# If anyone needs to borrow this tool....



## substandard (Dec 31, 2011)

I came across a unique tool yesterday at the local pawn shop, and to help pay back the forum members for all their help I thought it would be nice to loan the tool out to who ever may need it. 

It is a quality Japanese made wood auger in 4/16" diameter. You know, when a 1/4" hole is just a bit to small, then you can use this 4/16" bit.

Just let me know if anyone needs to borrow it for a project ;D


----------



## hitandmissman (Jan 1, 2012)

Boy oh boy, I just gotta find one of those for myself, lol.


----------



## chuck foster (Jan 1, 2012)

i work in the semi tubular rivet business and they always use fractions like that for size and length.

example 10/64ths diameter x 28/64ths long (5/32 x 7/16) it is a crazy way to measure things but as far as i know all rivet manufactures use this system.
we had a box of rivets one time that were 16/64ths diameter x 84/64ths long (1/4 x 1 5/16).
i have never figured out why it is done this way but there must be a reason.
as far as your drill..............i would put it on ebay and sell it as a very rare drill worth hundreds of bucks you know like 25,000 cents  :big:

thanks for showing us the drill.

chuck


----------



## mklotz (Jan 1, 2012)

One of the advantages of the metric system is the ability to compare sizes intuitively without the need to do the arithmetic required in the Inferial system. No thinking is required to know that a 4 mm drill is larger than a 3 mm. Deciding what the next size up from a 7/32 drill requires mental arithmetic beyond the comfort level of most people. Labeling drills in 64ths would make using them a lot easier. Of course, in a society that thinks labeling drills with abstract letters and numbers that have no relationship to size is a good idea, such simplification may be excessive.


----------



## rleete (Jan 1, 2012)

mklotz  said:
			
		

> No thinking is required to know that a 4 mm drill is larger than a 3 mm.



So, what you're saying is that metric is for the simple minded?


----------



## pcw (Jan 1, 2012)

rleete  said:
			
		

> So, what you're saying is that metric is for the simple minded?



well, it works for me 

Pascal


----------



## substandard (Jan 1, 2012)

mklotz  said:
			
		

> One of the advantages of the metric system is the ability to compare sizes intuitively without the need to do the arithmetic required in the Inferial system. No thinking is required to know that a 4 mm drill is larger than a 3 mm. Deciding what the next size up from a 7/32 drill requires mental arithmetic beyond the comfort level of most people. Labeling drills in 64ths would make using them a lot easier. Of course, in a society that thinks labeling drills with abstract letters and numbers that have no relationship to size is a good idea, such simplification may be excessive.



I had to learn the metric system in college, and you are absolutely correct.


----------



## shred (Jan 1, 2012)

Somewhere I have a drill marked 12/32". I always thought that made a vague sort of sense, especially as part of a set. It's also a square-shank.


----------



## steamer (Jan 1, 2012)

rleete  said:
			
		

> So, what you're saying is that metric is for the simple minded?



That's not what Marv meant. He means that you don't need to worry about a denominator
that's all

I regularly use both systems and I agree

Dave


----------



## rleete (Jan 1, 2012)

It was meant as a good natured poke at Marv. I'm sure he got it.


----------



## steamer (Jan 1, 2012)

Ahhhhhh gotcha....Marv's humor is well......Marv's ;D

Dave


----------



## mklotz (Jan 2, 2012)

rleete  said:
			
		

> It was meant as a good natured poke at Marv. I'm sure he got it.



I got it. I would have responded but I couldn't think of anything sufficiently simple-minded.


----------



## Troutsqueezer (Jan 2, 2012)

How come 10 gauge is bigger than 12 gauge? Isn't that backwards? And how come a mil is an imperial measurement and a millimeter is metric? mil should be short for millimeter but it's not. scratch.gif


----------



## mklotz (Jan 2, 2012)

Most of the gage numbers derive from how many times the material has been through the rolling/drawing mill. If it's only been through 10 times then naturally it will be bigger/thicker than if it's been rolled/drawn 12 times.

Perhaps "how many times it's been through the roller" is a useful and meaningful measure to folks who work in a rolling mill. The idiocy arises when shop floor shortcuts like this escape the factory and become a part of the measurement system - as has been the case with the Inferial system.

[Oh, and just to make things more convoluted, music wire gets thicker with increasing gage number. If we're talking shotgun gauge, it's how many balls are required to weigh a pound - ten gauge balls are bigger than 12 so it takes fewer to make a pound.]

A rational nomenclature should have the following characteristics...

1. Open-ended at both ends so as smaller or larger sizes are needed they can be fit into the existing nomenclature. (Compare with our designation for batteries (AA, AAA, AAAA), drills (A-Z), and screws (0, 00, 000, 0000).)

2. Small numbers should denote small items and large numbers large items. (Numbered drills, wire gages, etc. are counter-examples).

3. The nomenclature should *directly* convey information about the size. (Quick, what's the diameter of a #0000-160 screw?)

If the think about it, about the only system that satisfies these requirements is to label things by their size - which is precisely what is done in the metric system.


----------



## MachineTom (Jan 2, 2012)

Metric often makes sense, but then again. If you were making some small engine parts they might be 125mm long x 70 x 50 as a machinist. But Hans the carpenter would think they are 1.25cm x .7cm x .5cm but every metric measure I see is marked in mm, so the mark for 1.25 cm is a 10 and a 2 then count 5 lines, so its not that simple. Or he thinks its a box 125cm x 70cm x 50cm. Now setting up type sizes in 1/6, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12 of an inch thats a pita.


----------



## Troutsqueezer (Jan 3, 2012)

I've learned a few things today, including how to spell "gage". I'm not even going to ask why wood plank thicknesses are specified in quarter inch increments, for example: 1.25" thickness is spec'd as 5/4.


----------



## Peter. (Jan 3, 2012)

substandard  said:
			
		

> I had to learn the metric system in college, and you are absolutely correct.



I learned it way before college - mother nature outfitted me with the standard number of fingers.


----------



## terryd (Jan 3, 2012)

MachineTom  said:
			
		

> Metric often makes sense, but then again. If you were making some small engine parts they might be 125mm long x 70 x 50 as a machinist. But Hans the carpenter would think they are 1.25cm x .7cm x .5cm but every metric measure I see is marked in mm, so the mark for 1.25 cm is a 10 and a 2 then count 5 lines, so its not that simple. Or he thinks its a box 125cm x 70cm x 50cm. Now setting up type sizes in 1/6, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12 of an inch thats a pita.



There is no such thing as a centimetre in the international ISO metric system, why it is still talked about I really don't know, and a mil *is* short for a millimetre just about everywhere else on the Planet. As a Brit, I find the complications of the US so called imperial system mind boggling. One system for screw sizes, one for wood thickness and what on earth is a five penny nail and as for volumetric measures, forget it. How you citizens of the USA cope I really don't know. I've heard that we are two nations separated by a common language but the imperial system???

A very Happy and successful New Year to all (I think that is clear enough),

Terry


----------



## shred (Jan 3, 2012)

terryd  said:
			
		

> . As a Brit, I find the complications of the US so called imperial system mind boggling. One system for screw sizes, one for wood thickness and what on earth is a five penny nail and as for volumetric measures, forget it. How you citizens of the USA cope I really don't know.


I'd venture to guess that foreign-language speakers say the same thing about the English language 

I suspect there's a cultural/psychological reason we randomly make up units, measures and verb tenses, even in face of better systems.


----------



## ShopShoe (Jan 3, 2012)

I have lived in different parts of the world and worked on stuff made anywhere. I have no problem with using the different systems ----- Just don't tell me that the 8mm bolt is 1/4-20 when it's 8mm.

FYI, mil for one thousand is from mille which is from Latin and French roots: Does the purchase order mean they want 1,000 or 1,000,000? I want 300 thousand: one-half of the people I have dealt with want me to spec 300K and the other half want me to spec 300M. (great when abbreviations must be used by another policy: "...this is unacceptable because you wrote it out.")

Is it still better to be a British billionaire than an American one?

I used to work in a print shop and and we had to use picas, agates, lines, and points. Try getting in the middle of a discussion about scaling metric art to print on an old US press and measuring it all with a pica rule.

Regarding the original post: I was taught that the sizing of auger bits was incremented only by 16ths of an inch: Many I have only bear a single number, like "9" (9/16). this was probably adequate for woodworking with hand brace and bit. (And I learned this so long ago that I was taught how to sharpen them with a special file: "And be sure to touch up the screw point so it will be pulled into the work.")


----------



## ref1ection (Jan 3, 2012)

I'm willing to bet that in most countries kids are taught in school the system they will use in the workforce. Here in Canada kids are taught the metric system and once out in the real world discover that every trade uses imperial, which they were never taught. ???

Ray


----------



## mklotz (Jan 3, 2012)

terryd  said:
			
		

> As a Brit, I find the complications of the US so called imperial system mind boggling. One system for screw sizes, one for wood thickness and what on earth is a five penny nail and as for volumetric measures, forget it. How you citizens of the USA cope I really don't know. I've heard that we are two nations separated by a common language but the imperial system???




There are seven different barrel sizes used in the USA, with the size being dependent on the contents. Their names and metric equivalents are as follows: US cranberry (95.5 liters), US dry (115.628 liters), US liquid (119.24 liters), US federal (117.348 liters), US federal proof spirits (151.416 liters), US drum (208.4 liters), US petroleum (135 kg.), US petroleum statistical (158.99 liters).

The mnemonic goes "A pint's a pound the world around." Does an (American) pint of water really weigh a pound?

The short answer is no but it's close. A pint is 473 milliliters which would weigh 473 grams. A pound weighs 454 grams. Of course, for convenience, the pint (and gallon) differ depending on which side of the pond you're on.

Is a fluid ounce (floz) a measure of weight or of volume?

Despite the 'oz', floz is a measure of volume. Makes as much sense as anything else in the Inferial clusterf....


----------



## tel (Jan 3, 2012)

Troutsqueezer  said:
			
		

> I've learned a few things today, including how to spell "gage".



Next week we'll move on to 'cauge' and 'rauge'! Youse ain;t ready for 'plough' or 'cheque' yet!


----------



## mklotz (Jan 3, 2012)

Troutsqueezer  said:
			
		

> I've learned a few things today, including how to spell "gage".



Just be careful, though. Too many folks want to spell it "guage". Sadly, Guage is a small town in Kentucky and nothing else. It certainly isn't an alternate spelling of "gauge".


----------



## rustyknife (Jan 3, 2012)

I don't believe its an IMP vs Metric system argument. It's really a fractional vs decimal system argument

Imperial system can either be decimal or fractional, the metric is only decimal.

It actually makes the imperial system far superior. If your doing calculations and complex math, fractions are necessary because they are more accurate, if you start rounding numbers, which is a requirement of a decimal based system, you can be far far off.

But I agree with practical everyday things, fractions need to go......decimal only baby. I can tell a .030 inch drill is bigger then a .020 inch drill by looking at the number, and I didn't use metric.

one could most certainly argue that metric decimal is more accurate as .001mm is far smaller then .001 inches, but then again, that's not REALLY practical for my everyday use


----------



## student_Machinist (Jan 3, 2012)

rustyknife  said:
			
		

> Imperial system can either be decimal or fractional, the metric is only decimal.
> 
> It actually makes the imperial system far superior


If by superior you mean complicated then i agree ;D


----------



## terryd (Jan 3, 2012)

mklotz  said:
			
		

> ...........The mnemonic goes "A pint's a pound the world around." Does an (American) pint of water really weigh a pound?
> 
> The short answer is no but it's close. A pint is 473 milliliters which would weigh 473 grams. A pound weighs 454 grams. Of course, for convenience, the pint (and gallon) differ depending on which side of the pond you're on.
> 
> ...



There are a couple of things there that complicate matters (as if they were not complicated enough ???).
A UK pint is about 20% larger than a US pint at about 568 cc (millilitres) and there are 20 fl oz in our pint and they weigh exactly one oz (Avoirdupois system, not Troy -which has 12 oz per lb- used for precious metals etc) and an English gallon weighs exactly 10 pounds as there are 8 UK pints to a UK gallon. The mnemonic a _'pint is a pound the world around'_ is nonsense as ours weighs a pound and a quarter, and besides a pint costs much more than a pound over here. More like £3.50 in most places. Of course I mean a pint of beer! My head's dizzy, I think I need a pint .

Regards all,

Confusedly yours,

Terry


----------



## Peter. (Jan 4, 2012)

rustyknife  said:
			
		

> It actually makes the imperial system far superior. If your doing calculations and complex math, fractions are necessary because they are more accurate, if you start rounding numbers, which is a requirement of a decimal based system, you can be far far off.



Aah, but if you break it down further the numerator and denominator numbers of those fractions - they are decimals, which uses the same base as the metric system.

I don't mind the fractions, what gets me is the tap sizes like 10-32 where the number 10 is simply used designate the screw size. It's a 3/16 diameter screw so why not call it a 3/16 - 32?


----------



## Mainer (Jan 4, 2012)

#10 is not exactly 3/16". A #10 screw is 0.190" and 3/16" is 0.1875". Often though, the difference is ignorable.

I personally prefer Imperial. Units are based on what are useful human-scale dimensions. The irrationality of it all appeals to me. The mental conversion required I consider to be a statement against the dumbing-down of America. ;D


----------



## lordedmond (Jan 4, 2012)

Well the metric system works well for me ( I was brung up with feet and inches and LSD  (pounds shilling & pence) ) age is a decrepit 65

my lathe is metric but is a diameter lathe i.e. the dials are marked up in such a way that 1 on the dial takes off 1 mm off the dia.

that being said if I set the digital calliper to the size I require and do not move the jaw but zero the display measure the work piece and the number displayed is the amount to take off , just dial it in with the dials on the feed screw

If per chance I need to do imp set the calliper to imp measure , zero and flip the units and continue as above, 

Note no nasty maths involved let the tools do the work


Stuart


----------



## mklotz (Jan 4, 2012)

rustyknife  said:
			
		

> one could most certainly argue that metric decimal is more accurate as .001mm is far smaller then .001 inches...



You could argue that if you want to compare apples and oranges. Any measurement can be made as finely as equipment permits in any measurement system.

Talking about the "accuracy" of a measurement system is pure nonsense. All measurement systems are based on arbitrary standards whether it's nose-to-thumb distance or pole-to-equator distance. Accuracy is defined by the tools used to make the measurements, not the measurement system itself.


----------



## mklotz (Jan 4, 2012)

Mainer  said:
			
		

> I personally prefer Imperial. ... The irrationality of it all appeals to me.



You must be a deliriously happy man then.


----------



## terryd (Jan 7, 2012)

rustyknife  said:
			
		

> ........................Imperial system can either be decimal or fractional, the metric is only decimal.
> 
> It actually makes the imperial system far superior. If your doing calculations and complex math, fractions are necessary because they are more accurate, if you start rounding numbers, which is a requirement of a decimal based system, you can be far far off



Ah yes I agree about the absolute accuracy of fractions, but there are many more mistakes made multiplying and especially dividing fractions, especially as mental arithmetic, and as for dissimilar fractions Woah!. What do I hear? "Convert them to decimals to simplify the task". There's a good idea".

Also remember as others point out, the World, the Universe and our measurements aren't absolute, only relative.  The world is one whole big exercise in compromise as is my model engineering and it's a losing battle trying to fight that fact.

I found out today that experimenters have now discovered that Britain rises about 120 mm as our tectonic plate moves under the effects the water mass in a high tide, that's twice a day. As our weight depends on the distance from the centre of the Earth (distance between the centres of 2 masses) I therefore decree that I will only weigh myself at high tide. - must go and check the tide tables for absolute accuracy 

Regards

T


----------



## maverick (Jan 7, 2012)

You may have something there Terry. I could open a weight loss clinic on top of 14,115 foot Pike's Peak. Not many other
 places in the country that a person would weigh less.


----------



## steamer (Jan 7, 2012)

mklotz  said:
			
		

> You could argue that if you want to compare apples and oranges. Any measurement can be made as finely as equipment permits in any measurement system.
> 
> Talking about the "accuracy" of a measurement system is pure nonsense. All measurement systems are based on arbitrary standards whether it's nose-to-thumb distance or pole-to-equator distance. Accuracy is defined by the tools used to make the measurements, not the measurement system itself.



Quite right Marv....in the Ultra precision world like fractions of nanometers...everything is measured with white laser.....no micrometers need apply....once the computer counts the fringes....you can output to either system....

Accuracy comes down to the instrument used.

Dave


----------



## archer3d (Jan 14, 2012)

Just think what the world would be like if we still measured things in Cubits  :fan:

keep smiling
tom


----------

