decimal metric
In a message dated 2000/02/15 01:44:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The way to cut the Gordian knot is to throw out everything and start over with a base 12 numeral system. Then the scientific calculations and the everyday divisions by 2, 3, 4, and 6 are *both* easy. Hear hear! The greatest tragedy of the metric system is that it uses decimal base. Bring back base 12: one, dozen, gross. How did we lose it in the first place? Was it that Arabic mathematicians were so much more advanced than their European counterparts? John B
Re: Metric v's Imperial.
Gordon Uber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's face it: The Babylonians got it right when they developed the base-60 system. It was applied to the sixth of a circle (one sixtieth of this being a degree) and the hour, of which we still use the first and second minutes. Third minutes (sixtieths of second minutes) are not in common use, although I would note that the third minute of an hour is the period of U.S. power main standard 60 Hz alternating current. Coincidence? Is this the origin of our (English, at least) names for units of time? Seconds because it result from dividing an hour by 60 twice? (Min'-ute, I assume, is related to mi-nute' and mini.) Is it known whether the Babylonians, when they chose 360 degrees to a circle, were more concerned with the convenience of numbers divisible by 2's and 3's or with the fact that there are 360 days in a year (within a percent or two)? --Art
Re: metric
Wow, quite a story! I think it's interesting, how much measurements have been based so much on things within farming, or what people use most. In high school chemistry I always liked centimeters. They were great! Just the size of a pinky-nail...Unless I'm getting everything mixed up (it's been a bit), a cubic centimeter of water (isn't this a milliliter?) weighs a gram. And a calorie (little c, if i remember right; big C Calories meant a thousand little-c calories...) was the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of a gram of water one degree celsius. 'course, I could put in my annoyances at the Fahrenheit units of heat here, too...what I heard, was he screwed up twice--he used water's freezing point for zero; only the water was salt water, and so froze at a much lower temperature. and then he used his son's temperature for one hundred (why mix the freezing point of water and a human's normal temperature, I don't know)--only his son was sick and so had a fever. Grr. But anyway, centimeters are great. I do wonder, what would numbering be like if we had eight or twelve fingers... -Original Message- From: Fernando Cabral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de Date: Monday, February 14, 2000 11:34 AM Subject: Re: metric Peter Tandy wrote: Americans should be warned. If you 'go metric' as Britain has been forced to do it will seem a very strange world for those not brought up to it from an early age. What the hell is a litre of petrol?? Mercifully though, I can still get a pint of beer, and with that I know my limitation. Long may it continue. This metric versus imperial or american measurements will never end. It certainly has more to do with how you were brought up than with any easiness of use or practicality. I was brought up with the metric system. At least at school that's what I learned. Customary measures were not even tought. Now, my grandparents would always use the customary system. My father would use a mix. My mother was metric-minded. One of my grandfathers was a blue collar work in a railroad built by the British. That means that when he was talking about his tools, nuts and bolts he would use the British system. Maybe I was in a very unique position to learn several systems at once. Now, either I was too lazy or the British and Brazilian customary systems were too much confusing. The fact is that as kid (without knowing anything about politics or imperialism) I rejected both the British and the Brazilian system. It did not seem I would ever learn how to express something in yards, feet, inchs and fractions of inches. To me putting a comma somewhere (we use the decimal comma, not the decimal point) seemed much easier than finding the proper unit that would come next. There was one more problem: many measures we quite unique in the sense that what they represented could change from state to state, town to town or even person to person. One league, for instance, could mean either 6 km or 6.6 km. Now I know (I did not know then) that a league may also represent 3 statute mile (4.8 km). Now, 1 alqueire (land measure) had its fractions expressed in liters! Oh boy, only I know how my little head was confused: learning at school that liters were used to measure volume, now they were using it to measure surface! Eventually I was to learn that 1 alqueire = 48 liters. And reason was quite simple and straightforward: 1 alqueire was the land that would consume 48 liters of bean seed. Of course, beans have different sizes; some people like sowing close together, other like sowing far apart. So it is easy to see why the alqueire was quite elastic. There were other ways to measure the alqueire. Eventually it was boiled down to *only* for: alqueire de sesmaria, alqueire paulista, alqueiro goiano and alqueiro mineiro. Any doubt why I attached myself firmly to the metric system? Even if you love the American Customary System, do your kids a favour: teach them the metric system. So, in the future I'll be able to drink 0.5 l or 500 ml of bear instead of a pint. I can't believe drinking a pint can be as refreshing and awarding as half a liter :-) - fernando -- Fernando Cabral Padrao iX Sistemas Abertos mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pix.com.br Fone Direto: +55 61 329-0206mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PABX: +55 61 329-0202 Fax: +55 61 326-3082 15º 45' 04.9 S 47º 49' 58.6 W 19º 37' 57.0 S 45º 17' 13.6 W
Re: metric
Heh heh! I measure in micro, pico, and nano-lightyears... -Original Message- From: Tom McHugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tony Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Frank Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sundial Mail List sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 7:24 PM Subject: Re: metric Anyone for cubits? Or, how about the mythical Pyramid Inch, popularized by the late Piazzi Smyth? Tom McHugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rt. 1, Box 896 Fort Fairfield, ME 04742 USA N 46° 45' 13 W 67° 48' 42 -- Frank Evans contributed: What's all this inches nonsense. Anyone would think we were back landing on the moon or something. Napoleon, thou should'st be living at this hour. and we'd tear every bone apart! Guess who!
Metric in the classroom
As a teacher of some fairly typical American (U.S.) 14 - 15 year olds, I can state without exception that the students do not prefer British units over metric units, because they don't know either system. My attitude is, since they don't know either system, I teach them metrics. Things I have been amazed to discover they don't know 12 inches in 1 foot 3 feet in 1 yard 5,280 feet in one mile and forget acres, pints, cups, quarts, and so on. Because of the number of computers in use today, they know that K = 1000 (even though in computer use it's 1024) so it gets you a foot in the door compared to just a few years ago. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff Adkins Location: 38.00 N, 121.81 W CA, USA, Earth, Sol III
Re: metric
Peter Tandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... Of course, for some specialised work, metric measurements are no better and no worse; atronomers for instance do better with the numbers they need to measure huge distances, when in a metric form, and physicists with the numbers they need to measure minute atomic distances. But neither of these is a measurement that us ordinary folk use on a day-to-day basis - and for those, Imperial with its greater number of divisors is far better. The way to cut the Gordian knot is to throw out everything and start over with a base 12 numeral system. Then the scientific calculations and the everyday divisions by 2, 3, 4, and 6 are *both* easy. (Time measurements with base 12 is another kettle of fish. 12 months in a year is good, but the 7 day week is still a killer. 24 hours in a day is close, but there's that pesky divisibility by 5 when splitting hours into minutes or minutes into seconds.) --Art
Metric v's Imperial.
Fellow Shadow Watchers, As a teacher within the UK educational system I went entirely metric from the late 60's. If school examinations were to be exclusively metric there was no choice. Everything in Imperial Measure was ruthlessly discarded; not a rod, pole, perch, peck or bushel in sight: and so I remained until retirement. Left to myself I've reverted to 'use whatever is most convenient mode' with feet and inches for 'human scale meaurements' and millimetres for most small things in the workshop. Centimeters were banned from secondary schools and that taboo has stuck. There's a FAX from my metal supplier on my desk this minute quoting for Brass CZ108 1/2 hard 1 off 480mm x 175mm x 5/8 and this 30-ish years after Imperial measurements were supposed to have been discarded. The US of course still use Queen Anne's gallon which the Imperial system replaced with a larger unit later on. We often forget this when comparing fuel prices. The big bit of brass?it's for 'the world's first aggressive gnomon'!! Tony Moss
Re: Metric v's Imperial.
Tony Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The US of course still use Queen Anne's gallon which the Imperial system replaced with a larger unit later on. We often forget this when comparing fuel prices. Tony Moss I guess one could say that Queen Anne's gallon has outlived the imperial gallon which was supposed to replace it... When people get in a huff about how backwards we Americans are for still using inches, pounds, c., I like to reply that the SI still uses the second which is also a ridiculous unit of measure. Quantum units are natural units, but perhaps it's not the most convenient to measure distances in compton radii. The radian is a natural measure of angle, but I would suppose everyone subscribing to this list uses degrees, minutes, and seconds. For example, I haven't seen any of the recent discussion about human visual acuity conducted in terms of radians. Jim 40N45, 111W53 =-= Do not do an immoral thing for moral reasons. -- Thomas Hardy
Re: Metric v's Imperial.
Let's face it: The Babylonians got it right when they developed the base-60 system. It was applied to the sixth of a circle (one sixtieth of this being a degree) and the hour, of which we still use the first and second minutes. Third minutes (sixtieths of second minutes) are not in common use, although I would note that the third minute of an hour is the period of U.S. power main standard 60 Hz alternating current. Coincidence? The arc minute is so convenient for expressing human visual acuity because the value of the latter is coincidentally close to 1 arc minute. For practical calculations at small angles arc minutes and arc seconds are best converted to radians, the arc second being approximately 5 microradians, the arc minute about 17 milliradians. And, of course, the angular diameter of the sun is approximately 10 milliradians. Gordon At 10:55 AM 2/15/00 -0700, Jim_Cobb wrote: The radian is a natural measure of angle, but I would suppose everyone subscribing to this list uses degrees, minutes, and seconds. For example, I haven't seen any of the recent discussion about human visual acuity conducted in terms of radians. Gordon Uber [EMAIL PROTECTED] San Diego, California USA Webmaster: Clocks and Time: http://www.ubr.com/clocks
Re: Metric v's Imperial.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Gordon Uber wrote: Third minutes (sixtieths of second minutes) are not in common use, although I would note that the third minute of an hour is the period of U.S. power main standard 60 Hz alternating current. Coincidence? Hmm... Surprised I never noticed that! Perhaps no more of a coincidence than standard-gauge rail width. The arc minute is so convenient for expressing human visual acuity because the value of the latter is coincidentally close to 1 arc minute. For practical calculations at small angles arc minutes and arc seconds are best converted to radians, the arc second being approximately 5 microradians, the arc minute about 17 milliradians. And, of course, the angular diameter of the sun is approximately 10 milliradians. Gordon Whups! You meant a *degree* is ~17 mRadian, didn't you? An arcsec is very close to 0.3 mR or 300 uR... Still, 0.3 mR for a fine feature, or 1.5 mR for a character are still pretty convenient units for visual acuity. And the Tan function becomes trivial in that regime... Dave
Re: Metric v's Imperial.
And you are quite right, Gordon! I jumped to minutes, from seconds... Something like that usually happens when I nitpick at someone else's typo! How about 5 and 24 uRad for limiting sizes? Dave On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Gordon Uber wrote: Dave, You are quite correct: 17.45 mrad = 1 deg, not 1 arc minute. However 4.848 microrad = 1 arc second, or approximately 5 microrad. You may be thinking of 1 arc mjnute = 0.2909 mrad Gordon At 02:13 PM 2/15/00 -0800, Dave Bell wrote: Whups! You meant a *degree* is ~17 mRadian, didn't you? An arcsec is very close to 0.3 mR or 300 uR... Still, 0.3 mR for a fine feature, or 1.5 mR for a character are still pretty convenient units for visual acuity. And the Tan function becomes trivial in that regime... Dave
Re: metric
Yes, I'd go along with that! At least Piazzi Smyth's pyramid inch was based (albeit loosely) on something tangible, rather than the simplistic division of an arbitrary meridien. The reason Imperial measurements are better in many respects is that they relate directly to the human form - that's you and me - whereas metric measurements have no relationship at all. Thus it is much easier to estimate ditances in feet and inches than it is in metres and (the absurdly small) millimetres. Of course, for some specialised work, metric measurements are no better and no worse; atronomers for instance do better with the numbers they need to measure huge distances, when in a metric form, and physicists with the numbers they need to measure minute atomic distances. But neither of these is a measurement that us ordinary folk use on a day-to-day basis - and for those, Imperial with its greater number of divisors is far better. Americans should be warned. If you 'go metric' as Britain has been forced to do it will seem a very strange world for those not brought up to it from an early age. What the hell is a litre of petrol?? Mercifully though, I can still get a pint of beer, and with that I know my limitation. Long may it continue. Peter Tandy At , you wrote: Anyone for cubits? Or, how about the mythical Pyramid Inch, popularized by the late Piazzi Smyth? Tom McHugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rt. 1, Box 896 Fort Fairfield, ME 04742 USA N 46° 45' 13 W 67° 48' 42 -- Frank Evans contributed: What's all this inches nonsense. Anyone would think we were back landing on the moon or something. Napoleon, thou should'st be living at this hour. and we'd tear every bone apart! Guess who!
Re: metric
Peter Tandy wrote: Americans should be warned. If you 'go metric' as Britain has been forced to do it will seem a very strange world for those not brought up to it from an early age. What the hell is a litre of petrol?? Mercifully though, I can still get a pint of beer, and with that I know my limitation. Long may it continue. This metric versus imperial or american measurements will never end. It certainly has more to do with how you were brought up than with any easiness of use or practicality. I was brought up with the metric system. At least at school that's what I learned. Customary measures were not even tought. Now, my grandparents would always use the customary system. My father would use a mix. My mother was metric-minded. One of my grandfathers was a blue collar work in a railroad built by the British. That means that when he was talking about his tools, nuts and bolts he would use the British system. Maybe I was in a very unique position to learn several systems at once. Now, either I was too lazy or the British and Brazilian customary systems were too much confusing. The fact is that as kid (without knowing anything about politics or imperialism) I rejected both the British and the Brazilian system. It did not seem I would ever learn how to express something in yards, feet, inchs and fractions of inches. To me putting a comma somewhere (we use the decimal comma, not the decimal point) seemed much easier than finding the proper unit that would come next. There was one more problem: many measures we quite unique in the sense that what they represented could change from state to state, town to town or even person to person. One league, for instance, could mean either 6 km or 6.6 km. Now I know (I did not know then) that a league may also represent 3 statute mile (4.8 km). Now, 1 alqueire (land measure) had its fractions expressed in liters! Oh boy, only I know how my little head was confused: learning at school that liters were used to measure volume, now they were using it to measure surface! Eventually I was to learn that 1 alqueire = 48 liters. And reason was quite simple and straightforward: 1 alqueire was the land that would consume 48 liters of bean seed. Of course, beans have different sizes; some people like sowing close together, other like sowing far apart. So it is easy to see why the alqueire was quite elastic. There were other ways to measure the alqueire. Eventually it was boiled down to *only* for: alqueire de sesmaria, alqueire paulista, alqueiro goiano and alqueiro mineiro. Any doubt why I attached myself firmly to the metric system? Even if you love the American Customary System, do your kids a favour: teach them the metric system. So, in the future I'll be able to drink 0.5 l or 500 ml of bear instead of a pint. I can't believe drinking a pint can be as refreshing and awarding as half a liter :-) - fernando -- Fernando Cabral Padrao iX Sistemas Abertos mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pix.com.br Fone Direto: +55 61 329-0206mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PABX: +55 61 329-0202 Fax: +55 61 326-3082 15º 45' 04.9 S 47º 49' 58.6 W 19º 37' 57.0 S 45º 17' 13.6 W
Metric
Hello All, The company I work for has be metric for years. However printed circuit boards are still laid out in English units. I think this is because Integrated circuit packages have traditionally be designed in Inches. Integrated circuit die are now talked about in gates per square millimeter. I am reminded about 20 years ago someone asked a mechanical engineer on a project I was working on how big is the long side of an E size drawing? he responded about 1 Meter 4 inches. Generating a comfortable feel for metric takes time. As an electrical engineer I have a good feeling for small distances since I have been looking at oscilloscope screens that have metric gradicules for about 35 years. We had a mechanical designer with about 45 years drafting experience who could freehand draw any length under an inch within a few mil (0.001). Metric and English are confusing but the conversion is more or less constant. Currency conversion however varies country to country, day to day, and where you get your money converted. By using master or visa card you can just spend it and let the next statement figure it all out. Bob33N 117W
Re: metric
Actually, the old UK length system is a curious mixture of decimal and non-decimal Start with a mile Take half = half a mile = 880 yards Take half = a quarter mile = 440 yards Take half = 1 furlong = 220 yards Now go decimal Divide by 10 = 1 chain = 22 yards = length of one cricket pitch Now you have two choices :- a) Stay decimal and divide by 100 = 1 link = 0.22 of a yard = 7.92 inches!! or b) Divide by 4 = 5.5 yards = 1 rod, pole or perch (we can't make up our mind what to call it.) Curiouser and curiouser said Alice By the way Frank - the fuel companies here changed to litres in the hope that we wouldn't figure out just how much a gallon costs. 75p per litre = £3.41 per gallon, well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Work that price out in dollars per gallon - I couldn't believe how cheap fuel was in the USA. Did you notice how bunches of flowers went down from 12 to 10 per bunch (same price) Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] 53.37N 3.02W Wirral, UK
Re: metric
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, The Shaws wrote: Actually, the old UK length system is a curious mixture of decimal and non-decimal Start with a mile Take half = half a mile = 880 yards Take half = a quarter mile = 440 yards Take half = 1 furlong = 220 yards Then, here is where horse racing enters! Other than a rare short (sprint) race at half-furlong (4.5 or 5.5) distances, all are in increments of furlongs. Except for 1-mile, 70 yards! By the way Frank - the fuel companies here changed to litres in the hope that we wouldn't figure out just how much a gallon costs. 75p per litre = ?3.41 per gallon, well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Work that price out in dollars per gallon - I couldn't believe how cheap fuel was in the USA. Mike Try Russia: Not only do they have 5 (and somtimes more) grades at the pump, up to 110 Octane (unheard of in the US since the 60's, except for boats and aircraft), but a typical upper-middle grade, maybe 90 Octane, sells for around 6 Rubles, about $0.23/14 pence, per litre! When you consider that the Russian State is in NO economic condition to subsidize consumer fuel prices, I have to think *we* are getting shafted! Dave
Re: metric
Dave Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try Russia: Not only do they have 5 (and somtimes more) grades at the pump, up to 110 Octane (unheard of in the US since the 60's, except for boats and aircraft), but a typical upper-middle grade, maybe 90 Octane, sells for around 6 Rubles, about $0.23/14 pence, per litre! When you consider that the Russian State is in NO economic condition to subsidize consumer fuel prices, I have to think *we* are getting shafted! Dave I think you're right. As low as the US price is compared to European standards, quite a large portion of the price is Federal tax. Not long ago when the price of oil dipped, the majority of the price at the pump was tax. Jim40N45, 111W53 =-= In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. -- Lao Tzu
Re: Metric - What is the 'legal' USA situation ?
On Sat 12 Feb 2000 (18:44:30), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reason I suggested inches for the optical resolution table was that all of the metals that we use for gnomons such as rods, spheres, plates, and cables are sold in inches or fractions thereof, in the US anyway. I agree that most people who have to do math would prefer to use metric, myself included, but we're stuck with the old outdated system and have to live with it. John What exactly is the current situation, in the UNITED STATES, re. 'metric' measurements ? - as I was led to believe it is the LEGAL standard there ! When our business first started exporting the customized Layout Plans for Sunclocks (Human Sundials) to the USA, about 12 or 13 years ago - I was told by the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry, in the UK) that metric measurements had to be used on 'all working drawings' sent to the USA, as it was the only 'legally acceptable' standard, (in the case of disputes). Apparently, USA Congress had approved legislation in 1968, to change-over to the 'metric' system within ten years (i.e, more than 20 years ago) ! Although most of our customers are Schools (who seem to prefer the metric system), we also get requests from other people (including Architects) to have measurements in 'Feet and Inches' - as that is what the USA wants. We have to point out to them that (for legal reasons) we are only allowed to send our Layout Plans to the USA with 'metric' dimensions, even though they would prefer these in Feet Inches - and thus my question above, to hear the views of any USA members of the Mailing List, on this situation. Best Regards, Douglas Hunt. -- MODERN SUNCLOCKS - 'Human Sundials', using YOUR OWN SHADOW to tell time. Looking for a useful self-funding Millennium-marker ? - you've found one ! For details, see Web-site at http://www.argonet.co.uk/education/sunclocks/ Mail Address: 1 Love Street, Kilwinning, Ayrshire, Scotland, KA13 7LQ, UK. Tel Fax (UK): 01294-552250. International Tel Fax: + 44 1294 552250. E-mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
metric system
Like most engineers in the US, I use both systems. Here are some random observations from a few decades of engineering. There are very few arguments in favor of American (nee Englsih) units other than avoidance of the the cost of conversion. However, it is interesting that the English system just growed and so is user-friendly. Actual values often lie in the user-friendly 1 to 100 range. Derived units are also convenient. Your house water pressure may be 40 psi (pounds per square inch) or 275 kilopascals (unless you're using some secondary unit like bars). On the down side of the English system, the man on the street gets confused between mass and weight when talking about pounds. However, it seems like the metric man on the street gets confused between mass and weight when talking about kilograms, though it's my impression that the metric man may be slightly less confused. For those who are accustomed to using the metric system, but must occasionally use the English system, I'll tell you the secret. It's really very easy. The key is g. (g being 32.174 f/s/s or 9.80665 m/s/s, not 392 Hz) In the English system, wherever an equation should not have g, insert it. Wherever it should have g, omit it. 8-) It's as simple as that. Me personally, yeah, I favor one system. I don't care which system, just one system. 8-) I'm tired of having to carry around constants in two systems and the conversion factors between them (.2248 pound = 1 newton). What a waste of my limited memory! Well, sure, it would be more comfortable for me to stay with the English system since the metric system was a curiosity when I went to school. However, any discomfort from using only the metric system pales in comparsion with the present situation of having to use both systems day in and day out. I live in California. Admittedly California communists are often confused, but our beloved (former) Governor Moonbeam once said about government that less is more. So it ain't just us conservative refugees from a geriatic ward that think that. John B
Re: Metric - What is the 'legal' USA situation ?
U.S. Federal contracts require metric units (but usually not standard metric sizes) . The U.S. populace still thinks in English customary units. For example, highway construction is specified in metric units; highway speeds are in customary units. U.S. customary units have long been legally defined in terms of metric units. For example, the inch is now defined as 25.4 mm, formerly 100/3937 metre. The European Union has deferred its metric-only labeling requirement until 31 December 2009. http://www.ansi.org/public/news/1998feb/eulbl_11.html See the following for a 1998 discussion of metric fasteners: http://www.manufacturing.net/magazine/id/archives/1998/ind0301.98/fastners/c utting.htm List of historical definitions of the metre http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/meter.htm A news article in Mother Jones Magazine on the U.S. Metric Program office http://bsd.mojones.com/mother_jones/JF99/zengerle.html U. S. Code on metric units http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch6.html#PC6 U.S. Code on time, weights and measures http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch6.html NIST Metric Links http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/mpo_reso.htm U. S. General Services Administration's Metric Design Guide (Interesting details of hard and soft conversion) http://www.gsa.gov/pbs/pc/tc_files/stds/metricgd.pdf Gordon At 03:43 PM 2/13/00 +, Mr. D. Hunt wrote: What exactly is the current situation, in the UNITED STATES, re. 'metric' measurements ? - as I was led to believe it is the LEGAL standard there ! Gordon Uber [EMAIL PROTECTED] San Diego, California USA Webmaster: Clocks and Time: http://www.ubr.com/clocks
metric
What's all this inches nonsense. Tsk, Tsk. How could you? ! Patrick
Re: metric
Frank Evans contributed: What's all this inches nonsense. Anyone would think we were back landing on the moon or something. Napoleon, thou should'st be living at this hour. and we'd tear every bone apart! Guess who!
Re: metric
Hi Frank: The reason I suggested inches for the optical resolution table was that all of the metals that we use for gnomons such as rods, spheres, plates, and cables are sold in inches or fractions thereof, in the US anyway. I agree that most people who have to do math would prefer to use metric, myself included, but we're stuck with the old outdated system and have to live with it. John What's all this inches nonsense. Anyone would think we were back landing on the moon or something. Napoleon, thou should'st be living at this hour. Frank 55N 1W -- Frank Evans
Re: metric
Re the comment about Carter and Reagan and metrics. I was a student in elementary and middle school during both administrations, and I can vouch for the fact that attempts to teach us metrics were attempted, and it did seem in vouge for a while at least in the educational system. The problem was it was taught as a chapter and wasn't used exclusively. In high school science classes metrics were given almost exclusive use, which is especially helpful for derived units. I also recall attempts to change gasoline sales from gallons to liters, this went up like a lead balloon since you have the geriatric set that are both easily confused and very loud complainers. (Soda pop is successful sold in liters though...) The most humorous thing I've heard though is the sentiment by many in congress that the metric system is 'communist'! metrically yours, Troy
