On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:56:03
Carl Sorenson wrote:
...
>At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm make another comment about the use
>of hours in units (kWh, km/h). I believe it really comes down to the fact
>that we use hours and minutes (fractional hours) to measure our lives for
>many things.
Exactly our point, Carl. It's just a very unfortunate fact of life. On the other
hand it's something that COULD be fixed to everyone's satisfaction if only we had the
guts to take the extra step ('course, I know, I know, it's too bold a one for now, but
I'm talking about it from a *technical* perspective...) and change that.
>...
>The fact that all metric countries use km/h rather than m/s (to my
>knowledge) tells me that they are doing it for a reason.
The reason being our *addictive* connection to the hideous 24-60-60 Babylonian time
system!!!...
> The trip to
>Grandma's house will always take 25 minutes, not 1500 s. I'm not going to
>cook a pizza for 1020 s. We use hours and minutes in every day life, and
>that doesn't need to change.
Yes, and no! If we're to have a more... "perfect" SI system I would certainly say
that no, we DO need to fix that. But from a practical point-of-view we unfortunately
do not need to change that since from a universal perspective *everyone* is using this
24-60-60 crap. But please note that EVEN if this is true I see this is as NO
reasonable excuse for us to keep this thing **in the long run**! It's not because
it's "universal" that we should necessarily keep it. If we can come up with a *much
better* proposal (like fixing the time construct), then so be it!!! 'course
(again...) I do realize I'm... dreaming... :-S
> It isn't just an "old mindset", it is the way
>metric countries work, too. To say that hours and minutes are "good enough"
>or more convenient is not an argument against metrication as one person
>implied.
>
The time situation is one of those... "odd" things in the measurement world, a one
that I'd love to see addressed by BIPM. But, as someone here already pointed out, we
unfortunately have "enemies of progress within our own ranks" as they would not even
consider changing the name of the kilogram... Bummer... :-(
...
>Your example used seconds, which most of us would find confusing if we are
>measuring a quantity hours long. My point is that we often do measure such
>quantities, often enough that measuring in units with hours is entirely
>appropriate.
>
Again, the use of 'appropriate' (convenient (?...)) should be qualified. Had we a
different "hour" and we would use that one as... 'appropriate'... ;-)
>I think it is important to choose your battles. Converting the U.S. to
>metric has good long term prospects because 95% percent of the world uses
>metric and 85% of its money does. If even the metric countries don't use
>m/s in cars and on highways, it will be a lonely crusade, and you will risk
>being seen as on the fringe.
>...
Here Carl is (unfortunately) right. The discussion about changes to the time system
is better suited for this forum, NOT for when it comes to our metrication battle. On
the other hand I'm more and more inclined to contact that watch manufacturer and have
my next new watch custom-made to the 100 000 "second" framework (I'd really like to
own one and start getting used to what I see as the future - albeit a very distant
one... - of time for humankind... ;-) )!
Marcus
Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably
Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail.
Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
