We Went to the Moon on Feet and Inches

October 6, 2004

Joann Evans wrote:

Hello? Has the X-Prize threshhold not been stated as 100 km all
along? Translated to 62.5 miles for the land of irrational measurments?

Hello! There is no such thing as an irrational measurement, and physics is
invariant under units transformation.

How do you get an irrational number from a fraction composed of integers?

FYI : http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html

Science and mathematics depends on irrational numbers too. I don't quite see how
we could have gotten to the moon without them. But, then again :

http://www.epcomm.com/fmbr/editoral/measreal.htm

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

If you want to go metric, do it in a short time, don't spread it out. The
result of fiddling like that over here is that we all still think in feet
and inches, but everything is in metric. A complete mess.

Watch and learn.

I see no reason to go metric other than its easier if all you know is
metric, as the units are all the same, but if feet and inches work, why
change it? In the UK, we are close to Europe, and that trade is important,
but over there, your market is big enough to cope, I am sure.

Brian

--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" wrote
in message ...
The Saturn V Moon Rocket was constructed to the U.S. Common Measurement
system, wasn't it? I don't know about SpaceShipOne, but its record
setting
altitude was reported in feet or miles, not in millimeters.

If inches and feet are good enough for going to the Moon, isn't it good
enough for building stuff we use every day? The Government is trying here
and there to go metric. Listen to modern day soldiers talk about "meters"
or "two clicks" almost as if its intuitive. But I say its regugicated
rote, forced on to them by unlearned commanders, because every soldier
still estimates in yards and then converts 1:1 to meters, inducing an
automatic error of 9%. About the only way he gets meters correctly is if
he uses a rangefinder calibrated in meters. I have tested scientifically
trained people extemporaneously for metric knowledge and they fail
miserably. Just ask your doctor, who works day in and day out with his
metric sized medicines to estimate his weight in kilos. He will reach for
a calculator! Even physicists in the U.S. will do the same. You have to
grow up with the metric system to think metric. There is no way to get the
U.S. to switch. It can't be done.

Well, what about metric scrutinized scientifically? Its said to be more
rational than the English or closely coupled U.S. Common system. Some
think the inch is irrational because it originally was the width of the
King's thumb. Well, the meter is 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the
North Pole to the Equator as it passes through the longitude of Paris.
Both are "arbitrary." But the inch is better than the meter because it is
less arbitrary. First of all, its a more convenient length. The meter is
too long and the cm is too small. And the inch is simple. Take one inch.
Nothing is simpler than "1" but it takes 2.54 cm to equal 1 inch. 2.54 is
much more complex than 1. The metric system is said to be more rational
because it is decimalized. But the inch can and has been decimalized for
eons. Mechanics use the micrometer which is decimalized to 1/10,000 inch
in its common form. So you can have for example 0.003 in. bearing
clearance. Quick, you metric guys, what fraction of a mm is that? See?
You need a calculator. Those who say it is irrational to have 12 inches
to
a foot instead of 10 inches to the foot are totally wrong. 12 is
divisible
by far more numbers than the 10 of the metric system. Miles are no
problem
either. Whats wrong with 5280 ft/mile or 1760 yards? Comes out perfectly
even. That's why the X-15's top speed is still quoted by NASA in mph and
altitudes in ft.

Even feet can be decimalized if it suits the purpose. Surveyors do it all
the time. The width of the lot your house is built on might be 50.42
feet.
Much more accurate than saying its 1834 cm.

Even worse is the confusion in the metric system over volumes and liquid
measurement. A cc is not the same as a ml. They are the same only at one
single temperature, and who can keep all his liquids at that fixed
temperature? Its totally impractical. And when it comes to scientific
measurements, there is total confusion with metric. Ergs, neutron-meters,
is next to impossible to understand much less work with. Smokin' Rockets,
isn't it much easier to think amp-volts or ft.lbs, watts and lbs-ft.?
Just
ask someone who knows something.

The finale' of my argument is your Asian and European goods are never 100%
metric. Look at your wheels on that Toyota or Volkswagen. Do you see
where
the tire fits an inch size wheel (13, 14, or 15)? Why not metric if
metric
was so hot? What about that Sony TV? Doesn't if have a screen measured in
inches (like 19, 21, 27, 30, etc.) instead of meters? Those Chinese made
items of clothing are waist sized in inches, not cm. I could go on and
on.
The world realizes that our common system is best, but they are already
stuck with that idiotic metric system derived by that crazy guy, Pascal.

Quick, how many cm in one Dm? If you can't cough it up without your
reference book, I'm right again.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 01/10/2004

"Brian Gaff" wrote ...
I see no reason to go metric other than its easier if all you know is
metric, as the units are all the same, but if feet and inches work, why
change it?

Because they already _have_, in bits and pieces.

In article ,
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

October 6, 2004

Joann Evans wrote:

Hello? Has the X-Prize threshhold not been stated as 100 km all
along? Translated to 62.5 miles for the land of irrational measurments?

Hello! There is no such thing as an irrational measurement, and physics is
invariant under units transformation.

How do you get an irrational number from a fraction composed of integers?

It's pretty clear to me that Joann meant "irrational" in the sense of
"illogical, poorly designed, and Just Plain Silly" (and was referring to
the measurement *system*, not any particular measurement). It seems
like a pretty good description of the U.S. (and that tiny African
country which also uses imperial units, whose name I can't remember) to
me.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

October 7, 2004

Joe Strout wrote:

Hello? Has the X-Prize threshhold not been stated as 100 km all
along? Translated to 62.5 miles for the land of irrational measurments?


Hello! There is no such thing as an irrational measurement, and physics is
invariant under units transformation.

How do you get an irrational number from a fraction composed of integers?



It's pretty clear to me that Joann meant "irrational" in the sense of
"illogical, poorly designed, and Just Plain Silly" (and was referring to
the measurement *system*, not any particular measurement). It seems
like a pretty good description of the U.S. (and that tiny African
country which also uses imperial units, whose name I can't remember) to
me.


I suppose you are also opposed to base 2, and a well educated
multi-lingual population too.

Have you priced out stainless steel metric nuts and bolts lately?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message k...
If you want to go metric, do it in a short time, don't spread it out. The
result of fiddling like that over here is that we all still think in feet
and inches, but everything is in metric. A complete mess.

Watch and learn.

I see no reason to go metric other than its easier if all you know is
metric, as the units are all the same, but if feet and inches work, why
change it? In the UK, we are close to Europe, and that trade is important,
but over there, your market is big enough to cope, I am sure.

Brian

I've read some stories that the International Space Station is half metric and
half SAE. The Russian half is metric with sets of metric tools and the
American half is SAE with SAE tools.

Does anyone know if this is true?

- Rusty barton

In message
Joe Strout wrote:

like a pretty good description of the U.S. (and that tiny African
country which also uses imperial units, whose name I can't remember) to
me.

And don't forget Burma (or Myanmar).

Anthony

PS. It's Liberia.

In article ,
(Rusty B) wrote:

I've read some stories that the International Space Station is half metric and
half SAE. The Russian half is metric with sets of metric tools and the
American half is SAE with SAE tools.

Does anyone know if this is true?

Unless Boeing changed all the design drawing for the Lab, the racks, the
standoffs, the endcones, the CBMS, hatch mechanisms, ECLSS equipment,
power distribtion equipment, MDMs and the data network, et cetera ad
nauseum after they were finished in 1993 and 1994, then yes. It's true.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

Joe Strout wrote in message ...

It's pretty clear to me that Joann meant "irrational" in the sense of
"illogical, poorly designed, and Just Plain Silly" (and was referring to
the measurement *system*, not any particular measurement). It seems
like a pretty good description of the U.S. (and that tiny African
country which also uses imperial units, whose name I can't remember) to
me.

How about "irrational" in the sense of having the acceleration of
gravity in the middle of the rocket equation? That's because specific
impulse is in units of lbf thrust per lbm/sec propellant flow.
AAAHHHRRRGGG!! Not only does using exhaust velocity make more sense,
it helps understand what is happening. Personally, I do most of my
calculations in MKS because there is no problem wondering if a Newton
or a kilogram is force or mass. (Rant #1)

Also, it's common to call inches "SAE units" but I don't know how that
started. I am an SAE member and they are just as stuck in both
measurement systems as the rest of us. Their monthly magazine usually
has double units expressed as MKS (inch). Their specifications are
available either way. (Rant #2)

Products made in the U.S. are frequently metric simply because we sell
to the world market. Automobiles switched during the 1970s as new
manufacturing plants came on line. I had a '72 Chevy Van that used
metric engine parts and inch size chassis parts. You just have to have
a full set of tools. I stopped buying Sears hand tools because they
are offered in "Standard and Metric". It just sounds too arrogant to
me.

I buy Coke in 2-liter bottles and 12 oz cans.

Of course, the federal government takes the prize for silliness. They
regulate auto emissions in grams/mile and created a new unit to
measure heat pump efficiency. Before the "energy crisis" of of 1974,
we had COP, or coefficient of performance, expressed as KW heat pumped
per KW electricity used. Most residential air conditioners have a COP
of about 3.5. Suddenly, the feds required manufacturers of heat pumps
to display efficiency in a new invented unit of EER, which is in units
of BTU/hour per watt. (rant #3)

That's what I call irrational.

Dan DeLong

October 7, 2004

Dan DeLong wrote:

[snip rant]

That's what I call irrational.

So, you're totally against hexadecimal too.

And all music should be in a ten note scale, none of that harmonic crap?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net