"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:04:10 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:





If I get the ghist of it right, that was the intent of the metric
system in the first place, to reduce the number of systems in use. It
just added another.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

the intent was to base the systems on interrelated values rather than
arbitrary values with conversion factors between them.

a litre of water is a thousand cc's and weighs a kilo.

as opposed to 23 and a half kilderkirkins weighing 2 cwt 56 lbs 31
ounces in king james footric measures. :-) ....sorta thing

I do most of my work with a vernier marked out in mm and in 128ths of
an inch. it is wonderful and direct. whichever system gives me
fractionless numbers gets the nod.

How do you get "fractionless numbers" in inch, when your vernier is marked
in fractions? I don't get it.

As for the arbitrary units, I don't know of any that actually involve
conversions in practical use. The units in practical use generally have
whole-number relationships.

And beyond the largely illusory advantages of metrics in dimensional
measurement, the supposed advantages of metrics' "interrelatedness" break
down. Units of force, for example: the Newton equals roughly 0.101 972
kilograms of force (kgf). The cussedness of natural phenomena (defining a
unit in terms of acceleration, for example, when its common use is as a
measure of force) gets in the way of numerical elegance. Note the "roughly."
Also note the lengthy decimal. There are many other such examples.

I'm not suggesting that the metric system is in any way "inferior." I'm just
pointing out that its supposed advantages are vastly overblown.

--
Ed Huntress