And I'm very glad, our colleague, Nat, pitched in here. He's just provided that kind of "ammunition" I was talking about. If one puts his/her mind to the job one *can* come up with rational approaches that would work satisfactorily. Perhaps what one needs is, *again I repeat*, just rethink the methodologies used in the field to incorporate "hard metric rationalization" approaches, *in spite of ifp components*. This should certainly go a long way to mitigate these problems and complaints (which I consider not to be illegitimate, mind you, but only blown out-of-proportion) from the field. Marcus On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:38:32 Nat Hager III wrote: >Let me add my $.02 here. > >I don't use either a metric-only or wombat-only tape measure around the >house since, for practicality reasons, all my tape measures are dual. When >I do a home construction project, anything involving a repetitive spacing >(such as stud spacing, fencepost spacing, etc) is done in wombat, everything >else is done in metric. What that amounts to is the job is initially layed >out wombat, with everything is fine-tuned to fit millimeters. I put in a >privacy fence last spring, with the fenceposts 8 ft apart, the picket-tops >90-100 mm above the tops of the posts, and each section centered ~45 mm >across the post. It's just more convenient than working with halves, >quarters, eights, etc. > >I have no problem working between inches and millimeters, since I view an >inch as nothing more than a slightly-miscalculated 25 mm module. I don't >even mind an inch ruler (though its 1.6% too long!) except that the >graduations are divided into those weird 16's and 32's rather than a >convenient 25. > >This is just what works for me. I've been working between the two systems >for years. > >Nat > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >> Behalf Of Dennis Brownridge >> Sent: Friday, 2000 November 3 18.57 >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:8983] RE: building precision >> >> >> 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. 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. Construction >> workers are not metric ideologues. They want to get the job done as >> efficiently as possible, make some money, and go home. >> 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. >> >> I think most people on this list are used to working with small and/or >> precise things. But we need to understand that most people deal with big >> and/or imprecise things. There is no NEED or DESIRE to build buildings to >> millimeter precision. 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! >> >> 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? >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Ma Be >> > > >> > On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:10:35 Dennis Brownridge wrote: >> > >Greg and Karl are correct--virtually nothing in building is >> > measured on the >> > >job to millimeter precision... That's a waste of time... >> > >> > I think that we've finally come to some agreement here, Dennis! >> > :-) However, I sort of dispute a little your sentence below. >> > >> > >Buildings CANNOT be designed, measured, or constructed to millimeter >> > >precision. Many of the components (block, brick, dimension >> > lumber) are not >> > >even manufactured to millimeter precision (although plywood is). >> > >> > If this is the current state of the industry, fine. But it seems >> > possible to "push the limits" when it comes to tolerances, so if >> > one *really* insisted on it I think it *could* be done. Now, >> > whether that was necessary is a different story... ;-) >> > >> > The >> > >dimensions on wombat architectural drawings are all whole inches... >> > >> > Perhaps in the US, but certainly not up here! I've seen quite a >> > few such drawings with fractions of inches in them. >> > >> > ...So drawing dimensions to the millimeter are about 25 >> > >times more precise than needed. It is false precision, because the last >> > >digit is incorrect, whereas on an inch-foot drawing all digits are >> > >significant... >> > >> > Very well, then. If this is the case, Dennis, please explain to >> > us why you claim the sentence below. >> > >> > >HOWEVER, when building a soft-metric building with inch-foot >> > parts, you DO >> > >have to bother with extreme precision... Otherwise, the error >> > would accumulate and >> > >the parts wouldn't fit. >> > >> > ??? But why would this happen with building it in metric and >> > would not happen in the ifp building itself??? You hinted above >> > that these parts (blocks, bricks...) are NOT manufactured to >> > better precision than the inch!!! Do you see the inconsistency >> > here, my friend?... >> > >> > If a part does not offer a certain precision whether you're doing >> > things in one scale or the other doesn't matter! You would end >> > up with tolerance difficulties, sir!!! >> > >> > ... Therefore, the "trick" to address that is always in >> > adjusting other things, like the amount of mortar, for instance. >> > >> > Therefore, please don't blame the values in metric for the >> > "mishap" or try to convince us that we would necessarily need to >> > work with "sub-millimeter" precision! >> > >> > >Your blocks would be noticeably out of whack with each other and >> > with other >> > >parts of the building. This is why builders are so unhappy about >> > >soft-metrication. It's a big headache for them. >> > >... >> > Granted, there could be challanges. But I dispute they'd be >> > insurmountable to the point of abandoning the whole effort >> > altogether. As I indicated earlier since it's undeniable that >> > even in metric construction one can still "work" with "ifp" >> > components why wouldn't this be true in this case (i.e. when the >> > system that is rational is metric and one tries to use "rational" >> > ifp components - true, let's put aside the (also) undeniable fact >> > that this is one of the very advantages of using the SI system, >> > and also the wastage aspect which I already acknowledged)??? >> > >> > Therefore, I can only consider that this is a very lame excuse. >> > Granted that the comparison is not entirely fair as there are >> > much, much fewer ifp components in metric construction than the >> > other way around. But then again, if this is the case it would >> > mean it would be time to start pushing suppliers to come up with >> > more "metrically rational" components, would it not (or in better >> > precision than they are now)??? >> > >> > Marcus >> > >> > >> > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com >> > >> > >> >> >> > > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
