)net.net> writes: > >On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:39:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > >Electricity and fields don't care what units we use. > > >The engineers who design the equipment may care; or they may be more > >interested in the project than a religious war about systems of units. > > Of course, all electrical engineering units are metric. Volts are > joules/coulomb, and a joule is a kg-m^2/s^2. An Ampere is (or was) > defined in terms of Newtons of force per meter on conductors separated > by one meter. The electrical units, as I mentioned in my essay (Secs. IV, VII), can't be called fully metric as they depend on one arbitrary unit that wasn't originally metric. Of course, then, SI co-opted them to hide that. Anyway, that comment you replied to related to the invention of the Internet. The creation of the Internet was a software and systems issues, and did not depend at all on the units the hardware was made in. > >They may dismiss the metric crusaders as noise. > > Electrical engineering is already metric. We look with pity upon our > brother (and sister) mechanical engineers, who through no fault of > their own, still need to deal with BTUs and Farenheit degrees. Because obviously non-metric units can't possibly be suitable for anything. Meters, kilograms, joules, Kelvin were handed down on Mount Sinai according to you people! Andrew Usher |