/diy/ - Do It Yourself

>>1633357
Metric
>inb4 burgers

>>1633357
We've already got one of these, OP. How about cubits?

Metric=White people
Imperial=56% mystery meat

>>1633358
So when you built your house, you used metric? no, actually, i guess not, because you've never built anything in your life.

>>1633358
>>1633360

How often does this have to be posted baka. Know your place europoors.

https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/questions/3880/what-would-be-the-uk-equivalent-of-the-common-us-2-by-4-not-just-by-size
>There are plenty of instances where Imperial units are used in the UK instead of metric, and this is one case for that.
Holy fuck, metric npcs btfo

metric= metropolitan civiliced world

imperial= imperialist yankee pigs

>>1633361
My house was built by shmuli loanstein's construction company using metric, as was yours.

>>1633366
go measure your doorframe right now, I dare you

>>1633368
100 centimeters, what now, imperialnigger?

>>1633363
It's not even arbitrary, 0 is the temperature that brine freezes. Fucking eurotards.

>>1633364
wrong and retardpilled
wood in the uk is sold by the actual size it is in mm
you can ask for it in inches and the guy working there (at a proper timber yard, not b&q) will tell you what options you have depending on finish.
timber, rekoners, regs, span tables are all in mm or meters.

>>1633368
pro-tip: you can measure something in mm even if it was built using inches.

>>1633377
When was the last time the freezing point of brine was relevant to you?

>>1633357
SI. Ever since I converted I can't believe the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify using measurement units that were thought up in ancient Roman times.

>>1633474
>Ever since I converted
>converted

another quitter *sigh*

>>1633482
I feel no remorse for quitting a shitty, non-system.

>>1633445
The last time I calibrated my pyrometer.

>>1633357
Using a dumb system.
Adapting all standard sizes to match dumb system.

Is it really so hard to understand 1-10-100?
10 millimeter is one centimeter. 100 centimeter is one meter.

>>1633384
Yeah. You go there and get yourself a 38 mm timber and ask yourself why not 40 mm? Why the strange number? Because 38 mm was the nearest round number to 1.5 inches, the width of a 2x4 timber that has been planed down for a smooth surface. But, sure, let's call it 'metric'.

>>1633625
Yeah, but how many decimeters in a yottameter? No looking it up now. Your system is so simple you should just know it. What's that? Can't remember 21 different measurements of length even though they are all powers of 10 from each other?

>>1633625
Only the first three measurements above and below a meter are ^1 from each other. Once you go to the 4th measurement it is ^6. One up/down from there is ^9 and then ^12. For some reason, they decided they needed 10 prefixes to cover multiples and submultiples so there are many, many prefixes that simply aren't used. Hell, anything above a kilometer is basically useless. Too large to be meaningful on each and too small to be used in space. They use the distance traveled by light in space to measure large distances (light second, minute, year, etc.) because even the largest metric prefix to too tiny.

The other issue you have is they keep changing shit. The 'metric system' was introduced some 224 years ago and it has seen major revisions several times since. Just measurements of lengths have been updated 5 times since its introduction.

It is super easy to convert to a new system of measurements when you get the shit kicked out of yourself in a few major wars. Oh, the Germans stole all our shit and burned what was left? Well, let's rebuild using this new system! I mean, we have to replace everything anyway...

When you are the ones doing the shit-kicking, and to make matters even better you are fighting somewhere else other than your own land, you tend to keep using what you have. If it ain't broke, why replace it? I mean, unless the rest of the world would like to pay for replacing all of our street signs and bolts and shit. We'll take the money. If you ain't willing to put up, feel free to shut up. Not like what we're doing over here with our yardsticks has anything to do with you all.

>>1633644
>because even the largest metric prefix to too tiny.

Have to point out that this is straight-up wrong. The largest prefix goes up to 10^24. The entire observable universe is only 4.4*10^26; 440 yottameters.

It's kind of stupid to do astronomical distances that way, but you can.

>>1633648
>Just measurements of lengths have been updated 5 times since its introduction.

Also have to point out that imperial was born from a system where your measurement was different every time, depending on who measured and which particular barleycorns or whatever you were using.


I've done plenty of CAD in both imperial and metric, and too often at the same time. Working in decimal inch is fine, working in metric is fine. But, in imperial, the second either fractional units or anything other than decimal inch is involved, measurements just turn into a shitshow. Anyone who actually claims imperial to be better than metric is either trolling or just retarded. Ignoring stupid standards arising from conditions essentially independent of what system you use, there's no reason to prefer anything over metric, simply because metric's unit system is literally just labeling the decimal places you're already using rather than drawing nearly-haphazard numerical relationships between units.

>>1633357
The lumber isn't even the advertised size. Just goes to show you that even when you claim to use the imperial measurement system, you don't really.

anyone who prefers metric is shorthanded in the mental department and needs stupid 10-100-1000 patterns to be able to numbers because inches r hard

I spent several hours once trying to figure out the size of air compressor quick connect adaptor (never dealt with those before so I couldn't tell just by looking). Turned out it was 1/4" size but there was literally not a single measurement anywhere close to that. It's just called like that because sometime somewhere this size of the thread was used for a pipe with 1/4" nominal bore. What the fuck.

>>1633707
So efficient = retarded?

>>1633364
Unlike the rest of Europe, UK's switch to metric was relatively recent (was pretty much forced into it by the EU's predecessor).

>>1633357

>>1633732
Pipe threads are tapered for better seal, so there wouldn't be an applicable nominal diameter anyway. That's also less an issue with imperial and more of an issue with thread standardization. Also not really an issue to begin with.

>>1633648
>The other issue you have is they keep changing shit. The 'metric system' was introduced some 224 years ago and it has seen major revisions several times since. Just measurements of lengths have been updated 5 times since its introduction.
...And this never happened with imperial? Besides imperial is defined by metric nowadays.
Also, since when is updating your system to make it even more accurate and consistent a bad thing?

>>1633357
Imp
Inches an feet
they were built to last , talking Pre -Victorian engineering

>>1633357

SI

>>1633357
Metric.

Honestly who even came up with this shit and why are americans so persistent in using it?

>>1634097
>why are americans so persistent in using it?
why is the rest of the world so concerned with how we measure?
If it wasn't for the whining, I'd never give yurope a second thought.

>>1634104
Imperial = tailored specifically to the use case (eg. teaspoons and tablespoons for cooking, pints liters and gallons for small amounts of liquid, etc)
Metric = autistic simplicity, enough so to make it near unusable in certain circumstances

>>1634110
>tailored specifically to the use case
Makes it harder to relate units to each other. There's a reason SI tries to keep the amount of units small.
>enough so to make it near unusable in certain circumstances
Please enlighten me.

>>1634110
ah yes cause all tablespoons and pint glasses are same size...

Metric => Used by science. GUESS WHY RETARD.

>simplicity and consistency=bad

>imperial
try us customary, they're different

>>1634117
>Makes it harder to relate units to each other.
Read: Requires people to step up their mental game. Remember that there are two kinds of countries.

>>1633672
>The largest prefix goes up to 10^24
And there are more molecules than that in a glass of water.

>>1634097
Those all have actual reasons for existing. Take the nautical mile, for example. It is the (approximate, since Earth is not a perfect sphere) distance across the surface of the ocean that corresponds to one minute of arc of curvature. So if you're navigating by old-timey instruments like a quadrant, you can measure degrees of travel to determine distances. The meter was originally based on a similar measure using a different conversion factor, being one 40,000 the distance around the Earth.

>>1633357
I wish metric because it makes more sense
Sae because I'm in the states and imperial fasteners are cheaper and easier to find

In practice I use mm for just 3d printed things, but model in inches if it involves wood work since having real odd metric numbers in software leads to mistakes and not being able to quickly tell something is off

>>1633672
this, i study mechanical engineering and calculating the simplest stuff like torsion stress of a shaft would be a pain in the ass

>>1634437
MegaPascal is the same as N/mm^2 which is a unit for preassure. another advantage of the metric system is that interchanging units with SI is way easier. Newton in metric is Kilogramm*Meter/Second^2

>>1634437
Good thing you posted that image otherwise no one would know you wernt lying

>>1633924
>Pipe threads are tapered
Not at all, many types are straight. In fact, though I'm still not sure if it's an actual standard or just chinks being lazy, threads on various air connectors are often straight, and adapter in question had one as well. And even tapered threads have minor/major/gauge/etc. diameters they can be defined with.

>>1634427
How many nautical miles are in a regular mile?

>>1634602

It's close enough to a regular mile so that it really doesn't ever actually matter to anyone except a map maker or a navigator. Same way with all the different tons.

>>1633357
depends on what is being measured. each system has things they are good at. refer to number theory to explain why.

for measuring things related to the human body and its immediate surroundings, imperial usually works better. °F works better for describing temperatures and weather that humans typically interact with. feet and inches are better than meters or centimeters for height.
kilograms are arguably better than pounds for weight, but stone is better still.

where metric shines is one the celestial scale or microscopic scale. everything being a factor of 10 makes it super easy to work with, and at those scales it really doesn't matter which arbitrary system you use since the numbers are so small or so large.

tl;dr: just use whatever makes sense.

>>1634608
OP here, this is the correct answer. everyone else is a fag

>>1634608
Metric shines with everything that aren't simple measurements. And even there it shines too.
>>1633922
>>1634437

>>1634607
According to google it's 1.15077945 miles. A difference of 15%, I'd say that's significant.
Why not save yourself all the bullshit and replace the regular mile with the nautical mile or vica versa? That's what they did with metric, 1/10000th from the pole to the equator and base everything around that.
And make it divisible by 10 so you can do actual conversions and calculations. And base other units like volume and area on it too while you're at it.

>>1634619
>. A difference of 15%, I'd say that's significant.

Really? In what way? When in your life have you ever dealt with nautical miles? Like I said, if you are not a navigator or a map maker, just think of it as a mile. When you're in a boat the damn current has more effect than your "significant" 15%.

>>1634639
If the difference is not significant then why bother?
>International mile
>nautical mile
>geographical mile (the earth is not a perfect sphere after all)
>U.S. survey mile
>metric mile
yikes

>>1634427
Nautical miles only exist because we still use the ancient Babylonian sexagesimal system for measuring angles. Pretty much only astronomers and navigators still use minutes and seconds of arc length, everyone else uses decimal degrees, eg someone will be more likely to write 25.5 degrees rather than 25 degrees and 30 minutes. Because guess what, dividing a base 10 system into groups of 60 is not the most intuitive thing.

It's the same thing with time. Ask anyone how many seconds are in X hours and Y minutes and you'll get blank stares because nobody knows, despite the second being the base SI unit. We've moved beyond these things.

>>1634608
You're talking out of your ass. I have no problem knowing my height is 1.77 meters. The more you work with it the better your intuition gets. You aren't born with a natural intuition for USC, and having to learn and practice one systems is a waste of time when you could master one.

>>1634619
Not to mention knots are a dumb system of measuring speed. Meters per second tells you exactly how fast you're going in the name itself. How are you supposed to intuitively know how many knots you're going?

>>1634689
>metric mile
Stop

>>1633357
>imperial would be completely gone if it weren't for americans being ever so proud of a system they didn't even create

I get that you're a superpower and can do whatever you want, but i fix planes for a living. That means a lot of tools and a lot of reading manuals.

Now since americans are often involved in building parts of aircraft, that means i need a lot more fucking tools. And i also need to read a lot of fucking conversion tables for everything from pressure to torque values.
In short that means more time taken, higher chance of error, and most importantly lower safety.
I've seen a tire blow from overinflation because the guy was looking at the wrong scale on the gauge and it's real fucking nasty.

But yeah, it makes up for it when you need to buy some planks i suppose.

>>1634726
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_mile
It exists.

>>1634726
>knots are a dumb system of measuring speed. Meters per second tells you exactly how fast
How are you going to tell how many meters per second you're traveling when you're in the middle of the ocean? Now, in the middle of this same ocean, throw your rope overboard and look at how many knots are showing on the surface before the rope sinks into the water astern. Which one is more useful in this situation?

>>1634775
>Now, in the middle of this same ocean, throw your rope overboard and look at how many knots are showing on the surface before the rope sinks into the water astern. Which one is more useful in this situation?
The one where you use rational distances between your knots, like for example every 10 meters instead of every 47 feet and 3 inches.
What's knots to feet/second?

>>1634775
>throw your rope overboard and look at how many knots are showing
Zero. A rope has no knots until yoi tie them at a specific interval you need to measure speed in any particular units.
Also that's not how you measure speed with a chip log anyways.

>>1634726

>>Pretty much only astronomers and navigators still use minutes and seconds of arc length, everyone else uses decimal degrees


MOA is superior to mildot in every way. The only reason mildot has any following is because the try hard dipshits in charge of so many militaries push metric trash. That pushes the price down for their stupid system.

>>1634794
I dunno, but 1 knot is 1 nm/h. Why the fuck would I care how many feet it is?

>metric fags are this mad they couldn't get ships or airplanes to use their shit for navigation

>>1634905
Neither would be necessary if we moved away from using ancient Babylonian degrees and moved to something more rational, like turns.

>>1634955
nm means nanometer you retard. I would love to see you clap for every nautical mile passed or every hour. I certainly could for every meter or second.

>>1633445
Generally every winter

>>1633672
Ah yes you do cad. Which means you write in imperial and metric. You do not actually work in imperial or metric. Go lotion your hands onions boy

>>1634423

>>1634118
Actually yes... a tablespoon is a tablespoon. And a pint is a pint you knob. Why not go down to the pub and have yourself a nice 473.176 milliliters.

>>1634726
3600X+ 60Y = seconds... it’s not rocket surgery

>>1634963
>and that's the story of how we keelhauled the representative from the BIPM

Metric, because USE THE FUCKINN INTERNATIONAL UNIT SYSTEM YOU FAGGOTS WE USE THEM IN EUROPA AND SO ON YOU FUCKOS ONLY MAKE IT HARDER WITH THE F° AND MILES FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!

That said, yeah, they "look" practical, but i'll stick with [m], kg, km/h, [C°] (its Kelvin but they are similar anyways)

>>1634991
>And a pint is a pint you knob
Do you mean the short pint the Yanks use? The French one? Maybe a proper British pint?

>>1634794
One knot is 1 2/3 ft/sec or 0.6 the other way around. Now considering that both nautical and aerospace environments tend to be very fluid can you come up with any reason to use feet per second, meters per second, or really any unit that small?

If you had ever navigated using a physical chart you would know why knots are superior to any metric unit and wouldn't feel obligated to be THAT asshole.

>>1634726
>You're talking out of your ass. I have no problem knowing my height is 1.77 meters. The more you work with it the better your intuition gets. You aren't born with a natural intuition for USC, and having to learn and practice one systems is a waste of time when you could master one.

number theory, my friend. 1.77 of something is not an optimal way to represent your height.

>>1633922
Room temperature isn't very specific so I'm assuming a bit of rounding is fine. 70°ish to 212° is around 150°. A gallon is 8 1/3 lbs so I need a little over 1200 btu. That took about 5 secs to do in my head.

Now here is the difference between imperial and metric. Imperial is useful in real life The burner on my stove puts out about 24,000 BTU per hour. That means I can boil the aforementioned water in 1/20 of an hour or about 3 minutes. But of course doesn't take into account the heat transfer efficiency which is ~60% for gas so we'll say 5 mins on average. That took around another 20 secs. It's less than 30 seconds I was able to answer a useful question, "How long will it take to boil this water?" Rather than flaunting cute conversions, can you, in less than 30 seconds, tell me how long it will take to boil the water?

>>1635032
exept that one step is roughly a meter

>>1635056
Math is the same but in metric the values round off more nicely and are related in much more sensible ways so deriving the approximate answer would take less time and it would be more accurate, by definition.
Speaking of accuracy, if you ever need one using imperial you'll eventually have to deal with things like 71/256th or worse, or switch to thou, which again proves that people claiming fractions are somehow better or more intuitive are just retrogrades trying to wiggle their way out of learning new things.

>>1635100
>the retrogrades are the ones who have difficulty with basic math and unit conversions, and don't want to learn to use multiple systems

>>1635100
The math is the same but the values are much larger for most of the process and don't round as easily. Accuracy is not a function of what units are being used. Neither metric or imperial units is more accurate by definition, practice, or anything else.

Just to humor you let's do the math using metric units. 4 liters of water boiled from "room temperature". 20° to 100° means you need to warm it 80°. 4000 cal needed for 1° so you need 320,000 cal. Now I will switch from gas to induction cooktop to keep your conversions as easy as possible. A good induction cooktop will put out 3500 watts. Rounded for usability a cal/sec is around 4 watts (guess not everything is base 10 after all). Let's beef up your stove top to make math easier and say your 3600 watt cooktop is putting out 900 cal/sec. That means your cooktop can boil the water in 355 5/9 secs we'll say about 6 mins. Induction cooking it's more efficient and gas at about 0.9 instead of 0.6 so the real time will be closer to 6.6 mins.

So I think there's two conclusions from this whole exercise. First imperial units made the math a bit easier to do in your head. Second a professional-grade gas cooktop will boil water faster then an above-average induction cooktop.

>>1635090
Not quite. Most people's steps aren't even a yard. Try more like 32" (80cm).

>>1633357
I only use the God tier unit of measurement - Yodas. All other units are irrelevant.

>>1633374
Kek Frodo pls go

>>1633357
I'm a cabinetmaker, so I choose metric.

>the piscean age
>arguing over units
>not using Euclidean congruence for everything

>>1635015
Wrong, one knot is 1.6878098571012 f/s.
>Now considering that both nautical and aerospace environments tend to be very fluid can you come up with any reason to use feet per second, meters per second, or really any unit that small?
>that small
1 meter/second is roughly twice the speed of a knot.

>>1634423

>>1635280
Can you do the math for the induction cooktop in imperial? What's the imperial unit for current and voltage anyway.

>>1635390
France lost vietnam?

>>1633922
Just want to point out the calorie isn't an SI unit, you need 4187J to heat 1 kg of water by 1°C.

>>1635056
A gallon of water is 8.3454 pounds to be precise. I think the British had the better idea to define the imperial gallon as 10 pounds of water instead of 231 cubic inches.

>>1635404
They lost to Indochina.

>>1633922
If some unimportant country used Imperial units, , no one would care. I revel over the obsession everyone has over America - retarded or not.

>>1635364
all three of those Americans should be brown

>>1635390
>no south vietnam

>>1635032
It is though, because it works with our base 10 system as it is. 0.7 meter is 7/10 of a meter while 0.07 of a meter is 7/100 of a meter. But working in metric usually means working in 1000, so I just have to know my fractions of 1000.

>>1635056
I did this in the other thread (the inch fraction/decimal/metric conversion chart), but I'll it again for you.

The equation for the energy needed to heat water is:
m*c*dT
where m is the mass, c is the specific heat, and dT is the change in temperature.
The mass of a gallon of water is 4 kilograms.
The specific heat of water is 4200 joules/(kilogram*Kelvin), aka 4.2 kJ/(kg*K)
The change in temperature is 80 Kelvin (20 to 100 C).

It will take 1300 kilojoules, or 1.3 Megajoules to raise the temperature. If I'm using a heating element that is 1000 watts (joules/second) then I divide the energy by the power to get 1300 seconds, or 22 minutes. You used 24 000 BTU/hour which is about 7000 watts, and using that amount it would be 180 seconds. Note that using this method I can also experimentally find the actual power of the burner.

>>1635280
Watts are already in joules per second, my dude.

>>1635292
As I said, I'm 1.77 m tall and my step is 0.6 m, thus when I count 10 steps I know I've gone 6 meters.

>>1633357
>called a two by four
>neither of the dimensions are two or four

How do you frauds sleep at night?

>preferring a system forced by statists and not one literally built around the human condition
Makes sense that Yanks prefer imperial. It's more human and they're generally skeptical of governments (well, they used to be)

>>1635435
Kek! I thought that was you. I did your fish tank problem with mental math. I'm still going with: we use both here, stop worrying about what system we use. And I'm not really arguing about stride length, just saying that neither system is really based on that. In marching band we were taught 8 steps for five yards, which is really close to your .06 dekameter steps. Kind of interesting.

how do we fix burgers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cPeZLCVWTw

>>1633357
Anyone who can't do basic calculations in fractional imperial and machinework in both metric and decimal imperial shouldn't even participate in this discussion. Brainlets argue over which is better, true men realise it does not matter.

>>1635468
>mfw
Only euthanasia will fix these "people".

>>1633361
When my house was built in 1916 it was built using metric, and when I'm renovating it now I'm using metric. Because we're not stuck in the fucking middle ages, anon.

>>1633642
>You go there and get yourself a 38 mm timber and ask yourself why not 40 mm?

Here's an interesting thing: here in the Netherlands, I can buy timber in both nominal 48mm and nominal 50mm (for example).

Copper pipe is commonly available in 12mm, 15mm & 22mm (1/2", 5/8" and 7/8")

All waste pipes are metric (40mm, 50mm, 100mm) except for 32mm which is really 1.25"

Electrics are installed by pulling 2.5mm-sq or 1.5mm-sq copper cable through 5/8" or 3/4" PVC conduit.

Go figure.

>>1633648
They just updated the definition of whatever base thing was used to define the metric measurement. They have never changed the actual measurement itself: 1m has always been 1m, and 1kg has always been 1kg.

>>1633653
Explain Japan.

>>1635032
>1.77 of something is not an optimal way to represent your height.

177cm. Glad we could help, my retarded clapping cousin.

>>1633357

>>1635450
If it weren't forced you would have an anarchy of units to choose from and you would have no idea what any of it means. Customary is state enforced anyway, and defined by metric standards to boot.

>>1635454
My point is that SI is much more intelligible and easier to use at any scale. I've only completely converted to SI in the past 10 months or so and I'm already much better at using it than the 20+ years I had with using customary.

The difference between your step length and mine is that I can scale it up however I want. I know that if I step 100 times I'll go 60 meters and if I step 1000 times I'll go 600 meters. I know that to go a kilometer I would need around 1700 steps.

Most people don't even use yards, they use feet because it's too hard to go from feet to yards to miles. If you wanted to know how many miles you went you would have to know how many yards are in a mile (1760) and then divide the yards you went by that amount; not something that can be done as quickly or easily as a straight 1000.

>>1635471
Why not go the extra mile and learn ancient Egyptian or Babylonian numeral and measurement systems then? Or simply use your body to measure everything. If it doesn't matter then you should have no problem showing that you can do this.

>>1635503
Powers of 1000, my friend, not 100.

>>1635280
>values are much larger for most of the process
One great thing about metric system (or rather decimal notation in general) is that it doesn't matter how large or small your numbers are, it's only a matter of how many zeroes there are before or after the decimal point. As long as you account for those properly you only have to deal with significant digits. Tens or tenths, the math is the same, unlike in imperial where small numbers make you switch to fractions or different units altogether.

>Accuracy is not a function of what units are being used
Only when you're using a computer or calculator. With mental math you round off odd parts of numbers to easier get your head around them, so basic values and units relations do matter alot.

>calorie
Let's go metric properly (and also use your original example for consistency).
24000 BTU/h is 7-ish kW. Let's accoint for heating efficiency right away to get it out of the way. 0.6 of 7000 is really easy to calculate in decimal, since you only need to take 0.1 of 7000, that is 700, and multiply it by 6, that literally is in multiplication table you should know from school 6*7*100 = 42*100 = 4200 W = J/sec. Next is also super easy (100°C - 20°C) * 4 kg * 4200 J/(kg*K) / 4200 J/sec = 320 seconds = 5 minutes 20 seconds. Compare even the very first part (100°C - 20°C) to the (212F - 70F) nonsense (which isn't even 150 and yer dun goofed right from the start >>1635056 - so much for the "superior and intuitive" imperial system) and it becomes completely obvious which one is better and easier to use.

>>1635524
Counting to 12 on one hand is superior to 5. Fite me.

>>1634612
Not really base 10 produces a lot more irrational numbers than base 12 so if you so its eaier to cut things into both thirds and quarters using ft-in. Also our eyes are better at breaking down base two fractions 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ect than tenths. Really you should use which ever one is more apropriate for the task at hand so chemistry use metric anything involving actually constructing things imperial is better.

>>1635524
Actually... I shoot high-power rifle, so for 100-1000 yards I can estimate very closely already. For distances from 1000 yards and up I use time. I can walk you a 15 minute mile, or a 20 minute mile, on command, which comes out to a very convenient 3 or 4 miles per hour. I know it's entirely possible with metric, and if we used that I'd figure it out that way. No need to though.

>>1635384

>>Wrong, one knot is 1.6878098571012 f/s.

The difference between that and what I said around 1/4" (6.35 millifaggots). Which is smaller that even the best military GPS can track. It is literally an incalculable difference in either aeronautic or nautical applications.

>>1 meter/second is roughly twice the speed of a knot.

In open water a meter is a rounding error at best. The reason both meter/sec and feet/sec are both useless is because you can't really measure them a nautical mile on the other hand can be measured with a stick and an accurate watch.

You're that asshole that that memorizes pi to 200 places even though there is not now nor will there ever be a real application for it aren't you.

>>1635395
>Can you do the math for the induction cooktop in imperial? What's the imperial unit for current and voltage anyway.

Current and voltage are amps and volts world wide.

I can do the math but it just becomes a SI/imperial conversation somewhere down the line. The main reason is because the different fuels are rated differently. Gas stoves are rated for heat (BTU) per hour while electric stoves are typically rated for energy delivery (watts). It is a similar issue to fuel economy ratings for electric cars (mpge is complete bullshit).

1 watt is just under 3.5 btu/hour or ~12000btu. My gal of water still needs 1200 so it will take 6 mins (1/10 an hour) which if you then go back to
>>1635280
You end up with the same 6.6 mins everything said and done.

>>1635280
Why would you do this in cal and not btus? 1 btu warms 1 pound of water 1 degree... 960 btus to boil 1 pound of water... 1 pound of water is 1 pint...

>>1635531
First off I didn't goof on anything. The original problem didn't have a number for room temperature. The annual average temp here in FL is 72°, in MO it is 56°. 212-70ish is around 150. Even if you ignore the rounding I am only off by 8 you sperglord.

Secondly, I did all of my calculations from memory without looking anything up or writing anything down. Most HVAC technicians wouldn't know the BTU/h to kW conversation without looking it up.

>>1635764
I did see
>>1635056


Did the whole thing a second time with SI units (no BTU allowed)

>>1635768
Pretty sure he did the same shit in the other thread, spouted off about how many gallons to fill a fish tank, it got answered with mental math within 1% of being right, but he spurged, did it wrong himself, and acted all high and mighty. They can't believe that it's really not as hard as they've been told to do calculations with imperial, so you get this faggotry.

>>1635390
More than two countries fought in the Vietnam War.

United States, Belize, Palau, Bahamas and Cayman Islands all officially use Fahrenheit

Metric and Imperial are both perfectly fine systems, it just typically depends on occupation.

For the tradesmen, imperial is well suited for use. For the woodworkers, plumbers, welders, etc. Imperial gets the job done. There's nothing wrong with fractional measurements when you have a considerable amount of tolerance in the task you do. Even with smaller measurements, imperial is perfectly fine when used in decimal form. I work as a machinist, and I would use thou over millimeters or micrometers any day.

Metric is suitable for scientific work, where relating different units of measurement is crucial. It's perfect for measuring extremely small distances. But, for the masses, I believe imperial works as a better system, simply due to the fact that most people don't have a need for small and precise measurements. Fractions are immeasurably easier to deal with than decimals.

>>1635768
Rounding 142 to 150 doesn't have any real advantage except the convenience of calculating the 1/3rd later (which you didn't). Might as well round to 160 if you have experience with binary since in that case you can easily figure out that 160*8 = 1280.
Also note how my calculations are precise all the way minus the water heat capacity (which isn't constant with the temperature anyways and you'll have to consider other things like evaporation as well if you want such precision), while you had to go for 5% error right from the start.

>BTU/h to kW conversation
Any heating applliance sold in metric land would be rated in kW, so there's no need for that.

>>1635496
You guys really say that in Netherlands? Cause in Belgium(Flanders) we talk about 16/20mm tubes.

I think the sizes of waterpipes are in inches but we refer to them as "thumb" instead of inch.

I'm canadian so I use both.

Imagine being so gay you don't know 2 inches is 5 centimetres or that 4 liters are in a gallon. Suck a dick world.

If you truly want to understand American logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cPeZLCVWTw

> What's an acre? It's the amount of land that a yoke of oxen could till in a day.
This makes sense to them but
> A meter is what? An abstract ????(afficion/effetion/...?) of the globe that isn't even accurate.
This doesn't.

A measurement based on a value that is constant over the entire planet is makes no sense but a value based on the performance of an animal and all random proporties that go with it does makes sense to them.

If you can't find the flawed reasoning in this, you just might be an american.

Pic related

>>1635860
>You guys really say that in Netherlands?

Yup. Most of the tubes & boxes are marked up with 5/8 or 3/4. Clips & saddles are marked up in mm. It is indeed fucking weird. Pic. related.

>>1635764
>1 btu warms 1 pound of water 1 degree.

Fahrenheit or Celsius?

>1 pound of water is 1 pint

International or Troy pound? American or English pint?

>>1633357
Both
In decimals specifically.

>>1635524
>Why not go the extra mile and learn ancient Egyptian or Babylonian numeral and measurement systems then?
Because none of the equipment I use can operate in those? And nobody provides mechanical drawings in those measurements either.
Oh right, you're just being a faggot.

It doesn't matter which one you use for machining. The one being used just needs to be designated.

>>1633707
Agreed. Imperial is too simple for my taste as well, to be honest. All measurements should be written as matrix equations of sine waves (cosine, when it comes to weight).

>>1634423
>step up their mental game
more like mental gymnastics game, amirite?

>>1635779
The problem where you demonstrated the usefulness of fractions by converting everything to feet and had to use evil decimal points like you do in metric, and refused to give the answer in fractions of smaller units of volume (i don't blame you, it's retarded but that was the point).
I'm entirely convinced, i'll use fractions for everything from now on.

>>1633357
Metric for anything serious, imperial for something quickly bodged together in your head. Despite the scary looking fractions imperial is actually easier to work with mathematically.

>>1634608
>kilograms are arguably better than pounds for weight, but stone is better still.
This, I don't know why Americans don't use stones. Most people are between 5 and 15 stone, easier than 173 lb or whatever

>>1636168
Yeah here that as 0.73.4 ?

do people in america actually think things in europe are "imperial-built"? The answer is NO, timber elements in europe are not 2 by 6 feet or 7 by 3 legs, nor are they 1 by 3 armpits. They are rounded numbers, like 10 mm. similarly you could get rebars from 6mm up to 20mm in 2mm "jumps". and the argument "it's easier to think in imperial" is retarded, yes i know what 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm or any amount of cm is, since i grew up thinking in metric. and yes, my house was built with metric since no one has used anything else here for the last 100 years, not even to build a barn. Also, rebar spacing is sometimes 12,5 cm because there is a tool that's 25 cm long so it's just half a tool. easy. how do you measure feet easily? It's not like everyones foot = 1 foot unit

>>1636198
You do find imperial for some shit in Europe.
Here in Germany, lots of the plumbing uses imperial units.

>>1636162
Who ever said imperial is about eliminating decimal points? As I've said with almost every other response, I use both and don't have problems. I used them on that problem, the 8" you specified I immediately recognized as 2/3 of a foot. Imperial is cool that way. If you tell me 75cm I'll immediately think that's 3/4 of a meter, too. Also as before, both have their advantages, and it's not my fault if you restrict yourself to just one.

>>1636200
we don't have that. all in mm and all in rounded "nice" numbers. and yeah, plumbing also

>>1636200
It's becoming increasingly rare though.

>>1633693
do you know what wood does as it dries?
it doesn't sound like you do.
I hate imperial, but that one's about materials, not (((them)))

>>1633357
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk
after watching this video imperial

>>1635740
>imperial is so great, fractions allow it to be super precise. A third of a meter is 0,33333... lmao.
>what i said was only about 1/4" off it's close enough you autist

>>1634955
NASA is now using metric

>>1635421
>There's this one asshole that's always stomping around fucking with everyone else.
>He finds out that people are constantly complaining about him and his arrogance.
>Claims that people are obsessed with him because of how great he is
Americans actually think like this

>>1636257
They've been using it for quite a bit, even during the moon landings.
When they crashed that orbiter it was because NASA used metric and the retards that wrote the software used imperial, 300 million gone just like that.
Thank you Lockheed, very cool.

>>1635862
>4 liters are in a gallon
Which gallon, imperial or US? (actually neither)

>>1636268
>They've been using it for quite a bit
Well, yes. But I had the impression I was trying to educate boomers about (relatively) new scary ideas.

>>1636232
Wow do you take something to be this stupid?

Follow the replies you ducking incel

I said knots/nautical miles were the best units for nautical and aeronautical applications.

Some tryhard started in with m/s and if I could convert NM to ft/s

I said 1 2/3 ft/s and explained why such small units are useless.

He sperged out by correcting me with some stupidly long decimal conversation

>imperial is so great, fractions allow it to be super precise. A third of a meter is 0,33333... lmao.
No one agrandised fractions

>what i said was only about 1/4" off it's close enough you autist
It is close enough you fucking autist. You cannot measure with that level of precision in open air/water. It is the equivalent of bitching about being a few thousand miles off when measuring the distance between here and something in another galaxy. In the time it would take you to complain the number would have changed by at least that much.

Do everyone a favor find a steep drop and remove yourself from the gene pool.

>>1636381
le mad amerifat is mad

>>1635864
No American uses a perch or a rood. Maybe the Amish.

Also any American worth their salt accurately understands both systems. Which is unfortunately a rather small fraction.
>t. Burger who can use both.

>>1636162
They don't use decimal points, they use commas, like the faggots they are.

>>1636212
Taps will always be 1/2" & 3/4" BSP.

>>1636176
>argues about numbers
>can't even into letters properly
Bakadesusenpai
>>1636381
>ducking
Telefonschreibkraft detektiert

>>1636381
You still haven't really explained exactly why nautical miles are somehow better. A nautical mile is defined by an exact meter distance (1852 m to be exact) so your argument about it being better because it isn't as accurate is bullshit. Redefining the meter arbitrarily is something that should be avoided at all costs because it would create the same amount of confusion as the customary system does. If anything the meter is bigger than the foot so it would make more sense to measure to the nearest meter.

Also, the only reason nautical miles are even used is because they line up with the ancient Babylonian degrees we use to define the standard Earth coordinate system. If we started using a different system then they would lose all meaning and have absolutely no application.

>>1636384
>any American worth their salt accurately understands both systems.
I love it when ignorant Americans say this, as if anyone here actually understands fully the implications of using SI. If you actually knew how it worked and worked extensively with it you would realize that there is no reason to use customary at all, for any reason.

>>1636706
>there is no reason to use customary at all, for any reason.

You are so full of shit. How can any educated person not "understand the implications of SI". I think in terms of imperial when I need a wrench for my 65 truck, or when I buy lumber at Lowe's, and countless other times. I think in terms of metric when I work on a modern vehicle, and it's no big deal. If I were an engineer I would hope that our office worked in terms of metric, because back when I was a design engineer and someone would specify moment of inertia in one of the fucktarded non-metric systems, quite often the customer would make an error, or I would go through the pain of re-learning how to use that shit. (This was way before the internet and a computer on every desk. Nowadays it's probably just a minor hassle.)

But there is nothing magic about metric; it's just a better system in many ways, but in many situations it's just a different system.

>>1636706
>no reason to use customary at all, for any reason.
Redundant, and repetitive. I must ask, why should any of us pay any attention whatsoever to anything (you) have to say?

>>1636756
>I think in terms of imperial

Because that's what you grew up with. That's all. Those of us who grew up with metric think in metric.

Metric.

>>1636232
A fifth of an inch is...

>>1635503
>177cm. Glad we could help, my retarded clapping cousin.

and i see you still don't understand number theory. 177 isn't any better, it's probably worse.

>>1636810
288 twips

>>1633644
Why would I ever use a yottameter. We don't even use deci or decameter. Not even hectometers. Everything can be covered with mm, cm and m and km.

It's like imperial having a word for 10 or 100 miles. Would you ever say 'one hectomile'?

>>1633648
A kilometer has been the same since my birth and will stay the same until long after I am gone. But have fun using arbitrary numbers and making due.

>>1636819
Please explain how anything can be worse than using the sum of two different units for a single measurement?

>>1634726
Haha
Sad manlet

>>1634740
This, I work in a machine shop, doing anything metric is hellish.

>>1634963
Turns are gay
You cant take degrees from my cold dead hands you filthy animal

>>1636821
underrated post

>tfw a panel of autistic frogs obsessed with dividing everything into units of 10 steal the Latin word for measure and force their people to adopt it over the units of measure that were organically constructed over time for specific use cases
>if they don't use base 10 they have to pay a fine
>same goes for time, because there are 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week. might as well have 56 gidzorks in a waddle-doo right? hurr
>force france to adopt metric time
>10 hours in a day
>10 days in a week
>it doesn't catch on
>the rest of the world still doesn't give two shits about the inconsistencies of measuring time but act like smug asshats when it comes to planks of wood being measured in units of 10 + lots of decimals
people that act smug about the metric system have nothing else better to do with their time

>>1636848
>people that act smug about the metric system have nothing else better to do with their time
Or it's the only system they've ever used and so it is part of their psyche and takes literally no effort, stupid burger.

>>1636847
the funny part is it actually is 288 twips >>1634097

>>1636797
You gonna think in metric to fix your 65 ford too?

>>1636850
You seem to have some trouble making difference between using Metric and acting like a 12-year-old fanboy over it.

>>1636865
I'm not that Anon you've been bad mouthing, keep up.

>>1636825
why would I ever use something that isn't inches, feet, or miles? Really easy to convert if you've worked with it your whole life.

>>1636867
I don't know who you are, but you're being rather defensive over something that apparently doesn't pertain to you in the first place.

>>1636882

don't forget yards, the last refuge of the white man

>>1636883
Imperial/metric pertains to roughly 100% of the world population, Anon.

Actual question here I've pondered at work. We do a lot of threading and with imperial it's as easy as counting the threads per inch, measuring the diameter of the screw, and subtracting the pitch from the diameter to find the right drill diameter before tapping. Does metric have a similar trick or do they have to look it up every time?

>>1636898

whatever the fuck you just described for Imperial can't possibly be any worse in any other system.

>>1636888
What exactly are you trying to prove?
Every argument you make is increasingly irrelevant and distant from the first argument you made against my claim that people who act smug about Metric have nothing else better to do with their time and, if anything, proves that point I made all the more.

>>1636885

uhh, mods, I'd like to edit this post and replace "refuge" with "bastion".

thx.

>>1636903
it's literally screw pitch minus diameter to find the tap drill. Simple- probably the reason why that system was made standard in USA. How does metric find the right drill for a threaded hole for a given fastener? Is it the same?

>>1635468
Dios mio...

>>1636904
>What exactly are you trying to prove?
That the metric system has been in use almost as long as the USA has been a thing and here you are implying that it's only used by some elitist hipsters as if it's a new thing to be smug about like walnut cider or some shit.
tl:dr ur a faget

>>1636919
Or, in other words, you completely misread and misunderstood my post and wasted shittons of time trying to argue against the misconceptions about it that you conjured up in your own head.
Someone that argues without understanding is no one worth arguing with.

>2019
>still cucks to the units from British rule

>>1636926
Don't you know that only faggots don't take it up the ass?

>>1636898
Same except the tpi->pitch conversion because pitch is specified explicitly already

>>1636926
As opposed to a pissed-off Frenchman with an inferiority complex...

>>1636706
My argument is not that it is better because it is less accurate. My argument is that for nautical and aeronautical applications functionality is more important than absolute accuracy. It is far more functional and for the real world purposes it is accurate enough. The 1852m definition is done to trying to remove any variance in the number. The traditional definition (and the one most used in day to day life is one minute of latitude. Obviously we now know that the size of Earth varies depending on the number of factors. This makes the traditional definition of a nautical mile also slightly variable.

Without trying to get into an entire lesson on navigation and cartography you'll have to trust me that a measurement system based on minutes of latitude is far more useful and functional then one based on how far light will travel in a vacuum over 1/299792458 of a second for the applications I mentioned.

metric is just plain old poopy. imperial is good. that is my opinion

>>1633363
The date style comparison always rustles me because it makes no sense. Months have the lowest cap, followed by days, then years. It does make sense but europoors are so jealous it clouds their judgment.

>>1637321
>standardisation bad
Image this but now for every single city and village.

>>1633364
metric sizes for wood are still used and understood by most carpenters in europe. for the actual work metric is used. Only when ordering would one say 2x4 instead of 50x100.

>>1637352
>It does make sense

...because you're used to it. Specifically, you're used to it because American English speech patterns mean it makes sense ("June 20th"). It doesn't work in almost any other English speaking country outside of North America, where we say "20th of June": hence why it's retarded everywhere else but America, where it's still retarded but at least it makes sense to the retards babbling away in retard-English.

>>1637389

wait. British brains lock up if someone says "December 25th"? lol.

>>1637395
No, but people just don't say it. In the same way in America people don't say "25th of December".

>>1634726
>we’ve moved beyond these things.
60 divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,30,60
It is very useful in everyday life.

>>1637400
>America people don't say "25th of December".

true. no american ever said "4th of july".

lol. fucking morons on 4chan.

>>1637402

Bruce Springsteen is British, anon.

>>1637401
It offers no real benefit, feel free to establish base 60 arithmetic. Apart from a shitton of symbols and names to learn it wouldn't be a great disaster.

>>1637401
And very useless in doing additions, substractions and multiplications.
3 hours, 44 minutes and 57 seconds times 4 is?

>>1637409
That was established circa 6000bc by the Sumerians, and pretty well perfected by the Greeks by 1000bc. You probably know it as geometry.

>>1637475


All of which proves nothing. 100 or 1000 degrees would have been better. But the funny part is that it's all actually done in radians, which is based on the most fucked up number ever invented.

>>1637466
14 hours, 59 minutes, 48 seconds. Did it mentally in less than 5 seconds. This math was brought to you today by the imperial system, and also by the number 60.

>>1637475
Did they really use 60 different numerical digits.

>>1637478
Wasn't trying to prove anything, except that you're ignorant for not knowing history, and if you think using a base of 60 is beneficial in no way what so ever, then you're a fool as well.

>>1637481
In a certain way. When will we get rid of this Hindu nonsense and finally adapt?

>>1637480
So how many seconds is that?

>>1633357
I don't care which. Just stop mixing them

>>1637402
Only the bootlickers. Real Americans say Independence Day.

>>1637490
>>Did it mentally in less than 5 seconds.

The world may never know.

>>1637499
Seconds total? I find it hard to believe you can calculate 14*3600+59*60+48 in less than 5 seconds.

>>1637490
>>1637499
What is it with moving the goalposts and you Europeans? Guys, the original question, xxblahblah times 4, is 3.75 times four, minus 12 seconds. Easier way is 4x4, minus 1 hour (15 minutes times 4), minus the same 12 seconds (3 seconds x 4). If you can't do that wherever you're from I'm not going to make fun of you, but it's not hard. Now! How many seconds? 15 hours times 60 is 9000 (either 1.5 x 6 and add your zeros back in, or triple 1.5 and then double that, or however you want to do it). That's minutes. Now 9000 x 60 is simple, 54000. Minus the 12 seconds is 53988 seconds. Believe me or not, I spelled it out as easy as I can.

>>1637526
Fuck, got an extra zero in the explanation, go on and tell me how bad I fucked up I guess... The answer is still right, I didn't proofread.

>>1637526
Seems like you got lucky being 12 seconds off a nice round number.
13 hours, 37 minutes, 19 seconds, how many seconds?
If i multiply by 7, how many days/hours/minutes/seconds?

>>1637539
Yeah, you're right, but it has nothing to do what system we're using, because we all use the same system for time. So anyone could have done what I did, but instead of a face palm and a "durr!," I got "I find it hard to believe..." And I already played twice and won. If I were to keep playing your game I'd split it into 10 hours and 3 hours, (36000+ (3600*3)), then I'd probably do 40 minutes - 180, then add the remainder. Yes, it would be harder, and it would take longer than 5 seconds, but it's doable in your head. And all that has nothing to do with metric versus imperial, it's about can you improvise, use your brain, and find a way to do it, or are you a calculator monkey.

>>1637558
>Yeah, you're right, but it has nothing to do what system we're using, because we all use the same system for time.
True, but it's a demonstration on how base 60 does rather poor when it's not about divisions. Thing would be much easier if there were 100 seconds in a minute and 100 minutes in an hour. A kWh would be 10 MJ joules instead of 3,6 MJ. 10,000 seconds would be 1 hour, what's that in hours/minutes/seconds base 60?
>And I already played twice and won.
Do you want to win three times? Honestly i don't see myself doing it without a piece of paper. Let alone converting seconds to hours and minutes.
>And all that has nothing to do with metric versus imperial
It does, the whole point is that conversions that are not base 10 suck. Converting miles, yards and feet to inches might be doable i guess if you're used to it, but the other way around?

>>1637574
Anon... I just did math in my head, with a system that you've been using for a least 18 years, and it took me telling you how I did it and you thinking it through for a while for you to start to catch up to me.
You think I'm going to listen to you about how much easier one system is versus another? You're a nice kid, but you've got it backwards. Go troll someone else now.

>>1637574
Are you the pal daggot on vr that got blown out by people that know how to turn on their tvs?

>>1635878
American pint because it’s water not beer.. Fahrenheit

>>1636263
To be fair you keep being obsessed with us... also you still haven’t put anyone on the moon...

>>1636848
It’s just because you don’t think in Gidzorks and waddle-doo anon.. it’s objectively better but you don’t understand.

>>1633732
Was it British imperial pipe standard or united states imperial measurements?

>>1637630
Can you answer the question?

>>1637376
>fif-ty-by-one-hun-dred
vs
>two-by-four
metric confirmed btfo for being a time waster

>>1637400
>No, but people just don't say it. In the same way in America people don't say "25th of December".

>>1637963
that's literally the only one, and to an american it sounds less like a date and more like the name of a holiday

>>1637963

>>1633357
>ITT
Europeans bitch about Americans not sucking cock in iterations of ten.

>>1638013
I was thinking about imperial the other day and how it actually makes more sense for quick math
sure they can point things out like
>128oz in a gallon? lol that makes no sense
but no one actually measures out 128oz, do they? they measure out a gallon. it makes a ton of sense that 2 pints go into a quart and 4 quarts go into a gallon though. super easy conversion for units that aren't too far removed.

>>1638015

when I buy a lot of vodka, it comes in 1.75 liter bottles. If that isn't a commie plot to undermine america I don't know what is.

>>1638031
that's slightly more than 2/5 of a gallon
I'll let it slide

>>1638035
Isn't soda sold in 2l bottles?

>>1638037
slightly less than 2qt
I don't approve

>>1638015
But do you know that volume in terms of lengths and mass? I know that 1 milliliter is 1 cm^3 and 1 liter is 1 dm^3. I also know that 1 ml of water is 1 gram and 1 L of water is 1 kilogram. If you want to know the same in customary you have to remember all kinds of random shit. In metric is always in terms of 1000.

>>1638058
>thinking there's any every day practicality to converting a volume unit to a cubed distance unit
give me a real life scenario where you need to convert volume to distance cubed outside a scientific or engineering situation

>>1638060
Rainfall? A mm rain is equal to a liter per square meter.
An inch of rain per square feet, how many gallons is that?

>>1638067
why does it matter? I care about how deep the accumulated rain might be
and 2 cubic inches is approximately 1 oz, but seriously, nobody does this conversion in day to day life

>>1638076
>nobody does this conversion in day to day life
Happens all the time where i live, mm and liter/m^2 are used interchangeably here. Have you never wondered about the volume of rain you get on your property?
And apparently enough people in the US cared to come up with a converter.
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/activity-howmuchrain.html
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/rain-and-precipitation?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

>>1638060
Well we are on /diy/ so I'm not sure why you're specifying non-engineering or scientific usage since we tend to do a lot of that here. But if you want some examples, sure.

The easiest one would be the whole mass thing. I don't usually actually measure the volume of a liquid, I measure the mass because I know the volume will be fairly close to the mass value (depending on density). If I know the densities of various materials I can tell the exact size of a cube, or many smaller cubes, that will hold that mass.

Let's say I want to know how long a bottle of soda will last me. If I measure the mass and I tend to drink 300 grams per glass I know that a liter will be about 3 and 1/3 glasses. Therefore a 2 liter bottle will be about 6 and 2/3 glasses of soda.

I can find the volume of any particular container to know how much liquid it will hold. I quickly went out and measured a '5 gallon' bucket I have lying around and found the inner height was 350 mm and the diameter on top was 300 mm.
350mm*pi*150mm^2 = 24 740 042 mm^3
I know that 1000 mm^3 = 1 cm^3 and 1000 cm^3 = 1 dm^3, thus 1000^2 mm^3 = 1 dm^3. The bucket can hold about 24.7 dm^3, or 24.7 liters (if filled to the brim).

If I have a bottle of glue and I want to know how much area it will cover I can use the volume of the glue to do so. A small bottle of glue here is sold in volumes of 118 ml. If I assume a layer of glue is around 0.5 mm tall and covers 1 mm^2 of area that means I'll get about 236 000 mm^2 of coverage. If I take the square root of this that's a square that has sides of about 486 mm long.

>>1633363

>>1633357
Fun fact: the majority of the people who oppose metric were mutilated at birth.

>>1638084
>Have you never wondered about the volume of rain you get on your property?

No. An inch per month is not enough. An inch per week is about normal here in NC. Five inches in one day is some flooding. 20 inches in one day and you build an ark.

The actual volume per area is the same as what you see in a rain gauge, a length, whether it's inches or mm or furlongs. No sane person deals with volume of rain unless they operate a flood gate.

>>1638084
>Have you never wondered about the volume of rain you get on your property?
how would that affect me in any way?

>>1638091
>I'm not sure why you're specifying non-engineering or scientific usage
because imperial is a better every day system
>mass
not as convenient as volume, nor are you actually measuring mass when you use a scale

>>1633445
When was the last time the amount of mercury displaced by the weight of air mattered to you? When was the last time the weight of an amount of water displaced by a cubic foot of ice mattered to you? When was the last time 25°C being the standard temperature because it's """"room""""" temperature wasn't arbitrary?

All of it is fucking arbitrary. That's the goddamned point. Use a dictionary. Friendly reminder that metric isn't SI and metric is just as "arbitrary" as imperial. The only difference is that the math is easier because it's standardized to powers of ten, arbitrarily. You're now aware that the comparison to form Celsius was based on holding a fucking ruler next to a graduate tube, that Kelvin was based on the triple point of water and not on anything that made sense about the actual temperature of something, and it wasn't until 2018 that we started defining any measurement we use in any system based on actual physical constants instead of arbitrarily chosen, macroscopic objects.

>>1638121
https://greenerideal.com/news/1020-collecting-rainwater-considered-illegal/
Apparently collecting rain water is illegal in the US so i don't blame you for your ignorance.

>>1638128
The last time the freezing point of water was relevent to me was about 3-4 months a year because i'd like to know if there will be snow/ice on the road or not.
I usually don't want to slip my car and die.

>>1638124
>because imperial is a better every day system
It's not. Most people in metric countries have no problem using it everyday, especially since it utilizes the base 10 system we all learn in grade school.

>not as convenient as volume
Measuring volume depends entirely on the shape of the object, and some objects are very oddly shaped, whereas mass is constant. For large volumes metric is way better because in customary you get dumb shit like acre feet of water.

>nor are you actually measuring mass when you use a scale
I know. Newtons are weight, kilograms are mass. My scale is simply doing the math for me because I don't need my gravitational acceleration to be accurate to 5 digits when measuring in my kitchen.


>>1638128
It's all arbitrary, so why not use the system that was built to be the least arbitrary?

>>1638060
Scientific or engineering situations aren't everyday for you? I feel bad for you son.

>>1638140
Because it’s a bitch to change and fuck you that’s why.

>>1633490
47/64

>>1633707
Tell me the decimal equivalent of 47/64 within .050 without taking off your shoes.

>>1638140
>why not use the system that was built to be the least arbitrary?
Because Planck units are a bitch to use at human scales.

>>1636910
>Is it the same?
Metric threads use the same 60-degree thread profile, or close enough. There may be some autism in the peak/valley specification that I don't care to look up, but it should be close enough to work the same way.

>>1637750
I'm pretty positive it was chinchong "cut once measure never" aka thatwilldo system

>>1638301
Dude... That's literally 1/64 from 3/4, and 1/64 is .016. It's .734. Your problems are not hard to us, only to you, because all you know of imperial is what you've been told.

Also, no one cares anymore.

>>1638060
cc is used quite often in medicine

>>1638716
Only because it is easier to pronounce than mL.

If you were the SI faggot from this thread youd reeeee and tell them to say mL

>>1638733
Why would I, they're the same thing. It's not exactly hard to convert cc to l/ml.

>>1638735
What if the fluid is not at STP?! Scandalous

>>1638740
Wouldn't help to call it mL instead; they're the same thing by definition, so any temperature/pressure conditions that would change one would change the other just as much. You may be confusing it with the rough mass-volume equivalence of water, which has been abandoned for a while now in metrology but still works fine for most back-of-the-envelope work.

>>1637402
I really hope this is a yuropoor pretending to be American. If it isn't, this is just sad

>>1633357
soul or soulless?

>>1638740
Even the most extreme conditions won't change the definition of the liter anon.

>>1639250
What about the ergosphere of a spinning black hole, where different observers disagree about which dimension is space and which is time?

>>1633357
metric like the rest of the civilised world

>>1635860
>>1635877
So nearly the entire world uses a standard but old system for pipes and pipe accessories called British Standard Pipe or BSP. You'll see it on anything with a screw fitting, stuff like welding machines and microscope objective screws. It's an old standard from the Victorian era when Britain led the world in mass manufacture.

Can you guess the one place in the world that does not use the weird imperial based BSP system? USA. I don't think a single other country doesn't use BSP.

>>1633357
Mixed.
Use inch fasteners, but metric other length. Why? Because imperial bolts are 3 times cheaper in my shithole for some reason.