Benchwayze
Established Member
Metric ,imperial. What does it matter; as long as the built-in fits the 'ole in wot you're fittin' it? 8)
Kalimna":1fogqwbx said:Having grown up post-metrification, I am much more familliar with mm etc. However it does seem that imperial is more intuitive for some measures, say, inches or mph but strangely when baking kg/g is much more useful than lbs/oz.
I'll leave this here.
Cheers,
Adam
I agree metric is better, but your sum is off.DiscoStu":sms6fqkw said:Mm is straight forward. 12mm + 24mm = 36mm
1/12 + 1/15 = 2/27 or rather it doesn't. You can't easily use a calculator to work it out.
It's just a bizarre system.
woodbrains":15lv1y1l said:2437mm is 8 ft.
Yes but the basic argument does hold Mike.woodbrains":1r8bxle7 said:But these fractions are never used, no imperial rule is calibrated in wacky fractions; you have no argument there, I'm afraid!
That's no argument either. An arbitrarily chosen exact Imperial measurement like 8ft can be easily countered by an arbitrarily chosen exact metric measurement as bugbear pointed out a short while ago.woodbrains":1r8bxle7 said:A measuring system that uses units by the thousands, in divisions that you need an eyeglass to see, to calibrate a thing that I can just say 'it is 8ft' is a nonsense, actually.
His sum was deliberately off, that was his point, you missed the "or rather it doesn't" sentence he added after it.ED65":342uc9fa said:I agree metric is better, but your sum is off.DiscoStu":342uc9fa said:1/12 + 1/15 = 2/27 or rather it doesn't.
Triangulations using a Borda Cirkle.Benchwayze":u1err80t said:Wasn't it so, that the metric system was based on the longitudinal distance from pole to pole, divided by 1,000, in order to arrive ar the length of a kilometer; and then further divided to arrive at metres, centimetres and millimetres?
What puzzles me about that is, what did they use to measure the distance in the first place? Perhaps they used a piece of string! :mrgreen:
I suspect you also have to allow for the specific density of the American brain as well!Andrewf":2bb8oyu6 said:In my job we work in metres, fathoms, nautical miles, cables, hours minutes and seconds of arc used as a measurement of distance. This is easy, the confusion happens when dealing with americans when we have to convert m3 to barrels. Which despite what you would imagine is not a exact conversion as specific density of the liquid effects the answer.
heimlaga":17fttiud said:Unfortunately the gravity disturbances caused bu the montains of northern Spain
heimlaga":h832nb2b said:Triangulations using a Borda Cirkle.Benchwayze":h832nb2b said:Wasn't it so, that the metric system was based on the longitudinal distance from pole to pole, divided by 1,000, in order to arrive ar the length of a kilometer; and then further divided to arrive at metres, centimetres and millimetres?
What puzzles me about that is, what did they use to measure the distance in the first place? Perhaps they used a piece of string! :mrgreen:
Unfortunately the gravity disturbances caused bu the montains of northern Spain together with a loose screw on the Borda Cirkle caused the kilometre to become a bit different from what it should have been.
Stiggy":2msozam5 said:I've always been able to quickly convert from imperial to metric and visa versa, but yesterday I had a customer pop in for a quote for fencing in her garden.
"What measurement is your boundary" asked I...
"Well it takes me about 1 minute and a half to walk to the end, and it's about as wide as 4 or 5 cars" said she...
I love serving retail customers - you couldn't make it up!
Enter your email address to join: