# Forum Home Renovation Tools & Products  Silly square

## PlatypusGardens

A setsquare I got a while back...               
As with clamps, you can never have too many squares, so I grabbed this from the bargain bin.
Although at $12 I'm not even convinced it was that good a deal.    
So, when I went to use it, and held it against the work piece I was like.....whaaaaaat?  
The bloody numbers start from the outer end, not the handle end.         
Not only that but they don't even line up with the inside of the handle             
But it gets better....  
Turn it over and we've got imperial.         
While they start at the right end, they still don't line up with the inside of the square either.                 
Guess I should have had a better look when I bought it.   :Smilie:             
Just thought I'd share that with you all.

----------


## phild01

As much as I miss the imperial measurements I really wish they would just rid of it off any tool, especially squares, frustrates me no end!
That one must be destined for the bin.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Is it actually square?  Even if it is you still paid $10 too much. 
At the other end of the scale is this beautiful thing.... 300mm Precision Woodworking Square

----------


## phild01

> Is it actually square?  Even if it is you still paid $10 too much. 
> At the other end of the scale is this beautiful thing.... 300mm Precision Woodworking Square

  It's full of inches!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It's full of inches!

  It is...but the Oz version is truly metric. Graeme and his elves foolishly keep using Woodpeckers pics rather than taking their own.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

It is square actually.
It's banished from the shed to the ute toolbox and I only use it to mark timber when cutting with circ saw.   :Smilie:

----------


## Bros

A while ago a bloke I know was telling me that construction jobs he has been on they have a reference length for tapes and if your tape doesn't come up to the grade it can't be used.  
Now I don't know weather he was having a lend of me or not.

----------


## Bedford

> A while ago a bloke I know was telling me that construction jobs he has been on they have a reference length for tapes and if your tape doesn't come up to the grade it can't be used.

  There is a good reason for that.  :Doh:

----------


## Bros

> There is a good reason for that.

    Which one is right?

----------


## phild01

A kitchen door maker I engaged disputed the accuracy of my tape measure and visited me with his 'reference' tape.  He conceded it was their error as his tape was no different to mine.
I find cut to size services inevitably have errors up to 0.5mm and slight out of square error as well.  I think it might just be lousy calibration disciplines that do this.
I always check in-store a tape before I buy it.
Also when measuring, the leading hook's positioning can give slight error as well.

----------


## phild01

> There is a good reason for that.

  Unbelievable, how can it be so wrong!

----------


## OBBob

> Which one is right?

  Depends if the mm or inches are out I guess.  
Is it a practical joke tape measure?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Bedford

> Which one is right?

  The one on the left!  :Biggrin:    

> Depends if the mm or inches are out I guess.

  The MMs are consistent on both tapes.   

> Is it a practical joke tape measure?

  Not really, it was bought in good faith from the 2 dollar shop. 
There is some discussion here, Imperial vs Metric system about it. 
Seems it could be a legitimate Chinese measurement.

----------


## METRIX

> Which one is right?

  The yellow one is right, there is 25.4mm to an inch, not 33mm as shown on the white one, HA HA HA HA HA

----------


## OBBob

Errg... oops.

----------


## David.Elliott

Same but different...
Background in printing.
Some years ago Spicers Paper went down the QA path, and engaged a QA company for the project.
QA idiot insisted that the paper guillotine operators had a 1m steel rule on the wall and the operators had to have theirs compared each hour by the warehouse manager. In case they cut the end off on a guillotine. 
Warehouse manager suggested that was possibly 7 times more per day than was needed.
QA idiot asked if they had guillotines, to which the answer was obviously yes! 
At that time QA idiot informed warehouse manger that his background was nuclear subs, and so what he said went.
Manager then asked if QA man had ever seen a paper guillotine, answer no. 
Then he suggested he come down and have a look "coz if we ever hit a steel rule in a paper guillotine, the whole factory will know!"
Once QA man saw the blade he had an epiphany.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE9bn1BBJoY
and that ones slow...
I did it once on a 1.5m wide guillotine. I just binned the undies, didn't even try!

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Ugh.... Imperial vs Metric.  
I love it when people try to convince me that "65/11-teens and five thou" makes more sense than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10....   :Rofl:

----------


## FrodoOne

> Which one is right?

  Why do you need to ask - since the "Inch" is now DEFINED as 25.4 milimetres! 
But, who now used inches, and quarters, and eights, and sixteens, and thirty seconds etc.?

----------


## Bedford

> But, who now used inches, ?

  Anyone who buys or sells wheels or tyres for one.

----------


## METRIX

> who now used inches.?

  saw blade manufacturers, chainsaw manufacturers, Flat screen TV'S, Laptops, Tablets, smartphones, speaker manufacturers, Hard Drives just to name a few.

----------


## OBBob

Grinders...

----------


## Bros

> Why do you need to ask - since the "Inch" is now DEFINED as 25.4 milimetres! 
> But, who now used inches, and quarters, and eights, and sixteens, and thirty seconds etc.?

  Well believe it or not I never looked at the imperial measurement as I dont bother with that anymore just from where I was looking the metric measurements didn't quite line up but I missed the punch line of the post.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Yeh it's funny how some, actually quite a few, things are still referred to in imperial. 
Boats, timber, fence heights  to add a few to the list above, are also commonly referred to in imp.    :Smilie:

----------


## Renopa

:What he said: .....what I find even more amazing is young apprentices talking in imp measurement and if you comment they just look at you with a blank stare as they don't even realise what they are saying.  Just repeating what their supervisor/boss/etc has been saying....for this reason I don't think imp measurements will ever die!!  
Have to agree that metric is soooo much easier.  ;-))

----------


## Marc

Imperial is here to stay unless the US goes metric. 
Clearly you must know at least the basics of the imperial system. 
Back to the OP about the square. Most of the cheap metal square are built the way that one is. 
If you want to use the square as a ruler to measure things you just start from the end bit. 
If you want to measure in inches ... well you start from the other end ... ha ha

----------


## Marc

> There is a good reason for that.

  Chineese inches, shouldn't be allowed to be sold here. Guess no one really cares. 
We are selling our farms to the chinese government signed a "free trade" agreement, may as well start learning to read chinese symbols. 
Get rid of Imperial measurements? How about getting rid of governments altogether?
Aaah ... obliterate the greens, compost Labour, chip the liberals, deport multiculturalism and vacuum pack the Palmer party and post to china.

----------


## phild01

> Get rid of Imperial measurements? How about getting rid of governments altogether?
> Aaah ... obliterate the greens, compost Labour, chip the liberals, deport multiculturalism and vacuum pack the Palmer party and post to china.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Clearly you must know at least the basics of the imperial system.

  
Yeh I can work out how many M a certain amount of Ft is, etc.  
But when 5/8 is too small, I have no idea what the next size up is... 
If 10mm is too small there's a good chance 11 or 12mm is the go.    :Smilie:

----------


## Bros

> How about getting rid of governments altogether?
> Aaah ... obliterate the greens, compost Labour, chip the liberals, deport multiculturalism and vacuum pack the Palmer party and post to china.

  No politics  :Biggrin: 
I was sent this the other day not in any way to offend any real residents in Canberra just the blow ins.  
No Nativity Scene in Canberra this Year. 
The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the nation's Capital this Christmas season. 
This isn't for any religious reason. They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in Canberra ..  
There was no problem, however, finding enough donkeys to fill the stable.

----------


## OBBob

Lol...

----------


## phild01

> Yeh I can work out how many M a certain amount of Ft is, etc.  
> But when 5/8 is too small, I have no idea what the next size up is... 
> If 10mm is too small there's a good chance 11 or 12mm is the go.

   11/16

----------


## phild01

> No politics 
> I was sent this the other day not in any way to offend any real residents in Canberra just the blow ins.  
> No Nativity Scene in Canberra this Year. 
> The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the nation's Capital this Christmas season. 
> This isn't for any religious reason. They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in Canberra ..  
> There was no problem, however, finding enough donkeys to fill the stable.

  Very good :Biggrin:

----------


## Bros

You like that well here is another again only refers to the blow ins.  God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael, the archangel, foundhim resting on the seventh day. 
He inquired: "Where have you been?" 
God smiled deeply and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds:
"Look, Michael.  Look what I've made." 
Archangel Michael looked puzzled, and said, "What is it?" 
"It's a planet," replied God, and I've put life on it.  I'mgoing to call it Earth and it's going to be a place to test 'Balance.'" 
"Balance?" inquired Michael, "I'm still confused." 
God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth. "For example, Northern Europe will be a place of greatopportunity and wealth, while Southern Europe is going to be poor. Over hereI've placed a continent of white people, and over there is a continent of blackpeople. 
Balance in all things..." 
God continued pointing to different countries.  "This one will beextremely hot, while this one will be very cold and covered in ice." 
The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land area andsaid,  "What's that one?" 
"That's Victoria, the most glorious place on earth. There are beautifultrees and gardens, a beautiful river, and days filled with sunshine. The peoplefrom Victoria are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent, and humorous, andthey are going to travel the world. 
They will be extremely sociable, hardworking, high achieving, carriers ofpeace, and producers of good things." 
Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then asked,   ---"But what about balance, God?   You said there would be'balance.'" 
God smiled, --- "I will create Canberra.
Wait till you see the idiots I'll put there."

----------


## Marc

> Yeh I can work out how many M a certain amount of Ft is, etc.  
> But when 5/8 is too small, I have no idea what the next size up is...

  There is some logic in the imperial system you just have to find it. 
In your example if you want to go one up from 5/8, then you need 6/8 and then 7/8  and 8/8 etc. 6/8 if you simplify it is 3/4
However if you want to go up by a smaller amount then 1/8, then go up by 1/16 at the time.
5/8 is actually 10/16 so the next step up is 11/16, then 12/16 and 13/16 and 14/16. This may look unfamiliar but all you need to do now is to simplify them down to the smallest possible number, so you go from 5/8 to 11/16 then 3/4 and 13/16 and 7/8 etc.
You can do this all over again with smaller fraction. We call your 5/8, 20/32 that is exactly the same. Next up is 21/32 and 22/32 that is 11/16 and so on.
If you then keep in mind that 1/8 is roughly 3mm (3.17) then you can work out what each number means. Once you get used to it you don't think about it anymore.   :Smilie:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> There is some logic in the imperial system you just have to find it. 
> In your example if you want to go one up from 5/8, then you need 6/8 and then 7/8  and 8/8 etc. 6/8 if you simplify it is 3/4
> However if you want to go up by a smaller amount then 1/8, then go up by 1/16 at the time.
> 5/8 is actually 10/16 so the next step up is 11/16, then 12/16 and 13/16 and 14/16. This may look unfamiliar but all you need to do now is to simplify them down to the smallest possible number, so you go from 5/8 to 11/16 then 3/4 and 13/16 and 7/8 etc.
> You can do this all over again with smaller fraction. We call your 5/8, 20/32 that is exactly the same. Next up is 21/32 and 22/32 that is 11/16 and so on.
> If you then keep in mind that 1/8 is roughly 3mm (3.17) then you can work out what each number means. Once you get used to it you don't think about it anymore.

  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13........... 
Nothing will ever be easier and make more sense than that.  
"2400mm" is "2.4m" not "so many fractions of some other unit" or "whatever number"       :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13........... 
> Nothing will ever be easier and make more sense than that.  
> "2400mm" is "2.4m" not "so many fractions of some other unit" or "whatever number"

  Technically 2.4m is roughly 2400mm.

----------


## Marc

What happened to centimeters in Australia? I remember landing a job to refit Comm bank and I was talking centimeters as I have all my life. So 243 mm to me is 24.3  ...  blank looks all around. 
That is foreign language to me said one guy. 
Er no ... it is the metric system, you just only know part of it was my thought, but hey ... I got used to talk only mm or meters to make myself understood, 
What I like from the imperial system and that translate in part to the cm thing, is that when you are planning something in your head, you don't need mm nor 1/32, you need broad measurements and for that you can not beat the inches and foot. 
8x2 is just that, and a 40' boat is just that.
In my mind anyway.

----------


## phild01

Agree feet was a better unit of measure and how much better was mpg to grasp rather than km/l or l/100km.
Even miles seems easier as well as being less awkward to pronounce!

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, yes, miles is a cultural thing, but can not beat the easiness of calculations and conversions in KM/h L/100k etc.  Miles per gallon .. uuh I have to change that to L/100k every time to get the idea. 
On the other hand, knots ae knots and don't need converting
The same with acres. A Hectare is 100m x 100m just perfect ... haha ... I wonder how many square inches in a hectare?

----------


## phild01

> Ha ha, yes, miles is a cultural thing, but can not beat the easiness of calculations and conversions in KM/h L/100k etc.  Miles per gallon .. uuh I have to change that to L/100k every time to get the idea. 
> On the other hand, knots ae knots and don't need converting
> The same with acres. A Hectare is 100m x 100m just perfect ... haha ... I wonder how many square inches in a hectare?

  I have a poor idea what good fuel economy is in metric, but mpg is so easy.

----------


## METRIX

> . I wonder how many square inches in a hectare?

  *1 Hectare = 15 500 031 Square Inches*

----------


## UseByDate

> Technically 2.4m is roughly 2400mm.

  OK I'll bite. Why?

----------


## METRIX

> I have a poor idea what good fuel economy is in metric, but mpg is so easy.

  I can't understand that, as you fill your car with liters, your speedo is in km, it's so easy, miles and gallons is alien to me. 
Good fuel economy for my work truck is 8.9 liters per 100 km, (3.2l 5Cyl turbo diesel 4WD full of tools), I usually have it around 8.9 - 9.1 (factory rates it at 9.2).
 I average 800km per tank in the city, this works out at 2.35 gallons per 100 km.  
My other ute gets 16 liters  per 100 km, (4.0l 6cyl petrol turbo RWD no tools) I don't know why it uses more liters / 100, perhaps there's something wrong with the right pedal  :Biggrin: .
I average just under 500km, in the city, I would not call this good fuel economy, factory rates it at 11.7. 
But then my mates R8 gets 21 liters / 100km, now I would call that bad, perhaps his right pedal is also faulty.

----------


## phild01

> OK I'll bite. Why?

  2.4m is expressed as a measurement accurate to +/- 0.05m
2.40m is more accurate being +/- 0.005m
2.400m is equal to 2400mm both being expressions of accuracy of the same error. 
BCA expressions of measure can be found stated in both ways and it seems they are unaware of the technical difference.  Ceiling heights are stated as 2.4m yet certifiers etc seem to think this is a requirement to the mm.  Not so, 2.4m actually allows for a differential of 50mm either way.  I have seen the waste of appeals where this simple measure of specification was overlooked.

----------


## phild01

> I can't understand that, as you fill your car with liters, your speedo is in km, it's so easy, miles and gallons is alien to me. 
> Good fuel economy for my work truck is 8.9 liters per 100 km, (3.2l 5Cyl turbo diesel 4WD full of tools), I usually have it around 8.9 - 9.1 (factory rates it at 9.2).
>  I average 800km per tank in the city, this works out at 2.35 gallons per 100 km.  
> My other ute gets 16 liters  per 100 km, (4.0l 6cyl petrol turbo RWD no tools) I don't know why it uses more liters / 100, perhaps there's something wrong with the right pedal .
> I average just under 500km, in the city, I would not call this good fuel economy, factory rates it at 11.7. 
> But then my mates R8 gets 21 liters / 100km, now I would call that bad, perhaps his right pedal is also faulty.

  The difference in saying 7l/100k or 8l/100k is lost on me as seeming insignificant, can't relate well to that.  The difference of saying 25mpg or 26mpg has better quantative meaning to me.  I know anything less than 25mpg is pretty crap but I never really know the crap cut-off point in metric expressions.  30mpg is a good figure but again I don't know what really is that good in metric.

----------


## METRIX

Converting 30 MPG to L/100 is 9.4l, for your example if you had a 80l tank, and you got 7l / 100 or 8l / 100, this would work out to be 1142ks/ tank, or 1000 ks / tank.
So that insignificant number is quite a lot of km, or in percentage terms it is around 10% which is a bit, your 25 MPG is 11.2 l / 100, depending on the car this is quite acceptable. 
My faulty car gets (14 MPG US), (17MPG Imperial) and my efficient car gets (26.4MPG US) (31 MPG Imperial) which is very acceptable for what it is, and what is the difference between Imperial and US Gallon ??

----------


## Marc

That is actually not the only way to express fuel consumption in a metric system. Some countries that have transition from imperial to metric developed the equivalent to Miles per gallon and express fuel usage in Km / 20L of fuel, that is Kilometers per 5 gallons. A real pain but not if that is what you have always used. 
The most fuel efficient car I have ever known, the Citroen 2CV makes 400K with 20 litres of petrol. Not bad eh. 
The Lincoln 12V I think will go a mile per gallon or so if you can find one that fires on all 12.

----------


## intertd6

> 2.4m is expressed as a measurement accurate to +/- 0.05m
> 2.40m is more accurate being +/- 0.005m
> 2.400m is equal to 2400mm both being expressions of accuracy of the same error. 
> BCA expressions of measure can be found stated in both ways and it seems they are unaware of the technical difference.  Ceiling heights are stated as 2.4m yet certifiers etc seem to think this is a requirement to the mm.  Not so, 2.4m actually allows for a differential of 50mm either way.  I have seen the waste of appeals where this simple measure of specification was overlooked.

  Ive been in the building game now since 1977 & this is a new one for me, in Australia building measurements are in mm, surveyors measure in meters, to an accuracy of 0.001 of a metre normally & in some special cases cases accuracy 0.0001 of a meter in levelling, standards & specifications give tolerances for accuracy in mm. You must enlighten us where + or - 50mm or 0.05m is an acceptable accuracy dimension.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ive been in the building game now since 1977 & this is a new one for me, in Australia building measurements are in mm, surveyors measure in meters, to an accuracy of 0.001 of a metre normally & in some special cases cases accuracy 0.0001 of a meter in levelling, standards & specifications give tolerances for accuracy in mm. You must enlighten us where + or - 50mm or 0.05m is an acceptable accuracy dimesion.
> regards inter

  Ever measured a finished ceiling that is exactly 2.4 m or even 2400 mm from the finished floor?  
No? 
Thought not.

----------


## intertd6

> Ever measured a finished ceiling that is exactly 2.4 m or even 2400 mm from the finished floor?  
> No? 
> Thought not.

  I've measured plenty that were my projects & they all complied with the standards for minimum ceiling heights, so that is a yes. It's really a novice that gets caught out with that one. Once on a time it was one of the first things they would check when entering a dwelling for the final inspection. 2400mm or 2000mm minimum ceiling heights does not mean 2350mm or 1950mm are not uncomplying defects. 
inter

----------


## Marc

I am afraid you are confusing the talk about units used, and measuring accuracy. Two completely different things.
To say that a ceiling must be 2.4 meters is not to say that the units that go after the .4 can be what you want them to be. 2.4m is the same as 240 cm or 2400 mm or 2,400,000 microns.
That is a fact.
Clearly a building code will not be expressed in microns so the 2.4m should be accompanied with a +x-x expressing what the acceptable deviation is. 
Accuracy must be defined. The units used can be more or less adequate or practical but accuracy is a different animal.
Measuring land using Chinese inches or ceiling heights using nautical miles may be a challenge but both can in theory be accurate.

----------


## PhilT2

Some systems make accuracy easier. calculate the GST on $5.90. Now do it with five pounds ninteen shillings and sixpence.

----------


## intertd6

> I am afraid you are confusing the talk about units used, and measuring accuracy. Two completely different things.
> To say that a ceiling must be 2.4 meters is not to say that the units that go after the .4 can be what you want them to be. 2.4m is the same as 240 cm or 2400 mm or 2,400,000 microns.
> That is a fact.
> Clearly a building code will not be expressed in microns so the 2.4m should be accompanied with a +x-x expressing what the acceptable deviation is. 
> Accuracy must be defined. The units used can be more or less adequate or practical but accuracy is a different animal.
> Measuring land using Chinese inches or ceiling heights using nautical miles may be a challenge but both can in theory be accurate.

  I was interpreting this  
"2.4m is expressed as a measurement accurate to +/- 0.05m
2.40m is more accurate being +/- 0.005m
2.400m is equal to 2400mm both being expressions of accuracy of the same error.  
BCA expressions of measure can be found stated in both ways and it seems they are unaware of the technical difference. Ceiling heights are stated as 2.4m yet certifiers etc seem to think this is a requirement to the mm. Not so, 2.4m actually allows for a differential of 50mm either way. I have seen the waste of appeals where this simple measure of specification was overlooked." 
 mistakes are made daily in the building industry & there are many ways to alleviate these problems, mostly they are settled with monetary adjustments to the contract sum, instead of ripping down the defective work the client will accept the defect work at a lessor cost. Within reason in some cases Certifying bodies will accept deviations from the stated minimum dimensions, but if you built a fire escape ceiling 50mm under the minimum height there is not much hope of it ever being allowable until corrected & no amount of negotiation or penalties will remedy the defect.
regards inter

----------


## PlatypusGardens

This thread is getting way out of hand haha    :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

Now here comes the question: Could you measure a celling height using PG Silly square? ...and if so with what accuracy?

----------


## Marc

> Some systems make accuracy easier. calculate the GST on $5.90. Now do it with five pounds ninteen shillings and sixpence.

  The answer is 10%, easy.   :Smilie:

----------


## Bros

> This thread is getting way out of hand haha

  Yep neither square nor level.

----------


## intertd6

> Now here comes the question: Could you measure a celling height using PG Silly square? ...and if so with what accuracy?

  at least there would be a legitimate reason for making measurement mistakes by using the PG silly square.
regards inter

----------


## PlatypusGardens

There's nothing wrong with the accuracy of the silly square. 
Just the way the numbers (don't) line up with the handle    :Wink:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Yep neither square nor level.

  
Maybe the spiritlevel is imperial.....?    :Rofl:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Maybe the spiritlevel is imperial.....?

  Perhaps. But which empire? Chinese, British or American?

----------


## phild01

Back to measures of accuracy.  The degree of accuracy is half a unit each side of the unit of measure.  If something is expressed as 2.4 then that decimal point determines the accuracy of the thing being defined.  If it is meant to be defined to the mm then that is the unit that should be used to express the measure, alternatively use the correct number of decimal places.

----------


## intertd6

> Back to measures of accuracy.  The degree of accuracy is half a unit each side of the unit of measure.  If something is expressed as 2.4 then that decimal point determines the accuracy of the thing being defined.  If it is meant to be defined to the mm then that is the unit that should be used to express the measure, alternatively use the correct number of decimal places.

   I apologise for the digress from the silly square,  
Building Code Ceiling Heights  
"A room or space within a building must have sufficient height suitable for the intended function of that room or space. The requirement is satisfied if the ceiling height is not less than -
In a class 1, 2 or 3 building a habitable room excluding a kitchen - 2400mm - (2.4 meters) & in a kitchen, laundry or the like - 2100 mm (2.1 meters) and in a corridor, passageway or the like 2100mm (2.1 meters)."  
According to BCA Vol 2 part 3.8.2, ceiling heights must not be less than:  
in a habitable room excluding a kitchen - 2.4 m and
in a kitchen - 2.1m and
in a corridor or passageway etc - 2.1m and
in a bathroom, shower room, laundry, sanitary compartment, pantry, storeroom, garage, car parking area etc - 2.1m and
in an attic, room with a sloping ceiling or projection below ceiling line or non-habitable room or similar - a height that does not unduly interfere with the proper functioning of the room or space. More than 50% of the ceiling space should be on average a minimum height.
in a stairway - 2.0m measured vertically above the nosing line.
Otherwise, the room would be deemed to be a "utility room".  
Technically the height is measured from the finished floor covering to underside of ceiling or lowest protrusion of the ceiling.  If you are trying to determine whether you can build-in an area - ensure you take into consideration what you are going to put on the floor." 
regards inter

----------


## Marc

Is the "clarification" of 2400mm (2.4m) in the original? Should have included the equivalent in nautical miles as well for good measure. And no mention of tolerance. So if you build your floor at 2400 mm from the ceiling and before the inspector comes in you get the guys to polish the floor and they lay a few too many coats of polyurethane and you end up at 2,399, you have to pay a fine? 
Unless the relative error in percentage is included in the code somewhere else.

----------


## phild01

As far as I know there was a performance criteria inclusion that can allow a lower ceiling to be passed.

----------


## FrodoOne

> Yeh I can work out how many M a certain amount of Ft is, etc.  
> But when 5/8 is too small, I have no idea what the next size up is...

  (Surely you could multiply by two and add one!) 
11/16   (Actually, drill bits of 41/64. 21/32 and 43/64 *are* manufactured-  but are unlikely to be stocked by Bunnings)
In addition, you could try 16 or 17 mm SI drill bits - if you have them - since they are between the 15.88 mm and 17.46 mm concerned. 
The next question might be "What is the next size up from 11/16"
Of course, it is (commonly) 12/16 - BUT, that is 3/4 (Aaagh !!!!)

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> (Surely you could multiply by two and add one!) 
> 11/16   (Actually, drill bits of 41/64. 21/32 and 43/64 *are* manufactured-  but are unlikely to be stocked by Bunnings)
> In addition, you could try 16 or 17 mm SI drill bits - if you have them - since they are between the 15.88 mm and 17.46 mm concerned. 
> The next question might be "What is the next size up from 11/16"
> Of course, it is (commonly) 12/16 - BUT, that is 3/4 (Aaagh !!!!)

  Or I could (and do) happily avoid imperial and stick to metric. 
Because, you know, 12 is the next one up from 11.   :Wink:

----------


## phild01

Yeah, but mm is a failry sloppy unit for accuracy!

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Yeah, but mm is a failry sloppy unit for accuracy!

  Never had any problems.   :Smilie:

----------


## Blocklayer

Is there a cure (or inoculation) for Imperial? 
I started off with Imperial, panicked when we changed to Metric, and now use both every day with the calculators on blocklayer.com.
For things like entering (lineal) measurements into computers (calculators), rounding running measurements, adding, subtracting or multiplying measurements (especially in your head), Metric is WAY in front of Imperial. 
And I suppose we shouldn't mention NASA's little Metric Imperial problem with the Mars Climate Orbiter *Mars Climate Orbiter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia* Listen to what this bloke has to say *http://twit.tv/show/triangulation/178*

----------


## intertd6

> As far as I know there was a performance criteria inclusion that can allow a lower ceiling to be passed.

  Can you post the details of that.
regards inter

----------


## UseByDate

> Is the "clarification" of 2400mm (2.4m) in the original? Should have included the equivalent in nautical miles as well for good measure. And no mention of tolerance. So if you build your floor at 2400 mm from the ceiling and before the inspector comes in you get the guys to polish the floor and they lay a few too many coats of polyurethane and you end up at 2,399, you have to pay a fine? 
> Unless the relative error in percentage is included in the code somewhere else.

    The  clarification in inter's post is not in the original BCA. Australian government documents would not use the American spelling of metre.  
 BCA 2012 section on ceiling height is as follows........   *3.8.2.2 Ceiling heights*   *Ceiling heights (see Figure 3.8.2.1) must be not less than-* *
(a)     in a* _habitable room_ *excluding a kitchen  2.4 m; and
(b)     in a kitchen  2.1 m; and
(c)     in a corridor, passageway or the like - 2.1 m; and
(d)     in a bathroom, shower room, laundry.* _sanitary compartment,_ *airlock. pantry,
    storeroom, garage, car parking area or the like - 2.1 m; and
(e)     in a room or space with a sloping ceiling or projections below the ceiling line
    within-
    (i) a* _habitable room-_*
        (A) In an attic - a height of not less than 2.2 m for at least two-thirds of
        the floor area of the room or space; and
        (B) in other rooms - a height of not less than 2.4 m over two-thirds of the
        floor area of the room or space; and
    (ii) a* _non-habitable room_ *- a height of not less than 2.1 m for at least two-thirds
    of the floor area of the room or space,
    and when calculating the floor area of a room or space, any part that has a ceiling
    height of less than 1.5 m is not included; and
(f) in a stairway - 2.0 m measured vertically above the nosing line.*  
 Inter may have a later version of the BCA but the the specification *not less than* is a tolerance of *-0 + infinity*. i.e. the ceiling height must not be less than specified. With timber frame construction the builder will normally construct the wall frames with a height of 2.42m. 10mm for the plasterboard ceiling and 10 mm for shrinkage and ceiling height tolerance. Floor polishing should not be a problem.

----------


## phild01

Somehow the accuracy of measurement is being ignored.  If a ceiling requirement is meant to mean nothing less than 2400mm then the measure should be expressed with that level of accuracy and not as 2.4m.

----------


## UseByDate

> Somehow the accuracy of measurement is being ignored.  If a ceiling requirement is meant to mean nothing less than 2400mm then the measure should be expressed with that level of accuracy and not as 2.4m.

    You are confusing accuracy with tolerance. Accuracy is a measure of measurement precision. i.e. If my tape measure “says” the ceiling height is 2.4m, how do I know it is truly 2.4m. i.e. what is the error with respect to the metre standard held in France? Most if not all builders will not know this and assume that their tape measure is accurate. By building the ceiling height over the minimum standard they are, in fact, including a factor for tape inaccuracies.

----------


## intertd6

> Somehow the accuracy of measurement is being ignored.  If a ceiling requirement is meant to mean nothing less than 2400mm then the measure should be expressed with that level of accuracy and not as 2.4m.

  As I know it the convention in Australia is for all building dimensions are to be in mm, the convention in surveying is in meters / metres, a surveyor will write 2400mm as 2.4m or 2450mm as 2.45m or 2451mm as 2.451m so they just are economical with their ink & time but still are normally accurate to 0.001 of a meter,  the BCA is more than likely written for the broader community which may give the perception to the layperson that there is a degree of discretion in the accuracy of the quoted dimensions. From my industry experience there is a degree of latitude of movement from stated minimum dimensions in some areas, but I haven't seen the details of how or why it is possible, so that's why I asked, as there are some sneaky get out of gaol clauses that are handy to know, when you really need them.
regards inter

----------


## phild01

It is a performance out of gaol clause somewhere in the back.  Looked at it sometime back, just haven't had time to find it again but I think window openings/ventilation plays a part in this.  http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/SiteCollec...s/3-05-081.pdf

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Gotta love the internet.
all this because of a pic of a square with the numbers the wrong way around   :Rofl:

----------


## Marc

> I've measured plenty that were my projects & they all complied with the standards for minimum ceiling heights, so that is a yes. It's really a novice that gets caught out with that one. Once on a time it was one of the first things they would check when entering a dwelling for the final inspection. 2400mm or 2000mm minimum ceiling heights does not mean 2350mm or 1950mm are not uncomplying defects. 
> inter

  So is there anyone who knows for a fact if there is an official tolerance or is that left to the discretion of the inspector?

----------


## METRIX

> Yeah, but mm is a failry sloppy unit for accuracy!

  Phil, define accuracy. 
In building anything the mm is very accurate, if engineering a cylinder bore, then yes mm is very sloppy.

----------


## intertd6

> So is there anyone who knows for a fact if there is an official tolerance or is that left to the discretion of the inspector?

  phils previous post demonstrates that there is no tolerance as far as the certification process goes, but if something fails there is an appeals process that can be enacted to find a solution to a certification defect that satisfies all parties, it would not be a cheap process & as I mentioned in an earlier post, it was a ceiling in a fire exit there would be no room for appeal or negotiation around a defect where safety was compromised. No builder would be wanting to make ceiling height defect appeals & rectification too often unless they wanted to go bust in a hurry.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Gotta love the internet.
> all this because of a pic of a square with the numbers the wrong way around

  I can't speak for anybody else but I learnt something out of it.
regards inter

----------


## phild01

> Phil, define accuracy. 
> In building anything the mm is very accurate, if engineering a cylinder bore, then yes mm is very sloppy.

  For framing and such the mm works quite well, but I tend to be wanting for the smaller measure, especially with cabinetry and metalwork.  When I started using a tape measure, I tried to keep measurements accurate to 1/32".  1/16" was too sloppy and the mm seems to be in-between.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> I can't speak for anybody else but I learnt something out of it.
> regards inter

  
Exactly. 
If I was to have just shown you that square as we were standing in my shed, we would have laughed at it, cracked a beer and started talking about somthing else. 
Here, it's gone from the square to metric vs imperial to standard roof heights back to metric/imperial and so on. 
It's great  :Smilie:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Phil, define accuracy. 
> In building anything the mm is very accurate, if engineering a cylinder bore, then yes mm is very sloppy.

  But... you can still have fractions of a mm.  *One mm* isn't "as low as it goes".... 
Isn't 1/10 of a mm as accurate as 483/2985ths (or whatever the equivalent would be)?    :Confused:

----------


## phild01

Tape measures don't usually have anything less than a mm.  Wish the cut to size and cabinet door manufacturers would recognise fractions of a mm.  Cumulative error sometimes ends in disaster and part off the reason I go on about error with dimension expressions.

----------


## Ozcar

> Yeh it's funny how some, actually quite a few, things are still referred to in imperial. 
> Boats, timber, fence heights  to add a few to the list above, are also commonly referred to in imp.

  Not only referred to, but sometimes still sold in imperial sizes - even when "proudly made in Australia". Example - Masonite underlay sheets 1220mm by 915mm.

----------


## intertd6

> Exactly. 
> If I was to have just shown you that square as we were standing in my shed, we would have laughed at it, cracked a beer and started talking about somthing else. 
> Here, it's gone from the square to metric vs imperial to standard roof heights back to metric/imperial and so on. 
> It's great

  never underestimate the usefulness of serendipity!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> never underestimate the usefulness of serendipity!

  Or a dodgy square... 
Hey PG....how about dreaming up a steel monument to the 'Silly Square'?

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Hey PG....how about dreaming up a steel monument to the 'Silly Square'?

  
Haha I'll have a think about it   :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

Google Image Result for http://www.isledegrande.com/giimages/masons8-8-01.jpg

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Google Image Result for http://www.isledegrande.com/giimages/masons8-8-01.jpg

  
I was thinking more along these lines       :Wink:

----------


## UseByDate

Each State publishes a document that is the equivalent of this.  http://www.qbcc.qld.gov.au/sites/def...es_Guide_0.pdf 
It is not comprehensive but could be a useful guide. 
Room dimension tolerance guide is as follows 2.05 Measuring internal   building dimensions Unless shown otherwise, dimensions   shown on drawings for internal   walls always refer to the structure’s   dimensions. Structure means masonry   and timber framing and does not include   finishes such as plasterboard, render and   skirtings. The internal room sizes will be   different when thicknesses of internal   finish materials are taken into account. Unless shown otherwise, clear room   height dimensions shall be provided in   accordance with the requirements of the   Building Code of Australia . 2.06 Building dimensions Departures from the documented set out   for service rooms such as bathrooms,   toilets, laundries, kitchens etc. are defects   if they exceed L/200 or 5 mm, whichever   is the greater, where L is the documented   dimension. Departures from the documented set   out for habitable rooms and areas, such   as bedrooms, dining rooms, lounge and   living rooms, family rooms, studies, halls,   entries and stairways, are defects if they   exceed L/100 or 5 mm, whichever is   the greater, where L is the documented   dimension. Departures from documented set out for   external elements such as garages, car   ports, verandahs, decks, patios etc. are   defects if they exceed L/100 or 5 mm,   whichever is the greater, where L is the documented dimension. Masonry   is defective if it does not comply with   Table 3.04. The set out is defective where a specific   fixture or feature is required to be   accommodated, and such documented   dimensions to accommodate that fixture   or feature are not provided.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Tis is funny (and mostly true)  Metric 4 US - Why Metric is the Better System    :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I was thinking more along these lines

  Oooo...the Terminator with dodgy Chinese squares hanging limply from his outstretched hands and his foot astride the Imperial carcass...as represented by Darth Vader.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Oooo...the Terminator with dodgy Chinese squares hanging limply from his outstretched hands and his foot astride the Imperial carcass...as represented by Darth Vader.

  
Now we're talking!  
Go hard or go home.
Aim high or put the gun away.
Etc    :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> Tis is funny (and mostly true)  Metric 4 US - Why Metric is the Better System

  There are a lot of common errors is this document. The USA never adopted the Imperial measurement system. They have their own Customary units.  
 It is pure serendipity that Australia uses the SI system. The UK went metric in 1965 because trade with the Common Market (EU) was increasing and trade with their old empire (including Australia) was reducing. Australia really had no option but to follow the UK's lead and adopt the metric system in 1970. If the UK did not “go”metric; would Australia still be using the Imperial measurement system?  
 Even though we use the SI system does anybody else find it strange that when we ask what a persons weight is, we answer in kg. i.e.  we tell them our mass.  :No:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Most people still talk in imp. in The UK though.

----------


## UseByDate

> Most people still talk in imp. in The UK though.

   On the street maybe but not at work. I started work in the UK in 1964 and I never worked with the Imperial measurement system. We used the SI metric system. The only exception was electronic IC pin spacing and sizes of standard electronic equipment enclosures. They were in American Customary unit measurements (SI in brackets). I think the American Inch was the same as the Imperial Inch at the time. It is a long time ago so I might be wrong..

----------


## goldie1

> I was thinking more along these lines

  Gees thats a bit ambitious. Talk to the mayor of Townsville. I could see something like that 
on the top of Castle Hill.

----------


## Marc

> Even though we use the SI system does anybody else find it strange that when we ask what a persons weight is, we answer in kg. i.e.  we tell them our mass.

  Who decides that an answer in Kg is mass? Weight is kg of force and depending from the gravity. Mass is mass. Who would ever consider stating that he is 80 kg mass?
May be a massive person?

----------


## UseByDate

> Who decides that an answer in Kg is mass? Weight is kg of force and depending from the gravity. Mass is mass. Who would ever consider stating that he is 80 kg mass?
> May be a massive person?

  Marc
 Ultimately it is the  “General Conference on Weights and Measures ( _Conférence générale des poids et mesures_ – CGPM)” that defines the SI metric system.   General Conference on Weights and Measures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
 Australia has adopted the SI system and  the “National Measurement Institute” is responsible for administration in Australia How Australia&#39;s Measurement System Works  
 The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton. Weight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
 So the answer to your question “Who decides that an answer in Kg is mass? “ is “*the Government*”.

----------


## Marc

Nonsense. 
The government can sign up international agreements, but the individual can use whatever unit he wants, that is why we use imperial at our heart's content.  
Anyone in his right mind would refer to kilo force when referring to his weight in kilos, unless he does so in stones. 
Most people wouldn't even know the difference between force and mass.
To infer that we tell our mass when telling our weight in kilos because there is a convention that says force should be told in Newton makes as much sense as this whole thread measured in Chinese inches

----------


## FrodoOne

> Who decides that an answer in Kg is mass? Weight is kg of force and depending from the gravity. Mass is mass. Who would ever consider stating that he is 80 kg mass?
> May be a massive person?

  You stated Weight is kg of force and depending from the gravity.
What you appear to mean from this is Weight is the Force exerted on Mass by gravity (of the Earth.)
This is so. 
When answering the question What is your weight, most persons would actually give their mass (in pounds, stone or kilograms) because their common experience tells them that their weight (on Earth) is proportional to their mass and their only sense of relativity between various masses (amounts of mass) is the related (Earth) gravitational force exerted on different masses. 
In giving the answer of 80 kilograms to the question What is your weight, the answerer is implicitly stating (It is the gravitational attraction of the earth upon) 80 kilograms. 
Of course, a normal person would not give the full answer written above nor would they give the correct answer of 784 newtons.  However, the measuring devices they are using to determine the answer are actually responding to the force but are calibrated to convert this force to correspond to the mass which will produce it on the surface of the Earth. Such devices will give the wrong answer if used upon the Moon, for example.

----------


## Marc

Your answer reminds me of that guy who would stretch his left arm around the back of his head and pass his right cheek and to the front of his face to scratch his right eye with his left hand, rather than use his right hand. 
A scale measures force. A scale is what people use to measure their weight (not mass). Kilogram force is what people refer to when telling their weight. Anything else is entertainingly academic, including the moon , the mass of a watermelon and it's weight on top of  Mont Blanc or the force of the kick from a pregnant mule.

----------


## FrodoOne

> Your answer reminds me of that guy who would stretch his left arm around the back of his head and pass his right cheek and to the front of his face to scratch his right eye with his left hand, rather than use his right hand. 
> A scale measures force. A scale is what people use to measure their weight (not mass). Kilogram force is what people refer to when telling their weight. Anything else is entertainingly academic, including the moon , the mass of a watermelon and it's weight on top of  Mont Blanc or the force of the kick from a pregnant mule.

  The kilogram-force (kgf or kgF), or kilopond (kp, from Latin pondus meaning weight), is a gravitational metric unit of force. It is equal to the magnitude of the force exerted by one kilogram of mass in a 9.80665 m/s2 gravitational field (standard gravity, a conventional value approximating the average magnitude of gravity on Earth). Therefore one kilogram-force is by definition equal to 9.80665 N. One kilogram-force is approximately 2.204622 pounds-force.
Kilogram-force is a non-standard unit and does not comply with the SI {Metric System).

----------


## Marc

Your point being?

----------


## UseByDate

> Nonsense. 
> The government can sign up international agreements, but the individual can use whatever unit he wants, that is why we use imperial at our heart's content.

  Marc
 Like it or not; the government does have “the power” to legally control the weights and measures used in Australia. We the people give them that “power” and we the people expect them to do it. Of course you can use any measurement units you choose, but only in the privacy of your own home. It would be anarchy if we were each to use  a different measurement system for trade and commerce. Governments have fined people for entering into contracts which do not use legislated units.

----------


## UseByDate

> A scale measures force. A scale is what people use to measure their weight (not mass). Kilogram force is what people refer to when telling their weight. Anything else is entertainingly academic, including the moon , the mass of a watermelon and it's weight on top of  Mont Blanc or the force of the kick from a pregnant mule.

  Marc
 Some scales measure force and some scales measure mass.
 I am not sure if you are old enough to remember but many years ago machines for measuring “weight” used in hospitals and clinics were balance scales. The ones where you move a mass along a beam until the beam levels. Balance scales do measure mass and not weight. Probably the oldest machines used for measuring "weight" were balance scales. A pivoted beam with a mass on each side.

----------


## phild01

> Marc
>  Some scales measure force and some scales measure mass.
>  I am not sure if you are old enough to remember but many years ago machines for measuring “weight” used in hospitals and clinics were balance scales. The ones where you move a mass along a beam until the beam levels. Balance scales do measure mass and not weight. Probably the oldest machines used for measuring "weight" were balance scales. A pivoted beam with a mass on each side.

  And of course the original intention of the balance scale was to measure weight wasn't it, just incidental they happen to measure mass!

----------


## UseByDate

> And of course the original intention of the balance scale was to measure weight wasn't it, just incidental they happen to measure mass!

  Maybe it was ahead of its time.

----------


## Marc

Interesting.
Despite the fact that when someone quotes his weight in Kilos he just measured on his bathroom scale that measures FORCE not mass since it is either electronic or spring loaded and measures force with no counterbalanced weight nowhere to be seen,...this poor sod of our example is not about to sell his flesh by the kilo and so therefore needs not to comply with no government treaty. 
One. 
Two ... in case you missed it the butcher that does sell flesh or rather meat if you like, does so by the KILO FORCE since his scale also measures force and not mass. And I don't see the butcher in Perisher village being round up for questioning because he sells a smaller amount of meat per kilo than the butcher down at The Rocks.  
Frodos post when true is equally irrelevant. The point was made by someone that we say kilo mass when we quote our weight. I say we do not, never did, never intended to, never needed to. The (irrelevant) fact that some expensive sort of scales do measure mass because they compare mass rather than measure force, is of no consequence nor practical value when we are talking about our weight. So we do say our weight in Kilo Force and will do so as long as scales are build to measure force. 
Kilo force is a non standard unit? Ha!  abusus non tollit usum
So there :2thumbsup:

----------


## phild01

> And I don't see the butcher in Perisher village being round up for questioning because he sells a smaller amount of meat per kilo than the butcher down at The Rocks.

  shouldn't that be the other way around!

----------


## Marc

Mm ... true. So the weight police should get the Sydney butcher for not selling as much meat as the Perisher Village one does ... ha ha

----------


## FrodoOne

> Your point being?

  The point being that we are (probably) in "furious agreement" BUT "Kilogram-force is a non-standard unit and does not comply with the SI {Metric System)."  However, your Latin quote in a later post (abusus non tollit usum/use not precluded) without giving an appropriate English translation (although that can now easily be obtained) seems to to me to be just a little bit self aggrandising.   
(It is quite amazing as to how far this thread has wandered from its starting point!)

----------


## Marc

> However, your Latin quote in a later post (abusus non tollit usum/use not precluded) without giving an appropriate English translation (although that can now easily be obtained) seems to me to be just a little bit self aggrandising.
> (It is quite amazing as to how far this thread has wandered from its starting point!)

  Ha ha, precisely so, I was trying to mock your bombastic post, but hey ... all in good fun, clearly this is not a serious thread. Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit ... hu hu  
And to rectify my previous hypothetical conflict, I should have said that the butcher in Perisher, takes the supplier to court because the supplier 100k carcass from Canberra, is actually only 95 on his perfectly legal scale measured in kilo force oh dear!

----------


## Ozcar

As the unfortunate Mr Pyecraft discovered, it can sometimes be important to distinguish between weight and mass. 
However, given that the weight of something at Perisher Village is 99.95% of the weight of the same thing at the Rocks, I would not get too worried about it in that situation.

----------


## UseByDate

> Interesting.
> Despite the fact that when someone quotes his weight in Kilos he just measured on his bathroom scale that measures FORCE not mass since it is either electronic or spring loaded and measures force with no counterbalanced weight nowhere to be seen,...this poor sod of our example is not about to sell his flesh by the kilo and so therefore needs not to comply with no government treaty. 
> One. 
> Two ... in case you missed it the butcher that does sell flesh or rather meat if you like, does so by the KILO FORCE since his scale also measures force and not mass. And I don't see the butcher in Perisher village being round up for questioning because he sells a smaller amount of meat per kilo than the butcher down at The Rocks.  
> Frodos post when true is equally irrelevant. The point was made by someone that we say kilo mass when we quote our weight. I say we do not, never did, never intended to, never needed to. The (irrelevant) fact that some expensive sort of scales do measure mass because they compare mass rather than measure force, is of no consequence nor practical value when we are talking about our weight. So we do say our weight in Kilo Force and will do so as long as scales are build to measure force. 
> Kilo force is a non standard unit? Ha!  abusus non tollit usum
> So there

  Marc
 The symbols used for mass are kg or g. The symbol used for kilogram-force is kgf and the symbol used for gram-force is gf.  
 Although spring balances sense weight by the distortion of a spring caused by a mass in the presence of a gravitational field they are in the main calibrated in kg (mass) units not kgf (force) units. If they are used for trade they have to be, by law, calibrated in legal units of measurement. *The kgf is not a legal measurement in Australia.* 
 As I go around my local supermarket I see thousands of goods labelled in kg or g units (mass). I have never seen one labelled kgf or gf (force).   http://www.measurement.gov.au/Public...easurement.pdf  
 Quoted from the above document “Goods offered for sale by measurement must be sold by legal units of measurement (kg,L,m etc)”  
 Australian legal units of measurement are as contained in the following document.   http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...9331/sch1.html  
 Note that the scales of justice are “balance scales” and not “bathroom scales”

----------


## Marc

> Although spring balances sense weight by the distortion of a spring caused by a mass in the presence of a gravitational field they are in the main calibrated in kg (mass) units not kgf (force) units.

    So a scale measures force yet is calibrated in mass. Ha ... Sounds like cheating to me. If a scale with springs or electronics measures mass, why does it tell different weights for the same mass at different heights? Answer: because it does not measure mass. So it measures force. Therefore if you tell your weight you tell the force your mass exercises on the scale or the floor. No escaping that reality. You want to have a cultural revolution and get people to quote their weight in Newton? be my guest.
 PS
 Why is it that one would say I am lighter at high altitude, or I am lighter on the moon? Answer: because we all know that weight is the force we exercise on the ground. The concept of mass is alien to most people unless they want to show off and google it.

----------


## UseByDate

> So a scale measures force yet is calibrated in mass. Ha ... Sounds like cheating to me. If a scale with springs or electronics measures mass, why does it tell different weights for the same mass at different heights? Answer: because it does not measure mass. So it measures force. Therefore if you tell your weight you tell the force your mass exercises on the scale or the floor. No escaping that reality. You want to have a cultural revolution and get people to quote their weight in Newton? be my guest.
>  PS
>  Why is it that one would say I am lighter at high altitude, or I am lighter on the moon? Answer: because we all know that weight is the force we exercise on the ground. The concept of mass is alien to most people unless they want to show off and google it.

  Marc
 It is not really cheating. It is done all the time.   
 If I have a black box with a display and I place a 1 kg mass on it and the display shows 1 kg and then I place a 2 kg mass on it and it displays 2 kg, on what grounds are you saying the my black box is not an instrument for measuring mass? Remember you don't know what is in the black box.
 If your answer is that I can tell that it is not measuring mass because when I move the black box up a hill the display show an error when a 1 kg mass is placed on it. I would argue that it is a device for measuring mass and it needs to be recalibrated because its operating environment has changed.  
 What if I was to measure something that was a metre long with a steel ruler and the ruler displays 1 metre at 25 Celsius. I then take my ruler outside and it is 45 Celsius and measure something 1 metre   
long with my ruler and it shows an error (due to the expansion of the steel ruler) would you argue the the ruler is not a device for measuring length because its readings are different in different environments? I would argue that it is a device for measuring length and it needs to be recalibrated because its operating environment has changed.  
 I agree with you that we would need a cultural change to change our language. It is starting. A common formula used to determine a healthy “weight” is called your BMI (Body Mass Index) and not BWI. Mass is much more important to us than weight. Example: Drug dosages are worked out on the basis of body mass. I would expect the same dosage on the moon as I would get on the Earth.  
 My preference would be to use mass and not weight. Language and measurement units would be compatible.

----------


## Marc

For argument sake I will only say that the original statement was that we tell our mass when we say our weight. I disagree with that statement because 99% of people wouldn't know what mass is, and everyone would say weight is the force of one's body on the ground or scale.
If in your black box you have a scale that compares mass you are measuring mass. if in your black box you have a spring loaded device you are measuring force. 
I agree that such information (force) can be converted for all practical purposes into mass and this is done simply because a force measuring scale is eons cheaper than a traditional mass comparing device.  
After all our car speedo measures revolutions and converts it to speed. 
If you change your tires, you get an error. However a speedo is and has always been a speedo.  
A scale measuring weight will always be in the eye of the user a device that tells how much force the user's feet exercise against the scale. That is the point, not it's accuracy, legality nor cultural awareness.
In my opinion anyway, and this has been fun by the way. 
All thanks to PG funny Chinese square by the way I have one like it and use it all the time for rough welding jobs with no problems.

----------


## UseByDate

It's been fun. Let's agree to differ. :Smilie:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> PG funny Chinese square by the way I have one like it and use it all the time for rough welding jobs with no problems.

  hey?
what?
who? 
Square?  
Oh yeah...sorry, I nodded off there for a few days.    :Smilie:   
"Rough welding jobs"?   :Shock:   
What kind of helmet do you use?
Do you leave the guard on the grinder?
Is it a Bosch or Makita?
 Post a pic if you can...   :Rofl:

----------


## Marc

I have a Makita helmet and I take the shield off to see better, however I cover my eyes at the last minute with the Bosh Grinder's guard I take off to grind the weld with no impediments. If I stick weld, I chip the scale off with the chinese square, taking care to only bang on the side of the imperial scale.  :Smilie:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> I have a Makita helmet and I take the shield off to see better, however I cover my eyes at the last minute with the Bosh Grinder's guard I take off to grind the weld with no impediments. If I stick weld, I chip the scale off with the chinese square, taking care to only *bang on* the side of the imperial scale.

  
You do bang on a bit at times....   :Lolabove:

----------


## r3nov8or

> So is there anyone who knows for a fact if there is an official tolerance or is that left to the discretion of the inspector?

  The last inspector at my place didn't even carry a tape measure...

----------


## PlatypusGardens

I don't think Marc liked my joke... He's not talking to me any more...   :No:

----------


## Marc

Too busy with project lately. The ramp build I took on, is such an odd and different project, that is challenging my conceded small experience in every possible way. 
 I noticed also that the number of post on this website has diminished dramatically. There seems to be a lot of people looking but no one is posting.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> I noticed also that the number of post on this website has diminished dramatically. There seems to be a lot of people looking but no one is posting.

  
Many forums ae going tht way.
some which I used to post a lot on say 2-3 years ago, are practically deserted these days.
One in particular used to turn over two pages of threads per day in the off topic section.
People talking and arguing about all sorts of things.
These days there are a few threads at the top being looked at while the ones at the bottom of the page are months old.  
I think a lot of people spend more time on FaceBook than forums nowadays. 
maybe.

----------


## OBBob

> Many forums ae going tht way.
> some which I used to post a lot on say 2-3 years ago, are practically deserted these days.
> One in particular used to turn over two pages of threads per day in the off topic section.
> People talking and arguing about all sorts of things.
> These days there are a few threads at the top being looked at while the ones at the bottom of the page are months old.  
> I think a lot of people spend more time on FaceBook than forums nowadays. 
> maybe.

  Yep,  there's been a few articles recently about the demise of forums as people move more to discussions on Facebook and other platforms.

----------


## Jon

I check this forum and a couple of other unrelated forums a couple of times a day when I a bored.  I will look at the thread titles and read any I am interested in and very occasionally contribute.  I nearly jumped in on this one a few times but refrained.
One kilogram is the MASS of one point something litres of water at 4 degrees Celsius.  
Jon

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> One kilogram is the MASS of one point something litres of water at 4 degrees Celsius.

  Here we go again...   :Rofl:

----------


## Marc

Hum ... one point _something_? 
I prefer this mass definition : "mass is one of the irreducible representation labels of the Poincaré group."  Way more popular definition of one's own weight ... and you can never be called fat with that definition... mostly because one has fat chance of understanding it

----------


## Jon

[QUOTE=Marc;957655]Hum ... one point _something_?
  ][/.QUOTE] 
One point, four or five zeros and a one.  Can't be bothered looking it up. 
This leads to the question is what is the SI definition of a litre?
And then to what is the basic unit that is the basis for all the other units?  A purely academic argument but I like trivia. 
Jon

----------


## UseByDate

[QUOTE=Jon;957660]  

> Hum ... one point _something_?
>   ][/.QUOTE] 
> One point, four or five zeros and a one.  Can't be bothered looking it up. 
> This leads to the question is what is the SI definition of a litre?
> And then to what is the basic unit that is the basis for all the other units?  A purely academic argument but I like trivia. 
> Jon

  I fear I am being suckered into another discussion/argument.
 Official SI definition of mass  
  “it is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.”
The litre is not a SI unit but may be used with the SI unit system of measurements (also legal in Australia) and is defined as 1/1000 of a cubic metre.

----------


## Jon

[QUOTE=UseByDate;957675]  

> Official SI definition of mass  
>   “it is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.”
> The litre is not a SI unit but may be used with the SI unit system of measurements (also legal in Australia) and is defined as 1/1000 of a cubic metre.

  I agree but I think you will find the original prototype was based on the mass of a litre of water. 
And the cubic metre is square and could have been measured with the silly square at the start of this convoluted thread.  :Smilie:

----------


## METRIX

> Yep,  there's been a few articles recently about the demise of forums as people move more to discussions on Facebook and other platforms.

  Can't stand Facebook, all I ever used to see was people posting rubbish they "needed" people to see, like dinner, or trash, it's all about who's seen doing something, or done what or whatever, a bit self fulfilling if you ask me. 
I had one mate I used to go to school with, caught up with him on there, and he used to post EVERYTHING he did, and I mean everything, like im going to the shop to get some milk, with a pic of the street, and just got home from the shop with my milk, now I'm going to make a coffee, here is a picture of my cupboard full of coffee cups, which one should I choose today. 
It went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and OMG.
I had to de friend him as it was just soo boring seeing everything he did, I didn't care what cup you chose, or what shirt you wore, or what shop you went to, GET A LIFE. 
Needless to say I only frequent Facebook at most once every 3 months as it's all rubbish.

----------


## OBBob

Lol... yes ^!  
Actually,  I'm off to make a cup of tea now. Will let you know how it goes.

----------


## METRIX

> Lol... yes ^!  
> Actually,  I'm off to make a cup of tea now. Will let you know how it goes.

  Ok, I will wait for your reply, but please hurry as I have so many things to do, pictures to take (of me), people to send messages to (with my picture of course) because I'm like so popular, and you have to like everything I do or else I will give you the flick, and tell everyone else here to do the same. 
Actually I just made a nice drink with lemon, orange, mint, cucumber, I will just have to put a picture of it up for you all to see because I am like, just such a good drink maker, nobody can make drinks as good as I can, so don't even think about putting a picture up of your drink or else I'm going to tell everyone AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:

----------


## OBBob

Technically,  to be truly with it Metrix I think you're actually supposed to upload your picture to Instagram and then link it on Facebook...  
#getwithit   :Tongue:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Technically,  to be truly with it Metrix I think you're actually supposed to upload your picture to Instagram and then link it on Facebook...  
> #getwithit

  
That's so last week. 
You upload it to Instagram then send a text message telling people you'll tweet the facebook link later....  
#sheesh

----------


## Marc

Facebook is a vehicle for people to post what they want, that is why it is so popular. 
Before facebook people would be on the phone for hours talking about themselves if they could find a sucker to listen to them.  
You can not say that "facebook is rubbish" or "facebook is cool" because it is a platform. It is what people make of it.
I use facebook for the family and it is completely private. We exchange photos and catch up with family o/seas. 
For that purpose I think that facebook is invaluable. You have to set it up the way you want, you can even avoid the rubbish publicity if you give a reason why you delete the ad.  
What other people post is irrelevant to me. I don't even get to see what friends of family members post.

----------


## METRIX

> You can not say that "facebook is rubbish" .

  I disagree, and it appears I'm not the only one. 
I do agree if you set it up the way you want it can be an invaluable tool, unfortunately Marc, you are probably 0.0000001 % that uses it that way. 
Read below OBBob, you broke the No1 Facebook most annoying habit, HA HA HA HA  *'I'm having a cup of tea': Boring Facebook statuses named as number one annoying internet habit - but selfies aren't far behind*   *4 in 10 want friends to stop updating Facebook with meaningless rubbish* * Almost a quarter also wish people would stop taking 'selfie' photos * *35 per cent are fed up with hearing others continually use the word 'like'*    
Read more: Boring Facebook statuses named as number one annoying internet habit | Daily Mail Online  
We've finally had enough of  meaningless Facebook updates as new research says it's the number one  habit we want people to cut out.
The study found nearly four in ten Brits want friends and family to stop updating their Facebook with 'meaningless rubbish'.
Almost  a quarter also wish people would stop taking 'selfie' photos and  sharing them on social networks. 
Men are the worst offenders being,  according to the research, twice as likely to take selfies.  * 
UK'S TOP FIVE BAD TECH HABITS*  Phubbing - the act of snubbing someone by using your phoneFacebook stalk previous partnersJudging people based on their handsetPhotographing mealsFilming gigs instead of enjoying them  
 Another interesting take on Facebook 
When Facebook first turned up in our lives, people couldn't stop  banging on to non-users about how great it was, about how it had allowed  them to reconnect with someone they'd spent two days with in Cusco  during their gap year. How it made organising parties so much easier.  
But  now that anyone worth stalking is savvy enough to have their profile  settings set to NSA levels of privacy, and we've all realised that  sending a group email is just as effective a way to make plans as a  creating a Facebook group, it's getting harder and harder to justify why  we use Zuckerberg's social networking site. 
Especially as it's  making us feel so rubbish about ourselves. Yet another study has  revealed that Facebook is having a damaging affect on our self-esteem –  especially amongst young women. 
Researchers at the Universiy of  Strathclyde, Ohio Univesity and the University of Iowa surveyed almost  900 students about their Facebook use, as well as body image, exercise  and eating habits. 
It will probably come as little surprise to  many of you seasoned Facebookers that the researchers found that the  more time the women spent on the site staring at other people's selfies,  the more they were likely to feel crappy about their own physical  appearance.  
Not only that, but the study warned that Facebook may be more damaging to women's self-esteem than traditional media.
 Is it time we all deactivated those accounts?

----------


## Marc

I don't doubt what you say nor what others say about facebook. I heard it all before.  
For those who use facebook without private settings Facebook has turned the comfortably anonymous city life into a ghetto with no doors nor windows, a conventillo, a big tent where everyone lives, sleeps, cooks and goes to the toiled in open view.  
Surprised some have a bit of a problem adjusting? You bet! it is brutal, abnormal, bizarre, yet as I said before is not facebook, it is people.  
I check up facebook almost daily for 5 or 10 minutes. Get in touch with my large family read what they are up to, post a few things here and there. A photo of my latest build or trip on the boat. Birthday of some of the many kids around. Invaluable. 
Some have problems with what perfect strangers do? Hell I do to. Should I mention the one that cut me off the other day? it's the same thing.That is why we like our privacy. What do I say like, we need it, it is essential for a normal balanced healthy living. Privacy is invaluable, why would you tear your walls down and sit on the throne in full view? Beats me. Some people get on facebook to give themselves a free psychotherapy. I say free does not work. Pay a psychologist and get off facebook then,  I agree. Hardly Zuckerberg's fault though.

----------


## UseByDate

Jon
 Reference post #135
 How can we discuss any matter when you attribute my posts to yourself? You have taken my post from #134 and deleted the top line. Then you post it as *your* quote  in post #135.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Jon
>  Reference post #135
>  How can we discuss any matter when you attribute my posts to yourself? You have taken my post from #134 and deleted the top line. Then you post it as *your* quote  in post #135.

  
I don't think that's what he did.
look at the post, there seems to be some malfunction with the quote function.

----------


## Jon

Sorry UseByDate, that was a genuine accident, I did not mean to attribute your post to me.
I was attempting to agree with you on the current absolute definition of the kilogram.
I will promise to not try and quote while using a smart phone in the future. 
Jon

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Can't stand Facebook, all I ever used to see was people posting rubbish they "needed" people to see, like dinner, or trash, it's all about who's seen doing something, or done what or whatever, a bit self fulfilling if you ask me. 
> I had one mate I used to go to school with, caught up with him on there, and he used to post EVERYTHING he did, and I mean everything, like im going to the shop to get some milk, with a pic of the street, and just got home from the shop with my milk, now I'm going to make a coffee, here is a picture of my cupboard full of coffee cups, which one should I choose today. 
> It went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and OMG.
> I had to de friend him as it was just soo boring seeing everything he did, I didn't care what cup you chose, or what shirt you wore, or what shop you went to, GET A LIFE. 
> Needless to say I only frequent Facebook at most once every 3 months as it's all rubbish.

  
That's not an indication that Facebook is rubbish.
More a case of old mate being a sad sack with absolutely nothing better to do than post everythinng he does on FB.   
I have a page set up for my metal work and landscaping, purely because everyone asks if I have a page.
Many people check FB every day, and it's easier for them to look me (and other businesses) up, while "on there" so I caved in and set up a page. 
I only use it to post pics of my stuff.
That's it.
I don't interact with anyone, send/make "friend" requests or look at anyone else's page. 
For that purpose I suppose it is a good free tool for getting your business/products out there. 
People see me at the markets and can easily send a link to my page to their friends who may be interested in my stuff.    :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> I don't think that's what he did.
> look at the post, there seems to be some malfunction with the quote function.

   

> Sorry UseByDate, that was a genuine accident, I did not mean to attribute your post to me.
> I was attempting to agree with you on the current absolute definition of the kilogram.
> I will promise to not try and quote while using a smart phone in the future. 
> Jon

  Whoops
 PlatypusGardens may be right. The malfunction may have been caused by a computer glitch. Probably that silly square gumming up the works.  
 To respond to your comment that the first “prototype” of a kilogram was a litre of water is nearly right. Originally 1 gram was defined as the mass of 1 cubic centimetre of water at maximum density. But that was a long, long time ago.
 The use of the litre measure is just for convenience. It is much easier to ask for a litre of milk than to ask for a milli cubic metre of milk or a cubic deci metre of milk.  
 There are excellent publications on the internet if you wish to learn more about the SI system of measurements.  
 Moderator: Did the “quoting system” malfunction around posts #133, #134, #135?

----------


## Marc

Yes, as an easy way to have a webpage it's ok, however if you have minimal interest in IT, setting up a website is easy and cheap. A facebook page is very limited, your own page can take orders, send emails, gives you stats and many many more functions without you doing much at all after setting it all up. 
Still wondering why no one has taken up my chosen definition of mass, nor my simile with the kick of a pregnant mule? 
(And, nota bene, no plagiarism allowed or else!!!!)

----------


## Marc

When I was a kid, I would go to the milkman to buy one litre of milk. 
He had an official approved aluminium measuring jar to sell milk. I would bring with me an empty bottle yet his "measure" was all beaten up and would hardly represent the official measure required to sell milk in bulk. Later I learned that the containers he picked up from the farmer door, also aluminium containers with 30 or so litres, received the same treatment by the farmer who regularly bashed the canisters in, so that they held a smaller amount. 
The milkman on the other hand, had a lead ball at the ready and when the canisters were empty would put the ball inside and give it a good shake to make the containers balloon out and keep a larger volume. 
I am not sure how long this aluminium canister would withstand such treatment and unfortunately I never had the chance to take corrective action on his measuring jar that regularly shortchanged me on my "litre" of milk. 
All is relative.

----------


## UseByDate

> When I was a kid, I would go to the milkman to buy one litre of milk. 
> He had an official approved aluminium measuring jar to sell milk. I would bring with me an empty bottle yet his "measure" was all beaten up and would hardly represent the official measure required to sell milk in bulk. Later I learned that the containers he picked up from the farmer door, also aluminium containers with 30 or so litres, received the same treatment by the farmer who regularly bashed the canisters in, so that they held a smaller amount. 
> The milkman on the other hand, had a lead ball at the ready and when the canisters were empty would put the ball inside and give it a good shake to make the containers balloon out and keep a larger volume. 
> I am not sure how long this aluminium canister would withstand such treatment and unfortunately I never had the chance to take corrective action on his measuring jar that regularly shortchanged me on my "litre" of milk. 
> All is relative.

   Yes. Some of my relatives were rogues. :No:

----------


## woodbe

And that is where "The Government" comes in.  :Biggrin:  
If you are running scales (spring, electronic weigh bar, beam, etc) in a commercial environment, they need to be calibrated and checked. In some or perhaps all states these days, there are inspectors that visit and check that they have been calibrated and test them against standards that are carried on the visit. Same goes for volume measurements. You trade it, and you have to prove your measurement system is accurate, so the scales in Thredbo have to measure weight just as accurately as those in Canberra. 
The fuel bowsers at the servo have the same calibration requirements and checking.

----------


## Marc

Piti we don't have the same standards check for the members of the government. We are short changed regularly with no consequence to the offenders.

----------


## woodbe

You're not having a go at Joe Hockey are you? I know he's lost a lot of weight, but he's still a solid bloke!  :Wink:

----------

