# Forum Home Renovation General Odds & Sods  I hate Newton and Pascal

## Marc

After thousands of years of absurd conventions like the distance from the nose to the thumb of some moron being used for measuring, we finally invented the metric system. 
Everything is divisible by 10,100,1000, nice and easy.
What do we do? We invent the newton and the pascal units, and frown upon the very practical and easy to work with Kg force per square centimeter. In case you wonder, one pascal is the pressure exercised by one dollar bill laying flat on a surface.
Brilliant, human stupidity has no limits.
Even better in OZ we don't know what centimeters are.

----------


## plum

> After thousands of years of absurd conventions like the distance from the nose to the thumb of some moron being used for measuring, we finally invented the metric system. 
> Everything is divisible by 10,100,1000, nice and easy.
> What do we do? We invent the newton and the pascal units, and frown upon the very practical and easy to work with Kg force per square centimeter. In case you wonder, one pascal is the pressure exercised by one dollar bill laying flat on a surface.
> Brilliant, human stupidity has no limits.
> Even better in OZ we don't know what centimeters are.

  
I'm with you, I haven't a clue what 'centimeters' are.

----------


## OBBob

> ... What do we do? We invent the newton and the pascal ...

  Think they were around first.  :Wink:  
What brought this on ... did you over inflate a tyre again?

----------


## woodbe

> I'm with you, I haven't a clue what 'centimeters' are.

  Aren't they those little worms with a hundred legs?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

Yea yea, meter or metre are both perfectly acceptable spellings.  
When Mr Newton and Mr Pascal lived a while ago, it was our own idiocy that adopted this units to replace Kg/cm2 
A unit of pressure that uses two perfectly metric units, the kilo force and a square centimeter for something arbitrary like 9.80665 kilo force per square meter. So useless that it needs to be multiplied by a thousand just to make it usable and can not be converted without a calculator. Brilliant! 
We may as well adopt the average colon gas pressure of the prince of Luxembourg as universal unit. What would we call it? The Luxecolon? 
Of course the metric system is another convention, what is a meter or metre if you prefer? some piece of junk in paris, supposedly a fraction of the circumference of the earth. That in itself does not matter, units have to be practical, represent an amount that is usable as unit and not as a multiple or a fraction for everyday use, and most important of all, easy to use for calculations. When was the last time you measured something in Pascal? May as well measure your land in millimeters or your truck load in grams.
That is what makes the metric system so good. Anyone can multiply by 10 or 100 or 1000 without a calculator. 
Anyone can imagine a kg force on 10mmx10mm it's not hard at all. Now think of 9.8etc kilos on a square meter ...  :Doh:

----------


## Pulse

The Newton is defined as F=ma , Newton 's second law. It is equivalent to kg.m/s/s. 
The problem arises because gravity causes objects to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s. 
So unless you want to change gravity you are stuck. A pascal is just 1N per square metre, which also seems pretty logical I reckon.  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Jon

I agree with Pulse, we should have metric gravity.

----------


## Marc

> The Newton is defined as F=ma , Newton 's second law. It is equivalent to kg.m/s/s. 
> The problem arises because gravity causes objects to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s.
> So unless you want to change gravity you are stuck. A pascal is just 1N per square metre, which also seems pretty logical I reckon.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  You are missing the point. The origin of the unit is irrelevant. If we have a metric system why do we have a unit of force that is not metric just because g measured in good ol metric, happens to be 9.8m/s2 ? Irrelevant!
May as well use the mass of the earth dividied by 5.972 and a few more zeros or the pressure in the intestine of some celebrity, makes no difference. g will stay always a 9.8m/s2 no one will ever question it. Units must be practical not historical, may as well go back to stones, pounds and the rest of the nonsense.  
This is what we had in the metric system: A *kilogram-force per square centimetre* (kgf/cm2), often just *kilogram per square centimetre* (kg/cm2), or *kilopond per square centimetre*is a unit of pressure using metric units. Its use is now deprecated; it is not a part of the International System of Units (SI), the modern metric system. Still, kg/cm2 remains active as a measurement of force primarily due to older torque measurement devices still in use. In SI units, the unit is converted to the SI derived unit pascal (Pa), which is defined as one newton per square metre (N/m2). A newton is equal to a kg·m/s2, and a kilogram-force is 9.80665 newtons,[1] meaning that 1 kgf/cm2 equals 98.0665 kilopascals. In some older publications, *kilogram-force per square centimetre* is abbreviated *ksc* instead of *kg/cm2*.
This is what we are stuck with now for no practical reason whatsoever: 1 N is the force of Earth's gravity on a mass of about 102 g = (1⁄9.81 kg).On Earth's surface, a mass of 1 kg exerts a force of approximately 9.81 N [down] (or 1.0 kilogram-force; 1 kgf = 9.80665 N by definition). The approximation of 1 kgf corresponding to 10 N (1 decanewton or daN) is sometimes used as an approximation in everyday life and in engineering.The force of Earth's gravity on (= the weight of) a human being with a mass of 70 kg is approximately 686 N. 
Brilliant! makes life so much easier, particularly with all those "approximate" 
Delenda est Pascal !

----------


## Marc

> I agree with Pulse, we should have metric gravity.

  We do, g=9.8m/s2 ... METRIC

----------


## OBBob

But metric is local (or country specific), the others are 'SI' international.

----------


## UseByDate

> Even better in OZ we don't know what centimeters are.

  I do. :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> Yea yea, meter or metre are both perfectly acceptable spellings.

  Not legally.
 The SI system does allow “local” spelling of the SI units *if it is sanctioned by the government.*
 In the USA it is legal to use both spellings of metre/meter ie English and German because they have legislation allowing it. They tend to use the German spelling for local contracts and the English spelling for international contracts. To my knowledge the Australian government has not legislated to permit the use of the German spelling in legal contracts. Why would it? It costs money to legislate and it unnecessarily complicates an international standard.

----------


## Uncle Bob

All makes sense after watching this. If you don't know your shatments from twips best you watch this  :Smilie:

----------


## Random Username

We need to measure things in Planck length - there'd be no hair splitting to be done, then!! (at less than Planck length, you can't split hairs - or anything else, for that matter!)

----------


## intertd6

Then they would have to change the system again, in building & engineering everything revolves around N, Kn, Pa & Mpa.
I occasionally will convert pressures to kg/cm2 for formwork to work out how much load is being loaded onto pegs & such.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

Yes Inter, my point is that we had a perfectly user friendly metric pressure unit up to the seventies. Then someone thought we should use units like newton and pascal that had always existed in the lab but... the main point, are not metric!

----------


## Marc

> All makes sense after watching this. If you don't know your shatments from twips best you watch this

  Well, I agree completely, imperial sucks, yet we still use, some of it anyway. We get used to it like calculating speed in knots and let your brain unscramble it back to km/h. If you grew up with metric for everything, but for anything timber or nautical like I did, then you learn to hate stupid, inconsistent, unnecessary, impractical, moronic units like pascal. I challenge anyone to tell me the practicality of ONE Pascal. Yes, a unit must be usable as a unit not a million of it just one, like one metre is good for something one centimetre is good for something, on millimeter is good for something. One Pascal is good for what? NOTHING!

----------


## chalkyt

What's wrong with the good old imperial "furlongs per fortnight" we used with horses before we had motor cars and bicycles?

----------


## UseByDate

> What's wrong with the good old imperial "furlongs per fortnight" we used with horses before we had motor cars and bicycles?

  Furlongs per fortnight.
 I think you need a good knacker. :brava:

----------


## terminal_stance

Got to say that the most stupid measure in metric is the Sydharb (approx volume of sydney harbour). 
Imagine having to explain 'sorry ma'am you've got a 1/4 of a sydharb blocked up in your toilet' though that would also be a massive toilet...

----------


## Random Username

Interestingly, the Sydharb is also an imperial measure...

----------


## r3nov8or

> Interestingly, the Sydharb is also an imperial measure...

  I'd never heard of it til now, and immediately wished I never had...

----------


## intertd6

> Yes Inter, my point is that we had a perfectly user friendly metric pressure unit up to the seventies. Then someone thought we should use units like newton and pascal that had always existed in the lab but... the main point, are not metric!

  I was of the understanding that N & Pa are of the metric system, gravity is the one that doesn't fit neatly into the equation, most engineers just round up to 10m/s2 for a slightly added safety factor & a simpler calculation.
regards inter

----------


## UseByDate

There are many “metric” measurement systems (Using the definition of metric to mean based on  metre, kg, second units).  Gravitational metric systemMetric systemCentimetre-gram-second systemMetre-tonne-second systemSI 
 Only the SI system uses the Newton for force and Pascal for pressure.  Gravitational metric system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
 Take a look at all the mass, force and pressure units. 
There is another "metric" system not shown in the table which I used in the 1960s. The metre-kg-second system. I cannot remember what the force and pressure units are.

----------


## DuckCommander

??
Because G is not a nice round number you're ranting?
Should we make G = 10, speed of light = 100,000,000 so we can add a million constants to complicate all of the 'simple' laws of our universe? That's what your argument appears to be pointing at. Which is a bit outrageous? What we have is a great base unit system which intelligently interprets the universe around us. It makes perfect sense.
To me it's like saying lets rearrange the periodic table from the sheer brilliance it is to a alphabetical order type setup.

----------


## UseByDate

> ??
> Because G is not a nice round number you're ranting?

  You will have to be more specific. Who do believe is ranting?

----------


## UseByDate

> ?? 
> Should we make G = 10, speed of light = 100,000,000 so we can add a million constants to complicate all of the 'simple' laws of our universe?

  We can make g=10 metres/s/s by simply adjusting either the length of the metre or the period of a second. The length a metre is arbitrary. We can change it if we choose.* g is set by nature but the units that quantify it are set by man.*
 Of course it is not practical to change the length of a metre or the period of a second because it would affect many of the other units. But we could do it if we choose. Why would we need " million constants to complicate all of the 'simple' laws of our universe"?

----------


## DuckCommander

As for your previous post read the OP...?
You've answered your own question in the second post. So what are you trying to say? You say it would affect many other units and then don't foresee the difficulties in that?  Fact is the system is simple and works. The argument to change our measuring stick to make one measure a nice number while causing chaos with every other measure currently known to man is ridiculous. But yes you are right in saying we could change it if we wanted to...

----------


## UseByDate

> You've answered your own question in the second post. So what are you trying to say? You say it would affect many other units and then don't foresee the difficulties in that?  Fact is the system is simple and works. The argument to change our measuring stick to make one measure a nice number while causing chaos with every other measure currently known to man is ridiculous. But yes you are right in saying we could change it if we wanted to...

  To simplify.
 Yes it could be done but it is not practical to do it.
 I believe that new ideas should not be ridiculed, but should be argued on merit. You still have not answered why we would need millions of constants if we did it.

----------


## DuckCommander

Are you kidding mate? Obviously you're in a different field than me and quite frankly if you don't grasp the concept I'm not wasting any more of my time.

----------


## Jon

I think this whole thread is a wind up. No need to get upset.

----------


## UseByDate

> Are you kidding mate? Obviously you're in a different field than me and quite frankly if you don't grasp the concept I'm not wasting any more of my time.

   You made the claim that if we change the units of our measuring system then “we need to add  a million constants to complicate all of the 'simple' laws of our universe? “
 I ask why we would need to, and then you run away.
 If you make a claim and are “called to justify it” why not argue for your claim or simply withdraw it?

----------


## UseByDate

> You are missing the point. The origin of the unit is irrelevant. If we have a metric system why do we have a unit of force that is not metric just because g measured in good ol metric, happens to be 9.8m/s2 ? Irrelevant!

  The unit of force in the SI metric system (Newton) is defined as the force that is necessary to accelerate a *one* kilogram mass *one* metre/s/s. All units used are SI metric base units. What has “g” got to do with it?  *We do have a unit of force that is SI metric.* 
 1 N = 1 kg⋅m/s2

----------


## OBBob

> I think this whole thread is a wind up. No need to get upset.

  Yup ... but I think it's still in its infancy ... this thread will go all year I reckon.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Not this again....    :Rofl:

----------


## Jon

What about metric time ?

----------


## OBBob

> What about metric time ?

  Kiloseconds, milliseconds ...

----------


## UseByDate

> What about metric time ?

  Metric time or Decimal time? Decimal time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Jon

> Metric time or Decimal time? Decimal time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Yes, that is perfect.  All the rules have already been worked out.
The metric system is a generally a base 10 system so it makes sense to include decimal time.

----------


## FrodoOne

> Even better in OZ we don't know what centimeters are.

  We do, BUT we don't need to. - see http://www.metricationmatters.com/do...illimetres.pdf and http://metricationmatters.com/docs/M...tionInADay.pdf 
(I particularly like this quote from the first reference above : -
It's hard to know how long a metric transition using centimetres will take as no one has completed one yet. Suffice to say that 38 years is too short (1970 till 2008) in Australia and a better estimate might be 100 to 200 years with ongoing annual expenses of say 10% of gross turnover per year.  For the latter estimate, I choose the nation of France as an example where they are still struggling with the confusion and expense (in both training and practice) of having two decimal points in building drawing numbers; an example is a building dimension of 1200 millimetres as 1.20.0 meaning 1 metre 20 centimetres and 0 millimetres.)  
From Standards Association of Australia "Metric Handbook, Metric Conversion in Building and Construction" 1972 : -
"The metric units for linear measurement in building and construction will be the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), with the kilometre (km) being used where required.  This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the centimetre (cm) shall not be used.  the centimetre should not be used in any calculation and it should never be written down.  
As a result, (from http://themetricmaven.com/wp-content...2013-06-24.pdf  Page 34) "The building industry was the first major industry grouping in Australia to complete its change to metric. This was achieved within two years by January 1976 for all new buildings other than those for which design had commenced well before metrication began."

----------


## UseByDate

> We do, BUT we don't need to. - see http://www.metricationmatters.com/do...illimetres.pdf and http://metricationmatters.com/docs/M...tionInADay.pdf 
> (I particularly like this quote from the first reference above : -
> It's hard to know how long a metric transition using centimetres will take as no one has completed one yet. Suffice to say that 38 years is too short (1970 till 2008) in Australia and a better estimate might be 100 to 200 years with ongoing annual expenses of say 10% of gross turnover per year.  For the latter estimate, I choose the nation of France as an example where they are still struggling with the confusion and expense (in both training and practice) of having two decimal points in building drawing numbers; an example is a building dimension of 1200 millimetres as 1.20.0 meaning 1 metre 20 centimetres and 0 millimetres.)  
> From Standards Association of Australia "Metric Handbook, Metric Conversion in Building and Construction" 1972 : -
> "The metric units for linear measurement in building and construction will be the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), with the kilometre (km) being used where required.  This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the centimetre (cm) shall not be used.  the centimetre should not be used in any calculation and it should never be written down.  
> As a result, (from http://themetricmaven.com/wp-content...2013-06-24.pdf  Page 34) "The building industry was the first major industry grouping in Australia to complete its change to metric. This was achieved within two years by January 1976 for all new buildings other than those for which design had commenced well before metrication began."

  Some people may not use the word centimetre (I do) but we certainly use centimetres. All my tape measures are marked in millimetres, centimetres and metres. The centimetres are labelled 1 through 10. The centimetres are then labelled 1 through 9 to the 20 centimetre mark. This is repeated through 30,40,50,60,70,80,90 centimetre labels to the 1 metre mark (which is labelled 100 centimetres).
 A rule marked only in millimetres and metres would be practically useless. We do need centimetres.

----------


## plum

Centimetres are for dress makers

----------


## r3nov8or

Centimetres are used by carpet layers

----------


## FrodoOne

> Some people may not use the word centimetre (I do) but we certainly use centimetres. All my tape measures are marked in millimetres, centimetres and metres. The centimetres are labelled 1 through 10. The centimetres are then labelled 1 through 9 to the 20 centimetre mark. This is repeated through 30,40,50,60,70,80,90 centimetre labels to the 1 metre mark (which is labelled 100 centimetres).
>  A rule marked only in millimetres and metres would be practically useless. We do need centimetres.

  Many, if not most, tape measures  sold in Australia for building construction purposes ARE marked in Millimitres only, as (by inference) required by the references which I cited. 
Nobody in any Australian Building Industry has any need of Centimetres. 
As I pointed out in my previous posting, the use of Centimetres was (effectively) banned by the _Standards Association of Australia "Metric Handbook, Metric Conversion in Building and Construction" 1972, wherein it was stated_  "The metric units for linear measurement in building and construction will be the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), with the kilometre (km) being used where required. This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the centimetre (cm) shall not be used.  the centimetre should not be used in any calculation and it should never be written down.   If you have tape measures marked in Centimetres, I commiserate with  you.   I do suggest that you get new ones - suitable for Australian building construction use. 
For example, if you look up "Stanley 33-829" you will find  the "STANLEY 33-829 10M FATMAX TAPE MEASURE", marked in Millimetres ONLY (No Centimetres).  This is sold in Australia but is made in the USA.
This item is NOT available for sale in North America and cannot be found in the Stanley On-line U.S. Catalog or anywhere else in the world, probably because most countries have not "woken up" to the fact that Centimetres are un-necessary.  
OK.  Australia may be the only country which is "in step", but the use of Millimetres makes things so much easier that I doubt that many on this site have considered using any other dimensions.
For proof of this, just look at other discussions on the "Renovate Forum" and see where Millimetres have been preferred and the use of Centimetres has been "jumped on", by others.

----------


## FrodoOne

> Centimetres are for dress makers

   And that is their problem.  See http://www.metricationmatters.com/do...illimetres.pdf

----------


## FrodoOne

> Centimetres are used by carpet layers

  And that is their problem. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/do...illimetres.pdf 
Would you like your carpet to be stretched/fited to the nearest Centimetre.  (It probably doesn't matter, since a carpet will stretch).
However, would you like a tiler (or a floor layer of any other description) to work to such imprecise levels as a Centimetere and then (possibly) 10ths of a Centimetre (if he/she/it can work it out?) 
Would it not be better to start with "millimetre" precision - as is virtually mandated in the Australian building industry.

----------


## goldie1

Are Olympic swimming pools metric or imperial

----------


## r3nov8or

> Would you like your carpet to be stretched/fited to the nearest Centimetre.  (It probably doesn't matter, since a carpet will stretch).

   Yes. I would. That's exactly how it works.

----------


## phild01

No for cm.

----------


## Jon

> Are Olympic swimming pools metric or imperial

  That sounds like an episode of "The Games".
"So is there a problem that the 100m  running track is only 95m?"

----------


## FrodoOne

> Are Olympic swimming pools metric or imperial

   Yes. 
(See "Boolean Logic" 
You MUST ask the right question to get the right answer.)

----------


## FrodoOne

_Would you like your carpet to be stretched/fited to the nearest Centimetre. (It probably doesn't matter, since a carpet will stretch)._  

> Yes. I would. That's exactly how it works.

  _
However, wood, tiles and most other flooring materials do not stretch - or compress (much)!_

----------


## r3nov8or

> Yes. 
> (See "Boolean Logic" 
> You MUST ask the right question to get the right answer.)

  I'm a bit rusty on my Boolean, but I believe the answer, in Boolean,  is TRUE, not Yes.

----------


## r3nov8or

> _Would you like your carpet to be stretched/fited to the nearest Centimetre. (It probably doesn't matter, since a carpet will stretch)._  _
> However, wood, tiles and most other flooring materials do not stretch - or compress (much)!_

   I only mentioned carpet.

----------


## FrodoOne

> I'm a bit rusty on my Boolean, but I believe the answer, in Boolean,  is TRUE, not Yes.

  Actually, the TRUE/FALSE answer works (in English) only if the question is posed in terms such as 
"IF "An Olympic Swimming Pool is Metric" OR "An Olympic Swimming Pool is Imperial"" THEN (the answer is) TRUE, ELSE (the answer is)  FALSE. 
In "normal" English speaking activities, I can be just as annoying when answering the question "Do you want tea or coffee" by giving the (Boolean) answer of "Yes" - instead of "TRUE". 
The question "_Are Olympic swimming pools metric or imperial"_ does not state its parameters accurately. Presumably, the question should be "Are Olympic swimming pools measured by metric units or by imperial units".  I think that we all know the answer to this question, although one could take the trouble to convert the metric units involved to imperial measurements and then build such a pool to these dimensions.

----------


## goldie1

> Actually, the TRUE/FALSE answer works (in English) only if the question is posed in terms such as 
> "IF "An Olympic Swimming Pool is Metric" OR "An Olympic Swimming Pool is Imperial"" THEN (the answer is) TRUE, ELSE (the answer is)  FALSE. 
> In "normal" English speaking activities, I can be just as annoying when answering the question "Do you want tea or coffee" by giving the (Boolean) answer of "Yes" - instead of "TRUE". 
> The question "_Are Olympic swimming pools metric or imperial"_ does not state its parameters accurately. Presumably, the question should be "Are Olympic swimming pools measured by metric units or by imperial units".  I think that we all know the answer to this question, although one could take the trouble to convert the metric units involved to imperial measurements and then build such a pool to these dimensions.

  Olympic swimming pools are a unit of measurement as in when a dam overflows. 
"Enough water has flowed over the spillway to fill 4000 Olympic swimming pools"  
Would this water be imperial or metric

----------


## Jon

> Olympic swimming pools are a unit of measurement as in when a dam overflows. 
> "Enough water has flowed over the spillway to fill 4000 Olympic swimming pools"  
> Would this water be imperial or metric

  We probably all agree that an Olympic swimming pool is 50m long and is 25m wide but how deep is this arbitrary unit of measurement?

----------


## terminal_stance

Think we could solve this water flowed over the spillway question if there was some sort of Sydharb measurement. It seems on fit both imperial and metric minded individuals...

----------


## r3nov8or

> Actually, the TRUE/FALSE answer works (in English) only if the question is posed in terms such as 
> "IF "An Olympic Swimming Pool is Metric" OR "An Olympic Swimming Pool is Imperial"" THEN (the answer is) TRUE, ELSE (the answer is)  FALSE. 
> In "normal" English speaking activities, I can be just as annoying when answering the question "Do you want tea or coffee" by giving the (Boolean) answer of "Yes" - instead of "TRUE". 
> The question "_Are Olympic swimming pools metric or imperial"_ does not state its parameters accurately. Presumably, the question should be "Are Olympic swimming pools measured by metric units or by imperial units".  I think that we all know the answer to this question, although one could take the trouble to convert the metric units involved to imperial measurements and then build such a pool to these dimensions.

  Oh dear. It was you who suggested the original question was Boolean, but you gave a non-Boolean answer.

----------


## UseByDate

> Many, if not most, tape measures  sold in Australia for building construction purposes ARE marked in Millimitres only, as (by inference) required by the references which I cited. 
> Nobody in any Australian Building Industry has any need of Centimetres. 
> As I pointed out in my previous posting, the use of Centimetres was (effectively) banned by the _Standards Association of Australia "Metric Handbook, Metric Conversion in Building and Construction" 1972, wherein it was stated_  "The metric units for linear measurement in building and construction will be the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), with the kilometre (km) being used where required. This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the centimetre (cm) shall not be used.  the centimetre should not be used in any calculation and it should never be written down.   If you have tape measures marked in Centimetres, I commiserate with  you.   I do suggest that you get new ones - suitable for Australian building construction use. 
> For example, if you look up "Stanley 33-829" you will find  the "STANLEY 33-829 10M FATMAX TAPE MEASURE", marked in Millimetres ONLY (No Centimetres).  This is sold in Australia but is made in the USA.
> This item is NOT available for sale in North America and cannot be found in the Stanley On-line U.S. Catalog or anywhere else in the world, probably because most countries have not "woken up" to the fact that Centimetres are un-necessary.  
> OK.  Australia may be the only country which is "in step", but the use of Millimetres makes things so much easier that I doubt that many on this site have considered using any other dimensions.
> For proof of this, just look at other discussions on the "Renovate Forum" and see where Millimetres have been preferred and the use of Centimetres has been "jumped on", by others.

  I stated that some people don't use the *word* centimetre but they do *use* them. I don't own the tape measure you quote so I had to google it. I can definitely see centimetre marks on the tape as well as millimetre marks. They may be labelled in 10s of millimetres (I can't see well enough) but they are still *centimetre* graduations. All my tapes (4 of them) are actually labelled in centimetres and I bet the vast majority of tapes sold in Australia are. I don't find it difficult multiplying my centimetres by 10 to get millimetres. My point is that without centimetre marks or graduations it would be difficult to quantify the millimetre graduations.

----------


## Jon

> Think we could solve this water flowed over the spillway question if there was some sort of Sydharb measurement. It seems on fit both imperial and metric minded individuals...

  and the Sydharb has already been defined on wikipedia List of unusual units of measurement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## mudbrick

Pa are used for pressure rather than Kg/m2 because a kg is a unit related to gravity and Gravity only acts downwards yet pressure acts in all directions. My Uni lecturer used to go nuts on this stuff!!

----------


## Marc

> Many, if not most, tape measures  sold in Australia for building construction purposes ARE marked in Millimitres only, as (by inference) required by the references which I cited. 
> Nobody in any Australian Building Industry has any need of Centimetres. 
> As I pointed out in my previous posting, the use of Centimetres was (effectively) banned by the _Standards Association of Australia "Metric Handbook, Metric Conversion in Building and Construction" 1972, wherein it was stated_  "The metric units for linear measurement in building and construction will be the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), with the kilometre (km) being used where required. This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the centimetre (cm) shall not be used.  the centimetre should not be used in any calculation and it should never be written down.   If you have tape measures marked in Centimetres, I commiserate with  you.   I do suggest that you get new ones - suitable for Australian building construction use. 
> For example, if you look up "Stanley 33-829" you will find  the "STANLEY 33-829 10M FATMAX TAPE MEASURE", marked in Millimetres ONLY (No Centimetres).  This is sold in Australia but is made in the USA.
> This item is NOT available for sale in North America and cannot be found in the Stanley On-line U.S. Catalog or anywhere else in the world, probably because most countries have not "woken up" to the fact that Centimetres are un-necessary.  
> OK.  Australia may be the only country which is "in step", but the use of Millimetres makes things so much easier that I doubt that many on this site have considered using any other dimensions.
> For proof of this, just look at other discussions on the "Renovate Forum" and see where Millimetres have been preferred and the use of Centimetres has been "jumped on", by others.

  Fortunately there is life beyond the building industry and so, the centimeter does exist as does the decilitre and the number one thousand millions and many other things that do not fit our insular understanding but,hey! ... they don't cease to exist just because of that.  
As far as measuring tapes goes, there is no need for commiserations. A tape marked in millimeters only, has the numbers 10,20,30 etc in bold, meaning 10 and 20 millimetres, etc One in centimeters is exactly the same just without a zero next to the number and so the number 1,2,3 etc will be visible in bold, big deal. What is the difference? None whatsoever. 
For an industry that uses imperial measures 40 years after metrication, there is no room for neat picking about the centimeter. Honestly who are we kidding?

----------


## Marc

As far as absurdities that we allow in our lives and even defend as perfectly acceptable (like the idiotic unit Pascal and Newton not to mention others I wouldn't be able to post here), I think the 360 degree angle for a full circle takes the cake, pun intended. 
If it was the numbers in the year or the sexagesimal system who cares, it's absurd and will always be absurd. As far as i know only the French army artillery uses 400 for a full circle and therefore 100 for a square angle. Good for them, I wonder if they also succumbed to the ban? Too square ... ha ha. The Germans should have come up with that long time ago.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

In logging the decimeter & centimetre are used, drs measure height in cms & pressure in mm/hg
regards inter

----------


## UseByDate

> Pa are used for pressure rather than Kg/m2 because a kg is a unit related to gravity and Gravity only acts downwards yet pressure acts in all directions. My Uni lecturer used to go nuts on this stuff!!

  I am not sure if you are serious but I will respond.
 The kg is a unit of mass and is not related to gravity. Mass will have weight if it is in a gravitational field. You could argue that weight is related to mass and gravity in the sense that to calculate weight you multiply the mass by the acceleration due to gravity.
 What university do you attend?

----------


## UseByDate

> Fortunately there is life beyond the building industry and so, the centimeter does exist as does the decilitre and the number one thousand millions and many other things that do not fit our insular understanding but,hey! ... they don't cease to exist just because of that.  
> As far as measuring tapes goes, there is no need for commiserations. A tape marked in millimeters only, has the numbers 10,20,30 etc in bold, meaning 10 and 20 millimetres, etc One in centimeters is exactly the same just without a zero next to the number and so the number 1,2,3 etc will be visible in bold, big deal. What is the difference? None whatsoever. 
> For an industry that uses imperial measures 40 years after metrication, there is no room for neat picking about the centimeter. Honestly who are we kidding?

  +1 
except for the spelling of millimetre and centimetre,* obviously*. Just kidding "Marc". :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

> I am not sure if you are serious but I will respond.
>  The kg is a unit of mass and is not related to gravity. Mass will have weight if it is in a gravitational field. You could argue that weight is related to mass and gravity in the sense that to calculate weight you multiply the mass by the acceleration due to gravity.
>  What university do you attend?

  Ha ha, now we get into patronising replies. 
Mine is bigger than yours. 
Newton sucks. Kgf is the best, down with Newton, Pascal and their despicable wigs

----------


## FrodoOne

> Would this water be imperial or metric

  As before: "Yes"

----------


## FrodoOne

> I stated that some people don't use the *word* centimetre but they do *use* them. I don't own the tape measure you quote so I had to google it. I can definitely see centimetre marks on the tape as well as millimetre marks. They may be labelled in 10s of millimetres (I can't see well enough) but they are still *centimetre* graduations. All my tapes (4 of them) are actually labelled in centimetres and I bet the vast majority of tapes sold in Australia are. I don't find it difficult multiplying my centimetres by 10 to get millimetres. My point is that without centimetre marks or graduations it would be difficult to quantify the millimetre graduations.

  I have no idea concerning the NUMBER of tapes of each description which are SOLD in Australia. 
However, there are a high PROPORTION of tapes for building purposes AVAILABLE with only Millimetre indications (and with 10s, 100s and 1000s indications - No Centimetres, Decimetres or Metres [except for overall length,on the outside of the tape, in the case of Metres.])
There are also (usually cheaper Chinese) tapes available with Centimetre (and 10 sub-division) markings, as are tapes with BOTH Centimetre and Inch/Feet markings.  The latter tend to avoid - except on rare occasions when looking for a quick conversion from some old (or US) document without reaching for a calculator (since I do know that 25.4 mm = 1 Inch). 
You also stated "I can definitely see centimetre marks on the tape as well as millimetre marks."
Actually, you can't see centimetre marks.  What you can see is a mark at every 10 mm interval.  These markings EQUATE to Centimetre marks BUT are NOT marks designated in Centimetres. 
Also " I don't find it difficult multiplying my centimetres by 10 to get millimetres."   Neither do I BUT, using my Millimetre tape, I do not need to even try to do that - so I am unlikely to make any mistakes! 
"My point is that without centimetre marks or graduations it would be difficult to quantify the millimetre graduations."   They are 10 mm graduations (only to make the counting by 10s easier) as are the 100 graduations (not Decimetres) as are the 1000s graduations (not Metres).  
As pointed out in the references which I have quoted (and I do suggest that you read), the whole benefit of using Millimetres in building measurements (as opposed to Centimetres) is to avoid any need for fractions - both "vulgar" and "decimal".

----------


## FrodoOne

> Fortunately there is life beyond the building industry and so, the centimeter does exist as does the decilitre and the number one thousand millions and many other things that do not fit our insular understanding but,hey! ... they don't cease to exist just because of that.  
> As far as measuring tapes goes, there is no need for commiserations. A tape marked in millimeters only, has the numbers 10,20,30 etc in bold, meaning 10 and 20 millimetres, etc One in centimeters is exactly the same just without a zero next to the number and so the number 1,2,3 etc will be visible in bold, big deal. What is the difference? None whatsoever. 
> For an industry that uses imperial measures 40 years after metrication, there is no room for neat picking about the centimeter. Honestly who are we kidding?

  Yes, there is "life beyond the building industry" and the (SI) Metric prefixes of deci, centi, deka and hecto do exist BUT does anyone much use them and (more importantly) are they necessary or useful - in everyday usage.
When did you last USE a "deci" or "deka" unit? You might choose to use centimetre at times (not, I hope, in building construction activities) but do you ever USE centilitres? (Unfortunately, one will sometimes find centilitres [and decimal fractions thereof] used on some European derived supermarket imports.   However, as far as I have seen, the volume of the relative Australian supermarket items is always given in millilitres.) 
Of course, hectartes are sometimes used, instead of "square metres" or "square kilometres".  (However, while the "Are" is 100 square metres and the "Hectare" is, therefore, 10000 square metres, neither of these is an official SI unit.) 
Yes, the Millimetre  tapes ARE marked every 10th unit which does correspond to Centimetres.  However, they are NOT marked in Centimetres, which means that one does not have to work backwards from Centimetres to derive the Millimetres that one requires - for building applications. (Since this is a "Renovate Forum", reference to Australian building practice seemed, to me, to be quite appropriate!) 
As included in an earlier reference:  -
The metric units for linear measurement in building and construction will be the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), with the kilometre (km) being used where required.  This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the centimetre (cm) shall not be used.  the centimetre should not be used in any calculation and it should never be written down. (Standards Association of Australia "Metric Handbook, Metric Conversion in Building and Construction" 1972)  
I was brought to realise the wisdom of the Australian situation when pursuing a line of discussion introduced in an earlier posting. While I cannot (at the minute) find this posting, it directed one to Metric 4 US - Metric is the better system for America!  (or one of its subsets).  This led on to the other sites quoted. 
In this context, please see Metamorphosis and Millimeters | The Metric Maven  and  The Invisible Metric Embargo | The Metric Maven
These items discuss the advantages of using the Millimetre (over the disadvantages of the Centimetre) plus the apparent "invisible metric embargo" related to this, which now appears to exists in the USA.
However, note the following (from http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Metr...DZ-i34K-pR.pdf)
 "Centimeters are typically not used in U.S. specifications. This is consistent with the recommendations of AIA and the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM). Centimeters are not used in major codes." 
Many in the world MAY utilise the "centimetre" in their measuring activities BUT, as the references I have quoted have discussed (and I suggest that you read or, at least, scan them), this is (almost certainly) to the detriment of ease of measurement and notation! 
As discussed in many of these references, using Centimetres is akin to clinging to the use of something like a (little) finger width as a substitute for using a "Thumb Width" (or three barley-corns) - Inch.

----------


## r3nov8or

A new standard to ponder. I call it BooleanPlus. Results can be True, False or WhoCares.

----------


## Marc

> Yes, there is "life beyond the building industry" and the (SI) Metric prefixes of deci, centi, deka and hecto do exist BUT does anyone much use them and (more importantly) are they necessary or useful - in everyday usage. When did you last USE a "deci" or "deka" unit? You might choose to use centimetre at times (not, I hope, in building construction activities) but do you ever USE centilitres? (Unfortunately, one will sometimes find centilitres [and decimal fractions thereof] used on some European derived supermarket imports. However, as far as I have seen, the volume of the relative Australian supermarket items is always given in millilitres.) Of course, hectartes are sometimes used, instead of "square metres" or "square kilometres". (However, while the "Are" is 100 square metres and the "Hectare" is, therefore, 10000 square metres, neither of these is an official SI unit.)

  Funny how everything is rather relative, subjective or coloured according to the sunnies we have on.Going back to my original post, I hate units that require conversions that are not straight and easy. The reason being is that when you need to make calculations you have to convert and that is extra work that is unnecessary. Pascal is an adoption we must thank some nincompoop who like wigs and history yet has little concern for those who use the unit.................... KGF/cm2 or m2 is a much better unit, user friendly and no need to convert to anything. Newton and Pascal have always existed as units that have some use in the physicist or chemist lab, and in university lectures and exams..........   As far as all the other very useful metric units, I use them all the time and have so for all my life, conceded not always spent in Australia. The knowledge of units saved my life once. I was bitten by a rattlesnake and as always our party was carrying the serum. The bottle stated that 10ml were to be administered every hour for the first 3 hours according to symptoms. We had a syringe that was marked in cm3. I overheard the medic saying he will give me one cm3 ....hang on I said, one cm3 is NOT 10ml but one!....he dismissed me with words like one milimeter3 is one millilitre and was ready with a syringe that contained 1/10 of what was prescribed.......... I took his arm and told him in no uncertain terms that unless he called the camp and consulted with a real doctor he could shove one cm3 in his own bum. It goes without saying that I got my correct dose and did not die.  Life is larger than building industry, and yes we do use Hectares in Australia all the time, in fact we use them in government offices despite the fact that customer give us the value in acres, ha ha there is a contradiction, the computer program allows to code Hectares OR ACRES.............Uhuu wasn't the Government reportedly working in the official metric system?   I still hate Pascal and want KGF/cm2 all the way. Love Hectares because they are bigger than acres, I love cm3 because they remind me of my anti venom doses and to work out the amount of accelerant to make polyester resin mix or pesticide mix or fuel stabiliser calculation........yes, life is not black and white, like Kg mass and nothing else.........Fortunately I say  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Funny how everything is rather relative, subjective or coloured according to the sunnies we have on.Going back to my original post, I hate units that require conversions that are not straight and easy. The reason being is that when you need to make calculations you have to convert and that is extra work that is unnecessary. Pascal is an adoption we must thank some nincompoop who like wigs and history yet has little concern for those who use the unit.................... KGF/cm2 or m2 is a much better unit, user friendly and no need to convert to anything. Newton and Pascal have always existed as units that have some use in the physicist or chemist lab, and in university lectures and exams..........   As far as all the other very useful metric units, I use them all the time and have so for all my life, conceded not always spent in Australia. The knowledge of units saved my life once. I was bitten by a rattlesnake and as always our party was carrying the serum. The bottle stated that 10ml were to be administered every hour for the first 3 hours according to symptoms. We had a syringe that was marked in cm3. I overheard the medic saying he will give me one cm3 ....hang on I said, one cm3 is NOT 10ml but one!....he dismissed me with words like one milimeter3 is one millilitre and was ready with a syringe that contained 1/10 of what was prescribed.......... I took his arm and told him in no uncertain terms that unless he called the camp and consulted with a real doctor he could shove one cm3 in his own bum. It goes without saying that I got my correct dose and did not die.  Life is larger than building industry, and yes we do use Hectares in Australia all the time, in fact we use them in government offices despite the fact that customer give us the value in acres, ha ha there is a contradiction, the computer program allows to code Hectares OR ACRES.............Uhuu wasn't the Government reportedly working in the official metric system?   I still hate Pascal and want KGF/cm2 all the way. Love Hectares because they are bigger than acres, I love cm3 because they remind me of my anti venom doses and to work out the amount of accelerant to make polyester resin mix or pesticide mix or fuel stabiliser calculation........yes, life is not black and white, like Kg mass and nothing else.........Fortunately I say

  i can see your reasoning, but did the snake survive???

----------


## Marc

It did not, a case of acute lead poisoning from an involuntary ingestion of a 11.25 pill ha ha
Ps
Note my metric notation

----------


## r3nov8or

Anyone ever looked for a new TV. They are only ever specified in inches and centimetres. 
Wheels and tyres are funny things - wheel diameters are specified in inches, as is the opening diameter of a tyre, but tyre width is in millimetres, and the height of the tyre wall is as a percentage of the width. *shakes fist*.   Edit: should change it all to centimetres to simplify it.  :Cool:

----------


## woodbe

> Anyone ever looked for a new TV. They are only ever specified in inches and centimetres. 
> Wheels and tyres are funny things - wheel diameters are specified in inches, as is the opening diameter of a tyre, but tyre width is in millimetres, and the height of the tyre wall is as a percentage of the width. *shakes fist*.   Edit: should change it all to centimetres to simplify it.

  There were a handful of cars offered with metric wheels and tyres. BMW, Ferrari etc, but they were not popular. I can imagine that buying replacement tyres would be a real struggle now, I think Dunlop is the only metric tyre manufacturer now. As for converting inch tyre sizes to metric, do you really want to ask for a 17 inch tyre as a 431.8mm or 43.18cm?

----------


## UseByDate

> I have no idea concerning the NUMBER of tapes of each description which are SOLD in Australia.  And neither do I. If I knew it would be unfair to offer you the wager that the vast majority of tapes sold in Australia would be labelled in centimetres.   
> However, there are a high PROPORTION of tapes for building purposes AVAILABLE with only Millimetre indications (and with 10s, 100s and 1000s indications - No Centimetres, Decimetres or Metres [except for overall length,on the outside of the tape, in the case of Metres.])
> There are also (usually cheaper Chinese) tapes available with Centimetre (and 10 sub-division) markings, as are tapes with BOTH Centimetre and Inch/Feet markings.  The latter tend to avoid - except on rare occasions when looking for a quick conversion from some old (or US) document without reaching for a calculator (since I do know that 25.4 mm = 1 Inch).  You will also need to check the date of the old document. Prior to 1959 the inch did not equal 25.4 mm. 
> You also stated "I can definitely see centimetre marks on the tape as well as millimetre marks."
> Actually, you can't see centimetre marks.  What you can see is a mark at every 10 mm interval.  These markings EQUATE to Centimetre marks BUT are NOT marks designated in Centimetres.  So these marks equate to centimetre marks but are not designated in centimetres. I did state that they may not be labelled in centimetres. But to me 10mm is equal to one centimetre. They are the same length. Show me a metric tape measure that does not indicate values one centimetre apart and I will show you at least ten that do. 
> Also " I don't find it difficult multiplying my centimetres by 10 to get millimetres."   Neither do I BUT, using my Millimetre tape, I do not need to even try to do that - so I am unlikely to make any mistakes!  I don't actually multiply by 10. I just append a zero. The process has become automatic. 
> "My point is that without centimetre marks or graduations it would be difficult to quantify the millimetre graduations."   They are 10 mm graduations (only to make the counting by 10s easier) as are the 100 graduations (not Decimetres) as are the 1000s graduations (not Metres).  I state "My point is that without centimetre marks or graduations it would be difficult to quantify the millimetre graduations." You state They are 10 mm graduations (only to make the counting by 10s easier) as are the 100 graduations (not Decimetres) as are the 1000s graduations (not Metres).  The tape is *using* centimetre graduations to quantify (in my words) or count (in your words) the number of millimetres. What is the difference? (except the technical difference that you don't need to count in order to quantify) 
> As pointed out in the references which I have quoted (and I do suggest that you read), the whole benefit of using Millimetres in building measurements (as opposed to Centimetres) is to avoid any need for fractions - both "vulgar" and "decimal".  I don't use fractions. Using centimetres does not prohibit you from also using millimetres. I just append the number of millimetres (0 through 9) to the number of centimetres and the result is in millimetres. Eg If my tape measures 45 centimetres and 3 millimetres then I read 453 millimetres.

  UseByDate

----------


## intertd6

> It did not, a case of acute lead poisoning from an involuntary ingestion of a 11.25 pill ha ha
> Ps
> Note my metric notation

   I thought the snake may have needed some antivenene!!

----------


## Marc

Well she did, but none available for lead poisoning, metric or imperial

----------


## intertd6

> Well she did, but none available for lead poisoning, metric or imperial

  I know if something bit me it would some, or a couple of weeks at AA.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, yes I got your hint the first time. 
I love how people are fixed in their way of thinking regarding other ways as wrong, abnormal bizarre peculiar out of line or plainly illegal.
Centimeters are wrong, yet everyone that has a motorbike tell you his bike is xxxcm3 hu hu I wonder if they even know the volume that represents. 
Let's see, one beer is about 270cm3 ... one bottle of wine about 750cm3 ... one bottle of milk 1000cm3 or 2000cm3 or even 3000cm3 
Someone mentioned that only square meters and square kilometers are correct and accepted metric units. Hu hu never been in the country to buy a farm ... 100% of farms are measured either in imperial acres or metric Hectares. Some very large properties in the Northern Territory that are one million hectares or so may be quoted in square kilometers since it takes two zeros off the figure. Imagine selling a 5 acre farm measuring in square kilometers ... err ... For sale, small acreage, 0.0202342821 km2, lovely country charm. the barn includes an antique 875 newtons anvil and a tractor on tracks to reduce the pressure on the ground. Only 1,450,000 pascal of pressure

----------


## FrodoOne

> UseByDate

  _(__This is a "by the way", but I now find that I cannot select a large "post" on this site as a "quote" - even for editing purposes.)_ 
However -  _UseByDate_ stated : - _I don't use fractions. Using centimetres does not prohibit you from also using millimetres. I just append the number of millimetres (0 through 9) to the number of centimetres and the result is in millimetres._ _Eg If my tape measures 45 centimetres and 3 millimetres then I read 453 millimetres._  
I think that we agree that we both "use" Millimetres, BUT we arrive at them by different methods. 
 I do not wish to continue any "argument" with you on this matter. 
As I stated previously: -
My attention to this matter was drawn by a recent  posting directing to Metric 4 US - Metric is the better system for America! (or a subset of this).
This led to my finding and reading the references quoted.
These references expressed a contention the use of  the "Centimetre" (itself) represents an impediment to the adoption of the Metric System (SI) in countries where this change is taking place. (Of course, the most significant country in this position is the USA BUT it is my understanding that there are also problems in the UK and Canada which may derive from the actual "use" of the Centimetre.)  
HOWEVER,
I do note the post from Marc "2nd Feb 2015, 09:37 AM"  "The knowledge of units saved my life once. I was bitten by a rattlesnake and as always our party was carrying the serum. The bottle stated that 10ml were to be administered every hour for the first 3 hours according to symptoms. We had a syringe that was marked in cm3. I overheard the medic saying he will give me one cm3 ....hang on I said, one cm3 is NOT 10ml but one!....he dismissed me with words like one milimeter3 is one millilitre and was ready with a syringe that contained 1/10 of what was prescribed.......... I took his arm and told him in no uncertain terms that unless he called the camp and consulted with a real doctor he could shove one cm3 in his own bum. It goes without saying that I got my correct dose and did not die." 
The point which I now wish to emphasise (with all sympathy and thanks to Marc) is that HIS "KNOWLEDGE of units" once saved his life - in spite of the LACK of exact knowledge of conversion factors by others.
While it is _supposedly_ easy to convert from one metric unit to another, his example perfectly illustrates the contention that the "non 1000" multipliers/divisors (sometime employed when using Metric measurements) CAN lead to confusion.  In Marc's case, possibly life threatening.  
(I must admit that I did have to think about the conversion involved _(from Millilitres to Cubic Centremetres - and vice versa)_, and that IS the point concerning any "necessity" of having to convert. The human brain is *not* the most perfect conversion instrument and *conversion* should not be necessary and *is best avoided.**)*  
Once again, I do not regret to recommend for the consideration of all reading this to access the site http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/centimetresORmillimetres.pdf, wherein it is stated: -
"For most people there will only be one 'conversion factor' – 1000 – in the whole system if they choose millimetres instead of centimetres.
1000 millimetres = 1 metre 1000 metres = 1 kilometre
1000 grams = 1 kilogram 1000 kilograms = 1 tonne
1000 millilitres = 1 litre 1000 litres = 1 cubic metre" 
I would extend to this
"For most people there will only be one 'conversion factor' needed – 1000, if ""Deci", "Centi" "Deka" or "Hecto" prefixes are NOT used for anything." 
Yes.   I do know that some of these "prefixes" are used - by government organisations et al.
No matter. (Does anyone reading this believe that "governments" - or their instrumentalities - are _always_ correct?)

----------


## UseByDate

One last post on the subject.   UseByDate stated : - I don't use fractions. Using centimetres does not prohibit you from also using millimetres. I just append the number of millimetres (0 through 9) to the number of centimetres and the result is in millimetres. Eg If my tape measures 45 centimetres and 3 millimetres then I read 453 millimetres. FrodoOne stated : -
I think that we agree that we both "use" Millimetres, BUT we arrive at them by different methods.    
 We can agree that I use millimetres, *but not exclusively*.
 I use millimetres when I want millimetre resolution.
 I use centimetres when I want centimetre resolution.
 I use metres when I want metre resolution
 I use km when I want km resolution.

----------


## UseByDate

> A new standard to ponder. I call it BooleanPlus. Results can be True, False or WhoCares.

  Fuzzy logic? Fuzzy logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## FrodoOne

> We can agree that I use millimetres, *but not exclusively*.
>  I use millimetres when I want millimetre resolution.
>  I use centimetres when I want centimetre resolution.
>  I use metres when I want metre resolution
>  I use km when I want km resolution.

  Obviously!

----------


## Marc

As an interesting note, Australia post uses CENTIMETERS to calculate package size and postage costs, and so does e-bay

----------


## Marc

> _(__This is a "by the way", but I now find that I cannot select a large "post" on this site as a "quote" - even for editing purposes.)_ 
> HOWEVER,
> I do note the post from Marc "2nd Feb 2015, 09:37 AM"  "The knowledge of units saved my life once. I was bitten by a rattlesnake and as always our party was carrying the serum. The bottle stated that 10ml were to be administered every hour for the first 3 hours according to symptoms. We had a syringe that was marked in cm3. I overheard the medic saying he will give me one cm3 ....hang on I said, one cm3 is NOT 10ml but one!....he dismissed me with words like one milimeter3 is one millilitre and was ready with a syringe that contained 1/10 of what was prescribed.......... I took his arm and told him in no uncertain terms that unless he called the camp and consulted with a real doctor he could shove one cm3 in his own bum. It goes without saying that I got my correct dose and did not die." 
> The point which I now wish to emphasise (with all sympathy and thanks to Marc) is that HIS "KNOWLEDGE of units" once saved his life - in spite of the LACK of exact knowledge of conversion factors by others.
> While it is _supposedly_ easy to convert from one metric unit to another, his example perfectly illustrates the contention that the "non 1000" multipliers/divisors (sometime employed when using Metric measurements) CAN lead to confusion.  In Marc's case, possibly life threatening.  
> (I must admit that I did have to think about the conversion involved _(from Millilitres to Cubic Centremetres - and vice versa)_, and that IS the point concerning any "necessity" of having to convert. The human brain is *not* the most perfect conversion instrument and *conversion* should not be necessary and *is best avoided.**)*  
> Once again, I do not regret to recommend for the consideration of all reading this to access the site http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/centimetresORmillimetres.pdf, wherein it is stated: -
> "For most people there will only be one 'conversion factor' – 1000 – in the whole system if they choose millimetres instead of centimetres.
> 1000 millimetres = 1 metre 1000 metres = 1 kilometre
> ...

  Frodo, your attempt at justifying the adoption of a simplified version of the metric system by the power that once were, are noted, however... after putting 4 kids through school and uni in Australia I am convinced that the curriculum was designed by ignorant from lefty confession and a propensity to smoke pot.  
I learned ALL the metric units in school in a way that today after several decades they are still fresh in my mind, second nature should we say. 
Of course I also had to live an incongruity since once I left school I was faced with the fact that in real life the imperial system was the one used in almost all trades who frowned upon the metric system as if for sissies and ignoramus. Just one of those things in the never never land I grew up.  
If one learns metric from day one in the way it is intended to be learned and in its entirety, not the bits and pieces some public servant from the seventies decided the populace should have, it is very clear that there is a logic in it and a practicality that no other system can offer.  
As far as conversion between units, it is obvious that linear units and volume units can not be handled the same way and if some of the units multiples and sub multiples are ignored, the whole thing has more holes than Swiss cheese. 
If you talk volume you can not use milliliters whilst ignoring centiliters and deciliters and jump straight to liters. You are bound to make mistakes along the way. The same goes for linear units in its simple form or in its quadratic or cubic form. 
Your example says it all, 1000 ml = one liter you say correctly yet you continue 1000 liter = 1m3 ... oops, what happened? 1000 litre = one Kilolitre, just like 100 litre = one hectoliter, we can not ignore parts of a scale and attempt to play music. 
We use hectares reluctantly but have no idea what it means. One hectare is = 100 ares. What is that? well it is a metric unit of surface. And we could go on and on. 
Simplification is not always possible just like it is not possible to educate children without teaching them grammar as the failed 70ties attempt at reducing every child to the lowest denominator demonstrated in time.

----------


## FrodoOne

> If you talk volume you can not use milliliters whilst ignoring centiliters and deciliters and jump straight to liters. You are bound to make mistakes along the way. The same goes for linear units in its simple form or in its quadratic or cubic form.  _Your example says it all, 1000 ml = one liter you say correctly yet you continue 1000 liter = 1m3 ... oops, what happened? 1000 litre = one Kilolitre, just like 100 litre = one hectoliter, we can not ignore parts of a scale and attempt to play music._  _We use hectares reluctantly but have no idea what it means. One hectare is = 100 ares. What is that? well it is a metric unit of surface. And we could go on and on._  _Simplification is not always possible just like it is not possible to educate children without teaching them grammar as the failed 70ties attempt at reducing every child to the lowest denominator demonstrated in time._

  
"If you talk volume you can not use milliliters whilst ignoring centiliters and deciliters and jump straight to liters."
Yet this is exactly what happens with Australian goods in supermarkets etc. 
I have in front of me a can marked as containing 375 ml (Not 3 dl, 7 cl, 5 ml nor 3.75 dl) _(Exceptions to this are some imported European items, where an item containing 375 ml might be marked as containing 37.5 cl)_
A "standard" bottle of wine or spirits is marked as containing 750 ml (Not 7 dl, 5 cl nor 7.5 dl) _(Unfortunately, many bottles of spirits now contain only 700 ml but they are still not marked as containing 7 dl, or even 0.7 l - but I digress.) _ The same thing applies to goods sold by weight.  They are marked (or requested) in grams up to the kilogram and then in kilograms and decimal fractions thereof. (If requesting a cut portion one *might* ask for "half a kilogram" but not usually for other fractions of a kilogram.
It would be interesting if you went up to a "Deli" counter anywhere in Australia and instead of asking for (say) "200 grams of sliced ham" you asked for  2 Hectograms of that product.
Would YOU actually do that and expect to be served what you want without further explanation? 
"1000 ml = one liter you say correctly yet you continue 1000 liter = 1m3 ... oops, what happened? 1000 litre = one Kilolitre"
You are right in this case.  The examples were copied from one of the sources quoted.
Perhaps it would be better if it read "1_000 millilitres = 1 litre 1000 litres =  1 kiloliter - which is 1 cubic metre"_ 
However, you did not comment on_ 
"1000 grams = 1 kilogram 1000 kilograms = 1 tonne" 
This might be better if written as _ _"1000 grams = 1 kilogram 1000 kilograms = 1 megagram - which is given the name of 1 tonne"  _ _"We use hectares reluctantly but have no idea what it means. One hectare is = 100 ares. What is that?"
An "Are" is 100 square metres.  So, a Hectare is 10000 square metres._

----------


## Marc

Well, now you are confusing the issue. 
What is popular, common or displayed on canned food is hardly a norm to be followed. 
My point is that one can not use part of a system and say that the rest shouldn't be used, as in the case of the centimeter that started this. 
If our predecessors could work out the pint and the ounce and the stones and the cords, we should be able to work out that between one millimeter3 and one centimeter3 there are 3 decimal points and not one whilst between one milliliter and one centiliter there is just one.
Your half kilo reminds me when I use to say the time 2:45 as two and three quarters,  translating literally from the Italian language I got accustomed to and learned as my third language out of 5,  to the great amusement of my largely illiterate friends. It was not wrong, just unusual. 
There is a difference between communication, and calculation. When I may not make many friends by saying the time as two and three quarters or ordering two hectagram of ham, in the industry where the units are practical and useful, such unit should be welcomed as for what they are, part of the metric system.

----------


## mudbrick

> I am not sure if you are serious but I will respond.
>  The kg is a unit of mass and is not related to gravity. Mass will have weight if it is in a gravitational field. You could argue that weight is related to mass and gravity in the sense that to calculate weight you multiply the mass by the acceleration due to gravity.
>  What university do you attend?

   Glad you follow my argument 
now, a pressure is a measure of force per unit area. So to use kg/m2 would be vastly incorrect because a kg is not a force, it is a Mass as you kindly point out. ( As is the pound but don't tell the yanks!)
So if we used kg/m2 to measure fuel pressure in a spaceship and flew said spaceship to the moon would the pressure go up, down or stay the same? Or just put a note on all the gauges stating "equivalent to 1kilogram when measured on earth where gravity=9.8m/s/s"?

----------


## Marc

> Glad you follow my argument 
> now, a pressure is a measure of force per unit area. So to use kg/m2 would be vastly incorrect because a kg is not a force, it is a Mass as you kindly point out. ( As is the pound but don't tell the yanks!)
> So if we used kg/m2 to measure fuel pressure in a spaceship and flew said spaceship to the moon would the pressure go up, down or stay the same? Or just put a note on all the gauges stating "equivalent to 1kilogram when measured on earth where gravity=9.8m/s/s"?

  What argument is that? Of course you don't use kg mass as a force, you use kg force... kgf/cm2 or m2 is a unit of pressure. Just like cm is a perfectly valid and useful unit, and so is Hectare and kilolitre and so many other metric units some nincompoop in the seventies decided the masses are too dumb to use and need some form of simplified and dumbed down version. Supporting of such dumbed down version can only be called cultural and rather funny.

----------


## OBBob

Well with the implosion and closure of the Emissions Trading thread ... I guess this may be the new location for off topic entertainment.  :Smilie:

----------


## r3nov8or

> Well with the implosion and *closure of the Emissions Trading thread* ... I guess this may be the new location for off topic entertainment.

   Just checked, it's not closed. The train wreck may continue...

----------


## OBBob

> Just checked, it's not closed. The train wreck may continue...

  Hmm ... interesting ... it definitely was closed this morning. Someone obviously decided to allow a cooling off period overnight (Bros is not a Mod is he?). Probably sensible.

----------


## UseByDate

> Obviously!

   :Doh: Finally. You accept there is a use for centimetres.

----------


## UseByDate

> Glad you follow my argument 
> now, a pressure is a measure of force per unit area. So to use kg/m2 would be vastly incorrect because a kg is not a force, it is a Mass as you kindly point out. ( As is the pound but don't tell the yanks!)
> So if we used kg/m2 to measure fuel pressure in a spaceship and flew said spaceship to the moon would the pressure go up, down or stay the same? Or just put a note on all the gauges stating "equivalent to 1kilogram when measured on earth where gravity=9.8m/s/s"?

  Still not sure what your argument is?  "it is a Mass as you kindly point out. ( As is the pound but don't tell the yanks!)" 
Not when I went to school. 
 “The slug is the unit of mass in the US common system of units, where the pound is the unit of force. The pound is therefore the unit of weight since weight is defined as the force of gravity on an object.”  The Slug as a Mass Unit  
 “The slug is listed in the "Regulations under the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act, 1960". This regulation defines the units of weights and measures, both regular and metric, in Australia.”

----------


## Marc

So if one pounds a scale he gets one pound of weight?What would be the conversion in metric units?Mm ... kiloing? Slug/ never heard of that one, so slugging would be something like pounding only using units of mass?Very technical  :Smilie:

----------


## mudbrick

Technical indeed, but a kilogram is not a force therefor a kilogram force equals mere gobbledygook unfortunately. 
It's like saying a potato force. How big is a potato? How heavy is it? How much force does it exert ? is it stationary during the measurement or was it fired from a spudgun while tied to a fishing line ?
Much easier to use the Newton, a clean pure specific unit of Force!

----------


## UseByDate

> So if one pounds a scale he gets one pound of weight?What would be the conversion in metric units?Mm ... kiloing? Slug/ never heard of that one, so slugging would be something like pounding only using units of mass?Very technical

  Marc
 I am old enough to have been taught in the British Gravitational System of units (Imperial). Same as American Customary units. I was also taught in centimetre-gram-second for a year and then metre-kilogram-second before transitioning to SI by stealth.
  The word slug is derived from sluggish. I.e. hard to move.
  1lb = 4.45N 
  By the way; the unit of pressure is PSI in BGS. I..e. Nice units so you wont over inflate your tyres. :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> Technical indeed, but a kilogram is not a force therefor a kilogram force equals mere gobbledygook unfortunately. 
> It's like saying a potato force. How big is a potato? How heavy is it? How much force does it exert ? is it stationary during the measurement or was it fired from a spudgun while tied to a fishing line ?
> Much easier to use the Newton, a clean pure specific unit of Force!

  Quick nurse “mudbrick” has got out again.

----------


## FrodoOne

> Well, now you are confusing the issue. 
> What is popular, common or displayed on canned food is hardly a norm to be followed. 
> My point is that one can not use part of a system and say that the rest shouldn't be used, as in the case of the centimeter that started this. 
> If our predecessors could work out the pint and the ounce and the stones and the cords, we should be able to work out that between one millimeter3 and one centimeter3 there are 3 decimal points and not one whilst between one milliliter and one centiliter there is just one.
> Your half kilo reminds me when I use to say the time 2:45 as two and three quarters,  translating literally from the Italian language I got accustomed to and learned as my third language out of 5,  to the great amusement of my largely illiterate friends. It was not wrong, just unusual. 
> There is a difference between communication, and calculation. When I may not make many friends by saying the time as two and three quarters or ordering two hectagram of ham, in the industry where the units are practical and useful, such unit should be welcomed as for what they are, part of the metric system.

  ("_between one millimeter3 and one centimeter3 there are 3 decimal points and not one whilst between one milliliter and one centiliter there is just one."_ I do not see this is actually relevant to anything that I have said but it seems to relate to your "snake bite" story.) 
However, there is no decimal point to be of concern if one compares 1 mm3 with1000 mm3 or 1 ml with 10 ml 
The point is NOT to change the scale involved - which brings the discussion back to not trying to measure in millimetres by using a tape marked in centimetres and tenths thereof! 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc, 
At this point I think it best that we just agree to disagree.   
Generalising somewhat from a statement in one of the references previously given: - 
"For most people there will only be one 'conversion factor' *needed*  1000  in the whole (metric) system"
This statement is demonstrated to be valid (if not proved) by "what is popular, common or displayed on canned food" and other items in Australian stores.. 
The use by the Australian "general population" tends to show that one CAN use a large and significant part of the metric system and, in general, NOT use the few remaining parts - which (now) do not fit into the "pattern" that has developed for the remainder. 
To illustrate this, the table below shows the current SI prefixes, as  specified by the "Bureau International des Poids et Mesures"   *Prefix* *1000**m* *10**n* *Decimal* *English word* *Since*  *name* *symbol*    *short scale* *long scale*   yotta Y  10008  1024  1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000  septillion  quadrillion 1991  zetta Z  10007  1021 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000  sextillion  thousand trillion 1991  exa E  10006  1018  1 000 000 000 000 000 000  quintillion  trillion 1975  peta P  10005  1015 1 000 000 000 000 000  quadrillion  thousand billion 1975  tera T  10004  1012 1 000 000 000 000  trillion  billion 1960  giga G  10003  109 1 000 000 000  billion  thousand million 1960  mega M  10002  106 1 000 000  million  1960  kilo k  10001  103 1 000  thousand  1795  hecto h  10002/3 *102* 100   hundred   1795  deca da  10001/3 *101* 10 Ten   1795     10000  100 1  one    deci d  1000−1/3 *10−1* 0.1  tenth   1795  centi c  1000−2/3 *10−2* 0.01  hundredth   1795  milli m  1000−1  10−3 0.001  thousandth  1795  micro μ  1000−2  10−6 0.000 001  millionth  1960  nano n  1000−3  10−9 0.000 000 001  billionth  thousand millionth 1960  pico p  1000−4  10−12 0.000 000 000 001  trillionth  billionth 1960  femto f  1000−5  10−15 0.000 000 000 000 001  quadrillionth  thousand billionth 1964  atto a  1000−6  10−18 0.000 000 000 000 000 001  quintillionth  trillionth 1964  zepto z  1000−7  10−21 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 001  sextillionth  thousand trillionth 1991  yocto y  1000−8  10−24 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  septillionth  quadrillionth 1991   
The prefixes which do *not* relate to (multiples of) 103 (or 10−3) are those for *101, 102, 10−1  and 10−2* 
They exist and are of interest, if only historic. (They, represent 2/3 [67%] of the prefixes created "originally" in 1795. However they represent only 1/5 [20%] of the prefixes now available for use. {Admittedly, many of the prefixes quoted are not in "common" usage, but neither are the "non 1000" prefixes - except for the (3) "hangover" usages in *centi*metre, *hec*tare and (in Europe) _centi_litre.} 
Hopefully, most of the population is familiar with kilo and milli.  
While most of the more recently "invented' units would be "known" to but few, many using computers (and others) would be quite familiar with mega, giga, and tera.  Those involved with electronics would be familiar with micro, nano, pico and even femto. 
  However, it is difficult to think of anywhere that deca or deci would be encountered. 
[About the only "use" of deci that I have heard of is in the timber industry.  Since stamping a decimal point on a 1.6 metre log is not practical, the numbers 1 and 6 are stamped. Obviously, this does not represent 16 m (and can be said to represent 16 dm) but it really indicates 1.6 m. (Yes, I know that it is the same thing!)] 
(I have come across a suggestion that, if the metric system were to be "invented' today these prefixes would *not* be introduced.  
This is contained in Naughtins Laws | The Metric Maven 
"The system of metric prefixes is, ultimately, a fantastically useful device. But the inventors did go a bit crazy by placing a tight cluster of prefixes around the number one. 
There are metric prefixes for tens and tenths (deca and deci) and hundreds and hundredths (hecto and centi). 
These should be forgotten. They convey much less information to the mind than an extra zero. 
Quick, which is more: 1 mL or 1 cL? Yes, Im sure you got the right answer, but Ill bet there was a moment of thought.
Which is more: 1 mL or 10 mL? Now wasnt that easier?") 
(That last part may resonate with you, Marc.) 
------------------------------------------------------------- 
I find nothing very unusual in saying  "two and three quarters" for 2:45 since, for 2:15 we may say "a quarter past two".  
However referring to "_my largely illiterate friends._" is a bit unfair to your friends, since it is probable that they were "illiterate" only in Italian and not in general.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------    

> Finally. You accept there is a use for centimetres.

  There is a use, if you want to use them. 
And (obviously), if you are quoting a distance in Kilometers, it is most unlikely that you would do it with "millimetre" accuracy - or even "metre" accuracy.  In fact, the greater the distance the more "rounded" the distance is likely to become. (A few killometres of error in the distance between Sydney and Melbourne is of little importance, since one first needs to determine the "points" which represent these two large entities.)
The same applies to the accuracy necessary for the smaller units.
(I still think that working to "centimetre" accuracy would be rather poor for most building construction purposes.) 
However, as I have tried to show with the examples quoted, the use of any of the non-1000  multipliers/dividers is (in general) not a good idea - since their use conveys "much less information to the mind than an extra zero" or two.
Apart from the three (possibly, four) "hangover" exceptions mentioned above, those prefixes that do not fit the 1000s pattern are NOT in general use.

----------


## Marc

> Technical indeed, but a kilogram is not a force therefor a kilogram force equals mere gobbledygook unfortunately. 
> It's like saying a potato force. How big is a potato? How heavy is it? How much force does it exert ? is it stationary during the measurement or was it fired from a spudgun while tied to a fishing line ?
> Much easier to use the Newton, a clean pure specific unit of Force!

   Are you serious? Becasue I wasn't.
I can't believe you wrote that ... what does it even mean?

----------


## Marc

Thank you Frodo for that post on numerals units and custom.
The first thing that comes to mind looking at that table is the incongruity of the short scale as opposed to the long scale. 
Someone decided to name one thousand million a billion whilst others use the much more logical name one thousand millions, ten thousand million etc  and a billion when it is not possible to continue with a million millions. Why? Who knows!
The same way someone decided that centimeters and decimeters are too hard so lets eliminate them as if they do not exist. i wonder if someone got paid a salary to do just that?
Would it be the same that swept KGF/cm2 under the carpet and brought in the Newton and its bastard son the pascal that fit like a square peg in a round hole in the metric system? 
I would really like to know who was that lunatic. ha ha 
As far as your point here   

> And (obviously), if you are quoting a distance in Kilometers, it is most unlikely that you would do it with "millimetre" accuracy - or even "metre" accuracy. In fact, the greater the distance the more "rounded" the distance is likely to become. (A few kilometres of error in the distance between Sydney and Melbourne is of little importance, since one first needs to determine the "points" which represent these two large entities.)

  All is relative.  When that may be so in general terms, if I own a farm that is one kilometer2 and I am between Sydney and Melbourne on the M31 and the record shows that the distance between sydney and melbourne is 875.7 instead of 876.7 my farm does not exist... and that may upset me a tad  :Smilie:  
PS
As far as my illiterate friends, they were and still are illiterate in any language even their own mother tongue which they only use in the slang version with perhaps a few hundred expressions at best. My point was to highlight xenophobia that exists in every country even the most backwards one.
Many years ago I had a job in a joinery that did refits for the Commonwealth bank. I was fresh in Australia and was quoting measurements in centimeters and fraction and would say to 354 mm 35.4 centimeters as thirty four point 4. Not very hard to interpret right? All I got was ridicule and comments like "That is foreign language to me"
Last year I was passing through Gosford and decided to do some shopping in the local Woolies. Their distribution was a bit different and I couldn't find the pasta, so asked an employee. The answer was an eye opener. "It is in asyle 12 he said_ in the foreign food section"_  I wonder if the pasta was measured in centimeters ... ha ha

----------


## UseByDate

FrodoOne Quote
"(I still think that working to "centimetre" accuracy would be rather poor for most building construction purposes.)"  I think you will be surprised what building tolerances actually are. Building set out can have a large tolerance (relative to mm accuracy).    
 “GUIDE TO STANDARDS & TOLERANCES 2007  2.06 Building dimensions Departures from the documented set out for service rooms such as bathrooms, toilets,   laundries, kitchens etc. are defects if they exceed L/200 or 5 mm, whichever is the greater,   where L is the documented dimension.  Departures from the documented set out for habitable rooms and areas, such as bedrooms, dining rooms, lounge and living rooms, family rooms, studies, halls, entries and stairways are defects if they exceed L/100 or 5 mm, whichever is the greater, where L is the documented dimension.  Departures from documented set out for external elements such as garages, car ports,   verandahs, decks, patios, etc. are defects if they exceed L/100 or 5 mm, whichever is the   greater, where L is the documented dimension.”   Would you feel cheated if you bought a house and the living room was 1 cm smaller than the plan or feel like you have won the lottery if it was 1 cm larger than the plan? And now I have a confession. I have found two more tape measures in my toolbox and one of them is a “builders tape measure” (Stanley 30-459 made in Thailand). I must have bought it by accident.  :Wink:

----------


## Ozcar

> ... 
>  it is difficult to think of anywhere that deca or deci would be encountered. 
> [About the only "use" of deci that I have heard of is in the timber industry.

  For some reason not known to me, blood lead levels are measured in micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood.

----------


## UseByDate

And dicibel.

----------


## Marc

That would be decibel. A tenth of a bel.

----------


## UseByDate

Oooops. I think I just invented a new SI prefix.

----------


## Marc

I prefer the centibel, just to be consistent.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Sweden, where I grew up, uses centimeters, deciliters, hectogrammes and they have their own "mile" which is equal to 10Km.  
There's also different area measurements.
While they use hectares, but not acres, they also have at least one more unit commonly used for measuring large areas such as properties and farms.  
.

----------


## Ashore

This is all wrong , if God had meant us to use the metric system he would have had 10 disciples, and we would have had 10 hours in a day

----------


## Jon

And 12 fingers ?

----------


## phild01

:Arrow Up:  those last 2, very good  :Biggrin: .

----------


## UseByDate

> Sweden, where I grew up, uses centimeters, deciliters, hectogrammes and they have their own "mile" which is equal to 10Km.  
> There's also different area measurements.
> While they use hectares, but not acres, they also have at least one more unit commonly used for measuring large areas such as properties and farms. 
> .

  _kvadratmil_ – Square _mil_, 36 million square _favnar_, from 1739.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> _kvadratmil_ – Square _mil_, 36 million square _favnar_, from 1739.

  No I was thinking of "Tunnland" - the area which can be covered with the contents (seeds) of one barrel ("tunna" = barrel "land" = well..land)    :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> No I was thinking of "Tunnland" - the area which can be covered with the contents (seeds) of one barrel ("tunna" = barrel "land" = well..land)

   _kannaland_ – 1000 _fot_², or 88.15 m²_kappland_ – 154.3 m²._spannland_ – 16 _kappland__tunnland_ – 2 _spannland_ or 4937.6 m², about 1 acre_kvadratmil_ – Square _mil_, 36 million square _favnar_, from 1739 
A Tunnland is only 20% larger than an acre. I thought you said really, really, really big farm areas. Now a Kvadratmil is enormous.  :Smilie:

----------


## Ozcar

> _
> spannland_  16 _kappland_

  Now there was advanced thinking - it allows for easy conversions in binary or hexadecimal.

----------


## UseByDate

> ("tunna" = barrel "land" = well..land)

  English wine cask units    
 And in English
 Tonnage originally meant the number of tuns of wine a ship could carry. Note a barrel is one eighth of a tun.

----------


## r3nov8or

FrodoOne is going nuts right now.

----------


## UseByDate

:Wink:

----------


## notvery

Jon - 12 fingers...didnt hurt Garfield Sobers.
I once worked with a guy who suggested imperial was easier to multiply than metric... To much brain not enough thought.

----------


## Jon

> Jon - 12 fingers...didnt hurt Garfield Sobers.
> I once worked with a guy who suggested imperial was easier to multiply than metric... To much brain not enough thought.

  Never knew that about Sobers.   A bit of trivia I will store away.
 It would have made batting gloves interesting if he kept them.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> FrodoOne is going nuts right now.

   :Rofl:

----------


## FrodoOne

> FrodoOne is going nuts right now.

   No. He is not.
He is just amused! 
He is also pleased to see that his small effort has caused others to consider the situation and, possibly, do some research.

----------


## r3nov8or

> No. He is not.
> He is just amused! 
> He is also pleased to see that his small effort has caused others to consider the situation and, possibly, do some research.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## UseByDate

> No. He is not.
> He is just amused! 
> He is also pleased to see that his small effort has caused others to consider the situation and, possibly, do some research.

  You know him so well. :2thumbsup:

----------

