clocked car

AdrianC

dresdendave wrote: »

I believe there are two systems of weights and measures, one that is so sophistocated and accurate it put men on the moon....and another one known as the metric system.

NASA have been using metric for the last decade.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/08jan_metricmoon

This is one of the reasons:
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/

forgotmyname

It used to drive my dad mad when i would reel off measurements in metric and imperial.

Its 3M long and 4ft wide. Sounds better than 3M long and 1.2192M wide. Its 4ft.. As long as the symbols for the scale/measurement used i work in both.

Whichever gives me an easier to remember number for the task in hand.

How can one be more accurate than the other when its a fixed scale?

I had to google why people think its more accurate and i got a website called askawiseman. Obviously ask a stupid American who does not seem to grasp both measurements.

Seems he needs the imperial system to visualize the size of an object. One example hold your arms out palms facing and its a foot, err no its 30cm.

A quote " It takes a lot of work for the brain to be conditioned to the point where 133 centimeters can be visualized."
So the writer cannot visualize 133cm but they can 4.36352feet?

This made me giggle... "Anything past about 120 degrees F or below -10 degrees is just a number, anyway…something we can’t possibly comprehend because we’ve never experienced it"

So admitted that Degrees F doesnt work for that person below -10 degrees C.

Richard53

I am comfortable with the Imperial system, but when I read an article by an American describing how to tune a carburettor, sorry carburetor, I began to wonder. It contained something like (I paraphrase) "You need to shim the needle out to around three-and-a-half sixty-fourths", and I thought how ridiculous it sounded, a bit like measuring a sprinter's times in nano-fortnights.

AdrianC

forgotmyname wrote: »

This made me giggle... "Anything past about 120 degrees F or below -10 degrees is just a number, anyway…something we can’t possibly comprehend because we’ve never experienced it"

So admitted that Degrees F doesnt work for that person below -10 degrees C.

I'm more surprised that he never seems to have experienced boiling water.

Richard53 wrote: »

I am comfortable with the Imperial system, but when I read an article by an American describing how to tune a carburettor, sorry carburetor, I began to wonder. It contained something like (I paraphrase) "You need to shim the needle out to around three-and-a-half sixty-fourths", and I thought how ridiculous it sounded, a bit like measuring a sprinter's times in nano-fortnights.

<nods enthusiastically>
I've always worked on metric cars - until recently, when I bought a series 3 Land Rover. "Oh, that spanner's a bit small for this fastener. This one's 473/645ths. Now, what's the next one up? Is it 57/85ths? Or is it 19/37ths?". Then you suddenly remember that the bloody thing isn't entirely Dibnah, and that there's a mix on it... Because BL.

Joe_Horner

forgotmyname wrote: »

How can one be more accurate than the other when its a fixed scale?

I had to google why people think its more accurate and i got a website called askawiseman. Obviously ask a stupid American who does not seem to grasp both measurements.

Seems he needs the imperial system to visualize the size of an object. One example hold your arms out palms facing and its a foot, err no its 30cm.

A quote " It takes a lot of work for the brain to be conditioned to the point where 133 centimeters can be visualized."
So the writer cannot visualize 133cm but they can 4.36352feet?

This made me giggle... "Anything past about 120 degrees F or below -10 degrees is just a number, anyway…something we can’t possibly comprehend because we’ve never experienced it"

So admitted that Degrees F doesnt work for that person below -10 degrees C.

Like most people he's misunderstood the real benefit of the imperial (mostly duodecimal) system, which is to do with expressing fractions.

As a single example, consider a yard v a metre.

You can ask for:

half a yard - exactly 18 inches
1/3 yard - exactly 12 inches
1/4 yard - exactly 9 inches
1/5 yard - exactly 7.2 inches
1/6 yard - exactly 6 inches
1/8 yard - exactly 4.5 inches
1/9 yard - exactly 4 inches
1/10 yard - exactly 3.6 inches
1/12 yard - exactly 3 inches.

or, in metric:

1/2 metre - exactly 50 cm
1/3 metre - approximately 33.3333 cm
1/4 metre - exactly 25 cm
1/5 metre - exactly 20 cm
1/6 metre - approximately 16.6667 cm
1/8 metre - exactly 12.5 cm
1/9 metre - approximately 11.1111 cm
1/10 meter - exactly 10 cm
1/12 metre - approximately 8.3333 cm

Duodecimal just works better.

AdrianC

Imperial is mainly duodecimal, is it?
How many feet in a yard? How many yards in a mile?

Let's look at weight...
How many ounces in a pound? How many pounds in a stone? How many stone in a cwt? How many cwt in a ton?

Or let's look at volume.
How many ounces (no, not those ounces...) in a pint? How many pints in a gallon?

Imperial measurements would merely be a bit wierd if it was as simple as duodecimal. It's the sheer inconsistency that's maddening and baffling.

And that's even before we get near the confusion between differences in gallons and tons and...

Iceweasel

AdrianC wrote: »

NASA have been using metric for the last decade.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/08jan_metricmoon

This is one of the reasons:
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/

I was led to believe that the US had a load of problems back in the 40's and 50's working from the original German designs under the guidance of Wernher von Braun. Everything had to be recalculated in inches and 10ths, 100ths, and 1000ths of inches - they didn't like/use the British concept of 8ths, 16ths, 32nds, &64ths.

USA would never have achieved much in space without the German input.

Or in jet engine development either.

AdrianC

Iceweasel wrote: »

I was led to believe that the US had a load of problems back in the 40's and 50's working from the original German designs under the guidance of Wernher von Braun. Everything had to be recalculated in inches and 10ths, 100ths, and 1000ths of inches - they didn't like/use the British concept of 8ths, 16ths, 32nds, &64ths.

The US certainly used fractional divisions for the majority of things - the concept of a decimal inch might have been some kind of weird internal half-way to metrication without actually admitting it, but it certainly wasn't ever general use much beyond the good ol' "thou".

Richard53

AdrianC wrote: »

Imperial is mainly duodecimal, is it?
How many feet in a yard? How many yards in a mile?

Let's look at weight...
How many ounces in a pound? How many pounds in a stone? How many stone in a cwt? How many cwt in a ton?

Or let's look at volume.
How many ounces (no, not those ounces...) in a pint? How many pints in a gallon?

Imperial measurements would merely be a bit wierd if it was as simple as duodecimal. It's the sheer inconsistency that's maddening and baffling.

And that's even before we get near the confusion between differences in gallons and tons and...

Well, no-one said that length, volume, weight etc. had to use the same system or units I agree that the Imperial system looks weird, but that is because it has developed organically according to need, and the units are generally of a human scale. The metric system is utterly logical and consistent, but it's essentially a concept imposed from above and relating to a length of steel bar somewhere in France. If you are using instruments to measure, and the work needs to be precise, then metric all the way. But for guesstimates and rule-of-thumb calculations, Imperial units just seem to 'fit'.

AdrianC

Richard53 wrote: »

If you are using instruments to measure, and the work needs to be precise, then metric all the way.

Which is, after all, the whole point of measuring.

But for guesstimates and rule-of-thumb calculations, Imperial units just seem to 'fit'.

Only if that's what you're used to.

'course, there's also the oddity of using different units to guesstimate as to measure.

"How big do you make that, mate?"
Oooh, looks like about 4ft.
"Nah, I need it measuring... Need to know if this'll fit."
Sorry. It's 1150mm.