You want them to show the insane fractions versus a nice whole number of millimeters. That's exactly what USC is like. On Feb 10, 2014 12:21 PM, <carlet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> And of course they had to use those stupid fractions rather than show the > inches decimally. > > Carleton > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> > *To: *"USMA" <usma@colostate.edu> > *Sent: *Monday, February 10, 2014 10:47:41 AM > *Subject: *[USMA:53549] Re: Interesting mounting template > > Or, the engineer started at 2-1/4 > His boss said, "Hey dummy, we're metric" and it became 57 mm. > It came to marketand Marketing got involved; it became 2-6/25", 5.7 cm. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Ressel, Howard R (DOT)" <howard.res...@dot.ny.gov> > *To:* John M. Steele <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>; U.S. Metric > Association <usma@colostate.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 9:14 AM > *Subject:* RE: [USMA:53546] Interesting mounting template > > Yes I saw no reason why 60 mm would not have worked for the spacing. > Neither dimension is convenient. Of course i9t could have been some > Engineer just being way too precise in the layout of the design of the > item. We do tend to get that way. I have Engineers that show the slope of > a roadway to the nearest thousands of a foot, I dare any contractor to > build it that precise. All goes back to the reliance on computers and > forgetting about engineering judgment. > > *From:* John M. Steele [mailto:jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net] > *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 8:49 AM > *To:* Ressel, Howard R (DOT); U.S. Metric Association > *Subject:* Re: [USMA:53546] Interesting mounting template > > The 2-6/25 is pretty interesting. Strict conversion of the 57 mm gives > 2.2441" so it would have been a negligible error to round to 2.25 (2-1/4, > using their notation). The inches are only for English-speaking Americans, > and the centimeters for Spanish speaking. :) > > Why is 57 mm inconvenient? I suppose you would have to open the device to > determine whether a "rounder" number like 50 or 60 mm was practical, or had > internal interference. > > It does seem that one dual-labelled drawing would fit on half the paper > and provide an obvious cost-save. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Ressel, Howard R (DOT)" <howard.res...@dot.ny.gov> > *To:* U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 8:28 AM > *Subject:* [USMA:53546] Interesting mounting template > > I purchased a GE light for under my cabinet, one of these battery > operated LED ones. The mounting template was interesting (see attached). > One can speculate a lot here, indeed the measurements are identical but > neither is convenient. Did they just plunk down two holes in the back of > the mounting plate then measure what the spacing was and call it a day? I > wonder why they needed to have two drawings which I did cut and paste on > top of each other and verify are identical, the holes line up. > > Howard Ressel > Project Design Engineer > NYSDOT > 1530 Jefferson Road > Rochester, NY 14623 > 585 272-3372 > > > 43,560 square feet in an acre > 5280 feet in a mile > 16 ounces in a pound > 128 ounces in a gallon > > 23 confused kids in a class > > What could be simpler? > > > > > > >
