Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:54:13 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

The SI system is simplicity itself

A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple

A Kelvin gram? What's that?

FYI, 1 m^3 of water has a mass of 1 Mg or 1000 kg or 1 t.

Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
the UK and USA

Indeed. And even if you know which you're using, working things out
is still hard. Try these sums:

What's the capacity, in litres, of a box 10 cm by 20 cm by 30 cm?

What's the capacity, in gallons, of a box 10 inches by 20 inches by
30 inches?

I can do the 1st easily, but would struggle with the second (I could
only do it by converting to metric and back again: 1 in = 2.54
cm; 1 gallon = 8 pints; 1 pint = 568 ml).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On or about Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:44:54 +0200, Ralph Savelsberg
allegedly uttered:
I happen to be a physicist myself and use the same system both in work
and in daily life (which admittedly consists mainly out of working).
I've never had any problems with it. In fact, using the same system for
everything is very convenient, since it allows me to relate what I do as
a physicist to things in my daily life. Other than that, it's all
rather arbitrary. What the does it matter whether your length is 2 m or
6 feet and 7 inches?

It hasn't caught on because people like to stick to what they know.
That's all.
I have an English friend (a physicist as well) who does pretty much
everything in SI, but if you ask for his weight he answers in `stone'
and has to think hard about how many kilogrammes that is. By the way,
I'm well aware of the fact that kg is the unit of mass, whilst your
weight should technically be expressed in Newtons.
If like me, you've grown up in a country that uses SI, it's very
natural. No problem whatsoever.

I have to agree with you Ralph. As an English (I prefer British,
except during a Rugby World Cup) physicist, I'm more comfortable with
SI for work, but ask me how tall I am, and it's 6'1", and I drive at
xx mph. I know that's inconsistent, and I'd be more than happy to go
entirely SI (except for beer - a litre is too big, and a half-litre
just doesn't sound right!).

Especially living in the US as I currently do, it drives me nuts to
work in mm, inches and U just to get a single box to fit a rack.

Whoever thought of U as a unit of measurement really needs to suffer
in a major way. The sooner racks become standardised on a metric
measurement, the happier I'll be.

Love 'em or hate 'em (and I *am* English;-) ), France's greatest
contribution to the world is the metric system, just as the US' is the
Marshall Plan.

Anyway, enough drunken ramblings, time to get some kip.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

On or about Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:46:16 +0100, "Terry Simpson"
allegedly uttered:

Andreas Parsch wrote:
I'm not too familiar with English units, but maybe there are also two
similar sounding names of units.

"There are only 18 ounces of cottage cheese in a 24 ounce tub".


But 20 (Imperial) fluid ounces in a (US) pint that consists of 16 (US)
fluid ounces.

Who says Imperial/English/Archaic measurements are sensible? When was
the last time you worked out length in rods chains and leagues?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Who says Imperial/English/Archaic measurements are sensible? When was
the last time you worked out length in rods chains

Chains are still used somewhat as a measurement on the ground side of wildland
firefighting...


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Who says Imperial/English/Archaic measurements are sensible? When was
the last time you worked out length in rods chains and leagues?

---
Peter Kemp

I say we should start measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:54:13 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

The SI system is simplicity itself

A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple

A Kelvin gram? What's that?

FYI, 1 m^3 of water has a mass of 1 Mg or 1000 kg or 1 t.

Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
the UK and USA

Indeed. And even if you know which you're using, working things out
is still hard. Try these sums:

What's the capacity, in litres, of a box 10 cm by 20 cm by 30 cm?

What's the capacity, in gallons, of a box 10 inches by 20 inches by
30 inches?


Which gallon US or Imperial ?

I can do the 1st easily, but would struggle with the second (I could
only do it by converting to metric and back again: 1 in = 2.54
cm; 1 gallon = 8 pints; 1 pint = 568 ml).


The conversion isnt that bad actually

1 cu ft = 62.4 lbs
1 gallon (Imperial) = 10 lbs

You can work it from there

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:

The SI system is simplicity itself

A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple

But that's, at one level, stupid. A cubic meter (or, ideally, liter)
of water should mass a gram. One unit cubed should lead directly to
the other unit. One ought not have to remember that the liter is a
cubic decimeter, not cubic meter, or that a gram is the mass of a
milliliter, not liter, of water. It should be 1 to 1 to 1, not 1 to 10
to 1000.

The only reason that won't work is that they picked a meter that was
too long, such that a cubic meter is an inconvenient measure of volume,
and a cubic meter of water is a very inconvenient measure of mass.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:57:24 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:54:13 +0100, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

The SI system is simplicity itself

A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple

A Kelvin gram? What's that?

FYI, 1 m^3 of water has a mass of 1 Mg or 1000 kg or 1 t.

Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
the UK and USA

Indeed. And even if you know which you're using, working things out
is still hard. Try these sums:

What's the capacity, in litres, of a box 10 cm by 20 cm by 30 cm?

What's the capacity, in gallons, of a box 10 inches by 20 inches by
30 inches?

Which gallon US or Imperial ?

Either would do; in my figures below i was using Imperial gallons
(because I know how big they are).

I can do the 1st easily, but would struggle with the second (I could
only do it by converting to metric and back again: 1 in = 2.54
cm; 1 gallon = 8 pints; 1 pint = 568 ml).


The conversion isnt that bad actually

1 cu ft = 62.4 lbs

It's not exactly a round number, is it?

1 gallon (Imperial) = 10 lbs

You can work it from there

Indeed so, The calculations a

volume = 10*20*30/12^3 [ft^3]

mass = volume*62.4 [lb]

vol = mass/10 [gallon]

so it is (10*20*30/12^3)*62.4/10

The metric calculation OTOH is 10*20*30/1000 which can be done in
one's head.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"Jim Battista" wrote in message
.. .
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:

The SI system is simplicity itself

A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple

But that's, at one level, stupid.

If you cant be civil this ends now.

Bye

Keith

(B2431) writes:

Who says Imperial/English/Archaic measurements are sensible? When was
the last time you worked out length in rods chains and leagues?

---
Peter Kemp

I say we should start measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to
the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
-- Grandpa Simpson

Which works out to about approximately 10.4 feet per gallon!
(US or Imperial is left as an exercise for the reader)


--
Jim Campbell