on 2001/05/08 02.37, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Better yet, we should challenge him to "go it alone". Let's suggest that HE
> be the subject of the definition of such mediocre stuff, then he can finally
> go down in history as the *one* after which this imperial crap is named for...
> ;-)
>
> But then again, I'm curious to know how the pint, ounces and gallon are
> *specifically* defined. Did he yield such definitions to the "American" way,
> or is he sticking with the British one, which "universal Anglo-Saxon"
> definition is he clinging to? (Evidently, I won't be wasting my hard-earned
> dollars buying such trash... ;-) ).
>
> Marcus
Dear Marcus,
I have adapted a piece of writing passed on to me by a friend some years
ago. I believe that it was written in the USA, but I don't know the name of
the author as my friend had done a 'search-and-destroy' operation on the
piece - substituting my full first name, Patrick. My friend's thought was
that we could have a 'Patrick' system to replace the 'metric' system.
You might find it amusing in the light of your suggestion above.
Linacre - A new measurement standard
Introduction
I would like to propose a standard of measurement for the world that
actually makes some amount of sense to at least one average citizen. As only
older people are familiar with measurements such as feet, degrees
Fahrenheit, gallons, barrels, and pounds, I understand a need for change to
a more uniform standard.
The problem is that SI (sometimes called metric) is not as arbitrary or as
meaningless as the old units that we have been familiar with. If we have to
change, we should change to a standard that is no better than the one that
was formerly in place.
Justification
There are two big advantages to my new (proposed) standard.
The first advantage is, it is based on definite phenomena and objects that
are observable by an average person (whenever they happen to be in
Scotland). This is unlike SI that, for example, has its length measurement
based on the speed of light, which is only uniformly available in all parts
of the Universe.
The second advantage is, everything is a multiple of one (1); there are no
prefixes or multiples. This is at least ten (10) times simpler than the
current SI trend of everything being a multiple of tens or thousands.
Length
The standard measure of length I would like to see implemented is the
Linacre. It is the distance between the bottom of Vivian Linacre's feet and
the topmost portion of his head (excluding his hair; but we only need shave
the very top of his head), while standing upright. Current conversion
factors for the Linacre measurement of length include: 1 Linacre = 8
29/64ths links and 1 Linacre = 1.7 meters*.
Mass
The standard measure of mass I would like to see implemented is the Linacre.
It is equal to Vivian Linacre's mass, excluding any clothes he happens to be
wearing that day (Verification of secondary standards could cause Vivian to
get a bit chilly in Scotland - but there are prices for international
fame!). Current conversion factors for the Linacre measurement of mass
include: 1 Linacre = 6 21/64ths slugs and 1 Linacre = 100 kilograms*.
Time
The standard measure of time I would like to see implemented is the Linacre.
This is equal to time elapsed between Vivian Linacre's birth and now, with a
maximum value at Vivian Linacre's death. Since he is still living (as of
this writing) this is a variable standard. This changing standard is not the
problem it first appears to be. In fact, it is a great advantage. The
advantage is that if you start reckoning from the time of Vivian Linacre's
birth, the time now is always one (1). The current conversion for the
Linacre measurement of time is (approximately and growing): 1 Linacre = 2522
fortnights and 1 Linacre = 3.051 x 10^9 seconds*.
All other units
The real beauty of this new system is in the fact that all other units are
also derived from the Linacre. For example, speed, which is distance divided
by time, is measured in units of Linacre per Linacre. Other examples are:
one Linacre of area is a square Linacre; one Linacre of volume is a cubic
Linacre; one Linacre of density is obviously a Linacre per cubic Linacre.
As acceleration is measured by a Linacre per Linacre per Linacre, it follows
that one Linacre of force is the force necessary to accelerate one Linacre
at a rate of one Linacre per Linacre per Linacre, and that one Linacre of
energy is the work done by accelerating one Linacre at one Linacre per
Linacre per Linacre for one Linacre. What could be simpler!
Conclusion
Obviously there are many measurement units that I have yet to consider. I
suppose that all the other common measurements can be further derived from
the ones already defined above. I personally find it easier to simply leave
the old units alone, with their old definitions; I simply rename them all
'Linacre'. This is especially convenient for units that I have never heard
of before.
* These are guesses and are subject to verification (I have not been to
Scotland recently, and the thought of shaving the head of a naked Linacre
causes some trepidation). For length, I have assumed that a Linacre is about
an average height for a Scotsman. For mass, I have assumed the mass of a
sedentary man who spends a lot of time in front of a computer screen. And
for time, I have assumed that a Linacre is a very, very, long time as Vivian
Linacre seems to know a lot about extremely old units and measurement
methods. In fact, I think he has written a book on these old units that
could be useful for readings at his geriatric care centre.
--
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
