Someone recently back from Holland tells me that a very common length of timber in Holland is 120 centimetres. Carpenters use it all the time, apparently.

When she asked why, she was told; "Well, so it divides easily into 2,3,4,5 and 6 pieces".

Funny, that

Thats the beauty of metric.. its so versatile

Yup, when it's pretending to be imperial.

I saw a four foot dog the other day, btw.
(poor joke)

As Carlyle pointed out long ago, the basic module is 100 mm. That means you can buy 5 and 10 m boards and anything in-between. As Andy says, isn't metric versatile.

"As Carlyle pointed out long ago"

nuff said

Likewise, in Imperial you could work in tens if you so pleased (10 inches, 100 inches, 1000 inches, 10 ounces etc), but why would you want to?

Thomas Jefferson proposed something like that in 1790. See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm

Yeah, a'int metric great! Until you want to dive 10 by 3, 6 or 9. Your example of saying metric is great because it can use 120 cm so it can be divided by 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 20, 30 and 60 only works because you take your inadequate decimal unit of ten and then multiply it by twelve.

That still doesn't get round the problem of fractional values resulting from dividing 10 by 3, 6 or 9, something that a number system with a radix of 12 could do indefinetely and still not have repeating digits after the point!

"""Someone recently back from Holland tells me that a very common length of timber in Holland is 120 centimetres. Carpenters use it all the time, apparently."""

It is amazing how dense some people really are. As has been explained a multitude of times, the metric system makes no preference to sizes and number sequences. That is the perogative of the user. The construction industry world-wide has chosen the 100 mm module as their base point and all sizes are derived from this. 1200 mm is 12 times the 100 mm module and is used precisely because it can be divided into a larger number of even pieces. It can even be divided into 3 equal parts. Some ignorant imperialist even claimed metric lengths could not be divided by three. It just another good reason why the real world of industry and commerce ignore the imperial luddites.

To all imperialists who have trouble grasping this very concept, can you give a valid reason why anyone should be awed by something having a length of 1200 mm?

Metric plywood is 1200 x 2400 mm, isn't it? I would imagine carpenters like to have a stud or joist at the end of the sheet to nail it to.

US houses are framed on 16" centers because inch-pound plywood is 4' x 8'. I understand the UK uses 1.6' which accounts for the black diamond (on tape measures) every 19.2" which ensures an integer number of supports at least in the 8' dimension.

"""Metric plywood is 1200 x 2400 mm, isn't it? I would imagine carpenters like to have a stud or joist at the end of the sheet to nail it to."""

Yes it is.



"""US houses are framed on 16" centers because inch-pound plywood is 4' x 8'."""

Houses outside the US use 400 mm and 600 mm centres.


"""I understand the UK uses 1.6' which accounts for the black diamond (on tape measures) every 19.2" which ensures an integer number of supports at least in the 8' dimension."""

That may have been true decades ago, but all new UK structures are built metric. British industry is also fully metric. The only thing that isn't are the road signs, the use of the pint for pub drinks, and milk delivered to the door. There may be a few remnant uses here and there, but the UK is predominately metric.

Because you have been there I guess?

Lying idiot!

LOL!

<<
The only thing that isn't are the road signs
>>

The roads signsd themselves are metric - it the information on them that is not metric.

So you cannot measure them in imperial?

Let's have a pedentary competition

Sure you can if you don't mind non-rounded numbers. Something imperial has difficulty with.

Why not visit http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm and see which figures are in metric units and which are in imperial.

Hint - search the page for any occurence of the words "mile" and "mm".

Or "m" for mile!

;-)

m is the correct symbol for metre.

Don't worry, if Steve were to search for every occurence of "m" in that document, he would get hundreds of false hits.

But also the fact that "m" in the UK means miles.

Either that or the "Services" are just feet away from the sign!


Test your brakes!
;-)

<<<But also the fact that "m" in the UK means miles.>>>

ON road signs, yes. In other situations it would be assumed to mean metres

Write "50m" on a piece of paper and ask someone what it means

50 million?

50 minutes?

Two more examples of how "m" gets used in the UK.

"""Write "50m" on a piece of paper and ask someone what it means"""

50m means nothing in SI....50 m means 50 metres. There is a space between the number and letter symbols. There is no space between numbers and non-letter symbols.

Over to you, Andy!!



LOL!!!!!!!!

Actually 50m means fifty miles.

the two "humps" in the 'm' must be exactly the same height and be equadistant.

The "0" must be oval and not round.

The "5" must have a firm vertical line to distinguish it from the letter "S".

And I must get a life.

<<<But also the fact that "m" in the UK means miles.>>>

<<ON road signs, yes. In other situations it would be assumed to mean metres

Write "50m" on a piece of paper and ask someone what it means>>

Why not use "mi" for miles like we do. "i" is a little skinny letter, it hardly takes up any room at all on a road sign, and removes any confusion.

<<
Why not use "mi" for miles like we do. "i" is a little skinny letter, it hardly takes up any room at all on a road sign, and removes any confusion.
>>

The UK and Ireland agreed with out EU partners that we could continue to use miles provided that the word "miles" was spelt out in full. The UK law which implemented the directive was silent as to how "miles" should be represented, so thechnically the UK is in breach of our agreement with the rest of our EU partners. Ireland no longer uses miles so what they did is now academic.

JohnS

The use of "m" really isn't a problem. I've worked for many europe-wide organisations where europeans have to come over here to drive. If it isn't a problem for them it really aint gonna be a problem for brits.

We use 'm' for minutes and millions too - still no-one complains.

Also, putting a small 'i' on the signs, whilst not being as expensive as replacing them all with DCO units, will still incure a cost that really isn't justified in respect to the amount of hardship or confusion our signs cause to anyone. Which in numbers is no-one.

SteveH,

But eventually, confusion will be cited as an excuse to keep meters and kilometers far away from roads. Eventually, the UK will (IMO) have to come to grips with converting their roads, as will the US. I'm not saying our solutions are perfect but we are agreeing on a full set of metric signage in the MUTCD, even though we don't actually use any (or much) of it. But planning for it now allows us to make sure it is unambiguous.

I wouldn't rush out to fix your signs en masse to add "mi" but perhaps in regular maintenance cycle.

<<<Eventually, the UK will (IMO) have to come to grips with converting their roads, as will the US>>>


I think I would have agreed with this in the 70's, but with lack of momentum or need I really can't see it happening.


No-one from outside the UK or within is asking for or justifying a change in all our signs.

The call isn't there apart from in pro-metric pressure groups - quite obviously

<<<No-one from outside the UK or within is asking for or justifying a change in all our signs.

The call isn't there apart from in pro-metric pressure groups - quite obviously >>>

I think you are wrong there. The call is not there from the British people, no - but the Government plan to make the change at some point, although no date has been proposed yet.

When the UK decided to go metric, it obviously included road signs.

Therefore the justification needed is not for making the change - it is for NOT making the change.

Andy wrote

<<
When the UK decided to go metric, it obviously included road signs.
>>

The first sign to be changed was the maximum weight sign. Prior to about 1980 this was expressed in Imperial tons and hundredweight. In 1980 it was changed to metric tonnes. (However, they got the symbol wrong because they used "T" instead of "t". ("T" = "Teslas" and "t" = "tonnes").

In the early 1980's they also started signposting heights in dual units, but then discontinued the practice a few years into Mrs Thatcher's premiership. Furthermore many pedestrian signs were written in metres (and a few miltary ones), but Tony seems to have vandalised the pedestrian ones. For his own safety, I will not tell him where the military ones are that I have seen as he might try and change them when unknown to hinm there has been a major terrorist alert.

<<<they got the symbol wrong because they used "T" instead of "t". ("T" = "Teslas" and "t" = "tonnes").>>>

I very much doubt whether this causes any confusion - although obviously it would make sense to use the proper symbol.

<<<In the early 1980's they also started signposting heights in dual units, but then discontinued the practice a few years into Mrs Thatcher's premiership.>>>

So are new height signs now imperial only?

By the way - Martin, from your work with the UKMA, have you been given any clues as to when the Government is likely to change the laws regarding road signage?

The last I heard was that they plan to "consider" metric signs when half the population has been educated in metric. Is this the latest? Or are there any less vague plans in the pipeline?

<<When the UK decided to go metric, it obviously included road signs.>>

I'm not convinced. They would see no benefit back then.
You could apply the same argument to a whole host of things, including scales, tv's and loads of stuff.

BTW a tonne and ton are more or less the same thing in terms of road weight. Prob the reason why I have seen new "ton" signs as well as "tonne" signs.

Andy wrote

<<
So are new height signs now imperial only?
>>

Between about 1980 and 1985, "twin" signs were seen - one in metric and one in imperial. From about 1985 until about 2002, only inperial signs were erected, now twin signs or dual are again being erected.

I read that in the mid 90's all the width and height signs in London were replaced with metric only ones.

Soon after they had to convert them back on the request of insurance companies.

See if you can guess why......

re (SteveH): "I read that in the mid 90's all the width and height signs in London were replaced with metric only ones. Soon after they had to convert them back on the request of insurance companies. See if you can guess why..."


REPLY: I appreciate you are relying on your recollections here, but do you have, as they say, 'further and better particulars' on this please?

Sorry - I remember reading an article yonks ago.

I was reminding someone call "Chris Keenan" about it at the time.

Maybe do a thorough yahoo on it?

What's wrong with using 120cm lengths? Why do customary measures claim some exclusive right to the number 12? Trust the practical Dutch.

RIP,

There is no rule in SI that specifies sizes. That is the prerogative of the user, industry or standards organization. I read in one of the old postings here, or maybe on the USMA site that the construction industry uses what is called the 100 mm module. 120 cm or 1200 mm is an integral factor (x12) of that base module. Sizes like 600, 1200, 2400, 3600, 4800 mm are common because they can be divided into smaller pieces evenly without wastage.

There is a falsehood spread that metric only can be used with 1, 2 and 5 as factors, because metric is based around 10. This is again a total fabrication. Metric is organized as a decimal system as opposed to fractions, but nowhere is its structure based on 10. It may appear to be because it utilizing the base 10 numbering system to its full advantage, which is the numbering system we use in the world.

Metric prefixes use powers of 10 for scaling, but that is as far as it goes. All of the units derived from other units use one (1) as a factor. 1 W = 1 J/s, 1 J = 1 Nm, 1 N = 1 kg.m/s^2, etc.

The metric system is very versatile and can be used with any series of numbers and its ease and versatility is still apparent.