Fractions

architech wrote:I'm waiting for CAD questions - LOL

OK Why do Architects use such uncivilized units of measure like feet and fractions? Why can't they just use decimal inches? and what's up with this world wide conspiracy to foce me to buy special tools in some goofy system that uses Micky Meters? Seriously guys WTF Why can't every one use inches like 48.09312"? why do we have to be so imprecise?

I don't think Architects started this trend.

I think it was the contractor that began this trend... in rebellion to the British metric system.... LOL

Like any child who rebells against their parent... children will do things differently on purpose.

Who knows...

So you guys have the

Mile_Yard_Foot_inch_??

nothing smaller than an inch ??

Up the British Metric System!
Yey!

Why fix something that's not broken is what I say!

ps_port wrote:nothing smaller than an inch ??

Yea Paul, but I won't go in to the rumors going round Your Local Pub

skeeps wrote:Up the British Metric System!
Yey!

Why fix something that's not broken is what I say!

Said the pommy who until recently used the "Imperial", yes "imperial" (as in the British Empire) system of weights and measures.

always dragging up the past...let bygones be bygones

hahaha

skeeps wrote:always dragging up the past...let bygones be bygones

Well Skeeps I guess you showed us who the "BIGGER" man is, you never even Mentioned the reason the Aussies went to metric, was they needed to measure their "less than an inch"!!!
Skeeps you know why there are no Draughtswoman in Australia

Because all the Draftsmen keep telling them that |------------| is 9" or 1850 Micky Meters

Alan Cullen wrote:

skeeps wrote:Up the British Metric System!
Yey!

Why fix something that's not broken is what I say!

Said the pommy who until recently used the "Imperial", yes "imperial" (as in the British Empire) system of weights and measures.

Alan's correct.... it is from the Brits.



And after googling this subject....
Turns out there was this ---- The Weights and Measures Act of 1824 and the Act of 1878 ----
which tried to impose a standard measuring system....
But like I said... the Americans... decided not to follow .... call it a rebellion... a tantrum... whatever...
LOL

By the way, "ORGANIZED" Architects didn't come into play until May of 1919.... which formed the group called NCARB.

So it wasn't us who caused the problem.

OK and this is a serious Question directed @ ARCHITECH. I again noticed this today while working on a project involving WOOD. WHY is it that a 2x4 is anywhere between 1.5" and 2.25" BY 3.5" and 4.25" Why is a 2x4 not 2"x4" like it would be in steel? I've noticed that no Wood or Architectural Measurement is ever close to spec. How is that you can build a building 400' high and 1/2" is all good ? Seriously how can I design or Draw for anything if tolerance is +- ohh .25"?

Gotta hold your tongue right first Rick.....

Rickard5 wrote:OK and this is a serious Question directed @ ARCHITECH. I again noticed this today while working on a project involving WOOD. WHY is it that a 2x4 is anywhere between 1.5" and 2.25" BY 3.5" and 4.25" Why is a 2x4 not 2"x4" like it would be in steel? I've noticed that no Wood or Architectural Measurement is ever close to spec. How is that you can build a building 400' high and 1/2" is all good ? Seriously how can I design or Draw for anything if tolerance is +- ohh .25"?

I know this one...

The nominal dimension represents the ACTUAL size when the lumber is cut!
But its considered the rough cut ---- while the lumber is still green (WET).
As the lumber dries and is finally planed... it shrinks.

And since water evaporation and field conditions of the lumber are unknown....
its hard to predict exact sizes.

And THAT....is why the buildings keep falling over. (Or keep shrinking).

hehe... shrinkage!!