Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt

"Andreas Parsch" wrote

Naw, it was because some idiot provided some of the terms in
metric instead of proper units.


It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
units consistently.

Rephrase that to:
"It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units consistently."
Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.

Pete

Pete wrote:

"Andreas Parsch" wrote

It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
units consistently.


Rephrase that to:
"It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units consistently."
Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.



I know! Guess why I posted the " " :-)

Andreas

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Pete wrote:

"Andreas Parsch" wrote

It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
units consistently.


Rephrase that to:
"It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units
consistently."
Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.



I know! Guess why I posted the " " :-)

It is ironic that anyone could envision metric units to be consistent with
aerospace.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:00:20 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Pete wrote:

"Andreas Parsch" wrote

It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
units consistently.


Rephrase that to:
"It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units
consistently."
Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.



I know! Guess why I posted the " " :-)

It is ironic that anyone could envision metric units to be consistent with
aerospace.

Can you tell me what the ICAO standards are for the various elements
reported on an aviation weather report? Not the ones used in the
United Stated, that's not what I'm asking--tell us what the _standard_
is. What are the units, in the ICAO standard, for Runway Visual
Range, for example? Or wind speed? Visibility? Temperature? Cloud
layer heights? Altimeter settings?

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:00:20 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Pete wrote:

"Andreas Parsch" wrote

It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_
;-) )
units consistently.


Rephrase that to:
"It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units
consistently."
Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.



I know! Guess why I posted the " " :-)

It is ironic that anyone could envision metric units to be consistent
with
aerospace.

Can you tell me what the ICAO standards are for the various elements
reported on an aviation weather report? Not the ones used in the
United Stated, that's not what I'm asking--tell us what the _standard_
is. What are the units, in the ICAO standard, for Runway Visual
Range, for example? Or wind speed? Visibility? Temperature? Cloud
layer heights? Altimeter settings?

I am going to go with feet and clockwise.

From: Jim Battista

snip

But that's, at one level, stupid.

snip

Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

If you feel the need to treat someone that way I suggest you change your motto.
It is possible to debate with without personal assaults.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

From: Jim Campbell rchaic

snip

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

How long does it take for your car to accelerate from zero to 60 furlongs per
fortnight?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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).

Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:


"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.

Sorry.

Not you that's stupid, the system. It's broken at a basic level --
you should never have to remember anything, which requires 1 to 1 to
1 conversions. Meters lead to liters lead to grams lead to calories
and newtons, all based rigidly off a better-defined meter.

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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"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

I agree...it was interesting right up to that point, then things
went to hell in a hurry...shame on you Jim.
--

-Gord.