[PSUBS-MAILIST] Metric vs. standard, was Re: N/A

[Coalbunny <coalbunny@vcn.com>]

I can deal with either, though I lean towards metric in the actual
design.  Doesn't really matter what you use for a type of measurement,
so long as you can convert it to either metric or standard as some of
the formulas use that.
Carl


Problah wrote:
> 
> Wow cool. Didn't know I was on a high horse, but whatever.
> So if it was made off of a misshaped platinum bar, why is nanocalculating
> used in metric and not in standard? I'm not looking for a fight, but although
> your history of it is interesting, you still lean toward the patriotic side
> of why use standard over metric.
> 
> Support your local zonenet
> 
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: rjune@fuse.net
> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> Sent: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:35:31 -0400
> Subject: Re: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: N/A
> 
> > OK TIME FOR YOU TO GET OF YOUR HIGH HORSE
> >
> > Unbelievably, the silly dispute over the metric system still exists.
> > Given the particulars of the development and spread of the French
> > system of measurement, any individual easily realizes the total
> > absurdity of the metric system.
> >
> >     Consider how the French of the 1700's were so intent on making
> > an exact, standard measurement that could be replicated. They
> > insisted on finding a standard in nature that would be unchanging
> > for the base of the metric system. So the brilliant French
> > scientists decided on measuring the length of an arc of a meridian
> > that reaches from the North Pole to the Equator to determine the
> > base of the new measuring system. The meter supposedly equals one
> > ten-millionth the length of this quadrant. Yeah well, that is just
> > plain bogus. The French scientists made two huge mistakes: first,
> >  the meridian is neither uniform nor unchanging and second, they
> > screwed up with their complicated measurements and were actually 30
> > meters off. Consequently, the French's beloved metric system is
> > actually solely based on a platinum bar made to the incorrect
> > specifications of their measurements of a changing item of nature.
> > Regardless of these glaring errors, the French made the metric
> > system law on Apri! l 7, 1795. Apparently, they were desperate to
> > adopt a system of weights and measures. French politicians and
> > scientists had been working for at least 500 years by this time to
> > organize a uniform system of measurement. The French General
> > Assembly of 1302 first articulated their desired measuring
> > conspiracy with their distasteful motto: "One King, one Law, one
> > Weight, one Measure." In 1790, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, a
> > member of France's Constituent Assembly, succeeded in persuading the
> > French Academy of Sciences which claimed representatives from Spain,
> > Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland to accept the
> > metric system. Talleyrand wanted to do this because he believed if
> > other countries helped to establish the metric system, then they
> > would be more likely to adopt it themselves. Luckily, England
> > declined the invitation and saved us from total measuring conformity
> > directed by the French.
> >
> >     Although the metric system is slowly creeping into US culture,
> > we have stood up to the French more than most other nations. Even
> > though our monetary system is decimal and many stuffy old scientists
> > may prefer the grams and meters, the US luckily retains her
> > independence from the invasive French metric system.
> > >
> > > From: "Problah" <problah@zonenet.net>
> > > Date: 2002/09/04 Wed PM 10:57:03 EDT
> > > To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: N/A
> > >
> > > Well it's not figuring out the fraction that's the problem, I just divide
> to
> > > give me a decimal value (still in inches thoe) It's the standard system.
> It
> > > started because American wanted to be so different from the country they
> > > declared independance from that they even came up with a new form of
> > > calculations. It sucks. Metric is so much easier, everything really
> should be
> > > metric, everyone I've spoken to pretty much agrees except the hardcore
> > > patriots. I just don't care for measuring something in fractions,
> converting
> > > it to decimal, and then converting it to metric. It's pointless when the
> > > whole world uses metric, and we are the only country who doesn't. It
> really
> > > makes us and our equipment "Incompatible" in a sense. While I was
> building my
> > > ROV I used standard, and now that most of the equipment I want to buy
> fits up
> > > with metric, I now know what I'm going to use for my sub. It just makes
> it
> > > that much more easier, you know?
> > >
> > >
> > > Support your local zonenet
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > From: Coalbunny <coalbunny@vcn.com>
> > > To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> > > Sent: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:33:08 -0600
> > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: N/A
> > >
> > > > Did you know that five out of four people usually have problems with
> > > > fraction?  So welcome to the club, man!
> > > > Carl
> > > >
> > > > Problah wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I hate fractions. Metric blows away all other scales!!!!
> > > > > Okay lessee. I'll give you my best estimate, but you're still going
> to
> > > want
> > > > > to dunk it. I'll just give you a max depth you can dunk it to if it
> hold
> > > at
> > > > > 165ft
> > > > > .3125 inches.
> > > > > doing it for .28125 to account for corrosion.
> > > > > 18.75inches radius.
> > > > > 120 inches long (hopefully that is between weld points.
> > > > > .3 steel with a flexibility of 3E7
> > > > > gives you:
> > > > > 239 to 266 ft. Dramatic difference, don't you agree?
> > > > > I think I may have not removed the ten percent from the original
> calc. I
> > > > > never said I was a genius. heh, but regardless the original spec I
> gave
> > > you
> > > > > tells a different story now that you've sent me all the info. I always
> > > > > recommend take half off of that for max operating depth. It's good to
> be
> > > > > safe, and 110 feet is where you start really losing light in some
> waters
> > > > > anyways.
> > > > > Good luck with your project, and definately make sure to get the
> saturated
> > > > > propane out of there, Temper it out if you have to, but that will
> change
> > > your
> > > > > flexibility, and 75 ft might be all you can really go.
> > > > >
> > > > > Support your local zonenet
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > > From: majerus@iowatelecom.net
> > > > > To: <Personal_Submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > > > Sent: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:44:38 -0500
> > > > > Subject: N/A
> > > > >
> > > > > > The body is 37.5 inches round, 10 feet long, 5/16 thickness and
> > > > > > mild steel
> > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly
> > > > on our own point of view."
> > > > -Obi-Wan Kenobi, ROTJ
> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Roger June
> > REJ and Company
> > rjune@fuse.net
> > 513-300-1189
> ------- End of Original Message -------

-- 
You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly
on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi, ROTJ