Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Pd on 25 Mar 2010 11:39 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > `Proper'? Now then, now then, the Imperial system is `proper'. > > After all, the inch is *exactly* as precisely defined as the metre. That's because the inch is defined *by* the metre, as 0.0254 m. Unless you're talking about the American inch, which is 100/3937 metres, or about 0.025400051 metres. Or unless you're talking about the British inch which is about 0.02539994 metres. Or indeed, unless you're talking about the Indian inch, which is about 0.02539997 metres. So for very loose definitions of "exactly" and "precisely defined", you could say "the inch is *exactly* as precisely defined as the metre." -- Pd
From: T i m on 25 Mar 2010 14:47 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:39:31 +0000, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) wrote: >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> `Proper'? Now then, now then, the Imperial system is `proper'. >> >> After all, the inch is *exactly* as precisely defined as the metre. > >That's because the inch is defined *by* the metre, as 0.0254 m. > >Unless you're talking about the American inch, which is 100/3937 metres, >or about 0.025400051 metres. > >Or unless you're talking about the British inch which is about >0.02539994 metres. > >Or indeed, unless you're talking about the Indian inch, which is about >0.02539997 metres. > >So for very loose definitions of "exactly" and "precisely defined", you >could say "the inch is *exactly* as precisely defined as the metre." And that being "one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North pole along a meridian through Paris"? Plus or minus a baguette or two? ;-) HTH, T i m
From: Peter Ceresole on 25 Mar 2010 15:14 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > >So for very loose definitions of "exactly" and "precisely defined", you > >could say "the inch is *exactly* as precisely defined as the metre." > > And that being "one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to > the North pole along a meridian through Paris"? Used to be, once. At the time, it was a good try. Still, beats the distance from the King's nose to his thumb (the yard, once). > Plus or minus a baguette or two? ;-) Ah no; you're thinking of the International Standard Baguette, which sat in Paris altogether too long and finally curled up. Not to say turning green... Now, it's measured in wavelengths of light from a Helium-Neon laser. However long that might be. All I know is that it's kind of *that* long. -- Peter
From: T i m on 25 Mar 2010 17:28 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:14:49 +0000, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: >T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > >> >So for very loose definitions of "exactly" and "precisely defined", you >> >could say "the inch is *exactly* as precisely defined as the metre." >> >> And that being "one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to >> the North pole along a meridian through Paris"? > >Used to be, once. At the time, it was a good try. Still, beats the >distance from the King's nose to his thumb (the yard, once). > >> Plus or minus a baguette or two? ;-) > >Ah no; you're thinking of the International Standard Baguette, which sat >in Paris altogether too long and finally curled up. Not to say turning >green... Damn those French and their lack of good bread management! > >Now, it's measured in wavelengths of light from a Helium-Neon laser. >However long that might be. About a metres worth I think? > All I know is that it's kind of *that* long. Are you gesturing as per a one armed fisherman? Cheers, T i m
From: J. J. Lodder on 25 Mar 2010 17:44
Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > `Proper'? Now then, now then, the Imperial system is `proper'. > > > > After all, the inch is *exactly* as precisely defined as the metre. > > That's because the inch is defined *by* the metre, as 0.0254 m. > > Unless you're talking about the American inch, which is 100/3937 metres, > or about 0.025400051 metres. > > Or unless you're talking about the British inch which is about > 0.02539994 metres. > > Or indeed, unless you're talking about the Indian inch, which is about > 0.02539997 metres. All of them obsolete, and replaced by the metric inch of 25.4 mm (exactly) Jan |