The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Bob Myers on 4 Feb 2010 17:10 Bart Goddard wrote: > "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. You personally, of course not. But if I'm in charge of outfitting a new production line, maintenance department, etc., I'm pretty strongly motivated to eliminate inefficiencies. Having to carry duplicate tools, etc., in both metric and English is most definitely one of those inefficiencies, and having to convert back and forth makes for further time wasting and potential errors. So I need to pick one, and frankly, the "English" system winds up being at a disadvantage there - and yes, I would have to have some justification for continuing to use 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. Except that picking a system of measurements really doesn't have much to do with "any other aspect of our lives," and trying to compare such arguments across these boundaries is pretty much guaranteed to wind up an apples-and-watermelons sort of situation. Bob M.
From: Mark Borgerson on 4 Feb 2010 17:16 In article <a89073d0-cecf-465e-8ec5- 23bf35829e0f(a)m31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com says... > On Feb 4, 11:18 am, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > > > >> What is the density of water in pounds per cubic foot? > > > > >As usual, the decimaphile offers us a calculation that > > >1. is already known and 2. nobody ever does. Against > > > > If you mean non-technical people, they get through most of their > > lives without doing any calculations at all. Engineers, on the > > other hand, have to deal with the density of water quite a bit. > > I can't believe he couldn't tell you. The density of water (I know in > my head) is about 62.4 pounds per cubic foot; 62.3 if correcting for > the bouyancy of air (a detail the metric-philes always omit!). If you're really talking about density, (mass per unit volume) the buoyancy of air has nothing to do with the result. If you're talking about the WEIGHT of a unit volume, then, in some cases, you may need to correct for the buoyancy of air---which is, of course, a function of altitude. > Of > course it changes with temperature as well; it's rather fortunate that > water has a much lower thermal expansion than any other liquid at > normal temperatures. (unless, of course, you go below 32F! ;-) > > Andrew Usher >
From: Mark Borgerson on 4 Feb 2010 17:27 In article <Xns9D1549C604254goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.93>, goddardbe(a)netscape.net says... > "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in > news:RNidnbNg2rtvX_fWnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk: > > > I was a schoolboy when the UK went metric so I had to learn both. > > Metric/SI units are a lot easier to work with. There are fewer > > different constants you have to remember. > > We have to learn both in the US. I was in 6th grade in 1972 > and we were using it then. I remain unimpressed. The > acrobatics that are done to convince people that metric > is easier are silly. First they have you convert meters > to centimeters (a calculation nobody ever does) and > then they have you add 6 tons 50 pounds 9 ounces to > 2 tons 742 pounds 13 ounces (also a calculation nobody > does.) > > It is a fact that in almost all real calculations in > English units, one unit is chosen and it is decimated. > The only exception I can think of off the top of my > head is that carpenters like their denominators to be > powers of 2. Otherwise, most people would calculate > using number like 15.53 feet. Every bit as easy as > the same calculation in the metric system. > That point of decimation brings back memories----when I worked on highway surveys back in the '60, all the measurements were in feet---and tenths or hundredths of feet. Not an inch to be found in the survey logs! Mark Borgerson
From: Heidi Graw on 4 Feb 2010 17:38 >"Gerry Myerson" <gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote in message >news:gerry-31BCD8.09095505022010(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> In article <hkeig101lnd(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> >> wrote: > >> I grew up in the US and cannot think in metric terms so I >> always have to do a conversion to make guesstimates. >> For some strange reason, kilometers seem to take "longer" >> to drive than miles when I drove from Buffalo to Port >> Huron, Michigan. :-) > Gerry wrote: > Probably because of those metric Canadian hours, what with > each one being 100 minutes long. What about measuring time in degrees? How might that work? Ie. it's 360 o'clock, or 180, or 90, etc. Heidi
From: Antares 531 on 4 Feb 2010 17:42
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:09:55 +1100, Gerry Myerson <gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: >In article <hkeig101lnd(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> >wrote: > >> I grew up in the US and cannot think in metric terms so I >> always have to do a conversion to make guesstimates. >> For some strange reason, kilometers seem to take "longer" >> to drive than miles when I drove from Buffalo to Port >> Huron, Michigan. :-) > >Probably because of those metric Canadian hours, what with >each one being 100 minutes long. > When are they likely to change over to a metric week of 10 days? Then, I guess the month should be replaced with a metric month of 100 days and the year extended to a metric decimal multiple of 1000 days. Gordon |