"How the EU works: In Germany, they make the rules, in Britain, theyobey the rules, in France, they bend the rules, in Spain, they break therules, and in Italy they have no rules at all."

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:44:52 -0600, Dan Stephenson wrote:

On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

(One more question though: Which unit do you use for parts smaller than
an inch? Don't tell me you stole the prefixes from the darn metric
system and use milli- or microinches.)

As I have related already, the benefits are standardizations, not
_which_ standard, and the metric system is simply one standard that
eschews the benefits of natural subunits and has only decimalization to
go on.

So if *I* wanted to measure less than an inch, I could choose decimal
inches if I chose, however, I would probably refer to ratios of two
because that is what all the tooling uses. For example, half inch,
quarter-inch, 5-16ths etc.. For firearms the sub-inch are referred-to
in calibers, referencing one inch. So a 30-cal is a decimalization to
0.3 inch. A .22 is 22/100ths of an inch. What wonderful flexibility. I
can use whatever I want and whatever standard has natually evolved. I do
not have to shoe-horn in a 7.62mm or 5.56mm, but I could if I wanted to.
I mean, we only did that to provide a metric decimalization for NATO
after WW2, based on long-established standards based on caliber.

At one time the advantage of the American/Imperial system was that most
units were halves. Not the foot, of course, not some of the other units
that made sense in a particular context, such as the furlong.

Otherwise, say you wanted to measure out a quart, a 1/4 of a gallon from
a container holding a gallon. All you had to do was split the gallon in
two and then split one of the results in two. Dividing a bulk quantity in
two without a graduated cup is simple. Take two identical cups and put
equal portions of the gallon in each; this is pretty easy to eyeball to
the level of accuracy required way back when. Thus a quart is half of a
half of a gallon, a pint is half of a quart, a cup is half of a pint, and
the cup is easily divided into eighths, which we Americans call a fluid
ounce.

But if I give you a liter of fluid and ask you to pour out a deciliter
without a measuring instrument of some kind how would you do it?

Today, when graduated measuring devices are common making odd measurement
is easy and we don't really need all those half measures so much.

Of course, most of American industry and trade has actually adopted the
metric system by choice in order to engage in international trade, so
many Americans are learning to use both systems.

So why hasn't Europe adopted metric tire rim sizes and dumped the inch
sizes?


--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Baja Arizona

On 2011-11-19 21:06:05 -0600, Irwell said:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:36:58 +0100, Johannes Kleese wrote:

I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5
inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as
.42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches.

Same in the metric system:

100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.

34.87 meters vs. 114 feet and 5 inches
You need five words, or two numbers and two units. I just need one
number and one unit.

You may learn and get used to any riduculous unit, but that doesn't make
the system straight-forward. Even if it's based on Henry I's thumb.

Thanks for your attention.

(One more question though: Which unit do you use for parts smaller than
an inch? Don't tell me you stole the prefixes from the darn metric
system and use milli- or microinches.)

British driving and Imperial units of measure Johannes Kleese
11/19/2011 4:36:58 PM

What unit(s) do 'you' use for the time and date of your post?
11(months)19(days)2011(years) 4(hours)36(minutes)58(seconds).

Resolve it all in seconds, or years?

I'm sure he resolves it in seconds, and then SO SIMPLY can refer to it
in scientific notation. chuckle
--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

20.11.2011 4:58, Dan Stephenson kirjoitti:

That's why the metric system has been in use for some 200 years now.
Where's your point?

That continental Europe needed reform 200 years ago, and the United
Kingdom and the United States did not?

I must say, I feel an affinity for Britain and the Britons. I can trace
my ancestry to Henry Stephenson born in 1772 in Virginia to Presbyterian
parents -- but no farther. Yet, Stephensons are British. Either northern
England or southern Scotland, according to my various internet perusals.
I just need to find my family tree papers and try one of those heritage
websites to try to find when and from-where the Atlantic crossing took
place. How COOL would it be to visit the village where my ancestors lived?

You deal with measures in most sentimental fashion. However, America is
not nearly as British as Americans sometimes believe it is. Most
European family lines living in the USA are 120-130 years old at most.

John Smith used to be Yevgeny Beliyayev of Russia, Tadeus Slusarski of
Poland, Guido Napolitano you know from where and Joao Pereira do
Caliente Nascimento from Lisbon. Naturally Irishmen run out potatoes
every now and then therefore emigrating to the US in great numbers
(Ireland has a population which is essentially smaller now than it used
to be in 1800's).

They just adopted these names unfamiliar to themselves after they had
passed the Ellis Island.

They have stage names like Bolshevik politicians, American actors and
Brazilian football players.

20.11.2011 5:41, David Hatunen kirjoitti:tandards based on caliber.

At one time the advantage of the American/Imperial system was that most
units were halves. Not the foot, of course, not some of the other units
that made sense in a particular context, such as the furlong.

A kind of binary system then.


So why hasn't Europe adopted metric tire rim sizes and dumped the inch
sizes?

Quite. Typically tools of many sort also come with imperial measures
even if metric measures are encarved on them as well. In mechanics at
large Imperial units are commonplace.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:43:15 +0100, Johannes Kleese wrote:

US and UK measure system are comparatively quite simple compared to the
situation that prevailed in continental Europe at the same time.

That's why the metric system has been in use for some 200 years now.
Where's your point?

This list shows that a huge problem, 200 year ago, was the impossibility
on any exchange between communities due to the non standardisation of
measures. It was not so bad for land surfaces, but for wines or cloths it
should have been a mess. Imagine when the abbey of La Chaise Dieu
monastery (cold place, no vineyards there) had to order wine from its
neighbours, if he ordered a 'charge' he would get a completely different
amount from a wine merchant in Pradelle and from a one in Saugues.

Worse, the way the units with the same names were divided varied from one
place to the other.
In Fay a quintal (37kg) was worth 100 pounds, which in turn was worth 16
ounces while in Saugues the quintal (43kg) was worth 200 pounds (1
quintal=1600 ounces), itself worth 14 ounces (1 quintal = 2800 ounces).

Nowadays, the problem remains with US imported goods (ex. metric and US
cans). For that reason, in France, the law imposes that stores provide,
besides the price of the unit price, the price per kilogram.

"Dan Stephenson" wrote in message
news:2011111920521050418-stephedanospam@maccom...
On 2011-11-19 15:46:05 -0600, Martin said:


I'm amazed that Americans are using decimal currency.

Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway". To
date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about their
pre-decimal currency. It's pretty cool, actually, as a historical thing,
plus it is a GREAT way to make introductions.


You really must get out more often!
--
JohnT

On Nov 20, 10:07*am, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Dan Stephenson wrote in
news:2011111920521050418- stephedanospam@maccom:

Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway".
To date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about
their pre-decimal currency.

Only the older generations surely? Decimal day was in 1971, younger
people won't remember.

Most likely we (Americans) use decimal currency for no other reason
than to be different than the British, from whom we won our
independence.

When other Commonwealth countries decimalised around the same time,
they also renamed their currencies from pounds to dollars, hence
Australian and New Zealand dollars nowadays. Only UK and Ireland kept
the name pound.

--
Tank nur das gute Super rein

http://www.wschwanke.de/* * * * * * *http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
* * * * * * * * usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

The Irish no longer have the pound.
But numerous other nations still do.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:24:43 +0100, Martin wrote:

100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.

But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge. Anything can be
decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type measurements, is that
they have natural subdivisions.

Natural in what way?

In what way are inch, foot, yard pole/perch chain furlong mile ounce,
pound, hundred weight, ton
natural?

I suppose he refers to 12 having 2,3,4,6 as divisors when 10 only has 2
and 5. So it was easier to do some repartition between a small party of
people with units that divide into 12 parts, except for groups of
5,7,9,10,11 persons. But you had to learn how to manipulate fractions
written in the form 3+3/4 or 2+1/6, a skill which is not required with
metrics units where you just have to take care of the position of the
decimal point.

On 2011-11-20 03:24:43 -0600, Martin said:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:36:42 -0600, Dan Stephenson
wrote:

On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5
inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as
.42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches.

Same in the metric system:

100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.

But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge. Anything can be
decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type measurements, is that
they have natural subdivisions.

Natural in what way?

In what way are inch, foot, yard pole/perch chain furlong mile
ounce, pound, hundred weight, ton
natural?

Natural, as in, evolved through traditional to be measures that people
can readily understand. People cannot intuit a gram, sorry, that's
simply true. People can intuit a pound of weight, however. That's
what I mean.


Somewhat for the same reasons there is
more than a one euro, 1/10 euro, and 1/100 euro coin. My point is
valid.

What an excellent point, Dan! You are so right! That there are 20
cent or 50 cent or some other non- 10ths coin is a good example for how
people wanted something with which they were already accustomed!

--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

On 2011-11-20 04:18:33 -0600, M@gd@ said:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:24:43 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Martin

arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:36:42 -0600, Dan Stephenson
... wrote:
...
... On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:
...
... I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
... feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5
... inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as
... .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches.
...
... Same in the metric system:
...
... 100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
... You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.
...
... But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge. Anything can be
... decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type measurements, is that
... they have natural subdivisions.
...
... Natural in what way?

No way.

Ten fingers, ten toes. That's natural.

So you count in base 20?

The simple truth is, counting based on 12s or 60s is attractive in
insofar as it is easily divisible into integers.



=====
It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does.


--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)