Date:         Mon, 13 May 2002 03:38:56 -0400
Reply-To:     David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Re: Warning!!!  Check Your Speedometer - What a Sad, Sad Example
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 10:39 PM 5/12/2002, Marshall wrote:
>On this one, you're just flat-out wrong. Sorry, but you are.
>
>Metric is far easier to work with than English measure.

Agree with reservations.  Staying within one type of measurement, length
for example -- it's the decimal part that makes it easy, not the size of
the unit.  The inch happens to be a very convenient unit for machine work,
much more convenient than the mm.  Lathes work conveniently to about .001"
(a "thou") accuracy, grinding machines to about .0001(a "tenth").  This is
coincidence, but a convenient one.  The mm is either too large or too small
to fit in conveniently.


>The English system of weight, distance, energy measure - and a host of other
>catagories - are all inconsistent and it's just pure lunacy to use them when
>there's a much better alternative.

And then there are things like the nautical mile which were invented
specifically to make calculation easy -- it's one minute of longitude at
the equator, hence in practical terms one minute of latitude
everywhere.  It's also very close to 2,000 yards which is nice in English
usage.  What would make it easier would be to base it on one-hundredth of a
degree instead of one-sixtieth...but shifting to meters would make things
much harder.  If we change the way we measure arcs, the nautical mile would
have to follow.

david


--
David Beierl - Providence, RI
  http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'84 Westy "Dutiful Passage"
'85 GL "Poor Relation"