A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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 » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Apollo: One gas environment?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 3rd 04, 08:58 PM
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Look at the Subject header, why don't you? Does the word "Apollo"
provide any context? It should, after all. If understand that Project
Apollo was a U.S. program, than any "localization" issue with regard to
the subject at hand is moot.


Ah ... now we see the mindset that lost that Mars probe!

Nick
Ads
  #42  
Old May 3rd 04, 09:30 PM
Hans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No-no, with "normal" I ment people who are not 'into' space history on daily
basis, so they are not so interested that they are going to convert every
psi to pascal And 'loose' a whole part of the information this way.
Well, thats all and I am sorry I cant explain it better, but ofcourse
English is not my native language. I need to convert every word ;-)





"Normal person", huh? You mean, some sort of "units snob?"

Well, since a good part of these "interesting topics" all use Imperial
measurements (the American part, of course), wouldn't it behoove you to
learn a few simple conversions so you can understand the discussion?
After all, a good many of us did so and can work fairly easily in either
system.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html



  #44  
Old May 3rd 04, 09:49 PM
Hans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey, I understand a lot of the difficulties people have in converting to
other units. E.g here we had for hunderds of years (even longer as the USA
exists) our Guilder as currency.
And since 3 years we have to use the Euro. It's not easy I can tell you.
But...everybody does. Because there is no way back.

Perhaps in 200 years everybody in Europe speaks English as native language
and everyone in the USA uses SI-units.
Dispite of all the different cultures that will fade away.
And like I said in an other tread, "normal" is not Europe, not America or
whatever but the lurkers who read this group.




" Another sad comment on the current capabilities of the "normal
person".
Or, you personally.


I also noticed an extreme bias in the original poster's comments. If
*he* is having sucvh a difficult time thinking in Imperial units because
he grew up with metric units, then why can't he put himself in others'
shoes and understand that it's just as hard for those of us who grew up
with Imperial units to think in terms of metric units? It's not that
most of us have any problems whatsoever understanding metric units --
they're quite easy to understand -- it's that, like first languages vs.
second languages, we "think" in the units we grew up with.

And it's like second languages -- some people can become quite fluent
and proficient in second languages, others cannot.

In other words, it was a hell of an overgeneraliation on the part of the
original poster, reflecting an unstated prejudice that, frankly, was
both untrue and uncalled-for.

Doug



  #47  
Old May 3rd 04, 11:48 PM
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Jay Windley wrote:
I've seen kilograms-force (kgf) gain popularity as a competing unit of
force. In my mind that's just revisiting the fiasco between pounds-mass and
pounds-force in English units...


Fortunately, I think that use is fading rather than growing -- it's a relic
of some of the pre-SI metric systems.


I certainly hope it is fading. I have Never seen kg-force used. Ever. The
only reference I have seen to it outside of Usenet, is a comment by
one of my profs, to never use it, and that it had been banned somewhere
or another. (true or not, I don't know).

Nick

  #48  
Old May 4th 04, 01:26 AM
Kevin Willoughby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
Oliver Smoot was a student in 1958, when his fraternity pledge class
measured the Harvard Bridge (364.4 smoots, plus an ear) and marked it.

The markings are renewed biennially.


Later classes carefully repainted those markings, highlighting the one
that corresponds to their graduation year. Older year-highlightings fade
over time. Except, for some reason, the 1969 marking is always kept
highlighted.

Trivia: the Harvard bridge is nowhere near the town of Harvard,
Massachusetts. The bridge crosses the Charles River, from Boston to
Cambridge not at Harvard University, but at MIT. You have to cross the
bridge and then drive through the MIT campus to reach Harvard Square.
(Additional trivial: you *can't* park you car in Harvard yard. This has
been illegal for many, many years.)

According to an apocryphal story, the Harvard bridge is named that
because of two essays from two local colleges. The essay from Harvard
University extolls the importance of Harvard to the local community, the
state and the world, claiming that it was only right that the bridge be
named after Harvard. MIT reviewed the blueprints of the bridge and
claimed it was only right that the bridge be named after Harvard.

A few years ago, the bridge was falling apart and most of it had to be
rebuilt without actually shutting down traffic over the river, so maybe
the MIT engineers knew what they were talking about.

(fwiw: I attended neither Harvard nor MIT.)
--
Kevin Willoughby
lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins
  #49  
Old May 4th 04, 01:42 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 May 2004 00:15:04 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
wrote:

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

For example, the relationship between liter and kilogram seems
wonderfully logical until you forget to take into account just under

what
precise (and largely arbitrary) conditions a kilogram and a liter of

water
can be considered equivalent.


Most normal situations. What about the relationship between the gallon

and
the pound? And by the way, which gallon and which pound?


For everyday purposes, one gallon of water weighs eight pounds. This
is for the standard cooking gallon, measured in a marked cup, and
pound, measured on a scale. The corrections for temperature, etc, are
smaller than the tolerance in the measurements and this is appropriate
for situations using gallons.


Actually for baking it's often far worse. I saw a quick test done once. I
think it was 3 different sets of cups and spoons. None matched the
equivalent device in the other set. (i.e. all three teaspoons held different
amounts).

So, ultimately it's all relative (and this is in fact the way I believe
professional bakers do it all.)



Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer



  #50  
Old May 4th 04, 01:50 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Oliver Smoot was a student in 1958, when his fraternity pledge class
measured the Harvard Bridge (364.4 smoots, plus an ear) and marked it.
The markings are renewed biennially.

(Should be noted the first time they used the actual Smoot to measure.
Since then they use a derived measure.)


One smoot is 5' 7", in case you wonder.


A professor at RPI (Meltzer for those who recall the name) used to say that
you knew you had made it big time when you had a unit of measurement named
after you (Mach, Watt, etc.)

So, on a camping trip we all developed some units....

The Welch was the length of time one would go between nearly killing oneself
in some unusual way (falling on an ice axe and just barely missing impaling
oneself, overshooting a sled while jumping on it... etc.) I think we
measured this in a few hours.

The Regan was the length of time one would go between completely missing the
point of someone's comment... that was in seconds. (Hey, he was a great guy,
just a bit oblivious at times. :-)

The Dann, I don't recall.

The Moore was the distance (in inches because we're bloody Americans) ones
hand had to move in the woodstove heated cabin before one would notice a
difference in temperature (for anyone w/o experience with a wood stove, the
difference in temp between say the floor and the ceiling of a heated room is
VERY noticable.) We later estimated to this be about 4". I of course had a
hand in creating this unit.

Unfortunately these units never achieved the popularity of the Smoot.



An American baker is happy baking cookies in Fahrenheit. A French baker

is
happy baking cookies in Celsius.


And the British baker is baking biscuits in Gas Marks.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer



 




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
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones UK Astronomy 8 August 1st 04 09:08 PM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 5 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
Apollo Buzz alDredge Astronomy Misc 5 July 28th 04 10:05 AM
Apollo Buzz alDredge Misc 5 July 28th 04 10:05 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ darla UK Astronomy 11 July 25th 04 02:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.