OT: Why the US will never go metric....

[Winston]

On 6/14/2010 7:20 AM, Richard Henry wrote:

On Jun 13, 1:45 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

(...)

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity. Seems
you're the dense one here.

In my first few years in college, when I was a physics major, I
laughed at my mechanical engineering roommate's struggles with
poundals and slugs.

Ah, the poundal that denotes ~1/32 of a pound of force.
Isn't that just the most intuitive thing...

Imagine finally getting a 'visceral grasp' on those antiquated
measures and then realizing that they are only useful within
geographically limited area, for a limited time. Arrgh!



--Winston

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:
one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish. Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches. What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?

Sorry, but a 'rough cut' 2x4 DOES measure 2 inches by 4 inches.

If yours didn't your mill house was off.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure. Many use Newtons.

Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.

Even in torque measure, ounces are used, so it is not "fluid of
course", idiot.

Mechanics do measure torque. But torque is not force. Torque is not
measured in ounces.

John

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:45:03 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net>
wrote:

On 6/14/2010 7:20 AM, Richard Henry wrote:
On Jun 13, 1:45 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

(...)

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity. Seems
you're the dense one here.

In my first few years in college, when I was a physics major, I
laughed at my mechanical engineering roommate's struggles with
poundals and slugs.

Ah, the poundal that denotes ~1/32 of a pound of force.
Isn't that just the most intuitive thing...

Imagine finally getting a 'visceral grasp' on those antiquated
measures and then realizing that they are only useful within
geographically limited area, for a limited time. Arrgh!



--Winston

Our ounce/inch torque wrenches are graduated in 1/10th ounce inch
steps. Poundals may have been needed at one time, but are not now. These
days, most go with metric where high degrees of resolution are needed as
metric uses basic (base 10 actually) orders of magnitude in its scaling
paradigms.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.

More of a sad indictment about the American educational system AND the
stupid parents of the last three generations of idiots we have brought
into the fray. Columbine brained dumbfucks.

I doubt that even those coming out of college can, considering that
half of them cheat their tests or simply l'learn' long enough to complete
them without actually KNOWING the material at all, or retaining any of
what they 'learne' in order to pass the next test.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Mechanics do measure torque. But torque is not force. Torque is not
measured in ounces.

John

Torque IS a measure of force. It is a measure of specific force applied
against a specific length arm (or lever, haha), as a function of rotation
of an element about a fixed axis.

We scientists have assigned that force measurement the name "torsion".
You may have some other thing you do when you spindle your nipples. We
do not care about the likes of you.

AND torque DOES use ounces in its measuring method. The ounces are the
force applied, and the inches is the arm length it gets applied against.

One ounce/inch is on ounce of force applied against a one inch lever,
measured from the center of the shaft being turned by the torque being
measured.

You lose, again, as usual, Johnny.

 

[Richard Henry]

On Jun 13, 1:45 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2010 1:07 AM, Richard Henry wrote:

(...)

One of the projects I worked on for the Army specified a maximum size
in inches and a maximum weight in pounds, but required that the
included software display distances in meters and masses in kilograms.

Arrrgh!

It saddens me to think of all the bright technical minds in
'imperial measurment' countries that got turned off to applied
physics because of our insistence on awkward, self-
destructive measurement systems.

Complete nonsense.  Because you can't figure this stuff out, and aren't bright
enough to find a calculator that can, doesn't mean the average college kid
can't.

Beijing must be very happy about this.

--Winston  <--Slugs? Poundals? Foot-pounds?  You're joking, right?

I don't remember ever using slugs or poundals, except as curiosity.  Seems
you're the dense one here.

In my first few years in college, when I was a physics major, I
laughed at my mechanical engineering roommate's struggles with
poundals and slugs.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure. Many use Newtons.


Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bwahahahaha...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:53:55 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Mechanics do measure torque. But torque is not force. Torque is not
measured in ounces.

John

Torque IS a measure of force.

It is not, any more than resistance is a measure of voltage.

Just because E = I * R doesn't mean you measure voltage in ohms.

Torque is measured in units of force * distance. That is not force.
And knowing only the force in a given situation is insufficient
information to know the torque,


It is a measure of specific force applied

against a specific length arm (or lever, haha), as a function of rotation
of an element about a fixed axis.

Word salad.

We scientists have assigned that force measurement the name "torsion".
You may have some other thing you do when you spindle your nipples. We
do not care about the likes of you.

AND torque DOES use ounces in its measuring method. The ounces are the
force applied, and the inches is the arm length it gets applied against.

One ounce/inch is on ounce of force applied against a one inch lever,
measured from the center of the shaft being turned by the torque being
measured.

Wrong units. Torque is measured in ounces * inches, commonly
ounce-inches, not ounces divided by inches. An ounce per inch is
something else entirely.

You lose, again, as usual, Johnny.

You are AlwaysWrong. Especially the absurd claim of being a scientist.
Study up on dimensional analysis; you never learned that.

John

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:23:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure. Many use Newtons.


Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bwahahahaha...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

...Jim Thompson

So, it not only depends on "from where one looks", but it is clear that
it also depends on whom is doing the looking.

Bwuahahahahaha indeed.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:26:47 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Word salad.


Not at all. THAT IS what torsion IS, idiot.

Force AT a given distance. So the force is applied in standard units
and the measured arm length is in standard units, and the resultant
calibrated scale is the resultant reference indicator of said applied
force.

So to your "That is not force...", I say, "You do not know what the
fuck you are talking about."

Deeper into the "dumbheap" you dig yourself. Reminds me of the movie
"Head".

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:26:47 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Wrong units. Torque is measured in ounces * inches, commonly
ounce-inches, not ounces divided by inches. An ounce per inch is
something else entirely.

It was not a math indicator, idiot. I should have use a dash, but that
is the only error I made.

It is an applied force, regardless of how you attack my grammatical
error in describing it.

 

[Richard Henry]

On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:

one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish. Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches. What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:26:47 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

not ounces divided by inches. An ounce per inch is
something else entirely.

You are not even worth an ounce of matter free perfect vacuum per inch
of your pathetic mass.

I stated ounces of force "applied at" a location, not "applied per".
Only an idiot like you would pull stupidity like this.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:38:18 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:26:47 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Wrong units. Torque is measured in ounces * inches, commonly
ounce-inches, not ounces divided by inches. An ounce per inch is
something else entirely.

It was not a math indicator, idiot. I should have use a dash, but that
is the only error I made.

It is an applied force, regardless of how you attack my grammatical
error in describing it.

Torque is not force. The units are different.

John

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:09:41 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:38:18 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:26:47 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Wrong units. Torque is measured in ounces * inches, commonly
ounce-inches, not ounces divided by inches. An ounce per inch is
something else entirely.

It was not a math indicator, idiot. I should have use a dash, but that
is the only error I made.

It is an applied force, regardless of how you attack my grammatical
error in describing it.

Torque is not force. The units are different.

John

Torsion is a specifically applied rotational movement across an axis
due to the application of a specific type of force known as torque.

Torque is the quantification, and measure of that movement of that
force and utilizes two factors to determine and declare quantification of
it. One is the applied FORCE unit and value, which coincides with weight
or mass measure, and the other is the distance from the centerline
(perpendicular to) of the item you are applying the torque to.

Go back to school.

 

[Tim Williams]

As I recall, it's a 50x100, even though theirs are also smaller...

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Richard Henry" <pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf950c18-e846-4159-906f-3713e26fa14b@s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:

one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish. Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches. What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:
one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish. Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches. What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?

---
http://www.awc.org/helpoutreach/ecourses/MAT120/MAT120eCourseV08-2004.pdf

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 8:23 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry

pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:
one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish.  Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches.  What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?

  Sorry, but a 'rough cut' 2x4 DOES measure 2 inches by 4 inches.

  If yours didn't your mill house was off.

Mine (just measured) are 1.5 x 3.5 smooth and 1.75 x 3.75 rough.
Perhaps there is a "rougher" grade?

That may well be.

Seems the term I remember is "rough sawn".

Maybe a remnant of the old barn building terms.

All I know is that houses used to be built by such rough sawn cut
lumber, and they were as specified dimensionally.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 10:41 am, "Tim Williams" <tmoran...@charter.net> wrote:
As I recall, it's a 50x100, even though theirs are also smaller...


What are the dimensions of a full-size plywood panel?

"Richard Henry" <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:cf950c18-e846-4159-906f-3713e26fa14b@s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 12, 6:23 pm, "op...@hotmail.com" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote:

one word...Football...Football would lose its meaning...30.5cmball
would make no sense. In retrospect, naming a game using an imperial
measurement was darn right stupid.

Yes folks, the US will never go metric because we stuck our foot in
our mouths.

A question for woodworkeres/carpenters in purely metric countries:

In the USA, a "two-by-four" is the most common type of construction
wood, and can be purchased in two different dimensions, depending on
degree of finish.  Neither measures exactly 2 by 4 inches.  What are
the metric dimensions for the equivalent products?
4 feet by 8 feet.

Falls into place with other industries, like roofing and siding.

Roffing "squares".

Easy for any grunt to carry two on their back too.

Much wider, and only tall folks can frame houses.

Standard US room size is an eight foot ceiling.