2001-03-25
If this is so, that horses are still measured in hands (decimetres) even in
metric countries, it makes sense to set the hand equal to 100 mm (1 dm).
Considering that no measuring device exists calibrated in hands, people have
to use what is available to them. If lineals exist only with metric
markings, users of these lineals will accommodate the hand by making it
equal to the closest rational length on their scale, that being the
decimetre. No one is going to bother with conversions between millimetres
to inches then to hands. They will just agree that 100 mm (1 dm) is close
enough. Just like having a 500 g pound. Also, as shown below, the
hand/decimetre number is 10 times the height in metres. Thus, someone not
familiar with hands can make an easy transition to metres, just by dividing
the hands/decimetres by 10, and vice-versa.
The easiest way to confuse old units or at least to make them metric
friendly, is to get rid of the old measuring devices and set the old units
equal to rational metric. We will never be able to stop some people from
using old unit names. But, we can make it easier for ourselves if we push
to have those old names redefined with rational metric.
John
Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
frei zu sein.
There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
are free!
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 2001-03-25 02:01
Subject: [USMA:11815] RE: Fw: Joan Pontius [Yahoo! Clubs: MetricAmerica]
> Dear Jason, and All,
>
> I was under the impression that this was an international decision (to
have
> horses measured in hands of 100 mm). I think this is important when you
> decide whether a particular event is for ponies or for horses.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pat Naughtin CAMS
> Geelong, Australia
>
> on 2001-03-23 12.31, James J. Wentworth at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The hand is used in equine circles. Didn't the Australians officially
> > change their definition of the hand from 4" to 100 mm (particularly in
the
> > horse racing industry)? That would have made my old one-eyed mare about
> > 13.5 hands (1.35 m) tall. She was a chunky gal, though, at a buxom 500
kg.
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Nat Hager III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:57 PM
> > Subject: [USMA:11770] RE: Fw: Joan Pontius [Yahoo! Clubs: Metric
America]
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>> Now I know you're all going to groan, but what we need is to
> >>> re-introduce
> >>> the measure called *the hand*. Granted, the hand is now 4 inches or
> >>> something,
> >>
> >> Actually there already is such a unit. It's called the 100 mm module,
and
> >> it's darn handy! 300 mm is 3 "hands" stacked on top of one another,
and
> > 50
> >> mm is half a "hand". Some people also like to think in 25 mm modules,
> >> which they call an "inch", but that's just a quarter "hand". And when
you
> >> get to fine work individual millimeters work well, and they're just a
> >> hundredth of a "hand".
> >>
> >> So long as you're comfortable using 100 mm as the base unit for "hand",
> > you
> >> never use fractions or decimals.
> >>
> >> Nat
> >>
> >>
> >
>
