Spot Quiz : What does this image represent?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

mikem wrote:

The foot can be divided by 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...... what is 1/3 of a meter?

Not sure that I get why being able to precisely divide a unit of measurement by 3 is so important. Continuing that logic dividing a foot by 5, 7, 9, and 10 doesn't really work. Are those divisions any less important?

Some Facts for you:
- 96.5% of the world's population use the metric system.
- The USA ratified the metric system in 1866 (they just failed to follow through on it).

Base twelve is nice to work with. Having four whole number factors can be quite handy. Thirds and quarters are each generally more useful than fifths.

[Anonymous]

Matthew wrote:
Base twelve is nice to work with. Having four whole number factors can be quite handy. Thirds and quarters are each generally more useful than fifths.

However decimals are far easier to work with than fractions. I think you'll find that the fast majority of folks would say it's more useful to add two decimals than to add two fractions, probably because fractions require heavy use of the Euclidian algorithm, and because of it's complexity, more errors can and do occur. Remember the Mars Rover fiasco?

Also, all systems of physical measurement inherently have error. In that context, objects like 1/3 of a meter are very artificial, it doesn't account for the implied error in the measurement. With decimal notations the error is explicitly given by the number of digits provided in the measurement. I personally find that distinction humanizing over the idealized fiction of "1/3".

But hey, if Americans want to bog themselves down with huge conversion tables, non-standard nomenclature, and lower quality engineering due to human error, all the power to them.

[Anonymous]

Cleverbeans wrote:

Matthew wrote:
Base twelve is nice to work with. Having four whole number factors can be quite handy. Thirds and quarters are each generally more useful than fifths.

However decimals are far easier to work with than fractions. I think you'll find that the fast majority of folks would say it's more useful to add two decimals than to add two fractions, probably because fractions require heavy use of the Euclidian algorithm, and because of it's complexity, more errors can and do occur. Remember the Mars Rover fiasco?

Also, all systems of physical measurement inherently have error. In that context, objects like 1/3 of a meter are very artificial, it doesn't account for the implied error in the measurement. With decimal notations the error is explicitly given by the number of digits provided in the measurement. I personally find that distinction humanizing over the idealized fiction of "1/3".

But hey, if Americans want to bog themselves down with huge conversion tables, non-standard nomenclature, and lower quality engineering due to human error, all the power to them.

I think you missed my point about growing two more fingers and switching to base twelve. Then decimal would seem rather silly.

[Anonymous]

The advantage of the metric system is that it is logical and integrated.

The Imperial system is made up of disparate historical decisions:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may99/926368601.Sh.r.html

Matthew 1000 (ie 1 m) divides pretty well:
- by 2 = 500 mm (20")
- by 3 = 333 mm (13")
- by 4 = 250 mm (10")
- by 5 = 200 mm (8")
- by 10 = 100 mm (4'') = height of a kickboard or width of a piece of timber
- by 20 = 50 mm (2") = thickness of a piece of timber
- by 25 = 40 mm (1.5") = thickness of a counter top
- by 50 = 20mm (3/4")= thickness of MDF board
- by 80 = 12.5 mm (1/2")
- by 100 = 10 mm (3/8")

And no fractions!

Also many things have easily remembered values:
- height of a seat = 450 mm (18")
- height of a table top = 700 mm (28")
- height of a counter = 900 mm (3')
- height of a door frame = 2100 mm (7')
- comfortable corridor width in a house = 1 m (3'3")
- ceiling height in a house 2.4 m (just under 8')
- ceiling height in an office 2.7 m (just under 9')
- small car bay = 5.4m x 2.5 m
- large car bay = 5.5m x 2.7m
- car park aisle width = 6m (just under 20')

Australia made the switch in the 70's and it was all done and dusted in 3 years. Building material sizes took a little longer to get rationalised but inside 10 years most were rationalised to metric sizes. For example an 8' x 4' plywood sheet became 2400 x 1200 mm whereas before metrication it was actually 2440 x 1220 mm.

The advantage of using the metric system in a globalised economic world are immense. No ambiguity and no having to manufacture items in two sizes.

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Canada has the right attitude on this and should probably have a different map colour.

Wood is Imperial; masonry and steel are Metric!

[Dwight]

Aaron wrote:
Canada has the right attitude on this and should probably have a different map colour.

grey, green and yellow stripes.

Aaron wrote:
Wood is Imperial

because the Americans buy the lumber.

[Anonymous]

mikem wrote:
Matthew 1000 (ie 1 m) divides pretty well...

I am not advocating for Imperial because there are 12 inches to the foot. In fact I'm not advocating for Imperial at all. I strongly favor metrification. I have done projects in metric and find it much easier to use. I also have strong scientific inclinations going back to my childhood so I have been using both for as many years.

My previous comments just reflect that I would prefer a duodecimal system to the decimal one we now use, not just for measuring but for all ordinary maths and calculations. Of course it's about as likely as all of us growing two more fingers, but if we had evolved that way it's probably how things would be. Despite our five fingered bias we still measure time and angles in duodecimal.

[Anonymous]

Strangely the legal requirement in Barbados is for metric (planning applications etc) but the reality is that architects and builders use imperial - a holdover from the past and reinforced by the fact that more people go to the US to study and virtually all of our imported materials and equipment are American.
Fortunately I grew up with both and have always been comfortable with either but my early architectural experience was with imperial. Then I went to the UK and it was all metric. I have to say that not only do I prefer metric by a HUGE margin but apart from my personal taste I think that it is simply a better system - particularly for a technical field like architecture, not to mention architecture on the computer.
I'm not sure that I saw any mention of paper sizes here. Have a look at this
Compare 'Arch A', 'Arch B' etc with the likes of A1, A2, A3 etc - no contest I'm afraid.
The US economy is gigantic so you can sustain doing your own thing - but ultimately imperial has a superior rival out there, and the rest of the world is on to it.

[Anonymous]

Matthew wrote:

Base twelve is nice to work with. Having four whole number factors can be quite handy. Thirds and quarters are each generally more useful than fifths.

I don't know, after a long hard week, having a fifth around can be very useful.

[Mark Wallace]

Scott wrote:

Matthew wrote:

Base twelve is nice to work with. Having four whole number factors can be quite handy. Thirds and quarters are each generally more useful than fifths.

I don't know, after a long hard week, having a fifth around can be very useful.

Speaking of rounds, there's always the ArchiPUB for a topic like this!

Mark