Gordon L. Richard writes:
How could we change all the street and building
architecture into something metric?

In Britain, builders and architects have measured everything in meters
and millimeters since the 1970s, no matter what system of units
anyone previously working on the same building had used. Seems to cause
no problems in practice. Surely, the dimensions of a Victorian property
are not as round as a modern building where all the defining grid lines
are some multiple of 600 mm apart, but that means little compared with
the enormous simplification in mental arithmetic.

I surely do wish those early pioneers had not used the
British system of measures to start with.

The British got mostly over it (except for traffic and draft beer).

Markus

--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ || CB3 0FD, Great Britain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Call for Votes: misc.metric-system -- Interested in a new group +
+ on the introduction of the metric system? Please look at +
+ news.announce.newgroups, http://www.uvv.org/cgi-bin/getmsg/2440 or +
+ send email to for information on how +
+ cast your newsgroup creation vote. Ballot ends 25 November 2003. +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++

architecture into something metric?

In Britain, builders and architects have measured everything in meters
and millimeters since the 1970s, no matter what system of units
anyone previously working on the same building had used. Seems to cause
no problems in practice. Surely, the dimensions of a Victorian property
are not as round as a modern building where all the defining grid lines
are some multiple of 600 mm apart, but that means little compared with
the enormous simplification in mental arithmetic.

Really?

Your 600 mm is a little less than 24". Or TWO FEET.

In the US, we use feet and inches for human related measurements. The
"mental arithmetic" is much easier and less likely to result in a mistake.

The metric system was invented for political reasons having to do with
upsetting the "old order."

The "traditional" systems resulted from HUMAN needs to quantify the
environment.

That's why we measure distances in large units.

The most silly thing don't to "standardize" was to measure temperatures in
the HUMAN invironment in C rather then F.

In the HUMAN world, the temperature range for HUMAN activity ranges from 0F
to 100F. Out of that range and most people wait until the situation
improves.

The 0 to 100 range in C corresonds to freezing and then boiling water. In
the urge to be "METRIC" the silly "metric" folks forced a "non metric"
"metric" upon HUMANS. Of course, I guess it much be easily to multiply
METRIC degrees!

I surely do wish those early pioneers had not used the
British system of measures to start with.

The British got mostly over it (except for traffic and draft beer).

The first HUMAN activity in the US to "go metric" was the packaging and sale
of booze. The result was you paid a little more to get a little.

wrote in message
news
"John Gilmer" wrote:

The most silly thing don't to "standardize" was to measure temperatures
in
the HUMAN invironment in C rather then F.

In the HUMAN world, the temperature range for HUMAN activity ranges from
0F
to 100F. Out of that range and most people wait until the situation
improves.

The 0 to 100 range in C corresonds to freezing and then boiling water.
In
the urge to be "METRIC" the silly "metric" folks forced a "non metric"
"metric" upon HUMANS. Of course, I guess it much be easily to multiply
METRIC degrees!

Fahrenheit isn't based on a 0-100 comfort scale for humans.

You can say what you will but that's how it turned out.

writes:
Fahrenheit's scale was based on Ole Romer's...a Dane. Zero was colder than
any temp he had recorded. 60 was the boiling point of water. 7.5 for
freezing, and 22.5 for body temperature.

Fahrenheit multipled the scale by 4 to get rid of the fractions. And then
by 16/15. Not sure why on this. So that gave:

0 = colder than Denmark
32 = freezing point of water
96 = body temp

He ignored the boiling point of water.

Later, he came up with the idea that 0 was the temp of mixing ice, water,
and salt.

That's a new variant of the history of the Fahrenheit to me.
Do you have any references to coroborate it?

Markus

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Call for Votes: misc.metric-system -- Interested in a new group +
+ on the introduction of the metric system? Please look at +
+ news.announce.newgroups, http://www.uvv.org/cgi-bin/getmsg/2440 or +
+ send email to for information on how +
+ cast your newsgroup creation vote. Ballot ends 25 November 2003. +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++

Markus Kuhn wrote:

writes:

Fahrenheit's scale was based on Ole Romer's...a Dane. Zero was colder than
any temp he had recorded. 60 was the boiling point of water. 7.5 for
freezing, and 22.5 for body temperature.

Fahrenheit multipled the scale by 4 to get rid of the fractions. And then
by 16/15. Not sure why on this. So that gave:

0 = colder than Denmark
32 = freezing point of water
96 = body temp

He ignored the boiling point of water.

Later, he came up with the idea that 0 was the temp of mixing ice, water,
and salt.


That's a new variant of the history of the Fahrenheit to me.
Do you have any references to coroborate it?

Markus


I found one:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1317.html


--
"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and
miss."

John Gilmer wrote:


Really?

Your 600 mm is a little less than 24". Or TWO FEET.

In the US, we use feet and inches for human related measurements. The
"mental arithmetic" is much easier and less likely to result in a mistake.

The metric system was invented for political reasons having to do with
upsetting the "old order."

The "traditional" systems resulted from HUMAN needs to quantify the
environment.

That's why we measure distances in large units.

The most silly thing don't to "standardize" was to measure temperatures in
the HUMAN invironment in C rather then F.

In the HUMAN world, the temperature range for HUMAN activity ranges from 0F
to 100F. Out of that range and most people wait until the situation
improves.

The 0 to 100 range in C corresonds to freezing and then boiling water. In
the urge to be "METRIC" the silly "metric" folks forced a "non metric"
"metric" upon HUMANS. Of course, I guess it much be easily to multiply
METRIC degrees!

The first HUMAN activity in the US to "go metric" was the packaging and sale
of booze. The result was you paid a little more to get a little.




Okay, define "foot", and don't tell me 12 inches. Suppose
one had no rulers or yard sticks. How do you _precisely_
define a foot? Do you find a dead king and measure his shoe
size?

I can't imagine political reasons for metric units, but
there certainly are scientific and technical reasons.

Any update on how things are going with the vote on this newsgroup??




Op Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:15:01 +0000 schreef "Dennis M. Rodgers"
:

John Gilmer wrote:


Really?

Your 600 mm is a little less than 24". Or TWO FEET.

In the US, we use feet and inches for human related measurements. The
"mental arithmetic" is much easier and less likely to result in a mistake.

The metric system was invented for political reasons having to do with
upsetting the "old order."

The "traditional" systems resulted from HUMAN needs to quantify the
environment.

That's why we measure distances in large units.

The most silly thing don't to "standardize" was to measure temperatures in
the HUMAN invironment in C rather then F.

In the HUMAN world, the temperature range for HUMAN activity ranges from 0F
to 100F. Out of that range and most people wait until the situation
improves.

The 0 to 100 range in C corresonds to freezing and then boiling water. In
the urge to be "METRIC" the silly "metric" folks forced a "non metric"
"metric" upon HUMANS. Of course, I guess it much be easily to multiply
METRIC degrees!

The first HUMAN activity in the US to "go metric" was the packaging and sale
of booze. The result was you paid a little more to get a little.




Okay, define "foot", and don't tell me 12 inches. Suppose
one had no rulers or yard sticks. How do you _precisely_
define a foot? Do you find a dead king and measure his shoe
size?

I can't imagine political reasons for metric units, but
there certainly are scientific and technical reasons.

I remember in the 60's when we were told metric was coming and we had to get
ready. You would think that by 2003 we would have made the conversion in
the U.S. Business adopted it...reluctantly and then only to confuse us with
metric to increase profits. I don't look for it to be the accepted measure
in the next 50 years either...and to be honest I don't see the need...for
science or otherwise. A dog in English is a dog in French. If it is to
come...the responsibility rests solely on our education system.

rocketranger writes:
Any update on how things are going with the vote on this newsgroup??

The neutral vote-taker is not permitted by the Usenet Volunteer
Votetaker rules to reveal any intermediate results, therefore I can't
give you any update. In practice, about 150 people have to vote
for a new USENET group before it can be created. In September 2002,
there was already a vote on misc.metric-system, but it failed about
40 votes short of the requirement.

So if you haven't voted yet and are interested in the topic,
please do take the five minutes necessary:

The "Call for Votes" with a description of the proposed group and
exact instructions on how to vote has been posted to

news.announce.newgroups

It is also available by sending email to



and on

http://www.uvv.org/cgi-bin/getmsg/2440

Votes have to be submitted by email, formatted exactly according to
the instructions given in the "Call for Votes". Your vote has been
counted only if you receive a confirmation reply.

The ballot closes 25 November 2003.

Markus

--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ || CB3 0FD, Great Britain

Dennis M. Rodgers wrote:

John Gilmer wrote:


Really?

Your 600 mm is a little less than 24". Or TWO FEET.

In the US, we use feet and inches for human related measurements. The
"mental arithmetic" is much easier and less likely to result in a
mistake.

The metric system was invented for political reasons having to do with
upsetting the "old order."

The "traditional" systems resulted from HUMAN needs to quantify the
environment.

That's why we measure distances in large units.

The most silly thing don't to "standardize" was to measure
temperatures in
the HUMAN invironment in C rather then F.

In the HUMAN world, the temperature range for HUMAN activity ranges
from 0F
to 100F. Out of that range and most people wait until the situation
improves.

The 0 to 100 range in C corresonds to freezing and then boiling
water. In
the urge to be "METRIC" the silly "metric" folks forced a "non metric"
"metric" upon HUMANS. Of course, I guess it much be easily to multiply
METRIC degrees!

The first HUMAN activity in the US to "go metric" was the packaging
and sale
of booze. The result was you paid a little more to get a little.




Okay, define "foot", and don't tell me 12 inches. Suppose one had no
rulers or yard sticks. How do you _precisely_ define a foot? Do you
find a dead king and measure his shoe size?

I can't imagine political reasons for metric units, but there certainly
are scientific and technical reasons.

How about 30.456 centimeters. Grin.