Ireland's Lower Speed Limits

dkahn400

David Martin wrote:

> Or we could use the meter which is one millionth the length of the
great
> circle from the equator to the pole. Handy unit for standardising.

One ten millionth of the arc, Shirley? No wonder you find metres
awkward to work with. :-)

--
Dave...

Peter Clinch

David Martin wrote:

> The imperial system uses pretty natural bases.
>
> dozen is the number of finger carpal bones on one hand
> score is the total number of fingers and toes.
> gross is the maximum that can be counted on two hands.

Well, perhaps you can explain 14, 22, 1760, 112, for instance, all of
which are used in the Imperial measurement system. Not very natural
AFAICT. If it was consistent base 12 it would be okay, but it changes
all the time with no consistency enabling one to predict the next unit.

> inch is the length of a thumb joint.

No, it's the length of a certain king's thumb joint, which would be
considerably more than, say, the average woman of the kingdom at the
time would have measured.
Same problem with your other examples.

> Or we could use the meter which is one millionth the length of the great
> circle from the equator to the pole. Handy unit for standardising.

But the fact is we mostly visualise a meter as "about a meter", not as a
millionth of a planetary circumference. The test is can people roughly
assess measurements in metric, and they can, as they prove daily using
it for general purpose use across the world in ways no real different to
the way Imperial measures are. If they couldn't then it would be the
case that typical rough cookery done in France would be substantially
worse than in the UK, because it would be very hard to guess the
quantities as many cooks do. Compare and contrast the culinary
reputations of the UK and France...

Both systems provably work well in domestic general use, so there's no
intrinsic advantage of one over the other. But metric has clear
advantages in science and engineering and in global usage, that gives
the advantage to metric.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David Martin

On 20/1/05 4:03 pm, in article 35a30rF4jb96qU1@individual.net, "Peter
Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>
>> The imperial system uses pretty natural bases.
>>
>> dozen is the number of finger carpal bones on one hand
>> score is the total number of fingers and toes.
>> gross is the maximum that can be counted on two hands.
>
> Well, perhaps you can explain 14,

Number of gallons of wine in a barrel, a barrel being one eighth of a tun.
Not quite sure why it would be fourteen though. Weight of one standard
measure of the goods being measured, eventually standardised to 14 pounds
(and exactly one eighth of a hundredweight).
By the way, half a stone (seven pounds) is a clove.

22,
no idea, never seen that one. What is it used in (OK, number of yards in one
tenth of a furlong)?

1760,
A standardisation of the number of imperial yards in an imperial mile. The
original devinition of a mile was a thousand roman paces, a pace being 5
feet. In order to bring this into line with the measurements used for short
distances (furlong and pole (eight furlongs tot he mile, twenty poles to
the furlong) a bit of adjustment to the roman mile was used.

A furlong is the length of furrow a horse could plough in one hour.

A pole is half the length of a cricket wicket.

112 the magic number 14 raises its head again. eight stone exactly in
pounds.. and exactly one 20th of a ton. Don't confuse cwt with Cwt. The
first is leftpondian and is 100 pounds, the second is European (yes, not
just british) and is 112 pounds.

The definition of a hundred could be anywhere from 100 (short hundred) to
120 (great or long hundred) For fish, the actual number in a hundred varied
with the species. (theres something fishy about his accounting).

A hundred was also about 18 and a bit square miles.

...d


> which are used in the Imperial measurement system. Not very natural
> AFAICT. If it was consistent base 12 it would be okay, but it changes
> all the time with no consistency enabling one to predict the next unit.
>
>> inch is the length of a thumb joint.
>
> No, it's the length of a certain king's thumb joint, which would be
> considerably more than, say, the average woman of the kingdom at the
> time would have measured.
> Same problem with your other examples.
>
>> Or we could use the meter which is one millionth the length of the great
>> circle from the equator to the pole. Handy unit for standardising.
>
> But the fact is we mostly visualise a meter as "about a meter", not as a
> millionth of a planetary circumference. The test is can people roughly
> assess measurements in metric, and they can, as they prove daily using
> it for general purpose use across the world in ways no real different to
> the way Imperial measures are. If they couldn't then it would be the
> case that typical rough cookery done in France would be substantially
> worse than in the UK, because it would be very hard to guess the
> quantities as many cooks do. Compare and contrast the culinary
> reputations of the UK and France...
>
> Both systems provably work well in domestic general use, so there's no
> intrinsic advantage of one over the other. But metric has clear
> advantages in science and engineering and in global usage, that gives
> the advantage to metric.
>
> Pete.

Peter Clinch

David Martin wrote:

> Number of gallons of wine in a barrel,

I don't mean tell me what it's used for, I mean show me how it's a
"natural base".

> 22,
> no idea, never seen that one. What is it used in (OK, number of yards in one
> tenth of a furlong)?

Yards in a chain.

> 1760,
> A standardisation of the number of imperial yards in an imperial mile.

But is it a "natural base". I personally have always found it bloody
awkward to work with.

> 112 the magic number 14 raises its head again.

And it still isn't a "natural base"!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Clive George

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:35a30rF4jb96qU1@individual.net...

> (David Martin wrote
> > Or we could use the meter which is one millionth the length of the great
> > circle from the equator to the pole. Handy unit for standardising.
>
> But the fact is we mostly visualise a meter as "about a meter", not as a
> millionth of a planetary circumference.

Mister, mister, can I complain about both of you trying to misuse measuring
devices? After all we are distinguishing between the two sides of the pond
in the rest of the discussion.

cheers,
clive

David Martin

On 20/1/05 4:34 pm, in article 35a4r4F4je1l5U1@individual.net, "Peter
Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>
>> Number of gallons of wine in a barrel,
>
> I don't mean tell me what it's used for, I mean show me how it's a
> "natural base".

Seven would be the natural base. Seven being the number of round objects of
equal diameter that can easily be grouped in a bundle without rearranging
themselves.

>> 22,
>> no idea, never seen that one. What is it used in (OK, number of yards in one
>> tenth of a furlong)?
>
> Yards in a chain.
four poles to a chain... thats OK then.
It isn't a natural base. It is a conversion factor.

>
>> 1760,
>> A standardisation of the number of imperial yards in an imperial mile.
>
> But is it a "natural base". I personally have always found it bloody
> awkward to work with.
Does it have a natural base? No, it is a conversion factor. Miles are more
commonly split into furlongs and poles.

>
>> 112 the magic number 14 raises its head again.
>
> And it still isn't a "natural base"!

A ton is a ton. divide it up enough by 2 (a natural base) and you get back
to seven (see above)

...d

Peter Clinch

David Martin wrote:

> Seven would be the natural base. Seven being the number of round objects of
> equal diameter that can easily be grouped in a bundle without rearranging
> themselves.

Or the amount of straws being clutched at? It is an awkward number to
count with if your usual number bases are 10 and/or 12.

> Does it have a natural base? No, it is a conversion factor. Miles are more
> commonly split into furlongs and poles.

Ah yes, I often see something like "Car Park, 1 furlong and a pole"... ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David Martin

On 20/1/05 4:54 pm, in article 35a60mF4i7fv7U2@individual.net, "Peter
Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>
>> Seven would be the natural base. Seven being the number of round objects of
>> equal diameter that can easily be grouped in a bundle without rearranging
>> themselves.
>
> Or the amount of straws being clutched at? It is an awkward number to
> count with if your usual number bases are 10 and/or 12.
That depends on what you are used to then.. You were asking for a 'natural
base' and that provides one.

>
>> Does it have a natural base? No, it is a conversion factor. Miles are more
>> commonly split into furlongs and poles.
>
> Ah yes, I often see something like "Car Park, 1 furlong and a pole"... ;-)

Or, more likely, Car park, 240 yards->

Of course we always see 'Car park 1897m ->' with no specification of which
part of the car park...

I will admit to having noticed a remarkable degree of precision in the
signposts in Dundee, with figures quoted to the nearest metre.

...d

Dave Larrington

David Martin wrote:

> Of course we always see 'Car park 1897m ->' with no specification of
> which part of the car park...

Possibly in the tribal lands north of Hadrian's Wall but down here in the
Green and Pleasant Southland(tm) it is /illegal/ to use metric measurements
on signs. IIRC a resort in Devon put up signs saying "Car Park 200 m" and
similar, before some tragic waste of blood ordained their replacement with
"Car Park 218 yds".

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

dkahn400

Dave Larrington wrote:

> IIRC a resort in Devon put up signs saying "Car Park 200 m" and
> similar, before some tragic waste of blood ordained their replacement
with
> "Car Park 218 yds".

God, I love this country. :-)

--
Dave...

David Martin

David Martin wrote:
> On 20/1/05 4:54 pm, in article 35a60mF4i7fv7U2@individual.net, "Peter
> Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>David Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Seven would be the natural base. Seven being the number of round objects of
>>>equal diameter that can easily be grouped in a bundle without rearranging
>>>themselves.
>>
>>Or the amount of straws being clutched at? It is an awkward number to
>>count with if your usual number bases are 10 and/or 12.
>
> That depends on what you are used to then.. You were asking for a 'natural
> base' and that provides one.

I did of couse miss the obvious natural source of seven/fourteen. So
obvious infact that the only reason I didn't see it was because
something else had clouded my judgement. Anyway, I'll stop making weak
puns before you all accuse me of talking moonshine.

Badger

Dave Larrington wrote:
> Possibly in the tribal lands north of Hadrian's Wall but down here in the
> Green and Pleasant Southland(tm) it is /illegal/ to use metric measurements
> on signs. IIRC a resort in Devon put up signs saying "Car Park 200 m" and
> similar, before some tragic waste of blood ordained their replacement with
> "Car Park 218 yds".
>
Imperial yards or Megalithic Yards ?

Peter Clinch

Dave Larrington wrote:

> Possibly in the tribal lands north of Hadrian's Wall but down here in the
> Green and Pleasant Southland(tm) it is /illegal/ to use metric measurements
> on signs. IIRC a resort in Devon put up signs saying "Car Park 200 m" and
> similar, before some tragic waste of blood ordained their replacement with
> "Car Park 218 yds".

This pretty much makes my point that we'd be better off with one, single
system. Metric is proven as just as utilitarian as Imperial, despite
lacking natural bases or whatever, and since it is standard over most of
the world and in science and engineering, that's the one to keep.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Colin Blackburn

David Martin wrote:

> I will admit to having noticed a remarkable degree of precision in the
> signposts in Dundee, with figures quoted to the nearest metre.

We have a road sign near us that warns of the road narrowing in 83 metres.

Colin