The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Heidi Graw on 4 Feb 2010 13:07 >"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote in message >news:bf8ba2c3-6fdc-4aba-adb2-19c0b08051e8(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... (snip) > Thanks Heidi, that looks nice, your hubby must be > quite talented. Well...he wanted a challenge, so I gave it to him. ;-) Actually, the real reason he wanted to build the family home was to prove to himself he could do just as his own father and my father had done. If they could do it, so could he. He had no clue as to how to go about it. So, I gave him a project to practice on. Build a dog house. And what a beauty that turned out to be. The next step was for him to build a large garage and workshop. This provided him with more learning opportunities. The only problem: the garage was larger than the house and it look odd. So, then he felt confident enough to build a huge two-story addition. It turned out awesome. But then, with that large garage and house, we didn't have much room left for the boys to play in the yard. So, then we sold that, moved out into the boonies, bought acreage and built that house from scratch. We've lived in it for the past 20 years. It was the perfect family home. 4 bedrooms all large and airy. Our plan now is to portion off a section of that house to create a suite for one son, while the other son can take over the rest of the house. But, on that same acreage, we will be building our retirement home. > There is a good group "alt.architecture" I'd like to invite you > to peruse. Oooh...sounds interesting. I take a peek. > > We just completed a nice cozy guest cottage, > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/dynamics/ > > wifey finds nice. I'm glad your wife likes it. I, however, would have gone with a slightly more interesting design, something similar to this: http://www.ucmycabins.com/cottages.html > Thanks Heidi, we'll see what materializes. > Regards > Ken Be sure to keep me informed as to your progress, I'm sincerely interested. Take care, Heidi
From: Bob Myers on 4 Feb 2010 13:23 I can't believe this is being seriously discussed in supposedly science-oriented newsgroups. ALL such systems of measurement are to some degree arbitrary; there is no inherent advantage in that regard, for most applications, to either system. But if we're talking about what system to use in the future, I would submit the following: 1. The current situation, wherein persons (mostly in "English unit" countries) basically HAVE to keep tools, etc., in both versions, is not optimal. It leads to inefficencies and errors (as in the famous case of the "Gimli glider," in which an airliner ran out of fuel in mid-flight, in large part due to confusion between the two systems of units). 2. It is admittedly costly to switch from a "both systems" situation to using one only, or to switch from one to the other. But tools and tooling does wear out and have to be replaced over time, and you can take advantage of this to minimize the cost of transition either way. We should also note that many, many currently available electronic measuring devices (scales, calipers, etc.) are easily switched from one system to the other by the press of a button. And we have to look at the cost of the transition vs. the costs inherent in the inefficiencies and errors noted above. 3. The question, then, assuming that we do not wish to continue using two systems in parallel forever (and I have yet to see any justification for doing THAT) is simply which one makes more sense to switch to, worldwide, for the future. It is readily apparent that the "metric" or "SI" system is the logical choice here, as it is already the most popular system worldwide (and thus the overall cost of transition is minimum going in that direction), plus it has the advantage of being, once learned, a simpler and more intuitive set of units. Given the above, there would have to be a significant justification for continuing with the "English" system, and again, I have seen nothing offered here beyond "it's just too hard for me to learn a new system." Bob M.
From: Mike Dworetsky on 4 Feb 2010 13:35 J. Clarke wrote: > Mike Dworetsky wrote: >> Andrew Usher wrote: >>> On Feb 3, 5:13 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> The Internet was developed by researchers in the U.S. working under >>>> the ARPA program to link up the various research universities. Why >>>> do you think IANA was originally controlled by the U.S. Department >>>> of Defense (and is now run by a company who does it on a contract >>>> with the U.S. Department of Commerce). >>> >>> Yes. And what does it have to do with units? >>> >>> The Internet, by its nature, doesn't care what units are used. >>> Going to the moon was done very largely with English units. >>> >>> So how is this supposed to be an argument for metric? >>> >>> Andrew Usher >> >> I don't know, but all the other space countries and consortia such as >> ESA are using metric, and they are highly successful at launching >> commercial and scientific satellites. Even India is getting in on >> the space industry. The difference is that none of them are having >> to prove themselves better than the Russians. >> >> I don't see any signs lately that the US is going back to the moon, >> regardless of units, so at best your comment is an irrelevance. If >> it ever does, the astronauts may have to bring passports with valid >> Chinese visas. > > Yeah, like the Chinese are going to the Moon anytime soon. > It was a sort of joke and not meant seriously. But only sort of; I do think one of their long term goals is to land a man on the Moon, if for no other reason than prestige. It may be sooner than you think. Compare where America was in 1960 with 1969. It only took 9 years. If they put their minds to it, don't you think they will find a way? > In any case, China is a signatory of the Outer Space Treaty. Well, I am greatly relieved to learn that. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
From: Bart Goddard on 4 Feb 2010 13:51 "Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote in news:hkf3e6$drh$1 @usenet01.boi.hp.com: >Given the above, there would have to be a significant >justification for continuing with the "English" system, I need justification for continuing what I've always been doing? I don't think so. Usually it's the changer, not the non-changer, who needs to justify his plans. Is there a justification for using more than one language in the world? If not, then I guess we're honor-bound to pick one and insist that everyone learn it. What I'd like to see is some sort of justification for sucking the soul out of the world for the sake of "easier" and "cheaper." Until then, I'm sticking with my interesting measurements, my curvy, twisty streets, my ethnically different friends, and my non-rectangular house. And if it costs me my life because the ambulance had trouble finding the place, then it was worth it. (The point being, as it has always been, the arguments put forth in burden the world with the metric system would never be tolerated if applied to any other aspect of our lives. That's a pretty good indication that the logic is deeply flawed.) B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Mike Dworetsky on 4 Feb 2010 13:52
Mike Dworetsky wrote: > Heidi Graw wrote: > > [snip] > >>> Common units work extremely well, but if you want your house >>> built in MeTric I'll add 25% to the cost, and you've got it. >> >> No need. I wouldn't be hiring you anyway. My husband >> built the house I designed. Custom? Very...and rather >> quite unique. >> >> Take care, >> Heidi <...whose house is a mishmash of German metric and British >> standard. > > About 35 years ago I moved to a new (to me) older house in London and > needed to replace some damaged floorboards. When all the houses in > my area were built they were done in Imperial measurement with > boards, as I recall, 5-5/8 inches wide (finished size), or 143 mm. > > But when it came to buying some new replacement boards, I couldn't > find any because timber had been decreed to be in metric cuts a few > years earlier. They literally would not fit. So I had to have the > merchant trim about 5 mm off the edges of all the 150-mm boards I > bought so I could fit them in. (Floorboards have a small gap between > them in most houses; normally you would lay your interior flooring on > top of them.) > My point is that it should have been perfectly possible to measure in > metric, but retain the same historic physical size as a stock option, > because the vast majority of housing stock used the old size, however > you measure it. None of this made any sense to me but some > government official had decreed it because he liked round numbers, or > because 150mm was some sort of standard continental timber size. Thinking back on this, "obviously" the 5-5/8 dimension was probably called 6 inches the same way that a 2x4 is not really 2 by 4 inches but rather less in trimmed, planed form. Someone in the Ministry of Annoying Decisions, who had probably never in his life built anything with his own hands, decided that as 150mm was close to 6 inches, and Britain Had to Go Metric, a decree was issued to timber merchants to sell timber in this size, without realising that this would be the final planed width dimension. If anyone knows the true story though, I'd be grateful for that information. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |