Solutions for mismatched feet
March 10, 2020 9:07 PM Subscribe
Most everyone has mismatched feet, surveyors included. There's plenty of history of different units of length (Convert-Me.com historical length converter), including at least eight different "foot" measurements. To this very day, there are two feet measures for surveyors in the U.S., as described in this short video from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), and this summary from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the forthcoming alignment in 2022 (NGS). NIST also has a FAQ, if you want to know even more about the “international foot” and the “U.S. survey foot.” But if your human feet are different sizes and you want to swap shoes, or you're an amputee who has one extra shoe, there's Shoewap.com, an odd shoe swap.
NSG has a number of online tools, but no foot to U.S. Survey Foot (sFT) convert. Kyle does, among his collection of online conversion tools.
NSG has a number of online tools, but no foot to U.S. Survey Foot (sFT) convert. Kyle does, among his collection of online conversion tools.
I love the NIST so much.
posted by clew at 9:53 PM on March 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by clew at 9:53 PM on March 10, 2020 [4 favorites]
The nastiest trick you can play on a child is sending them to school with a decimal foot ruler. Ask me how I know this. Actually ask my architect grandfather, who thought it hilarious.
posted by bonehead at 10:49 PM on March 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 10:49 PM on March 10, 2020 [7 favorites]
a decimal foot ruler. …eponysterical. Also explains the ruler I got at the clearance store that appears to be drunk.
posted by bonehead at 1:49 on March 11 [+] [!]
Curiously, I couldn't even find US Survey Foot in the venerable units command. But I did run into it on a design job in Arizona, on a site big enough where it'd make a check error.
But roll on 2022. One down, one to go … #GoMetric
posted by scruss at 4:57 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
So, is there therefore a US inch?
posted by pompomtom at 5:08 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by pompomtom at 5:08 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
An inch is defined as exactly 25.4mm as of 1959. Previously, the US/imperial measurements had been defined by the reciprocal, as exactly 39.37 inches to 1 meter, which is almost but not quite the same (makes 1 inch=25.4000508 mm). That's why we have two different feet.
I had thought this would maybe be about how a mile used to be 5000 feet, which is 8 furlongs at 40 rods per furlong, but in the 1300's they redefined the foot and made it shorter, which made the mile inconsistent in feet vs. in furlongs, so in the 1500's they decided to keep the furlong and rod their same actual length and now the mile is 5280 feet and a rod is 16 1/2 feet.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:16 AM on March 11, 2020 [7 favorites]
I had thought this would maybe be about how a mile used to be 5000 feet, which is 8 furlongs at 40 rods per furlong, but in the 1300's they redefined the foot and made it shorter, which made the mile inconsistent in feet vs. in furlongs, so in the 1500's they decided to keep the furlong and rod their same actual length and now the mile is 5280 feet and a rod is 16 1/2 feet.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:16 AM on March 11, 2020 [7 favorites]
#GoMetric
The weird thing is that the US units are all weird metric units, except for fahrenheit.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:31 AM on March 11, 2020
The weird thing is that the US units are all weird metric units, except for fahrenheit.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:31 AM on March 11, 2020
and now the mile is 5280 feet and a rod is 16 1/2 feet.
Best of luck to all the Mars colonists...
posted by pompomtom at 5:39 AM on March 11, 2020
Best of luck to all the Mars colonists...
posted by pompomtom at 5:39 AM on March 11, 2020
Oh, don’t worry — the gravity on Mars is different so we will have to change all these things of course.
On the bright side, with Mars’ rotation being slightly slower than Earth’s, each day (er, sol) will have a 37-minute Purge.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:44 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
On the bright side, with Mars’ rotation being slightly slower than Earth’s, each day (er, sol) will have a 37-minute Purge.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:44 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
Anytime you get mad at the internet, remember it enables things like Shoewap to exist.
(And I see this as good nom-ironically)
posted by MrGuilt at 6:07 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
(And I see this as good nom-ironically)
posted by MrGuilt at 6:07 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
As a person with mismatched feet, I was excited to learn about Shoewap.com and quickly headed over there to join -- only to found out that they've decided to close down!!
posted by SA456 at 6:26 AM on March 11, 2020
posted by SA456 at 6:26 AM on March 11, 2020
SA456 -- what? How did I miss that?
posted by filthy light thief at 6:55 AM on March 11, 2020
posted by filthy light thief at 6:55 AM on March 11, 2020
The Odd Shoe Exchange has you covered, I think?
posted by blnkfrnk at 7:41 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by blnkfrnk at 7:41 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
I have mismatched feet by a 1/2 size. I found this to be useful to search for mismatched shoes on Ebay, where I was able to get a fantastic deal on a new 400 dollar shoes for 75 bucks!!!
posted by indianbadger1 at 7:57 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by indianbadger1 at 7:57 AM on March 11, 2020 [1 favorite]
the US units are all weird metric units
SI is the only set of definitions that are meaningful anymore. The US customaries are all derivative units now. Just really bad ones.
except for fahrenheit
Defined in terms of degrees K, which in turn references the Boltzmann constant.
posted by bonehead at 10:50 AM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
SI is the only set of definitions that are meaningful anymore. The US customaries are all derivative units now. Just really bad ones.
except for fahrenheit
Defined in terms of degrees K, which in turn references the Boltzmann constant.
posted by bonehead at 10:50 AM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
NIST FAQ: "Making matters worse, some jurisdictions use different types of feet for horizontal and vertical coordinates (elevations), which increases the likelihood for confusion and errors."
Oh dear. Oh dear me.
So the area of a horizontal plane is measured in (ft1)².
But the area of a wall is officially in units of ft1ft2.
And the area of a 45° slope is in, um, (ft1)1½(ft2)√2?
And the area of a curved terrain... I have to go lie down.
(I guess you can't style="text-decoration: overline" a <span> here?)
posted by away for regrooving at 11:08 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Oh dear. Oh dear me.
So the area of a horizontal plane is measured in (ft1)².
But the area of a wall is officially in units of ft1ft2.
And the area of a 45° slope is in, um, (ft1)1½(ft2)√2?
And the area of a curved terrain... I have to go lie down.
(I guess you can't style="text-decoration: overline" a <span> here?)
posted by away for regrooving at 11:08 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
If anyone else is wondering how the foot was defined before it was pegged to the meter in the Mendenhall Act of 1893 -- it appears that as of 1855 we used a Bronze Yard presented to us by England. Wikipedia:
posted by away for regrooving at 11:19 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
In October 1834, the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament were destroyed in a fire, and the British standards of length and mass were also destroyed. "When the new imperial standards to replace them were completed in 1855 [wtf 21 years without standard units -afregrooving], two copies of the yard and one copy of the avoirdupois pound were presented to the United States."the iron “Committee Meter” and the platinum "Arago Kilogram" also sound like a physicist/Plato mashup parable.
posted by away for regrooving at 11:19 PM on March 11, 2020 [2 favorites]
Years ago, I was working in a Landscape Architecture office in California. We were working on a golf+residential project in Chile, so all our drawings where in meters. The irrigation design was being handled by a contractor in California, so I sent him our plans to work on.
When I got back his drawings, everything was slightly off, things would match up on one side of the golf course but not on the other. It was small differences, so it took me a while to understand what was going on.
Apparently, he'd scaled the drawing to feet or yards or cubits or whatever he worked in and then scaled it back to meters, but at one step, he'd used 2.5 inches/cm instead of 2.54, as 'close enough', so there were weird 1.6% errors all over the drawing.
I called him about it and he seemed bemused, like why I was making a big deal about such a small detail?
posted by signal at 7:14 AM on March 12, 2020
When I got back his drawings, everything was slightly off, things would match up on one side of the golf course but not on the other. It was small differences, so it took me a while to understand what was going on.
Apparently, he'd scaled the drawing to feet or yards or cubits or whatever he worked in and then scaled it back to meters, but at one step, he'd used 2.5 inches/cm instead of 2.54, as 'close enough', so there were weird 1.6% errors all over the drawing.
I called him about it and he seemed bemused, like why I was making a big deal about such a small detail?
posted by signal at 7:14 AM on March 12, 2020
If he's not careful, one day his sprinkler systems might have a hard impact with the surface of Mars.
posted by bonehead at 8:01 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 8:01 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
Well, there may have been some logic to using 2.5! Dimensional building products in the US are in feet. For instance plywood is 8ft x 4ft. Metric dimensional building product are very close: Things are sold in multiples of 60 cm, which is 23.622 inches, very very close to 2ft. A plywood sheet is 240cm x 120cm. If the building unit you're thinking about is the width of a plywood sheet and you want to adapt a US sheet to metric sheets, then you'd use a conversion based on 120cm ~ 48in. And 120/48 = 2.5.
So a design based on US units working with standard product sizes will result in a very close equivalent design using metric units if you convert using 1cm ~ 2.5in.
posted by sjswitzer at 8:07 AM on March 12, 2020
So a design based on US units working with standard product sizes will result in a very close equivalent design using metric units if you convert using 1cm ~ 2.5in.
posted by sjswitzer at 8:07 AM on March 12, 2020
Otherwise you'd end up with with designs calling for 1.016 sheets of plywood.
ETA: Or in this case, lengths of pipe.
posted by sjswitzer at 8:11 AM on March 12, 2020
ETA: Or in this case, lengths of pipe.
posted by sjswitzer at 8:11 AM on March 12, 2020
If anyone else is wondering how the foot was defined before it was pegged to the meter in the Mendenhall Act of 1893 -- it appears that as of 1855 we used a Bronze Yard
I bought a bronze micrometer from aliexpress once, because I wasn't thinking, and it was cheap and looked cool.
Did they check the temperature before measuring things with a 'reference' bronze yard?
posted by pompomtom at 8:22 AM on March 12, 2020
I bought a bronze micrometer from aliexpress once, because I wasn't thinking, and it was cheap and looked cool.
Did they check the temperature before measuring things with a 'reference' bronze yard?
posted by pompomtom at 8:22 AM on March 12, 2020
if it's any consolation pompomtom, at least you can measure things in an explosive environment now. Munitions works are all about the non-sparking tools.
posted by scruss at 8:32 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by scruss at 8:32 AM on March 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
sjswitzer: "So a design based on US units working with standard product sizes will result in a very close equivalent design using metric units if you convert using 1cm ~ 2.5in."
The problem here wasn't how many discrete pieces of something were needed, but rather the positioning of sprinkler heads in a large golf+residential project. The effect of fudging the numbers was the heads being in wrong positions relative to the topography, golf course features, plots, etc.
And even if for some reason an irrigation consultant was specifying pieces of plywood, there's no scenario where distorting a design by some random factor will make it somehow magically match a pre-existing design better than using the actual measurements of the design.
posted by signal at 1:09 PM on March 12, 2020
The problem here wasn't how many discrete pieces of something were needed, but rather the positioning of sprinkler heads in a large golf+residential project. The effect of fudging the numbers was the heads being in wrong positions relative to the topography, golf course features, plots, etc.
And even if for some reason an irrigation consultant was specifying pieces of plywood, there's no scenario where distorting a design by some random factor will make it somehow magically match a pre-existing design better than using the actual measurements of the design.
posted by signal at 1:09 PM on March 12, 2020
I was just pointing out that 2.5 is actually somewhat reasonable and apparently not random when working with building supplies (like pipes) that are measured in feet on the one hand and multiples of 60 cm (not coincidentally very nearly 2 ft). That might not be the case in your exact situation, but it could be a pretty good rule of thumb in general. There may in fact be some common practices around these near equivalences, though they worked out poorly in your case. Still I hope you didn't end up with 1.016 pipes, because that would be really awkward.
And, yes, he should have just worked in metric units from the outset and there wouldn't have been a problem.
Anyway, it was fun to look into it because I had often wondered about standard dimensions of building supplies in metric versus English (American) units and it seems to be that 60cm ~ 2ft (30cm ~ 1ft) is the way the issue is solved for things like pipes, plywood, sheetrock, etc.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:45 PM on March 12, 2020
And, yes, he should have just worked in metric units from the outset and there wouldn't have been a problem.
Anyway, it was fun to look into it because I had often wondered about standard dimensions of building supplies in metric versus English (American) units and it seems to be that 60cm ~ 2ft (30cm ~ 1ft) is the way the issue is solved for things like pipes, plywood, sheetrock, etc.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:45 PM on March 12, 2020
And FWIW, this is a happy result because in the US we end up with ridiculous metric decimal-places equivalents sometimes. We've grudgingly accepted the liter as about a quart for soda bottles, but that's about as far as our metrification has gone. But it's kinda nice that 30cm ~ 1ft, since that makes a lot of standard products essentially equivalent.
posted by sjswitzer at 8:33 PM on March 12, 2020
posted by sjswitzer at 8:33 PM on March 12, 2020
Not in building supplies, but being off by 1.5% seems like the worst to me! I like making my errors obvious.
posted by away for regrooving at 11:40 PM on March 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by away for regrooving at 11:40 PM on March 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
ah, units does know about the soon-to-be-gone foot: it's called surveyfoot. Here's a simple table (generated using units and nroff for converting the various versions of feet you might encounter through history:
arabicfoot assyrianfoot bavariafoot lateromanfoot romanfoot earlyromanfoot swissfoot irishfoot foot surveyfoot scotsfoot olympicfoot prussiafoot austriafoot greekfoot frenchfoot doricfoot sumerianfoot northernfoot hessefoot arabicfoot 1.000000 1.015038 1.079936 1.088597 1.095258 1.100068 1.110059 1.127818 1.127820 1.127822 1.133908 1.141917 1.159395 1.169560 1.170113 1.201969 1.206264 1.221064 1.250000 1.541748 assyrianfoot 0.985185 1.000000 1.063937 1.072470 1.079032 1.083771 1.093613 1.111109 1.111111 1.111113 1.117110 1.125000 1.142218 1.152233 1.152778 1.184162 1.188393 1.202975 1.231481 1.518907 bavariafoot 0.925981 0.939905 1.000000 1.008020 1.014188 1.018642 1.027893 1.044337 1.044339 1.044341 1.049977 1.057394 1.073577 1.082990 1.083502 1.113000 1.116977 1.130682 1.157476 1.427629 lateromanfoot 0.918613 0.932427 0.992043 1.000000 1.006118 1.010537 1.019714 1.036028 1.036030 1.036032 1.041623 1.048980 1.065035 1.074373 1.074881 1.104145 1.108090 1.121686 1.148266 1.416270 romanfoot 0.913027 0.926757 0.986011 0.993919 1.000000 1.004392 1.013514 1.029728 1.029730 1.029732 1.035289 1.042601 1.058559 1.067840 1.068345 1.097430 1.101351 1.114865 1.141284 1.407658 earlyromanfoot 0.909035 0.922704 0.981699 0.989573 0.995627 1.000000 1.009082 1.025225 1.025227 1.025229 1.030762 1.038042 1.053930 1.063171 1.063673 1.092632 1.096535 1.109990 1.136293 1.401502 swissfoot 0.900853 0.914400 0.972864 0.980667 0.986667 0.991000 1.000000 1.015998 1.016000 1.016002 1.021485 1.028700 1.044444 1.053602 1.054100 1.082798 1.086667 1.100000 1.126067 1.388889 irishfoot 0.886668 0.900002 0.957545 0.965225 0.971130 0.975395 0.984254 1.000000 1.000002 1.000004 1.005401 1.012502 1.027998 1.037012 1.037502 1.065748 1.069556 1.082679 1.108335 1.367019 foot 0.886667 0.900000 0.957543 0.965223 0.971129 0.975394 0.984252 0.999998 1.000000 1.000002 1.005399 1.012500 1.027997 1.037010 1.037500 1.065746 1.069554 1.082677 1.108333 1.367017 surveyfoot 0.886665 0.899998 0.957541 0.965221 0.971127 0.975392 0.984250 0.999996 0.999998 1.000000 1.005397 1.012498 1.027994 1.037008 1.037498 1.065744 1.069552 1.082675 1.108331 1.367014 scotsfoot 0.881905 0.895167 0.952401 0.960040 0.965914 0.970156 0.978967 0.994628 0.994630 0.994632 1.000000 1.007063 1.022476 1.031441 1.031929 1.060023 1.063811 1.076863 1.102382 1.359676 olympicfoot 0.875720 0.888889 0.945722 0.953307 0.959139 0.963352 0.972101 0.987653 0.987654 0.987656 0.992986 1.000000 1.015305 1.024207 1.024691 1.052589 1.056349 1.069311 1.094650 1.350140 prussiafoot 0.862519 0.875489 0.931465 0.938936 0.944681 0.948830 0.957447 0.972764 0.972766 0.972768 0.978018 0.984926 1.000000 1.008768 1.009245 1.036721 1.040426 1.053191 1.078149 1.329787 austriafoot 0.855022 0.867880 0.923369 0.930775 0.936470 0.940583 0.949125 0.964309 0.964311 0.964313 0.969517 0.976365 0.991308 1.000000 1.000473 1.027710 1.031382 1.044037 1.068778 1.318229 greekfoot 0.854618 0.867470 0.922933 0.930336 0.936028 0.940139 0.948677 0.963854 0.963855 0.963857 0.969059 0.975904 0.990840 0.999528 1.000000 1.027225 1.030895 1.043544 1.068273 1.317606 frenchfoot 0.831968 0.844479 0.898472 0.905678 0.911220 0.915222 0.923533 0.938308 0.938310 0.938312 0.943376 0.950039 0.964579 0.973037 0.973496 1.000000 1.003573 1.015887 1.039960 1.282685 doricfoot 0.829006 0.841472 0.895274 0.902454 0.907975 0.911963 0.920245 0.934968 0.934969 0.934971 0.940017 0.946656 0.961145 0.969573 0.970031 0.996440 1.000000 1.012270 1.036258 1.278119 sumerianfoot 0.818958 0.831273 0.884422 0.891515 0.896970 0.900909 0.909091 0.923635 0.923636 0.923638 0.928623 0.935182 0.949495 0.957820 0.958273 0.984362 0.987879 1.000000 1.023697 1.262626 northernfoot 0.800000 0.812030 0.863949 0.870878 0.876206 0.880054 0.888047 0.902254 0.902256 0.902257 0.907127 0.913534 0.927516 0.935648 0.936090 0.961575 0.965011 0.976852 1.000000 1.233398 hessefoot 0.648614 0.658368 0.700462 0.706080 0.710400 0.713520 0.720000 0.731519 0.731520 0.731521 0.735469 0.740664 0.752000 0.758594 0.758952 0.779615 0.782400 0.792000 0.810768 1.000000posted by scruss at 4:29 AM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
Just looking at that gives me cancer. Knowing that there are also a similar localized set of tables for fluid ounces, ounces for dry weights and ghod knows what else makes we wonder how we ever built an industrial society in the first place. The history of scientific and engineering progress is in many ways, in all the ways that count, measured by the standardization of metrology.
posted by bonehead at 6:38 AM on March 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 6:38 AM on March 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
at least you can measure things in an explosive environment now
Should anyone come across a <100mm stack of ANFO sitting in a room of even and known temperature, I'm your person.
posted by pompomtom at 7:24 AM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
Should anyone come across a <100mm stack of ANFO sitting in a room of even and known temperature, I'm your person.
posted by pompomtom at 7:24 AM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you thought feet were bad, try bushels.
A bushel is 25.401173 kg (56 lb), when it's corn or rye, of course. When it's rice, though, it's 20.411657 kg (45 lb). When your bushel is 21.772434 kg (48 lb), you must be selling barley. The comparatively chonky 27.215542 kg (60 lb) bushel is for wheat and soy. The ultra-svelte 14.514956 kg (32 lb) bushel is how oats are weighed, except in Canada, which used the 15.422141 kg (34 lb) bushel. Clear?
But wait! There are also volumetric bushels too! They can be anywhere from ~28.52 litres (Ireland), ~35.24 litres (USA) or ~36.37 litres (Imperial). You can also get heaped bushels, which are just the improbable multiplier of 1.278× a regular bushel. That being a volumetric bushel, of course. Heap a grain bushel and you're selling yourself short.
bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel
if you say a word enough times together it ceases to mean anything.
posted by scruss at 12:34 PM on March 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
A bushel is 25.401173 kg (56 lb), when it's corn or rye, of course. When it's rice, though, it's 20.411657 kg (45 lb). When your bushel is 21.772434 kg (48 lb), you must be selling barley. The comparatively chonky 27.215542 kg (60 lb) bushel is for wheat and soy. The ultra-svelte 14.514956 kg (32 lb) bushel is how oats are weighed, except in Canada, which used the 15.422141 kg (34 lb) bushel. Clear?
But wait! There are also volumetric bushels too! They can be anywhere from ~28.52 litres (Ireland), ~35.24 litres (USA) or ~36.37 litres (Imperial). You can also get heaped bushels, which are just the improbable multiplier of 1.278× a regular bushel. That being a volumetric bushel, of course. Heap a grain bushel and you're selling yourself short.
bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel bushel
if you say a word enough times together it ceases to mean anything.
posted by scruss at 12:34 PM on March 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
You have to start from the volumetric perspective to understand bushels; different grains have different densities. The heaped bushel is comical because someone had to define what overfilling a basket exactly meant.
And yeah, a bushel is a basket and that's already inexact and standardized variously, but basically scaled to what a single worker could efficiently carry.
Upthread bonehead said, "the history of scientific and engineering progress is in many ways, in all the ways that count, measured by the standardization of metrology." Yes! Mass production was not possible without standardization and exact measurement... and a way to talk about it consistently. The metric system arose in that very moment, but sadly not quite soon enough to have won by default, almost certainly because the Anglo-American empire was at that time going gangbusters and had no time for fancy French rationalism.
(Also, sad to note that one of the early successes of exact measurement and standardization was in the manufacture of weapons, which lead to much of the carnage of the late 19th century and onwards.)
posted by sjswitzer at 1:28 PM on March 13, 2020
And yeah, a bushel is a basket and that's already inexact and standardized variously, but basically scaled to what a single worker could efficiently carry.
Upthread bonehead said, "the history of scientific and engineering progress is in many ways, in all the ways that count, measured by the standardization of metrology." Yes! Mass production was not possible without standardization and exact measurement... and a way to talk about it consistently. The metric system arose in that very moment, but sadly not quite soon enough to have won by default, almost certainly because the Anglo-American empire was at that time going gangbusters and had no time for fancy French rationalism.
(Also, sad to note that one of the early successes of exact measurement and standardization was in the manufacture of weapons, which lead to much of the carnage of the late 19th century and onwards.)
posted by sjswitzer at 1:28 PM on March 13, 2020
The metric system arose in that very moment, but sadly not quite soon enough to have won by default, almost certainly because the Anglo-American empire was at that time going gangbusters and had no time for fancy French rationalism.
The USA came...thisclose on multiple occasions. One of the things Jefferson learned about when he was off gettin’ high with the French was the metric system, and the US did need some standardization in weights and measures, but the kilogram prototype got blown off course and captured by pirates.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:50 PM on March 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
The USA came...thisclose on multiple occasions. One of the things Jefferson learned about when he was off gettin’ high with the French was the metric system, and the US did need some standardization in weights and measures, but the kilogram prototype got blown off course and captured by pirates.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:50 PM on March 13, 2020 [2 favorites]
Worse than feet or bushels, for practical considerations, is screw heads. Slotted head screws are simple because there are only so many way to get it wrong (but they're all wrong). "Phillips head" screws (cruciform) and things that look like them but aren't exactly are a whole world of pain.
And that brings up the dual problem of units standardization in products: tool standardization. It would be way better if we were all on metric, even if only for tools. But there are other standardization issues about tools around proprietary products and designs.
Tools are ridiculously cheap now at your local big box store, but who needs to sort through dozens of types of "Phillips head" screw and still get it wrong?
posted by sjswitzer at 2:21 PM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
And that brings up the dual problem of units standardization in products: tool standardization. It would be way better if we were all on metric, even if only for tools. But there are other standardization issues about tools around proprietary products and designs.
Tools are ridiculously cheap now at your local big box store, but who needs to sort through dozens of types of "Phillips head" screw and still get it wrong?
posted by sjswitzer at 2:21 PM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
Fortunately Torx screw heads prevent any confusion. If you look at a Torx head screw, you can be confident that it’s the one size you don’t have a driver for.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:26 PM on March 13, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:26 PM on March 13, 2020 [4 favorites]
And of course, in Canada (a nominally metric country) our fastener hardware is a whole mess of standards mostly not metric AND use those weird-ass square-headed Robertson screws.
posted by scruss at 2:35 PM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by scruss at 2:35 PM on March 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older The restaurant has been closed for some time | How a Dating App Helped a Generation of Chinese... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Those things being both the “international foot” and “U.S. survey foot” difference, namely being that the U.S. survey foot is longer than the international foot by only 2 parts per million, and that there's a website to swap shoes if your feet are different sizes.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:10 PM on March 10, 2020