From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on
On Feb 8, 6:00 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2:11 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural:
>
> > 1 furlong = 660 feet
> > 1 mile = 5280 feet
>
> These are unfortunate results of trying to put the Anglo-Saxon
> distance units into the Roman-based system.
>

Sounds wonderful! And you want to keep this monstrosity and think that
trying to simplify is a "communist plot"?

>
> > 1 fathom = 6.08 feet
>
> 6 feet, of course. The value 6.08 feet was never actually used.
>
> > 1 acre = 43,560 sq feet
>
> And 1/640 sq. mile, which allows a section to be conveniently divided.
>

Into 640 pieces? What's so special about 640?

>
> > 1 pound = 16 oz
> > 1 stone = 14 pounds
> > 1 hundredweight  = 112 pounds
> > 1 ton  = 2240 pounds
>
> Aberrant British units.
>

Part of the World-wide communist conspiracy to subvert the simple God-
given American units, right?

>
> In any event, it's a completely dishonest tactic that you ignore my
> real essay in favor of your silly ridicule. The point is the SI mafia
> whose only purpose is to impose SI units everywhere.
>

No, no. I agree. We should keep the Imperial system, which is "an
unfortunate result of trying to put the Anglo-Saxon distance units
into the Roman-based system", and the "aberrant British units".

Or do you propose to eliminate all units that come from Britain and
just keep the God-given American system, which has been given to us
not by Brits but by Native Americans?

From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on
On Feb 8, 7:18 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:21 am, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 02/08/2010 09:00 AM, Andrew Usher wrote:
>
> > > In any event, it's a completely dishonest tactic that you ignore my
> > > real essay in favor of your silly ridicule. The point is the SI mafia
> > > whose only purpose is to impose SI units everywhere.
>
> > Well, it does blow holes in your notion that SI is more idiosyncratic
> > than Imperial units. I mean, 8 fluid ounces make one cup, 16 avoirdupois
> > ounces make 1 avoirdupois pound, and 12 Troy ounces make 1 Troy pound....
> > and, of course, each ounce is quite distinct from the other. It's not
> > like a fluid ounce of water weighs 1 troy ounce or 1 avoirdupois ounce,
> > god forbid.
>
> That's easy to explain historically - the US volume units originate
> before anyone used the fluid ounce in English.
>

It is a very well established fact that they didn't even have fluids
in Britain until we Americans introduced them to fluids in 1776.

>
> The Imperial units came
> later and they do have the correct fluid ounce (= 1 oz. av. water).
>
> You probably know that I use certain British spellings, and have as
> long as I have been on the internet. This is intentional as I believe
> that there should be an international standard spelling for English.
> Similarly there should be an international standard for English units
> and it's obvious that this should have Imperial volume units but US
> weight units (although we should join the British in abolishing the
> troy pound which has no purpose but to cause occasional confusion).
>

Brilliant! And the idea of using unrelated units for length, for area
and for volume - that's an extra brilliant touch. Makes it so easy to
compute area and volume from side length measurements!

From: napoleon on
A prodigious effort that can be refuted with a couple of sentences. Forget leftist politics and communist plots. The metric system is simply superior to the hodgepodge of disjointed units called imperial, or USC. If you do not believe me, ask the 6.5 +/- billion users of that marvelous system.
From: J. Clarke on
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:18 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 8:21 am, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/08/2010 09:00 AM, Andrew Usher wrote:
>>
>>>> In any event, it's a completely dishonest tactic that you ignore my
>>>> real essay in favor of your silly ridicule. The point is the SI
>>>> mafia whose only purpose is to impose SI units everywhere.
>>
>>> Well, it does blow holes in your notion that SI is more
>>> idiosyncratic than Imperial units. I mean, 8 fluid ounces make one
>>> cup, 16 avoirdupois ounces make 1 avoirdupois pound, and 12 Troy
>>> ounces make 1 Troy pound... and, of course, each ounce is quite
>>> distinct from the other. It's not like a fluid ounce of water
>>> weighs 1 troy ounce or 1 avoirdupois ounce, god forbid.
>>
>> That's easy to explain historically - the US volume units originate
>> before anyone used the fluid ounce in English.
>>
>
> It is a very well established fact that they didn't even have fluids
> in Britain until we Americans introduced them to fluids in 1776.

Oh, come now, only the British could make a horse drip oil.

>> The Imperial units came
>> later and they do have the correct fluid ounce (= 1 oz. av. water).
>>
>> You probably know that I use certain British spellings, and have as
>> long as I have been on the internet. This is intentional as I believe
>> that there should be an international standard spelling for English.
>> Similarly there should be an international standard for English units
>> and it's obvious that this should have Imperial volume units but US
>> weight units (although we should join the British in abolishing the
>> troy pound which has no purpose but to cause occasional confusion).
>>
>
> Brilliant! And the idea of using unrelated units for length, for area
> and for volume - that's an extra brilliant touch. Makes it so easy to
> compute area and volume from side length measurements!
From: Michael Press on
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, 9:46 am, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sure do.  A resistance measured in ohms multiplied by a capacitance
> >> >> measured in Farads gives you an RC time constant in seconds.  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.  Yes, the rail-gun fans I know do
> >> >> talk about energy in Joules.  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

--
Michael Press