RE: metric systems shortfall

>>>The fact is, all the measures convert evenly althouth not to exact multibles of 10 like the metric system.

Not really – for instance ft to yard. feet to fathom, and feet to mile = 3′; 6′ and 5280′. Then when I convert back from yd to ft; fathom to ft and mile to ft i get = 1/3; 1/6 and 1/5280! not very handy that; inspite of what you may think.

OTOH for mm to m and mm to km = 1000 mm and 1,000,000 mm, when I convert back again, I just have to move the decimal point to the left by the required amount to arrive at any reverse conversion very simply and very easily ie 1/1000 and 1/1,000,000. Being multiples of ten is the advantage of the metric system, one only requires to move decimal points to arrive at quicker conversions

>>>You guys keep making a big deal about the Imperial System originating from body parts. Who cares where the standard originated, whether its a platinum rod in a french vault or the kings elbow.

Never said that vortex used it as a support for feel. I could care less about the body parts either.

>>Yes Im proposing that a few metric equivelants of the Imperial system be added to the metric system, I listed 5 additions to the metric system and 5 alternatives of nomanclature for those used to the names in the Imperial system.

So when you say
metric foot= 1/3 meter

do you want the metric system to change to accomodate the metric foot or do you want the imperial foot to change to accomodate the metric system. Because what you advocate would for sure mean that one of the systems would have to change to accomodate the other, or are you proposing a new set of measurements to be used in place of the current imperial system?!!?

>>>As Puffadder pointed out feet are commonly used in european aviation and boating because metric measures just arent practical.

Feet is commonly used in aviation and sailing because of convention not because of ease of use. I find it hard to believe calculations conversions in ft/lb are easier than in SI. Maybe if he can explain more clearly, I would understand better. For instance I know 1 m/s = 0.001 km / s x 60 = 0.06 km / min x 60 = 3.6 kph – its that simple!!! CAN YOU tell me how many miles an hour is 1 ft/s WITHOUT USING YOUR CALCULATOR.

>>>You guys keep mentioning “feel”, which I assume means being accustomed to visualizing/estimating measures in the real world. Im not saying the Imperial system has better feel than metric, if I used mach numbers to measure the speed Im driving, Im sure I could estimate my speed as well as any other system, its just the numbers itself would be cumbersome to work with (ie mach .012745 on highway signs).

Again feel was mentioned by Vortex I think.

Hence in SI we have kph and not mach numbers to measure speed. one has to use a practical scale to measure what one wants. Certainly one would not use mm or inches to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon. It can be done but one always uses a practical unit.

Let me illustrate with an example to you. The mean orbit of the moon around the earth is 192,201.5 km which if I want to convert to mm will only mean that I have to add six zeros to the above figure arriving at 1,922,015,00,000 mm. Its that simple and right off the top of my head. OTOH I’d bet there are a very few people who could tell me the mean orbit of the moon around the earth in inches WITHOUT USING A CALCULATOR even if I give the number = 103,780.51 as nautical miles. Please do try and give that to me in inches without using a calculator!!!

>>>The fact that the Imperial system is man made and not multibles of one single scientific measurement means it the size of the measurement handles specifac ranges better without resorting to fractional numbers.

On the contrary!!! since there is no equivalent of ml/mm or cl/cm in the imperial system, i could just as easily count 1/4 litres/metres as 25 cl/cm or even as 250 ml/mm which is more accurate with NO FRACTIONS. Or 1 ft = 304.8 mm or 304,800,000 micrometres (microns). In the above examples clearly SI has the better scope of accurately depicting measures without fractions. If required we could drill deeper and get into the micrometre and nanometre ranges = 1/1,000,000 and 1/1,000,000,000 AND STILL WORK WITH WHOLE NUMBERS as desired by you. I also think working with decimals is far easier than working with fractions. I dont have to remember least common denominators and highest common multiples to multiply and divide fractions. One can simply multiply and divide the numbers with each other – therefore easier to do in ones head.

RE: metric systems shortfall

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-07-02 AT 07:11 AM (GMT)]>”Like how much you weight? That would be in Newtons wouldn’t
>it? “
>
>No, it would be Kgs which I can also estimate by handling
>much as you can estimate in pounds.

A strict physics definition of weight = “kg” is “volume x density = mass”

“force = mass x gravitational acceleration = Newtons (N)”

I think the Imperial system too has a weight definition equivalent to Newton, but I don’t know for sure, and have no idea about the conversion factor.

In our normal everyday, down to earth lives we use kg as a definition weight, since gravitational acceleration is constant in our lives at every moment.

RE: metric systems shortfall

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-07-02 AT 06:55 AM (GMT)]Let me put this another way. Perhaps you may understand my POV too!

I grew up with the metric system of weights and measures, though where I come from (India) we have our local W&M too.

Like Arthur pointed out the metric system logically evolves into the various measures.

1 metre (or meter in America) is = Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1/299 792 458 of a second. I think this was adopted in the 80s. Before this the definition was something to do with 1.65 x 10^6 wavelengths of orange light in a vacuum(!???!), before that it was a platinum rod maintained at a certain temprature and humidity which was the worldwide reference.

The logical extensions for this measurement are:

millimetre = 1 m x 10^-3 = 0.001 m
centimetre = 1 m x 10^-2 = 0.01 m
decimetre = 1 m x 10^-1 = 0.1 m
metre = Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1/299 792 458 of a second or 1m x 10^0
decametre = 1 m x 10^1 = 10 m
hectometre = 1 m x 10^2 = 100 m
kilometre = 1 m x 10^3 = 1000 m

BTW 300 decimetres = 30 m = 32.81 yds :9

1 second = “The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.” – dont ask me what that means! BTW the definition comes from here http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

0 deg Kelvin is = Absolute freezing = -273.15 deg C (which “freezing” point of distilled water at sea level) = -373.15 deg C (which is the “boiling” point of distilled water at sea level). 0 deg C as the freezing point and 100 deg C as the boiling point, makes referencing a lot simpler – at least to my mind it is a better reference than 32 deg F for freezing of water and 212 as the boiling point of water!

A metric ton = 1 cubic metre of distilled water at 4 deg C (where water is at its is the densest) at sea level or 1,000,000 (100 x 100 x 100) cubic cm (cc) of water with the same conditions.

1 litre = 1/1,000 of a metric ton = 1 kilo = 1,000 cc (with water being the measure with same conditions as above). Therefore if I have a litre of water of water in my hand I know I am holding 1 kilo, if I have .453 litres of water in my hand I know I am holding ~ .453 kilos etc… etc… Conversely if I am holding about .25 kilos of water in my hand I know I have about .25 litres of water or 250 cc – simple isn’t it? No factorials, no divisors and no fractions. Instantly convertible between a weight and a measure, which is the basic advantage of SI or the metric system for that matter.

Coming to the point of easy understanding or “feel” – because I grew up with this system I have a rough idea of a metre and kilo as a measure of distance and weight. “ROUGHLY” I can say a metre is 1 step – more or less the same as a yard. If I need a more accurate measure I break out my measuring instruments. I know a kilometre is how much I can walk in about 9-10 minutes which is roughly equal to 15 minutes for a mile in the imperial system! Or personally I would associate it as a relationship with the distance to the nearest significant landmark. For instance I may say 1.5 km = about 1 mile = about 3 times the distance to the streetcorner from my house!!!

Further I find it difficult to immediately associate miles/lb to any meaningful W&M when I hear them being referred to. I have to mentally convert into SI to make sense out of the weights and measures being quoted before I could respond.

As mentioned earlier it is a matter of choice, and one would always associate a W&M to a personal experience, such as a multiple or divisor to the street corner from ones house for instance.

mixtec I dont understand what you are saying if we do as suggested

metric foot= 1/3 meter
metric ounce= 1/32 kilo

1 foot = 0.3048 m which changing to 1 metric foot = 1/3 of a m = 0.3333 m which is about 3 cm (~1 1/5″) more than the standard m/ft conversion

1 metric oz = 1/32 = 0.0311 kg anyway [scratches head in confusion] 😮

etc… etc…

Are you proposing a metric equivalent Imperial system; or are you saying that SI should be changed so that 1′ = 1/3 m = 1 yd??????

Hope I haven’t rambled too much. 😀

RE: Riddle me This, Riddle me That

Does this work?

Attachments:

RE: The 8 Queen Problem

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-04-02 AT 07:07 PM (GMT)]This should work