Prev: Tim Morrow impersonating somebody ese
Next: Changing crank seals on an RD-400
From: Shantideva Upasaka on 7 Nov 2009 14:31
On Nov 7, 10:24 am, paul c <toledobythe...(a)oohay.ac> wrote:

> Seems sane to me - he has to sit if there's no air.

He could always go for a moonwalk.

Om! Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!

From: S'mee on 7 Nov 2009 15:35
On Nov 7, 12:29 pm, Shantideva Upasaka <macmi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:


FOAD chickenhawk...your little guys are running faster and you are
getting fatter and slower.
From: Greg.Procter on 8 Nov 2009 00:18
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:22:50 +1300, little man upon the stair
<macmiled(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 7, 12:11�am, Biker Dude <jacobsenpa...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It did get me curious about tires, tire ratings, etc., I looked up
>> some info such as speed ratings, sizing. �In a metric world it seems
>> that tire diameters are measured in inches. �Weird.
>
> We started out with the English system, so we have wheels defined in
> inches and speed ratings defined in miles per hour, and I have no
> problem whatever with that.
>
> It's hard enough to understand the language of engineering using the
> English system, without complicating it with a system where it's easy
> to be in error by a factor of 10, 100, or 1000.
>
> Remember the American Mars probes that failed because of a problem
> with a conflict between the English system and the metric system?
>
>
> The metric system is a French conspiracy to undermine the Americans
> and British with confusing units. It looks logical at first, and then
> you discover absurdities in the basic units.
>
> Like, anybody can understand inflation pressure in pounds per square
> inch,
> they deal with canned items that typically contain about a pound of
> whatever.
>
> You can get a general idea that an ounce is 1/16th of a pound, but
> nobody ever talks about tire inflation pressure in terms of ounces per
> square inch...
>
> But the pascal, as I recall, is the basic pressure unit of the metric
> conspiracy
> and it's approximately equal to the weight of an annoying French fly
> sitting on a postage stamp in a vacuum.
>
> Is that insane, or what?
>

Insane like 16 and 20 fluid ounces per pint, 5260 feet per 1760 yards
20 links per chain, 7 separate measuring systems in common everyday use for
parts of an inch, (not counting barleycorns), US measurements that are
different to English measurements (ounces, gallons, lbs, tons etc)
Nautical miles, yanks meauring weights in millions of pounds ...

We haven't even touched on gauge, screw threads, clothing sizes ...
<Sheesh>
From: TOG on 9 Nov 2009 07:51
On 8 Nov, 05:18, "Greg.Procter" <proc...(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> Insane like 16 and 20 fluid ounces per pint, 5260 feet per 1760 yards

*Cough* 5280 feet.

> 20 links per chain, 7 separate measuring systems in common everyday use for
> parts of an inch, (not counting barleycorns), US measurements that are
> different to English measurements (ounces, gallons, lbs, tons etc)
> Nautical miles, yanks meauring weights in millions of pounds ...

Causes us no end of hassle at work (agro-industrial stuff). As you
say, US gallons are just over 4 litres whereas Imperial are 4.54
litres, US tons are slightly smaller than metric tonnes....

I don't think that natical miles are too much of a problem, actually,
as knots are just about globally accepted as a measurement of ship
speed, aren't they?
>
> We haven't even touched on gauge, screw threads, clothing sizes ...  
> <Sheesh>

Clothing sizes: oh yes, especially shoe sizes. I'm a size 10 UK, which
is 45-46 metric, and something different in US.

Screw threads: years ago I visited a European factory for Carrier or
Thermo King (can't remember which it was now: I think TK) and was
gobsmacked to discover that all the machines were built with AF
fasteners. Not a metric bolt to be seen. But they explained that as
that was how it had always been, so it was still, and that spare parts
for the older kit were still being supplied, and so if they switched
to metric nuts and bolts, they couldn't supply after-sales service to
old units. Which made sense.
From: Hans-Christian Becker on 9 Nov 2009 07:07
In article <4b783d95-371a-4c74-96c6-9a126db54546(a)t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
TOG(a)Toil <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>say, US gallons are just over 4 litres whereas Imperial are 4.54
>litres, US tons are slightly smaller than metric tonnes....

Just _under_ 4 liters ...
BTW, I checked my calculator, and it actually lists both a "UK gallon"
and a "Canadian gallon", the difference being in the seventh digit. Oh joy.

>I don't think that natical miles are too much of a problem, actually,
>as knots are just about globally accepted as a measurement of ship
>speed, aren't they?

AFAIK, yes. Depth is another matter, being given in either fathoms or meters.


>Screw threads: years ago I visited a European factory for Carrier or
>Thermo King (can't remember which it was now: I think TK) and was
>gobsmacked to discover that all the machines were built with AF
>fasteners. Not a metric bolt to be seen. But they explained that as

I seem to recall that all petrochemical plants (and possibly chemical
plants too) in Sweden use non-SI fasteners as well.

--
Dr. Hans-Christian Becker
'96 VN750 SM5TLH KG6POK
Uppsala, Sweden
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Tim Morrow impersonating somebody ese
Next: Changing crank seals on an RD-400