The metric system sucks
in [Math]
|
Prev: connecting Luminet-Poincare Dodecahedral Space with AP-Reverse -Concavity for 10% #379 Correcting Math
Next: Cantor's Diagonal?
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 8 Feb 2010 20:09 On Feb 8, 3:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:Fp6dnUqcaKLOb_LWnZ2dnUVZ8hSdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > Androcles wrote: > >> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>news:8KednRJawL4zTPLWnZ2dnUVZ8nidnZ2d(a)bt.com... > >>> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote: > >>>> I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural: > > >>>> 1 furlong = 660 feet > >>>> 1 mile = 5280 feet > >>>> 1 fathom = 6.08 feet > > >>>> 1 acre = 43,560 sq feet > > >>>> 1 pound = 16 oz > > >>> Only in avoirdupois weights. In troy weights, 12 ounces = 1 pound. > >>> Avoirdupois ounces are lighter than troy ounces. Complicated? You > >>> bet. Troy weights are most usually used for gold and silver, > >>> avoirdupois for most everything else. > > >>> Thus the old riddle, "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a > >>> pound of gold?" The clear answer is a pound of feathers, weighed in > >>> avoirdupois (453.6 gm), while a pound of gold is 373.2 gm. > > >>>> 1 stone = 14 pounds > >>>> 1 hundredweight = 112 pounds > >>>> 1 ton = 2240 pounds > > >>> That's a "long ton" or English equivalent to a metric tonne of 1000 > >>> kg. The usual Imperial ton is 2,000 pounds, I think. > >> ================================================= > >> Back-arsewards... the Imperial ton is 20 cwt = 2240 lbs, the unusual > >> American > >> short ton is 2000 lbs. Not many years ago a British billion was a > >> million million, not the thousand million that it has since become. > > > So there are three ways of looking at tons: > > > Imperial 2240 lb (1016 kg, I should have checked) > > Metric 1000 kg > > USA/Canada 2000 lb (907 kg) > > =============================================== > 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 > > An imperial gallon of water weighs 10 lb, an American short gallon > weighs ~ 8.33-8.35 lb. Thus American cars get fewer mpg. > > US liquid gallons > 1 MPG ~ 0.425 km/l > 235/MPG ~ l/100 km > 1 MPG ~ 1.201 MPG (Imp) > Imperial gallons (UK) > 1 MPG ~ 0.354 km/l > 282/MPG ~ l/100 km > 1 MPG ~ 0.833 MPG (US) > What is extremely unlikely is the Americans changing the mile, > their roads are laid out in a 1 mile grid all over the Great Plains > as you can see using Google Earth. > The word "mile" comes from the Latin "mille" and was a thousand > paces by marching Roman troops. > That's 1.6 meters per step? Quite impressive!
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 8 Feb 2010 20:10 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.
From: Androcles on 8 Feb 2010 20:43 "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0d8382e6-b25b-4caa-8b36-8b7c02e25b85(a)s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Feb 8, 3:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:Fp6dnUqcaKLOb_LWnZ2dnUVZ8hSdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > Androcles wrote: > >> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>news:8KednRJawL4zTPLWnZ2dnUVZ8nidnZ2d(a)bt.com... > >>> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote: > >>>> I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural: > > >>>> 1 furlong = 660 feet > >>>> 1 mile = 5280 feet > >>>> 1 fathom = 6.08 feet > > >>>> 1 acre = 43,560 sq feet > > >>>> 1 pound = 16 oz > > >>> Only in avoirdupois weights. In troy weights, 12 ounces = 1 pound. > >>> Avoirdupois ounces are lighter than troy ounces. Complicated? You > >>> bet. Troy weights are most usually used for gold and silver, > >>> avoirdupois for most everything else. > > >>> Thus the old riddle, "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a > >>> pound of gold?" The clear answer is a pound of feathers, weighed in > >>> avoirdupois (453.6 gm), while a pound of gold is 373.2 gm. > > >>>> 1 stone = 14 pounds > >>>> 1 hundredweight = 112 pounds > >>>> 1 ton = 2240 pounds > > >>> That's a "long ton" or English equivalent to a metric tonne of 1000 > >>> kg. The usual Imperial ton is 2,000 pounds, I think. > >> ================================================= > >> Back-arsewards... the Imperial ton is 20 cwt = 2240 lbs, the unusual > >> American > >> short ton is 2000 lbs. Not many years ago a British billion was a > >> million million, not the thousand million that it has since become. > > > So there are three ways of looking at tons: > > > Imperial 2240 lb (1016 kg, I should have checked) > > Metric 1000 kg > > USA/Canada 2000 lb (907 kg) > > =============================================== > 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 > > An imperial gallon of water weighs 10 lb, an American short gallon > weighs ~ 8.33-8.35 lb. Thus American cars get fewer mpg. > > US liquid gallons > 1 MPG ~ 0.425 km/l > 235/MPG ~ l/100 km > 1 MPG ~ 1.201 MPG (Imp) > Imperial gallons (UK) > 1 MPG ~ 0.354 km/l > 282/MPG ~ l/100 km > 1 MPG ~ 0.833 MPG (US) > What is extremely unlikely is the Americans changing the mile, > their roads are laid out in a 1 mile grid all over the Great Plains > as you can see using Google Earth. > The word "mile" comes from the Latin "mille" and was a thousand > paces by marching Roman troops. > That's 1.6 meters per step? Quite impressive! ===================================== Ref: http://hkacc203.org/_notes/Pace%20Stick%20Training%20Note.pdf "With the pace stick open to 750mm (30 inches) stand to Attention as normal." A pace is two steps, one for each leg, and even short me can step 2.5 feet, or pace 5 feet, 5000 feet to a mile. Quite unimpressive given 5280 feet to the mile... unless you are a dwarf.
From: Androcles on 8 Feb 2010 21:01 "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news: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. 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.
From: Matt on 8 Feb 2010 21:56
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:54:44 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher wrote: >On Feb 4, 8:49�pm, Matt <30d...(a)net.net> wrote: > >> Who came up with early units of measure, like the cubit? It wasn't >> some scientist in a lab. The cubit was quite anthropocentric and was >> arguably superior to either the foot or the meter for everyday use by >> humans. > >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?" |