The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Androcles on 9 Feb 2010 06:40 "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5844088b-97bc-4714-b3be-ce2ae0ed24bd(a)p13g2000pre.googlegroups.com... On Feb 8, 6:01 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > messagenews:0d4ee18a-d51d-4367-9970-c2664f1f15cd(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 8, 6:03 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 5:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > > > > =============================================== > > > I suspect the little red schoolhouses of the colonial backwoods > > > confused the hundredweight (cwt) with a 100 lbs and by multiplying > > > that by 20 arrived at the short ton. > > > The tun is a large barrel, of course. > > >http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1005/1428697981_1cfdd49674.jpg > > >http://www.picturesofengland.com/img/L/1020188.jpg > > > In fact, a tun of water is about 2100 lb - in between the American and > > British values. > > Yes, that's one of the beauties of the Imperial system: each term can > mean dozens of different things. > ========================================= > Yes, that's ten of the beauties of the metric system: each term can mean > tens, hundreds, thousands or millions of different things. If the beauty > of > Helen of Troy could launch a thousand ships then the amount of beauty > needed > to launch just one ship must be the milliHelen. > I once knew a girl named Milly-Helen. She looked like a shipwreck. But how does prove that using powers of ten is a bad idea? ==================================================== Computers use powers of 2. What is 16384 base T in binary? 100,000,000,000,000 What is 40000 base 8 in binary? 100,000,000,000,000 What is 4 base 8 in binary? 100 What is 3 base 8 in binary? 011 What is 2 base 8 in binary? 010 What is 1 base 8 in binary? 001 What is 43210 base 8 in binary? 100,011,010,001,000 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 What is 43210 base T in binary? 1010,1000,1100,1010 4, 3, 2, 1, uh oh.. Doesn't work, does it? It will work in hexadecimal, though. Powers of ten is a stupid idea. If Neanderthals had not counted those two meddlesome thumbs we'd all be using the octal system which blends nicely with binary. The ancient Babylonian idea of powers of Sixty was much better, 60 is divisible by 2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15 and 30. Before the coin was the coil of gold which could be worn as jewellery, unrolled and cut to length in payment of services rendered. It is easier to find the midpoint or estimate a third than it is to find a tenth. > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object > Date: 14th century > 1 a : something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an > object in the distance> b : something that when viewed stirs a particular > emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed.the object > poisons > sight; let it be hid - Shakespeare> > 2 a : something mental or physical toward which thought, feeling, or > action > is directed <an object for study> <the object of my affection> <delicately > carved art objects> b : something physical that is perceived by an > individual and becomes an agent for psychological identification <the > mother > is the primary object of the child> > 3 a : the goal or end of an effort or activity : purpose, objective <their > object is to investigate the matter thoroughly> b : a cause for attention > or > concern <money is no object> > 4 : a thing that forms an element of or constitutes the subject matter of > an > investigation or science > 5 a : a noun or noun equivalent (as a pronoun, gerund, or clause) denoting > the goal or result of the action of a verb b : a noun or noun equivalent > in > a prepositional phrase > 6 a : a data structure in object-oriented programming that can contain > functions as well as data, variables, and other data structures b : a > discrete entity (as a window or icon) in computer graphics that can be > manipulated independently of other such entities > > synonyms see intention > Date: 15th century > > transitive verb > : to put forth in opposition or as an objection <objected that the > statement > was misleading> > intransitive verb > 1 : to oppose something firmly and usually with words or arguments > 2 : to feel distaste for something > > That's one of the beauties of the English language: each term can mean > dozens of different things. > And your point is that the Imperial system is as ambiguous and complicated as the natural language? And in order to understand the Imperial system you need a PhD degree in linguistics? I thought that, unlike human language, measurement systems should be simple, precise, unambiguous and easy. ============================================ And your point is that the metric system is as unambiguous and simple as the natural language? And in order to understand the metric system you need ten PhD degrees in a hundred languages? You thought that, like human linguistics, measurement systems should be complex, imprecise, ambiguous and difficult. How many fingers and toes do Neanderthals have, anyway? If we are to trade then the deal must be fair and agreeable to us both, right? Otherwise we do not trade. We've traded in gold for thousands of years, and weighed the gold, tested the gold, divided the gold, measured the gold. Then you come along and say the best measurement is a tenth because you have ten digits on your paws and you won't trade with me unless I accept your rules. Ok, I'll see who else wants my krugerrand or my guinea or my guilder, yours is not the only bushel of wheat I can buy with my gold. Now... do you want the gold coin for a tun of ale, my thaler (dollar) for a buck's skin, or not? Buck for a buck, that's my best offer. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Thaler.jpg Shave and a haircut, two bits.
From: J. Clarke on 9 Feb 2010 07:57 Michael Press wrote: > In article <hkpov5$k10$1(a)reader2.panix.com>, > nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >> In article <rubrum-D24F2A.11042308022010(a)news.albasani.net>, >> Michael Press <rubrum(a)pacbell.net> wrote: >>> In article <hkmiud$dqu$1(a)reader2.panix.com>, >>> nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: >>> >>>> In article >>> <307d9f52-e674-403a-ad41-29b831fa1d6d(a)r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Feb 6, 9:46Â am, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sure do. Â A resistance measured in ohms multiplied by a >>>>>> capacitance measured in Farads gives you an RC time constant in >>>>>> seconds. Â For the rail gun afficianados, the energy stored in a >>>>>> capacitor measured in Joules is one half the capacitance in >>>>>> Farads times the square of the voltage measured in Volts. Â Yes, >>>>>> the rail-gun fans I know do talk about energy in Joules. Â I >>>>>> have even used spot-welders where the intensity of the pulse was >>>>>> given in Joules. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I guess you can. But just because you can calculate with >>>>> barbarous units doesn't make them superior - after all, you'd >>>>> never allow that for English units, would you? >>>> >>>> So, how would *you* choose a resistor and a capacitor to produce >>>> a desired time constant, without using ohms and Farads? >>> >>> Rigged question. Those off the shelf items are labelled >>> in ohms and farads. >> >> By calling them "barbarous units", he is implying that there is >> somtehing better. I am curious as to what that might be. >> >>> What is 1 atmosphere in pascal? >> >> Really close to 10^5. Why? > > Because anyone who has to do technical work needs to > know a bunch of physical constants. If he happens to > live in the USA it is no burden to know a few > conversion factors. > > For accurate work, tools are available. > > $ units 'atm' 'pascal' > * 101325 > / 9.8692327e-06 > > $ units 'mile^3' 'cc' > * 4.1681818e+15 > / 2.3991276e-16 Just so you're aware of it, google "1 atm in pascal" and "1 mile^3 in cc". Furlongs per fortnight it can handle--cubits per millishake defeats it (doesn't have millishakes).
From: Paul Ciszek on 9 Feb 2010 08:58 In article <1e58f961-b9f0-48f0-9532-e5e8c1e5f30e(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Feb 8, 1:33�pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >> >> So, how would *you* choose a resistor and a capacitor to produce >> >> a desired time constant, without using ohms and Farads? >> >> >Rigged question. Those off the shelf items are labelled >> >in ohms and farads. >> >> By calling them "barbarous units", he is implying that there is somtehing >> better. �I am curious as to what that might be. > >The Gaussian units, of course. It's not the precise values of the >units that are special, but the fact that they are physically correct >(e.g. in measuring E, B, D, H in the same unit) and SI is not. One more time: Can you conveniently use Gaussian units for circuit design? Since you got the formula for a simple time constant wrong, I am doubtful that you can use any units for circuit design. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Fran�ois Grondin on 9 Feb 2010 10:50 > "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> a �crit dans le message de news: > ad0150a6-c229-410c-b9b2-55cabdba8c2a(a)q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 8, 10:05 am, "Fran�ois Grondin" <francois.dot.gron...(a)bpr- > cso.dot.com> wrote: > But > > if I had to live with only one of those systems, I'd go SI right now > > because > > it's simpler. Working in base 10 always been easier. > > Base 10 is only easier if you count on your fingers! There's no > universal reason 10 is better than any other base. > > Andrew Usher Let me give you another example. You should define and use an equivalent "Imperial" system for currencies : - 12 pennies in a dime - 2 dimes in a quarter - 4 quarters in a dollar - 16 dollars in a "twenty-dollar" bill - etc. It would be more "natural". You wouldn't be forced to count on your finger. But tell me : would it really be better? No, because you are actually using a 10-based currency system. Does it suck? I don't think so, neither are you. It's only a matter of use and education. Replacing a system with another requires a lot of efforts and money. Most humans would rather stay in their comfort zone than make an effort to improve their situation. There will always be people like you who are reluctant to change. Francois
From: Darwin123 on 9 Feb 2010 14:59
On Feb 9, 6:11 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:12 am, Robin <b.ro...(a)neurol.org> wrote: > > > China, Europe, Russia, South America, Japan speak metric.. > > Where do you want to sell "inched machines" or inched materials? > > It's not likely that they should care what units their machines are > made to; or if they do, it's only because of laws or standards > organisations or other bureaucratic nonsense demanding metric. > > Andrew Usher This is not true. Just look at the little matter of nuts and threads. Metric system nutss do not fit in English system treads, nor do English system screws fit in metric system threads. There is no "computerization" that can make an English nut fit into a metric thread. The reason is not arbitrary regulations. The reason that the translation factors from English to metric contain more than two significant figures. However, the practice has been to set measurement standards in units of only one or two significant figures. Once a nut is made, or a thread tapped, there is no computerization involved. It is also complicated that in the English system, the division of length below one inch are divided by powers of two. The divisions in the metric system are divided in powers of 10. Therefore, when one translation from metric to English isn't enough. Think of optical breadboards. It is natural for a European machine shop to drill holes 3 cm apart, just as it is natural for an American machine shop to drill holes only 1 inch apart. It is easier to read the integer markings than the little divisions in between. However, 1 inch is 2.54... cm. Breadboard applications may need agreement between three and four significant figures. The important thing is that this compatibility is not due to regulations. It is due to the nature of shop work.Furthermore, division into millimeters is not the same as divisions into 1/16 of an inch. So when one makes markings between the "1 inch" holes, one can't even use the same ruler. One needs both types of rulers, and lots of arithmetic, to make smaller divisions. This is an engineering problem, not a regulation problem. There is real science and real shop issues involved that have nothing to do with "regulation" or "government." There are arguments for keeping the English system, but they have nothing to do with "liberals." American regulations are what keep the English system in place. If there was no English standardization in government regulations, individual companies would do what they want. Some places would make the change, and screw the American consumer. There is nothing more communist about a "metric system" regulation than a "English system" regulation. A government regulation is a government regulation. Right now, Americans effectively need two sets of regulations: One for metric and one for English. I think the most important argument for keeping the English system is that we already have stockpiled loads and loads of English system parts. I do not look forward to a transition from English to metric for this reason. Although the English is clumsy, the transition may not be worth the price. I suspect the bigger American companies would love to have America changed to the metric system. I suspect that there are a lot of "conservatives" who if not for it, are not against it either. This is not a left versus right issue. How about removing all regulations concerning units and see what individuals and companies would do? |