The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Bart Goddard on 12 Feb 2010 19:59 toby <toby(a)telegraphics.com.au> wrote in news:7d81725f-aae8-4b92-8836- a63f4dbabd51(a)m4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 3, 12:04�am, "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote: >> <chuckle> ...and lots of folks do just that. �A good question >> to ask is, �"How do you get the most using the least amount of >> energy?" �If cosmetology earns one an adequate living, and it >> requires less energy and effort, then why not? > > Because you'd rather be doing something else? Indeed, "How do you get the most..." isn't really what most folks would call a "good question." Rather it's a greedy question, and we're not, these last couple years, all that enamored of greed. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Matt on 12 Feb 2010 23:27 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:02:26 -0800, Michael Press wrote: >In article <joo1n55f1f4is2notocvi6elvku27ar5q9(a)4ax.com>, > Matt <30days(a)net.net> wrote: > >> A (aqueous) chemistry lab is a cherry-picked environment for arguing >> the merits of the metric system. The density of water is quite >> important there. Not so much in a metallurgy lab. The density of iron >> is expressed no more conveniently in metric (7.874 g/cm^3) than >> English units (491.6 lb/ft^3). > >Everyone knows that only SI units >are proper so that should be 7874 kg/m^3'. First, let's talk about those 'proper' SI units. Your preferred system of units seems to be meter-kilogram-seconds. Why is it the metric units are never systematized as 'meter-gram-seconds' (mgs)? Because the 'gram' is too small. It was designed for the convenience of table-top chemists in a wet chemistry lab. The gram is too small for use in most of life. Even the chemists didn't want a mgs system, so they opted for a cgs (centimeter-gram-seconds) system. They used the gram; but the meter was too big for table-top chemistry, so they adopted the centimeter. But the centimeter is too small for use in most of life. If the metric system is so well-conceived, where is the call for using the meter-gram-second system >Convenience has nothing to do with it. Huh?! Isn't that the primary argument for adopting the metric system: because it is so much more convenient to use a decimalized system of units? What is your case for using the metric system if not for convenience? >We must sacrifice our comfort. Excuse me? For whom or what do you assert that we *must* sacrifice our comfort? Would that not be a religious position? What god do you hope to appease with this sacrifice?
From: Matt on 12 Feb 2010 23:40 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:02:11 +0000 (UTC), Michael Stemper wrote: >In article <joo1n55f1f4is2notocvi6elvku27ar5q9(a)4ax.com>, Matt <30days(a)net.net> writes: >>On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:39:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>Electricity and fields don't care what units we use. >> >>The engineers who design the equipment may care; or they may be more >>interested in the project than a religious war about systems of units. > >Of course, all electrical engineering units are metric. Volts are >joules/coulomb, and a joule is a kg-m^2/s^2. An Ampere is (or was) >defined in terms of Newtons of force per meter on conductors separated >by one meter. > >No pounds, slugs, or BTUs involved. > >>They may dismiss the metric crusaders as noise. > >Electrical engineering is already metric. We look with pity upon our >brother (and sister) mechanical engineers, who through no fault of >their own, still need to deal with BTUs and Farenheit degrees. Are wire diameters universally measured in meters? How about insulation thicknesses? Cabinet sizes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_in-line_package Commonly found DIP packages that conform to JEDEC standards use an inter-lead spacing (lead pitch) of 0.1 inch (2.54 mm). Row spacing varies depending on lead counts, with 0.3 in. (7.62 mm) or 0.6 inch (15.24 mm) the most common. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEMA_connector#NEMA_1 All NEMA 1 devices .. have two parallel flat blades... spaced 1/2 inches (12.7 mm) apart. Perhaps electrical engineering is not so pure after all.
From: Matt on 13 Feb 2010 00:09 On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:19:04 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher wrote: >On Feb 8, 8:56�pm, Matt <30d...(a)net.net> wrote: > >> >It can't have been that useful, as it became obsolete. Is there even a >> >cubit in English units? I suppose it would just be half a yard, >> >following the Romans. >> >> If the pro-metric crowd gets their way, English units will become >> obsolete. Would their demise mean they "can't have been that useful?" > >I meant that it became obsolete without any bureaucratic compulsion. Do you have a cite for that? Perhaps not so many bureaucrats when the cubit was abandoned. If it became obsolete through a royal edict, does that affect its historical utility? If some egomaniac king wanted to change everyone else's way of measuring things for his convenience, that says nothing about how useful others found the cubit to be.
From: Matt on 13 Feb 2010 00:26
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:23:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Matt wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:39:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> A (aqueous) chemistry lab is a cherry-picked environment for arguing >> the merits of the metric system. The density of water is quite >> important there. Not so much in a metallurgy lab. The density of iron >> is expressed no more conveniently in metric (7.874 g/cm^3) than >> English units (491.6 lb/ft^3). > >The relevance becomes very obvious if you want to work out the weight of >a larger or smaller amount. In metric 1km^3 or 1mm^3 requires only a >quick shift in the decimal point. Why do you assume that this "larger or smaller amount" is scaled by a factor of ten? How often do you say, "That piece of pie is too big. Please cut me piece one-tenth that size?" What if you want a "smaller amount" that is 2/3 the original amount? How useful is your "quick shift in the decimal point" then? >>> Are you also advocating dropping the US money which is based >>> on decimal? >> >> Currency is decimalized; it isn't metric. And its base unit isn't >> rigidly defined, else prices wouldn't change over time. > >I reckon you should be forced back to English money too with 240 pennies >in a dollar 12 pence in a shilling etc. It is much more in keeping with >these other arcane units of measurement. Forced? So this is a religious argument and the fundies are advocating forcing others to adopt their Truth? |