Kedas Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Just so you wouldn't assume the wrong definitions of the units: http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/base_units/ The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water. not about freezing and boiling. And 0 Kelvin well is 0 Kelvin that's simple. The only one that I see as weak as the pound is the kilogram. but ones we understand gravity much better we can change that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I think grams are better than the pound/other stuff, as with the pound you have "stones" and who knows what. With the gram, you can just add kilo- or similar affix. Although we do have tons... Hmm. Perhaps we should ditch both and use a unit based on atomic mass units. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Kelvin sucks too. We need a temperature system not based on the percent of water freezy boilingness. Celcius was stupid to begin with... Kelvin is just an elaboration of a poor system. It has to be measured in terms of something, and water is just as good as anything else. The only flaw in Celsius is that it's only suitable for addition and subtraction; 10 degrees C isn't half as hot as 20 degrees C, but 100 Kelvin is half as hot as 200 Kelvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 huh? i always thought that Celsius was a linear scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 huh? i always thought that Celsius was a linear scale? It's a linear scale, but the zero point isn't at, well, zero. 20 degrees C is ACTUALLY twice as hot as -126 degrees C, you see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 thats weird. so -126 is not that cold after all!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 "thats weird. so -126 is not that cold after all!!" Trust me, it is. They use that sort of temperatures for some sort of muscle and joint treatment though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 thats weird Of course it's not; what if we started measuring human height at 6'; someone 6'1 isn't half the height of someone 6'2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I think grams are better than the pound/other stuff,... grams are mass units, pounds are force units. why try to use them in the same context? you could say "i think grams are better than slug/other stuff, ..." or "i think newtons are better than pounds/other stuff,..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 grams are mass units, pounds are force units. why try to use them in the same context? you could say "i think grams are better than slug/other stuff, ..." or "i think newtons are better than pounds/other stuff,..." They use pounds for mass like kilogram. and pounds force or dyne for force like newton. I'm not 100% sure although someone should know for sure here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Of course it's not; what if we started measuring human height at 6'; someone 6'1 isn't half the height of someone 6'2. that cos ur using a uni with its sub unit... 1' is definitely half of 2'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 that cos ur using a uni with its sub unit... 1' is definitely half of 2'. sub units have notthing to do with it, 3' and 4' would be 1' and 2' if the zero would be located at 2'. (all the same units) The same for temperature 0°C means it's hot. on the kelvin scale 0K means it lost ALL its heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tinman Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 The other day I was measuring with a ruler and I wrongly assumed that inches were divided into tenths. I've spent four years in science class and the metric system is pretty much how I think these days. Nonetheless' date=' it took me about 2 minutes to figure out what the heck was going on with the ruler. Finally I realized that it was divided into 8ths instead of 10ths. Then I had to convert all the stupid decimals from calcluations into 8ths. RIDICULOUS I SAY![/quote'] Here is the dope. Our system is 4 times more useful than metric. In medicle metric wins. Its a case of both have there proper use. I worked in France extensivly with metrics in the 1000 meter dive bell design. I used it. In for example DEUTZ engine you use two sets of tools, things that attatch to engine are US..internal is metrics. There is a book METRONICS...the art of measuerment. Great reading fully learn both systems and youll be much better off. Thank you Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 There is no way to convert a metric thread to a conventional thread especially if you are trying to turn one on a lathe. The lead screw is only manufactured for a conventional thread. If I turn a M5.0624 (making up a number here) nobody will have a nut that fits it. I wish you would come and see my shop so I could show you these things instead of trying to write them. Machines will do that for which they were manufactured - they can do no more. that is not what he meant - he meant that you should not change the sizes you make things in, just change what you call them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Our system is 4 times more useful than metric. Imperial is definitely not as useful as SI. A simple bit of evidence for that statement is that the standard units in science are the SI ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Of course Imperial/Customary measurement is not useful. Just look at this list: http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/dictunit.htm#US What the hell is a "bushel" or a "pennywight." There is no standard of measurement that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now