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

[TralfamadoranJetPilot]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:09:23 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 13, 8:48 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:28:52 -0700, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net
wrote:



On 6/13/2010 1:45 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston<Wins...@bigbrother.net>  wrote:

(...)

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.

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost.  Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

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.

I am *far* from the sharpest knife in the drawer, that is true.

However, it is not a good defense to insist "we always did it
that way".

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in


Give or take an interplanetary probe or two.

I wonder how far Tralfamador is from here...

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:09:23 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 13, 8:48 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:28:52 -0700, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net
wrote:



On 6/13/2010 1:45 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston<Wins...@bigbrother.net>  wrote:

(...)

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.

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost.  Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

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.

I am *far* from the sharpest knife in the drawer, that is true.

However, it is not a good defense to insist "we always did it
that way".

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in


Give or take an interplanetary probe or two.

It is shocking that anyone in the aerospace business would still be
using pounds-force, or pounds-anything, any more. I think mechanical
engineers and architects are still behind the curve on this.

The only thing we use pounds for is UPS shipments.

Don't the Brits still use stones? Gold is still traded in troy ounces,
I think, and diamonds come in carats.

John

 

[Richard Henry]

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?

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jun 14, 10:09 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:38:18 -0700, Archimedes' Lever

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

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

Torque is not force. The units are different.

This is getting confusing.

Firstly, force is defined by Newton's law, F = m * A... and torque is
not exactly force. What it is, is a 'generalized force', and it goes
with a generalization of F = m * A , to wit:

[torque] = [angular moment of inertia] * [second-time-derivative-of-
angle]

It's a close analogy to force and acceleration, and a lot of the same
relationships follow along.

The spinning object's kinetic energy, for instance

E = 1/2 [angular moment of inertia] *| [angular velocity]| **2

where, of course [angular velocity] == [first-time-derivative-of-
angle]


While we are free to loosely call torque a 'force', it is really a
'generalized
force'. There's a separate set of physical laws in which this concept
applies.

Force is measured in newtons. Torque is measured in newton-meters. So
they are not the same thing.

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

John

 

[Richard Henry]

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?

 

[Richard Henry]

On Jun 13, 8:48 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:28:52 -0700, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net
wrote:



On 6/13/2010 1:45 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:33:13 -0700, Winston<Wins...@bigbrother.net>  wrote:

(...)

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.

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost.  Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

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.

I am *far* from the sharpest knife in the drawer, that is true.

However, it is not a good defense to insist "we always did it
that way".

There's nothing wrong with marking roads in miles (UK) or drinking
beer by the pint (Ireland) or measuring the distance to a first down
in yards. All real physics and electronics math is done in SI units in

Give or take an interplanetary probe or two.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

and torque is
not exactly force.

Read what I said Torque is a specifically applied force.
It IS exactly a force. An applied force. Just look at the units with
which it needs to be quantisized with. duh.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

[torque] = [angular moment of inertia] * [second-time-derivative-of-
angle]

It's a close analogy to force and acceleration, and a lot of the same
relationships follow along.

The spinning object's kinetic energy, for instance

On a spinning object yes. There is no time element on a bolt.

 

[whit3rd]

On Jun 14, 10:09 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:38:18 -0700, Archimedes' Lever

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

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

Torque is not force. The units are different.

This is getting confusing.

Firstly, force is defined by Newton's law, F = m * A... and torque is
not exactly force. What it is, is a 'generalized force', and it goes
with a generalization of F = m * A , to wit:

[torque] = [angular moment of inertia] * [second-time-derivative-of-
angle]

It's a close analogy to force and acceleration, and a lot of the same
relationships follow along.

The spinning object's kinetic energy, for instance

E = 1/2 [angular moment of inertia] *| [angular velocity]| **2

where, of course [angular velocity] == [first-time-derivative-of-
angle]


While we are free to loosely call torque a 'force', it is really a
'generalized
force'. There's a separate set of physical laws in which this concept
applies.

 

[Judges 13:18]

linnix wrote:

I think that early IC designers, the rubylith cutters, used 1" = 25
mm.

John

Actually, it should be 1000, 500 and 250 for the Imperial stuffs and
786 and 393 for the Metric stuffs. So, everything is rounded and
proper.

In science and technology, what is in use is the metric inch (sic!)
defined as the length equal to 25.4 mm. This has been done to link
the inch to the physical standard for length.

Before the physical standard, the metre was defined as 1/40000000 length
of meridian passing through Paris, which of course nobody could measure,
and then as the length between 2 notches on a bar of Ir Pt alloy. In
either case the inch was no worse unit than the metre. But then the
metre went onto a reproducible physical standard, so the inch followed
by becoming metric.

There, my trey and a happny.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:20:52 -0700, Richard Henry <pomerado@hotmail.com
wibbled:

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.

Don't remind me... I made a moderately big-assed[1] electromagnet in
school metalwork yonks ago (well, I bent 1.5" steel bar into a U - did
the 10,000 turns of 1A (don't ask me to remember what the SWA guage was!)
enamelled wire at home.

[1] OK - it wasn't a scrap yard magnet, but it would hold >100lbs and
lift cast iron manhole covers out of the ground.

I had to do all the calculations using my father's ancient (British)
engineering textbook to decide how many amp-turns were needed to saturate
1.5" of mild steel, then double it to compensate for air gaps.

All in bloody dyns, ergs and feck knows what. Bearing in mind I'm
English, so I was being taught SI and nothing else at school.

OTOH, try to serve me beer in anything other than a pint measure or get
me to make a cake in gram and ml units and I'm less than pleased! I rue
the day we were made to buy petrol by the litre - my 3 year old german
built car still has it's consumption gauge in Miles per Gallon and I like
it

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

Fractions separate men's toys from boy's toys.


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

 

[VWWall]

Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:31:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wibbled:

At least we are not measuring things by 'curling stones' or the like.

It is still possible AFAIK here to go to a small time brewery and buy a
firkin (8 gallons) of beer. Or a barrel (4 firkins). If you're areal
pissartist, you'd probably want a hogshead, butt or tun though.

And the answer to: "Are you getting any lately?" has always been given

in furlongs per fortnight!

--
Virg Wall

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:03:15 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Jun 14, 10:09 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:38:18 -0700, Archimedes' Lever

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

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

Torque is not force. The units are different.

This is getting confusing.

Firstly, force is defined by Newton's law, F = m * A... and torque is
not exactly force. What it is, is a 'generalized force', and it goes
with a generalization of F = m * A , to wit:

[torque] = [angular moment of inertia] * [second-time-derivative-of-
angle]

It's a close analogy to force and acceleration, and a lot of the same
relationships follow along.

The spinning object's kinetic energy, for instance

E = 1/2 [angular moment of inertia] *| [angular velocity]| **2

where, of course [angular velocity] == [first-time-derivative-of-
angle]


While we are free to loosely call torque a 'force', it is really a
'generalized
force'. There's a separate set of physical laws in which this concept
applies.

Force is measured in newtons. Torque is measured in newton-meters. So
they are not the same thing.

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

John

No one EVER said that they were the same thing, idiot.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:05:21 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:31:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wibbled:

At least we are not measuring things by 'curling stones' or the like.

It is still possible AFAIK here to go to a small time brewery and buy a
firkin (8 gallons) of beer. Or a barrel (4 firkins). If you're areal
pissartist, you'd probably want a hogshead, butt or tun though.

Bulk beer here comes in kegs and, for quiet get-togethers, half-kegs.

A keg is 15 gallons. Or maybe 10.

John

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:50:43 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:39:03 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wibbled:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:09:41 -0700, John Larkin


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.

Force is usually measured in pounds or newtons, torque in foot-pounds (or
is that pounds-feet) or newton-metres.

In what way are they the same?

Show me where I said they were the same, idiot. Learn to read a WHOLE
thread before you put your foot in your mouth next time.

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:05:21 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:31:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wibbled:

At least we are not measuring things by 'curling stones' or the like.

It is still possible AFAIK here to go to a small time brewery and buy a
firkin (8 gallons) of beer.

Uh... that would be a "pressurised firkin". Just ask Ringo Starr and
Peter Sellers.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:07:58 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:03:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Jun 14, 10:09 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:38:18 -0700, Archimedes' Lever

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

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

Torque is not force. The units are different.

This is getting confusing.

Firstly, force is defined by Newton's law, F = m * A... and torque is
not exactly force. What it is, is a 'generalized force', and it goes
with a generalization of F = m * A , to wit:

[torque] = [angular moment of inertia] * [second-time-derivative-of-
angle]

It's a close analogy to force and acceleration, and a lot of the same
relationships follow along.

The spinning object's kinetic energy, for instance

E = 1/2 [angular moment of inertia] *| [angular velocity]| **2

where, of course [angular velocity] == [first-time-derivative-of-
angle]


While we are free to loosely call torque a 'force', it is really a
'generalized
force'. There's a separate set of physical laws in which this concept
applies.

Force is measured in newtons. Torque is measured in newton-meters. So
they are not the same thing.

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

John


No one EVER said that they were the same thing, idiot.

Nobody but you. Because you're AlwaysWrong.

John

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:17:41 -0700, VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:31:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wibbled:

At least we are not measuring things by 'curling stones' or the like.

It is still possible AFAIK here to go to a small time brewery and buy a
firkin (8 gallons) of beer. Or a barrel (4 firkins). If you're areal
pissartist, you'd probably want a hogshead, butt or tun though.

And the answer to: "Are you getting any lately?" has always been given
in furlongs per fortnight!

She won't be gone from your life fur long.

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:30:21 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net>
wrote:

I always mentally associated it with
butt=ass - but the former makes more sense...

The idiot that coined it wasn't as smart as you. It refers to a
variant of "shitload".

I would think that that references some huge amount that some fat fuck
that gorged himself all week would shit.

It amounts to that amount of material that would equal the other
material that one's but can hold a load of.

Mine would be quite a small parcel. Terrell's would weigh a ton.

Larkins scale platter would be empty, because he thinks that in his
case, little doves come take it away.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:55:57 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/13/2010 8:41 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:28:52 -0700, Winston<Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

(...)

By the time the young person reaches college age the battle
has long been lost. Let's agree to disagree that it is
a shame we refuse to supply a logical set of measurement tools
as a basis for learning.

No, I won't agree to disagree with such *obvious* crap.

You agree then? Good.

That you spout crap? Certainly.