But what do you define as "the past", I assume you don't use a pole or treadle lathe and have one of those new fangled electric motors to run it

And I did not see anyone in the conversion thread saying they used an abacus.

Edited By JasonB on 19/08/2021 11:20:53

I worked in the software industry – specifically MRP/MRP2/ERP systems – for more than 30 years.

There is no industry I know of more expert in disregarding and discarding bodies of knowledge built up over previous decades. I've seen it happen over 4 generations of applications. It's breathtakingly wasteful, and may even have played a signifcant part in industrial decline.

Far from clinging to the past, there are some sectors too eager to edit it out…

Hi, well there are more photos and documentation of myself and things that I've made in the past, than there is likely to be in the future.

OK! I'll go and get on with something else.

Regards Nick.

I like to keep an open mind. Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s better. The reverse can also be the case.

Seen on Social Media:

Martin, you omitted writing the integer as 2/1 to ‘fractionise’ all parts of the decimal number.🙂

Changing from Lsd to decimal currency is now virtually universally accepted, but lb and oz still doggedly persist for some buyers (and sellers, too). I suspect that a lot of Troy ounces still abound? Grains are still in use by some, too.

We in the UK still have miles to contend with, along with mpg.

An awful lot of people would not know their metric height and weight, either! And that includes some in the younger sector of the population.

It is undoubtedly easier to add and multiply with base 10 numbers – manipulating old imperial values is likely hard work, or impossible, for the younger generations.

Some ‘modern inventions’, such as DROs and digital calipers, which offer instantaneous conversion between systems will eventually convert us ‘hobby machinists’ – even if only by the fact that most using imperial units will wither away. Keepin mind, though, that models of imperial machines are still easier to shrink by factors of two four six and twelve.

Boxes of tins, etc are often still better sized as dozens – although 5 x 4 (for smaller items) is not a bad format. There are not many boxes which hold ten units.🙂 Six by four offers good inter-locking overlapping when making stacks and may need to become more favourable, rather than holding palletised stacks together with plastic shrink wrapping.

In reply to KB – the answer is invariably “cheaper”. Accountants are not practical in their profession, just money accounters.

"hate" is rather a strong word, John!

There is a case for using decimal fractions of degrees, yes, but the angular degree as 1/360 of a complete roat6ion has a great many geometrical advantages over a base-10 primary angle unit. I think the French tried a 100º right-angle but it was soon dropped because it is clumsy, with fewer factors.

(I know the "official" SI angle-unit is the radian but while that greatly facilitates many physics and engineering calculations it is not a very practical unit for manufacturing objects, navigation etc. So the degree is accepted by the SI: you use the better for the application.)

Surely though, if we avoid the sort of new-broom traps Mick B1 reports being so common in computer-programming, the whole point of Engineering is not to cling to the past?

Read an Edwardian engineers' reference-book or machine-tool catalogue and you are just as likely to see adjectives like "modern" and "latest" as you would in a comparable publication now; 100 years later.

If a craftsman from the Middle Ages were to come back and see a modern workshop in his own trade he would certainly recognise many of the hand-tools and soon see the principles of what the machines are doing. That is because no-one has invented better types of saw, hammer, chisel, files, square, dividers; simply improved their materials and a few details. However, once convinced that this strange elektrickery stuff is not magick, I reckon he'd wish they'd had such things in his day!

During my working life I saw the diminution and/or elimination of many traditional skills. In my World when I was a young man, draftsmen were a highly skilled and vital part of an engineering enterprise. To become a draftsman, one of the prerequisites was to be a time served apprentice in a relevant field, this didn't mean that because you had done an apprenticeshio as a pastry chef you could reasonably be qualified to become, for instance, a draftsman in a machine tool business. When I left school at the age of about 17, the company where I did my apprenticeship employed about 40 to 50 degree qualified Engineers, across all disciplines, mechanical, aerodynamics, stress, electronics etc etc. At that time there were about 250 to 300 draftsmen. The total number of employees were between 3,000 and 3,500. When I retired about 13 years ago, the company where I worked employed several hundred degree qualified Engineers, and less than a dozen draftsmen. Most of the young engineers were employed as CAD operators pretending (my description) to be draftsmen

I spent a large part of the last twenty or so years of my working life running informal Design For Manufacture courses, because most of the Engineers had absolutely no idea how to make anything. Most had no idea what the difference was between a lathe and a mill for instance, let alone what each could do. They were superb at data and model manipulation, and so on but basically had not got the "link" between what was on the screen and what was or was not being produced.

Then there are the traditional trades, for instance Fitters……..these days because widgets can be made so accurately the need for "fitting" has almost disappeared. Now the task is simply "assemble", the only requirement being the ability to read simple instructions……..

cheers

Bill

Well old fashion toolmakers who know how to refit new parts to a hobbed or used part are very thin on the ground now. The young ones make the part to the cad model, but have no idea about making it fit and bluing in the parts.

I won't spoil it just yet with an answer.

EDIT Nick beat me to it.

Edited By JasonB on 20/08/2021 08:05:39

Hi, I guessed it was to do with the PCD of the holes, but didn't have time to work it out as I had to go and do my shopping earlier because I've got a courier coming any time between now and later this afternoon. I also think that it was probably an imperial measurement on the original design, so the metric measurements make any replacements interchangeable. Used to get a lot of that sort of thing in my maintenance days.

Regards Nick.

MichaelG I was only quick on that , as where I work, a lot of parts are designed using the PCD for the hole spacing. Particularly when a sheet metal part was needed to be made by marking out. Sadly that designer has since passed away, but a lot of his drawings crop up from time to time along with the old tools to be repaired. Most modern stuff is just XY coordinates these days, if you are lucky, otherwise it is all left on the 3d model of the part. Using basic hand marking out tools the PCD or the PCR method is very easy and effective with quite remarkable results being achievable. I find it interesting to being able to turn finished pistons on my old Myford lathe, that most need to lap or do some other method. I only have the digital depth on the tailstock, otherwise, everything else is all old school of winding handles or dials at the right amount to a clock ticking.