A metric America

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Riegel:
[QUOTE] SHYLOCK: The 0.45 kilogram of flesh which I demand of him Is deerely bought, 'tis mine, and I will haue it.

quote:

We use Imperial units because we always have, except for the gallon and its derivatives of which we have our own.

Stu, if you live in Cleveland OH, then you don't use imperial units. Imperial units came into use about 1824 when the were adopted throughout the British empire. Metrication in the 1960s throughout the empire ended their reign.

What you use instead is what the US government defines as USC (United states Customary units). Imperial and USC are not the same. Most units carry the same name but the the size of the units is different. Only pound weight and the inch (and only since 1960) are the same. All else varies and by large amounts.

quote:

Perhaps it is the US Gallon that's behind our stubbornness. That unit is uniquely American, and therefore superior to any one-world unit of measure. Adopting the metric system would be to abandon our cultural heritage and everything we hold dear.

How would it do that? Would rock & roll, blue jeans, apple pie, fourth of July, etc. disappear the moment metric is adopted everywhere? Can you provide an example where this has happened before?

quote:

Also, adopting the metric system would lend credence to the tinfoil-hat crowd, who worry that America is under attack from The Globalist Conspiracy. After all, invading UN troops could easily read metric signs, and our women wouldn't be safe in their beds. And those UN troop all use that funny foreign ammunition marked in millimeters. Nothing could be worse than being shot with a foreign metric bullet.

[quote] When the Nazis invaded their neighbour's countries, they ignored the road signs and followed their maps. I would suspect that foreign troops invading the US would use GPS units operating in the metric mode.

I'm sure there are a lot of American women who would drool at the chance of having a foreign soldier sweep them off their feet. Especially if they are French.

If you are shot by a metric bullet, you would not even know it. You'll be dead.

But you don't need to be shot by a foreigner to be shot with a metric bullet. One of your fellow citizens could accomplish the same thing. Have you ever heard of a 9 mm gun? They are the most popular.



[quote]All kidding aside (and the above was kidding (although the bit about the gallon may have some credence)) we're all on your side, because we're familiar with metric measurement. The majority of Americans, however, are still not.

The question is, are they really familiar with USC? I know you were kidding above, and some of my answers may seem like I thought you were serious. But just in case someone thinks it all is fact will see that it really isn't

quote:

The only way to metricize America is to get a lame-duck President to sign an executive order authorizing it. He won't have to worry about getting re-elected. His legacy in the short term will be one of outrage, but in the long term we'd thank him for doing it.

When we change to the metric system, we metricate, not metricize. Some will even say metrification instead of the correct metrication. There is no "if" in metrication.
That is your first lesson.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metrication

quote:

What makes 3 mile natural and 5 km not? Obviously it can't be too natural if every one is shying away from it for whatever reason?

Well, just a fer instance, a course very near my home starts directly in front of a school, and finishes in the driveway after making a loop of the neighborhood, taking all right turns. To make it 5K, the start would have to be backed up 171.968m down the road, or some cockamamie out & back down a side street added.

Of course, I look at any "natural" distance, metric or USC, somewhat askance, coming from New England, home of non-standard distances (the biggest race in CT is the Manchester Thanksgiving Day race at exactly 4.748 miles. Nobody seems to care that it's a weird distance, but I can assure you holy hell would be raised if it was changed to 5 miles or 8km. There are plenty of others like that, too.)

To quote Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof: "Tradition!"

quote:

Originally posted by Ametrica:


Stu, if you live in Cleveland OH, then you don't use imperial units. Imperial units came into use about 1824 when the were adopted throughout the British empire. Metrication in the 1960s throughout the empire ended their reign.

What you use instead is what the US government defines as USC (United states Customary units). Imperial and USC are not the same. Most units carry the same name but the the size of the units is different. Only pound weight and the inch (and only since 1960) are the same. All else varies and by large amounts.

I stand corrected. I've always heard feet and inches referred to as Imperial, but I will defer on this one.

quote:

Perhaps it is the US Gallon that's behind our stubbornness. That unit is uniquely American, and therefore superior to any one-world unit of measure. Adopting the metric system would be to abandon our cultural heritage and everything we hold dear.

quote:

How would it do that? Would rock & roll, blue jeans, apple pie, fourth of July, etc. disappear the moment metric is adopted everywhere? Can you provide an example where this has happened before?

One thing I can say is that you can't fight ignorance with logic. You can try, but you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

quote:

If you are shot by a metric bullet, you would not even know it. You'll be dead.

It's the principle of the thing. No proud American could sleep in his grave knowing he'd been shot with such an abominable thing. I hold that the metric system is behind all the shades walking the earth in agony. Can't you hear them?

quote:

But you don't need to be shot by a foreigner to be shot with a metric bullet. One of your fellow citizens could accomplish the same thing. Have you ever heard of a 9 mm gun? They are the most popular.

And 9mm is just a funny foreign way of saying .38 caliber.

.223 and 7.62mm ammunition are the same shells in a different box. (No leading zero here; conforming to established practice).

And that's the phrase right there: Established Practice. Ask 10 people to hold their fingers an inch apart, and 9 of them will be within a sixteenth of the real value.

True story: When I worked retail, I had a customer ask me how long a six-inch cord was. This was an American, mind you, about 50 years of age. I had to show him, as my reply of "uh, six inches?" didn't seem to help. Once we'd established that, he asked about the 12-inch cords. I think I let him take the store's yardstick home to familiarize himself with the suddenly-unfamiliar units of measure.

No, he didn't have a head injury but he was asking for one.

I remember meter sticks from elementary school. The general consensus was that they weren't as good as yardsticks. Although the population sampled (7-year-olds) may have skewed the results.

quote:

The question is, are they really familiar with USC?

The University of Souther California? Sure, we kicked their butt in the 1968 Rose Bowl

quote:

When we change to the metric system, we metricate, not metricize. Some will even say metrification instead of the correct metrication. There is no "if" in metrication.
That is your first lesson.

Gerweck's pharmacist messed up and gave me the wrong metrication. What are these little blue pills anyway?

quote:

Here is where you have the opportunity to persuade the RD to go all the way. A 5 km race should be run with 5 km splits. This is how you make change work, with logic and persistence. Try it! You might surprise yourself!

And then when he does it he gets endless complaints from the runners in his race. Most RDs' main goal is to get as few complaints as possible, which generally maximizes the number of runners he gets the following year. Converting the world to the metric system is not very high on his list of objectives. If he does decide to take a principled stance to convert everyone, he will very quickly principle himself and his race into non-existence.

There is no argument on this board about whether the US should convert to the metric system. Of course it should. The only argument is how to go about that. I think we all have more experience than you in dealing with American runners, American RDs, and Americans in general, and we know that condescending logical arguments will not work. Forcing it down their throats will not work. Telling them how stupid they are for still using their old system will not work.

The only way to convince them is to argue that the short-term conversion pain will be worth the long-term benefit. And that is a tough argument. The vast majority of Americans, unlike Europeans, have NO interaction with anybody outside their own country. The vast majority of Americans have a very small set of measurement units that they deal with: miles, yards, feet, inches, degrees, pounds, gallons, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons. That's pretty much it, and they're pretty simple to remember. How many yards in a mile? How many ounces in a pound? How many tablespoons in a quarter cup? They don't know, and they don't care, and for the most part it doesn't affect their lives.

It's a hard sell to convince them that changing to the metric system will make their lives easier.

Mark, I do have to say that most runners who run in my metric-only races agree it's a lot easier to figure out pace in kms rather than miles, once they relax their thinking. That said, none of them seem to ask the next RD to do the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Riegel:

quote:

Originally posted by Ametrica:


Stu, if you live in Cleveland OH, then you don't use imperial units. Imperial units came into use about 1824 when the were adopted throughout the British empire. Metrication in the 1960s throughout the empire ended their reign.

What you use instead is what the US government defines as USC (United states Customary units). Imperial and USC are not the same. Most units carry the same name but the the size of the units is different. Only pound weight and the inch (and only since 1960) are the same. All else varies and by large amounts.

I stand corrected. I've always heard feet and inches referred to as Imperial, but I will defer on this one.

Well, they are imperial as well as USC. Before 1960, the USC foot and inch and other units derived from them were different then the imperial counter-parts. The US defined the yard as 3600/3937 m, and imperial defined the yard 0.9144 m. The American versions were longer then imperial. It was in 1960 that the US agreed to change the definition of the yard to 0.9144 m exactly, thus making all the length units equal to their imperial counterparts.

quote:

quote:

Perhaps it is the US Gallon that's behind our stubbornness. That unit is uniquely American, and therefore superior to any one-world unit of measure. Adopting the metric system would be to abandon our cultural heritage and everything we hold dear.

quote:

How would it do that? Would rock & roll, blue jeans, apple pie, fourth of July, etc. disappear the moment metric is adopted everywhere? Can you provide an example where this has happened before?

One thing I can say is that you can't fight ignorance with logic. You can try, but you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

That doesn't mean you should give up. And there is also the possibility the pig is only pretending to enjoy it.

quote:

quote:

If you are shot by a metric bullet, you would not even know it. You'll be dead.

It's the principle of the thing. No proud American could sleep in his grave knowing he'd been shot with such an abominable thing. I hold that the metric system is behind all the shades walking the earth in agony. Can't you hear them?

No. Only because there is no such thing. The dead in their grave have no knowledge of the living world.

Ecclesiastes 9:10 and Psalm 146:4

quote:

quote:

But you don't need to be shot by a foreigner to be shot with a metric bullet. One of your fellow citizens could accomplish the same thing. Have you ever heard of a 9 mm gun? They are the most popular.

And 9mm is just a funny foreign way of saying .38 caliber.

.223 and 7.62mm ammunition are the same shells in a different box. (No leading zero here; conforming to established practice).

A 9 mm is a 9 mm and a 0.38 inch is 9.65 mm. A 9.65 mm bullet is bigger then a 9 mm, yet a 9mm is considered more deadly. I remember years ago there were complaints by police who had 0.38 guns and the criminals had more powerful 9 mm. Now all the police have 9 mm. If a self-imposed patriot wants to have an inferior weapon, then it is his death wish.

quote:

And that's the phrase right there: Established Practice. Ask 10 people to hold their fingers an inch apart, and 9 of them will be within a sixteenth of the real value.

This reminds me of going to a Canadian shopping mall in the 1970s and encountering a booth set up by Metric Commission Canada. The booth was designed to test peoples so-called knowledge of imperial (Canada did use imperial in those days, not USC). Like you, many thought that some high percentage would pass the imperial test with flying colours. The results were that more failed then passed and it proved that even people who claim to know imperial didn't. Their tests included mass guessing, volume guessing, guessing the length of lines on a paper, etc.

quote:

True story: When I worked retail, I had a customer ask me how long a six-inch cord was. This was an American, mind you, about 50 years of age. I had to show him, as my reply of "uh, six inches?" didn't seem to help. Once we'd established that, he asked about the 12-inch cords. I think I let him take the store's yardstick home to familiarize himself with the suddenly-unfamiliar units of measure.

No, he didn't have a head injury but he was asking for one.

I wonder what his reply would have been if you had said 150 mm. He may have been a person who worked in metric and had no practical experience in inches. I'm that way, but I know what 6 inches would be only because I know it is 150 mm. If I didn't know that relationship I also would not know.

quote:

I remember meter sticks from elementary school. The general consensus was that they weren't as good as yardsticks. Although the population sampled (7-year-olds) may have skewed the results.

Why weren't they as good? What was the reason?

quote:

quote:

The question is, are they really familiar with USC?

The University of Souther California? Sure, we kicked their butt in the 1968 Rose Bowl

Well, you got me on that one. I was thinking of the USC I defined earlier in the thread.

quote:

quote:

When we change to the metric system, we metricate, not metricize. Some will even say metrification instead of the correct metrication. There is no "if" in metrication.
That is your first lesson.

Gerweck's pharmacist messed up and gave me the wrong metrication. What are these little blue pills anyway?

Be careful when taking medications prescribed in an American medical institution. World-wide, including the US, all medicines are dosed in milligrams or millilitres per kilogram of body mass. Yet American institutions insist on weighing people in pounds instead of kilograms. If they do not properly convert the mass to kilograms, then a dosing error results. Tens of thousands of Americans die yearly from dosing errors. Weighing and recording all body masses in kilograms would eliminate this type of dosing error.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Mark, I do have to say that most runners who run in my metric-only races agree it's a lot easier to figure out pace in kms rather than miles, once they relax their thinking. That said, none of them seem to ask the next RD to do the same.

Your answer was very insightful and shows that maybe most runners would like to change completely to metric but just aren't the type to make a noise. But the minority who want miles make the noise of 10 people.

So it isn't as difficult to make it happen as some would think. Maybe one way to do it is to go a whole season with metric only and see what happens. It can be done as a test.

Of course, some will never adjust and continue to complain. Those types are just best to ignore and tell them to go elsewhere.

By not making any attempt is a disservice to those who may want metric but because there are no kilometre splits feel forced into adjusting to miles. In those events where the RD insists on miles, then why can't they have both? Or is someone afraid that there might be too many people who would prefer kilometres, ignore the miles and then start to murmur about the nuisance of having miles there and eventually insist the miles be removed.

Maybe just telling an RD who is resistant that other RDs are doing it and it is successful may be a subtle way to get in the door. I can't see where it would hurt to try.

Oklahoma is not only where the wind comes right behind the rain, it's "OK" in terms of metrication of race distances. This was led by Glen LaFollette and continued by Bob Baumel during their stints as certifiers for the Sooner State.

quote:

So it isn't as difficult to make it happen as some would think. Maybe one way to do it is to go a whole season with metric only and see what happens. It can be done as a test.

That would be nice in theory, but I'm not sure how you would actually make it happen. The measurement community doesn't have nearly as much influence as you seem to think. Even if we were able to convince the RDs of the races we measure to go completely metric (and that's a HUGE if), the percentage of races that are certified is very small. A quick check of the RunMichigan calendar for this past July shows 116 races. 6 of them are listed as USATF certified.

The best we could possibly hope for would be to convince the RDs of the races we measure to post km marks as well as mile marks. Even if I could convince the RD to not post mile marks I wouldn't do it, because he is sure to get endless complaints. Telling those complainers to "go elsewhere" will only cause them to go elsewhere, exactly what the RD doesn't want.

One way that I could see working would be if you made a point of advertising the fact that the race would be metric only, maybe even making that the central theme of the race. That might actually be beneficial to a small race because it might draw in novelty-seekers and increase numbers. And you could probably convince the RD not to worry about the small number of complainers he'd get, since he made it clear ahead of time what they should expect.

quote:

Why weren't they as good? What was the reason?

I'd be pretty hard pressed to remember the arguments put forth nearly 40 years ago.

quote:

I wonder what his reply would have been if you had said 150 mm. He may have been a person who worked in metric and had no practical experience in inches. I'm that way, but I know what 6 inches would be only because I know it is 150 mm. If I didn't know that relationship I also would not know.

Well, it said 150mm on the package, so I don't think that would have helped.

quote:

A 9 mm is a 9 mm and a 0.38 inch is 9.65 mm. A 9.65 mm bullet is bigger then a 9 mm, yet a 9mm is considered more deadly. I remember years ago there were complaints by police who had 0.38 guns and the criminals had more powerful 9 mm. Now all the police have 9 mm. If a self-imposed patriot wants to have an inferior weapon, then it is his death wish.

The police got around that when the .40 S&W came out. That's 10mm to you.

Also, some older pistols (like my Star Super 9mm Largo) were designed to fire either 9mm or .38 ACP rounds. So there's some rounding of figures going on somewhere.

quote:

How would it do that? Would rock & roll, blue jeans, apple pie, fourth of July, etc. disappear the moment metric is adopted everywhere?

I bet we get a few interesting pies out of the deal.

quote:

Weighing and recording all body masses in kilograms would eliminate this type of dosing error.

120 kilos sure makes me seem slimmer

quote:

quote:
Weighing and recording all body masses in kilograms would eliminate this type of dosing error.

120 kilos sure makes me seem slimmer

OK, NOW we've hit on the way to make metric instantly preferable to the American public. Once women learn they'll weigh only 52 kg instead of 114 pounds, they'll toss those old avoirdupois scales right out the window.

Yes, but you are assuming that the entire population will change for the benefit of 100 women??? There aren't many American women over the age of 30 that are a trim 52 kg. But, I suppose 80 kg is better than 176 lbs. You may be on to something! Even if it is catering to avoiding reality by re-stating a fact in gentler terms.

The clothing industry has been doing it for years. I recall reading that the size of the "standard" women's dress (talk about an unfathomable measuring unit) had increased by 10 percent over the past 20 years. So our increasingly heavy population can say, "See, I'm still a perfect Size 8."

Here are some interesting opions on metrication under Obama:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-need-for-the-United-St-by-John-Candido-
081206-742.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-for-America-to-go...sick-081201-701.html

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:

quote:

quote:
Weighing and recording all body masses in kilograms would eliminate this type of dosing error.

120 kilos sure makes me seem slimmer

OK, NOW we've hit on the way to make metric instantly preferable to the American public. Once women learn they'll weigh only 52 kg instead of 114 pounds, they'll toss those old avoirdupois scales right out the window.

How about for men too who like to exaggerate the size of their manhood? What sounds more impressive, 8 inches or 20 cm?

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Riegel:

quote:

I wonder what his reply would have been if you had said 150 mm. He may have been a person who worked in metric and had no practical experience in inches. I'm that way, but I know what 6 inches would be only because I know it is 150 mm. If I didn't know that relationship I also would not know.

Well, it said 150mm on the package, so I don't think that would have helped.

Did he see it? Maybe he is just one of the few who actually was willing to admit that he was innumerate. Just because someone pretends to know what 6 inches is doesn't mean they really do. This guy might just have been someone who really didn't and and didn't pretend he did.

quote:

A 9 mm is a 9 mm and a 0.38 inch is 9.65 mm. A 9.65 mm bullet is bigger then a 9 mm, yet a 9mm is considered more deadly. I remember years ago there were complaints by police who had 0.38 guns and the criminals had more powerful 9 mm. Now all the police have 9 mm. If a self-imposed patriot wants to have an inferior weapon, then it is his death wish.

The police got around that when the .40 S&W came out. That's 10mm to you.[/quote]

I think that is 10 mm to everyone else too. Weren't the police also buying Italian make Berettas which of course are a true metric weapon.

quote:

Also, some older pistols (like my Star Super 9mm Largo) were designed to fire either 9mm or .38 ACP rounds. So there's some rounding of figures going on somewhere.

Maybe your 0.38s were really only 9 mm and just labeled as 0.38s.

quote:

Weighing and recording all body masses in kilograms would eliminate this type of dosing error.

120 kilos sure makes me seem slimmer [/QUOTE]

And what is your BMI? Did you know that BMI is metric? It is your mass in kilograms divided by your height in metres squared. My body mass is 97 kg and my height is 1.78 m. This means my BMI is 97/1.78^2 = 30.6. Of course the experts would say I'm obese, but the only part of me that is bigger then it should be is my belly and that came from along history of drinking soda pop.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
The clothing industry has been doing it for years. I recall reading that the size of the "standard" women's dress (talk about an unfathomable measuring unit) had increased by 10 percent over the past 20 years. So our increasingly heavy population can say, "See, I'm still a perfect Size 8."

I've seen many clothes that no longer measure in numbers, but use generic sizes like small, medium, larger X large, XX large and XXX large.

I don't know what my BMI is, but it's on the far side of acceptable.

Lately the medicos have redefined the BMI classifications so everyone heavier than a Kenyan marathoner is considered obese. That's where the "shocking statistics" come from.

I suppose it's easier to fudge metric numbers than USC/Imperial.

Incidentally, a South American Indian tribe has no concept of numbers. They count one, some, many. Some is more than one and less than many. Many begins anywhere from 3 to 7 and continues to infinity. Adopting this system would certainly simplify calculations

quote:

Incidentally, a South American Indian tribe has no concept of numbers. They count one, some, many. Some is more than one and less than many. Many begins anywhere from 3 to 7 and continues to infinity.

Stu, I think that's true of the so-called "Hottentot" tribe of South Africa. To quote the Cowardly Lion:

What makes the Hottentot so hot?
What puts the "ape" in ape-ricot?
Whadda they got that I ain't got?

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Riegel:
I suppose it's easier to fudge metric numbers than USC/Imperial.

Can you provide an example?

It is easier to fudge imperial numbers, not metric ones. There are some clever tricks in this regard that I leaned when a child.

It is so simple to get imperial measurements wrong and difficult to get them right, just ask any child doing fractions of inches or blond trying to use a tape measure to an accuracy of more than 1/4 inch.

Heaven help any body divining 2/3 of 13/64.

When I grew up, many years ago, we had deal with Pounds, Shillings and Pence, amoungst other imperial systems that used an oddball number base. The only thing this taught us was to to be good at mixed base calculations, after which long division in binary was a piece of cake. All of which is of no practical use unless you want to program in assembly or be a cryptographer.

The only reason for still teaching fractions in US schools is so US children can use the backward US feet, inches and fractions there off.

If the US was fully metric, fractions would be considered just an ancient mathematical juggling trick, and immediately doped from school.

While your children are figuring out fractions the metric nations are teaching the concepts of physics and chemistry.

Metric is the way to go. The sooner we convert to metric in all ways, the sooner people will be able to easily comparison shop in the supermarket. Right now, in the USA, your box of cereal may be marked in pounds or by the ounce. Even with the special ed of having the math done on the shelf tag, it still might give you cost per lb for one item and cost per oz for the one next to it - which does not make comparison easy.
Lets not even get into why pounds are "lb".

The confusion allows for unscrupulous persons to obscure, if not down right fudge imperial measurements.

If you ever get paid in gold, make sure you are not being shaved, for the troy ounce ain't what you think at all.

I love coin history, and still remember how to use them....But love for history cannot, and should not, stand in the way of the very sensible metric system, even though it was invented by the heathen frogs.

Roll on metric system! 1 10 100 1000 the Romans almost had it right, they just could not spell it.

The US already has metric money, and metric ammo, so what's the problem? Is it that american men don't want their condoms measured in milliliters?
_________________

For extra credit here is a simple imperial problem for you that will make you think in an alternate base system:

The largest sum of money that can be written in the old Imperial British system of pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings, using each of the nine digits once and only once, is £98,765 4s 31/2d.

Now, try to discover the smallest sum of money that can be written down under precisely the same conditions. The answer must be given for each denomination-pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings - the nought (or zero) may not be used.

If you think it's difficult to get your mind around the old English money I grew up with, think what it's like for a foreigner having to deal with yards, feet and inches. Same problem, different view.

P.S. There are 4 farthings to the penny, 12 pennies to the shilling, 20 shillings to the pound.

At school we got questions like: Calculate the rental of an estate consisting of four farms, one farm containing 5 3/4 acres at £3 13s 6d per acre, another farm containing 68 1/2 acres at three guineas per acre and another containing 135 1/4 acres at 3 1/2 guineas per acre, and the last containing 1005 acres at £1 15s 6d per acre?
Then calculate the average rental per acre of the whole estate.
(No I am not making this up, a real example)

If it helps there are two silver sixpence coins too a shilling, two and six to the half crown, and 21 shillings to the guinea. You pay lawyers in guineas, it's traditional.

If you think that's mind bending for a twelve year old, that's not the half of the long division we had to do, with out pocket calculators. Just try dividing £4,786 17s 11d equally among 27 men, with out a calculator.

Oh yeah, I forgot, we were also meant to be proficient with log tables and slide rules too.

I doubt that any modern kid in your shop class can read a Verina scale to the correct 1/128 of an inch. That's why sub inch measurements are normally metric or in thou, with easy to read clock gauges. Which after all is just going metric for fractions. So lets to it right, and go metric all the way.

quote:

The only thing this taught us was to to be good at mixed base calculations, after which long division in binary was a piece of cake.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

quote:

Originally posted by JamesM:
It is easier to fudge imperial numbers, not metric ones. There are some clever tricks in this regard that I leaned when a child.

That is exactly why there is a resistance among some shop keepers to continue to use imperial units. They claim their customers want it, but in truth they know their customers don't know it and can easily deceive them.

quote:

It is so simple to get imperial measurements wrong and difficult to get them right, just ask any child doing fractions of inches or blond trying to use a tape measure to an accuracy of more than 1/4 inch.

Heaven help any body divining 2/3 of 13/64.

Fractions are not real numbers. They are actually in the form of incomplete division. They are usually called rational. Not rational as in coherent, but rational as in the form of a ratio, that is RATIO-NAL.

The division was left incomplete because people int he past were too innumerate to be able to do it.

quote:

When I grew up, many years ago, we had deal with Pounds, Shillings and Pence, amoungst other imperial systems that used an oddball number base. The only thing this taught us was to to be good at mixed base calculations, after which long division in binary was a piece of cake. All of which is of no practical use unless you want to program in assembly or be a cryptographer.

There is a common misconception among imperialists that imperial units are comprised of different bases. This is dead wrong. All imperial units use base 10 numerics, however they are not harmonized with base 10.

What they falsely call bases are just conversion factors relating the different incoherent unit names.

A base is a description of how many digits comprise a numbering system. Our present system has 10 digits, so it is a base 10 (decimal) system. A base 12 (dozenal) comprises 12 distinct digits.

quote:

The only reason for still teaching fractions in US schools is so US children can use the backward US feet, inches and fractions there off.

If the US was fully metric, fractions would be considered just an ancient mathematical juggling trick, and immediately doped from school.

Fractional math would still be taught but as part of an algebra course. A/B X C/D is what one encounters when manipulating algebraic equations. However, the resulting answer would be expressed in a true decimal format using complete division.

quote:

While your children are figuring out fractions the metric nations are teaching the concepts of physics and chemistry.

Metric is the way to go. The sooner we convert to metric in all ways, the sooner people will be able to easily comparison shop in the supermarket. Right now, in the USA, your box of cereal may be marked in pounds or by the ounce. Even with the special ed of having the math done on the shelf tag, it still might give you cost per lb for one item and cost per oz for the one next to it - which does not make comparison easy.

This is exactly what marketing does not want. They adore confused shoppers. The more confused the more opportunity for the consumer to be cheated. That is why marketers resist government intervention and why it is necessary for government to set standards.

quote:

Lets not even get into why pounds are "lb".

I believe it is Latin for "balance"

quote:

The confusion allows for unscrupulous persons to obscure, if not down right fudge imperial measurements.

Exactly

quote:

If you ever get paid in gold, make sure you are not being shaved, for the troy ounce ain't what you think at all.

I'm sure if you took a poll, most people would insist the ounce used for gold is the same ounce that is used as part of USC. By the same token, most have no idea that a nautical mile (1852 m exactly) is different by a big amount from the mile used on land (1609 m). Just like everyone thinks a fluid ounce and dry ounce are equal.

quote:

I love coin history, and still remember how to use them....But love for history cannot, and should not, stand in the way of the very sensible metric system, even though it was invented by the heathen frogs.

I believe that someone from Australia recently discover the concept of the metric system came from an Englishman, John Wilkins. The French just made it happen.

The metric system, and metre was first fully described by Englishman
John Wilkins in 1668 in a treatise presented to the Royal Society some
120 years before the French adopted the system. It is believed that the
system was transmitted to France from England via the likes of Benjamin
Franklin (who spent a great deal of time in London), and produced the
by-product of the decimalised paper currency system, before finding
favour with American revolutionary ally Louis XV.[6]

quote:

Roll on metric system! 1 10 100 1000 the Romans almost had it right, they just could not spell it.

The US already has metric money, and metric ammo, so what's the problem? Is it that American men don't want their condoms measured in milliliters?

Not true. The US has decimal money. If the money was metric, the dollar, euro, etc, would be units of the SI and their divisions would be centidollars (c$), millidollars (m$), kilodollars (k$), etc.

I would think the condoms are designed and measured in metric in the factory.

"There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."

Good one, Mark. Got a good laugh at that.

Now that we have begun a third page of discussion regarding metrication (see, Ametrica, we can learn!), what are we going to do about it?

I will endeavor to use meters, except where I must indicate a mile split on my map. I suppose I can also indicate the kilometers. I will also encourage any measurer I tutor to do the same. I will also start asking race directors if they would be willing to be cutting-edge and mark (and advertise such) only kilometers in their races. It will entail them publishing a conversion chart (I will post one on RaceMeasure.com that can be linked to), so runners can judge their pace accordingly.

Then what? If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. How do each of you propose to be part of the solution, and do more than discuss this?

quote:

Originally posted by Ametrica:

There is a common misconception among imperialists that imperial units are comprised of different bases. This is dead wrong. All imperial units use base 10 numerics, however they are not harmonized with base 10.

What they falsely call bases are just conversion factors relating the different incoherent unit names.

A base is a description of how many digits comprise a numbering system. Our present system has 10 digits, so it is a base 10 (decimal) system. A base 12 (dozenal) comprises 12 distinct digits.

I respectfully disagree. What defines a base system is the number of units before you have to roll a digit into the more significant column. Binary is base 1. If you have more than one you have to carry one to the more significant column.

The defining thing about a base is the number of units before one rolls over.

What you may find confusing is that in pounds, shillings and pence instead of having extra squiggly digits to represent the value of 15 in the shillings column in the way that hexadecimal uses F, the system just uses 15s.

I agree that it appears on the surface that the shilling column is in base 10 but when you realize there is no such amount as one pound, 22 shillings, you see that arguing the shilling column is base 10 falls down, for 22 is a valid base 10 number.
As you can see, the shilling column is base 20. When you have 20 of them the column goes back to 0 and the pounds column is incremented by 1.
Example: You have 1 pound and 15 shillings, and you add 7 shillings, you then have 2 pounds, 2 shillings.

It does not matter if you use numbers and letters as in hexadecimal, or 6/15/5 for six pounds, fifteen shillings and five pence. That the pounds shillings and pence number comprises of three different base systems in one total number is what confuses people who have not grown up with it, or similar systems.

Feet and inches are again a mixed base system. The inches roll over into feet every time you get 12 more inches. Inches are inherently base 12, in the same way that there were 12 pennies to the shilling.

The defining mathematical identifier of a base system is the number of digits that can be collected before they get rolled into the next column. There is absolutely no question that systems that use the same base for each column, no matter the size of the number, are more logical and easier to manipulate than systems where you have to stop and change base at some point.

To prove my point, it does not matter if I add together a set of measurements in feet and inches using 0-9 (with 10 & 11) to represent the inches or 0-9 with A & B. Inches are base 12 and the math and results are equivalent and results identical.

Irrespective of if you are using 11 or B to represent having 11 inches, if you add one more inch the mathematical manipulation to bump the inches into a foot happens.

No matter how to write it on paper, 11+1 or B+1,
you always roll the digit when you have 12 inches.

Therefore the base is not determined by the digits or letter used to write the number, it is the magical base number that controls when the current column is zeroed and the next significant column is incremented.

This magical bump is the base of the units being added.

If you want to define base differently then you need to come up with a new word for what that magical number of digits is that bumps the count up in the more significant column.

___________________________________________

I have noticed that mathematics in America seems to have gone through a phase of being taught by teachers who's real specialty was French language. The US schools have invented a lot of words, and redefined others with overly complicated definitions often the result of which it to obscure the beauty and original mathematical concept, from which the wordy definitions were divined in what must have been a process involving herbal tea and chicken bones.
While helping a young women with her homework I was horrified to find elegant geometry completely obscured by dense and complicated word based definitions, where at that level the geometry the concepts are best explained with almost no words, instead using some wonderful teaching aids in the form of the simple geometrical shapes them selves.

This paper may shed some insight on the problem of using the language based rules taught in schools that have been approximated into English and removed from the original underlying and often beautifully simple mathematical concept. A Mathematician’s Lament
It's a good read.

We had an oven heating element burn out last week, and I replaced it. At that time we had a question concerning the accuracy of the temperature setting. I bought an oven thermometer at the hardware store. After using the one I bought, Joan bought a better one.

The two thermometers are shown below. The one I bought has the “advantage” of being able to be read in Celsius as well as Fahrenheit degrees. The one Joan bought reads only in Fahrenheit, but what an improvement in reading clarity.



Of the oven thermometers sold in the US, I wonder how many are bought by people who intend to use the Celsius scale?

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Riegel:
We had an oven heating element burn out last week, and I replaced it. At that time we had a question concerning the accuracy of the temperature setting. I bought an oven thermometer at the hardware store. After using the one I bought, Joan bought a better one.

The two thermometers are shown below. The one I bought has the “advantage” of being able to be read in Celsius as well as Fahrenheit degrees. The one Joan bought reads only in Fahrenheit, but what an improvement in reading clarity.

Of the oven thermometers sold in the US, I wonder how many are bought by people who intend to use the Celsius scale?

So what did you conclude about the accuracy? Did all 3 thermometers agree?

It is interesting to note that the degree Celsius temperature is very close to half the Fahrenheit. So close that when one converts, all one needs do is multiply or divide by 2.

I would disagree that the bigger one is better. The needle seems to be so large it may cover over three of the marks and you would have to squint to see which of the small larks is intended.

One thing to look for when buying such a device is the stated accuracy. What is the tolerance on both units? Was it stated on the package? If it wasn't, then both may be very far off.

Those who use the degree Celsius scale are most likely to be professional chefs. They are also most likely to sneer at those who cook using cups and spoons instead of using mass and balances to measure out precise amounts in grams.

Maybe this is the advantage a professional chef has over a housewife. Their food tastes better because they use precise measurements and housewives use imprecise cups and spoons.

A couple of comments:

Joan's is a Martha Stewart brand, so "that's a good thing."

On the other hand, yours reads to 600F - reminds me of the amplifiers used by "Spinal Tap": "But this one goes to 11."

As for gauge accuracy, the two seem to agree pretty well. I haven't really tried an accurate comparison.

The stove control seems to produce an oven temperature about 40F higher than indicated by the two thermometers at a 350F set point. This has likely been going on as long as we have had the stove - 42 years.

Maybe it's time for a new thermostatic sensing element? On the other hand, Joan's been producing fine meals without a fix.

I think chefs produce more uniform food quality than housewives because of practice, not adherence to exact spice measurements. When you have to make the same meal 20 to 50 times a day you are bound to get into a groove that gets it right.

I used to listen to a Canadian radio station that would report the temperature in both F and C. They would say "It's 32, or 0." One day on the way to work they said "It's 12, or -12." Well make up your mind, which is it?

quote:

I would disagree that the bigger one is better. The needle seems to be so large it may cover over three of the marks and you would have to squint to see which of the small larks is intended.

Maybe they are intentionally obscuring insignificant digits.

Pete, we had the opposite problem on a stove we had - the actual oven temp was about 25F lower than the set point, so food always took longer to bake.

I discovered that on the back of the set dial was an adjustment that rotated the dial face relative to the shaft, allowing one to make the set temperature higher or lower.

Of course, now we've got one of those fancy digital stoves, so we've got no worries - or do we?

Jim,

I am dazzled by your genius! I looked, and our stove knob has a bunch of adjustment grooves on the back side. I've made an adjustment and will report how things work out.

Many thanks.

I adjusted the oven control knob 40 degrees in what I hoped was the right direction. I set both thermometers on the rack in the middle of the oven. I set the oven temperature control at 350F.

I switched on the oven, beginning the timing. The red light came on, indicating that the heating element was on. When the red light went off, I recorded time and temperature. I recorded time and temperature each time the red light went on or off. After a while the oven reached temperature equilibrium and I terminated the exercise.

I noted that the “made in China” thermometer indicated a temperature 25 F higher than did the Martha Stewart. I used the Martha Stewart to obtain the readings.

In the graph below you can see what happened. When the readings are close together, this indicates a period when the heating element was “on.” When the element was “off” the readings become more separated.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Neal:

quote:

I would disagree that the bigger one is better. The needle seems to be so large it may cover over three of the marks and you would have to squint to see which of the small larks is intended.

Maybe they are intentionally obscuring insignificant digits.

Then why have all the insignificant little marks? Only mark was needed.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Pete, we had the opposite problem on a stove we had - the actual oven temp was about 25F lower than the set point, so food always took longer to bake.

I discovered that on the back of the set dial was an adjustment that rotated the dial face relative to the shaft, allowing one to make the set temperature higher or lower.

Of course, now we've got one of those fancy digital stoves, so we've got no worries - or do we?

Digital stoves should be switchable to degrees Celsius. In fact all electronic temperature devices internally measure in degrees Celsius. If it has Fahrenheit capability it is only via a conversion.

Is Pete's Chinese thermometer "internally measuring" in degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit?
Both are available only via a conversion, and the same is true with electronic temperature devices.

I do believe that both his gauges are mechanical bi-metal devices which rely on the difference in expansion rate between two different metals.

The modern electric stove controls it's temp through a thermostat that is commonly controlled by a thermocouple. A thermocouple is also two bits of dissimilar metal, but instead of relying on the variation in physical expansion it works on the variation in voltage produced by the joint, or electrical resistance of the joint.

Your electronic temperature sensor can go bad over time due to corrosion in the connectors at the joints and thermal fatigue in the metal.

Although it is tempting to believe a digital system because it has nice glowing definitive digits the only thing that makes it more accurate than your grandmothers stove is that it is newer.

Since there is no requirement for stove temps to be calibrated before or after installation, if you want to bake the perfect sponge cake it pays to check your temp reading with a secondary gauge.

How do you know if your secondary gauge is correct? Get a good secondary gauge, like this one:
Taylor Professional Fold-up Oven Test Thermometer

The point of setting the temp gauge on the stove is to try to cook the food for the right amount of time. If you are cooking meat, (not a cake), there is a better method of cooking than guessing by approximate temp and time. See here:
Pyrex Digital Probe Oven Thermometer/ Timer
This is an expensive one, you can get them as cheep as $20. This is a direct measurement device that eliminates most of the errors we induce.

If you want to know the temp in the oven and the temp in the food at the same time then they do make dual probe systems.
Taylor Digital Dual Prober Thermometer/Timer

For more accuracy you may want to calibrated against a thermometer that has been certified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, but they are very expensive. A little cheaper is one that has been checked against one that has been certified - sort of second generation - friend of a friend certification, like this.
Certified Thermometers ( I would recommend the alcohol version over the mercury.)
Check you have the space inside your stove for the 145mm length. Because of it's length it should be readable to 1 or 2C. With one of these you could start a stove calibration service. Just print up some cards and let your wife sell your services to her friends who blame their ovens for their fallen sponges.

quote:

Originally posted by JamesM:
I do believe that both his gauges are mechanical bi-metal devices which rely on the difference in expansion rate between two different metals.

The modern electric stove controls it's temp through a thermostat that is commonly controlled by a thermocouple. A thermocouple is also two bits of dissimilar metal, but instead of relying on the variation in physical expansion it works on the variation in voltage produced by the joint, or electrical resistance of the joint.

Yes, this is correct. In addition, these thermocouples are calibrated to produce a precise number of millivolts per degree Celsius temperature. Thus the systems designed to work with these probes do so internally in metric. with programming, you make it display any units you can create.

quote:

Your electronic temperature sensor can go bad over time due to corrosion in the connectors at the joints and thermal fatigue in the metal.

This is why in industry and the market it is required to have your measuring devices checked and calibrated on a regular basis. Nothing keeps its accuracy over time. However, there is no prevision for home products to be maintained in such a fashion.

quote:

Although it is tempting to believe a digital system because it has nice glowing definitive digits the only thing that makes it more accurate than your grandmothers stove is that it is newer.

That depends on the manufacturers statements of precision/accuracy and resolution. Of course for most consumer products accuracy is not as important as industrial products.

One thing that should be noted is that resolution, meaning the number of digits shown does not imply accuracy. A two digit device to the right of the decimal point can be more accurate then one showing 3 digits. It all depends on the design of the device and the precision to which it was calibrated.

quote:

Since there is no requirement for stove temps to be calibrated before or after installation, if you want to bake the perfect sponge cake it pays to check your temp reading with a secondary gauge.

How do you know if your secondary gauge is correct?

Before buying any gauge you need to research the unit by checking for the stated accuracy. Is it +/- 5 %, 2 %, 1 % , 0.5 %? If it isn't stated, chances are the accuracy is very, very poor.

quote:

For more accuracy you may want to calibrated against a thermometer that has been certified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, but they are very expensive. A little cheaper is one that has been checked against one that has been certified - sort of second generation - friend of a friend certification, like this.
Certified Thermometers ( I would recommend the alcohol version over the mercury.)
Check you have the space inside your stove for the 145mm length. Because of it's length it should be readable to 1 or 2C. With one of these you could start a stove calibration service. Just print up some cards and let your wife sell your services to her friends who blame their ovens for their fallen sponges.

Even if you do get one that is calibrated to a NIST standard, it will need to be checked every year or so if the accuracy is to be guaranteed.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Riegel:

Is there nothing you won't make a graph for?