lufkin measurement booklet

[Ken S]

Hi, all.

This is the link to a booklet I scanned. it was a promotional advertising item for the Lufkin rule company many years ago. For many years, Lufkin rivaled companies like Starrett and Brown and Sharpe as a manufacturer of top quality machinist tools. Sadly, the company has been mostly out of business for many years.

This booklet covers the history of measurement. It is a good introduction; I have found it fascinating.

Enjoy. No need to log into dropbox, just continue.

Ken

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zchkjbpb3lwvax1/lufkin%20Mearurement%20booklet_20161028_0001.pdf?dl=0

[Elden]

Very interesting Ken. Thanks for posting it.

[Elden]

Do you wonder about the beginning of the Metric system? Following is a link available about its beginning:

http://www.us-metric.org/origin-of-the-metric-system/

[RobinW]

Despite all the clever words online and other documents relating to measurements and standards, it is well known that the 'yard' was defined by a certain English King (Henry VI) as the distance from his nose to the end of the finger of his extended arm. What could be simpler?

I am yet again bemused by one statement in the linked "Origin of the Metric System":-

"Since 1893, the internationally adopted metric standards have served as the fundamental measurement standards of the United States."

It's a pity they don't use it.

Likewise I note another statement:-

"The yard is equal to 3 feet or 36. Under an agreement in 1959 between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, the yard (known as the "international yard" in the United States) was legally defined to be exactly 0.9144 meters."

Typical - the USA can't stop fiddling with things! Don't start me on spelling.

Far be it for me to raise the subject of Kg and lbs particularly with regards to space exploration.

Now that I have thrown that firecracker into the pot, I'll sign out and keep clear for a while.

Have a nice day y'all.

[Dutchman]

Typical - the USA can't stop fiddling with things! ...
Far be it for me to raise the subject of Kg and lbs particularly with regards to space exploration.
Now that I have thrown that firecracker into the pot, I'll sign out and keep clear for a while.
Have a nice day y'all.

Well done 

[Ken S]

My otherwise quiet early Saturday morning included a good laugh reading Robin and Dutchman's posts. I totally agree!

We (US) seem to have two camps. We have the scientific community, which quietly uses metric measurements day to day. We also have the patriotic group who refuses to listen to any Frence king telling them how to measure.

We also have the poor mechanics, whose tool chest are overburdened by having both inch and metric tools, and, for motor cycle mechanics, British tools, too. The worst is having to use both systems on the same assembly. (Why does the Tormek Work Station, made in Germany for a Swedish company, use 5/8" x 11 threads per inch forthe adjustable leveling feet?    )

Robin, look down. Do you walk with your feet, or with metres? Working with a real measurement system is not that difficult. You used to have shillings and guineas. You could learn. We all know the earth is really flat. Why can't yous guys use the correct units of mezurment?

Ken

ps I realize the Lufkin bookletis not a reference for scholars.

[Elden]

Time to bite my tongue.

[Ken S]

Elden,

Don't be shy and hold your tonguea. You are a valued member, and among friends.....Let 'er rip!

Ken

[Jan]

Ken, really nice booklet. It reminds me S.Harris scientific cartoons. 

Jan

[RobinW]

I am of an age (rapidly hurtling towards my measurable allocation of three score and ten) where I can recollect using a lot of the measurement standards listed in the Lufkin brochure! I am also familiar with the Lufkin name and am sure I have used some of their rules and tapes.

Whilst mainland Europe uses metric units (kilometres; kilogrammes; litres) and on the west side of the pond they use Americanised versions of Imperial measurements, we in the UK have, thanks to our politicians and pressure groups who could not move with the times, the dubious pleasure of using unusual combinations of metric and imperial units.

Engineering and science are consistent with the use of metric SI units. However:-

Our roads (signs, road maps) are in miles (that's real miles). We fill up our cars with petrol or diesel which is sold in litres. (If you ask for gas you will get LPG if available.)

However, car manufacturers list typical consumption in miles/gallon (proper gallons)!

In the supermarkets another ploy is used. Some items are priced in Kg and some in lbs. It's just to baffle the consumer so that the price displayed gives the impression which may seem 'favourable'.

In some supermarkets, milk is sold in litres and others in pints.

In a bar, the whisky is now sold in millilitres, yet beer is in pints.

You may be sitting in an aeroplane designed and built in metric units, but the seat spacing is defined in inches. Doesn't 31 inches sound great until you try and get in/out?

A few years ago, I was in a builders' merchants, and the guy in front of me asked for "twelve foot six" of some type of wood. The man behind the counter informed the customer "We're metric now." The guy stood there, brain obviously working something out, and then said:-

"I would like twelve point six of ........"

The best convoluted example I can give you was also a few years ago I went to purchase some vinyl flooring for our kitchen.

In the shop it was on a 3m wide roll; there was a sign saying so, it measured the same.

I had measured our requirement and wanted a piece 3.4 metres long.

The sign on the stand priced the vinyl flooring in £/square yard.

So I asked for 3.4 metres and asked what the calculated the price would be. (I did my own converting square yards to square metres and upping the price.)

When the young lady gave me a price, I said it did not match up with my figure and asked how she came to her figure.

She then said that they sell it in feet! (So 3 metres wide by linear foot; priced per square yard. Are you still with me?)

We go through her figures and found the discrepancy. She had used 3.04 metres. So I pointed out that I wanted three point four metres. She said that was what she had used. After some clarification on this, she said "Oh. You mean you want three point forty."

Once I asked for three point forty metres, it was duly converted to feet, area juggled into square yards etc; we reached an agreed price. And guess what? It was cut to the right length!

[SharpenADullWitt]

And we wonder about all the reasons we have problems getting to other planets.  Lets hope they don't do what they didn't do with any manned missions to Mars, that they forgot on a probe a few years back.  (didn't convert and slammed it into the surface)

[Ken S]

"We have met the enemy and they are us.".....

[Elden]

   As I have previously stated, I like my total metric tape measure. It is a shame they are so difficult to find where to purchase one on this side.  When using it, I find myself doing the following rough calculation:
100 mm is approximately equal to 4 inches
300 mm is approximately equal to 12 inches or 1 foot
Some things are very difficult to adapt to.

   I am more likely to make a mistake using metric, but I think that is happening less often as I use it more.

[Ken S]

I agree, Elden. It is unfortunate that good metric measurement tools are often hard to find. A delightful exception is the folding one meter rule from Lee Valley. It is a quality Swiss made tool. It is compact enough to easily fit in a pocket. One side has very clear metric markings. Flip it over to find inches. In general, I do not care for combination tools, however, this rule is an exception. It is surprisingly reasonably priced. I like to give them as gifts.

I believe we will all become more fluent with the metric system as we use it more. I suspect most of us have metric tools in our tool chests, and use them. Life today would be easier if President Thomas Jefferson had converted to metric. So, we muddle through.

Ken

[Herman Trivilino]

I am yet again bemused by one statement in the linked "Origin of the Metric System":- "Since 1893, the internationally adopted metric standards have served as the fundamental measurement standards of the United States."

What that means is that all of the units used for commerce in the USA must by law be defined in terms of SI units. (SI is the official name of the metric system.)

Likewise I note another statement:-

"The yard is equal to 3 feet or 36. Under an agreement in 1959 between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, the yard (known as the "international yard" in the United States) was legally defined to be exactly 0.9144 meters."

That's an example of defining the yard in terms of a SI unit, something the USA was bound by the 1893 treaty to do and had been doing since that time. That 1959 agreement constituted a change so that those particular nations would all use the same definition.

Far be it for me to raise the subject of Kg and lbs particularly with regards to space exploration.

In the USA the pound is defined as exactly 0.453 592 37 kg. Again, a definition required by the 1893 treaty. I believe that particular definition was also adopted in a 1959 change.

BIPM (the international organization created by that 1893 treaty) revises the SI standards as the needs of science and technology advances. They will in this sense never stop "fiddling with things". In 1983 they changed the defintion of a meter. Within the next few years we'll likely see a new definition of the kilogram. The modern approach is to do away with artifacts that are used to define standards and replace them with an exact value for a fundamental constant. In 1983 the metal bar used to define the meter was replaced with a declaration of an exact value for the speed of light, 299 792 458 m/s. This establishes the meter as the distance travelled by light is a specific amount of time, thus doing away with the artifact (the metal bar) which now enjoys the status of a museum piece. Soon the chunk of metal used to define the kilogram will enjoy the same status, replaced by a declaration of an exact value for Avagadro's Number, which is currently defined as the number of carbon-12 atoms in any 0.012 kg sample of carbon-12.