I'd like to set the clock in the time machine to 1993 and go back and slap everybody that thought that was going to work out well.......:-@
In theory that shouldn't be a problem, in practice, it's probably a NIGHTMARE!!!
o.O
Loyal
> I'd like to set the clock in the time machine to 1993 and go back and slap everybody that thought that was going to work out well.......:-@
it's just numbers... you have hard time dealing with chains and links too? 😉
Seriously, I did a bunch of military and Caltrans work in the 90's, all metric. It took a bit to get adjusted, but after a bit it was actually easier. And those foot.decimal/meter pocket tapes still come in real handy today.
It Would Have worked very well if the feds had not waffled and dropped the move to Metric.
PS: ever worked on a grid in inches with 0,0,0 in the center of the project? Berkeley labs has some real smart fellers!
it's just numbers...
The problem I have heard is that the plans are metric and often the construction contractor could not find metric materials. The contractor and DOT respecified all materials in equivalent English units. Have been told that the materials summaries in some plans were not changed. Only change orders issued and not attached to the plans. Now you go back and prepare for maintenance or upgrade and nothing fits the original plans.
Earlier today I was looking at a couple of section corner reports with everything in metric. A half-inch rebar is reported as 0.013m bar
Plywood too is commonly sized in metric.
Dave-
http://www.windsorplywood.com/how-to-detail.aspx?id=1274
Yes, metric is not my favourite unit.
More mistakes are made because of metric designs than most humans would normally make.
While for some it may be 'easier' surveyors already had decimalized the foot !
Statistically, one cannot measure repeatedly accurately to three places of decimals (metric).
But then Samuel L. Clemens and Disraeli vie for authorship of: " There are lies, damned lies and statistics".
Cheers,
Derek
> Statistically, one cannot measure repeatedly accurately to three places of decimals (metric).
nor to two places in decimal feet. maybe +/- 4 or 5 hundredths, but not down to the that degree.
so, do we round off to the tenth of a foot, or continue with the non repeatable?
BTW: I just ignore the third place in metric land measurements, just like I ignore 1/2 inch 😉
> The problem I have heard is that the plans are metric and often the construction contractor could not find metric materials. The contractor and DOT respecified all materials in equivalent English units. Have been told that the materials summaries in some plans were not changed. Only change orders issued and not attached to the plans. Now you go back and prepare for maintenance or upgrade and nothing fits the original plans.
As-Builts? markups of the plans with material changes are pretty common in my little world.
There's only one meter.
Trying to explain the two different definitions of a foot to a layperson has made me wish the metric proselytizers before me would have pushed on.
Soft Metric Or Hard Metric?
NJ DOT had some metric projects, and then not. I will not search out the grizzly details.
Some they tried as Hard Metric where the feet to meters coversions were to the gnat's butt. On others they tried a Soft Metric conversion so things only had to be close, i.e. 1' = 0.3m.
The NJ DOT project that affect my design work was changed back to feet before planning board approval, so I had 2 sets of NJDOT plans.
Paul in PA
Abandoning an existing measurement system for a modern one designed by the French....what can go wrong with that?