On Feb 8, 8:40*am, Andrew Usher wrote:
On Feb 7, 10:18*pm, Mahipal7638 wrote:

snip

Yeah, sure. The language of America is English, not Spanish. Most of
us don't speak Spanish and don't desire to learn it. Further
suggesting that people from metric countries use English units better
than we do is just asinine.

You snipped a lot of English which you couldn't read or understand,
apparently. As is evidenced by your reply above.

One point I made was that in the USA, from where I read and shop, most
all merchandise is already labeled in two systems of units. One of
them systems just happens to be SI. Which system is better is a
personal choice. In twenty or thirty years, most USA citizens will
grow up being exposed to, and comfortable with, both systems of units.

But then, you're from India aren't you? All Indians think they're
geniuses when they're actually ****ing clueless.

Andrew Usher

It doesn't matter from where I am or where I happen to be. Your
incompetent malicious generalization reveals more about you than you
could ever know about multilingual Indians.

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal

"Andrew Usher" a écrit dans le message de news:
5e8031f1-4010-478d-bfb2- ...
On Feb 8, 8:21 am, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
On 02/08/2010 09:00 AM, Andrew Usher wrote:

In any event, it's a completely dishonest tactic that you ignore my
real essay in favor of your silly ridicule. The point is the SI mafia
whose only purpose is to impose SI units everywhere.

Well, it does blow holes in your notion that SI is more idiosyncratic
than Imperial units. I mean, 8 fluid ounces make one cup, 16 avoirdupois
ounces make 1 avoirdupois pound, and 12 Troy ounces make 1 Troy pound...
and, of course, each ounce is quite distinct from the other. It's not
like a fluid ounce of water weighs 1 troy ounce or 1 avoirdupois ounce,
god forbid.

That's easy to explain historically - the US volume units originate
before anyone used the fluid ounce in English. The Imperial units came
later and they do have the correct fluid ounce (= 1 oz. av. water).

You probably know that I use certain British spellings, and have as
long as I have been on the internet. This is intentional as I believe
that there should be an international standard spelling for English.
Similarly there should be an international standard for English units
and it's obvious that this should have Imperial volume units but US
weight units (although we should join the British in abolishing the
troy pound which has no purpose but to cause occasional confusion).

Andrew Usher

From my point of view, when arguments against SI are :
- It's are not natural
- Lengths can't be divided easily by 2,3, 4 or 6 in metric
- French people are behind SI
- There is a SI mafia

my only conclusion is that it's not metric system that sucks, but people who
are afraid of change. I've been using both systems since I can remember. I
measure my height in Imperial, buy 2x4's when I need lumber, but I buy gas
at 1.04$/litre and I drive my car at 120km/hour. What's wrong with that? But
if I had to live with only one of those systems, I'd go SI right now because
it's simpler. Working in base 10 always been easier.

You want to go on using Imperial, fine with me. But it's an evidence that SI
will be THE world standard someday.

Sorry to blow your bubble.

Francois

On 02/02/2010 23:54, Andrew Usher wrote:
I. Introduction


As English is a common language in internet because most of people use
it, metric system will be the common language in science and technology.

China, Europe, Russia, South America, Japan speak metric..
Where do you want to sell "inched machines" or inched materials?

You won't sell an "inched" car in Europe unless you give free the
tools's box together. And I am not sure about the results. The same for
transformed materials like bars, rods, etc..

Pull to metric or you'll remain dinosauric.

In article ,
Andrew Usher wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:32*am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

Well, I guess you can. But just because you can calculate with
barbarous units doesn't make them superior - after all, you'd never
allow that for English units, would you?

So, how would *you* choose a resistor and a capacitor to produce
a desired time constant, without using ohms and Farads?

Oh, I see, the equation T = 1/(2pi RC) works in SI units (and also in
Gaussian units). This doesn't change the principal scientific
objection, though.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? In the equation you
just wrote above "T" would have dimensions of reciprocal time, or
frequency, regardless of the unit system used. Perhpas you were
thinking of a "corner frequency" rather than a time constant? It is
very unusual--some would say misleading--to use the letter "T" to
designate a frequency.

The voltage across a capacitor discharging through a resistor will
decrease exponentially according to the equation:

V(t) = V(0) * exp(-t/(RC))

Provided R is measured in ohms, C in Farads, and t in seconds. (I suppose
V could be measured in anything you like.) While other unit systems
are sometimes used in mathematical treatments of fields and radiation, I
have never seen any units other than ohms, Farads, Henries, Volts, Amperes,
seconds, Hertz, and occasionally Gauss used in circuit design. Nor have I
seen components with values denominated in other unit systems for sale
anywhere. I would be very interested in seeing any such examples, if you
can find any.

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |

In article ,
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote:

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote:
I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural:

1 furlong = 660 feet
1 mile = 5280 feet
1 fathom = 6.08 feet

1 acre = 43,560 sq feet

1 pound = 16 oz

Only in avoirdupois weights. In troy weights, 12 ounces = 1 pound.
Avoirdupois ounces are lighter than troy ounces. Complicated? You bet.
Troy weights are most usually used for gold and silver, avoirdupois for most
everything else.

You left out apothecary weight.
All three systems are based on the grain = 0.0648 gram.
Pennyweight, scruple, dram (weight).

Thus the old riddle, "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of
gold?" The clear answer is a pound of feathers, weighed in avoirdupois
(453.6 gm), while a pound of gold is 373.2 gm.

1 stone = 14 pounds
1 hundredweight = 112 pounds
1 ton = 2240 pounds

That's a "long ton" or English equivalent to a metric tonne of 1000 kg. The
usual Imperial ton is 2,000 pounds, I think.


What can be simpler?! I mean, that's why it is called "hundredweight":
because it is equal to 112 pounds! Everybody knows that 100 = 112.

Everybody knows 8 x 14 = 112, except you.

Well, more or less. Or thereabouts. Good enough for precise
engineering.

USA hundredweight is 100 pound avoirdupois.

What about shoe sizes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_size

Did you know they are measured in barleycorns? And the zero point depends
on country, sex, and whether puberty has occurred (or at least whether the
child is of a certain size)?

There are various other systems around, not just English and American.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
(Paul Ciszek) wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Usher wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:46Â*am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

Sure do. Â*A resistance measured in ohms multiplied by a capacitance
measured in Farads gives you an RC time constant in seconds. Â*For
the rail gun afficianados, the energy stored in a capacitor measured
in Joules is one half the capacitance in Farads times the square of
the voltage measured in Volts. Â*Yes, the rail-gun fans I know do
talk about energy in Joules. Â*I have even used spot-welders where
the intensity of the pulse was given in Joules.

Well, I guess you can. But just because you can calculate with
barbarous units doesn't make them superior - after all, you'd never
allow that for English units, would you?

So, how would *you* choose a resistor and a capacitor to produce
a desired time constant, without using ohms and Farads?

Rigged question. Those off the shelf items are labelled
in ohms and farads.

What is 1 atmosphere in pascal?

--
Michael Press

Andrew Usher wrote:


SI units make sense? I myself never really understood EM until I saw
the formulae presented in proper units (see Section IIX of my essay).

If the units made a difference to your degree of understanding
of EM, I would suggest that your understanding isn't all that
good.

Bob M.

On Feb 8, 6:04 am, Andrew Usher wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

IIRC, Joe average is 5 10, I'm 6 1+, gals, 5 6,
wifey is 5 8, 38D's, I'm 42 AA, can anyone tell me
an improve specification that is relevent.
Is their anyone who doesn't understand what I wrote?

(Skip the Peter meter scale, cuz that depends on
cirCUMstances).
Remember women of the opposite sex read our stuff.

Are you a retard? And you're unable to measure your own penis?

Knock knock, I'm trying to convert breast size cups into
MeTric. What's 38D in MeTric?
Anyone.
Example, I walk into a store to buy wifey a bra, and say
it's a 38D, but then the service gal asks me for the MeTric
equivalent, what is it?
What's "D" in MeTric?
Ken

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:54:44 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher wrote:

On Feb 4, 8:49*pm, Matt wrote:

Who came up with early units of measure, like the cubit? It wasn't
some scientist in a lab. The cubit was quite anthropocentric and was
arguably superior to either the foot or the meter for everyday use by
humans.

It can't have been that useful, as it became obsolete. Is there even a
cubit in English units? I suppose it would just be half a yard,
following the Romans.

If the pro-metric crowd gets their way, English units will become
obsolete. Would their demise mean they "can't have been that useful?"

On Feb 8, 11:02*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*"Mike Dworetsky" wrote:

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote:
I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural:

1 furlong = 660 feet
1 mile = 5280 feet
1 fathom = 6.08 feet

1 acre = 43,560 sq feet

1 pound = 16 oz

Only in avoirdupois weights. *In troy weights, 12 ounces = 1 pound.
Avoirdupois ounces are lighter than troy ounces. *Complicated? *You bet.
Troy weights are most usually used for gold and silver, avoirdupois for most
everything else.

You left out apothecary weight.
All three systems are based on the grain = 0.0648 gram.
Pennyweight, scruple, dram (weight).

Thus the old riddle, "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of
gold?" *The clear answer is a pound of feathers, weighed in avoirdupois
(453.6 gm), while a pound of gold is 373.2 gm.

1 stone = 14 pounds
1 hundredweight *= 112 pounds
1 ton *= 2240 pounds

That's a "long ton" or English equivalent to a metric tonne of 1000 kg. *The
usual Imperial ton is 2,000 pounds, I think.

What can be simpler?! I mean, that's why it is called "hundredweight":
because it is equal to 112 pounds! Everybody knows that 100 = 112.

Everybody knows 8 x 14 = 112, except you.

Well, more or less. Or thereabouts. Good enough for precise
engineering.

USA hundredweight is 100 pound avoirdupois.


Things are getting simpler and simpler. Clearly, the metric system is
a communist plot to eliminate the American simplicity.


What about shoe sizes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_size

Did you know they are measured in barleycorns? *And the zero point depends
on country, sex, and whether puberty has occurred (or at least whether the
child is of a certain size)?

There are various other systems around, not just English and American.

--
Michael Press