first metric century :)

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by dailuggs, Jun 12, 2004.

  1. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

    : I was 6'00" at 13 and still am the same height. My weight,
    : however, may have altered up and down over the years.

    I grew about 2" between 18 and 22.

    Arthur (in imperial for now)

    --
    Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org "Technolibertarians make a
    philosophy out of a personality defect"
    - Paulina Borsook
     


  2. On 15 Jun 2004 14:38:29 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:42:19 +0100, James Hodson
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> A cricket pitch's length is better understood when quoted
    >> in yards rather than metres or a chain.
    >
    > Well most people say 22 yards, but 1 chain is just as
    > acceptable and very easy to understand - most people can
    > count to one.

    Yes, but the point was about understanding rather than
    measuring. I can count to one but a chain is meaningless
    unless I know it is 22 yards. I can visualise a yard and
    therefore understand 22 of them joined together. I don't
    visualise a chain as anything other than the length of a
    cricket pitch which is a bit circular (not the pitch, the
    visualisation.)

    Colin
     
  3. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Colin Blackburn wrote:

    > Yes, but the point was about understanding rather than
    > measuring. I can count to one but a chain is meaningless
    > unless I know it is 22 yards. I can visualise a yard and
    > therefore understand 22 of them joined together. I don't
    > visualise a chain as anything other than the length of a
    > cricket pitch which is a bit circular (not the pitch, the
    > visualisation.)

    I think if you can visualise a cricket pitch as the size of
    a cricket pitch then that is the most innate understanding
    of size possible. If I'm deciding if I'll fit through a
    space without bending down I gauge it in "me-size", I don't
    think if it's more than 1.73m/5'8" or not.

    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/
     
  4. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:23:08 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >It was probably 84km. Still, not a bad average.

    No, it is around 80 miles according to MapQuest.

    --
    Dave...

    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
    Mark Twain
     
  5. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Roger Hughes wrote:
    > I feel that to do the job properly you should be insisting
    > on a return to pounds, shillings and pence. Shouldn't
    > cause much difficulty in the computer age, anyway.

    Except for those of us who would have to add extra fields to
    several dozen programs, and change the way several hundred
    programs calculate costs, and test that it all works OK with
    all the relevant parameter combinations ... :-/

    At least we already have customers trading in Euros, so if
    we ever accept the Euro the conversion routines are
    already in place.

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
    reply address)
    <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who
    dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
     
  6. Roger Hughes

    Roger Hughes Guest

    Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

    > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing)
    > should be 144 miles or something like that anyway.

    Naah, that would be just gross. However, a proper century
    should be in Roman miles.
     
  7. Roger Hughes

    Roger Hughes Guest

    Danny Colyer wrote:

    > Roger Hughes wrote:
    >
    >>I feel that to do the job properly you should be insisting
    >>on a return to pounds, shillings and pence. Shouldn't
    >>cause much difficulty in the computer age, anyway.
    >
    >
    > Except for those of us who would have to add extra
    > fields to several dozen programs, and change the way
    > several hundred programs calculate costs, and test that
    > it all works OK with all the relevant parameter
    > combinations ... :-/

    Naah. You just do all the accounting in longint pennies and
    knock up a quick display formatting routine.

    > At least we already have customers trading in Euros, so if
    > we ever accept the Euro the conversion routines are
    > already in place.

    All our invoices are in euros already, bar a couple of
    sterling customers and one USD. Get paid into a sterling
    account, though.

    Cheers

    Roger
     
  8. dailuggs

    dailuggs New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Originally posted by Just Zis Guy

    >And anyway, shouldn't weight be expressed in Newtons?

    >Guy
    --


    but then everyone would be 9.81 times "bigger"!
     
  9. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> writes:

    > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing)
    > should be 144 miles or something like that anyway.

    Ugh. That's gross!

    --
    Nick Kew
     
  10. Fraggle

    Fraggle Guest

    wheelsgoround <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Alternatively check out your local branch of CTC.
    > www.ctc.org.uk. They organise loads of rides of varying
    > lengths.

    I have just joined the CTC, have not received any physical
    evidence of this yet though! I shall certainly try and go on
    some of there rides. I looked at the audax site and there
    dont seem to be many around here (NE England) especially as
    I have no transported except bike and public.
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:17:25 GMT, dailuggs
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >>And anyway, shouldn't weight be expressed in Newtons?
    >but then everyone would be 9.81 times "bigger"!

    Ah, but by being 780N instead of 80kg, I'd be fully 2.5%
    lighter than all those people who couldn't be bothered with
    the mental arithmetic and just multiplied by ten :p

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  12. Martinm

    Martinm Guest

    "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In news:[email protected], Roger Hughes
    > <[email protected]
    > translations.com> typed:
    > > the numbers themselves are not particularly important
    > > (except inasmuch as they will tend to determine
    > > psychological barriers, which is where this century (and
    > > that is entryist American cycling slang, too) thing
    > > comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or
    > > indeed, getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
    >
    > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing)
    > should be 144 miles or something like that anyway.
    >
    > A

    112 actually ;-)
     
  13. Martinm

    Martinm Guest

    "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In news:[email protected], Roger Hughes
    > <[email protected]
    > translations.com> typed:
    > > the numbers themselves are not particularly important
    > > (except inasmuch as they will tend to determine
    > > psychological barriers, which is where this century (and
    > > that is entryist American cycling slang, too) thing
    > > comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or
    > > indeed, getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
    >
    > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing)
    > should be 144 miles or something like that anyway.
    >
    > A

    112 actually after all that is what a hundredweight is.

    BTW things the US don't seem to have include yards and
    stones. I remember the back of an old log table book(when
    the revolution comes all Maths teachers should have their
    calculators taken away and have to use them for the rest of
    their lives!) which had the SI unit definitive measurements,
    something like a metre being exactly
    5.3421421424 squillion wavelengths of ultra purple light,
    and a kg was so many molecules of strontium 455.
     
  14. Martinm

    Martinm Guest

    "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In news:[email protected], Roger Hughes
    > <[email protected]
    > translations.com> typed:
    > > the numbers themselves are not particularly important
    > > (except inasmuch as they will tend to determine
    > > psychological barriers, which is where this century (and
    > > that is entryist American cycling slang, too) thing
    > > comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or
    > > indeed, getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
    >
    > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing)
    > should be 144 miles or something like that anyway.
    >
    > A

    112 actually ;-)
     
  15. Martinm

    Martinm Guest

    "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In news:[email protected], Roger Hughes
    > <[email protected]
    > translations.com> typed:
    > > the numbers themselves are not particularly important
    > > (except inasmuch as they will tend to determine
    > > psychological barriers, which is where this century (and
    > > that is entryist American cycling slang, too) thing
    > > comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or
    > > indeed, getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
    >
    > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing)
    > should be 144 miles or something like that anyway.
    >
    > A

    Also, why do we still think there are 12 hours in a day?
     
  16. Mark South

    Mark South Guest

    "MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Ambrose Nankivell"
    > <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > In news:[email protected], Roger Hughes
    > > <[email protected]
    > > translations.com> typed:
    > > > the numbers themselves are not particularly important
    > > > (except inasmuch as they will tend to determine
    > > > psychological barriers, which is where this century
    > > > (and that is entryist American cycling slang, too)
    > > > thing comes in; likewise with getting under the hour
    > > > or indeed, getting one's weight back down below 15
    > > > stone)
    > >
    > > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style
    > > thing) should be 144 miles or something like that
    > > anyway.
    > >
    > > A
    >
    > Also, why do we still think there are 12 hours in a day?

    Solar or sidereal?
    --
    Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen
     
  17. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

  18. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Arthur Clune" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Is it just me, or does anyone else associate the whole
    > "keep the mile, pound, fulongs/fornight" brigade with
    > blazers, biogitry, little englandism and supporting
    > football? (these all being bad things in my book).

    In the mid 70's I lived for a while in Manitoba (Canada)
    where miles were in use. In '77 we moved to Ontario, a nice
    drive of 1400 miles, where kilometres were already in use. I
    bought a new stick-on face (no dual faces like here in the
    UK) for the car speedo and life carried on. Weights were
    also in metric and as an aside consumer packaging was bi-
    lingual across Canada. Life carried on.<1> Some 20 years
    after returning to the UK we are still struggling to fully
    accept the metric system simply because of pussy-footing.

    No problem to me being an old git and working in
    engineering, I know that a km is approx. 0.6 miles, a
    quarter of an inch = 6.4mm, 1kg = 2.2lbs , etc. (yeah, our
    tolerances are a bit slack ;-) and that I'm 5feet 10 and a
    half inches and weigh 79kgs ;-)

    <1>Except when confusing lbs and kgs when re-fuelling
    aircraft :-(

    --
    Regards, Pete
     
  19. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Alan Holmes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Nowadays, not so fast, but about 55 years ago I was
    > cycling home from work one evening and a motorist started
    > to tail me, after a little while
    it
    > was begining to iritate me and I was just about to stop
    > and say something when he drew anlongside and shorted at
    > me that I was travelling at 30 mph, I didn't know what to
    > say as a response.

    Oh, a pissing contest! Nowadays at 50 years old I travel
    downhill on a road bike at up to 40 mph with a tail wind in
    Leicestershire and 42 mph downhill on rough tarmac roads in
    Derbyshire on an mtb. I once rode downhill at 50mph in
    Yorkshire. Speeds verified in 2 cases on 2 different bike
    computers on my bikes and in the other case with a computer
    on a friends mtb. These are easier to use at 40mph than
    working it out with a map and stopwatch.

    >
    > Have you noticed that journeys home are always faster than
    > the journey
    out?

    Only when I get the route and wind direction to work
    in unison.

    > which means I had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50
    > minutes, which was an average of (if my arithmetic is up
    > to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the bike was
    > loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and
    > clothing for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths,
    > water container, milk and etc, that wasn't a bad average,
    > especially as the trip was across the Cotswolds.

    And then the alarm clock woke you up and it was a wet Monday
    morning ;-)
    --
    Regards, Pete
     
Loading...
Loading...