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

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:11:44 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:02:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:02:35 -0700, Richard Henry <pomerado@hotmail.com
wibbled:

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

Two mediaeval peasants and a sawpit?


Or a bunch of trained beavers?

---
Yow!!!

They'd probably get splinters in their knickers.


Maybe I should have said 'A bunch of rabid beavers?' ;-)

That's even scarier!

True, but they'll be voted out of office starting this November.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:32:09 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

My Vermont house, other than the living and family rooms (cathedral
ceilings) had 7' 2" ceilings; definitely not standard.

This first floor of this house has 9' ceilings and the two bedrooms
upstairs 8', with the great room 18', and higher. ;-)

You should try my village, which dates back to 1066 - in fact the Battle
of Hastings was fought and shamefully lost (especially when you visit the
field and see the massive tactical advantage Harold had), 3 miles down
the road in a town called "Battle" (hmm) and not actually in Hastings
which is rather further down the road.

I digress...

Ceilings you can brush your head on and 5' front doors or less on some of
the old timber framed houses.

You sublet from a Leprechaun?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:45:42 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston <Winston@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.

That's not much, try doing thermodynamics in imperial units. Horrid. It
is hard enough in metric. Same with illumination.

 

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:35 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.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.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

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

Balances compare the gravitationally induced forces of test masses versus

reference masses. Please note that this assumes that the gravitational
field is reasonably uniform in terms of area included in the balance the
masses to be compared and the distances between them. And many scales
measure deflection of (more or less) well documented structures deflected
by the forces in an assumed uniform gravitational field. Compare the
usefulness of balance versus scales in any accelerated (including
rotated) frame of reference.

 

[Paul Keinanen]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:58:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Then, by your "logic", "millimeter" is an Imperial term since
1mm = 0.03937"

No, because the inch is defined as being 25.4mm. The metric measure is not a
derivative of the English.

In actuality, what makes the carat a metric term is that the weight of
gemstones is measured using the metric system and described in metric
units.

Imperial units are defined using the metric system. Does that mean that the
US uses the metric system?

I people are so allergic about the term "metric", why not go directly
to the primary definitions ?

The meter was previously defined as 1,650,763.73 krypton-86
wavelengths, thus 1 inch = 41,929.398,742 wavelengths.

Currently 1 m is defined as the distance the light propagates in
1/299,792,458 seconds. Light propagates 1 inch in
254/2,997,924,580,000 seconds, which can further be reduced to
127/1,498,962,290,000 seconds.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:03:35 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:45:42 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston <Winston@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.

That's not much, try doing thermodynamics in imperial units. Horrid. It
is hard enough in metric. Same with illumination.

What about rays? Gamma, X-ray, etc.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:34:50 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Balances compare the gravitationally induced forces of test masses versus
reference masses.

A balance compares one mass with another, period. It does not matter
what sized spheroid it is on (gravity). It compares the torque applied
to the center point of two equidistant arms. So it works on Earth or the
Moon.

A balance DOES utilize a rotational frame of reference. That is what
the center pivot is.

Also, most balances have pivots on each arm as well, so it does not
matter where on the platter the test mass is placed either.

"Measure deflection"? That is not a balance but a form of spring scale.


If one wants quantisized results, one must use reference masses on the
reference platter.

Just a nit pic.

 

[Tim Williams]

Isn't it the point of trolls to ignore them?

Tim

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

"Greegor" <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7efed34c-d226-4566-a4c7-42f8d1b89356@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/d011f294be7b5aa0?hl=en

Archimedes Lever in Oceanside, CA using yet another nym wrote:
AL > Humans, being the contrary, savior murdering
AL > f[]s we are, will surely go with the stubborn
AL > path. Before we get settled on things and ever
AL > become a truly civil society, he'll be back, and
AL > none of it will matter any more anyway.

This is an example of how a sociopath learns
to pretend that they have emotions or beliefs
that other people do.

Sociopaths like you do not really believe in God.
You know how to posture as if you do.
Sociopaths commonly place themselves in the
position of being God.
We're all just bugs in your jar.

 

[Tim Watts]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:18:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

Generally two horizontals, here. Fewer joints and sheetrock is
available in various lengths so a wall can often be done without
vertical joints, only tapered horizontal joints. Sheetrock is stronger
when hung horizontally (fewer end studs).

True - wouldn't matter much - our sheets are mostly in 4x8' (as defined
to fit into a Ford Transit - the builder's only van!) so horizontally
works too.

You can get smaller board sizes, but thinner stuff for ceiling work.
Can't get bigger.



--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:44:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:00:03 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.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.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

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



Most people in the world use SI units, and they weigh things in
kilograms. A kg is a unit of mass.

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

---
Sorry, but no.

The result of the measurement is caused by a force acting on a mass,
the product of which is called a "newton" if the mass is 1kg and the
force is the attraction due to gravity, 9.8m/s˛.

Entirely wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29

---
Yup.

I got the mass wrong, (it should be about 102 grams) but the fact
still remains that what a scale does is measure weight, not mass.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:34:50 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

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

Balances compare the gravitationally induced forces of test masses versus
reference masses. Please note that this assumes that the gravitational
field is reasonably uniform in terms of area included in the balance the
masses to be compared and the distances between them. And many scales
measure deflection of (more or less) well documented structures deflected
by the forces in an assumed uniform gravitational field. Compare the
usefulness of balance versus scales in any accelerated (including
rotated) frame of reference.

---
???

Certainly scales are more useful than balances on some occasions and
balances more useful than scales on others, but I fail to see what
that has to do with the discussion.

Johm Fields

 

[Proteus IIV]

On Jun 16, 12:12 am, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:25:01 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"





k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:28:34 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:14:30 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

IOW, you don't know.  We know you're always wrong, AlwaysWrong.  You don't
have to prove it with every post.

 I have framed 50 more Joe Plumber El Cheapo pre-fab houses than you
have and ten more full custom rich fucker houses than you.  I also have
done some drywall, and you are again, wrong, as usual.

What a dummy, DimBulb.  YOU are AlwaysWrong, not me!  A liar, too, but that's
been obvious, too, for years.

  Are you saying that I never worked as a carpenter, framing houses?

NO
AS FAR AS WE KNOW YOU ONLY WORKED ON THE OTHER TRADESMENS WOOD
YOU SICK ASS FAGGOTY TURD MUNCHER

GIVE IT UP TROLL
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER YOU GOING DOWN

I AM PROTEUS

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:45:34 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:44:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:00:03 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.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.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

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



Most people in the world use SI units, and they weigh things in
kilograms. A kg is a unit of mass.

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

---
Sorry, but no.

The result of the measurement is caused by a force acting on a mass,
the product of which is called a "newton" if the mass is 1kg and the
force is the attraction due to gravity, 9.8m/s˛.

Entirely wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29

---
Yup.

I got the mass wrong, (it should be about 102 grams)

Yes. As Miss Denton said, "check your work."

but the fact

still remains that what a scale does is measure weight, not mass.

Does your scale report your weight in newtons?

John

 

[Fred Abse]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:01:51 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

SI rules for science, imperial rules for everyday living. Except
carpentry - I hate fractions!

You would rather multiply a piece of timber by 0.5, than cut it in half?

;-)

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)

 

[Richard Henry]

On Jun 15, 11:41 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:18:51 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

Generally two horizontals, here.  Fewer joints and sheetrock is
available in various lengths so a wall can often be done without
vertical joints, only tapered horizontal joints.  Sheetrock is stronger
when hung horizontally (fewer end studs).

True - wouldn't matter much - our sheets are mostly in 4x8' (as defined
to fit into a Ford Transit - the builder's only van!) so horizontally
works too.

You can get smaller board sizes, but thinner stuff for ceiling work.
Can't get bigger.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

Local Home Depot sells both 1/2 and 5/8 drywall in 4x12. Also 4x4 and
2x2 patch/repair sizes available. All true dimensioned.

 

[John Fields]

Does your scale report your weight in newtons?

---
No, it reports my weight in pounds, which is wrong because a pound is
a measure of mass, not of weight.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:08:54 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

Isn't it the point of trolls to ignore them?

Tim

You are talking to a gmail google groups idiot that know very little,
if anything at all about Usenet.

And sorry, but Egregiously flawed greegor, the new interloper in the
group, with all of his unqualified, unsolicited "assessments", makes HIM
the fucking troll, dumbfuck.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:45:34 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:44:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:00:03 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.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.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

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



Most people in the world use SI units, and they weigh things in
kilograms. A kg is a unit of mass.

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

---
Sorry, but no.

The result of the measurement is caused by a force acting on a mass,
the product of which is called a "newton" if the mass is 1kg and the
force is the attraction due to gravity, 9.8m/s˛.

Entirely wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29

---
Yup.

I got the mass wrong, (it should be about 102 grams) but the fact
still remains that what a scale does is measure weight, not mass.

OK, today's puzzler:

Suppose I weigh myself at home, using my ordinary spring-based
bathroom scale. Home is 365 feet above sea level. Now I drive to
Truckee; it takes about 3 hours if I push it, 80+ MPH except for the
speed trap at Clipper Gap. When I arrive I use the same scale to weigh
myself, now at 6400 feet. Latitude is about the same.

1. About how much has my measured weight changed due to the change of
G with altitude?

2. Is this significant to the measurement?

Rules: you have one minute to deliver an answer. Use no paper, pencils
or equivalent, calculators, computers, books, or any external
assistance or references of any kind. Keep your eyes closed. Do it
entirely in your head.

Extra credit, one more minute:

3. Is the position of the moon significant to the measurement?

John

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:58:23 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV
<proteusiiv@gmail.com> wrote:

I AM PROTEUS

Snipped retarded, Usenet abusing post, made by a google groups
subscriber agreement abusing dumbass.

One would think that some little retard on a Mac would be able to find
and use the caps lock key.

One would also think that most folks that have seen your pathetic crap
up in the engineering group would be offended by seeing you stalking
folks down in this group.

One would think that they would file a battery of complaints against
your pathetic ass, akin to the one I just filed on you.

One would have to also think that google groups would have a modicum of
civility and would shitcan your pathetic, forum abusing ass.

Continue your abuse and stalking behavior and you will find yourself in
a world of legal shit, boy.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:22:27 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 15, 11:41 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:18:51 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

Generally two horizontals, here.  Fewer joints and sheetrock is
available in various lengths so a wall can often be done without
vertical joints, only tapered horizontal joints.  Sheetrock is stronger
when hung horizontally (fewer end studs).

True - wouldn't matter much - our sheets are mostly in 4x8' (as defined
to fit into a Ford Transit - the builder's only van!) so horizontally
works too.

You can get smaller board sizes, but thinner stuff for ceiling work.
Can't get bigger.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

Local Home Depot sells both 1/2 and 5/8 drywall in 4x12. Also 4x4 and
2x2 patch/repair sizes available. All true dimensioned.

Drywall IS typically 4x12. krw and his pathetic attempt at yet another
attack on me should be given just that much credence. Zero.