I still don't see the point of this. Why new clock? What is wrong with the existing 24 hour way of telling what time it is? Plus it seems awful lot more complicated. Don't mean to be rude or looking for an argument, just curious.
Predrag -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ma Be Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 1:21 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:28159] Re: New Calendar!!!... My post was not meant to restart discussions on the issue of time/calendar reform, but it was just informational and to show that I mean business when dealing with the issue of metrication (I DO put my money where my mouth is, that should be crystal clear by now!). But I need to answer the inquiry of our fellow member below. On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:37:50 Nick Kocharhook wrote: >On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:28:33PM -0800, Ma Be proclaimed: >> I'll take this opportunity (our fellow's post below) to share a new >> development within my family company (SI-Tec Enterprises, Inc. - >> BN89646XXXX - four last digits withheld for security reasons..) as per >> last Board's initiative (practically ipsis literis) to be introduced >> to its company books shortly. > >Is this for real? > >I really can't tell. YES, Nick, it IS 'for real' indeed! Great lengths are being taken to implement this policy. In addition to the above we're planning to have several watches developed for use by our company and future dental office personnel administered by us. All of these are planned to use percentime and decimal calendars as operational frameworks. By the way, the watch design we settled for is one that can read both time constructs, percentime and Babylonian time (the official drawing is still under development). Just to quench your curiosity though this is briefly how it works. There are 5 main divisions on the circle, with 5 couples of numbers starting with 0/5, 1/6, 2/7, etc... 5 to 9 being "on the inside", i.e. closest to the center of the circle. There are 3 outside sets of circular "measurement ticks". The one on the most outer radius has 100 ticks with slightly longer bolder/thicker ticks every 5 units (dekapercentime second), a main longer tick every 10 units, i.e. (with small numbers 1, 2... 9 on the very outside, it resembles a lot a "round" cm ruler!). The middle set has 45 ticks altogether (the paired numbers described above would serve as the "tick" for full (deka)percentime hour readings). These would also have thicker/bolder ticks every 5 units (percentime hours). These markings line up nicely with the numbers 5 to 9 (dekapercentime hour). The last set is for the reading of "normal hours and minutes" just so people could read these with the percentime hour and 3rd minute needles. This set is comprised with small numbers from 1 to 12 (same size as the one on the very outside). As you may have already expected there'll be 3 needles. One for percentime hours (and normal hours), one for percentime minutes - HH.M <-, and one for normal minutes. Evidentely the percentime hour needle (smallest in radius size) will also serve to read normal hours (they both do two full revolutions per day). The "fast" needle will read percentime hours only. It does one full revolution every percentime hour (14 minutes, 24 seconds). These two needles will have similar visual thicker construction, but with the symbol for percentime at its tip, like the "arrow" (this symbol can't be printed here yet but it resembles the circled copyright one). The smaller needle will also have a tiny '24' number within a tiny circle at half-way radius to identify it as a needle to read normal hours as well. This will evidently also be present at the normal minute needle for quick identification. In other words, tme is read with two pairs of needles: Normal time: percentime/hour + minute needles Percentime: percentime/hour + percentime "fast" minute needles. It's hard to describe these by words, I wish I had a picture to share, but once this is built I promise I'll scan an image for all of you. > Your idea is interesting, and if it really is true >I wish you luck with it. Thanks, Nick, your well wishes are well-appreciated! :-) > However, it seems to me that there is a better >way: > >http://www.calendarreform.org/ > >They propose a 13 month year. It sounds a bit crazy to begin with, but >the benefits are tremendous. Take a look. > Thanks for the reference, but the ultimate justification for picking a decimal calendar is self-explanatory. Its main intention is to facilitate accounting/reporting/calculation functions. Clearly the number 13 would be a burden in that respect. >And I realize that this is pretty well off-topic. So back to the metric >discussion. :-) >... You're correct. However, I felt it was worth sharing this development with my brothers-in-arms here. Take care, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
