Why still miles?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Andy on 22 Jul 2010 04:19 On 19/07/2010 14:25, NKTB wrote: At least the yanks have kept all the other imperial > measures. I'm thinking that KPH is a just a change too far. > But don't forget the Yanks have a different gallon to the UK. 1.2 US gallons is about 1 UK gallon. Andy
From: Mike Barnes on 22 Jul 2010 04:02 Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk>: >But it is pointless assuming you can average anywhere near the speed >limit in Ireland - a journey takes about 60% more time than you think >it should. My experience in NI was just the opposite - I reached where I was going in about 40% less time than I thought it should. Then I realised that the (all-Ireland) road map I was using was marked in km. -- Mike Barnes
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 22 Jul 2010 08:04 On 21 July, 14:25, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Nkosi (ama-ecosse)" <minank...(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > > news:11c52e04-f189-4d9c-8206-1784bf48287e(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 20 July, 22:07, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Knight of the Road" <nos...(a)nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > >> like they were saying: > > >> >>> A mile is a far better measurement of length > >> >> Would that be a statute mile (1609.344m), a survey mile (1609.3472m) > >> > As we are talking about Imperial measurements here, could you express > >> > the difference between those two figures in feet and inches? > > >> Start -> Run -> Calc > > > I'll amswer it for them, 0.0032m = 3.2mm = 0.125984" = 0.010499' or > > "approximately just over" 1/8" Measurement is not the exact science > > some of us seem to think it is. there are too many variables to > > consider the least of those expansion and contraction due temperature > > whether in ºC, ºF or ºK not to mention the accuracy of the measureing > > equipment. Having worked with both imperial and metric systems all my > > working life in engineering, mechanical and civil, and architecture my > > personal opinion is the metric system is far superior to the imperial > > system. As a P.S. we Brits don't rule the world any more, so get over > > it. > > No, but the Americans do and they use Imperial measure (sort of).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Americans don't rule the world they just think they do. Hollywood has told them so. Nkosi
From: Nick Finnigan on 24 Jul 2010 06:30 Adrian wrote: > > ALL units of measurement are arbitrary. Always have been, always will be. > The year and the day are about the only ones which derive directly from > nature - and they're not _that_ precise. (Feb 29?) Months are also natural (and imprecise) - weeks and fortnights are obvious divisions, even if you are not creationist. milli-days seem to be the most useful SI division of a natural time measurement. The speed of light in a vacuum is also a natural unit of measurement, if a little high for normal use. nano-c would be a useful SI division, being about 0.3 m/s. nano-light-seconds could be a unit of distance, but you would want a invent a specific name for it. Or you could use planck length as a 'natural' unit of distance, although it is delibertaly small. There doesn't seem to be an SI prefix above yotta, but 10^38 planck lengths are a usable 1616 metres.
From: Mortimer on 24 Jul 2010 08:13
"Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message news:i2efbp$1n3$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Adrian wrote: >> >> ALL units of measurement are arbitrary. Always have been, always will be. >> The year and the day are about the only ones which derive directly from >> nature - and they're not _that_ precise. (Feb 29?) > > Months are also natural (and imprecise) - weeks and fortnights are > obvious divisions, even if you are not creationist. milli-days seem to be > the most useful SI division of a natural time measurement. Is there any reason why the month is divided into seven days rather than any other? And is there any reason why a day is divided into 24 hours each of 60 minutes each of 60 seconds - apart from this being the way that it was done historically? Given that the lunar month is about 28 days, is there scope for having 13 months to match the lunar cycle more accurately? It's a shame that the day, the lunar cycle and the year don't align so you'd end up with a short 25-day 13th month after your 12 28-day months... Still, it's better to have only one odd month, rather than a fairly random sequence of 30- and 31-day months. |