P
Peter Clinch
Guest
James Hodson wrote:
>
> Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly
> measured in imperial units whereas others make more sense
> when metric is used.
>
> Imperial works well for human measurements of height and
> weight. In my case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense
> than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.
Sorry James, but I fail to see why "12.5" is intrinsically
easier to get to grips with than "80". And how is 5'8 1/4"
easier intrinsically easier to work with than 1.73m?
> Sometimes neither work particularly well: horses racing on
> their shorter courses are best measured in furlongs rather
> than by metres or multiples of 220 yards. Jet aircraft
> thrusts work better in both tons or tonnes rather than
> pounds or kilogrammes.
Though the Kg is the base /ISO/ unit of mass, a tonne is a
metric unit (1000 Kg or 1 Mg), so measuring jet thrust in
tonnes is perfectly acceptable if you want to use metric. I
don't see 200m is a difficult sort of number to get to grips
with. Races are run in furlongs because of tradition,
there's nothing peculiar to horse anatomy that you couldn't
measure courses in 200m chunks and not really affect the
racing, or perhaps you find the guinea is an intrinsically
easier unit of currency than the pound or euro if you happen
to be buying a horse?
> Lowish altitudes are better measured in feet too. A
> cricket pitch's length is better understood when quoted in
> yards rather than metres or a chain.
The Dutch don't have highish altitudes and manage okay in
meters. A cricket pitch is defined in yards, but I'm sure
the amount of people who actually mark them out could adjust
easily enough: there aren't /that/ many of them. Cricket is
actually played in places where yards aren't commonly used,
yet they still manage to mark out the pitches and play.
All the examples you've given of where non-metric is
"better" are actually cases of familiarity rather than
superiority. You're happier saying 12.5 stone, but OTOH
someone from continental Europe will be happier saying 80
Kg. Neither is easier, they are both acceptably easy if you
work with them. And same for the others. I have to work with
both, so I do. I'd prefer to work with just 1.
> To be honest, I guess it really depends on when and
> where one was brought up and also on ones predilection
> for the modern versus the older. A case of "if it ain't
> bust ... ".
But it /is/ bust. If I tell a German I weigh 12.5 stone
they don't have a clue what I'm talking about (in fact an
American wouldn't know what I was talking about!). Why
would I want to? Well, my bike is German, and I may want to
talk about it with the manufacturer. If you're only happy
in imperial units you're pretty much snookered if you turn
up at a builders' merchants these days. They don't do Cw
bags any more.
> The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must
> convert completely to metric are simply opposite sides of
> the same coin.
Not really. One is realising we're in a backward minority
and would be better in the broader picture not to be and one
is clinging to the fact as if it's something to be proud of.
With increasing globalisation we're not doing ourselves any
favours clinging to a system that is used less and less.
> Let's hear it for parsec.
There are good reasons to use parallax seconds of arc if
you're an astronomer. Or AU, or Light Years. Not so much for
making stuff for export to the countries next door.
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
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>
> Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly
> measured in imperial units whereas others make more sense
> when metric is used.
>
> Imperial works well for human measurements of height and
> weight. In my case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense
> than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.
Sorry James, but I fail to see why "12.5" is intrinsically
easier to get to grips with than "80". And how is 5'8 1/4"
easier intrinsically easier to work with than 1.73m?
> Sometimes neither work particularly well: horses racing on
> their shorter courses are best measured in furlongs rather
> than by metres or multiples of 220 yards. Jet aircraft
> thrusts work better in both tons or tonnes rather than
> pounds or kilogrammes.
Though the Kg is the base /ISO/ unit of mass, a tonne is a
metric unit (1000 Kg or 1 Mg), so measuring jet thrust in
tonnes is perfectly acceptable if you want to use metric. I
don't see 200m is a difficult sort of number to get to grips
with. Races are run in furlongs because of tradition,
there's nothing peculiar to horse anatomy that you couldn't
measure courses in 200m chunks and not really affect the
racing, or perhaps you find the guinea is an intrinsically
easier unit of currency than the pound or euro if you happen
to be buying a horse?
> Lowish altitudes are better measured in feet too. A
> cricket pitch's length is better understood when quoted in
> yards rather than metres or a chain.
The Dutch don't have highish altitudes and manage okay in
meters. A cricket pitch is defined in yards, but I'm sure
the amount of people who actually mark them out could adjust
easily enough: there aren't /that/ many of them. Cricket is
actually played in places where yards aren't commonly used,
yet they still manage to mark out the pitches and play.
All the examples you've given of where non-metric is
"better" are actually cases of familiarity rather than
superiority. You're happier saying 12.5 stone, but OTOH
someone from continental Europe will be happier saying 80
Kg. Neither is easier, they are both acceptably easy if you
work with them. And same for the others. I have to work with
both, so I do. I'd prefer to work with just 1.
> To be honest, I guess it really depends on when and
> where one was brought up and also on ones predilection
> for the modern versus the older. A case of "if it ain't
> bust ... ".
But it /is/ bust. If I tell a German I weigh 12.5 stone
they don't have a clue what I'm talking about (in fact an
American wouldn't know what I was talking about!). Why
would I want to? Well, my bike is German, and I may want to
talk about it with the manufacturer. If you're only happy
in imperial units you're pretty much snookered if you turn
up at a builders' merchants these days. They don't do Cw
bags any more.
> The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must
> convert completely to metric are simply opposite sides of
> the same coin.
Not really. One is realising we're in a backward minority
and would be better in the broader picture not to be and one
is clinging to the fact as if it's something to be proud of.
With increasing globalisation we're not doing ourselves any
favours clinging to a system that is used less and less.
> Let's hear it for parsec.
There are good reasons to use parallax seconds of arc if
you're an astronomer. Or AU, or Light Years. Not so much for
making stuff for export to the countries next door.
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
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
