Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 125

Thread: Why 68 Deg. for inspection

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Buffalo NY USA
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    Nothing wrong with that, but what happens when you want to measure long distances? kilo-inches? mega-inches?
    Miles. Miles have a definite relation to yards, feet, and inches.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Metcalfe, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    Well, then it should be pretty simple to calculate the kinetic energy (E = 1/2 * m * v * v) of a 1 slug object moving at 1 foot per second, in any commonly-used unit of energy.
    Yep. Do you know anything about dimensional analysis?

    Mass =force/acceleration, so the dimensions of mass are pound.second squared/foot, and E is 0.5 pound.foot.

    Pretty easy to convert that to whatever unit of energy you like.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cameron View Post
    Yep. Do you know anything about dimensional analysis?

    Mass =force/acceleration, so the dimensions of mass are pound.second squared/foot, and E is 0.5 pound.foot.
    Do you routinely give the mass of common objects in units of (pound) * (second) * (second) / (foot)?

    Pretty easy to convert that to whatever unit of energy you like.
    Great. Show me how easy it is to convert pound-feet to any common imperial unit of energy.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    citrus heights, ca
    Posts
    2,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Willy View Post
    Back to the original question, much as I like the metric vs. imperial debates or what type of oil should I use in my scooter.

    Below a link to a 23 page answer published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2007.


    20 CA Short History of the Standard
    Reference Temperature for Industrial
    Dimensional Measurements
    I didn't have anything better to do the other night so I read the link you provided. I found some of it very interesting and other parts, well, not so much. But I did learn a lot.

    As far as your scooter oil question, isn't it obvious that you should use metric scooter oil

    Steve

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Buffalo NY USA
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post

    Great. Show me how easy it is to convert pound-feet to any common imperial unit of energy.
    Sure. One Joule is .737 pound-feet. One Joule per second equals one Watt. One Watt equals 3.41 BTU's per hour.

    It pays to know your history.

    Now, a few years ago I converted all my energy usage into a common basis (joules) to calculate the lowest possible heating bills in February.... e.g BTU's/CF of NatGas vs Elec all expressed in Joules/hr rate of consumption.... NatGas won by the slimmest of margins only because my insulation is so horrible.
    Last edited by nickel-city-fab; 07-11-2019 at 10:18 PM.

  6. #96

    Default

    The question is.
    Why not 68 Deg.?

    The people that wrote the standard may have simply liked that temperature (-:

    "Hey Fred what temp should we specify?"
    "I find 75 to warm and 60 to cold so lets make it 68 Deg."
    "That works for me Fred, let it be so"

    I suspect that the group that specified the OD of numbered screws worked in the same fashion.

    "Hey Fred how do we write the standards for your non-fractional screw standard?"
    "How about the major diameter = the screw number X .013" + .06", this should keep people confused for decades"
    "I like it Fred so lets run with it"

    History was made with bourbon I suspect (-:

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nickel-city-fab View Post
    Sure. One Joule is .737 pound-feet. One Joule per second equals one Watt. One Watt equals 3.41 BTU's per hour.

    It pays to know your history.

    Now, a few years ago I converted all my energy usage into a common basis (joules) to calculate the lowest possible heating bills in February.... e.g BTU's/CF of NatGas vs Elec all expressed in Joules/hr rate of consumption.... NatGas won by the slimmest of margins only because my insulation is so horrible.
    You've just nicely illustrated why the metric system is often easier than the imperial system.

    Imperial:
    In order to calculate the kinetic energy of a 1 slug mass with a velocity of 1 foot per second, you need to do two conversions. First, you have to convert slugs to (pound) * (second) * (second) / (foot), and then you have to convert the result from (pound) * (feet) to BTU.

    Metric:
    Calculating the kinetic energy of a 1 kg mass with a velocity of 1 m/s is trivial. The energy is 0.5 J

    Edit: Oops, forgot the 1/2 factor
    Last edited by tomato coupe; 07-11-2019 at 11:23 PM.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    31,565

    Default

    Tomato...

    Your own "argument" here seems to be to attack various statements, and then at the end, agree with it.

    People make much of the base ten nature of "metric" or"SI", claiming it is "so logical" and obviously correct due to the decimal units.

    My point is, first, that the ONLY reason "SI" is "more correct" or logical, is that it happens to be deliberately made to BE easy, with easy relations between units.

    BUT, there is really nothing special about "ten" that affects the way "SI" works.... The same sort of logical relations could be set up using a base thirty system, or base twelve, etc. The super specialness of ten just comes from our fingers, and not some logical argument from the nature of the universe, as many seem to be claiming.

    Essentially, what is "blamed on" the base ten nature, is really nothing much to do with it, the "magic" is in the relation between units, which is not dependent on base ten in any way other than being more familiar due to "traditions" that people in western society (at least) tend to share. Folks are looking in the wrong place.
    Last edited by J Tiers; 07-12-2019 at 01:08 AM.
    1601

    Keep eye on ball.
    Hashim Khan

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Tiers View Post
    Tomato...

    Your own "argument" here seems to be to attack various statements, and then at the end, agree with it.

    People make much of the base ten nature of "metric" or"SI", claiming it is "so logical" and obviously correct due to the decimal units.

    My point is, first, that the ONLY reason "SI" is "more correct" or logical, is that it happens to be deliberately made to BE easy, with easy relations between units.

    BUT, there is really nothing special about "ten" that affects the way "SI" works.... The same sort of logical relations could be set up using a base thirty system, or base twelve, etc. The super specialness of ten just comes from our fingers, and not some logical argument from the nature of the universe, as many seem to be claiming.

    Essentially, what is "blamed on" the base ten nature, is really nothing much to do with it, the "magic" is in the relation between units, which is not dependent on base ten in any way other than being more familiar due to "traditions" that people in western society (at least) tend to share. Folks are looking in the wrong place.
    I have not attacked various statements. I made one simple statement

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    A measuring system based on 10 is special because our numbering system is based on 10.
    in response to your post:

    Quote Originally Posted by J Tiers
    There is absolutely no "logic" to a measuring system just because it is based on the number 10
    Your have a bad habit of distorting what others state.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Southwestern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    Nothing wrong with that, but what happens when you want to measure long distances? kilo-inches? mega-inches?
    That is where the "fortnight" comes in. The distance that a three legged dog can travel in 1 fortnight will be the standard for long distances. For shorter distances we use a cat.

    If that doesn't work then why not use the deca-inch (100 inches?) instead of the yard and what ever 10,000 inches would be instead of the mile. Then we will convert the standard day to 10 hours divided by 100 minutes each. 10 month each year with 36 days each, there will have to be some kind of leap year adjustment for the 1/2 days or change the orbit of the planet to a 360 day cycle. Of course what happens when part of the world refuses to change over to the new system.

    It would just be much simpler for those that wish to continue to use the Imperial system to do so and those that want everyone to only use the metric system to bugger off.
    The shortest distance between two points is a circle of infinite diameter.

    Bluewater Model Engineering Society at https://sites.google.com/site/bluewatermes/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •