This is also another interesting topic for discussion (angles). I cannot fathom for the love of me why we still haven't dealt with this issue yet. If we all agree with a decimal system of units we should also all agree that decimalization of angles should be "in the agenda" of things to do (just like with time!). Now... Why don't we "change slightly" the subject of these discussions to what solution we should support? As far as I'm concerned there can only be 4 reasonable options here: either go with 100 or 1000 for a unit or 1 or 4 for the entire circle. My vote goes to 100 for the entire circle due mainly to its "tie" with percentages.
Comments?... Marcus On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:35:24 Gene Mechtly wrote: >On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Bruce Barrow asked: >> ... where in the world did 1/6400 come from? > >There are approximately 6284 milliradians in a full circle. >6400 - 6284 implies an error of about 2% by using 6400 instead of >6284 for full circle. This error of 2% is less than the inherent error >of World War I artillery shells. Thus, fire control compasses and dials >of that era were more simply divided into halves and quarters based on >6400 rather than on the more precise 6284. > >Gene. > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
