tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post5278917577107464485..comments2024-03-27T09:27:33.931+00:00Comments on Idiotic Hat: Puck of St. Catherine's HillMike C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-46805031323873732682012-06-20T19:00:43.621+01:002012-06-20T19:00:43.621+01:00Well Mike they did loose that Mars climate vehicle...Well Mike they did loose that Mars climate vehicle a few years ago. The cause was finally identified as a unit mismatch. As a result NASA now does all it's calculations in metric.<br /><br />My favourite unit is the dogs bark. It's evidently used in Finland and is the furtherest you can hear a dog bark in winter.<br /><br />GavinGavin McLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630089445696518084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-43088196618479290842012-06-19T09:32:49.086+01:002012-06-19T09:32:49.086+01:00Martyn,
"cattys per mu", eh? Isn't...Martyn,<br /><br />"cattys per mu", eh? Isn't that the Kowloon System ("cows per mu"?). Sorry...<br /><br />Temperature-wise, I feel cold in Centigrade, and hot in Fahrenheit.<br /><br />MikeMike C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-43296142033443205452012-06-19T09:21:38.018+01:002012-06-19T09:21:38.018+01:00Man, you should try working in Hong Kong, and havi...Man, you should try working in Hong Kong, and having to translate, as I did recently for a report, cattys per mu (I kid thee not) into tonnes per hectare. (A catty, in China, is set at 500g; a mu is 666.66 square metres. It was a report about improved potato production …)<br /><br />Centimetres I'm OK with, as British newspapers have worked in metric for more than 30 years. The problem I have is temperature: I still can't work out what clothes I should be wearing if it's 15C outside. Tell me it's 59F, and I'll get me coat …Martyn Cornellhttp://zythophile.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-1747260344400817882012-06-18T22:40:45.363+01:002012-06-18T22:40:45.363+01:00Gavin,
Blimey, and they wonder why we haven't...Gavin,<br /><br />Blimey, and they wonder why we haven't put a man on the moon since 1972...<br /><br />MikeMike C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-7012993425943484952012-06-18T22:36:24.256+01:002012-06-18T22:36:24.256+01:00I suspect I'm like most people of my generatio...I suspect I'm like most people of my generation who grew up being taught metric but living with parents who thought in imperial and yes heights are all imperial along with miles and wood sizes - a sheet of plywood is 8 x4. Though I do rope diameter in mm but my father who taught me to sail always thought of ropes in terms of circumference and in inches.<br />At work working in the oil industry which was once so driven by American firms steel thickness is in mm but tubular diameters are always in inches. So we lay 24" dia pipelines with 34mm wall thickness. Foundation piles are 72" diameter but 80mm WT. The handy size barges we use for moving things around the North Sea are 300' x 90' but it's displacement will always be given in metric tonnes.<br />It keeps you on your toesGavin McLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630089445696518084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-70637534595172673002012-06-18T08:50:28.326+01:002012-06-18T08:50:28.326+01:00Gavin,
Meant to ask: As someone obviouslt fluent ...Gavin,<br /><br />Meant to ask: As someone obviouslt fluent with weights and measures, do you think of people's heights in metric? Given a height in cm, do you think e.g. "that's really tall" or "she's tiny!"?<br /><br />MikeMike C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-50166015848270843872012-06-18T08:45:11.436+01:002012-06-18T08:45:11.436+01:00Gavin,
One advantage of the old system for engine...Gavin,<br /><br />One advantage of the old system for engineering-type applications, in the days before calculators, was divisibility -- using fractional quantities like 1/16 and 1/32 of an inch meant a lot of calculation could be done mentally. (Or so I'm told -- mental arithmetic is not my forte).<br /><br />It was the differences between US and imperial measures that got this discussion started -- cups, gallons, etc.<br /><br />MikeMike C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-60996832130692152582012-06-17T23:32:35.594+01:002012-06-17T23:32:35.594+01:00I started at school in 1974 and was taught almost ...I started at school in 1974 and was taught almost wholly in metric. Whilst at university if I was bored with my work I used to pull out old journals. My favourite was the North East Coast Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders. Their journals dated back to the 1880's and I remember one paper from around that time advocating the adoption of the metric system if Britain was to remain competitive in Europe! <br />Once I started work (1991) I was thrown back into the imperial system as I had joined an American engineering company and all their software was written in US imperial units including some new ones I was not familiar with Kips and Slugs (force and mass respectively). I now work for an Italian outfit and I am back with the SI system which if you are doing engineering calculations is so much easier, though it would have been nice if they'd arranged it so the acceleration due to gravity was 10 m/s2 rather than 9.8 m/s2<br />We are a conservative nation (note the small c) and development tolerated rather than welcomed but so much development here is so bloody poor quality you can't help wishing they'd go away save some more pennies and do a proper job. My childhood spooky mansion is now a block of flats I suspect many have gone that wayGavin McLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630089445696518084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-70821111061736536292012-06-16T09:58:22.884+01:002012-06-16T09:58:22.884+01:00doonster,
Interesting point about the ongoing res...doonster,<br /><br />Interesting point about the ongoing resonance of old units of measure -- I find height, in particular, impossible to relate to in centimetres.<br /><br />"She walked through the door, 190cm tall" conveys nothing of the impact of "6 foot 2". Curiously, it seems to be the same for my kids' generation, who have grown up metric.<br /><br />MikeMike C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6096844366367766843.post-57095731878583080412012-06-16T09:19:52.920+01:002012-06-16T09:19:52.920+01:00I recall watching those pop-archaeology programmes...I recall watching those pop-archaeology programmes on TV. Once, they visited a site in the US where every inch* of topsoil was carefully trowelled and sifted for remains. The history they were after was in the first foot or so of ground, representing two- or three-hundred years.<br />Contrast with sites in the UK, where they exscavated through the first 3 feet or so: modern history is too well represented and if it wasn't at least 500 years old, they weren't much interested. And any occupied site contained human history all the way down: layer on layer of redevelopment, repurposing, reinvention. It has ever been thus, it ever shall continue.<br /><br />*it's not lost on me that I find the most appropriate measures here to be in old money. Metric's lack of a human dimension makes it an odd choice for approximations.doonsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558926453149764893noreply@blogger.com