irnsrgn Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 So many things are listed as (MUTTRICK) Metric measurements today I thought this conversion chart would be helpful to those of us who are not familiar with or who do not use Metrics.http://www.lenntech.com/unit-conversion-calculator/temperature.htm This url is for temperature but other conversion calculators are on the right side, just click on the one you prefer. JUST REMEMBER TO CHANGE THE DECIMAL TO 4 PLACES AT THE LITTLE DROP DOWN MENU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henerythe8th Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Here is a link to one I've been using for quite a while. Never found an error. download to your desktop, then don't have to connect to the 'net to convert... Not saying it's better, it might not be... it's good and it's free... Henerythe8thhttp://joshmadison.net/software/convert/ duh? I hate it when that happens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rthibeau Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 where's the link??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strine Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 to those of us who are not familiar with or who do not use Metrics I understand any reluctance to change to something new when the old seems to work just fine. But...the metric system is so so so much easier to work with. I say this from the point of view of having to work with both the imperial and metric system especially in terms of feetres and metres. Oh dear..all those fractions. Surveyors need to make a lot of calculations involving lengths and angles. The fractions are such a pain that all feet and inch measurements are converted to decimal feet. Even plans dating to early settlement of Victoria quote decimal feet. This gave rise to tape measures showing feet and only ten "inches". Many is the time I've heard about the tape measure going for a song at a junk shop cos it was missing two inches in every twelve:). The change to the metric system was a boon to the game. I would recommend anybody to use every opportunity at the forge to adopt it. On the other hand spare a thought for us free thinking forward looking folk who have to tow the line the leader of the free world throw us, and have to work with both systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnsrgn Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 Strine, I understand what you are saying, but I was not brought up with Muttricks, I use metric very little as there is hardly any call for it in what I do and if I do get any of the muttrick stuff, I just convert it to good old American measurement so its not oddball anymore. I do do a little muttrick stuff but it is such a pain to convert and ends up costing the customer much more in the long run. I do have a muttrick tap and die set, a small set of sockets and a small wrench set and allen wrench set in the event I have to work on some of that oddball muttrick stuff. Usually when I get some muttrick stuff that someone asks me if I can fix, I say sure and just toss the junk in the scrap barrell. LOL, Why should I change to a foreign system I don't even use or intend to use. Guess I am just old fashioned and hard headed and proud of it. Besides I have no source for muttrick iron or keystock, and I am not about to invest in a lot of muttrick special order stuff that would just collect dust and return no investment. It's too bad Mili Meter didn't drown on her way across the big pond. Lol Respectfully Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strine Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Respectfully Jr That's OK. We are both a couple of old dogs and wise to boot no doubt. It has to be a really worthwhile trick before we start thinking about learning it. I too grew up with feetres etc but chose a field of endeavour that used the other as well so had to learn it. But it wasn't so bad. I feel for the youngies who don't know a foot from an ankle but invariably will have to have a knowledge of it sooner or later. Like when they work with me and I askthem to move the peg 0.5m left then 1/2 inch right then a bees diaghram left again ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Do you want to divide fractions, or decimals base 10? Imperical or metric both work, only one is easier. Just be sure to note on those shop drawings which is which, as decimal fractions and decimal metric look the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I use architectural scales in 3", 1-1/2", 1", 3/4", 1/2", 3/8", 1/4", 3/16", 1/8", 3/32" of an inch, imperical rulers in 1/16", 1/32" and 1/64", a yard stick, engineering scales in 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 divisions to the inch, a 30.5 centimeter ruler, and a meter stick. Then there are grids papers in 1", 1/2", 1/4", 1/5", 1/8" and 1/10", as well as common logarithm (base 10), the natural logarithm (base e), and the binary logarithm (base 2) grids, and metric grids. I also have some 12-15 other rulers in measurements that are not so common, and a couple of speciality rulers that are "no to scale" to fit drawings that were "not to scale" either. This does not address the travlers, calipers, micrometers, hammer, tongs, anvil, and etc. that a blacksmith uses for measuring.IForgeIron > tricks > measuring has several ways to measure things. It is worth looking at if you have not read the material recently. Working with a specific measurement is not a problem, but please, do not mix two or more units of measure on the same plan sheet or drawing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Russell Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 It's too bad Mili Meter didn't drown on her way across the big pond. LoL Jr .... 10 , 100 , 1000 = 3 steps 2 , 4 , 8 , 16 , 32 , 64 , 128 , 258 , 516 , 1032 = 10 steps I's sure know which 1 i'll be usin' bloke BTW , i's grew up when OZ changed from " imperial ta metric " Had ta learn both For small stuff METRIC is the go Bigger stuff i'll revert ta " imperial " Dale Russell ( aka ) chopper BTW mate , soon ALL THE WORLD WILL BE USIN" " MUTTRICK " whether youse like it or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strine Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Gee I love it when people are barking up my tree Working with a specific measurement is not a problem, but please, do not mix two or more units of measure on the same plan sheet or drawing. Sorry Glenn...I do it all the time :confused: Hopefully it's all covered by the very handy "UON" = unless otherwise noted! Anyway, don't be too disheartened because you use an out dated system of units. The crux if the matter is you could use anything as long as you're consistent and as long as you cut, punch, draw out, upset, drill, etc etc etc to the length required. Another interesting twist to all this. While setting out for sewerage work ie for trench digging and pipe laying and all that jazz we always had to appear to quote to the nearest millimetre. Ye gads! you say, the sewers are layed very acurately in Oz. Not really. If you quoted a length at say 5.9m it would be taken as 5m plus 9mm similarly, 5.91 would be 5m plus 91mm which amounts to a fair sized error. To overcome this we'd always say 5.900 or 5.910. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Smith Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I grew up with metric - I never saw an inch measurement until the age of 10 or 11. Having said that, I use both. For stuff that needs to be small and precise, I use millimetres. For larger or longer stuff, feet and inches. How do you guys go with pounds / kg ? I spent ten minutes today trying to work out whether a 2 and 3/4 lb hammer was heavier than my 1.35kg. It doesn't help when most of the smithin' hammers are made either in the US, or back in the day when imperial was the go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnsrgn Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 open the url and click on weight/mass Smith 1.35kg = 2.98 lbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strine Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Beware, there is imperial and there is imperial. The Poms' version is different to the US version. In anycase Jr's link copes with all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 If you quoted a length at say 5.9m it would be taken as 5m plus 9mm similarly, 5.91 would be 5m plus 91mm which amounts to a fair sized error. To overcome this we'd always say 5.900 or 5.910. I would normally read this 5.9m or 6 meters minus one decimeter, or 5 meters and 9 decimeters. 5.91 would then be 5 meters, 9 decimeters, and 1 centimeter. Therefore 5.9123 would be 5 meters, 9 decimeters, 1 centimeter, 2.3 millimeters (getting just a little bit closer to 6 meters). Am I missing something in the translation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henerythe8th Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I'm not sure if this is where Strine is going or not, and/or whether the aussies are doin' it or not... ...some/most of the Europeans use a comma instead of a period for a "decimal point"... H the 8th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Smith Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Unfortunately, the link can't follow me into the workshop :-) I guess between forge and anvil, 1 Kg = 2 and a bit pounds, the same way Pi = 3 and a bit. Australia uses decimal points , rather than commas, but I read recently that apparently Indonesia uses them the other way around. eg, instead of 4,100.85, they would write 4.100,85. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogvalley Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 This can be argued both ways, but, metric or english units, there is no difference in accuracy. One is not outdated. Neither one solves certain problems with dividing a given unit of length, or perhaps time.Either one has some strengths in certain areas, but linear measurements ain't gonna show a real difference. UNLESS of course you are going to compare something to a specific wavelength of light. I don't know about ya'll but I don't do that in my forge. Math is not an exact science, it is very much a convenience for explaining a numerical phenomenon. If you can use a caliper to read a ten thousandths of an inch, then you know how accurate inches can be. A metric caliper is no more accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Smith Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 All too true. To be honest, I feel comfortable with either, weight measurements excepted. Let's call off the fussin and a feudin! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strine Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 No Glenn you right on the money. But why confuse the issue with decimetres centimetres. For more than a metre I talk in metres for less I talk in millimetres. The reason for quoting three places was to overcome a language barrier as well as the confusion mentioned earlier. It worked and the trenches were dug in the right spot. The sewer flowed on a dark and stormy night which was the ultimate quality control back in those days Man of many wives, Full stop or comma? I dunno the origins except that conventionally we seperate thousands with commas and wholes from the part with a full stop. eg 12,345.456 In my game that's still not the convention... the dot has to be in the centre of the numbers. not down on the line as shown in the example. Froggy. You're right.. a rose by any other name still jabs you with its thorns. The tropical system of length (banana skins) could be used just as accurately as long as everybody was working off the same standard length of a banana skin.Math is not an exact science, it is very much a convenience for explaining a numerical phenomenon. I'm still trying to get my head around this one. There's a fillisofficle dilemma hidden in there somewhere I'm sure. For the buffs, the current metre standard is how far you travel in a vacuum, at the speed of light in 1/299 792 458 seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Timeline_of_definition And lastly, Smudger...not fuedin, not even fussin, just having a good ol' yarn over an ale or too. Well at least I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Let's not get into a glass being half full or half empty. Just top off the glass (or mug) and enjoy the yarn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.