Hi Marcus, Ron and friends: As we are aware that 'Decimalisation of the YEAR, the Day and the Second' have already been tried and somehow found inconsistancy for use wherein the calculations for Earth-Sun-Moon are concerned or for that matter whenever the *question* came up it had been projected that we are already METRIC and/or Decimalised. THE HOUR (by itself) had NEVER been separated and co-ordinated with the DEGREE or 15-degree 'Hour-angle'. As I have given some figures of motions of Sun,Earth,Moon in terms of HOURS, it may not be difficult to see through that 11.7895 HOURs would mean *seventy-eight minutes and ninty-five seconds after ELEVEN on the 'Decimal Time scale* or correspond to 48 minutes past 11 AM. The coordination of arc-angle is needed to know LOCAL time, if the above instant was taken to be at Greenwich or the Dateline! But, calling it by anyother name - especially during TRANSITION, we all can see the 'confusion'. This is where I thought of reverting and re-working leaving The Metric Second to gestate and relax! Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21332] Re: practical terms for decimal time units >Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:14:32 -0700 > >This whole discussion of "metric time" has got me thinking these last days. > It's a discussion that really excites me! :-) > >I'm really happy that we have so many people in this forum earnestly >interested in vehicling proposals to get this old-age problem solved for >once and for all. > >Now, many alternatives have apparently been flying around here lately. >This one by AAT being one of them. So, let's see if we can take a closer >look at it. > >On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:10:54 > Alliance for the Advancement of Technology (AAT) wrote: > >As the hour is a practical unit in time that is expressed > >in seconds, minutes, and hours; I am wondering how a > >corresponding unit may be referenced in a decimalized time. > > >The first point I'd like to comment here is that perhaps we may not need to >continue tiing ourselves to a "triple" amount of units within a day (s, >min, h). The overwhelming number of applications out there make use of >mostly two, s and h. Noted exceptions are rpm, fluid flow, aircraft rate >of descent/ascent (any notable others?...). However these can be >adequately addressed IMHO within a two-parameter framework. The first one, >for instance, can be easily replaced by Hz. The third one by m/s. As for >fluid flow I'd have to think it over a little longer. > >But on the issue of names this can be very tricky. I'd prefer to keep the >expression "metric second", "metric minute", etc, for now! However, I do >like the concept/name chron. > > >In ICAS t10 a tik (0.00001 chron or tt010 or approx > >0.86 seconds) has practical comparability to the second; > >a millichron (0.001 chron or t001 or approx > >1 minute 26 seconds) has practical comparability > >to the minute. > > >My main concern with the above approach is its unnecessary cumbersome >nature. This issue of 't10', 'tt010', etc, is far too messy for the >ordinary citizen on the street. As I commented before, please let's >remember the KISS principle. A simpler proposal along the lines of 10 x >100 x 100, or 100 x 1000 calling the respective units whatever you want >would have far more acceptability chances than the above. > >What got me thinking (as I pointed out in the beginning of this post) and >makes me even more favorable towards the 100 x 1000 model is the fact that >this model could potentially have very powerful positive implications. >We'd be coupling an "engineering" power of 3 (1000) with another very >popular concept, %, to address it. Please allow me to just vehicle one >more very convenient consequence of this model (besides others I've already >shared here). > >Speed: If speed limits are hypothetically given as, say, 40 km/h (the new >hour, evidently...). This value would be *exactly* the same as m/s (again, >the new second, of course). Therefore, when one navigates from the "long" >one to the short one, there is no need even to move a decimal point (this >thanks to the 1000-s part of the framework)!!! > >The above could be extended to many, many other situations where we'd have >prefixed units in SI in ratios following the "engineering" concept (powers >of 3). > >Now, the business of having something to relate to our current minute. >Evidently in my 100 x 1000 we wouldn't exactly have that, but we could look >at the first decimal digit as referring to the "metric minute" (1 min 26.4 >s). > >The challenge perhaps would be to build a simple analog watch to read in >this framework. For this we may require 4 needles, instead of the present >3, I think. I'd welcome suggestions to address that aspect from our >colleagues here (thanks!). If I come up with something of my own I'll >share it with the group here. > > >This would suggest a 5 centichron unit (0.05 chron or t050 > >or 72 minutes) that is one-twentieth of a day. Or perhaps a > >25 millichron unit (0.025 chron or t025 or 36 minutes) > >that is one-fortieth of a day. > > >With a 100-h day, we'd have a choice of time zones of 4 hours apart, 25 >altogether (making it very close to our present system), or 20 zones of 5 >hours apart (take your pick! ;-) ). Personally, I may lean towards >using 20 zones of 5 hours, just so it gets more in harmony with a 400-gon >circle (i.e. a change in time zone every 2 Mm). It may be the case that >this small shortening in the number of time zones may not upset people's >lives much when it comes to amount of daylight and stuff like this >(apparently, 1.2 h doesn't seem like too much of an upset). I'd welcome >any discussions here in this regard. > > >So I am searching for terms other than 'hour' for quantities > >of one-twentieth and one-fortieth of a day. The practical > >quantities could also relate to particular time-zone systems. > > >In the current system we do not have any names for time zones, except in >North America (MST, EST, PST, etc...). I'm not sure it would be wise to >start creating them now. > >This comment of Ron's reminds me of another interesting aspect, a one that >is associated with the "beat" proposal from Swatch: the construction of a >time reckoning system that would be "universal", i.e. that would get rid of >time zones altogether. I'm honestly not sure whether this would be... >wise, so to speak. People simply like the mind association of living in an >environment where the beginning and the end of things relate to 0 and some >other value for these. Wherever one goes to live one would always see the >start of the day, 0, relate to sun's and moon's position, so to speak. The >use of a universal time would certainly upset people's attachment to this. >Imagine for instance that in NA one would work from, say, 400 to 733, >whatever, whereas someone in China would from, say, 900 to 233 of the "next >day"!!!... > > >In addition, these particular terms could be used to express > >a 20-unit initiative of Brij, and a 40-unit initiative of Bob R. > > >The above could evidently be extended to the 100-h model, too... ;-) > > >These are directions that AAT is considering for the next > >ICAS revision. > >... >I sincerely hope you'd give serious consideration to all these comments >above. Your proposal is apparently the closest to the 100 x 1000 framework >that I can remember, since the duration of your second is apparently the >same as for this model. > >Regards, > >Marcus > > >Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably >Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. >Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
