Convenience of the metric system

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Canibul

I was thinking about 101 proof Jack. and I'm confused. If proof is a percentage, then it's by definition metric, right? Per centage means 'per hundred". Pure metric.

And if there's a hundred and one of them, and it's metric, then there has to be a thousand of them. Correct? 100 proof equals 50 percent, but that causes other issues so I'm ignoring it for now.

So what I want to know is, where's the thousand proof Jack Daniels being kept?

Depends on where you come from. To me, "proof" means alcohol with a SG of 12/13 that of water, which is 57.15% ABV. (None of that weak merkin proof spirit cr*p)

[Andrew B.]

Historical Trivia
One of the measures in the USA Measurement System is the Mark Twain.
It is defined as the minimum safe clearance for steam wheel boats and is
set to 2 fathoms. This was subsequently used as the pen name of the
famous American writer (who lived during the time of steam wheel boats
and featured then in some of his writings).

The Cannot Shot measure is approximately 3 miles in length and is the
distance originally used for US territorial waters.

The Nautical Mile was previously defined as 1 minute of arc along the
Meridian of the Earth. However, as the Earth is not perfectly round
(flattened at the poles) this equals 6108 feet at the North or South pole
and only 6046 feet at the equator. Thus, the length of the nautical mile
depends on where your are! In the 20th century this inconsistency was
removed by redefining the nautical mile to be exactly 1852 meters(1.15 US miles).

Metric was designed mostly for dummies that couldn't do fractions...

Originally Posted by Lars_L

I think that the imperial system is stupid, and it may be shining through in my headline. I was interested if there was any good defense for the system, and so far I have not seen anything. The best thing is that you're used to it, but I'm also at the metric. It is a comfort that you in science has gone over to the metric. They need their brain to other things than, for example, convert miles to yards.

[jeepbluetj]

Imperial vs Metric is always such a fun discussion. I'd guess most folks are most comfortable with what they learned as a kid, and the "other" is just stupid ...

[Benz]

It was obvious, Lars, from the very start that you were trying to pick a fight. We could explain all day why the Sensible system is every bit as good in most ways and better in all the rest, but you have determined not to listen. So we wonder why you bothered to bring it up at all? My challenge is as yet unmet, that someone will show a better way to conduct celestial navigation in metric than in degrees/min/sec, or to use the UTM grid with any accuracy anywhere but at the equator.
By the way, your story about the monks and time is completely spurious, since the book they would have claimed to read recognizes a 24-hour day.
Please know that we who reject the metric system don't dislike you all who have caved in to it; we just want to (and will) continue to measure things in the way that works best for us.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by jeepbluetj

Imperial vs Metric is always such a fun discussion. I'd guess most folks are most comfortable with what they learned as a kid, and the "other" is just stupid ...

And we haven't even gotten to metric versus imperial buckets yet. :-)

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Lars_L

Once upon a time, in the begging of time (at least the begging of measuring time) monks measured the time it took for the sun to have come fully up until it came to the horizon again. Then the divided that time in 10 equal parts. Then they did the same when the sun has gone under the horizon and came up again. I done know if they did it on equinox or they took a mean value over the year. The result is the same. After a while it was concluded that there also needs a time for the sunrise and sunset, and they set that time to one fifth of the day, and that way we got 12 hours for a day. But notice that they began with 10 but they did a little mistake.

I don't think that story is correct. For one thing, the time the sun needs to fully set or rise is not that much, and depends a lot on where you are.
And anyway, the 12 hour day has been with us for a long time. The Romans for example divided the day in 12 hours, and the night in 4 watches. The length of those varied with the season. 12 is a very convenient number.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Benz

My challenge is as yet unmet, that someone will show a better way to conduct celestial navigation in metric than in degrees/min/sec, or to use the UTM grid with any accuracy anywhere but at the equator.

But in what way is the US system of customary units better suited to do celestial navigation than the metric system? In the metric system surveyors have long a go solved the problem by going to 400 "gradian" circle. In nautical applications we use the nautical mile, which is an accepted unit in the SI system.

Have US surveyors working in feet already solved the problem caused by the "survey" foot being of a different length then the "international foot"?
O wait. They have. By going metric...

And maybe you should pay attention to what the "T" in UTM stands for :-)

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by mikeguyver

Freedom, Liberty and Justice foster creative minds. And that is why so many love this country and ignore criticism of those who don't. So, go ahead and criticize my post because "frankly Charlotte I don't give a damn".

Then why do you reject the metric system, which was designed by creative people infected with the American spirit of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, and in stead insist on using a system ordained by a British monarch?

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Hey, come come when born the United States went immediately and officially from 12 based pounds, shillings and pennies to decimal (and Spanish coin) based dollar and cents? Why they didn't extend it to every other measure is beyond logic.

Originally Posted by Cheechako

You forgot the quarter, the ever poplular $2 bill, the $5 bill ....

It never occurred to me that the US is one of the few countries that don't mark the numeric value of their coins...

A foreign friend was leaving and handed me a big bag of coins. He said he couldn't figure out how to use them so I could have them...

Quarters, dimes, nickels etc. All meaningless, although one ought to be able to figure out what a quarter is worth...

Originally Posted by bill352

With all this talk about different sizes of tools, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Crescent makes a metric adjustable wrench.

Yeah but...

I loaned a crescent wrench to a guy in the boat yard today. When I took a break and wandered over to see what he was up to I found him hammering on a bolt with it...

I asked him if he needed a hammer instead.

I guess that's what happens when yuo loan tooks out.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

I like Fahrenheit. 100 is really f'ing hot and 0 is really f'ing cold. It's supposed to be 8 below tonite and I'm gonna have to figure out new cuss words for that one.

8 below what?

[Canibul]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Then why do you reject the metric system, which was designed by creative people infected with the American spirit of Freedom, Liberty and Justice, and in stead insist on using a system ordained by a British monarch?

Because it works.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Wotname

8 below what?

I think he means 8 below zero which is 32 below when water freezes, I think. But I never understood Farenheit. O Farenheit is when ice and salt water get cold, or something.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

But in what way is the US system of customary units better suited to do celestial navigation than the metric system? In the metric system surveyors have long a go solved the problem by going to 400 "gradian" circle. In nautical applications we use the nautical mile, which is an accepted unit in the SI system.

Have US surveyors working in feet already solved the problem caused by the "survey" foot being of a different length then the "international foot"?
O wait. They have. By going metric...

And maybe you should pay attention to what the "T" in UTM stands for :-)

So the use of the nautical mile for navigating is an admission of the unsuitability of the kilo-meter for such use. No matter that the metrical people officially adopted it--it does not really fit into the proposed scheme of "everything the same". And as long as we're using nautical miles to navigate, does it not make sense to have depths in a unit that is compatible, like fathoms and feet? and why are they trying to cram windspeed into meters per second instead of using knots, which is the same unit one is using to navigate! If anyone tried to conduct celestial navigation using meters, they would have to say: this place is X miles away, and at X kilometers per hour, I'll get there at......when? Lots of conversions there. Also, you cannot use Gradians, or Gons, or Radians, or any other such foolishness for plotting celestial fixes. Not without a whole lot of extra conversions and loss of accuracy resulting in having to split gons because there is no natural reciprocal. There is a good, logical reason circles are divided into 360 degrees: has nothing to do with English kings or sentiment. You who claim to be so 'Scientific' ought to scientifically search it out and be instructed.
The T in UTM stands for 'Transverse'. What is your point? Mine is that the grid is only useful over smaller and smaller areas the further from the equator you go, losing accuracy fast with each er, kilo-meter you go. Deg/min/sec continue to operate smoothly.
I have stated before I have no use for the statute mile--everyone should go to a 6,000 foot nautical mile. Be easier to change to than kilo-meters, if anyone was going to change.

[Lars_L]

Originally Posted by Benz

It was obvious, Lars, from the very start that you were trying to pick a fight. We could explain all day why the Sensible system is every bit as good in most ways and better in all the rest, but you have determined not to listen. So we wonder why you bothered to bring it up at all? My challenge is as yet unmet, that someone will show a better way to conduct celestial navigation in metric than in degrees/min/sec, or to use the UTM grid with any accuracy anywhere but at the equator.
By the way, your story about the monks and time is completely spurious, since the book they would have claimed to read recognizes a 24-hour day.
Please know that we who reject the metric system don't dislike you all who have caved in to it; we just want to (and will) continue to measure things in the way that works best for us.

I think this is a typical "Off Topic" issue and that it is better that it gets its own thread instead of the matter hijack other threads. Here we can tell you why my measuring system is so much better than yours and still stay within the topic. Those of you who have read my posts know that I have hard to accept that there are 1760 yards in one mile.

One of the weaknesses of the metric system is the measurement of time, but it has that in common with the imperial system. Is there any connection?

A few guesses:
US switch to metric system - 85%
The shipping leaves nautical mil - 65%
That shipping goes into circles with 400 parts - 65%
The world gets a new time measurement - 25%
That we will move to a different base than 10 - 7%
But there is no answer key.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Canibul

Because it works.

Said the guy with the horse when asked why he didn't get a car...