Decimal Time

~misfit~ wrote on 9/9/2017 2:51 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/7/2017 7:33 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:36:09 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't remember that "people just would not go for it". I don't
recall much resistance at all. I think the "resistance" was at
other levels.

Yep. At the time (about 1975), I was working for a company that
tried to switch to metric. This was aided by having the drafting
manager and mechanical designer also serving on the metric
conversion council (or whatever it was called). At one point, we
started sending metric fabrication drawings to various vendors. They
were immediately returned. The problem wasn't understanding
the new metric way of doing things, it was that they would need to
replace all their English lead screws, measurement instruments,
gauges blocks, programming, etc before they could cut metal. They
also claimed that they needed considerable staff training to handle
the change (because someone tried to simultaneously switch to true
position dimentioning). We would need to wait until the shops
converted before we could orders parts in metric.

So, we went back to English units and waited for the "inevitable"
conversion that never happened. It seems that most of the other
customers followed the same pattern. They tried metric, failed, and
went back to English.

Ok second guy in this thread to use the term "English units". Am I
to assume it's an Americanism then? In England, Australia and New
Zealand (the countries I've lived in) non-metric units are reffered
to as "imperial".

Imperial units are not quite the same. An imperial gallon is larger
than the gallon used in the US.

In the rest of the world is 4.54 litres. Only in the US is 'gallon'
different (approximately 3.75 litres?).

I don't know if there are other
differences, I'm pretty sure the inch, foot and yard are the same. I'm not
sure if a fortnight is the same on both sides of the
Atlantic... ;)
We use the term "English units" because like many of our customs,
laws and general ways of life, they came to us by way of England.

Likewise in Australia and New Zealand we owe a lot of our heritage to
England - however we don't call the units "English". It just seemed odd to
me <shrug

Really? If that is the oddest thing you find about the US then I am very
happy.

I've explained how some of our units are *not* Imperial. What would you
have us call them?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
 
On 9-9-2017 21:23, rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/9/2017 2:51 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/7/2017 7:33 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:36:09 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't remember that "people just would not go for it". I don't
recall much resistance at all. I think the "resistance" was at
other levels.

Yep. At the time (about 1975), I was working for a company that
tried to switch to metric. This was aided by having the drafting
manager and mechanical designer also serving on the metric
conversion council (or whatever it was called). At one point, we
started sending metric fabrication drawings to various vendors. They
were immediately returned. The problem wasn't understanding
the new metric way of doing things, it was that they would need to
replace all their English lead screws, measurement instruments,
gauges blocks, programming, etc before they could cut metal. They
also claimed that they needed considerable staff training to handle
the change (because someone tried to simultaneously switch to true
position dimentioning). We would need to wait until the shops
converted before we could orders parts in metric.

So, we went back to English units and waited for the "inevitable"
conversion that never happened. It seems that most of the other
customers followed the same pattern. They tried metric, failed, and
went back to English.

Ok second guy in this thread to use the term "English units". Am I
to assume it's an Americanism then? In England, Australia and New
Zealand (the countries I've lived in) non-metric units are reffered
to as "imperial".

Imperial units are not quite the same. An imperial gallon is larger
than the gallon used in the US.

In the rest of the world is 4.54 litres. Only in the US is 'gallon'
different (approximately 3.75 litres?).

I don't know if there are other
differences, I'm pretty sure the inch, foot and yard are the same. I'm not
sure if a fortnight is the same on both sides of the
Atlantic... ;)
We use the term "English units" because like many of our customs,
laws and general ways of life, they came to us by way of England.

Likewise in Australia and New Zealand we owe a lot of our heritage to
England - however we don't call the units "English". It just seemed odd to
me <shrug

Really? If that is the oddest thing you find about the US then I am very
happy.

I've explained how some of our units are *not* Imperial. What would you
have us call them?

Silly?
 
Sjouke Burry wrote on 9/9/2017 4:09 PM:
On 9-9-2017 21:23, rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/9/2017 2:51 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/7/2017 7:33 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:36:09 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't remember that "people just would not go for it". I don't
recall much resistance at all. I think the "resistance" was at
other levels.

Yep. At the time (about 1975), I was working for a company that
tried to switch to metric. This was aided by having the drafting
manager and mechanical designer also serving on the metric
conversion council (or whatever it was called). At one point, we
started sending metric fabrication drawings to various vendors. They
were immediately returned. The problem wasn't understanding
the new metric way of doing things, it was that they would need to
replace all their English lead screws, measurement instruments,
gauges blocks, programming, etc before they could cut metal. They
also claimed that they needed considerable staff training to handle
the change (because someone tried to simultaneously switch to true
position dimentioning). We would need to wait until the shops
converted before we could orders parts in metric.

So, we went back to English units and waited for the "inevitable"
conversion that never happened. It seems that most of the other
customers followed the same pattern. They tried metric, failed, and
went back to English.

Ok second guy in this thread to use the term "English units". Am I
to assume it's an Americanism then? In England, Australia and New
Zealand (the countries I've lived in) non-metric units are reffered
to as "imperial".

Imperial units are not quite the same. An imperial gallon is larger
than the gallon used in the US.

In the rest of the world is 4.54 litres. Only in the US is 'gallon'
different (approximately 3.75 litres?).

I don't know if there are other
differences, I'm pretty sure the inch, foot and yard are the same. I'm not
sure if a fortnight is the same on both sides of the
Atlantic... ;)
We use the term "English units" because like many of our customs,
laws and general ways of life, they came to us by way of England.

Likewise in Australia and New Zealand we owe a lot of our heritage to
England - however we don't call the units "English". It just seemed odd to
me <shrug

Really? If that is the oddest thing you find about the US then I am very
happy.

I've explained how some of our units are *not* Imperial. What would you
have us call them?

Silly?

Ok, the US uses Silly units which we mostly inherited from the English.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
 
rickman wrote on 9/9/2017 6:05 PM:
Sjouke Burry wrote on 9/9/2017 4:09 PM:
On 9-9-2017 21:23, rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/9/2017 2:51 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/7/2017 7:33 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:36:09 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't remember that "people just would not go for it". I don't
recall much resistance at all. I think the "resistance" was at
other levels.

Yep. At the time (about 1975), I was working for a company that
tried to switch to metric. This was aided by having the drafting
manager and mechanical designer also serving on the metric
conversion council (or whatever it was called). At one point, we
started sending metric fabrication drawings to various vendors. They
were immediately returned. The problem wasn't understanding
the new metric way of doing things, it was that they would need to
replace all their English lead screws, measurement instruments,
gauges blocks, programming, etc before they could cut metal. They
also claimed that they needed considerable staff training to handle
the change (because someone tried to simultaneously switch to true
position dimentioning). We would need to wait until the shops
converted before we could orders parts in metric.

So, we went back to English units and waited for the "inevitable"
conversion that never happened. It seems that most of the other
customers followed the same pattern. They tried metric, failed, and
went back to English.

Ok second guy in this thread to use the term "English units". Am I
to assume it's an Americanism then? In England, Australia and New
Zealand (the countries I've lived in) non-metric units are reffered
to as "imperial".

Imperial units are not quite the same. An imperial gallon is larger
than the gallon used in the US.

In the rest of the world is 4.54 litres. Only in the US is 'gallon'
different (approximately 3.75 litres?).

I don't know if there are other
differences, I'm pretty sure the inch, foot and yard are the same. I'm not
sure if a fortnight is the same on both sides of the
Atlantic... ;)
We use the term "English units" because like many of our customs,
laws and general ways of life, they came to us by way of England.

Likewise in Australia and New Zealand we owe a lot of our heritage to
England - however we don't call the units "English". It just seemed odd to
me <shrug

Really? If that is the oddest thing you find about the US then I am very
happy.

I've explained how some of our units are *not* Imperial. What would you
have us call them?

Silly?

Ok, the US uses Silly units which we mostly inherited from the English.

Actually there are times when the US gallon is the same as an English gallon.

http://www.metric-conversions.org/volume/us-liquid-gallons-to-uk-gallons.htm

The US gallon is the result of the British taxes on the US. They overly
taxed us without allowing us any representation in the government so we
rebelled. At that time the gallon was defined by the weight of what was
being measured. There was a corn gallon, a wheat gallon, a beer gallon ect.
In 1820 England decided to abandon the many gallon approach and go with a
single gallon defined by the volume of 10 pounds of water at 62 °F in air.

Good thing we didn't adopt the Imperial gallon, it keeps changing. It was
changed as late as 1985. What good is a standard that changes?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
 
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/9/2017 2:52 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/7/2017 7:26 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet Tom Biasi wrote:
Here is a cut from a Wiki article of which seems to be my
experience also.
"The U.S. Metric Study recommended that the United States
implement a carefully planned transition to the principal use of
the metric system over a decade. Congress passed the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975 "to coordinate and plan the increasing use
of the metric system in the United States". Voluntary conversion
was initiated, and the United States Metric Board (USMB) was
established for planning, coordination, and public education. The
public education component led to public awareness of the metric
system, but the public response included resistance, apathy, and
sometimes ridicule."

"Voluntary conversion" is doomed to failure due to inertia so it's
a failure of the legislators not the public. It should have been
made compulsory as it was in most other countries which changed
over.

This country can be pretty idiotic about "compulsory" issues. The
federal government has a regulation that children must wear life
vests in federally controlled waters. The State of Virginia has a
similar law, but it only applies to the waterways that are regulated
by the Coast Guard (federal laws). So the law is no additional
regulation, it simply allows the state authorities to enforce it.
Meanwhile it is perfectly legal in the state controlled waters to
not put a life vest on your children. Allegedly this is because the
legislators get tremendous push back when they pass laws that add
new regulations.
How fooking stupid is that?! *Everyone* should have to wear a life
vest any time they are in a boat underway. Just this past July 4th
weekend someone died when he fell overboard while not wearing a life
vest. They do nothing for you if you don't wear them. Cutting a
tree down with your six year old next to you would be considered
child endangerment even though there is no specific law against it.
By the same reasoning allowing children to ride in a boat without a
life vest should be child endangerment regardless of the law. But
we legislate according to the push back from fears of "over
regulation".

Very fooking stupid. ;) Are seat belts compulsory yet? It seems an
odd mix.

Of course seat belts are compulsory. Where do you live that they
aren't?

I didn't say they aren't here, I remember that not long ago they weren't in
the US. Are they compulsory in the back seats too?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
 
~misfit~ wrote on 9/13/2017 9:26 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/9/2017 2:52 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/7/2017 7:26 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet Tom Biasi wrote:
Here is a cut from a Wiki article of which seems to be my
experience also.
"The U.S. Metric Study recommended that the United States
implement a carefully planned transition to the principal use of
the metric system over a decade. Congress passed the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975 "to coordinate and plan the increasing use
of the metric system in the United States". Voluntary conversion
was initiated, and the United States Metric Board (USMB) was
established for planning, coordination, and public education. The
public education component led to public awareness of the metric
system, but the public response included resistance, apathy, and
sometimes ridicule."

"Voluntary conversion" is doomed to failure due to inertia so it's
a failure of the legislators not the public. It should have been
made compulsory as it was in most other countries which changed
over.

This country can be pretty idiotic about "compulsory" issues. The
federal government has a regulation that children must wear life
vests in federally controlled waters. The State of Virginia has a
similar law, but it only applies to the waterways that are regulated
by the Coast Guard (federal laws). So the law is no additional
regulation, it simply allows the state authorities to enforce it.
Meanwhile it is perfectly legal in the state controlled waters to
not put a life vest on your children. Allegedly this is because the
legislators get tremendous push back when they pass laws that add
new regulations.
How fooking stupid is that?! *Everyone* should have to wear a life
vest any time they are in a boat underway. Just this past July 4th
weekend someone died when he fell overboard while not wearing a life
vest. They do nothing for you if you don't wear them. Cutting a
tree down with your six year old next to you would be considered
child endangerment even though there is no specific law against it.
By the same reasoning allowing children to ride in a boat without a
life vest should be child endangerment regardless of the law. But
we legislate according to the push back from fears of "over
regulation".

Very fooking stupid. ;) Are seat belts compulsory yet? It seems an
odd mix.

Of course seat belts are compulsory. Where do you live that they
aren't?

I didn't say they aren't here, I remember that not long ago they weren't in
the US. Are they compulsory in the back seats too?

http://bfy.tw/DuT3

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
 
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/13/2017 9:26 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/9/2017 2:52 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/7/2017 7:26 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet Tom Biasi wrote:
Here is a cut from a Wiki article of which seems to be my
experience also.
"The U.S. Metric Study recommended that the United States
implement a carefully planned transition to the principal use of
the metric system over a decade. Congress passed the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975 "to coordinate and plan the increasing
use of the metric system in the United States". Voluntary
conversion was initiated, and the United States Metric Board
(USMB) was established for planning, coordination, and public
education. The public education component led to public
awareness of the metric system, but the public response
included resistance, apathy, and sometimes ridicule."

"Voluntary conversion" is doomed to failure due to inertia so
it's a failure of the legislators not the public. It should have
been made compulsory as it was in most other countries which
changed over.

This country can be pretty idiotic about "compulsory" issues. The
federal government has a regulation that children must wear life
vests in federally controlled waters. The State of Virginia has a
similar law, but it only applies to the waterways that are
regulated by the Coast Guard (federal laws). So the law is no
additional regulation, it simply allows the state authorities to
enforce it. Meanwhile it is perfectly legal in the state
controlled waters to not put a life vest on your children. Allegedly
this is because the legislators get tremendous push
back when they pass laws that add new regulations.
How fooking stupid is that?! *Everyone* should have to wear a
life vest any time they are in a boat underway. Just this past
July 4th weekend someone died when he fell overboard while not
wearing a life vest. They do nothing for you if you don't wear
them. Cutting a tree down with your six year old next to you
would be considered child endangerment even though there is no
specific law against it. By the same reasoning allowing children
to ride in a boat without a life vest should be child
endangerment regardless of the law. But we legislate according
to the push back from fears of "over regulation".

Very fooking stupid. ;) Are seat belts compulsory yet? It seems an
odd mix.

Of course seat belts are compulsory. Where do you live that they
aren't?

I didn't say they aren't here, I remember that not long ago they
weren't in the US. Are they compulsory in the back seats too?

http://bfy.tw/DuT3

So that's a no then. How backwards. They've been compulsory here for quite a
while with no silly age restriction complications (as well as children
needing to be in approved 'car seat' survival cells to a certain age).

(BTW if you were smart you'd be a smart arse. You should have included 'rear
seats' in the search parameters. I'll go back to my policy of not clicking
obfuscated URLs - which for some odd reason I didn't think would be needed
here.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
 
~misfit~ wrote on 9/16/2017 8:49 PM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/13/2017 9:26 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/9/2017 2:52 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
~misfit~ wrote on 9/7/2017 7:26 AM:
Once upon a time on usenet Tom Biasi wrote:
Here is a cut from a Wiki article of which seems to be my
experience also.
"The U.S. Metric Study recommended that the United States
implement a carefully planned transition to the principal use of
the metric system over a decade. Congress passed the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975 "to coordinate and plan the increasing
use of the metric system in the United States". Voluntary
conversion was initiated, and the United States Metric Board
(USMB) was established for planning, coordination, and public
education. The public education component led to public
awareness of the metric system, but the public response
included resistance, apathy, and sometimes ridicule."

"Voluntary conversion" is doomed to failure due to inertia so
it's a failure of the legislators not the public. It should have
been made compulsory as it was in most other countries which
changed over.

This country can be pretty idiotic about "compulsory" issues. The
federal government has a regulation that children must wear life
vests in federally controlled waters. The State of Virginia has a
similar law, but it only applies to the waterways that are
regulated by the Coast Guard (federal laws). So the law is no
additional regulation, it simply allows the state authorities to
enforce it. Meanwhile it is perfectly legal in the state
controlled waters to not put a life vest on your children. Allegedly
this is because the legislators get tremendous push
back when they pass laws that add new regulations.
How fooking stupid is that?! *Everyone* should have to wear a
life vest any time they are in a boat underway. Just this past
July 4th weekend someone died when he fell overboard while not
wearing a life vest. They do nothing for you if you don't wear
them. Cutting a tree down with your six year old next to you
would be considered child endangerment even though there is no
specific law against it. By the same reasoning allowing children
to ride in a boat without a life vest should be child
endangerment regardless of the law. But we legislate according
to the push back from fears of "over regulation".

Very fooking stupid. ;) Are seat belts compulsory yet? It seems an
odd mix.

Of course seat belts are compulsory. Where do you live that they
aren't?

I didn't say they aren't here, I remember that not long ago they
weren't in the US. Are they compulsory in the back seats too?

http://bfy.tw/DuT3

So that's a no then. How backwards. They've been compulsory here for quite a
while with no silly age restriction complications (as well as children
needing to be in approved 'car seat' survival cells to a certain age).

(BTW if you were smart you'd be a smart arse. You should have included 'rear
seats' in the search parameters. I'll go back to my policy of not clicking
obfuscated URLs - which for some odd reason I didn't think would be needed
here.)

Not sure what you are reading. Traffic laws are state issues in the US
although there is a certain amount of "coordination" by the Federal
government. I don't know of any states which doesn't require seat belts to
be worn by everyone in a vehicle. I'm not familiar with *all* of the 50
states. What did you find that says otherwise?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
 
~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 05:55:52 -0700 (PDT), Tim R <timot...@aol.com
wrote:

During the time of the pyramids and pharaohs, the Egyptian calendar
had 5 days "out of time" at the beginning of the year, then 12 months
of 30 days each.

That still makes more sense than what we do now.

Then there is the Hebrew lunar calendar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar
which adds an extra leap month in 7 out of every 19 years (3, 6, 8,
11, 14, 17, and 19):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Leap_months
Being able to handle such an ugly calenadar might explain why Jews are
quite good at finance. Can you imagine what a loan amortization
schedule looks like under such a calendar?

No, jews are good at finance because the catholic church banned
christians from usury - lending money and charging interest. As
money became more and more important it became necessary for there
to be financiers but christians weren't going to risk lending their
money free of charge. So jews were
invited
into most catholic / christian countries to be the financiers as
they had no such rule in *their* holy book. Without jews stepping
in to finance large projects we'd still be in the dark ages.

Yet how do we thank them? By making thinly-veiled anti-semetic
jokes in electronics repair groups (and probably other places as
well).

Bigoted trolls will always be around. Just avoid them. Just ignore them.
 
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:19:11 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:

What I would really like is for the insurance companies to get togetner
with the law makers and not pay off to the people over 21 that do not
follow those laws. I do not care if some one of reasonable age falls
off the boat without the life vest and drowns. Just don't expect his
life insurance to pay off. Or is someone gets hurt in a car crash
without the seat belt, just do not pay off for medical bills or to get
his car repaired.

Some pretty serious issues here if this is to be enforced.

a) Automakers must be then, 100% liable *forever* for the functionality of the seat belts and safety devices. So, latches that fail, belts that wear and break, and airbags that do not go off - none of which are user-serviceable - must fall back on the manufacturer.
b) Seat belt and safety device deployment must then be recorded in the automotive 'brain' such that this will indicate at the crash-investigation stage. Similar to an aircraft flight data recorder. Many of these even now record speed and other conditions if there is a crash, some will even notify emergency services.

Which, of course, will naturally lead to insurance companies demanding 'good driver' monitors on their insured that continuously relay speed/braking/timing/and much more to the company so that they may determine 'risk' based on actual driving behavior. Some offer this option right now.

Is that what you really want?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
 
On 09/08/2017 02:42 PM, rickman wrote:

I don't remember that "people just would not go for it".  I don't
recall much resistance at all.  I think the "resistance" was at
other levels.

Yep.  At the time (about 1975), I was working for a company that tried
to switch to metric.  This was aided by having the drafting manager
and mechanical designer also serving on the metric conversion council
(or whatever it was called).  At one point, we started sending metric
fabrication drawings to various vendors.  They were immediately
returned.  The problem wasn't understanding the new metric way of
doing things, it was that they would need to replace all their English
lead screws, measurement instruments, gauges blocks, programming, etc
before they could cut metal.  They also claimed that they needed
considerable staff training to handle the change (because someone
tried to simultaneously switch to true position dimentioning).  We
would need to wait until the shops converted before we could orders
parts in metric.

So, we went back to English units and waited for the "inevitable"
conversion that never happened.  It seems that most of the other
customers followed the same pattern.  They tried metric, failed, and
went back to English.

Ok second guy in this thread to use the term "English units". Am I to
assume
it's an Americanism then? In England, Australia and New Zealand (the
countries I've lived in) non-metric units are reffered to as "imperial".

Imperial units are not quite the same.  An imperial gallon is larger
than the gallon used in the US.  I don't know if there are other
differences, I'm pretty sure the inch, foot and yard are the same.  I'm
not sure if a fortnight is the same on both sides of the Atlantic... ;)

A US gallon is smaller than an Imperial gallon because the US pint has
the wrong number of fluid ounces (16 instead of 20).

We use the term "English units" because like many of our customs, laws
and general ways of life, they came to us by way of England.

When it comes to tools such as wrenches, I see the term "Standard" often
used in the USA -- maybe just short for the whole "SAE" term, the last
two of whose letters I don't recall the meaning.

Perce
 
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-4, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

When it comes to tools such as wrenches, I see the term "Standard" often
used in the USA -- maybe just short for the whole "SAE" term, the last
two of whose letters I don't recall the meaning.

S ociety of A utomotive E ngineers

N ational S cience F oundation

N ational P ipe T aper

A merican S ociety for T esting M aterial

N ational F ire P rotection As sociation

N ational E lectrical C ode

N ational S tandard P lumbing C ode

A merican S ociety of H eating, R efrigerating and A ir-Conditioning E ngineers

There are many.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
 
On 09/07/2017 01:16 AM, rickman wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is shortened
by about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr, 10 hr/day.

I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a lot of
changes in society.  We presently have a large number of convenient
time increments which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no
convenient unit about the same length of time as the hour.  The
closest would be the quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours. The
deci-hour would be pretty convenient about 4% shorter than a
quarter hour.  The old half hour would now be about a fifth of a new
hour, so we could call it a "fifth" which might become confused with
a non-metric liquor measure, a fifth of a gallon

So that's where that term comes from! I've heard it in American movies
/ TV
and read it in books but couldn't work out how a bottle that wasn't much
more than a pint (~600ml) got the name 'a fifth'. I forgot about the
Merkin
gallon being less than a real gallon. In fact it's almost exactly 'a
fifth'
short!

which has since become 750 ml in metric.

Nah that is what the rest of the world called a 26oz bottle before
metric.
Of course in the US that would be closer to 25 fluid ounces. <shakes
head
US water must be heavier.

A pint's a pound the world around!

No, it isn't. Even if we stick to the undersized US pints of 16 fl.oz.
instead of 20 fl. oz., the weight of something with a volume of one pint
varies considerably depending on what the substance is. Even if we're
talking about cooking and trying to convert recipes with quantities by
weight to cup measurements, a cup of sugar and a cup of flour probably
will not weigh the same, and the weight of the flour will depend on how
densely it's packed -- could be as little as 5 oz. rather than the 8 oz.
that the "pint's a pound the world around" formula indicates.

Perce
 
Percival P. Cassidy wrote on 9/19/2017 2:05 PM:
On 09/07/2017 01:16 AM, rickman wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is shortened
by about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr, 10 hr/day.

I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a lot of
changes in society. We presently have a large number of convenient
time increments which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no
convenient unit about the same length of time as the hour. The
closest would be the quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours. The
deci-hour would be pretty convenient about 4% shorter than a
quarter hour. The old half hour would now be about a fifth of a new
hour, so we could call it a "fifth" which might become confused with
a non-metric liquor measure, a fifth of a gallon

So that's where that term comes from! I've heard it in American movies / TV
and read it in books but couldn't work out how a bottle that wasn't much
more than a pint (~600ml) got the name 'a fifth'. I forgot about the Merkin
gallon being less than a real gallon. In fact it's almost exactly 'a fifth'
short!

which has since become 750 ml in metric.

Nah that is what the rest of the world called a 26oz bottle before metric.
Of course in the US that would be closer to 25 fluid ounces. <shakes head
US water must be heavier.

A pint's a pound the world around!

No, it isn't. Even if we stick to the undersized US pints of 16 fl.oz.
instead of 20 fl. oz., the weight of something with a volume of one pint
varies considerably depending on what the substance is. Even if we're
talking about cooking and trying to convert recipes with quantities by
weight to cup measurements, a cup of sugar and a cup of flour probably will
not weigh the same, and the weight of the flour will depend on how densely
it's packed -- could be as little as 5 oz. rather than the 8 oz. that the
"pint's a pound the world around" formula indicates.

You have eyes, but can not see.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
 
Once upon a time on usenet Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 09/07/2017 01:16 AM, rickman wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet rickman wrote:
Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is
shortened by about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr,
10 hr/day. I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a
lot of
changes in society. We presently have a large number of convenient
time increments which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no
convenient unit about the same length of time as the hour. The
closest would be the quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours.
The deci-hour would be pretty convenient about 4% shorter than a
quarter hour. The old half hour would now be about a fifth of a new
hour, so we could call it a "fifth" which might become confused
with a non-metric liquor measure, a fifth of a gallon

So that's where that term comes from! I've heard it in American
movies / TV
and read it in books but couldn't work out how a bottle that wasn't
much more than a pint (~600ml) got the name 'a fifth'. I forgot
about the Merkin
gallon being less than a real gallon. In fact it's almost exactly 'a
fifth'
short!

which has since become 750 ml in metric.

Nah that is what the rest of the world called a 26oz bottle before
metric.
Of course in the US that would be closer to 25 fluid ounces. <shakes
head
US water must be heavier.

A pint's a pound the world around!

No, it isn't. Even if we stick to the undersized US pints of 16 fl.oz.
instead of 20 fl. oz., the weight of something with a volume of one
pint varies considerably depending on what the substance is. Even if
we're talking about cooking and trying to convert recipes with
quantities by weight to cup measurements, a cup of sugar and a cup of
flour probably will not weigh the same, and the weight of the flour
will depend on how densely it's packed -- could be as little as 5 oz.
rather than the 8 oz. that the "pint's a pound the world around"
formula indicates.

At school I was taught 'A pint of water weighs a pound-and-a-quarter'. Then
again that was in England.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top