|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote: In article , (Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote: 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! God almighty - READ THE DAMNED SUBJECT LINE! Oh my ... I'm good. But I'm not #that# good. But I'm taking that as concurrence about the mindset!! :-) Nick |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |