Quincy wrote:Looking at that pic, sub-divisions of inches are too large if you want to get any sort of accuracy.
Entirely false for most of the building trades and proves my point you have no direct day-to-day working-man's tape measure experience.
There are a number of "tricks" to circumvent this apparent lack of accuracy! In fact the building trades rely on this "built-in play".
Quincy wrote:...........your argument about divisibility of ten is a bit off........
False again and proves my point you have no direct day-to-day working-man's tape measure experience.
Same with the rest of your extrapolations based on your lack of how to use a measuring tape in the context of direct day-to-day working-man's tape measuring.
As discussed using a measuring system within the context of paperwork / computers / drawings / mathematics is simply not the same as the hands-on, day-to-day, working-man's tape measure usage.
You aptly demonstrate my assertion that oftentimes government officials and engineers are not well connected to the real world.
Quincy wrote:I don't see why there is a problem with divisibility.
Get the two types of tape measures side by side in a fast-paced poorly-lit, dusty & dirty working environment, start measuring lengths of material very quickly, and immediately estimating divisible / multiple functions without using fractions.
1) Factor-ability stinks:
10/6 = 1.6666
10/4 = 2.5
10/3 = 3.3333
(10/2)/2 = 2.5
2) Increment-resolution sucks:
The millimeter is too small for day-to-day working-man's tape measure usage.