PJ -
If you can believe it, they still use imperial measurments on some
specific parts on the Airbus where fine tolerances are required.
Apparently specifying fine measurements by the thousands of an inch
rather than the tenth or hundredth of a millimeter is just much easier
to work with.
Best Regards,
Alan
'53 BN1 '64 BJ8
On 4/5/06, Ph.J.Aeckerlin <j.aeckerlin@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> Come on, Bill, be realistic! I live in a fully metric world, and the
> spanners on my tool board are hanging in the
> order:6-7-8-9-10-11-13-17-19 and so on. Never a problem to hang a tool
> back on its proper place.
> Since I'm working on my Healey I am continuously confronted with your 12
> based system and it drives me mad. Can you VERY QUICKLY put the
> following spanners on a table in the correct sequence:
> 23/64 - 1/8 - 7/32 - 1/2 - 5/16? Is 67/128 larger or smaller than 5/8?
> No, Bill, even a lot of my British friends, who went metric a few
> decades (sorry !) ago, now admit that the system based on 10 is much
> easier to work with than their previous 12 based system.
> And therefore, in my humble opinion, a decimal system is more 'logical'
> than any other system
> Decimal regards,
> Jack Aeckerlin, The Netherlands (where we wear closed shoes nearly all
> year round, so our toes can't help in counting!)
> 1964 BJ8 29432
> William Moyer wrote:
>
> >Folks,
> >
> >There's nothing more or less "logical" about any system of measurement.
> >Logic is a thin reed to grasp in any event, but that's another
> >discussion. There's nothing magic about either the base 10 or the
> >choice of meters as a measurement. A base 12 is actually more flexible
> >since 12 is evenly divisible by 2,3,4,and 6 whereas 10 is evenly
> >divisible by only 2 and 5. The problem is people only have 10 fingers
> >to help them count. Include your big toes and that problem is solved.
> >The selection of the "meter" was made by a bunch of French scientists in
> >the 1700's who determined that the standard of measurement should be a
> >fraction of the meridian passing through Paris. Now there's a standard
> >for you. Nothing subjective about that. Why not 10 times the length
> >of Napoleon's favorite tool? And they got it wrong in the first place
> >by 2mm.. And they got it wrong the second time as well. Imagine that.
> >Now it's determined by a fraction of the speed of light. Got your light
> >speed measurement device handy? Guess what, that's not a constant
> >either.
|