Metric
 

In article , Tom Veatch wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:04:34 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.

Nor do I. I really wouldn't use the Bible as a scientific/engineering
guide. A cursory reading implies Pi = 3.000. KJV, I Kings 7: 26ff and
II Chronicles 4: 2ff

The Legislature of the State of Indiana didn't do much better, four thousand
years later:
http://www.agecon.purdue.
edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm

Metric
 

In article , Kevin wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

What's 18.5" divided by 3?

Easy; 6-1/6".

Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?

Yes. g

Metric
 

On Sep 10, 1:07*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 9/9/2009 8:02 PM J. Clarke spake thus:



Ed Edelenbos wrote:

"notbob" wrote in message
.. .

On 2009-09-09, J. Clarke wrote:

manufacturing and packaging, so how _do_ the manufacturers and
packagers figure it out?

I dunno... *they hire French engineers to do the hard work? *The work
that requires thought?

"French engineers" is an oxymoron.

Really? Can you say "TGV"? "European extremely large telescope"?

--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Fully aerodynamic body. Front-wheel drive, Oil over air fully
adjustable suspension. Crumple zones, collapsable steering wheel,
constant velocity transmission, steerable headlights, elevated rear-
end-collision-avoidance brake- and turning signal lights etc., etc.
(Btw... all in one 1950-ish Citroen.)

Brigit Bardot.

A few decent wines and cheeses.

Not everyrhing coming from France is all bad...

Metric
 

On Sep 10, 7:27*am, "Upscale" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
whackadoodle as the Francophone Quebecois who go around measuring signs to
make sure that the French is more prominent than the English.

Now, that's a poor comparison. Metric conversion has only come to the
forefront as more and more manufacturing becomes a worldwide concern and
largely over the past 50 years. Whereas, Quebec French have always been
screwed up. After all, they're French, they're largely anti Canadian and
they think strangely. Thank God my father moved our family from Montreal to
Toronto when I was eleven and I didn't have to suffer my teenage years
through a totally crazy society. Growing up is tough enough. Doing it in
Quebec as an English speaking youth is totally whacked.

What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
original post.
Practically the whole world runs on metric.
Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
of the planet?
Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
World Dimension Order?
Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?

Metric
 

Dan Coby wrote:
Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants and conversion
factors. *(The pro metric people claim that they don't but they are there. *I.e.
how many calories are there in a joule:

I don't understand. The relationship between calorie and joule isn't a
feature of SI. It's a conversion between two different systems.

Metric
 

Robatoy wrote:

On Sep 10, 7:27*am, "Upscale" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
whackadoodle as the Francophone Quebecois who go around measuring signs to
make sure that the French is more prominent than the English.

Now, that's a poor comparison. Metric conversion has only come to the
forefront as more and more manufacturing becomes a worldwide concern and
largely over the past 50 years. Whereas, Quebec French have always been
screwed up. After all, they're French, they're largely anti Canadian and
they think strangely. Thank God my father moved our family from Montreal to
Toronto when I was eleven and I didn't have to suffer my teenage years
through a totally crazy society. Growing up is tough enough. Doing it in
Quebec as an English speaking youth is totally whacked.

What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
original post.
Practically the whole world runs on metric.
Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
of the planet?
Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
World Dimension Order?
Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?

The UK still uses both systems so do many other countries and ex colonies

The uk switched to metric to bring us in line with the EEC as it was then however
most people over 45 still tend to use imperial measurements because thats what we
are used too although most can use metric if they need to

Road speed signs are still in imperial as are clothes sizes with the metric
equivelent written next to them Shops were supposed to switch to metric however
most still advertise foodweights in pounds and ounces as well

Time is rarely displayed in metric.

Alcohol is sold in imperial and metric measurements , fuel is now sold in litres so
it looks cheaper on the forcourt (£1.05p a litre sounds better than £4.80p a gallon
as does a penny a litre rise against a 5 p a gallon rise )

Metric
 

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Uh, 9mm is just .38 caliber misspelled.



9mm is actually closer to a .357

So's a .38.


?

Get out your reloading manual and check the bullet dimensions for the more
popular of the cartridges normally described as ".38".

OK, I am aware that actual sizes are different than indicated sizes. I
thought you may have been referring to actual sizes. The 9mm is slightly
smaller than .357 and the .38 family varies in size just slightly larger
than the .357 but under the an actual .38 measurement.
Way back in the EARLY 70's, when we were teens, a friend and I did a lot of
target shooting. At the range we shot mostly .22, .38 Special, .357, AND
..45. Because the .357 was a "cruel to the shooter" gun we often shot less
agressive rounds through it. Typically we went through a couple hundred
rounds weekly. We often ran wad cutter .38 rounds through the .357. We
spent hours melting down wheel weights and pouring our own wad cutter
bullets. Hot Job!

Metric
 

Robatoy wrote:
What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
original post.
Practically the whole world runs on metric.
Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
of the planet?
Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
World Dimension Order?
Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?

No. :-)

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Metric
 

On Sep 10, 9:28*am, Steve Turner wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
original post.
Practically the whole world runs on metric.
Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
of the planet?
Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
World Dimension Order?
Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?

No. *:-)



You could have saved us all a lot time by posting that right away,
Steve.

Metric
 

Andrew Barss a écrit :
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Why should we change _anything_?

Dollars are 10 based, just like metric, and it works. You seem to think is
is bizarre.


Well, it's base 10, like the metric/SAI system (actually the dollar is
base 100, as witness the penny, the nickel, and the 25-cent and
50-cent pieces, none of which correspond to a power-of-ten division
of a dollar).

You forgot one (intentionally?) :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_(United_States_coin)

There's two separate things in the metric/Imperial debate (aka the wrong
vs. right way debate). These often get confused.

One is the numeric base. The Imperial system is a mix of base 12 and base
16. Metric is base 10. It's easier to divide Imperial units into thirds,
quarters, and so on than metric; and easier to divide metric amounts by
powers of 10. Both 12 and 16 have more integral divisors than 10 does,
and so Imperial makes it easier, one may argue, to divide lengths and
areas and so on into equal-sized parts.

2, 3, 4, and 6 are just special cases. What if you have to cut
something in 5 or 7 parts?

The other is the relative utility/ergonomicness/intuitiveness of the size
of the basic units. In metric, the basic unit is the gram and kilogram;
the millimeter and meter; and so on. tghere is a 1000-fold jump between
the official units.

Some people feel, and I am one of
them, that these central units are clunky, too far apart in their ratios,
and don't corespond to the size discriminations I find useful to make.

You can shorten the gap by using hecto-, deca-, deci-, and centi- for
everyday measures.

When you buy cheese in Poland, you buy it in decagrams (dag):
"Proszę piętnaście deka sera."

In Germany you can give your waist size or body height in cm:
"Mein Bauchumfang beträgt 127 Zentimeter."
Not my true girth, btw. but not much missing. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix#General_use_of_prefix_names_and_symbols

Money is a very different thing, in that's it's a totally abstract system,
and isn't subject to the same usability constraints that physical
measurement systems are.

Well, the Imperial "system" is nothing to write home about.

Metric
 

Mark & Juanita wrote:

I've started referring to them as "real people units". As in when someone
tells me "that's about 90 cm tall", my response is, "what is that in
real-people units?"


It's about 9 hands.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Metric
 

On 2009-09-10, Nova wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

I've started referring to them as "real people units". As in when someone
tells me "that's about 90 cm tall", my response is, "what is that in
real-people units?"


It's about 9 hands.

Donchya mean "short people units"?

nb

Metric
 

Rejnold Byzio wrote:

:none of which correspond to a power-of-ten division of a dollar).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: You forgot one (intentionally?) :-)
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_(United_States_coin)

No, didn't forget it. See above. I did mistakenly include the penny.

-- Andy Barss

Metric
 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:58:54 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

The Legislature of the State of Indiana didn't do much better, four thousand
years later:
http://www.agecon.purdue.
edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm

Interesting! I'd heard of something like that, but in that tale it was
the Alabama or Tennessee legislature and I'd considered it just
another Urban Legend. Glad to see it was a Yankee legislature instead
of another dumb redneck Southerner story.

In one sense, that's a fun story. In another sense, it's a little
scary to see what could happen when legislators debate and vote on
things they don't understand. It's very comforting to know that, in
these enlightened times, our legislators in the state houses and
congress never, never do that!

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Metric
 

Robatoy wrote:

Practically the whole world runs on metric.
Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
of the planet?
Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
World Dimension Order?
Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?

You missed the easiest answer, that the people on the other side of the
bridge are simply more comfortable with an old system - and a very large
majority aren't enthusiastic about losing that comfort.

I suspect that if you were to take a poll, the result would be that
we're comfortable with what we've got and can't see any good reason to
throw that comfort away and struggle to cope with something else.

It has a lot less to do with France than it does with the fact that Aunt
Emily's recipe for the family's favorite dessert may not come out quite
right when ingredients are measured differently, or that any of a
zillion other recipes, designs, plans, may stop working if the
underlying measurement system changes. (OMG, what'll I do if they stop
making 10" blades for my Unisaur? Yikes!)

Lady Liberty's design metrics and, to a lesser extent, her place of
origin lost importance as she transitioned from being an object in New
York to a treasured symbol for all people everywhere (something I hadn't
much thought about until I saw her in Tiananmen Square in '89, and have
thought about a lot since).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Metric
 

On 9/10/2009 5:42 AM Robatoy spake thus:

What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
original post.
Practically the whole world runs on metric.
Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
of the planet?
Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
World Dimension Order?
Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?

In the interest of actually addressing the point of yourstarting post in
this thread, let me say this [harrumph]:

While I may appear to have something of a laissez-faire attitude
concerning metrification in the U.S.--in fact, I'm basically against it,
for a number of reasons--to answer your question, I think there's only
one logical explanation.

American Exceptionalism. Plain and simple.

As in so many other aspects of policy, it's the overweening hubris and
the belief that we, the Merkin People, are specially endowed by our
Creator with Speshul Magical Powerz that render us immune to the natural
laws that bind other, lesser peoples.

(But I still oppose forced metrification here.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Metric
 

krw wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
arithmetic and those who can't.

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one
arithmetic. :)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Metric
 

On Sep 10, 1:43*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

Lady Liberty's design metrics and, to a lesser extent, her place of
origin lost importance as she transitioned from being an object in New
York to a treasured symbol for all people everywhere (something I hadn't
much thought about until I saw her in Tiananmen Square in '89, and have
thought about a lot since).


A much nicer image to think about than the big one in Vegas.

My comment had more to do with that hatred hang-over from France's
rejection to join an obviously unnecessary war.
A lot of good things have come from France and it irks me that even
that goodwill had to be tainted.
France has always been a very complex country.

Metric
 

"Puckdropper" puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote in message
...
Kevin wrote in
:


What's 18.5" divided by 3?


-Kevin

It's 6.(5/3).


Wouldn't 6.(5/3) x 3 = 23?

Metric
 

Leon wrote:
"Puckdropper" puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote in message
...
Kevin wrote in
:

What's 18.5" divided by 3?


-Kevin
It's 6.(5/3).


Wouldn't 6.(5/3) x 3 = 23?

Note sure what the point was but I am pretty sure it was a
typo, or a bad handle on how to represent mathematical equations.

Probably meant 6"+(0.5"/3) i.e. 6 1/6"

--
Froz...

Metric
 

On 9/10/2009 1:44 PM FrozenNorth spake thus:

Leon wrote:

"Puckdropper" puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote in message
...

Kevin wrote in
:

What's 18.5" divided by 3?

It's 6.(5/3).

Wouldn't 6.(5/3) x 3 = 23?

Note sure what the point was but I am pretty sure it was a
typo, or a bad handle on how to represent mathematical equations.

Probably meant 6"+(0.5"/3) i.e. 6 1/6"

I thought it was intentional, and rather clever at that; I read it as a
made-up notation that meant "5/3rds of a tenth" (or 0.16666666 ...).
Interesting mix of fractions and decimals.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Metric
 

On 9/10/2009 11:11 AM Robatoy spake thus:

On Sep 10, 1:43 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

Lady Liberty's design metrics and, to a lesser extent, her place of
origin lost importance as she transitioned from being an object in New
York to a treasured symbol for all people everywhere (something I hadn't
much thought about until I saw her in Tiananmen Square in '89, and have
thought about a lot since).

A much nicer image to think about than the big one in Vegas.

My comment had more to do with that hatred hang-over from France's
rejection to join an obviously unnecessary war.
A lot of good things have come from France and it irks me that even
that goodwill had to be tainted.
France has always been a very complex country.

Never misunderestimate the idiocy and ignorance of American Yahoos and
such; I'm sure there are plenty (and even some reading this) who still
refuse to use the term "French fries" because of the perceived anti-U.S.
bias of that nation.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Metric
 

On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:

krw wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
arithmetic and those who can't.

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one
arithmetic. :)

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no?
I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess
is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must
have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.

Unless you could represent unary numbers by something like this:

1 111 11 1111

but of course you still have two possible symbols (call them a mark and
a space).


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Metric
 

On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:

krw wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
arithmetic and those who can't.

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one
arithmetic. :)

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no?
I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess
is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must
have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.

Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.

Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
the number of marks made.

Duh.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Metric
 

On Sep 10, 5:06*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:

krw wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
arithmetic and those who can't.

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one
arithmetic. :)

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no?
I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess
is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must
have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.

Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.

Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
the number of marks made.

Duh.

--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV
has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII

Metric
 

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 10, 1:43 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
Lady Liberty's design metrics and, to a lesser extent, her place of
origin lost importance as she transitioned from being an object in New
York to a treasured symbol for all people everywhere (something I hadn't
much thought about until I saw her in Tiananmen Square in '89, and have
thought about a lot since).

A much nicer image to think about than the big one in Vegas.

I haven't seen the one in Vegas. Only those in New York and Paris. The
TV shot of the Chinese version took my by surprise - I would never have
guessed she'd become important to anyone in China. Ignorant me, huh?

My comment had more to do with that hatred hang-over from France's
rejection to join an obviously unnecessary war.

Sparkle sparkle little bait! (I haven't time to waste on hate.)

A lot of good things have come from France and it irks me that even
that goodwill had to be tainted.

A lot of good things have, and I met a fair number of French on their
home turf - and brought back only good memories and a desire to visit again.

Interestingly, the French with whom I've been working on solar
technology haven't shown any lessening of goodwill or willingness to
engage in cooperative problem-solving. I appreciate that.

France has always been a very complex country.

Of course. It's occurred to me that there aren't any simple countries,
only simplistic views of countries.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Metric
 

David Nebenzahl wrote in news:4aa96712$0$11392
:

On 9/10/2009 1:44 PM FrozenNorth spake thus:

Leon wrote:

"Puckdropper" puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote in message
...
It's 6.(5/3).

Wouldn't 6.(5/3) x 3 = 23?

Note sure what the point was but I am pretty sure it was a
typo, or a bad handle on how to represent mathematical equations.

Probably meant 6"+(0.5"/3) i.e. 6 1/6"

I thought it was intentional, and rather clever at that; I read it as a
made-up notation that meant "5/3rds of a tenth" (or 0.16666666 ...).
Interesting mix of fractions and decimals.


Just trying to be too clever. It should be 6.(.5/3)

Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

Metric
 

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.

You bring up a good point. Let's face it, only Congress would know
what is best for us. We should do as the say.

Uh, Ed, I don't see how requiring "2L (2.1 QT)" instead of just "2L"
or just
"2.1 QT" is an example of "only Congress would know what is best for
us".


Look up John, something just flew over your head.

Obviously it did--would you be kind enough to explain it?

How about this :) :) :) :)
Get the idea?

Metric
 

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Kevin wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
What's 18.5" divided by 3?
Easy; 6-1/6".
Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?

Yes. g

Business forms design?

--
Froz...

Metric
 

On Sep 10, 4:14*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 10, 5:06*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:



On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:

krw wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
arithmetic and those who can't.

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one
arithmetic. :)

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no?
I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess
is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must
have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.

Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.

Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
the number of marks made.

Duh.

--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV
has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII

"IV" is a relatively recent invention.

Metric
 

In article , FrozenNorth wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Kevin
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
What's 18.5" divided by 3?
Easy; 6-1/6".
Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?

Yes. g

Business forms design?

You got it.

Metric
 

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , FrozenNorth wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Kevin
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:09:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 9/9/2009 7:28 PM Kevin spake thus:

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:04:00 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?
What's 18.5" divided by 3?
Easy; 6-1/6".
Yes. Got a tape/ruler that does sixths, do ya?
Yes. g

Business forms design?

You got it.

I got one of those too.
;-)

--
Froz...

Metric
 

metric_trade wrote:
Dan Coby wrote:
Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants and conversion
factors. (The pro metric people claim that they don't but they are there. I.e.
how many calories are there in a joule:

I don't understand. The relationship between calorie and joule isn't a
feature of SI. It's a conversion between two different systems.

Are you saying that you do not think that joules, ergs, calories, and Calories
are not all part of the metric system?

My point is that the metric system includes two different base systems (mks and cgs).
As a result it has a dual set of units for almost everything. Why anyone would
think that is a good idea is beyond me. Why is the mks system based upon the kilogram
instead of the gram? Why is the cgs system based upon the centimeter instead of the
meter? Why is the metric system not based upon the meter, gram, second, (and coulomb)?

Can you tell me the conversion factor between a joule and an erg? (Before we started
this thread, I thought it was 1000 but I see that it is 1000000. Then some genius
decided to add the calorie as another unit of energy. Then another genius decided
to call the kilocalorie a Calorie. That is just plain silly.

The dual nature of the metric system creates all sorts of hidden power of ten
conversion factors. Then another genius decided that the unit of volume is the
liter instead of the cubic meter. Another hidden conversion factor of 1000. Why?

There are many examples of where the hidden powers of 10 factors in metric can
cause problems. An example: Back in July, I was having a discussion about the
size of a drop of ink from an ink jet printer. The finer drops are about 1 picoliter.
That is 10^-12 liters. The cube root of 10^-12 is 10^-4 so I said that is a volume
of a cube which is 100 um on a side. About an hour later, I realized that answer
is too large by factor of 10. (Did you remember that hidden conversion factor?)

Frankly for a system that was 'designed to be rational', the metric system is not
very well designed. (Yes. The 'English' system has many faults also.)


Dan

Metric
 

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:

krw wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
arithmetic and those who can't.

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base
one arithmetic. :)

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility,
no? I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head
guess is that it isn't possible because each position in a written
number must have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.

Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.

Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
the number of marks made.

I think you were right the first time. A tally system and Roman numerals
do provide a way to express non-zero integer values, but neither
supports what we'd be willing to accept as a complete set of arithmetic
operations.

Consider how you might represent pi, or even just 1/2 with either
notation. I don't even want to think about calculating the square root
of II (or //).

A base n system provides a set of digits {0..n-1}, so a base 1 system
could only provide the digit 0. As soon as you attempt to increment a
zero value you'd find yourself in the predicament of propagating a carry
forever.

But it is kinda handy to toss (like a petard) into discussions of number
systems. ;)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Metric
 

On 9/10/2009 4:18 PM Morris Dovey spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:

krw wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary
arithmetic and those who can't.

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base
one arithmetic. :)

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility,
no? I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher
arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head
guess is that it isn't possible because each position in a written
number must have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.

Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.

Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think
of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals
the number of marks made.

I think you were right the first time. A tally system and Roman numerals
do provide a way to express non-zero integer values, but neither
supports what we'd be willing to accept as a complete set of arithmetic
operations.

Well, we're both right. A simple tally is a valid base-1 representation,
but it's certainly not practical to do arithmetic using it.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Metric
 

Don't read well...

It was the Yard in the Bible. A cubic...

Martin

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote:
[...]
There were at least three metric systems. It isn't a French
system. It is a standard - a unified German, British, French and Japanese.
Oh - the US had people there - and they agreed. And yes
the standard is generated in France.

It was the measure used in the bible. It is much older than
England or Britain.

The metric system? Used in the Bible? I don't think so.

Metric
 

Dan Coby wrote:
metric_trade wrote:
Dan Coby wrote:
Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants
and conversion factors. (The pro metric people claim that they
don't but they are there. I.e. how many calories are there in a
joule:

I don't understand. The relationship between calorie and joule isn't
a feature of SI. It's a conversion between two different systems.

Are you saying that you do not think that joules, ergs, calories, and
Calories
are not all part of the metric system?

My point is that the metric system includes two different base
systems (mks and cgs).
As a result it has a dual set of units for almost everything. Why
anyone would
think that is a good idea is beyond me. Why is the mks system based
upon the kilogram
instead of the gram? Why is the cgs system based upon the centimeter
instead of the
meter? Why is the metric system not based upon the meter, gram,
second, (and coulomb)?

Can you tell me the conversion factor between a joule and an erg?
(Before we started
this thread, I thought it was 1000 but I see that it is 1000000.
Then some genius
decided to add the calorie as another unit of energy. Then another
genius decided
to call the kilocalorie a Calorie. That is just plain silly.

The dual nature of the metric system creates all sorts of hidden
power of ten
conversion factors. Then another genius decided that the unit of
volume is the
liter instead of the cubic meter. Another hidden conversion factor
of 1000. Why?

There are many examples of where the hidden powers of 10 factors in
metric can
cause problems. An example: Back in July, I was having a discussion
about the
size of a drop of ink from an ink jet printer. The finer drops are
about 1 picoliter.
That is 10^-12 liters. The cube root of 10^-12 is 10^-4 so I said
that is a volume
of a cube which is 100 um on a side. About an hour later, I realized
that answer
is too large by factor of 10. (Did you remember that hidden
conversion factor?)

Frankly for a system that was 'designed to be rational', the metric
system is not
very well designed. (Yes. The 'English' system has many faults
also.)

While you make some interesting points, if you are going to whine about the
calorie being part of the metric system, please find an official statement
by anybody to the effect that it actually _is_ part of the metric system.

Metric
 

J. Clarke wrote:
While you make some interesting points, if you are going to whine about the
calorie being part of the metric system, please find an official statement
by anybody to the effect that it actually _is_ part of the metric system.


Interesting.

Gee, one of the first things that every class that I have ever seen on the
metric system mentions is the calorie and that it is the amount of heat
required to raise one gram of water one degree centigrade (when I took classes
it was centigrade and not celsius).

Microsoft in it's Encarta Encyclopedia says that the calorie is metric.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...0/calorie.html

Wikipedia says that the calorie is metric but that it predates the "Système
International d'Unités" version of the metric system and that it has been
replaced by the joule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

This is the first mention that I have ever seen that the calorie was not
part of the metric system. To add to the argument that the calorie is not
part of the current metric system, it is not mentioned in either the NIST
site:
http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
or the site for the Bureau International ds Poids et Mesures:
http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/11/12/

Okay. The next time that someone tries to tell me that the calorie is part
of the metric system, I will tell them that it is not any longer.


The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly different
versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and errors. Why is
the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?


Dan


A final note: Wikipedia also says that the metric system was not originally
French.

"The metric system, including the metre, was first fully described
by Englishman John Wilkins in 1668 in a treatise presented to the
Royal Society, some 120 years before the French adopted the system."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system

Metric
 

"steve robinson" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:


What a lot of contributors here at Wreck are missing is the OP's (me)
original post.
Practically the whole world runs on metric.
Why not the USA? Is it because the extreme Right is so nationalistic
as to think that they are always right, better, smarter than the rest
of the planet?
Is it because they're afraid that they are being trapped into a New
World Dimension Order?
Is it because that their very symbol of liberty was designed/built in
metric, in France? (Statue of Liberty)
Or is it chauvinism, plain and simple?

The UK still uses both systems so do many other countries and ex colonies

The uk switched to metric to bring us in line with the EEC as it was then
however
most people over 45 still tend to use imperial measurements because thats
what we
are used too although most can use metric if they need to

Road speed signs are still in imperial as are clothes sizes with the
metric
equivelent written next to them Shops were supposed to switch to metric
however
most still advertise foodweights in pounds and ounces as well

Time is rarely displayed in metric.

Alcohol is sold in imperial and metric measurements , fuel is now sold in
litres so
it looks cheaper on the forcourt (£1.05p a litre sounds better than £4.80p
a gallon
as does a penny a litre rise against a 5 p a gallon rise )





Australia began the process of converting to the metric system in 1970.
(The use of metric measurement has been legal here since 1947 and our
currency went metric in 1966.) It was completed in stages in various
sections of government and industry over a period of about 18 years.
Most of us, (me included,) stubbornly resisted the change at first. This was
followed by a period of grudging acceptance of that which was foisted upon
us. For a short while I coped by thinking in terms of imperial measurements
and converting those to metric when necessary.
It was not until I decided to start visualising in metric terms that it
became easy. After couple of years I found that I liked it. It's simple and
logical.

For woodworking, I use only metres and millimetres. Up to 2m in length, I
use millimetres. Beyond that it's metres, taken to the third decimal. e.g.
3.750m, 1755mm. With a standard tape measure or rule, it is easy enough to
measure to within .5mm. (Approximately 20 thousandths of an inch) Beyond
that I would need to consider ambient temperature and moisture content and
who knows what else. I find that degree of accuracy is more than adequate
for my humble needs.

There is no denying that it was confusing and difficult for the aged part of
our population. It took many years for my Mother to come to terms with
Kilograms,Grams, Litres and Millilitres in the supermarket. She never did
adapt to Kilometres, Metres and Centimetres. However, she coped.

And there was a cost to the everyday man in the street. As an example,
during the changeover period, It became necessary to to purchase metric
spanners, tape measures and various other measuring instruments. I guess the
upside of that was a boost to the economy from purchases that otherwise
would not have been made.

Everyday units of measurements are commonly expressed as follows:
Length - Metres, centimetres, or millimetres. e.g. 1.325m = 132.5cm =
1320mm. For everyday household use, centimetres are used. e.g. SWMBO is
172cm tall, the TV has a 30cm screen. I have yet to see anyone use
decimetres and decametres. They seem to be superfluous.
Mass - Kilograms, grams, milligrams e.g. 3.5kg = 350g = 3500mg
Volume - Litres, millilitres 1.3l = 1300ml
Fuel Consumption - litres/100km. (I still prefer to visualise miles per
gallon, but I had to get over it.)

Common hardware items in other than metric sizes are still available in many
places, although becoming less common. - Whitworth, UNC and UNF bolts for
example.

Almost forty years later, with our daily lives and commerce based on the
metric system, I believe that it was a farsighted decision for us to
convert. We now live in a global economy. Having a common global system of
measurement makes economic sense.

I, for one, would not wish to go back to the Imperial system.

Notwithstanding the above, I can understand why the US populace would be
reluctant to change, (as we once were.) For that matter, I see no reason why
they should if they have no wish to.

Metric
 

"Dan Coby" wrote in message
m...

The part in my earlier post about the metric system having two slightly
different
versions is still relevant and a great source of confusion and errors. Why
is
the unit of volume a litre and not a cubic meter?

The first thing that comes to mind is that a cubic metre is 1000 litres ; )