A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

metric system newsgroup call for votes #1



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 16th 03, 03:53 PM
Pat Norton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gene Nygaard wrote
The problem is comparing two imperial to
metric conversion factors that are not as
precise as they could be.


So those aren't definitions after all.


They are definitions. We just have to accept that:
1 UK knot = (1 UK nautical mile + 172 mm) per hour


Exactly what did they learn in 1995 which made them
think that 1853 m is better than the 1852 m adopted
by ... everybody


The value of 1852 m is also adopted by the UK. The definition of the
'UK nautical mile' of 1853 m is for interpretation of historical text
written in the time before the UK accepted the international value.


Exactly what did they learn in 1995 which made them
think that 1853 m is better than the 6080 British ft
the British had adopted


1. The nautical mile is supposed to provide an approximation of 1
minute of angle.
2. Because of non-spherical abberations of the earth, the
approximation can be wrong by tens of metres. Anyone that attempts to
obtain more precise distances could get into big trouble if they do
not know that.
3. The international value is based on the average over the whole
planet.
4. The UK value is calculated in a different way. I seem to remember
it being the value in the English channel, but do not quote me. So
1853 m might actually be nearer to the true value than 1853.172 m
5. Given that the true value at any point varies by tens of metres,
they may have rejected the idea of maintaining mm precision. The
question then becomes why did they abandon the precise relationship
with the knot.

Just some thoughts.


But while the old Admiralty mile could be expressed
exactly with only 7 digits, they redefined one with
only 4 digits.


Quite. I really don't know the answer.
  #2  
Old November 16th 03, 06:59 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pat Norton" wrote in message
...
Gene Nygaard wrote
The problem is comparing two imperial to


1853 m might actually be nearer to the true value than 1853.172 m
5. Given that the true value at any point varies by tens of metres,
they may have rejected the idea of maintaining mm precision. The
question then becomes why did they abandon the precise relationship
with the knot.


Of course, only an technocrat would want to make mm measurements over a
minute of arc. It is as though Gene's mother is also his aunt.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt Paul Hirose Military Aviation 146 November 3rd 03 05:18 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.