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: jmfbahciv on 13 Feb 2010 10:02 J. Clarke wrote: > 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. The reason that 3-jaw chuck exists is to adapt to any system: US, si or Sears. > > 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. > Thus, the specification of the drills included adapting to any size. The reason for the generic is becuase there were more than one flavor. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Feb 2010 10:04 Michael Stemper wrote: > 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. > <grin> My complaint about the EE world is everything is based on bassackwards w.r.t. charge. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Feb 2010 10:08 On Feb 12, 8:02 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > My assertion is not a metaphor here. It's entirely literal: Americans > > now feel they must apologise for having a 'backward' system of > > measure. > > I'm an American and I have never felt the need to apologize. Well, that's because you're a woman and so never feel the need to apologise. Oh, here we go again. I've used both systems. You, obviously, have not. > Why do you? _I_ don't, obviously! But you just stated that you do feel you have apologize. Your whole theme is based on your unwillingness to do that action. /BAH
From: J. Clarke on 13 Feb 2010 11:12 jmfbahciv wrote: > J. Clarke wrote: >> 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. > > The reason that 3-jaw chuck exists is to adapt to any system: US, si > or Sears. No, it's to let you use the same drill with a tiny little bit or a great big huge bit. The other option is to make the bit with a standard sized shank, which means that the bits will all have steps in them, which makes them more expensive to manufacture. >> 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. >> > Thus, the specification of the drills included adapting to any size. > The reason for the generic is becuase there were more than one flavor. Exercise--go down to Home Depot and look at the drill bits and think about what they would have to look like if 3-jaw chucks that could take any size were not in widespread use. Note that there are very small ones and very big ones and ones in between. Then think about how such a thing would be made. Then think about why anybody in his right mind would make them that way if there was another option. Then tell us whether you still think that the existence of 3-jaw chucks has anything to do with metric vs inch. You usually come across as a very sensible person but on this particular issue you're way off base.
From: Andrew Usher on 13 Feb 2010 12:14
Matt wrote: > >Everyone knows that only SI units > >are proper so that should be 7874 kg/m^3'. > > First, let's talk about those 'proper' SI units. <snip> I assume he's satirising SI, not defending it! Andrew Usher |