Despite assertions to the contrary here, there is no question about pure decimal "modules" being far more efficient than *any* other framework!
I have demonstrated that here in the past when I analyzed the issue of how coins should be denominated, i.e.: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 & 50 being correct (notice the division in primes of 10: 1, 2 & 5) while 1, 5, 10, 25 (SIC) isn't! The *ONLY* way that the above would not be true is if the distribution of usage is biased towards specific amounts! In other words if the statistical distribution of length requirements in *practical* use favors a specific *biased* distribution, then the above *may* not hold. Marcus On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:07:20 Mighty Chimp wrote: >2003-10-29 > >I think the 100 mm module was meant to apply to more then just wood sheets. >There are other things that would fit into the module, like bricks and >cinder blocks. > >Euric > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Euric Mighty Chimp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "U.S. Metric >Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, 2003-10-28 14:38 >Subject: Re: [USMA:27328] Re: Lumber in the U K > > >Dear Euric and All, > >What you say is true, but I believe that the savings are greater if you use >a 600 mm module. > >It's an interesting point that the way the industry has developed in >construction sheeting materials is to use a 'standard' sheet of 2400 mm by >1200 mm and this implies a module of 1200 mm. > >Cheers, > >Pat Naughtin LCAMS >Geelong, Australia >-- > >on 28/10/03 10:55 AM, Mighty Chimp at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> The base dimension of the module is 100 mm. That means any factor of 100 >mm >> is permitted. 600 mm is permitted as it is afactor of 100, 6 times. A >600 >> mm module will only have factors of 600, 1200, 1800, 2400, etc. >> >> Even if someone stuck to these sizes, they would still be following the >100 >> mm module. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Monday, 2003-10-27 14:59 >> Subject: [USMA:27322] Re: Lumber in the U K >> >> >> Dear Euric and All, >> >> on 2003-10-27 09.50, Mighty Chimp at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> Notice that the length (2400 mm in this case) is part of a system of >>>> dimensional coordination based on a 600 mm module. Other lengths that >are >>>> available are 1200 mm, 1800 mm, 3000 mm, 3600 mm and so on. >> >>> Pat, I think you mean the 100 mm module. There is no such thing as a 600 >> mm >>> module. >> >> In Australia at the time of metric conversion, a very serious attempt was >> made in the building industry to introduce a 600 mm module. 600 mm was a >> preferred module to 300 mm, and this in turn was preferred to a 100 mm >> module. >> >> >> >> >> These preferences (set in the early 1970s) still profoundly influence the >> sizes of many, if not most, of our building components, thus saving >millions >> of dollars each year for the Australian building industry. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Pat Naughtin LCAMS >> Geelong, Australia >> >> Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication >> matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words >> subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> -- >> > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
