On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:56:59 Dennis Brownridge wrote: >Marcus, I'm a diehard metric nerd. I use SI exclusively in all my classes >and writings, and proselytize it to the point of obnoxiousness. Excellent, Dennis! We're exactly in the same wavelength! :-) But I have >to tell you that, when I do building, I put away my metric tape and get out >my wombat tape because its easier, MUCH MUCH EASIER, given the fact that >absolutely no metric building materials are available here. But here we disagree *entirely*! I do **exactly** the opposite. I went to the extreme of buying my new tape in Australia that is metric-only because I don't EVER want to deal with ifp **NO MATTER WHAT**!!! And I don't really care if I'm being "inefficient" at it (which I still insist I am not, because I'm extremely fast at calcs - sometimes I don't even need calculators around!). I loath ifp more than anything. And I honestly continue to vehemently dispute your *MUCH EASIER* statement above. But I'll respect your opinion and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, my friend! Sorry... Construction >workers are not metric ideologues. They want to get the job done as >efficiently as possible, make some money, and go home. And I offered an alternative (to reevaluate construction approaches to rational metric, like one of our friends here has - it's a later message) that could work *in spite of the presence of ifp components*. (I'll take the wastage anytime, anywhere, anyhow...) >Let me explain one more time. If you are still not convinced, I can only >suggest you go out and build your own building with all-wombat parts. > And I have, my friend! I actually have. I helped finish my basement not too long ago. While I let workers do most of the "dirty work", I made absolute question to specify all that I wanted in *hard metric*! And I ended up not having much trouble with any of the workers. It was even funny because they were making serious blunders in laying out the foundation and all (and NOT because I forced them to use metric in their operations, mind you!!!) when I had to intervene and demonstrate to them how they should have done it! I must mention that *NONE* of the measurements around the room I was "reshaping" were *hard ifp*! Therefore, I had no disadvantage in conducting stuff in metric. And I suspect that in actual practice this is more the rule than the exception! (My house was built entirely in ifp, BTW!!!) >...There is no NEED or DESIRE to build buildings to >millimeter precision. And I tend to agree with you, centimeters are enough (that's how we go about in Brazil on this, for instance!). A perfect and smooth building is an UGLY building. >Concrete block, stucco, tile, and exterior woodwork are SUPPOSED to be rough >and imperfect. In fact, people pay extra to to make them rougher! > Interesting!... >Concrete blocks and manufactured and laid to a precision of several >millimeters (but not 1 mm). The spacings, like all modular spacings, are >whole inches. While the location of a single block can vary several >millimeters, the AVERAGE spacing must be very precise, because even a small, >CONSISTENT error (such as results from rounding off a soft-metric >conversion), when multiplied by 100 blocks, becomes a big error. Is that >clear? > Not really (and I'm sorry if I look dumb, it's not on purpose). If blocks are not precise how can one be "very precise" in the end without having to adjust the laying with every layer??? And if this is the case one could do just as well "in metric", could one not? For instance, make sure that modular spacings plus the space of the bricks would end up "very precise" (just like you argued above!). Take your 100 blocks, for instance, if their nominal dimension is, say, 16", how can you say that the final dimension of these guys on top of each other will be 1600"??? They won't! If statistically they are not precise to "a few mm" as you argued! The "adjustment" must be made with the modular spacing. And how do they do? I bet they would check this with every layer, to make sure the final "brick+layer" measurement is precise in the end. Therefore, what's the difference if I do it with an "estimate" to the mm in my metric calcs? And I wouldn't need to check with *every layer* necessarily to the "decimal mm precision"! I could be "in the ballpark" (being careful not to *on average* exceed what I'd need to have by the "last" verifying layer) until I get, say, some 10 layers, when I'd finally get the thing with the "ifp precision" you talked about! It's perfectly and safely feasible, my friend. Please give it some thought and try and you'll see! ;-) Anyway, I don't honestly think I'll have a chance to convince you (unfortunately). But in any case, **I**, personally, will NOT bother with ifp, EVER. Fortunately, God has given me a very special talent (math speediness and savvy) which I put to good use and I never look back. Perhaps this would make me a metric "fanatic", but I don't care, ifp just does not belong in my vocabulary, PERIOD! :-) Marcus Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
