3 ms·

I've been slowing learning the imperial measurement system and I would say that it's now natural to me in a very limited sense. I grew up in Australia using th

I've been slowing learning the imperial measurement system and I would say that it's now natural to me in a very limited sense. I grew up in Australia using the metric system. As a child, it was (and probably still is) common to throw around estimates in inches or yards, but anything precise was expressed in in mm or meters. So I've always had a sense of how big and inch or two is but like the presenter, for anything bigger I'd need to perform a quick conversions back to my natural metric measurements to understand what was meant. I'm also a woodworker and use many vintage tools, produced before the world adopted metric. I decided long ago that I would these tools as they were designed to be used and not try to mess with metric, too. At the time, I had no intuition at all about fractions of an inch. I didn't even know that 8ths and 16ths where how they were divided. I literally had no idea. I needed to pull out my maths brain to tell you whether 7/8 or 5/16 was bigger. I used imperial measurements almost exclusively while woodworking in my shed. This was possible because I don't need to communicate measures to anyone other than myself. I also don't often need to take measurements of odd things that don't fall nicely onto an imperial ruler. I'm now comfortable using inches for measuring things up to maybe 100" — I wonder if 100 is only an obvious stopping point because of my metric upbringing — I still have no concept of a mile or yard before converting to metric. But I do still do use metric when I need a precise measure of something that can't be expressed easily in inches. So I'd use 12" rather than 304mm, but I'd use 300mm rather than 11 and whatever inches. Also, it's made easier due to a lot of hangover in stock wood dimensions. It still comes in thicknesses that are more naturally expressed in inches, for example 19mm (3/4"), 25mm (1"). I've been working this way for about 10 years and can now think in inches without any conversion. I doubt I could flip all units of measure to imperial without changing the world I live in and the people I work with.

mvdtnz 3y ago
How is 3/4" any more or less "naturally expressed" than 19mm?
- resonator 3y ago
  Dividing it by two gives you 3/8 rather than 9.5mm. Dividing it by 4 gives you 3/16 rather than 4.75mm. Both 3/8 and 3/16 are common sizes. You can drill holes cut grooves this size. You can use your 3/8 chisel to quickly find the centerline. It's not like you can't do any of this with the metric system, but you'll either need to measure things more, or round things. Often rounding is fine, but to me it feels like a compromise that is born out of the measuring system; a compromise that isn't needed when using the imperial system.
  - avmich 3y ago
    It's like suddenly listening to an unfamiliar language. "Dividing it by two gives you 3/8 rather than 9.5mm." - so? What's wrong with 9.5 mm? And what's going to happen when you divide by three, not two? "It's not like you can't do any of this with the metric system, but you'll either need to measure things more, or round things." - won't you need to round things in any positional system when you divide in not a divider of the base of the system - that is, in imperial system the base is 2, and you have convenient halfs, quarters, eights... and in metric the base is 10 and it's convenient to divide by 2, 5 and all combinations of 2s and 5s - like 50 or even 125. In your example, 3/4 is 0.75, and divided by 2 is 0.375, and for quick estimate for what it would be in inches you take an inch as 25 mm and go from it. Don't see anything natural in one compared to the other.
    - resonator 3y ago
      > What's wrong with 9.5 mm? As a number, well nothing. I'm not saying there are anything wrong with the numbers, I'm saying that with a standard set of imperial or metric tools, you're more likely to find your imperial tools working with with you. > And what's going to happen when you divide by three, not two? Well dividing by three will be 1/4". That's another common imperial size. But to answer the point I think you were trying to make, there are sometimes cases where it isn't natural — like dividing 3/4 by 5. In those cases you need to measure or pull out of divider. Your problems don't all disappear when using imperial but I find that more often the perfect dimension happens to be that of a commonly size tool. > Don't see anything natural in one compared to the other. I think you're arguing from the perspective of pure numbers verses the practicality of making something with tools that I own. If I was using CAD, it metric or imperial would make zero difference.

mvdtnz 3y ago

How is 3/4" any more or less "naturally expressed" than 19mm?

resonator 3y ago
Dividing it by two gives you 3/8 rather than 9.5mm. Dividing it by 4 gives you 3/16 rather than 4.75mm. Both 3/8 and 3/16 are common sizes. You can drill holes cut grooves this size. You can use your 3/8 chisel to quickly find the centerline. It's not like you can't do any of this with the metric system, but you'll either need to measure things more, or round things. Often rounding is fine, but to me it feels like a compromise that is born out of the measuring system; a compromise that isn't needed when using the imperial system.
- avmich 3y ago
  It's like suddenly listening to an unfamiliar language. "Dividing it by two gives you 3/8 rather than 9.5mm." - so? What's wrong with 9.5 mm? And what's going to happen when you divide by three, not two? "It's not like you can't do any of this with the metric system, but you'll either need to measure things more, or round things." - won't you need to round things in any positional system when you divide in not a divider of the base of the system - that is, in imperial system the base is 2, and you have convenient halfs, quarters, eights... and in metric the base is 10 and it's convenient to divide by 2, 5 and all combinations of 2s and 5s - like 50 or even 125. In your example, 3/4 is 0.75, and divided by 2 is 0.375, and for quick estimate for what it would be in inches you take an inch as 25 mm and go from it. Don't see anything natural in one compared to the other.
  - resonator 3y ago
    > What's wrong with 9.5 mm? As a number, well nothing. I'm not saying there are anything wrong with the numbers, I'm saying that with a standard set of imperial or metric tools, you're more likely to find your imperial tools working with with you. > And what's going to happen when you divide by three, not two? Well dividing by three will be 1/4". That's another common imperial size. But to answer the point I think you were trying to make, there are sometimes cases where it isn't natural — like dividing 3/4 by 5. In those cases you need to measure or pull out of divider. Your problems don't all disappear when using imperial but I find that more often the perfect dimension happens to be that of a commonly size tool. > Don't see anything natural in one compared to the other. I think you're arguing from the perspective of pure numbers verses the practicality of making something with tools that I own. If I was using CAD, it metric or imperial would make zero difference.