The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).

On 8/31/2017 9:00 AM, wrote:
The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).


I think they would be 4.5 drpm.

In article ,
Taxed and Spent wrote:

On 8/31/2017 9:00 AM, wrote:
The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).


I think they would be 4.5 drpm.

The French for a time tried decimal time where there were 10 hours in a
day and 100 minutes in an hour. So in decimal minutes, or dm, it would be
64.8 rpdm or 6.48 drpdm.

On 31/08/17 20:55, Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article ,
Taxed and Spent wrote:

I think they would be 4.5 drpm.

The French for a time tried decimal time where there were 10 hours in a
day and 100 minutes in an hour. So in decimal minutes, or dm, it would be
64.8 rpdm or 6.48 drpdm.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time

--
Adrian C

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:00:46 -0400, oldschool wrote:

The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

No difference at all.





--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Revolutions per minute remain revolutions per minute in the old or new currency. Minutes and revolutions are neither metric nor SAE, nor Whitworth for that matter. all of them would count turns per time period the same.

There are also 45 rpm records of several diameters, to further confuse the issue for you.

But, each one revolves on the platter forty-five (45) turns per minute (60 seconds).

Note that in common use, RCA-base records were called 78s. Even though Edison discs were, most typically, 84s. LPs (33.3) were sometimes called "33s" but mostly LPs.

I suspect that those who were victims of your discussions were not so much uncertain of the answer as unable to formulate said answer in a way you could understand.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On 8/31/2017 10:55 AM, wrote:
Revolutions per minute remain revolutions per minute in the old or new currency. Minutes and revolutions are neither metric nor SAE, nor Whitworth for that matter. all of them would count turns per time period the same.

There are also 45 rpm records of several diameters, to further confuse the issue for you.

But, each one revolves on the platter forty-five (45) turns per minute (60 seconds).

Note that in common use, RCA-base records were called 78s. Even though Edison discs were, most typically, 84s. LPs (33.3) were sometimes called "33s" but mostly LPs.

I suspect that those who were victims of your discussions were not so much uncertain of the answer as unable to formulate said answer in a way you could understand.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA



I stand by my answer: 4.5 drpm. Surely you have heard of Decca records!

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:59:08 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:


I stand by my answer: 4.5 drpm. Surely you have heard of Decca records!



What does the "d" stand for? Is it "D"ecca?

In article ,
Taxed and Spent wrote:

I stand by my answer: 4.5 drpm. Surely you have heard of Decca records!

Owww. May vile vinyl vengeance visit itself upon you. :-)

On 08/31/2017 01:55 PM, wrote:

Revolutions per minute remain revolutions per minute in the old or new currency. Minutes and revolutions are neither metric nor SAE, nor Whitworth for that matter. all of them would count turns per time period the same.

There are also 45 rpm records of several diameters, to further confuse the issue for you.

But, each one revolves on the platter forty-five (45) turns per minute (60 seconds).

Note that in common use, RCA-base records were called 78s. Even though Edison discs were, most typically, 84s. LPs (33.3) were sometimes called "33s" but mostly LPs.

I suspect that those who were victims of your discussions were not so much uncertain of the answer as unable to formulate said answer in a way you could understand.

Many decades ago, my father bought at an auction a wind-up gramophone
with a collection of records, some of which were old Columbia 80-rpm discs.

Perce

wrote on 8/31/2017 12:00 PM:
The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).

0.75 rps of course! I think I would call them 3/4 rips for short.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 19:33:44 UTC+1, rickman wrote:
wrote on 8/31/2017 12:00 PM:
The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).

0.75 rps of course! I think I would call them 3/4 rips for short.

Nearly, the second being the standard unit of time. They would be 0.75Hz.


NT

On 31/08/17 17:00, wrote:
The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).


0.75 revs per second if you want to be completely non-SI about it?

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html

--
Adrian C

On 31/08/17 19:38, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

0.75 revs per second if you want to be completely non-SI about it?

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html


er, non-non-SI ...

--
Adrian C

Adrian Caspersz wrote on 8/31/2017 2:38 PM:
On 31/08/17 17:00, wrote:
The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).


0.75 revs per second if you want to be completely non-SI about it?

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html

Depending on your usage of the info it might be 0.75*(2pi) or

4.712388980385 radians per second.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On 08/31/2017 02:42 PM, rickman wrote:

The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).


0.75 revs per second if you want to be completely non-SI about it?

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html

Depending on your usage of the info it might be 0.75*(2pi) or

4.712388980385 radians per second.

Radians/sec. was the unit I assumed it would be, but I didn't bother
with the calculation

Perce

In article ,
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Depending on your usage of the info it might be 0.75*(2pi) or

4.712388980385 radians per second.

Radians/sec. was the unit I assumed it would be, but I didn't bother
with the calculation

I prefer furlongs per fortnight (measured at the outer edge, of
course).

Since records can vary in diameter, this would require having at least
one reliable reference standard for the industry to work from. Like
the classic metric standards for length and weight, it should be of a
stable, noncorroding metal, kept in an inert atmosphere in either
Paris or Greenwich.

Gives new meaning to the term "platinum record", doesn't it?

Dave Platt wrote on 8/31/2017 5:48 PM:
In article ,
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Depending on your usage of the info it might be 0.75*(2pi) or

4.712388980385 radians per second.

Radians/sec. was the unit I assumed it would be, but I didn't bother
with the calculation

I prefer furlongs per fortnight (measured at the outer edge, of
course).

Since records can vary in diameter, this would require having at least
one reliable reference standard for the industry to work from. Like
the classic metric standards for length and weight, it should be of a
stable, noncorroding metal, kept in an inert atmosphere in either
Paris or Greenwich.

Gives new meaning to the term "platinum record", doesn't it?

lol

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:00:46 -0400, wrote:

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units. I
think we are stuck with it. Switching to a new system would be
essentially insurmountable.

In the SI unit system, however, the unit for angular velocity is
radians per second. 45 RPM is a touch over 4.7 radians per second.
--
RoRo

On 1/09/2017 4:59 AM, Robert Roland wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:00:46 -0400, wrote:

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units.

**Huh? You mean 'seconds'? Oddball?

BTW: The "metric part of the world" is 95% of the world. A pitifully
insignificant 5% holds out against the inevitable.


I
think we are stuck with it. Switching to a new system would be
essentially insurmountable.

**RPM?


In the SI unit system, however, the unit for angular velocity is
radians per second. 45 RPM is a touch over 4.7 radians per second.


**Rotating media is so last century. The number of users is utterly
insignificant. I am, however, one of them.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote on 8/31/2017 4:28 PM:
On 1/09/2017 4:59 AM, Robert Roland wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:00:46 -0400, wrote:

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units.

**Huh? You mean 'seconds'? Oddball?

BTW: The "metric part of the world" is 95% of the world. A pitifully
insignificant 5% holds out against the inevitable.

You talkin' 'bout US?


I
think we are stuck with it. Switching to a new system would be
essentially insurmountable.

**RPM?


In the SI unit system, however, the unit for angular velocity is
radians per second. 45 RPM is a touch over 4.7 radians per second.


**Rotating media is so last century. The number of users is utterly
insignificant. I am, however, one of them.




--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On 1/09/2017 11:29 AM, rickman wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote on 8/31/2017 4:28 PM:
On 1/09/2017 4:59 AM, Robert Roland wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:00:46 -0400, wrote:

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units.

**Huh? You mean 'seconds'? Oddball?

BTW: The "metric part of the world" is 95% of the world. A pitifully
insignificant 5% holds out against the inevitable.

You talkin' 'bout US?


**Yup. Just a few weeks back, I had to work on a US built product.
Damned thing had two different types of Allen bolts in it (Whitworth and
SAE). None of my usual Imperial Allen keys would fit it. I had to grind
an old key down to fit. I NEVER have such issues with products using
Metric Allen bolts. And, let's not get started with those insane
fractional sizes, for screws, drills and all the other stuff. Metris
stuff is so much easier. 1mm, 1.5mm, 2mm, 2.5mm, 3mm and so on. It just
makes sense.

I guess you can thank your brain-damaged Prez (at the time - Reagan) for
that stupidity. Come to think of it, you have another brain-damaged Prez
running the show again. What gives with you guys? You seem to vote for
people with the intellect of a 10 year old every now and again.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote on 8/31/2017 11:07 PM:
On 1/09/2017 11:29 AM, rickman wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote on 8/31/2017 4:28 PM:
On 1/09/2017 4:59 AM, Robert Roland wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:00:46 -0400, wrote:

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units.

**Huh? You mean 'seconds'? Oddball?

BTW: The "metric part of the world" is 95% of the world. A pitifully
insignificant 5% holds out against the inevitable.

You talkin' 'bout US?


**Yup. Just a few weeks back, I had to work on a US built product. Damned
thing had two different types of Allen bolts in it (Whitworth and SAE). None
of my usual Imperial Allen keys would fit it. I had to grind an old key down
to fit. I NEVER have such issues with products using Metric Allen bolts.
And, let's not get started with those insane fractional sizes, for screws,
drills and all the other stuff. Metris stuff is so much easier. 1mm, 1.5mm,
2mm, 2.5mm, 3mm and so on. It just makes sense.

What are you talking about Whitworth??? Nobody uses Whitworth in the US.
That's a British thing.

Actually it's a bit funny that you are bringing up the fractions. The sizes
you mention are only convenient because of chance. Metric sizes are often
very inconvenient. Feet and inches are very handy for most things we deal
with because they were invented with convenience in mind. Metric is great
when you are working with the numbers, but often the actual sizes are much
less than convenient. Six foot skis are very convenient, but 180 cm are not
so much. Another example, PCB traces are still measured in thousandths of
an inch even when working with metric sized boards because the numbers are
much more convenient, i.e. 6/6 vs. 0.1524 mm.

Yeah, I'm for converting, but it's not about convenience of units, it's
about being able to do calculations more easily.

Hell, the metric stuff has mucked up measuring devices even when they aren't
metric. I've never seen a tape measure with binary based fractions written
in decimal numbers until now. That is the most useless thing yet!


I guess you can thank your brain-damaged Prez (at the time - Reagan) for
that stupidity. Come to think of it, you have another brain-damaged Prez
running the show again. What gives with you guys? You seem to vote for
people with the intellect of a 10 year old every now and again.

Seems to me electing bad leaders is not unique to the US. Which country are
you from? Never had any bad leaders, huh?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 06:28:09 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units.

**Huh? You mean 'seconds'? Oddball?

Yes, the second is totally weird. Its original definition is one
86,400th of a day. Who in their right mind would divide something into
86,400 parts?

There are two basic units of time; the day and the year. Those are
astronomically defined. We pick one of those as the base unit. This
can be split into thousandths or millionths or whatever is practical
for the application. What we today know as a second is simply 11.6
microdays, or 31.7 nanoyears. I sleep about 300 millidays each night.

As you suggest, the second is so ingrained in everything that there is
no realistic way to get rid of it. But at least, let's abolish the
minute and the hour. Introduce a new unit that is 100 seconds. Let's
call it a "dol". There are 864 dols in one day. I go to work around
250 dols, but today I was almost 20 dols late.

I
think we are stuck with it. Switching to a new system would be
essentially insurmountable.

**RPM?

The 24 and 60 fractions.

Don't get me started on the way we divide the year.
--
RoRo

Robert Roland wrote on 9/1/2017 2:08 PM:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 06:28:09 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

The metric part of the world also measures time in oddball units.

**Huh? You mean 'seconds'? Oddball?

Yes, the second is totally weird. Its original definition is one
86,400th of a day. Who in their right mind would divide something into
86,400 parts?

There are two basic units of time; the day and the year. Those are
astronomically defined. We pick one of those as the base unit. This
can be split into thousandths or millionths or whatever is practical
for the application. What we today know as a second is simply 11.6
microdays, or 31.7 nanoyears. I sleep about 300 millidays each night.

As you suggest, the second is so ingrained in everything that there is
no realistic way to get rid of it. But at least, let's abolish the
minute and the hour. Introduce a new unit that is 100 seconds. Let's
call it a "dol". There are 864 dols in one day. I go to work around
250 dols, but today I was almost 20 dols late.

To what advantage exactly???


I
think we are stuck with it. Switching to a new system would be
essentially insurmountable.

**RPM?

The 24 and 60 fractions.

Don't get me started on the way we divide the year.

Don't worry, we won't.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Guys and gals, Europe lost a Mars mission due to a lack of corresponding units. It happens.

Personally, I spend some years in a metric country and learned in short order how to shift my thought process, as well as to read (modern) Arabic numbers. And, "thinking about it", should it avoid a Mars-type screw-up is, perhaps, not a bad thing. Any unit may be sufficiently divided to achieve necessary precision. I also spent a number of years working as a machinist for a company that made the liquid sodium pump seals for French breeder reactors. And the same machinist would make SAE parts on the same machine as he would make Metric parts - using the same measuring sticks, keeping all the while in his head how they divided and compared. That is what those guys did, and did it exceedingly well. Me, I was mostly QC - and signing off (literally acid-etching my name on a part or assembly) on their work.

Yes, we did think of dimensions and measurements. Every day. And we lost no sleep whatsoever on which was 'better'. As long as the parts fit.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

In article , says...

There are two basic units of time; the day and the year. Those are
astronomically defined. ...

Except IIRC the "day" is ambiguous astronomically is you don't
distinguish solar day (in usual parlance, e.g. between the sun being due
south) and stellar with the stars returning to their same positions
overhead. These two have to have a difference that adds up to a whole
day over the course of the year.

Mike.

Go and masturbate.

a écrit :
The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:00:46 -0400, wrote:

The old 45 RPM (revolutions per minute) vinyl records were called 45's
by everyone who had them.

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

I was having this discussion with a few people and no one knew the
answer.....
(Personally, I think they would still be 45 rpm, but I could be wrong).

282.743339999999 radians per minute.



Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca

void _-void-_ in the obvious place



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

wrote:

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?

0.75 Hz

On 9/1/2017 6:37 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

If we were using a metric system at that time, would they still be
called 45 rpm, or would there be some metric numbers used instead?


I'd rather pick my belly button lint than have any concern about this.

Mikek