diggerop wrote:
"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 ; )

Yes, an example of a 'hidden' power of ten conversion factor i.e. 1000. Why
chose a cubic decimeter as a unit of volume? For the mks system it should be
a cubic meter. For the cgs system it should be the cubic cm. For those people
the really really like the size of litres, they could use either milli-m^3 or
kilo-cm^3. (One of the things that I like about the metric system is the various
prefixes (pico, micro, milli, kilo, mega, giga, etc.) fo handling scaling
issues.)

Once again I really dislike that there are two separate but similar systems.
That maximizes the chances of mixing units from the two systems or a conversion
error. The silliness about the base mass unit for the mks being a kilo-something
and the base length unit for cgs being centi-something just emphasizes the
confusion.


Dan

Robatoy wrote:

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


The Roman system is an interesting example of an astonishly bad notation
that arguably held the culture back. No way to divide or multiply, for
example. Or even a general method for adding and subtracting.

-- Andy Barss

"Dan Coby" wrote in message
m...
diggerop wrote:
"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
; )

Yes, an example of a 'hidden' power of ten conversion factor i.e. 1000.
Why
chose a cubic decimeter as a unit of volume? For the mks system it should
be
a cubic meter. For the cgs system it should be the cubic cm. For those
people
the really really like the size of litres, they could use either milli-m^3
or
kilo-cm^3. (One of the things that I like about the metric system is the
various
prefixes (pico, micro, milli, kilo, mega, giga, etc.) fo handling scaling
issues.)

Once again I really dislike that there are two separate but similar
systems.
That maximizes the chances of mixing units from the two systems or a
conversion
error. The silliness about the base mass unit for the mks being a
kilo-something
and the base length unit for cgs being centi-something just emphasizes the
confusion.


Dan


You could take it up with the International Committee for Weights and
Measures. ; )

The committee is a worldwide body composed of member countries who are
signatories to the "metre convention" (Australia signed the convention in
1947,) which attempts to standardise units of measurement worldwide.

My understanding is use of both cgs and mks have been largely superseded by
the International System of Units or S I (le Système international
d'unités,) except for some areas of science. This was adopted around 1960.

For my mundane purposes, I find SI to be simple, logical and
straightforward, but then I'm no rocket scientist.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

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.

It's a trivially small measure of heat. That amount of heat necessary to
raise the temperature of 1 ml or 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
Fudge with starting temperature and standard pressure to get a bit more
accurate.

When talking calories, I believe, the prefix kilo is often discarded, hence
the notion that the above 1 gram should be replaced by 1 kilogram.
However, the 1 gram, 1 degree thing is the "official" definition.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

diggerop wrote:
"Dan Coby" wrote in message
m...
diggerop wrote:
"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 ; )

Yes, an example of a 'hidden' power of ten conversion factor i.e.
1000. Why
chose a cubic decimeter as a unit of volume? For the mks system it
should be
a cubic meter. For the cgs system it should be the cubic cm. For
those people
the really really like the size of litres, they could use either
milli-m^3 or
kilo-cm^3. (One of the things that I like about the metric system
is the various
prefixes (pico, micro, milli, kilo, mega, giga, etc.) fo handling
scaling issues.)

Once again I really dislike that there are two separate but similar
systems.
That maximizes the chances of mixing units from the two systems or a
conversion
error. The silliness about the base mass unit for the mks being a
kilo-something
and the base length unit for cgs being centi-something just
emphasizes the confusion.


Dan


You could take it up with the International Committee for Weights and
Measures. ; )

The committee is a worldwide body composed of member countries who are
signatories to the "metre convention" (Australia signed the
convention in 1947,) which attempts to standardise units of
measurement worldwide.

My understanding is use of both cgs and mks have been largely
superseded by the International System of Units or S I (le Système
international d'unités,) except for some areas of science. This was
adopted around 1960.

Yep, and according to NIST, the unit of volume in the SI is the cubit meter,
with the liter being a unit that is recognized but not part of the system.




For my mundane purposes, I find SI to be simple, logical and
straightforward, but then I'm no rocket scientist.

In article , "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote:
Don't read well...

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

Ummm.... no, it wasn't. The "yard" dates from medieval England. The
length measurements used in the Bible were cubits and spans.


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.

Andrew Barss wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

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


The Roman system is an interesting example of an astonishly bad
notation that arguably held the culture back. No way to divide or
multiply, for example. Or even a general method for adding and
subtracting.

Actually they did have a way to multiply. Google "Roman Numeral
Multiplication" and you'll find a number of descriptions of it.

In article , Dan Coby wrote:
diggerop wrote:
"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 ; )

Yes, an example of a 'hidden' power of ten conversion factor i.e. 1000. Why
chose a cubic decimeter as a unit of volume?

For the same reason that the Imperial system uses the quart or the gallon for
most everyday volume measurements, instead of the cubic yard: because it's a
convenient size.

For the mks system it should be
a cubic meter.

Things that are measured in cubic yards in the Imperial system *are* measured
in cubic meters in the metric system.

In article , Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

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.

It's a trivially small measure of heat. That amount of heat necessary to
raise the temperature of 1 ml or 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
Fudge with starting temperature and standard pressure to get a bit more
accurate.

When talking calories, I believe, the prefix kilo is often discarded, hence
the notion that the above 1 gram should be replaced by 1 kilogram.
However, the 1 gram, 1 degree thing is the "official" definition.

It depends on who's doing the talking. To a physicist or chemist, "calorie"
refers to heating 1 gram of water, as stated above. What a nutritionist calls
a "calorie" (e.g. what you see on the label of a can of beans) refers to
heating 1 kg of water, and the scientist calls it a kilocalorie.

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

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.

It's a trivially small measure of heat. That amount of heat
necessary to raise the temperature of 1 ml or 1 gram of water by 1
degree centigrade. Fudge with starting temperature and standard
pressure to get a bit more accurate.

When talking calories, I believe, the prefix kilo is often discarded,
hence the notion that the above 1 gram should be replaced by 1
kilogram. However, the 1 gram, 1 degree thing is the "official"
definition.

Yes, we all know what a calorie _is_. Are you next going to define the
British Thermal Unit in an effort to show that _it_ is part of the metric
system?

The fact that something is defined in metric units doesn't make it part of
the system.

Consider the definition of calorie that you gave above. Substitute "mineral
oil" or "mercury" or "grits" or "cat hair" for "water" and you get a
different unit, which you can give a name. Does that make each of those
units part of the metric system?

The official SI website is:
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/

* SI was created in 1960. The SI authority calls it "the modern form
of the metric system". Of course, 'modern' is a relative word in
something that is 49 years old.

* Like most standards, SI gets modified from time to time. Units and
prefixes may be added, modified, or deleted.

J. Clarke wrote:

Yep, and according to NIST, the unit of volume in the SI is the cubit meter,

Is that a standard cubit or the lower forearm cubit?


--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Sep 8, 5:32*am, Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

XXICVIII

On Sep 11, 11:29*am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:32*am, Robatoy wrote:

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

XXICVIII

That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.

Why bother changing system?

L.

On Sep 11, 11:31*am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:29*am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:



On Sep 8, 5:32*am, Robatoy wrote:

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

XXICVIII

That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.

Why bother changing system?

L.

CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
drink in your favourite watering hole?

Luigi

The worst thing I have SI do is change the name of a unit.

e.g. kill off this name and put on a new name.

Serious not invented by my friends stuff.

Martin

pat wrote:
The official SI website is:
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/

* SI was created in 1960. The SI authority calls it "the modern form
of the metric system". Of course, 'modern' is a relative word in
something that is 49 years old.

* Like most standards, SI gets modified from time to time. Units and
prefixes may be added, modified, or deleted.

Multiply the two numbers below and find the mean and standard deviation
in Roman numerals!

Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:29 am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:32 am, Robatoy wrote:

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
XXICVIII

That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.

Why bother changing system?

L.

On Sep 11, 2:32*pm, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:31*am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:





On Sep 11, 11:29*am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:32*am, Robatoy wrote:

I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

XXICVIII

That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.

Why bother changing system?

L.

CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
drink in your favourite watering hole?

Luigi

What does it cost to rent a Beaver and a bush pilot to come and fetch
you from your cabin?

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 11, 2:32 pm, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:31 am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:





On Sep 11, 11:29 am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:32 am, Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
XXICVIII
That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.
Why bother changing system?
L.
CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
drink in your favourite watering hole?

Luigi

What does it cost to rent a Beaver and a bush pilot to come and fetch
you from your cabin?

Don't forget the dogsled and the guy that says "mush".

--
Froz...

On Sep 12, 10:35*am, FrozenNorth
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 11, 2:32 pm, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:31 am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:

On Sep 11, 11:29 am, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:32 am, Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg
XXICVIII
That should have been CCXCVIII, and it's now CCXCIX.
Why bother changing system?
L.
CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
drink in your favourite watering hole?

Luigi

What does it cost to rent a Beaver and a bush pilot to come and fetch
you from your cabin?

Don't forget the dogsled and the guy that says "mush".

--
Froz...

Mebbe he can hitch a ride with one of them there Iceroad truckers?

On Sep 12, 8:11*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:35*am, FrozenNorth
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 11, 2:32 pm, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
CCC. Do you get to buy me a ticket to TO or Windsor or Sarnia & a
drink in your favourite watering hole?

Luigi

What does it cost to rent a Beaver and a bush pilot to come and fetch
you from your cabin?

Don't forget the dogsled and the guy that says "mush".

--
Froz...

Mebbe he can hitch a ride with one of them there Iceroad truckers?

I don't need a Beaver (the plane, that is), 6 passengers is too big
for nothing as there is only me. I'll save you a lot of cash & charter
a super cub. Coming to think of it, maybe I'll get my neighbour to fly
me. Where can you land a float plane in Sarnia?

BTW, the ice roads are in the NWT. All we have is a couple of ice
bridges here. And drivers are called mushers, not "guys who say mush"!
Sheesh!

Luigi

Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Where can you land a float plane in Sarnia?

If you really don't like airports, there's a big pond just north of town
that should do...

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

Morris Dovey wrote:
Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Where can you land a float plane in Sarnia?

If you really don't like airports, there's a big pond just north of
town that should do...

If there's a grass strip a floatplane (not a flying boat) should be able to
handle that as well. Pavement and gravel will chew up the floats, but they
work on grass as long as you aren't loaded down too heavily.

On Sep 13, 11:23*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
Luigi Zanasi wrote:
Where can you land a float plane in Sarnia?

If you really don't like airports, there's a big pond just north of town
that should do...

But I don't want to have to walk too far to the drinking hole.

Luigi

In article ,
Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Tevye says: TRADITION!!

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

They are your health care providers for starters.

So you're saying that we now live in a doctorocracy where "health care
providers" get to tell us how to live our lives?


No, you are saying that. I"m saying many people work with metric as their
standard for thier industry. It is not t he strange and scary unit that
some people are afraid to use.


Metric users are becoming the majority.

Fine. When they do then they'll vote to change the system and it will get
changed. Meanwhile, get a life or take some Ritalin or do whatever you
need
to do in order to obtain some _PATIENCE_.


Why would I want to take drugs when I can just push your buttons?


Forward looking companies are
making their products with metric hardware so they can export them.
Too often, people lose sight of the world economy and the
requirements of some countries with standards. They don't want inches
any more than we wanted metric imported cars. That has been a
sticking point with exporting in the automobile industry for many
years.

Yeah, like people walk into a car showroom and the first thing the do is
pull a fastener and check the threads to see if it's metric.


Evidently, people in other countries used that as one of the reason they did
not want to import US build cars. Univerality (and the associated money
savings) allows for the ease of use of the same component for a car build in
Detroit, Tokyo, or Berlin.



When our company started buying Austrian made machines, it was a
little learning curve. Like others I was a bit apprehensive about
learning a new system. Once I did, I found it easier to work with, as
have all of our supervisors, maintenance people, and so forth. Some
are just afraid of change, afraid of having to learn a new different
system.

You had to learn a new system in order to use Austrian made machines?
What
system was that, or didn't you already know metric?

I had little exposure to metric. It was not taught in schoold in the 50's
and 60's and I never had reason to use it on a regular basis. With new
machines, I had to use it every day. Pressure gauges in bars, linear mesure
in mm, etc.



Please be aware that I've been USING metric for going on 40 years. I just
don't find it this totally wonderful life-improving convenience that its
advocates claim it to be.

Some of our industry tooling suppliers resisted the change and
started to lose a lot of business.

What change did they resist? Did the simply not make tooling for
machinery
that was becoming popular? If so that's stupidity having nothing to do
with
a measurement system.

They did not want to work with metric. Aluminum plate has to be 10mm thick
so you either buy it or machine down the outer perimeter, an extra step.
It meant u sing metric fasteners, and the resulting extra inventory. Their
loss.



"Adapt" all you want to. JUST DON'T GO AROUND PASSING LAWS THAT TELL
OTHER
PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE TO.

I'm not in favor of passing laws. I'm in favor of using a system that allows
me to deal effectively in WORLD markets. Just smart business.

On Sep 16, 9:37*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

[snipped a whole bunch of stuff]

I'm not in favor of passing laws. I'm in favor of using a system that allows
me to deal effectively in WORLD markets. Just smart business.

It will be interesting to see now that GM has sold controlling
interest to European Opel brand to a Canadian company.
GM used metric in Europe, but not here?
Ford builds a great (Fiesta Econetic) car in Europe. Diesel. Safe. 65
MPG VERY economical.... but alas... not for sale here. Would that be a
metric car, I wonder....

On Sep 16, 9:20*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:37*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

[snipped a whole bunch of stuff]



I'm not in favor of passing laws. I'm in favor of using a system that allows
me to deal effectively in WORLD markets. Just smart business.

It will be interesting to see now that GM has sold controlling
interest to European Opel brand to a Canadian company.
GM used metric in Europe, but not here?
Ford builds a great (Fiesta Econetic) car in Europe. Diesel. Safe. 65
MPG VERY economical.... but alas... not for sale here. Would that be a
metric car, I wonder....

Some American built cars are metric, some not. It's been that way for
over thirty years. The body of my (Ford) Ranger is metric and the
engine SAE. My '74 (Ford) Rustang-II was the opposite.

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

They are your health care providers for starters.

So you're saying that we now live in a doctorocracy where "health
care providers" get to tell us how to live our lives?


No, you are saying that. I"m saying many people work with metric as
their standard for thier industry. It is not t he strange and scary
unit that some people are afraid to use.

Straw man. If you want to use metric use it. It's a free country.

Metric users are becoming the majority.

Fine. When they do then they'll vote to change the system and it
will get changed. Meanwhile, get a life or take some Ritalin or do
whatever you need
to do in order to obtain some _PATIENCE_.


Why would I want to take drugs when I can just push your buttons?

plonk

remainder snipped

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Robatoy wrote:
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

Tevye says: TRADITION!!



Another example from angle measuring...

Most math people like to use radians to measure angles.
The military, at least, the army, often likes to use mills (6400 in a
circle).
Most people prefer degrees, or, the less formal, "about like that".

At least in the first 2 systems there are, or were, advantages. Using
mills was designed, I think, to eliminate the need for decimal points.

Bill

Stuart wrote:

However, this is a woodwork group not an engineering group and such
accuracy has no use when dealing with a material that shrinks and expands
so much with temperature and humidity

Unless, of course, such accuracy is actually needed...

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/JBot/
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/LLJ/
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Bevel/

....sometimes engineering and woodworking /do/ overlap.

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

In article
,
Robatoy wrote:
Ford builds a great (Fiesta Econetic) car in Europe. Diesel. Safe. 65
MPG VERY economical.... but alas... not for sale here. Would that be a
metric car, I wonder....

Yes.

On 2009-09-19, Stuart wrote:

Except that Mr Joule was involved in the brewing of beer - and that's
important!

It's practically the cradle of civilization!

http://beeradvocate.com/articles/673

nb

On Sep 19, 2:48*pm, Stuart wrote:
In article ,
* *HeyBub wrote:

1 meter = one ten-millionth of the distance from the pole to the equator
measured along the prime meridian.

Except that the french, being french, got it wrong as usual. It was
supposed to be but they measured it incorrectly!

I thought it was along the equator, not a meridian. The equatorial
circumference being a lot bigger that the pole-to-pole one.
I suppose I could look it up...but who really, really cares?

On Sep 19, 5:42*pm, Stuart wrote:
In article ,
* *Dan Coby wrote:

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?

Because most adults can drink a litre of beer but would struggle with a
cubic metre?

A cubic meter would take a little longer.

Stuart wrote:

In article ,
Dan Coby wrote:
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?

Because most adults can drink a litre of beer but would struggle
with a cubic metre?

speak for yourself
--
http://www.welshpembrokecorgis.com

On Sep 8, 3:12*pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Greg Neill" wrote in message

...



Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
....
I now make parts for different people who e-mail/fax me drawings so I
can quote on them.
Some parts are such that I can't tell what they are or what they're
the purpose of them are.
Sometimes I see dimensions as obviously imperial ones, sometime it is
hard to tell, especially when I have NO clue what these parts are.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what system is used as I work in
both metric and imperial.
But what seems to be the reason for the US hold-out to stay with an
archaic system?

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9974/metricmap.jpg

Ok, What ia half of 5.3 mm?

2.65 mm

Can you see an mark 2.65 mm?

What's half of 5.3 inches?

2.65 "

http://snickrit.se or very soon diyfurnitureplans.com
In my fathers workshop in the 40ies (myself 13 years old) we handled
both inperial (25.4 mm) and english (27 mm) inches plus naturally
the metric system that was standard for all but the timber and
woodwork industry at that time.
The lumber was measured and sold by english inches in cubic foot, the
workshop workers often spoke of imperial measuremenst, Plans where all
in
the metric system most in centimeters and millimeter thus an inch was
said to be 2 centimeter and 5.4 millimeter.
Today all is in millimeter.
French got metric at the revolution 1889 The imperial Russia got
metric at the revolution1918 We in Scandinavia got officially metric
sometimes 188? without a revolution why the change was not complete
before sometim e in 60ies.
I recommend to buy a measuring tape marked in both imperial and metric
and slowly go metric.
Klas

Stuart wrote:

In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:
(OMG, what'll I do if they stop making 10" blades for my Unisaur?
Yikes!)

Use 254mm blades same as I do on my table saw :-)

or use the 250mm blade that is about the real size of your 10" blade
after its first sharpening ;-) ;-)

Or the size it really is but is only marked 10" as a Linus Blanket thing
--
replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me
Pics at http://www.meekings.net/diving/index.shtml
and http://www.meekings.net/photo-groups/nui/index.shtml

On Sep 29, 8:33*am, (Jerome Meekings)
wrote:
Stuart wrote:
In article ,
* *Morris Dovey wrote:
(OMG, what'll I do if they stop making 10" blades for my Unisaur?
Yikes!)

Use 254mm blades same as I do on my table saw :-)

or use the 250mm blade that is about the real size of your 10" blade
after its first sharpening ;-) ;-)

Or the size it really is but is only marked 10" as a Linus Blanket thing
--



replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me
Pics athttp://www.meekings.net/diving/index.shtml
andhttp://www.meekings.net/photo-groups/nui/index.shtml

You mean like a 28" TV that measures 25.5"

Stuart wrote:
In article
,
Robatoy wrote:
You mean like a 28" TV that measures 25.5"

Rather depends on how you measure it. The stated size is always the
diagonal of the tube or panel.

What you see is always less because they always put a "pretty" border
round it of plastic casing.


My 46" LCD measures exactly 46" diagonal of actual picture and 40"
horizontal of picture. The pretty plastic border adds another inch on
each side and the top and several inches on the bottom.

- Doug