SpreadSheet Calculator

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
xelexo
shop deals on amazon
Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Noxx said:
Ya, it's because here, and all around the world, we use the metric system. And there is no period in numbers.
For example:
123.456 grams for you would be:
123,456 grams for us :p
Click to expand...
I'm really tripping over that one. Surely there must be a way to express a fraction of a full.

In your example, one may have no idea if the point at hand is a number that is six digits long, or one that is three digits long, with a three place decimal fraction. Said another way, is it one hundred twenty-three and 456/1000 gram, or is it one hundred twenty-three thousand four hundred fifty-six grams?

I'm far from being a mathematician, but if what you say is correct, the only advantage I can see to the metric system is the huge opportunity to get things wrong. As far as I know, there most certainly is a decimal, and there should be.

The inch may be confusing to some, but I deal with it by any and all means, with total ease. I, for one, have resisted the switch to metric, especially where machining is concerned.

Harold
 
The metric conversion in Canada did not come without problems.

A commercial aircraft was filled with liters instead of gallons and the end result is that the aircraft ran out of fuel shortly after take off. The pilot was ex-military and was aware of an airbase not on the map. He was able to glide the Boeing 767 about 300 miles and land on the closed military landing strip.

To make things interesting, the airfield was hosting a car rally at the time. Most of the car folk never even heard let alone saw the aircraft approaching.

The aircraft I believe had 200+ passengers all survived. I worked on that aircraft for the next 13 years knowing I was working on a miracle aircraft.

Look up "the gimli glider" - true story.
 
Thanks for the assurance, Oz. Now I'm firmly convinced I don't like the damned system.

Harold
 
It messed with me too when I first had to learn it (I lived overseas for several years). However in science there are distinct advantages such as a cubic centimeter equaling a milliliter tying volumes to distance. A pint, cup, quart of gallon gives no such reference. As an example I think most people would be astounded to find out that the gallon milk jug in their refrigerator is less than a 1/7th of a cubic foot. It takes 7.48 gallons to fill a cubic foot. How many Americans know how many feet are in a mile? Probably less than how many know the number of meters in a kilometer.

Having said that I grew up in the US so yes, the metric system messes with me on some things.
 
Surprisingly, because of my years of refining, I became somewhat familiar with the metric system as it relates to volumes. The real advantage for me was when I had dual markings on graduates and cylinders, so I could related one volume to another.

Refining was a great teacher. I am now comfortable with many systems, carrying the conversions in my head. I dealt with grains regularly, and can equate them to carats, ounces, both troy and avoirdupois, as well as pounds, and metric weights. 15.432 grains = 1 gram. 1 carat is 1/5 of a gram, or 3.0864 grains. A troy ounce weighs 31.10348 grams, or 480 grains. The av. oz weighs 437.5 grains. Av pound weighs 7,000 grains, and is made up of 16 av. ounces. Troy pound 5,760 grains, and is made up of 12 troy ounces. 453.6 grams = a pound av.

Oh yeah, there's 5,280 feet/mile. I thought everyone knew that.

The point is that regardless of the depth of complexity, when a person must learn these things, it's not beyond possibility. I don't get them confused, but then I can't stand the sound of Norah Jones singing, either. . I guess it's all in what's important to you.

I would go nuts in a world that did not recognize a decimal to designate portions of a whole. Even in machining, I routinely convert fractions to decimals. It's the way measurements are taken with precision measuring instruments.

In a way, I can see where a comma can serve. An example might be when discussing the centimeter. It stands to reason that one would interpret 2,54 as 2 being the whole number, with the ,54 being the fraction------but in the case I mentioned, such as 123,456-----how would one know that the 123 is the whole number, with the 456 being a fraction? Seems to me it could be easily confused.

Comments?

I think I'll stick with Ella Fitzgerald. Maybe throw in a little Mel Tormé!

Harold
 
I'll bet ya the farm NASA did not use the imperial measurement system to put the first man on the moon.

edit: Google wins the farm, NASA has only been using the metric system since 1990 then only in certain programs.

The one that get me is the American gallon 128 fluid oz versus the Canadian gallon 160 fluid oz.
 
Harold, could you imagine a blueprint with numbers like these? You wouldn't know if I was making something 1.375", or 1,375 feet.

I'm used to switching between both systems but I've never seen this before. We have a couple of big customers at work, one being Boral Bricks that works soley with the standard system, and another, Industrial Insulation Group, which was built by a team of german engineers. If you think these commas are confusing, you should try building something from a whole folder full of blueprints written 30 years ago in german using the metric system. Not only do you have to translate it over, but then you must convert the sizes, and then (in most cases) program it into the maching using "M" code. All my measuring instruments are standard inch, btw. Thank God for 25.4 :D
 
Excavating blueprints in the US are done in tenths of a foot, I used to show people struggling with tenths in inches and feet that a carpenters framing square has inch divisions in a tenths scale directly across from a sixteenths scale to scale the plans. I would entertain myself at their expense for a while watching them try all sorts of crazy ways trying to figure it out first though.
 
10/12 = 83.33%

1 ft x 83.33% = .8333 inches per foot.

That's how I would do it. Then again, I'm asinine and I like math.
 
Think about it, you are saying that there are .8333 inches to a foot? I think what you meant was that you would reduce the size of an inch using 10 or 12 of them for a foot, but then your foot would not be a foot it would be shorter. They are no longer inches, they are tenths of a foot and a tenth of a foot is longer than an inch. Using a decimal measurement of an inch like a machinist still leaves you in a system of 10 that cannot be used with a standard tape measure. You could call them inches or even thumbs but they are longer than an inch. Even when they got the math right they were still stuck with laying it out with a standard rule.
 
ha, you're right. I meant 1" = .8333". It would be quite simple really. You can figure this backwards by adding .1667% to whatever your drawing states, then measure it like you always would. But again, this is still quite asinine if you have a 1/10 rule in the first place.

It sounds like you have lived a interesting life Oz, living overseas must have been quite fun.
 
GTC said:
Nice job, but Shouldn't DWT be 1.55 times gram price rather than divided by 1.55
Click to expand...
Very close to true. A gram contains 15.432 grains----a dwt contains 24 grains.

Harold
 
About the only people I know that have scales that weigh in grains are those that reload ammunition. For the record those scales tend to be more accurate than most here use as they are weighing a light material that if an error is made it can prove fatal.

Since I can zero in my powder scale it is what I check my electronic scales with once a week. Unless we get $10,000.00 rhodium again that accuracy is typically good enough.
 
Oz said:
About the only people I know that have scales that weigh in grains are those that reload ammunition. For the record those scales tend to be more accurate than most here use as they are weighing a light material that if an error is made it can prove fatal.

Since I can zero in my powder scale it is what I check my electronic scales with once a week. Unless we get $10,000.00 rhodium again that accuracy is typically good enough.
Click to expand...

I think the set of scales I just got does. I whish I had my powder scales back.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top