On 9 Nov 2006 07:47:35 -0800, "Harry K"
wrote:


Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

snip


(Fahrenheit zero is based on the commonsense measure of the freezing point
of a saturated salt solution which everyone has on hand, and boiling point
is 180 degrees above the freezing point of "pure" water. Completely logical
of course )


snip
Don Kelly move the X to answer

Correction: the F scale was based the freezing point of that solution
and set at 32 degrees. Then 100 was selected as the normal human body
temp, or that is what I heard, not sure). Just why they set the
freezing point at 32 vice 0 escapes me.

Harry K

Maybe to help those unable to handle negative numbers, but still
needed a way to express temperatures below freezing?

Of course, the REAL 0 point (no heat at all) is considerably lower
than either 0C or 0F.
--
46 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On 9 Nov 2006 17:22:55 GMT, "Default User"
wrote:

Dave Smith wrote:


We have been officially metric for almost 30 years now, but most
people over 30 still seem to thing in Fahrenheit. I don't
understand it because Celsius makes so much more sense. Water
freezes at 0 and boils at 100. That 0 C makes a big difference in
weather conditions. When it drops below freezing it is cold, so
having a scale that zeroes out at the freezing point makes a lot
of sense. You are quite right about being able to detect a one
degree difference in temperature. One degree C is noticeable
while one degree F is not.

I disagree, even though I have a science background (Physics). Metric
is great for doing that sort of thing, but for weather, not so much.

Fahrenheit is good because 100F is really nice and hot, and 0F is
really nice and cold. Bounds the temps that humans deal with rather
nicely. 100C is outside the range of experience (one hopes) and 0C is
coldish. Who cares what temperature water boils at?


And at the time, humans thought that THEY were the most important
things in existence.

The degrees F have nice granularity, so you don't have to deal with
fractional ones when describing the weather.


Could that just be what you're used to? The ratio (size of C degree to
size of F degree) is less than 2:1.




Brian
--
46 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On the
other hand, calculating travel times in metric is much easier.
The standard highway speed in 100 kph, so a 500 km trip should
take 5 hours.

I like to do math with simple numbers like that.


Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 9 Nov 2006 17:22:55 GMT, "Default User"
wrote:

Fahrenheit is good because 100F is really nice and hot, and 0F is
really nice and cold. Bounds the temps that humans deal with rather
nicely. 100C is outside the range of experience (one hopes) and 0C
is coldish. Who cares what temperature water boils at?


And at the time, humans thought that THEY were the most important
things in existence.

I don't follow. We're talking about people and weather, so why would
anything else be relevant?

The degrees F have nice granularity, so you don't have to deal with
fractional ones when describing the weather.


Could that just be what you're used to? The ratio (size of C degree to
size of F degree) is less than 2:1.

Yet we generally use fractional degrees C, but not F. I'm talking
practice, not theory.




Brian



--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Goedjn wrote:


On the
other hand, calculating travel times in metric is much easier.
The standard highway speed in 100 kph, so a 500 km trip should
take 5 hours.

I like to do math with simple numbers like that.


Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work with.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Goedjn wrote:

On the
other hand, calculating travel times in metric is much easier.
The standard highway speed in 100 kph, so a 500 km trip should
take 5 hours.

I like to do math with simple numbers like that.


Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

But.... 100 mph is not a legal speed while 60 mph zones becomes
100 kph zones.

Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

I am used to the metric system. When I am en route to a city and
see the destination signs and it says for example 122 km.....
that is 1.2 hours. ..... and I instantly know I am just over an
hour a way.

Dave Smith wrote:

Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work
with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to.

Is that a problem for most people? After all, the same time system is
used in most places.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Dave Smith" wrote
Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

I am used to the metric system. When I am en route to a city and
see the destination signs and it says for example 122 km.....
that is 1.2 hours. ..... and I instantly know I am just over an
hour a way.

If you are 23 km away how long will it take to get there at 100 kph?
When I am 23 miles away I instantly know I am 23 min away @ 60mph

What ever happened to the dual unit traffic signs?

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:59:25 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:11:22 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

If we are going to make these things simple, why not use a digital
clock and calender. Now if we can just get the rotation of the earth
to be an even base 10 number, compared to it's circuit of the sun..

When, after The French Revolution, the modern metric system was developed
and adopted in France, it included "metric" time (10 hour days, etc). (Of
course, because it was a part of nature and not a human construct, nothing
could be done about the number of days in a year.) Because the time part of
the system was resisted so much by the general public, it was eventually
disgarded.

In article . com,
says...

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:05:23 -0500, mm
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:13:20 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Terry wrote:
Now that the winter is here I have my thermostat set to 70. That
sometimes seems a little low. When I push it up to 71 it seems a
little warm. The place I notice it the most is when I am setting
at my computer desk. I have on the wall behind it. The desk does
not cover the vent.

Put it at 69º and buy a sweater with the savings.

Or 68!


But NEVER 65. That's too cold. I've been through that with my parents.

Actually mine is at 65º right now. That is my usual daytime
temperature. At night it goes to 62º In the evening I go up to 67º and in
the morning right before we get up, I have it go to 69º

Mine is set to 64F now (morning), 59F at night, and 67F in the
evening. If we're cold, it gets cranked up but we usually don't.
Sweaters and sweats are the norm. The cats have coats on. ;-)

BTW, our frost line can go down beyond 7' (broken mains down that
far).

--
Keith

It is snowing and 30 degrees out now so I just chunked another piece of
wood on the fire

That sucks! I had another nice day to work outside. It was a
glorious 62F here in NW Vermont. I think I got sunburnt though.
It's only supposed to be 50F tomorrow, but that's enough to finish
my stain and trim work.

It is time to get the wife's snow tires on though. ...or I'm going
to be driving her to work.

--
Keith

In article ,
lid says...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:52:36 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:21:58 GMT, "mwlogs"
wrote:

Which means what? The metric system IS decimal while the current US system
of feet, inches, pounds and onces is not.

Farenheit is decimal. ;-)

And had multiple units of measurement for the same thing. Units which
are not simply related (as in length: there's feet, inches, yards,
rods, fathoms, angstroms, light years and more), so adding to the
difficulty of obtaining and using measurements.

Metric has ONE unit for each thing, and a set of related prefixes for
large or small multiples of any unit.

Light years don't exist?


WHAT?? The closest I said to that was that the light year is not a
metric unit.

You also implied that it was an English measurement.

I suppose you know a light year is NOT an amount of time.

Sure, I also know hat you're an idiot.

snipped top poster's out-of-line quotes

-
Keith

Default User wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:


We have been officially metric for almost 30 years now, but most
people over 30 still seem to thing in Fahrenheit. I don't
understand it because Celsius makes so much more sense. Water
freezes at 0 and boils at 100. That 0 C makes a big difference in
weather conditions. When it drops below freezing it is cold, so
having a scale that zeroes out at the freezing point makes a lot
of sense. You are quite right about being able to detect a one
degree difference in temperature. One degree C is noticeable
while one degree F is not.

I disagree, even though I have a science background (Physics). Metric
is great for doing that sort of thing, but for weather, not so much.

Fahrenheit is good because 100F is really nice and hot, and 0F is
really nice and cold. Bounds the temps that humans deal with rather
nicely. 100C is outside the range of experience (one hopes) and 0C is
coldish. Who cares what temperature water boils at?

The degrees F have nice granularity, so you don't have to deal with
fractional ones when describing the weather.

Granularity? You mean spacing? Doesn't matter my
electronic F deg thermometers measure in tenths
anyway.





Brian

Mark Lloyd wrote:


And had multiple units of measurement for the same thing. Units which
are not simply related (as in length: there's feet, inches, yards,
rods, fathoms, angstroms, light years and more), so adding to the
difficulty of obtaining and using measurements.

Metric has ONE unit for each thing, and a set of related prefixes for
large or small multiples of any unit.

Light years don't exist?


WHAT?? The closest I said to that was that the light year is not a
metric unit.

It isn't??
A light year is the distance that light travels in one year. That
distance can be measured in metric or imperial. It's going to go
the same distance.

Malcolm Hoar wrote:
In article .com, "Harry K" wrote:

Harry K wrote:
Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

snip


(Fahrenheit zero is based on the commonsense measure of the freezing point
of a saturated salt solution which everyone has on hand, and boiling point
is 180 degrees above the freezing point of "pure" water. Completely
logical
of course )


snip
Don Kelly move the X to answer

Correction: the F scale was based the freezing point of that solution
and set at 32 degrees. Then 100 was selected as the normal human body
temp, or that is what I heard, not sure). Just why they set the
freezing point at 32 vice 0 escapes me.

Harry K

Oops. Correction to the correction. You are correct. I just can't
come up with how the 0F mark was arrived at.

http://chem.oswego.edu/chem209/Misc/fahrenheit.htm

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks. That took me back to school days in the 40s.

Harry K

Goedjn wrote:
On the
other hand, calculating travel times in metric is much easier.
The standard highway speed in 100 kph, so a 500 km trip should
take 5 hours.

I like to do math with simple numbers like that.


Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

Not at all stupid. 100kph is a quite reasonable average speed over
distance. 100 mph is not.

Harry K

Stephen B. wrote:
"Dave Smith" wrote
Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

I am used to the metric system. When I am en route to a city and
see the destination signs and it says for example 122 km.....
that is 1.2 hours. ..... and I instantly know I am just over an
hour a way.

If you are 23 km away how long will it take to get there at 100 kph?

23 minutes unless there is something wrong with my math. Now had you
said 23 miles away at 100 kph...

snip

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message
ps.com...

Stephen B. wrote:
"Dave Smith" wrote
Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work
with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

I am used to the metric system. When I am en route to a city and
see the destination signs and it says for example 122 km.....
that is 1.2 hours. ..... and I instantly know I am just over an
hour a way.

If you are 23 km away how long will it take to get there at 100 kph?

23 minutes unless there is something wrong with my math. Now had you
said 23 miles away at 100 kph...

Only if you have 100 minutes in your hours.

In article om, "Harry K" wrote:

Stephen B. wrote:

If you are 23 km away how long will it take to get there at 100 kph?

23 minutes unless there is something wrong with my math. Now had you
said 23 miles away at 100 kph...

There's definitely something wrong with your math.
23 km / 100 kph = 0.23 hours, or 13 minutes 48 seconds.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, "Harry K" wrote:

Goedjn wrote:
On the
other hand, calculating travel times in metric is much easier.
The standard highway speed in 100 kph, so a 500 km trip should
take 5 hours.

I like to do math with simple numbers like that.


Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

Not at all stupid. 100kph is a quite reasonable average speed over
distance. 100 mph is not.

Absolutely it's a stupid example -- although the demonstration of its
stupidity could have been better done, e.g. "If you're going 60 mph, a 300
mile trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of units, it
doesn't make any difference what they are."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article om, "Harry K" wrote:

Stephen B. wrote:

If you are 23 km away how long will it take to get there at 100 kph?

23 minutes unless there is something wrong with my math. Now had you
said 23 miles away at 100 kph...

There's definitely something wrong with your math.
23 km / 100 kph = 0.23 hours, or 13 minutes 48 seconds.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

I knew that didn't sound right when I wrote it but couldn't see where


Harry K

On 9 Nov 2006 23:38:41 GMT, "Default User"
wrote:

Dave Smith wrote:

Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work
with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to.

Is that a problem for most people? After all, the same time system is
used in most places.



Brian

THE metric unit of time is the second. Minutes and hours are not
metric.
--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 9 Nov 2006 23:38:41 GMT, "Default User"
wrote:

Dave Smith wrote:

Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work
with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to.

Is that a problem for most people? After all, the same time system is
used in most places.


THE metric unit of time is the second. Minutes and hours are not
metric.

I suppose you'll be leading the charge, then, to have vehicle speedometers
changed over to meters per second? Don't forget the speed limit signs, too.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:57:49 GMT, "Stephen B."
wrote:


"Harry K" wrote in message
ups.com...

Stephen B. wrote:
"Dave Smith" wrote
Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work
with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

I am used to the metric system. When I am en route to a city and
see the destination signs and it says for example 122 km.....
that is 1.2 hours. ..... and I instantly know I am just over an
hour a way.

If you are 23 km away how long will it take to get there at 100 kph?

23 minutes unless there is something wrong with my math. Now had you
said 23 miles away at 100 kph...

Only if you have 100 minutes in your hours.


"KPH" is not really a metric unit. It's a hybrid of metric (kilometer)
and something else (hour).

Converting some (non-metric) time units to metric:

1 minute = 60S (60 seconds)
1 hour = 3.6KS (3.6 kiloseconds)
1 day = 86.4KS
1 month (approx.) = 2.6MS (2.6 megaseconds)
1 year (approx.) = 31.56GS (31.56 gigaseconds)

Few (if any) people use metric for everything.

Note that I never said I recommended doing it this way.
--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:59:25 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:11:22 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

If we are going to make these things simple, why not use a digital
clock and calender. Now if we can just get the rotation of the earth
to be an even base 10 number, compared to it's circuit of the sun..

Time calculations would be a lot easier if we didn't have to deal with
TWO important natural cycles (day and year). The year isn't even a
multiple of the day (days per year is approximately 365.24).
--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:04:38 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:

Goedjn wrote:

On the
other hand, calculating travel times in metric is much easier.
The standard highway speed in 100 kph, so a 500 km trip should
take 5 hours.

I like to do math with simple numbers like that.


Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

But.... 100 mph is not a legal speed while 60 mph zones becomes
100 kph zones.

If you can't go 100MPH, you could try figuring half that (50MPH) and
approximating the value for 60MPH. Experience should be helpful in
this case.
--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On 9 Nov 2006 22:47:11 GMT, "Default User"
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 9 Nov 2006 17:22:55 GMT, "Default User"
wrote:

Fahrenheit is good because 100F is really nice and hot, and 0F is
really nice and cold. Bounds the temps that humans deal with rather
nicely. 100C is outside the range of experience (one hopes) and 0C
is coldish. Who cares what temperature water boils at?


And at the time, humans thought that THEY were the most important
things in existence.

I don't follow. We're talking about people and weather, so why would
anything else be relevant?


Reality does tend to be inconvenient sometimes. Notice how it fails to
step out of the way at those times.

The degrees F have nice granularity, so you don't have to deal with
fractional ones when describing the weather.


Could that just be what you're used to? The ratio (size of C degree to
size of F degree) is less than 2:1.

Yet we generally use fractional degrees C, but not F. I'm talking
practice, not theory.


It's probably an artifact of conversion. People use fractional degrees
C, only because they're used to degrees of a certain size, not because
such a size is in any way better.




Brian
--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:57:02 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:

Default User wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:


We have been officially metric for almost 30 years now, but most
people over 30 still seem to thing in Fahrenheit. I don't
understand it because Celsius makes so much more sense. Water
freezes at 0 and boils at 100. That 0 C makes a big difference in
weather conditions. When it drops below freezing it is cold, so
having a scale that zeroes out at the freezing point makes a lot
of sense. You are quite right about being able to detect a one
degree difference in temperature. One degree C is noticeable
while one degree F is not.

I disagree, even though I have a science background (Physics). Metric
is great for doing that sort of thing, but for weather, not so much.

Fahrenheit is good because 100F is really nice and hot, and 0F is
really nice and cold. Bounds the temps that humans deal with rather
nicely. 100C is outside the range of experience (one hopes) and 0C is
coldish. Who cares what temperature water boils at?

The degrees F have nice granularity, so you don't have to deal with
fractional ones when describing the weather.

Granularity? You mean spacing? Doesn't matter my
electronic F deg thermometers measure in tenths
anyway.


I have such a thermometer too. Usually the accuracy of the
thermometer is so low that the extra digit provides no useful
information. I round those numbers almost automatically. One night the
low was 32F (the actual display was 31.8F).





Brian

--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

but they are still within the range of temperatures people can
experience in the Real World. Zero Celsius doesn't really seem
to cross any threshold of extremeness,

That's a guy from above the 26th parallel talking. We have our
water pipes above ground here and zero C is very significant.

I'm missing somthing here. Did you mean the 56th parallel?
Where do you live?

South Florida. It never gets below 0 C here.
That is the threshold that would make me move farther south.

Water pipes are above-ground in South Florida?

I need to live somewhere it freezes so last year's insects die.

Dick

Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 9 Nov 2006 23:38:41 GMT, "Default User"
wrote:

Is that a problem for most people? After all, the same time system
is used in most places.

THE metric unit of time is the second. Minutes and hours are not
metric.

So?




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:57:02 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:

Default User wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:


We have been officially metric for almost 30 years now, but most
people over 30 still seem to thing in Fahrenheit. I don't
understand it because Celsius makes so much more sense. Water
freezes at 0 and boils at 100. That 0 C makes a big difference in
weather conditions. When it drops below freezing it is cold, so
having a scale that zeroes out at the freezing point makes a lot
of sense. You are quite right about being able to detect a one
degree difference in temperature. One degree C is noticeable
while one degree F is not.
I disagree, even though I have a science background (Physics). Metric
is great for doing that sort of thing, but for weather, not so much.

Fahrenheit is good because 100F is really nice and hot, and 0F is
really nice and cold. Bounds the temps that humans deal with rather
nicely. 100C is outside the range of experience (one hopes) and 0C is
coldish. Who cares what temperature water boils at?

The degrees F have nice granularity, so you don't have to deal with
fractional ones when describing the weather.
Granularity? You mean spacing? Doesn't matter my
electronic F deg thermometers measure in tenths
anyway.


I have such a thermometer too. Usually the accuracy of the
thermometer is so low that the extra digit provides no useful
information. I round those numbers almost automatically. One night the
low was 32F (the actual display was 31.8F).



Brian

Mine are very accurate, and yes when I record the
temperature I round it. The real issue is that
most people use thermometers to determine
temperatures that are constantly changing. Check
a digital one with an outside probe attached.
The inside temperature is in a housing that is
heavy enough to act as a heat reservoir so the
temperature changes slowly, while the outside one
has hardly any heat sink.

I have a dual sensor thermometer sitting on a file
case in my office. Under carefully controlled
conditions both the internal and the outside
sensors read the same. In actual practice the
outside and inside sensors seldom read the same
even though the sensors are only 5 inches apart.
I can walk past the sensors (about 2 feet away)
and stir the air enough that the outside sensor
changes 0.4-0.5 degrees.

Outside, temperatures often fluctuate so much that
anything less that a degree makes no sense. I
find it hilarious to listen to the weatherman say
excitedly say that the first freezing night of the
fall was 27 degrees. What he never says is the
period. That low of 27 degrees may have existed
less than a minute and most likely less than 5
minutes and the time below 32 degrees may have
been less than 10 minutes.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:29:30 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:52:23 -0000, (Dick Adams)
wrote:

Water pipes are above-ground in South Florida?
Yup

I need to live somewhere it freezes so last year's insects die.
That is a problem but we deal with it.
In real life I lived in Md and the insects did just fine from year to
year.
The predators live all year long here too. You just have to recognize
the good guys and not kill them indiscriminately. A healthy population
of tree frogs keeps the roaches down.

Never in my life have I wished for a freeze, but south Louisiana is in
the grips of a mosquito invasion of biblical proportions. G

They say it's a massive hatch of eggs laid following Katrina and Rita.

In article ,
lid says...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:52:36 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:21:58 GMT, "mwlogs"
wrote:

Which means what? The metric system IS decimal while the current US system
of feet, inches, pounds and onces is not.

Farenheit is decimal. ;-)

And had multiple units of measurement for the same thing. Units which
are not simply related (as in length: there's feet, inches, yards,
rods, fathoms, angstroms, light years and more), so adding to the
difficulty of obtaining and using measurements.

Metric has ONE unit for each thing, and a set of related prefixes for
large or small multiples of any unit.

Light years don't exist?


WHAT?? The closest I said to that was that the light year is not a
metric unit.

I suppose you know a light year is NOT an amount of time.

Right, it's a distance and it is metric. Last I knew, light traveled at
approximately 3x10^8 m/sec.

A year is roughly 31,536,000 seconds. So light travels
9,460,800,000,000,000 m/year. Simplified, 9.5x10^15

In article ,
says...
Mark Lloyd wrote:


And had multiple units of measurement for the same thing. Units which
are not simply related (as in length: there's feet, inches, yards,
rods, fathoms, angstroms, light years and more), so adding to the
difficulty of obtaining and using measurements.

Metric has ONE unit for each thing, and a set of related prefixes for
large or small multiples of any unit.

Light years don't exist?


WHAT?? The closest I said to that was that the light year is not a
metric unit.

It isn't??
A light year is the distance that light travels in one year. That
distance can be measured in metric or imperial. It's going to go
the same distance.



Yes it can be measured using both, but traditional usage in the
scientific community has always been metric.

In article , NOPSAMmm2005
@bigfoot.com says...
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:13:20 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Terry wrote:
Now that the winter is here I have my thermostat set to 70. That
sometimes seems a little low. When I push it up to 71 it seems a
little warm. The place I notice it the most is when I am setting at
my computer desk. I have on the wall behind it. The desk does not
cover the vent.

Put it at 69º and buy a sweater with the savings.

Or 68!




Or 67!

In article ,
lid says...
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:05:23 -0500, mm
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:13:20 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Terry wrote:
Now that the winter is here I have my thermostat set to 70. That
sometimes seems a little low. When I push it up to 71 it seems a
little warm. The place I notice it the most is when I am setting at
my computer desk. I have on the wall behind it. The desk does not
cover the vent.

Put it at 69º and buy a sweater with the savings.

Or 68!


But NEVER 65. That's too cold. I've been through that with my parents.


For some reason, it was elected to keep the operations center (computer
room) at my office at 65F. It is very cool in there.

In article ,
says...
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:05:23 -0500, mm
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:13:20 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Terry wrote:
Now that the winter is here I have my thermostat set to 70. That
sometimes seems a little low. When I push it up to 71 it seems a
little warm. The place I notice it the most is when I am setting
at my computer desk. I have on the wall behind it. The desk does
not cover the vent.

Put it at 69º and buy a sweater with the savings.

Or 68!


But NEVER 65. That's too cold. I've been through that with my parents.

Actually mine is at 65º right now. That is my usual daytime
temperature. At night it goes to 62º In the evening I go up to 67º and in
the morning right before we get up, I have it go to 69º



From 5:30AM to 8:30AM mine goes to 67F, then 62F until 4:30PM back to
67F until 11:45PM and then to 62F.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:40:03 -0500, T
wrote:

In article , NOPSAMmm2005
says...
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:13:20 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Terry wrote:
Now that the winter is here I have my thermostat set to 70. That
sometimes seems a little low. When I push it up to 71 it seems a
little warm. The place I notice it the most is when I am setting at
my computer desk. I have on the wall behind it. The desk does not
cover the vent.

Put it at 69º and buy a sweater with the savings.

Or 68!




Or 67!

Hell, my wife's got the a/c on 70 and I'm wearing a sweater. G

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:38:23 -0500, T
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:52:36 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:21:58 GMT, "mwlogs"
wrote:

Which means what? The metric system IS decimal while the current US system
of feet, inches, pounds and onces is not.

Farenheit is decimal. ;-)

And had multiple units of measurement for the same thing. Units which
are not simply related (as in length: there's feet, inches, yards,
rods, fathoms, angstroms, light years and more), so adding to the
difficulty of obtaining and using measurements.

Metric has ONE unit for each thing, and a set of related prefixes for
large or small multiples of any unit.

Light years don't exist?


WHAT?? The closest I said to that was that the light year is not a
metric unit.

I suppose you know a light year is NOT an amount of time.

Right, it's a distance and it is metric. Last I knew, light traveled at
approximately 3x10^8 m/sec.

A year is roughly 31,536,000 seconds. So light travels
9,460,800,000,000,000 m/year. Simplified, 9.5x10^15


Define "simplified." BG

In article ,
lid says...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:57:49 GMT, "Stephen B."
wrote:


"Harry K" wrote in message
ups.com...

Stephen B. wrote:
"Dave Smith" wrote
Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work
with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

I am used to the metric system. When I am en route to a city and
see the destination signs and it says for example 122 km.....
that is 1.2 hours. ..... and I instantly know I am just over an
hour a way.

If you are 23 km away how long will it take to get there at 100 kph?

23 minutes unless there is something wrong with my math. Now had you
said 23 miles away at 100 kph...

Only if you have 100 minutes in your hours.


"KPH" is not really a metric unit. It's a hybrid of metric (kilometer)
and something else (hour).

Certainly it is. It my not be MKS, nor purely SI, but it is
metric. K==kilometers (1E3 meters) H==Hours(3.6E3 seconds), both
of which are SI units. KPH is then a "derived unit" and perfectly
acceptable.

Converting some (non-metric) time units to metric:

Who cares? snip

--
Keith