Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by homesick345, Oct 1, 2019.
Having it, and using it, are not the same.
There you go
It's even divisible by 12
There's no divisible-by-ten to the A* sizes. The neat thing about them is that you can fold or cut one in half to get the next smaller size.
And in which countries, apart from the USA, is the dm not used?
Knots make sense and are used even in the metric world.
A knot is a nautical mile per hour. A nautical mile is one minute of latitude. I.e., there are 60 minutes
in a degree of latitude. So at one knot I could go from the equator to the north pole in 60 minutes x 90
degrees = 5400 hours.
When you are figgerin' on a nautical chart it is way, way easier to think in terms of nautical miles and knots
than it would be to figger based on statute (land) miles. A nautical mile is about 1.2 statute miles.
Depths on nautical charts are another matter. In the U.S. soundings on some charts are in meters, but
still are shown in feet or fathoms on other charts. Anytime you are using a nautical chart one of the most
important things to do to avoid running aground is to look at the legend and confirm whether depths are
displayed in feet, meters, or fathoms. I think they stick with fathoms a lot because that's what the fishermen
are used to. (There are six feet in a fathom, so a fathom is just a skoche under 2 meters).
I think skoche and "RCH" are still acceptable terms in the metric system, right?
Well that works pretty well too!
1200x2400mm (3.93'x7.87') sheets are also easier to carry, being smaller than 4x8.
And the stud spacing becomes a handy 400mm, taking a load off the carpenters brains.
Overall though we end up needing more lumber for the same size building.
Same quantity of sheathing but more framing and more sheathing units.
I suppose we/ you/ they then make the framing lumber smaller to go with the larger number of frames per building.
But we still increase the frequency of fastening due to the shorter intervals, which adds to the labor cost.
More fasteners as well adds to the materials cost and labor hours.
Given that we now pretty much universally see a need to conserve labor and materials at every level of usage, I was not calculating new dimensions that required an increase in both labor and materials.
Again though, how do these changes make manufacturing of products or use of products superior?
Can dumber (thus lower paid?) carpenters or engineers take the place of higher paid presumably smarter workers now struggling with the inferior system; given that the goal of changing over to the metric system is to make it easier to do the math?
We do see a trend toward lower pay for labor to increase profits at the corporate level.
Selling more units of sheathing and framing for the same size structure does result in more money for the corporations.
And if the carpenters are not required to navigate what many feel is harder than the metric system, then corporate interests get the added benefit of lowering the pay rate on labor.
Unless it is entirely false that the metric system makes something easier?
This is interesting, paper sized at 1:2 width to height.
This would mean longer lines across but fewer lines per page.
I wonder how that would end up fitting with recalculated margins?
And how would longer lines across broken up into the same sentence lengths work out?
WRT average attention span and reading comprehension, would longer lines across have any effect of the average reader?
The psychology of writing to incite reading is interesting.
Assuming we're not talking about books here, which are read for personal enjoyment or study, printed pages of text often put off the reader enough that they do not get read beyond a few sentences.
How many read through terms and conditions when joining a cell phone plan or internet forum?
How mant]y read the entire contract when signing a lease or loan agreement?
If this new shorter fatter page is more likely to be read in full, I'd be in favor of that.
But when I prepare a page with the intention of readers actually reading the whole thing (not talking about the TDPRI recreational writing), I focus on simplified language that nails the core idea in as few words as possible, with thought length breaks in the lines of text.
This can result in taking up too much real estate on the page, yet can eliminate excess verbiage to bring down the required space.
I recently completed a document for the purpose of opening the directive, detailing four different key components, and summarizing the goal of processing the info followed by filling out a form.
So six paragraphs on one page.
Make the page shorter and wider?
That might hurt the agenda of getting the reader all the way through the document that they are not feeling much need to read.
Could be wrong though, I guess I'd have to type it all out in the new ratio and see how well it works.
Does writing paper get cut in half in professional settings?
Or does this primarily help the manufacturers corporate profits?
Here I'm really not sure as office work is not my busienss.
Well I would not insist on denying a superior system to the masses just to make the carpenters job "easier".
But to some degree everyone in society loses if changing to new standardized building material dimensions results in added materials and labor cost.
Everyone except the building trades!
Unless the new world order of lower pay for blue collar and higher corporate profits means the carpenter gets paid less while the builder profits more.
This still costs the homeowner a few decimal points more, which if we look at something like home loan interest rates, we know those decimal points add up.
Again, I have no problem with the metric system and generally agree it makes more conceptual sense.
But sitting down and looking at how those changes would effect peoples actual lives I'm not seeing the improvement.
I can work in both.
Not confused by fractions at all.
Why are you confused by base 10 numbers?
I learned them I was 5
When you're the last country to use the imperial system, it might be time to join the rest of the world!
It would be far easier then trying to convert every measurement from every product imported as much as every product design for export...
... But we are taking about a nation who compares distances to football fields.
Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
How many 2x4’s in a football field?
The W:H ratio is 1 : sqrt(2).
Thus if you cut a piece in half, width-wise, the result is sqrt(2)/2 : 1, which is the same proportion, since 1/sqrt(2) = sqrt(2)/2.
Uh, aren't football fields measured in yards?
Those are closer to meters than feet, and we never measure in yards when building houses, cars, or guitars.
Sometimes I measure a house lot in strides though which are similar to yards.
Then I have to convert to feet and acreage.
But in my case (perhaps because I'm more than 50% German?), my stride is about one meter.
If I try I can make it closer to a yard for the sake of feet to acres...
At the local county courthouse there are huge leather bound books tracing land ownership back to the 1600s.
Early written accountings are probably quill pen, and possibly squid ink?
Very cool to be able to just pull down these old books and peruse history.
Seems like those parcels of land were measured in feet back when we were a colony of England?
Might be interesting to change all the parcel sizes and also change all the building codes to reflect the new lot sizes.
Would probably require lots of bills and voting since we have this pesky democratic decision making system.
Hope it was OK to mention the system we use to change how we do stuff!
Sorry, the pictures and the math went right over my head.
Can you tell us how big a piece of office copy paper would be?
I do see my mistake in thinking the paper could be twice at high as wide!
Clearly my carpenter smarts are useless in the office or math class...
Still waiting for the Maine response to my six paragraph doc too.
You don't have A4 in the States? It's a little taller and narrower than US letter. Closer to Letter than to Legal.
This is cool, but would it be cooler if it was 1.25 ratio? That would match the T. Downs telecaster body proportions. Maybe we need T-4 paper?
You can have a go at it, but I'm liking 1 : 1.414...
It's funny as a photographer I've long dealt with a 24x36mm film negative and 8x10" printing paper.
The 24x36mm fits better on 8x12" paper but we don't get paper in that size.
Then there are negs 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x8cm, 5x7", 8x10", 11x14" and 20x24".
Some of those neg sizes conform well to paper sizes, but many don't, and the usual 35mm 34x36 printed on 8x10 has (had) been a ridiculous misfit standard for decades.
Now you can more easily get digital prints in 8x12" since the paper comes in rolls.
Camera sensors have maintained the old 2:3 aspect ratio while picture frames have maintained the wrong 4:5 ratio.