In article ,
10 says...
On 6 Mar 2006 06:39:19 -0800, wrote:



[snip]


What's the difference between a fluid ounce and an ounce?

A fluid ounce is a measure of volume (how much space something
occupies). An ounce is a measure of weight (mass). This is a common
source of confusion with the USA system. Switching to the metric
system would at least prevent this from being a source of confusion.


Ounces & Pounds are used both for weight and mass, despite the fact
that weight and mass are very different things. Weight is actually
force.

In the metric system, a gram is really a unit of mass. Weight is
measured differently (I think the unit is Pascals).

I think you're looking for "Newton". "Pascal" is a measure of
pressure (1pa = 1E-5bar).

That said, gram(weight) is a proper SI unit as well.

--
Keith

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:51:09 -0500, Keith Williams
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 6 Mar 2006 06:39:19 -0800, wrote:



[snip]


What's the difference between a fluid ounce and an ounce?

A fluid ounce is a measure of volume (how much space something
occupies). An ounce is a measure of weight (mass). This is a common
source of confusion with the USA system. Switching to the metric
system would at least prevent this from being a source of confusion.


Ounces & Pounds are used both for weight and mass, despite the fact
that weight and mass are very different things. Weight is actually
force.

In the metric system, a gram is really a unit of mass. Weight is
measured differently (I think the unit is Pascals).

I think you're looking for "Newton". "Pascal" is a measure of
pressure (1pa = 1E-5bar).


Right. I usually don't remember the wrong thing, but it happened that
time.

That said, gram(weight) is a proper SI unit as well.

Looks like some people can't stand having 2 different units for 2
different things :-)
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:15:33 -0500, Keith Williams
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 03/05/06 02:56 am wrote:

There are quite a few irritating products on the market for home
repair and use. But there are seven inventors/ producers I want to
kill.

2. The idiot that decided that America needs metric nuts and bolts

No. Let's find out who the idiot was who decided that America (unlike
the rest of the world) does *not* need metric nuts and bolts.

Oh, we need 'em. We also need the fractional English nutz-n-boltz.
;-)

My foreign-born mother-in-law says that if she could get used to feet
and inches and pounds and pints at age 40+ Americans could easily get
used to the Metric System if they learned it from the word go.

I can use either. Metric is a little simpler, but not all that
much. Fractional inch is base2, rather than base10. Maybe the
rest of the world should give up on base10 and move to base2.
After all, computers are base2 everywhere. Everyone knows the
computers run the world, ergo...


Once, I found a book (by a Russian) that claimed everybody 'd be
better off with base 3 (closest whole number to e).

I'd actually recommend base 16. It's easy for people to learn, and
easily converted to/from base 2.

There are 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those
who don't. ;-)


I have written programs for the 6502 processor, and always liked %10
better than 10b.

BTW, speaking of "pints," The US ones aren't real pints. A real pint
contains 20 fl. oz., not 16.

Sure they are; "pint's a pound, world round". ;-)

Is that the price of beer in London? ;-) Really, that's what I think
of when I hear of 20-ounce pints.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:26:44 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

According to Keith Williams :
In article ,
says...

BTW, speaking of "pints," The US ones aren't real pints. A real pint
contains 20 fl. oz., not 16.

Sure they are; "pint's a pound, world round". ;-)

US == world, right?

[I don't think any country in the world has a 1 pound pint anymore. Except
the US. Imperial pints aren't a pound.]

People can use the word "pounding" to describe headaches, like you get
when you've drunk too many pints of beer the night before.

BTW, it's 1 pound for every pint :-)

wrote:
Didn't the English system precede the metric system?



Depends on which English system you're talking about. The British yard
did. The gallon used the the USA is the Winchester wine gallon
legalized by Queen Anne in 1707, so it predates the metric system. The
British volume measures were redefined in 1824, however, so the
Imperial gallon and the 20 oz pint in use there date to 1824 which is
AFTER the metric system.

The foot and the pound have their roots in the system of the Roman
Empire. But an old system is not necessarily a better system. The
reason the British reformed their system in 1824, and the reason the
metric system was introduced around 1800 because the historical
measurement units were a huge confusing mess. There were lots of
different pounds, feet, pints, etc, all with different sizes. The
units in one town could be different from the units in another one.
Makes it hard to tell if you're getting what you paid for. And makes
trade hard between different regions.


BTW, speaking of "pints," The US ones aren't real pints. A real pint
contains 20 fl. oz., not 16.


The Imperial fluid ounce is actually not equal to the US fluid ounce.
So many "pints" have been defined throughout history that to argue that
a particular one is the "real" pint seems futile.


What about "A pint's a pound, the world around". I've heard that all
my life.


It's a lie. The Imperial gallon was defined to be the space occupied
by 10 lbs of water. The gallon holds 8 pints. This makes the weight
of an imperial pint of water equal to 1.25 lbs.

The USA gallon is defined to be 231 cubic inches and a pint of water in
this system weights a bit more (4%) than a pound.

Unless, of course, you were interested in the USA dry pint which is
about 33.6 cubic inches and hence is 16% larger than the liquid pint.
But you wouldn't measure water in dry pints....


What's the difference between a fluid ounce and an ounce?


A fluid ounce is a measure of volume (how much space something
occupies). An ounce is a measure of weight (mass). This is a common
source of confusion with the USA system. Switching to the metric
system would at least prevent this from being a source of confusion.

Take something like the weight of paper. When you buy 24 lb bond paper
and then 96 lb card stock does that mean that the card stock was four
times (96/24) the weight of the bond paper? Actually it does not
because in the ridiculous system used here in the USA, card stock is
measured differently than bond paper, so in fact that card stock is
only 92% heavier than the bond paper. The only (reasonable) way to
know what's going on is to look for a metric designation on the paper
in grams per square meter.


I'm surprised you went to the trouble to answer
all of this. I say let them wallow in ignorance.
You would think that no one has or uses a
dictionary, and encyclopedia, or any other
reference books.

Only one quibble. "A pint's a pound the world
around" does not refer to a pint or a pound being
the same anywhere in the world. It is a ditty for
Americans, maybe others that use the same
measures, to remember that a pint of aqueous
solution (and many other non-aqueous substances
and solutions) weighs about a pound (a 4 percent
or 25 deviation is of little importance as a
generalization).

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:15:33 -0500, Keith Williams
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:06:38 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:25:35 GMT, "Rick Brandt"
wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
y.com...

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
Americans could easily get used to the Metric System if they learned it from
the word go.

No need. Just start using it and in day you know exactly what the measurments
are. Very simple really.

Like many Americans, years ago I though going metric was silly but now that I
have to use it at times, I wish we'd make the change and be done with it. All
of out machines at work are metric and it is as normal as can be in use and no
29/32 to worry about.

The mistake this country made when they first tried to "go metric" was trying to
teach everyone the conversion formulas. You don't need to know how many metric
whatsits go into an imperial doo-dad (the rest of the world doesn't know this
either). All you need to know is that a metric whatits is "about this
big/much/far".


Once, I heard a story about what it would be like to use metric for
everything. Something like drinking 5961 milliliters of milk and
eating 2492 milligrams of egg. Then watching a football game where a
player is on the 93.674 meter line.

Well, in cooking, most measurments and portions would be adjusted
slightly to the nearest round metric number. Thus, the 'standard'
drinking glass would probably grow slightly to become the 'standard 25
ml. glass'.

Can't have that. Gotta have a smaller glass and keep the price the
same.

The unit of measure for eggs would probably remain what it is under
the current system: the egg, 1 each.

;-)

Sports fields could be adjusted (making a football field 100 meters)
but would require two sets of record books. I believe track and field
has pretty much already made this adjustment, with most tracks being
built to 400 meteres instead of 400 yards,

The track event changed from 440Yds (1/4 mile) to 400M, which is
only about 1/2% shorter. No biggie there, though when measuring
down to the thousanths of a second...

DOH! Yes, 440 yards, not 400. I've been away from track and field
too long. (Ran the 2-mile on my HS track team, but that was back in
the 60's)

but it is much more an
international sport than American football. Probably better to leave
football and baseballs fields alone, with the use of yards, feet, and
inches being considered a 'quaint' historic relic.

How far is it
from pitchers mound to home plate in thoroughly metric Japan?

I'm fairly sure it's still 66'6", so let's call it 20.3M.

snip

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 18:11:30 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:


On 6-Mar-2006, wrote:

America did just fine for centuries using the SAE standards.

Centuries? Make that century.

But American
cars should have SAE bolts, because they were made in America.

There are more "American" cars made in Ontario, Canada than in Michigan.

And most of the "Japanese" cars sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S.

I work at one of those Japanese auto plants. Several years ago I
hired a guy to fix my roof. When he was finished we were sitting on
my front porch drinking some iced tea and visiting while I made out
the check for his services. He knew where I worked and was
complaining to the effect of 'yes, they build the cars here, but all
the money goes back to Japan.' I handed him his check and said
"here's a couple of hundred of their dollars that didn't go to Japan."

Another example: The U.S. Big-3 lobbied congress for a 'domestic
content' lable law, requiring auto manufacturers to place a lable on
the vehicle stating what percentage of the vehicle was 'domestic
content.' Of course the lobbyists helped write the rules of what
constituted 'domestic content.' A year after it went into effect,
they were lobbying to revoke the law because, even under their own
rules, Fords, Chevies, and Chryslers were showing LESS domestic
content than U.S. built Hondas, Toyotas, and Nissans.

There is no reason we need to kiss butt to other countries

Over 6 billion of them vs about 300 million of you. Keep building those
walls, eventually you'll be all alone.

You may have opinions; too bad you don't have facts.

Mike

In article , NOPSAMmm2005
@bigfoot.com says...


Definitely not, but the OP hypothesized an idiot who decided that
America didn't need metric sizes, when in fact metric sizes hadn't
been invented when America started using the sizes we still use.

We had started using the *names* we currently use before the metric
system was invented in the 1600s, but the names have represented various
actual measures over time.

e.g., at the time Thomas Jefferson advocated a metric system for the
U.S., he noted the following "gallon" and "bushel" measures in current
use:

* 224 and 1792 cubic inches, according to the standard wine
gallon preserved at Guildhall.
* 231 and 1848, according to the statute of 5th Anne.
* 264.8 and 2118.4, according to the ancient Rumford quart, of
1228, examined by the committee.
* 265.5 and 2124, according to three standard bushels preserved
in the Exchequer, to wit: one of Henry VII., without a rim; one dated
1091, supposed for 1591, or 1601, and one dated 1601.
* 266.25 and 2130, according to the ancient Rumford gallon of
1228, examined by the committee.
* 268.75 and 2150, according to the Winchester bushel, as
declared by statute 13, 14, William III., which has been the model for
some of the grain States.
* 271, less 2 spoonfuls, and 2168, less 16 spoonfuls, according
to a standard gallon of Henry VII., and another dated 1601, marked E.
E., both in the Exchequer.
* 271 and 2168, according to a standard gallon in the Exchequer,
dated 1601, marked E., and called the corn gallon.
* 272 and 2176, according to the three standard corn gallons
last mentioned, as measured in 1688, by an artist for the Commissioners
of the Excise, generally used in the seaport towns, and by mercantile
people, and thence introduced into some of the grain States.
* 277.18 and 2217.44, as established for the measure of coal by
the statute of 12 Anne.
* 278 and 2224, according to the standard bushel of Henry VII.,
with a copper rim, in the Exchequer.
* 278.4 and 2227.2, according to two standard pints of 1601 and
1602, in the Exchequer.
* 280 and 2240, according to the standard quart of 1601, in the
Exchequer.
* 282 and 2256, according to the standard gallon for beer and
ale in the Treasury.

There are, moreover, varieties on these varieties, from the barrel
to the ton, inclusive; for, if the barrel be of herrings, it must
contain 28 gallons by the statute 13 Eliz. c. 11. If of wine, it must
contain 31½ gallons by the statute 2 Henry VI. c. 11, and 1 Rich. III.
c. 15. If of beer or ale, it must contain 34 gallons by the statute 1
William and Mary, c. 24, and the higher measures in proportion.


No single person or even a small group decided we didn't need metric.
In fact a few people decided that we did, but millions of people
didn't want to use it anyhow.

IMHO, the great error was in trying to force conversion of popular
measures first. Millions of people were given the impression that they
were going to have to learn a whole new system of measures just to eat,
drink, and cook. Yet it really makes little difference to me whether my
bottle of wine is measured in ml or oz, as long as it's around six or
eight gills, depending on whose gill you're using.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html

Joshua Putnam wrote:

Yet it really makes little difference to me whether my
bottle of wine is measured in ml or oz, as long as it's around six or
eight gills, depending on whose gill you're using.

As long as you're filled to the gills, you should be happy with either
system.

R

On 7 Mar 2006 07:08:06 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:


Joshua Putnam wrote:

Yet it really makes little difference to me whether my
bottle of wine is measured in ml or oz, as long as it's around six or
eight gills, depending on whose gill you're using.

As long as you're filled to the gills, you should be happy with either
system.



Maybe so, but if you're using metric, that song "Barley Mow"
really sucks.

Goedjn wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 07:08:06 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:
Joshua Putnam wrote:

Yet it really makes little difference to me whether my
bottle of wine is measured in ml or oz, as long as it's around six or
eight gills, depending on whose gill you're using.

As long as you're filled to the gills, you should be happy with either
system.


Maybe so, but if you're using metric, that song "Barley Mow"
really sucks.

Most people wouldn't recognize the units of measurements regardless of
what system they were familiar with. Nipperkin indeed!

http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/english/barlymow.htm

R

On 03/07/06 02:08 am Joshua Putnam wrote:

No single person or even a small group decided we didn't need metric.
In fact a few people decided that we did, but millions of people
didn't want to use it anyhow.

IMHO, the great error was in trying to force conversion of popular
measures first. Millions of people were given the impression that they
were going to have to learn a whole new system of measures just to eat,
drink, and cook. Yet it really makes little difference to me whether my
bottle of wine is measured in ml or oz, as long as it's around six or
eight gills, depending on whose gill you're using.
I don't recall the sequence exactly, but ISTR that Australia converted
to the Metric system in stages. E.g., gasoline sold by the liter rather
than by the gallon from one date; other items sold by the (Kilo)gram
rather than by the pound from another date; paper sizes changed to
metric on yet another date; etc. Currency conversion -- from pounds.
shillings and pence to dollars and cents -- had taken place many years
before.

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

On 03/07/06 02:08 am Joshua Putnam wrote:

Someone else wrote

No single person or even a small group decided we didn't need metric.
In fact a few people decided that we did, but millions of people
didn't want to use it anyhow.

IMHO, the great error was in trying to force conversion of popular
measures first. Millions of people were given the impression that they
were going to have to learn a whole new system of measures just to eat,
drink, and cook. Yet it really makes little difference to me whether my
bottle of wine is measured in ml or oz, as long as it's around six or
eight gills, depending on whose gill you're using.

I don't recall the sequence exactly, but ISTR that Australia converted
to the Metric system in stages. E.g., gasoline sold by the liter rather
than by the gallon from one date; other items sold by the (Kilo)gram
rather than by the pound from another date; paper sizes changed to
metric on yet another date; etc. Currency conversion -- from pounds.
shillings and pence to dollars and cents -- had taken place many years
before.

I notice we're finally getting to the heart of the matter. The problem
with the US conversion attempt was that they tried to convert popular
measures (presumably that means commonly-used measures) not just first
but at all. The metric system is only useful when there's frequent
calculations involved and even then it's not always the best measure.

Of course in scientific activities and in metalworking there's a
distinct advantage but as you correctly point out what does it matter
if your wine is metric or imperial? Although given the
internationalization of the product, metric should probably
predominate. Why convert the length of a football field? Or furlongs
for horse racing? Or the mile as in track? It's a four minute what?
Silly! And mph is equally stupid to convert. What calculations do you
ever do with mph? Hmmm...the speed limit is 55 mph...what's that in
feet per second? Yeah, that happens. Actually it was road distance and
mph that was the first thing the metric conversion freaks tried to
push on the US and of course people couldn't see the point and
resisted. I still can't see the point.

In some areas metric is particularly poorly suited as a measurement
and perhaps it should be the Euros adopting the US system rather than
the other way around. Take lumber measurement. Most of the time the
tolerance is at least a sixteenth of an inch sometimes an eighth. Wood
will expand and contract that much in a commonly used eight or ten
feet so more accurate measures are not necessary. Well, what's an
eighth in metric? About 2.5mm IIRC. Exceedingly difficult to see on a
tape. Even if you said 2mm or 3mm it's still hard to see and it's a
kludge. Moreover lots of measurement is in halves so the base 10
measure does very poorly: 10, 5, 2.5, 1.25... whereas the base 2 or 16
or 64 (an even number) is very natural: 1" , 1/2", 1/4" 1/8"... Based
on the strength of "2 by" lumber the 16" OC is an appropriate spacing.
Do it in metric and you either end up with an unnatural value or you
have to round up or down too much.

IMO the US is currently just about where it should be. Convert the
manufacturing and scientific stuff to metric--we've still got a little
way to go in manufacturing but the Chinese'll do the job for us
g--but keep the non-calculation items where they are. There's no
point in conversion just for conversion's sake.

Mark Lloyd ) said...

Ounces & Pounds are used both for weight and mass, despite the fact
that weight and mass are very different things. Weight is actually
force.

Your mass is the same on earth and on the moon, your weight isn't.
Weight is the force you get when you multiply mass by excelleration,
which is what gravity is.

Speaking of weight, pounds are not consistent!

A pound of feathers is actually HEAVIER than a pound of gold. Gold (precious
metals and some pharmacuticals) is measured in TROY pounds and ounces while
everything else uses the AVIORDUPOIS pound, which is heavier.

--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible"
- Paul Martin - April 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: if replying by email, remove "remove." and ".invalid"

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

On 03/07/06 02:08 am Joshua Putnam wrote:

Someone else wrote

No single person or even a small group decided we didn't need metric.
In fact a few people decided that we did, but millions of people
didn't want to use it anyhow.

IMHO, the great error was in trying to force conversion of popular
measures first. Millions of people were given the impression that they
were going to have to learn a whole new system of measures just to eat,
drink, and cook. Yet it really makes little difference to me whether my
bottle of wine is measured in ml or oz, as long as it's around six or
eight gills, depending on whose gill you're using.

I don't recall the sequence exactly, but ISTR that Australia converted
to the Metric system in stages. E.g., gasoline sold by the liter rather
than by the gallon from one date; other items sold by the (Kilo)gram
rather than by the pound from another date; paper sizes changed to
metric on yet another date; etc. Currency conversion -- from pounds.
shillings and pence to dollars and cents -- had taken place many years
before.

I notice we're finally getting to the heart of the matter. The problem
with the US conversion attempt was that they tried to convert popular
measures (presumably that means commonly-used measures) not just first
but at all. The metric system is only useful when there's frequent
calculations involved and even then it's not always the best measure.

Of course in scientific activities and in metalworking there's a
distinct advantage but as you correctly point out what does it matter
if your wine is metric or imperial? Although given the
internationalization of the product, metric should probably
predominate. Why convert the length of a football field? Or furlongs
for horse racing? Or the mile as in track? It's a four minute what?
Silly! And mph is equally stupid to convert. What calculations do you
ever do with mph? Hmmm...the speed limit is 55 mph...what's that in
feet per second? Yeah, that happens. Actually it was road distance and
mph that was the first thing the metric conversion freaks tried to
push on the US and of course people couldn't see the point and
resisted. I still can't see the point.

In some areas metric is particularly poorly suited as a measurement
and perhaps it should be the Euros adopting the US system rather than
the other way around. Take lumber measurement. Most of the time the
tolerance is at least a sixteenth of an inch sometimes an eighth. Wood
will expand and contract that much in a commonly used eight or ten
feet so more accurate measures are not necessary. Well, what's an
eighth in metric? About 2.5mm IIRC. Exceedingly difficult to see on a
tape. Even if you said 2mm or 3mm it's still hard to see and it's a
kludge. Moreover lots of measurement is in halves so the base 10
measure does very poorly: 10, 5, 2.5, 1.25... whereas the base 2 or 16
or 64 (an even number) is very natural: 1" , 1/2", 1/4" 1/8"... Based
on the strength of "2 by" lumber the 16" OC is an appropriate spacing.
Do it in metric and you either end up with an unnatural value or you
have to round up or down too much.

IMO the US is currently just about where it should be. Convert the
manufacturing and scientific stuff to metric--we've still got a little
way to go in manufacturing but the Chinese'll do the job for us
g--but keep the non-calculation items where they are. There's no
point in conversion just for conversion's sake.

Yep, that's the heart of the problem all right. People who think that
if we were to go metric (which we should have long ago), they would
have to convert from metric back to the old measures every time. Why
would anyone be doing that? Spacing of studs is now 16". ln metric it
would change to an even metric measure and there would be absolutely no
need to EVER refer back to inches again. Same for all the other
measures. So a football field would have to go from being 100 yards to
something even in metric - big deal, the world would end? Buy a liter
of milk or a quart of milk? Who cares, you want 'about that much milk"
and without looking at the bottle you have no idea how much a quart is
anyhow.

It is people who were scared of a boogeyman (having to convert back to
inch measure) that sank the conversion.

Harry K

It is people who were scared of a boogeyman (having to convert back to
inch measure) that sank the conversion.

On 08 Mar 2006 14:08:19 GMT, lid (Calvin
Henry-Cotnam) wrote:

Mark Lloyd ) said...

Ounces & Pounds are used both for weight and mass, despite the fact
that weight and mass are very different things. Weight is actually
force.

Your mass is the same on earth and on the moon, your weight isn't.
Weight is the force you get when you multiply mass by excelleration,
which is what gravity is.

Speaking of weight, pounds are not consistent!

A pound of feathers is actually HEAVIER than a pound of gold. Gold (precious
metals and some pharmacuticals) is measured in TROY pounds and ounces while
everything else uses the AVIORDUPOIS pound, which is heavier.

Another fact I heard once: When you're walking and have just put a
foot down, it's supporting 200% of your body weight.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On 8-Mar-2006, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Another fact I heard once: When you're walking and have just put a
foot down, it's supporting 200% of your body weight.

Dynamic loads are not weight.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 8-Mar-2006, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Another fact I heard once: When you're walking and have just put a
foot down, it's supporting 200% of your body weight.

Dynamic loads are not weight.

Semantics. A dynamic load is a force as is weight.

R

On 8 Mar 2006 10:00:51 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:

Michael Daly wrote:
On 8-Mar-2006, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Another fact I heard once: When you're walking and have just put a
foot down, it's supporting 200% of your body weight.

Dynamic loads are not weight.

Semantics. A dynamic load is a force as is weight.

R

Some people will confuse a person's body weight with mass, when it's
mass they actually care about.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:56:40 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:


On 8-Mar-2006, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Another fact I heard once: When you're walking and have just put a
foot down, it's supporting 200% of your body weight.

Dynamic loads are not weight.

Mike

Then what do you consider weight? Weight is a force, a force that
happens to be higher at that moment.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 08 Mar 2006 14:08:19 GMT, lid (Calvin
Henry-Cotnam) wrote:


Mark Lloyd ) said...

Ounces & Pounds are used both for weight and mass, despite the fact
that weight and mass are very different things. Weight is actually
force.

Your mass is the same on earth and on the moon, your weight isn't.
Weight is the force you get when you multiply mass by excelleration,
which is what gravity is.

Speaking of weight, pounds are not consistent!

A pound of feathers is actually HEAVIER than a pound of gold. Gold (precious
metals and some pharmacuticals) is measured in TROY pounds and ounces while
everything else uses the AVIORDUPOIS pound, which is heavier.


Another fact I heard once: When you're walking and have just put a
foot down, it's supporting 200% of your body weight.

Sure it does! Take two seconds to think about how
your body weight suddenly doubled.

On 03/07/06 02:54 pm I wrote:

I don't recall the sequence exactly, but ISTR that Australia converted
to the Metric system in stages. E.g., gasoline sold by the liter rather
than by the gallon from one date; other items sold by the (Kilo)gram
rather than by the pound from another date; paper sizes changed to
metric on yet another date; etc. Currency conversion -- from pounds.
shillings and pence to dollars and cents -- had taken place many years
before.

On thing that was crazy, however, was the conversion of old measurements
to new in some circumstances. E.g., although the 35mph speed limit
became 60kph (I think that was a Federal -- i.e., nationwide
conversion), the state of Queensland (I don't know about others) decreed
that its old traffic code would be converted precisely, so that people
had to remember for the oral part of the driver's license test that they
were not allowed to park within 3.05 meters of a mailbox ("3 meters" was
not an acceptable answer).

And we would read nonsense in the paper such as a traffic accident
report in which a vehicle was alleged to have been traveling at
"approximately [/sic/] 72.42Kph"; or a report that the height of a
robbery suspect was "approximately [/sic/] 1.83 meters." It's clear that
in both cases people gave estimates in round figures (45mph and 6ft,
respectively), but some idiot had to use a calculator and give figures
to 2 decimal places -- "delusions of accuracy" I called it.

Perce

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
Some people will confuse a person's body weight with mass, when it's
mass they actually care about.

Right, I'm not fat, I just have lot of mass.

On 8-Mar-2006, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Then what do you consider weight?

Mass times gravitational acceleration.

Weight is a force, a force that happens to be higher at that moment.

Weight is a force, but that doesn't mean that every force is a weight.

When a dynamic load occurs, it _isn't_ because the weight increases.

Mike

Like many Americans, years ago I though going metric was silly but now that
I have to use it at times, I wish we'd make the change and be done with it.
All of out machines at work are metric and it is as normal as can be in use
and no 29/32 to worry about.

There's nothing stopping you from using decimals for inches...
..90625=29/32 ;-)

Exactly. I've never understood the fuss. After all, just how long
*is* a meter? Answer: It's the distance between two marks on a stick
calibrated for such. Same answer as "How long is a foot?"

How much is a liter? How much is a quart? Same answer for both: The
amount of liquid to fill up a properly calibrated measuring container
to a specific mark.

Who gives a fig about conversion? When working in metric, you use
measuring devices calibrated in metric. You measure to the marks
indicated. Just like when working with "British" ("American").

Where it matters most, and where people would probably use it the most
is in the grocery store. The initial conversion would matter to know
whether or not you're getting ripped of in qty/price.

I am having a very tough time believing you are not a troll. The
myopia that passes for your logic is staggering.
- Cars that are "Made in America" are assembled here but have parts
from all over the world. The only reason your car has two types of
bolts, is because of people like you who resist change, even if the new
way is far superior. It's like that idiot that everyone knows who is
married to the dragon lady but won't divorce her, saying things like,
"The devil you know is better than the one you don't." You know,
bull****.

You have to admit it's ridiculous that designers don't put ALL metric
bolts on a car. Seems like there would be tons of cost savings for
them in doing that anyway. My '86 vette has probably 90% metric, 10mm,
13mm, and 15mm being almost all of them.


and stop using the dollar and convert to the pound. That way when I
take a 7 pound bag of dog food to the counter, and the store also
sells a 10 pound bag, the clerk can ask me if I have a 7 pound or a 10
pound bag, and I will think that is the price they are charging me
because the pound is also a term for an amount of money.

They'll scan the item, you'll pay for it. What do you care what units
are used as long as the net cost to you is reasonable?

Leaving the unit of money alone for a minute, because that's never
going to happen:
This is where you're missing the point. Many people figure out
qty/price when buying products. During the intial conversion, most
would be left scratching their heads "is $10 for 2.5Kg better or worse
than $12 for 5.5 lbs?"

Larry Bud wrote:
Like many Americans, years ago I though going metric was silly but now that
I have to use it at times, I wish we'd make the change and be done with it.
All of out machines at work are metric and it is as normal as can be in use
and no 29/32 to worry about.

There's nothing stopping you from using decimals for inches...
.90625=29/32 ;-)

You should include who wrote what you are quoting.

R

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:18:37 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:


On 8-Mar-2006, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Then what do you consider weight?

Mass times gravitational acceleration.


And acceleration is acceleration, whatever the source.

Weight is a force, a force that happens to be higher at that moment.

Weight is a force, but that doesn't mean that every force is a weight.

When a dynamic load occurs, it _isn't_ because the weight increases.


What to you think causes it?

Mike
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On 9-Mar-2006, Mark Lloyd wrote:

What to you think causes it?

Look it up: Clough, R.W. and Penzian, J, "Dynamics of Structures"
McGraw-Hill, 1975 page 91-92.

Mike

Larry Bud wrote:
Exactly. I've never understood the fuss. After all, just how long
*is* a meter? Answer: It's the distance between two marks on a stick
calibrated for such. Same answer as "How long is a foot?"

How much is a liter? How much is a quart? Same answer for both: The
amount of liquid to fill up a properly calibrated measuring container
to a specific mark.

Who gives a fig about conversion? When working in metric, you use
measuring devices calibrated in metric. You measure to the marks
indicated. Just like when working with "British" ("American").

Where it matters most, and where people would probably use it the most
is in the grocery store. The initial conversion would matter to know
whether or not you're getting ripped of in qty/price.

BS. That is a strawman argument trying to justify being bull headed
about changing. If they were going to rip you off during the
conversion, they would do it. Nothing you would be able to do about it
even if you -did- know they were doing it other than shop down the
street where they also would be doing it.

I gaurantee that withing a week of conversion you wouldn't even notice
and would soon recognize the idiocy trying to compare sizes of the new
to the old.

Harry K

Larry Bud wrote:
I am having a very tough time believing you are not a troll. The
myopia that passes for your logic is staggering.
- Cars that are "Made in America" are assembled here but have parts
from all over the world. The only reason your car has two types of
bolts, is because of people like you who resist change, even if the new
way is far superior. It's like that idiot that everyone knows who is
married to the dragon lady but won't divorce her, saying things like,
"The devil you know is better than the one you don't." You know,
bull****.

You have to admit it's ridiculous that designers don't put ALL metric
bolts on a car. Seems like there would be tons of cost savings for
them in doing that anyway. My '86 vette has probably 90% metric, 10mm,
13mm, and 15mm being almost all of them.


and stop using the dollar and convert to the pound. That way when I
take a 7 pound bag of dog food to the counter, and the store also
sells a 10 pound bag, the clerk can ask me if I have a 7 pound or a 10
pound bag, and I will think that is the price they are charging me
because the pound is also a term for an amount of money.

They'll scan the item, you'll pay for it. What do you care what units
are used as long as the net cost to you is reasonable?

Leaving the unit of money alone for a minute, because that's never
going to happen:
This is where you're missing the point. Many people figure out
qty/price when buying products. During the intial conversion, most
would be left scratching their heads "is $10 for 2.5Kg better or worse
than $12 for 5.5 lbs?"

And what difference would it make? You wouldn't have the choice to buy
kthe 5.5 lbs one anyhow. Yeah for your sense of outrage you might find
that you are now paying a schosh bit more per unit weight but just what
would you do about it?

Harry K