Spanners for tools

pesky_jones

I deal with imperial measurements a lot at work. I work with drawings that were done in 1950, so nothing you can do. Network rail still use chains in their current documents. Basically I agree with what Stubbs just said

rockmonkeysc

I was reminded just how much better metric is for engineering last week.
I wrote two excel calculator tools for checking shaft twist and key length. The imperial version took twice as long to write because of all the conversion factors I had to put in.

pesky_jones

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I was reminded just how much better metric is for engineering last week.
I wrote two excel calculator tools for checking shaft twist and key length. The imperial version took twice as long to write because of all the conversion factors I had to put in.

Probably because the programme will have been built in metric as a default. You could build the same programme to deal with imperial as default. We use stress programmes that have capability to go between one and the other.

Angus Young

ilovedirt wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

As far as I know, the USA is the only first world country to not have gone metric. Its about time they moved in to the twentieth century.

It irritates the fark out of me that we still use imperial a lot though - distance, speed etc. in cars. Many people still measure in feet and inches and use lbs and stone for measuring weight etc. We went metric years ago, why are people still using imperial?

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I know what you're saying. We should be using km not miles on our road signs.
I work in the water industry and pipes etc are still in imperial sizes which annoys me. I still see a lot of imperial ACME threads on new valves. Occasionally I see threads with metric diameter and imperial pitch.

Is metric 'better', then?

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I was reminded just how much better metric is for engineering last week.
I wrote two excel calculator tools for checking shaft twist and key length. The imperial version took twice as long to write because of all the conversion factors I had to put in.

How is that 'proof' that metric is better for engineering? That's just proof that your software couldn't handle it. As an engineer I'd have thought you'd have been more precise in your evaluation than that.

rockmonkeysc

Nothing to do with the software. Metric formulae are just much cleaner, everything works without conversion factors.
Even at a basic level, if you measure a bar at 32mm, it's 32mm and thats all there is to it. In imperial you need to remember what all the fractions are in decimal, as a simple one a 1.875" bar you need to remember is also 1 7/8" because someone decided that eighths are a sensible unit and it gets worse when you get to 32nds. None of your measuring instruments display fractions so you need to know them all but with metric, what you read is all there is to it

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Nothing to do with the software. Metric formulae are just much cleaner, everything works without conversion factors.
Even at a basic level, if you measure a bar at 32mm, it's 32mm and thats all there is to it. In imperial you need to remember what all the fractions are in decimal, as a simple one a 1.875" bar you need to remember is also 1 7/8" because someone decided that eighths are a sensible unit and it gets worse when you get to 32nds. None of your measuring instruments display fractions so you need to know them all but with metric, what you read is all there is to it

So, it's back to conversion again rather than any intrinsic reason why metric is better than imperial.

cooldad

Would seem obvious to me, much as I hate agreeing with Rockmonkey, that basing everything on tens is a hell of a lot more sensible than measuring in fractions, rocks, etc.

Plus your obvious sounds much bigger measured in cm.

Angus Young

cooldad wrote:

Would seem obvious to me, much as I hate agreeing with Rockmonkey, that basing everything on tens is a hell of a lot more sensible than measuring in fractions, rocks, etc.

Plus your obvious sounds much bigger measured in cm.

Well I like km because you appear to get every where quicker when you drive on the continent. And it is odd that we buy our petrol by the litre yet measure its use by the gallon.

rockmonkeysc

I like rock climbing in feet. My local crag is 450 feet, 150 metres just doesn't sound as impressive.

cooldad

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I like rock climbing in feet. My local crag is 450 feet, 150 metres just doesn't sound as impressive.

But 150,000mm does.
Especially to people who still use stones and cubits.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I like rock climbing in feet. My local crag is 450 feet, 150 metres just doesn't sound as impressive.

Ha, ha, yes. If you can tell someone that the climb was a thousand feet it wows them way more than 300 metres. And when I tell someone that doesn't know anything about diving that we go to 45 metres (we talk in metres) I always add "... and that's about a hundred and fifty feet!"

Ferrals

Angus Young wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Yep, that's what I mean, even where these might be useful they still seem badly executed. A really good carbon tool could possibly be useful, a shoot tool's shoot whatever it's made of.

(but re cold weather I wasn't referring to embrittling of the tools, just working in cold- one thing if you're a fully equipped cold climate engineer, another if you're winging it or lightweighting it, some sort of "adventurer" or similiar, tools that don't get stuck to your hands or suck heat out of you are probably useful. Polar explorers and early mountaineers used a lot of wooden and bone kit where normally you'd use metal for the same reason.

see also: Spaceships

But these are designed for none of the above. Their sole purpose is to part those who value bling over function from their excess cash.

I might bring out a range of wood, leather, bone and flint tools for single speed enthusiasts and others for whom retro is the king

Angus Young

Ferrals wrote:

I might bring out a range of wood, leather, bone and flint tools for single speed enthusiasts and others for whom retro is the king

The bone ones could have the torque rating set so that they snap when you're done.

rockmonkeysc

Ferrals wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Yep, that's what I mean, even where these might be useful they still seem badly executed. A really good carbon tool could possibly be useful, a shoot tool's shoot whatever it's made of.

(but re cold weather I wasn't referring to embrittling of the tools, just working in cold- one thing if you're a fully equipped cold climate engineer, another if you're winging it or lightweighting it, some sort of "adventurer" or similiar, tools that don't get stuck to your hands or suck heat out of you are probably useful. Polar explorers and early mountaineers used a lot of wooden and bone kit where normally you'd use metal for the same reason.

see also: Spaceships

But these are designed for none of the above. Their sole purpose is to part those who value bling over function from their excess cash.

I might bring out a range of wood, leather, bone and flint tools for single speed enthusiasts and others for whom retro is the king

It would need some sort of device for prizing woodland creatures out of beards.