Author Topic: Why not ban AWG  (Read 56186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AlfBaz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2030
  • Country: au
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #100 on: October 14, 2013, 11:21:54 pm »
Initially the foot was supposedly the length of a king's food. I don't know if that's true or not.
So NIST have his foot in a glass case?
 

Offline Stonent

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3824
  • Country: us
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #101 on: October 14, 2013, 11:43:03 pm »
Initially the foot was supposedly the length of a king's food. I don't know if that's true or not.
So NIST have his foot in a glass case?

I wouldn't think so, we haven't had a king in well over 200 years.
The larger the government, the smaller the citizen.
 

Offline Zbig

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 875
  • Country: pl
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #102 on: October 14, 2013, 11:52:50 pm »
Just a one more silly little mental exercise from my side for all the defendants of the flawed reasoning behind that inches and miles & co. are totally fine because you don't ever have a practical need to mix such a vastly different values.

1 inch equals a 1/63360 mile, right? It doesn't have to be "round" because an "inch of something" is so differrent from a "mile of something" that you just don't compare or mix them in practice, you say? ;)

Well, 1 picofarad equals 10^-6 microfarads. Now imagine that someone used similar broken logic for capacitors and that the big electrolytics are measured in "Capacitons" and small, ceramic ones are measured in "Tinysparks" (which wouldn't be that much more cheesy than "foot"). And that for no apparrent reason, 1 Capaciton equals 83291.6912 Tinysparks. Deal with that. What kind of mental tricks would you use to convince yourself and others that there is a method in this madness? ;) Have fun calculating your RC filter :)

The simple fact is that non-divisible, arbitrary-multiplies nonsense just has to die and the sooner the better  :box:
« Last Edit: October 14, 2013, 11:55:26 pm by Zbig »
 

Offline Dongulus

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 231
  • Country: us
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #103 on: October 15, 2013, 01:22:08 am »
Okay, okay. Yeesh, I need to explain myself better.  :palm:  Let me clarify that I would not in any way be advocating the imperial system over the metric system in any circumstance. In fact, to call imperial units a system is much too generous. Imperial units is a religion. It was passed to my generation from a previous one and to them from a previous one and so on with no rational other than "because that's the way it is". If I was raised with the metric system as my sole tool for measurement, then I would be arguing along side everyone else here, and I would have a much easier time doing so.  ;)

There certainly is no contest as to which convention is more convenient for calculations; there's proof in the fact that every single science and engineering class I have ever taken in my life used metric units. I know that the members of this forum are a group of scientifically minded people, to whom calculations are a regular practice, and the convenience of the metric system is all important. However, for the general population, of whom the vast majority possess no more than a high school diploma (U.S. public school system, mind you), calculations are not a regular exercise. In addition, much construction work is guided by rules of thumb and established practices rather than formalized mathematics.

What I wanted to get across is that however stupid our units may seem, they are perfectly capable of communication measurements with little ambiguity, at least intranationally. Trading miles for kilometers, feet and yards for meters, and inches for centimeters simply offers no advantage to the majority of Americans. This is why every intent to switch to metric has been a complete failure.

My belief is that we will be entrenched in our imperial units hole until our Chinese overlords take over in which case we'll use whatever they have.  ;D

 

Offline Fsck

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1157
  • Country: ca
  • sleep deprived
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #104 on: October 15, 2013, 01:28:30 am »
Initially the foot was supposedly the length of a king's food. I don't know if that's true or not.
So NIST have his foot in a glass case?

I wouldn't think so, we haven't had a king in well over 200 years.

the foot is defined from the meter
"This is a one line proof...if we start sufficiently far to the left."
 

Offline Kryoclasm

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Country: us
  • KL3DL
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #105 on: October 15, 2013, 01:32:54 am »
the foot is defined from the meter

Um, the foot is defined from the inch which is  defined from the 3 barley corn standard.

Now, to be fair, we have also used the metric standard to give it a second standard to refer to  in case someone loses or eats the barley corns.  :phew:
« Last Edit: October 15, 2013, 01:35:23 am by Kryoclasm »
“I predict that very shortly the old-fashioned incandescent lamp, having a filament heated to brightness by the passage of electric current through it, will entirely disappear.” -Nikola Tesla
 

Offline Fsck

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1157
  • Country: ca
  • sleep deprived
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #106 on: October 15, 2013, 01:48:45 am »
the foot is defined from the meter

Um, the foot is defined from the inch which is  defined from the 3 barley corn standard.

Now, to be fair, we have also used the metric standard to give it a second standard to refer to  in case someone loses or eats the barley corns.  :phew:

no, the foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters, from which we experimentally derive the meter from its definition: “The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.”  per http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/

the foot was *historically defined* from inches. it's no longer a valid definition as the standard for the inch is derived from the foot which is derived from the meter. it's basically semantics.

(if the nist site was functioning, I'd give you the nist link for the foot but....)
« Last Edit: October 15, 2013, 01:51:44 am by Fsck »
"This is a one line proof...if we start sufficiently far to the left."
 

Offline Stonent

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3824
  • Country: us
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #107 on: October 15, 2013, 01:49:49 am »
the foot is defined from the meter

Um, the foot is defined from the inch which is  defined from the 3 barley corn standard.

Now, to be fair, we have also used the metric standard to give it a second standard to refer to  in case someone loses or eats the barley corns.  :phew:

But what if we can never find John Galt, what will be the point?  ;)
The larger the government, the smaller the citizen.
 

Online Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6393
  • Country: gb
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #108 on: October 15, 2013, 01:50:19 am »
the foot is defined from the meter

Um, the foot is defined from the inch which is  defined from the 3 barley corn standard.

Now, to be fair, we have also used the metric standard to give it a second standard to refer to  in case someone loses or eats the barley corns.  :phew:

no, the foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters, from which we experimentally derive the meter from its definition: “The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.”

(if the nist site was functioning, I'd give you the nist link but....)

No, it's defined as a third of one yard. In metric that is 30.48 centimetres.
 

Offline AlfBaz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2030
  • Country: au
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #109 on: October 15, 2013, 01:57:17 am »
Can we stop using centimetres please, this is an engineering forum not a seamstress/tailor forum... it's either millimetres or metres >:D
 

Offline Fsck

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1157
  • Country: ca
  • sleep deprived
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #110 on: October 15, 2013, 01:57:36 am »
the foot is defined from the meter

Um, the foot is defined from the inch which is  defined from the 3 barley corn standard.

Now, to be fair, we have also used the metric standard to give it a second standard to refer to  in case someone loses or eats the barley corns.  :phew:

no, the foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters, from which we experimentally derive the meter from its definition: “The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.”

(if the nist site was functioning, I'd give you the nist link but....)

No, it's defined as a third of one yard. In metric that is 30.48 centimetres.

we need access to http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app9.pdf%E2%80%8E
"This is a one line proof...if we start sufficiently far to the left."
 

Offline AlfBaz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2030
  • Country: au
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #111 on: October 15, 2013, 02:01:01 am »
Wiki recons that at some time in thepast most countries agreed to making a yard equal to exactly 0.9144 metres
 

Offline Fsck

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1157
  • Country: ca
  • sleep deprived
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #112 on: October 15, 2013, 02:17:05 am »
the foot is defined from the meter

Um, the foot is defined from the inch which is  defined from the 3 barley corn standard.

Now, to be fair, we have also used the metric standard to give it a second standard to refer to  in case someone loses or eats the barley corns.  :phew:

no, the foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters, from which we experimentally derive the meter from its definition: “The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.”

(if the nist site was functioning, I'd give you the nist link but....)

No, it's defined as a third of one yard. In metric that is 30.48 centimetres.

and the yard is defined from the meter which is where the derived definitions come from.
in the end you end up with an imperial length = meter equivalent definition
"This is a one line proof...if we start sufficiently far to the left."
 

Offline Kryoclasm

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Country: us
  • KL3DL
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #113 on: October 15, 2013, 02:33:32 am »
no, the foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters, from which we experimentally derive the meter from its definition: “The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.”  per http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/

the foot was *historically defined* from inches. it's no longer a valid definition as the standard for the inch is derived from the foot which is derived from the meter. it's basically semantics.

My only sticking point the where you say, and I'll shorten the thought..."imperial is derived from metric".

More accurately it is agreed that an imperial measurement is now defined as having a metric equivalent. Thus, the "foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters".

I know I'm splitting hairs.  :P
“I predict that very shortly the old-fashioned incandescent lamp, having a filament heated to brightness by the passage of electric current through it, will entirely disappear.” -Nikola Tesla
 

Offline sacherjj

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 993
  • Country: us
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #114 on: October 15, 2013, 02:54:46 am »
I bought a tape measure that was combo 'merican inches, feet, 16" stud placement and mm on the other side.  Then I used it to make my tool bench and was writing down things like 1234, 843, 234.  Not 48 1/16, 92 5/8.  It was awesome, even as comfortable I am with construction with imperial.  But impossible to work with anyone else unless we all have tapes like this, and really has to be on both sides to not get annoying.  I wish we would bite the bullet and do it.
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #115 on: October 15, 2013, 03:01:53 am »
Then I used it to make my tool bench and was writing down things like 1234, 843, 234.  Not 48 1/16, 92 5/8.

When I have to measure lengths and I'm restricted to Imperial units, I make them as close to metric as I can by measuring everything in only inches and sixteenths. It's just sad that we think 5' 3-1/4" is a perfectly valid measurement; I call that 63"4. It's close enough for most things.
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Offline echen1024

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1660
  • Country: us
  • 15 yo Future EE
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #116 on: October 15, 2013, 03:03:36 am »
We might as well go back to bushels, pecks, and fortnights. Hey, for a society that still measures length in body parts, that's not too bad...
I'm not saying we should kill all stupid people. I'm just saying that we should remove all product safety labels and let natural selection do its work.

https://www.youtube.com/user/echen1024
 

Offline sacherjj

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 993
  • Country: us
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #117 on: October 15, 2013, 03:23:37 am »
Then I used it to make my tool bench and was writing down things like 1234, 843, 234.  Not 48 1/16, 92 5/8.

When I have to measure lengths and I'm restricted to Imperial units, I make them as close to metric as I can by measuring everything in only inches and sixteenths. It's just sad that we think 5' 3-1/4" is a perfectly valid measurement; I call that 63"4. It's close enough for most things.

1mm is more than accurate enough for construction and good for rough wood working.  Fine wood working is down to below 1/64th and fractions of a mm.  Like that notation idea though, 63"4., but seems like it would be 63"1 as in 1/4. 
« Last Edit: October 15, 2013, 03:27:47 am by sacherjj »
 

Offline iloveelectronics

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 937
  • Country: hk
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #118 on: October 15, 2013, 03:32:22 am »
Just curious...do people in the UK still commonly use "stone" as the unit for weight?
My email address: franky @ 99centHobbies . com
My eBay store: http://stores.ebay.com/99centhobbies
 

Online Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6393
  • Country: gb
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #119 on: October 15, 2013, 03:34:06 am »
Just curious...do people in the UK still commonly use "stone" as the unit for weight?

For bodyweight, yes.
 

Offline Bored@Work

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3932
  • Country: 00
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #120 on: October 15, 2013, 05:03:19 am »
Initially the foot was supposedly the length of a king's food. I don't know if that's true or not.
So NIST have his foot in a glass case?

I wouldn't think so, we haven't had a king in well over 200 years.

So? If the French managed to keep the various prototype meter bars for centuries, you could keep a rotten foot of some king for two centuries. And you could make dual use of the rotten foot

1) Length specification

2) Establishment of a scale for the smell of rotten Wisconsin cheese (For the completion of the standardization of cheese. The one where the US regulates the size of holes in cheese. To protect US consumers from being swindled out of their cheese if sold cheese with too large holes ...)
I delete PMs unread. If you have something to say, say it in public.
For all else: Profile->[Modify Profile]Buddies/Ignore List->Edit Ignore List
 

Offline Bored@Work

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3932
  • Country: 00
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #121 on: October 15, 2013, 05:13:55 am »
Can we stop using centimetres please, this is an engineering forum not a seamstress/tailor forum... it's either millimetres or metres >:D

centi is a valid SI prefix. Nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't get as much love in engineering as it should get.
I delete PMs unread. If you have something to say, say it in public.
For all else: Profile->[Modify Profile]Buddies/Ignore List->Edit Ignore List
 

Offline AlfBaz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2030
  • Country: au
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #122 on: October 15, 2013, 05:28:22 am »
centi is a valid SI prefix.
So is deci.
Quote
it just doesn't get as much love in engineering as it should get.
Probably because the only time you hear centimetres is when you are being measured up for clothes and the numbers just keep on climbing :P
 

Offline Tepe

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 571
  • Country: dk
Sv: Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #123 on: October 15, 2013, 05:44:36 am »
So is deci.
In Sweden candy is sold by the hektogram
ceterum censeo systemd-inem esse delendam
 

Offline Bored@Work

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3932
  • Country: 00
Re: Why not ban AWG
« Reply #124 on: October 15, 2013, 05:46:35 am »
centi is a valid SI prefix.
So is deci.
Quote
it just doesn't get as much love in engineering as it should get.
Probably because the only time you hear centimetres is when you are being measured up for clothes and the numbers just keep on climbing :P

Ah no. Here e.g. TV screen sizes are specified in cm*. In fact, a lot of household stuff is, so is some DIY building material.

* Fun fact. We "always" did specify TVs in cm, but computer monitors in inch. Until the EU stepped in and reminded everyone that measures used for trading with consumers MUST be metric. So computer monitors were suddenly specified in cm, too. Similar with hard disks. Which got some people a bit angry (namely the manufacturers and importers of computer gear). So they lobbied the EU ind the EU had to give in and now allows to use imperial units again- But only if the metric unit is also given, and the metric unit is given prominently (e.g. first, before the imperial one, or in a larger font).
I delete PMs unread. If you have something to say, say it in public.
For all else: Profile->[Modify Profile]Buddies/Ignore List->Edit Ignore List
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf