Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

npl.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 589 posts

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#391

Post by DareRight »

Just_Smith wrote: post #283
kderbyma wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, while mathematically speaking 12 is a great base, people don't think in twelves - you can quickly perform arithmetic and our entire education system of math relies on base 10. Kind of hard to suddenly add two fingers to everyone. Additionally, base 12, would not act like 12 does in base 10, thus if base 12 is your key point of reference, a foot should be 10 in base 12 for inches.....

People don't really think in terms of 10s either - that's just societal conditioning based on the usage of fingers to count. If you can accurately picture 1/3 of set, but your number system cannot, it's not really that accommodating of a system. By the way, you can count base12 on your hands using the digits of your fingers. We just teach kids to use fingers because it's the norm.

A numbering system based on human fingers would be base6.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#392

Post by anticensor »

laurentl wrote: post #165
piano wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really should cut the middle man. What surprised me reading that wiki page is that apparently the metric system was opposed in the US based on religious reasons . That is mind-boggling.

Well, you can’t suddenly replace the quarterpounder with cheese with a royale with cheese.

You would replace quarterpounder by hectogrammer. A quarter of pound is approximately a hectogram anyway.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#393

Post by thrower123 »

EricBurnett wrote: post #324
blhack wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the weird people that actually really likes imperial units. For instance: 1 foot -- base 12. This is a superior base to 10. It can be easily divided into 4ths, 3rd, and 2nds. Base 10 can only easily be divided into 2nds. 1 inch -- an easily identifiable unit of measure for smallish things. About the width of my thumb. A pretty good unit. For low precision, inches become 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6, 1/64, etc. Each…

Hmm, good for usage you say. Ok, let's stick to "standard" imperial units. How many feet in a yard? Yards in a mile? What the hell is a quart? And since base 12 is great, what is 12 feet called? 144 feet? A 12th of an inch? Or, ounces: How many ounces in a gallon? A pound? And how many _kinds_ of ounces are there, anyways? Fun fact: The term “ounce” is of Latin origin from the word “uncia” which means “a twelfth part…

A yard is three feet, or about the length of a man's stride.

A quart is about the maximum amount of whiskey one can drink without dying.

A pint's a pound, the world around.

My favorite is the cord, which is 128 cubic feet, or more often a stack of firewood 4 feet tall by four feet wide by eight feet long.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#394

Post by unepipe »

Just_Smith wrote: post #310
naikrovek wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1/3 can easily be measured in metric... it's just not a whole number. Far out I can invent a system that is unique to everything, and I can create my own abominable conversion ratios all I like. It doesn't make the system superior, it makes my system necessarily inferior. My TV is now 12 Settos in size. My surround system consumes 12 audots of power. My fridge holds 12 cubic fudo of room. There. Now everything is eas…

You're missing the point if you don't see the problem of an infinitely repeating measurement. That doesn't translate to a tangible action. You can't cut 1/3 of a meter, and there's no subunit to roll down to that can express the right number. It's not like Imperial system exists for uneducated people - it exists for trades people. Metric is the "simple" system, because it ties back to 10, a number we're all used to.…

I have a project where I need 3 wooden blocks, each perfect squares, to fit width wise in a 10” wide gap. I don’t want any space between these blocks sides of the gap they fit in. It’s an important project to me and I’m willing to pay a substantial sum of money.

But from what I am reading it sounds like you’re not able to do the job, the blocks need to be 3 1/3” wide each. It’s a no-go if I see someone try to cut them to 3 5/16”

What kind of system doesn’t let you cut such a fundamental length into thirds. Crazy.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#395

Post by Zarel »

garmaine wrote: post #345
Zarel wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Avogadro's number is a constant, but it's not fundamental - the only difference is that it's defined in terms of fundamental constants (namely, the Planck constant) now. It's still an arbitrary number defined in terms of the mass of a gram.

Nope, it is fixed to be N_A = 602,214,076,000,000,000,000,000 exactly (6.02214076x10^23 to units precision). It used to be the case that the mole was an experimental value equal to the number of atoms in a certain mass of a certain something. That is no longer the case with this revision. It is a fixed, never changing integer constant. This does mean that 1 mole of carbon-12 is no longer exactly 12 grams. But it is a…

No, that's not the part we disagree about. Yes, I know, Avogadro's number is a fixed constant now. It's not a _fundamental constant_:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_constant

A fundamental constant isn't just any fixed constant. It's specifically a constant that describes a fundamental property of the universe.

For instance, c describes the speed of light in a vacuum, and is a fundamental physical property of the universe.

Avogadro's constant isn't the same thing. It's just a number that humans decided would be useful. We could have fixed it to any other number; there's nothing fundamental about the number ~6.022e23.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#396

Post by thrower123 »

kderbyma wrote: post #254
stass wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the redeamable qualities of metric units?

Frankly, while mathematically speaking 12 is a great base, people don't think in twelves - you can quickly perform arithmetic and our entire education system of math relies on base 10. Kind of hard to suddenly add two fingers to everyone. Additionally, base 12, would not act like 12 does in base 10, thus if base 12 is your key point of reference, a foot should be 10 in base 12 for inches.....

Clearly, people do think in 12s, because it's been a common thread in mathematics and measurement and calendaring through many different cultures going back to the Sumerians.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#397

Post by philliphaydon »

MattRix wrote: post #390
blhack wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the weird people that actually really likes imperial units. For instance: 1 foot -- base 12. This is a superior base to 10. It can be easily divided into 4ths, 3rd, and 2nds. Base 10 can only easily be divided into 2nds. 1 inch -- an easily identifiable unit of measure for smallish things. About the width of my thumb. A pretty good unit. For low precision, inches become 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6, 1/64, etc. Each…

F is not superior to C, your argument for it makes very little sense, even from a plain human "everyday" (non-scientific) point of view. Can anyone sense when the temperature changes by a single degree in F? I doubt it. With C you have a chance. With C when it's below zero you know there could be snow and ice. Each set of 10 degrees in C is a pretty clear temperature range. 30-40 scorching. 20-30 hot. 10-20 warm. 0-1…

For me. 26+ scorching. 25 perfect. 24- freezing. Haha.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#398

Post by fyfy18 »

eadmund wrote: post #381
zmix wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand, that you know the metric system, and, judging by your reasoning for your love for the imperial system, I understand, that you know what you are talking about (better than me). So, please, do not understand my comment as wanting to advise you! It's just, that I found this (on the web, one day) to express so much the way I (having grown up with the metric system) feel about it: "In metric, one milliliter…

Actually, assuming room temperature is 60° and you’re at sea level, it’d take 1,216 BTUs to bring a gallon of water to a boil. A BTU is the amount of heat (which is energy) required to heat one pound of water one Fahrenheit degree; a pound of water is a pint; there are 8 pints in a gallon (2 pints in a quart, 2 quarts in a pottle, 2 pottles in a gallon). So, 8 * (212-60) = 1,216.

1 US liquid pint is defined as the volume of 1.041 lb of water at 62F. The British imperial system is a bit cleaner where 1 imperial pint is defined as 20 oz or 1.25 lbs, at 62F.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#399

Post by School-Cotton »

zmix wrote: post #366
blhack wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the weird people that actually really likes imperial units. For instance: 1 foot -- base 12. This is a superior base to 10. It can be easily divided into 4ths, 3rd, and 2nds. Base 10 can only easily be divided into 2nds. 1 inch -- an easily identifiable unit of measure for smallish things. About the width of my thumb. A pretty good unit. For low precision, inches become 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/6, 1/64, etc. Each…

I understand, that you know the metric system, and, judging by your reasoning for your love for the imperial system, I understand, that you know what you are talking about (better than me). So, please, do not understand my comment as wanting to advise you! It's just, that I found this (on the web, one day) to express so much the way I (having grown up with the metric system) feel about it: "In metric, one milliliter…

I suspect that only a minority of people in metric-using countries -- those with basic chemistry knowledge fresh in their mind -- know that "one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade".

Probably a similar number of Americans know the same facts. And any of them would answer "How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water" in the only sensible way -- look up the conversion of gallons to liters, do the calculation in metric, and convert back from calories to whatever unit you want (BTUs, I guess).

The point is: nobody, including Americans, uses the customary system in chemistry labs. Nobody ever has cause to calculate how many BTUs it takes to boil a gallon of water without reference to the metric system. So the argument is a bit specious.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#400

Post by starbeast »

fingerlocks wrote: post #298
naikrovek wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1/3 can easily be measured in metric... it's just not a whole number. Far out I can invent a system that is unique to everything, and I can create my own abominable conversion ratios all I like. It doesn't make the system superior, it makes my system necessarily inferior. My TV is now 12 Settos in size. My surround system consumes 12 audots of power. My fridge holds 12 cubic fudo of room. There. Now everything is eas…

I challenge you to make a 1/3 cut in meter length wood using a metric ruler. Must be accurate to 1/128 inch (0.2mm), the tolerance used in fine woodworking.

Can I pick the blade thickness?
Post reply on HN