Subject: American Timber Sizes

From: [email-masked] (Rick White)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:59:38 +1100

In Australia, we buy timber in metric sizes.

In the USA woodworking magazine articles wood sizes are quoted in, what 
appears to me, to be an indefinable code.

Example: In the Dec.'96 issue of American Woodworker there is an article 
about Douglas Fir.  It says that its thickness is available in 4/4 
through 16/4.

What is 4/4 and 16/4 ?  What does this mean?

If the /4 stands for 1/4", why don't you guys just say that 4/4 is 1"?
It's got me puzzled!

Maybe it's a secret code that *only* Americans are allowed to know about. 
;-)

(If you email me directly, please remove the * character from the given 
address.)

---

From: Bill Pounds <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:06:46 -0800

> (If you email me directly, please remove the * character from the given

We yanks don't normally share this secret, but for you I'll make an
exception. Hope I don't get in trouble with the CIA.

The system is based on quarters of an inch. 4/4 equals 1 inch, 8/4 is
two inches, 6/4 is 1-1/2" etc.  BUT, and this is the secret part, 1 inch
is not really one inch, it's 3/4 inch. The 1 inch refers to rough cut
material, before planing. Sometimes you will find 4/4 rough which will
be close to 1 inch, but rough on both sides. Of course if you plane it
yourself, it will end up somewhat thinner, although probably not as
small as commercial.

Please don't spread this around or tell where you learned it. I don't
want to get in trouble. Cheers.

-- 
Bill Pounds
[email-masked]

**********************************************
* Join the National Rifle Association today. *
*  The rights you save will be your own!     *
**********************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael John Hide)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 04:38:09 GMT

[email-masked] (Rick White) wrote:

;In Australia, we buy timber in metric sizes.

;In the USA woodworking magazine articles wood sizes are quoted in,
what 
;appears to me, to be an indefinable code.

;Example: In the Dec.'96 issue of American Woodworker there is an
article 
;about Douglas Fir.  It says that its thickness is available in 4/4 
;through 16/4.

;What is 4/4 and 16/4 ?  What does this mean?

;If the /4 stands for 1/4", why don't you guys just say that 4/4 is
1"?
;It's got me puzzled!

;Maybe it's a secret code that *only* Americans are allowed to know
about. 
;;-)

;(If you email me directly, please remove the * character from the
given 
;address.)
I cant imagine why you Austrians adopted a french measurement system ,
you do speak a kind of English down there dont you? so why all this
meter stuff ? I suppose you all have aspirationsof being somewhat
different to the rest of us ,a friend who had visited your fair land
[probably in search of Crocodile Dundee] said there was a lot of
wanabees down there and that they had long legs and hopped all over
the place .
Getting back to the wood bit las the other poster said lumber is
measured in 1/4" increments in the rough and according to industry
standards should be 1/8 " over the specified size per inch ,so 4/4
material should be 1and 1/8" thick 8/8 material ,2 and 1/4" thick .The
idea being that when cleaned up you get a full inch or two inch
,whatever .I personally have never seen any offerings less than 4/4
,any material less than 4/4 is considered to be 4/4 . there are some
exceptions in the case of exotics some I have seem are sold by the
pound [weight that is ] and I am not going to explain that.because you
probably to be in keeping with your french timber measurements
probably deal in francs.
             hope you can deal with a friendly little jab      mjh

---

From: Andrew Tune <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:59:44 +1000

Rick White asked a question that I should have asked ages ago, 
because I've been trying to decipher it also.  Bill Pounds
gave an informative and humourous answer:

> ...

So let me make sure I've got this clear.  When something says 8/4 maple,
I can go and buy finished maple 38mm finished size (1.5 inch)?
What this means is that I can simply treat each "unit" as 4.75mm 
finished size.  Am I right?

So here's my question.  How do I specify 4" finished size?  In
Australia we would go and buy 100mm timber.  Would you ask 
for 5.33?  Surely not... please tell me it's not like that...
--
Andrew Tune                                     Technix Consulting Group
[email-masked]                         Level 5, 695 Burke Rd
Phone: +61 3 9882 2333                                  Camberwell, 3124
Fax:   +61 3 9882 4799                    URL: http://www.technix.com.au
              "What if there were no hypothetical situations?"

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 11 Feb 1997 07:28:21 GMT

Now the you, an Aussie, has broken our secret American code you must
surely know the we are going to have to shoot you !!!  [GRIN] .

Maybe some bright guy or gal could explain to us why a 2 x 4 x 8 (i.e. 2
inches by 4 inces by 8 feet) is really 1-1/2 inches x 3-l/2 inches x 8
feet ?  Note that the width and thickness are both reduced but not the
length ?

---

From: [email-masked] (Walt Stein)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:13:46 GMT

>(If you email me directly, please remove the * character from the given 

Canucks use the secret code, too.  Hope I don't get kneecapped for
divulging secrets, but I've always found the n/4 designation an
excellent method of telling my yardman, who belongs to the same secret
order,  that I want random-width, random-length rough-sawn  hardwood
stock (I believe it only applies to hardwood) as opposed to the
nominal 1-inch or 2-inch, which has been edged and surfaced to
approximately 3/4 or 1 1/2.  It also permits quick description of the
in-between thicknesses.  If you want to end up with actual 1-inch
finished stock, you ask for 5/4, which will usually be 1 1/4 plus
(where I buy, anyway,)  an additional 1/16th to 1/8th.

IOW, "sawmill" as opposed to "dimensioned" hardwood.  

Yours, :^)
Walt

"It would seem that the universe is thirty billion light years across and every inch of it would kill us if we went there. This is the position of the universe with regard to human life." --Martin Amis

---

From: Michael Peele <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:35:17 -0500

> for 5.33?  Surely not... please tell me it's not like that...

Andrew

For 4" finished you would ask for 17/4 rough which you will not find. The 
rules are:
   rough in quarters of inch(even starting with 4/4 with 5/4 as only odd)
   skip planed = rough - 1/8"
   finished planed = rough - 1/4 (or 3/16)

Lumber is generally available in       4/4,   5/4,    8/4,   12/4  and   16/4 
   which is rough dim of                1", 1 1/4",    2",     3"  and     4" 
      skip planed dim of              7/8", 1 1/8", 1 7/8", 2 7/8" and 3 7/8"     
finished planed(milled) dim of 3/4"(13/16),     1", 1 3/4", 2 3/4" and 3 3/4"

The above list is for planks which is what most lumber dealers will stock
but not all sizes in all species. Some dealers will have 6/4, 10/4 and 20/4 
in planks or squares with squares easiest to find in these sizes.

So ask for 16/4 and change you plans if you want a North American species from
a NA dealer, that is unless you want a lot(several thousand bf) and then you 
can get and dim you want.

Michael Peele

---

From: "Abacab" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Feb 1997 21:06:00 GMT

For those who posted that were crapping on the use of the metric system,
let me say this about that.

It's actually a great system.  A lot of us Canadians were quite upset about
to change, change scares and upsets a lot of people, but with the ever
growing international economy it is proving a great idea.  Also, for the
person who replied above, it's not actually what's used by France, but
pretty much the world.  The American's have been fighting about changing
officially for years now, as they always tend to believe whatever they do
is the best, but it's also their pride and joy American muscle cars with
the big 5.0 plaques on the side.

About the system, as I said, makes a great deal of sense.  1 litre of water
weighs 1kg and freezes at 0 degrees.  There are also similar comparisons
for lengths.

I hope that makes sense to some, and I'm sure it will break open a huge
argument with others.  I'm lucky enough to be at the age where I bounce
back and forth between the two.  I favor metric for determining the
weather, etc, and standard for woodworking and the gas usage of my car.

Take Care all,
Dan Hamill
Atlantic Canada

---

From: [email-masked] (John Paquay)
Date: 11 Feb 1997 21:50:16 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>for 5.33?  Surely not... please tell me it's not like that...

See, you're only getting the secret code in little bits and pieces.
Say you want a finished piece 3/4" thick.  You buy 4/4, which _should_
measure somewhere between 1" and 1-1/8" thick, rough sawn.  If the
mill was generous, you can also usually get 7/8" boards out of 4/4.  If
the boss's daughter got married the day before, you can occasionally get
full 1" thickness out of it.  But if you want to make sure you'll be able
to get 1" boards, you have to buy 5/4 rough sawn.  And likewise, up the
ladder.

So if something says it requires 8/4 lumber, it probably means that the
surfaced board is going to measure somewhere around 1-3/4".  However...
plans and cut lists rarely list rough sawn sizes.  Just the finished size.
They say you need a 1-3/4" piece, so you buy some 8/4.

The /4 system is only used for hardwoods, and only as a reference for
rough sawn lumber.  Surfaced lumber is sold by actual thickness 
dimension, and if you buy it any other way, you're about to go for a
long ride down a short hill.

If you want 4" finished size, you could buy 17/4, though I've never seen
such a thing.  Frankly, I'd just go buy a tree.

-- 
John Paquay
[email-masked],  [email-masked]
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~jep/
-----------------------
Without my wings you know I'd surely die...

---

From: [email-masked] (John Paquay)
Date: 11 Feb 1997 22:10:18 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...

>Surfaced lumber is sold by actual thickness 

I know, I know... that should read: Surfaced HARDWOOD lumber...
-- 
John Paquay
[email-masked],  [email-masked]
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~jep/
-----------------------
Without my wings you know I'd surely die...

---

From: [email-masked] (Computer Systems Manager)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:25:00 +1100

In article <[email-masked]>, Abacab 
says...

snip
> 
> About the (metric) system, as I said, makes a great deal of sense.  1 litre of water

I have received a lot of email responses so far on my original question 
and thanks to some of you, I am *much* better informed ... then again, 
>from  some others ... well ... er ... thanks anyway.

I agree with Dan (a Canadian) about the metric system.
Oz (that's Australia, not Austria) went metric in 1966 and it's the 
*best* thing we ever did.  Some advantages :
1.	Taking 10ml of medicine suddenly made sense
2.	Woodworking dimensions and calculations are simple ... 24 1/8" - 3 
3/4" = ??? ... no thanks!
3.	Simple calcs = less chance of error = a happier woodworker
4.	It annoys the heck out of you Yankees who are about the only 
people left in the world who use imperial measurement.
4.	um,
5.	um, um,
6.	I guess that's all.

Some disadvantages :
1.	We have to travel further to get from town A to town B. What used 
to be 50 miles is now 80 kilometres ;-)
2.	Can't think of any others.

The funny thing about our metrication 30 yrs ago is that, while there are 
people still alive who grew up with the imperial system, both systems of 
measurement are, generally, acceptable.  I go down to the local timber 
supplier to get some wood and ask for 3 metres of 2" by 1" ... and they 
understand!  When I get it home and start a project, there are *only* 
metric rules and micrometers to be found.  I wouldn't work in the 
imperial system ever again.

Reading plans and interpreting dimensions from the Yankee mags means that 
a calculator to convert imperial to metric is never more than a foot ... 
er ... I mean ... 304.8 millimetres away. 

Mike Hide (a yankee) wrote :
"I cant imagine why you Austrians adopted a french measurement system 
..."

"Austria"??  "Austria?"??   That's a very long way from where I live ... 
you yanks sure lead a sheltered life ... the world was once thought to be 
square and once you got to the edge of it you would fall off.  My 
suspicions that you guys are taught to believe that the edge of the world 
now coincides with the edge of the 48 contiguous states has been 
confirmed.
:-) ;-) :-)

Again, thanks for the informative responses.
-- 
Regards, Rick

To email me first remove the * from the email address shown above.

---

From: [email-masked] (Luigi Zanasi)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:42:37 GMT

>> weighs 1kg and freezes at 0 degrees.  There are also similar comparisons
Like what?
>> weather, etc, and standard for woodworking and the gas usage of my car.
So do I, and I suspect most Canadians too. The Celsius degrees and SI
klicks are fun to mystify Yankee tourists with. But I can't figure out
litres/100 km or is it km/100 litres. The propaganda has been saying
for 20 years or so "less is more" or is it "more is less", or
something like that. I also liked the fact that our cars got better
gas mileage than the Yanks 'cause our gallon was bigger.

I use inches and all that because that's what I learned. Easier to
visualize for me. I also learned to do fractional arithmetic in
elementary school, so it holds no mystery. But Canadian kids don't
learn how to do fractions anymore.

>3.	Simple calcs = less chance of error = a happier woodworker
On the other hand, easy calculations might make you complacent and
lead to more mistakes. You know you're going to triple check 24 1/8" -
3 3/4".
>people left in the world who use imperial measurement.
7. Much easier to go from volume measures in cubic linear measures to
liquid measures in volume, and from volume to weight for liquids. 1000
cubic mm = one litre = 1 kg of water. 1 ml = 1 cm cubed = 1 gram of
water. But the old imperial gallon weighed 10 pounds.
>to be 50 miles is now 80 kilometres ;-)
This is actually an advantage. I get to brag I drove 584 km return to
Dawson City on a weekend, rather than a measly 365 miles.
>2.	Can't think of any others.
3.	At 60 miles per hour, you're going one mile a minute, so
easier to figure out how long it will take to get where you're going.
On the other hand, if it's a long drive, it helps pass the time to do
the math in your head to convert km's to time it will take to get
there.
4.	A 2X4 is now 38 by 89 mm. (Try remembering that, I had to look
it up.) It gets worse when you're in bigger dimension lumber. Try
reading a joist span table without a calculator. A 2X10 is 38 by 235,
and No.2 SPF can span 4.26 metres.
5.	Things don't sound as cold as they used to and we in the Yukon
can't brag as much about our wonderful weather. 40 below zero is the
same temperature in Celsius and Fahrenheit. 60 below F is now only 51
below C.
6.	If you use 400 mm rather than 16" centres on your studs or
joists, plywood or drywall, still sold in 4' X 8' sheets, won't fit.

>imperial system ever again.
We still call 2X4's 2X4's at the lumber yard. Nobody calls them 38 by
89's. My father, a cabinet maker, had no problem adapting to imperial
measurements when he came to Canada from Italy in the '50's. It
shouldn't be a problem the other way either. Might in fact be easier.
All I need to do is to learn to be able to visualize 1mm rather than
1/16".

>now coincides with the edge of the 48 contiguous states has been 
Even the Alaskans would agree with that. :-)

Luigi
In the Great White (and First Nation) North.

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Rainville)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:27:32 GMT

>From  my experience, one could pick over the available pile at the yard
(if allowed and able to do so) and find 16/4 pieces thick enough and
flat enough to clean to 4". Lumber is frequently sufficiently
oversize. I regularly make 2" cubes out of 8/4 stock. In this case,
about 50% of the lumber in the pile is thick enough to get this sort
of yield. Another thing is to plane it yourself, a little at a time.
The mill will often simply hog it down, not wanting to pass it several
times. On 4/4 lumber planed myself, I can get it 99% clean at 7/8"
thick. The mill will tell you that 13/16 is the maximum and that there
could still be hit or miss.  

Mike Rainville

---

From: [email-masked] (John Paquay)
Date: 12 Feb 1997 17:15:01 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>let me say this about that.

Wasn't me.  At times I like metric. However...

>
>The American's have been fighting about changing

There's actually almost no fighting about it.  The cause of any discord
about making an abrupt, official change is the billions of dollars in taxpayer
money that would be required.  Canadians don't worry about paying taxes,
I realize, but it p*sses most Americans off.  So the change is being
implemented gradually, though too much so for some.  We all resign
ourselves to the fact that it will be the system of the not-so-distant
future.  As for American 'muscle cars', there hasn't been a real American
muscle car made in more than 25 years, and I believe the decal on the side
read 396 or 427.

>weighs 1kg and freezes at 0 degrees.  There are also similar comparisons

Of course it makes sense.  That's why it's used exclusively in the medical
and scientific communities, right here in the lame old USA.

>weather, etc, and standard for woodworking and the gas usage of my car.

I agree.  I've heard dozens of of arguyments over the years from both sides
of the fence.  The most ridiculous one, of course, is that the metric system
more accurate.  How can 1/32" be less accurate than .79375 mm?  They're
Identical.  The advantage to the English system is that it is based entirely
upon 2's.  I know that if I have to divide 1/32" by two, which is something we
do alot of in woodworking and machining, it's 1/64".  I don't even have to
think about it for a millisecond.  Try that with .79375 mm, or, for that
matter, with 27.3 mm.

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael John Hide)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:10:44 GMT

;In article <[email-masked]>,
Abacab 
;says...

;snip
;> 
;> About the (metric) system, as I said, makes a great deal of sense.
1 litre of water
;> weighs 1kg and freezes at 0 degrees.  There are also similar
comparisons
what does 1kg of gasoline weigh and what temperature does it freeze at
? 
;> for lengths.
; I hope that makes sense to some, and I'm sure it will break open a
huge
;> argument with others.  I'm lucky enough to be at the age where I
bounce
;> back and forth between the two.  I favor metric for determining the
;> weather, etc, and standard for woodworking and the gas usage of my
car.
;> It would seem to me that regards to the weather the degrees F are
far more accurate have roughly twice the range ,as far as woodworking
goes it seems the imperial measurement is preferable here again as any
scale provides a self contained calculator ,ie half of 2 ,1/2 = 1,1/4
=5/8 =5/16 =5/32 and  on and on .car gas milage seems to me to makes
little difference .
;> Take Care all,
;> Dan Hamill
;> Atlantic Canada
;> 

;I have received a lot of email responses so far on my original
question 
;and thanks to some of you, I am *much* better informed ... then
again, 
;from some others ... well ... er ... thanks anyway.

;I agree with Dan (a Canadian) about the metric system.
;Oz (that's Australia, not Austria) went metric in 1966 and it's the 
;*best* thing we ever did.  Some advantages :
;1.	Taking 10ml of medicine suddenly made sense    
You need a measuring device to do that ,a simple teaspoon does the
same thing here 

;2.	Woodworking dimensions and calculations are simple ... 24 1/8"
- 3 
;3/4" = ??? ... no thanks!
Explaned previously , showing that the imperial system is preferable
in my opinion .

;3.	Simple calcs = less chance of error = a happier woodworker
Again this has been answered 
;4.	It annoys the heck out of you Yankees who are about the only 
;people left in the world who use imperial measurement.

Idont know about the rest of the world but they are probably a little
irked that this is the major market which the rest of you are trying
your best to particate in ,and behold in many cases you are fored into
complying with the measurement systems of this country .
I am not seeing too many subarus etc [which you countryman advertises
over here ] with metric gas gauges .
;4.	um,
;5.	um, um,
;6.	I guess that's all.

;Some disadvantages :
;1.	We have to travel further to get from town A to town B. What
used 
;to be 50 miles is now 80 kilometres ;-)
;2.	Can't think of any others.

;The funny thing about our metrication 30 yrs ago is that, while there
are 
;people still alive who grew up with the imperial system, both systems
of 
;measurement are, generally, acceptable.  I go down to the local
timber 
;supplier to get some wood and ask for 3 metres of 2" by 1" ... and
they 
;understand!  When I get it home and start a project, there are *only*

;metric rules and micrometers to be found.  I wouldn't work in the 
;imperial system ever again.

;Reading plans and interpreting dimensions from the Yankee mags means
that 
;a calculator to convert imperial to metric is never more than a foot
.. 
;er ... I mean ... 304.8 millimetres away. 

;Mike Hide (a yankee) wrote :
Living here in the south some I know would take offense at being
called yankees, as probably some in the north would take offense at
being called rebs . as far as Mike Hide goes for your info he is
neither . So wrong again I`m afraid .

;"I cant imagine why you Austrians adopted a french measurement system

;..."

;"Austria"??  "Austria?"??   That's a very long way from where I live
.. 
;you yanks sure lead a sheltered life ... the world was once thought
to be 
So dont you austrians ? blame the yanks for everthing ,we in the south
do it all the time .Blame the yankees for every thing that goes wrong
that is .As far as my earlier post goes you will notice a reference to
wannabies  the spelling was wallabies which infers that i was well
aware that they are not indiginous to Austria .
;square and once you got to the e
. you would fall off.  My 
;suspicions that you guys are taught to believe that the edge of the
world 
;now coincides with the edge of the 48 contiguous states has been 
;confirmed.
;:-) ;-) :-)
Getting back to the Austria bit you will notice that they have a
dopted the same system of measurements and lets face it they dont have
PINTS of beer not even fosters ., and they prance around in those
little leather trousers and all , so I guess the best is to come as
far as you all are concerned .
You know that we make laderhose and leather trousers here , so send
your orders in while there is still time ,only one problem as far as i
can see and thats we only make them in US sizes 

                               mjh
;Again, thanks for the informative responses.
;-- 
;Regards, Rick

;To email me first remove the * from the email address shown above.

---

From: Jerome R Yezierski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:57:41 -0500

Bill Pounds wrote:

>  BUT, and this is the secret part, 1 inch is not really one inch, it's 3/4 inch. 

   Sorry Mr Pounds 4/4 means 1 inch and 1/8. Yes it means rough
lumber.If its not you have just been ripped off by the seller. 

    When I was a newbie I asked about why rough luber was sold that way
and I was told that the tree is cut while it is still green.So they cut
it leaving that extra amount so that when it is dried it will be close
to a "heavy inch".Than once its milled(finished two sides)it will be
3/4inch. A good lumber mill will plane it a 1/16 larger so when you
finish sanding or glueing up and running thru a thickness planer again
it will be close to 3/4inch. 

    Thats a new one for me having lumber sold in metric in a place that
is /was so close to dear old England.
   It doesn't have anything to do with giving a job to Old England by
forcing folks to settle in Austriala does it:-)

 Great woodworking folks.
Jerome

---

From: [email-masked] (Computer Systems Manager)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:33:55 +1100

In article <[email-masked]>, Rick 
White says...

-- 
>From  the email I've received and from within the articles posted to this 
thread 
resulting from my original question, I get the feeling that there are 
some, as-yet, unhealed wounds amongst you.

It's obvious to me from your various responses that the War of 
Independence is *not* over, although the history books would have us 
believe that that occurred in 1776, and the Civil War betwitxt yankees 
and confederates/rebs has been in progress since 1860 and no abatement in 
the hostilities looks likely.  Rub out the bit that says it ended in 
1865. :-)

I had it in mind to ask another question about one of your more quaint 
American measuring systems for wood, but I'm having second thoughts now 
... I don't think it's worth it for your sake.

Thanks again for your responses ... I feel much more enlightened than 
before.

Regards, Rick

---

From: Bill Pounds <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:57:47 -0800

> forcing folks to settle in Austriala does it:-)

Nah, I don't think so. Four quarters means four quarters of an inch. I
learned in my advance calculus class that four quarters equals one. Of
course in lumber milling this is just a reference, and usually fresh
milled stock will be more than one inch. Maybe 1-1/8, maybe 1-1/16,
maybe even 1.010 inch. But the method is based on one inch nominally,
and nothing in my post implied that it would be exactly anything.

-- 
Bill Pounds
[email-masked]

---

From: David Carson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:51:46 -0500

Michael Peele wrote:
 
> The above list is for planks which is what most lumber dealers will 

For much of my experience, going back to  WWII, US lumber terminology
was based on size before dressing.  You could expect a one inch, planed,
board to measure  3/4" in thickness, a two inch board, 1 3/4 ".  Over
time this became complicated by changed dimensions of nominal
construction lumber. Instead of 1 3/4" a 2 x 4 becomes 1 1/2".  Hence
the /4 system attempts to provide a step backward to "real"
measurement.  

The first time I came across this, not being a professional, was 10 or
so years ago when I built a deck and found out the new standard for
treated decking was 5/4 boards--which actually measured 1".

Like all other systems, once you are familiar with it its complexity
doesn't matter.  Consider how difficult the old English monetary system
was for non-Brits--based as it was on a 12 scale rather than a decimal
scale. But for the natives, it was a no sweat proposition.

So it is with any system.  All of us have been taught to use the metric
system in the sciences and there is no doubt that it is most effective
in that environment.  On the roads and in the workshops or kitchens, the
English system is no less efficient.  Thank goodness, however,  we no
longer have to deal with pecks and perches very much.

But to say that using kilometers is more efficient than English statute
miles is absurd. So for that matter would be replacing the nautical mile
(used for both air and sea navigation) with the metric mile.  The same
is true with bolt and screw sizes.  The only advantage is to the
manufacturer who takes the time to conform his hardware to the user's
system.  Knowledge of a few conversions:  2.54 cm = 1 inch;
a quart of water weighs a pound; 4 qts to the gallon; a liter = 3.75
gallons; a cubic foot of water (sea) = 64 lbs.  You are in business.As a
matter of fact the Fahrenheit temp scale is still the most descriptive
for human existence in this world--because it was designed to do just
that.  In the temperate climates temps seldom exceed 100 or 0 degrees. 
The comfort zone lies in the mid zone after 50.

Celsius, or Baume scales to name a couple of others do not contain such
handy metaphorical correlations.

Talk about big brotherism.  Why should should US citizens (nearly 300
million strong change to make you Canucks and Aussies happy <grin>?

Cheers!

Kit Carson

When in Australia I don't mind using the metric system

---

From: r s herman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:35:13 -0600

Responding to Daves "dissertation" on measurement systems:

You inadvertently stated a fundamental flaw in your argument. All of us
unfortunately,(Americans) are really not exposed to the metric system. I 
was, as my profession dictated it. To argue that the metric is not more
efficient is silly. Since all units of S.I., whether volume or mass, use 
a common factor of ten with common prefixes, conversions within the 
system, as well as learning the prefixes, is vastly simplified. Kilo,
whether applied to meters or grams is always 1000., etc.
The US conversion, or aversion, in my understanding is primarily a
financial question- Our machine tool conversion cost would be indeed
immense if done in one fell swoop, but if done gradually, could be 
accomplished. To re-inforce my contention, my wife would be non-plussed
if I asked her to buy 30 liters of gasoline!

Roger H.

-- 
Life is too important to take seriously.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike [insert quote here] Bartman)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 23:22:33 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Michael John Hide) took the time to say:
>;what appears to me, to be an indefinable code.
>
>;Example: In the Dec.'96 issue of American Woodworker there is an article 

>meter stuff ? I suppose you all have aspirationsof being somewhat

Well, I for one am an American who would *love* it if we'd adopt this
world-wide standard.  Science and medicine in the U.S. adopted it decades
ago, since it is *MUCH* *MUCH* simpler and easier to work with than the
hodgepodge of measurements we've inherited from our non-technological
ancestors.

Everything in the metric system is based on 10s.  Different sized units are
multiples, or divisions, of 10 from the adjacent unit, and the name tells
you where you are in the scale world (if you speak a little latin ;^).

For example, the standard unit of measure is the meter.  It started out as
1/10,000,000 of the distance from the north pole to the equator through
Paris, but it was long ago changed to a large multiple of the frequency of
light emited by Krypton-86, so it can be generated anywhere (with the right
equipment).  Anyway, you've got this meter thing, which is about half an arm
span.  Divide it up into 10 pieces and you have decimeters (deci means "1
tenth").  Divide a decimeter into 10 parts and you have a centimeter (centi
means "1/100"), or 1/100 of a meter...about the width of a thumb or
fingernail.  Divide a centimeter into 10 parts and you have a millimeter
(milli means 1/1000).  Simple, huh?  If you want to convert centimeters to
meters, just shove the decimal point over two spots and you're done.  Try
converting inches to yards in your head sometime...not as easy is it?

Going the other way you just multiply by 10.  10 meters is a decameter (deca
means "ten").  10 decameters is (something I forget, since it isn't used
much), and 10 of those is a kilometer (kilo for 1000).

Quick!  How many inches in a mile?!?

While you work that out I'll figure the centimeters in a kilometer. 100
times 1000 is?  Right, 100,000.  Done.

A more practical comparison?  Ok, I'm removing a bolt with a socket set. 
The 9mm is a little too small.  What's the next size up?  Right, 10mm.

Now I'm doing the same job, but with english measurements.  The 5/16" socket
is a little too small, what's the next size up?  Depends on the socket set,
but probably 3/8".  I don't know about you, but I got from 9 to 10 a lot
easier than I got from 5/16 to 3/8...

Just to bring this back on topic, I was reading a british router magazine
the other day (my wife brought home a *pile* of woodworking mags from what
must be an outstanding bookstore she found! :^).  I was startled at how
*clean* the plans were and how easy it was to read all the measurements. 
They were in metric.  In millimeters.  All over the plans the dimensions
were shown as "10", "24", "126", etc. rather than things like '1 5/8"',
'3/8"', and '23 15/32"'.  *MUCH* easier to read, and much harder to
confuse...especially if you are scaling something up or down.

Give me metric any day!

>             hope you can deal with a friendly little jab      mjh  

Hope the info is useful.  I know you were kidding, but, come on people! When
are we going to crawl out of the middle ages and switch to a system that was
designed to be rational, simple, logical and easy to use?!?

-- Mike "weight and volume are the same pattern and prefixes..." Bartman --

==============================================================================
| I didn't really say all the things that I said.  You probably didn't read  |
| what you thought you read.  Statistics show that this whole thing is more  |
| than likely just a hideous misunderstanding.				     |
|                                -- * * * --                                 |
|             I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.               |
|                       I do complain to their ISPs.                         |
==============================================================================

==============================================================================
"Imagine the appeals, dissents and remandments, if lawyers had written The
Ten Commandments" -- Harry Bender
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike [insert quote here] Bartman)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 23:24:02 GMT

>feet ?  Note that the width and thickness are both reduced but not the

Lumber doesn't tend to shrink much in length, and they don't plane the ends
after drying...the 2x4 part is the rough cut dimension unless you want to
pay a lot extra for "dimension lumber".

               -- Mike "I'd rather make my own" Bartman --

==============================================================================
Government studies show that a 7% unemployment level is acceptable to 93% of
the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike [insert quote here] Bartman)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 23:39:32 GMT

>the big 5.0 plaques on the side.

Ummm...excuse me, but that "5.0" *is* metric.  It's liters... ;^)

>weighs 1kg and freezes at 0 degrees.  There are also similar comparisons

1 lire of water is only 1kg if it's at 4 degrees C....though you probably
won't notice a difference with household equipment.

             -- Mike "just trying to be precise!" Bartman --

==============================================================================
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates '81
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ken Stovesand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:18:35 -0500

Mike [insert quote here] Bartman wrote:
> world-wide standard....since it is *MUCH* *MUCH* simpler and easier to work with than the
> hodgepodge of measurements we've inherited...

You know, I have heard since grade school (early 60's) how everything
was going to be metric and how great it would be.  Here is my
observation as to what it has become:  (1) we now have a mix of english
and metric (buy 2 liter soda bottles and fill up the car with 12.5
gallons of gas) -- (2) I now have to have a box of tools that includes
both english and metric sizes (all mixed up - the only way to help sort
them out is that the sockets have little ridges around the outside), and
(3) I have to remember the engine displacement of all my old cars in
both liters and cubic inches.  Just this past week I wanted a starter
for my '85 Accord and the auto parts guy asked if it was the 1.8 liter
-- no problem I thought - but I opened the hood and it was in cubic
inches!  I was scrambling to convert!!  

Sorry to ramble but I contend that it is the effort to convert to metric
that has given us this "hodgepodge of measurements"  -- we inherited a
nice, consistent measurement system and our folly is to believe that we
can ever completely convert.  In the meantime, I will continue to plane
wood on a planer marked "200 mm" -- progress?

Regards,

Ken S.

---

From: Gerald Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 21:10:31 -0500

American lumber has always been sold by nominal rough cut size. 
However, the finished sizes have gotten smaller.  When I bought framing
lumber to build my house 30 years ago, the finished thickness was 3/8"
under and the finished width was 1/4" under.  Now, the finished
thickness is 1/2" under and the finished width is also 1/2" under.  Has
wood changed its basic properties in 30 years?  I suspect that the mills
are cutting the rough stuff thinner and narrower to maximize the yield
>from  a log.  The amount of material removed going from rough to finished
hasn't changed.

Back in the good old days, 3/4" plywood was 3/4" thick.  Now it is
23/32" thick.  Do they sand it more now to give the consumer a better
finish?  No way!  The reduction in thickness gives the wood
manufacturers an extra 3-5% profit from the veneer they get from a log. 
I'm certainly not going to stop buying wood, but somehow I feel cheated.

Gerald

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael John Hide)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:58:20 GMT

[email-masked] (Mike [insert quote here] Bartman) wrote:

;hodgepodge of measurements we've inherited from our non-technological
;ancestors.

Our non-technical ancestors? I suppose those are the ones that founded
the country and introduced the very handtools that we use today , the
very same ones that gave us the battle tank the swing wing aeroplane
the angled flight deck the jet engine the only supersonic passenger
aircraft and invented the programmable computer in WW11 which you are
currently using ,are those of which you speak ?

;Everything in the metric system is based on 10s.  Different sized
units are
;multiples, or divisions, of 10 from the adjacent unit, and the name
tells
;you where you are in the scale world (if you speak a little latin
;^).

;For example, the standard unit of measure is the meter.  It started
out as
;1/10,000,000 of the distance from the north pole to the equator
through
;Paris, but it was long ago changed to a large multiple of the
frequency of
;light emited by Krypton-86, so it can be generated anywhere (with the
right
;equipment).  Anyway, you've got this meter thing, which is about half
an arm
;span.  Divide it up into 10 pieces and you have decimeters (deci
means "1
;tenth").  Divide a decimeter into 10 parts and you have a centimeter
(centi
;means "1/100"), or 1/100 of a meter...about the width of a thumb or
;fingernail.  Divide a centimeter into 10 parts and you have a
millimeter
;(milli means 1/1000).  Simple, huh?  If you want to convert
centimeters to
;meters, just shove the decimal point over two spots and you're done.
Try
;converting inches to yards in your head sometime...not as easy is it?

;Going the other way you just multiply by 10.  10 meters is a
decameter (deca
;means "ten").  10 decameters is (something I forget, since it isn't
used
;much), and 10 of those is a kilometer (kilo for 1000).

;Quick!  How many inches in a mile?!?

;While you work that out I'll figure the centimeters in a kilometer.
100
;times 1000 is?  Right, 100,000.  Done.

;A more practical comparison?  Ok, I'm removing a bolt with a socket
set. 
;The 9mm is a little too small.  What's the next size up?  Right,
10mm.

;Now I'm doing the same job, but with english measurements.  The 5/16"
socket
;is a little too small, what's the next size up?  Depends on the
socket set,
;but probably 3/8".  I don't know about you, but I got from 9 to 10 a
lot
;easier than I got from 5/16 to 3/8...

;Just to bring this back on topic, I was reading a british router
magazine
;the other day (my wife brought home a *pile* of woodworking mags from
what
;must be an outstanding bookstore she found! :^).  I was startled at
how
;*clean* the plans were and how easy it was to read all the
measurements. 
;They were in metric.  In millimeters.  All over the plans the
dimensions
;were shown as "10", "24", "126", etc. rather than things like '1
5/8"',
;'3/8"', and '23 15/32"'.  *MUCH* easier to read, and much harder to
;confuse...especially if you are scaling something up or down.

;Give me metric any day!

;>             hope you can deal with a friendly little jab      mjh  

Why dont you try doing your drawings etc in inches and tenths as i
have for years , and then tell me whats the difference ,and for that
matter why change ?
It seems quite obvious you have not adhered to the golden rule ,ie he
who has the gold makes the rules ,and this just happens to be America
and it has settled on the imperial system .[for now at least].
                mjh

;Hope the info is useful.  I know you were kidding, but, come on
people! When
;are we going to crawl out of the middle ages and switch to a system
that was
;designed to be rational, simple, logical and easy to use?!?

;-- Mike "weight and volume are the same pattern and prefixes..."
Bartman --

;==============================================================================
;| I didn't really say all the things that I said.  You probably
didn't read  |
;| what you thought you read.  Statistics show that this whole thing
is more  |
;| than likely just a hideous misunderstanding.				     |
;|                                -- * * * --
|
;|             I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
|
;|                       I do complain to their ISPs.
|
;==============================================================================

;==============================================================================
;"Imagine the appeals, dissents and remandments, if lawyers had
written The
;Ten Commandments" -- Harry Bender
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael John Hide)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:02:08 GMT

;In article <[email-masked]>,
"Abacab" <[email-masked]> took the time to say:
;>pretty much the world.  The American's have been fighting about
changing
;>officially for years now, as they always tend to believe whatever
they do
;>is the best, but it's also their pride and joy American muscle cars
with
;>the big 5.0 plaques on the side.

;Ummm...excuse me, but that "5.0" *is* metric.  It's liters... ;^)

Here we are discussing the metric system ,how do you spell it , litre
or liter [as in the line above or the one below]?

;>About the system, as I said, makes a great deal of sense.  1 litre
of water
;>weighs 1kg and freezes at 0 degrees.  There are also similar
comparisons
;>for lengths.

;1 lire of water is only 1kg if it's at 4 degrees C....though you
probably
;won't notice a difference with household equipment.

;             -- Mike "just trying to be precise!" Bartman --

;==============================================================================
;"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates '81
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Bill Curnutte" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Feb 1997 20:28:38 GMT

If you'd like some more information on this "weird science" of lumber
sizing and grading, go to http://www.wwpa.org/index.html

This is the home page of the Western Wood Products Association.  While
their stuff deals mostly with construction lumber, you can still glean some
interesting info from them.

Bill Curnutte

Jerome R Yezierski <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...
...