2002-02-23 Han,
Some time ago, I posted some questions to them through you, and to this date, they never answered them. Maybe it is time to ask again. Exactly how do they define the FFU measurements? What is the official BWMA definition of the inch, pint, pound, etc.? How do they define the electrical units? I'm sure they must have some means of defining their units without reference to metric ones. Can you contact them as an "innocent by-stander", wanting to know the "official" definitions of the "imperial system"? While you are at it, you might want to ask what is the proper way to describe the difference between the American version of the units and the British? Even though the volumetric units obviously are different, they must have a way to describe the differences between the length units, as there was a difference until 1959 when the inch was standardised to 25.4 mm. Since they obviously don't recognise this standard, they must accept the difference of the length units as existed before 1959 as the official ones. So, now you have 3 inches in existence, the American, the Imperial, and the metric. There might even be more since Australia and Canadian inches also were different. That means the foot, yard, and mile also are different in each of the countries. Can you find out? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-02-23 01:35 Subject: [USMA:18361] Re: Inacurracy of the original metre unit!! > It was as accurate as the circumstances allowed. Those two astronomers, > Mechain and Delambre, used triangulation to measure the 1200 km stretch of > that meridian. They used the best measuring instruments possible and even > took accout of the curvature of the earth. They nearly became veritable > Metric Martyrs as the Jacobin Terrorists threatened to guillotine them or > hang them from a lamp post as 'Royalist spies'. Once Delambre was forced to > appear before a council of Terrorists and the super-Terrorist Marat (ar real > lover of the guillotine!) was presiding. This Marat said there was no need > for new weights and measures, refused to give him a free pass he had > requested, and then ordered him to get out at once, or he would be arrested. > This would have led to the guillotine. For me they were soldiers for a cause > and heroes. There was an error but that appeared later when technology > improved and the measurements could be verified with it. > I know that the BWMA et al denigrate what they did and make a lot of this > 'inaccuracy' to 'prove' how inferior the metric system is. They even come > up with the gem that the foot and the inch have hardly ever be redefined, > while the meter and the kilogram have! That is also proof of the > 'inferiority' of metric. Of course, they never mention the fact that the > length of the meter and the mass of the kilogram as such never changed. By > only telling one part of the story, they insinuate that the metric standards > changed as well and are instable, as opposed to the 'standard' inch, foot, > pound, gallon etc. etc. > > Han > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, 2002-02-23 01:39 > Subject: [USMA:18353] Inacurracy of the original metre unit!! > > > > I'm sure this topic has been discussed before but I have heard it said a > few times that due to certain conditions, the original equation of the > measurement from France to the North pole (or was it the South pole) for > the metre was inaccurate!! > > > > I would be interested to know just how inaccurate!! > > > > Regards, > > > > Steve. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
