# A routing tutorial for beginners Part Two



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

*This is another coin tray but rather different to the first one particually because I have attempted to make it "the American" way, using Imperial measurements throughout. I must stress that non of the measurements are critical. First of all decide what internal diameter you want the coin tray to be,, next, choose a template guide, the bigger the better, now decide on a suitable cutter and use this simple formula to calculate the size of hole in the template: guide diameter minus cutter diameter plus the diameter of the inside of the coin tray. The only possible difficulty that I can envisage is size of the cutter for routing the outside of the tray, to do this, diameter of the guide, minus diameter of the cutter divided by two, the answer gives you the thickness of the wall.*


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

*Part two*

By this stage not only was my mind in a twirl because of the effort needed to keep to Imperial measurements, you guys and gals have a great treat in store when you eventually go fully metric, but using such a small template guide with such limited visibility was hard work, this is something else that you can look forward to, BIG guides and routers to take them.
The felt and cord are available here from handicraft stores. I can't think of anything else that requires further explanation but feel free to ask if you find there is ANYTHING at all that isn't clear. The final shot compares the two coin trays.


----------



## bobj3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Very nice job Harry 

By the way they don't make or sale a 1 1/8" guide in the states as a off the shelf item, but like you said it's not a big deal..just use what you have on hand 

=======


----------



## jschaben (Jun 21, 2009)

Good job Harry:sold: Like BJ pointed out, 1-1/8" guides aren't readily available here but you covered the math nicely in your opening paragraphs. 
We appreciate you undergoing the painful foray into imperial measurements for our benefit


----------



## allthunbs (Jun 22, 2008)

Harry:

I'm firmly stuck in Imperial. Metric will happen only under extreme duress.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

allthunbs said:


> Harry:
> 
> I'm firmly stuck in Imperial. Metric will happen only under extreme duress.


Someone has to get the ball rolling Ron, why don't YOU start to place the people concerned under "extreme duress"


----------



## gav (Oct 12, 2009)

I don't think they will ever convert Harry. It was too hard for them in the 70's, and now it's a much bigger task !


----------



## allthunbs (Jun 22, 2008)

harrysin said:


> Someone has to get the ball rolling Ron, why don't YOU start to place the people concerned under "extreme duress"


Harry: at one point I worked with systems of Measure. In Canada land was originally measured, (under French rule) in royal feet. Unfortunately, the royal foot changed at least once and thus we have new and old royal feet. Then the English arrived and we started using the English foot. 

Then Canada became a nation and we had to start to figure out how all of this stuff had to be reconciled so it would work together. To this day, there are still lands measured in the old French king's foot, still on title and still valid. Some of the church lands that have never changed hands since their royal grant are still measured in the old methods.

Do you know how painful it is to change a system of measurement? Even your judgment of distance comes into question. I say that's 10' and everyone understands what I mean. If I say that is 304.8 centimeters, no one has a clue of what I'm talking about. An inch is the width of my thumbprint. I say 6 inches and I can measure out 6 thumbprints and get close enough for estimation purposes. 25.4 centimeters may be the same thing but there is no correlation to something humans can relate to, like a thumb print. Good grief, even today if I said an ynce was 3 barleycorns everyone has a picture in their mind of what they think 3 barleycorns look like, put three together and you have an ynce (inch prior to 1066 AD)

Ask someone what they see in their mind's eye when one says 25.4 centimeters and all you get is a blank stare.

My old system may be arcane, convoluted and regressive but I can still relate to it, I guess because I'm arcane, convoluted and regressive.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

Do I know how painful it is to change systems you ask. Of course I do Ron, I left England in 1964, an Imperial country, and arrived in Australia, also an Imperial country, this is until the 14th of February 1966, on that day we commenced the changeover to metric, starting with the currency. Now here you would have a distinct advantage because your currency is already metric. Gradually everything else changed but ever so slowly, as I think you were alluding to, the logistics are horrendous, like changing all speed signs as we went from 30 miles/hour to 60Km/hour, overlays were available to stick on the speedo. If we could do it, I see no reason why any country can't.


----------



## jschaben (Jun 21, 2009)

harrysin said:


> Do I know how painful it is to change systems you ask. Of course I do Ron, I left England in 1964, an Imperial country, and arrived in Australia, also an Imperial country, this is until the 14th of February 1966, on that day we commenced the changeover to metric, starting with the currency. Now here you would have a distinct advantage because your currency is already metric. Gradually everything else changed but ever so slowly, as I think you were alluding to, the logistics are horrendous, like changing all speed signs as we went from 30 miles/hour to 60Km/hour, overlays were available to stick on the speedo. If we could do it, I see no reason why any country can't.


Hi Harry - I tend to agree with you but Ron is right about being able to conceptualize distances. I have been working in both systems for nearly as long and still have some problems visualizing without stopping to think about it. Rons example wasn't exactly fair either. I think most people would say 3 meters instead of 304.8 centimeters or, better yet, 3048 millimeters.
I think it is an industry by industry thing. Automobiles have been in it since the late 60's or early 70's and it is pretty well entrenched there. Agricultural equipment will be a lot longer coming. Most brand new Ag equipment is metric but at $100,000 and up, it doesn't get replaced as often and it is not unusual to see 40 and 50 year old equipment in shops for major repair. Construction trades are a different matter as the individual has choices in fasteners and measurements and I don't see that changing. The only way I could see that area being accelerated would be building codes written in metric. I could envision a civil war over that one though. JMHO


----------



## bobj3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Hi Guys

I just don't get it at all,, Imperial/Metric why not use one or the other, it's not a big deal.

If you live in the upside world or north of the border Metric may be the norm and that's just fine ,what every works for you is the best way.. 

=======


----------



## tdublyou (Jan 8, 2010)

First of all, I want to thank Harry for the wonderful step by step tutorials, both metric and imperial. As always there is little, if anything left out. I only wish I had the time to spend in my shop to make things, let alone the time to photo document it etc. 
BRAVO Harry.

With that taken care of, here is my 2 cents on the imperial metric debate (which I suspect could be a thread of it's own if not an entire website). Apologies to my Father and Grandfather who would roll over in their graves if they read this.

As a 3rd generation carpenter for some 30+ years, that is firmly entrenched in the imperial system, day in and day out, I can fully understand the reluctance to convert to metric. The imperial system is, as second nature to me as the metric system is to Harry and others here. I compute fractions in my head all day long and think nothing of it. But I can just as easily do the same with the metric system. Conversely, I don't believe that the same can be said for those entrenched in the metric system, and that is my point here.
Harry is right, the imperial system is archaic. I don't think that anyone who uses the metric system has any more trouble visualizing and/or relating to what a meter is than we do to what a yard or a foot is. It's all a matter of what you're accustomed to. Ron if you told me something was equal to 3 barleycorns, I would look at you as if you had a third eye. I would have no more idea of what that represented than I do of what a royal foot is. (Though I might have a guess at that one) Everywhere you go you see things in metric you just don't realize it. All vehicle odometers read in tenths of a mile, "Left lane closed in 1000 feet". While that example uses feet it is using them in units of 10.
The beauty of the metric system is that all of it's units of measure relate to one another in units of ten. (Not coincidentally, the number of fingers most of us have.) 
The imperial system doesn't have any such continuity. Sure everyone knows there are 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 5280 feet to a mile, etc. But there is no consistent relationship to them and they have NOTHING in common with our liquid and weight measures.
I can only imagine how difficult it would be for someone, trained in the metric system to learn imperial. Whereas those of us trained in the imperial system already know the metric system. Since, as Harry pointed out, our monetary system is essentially metric.
My only real concern over changing to metric would be... What will we call a 2 x 4???
Just my opinion on this, for what it's worth.


----------



## kp91 (Sep 10, 2004)

*We need a metric FOOT equivalent*

I agree with Tim's comments- great job Harry. 

As for the metric/imperial thing, I just wish there was a 'foot' sized unit that was commonly used. Meters work great for yards, KM for miles, mm for a fraction of inches, etc, but no handy 'foot' sized unit.

I didn't realize how big an issue this could be until I started working on ships built to Korean plans. On a ship that is 600+ foot long, all the dimensions are given in milimeters. This is done so that all the units on the drawings are the same and you know were the decimal is. Where in the imperial, piping would be specified in inches, and most everything else in feet, the metric way is a little confusing from time to time. 

Add that to having to learn how to start thinking in Bar, kPa, cubic meters, etc... I have to carry a table in my pocket. Such is life I guess. The odd thing is the power for my imperial ship was rated in MegaWatts, the power for the metric ship is in Horsepower... should be the other way around!

What's really confusing is when the posted speed limit is in MPH and the road is marked off in km, or yards as I saw in Wales a while ago.


----------



## allthunbs (Jun 22, 2008)

Well said Tim and Doug. Thanks for your tolerance.


----------



## tdublyou (Jan 8, 2010)

kp91 said:


> I agree with Tim's comments- great job Harry.
> 
> As for the metric/imperial thing, I just wish there was a 'foot' sized unit that was commonly used. Meters work great for yards, KM for miles, mm for a fraction of inches, etc, but no handy 'foot' sized unit.
> 
> ...


Doug,
Probably the closest foot equivalent is a decimeter. Though I don't recall seeing it used much. I guess I did learn something back in the 70's when they talked about converting.

* A kilometer is 1000 meters
* A hectometer is 100 meters
* A decameter is 10 meters
* A meter is the basic unit of length
* A decimeter is 1/10 meter
* A centimeter is 1/100 meter
* A millimeter is 1/1000 meter


----------



## jschaben (Jun 21, 2009)

Hi Tim - Doug still makes a good point as a decimeter is only about 4", really to short to be terribly useful. 
Even the pro metric people refer to 10mm bit as opposed to 1 centimeter bit or 20 mm bushings instead of 2 cm. Which is fine as it does reduce the memory load in making the conversions.. I dunno, just try to play the hand I get dealt.:wacko:
Bottom line I guess is that it really isn't that important what the units are called as long as I can understand the relationships.


----------



## Dr.Zook (Sep 10, 2004)

Tim, a 2 x 4?
I guess a 51 x 102!!!!!!


----------



## tdublyou (Jan 8, 2010)

Dr.Zook said:


> Tim, a 2 x 4?
> I guess a 51 x 102!!!!!!


Sorry Dave, that just doesn't have the same ring to it:haha:


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

Dr.Zook said:


> Tim, a 2 x 4?
> I guess a 51 x 102!!!!!!


Dave, we call it a 100 x 50, which they now are. Difficulties can arise when renovating old houses because the metric "equivalent" isn't an exact conversion. I believe that corrugated iron and fibre fence panels are sill made in very small runs to cater for such renovations.
Even after all these years of metric, I/we still refer to such things as air pressure in lbs/sq" in spite of it no longer being an official unit. Overall though it works very well, when shopping at the supermarket it's so easy to calculate in one's head which is the better value, the large box or two small ones, very often it's the two small ones, the small ones are never exactly half the weight of the large ones, it's usually something like 500grams and 235grams in an attempt to confuse the public.
In summary, who cares whether you go metric or not, so long as metric routers*, cutters and template guides are produced!
Strangely, our routers still have 1/2" and 1/4" collets, but take metric guides and are held together with metric screws.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

My thanks to all you guys for your kind remarks and I do hope that there are some members who have increased their knowledge of routing. I feel that the effort that goes into these tutorials and threads is very worthwhile because they are what I would have loved to have available in my early years of woodworking, now, no snide comments about routers not having been invented then!


----------



## allthunbs (Jun 22, 2008)

Here's the worst part, I go to the store and ask for a 2x4 and I get a chunk of wood that corresponds to today's equivalent of yesteryear's 2"x4". If I asked for the metric equivalent what would I ask for -- 3.81cm x 8.89cm or do I ask for 5.08 x 10.16 or a 6/4x14/4?


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

Ron, once again you're not concentrating, go back to post #19 on this thread where I answered this point, go stand in the corner for ten minutes.


----------



## bobj3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Hi Harry

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha LOL LOL I like it...LOL LOL,Ron, don't forget your hat with the point on it ..LOL LOL,,Ron don't feel bad Harry has sent me to the corner a time or two ..LOL LOL,,

========



harrysin said:


> Ron, once again you're not concentrating, go back to post #19 on this thread where I answered this point, go stand in the corner for ten minutes.


----------



## tdublyou (Jan 8, 2010)

harrysin said:


> Dave, we call it a 100 x 50, which they now are. Difficulties can arise when renovating old houses because the metric "equivalent" isn't an exact conversion. I believe that corrugated iron and fibre fence panels are sill made in very small runs to cater for such renovations.
> Even after all these years of metric, I/we still refer to such things as air pressure in lbs/sq" in spite of it no longer being an official unit. Overall though it works very well, when shopping at the supermarket it's so easy to calculate in one's head which is the better value, the large box or two small ones, very often it's the two small ones, the small ones are never exactly half the weight of the large ones, it's usually something like 500grams and 235grams in an attempt to confuse the public.
> In summary, who cares whether you go metric or not, so long as metric routers*, cutters and template guides are produced!
> Strangely, our routers still have 1/2" and 1/4" collets, but take metric guides and are held together with metric screws.


Wow Harry, 100 x 50 actual size? That converts to 1.97" x 3.94". That's darn near an actual 2 x 4. We haven't seen lumber that size since sometime in the 19th or early 20th century. 
Converting would make remodeling and retrofitting a pain, but then again IT IS a pain.


----------



## jlord (Nov 16, 2009)

tdublyou said:


> Wow Harry, 100 x 50 actual size? That converts to 1.97" x 3.94". That's darn near an actual 2 x 4. We haven't seen lumber that size since sometime in the 19th or early 20th century.
> Converting would make remodeling and retrofitting a pain, but then again IT IS a pain.


That would be a pain for remodeling as off the rack pre-hung door jambs & jamb stock comes 4-9/16" wide. That's to fit a regular 2x4 sheeted with 1/2" drywall on both sides. Anything else you would have but wider & rip down to size. Harder to do with a router. Better job for a table saw.


----------



## jlord (Nov 16, 2009)

Hi Harry,
I like you tutorial. It is well informative. It shows other ways of performing operations. Thanks.


----------



## jschaben (Jun 21, 2009)

One thing kinda bothers me though Harry. This is sorta off topic, but you are fairly adamant about controlling the skiis from the cheeks. I would have a verrry difficult time doing the roundover on that project trying to control it from the ends?


----------



## BigJimAK (Mar 13, 2009)

harrysin said:


> My thanks to all you guys for your kind remarks and I do hope that there are some members who have increased their knowledge of routing.


Thank you very much, Harry.. You reminded me that I have a piece of 8/4 Padauk about 6" wide x 7' long that I bought about a year ago without having a project for it. It was just too beautiful to pass on. Once I finish my RT cabinet, its on my list. 

You make it (look) easy!


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

jlord said:


> Hi Harry,
> I like you tutorial. It is well informative. It shows other ways of performing operations. Thanks.


Thank you James, it's nice to hear that what I set out to do is achieving that goal.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

jschaben said:


> One thing kinda bothers me though Harry. This is sorta off topic, but you are fairly adamant about controlling the skiis from the cheeks. I would have a verrry difficult time doing the roundover on that project trying to control it from the ends?


John, I didn't use the skis for the round-over, it wasn't necessary. I don't use them when it isn't necessary, only for jobs that will be made easier by their use or even impossible any other way. Having said that, I can see no reason why anyone would have any difficulty operating the skis from the end cheeks, am I to assume that you haven"t actually used skis John?


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

jlord said:


> That would be a pain for remodeling as off the rack pre-hung door jambs & jamb stock comes 4-9/16" wide. That's to fit a regular 2x4 sheeted with 1/2" drywall on both sides. Anything else you would have but wider & rip down to size. Harder to do with a router. Better job for a table saw.


Necessity is the mother of invention John, are you suggesting that we Aussies are more adaptable than Americans?


----------



## bobj3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Just a butt in 

I would say so,,  how many Americans can walk on their hands all day long 

======



harrysin said:


> Necessity is the mother of invention John, are you suggesting that we Aussies are more adaptable than Americans?


----------



## levon (Sep 14, 2008)

hello Harry,

thank you for another well thought out tutorial and with the pictures, it makes it so easy to understand.

another post mentioned the skis, you only used the skis for cutting the tray from the workpiece right? or am i misunderstanding?


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

bobj3 said:


> Just a butt in
> 
> I would say so,,  how many Americans can walk on their hands all day long
> 
> ======


You've got it wrong Bob, we have suckers on out shoes and walk on the ceilings. The feet on each new generation are slowly developing into suckers so in another couple of generations shoes won't be needed.
But in all seriousness, because Australia, particularly Western Australia is so far from "civilisation" we have become very ingenious, just ask Al. Robins, a retired farmer, I'll bet he could tell a few tales about ingenuity. So many great inventions originated in Australia, unfortunately most had to go overseas for development because of our short sighted governments.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

levon said:


> hello Harry,
> 
> thank you for another well thought out tutorial and with the pictures, it makes it so easy to understand.
> 
> another post mentioned the skis, you only used the skis for cutting the tray from the workpiece right? or am i misunderstanding?


Levon my friend, what am I to do with you, go back to shot 19 in the tutorial, 
you will see that, because the male template (the plug) is too small for the router to sit on for the external round-over, the skis were brought to the rescue. Take another look through the photos. and you'll see the dish was separated from the waste on the band saw, but there are many alternative for those without a band saw, jig, fret, scroll, coping, keyhole etc.
In a week or two Levon I may well email you a written test on the making of a coin tray, so print out the project so that you can study it in all of your spare time!


----------



## levon (Sep 14, 2008)

hi Harry,
sorry, that's what i meant. you used the skis to cut the outside using the plug, left a small amount holding it, then used the bandsaw to cut the rest of the way through. sorry i didnt explain what i meant correctly. 

p.s. the quiz sounds like fun.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

You've got it now Levon so take a sickie* on Monday and make a coin tray or anything you like, using recently learnt techniques.

*an Australian term meaning to skip work for a day and claim you were sick.


----------



## allthunbs (Jun 22, 2008)

harrysin said:


> Ron, once again you're not concentrating, go back to post #19 on this thread where I answered this point, go stand in the corner for ten minutes.


Nope, Canada is a metric country but a 2x4 is still a 2x4. It may measure 1.5" x 3.5" (or 3.81cm x 8.89 cm) but it is still a 2x4. All of the construction trades are an abomination of ammetrial (American, Metric, Imperial.) For example you buy a pint of glue. It is 564(?) ml (1 US shortened pint) not 1/2 litre.


----------



## allthunbs (Jun 22, 2008)

jschaben said:


> One thing kinda bothers me though Harry. This is sorta off topic, but you are fairly adamant about controlling the skiis from the cheeks. I would have a verrry difficult time doing the roundover on that project trying to control it from the ends?


Hi John:

I wrote a thread on making and using skis in which I described the trepidation of the first attempt at using them. The control is soooo much more complete from the cheeks than from the machine handles. From the handles it is difficult to control cuts to within an inch. From the cheeks it is easy (if you can see it) to control cuts to the 1/128th of an inch.


----------



## jschaben (Jun 21, 2009)

harrysin said:


> John, I didn't use the skis for the round-over, it wasn't necessary. I don't use them when it isn't necessary, only for jobs that will be made easier by their use or even impossible any other way. Having said that, I can see no reason why anyone would have any difficulty operating the skis from the end cheeks, am I to assume that you haven"t actually used skis John?


That's true Harry, they are in the plan but life keeps getting in the way. I do follow the ski threads and try to imagine how it is to be done, mental exercise so to speak.
I thought shot 19 was doing the external roundover with skiis?


----------



## levon (Sep 14, 2008)

harrysin said:


> You've got it now Levon so take a sickie* on Monday and make a coin tray or anything you like, using recently learnt techniques.
> 
> *an Australian term meaning to skip work for a day and claim you were sick.


hi Harry,
i have a busy week next week and need to work everyday.

but maybe ill have some time in the afternoons. 

next weekend we have to go to our sons to babysit the grandboy.


----------



## Al Robins (Jul 13, 2009)

harrysin said:


> You've got it wrong Bob, we have suckers on out shoes and walk on the ceilings. The feet on each new generation are slowly developing into suckers so in another couple of generations shoes won't be needed.
> But in all seriousness, because Australia, particularly Western Australia is so far from "civilisation" we have become very ingenious, just ask Al. Robins, a retired farmer, I'll bet he could tell a few tales about ingenuity. So many great inventions originated in Australia, unfortunately most had to go overseas for development because of our short sighted governments.


I can only endorse the comments made by Harry, and yes, we are getting side tracked but I must make mention of a couple of things. First...Australias rural areas were built with fencing wire and a pair of pliers. Second..If any of you good people decide to fly down under in your own plane, make sure you land at a place called Birdsville,(million miles from nowhere, give or take a coupla inches)walk no more than 100 yards and your in the front bar of the only pub. After youve had a drink, trot round to the museum if you want to see ingenuity!In case you hadnt gathered, water around the area is about as plentiful as rocking horse poo!The old people worked out they could get water from under the ground using a chain pump! It consisted of bore casing impacted into the ground (no electricity) to where the water was, they then got a 15 foot pole with a pulley on it and put a 2 inch endless chain on it and lowered it down the hole. The pole was parrallel to the ground and attatched to a crown wheel and pinion set up that was pushed by horse/fella/bloke/guy and as it rotated,so did the chain in the bore casing/water. There was enough water on the chain when it reached the surface to be collected and run off into a trough!

After seeing this I considered myself as a complete amature...it blew my socks off...any how, Ive had my rant for the day...hope you can get what I'm on about....Regards...........AL


----------



## Santé (Jan 14, 2010)

*"Necessity is the mother of invention"*

What a great truth, Harry! thanks
Santé


----------



## BigJimAK (Mar 13, 2009)

I sure look forward to seeing your work, Levon.. I've got to get my RT cabinet far enough to put the top on (huge shop footprint with both separate), cuz I've got a nice piece of 8/4 Padauk that's got one of these bowls' name written all over it..


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

John, shot #19 (that is the shot that shows "#19" as distinct from counting from the first shot, is the ski set-up ready to rout the OUTSIDE of the tray. Tell me if further clarification is required John.


----------



## jerrag (Sep 23, 2008)

Howdy, I am an old fart who gets confused easily, however having served 8 years in the US Army where many things are indeed figured in meters, I do have some understanding of such things. I guess they made us use it in the military because we do work with other nations in many situations, the one that folk of my age were concerned with was that little fight in Vietnam, you know the one where we won all the battles but lost the bloody war because of the politicians. I guess that is a bit off topic.

At any rate I recently began working with wood, about a year and a half ago now, being disabled I am only able to work for about an hour or two on a good day. The rest of my day is spent on the internet, most of the time searching for good woodworking videos. Many that I have watched recently were from the UK and I found that watching them work in metric seemed wonderful indeed. So much easier then trying to figure the inch thing. Doing ten mil here and twenty mil there just seemed right.

Still having been raised in the inch foot world other things in life just seem right using those forms of measurement. Dad was a carpenter but never took the time to teach me to read a tape measure. In my past attempts to make a buck, I have worked in fields where measurements had to be exact such as my years in gunsmithing when making parts for old firearms from scratch when such things were not available commercially. Then it was all done in tenths and hundreths of an inch (again a sort of metric imperial blend). BUT during my time as a police officer (Some 22 years) everything had to be inches and fractions of inches such as measuring out an accident scene, or diagramming a crime scene. Again I could see where the metric would be much nicer. I think the problem with we in the US of A is that we are rather set in our ways and when told what to do by the rest of the world we simply get angry and fight against change.

When dad was a farmer before we sold the farm and he turned to carpentry, we used to do things in rods, bushels and such, today I couldn't tell you how many rods in a field any more then I could tell you how much a bushel were equal to, but when I was much younger I did manage to learn all that, I guess it's a matter of use it or loose it. Even in today's news I see things a bit confusing. I was reading in the El Paso Times of a gun fight on the border where a .223 bullet crossed the border from Juarez Mx and struck a lady in El Paso while she was walking down the sidewalk. The story was a blend, saying the police had .223 ammo while the car jackers were armed with a .25ACP and a 12mm.

I am guessing from my days in gun work that a 12mm would be a .45ACP pistol round, I do know what a 9mm is, and in inches it is .355 or so, while our .38 Spcl takes a bullet that is actually .357. In fact back when I reloaded shells there were times when I would put a 9mm slug in a .38 SPCL round to be fired in one of those little .38 Spcl derringers, then load a smaller powder charge so as to keep the little cheap gun from exploding from the pressures.

I guess the only way we could convert would be under pressure, and beginning with our kids in grade 1 and never touch the old inch/foot stuff. This said, I don't know what I would do with out the foot thing after all I am 6 foot 2 and wear size 10 shoes, don't know what that would be in metric and the British stone weight has me all confused.....

At any rate thank you so much for the video, I like all your stuff and watch them over and over.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

More people like you Jerry are needed in the US to stir up the metric debate. I'm sure that it's peoples apathy that prevents a changeover.


----------



## allthunbs (Jun 22, 2008)

Hi Jerry:

Your life parallels the lives of most of the rest of us. We all grew up in the Imperial/US Measure. Then Canada "converted" to the metric system and "old farts" like us found ourselves having to try to adjust. It be damned hard to get your brain around 15 Celsius or 80 kilometers per hour. I still measure buildings in stories equal to 10 feet per story. I've managed the kilometer thing but I'm still building my home in feet and inches. It's a real hoot when the thinset for laying tile is measured in pounds, spread on a floor measured in feet to a thickness in millimeters using a tool with a 1/4" groove to lay a tile 10mm thick but 13" square to match a floor 12 millimeters thick bounded by walls made of 2x4s that are 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" x 8' long to hold a wallboard 1/2" thick smoothed by using a compound that is sold in kilograms using a tool 0.5 millimeter thick but 12" long.

However, in Canada we have a few other problems. In Quebec, the land was originally measured in Arpents according to one of the kings of France. Then, there was a redefinition of the king's foot so new lands were measured according to the new king's foot. Then, the British took over and started measuring everything in Imperial feet and acres and then the Canadian government started conversion to metric. One of the largest civil projects in history is the re-measurement of Canada and converting all of the old systems of measure to metric. To give you an idea of how complicated this can be, I lived in a village that was measured according to British measure. It was adjacent to lands that were measured under the old French king but converted to British measure. Beside that land was a Seigneurie (feudal system of government) that was measured according to the measure of the new French king and converted directly to metric. The twist is that an Arpent is a measure of length, not area, like an acre. Lands were granted to a man as "so may arpents along the Etchemin river" with no definition as to how deep the lot would go. 

I don't know how many systems of measurement that we've added in my lifetime but in my father's life, he started with Imperial and Worthington added metric and a variety of other measures. However, the "advancement" of civilization is closely matched with the ability to create esoteric systems of measure. It seems that now every discipline creates their own system of measurement. In the past several years there was the creation of the MERV that I ran into trying to figure out dust collection... and that's just the start.


----------



## kohalabeeman1952 (May 15, 2012)

*Aloha from Oahu !*

Nicely done video , Harry . I've been apart of some 20+ years of fine woodwork here , to relax , I took up 'beekeeping' [always good to keep some beeswax in your pocket to coat nails or screws before driving them] and the honey ,is just wonderful !
Got alot of 'Mending' time ahead . Its just great to have survived , was quit a awakening [after the coma] to open my eyes and find myself in a hospital , not knowing where I was , how I got there or Even what year it was [I really thought it was 2001[[ I was keep in the coma for two months until healed enough from it all]] when I woke up .] As time goes by , I hope to share some of my w\w styles if it seems to help . Its just wonderful to still have the 'Gift of Life ' from our dear father , Jehovah & the chance to share of our blessings . How many people do you know , Harry, who are still alive and kicking after a fall of no less than 100 feet , hmm? Put me as number 1 . More about that if you wish . Again Harry , nice video , and ALOHA from Mark


----------



## Wobwoc (Jun 7, 2013)

Here in N.Z. I remember changing to metric measurements. It was a pain with dual measurements - metric one side and imperial on the other side of a folding rule. One guy called out a meaurement of one metre inch and an eighth. Of course the length of his new rule and still using imperial.
I tossed out my imperial and went metric... Wow so much easier than measuring nine and thirteen sixteenths.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

Of course across the pond over here we went through the same changeover starting in February 1966.


----------

