Metric System or American Standard System?

#1
VOLatile

VOLatile

BRB Pooping
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
14,621
Likes
805
#1
Which do prefer?


1/4-20 or M6 x 1.0P?

Would you willingly convert if American companies decided to go full Metric?
 
#3
#3
Metric owns for all conversions and work-relayed activities.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
We would really benefit by going to Metric like the rest of the world.

Okay...maybe not benefit but I see no negative in converting other than people who adamantly oppose change would fuss about it for a few years and then everyone would think nothing of it.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
Metric is incredibly simple. Everything I've built in the last year has been built with metric standards.

I get old guys and rednecks that come in every day at work, need me to get them a bolt, and then proceed complain because their John Deere or Ford is being taken over by Europeans.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
I was in the 1st grade in 1979 and the teacher was telling us that we would be switching over to metric in a couple of years. The rumor at the time was that Reagan stopped it, but since I am now aware of how liberals lie, I'm not sure what the deal was on that.
 
#12
#12
VOLatile said:
Brits measure weight in Stones... still can't grasp that one.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand what is meant when they say somebody "weighs" in kilograms. Its a unit of mass, not weight.

American Units:
Weight: Pounds
Mass: Slug

Metric:
Weight: Stones or Newtons
Mass: Grams
 
#14
#14
rjd970 said:
I still don't understand what is meant when they say somebody "weighs" in kilograms. Its a unit of mass, not weight.

American Units:
Weight: Pounds
Mass: Slug

Metric:
Weight: Stones or Newtons
Mass: Grams
Click to expand...

Do we really have to be that technical? I mean seriously.

It is universally understood what is meant.
 
#15
#15
Rasputin_Vol said:
Do we really have to be that technical? I mean seriously.

It is universally understood what is meant.
Click to expand...

This is why the metric system makes more sense, it just needs to be used correctly.

The american system is really screwed up. Try reading about it and figuring it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)

Kilogram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this a pound can be a measurement of mass or force (weight), a kilogram, however, is strictly mass.

Regardless, open any science book and it will say kilogram and slug are units of mass, pound and newton are units of force (weight).
 
#16
#16
Whats the conversion factor? Something like 2.2 lbs = 1 kg? I weigh 170 lbs or roughly 85 kilograms. If I were on the moon that conversion doesn't work.
 
#17
#17
rjd970 said:
Whats the conversion factor? Something like 2.2 lbs = 1 kg? I weigh 170 lbs or roughly 85 kilograms. If I were on the moon that conversion doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Right, because weight and mass are not the same thing. You would still be 85 kg on the moon, but weigh less than 170 lbs because the moon's gravity is less that earth's.
 
#18
#18
rjd970 said:
Regardless, open any science book and it will say kilogram and slug are units of mass, pound and newton are units of force (weight).
Click to expand...

:banghead2:


Missed my point completely. I'm an engineer, so I'm aware of the difference from a technical sense.

But for practical purposes, most people really see the difference as a nuiance. 99% of what we care about will be measured on Earth and have 9.8 m/s^2 as the acceleration due to gravity as a given. When someone says it "weighs" 60 kg, I'm not sitting there wondering what they are talking about or dazed/confused.

The same thing with acceleration. There is a technical definition and the common interpretation.
 
#19
#19
Rasputin_Vol said:
:banghead2:


Missed my point completely. I'm an engineer, so I'm aware of the difference from a technical sense.

But for practical purposes, most people really see the difference as a nuiance. 99% of what we care about will be measured on Earth and have 9.8 m/s^2 as the acceleration due to gravity as a given. When someone says it "weighs" 60 kg, I'm not sitting there wondering what they are talking about or dazed/confused.

The same thing with acceleration. There is a technical definition and the common interpretation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If you are living playing and working below the troposphere and above the aesthenosphere, it's semantics.
 
#20
#20
Rasputin_Vol said:
:banghead2:


Missed my point completely. I'm an engineer, so I'm aware of the difference from a technical sense.

But for practical purposes, most people really see the difference as a nuiance. 99% of what we care about will be measured on Earth and have 9.8 m/s^2 as the acceleration due to gravity as a given. When someone says it "weighs" 60 kg, I'm not sitting there wondering what they are talking about or dazed/confused.

The same thing with acceleration. There is a technical definition and the common interpretation.
Click to expand...

I understand, and I know what is meant as well. I'm just saying it isn't accurate and don't understand why the correct terminology isn't used.
 
#22
#22
Metric. A thousand times, metric. There's only one thing I hate about America, the American Standard measuring. Hate it. I must deal with both systems at work on a regular basis.
 
#23
#23
rjd970 said:
I understand, and I know what is meant as well. I'm just saying it isn't accurate and don't understand why the correct terminology isn't used.
Click to expand...

Would it be more helpful if they said "at sea level and 1 atm" after every boxing match weigh in?
 
#24
#24
Nerd Fight!

nerd_fight_napoleon.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc
#25
#25
I had a drafting/CAD professor a while back who gave me crap because I only did my projects in metric. He just couldn't see the fuuuuutuuuuure.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement













Back
Top