Posted: 6/14/2010 11:22:08 AM EDT
|
Posted this in another thread, decided it needed its own thread:
Lets compare... Which do you like better? Energy 1000 2085 Tolerance .001 .02 Temperature at pressure 320 degrees at 120 176 degrees at 926 Temperature at Pressure 227 at 5 108.3 at 135.8 Range Gauge pressure Absolute pressure Height 6 1.83 Critical point 3221 22208 Gravity 32.2 9.81 Weight load 1000 1000 Base 2 10 Specific heat 1 4.186 It is absolute ignorance that is pushing the metric system. Nothing that actually matters is based upon 10 because it can't be. It is just as arbitrary as the English system. The meter is based on the circumference of the Earth, Celsius being 0 is freezing water and 100 being boiling at atmospheric pressure, but hey...lets not actually look beyond that where it matters and the saturated steam table gets all convoluted, requires another significant digit, etc. The SI energy unit J is 4.186 calories, which 1 calorie is the heat to raise 1 CC of water 1 degree C. The BTU is the heat to raise 1 lb of water 1 degree, and oh yeah...1000 of them is the energy from 1 lb of steam at normal operating pressures requiring saturated steam. Are ya'll getting the damn point now!? Metric is a damn sham that is pushed by ignorant politicians that love the stupid French. It is less capable, harder to learn, and harder to memorize the important factors for the very reason that it's promoted. What say you? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing that actually matters is based upon 10 because it can't be. http://www.felineunderground.com/uploaded_images/toe-793378.jpg Color me confused. |
|
I prefer working with standard units but I can dabble in metric just as well. They're both describing the same thing.
The only difference is that metric is based on 10 within itself. So 100 centimeters = 1 meter, etc and so on. So you don't have to remember that 36 inches = 1 yard. However, since America is already built in standard units, changing to metric would be the unit conversion nightmare. |
|
I much prefer the metric system because it's easier to keep track of units. No 12 inches per foot, 3 feet per yard, 1760 yards per mile bullshit. There are less conversion factors to remember. Pounds? Well are we talking about pounds mass or pounds force? Accidently using the wrong one could get people killed. Slugs? Seriously?
When doing complex calculations metric is just easier to work with. It's much easier to spot mistakes when the units work together in an intuitive manner. ETA: Volume: Metric - Liter English - fluid oz, cup, pint, quart, gallon, cu.yard, bbl, acre-ft. Distance: Metric - Meter English - inch, foot, yard, mile, nautical mile Power: Metric - Watt English - Hp, BTU/s, BTU/min, BTU/hr Weight: Metric - gram English - grain, oz, pound, ton See a trend? |
|
Few people know about the new metric alphabet: the "Decibet"; "deci" from the Greek "ten", and "bet" from our own "alphabet". Only ten letters.
Now, let's take a look at some specifics. A, B, C, and D: our first and most popular letters will remain the same. E and F, however, will be combined and graphically simplified to make one character. The groupings GHI, and.. LMNO will be condensed to single letters. Incidentally, a boon to those who always had trouble pronouncing LMNO correctly. And finally, the so-called "trash letters", or P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z, will be condensed to this easily recognizable dark character. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten! Now, let's take a look at how this change will affect our daily speech habits. In the EF grouping addition, the word "eagle" would remain basically the same in character, but would be pronounced "efaglef". However, certain words previously beginning with the letter F, like.. "fish", would be pronounced with an additional E sound: this, "efish". "I caught a big efish." "Goat" would remain "goat". "Hotel" will carry the G letter addition, but as in many words beginning with the GH sound, such as "Ghana", the G would remain silent; thus, "hotel". However, words beginning wih I.. .. as in "industry", will be pronounced "gindustry". The meaning will remain the same. LMNO's grouping is similar. "Mucus" will be LMNOucus". "Light" would remain "light". And "open" would then ne "LMNOpen", as in, "Honey, would you LMNOpen the door?" Finally, the "trash letters", or the letters from P to Z, would then make a stop sign appear like this: [ holds up stop sign with unintelligble blotch on it ] So there you have it. We hope to eventually establish the Universal Metric Alphabet in America by 1979. Join me next time, when we explore the changes you'll be seeing in alphabet soup and spelling bee contest rules. But now, let's sing the old favorite, the childhood "Alphabet Song", as we will hear it in the future.. (SNL Transcripts) 
|
|
Quoted:
I much prefer the metric system because it's easier to keep track of units. No 12 inches per foot, 3 feet per yard, 1760 yards per mile bullshit. There are less conversion factors to remember. Pounds? Well are we talking about pounds mass or pounds force? Accidently using the wrong one could get people killed. Slugs? Seriously? When doing complex calculations metric is just easier to work with. I'm a civil engineer working in the mechanical field (boilers to be specific). You really don't have to convert between yards, feet, inches, etc. But once you throw gravity and the thermal properties of water in there, the "advantage" of metric hits the floor. 1000 btu/lb steam 2085 kJ/kg steam .001" .02 mm tolerance 32.2 ft/s^2 9.81 m/s^2 I've done the metric crap through physics, but once you get to your major classes and then out in the field everything's english, and everything's standard in that. It is no issue, and the examples like the mars mission would have failed even if everyone was using metric because there were other problems that the metric folks never bring up (you need to note your units in the program comments section). |
|
Quoted:
Posted this in another thread, decided it needed its own thread: Lets compare... Which do you like better? Energy 1000 2085 Tolerance .001 .02 Temperature at pressure 320 degrees at 120 176 degrees at 926 Temperature at Pressure 227 at 5 108.3 at 135.8 Range Gauge pressure Absolute pressure Height 6 1.83 Critical point 3221 22208 Gravity 32.2 9.81 Weight load 1000 1000 Base 2 10 Specific heat 1 4.186 It is absolute ignorance that is pushing the metric system. Nothing that actually matters is based upon 10 because it can't be. It is just as arbitrary as the English system. The meter is based on the circumference of the Earth, Celsius being 0 is freezing water and 100 being boiling at atmospheric pressure, but hey...lets not actually look beyond that where it matters and the saturated steam table gets all convoluted, requires another significant digit, etc. The SI energy unit J is 4.186 calories, which 1 calorie is the heat to raise 1 CC of water 1 degree C. The BTU is the heat to raise 1 lb of water 1 degree, and oh yeah...1000 of them is the energy from 1 lb of steam at normal operating pressures requiring saturated steam. Are ya'll getting the damn point now!? Metric is a damn sham that is pushed by ignorant politicians that love the stupid French. It is less capable, harder to learn, and harder to memorize the important factors for the very reason that it's promoted. What say you? The bolded part boils it all down nicely. Base 10 measurement system is nice in the laboratory, but it confers little to no advantage in real world applications. There is no advantage in converting to it for most applications, and the lab setting has already converted to it. Of course, I'm a computer guy so we're used to thinking in base 2 anyway 
|
|
I did some carpentry this weekend. After 7 abusive hours in the sun, I would loved to have a metric tape measure as opposed to finding the exact center of a span that measured 43 3/16ths of an inch...
Of course that probably wouldn't have helped THAT much either...
|
|
Quoted:
The bolded part boils it all down nicely. Base 10 measurement system is nice in the laboratory, but it confers little to no advantage in real world applications. There is no advantage in converting to it for most applications, and the lab setting has already converted to it. Of course, I'm a computer guy so we're used to thinking in base 2 anyway Being a computer guy, and used to base 2 you definitely should like the English because it has a lot of base 2 stuff in it. |
|
For real life I think English is better.
I've been using metric and English since I was a kid, and I can visualize size better in English than in metric most of the time. The inch and foot are simply better than their nearest metric equivelent for most esticmated measurements / visualization. I can also make crude measurements using my body parts. I mean, using my thumb for inches and my feet for feet. 
The thing is, in metric you have the meter, which is a decent size (similar to the yard), and close to a single pace. But then everything else in metric is a factor of 10. English is based upon lenghts that are all useful in their own right, inch foot, yard, and mile. |
|
Quoted:
I did some carpentry this weekend. After 7 abusive hours in the sun, I would loved to have a metric tape measure as opposed to finding the exact center of a span that measured 43 3/16ths of an inch... Of course that probably wouldn't have helped THAT much either... 43 3/16" is about 1,097 mm. |
|
Quoted:
I did some carpentry this weekend. After 7 abusive hours in the sun, I would loved to have a metric tape measure as opposed to finding the exact center of a span that measured 43 3/16ths of an inch... Get an engineers tape measure if it bothers you that much. Geez... that's 21 1/2 + 3/32 which would make it 21 19/32 or right between 21 9/16 and 21 and 5/8ths. Easy stuff. Our mind is meant to divide stuff in half. |
|
Quoted: I did some carpentry this weekend. After 7 abusive hours in the sun, I would loved to have a metric tape measure as opposed to finding the exact center of a span that measured 43 3/16ths of an inch... Of course that probably wouldn't have helped THAT much either... Mine has both! Being from NZ, I have to say I suck at Inches etc. I still prefer, mm, cm, m. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did some carpentry this weekend. After 7 abusive hours in the sun, I would loved to have a metric tape measure as opposed to finding the exact center of a span that measured 43 3/16ths of an inch... Of course that probably wouldn't have helped THAT much either... 43 3/16" is about 1,097 mm. Because of the non fractional nature of the number, finding the midpoint would be easy. 1 Meter halved = 50cm 9 cm halved = 4.5cm 7mm halved = .35 Total 54.85 IMO, the only reason we should stay with the Imperial system is the capital investment we have in it as a nation... |
| I have to be honest though...working with surveyors and then block masons and concrete guys who can't convert 10ths of an inch to regular inches can be a pain in the arse to say the least...a engineers tape would be helpful...Thank god for Construction master calculators. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did some carpentry this weekend. After 7 abusive hours in the sun, I would loved to have a metric tape measure as opposed to finding the exact center of a span that measured 43 3/16ths of an inch... Get an engineers tape measure if it bothers you that much. Geez... that's 21 1/2 + 3/32 which would make it 21 19/32 or right between 21 9/16 and 21 and 5/8ths. Easy stuff. Our mind is meant to divide stuff in half. All you are expressing is a comfort level... The metric system is solid, as is the Imperial system. The imperial system is older, and has some anachronistic elements, such as the commom use of fractions of units as opposed to reduced order of magnitudes. This even fails as precision goes up and/or scale goes down. This is why you see .308 instead of 77/250ths of an inch. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nothing that actually matters is based upon 10 because it can't be. http://www.felineunderground.com/uploaded_images/toe-793378.jpg Color me confused. That's a polydactyl cat. Normal cats, dogs, humans, and just about all other vertebrates have four limbs with five digits each. The number 10 does have a rational connection to something - The number of fingers on a standard person's pair of hands. Or in the words of Jethro Bodine: "Five gazinta five once. Five gazinta ten twice. I'll have to take off my shoes if you want me to go on." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I give your rant a 3 3/16 out of 8 16/8. Derp. 8 16/8 is 10. Edit- Derp. Game...set...match. Writing 8 and 16/8 for 10 in a thread about fractions vs metric is derp. It doesn't illustrate anything difficult about fractions at all. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I give your rant a 3 3/16 out of 8 16/8. Derp. 8 16/8 is 10. Edit- Derp. Game...set...match. Writing 8 and 16/8 for 10 in a thread about fractions vs metric is derp. It doesn't illustrate anything difficult about fractions at all. It's ok to admit it when you're confused. Nobody here will judge you too harshly for it.
|
|
Quoted:
Metric is much better for certain things. Which is easier work with: 1mg or 0.00003.5 Oz? 1nm or 0.000000039 inches? That's what grains are for if you insist on English units. But I think most everything measured in those small quantities is done in metric now. This situation is not an issue in real world applications. That would only matter in a lab setting; most of which are already metric anyway. In industry, most machinery is held to 0.001 inch tolerance. The inch and decimal portions of it are very well suited to this application, far more so than millimeters. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I give your rant a 3 3/16 out of 8 16/8. Derp. 8 16/8 is 10. Edit- Derp. Game...set...match. Writing 8 and 16/8 for 10 in a thread about fractions vs metric is derp. It doesn't illustrate anything difficult about fractions at all. It's ok to admit it when you're confused. Nobody here will judge you too harshly for it.
The whole point of the english system is diving things by two. It isn't confusing. Everyone does it on a daily basis. Expressing 10 as 8 and 16/8 is like stating the length of your penis in kilometers. Unnecessary derp. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bolded part boils it all down nicely. Base 10 measurement system is nice in the laboratory, but it confers little to no advantage in real world applications. There is no advantage in converting to it for most applications, and the lab setting has already converted to it. Of course, I'm a computer guy so we're used to thinking in base 2 anyway Being a computer guy, and used to base 2 you definitely should like the English because it has a lot of base 2 stuff in it. I do prefer the English system for 99.9% of all applications. The only place I prefer metric is for *very* tiny measurements. |
|
Quoted:
The whole point of the english system is diving things by two. It isn't confusing. Everyone does it on a daily basis. Expressing 10 as 8 and 16/8 is like stating the length of your penis in kilometers. Unnecessary derp. So, when things aren't divisible by 2...like half of all rational numbers and all irrational numbers, what do you use then? Expressing 10 as 8 16/8 was used to illustrate just how idiotic fractional expression really is. |