- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tell me why Imperial is better than the Metric system
Posted on 10/23/24 at 3:56 pm to RedRifle
Posted on 10/23/24 at 3:56 pm to RedRifle
Pretty much all of my carpentry and mechanics tools are imperial. It would cost a fortune to replace them with metric.
And I worked my entire career in a metric-based science lab (Chemistry. physics, microbiology), or over a metric-based operation so I can think in both and convert easily from one to the other.
And I worked my entire career in a metric-based science lab (Chemistry. physics, microbiology), or over a metric-based operation so I can think in both and convert easily from one to the other.
0
Posted on 10/24/24 at 7:36 am to RedRifle
If God had wanted us to use the metric system, there would have been ten disciples.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 8:08 am to RedRifle
I just think it’s so neat that a meter cubed of water is 1000 kg. So clean and simple. Meanwhile, a cubic foot of water is 62.41 pounds, which makes clearly renders any calculations more difficult.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 8:10 am to Stinger_1066
quote:that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
They used both.
But guess they pulled it off
This post was edited on 10/24/24 at 8:11 am
Posted on 10/24/24 at 8:36 am to RedRifle
quote:
Tell me why Imperial is better than the Metric system
It’s not, but a micro penis in metric would be much smaller.
This post was edited on 10/24/24 at 8:38 am
Posted on 10/24/24 at 8:39 am to RedRifle
Kilometers are worthless.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 9:46 am to RedRifle
And have the woman say you must be 1.8 tall?
Posted on 10/24/24 at 9:48 am to dgnx6
If we're going to switch to anything it should be using nautical miles for distance.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 9:48 am to cgrand
quote:
literally ANY system of measure is usable when building something.
ok, let me re-phrase.
Metric is only broken down into factors of 10. Fractions of a cm (other than mm which is in 10ths and 10ths only) or mm is not available on a tape measure. And if you go with the next 10 factor down to micrometers, it's too small to read on a standard tape measure and you now need to buy special tools to measure. If the thing you're measuring is several feet (meters) long, then that special tool is ridiculously expensive.
Whereas even the most basic tape measure is broken down into 16th and 32nds is not uncommon.
1/32nd of an inch is a lot more precise than "um I guess about a count hair past this particular mm line"
quote:
if i handed you a tape measure marked in quatloos, and pointed to a pile of lumber and asked you to cut me 10 boards exactly 12.25 quatloos long, you could easily do it, no intuition or other guidance necessary.
does that quatloo tape measure have increments of .25 marked?
or do I have to just guess how far past the whole number is .25?
just asking, because metric measuring tapes are only marked in increments of
1
0.1
that's it. no other options.
and if you break it down into anything other than 10ths, it loses the "easy" factor that everyone touts as the main reason to use it.
regular imperial tape measures are marked in:
1
0.0625 (16ths)
0.125 (8ths)
0.25 (4ths)
0.5 (2nds)
and you can readily buy one marked all the way down to 0.03125 (32nds).
11' 10-3/16" (142-3/16" as marked on the tape measure) is equal to 361.15262cm. but your tape measure is only marked 361.1 and you have to guess at the .05262 part.
And if you need to be more precise, a $10.00 measure can get you to 142-7/32" which is 361.235625cm. so now you have to guess at the .035625 part.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 10:09 am to Helo
quote:
So I measure out 4' 8 13/32 inches.
a lot more precise than 143.2 and um, well I guess roughly that much space past that 2nd mm line.
quote:
I need to back off 2 1/2 inches for offset
a lot easier than backing off 6.3cm and that looks like about half a mm
quote:
Then add back 1/8 for a reveal?
easier than 3 and maybe that's about an 1/8th of a mm or so.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 10:38 am to Penrod
quote:
It’s not; the metric system is far superior.
as long as what you need to measure falls on something exactly divisible by 10. and you never need to find exactly 1/4 of it.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 11:07 am to Tarps99
quote:
For scientific purposes, metric is best, but for every day use, imperial is better since it is a base 12 and your mind processes 12 better.
is it base 12? sure 12 inches in a foot, but inches are in 16ths.
Do we process it faster?? Quick which is bigger:
1. 17/64 or 1/4
2. 1mm or 2mm
Which one did you know the answer to fastest?
For general purposes, like construction, you dont need a granularity finer than 1mm. The same problem exists in imperial when you need to figure out that X of some measurement is 4 inches and 29/32nds. When we need fine granularity we operate in thousanths and hundreths anyway which is switching back to base 10 because its easier than fractional representations.
This post was edited on 10/24/24 at 11:14 am
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News