Made of tough stuff.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 03:26:12 -0600, Gregory Sutter
wrote:

On 2016-11-17, wrote:

The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This
country is so large that km are simply stupid. Why should we use
a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container
away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units
despite the care given them change over time.

1.609344 km / mi is hardly "simply stupid"; it's of the same order
of magnitude as a mile, and therefore, barely different.

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. It isn't based
on any metallic object (and hasn't been since 1960) and does not
change over any time frame relevant to human existence.

Where did this number of 1/299,792,458 of a second come from? From an
old piece of platinum perhaps? Or from the distance from the Equator
to the North Pole, or some such exact measurement?

Measurements are just what one is used to. Distance could just as
easily be measured in Leagues or the Roman mile, the "mille passus"
which was 5,000 pedes.

My grandfather used to refer to distances in Rods still a valid
measurement today of 16-1/2 feet or 1/320th of a mile.

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 1:13:39 PM UTC+1, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 03:26:12 -0600, Gregory Sutter
wrote:

On 2016-11-17, wrote:

The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This
country is so large that km are simply stupid. Why should we use
a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container
away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units
despite the care given them change over time.

1.609344 km / mi is hardly "simply stupid"; it's of the same order
of magnitude as a mile, and therefore, barely different.

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. It isn't based
on any metallic object (and hasn't been since 1960) and does not
change over any time frame relevant to human existence.

Where did this number of 1/299,792,458 of a second come from? From an
old piece of platinum perhaps? Or from the distance from the Equator
to the North Pole, or some such exact measurement?

Measurements are just what one is used to. Distance could just as
easily be measured in Leagues or the Roman mile, the "mille passus"
which was 5,000 pedes.

My grandfather used to refer to distances in Rods still a valid
measurement today of 16-1/2 feet or 1/320th of a mile.

Sure its not a problem as long as everybody uses the same units but that is not the case. If we have to chose one I prefer to shift the decimal point or raise the power of ten to go from meters to km instead of multiplying or dividing by a weird number.

Lou

On 11/20/2016 3:26 AM, Gregory Sutter wrote:
On 2016-11-17, wrote:

The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This
country is so large that km are simply stupid. Why should we use
a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container
away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units
despite the care given them change over time.

1.609344 km / mi is hardly "simply stupid"; it's of the same order
of magnitude as a mile, and therefore, barely different.

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. It isn't based
on any metallic object (and hasn't been since 1960) and does not
change over any time frame relevant to human existence.


Nothing inherently wrong with stadia or mille passus or
nautical miles. Whatever one uses regularly seems 'right'
but that's not an objective standard is it?

Similarly locally produced world maps center on the
printer's region which looks odd when one is on the other
side of the world. Neither is correct nor wrong.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 11/20/2016 7:13 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 03:26:12 -0600, Gregory Sutter
wrote:

On 2016-11-17, wrote:

The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This
country is so large that km are simply stupid.

Kilometers seem to work OK in places like Canada, Siberia, China,
Australia - not to mention oceans and space.

Why should we use
a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container
away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units
despite the care given them change over time.

1.609344 km / mi is hardly "simply stupid"; it's of the same order
of magnitude as a mile, and therefore, barely different.

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. It isn't based
on any metallic object (and hasn't been since 1960) and does not
change over any time frame relevant to human existence.

Where did this number of 1/299,792,458 of a second come from? From an
old piece of platinum perhaps? Or from the distance from the Equator
to the North Pole, or some such exact measurement?

IIRC: The SI system tried for several practical benefits. One was
standards (or basic definitions) that could be replicated worldwide.
Another was to relate one unit (say, that of force, the Newton) to other
relevant units (say, that of mass, the kilogram). The benefits of
scaling by powers of ten seemed obvious to almost everyone involved.
And the detriments of dozens of national or regional measurement systems
were also obvious.

Of course, when the system was instituted there were imperfections, and
improvements were possible. So the meter standard (and many others)
evolved. Distance from equator to pole was never a good standard, but a
carefully preserved metal bar served fairly well until the mid-20th
century. Basically, that was as good as they could do with the
technology of the time. And it was all the technology of the time
needed. We're talking about a time when screw cutting lathes were
almost science fiction.

(Keep in mind, the inch was once defined as three barleycorns laid end
to end; the foot based on the average length of a certain parish's men's
feet. It wasn't hard to improve on that!)

During the time of the meter bar, the SI system took over almost
completely, largely because of its logic. (Well, except for one or two
notably illogical countries.) But for most of that time, it wasn't
known that the speed of light was constant, or that the wavelength of
light emitted due to a certain type of atomic transition was constant.
Once those facts became apparent, they formed new versions of the
standard. Not only were they much more precise, they were also more
"portable," in that they could be reproduced in any suitably equipped
laboratory.

Measurements are just what one is used to. Distance could just as
easily be measured in Leagues or the Roman mile, the "mille passus"
which was 5,000 pedes.

Again, "what you're used to" is fine as long as you don't have to do any
technical work. But even for something as simple as following a cooking
recipe: My wife has a chart on her refrigerator to remind her how many
teaspoons in a tablespoon, how many tablespoons in a fluid ounce, how
many ounces in a cup, cups in a pint, pints in a quart, quarts in a
gallon, etc. I suspect French cooks don't use those charts.

She doesn't have to worry about how many cubic inches are in a gallon,
but when I did hydraulics calculations I had to remember that. I don't
know why we picked 231 for that conversion - and I wish I could use that
brain space for some other fact.

Ditto 1 HP = 550 ft*lb/s, although I do remember the historical reason
for that one.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 1:59:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/17/2016 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/17/2016 6:12 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 19:12:08 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/16/2016 6:46 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:28:52 AM UTC, James wrote:

The steering angle is certainly very different from modern road bikes,
and probably a little more of a slope (further from vertical) than a MTB.

--
JS

We're talking about the included angle between the head tube and the ground level, so 68 degrees, common on vintage bikes and modern Dutch commuters, is a more laid back bike than the steeper, more upright 72 degrees, common on road bikes. We speak of a "relaxed head tube and seat tube angle" in the first instance.

I've always found the way bicycle geometry is specified and spoken about counterintuitive. It would be so much easier to measure from the vertical and then to say that an 18 degree road bike has faster (or more forward) angles than a 22 degree commuting bike, and to say that the commuting bike has a more relaxed tube angle (22 v 18) would then make instant sense without first having to give it a moment of thought.

Andre Jute
Just saying. A lot of what we say in English makes sense only because we're used to it, not because it expresses anything rationally.


+1
The English Speaking World has gear inches.
Everyone else has meters of development.

Well, we also have horsepower and football.. which the rest of the
world seems to view with a certain amount of awe :-)

But more seriously, units of measure are commonly just whatever you
are used to. a 2mm wire? Or a #10 wire? A 25.4mm tube ot a 1 inch tube
:-)

And one can get used to a more logical system. I'm in the only
industrialized country that still uses units related by factors like 3,
12, 5280, 231, etc. I'm already fine with factors of 10 and would love
to switch to SI.

BTW, the only U.S. measurement that makes more sense to me than SI (or
the Metric System) is temperature. 100 degrees Fahrenheit aligns nicely
with "As hot as it should _ever_ get." Zero works for "as cold as it
should _ever_ get." Converting from Celsius (as seen on some
international news) drives me slightly nuts.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Actually the ONLY place it makes the slightest difference is when you're converting from one system to the other. What difference does it make if an English mile is 5280 ft or the maritime mile 1,852 meters? The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This country is so large that km are simply stupid. Why should we use a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units despite the care given them change over time. We are now trying to make standards based on the frequency of a certain color of light. But then how do you identify THAT COLOR?

Measurements will always be in arbitrary units and there's nothing wrong with that.

We once lost a space probe because of difficulty in working with
different systems of units.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/news/mn-17288

There have been many other such mistakes.
http://www.godfreyhoffman.com/civil-...ty-measurement

In fact, I recall reading an article in an engineering journal that said
unit conversion mistakes were THE most common engineering calculation
error in U.S. industry.

Units of measurement don't matter at all - unless, that is, you actually
have to use them to get work done.

Are you saying that conversions are necessary? Why would that be? Do you suppose we landed on the Moon by converting the distance to metric system and back without an error?

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 2:17:55 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:58:20 PM UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/17/2016 6:12 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 19:12:08 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/16/2016 6:46 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:28:52 AM UTC, James wrote:

The steering angle is certainly very different from modern road bikes,
and probably a little more of a slope (further from vertical) than a MTB.

--
JS

We're talking about the included angle between the head tube and the ground level, so 68 degrees, common on vintage bikes and modern Dutch commuters, is a more laid back bike than the steeper, more upright 72 degrees, common on road bikes. We speak of a "relaxed head tube and seat tube angle" in the first instance.

I've always found the way bicycle geometry is specified and spoken about counterintuitive. It would be so much easier to measure from the vertical and then to say that an 18 degree road bike has faster (or more forward) angles than a 22 degree commuting bike, and to say that the commuting bike has a more relaxed tube angle (22 v 18) would then make instant sense without first having to give it a moment of thought.

Andre Jute
Just saying. A lot of what we say in English makes sense only because we're used to it, not because it expresses anything rationally.


+1
The English Speaking World has gear inches.
Everyone else has meters of development.

Well, we also have horsepower and football.. which the rest of the
world seems to view with a certain amount of awe :-)

But more seriously, units of measure are commonly just whatever you
are used to. a 2mm wire? Or a #10 wire? A 25.4mm tube ot a 1 inch tube
:-)

And one can get used to a more logical system. I'm in the only
industrialized country that still uses units related by factors like 3,
12, 5280, 231, etc. I'm already fine with factors of 10 and would love
to switch to SI.

BTW, the only U.S. measurement that makes more sense to me than SI (or
the Metric System) is temperature. 100 degrees Fahrenheit aligns nicely
with "As hot as it should _ever_ get." Zero works for "as cold as it
should _ever_ get." Converting from Celsius (as seen on some
international news) drives me slightly nuts.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Actually the ONLY place it makes the slightest difference is when you're converting from one system to the other. What difference does it make if an English mile is 5280 ft or the maritime mile 1,852 meters? The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This country is so large that km are simply stupid. Why should we use a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units despite the care given them change over time. We are now trying to make standards based on the frequency of a certain color of light. But then how do you identify THAT COLOR?

Measurements will always be in arbitrary units and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sure, but, though they now appear arbitrary, each derived from a usage that in many cases is no longer convenient. I'm for the most convenient measures, the ones that are easiest to remember, to work with, to do mental arithmetic with, to get to the algebraic variants of, but when none of these factors come into play, I like the consistency of working with factors of ten.. Above all, I don't want some poncey homologation clown to come take away measures I'm used to and replace them with tiresome complications merely for the sake of bureaucratic tidiness (a case we have seen far too much of in the European Union's drive to universal conformity).

As a practical example of the value of SI units (when specified by men who knew what they were doing) and the metric system, from electronics rather than bicycles, just as a matter of intellectual exercise I wanted to create in a single formula a grand unified theory of now generally obsolete (or at least esoteric) thermionic vacuum tubes. The result of three years of work, which appears incredibly simple if you know what is involved, is at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...dre%20Jute.htm
where you will instantly note that, though not as simple as an Einsteinian formulation (I was working with many more elements!) it is still amazingly simple for a subject on which the standard short handbook runs to 1418 pages of very fine print, and the standard reference comes in 20-plus thick, dense volumes. I managed to simplify it that much because electronic reactions have for a long time been given in standard SI units, which all work with factors of ten, and are all more or less exhaustively related to each other, both of which tremendously aids simplification. The proof of the formula, the whole thing written out in full, consumes three entire six foot blackboards, eighteen feet of blackboard space. An important side note: untangling and recombining industry constants in different measuring systems, on non-linear responses as in thermionic tubes (the rest of you may think of the transfer curve of an inadequate transistor), is a nervewracking nightmare that inculcates a fierce love of the SI units' incestuous relationships.

Andre Jute
One of the reasons I'm so keen on the Three Rs being taught is that, without them, it is easy for society to deprive itself of the next generation of polymaths

Andre - the "most convenient" is neither. Since BOTH of these systems have a basis in absolutely loony standards. What is a cm? The length of three grains of barley? Which was then standardized and for which they must keep like EVERY OTHER SYSTEM a standard somewhere to use to calibrate all other standards. And these standards continuously change.

How about a system that is measured via the length of a particular color of light?

Then you have to have a method of measuring this and you are back where you started - trying to standardize the color. The top end of violet is some 400 nm but it varies across that band considered violet. So you have to have some standardized method of measuring frequency.

Look - every field has it's OWN specialized methods of measurement and if you cannot convert from miles to kilometers to light years you are not a scientist.

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:34:16 PM UTC-8, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:01:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/17/2016 6:12 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 19:12:08 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/16/2016 6:46 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:28:52 AM UTC, James wrote:

The steering angle is certainly very different from modern road bikes,
and probably a little more of a slope (further from vertical) than a MTB.

--
JS

We're talking about the included angle between the head tube and the ground level, so 68 degrees, common on vintage bikes and modern Dutch commuters, is a more laid back bike than the steeper, more upright 72 degrees, common on road bikes. We speak of a "relaxed head tube and seat tube angle" in the first instance.

I've always found the way bicycle geometry is specified and spoken about counterintuitive. It would be so much easier to measure from the vertical and then to say that an 18 degree road bike has faster (or more forward) angles than a 22 degree commuting bike, and to say that the commuting bike has a more relaxed tube angle (22 v 18) would then make instant sense without first having to give it a moment of thought.

Andre Jute
Just saying. A lot of what we say in English makes sense only because we're used to it, not because it expresses anything rationally.


+1
The English Speaking World has gear inches.
Everyone else has meters of development.

Well, we also have horsepower and football.. which the rest of the
world seems to view with a certain amount of awe :-)

But more seriously, units of measure are commonly just whatever you
are used to. a 2mm wire? Or a #10 wire? A 25.4mm tube ot a 1 inch tube
:-)

And one can get used to a more logical system. I'm in the only
industrialized country that still uses units related by factors like 3,
12, 5280, 231, etc. I'm already fine with factors of 10 and would love
to switch to SI.


But think back, I don't remember anyone getting confused about how
many ounces to a pound or inches to a foot. Or even how many foot to a
Rod :-)

Even today, I find thousandths' of an inch much more friendly than
0.02mm. Probably because I am used to them.

BTW, the only U.S. measurement that makes more sense to me than SI (or
the Metric System) is temperature. 100 degrees Fahrenheit aligns nicely
with "As hot as it should _ever_ get." Zero works for "as cold as it
should _ever_ get." Converting from Celsius (as seen on some
international news) drives me slightly nuts.

In normal usage the English systems of measurement appear to be more practical. The metric systems was started only to count and not to measure.

On 11/20/2016 10:54 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 1:59:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/17/2016 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/17/2016 6:12 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 19:12:08 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/16/2016 6:46 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:28:52 AM UTC, James wrote:

The steering angle is certainly very different from modern road bikes,
and probably a little more of a slope (further from vertical) than a MTB.

--
JS

We're talking about the included angle between the head tube and the ground level, so 68 degrees, common on vintage bikes and modern Dutch commuters, is a more laid back bike than the steeper, more upright 72 degrees, common on road bikes. We speak of a "relaxed head tube and seat tube angle" in the first instance.

I've always found the way bicycle geometry is specified and spoken about counterintuitive. It would be so much easier to measure from the vertical and then to say that an 18 degree road bike has faster (or more forward) angles than a 22 degree commuting bike, and to say that the commuting bike has a more relaxed tube angle (22 v 18) would then make instant sense without first having to give it a moment of thought.

Andre Jute
Just saying. A lot of what we say in English makes sense only because we're used to it, not because it expresses anything rationally.


+1
The English Speaking World has gear inches.
Everyone else has meters of development.

Well, we also have horsepower and football.. which the rest of the
world seems to view with a certain amount of awe :-)

But more seriously, units of measure are commonly just whatever you
are used to. a 2mm wire? Or a #10 wire? A 25.4mm tube ot a 1 inch tube
:-)

And one can get used to a more logical system. I'm in the only
industrialized country that still uses units related by factors like 3,
12, 5280, 231, etc. I'm already fine with factors of 10 and would love
to switch to SI.

BTW, the only U.S. measurement that makes more sense to me than SI (or
the Metric System) is temperature. 100 degrees Fahrenheit aligns nicely
with "As hot as it should _ever_ get." Zero works for "as cold as it
should _ever_ get." Converting from Celsius (as seen on some
international news) drives me slightly nuts.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Actually the ONLY place it makes the slightest difference is when you're converting from one system to the other. What difference does it make if an English mile is 5280 ft or the maritime mile 1,852 meters? The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This country is so large that km are simply stupid. Why should we use a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units despite the care given them change over time. We are now trying to make standards based on the frequency of a certain color of light. But then how do you identify THAT COLOR?

Measurements will always be in arbitrary units and there's nothing wrong with that.

We once lost a space probe because of difficulty in working with
different systems of units.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/news/mn-17288

There have been many other such mistakes.
http://www.godfreyhoffman.com/civil-...ty-measurement

In fact, I recall reading an article in an engineering journal that said
unit conversion mistakes were THE most common engineering calculation
error in U.S. industry.

Units of measurement don't matter at all - unless, that is, you actually
have to use them to get work done.

Are you saying that conversions are necessary? Why would that be? Do you suppose we landed on the Moon by converting the distance to metric system and back without an error?

Unit conversions are absolutely necessary even within one system of
measurements! As I just posted, that's true even for cooking, let alone
for engineering.

How many gallons in a barrel? How many cubic inches in a cubic foot?
Pounds in a ton? Furlongs in a mile? Calories in a ft*lb? Feet in a
nautical mile? Etc, etc. Yes, people in American industry do have to
know those numbers, or look them up quickly, and those conversions do
generate lots of mistakes and cost money.

In SI countries (i.e. everywhere except the USA and NZ, IIRC) they
mostly move the decimal place.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 1:26:19 AM UTC-8, Gregory Sutter wrote:
On 2016-11-17, wrote:

The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This
country is so large that km are simply stupid. Why should we use
a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container
away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units
despite the care given them change over time.

1.609344 km / mi is hardly "simply stupid"; it's of the same order
of magnitude as a mile, and therefore, barely different.

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. It isn't based
on any metallic object (and hasn't been since 1960) and does not
change over any time frame relevant to human existence.

--
Gregory S. Sutter Mostly Harmless

http://zer0.org/~gsutter/

Gregory - I am not calling the metric system per se' stupid. But the complaints about conversions. The meter was already a set length when the speed of light was measured. So of what good is a fractional value in either system. What's more the speed of light changes in the presence of a gravity field.

In Europe they decided to use a system that was initially designed to count.. In the US they used a system that was designed to measure distances. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and we simply convert to whatever system is most convenient.

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:13:39 AM UTC-8, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 03:26:12 -0600, Gregory Sutter
wrote:

On 2016-11-17, wrote:

The only sense a kilometer makes in the US is to make fun of. This
country is so large that km are simply stupid. Why should we use
a meter which is a rare metal object kept in an airless container
away from sunlight or a kilogram which is the same? These units
despite the care given them change over time.

1.609344 km / mi is hardly "simply stupid"; it's of the same order
of magnitude as a mile, and therefore, barely different.

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. It isn't based
on any metallic object (and hasn't been since 1960) and does not
change over any time frame relevant to human existence.

Where did this number of 1/299,792,458 of a second come from? From an
old piece of platinum perhaps? Or from the distance from the Equator
to the North Pole, or some such exact measurement?

Measurements are just what one is used to. Distance could just as
easily be measured in Leagues or the Roman mile, the "mille passus"
which was 5,000 pedes.

My grandfather used to refer to distances in Rods still a valid
measurement today of 16-1/2 feet or 1/320th of a mile.

Still more importantly - ask where the measure of a second came from.