Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt

[Paul Hirose]

The Edwards AFB air show on October 25 and 26 will feature attempts to
set numerous world speed records with a B-1B. The speed runs will
include low altitude passes over the show area. A release of 84 inert
500-lb bombs in view of the crowd will conclude the B-1 flying on both
days.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh_2003/docs_html/event-info.html

--

Paul Hirose >

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:32:00 GMT, Paul Hirose
> wrote:

>The Edwards AFB air show on October 25 and 26 will feature attempts to
>set numerous world speed records with a B-1B. The speed runs will
>include low altitude passes over the show area. A release of 84 inert
>500-lb bombs in view of the crowd will conclude the B-1 flying on both
>days.
>
>http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh_2003/docs_html/event-info.html

How in the world is a B-1B going to set *any* speed records?

Al Minyard

[Thomas Schoene]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message

>
> How in the world is a B-1B going to set *any* speed records?

Not absolute records. It already has a bunch in its weight class for speed
over particular courses, speed with certain payloads, etc. I expect the
plan to improve on those and add some more.

The B-1's current records are listed here, along with records by other
aircraft in the same general categories. I imagine they'll be trying to
take some away from the Tu-160.

http://www.b1b.wpafb.af.mil/pages/pdf/b1_records.pdf

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Guy Alcala]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:32:00 GMT, Paul Hirose
> > wrote:
>
> >The Edwards AFB air show on October 25 and 26 will feature attempts to
> >set numerous world speed records with a B-1B. The speed runs will
> >include low altitude passes over the show area. A release of 84 inert
> >500-lb bombs in view of the crowd will conclude the B-1 flying on both
> >days.
> >
> >http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh_2003/docs_html/event-info.html
>
> How in the world is a B-1B going to set *any* speed records?

Probably the same way it set the numerous speed records it has held since
1987 and later; for closed circuits of 1,000km, 2,000km (both in class
C-1q, 150,000 to 200,000 kg. t/o wgt.) and 5,000km (unlimited wgt. class)
with payloads varying from zero to 30,000 kg., for 10,000km with zero
payload (unlimited wgt.) , and for around the world eastbound (refueled in
flight, unlimited wgt.). They might be looking to take a few more of the
10,000km records with payload from the B-52H which currently holds them, or
else boost some of the 5,000km records or the around the world records they
already hold. See

http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/current.asp?id1=21&id2=4

for the current records. The other option, which sounds more like what
they're talking about with the "speed runs," would be to try and set a low
altitude speed record in its weight class; although AFAIK the FAI no longer
recognizes low altitude speed records per se owing to the danger.

Guy

[Paul Hirose]

The local civilian newspaper has an article about the upcoming B-1
speed record attempts. The runs will be in two weight classes (on
different days), each day including 100-, 500-, and 1000-km closed
course runs, apparently at 500 feet. "The bomber will maintain speeds
of 0.9 to 0.95 Mach, or nearly 700 mph, while skimming along at 500
feet above the ground."

There will also be speed runs on 3- and 15-km straight line courses.
The 3-km pass will be at 400 feet and .95 Mach. The 15-km pass will be
at 15,000 and 1.2 Mach.

Each day will conclude with the bomb load being dropped on the range
about four miles from the air show grounds.

http://www.avpress.com/n/susty1.hts

--

Paul Hirose >

[BUFDRVR]

>They might be looking to take a few more of the
>10,000km records with payload from the B-52H which currently holds them

Lots of luck, those records maxed out the B-52H unrefueled range, unless
they've installed new engines in that Bone making it 50% more efficient I don't
think they've got a chance.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:56:42 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message

>>
>> How in the world is a B-1B going to set *any* speed records?
>
>Not absolute records. It already has a bunch in its weight class for speed
>over particular courses, speed with certain payloads, etc. I expect the
>plan to improve on those and add some more.
>
>The B-1's current records are listed here, along with records by other
>aircraft in the same general categories. I imagine they'll be trying to
>take some away from the Tu-160.
>
>http://www.b1b.wpafb.af.mil/pages/pdf/b1_records.pdf



I wish they'd get the fire to break more records these days like they
did back in the fifties and sixties. Hell some of the "records" out
there are ones that any line aircraft could break easily if not
actually performing *beyond* them regularly.

[Regnirps]

Oh, crap! The table uses that French system with the km/hour I can never make
sense of!

-- Charlie Springer

[PosterBoy]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, crap! The table uses that French system with the km/hour I can never
make
> sense of!
>
> -- Charlie Springer

I think you mean that nearly universal system with the km/hour. Try:

http://www.teaching-english-in-japan.net/conversion/kilometers

or, if you don't wish to learn anything, just want to convert:

http://www.escapeartist.com/Miles_Kilometer_Converter/Miles_Kilometer_Converter.html

Cheers.

[Guy Alcala]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >They might be looking to take a few more of the
> >10,000km records with payload from the B-52H which currently holds them
>
> Lots of luck, those records maxed out the B-52H unrefueled range, unless
> they've installed new engines in that Bone making it 50% more efficient I don't
> think they've got a chance.

From Paul Hirose's post it appears that they aren't going for the 10,000 km
records. Personally, I'd think that capturing the record for 10,000km at 1 and
maybe 2,000 kg. payloads might be doable, given ideal conditions and very precise
flying rather than any improvement in engine sfc. But maybe the 10,000km/no
payload record was already on the edge of what could be physically achieved, and
there's no room for improvement.

Guy

[BUFDRVR]

> Personally, I'd think that capturing the record for 10,000km at 1 and
>maybe 2,000 kg. payloads might be doable, given ideal conditions and very
>precise
>flying rather than any improvement in engine sfc. But maybe the 10,000km/no
>payload record was already on the edge of what could be physically achieved

I think any 10,000 km distance is too far for the Bone if they push it up to
break the BUFF record. I don't think they'll make it fuel wise.




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Regnirps]

"PosterBoy" Wrote:

>>"Regnirps" > wrote in message
>> Oh, crap! The table uses that French system with the km/hour I can never
make
>> sense of!
>>
>> -- Charlie Springer

> I think you mean that nearly universal system with the km/hour. Try: anip

My 1952 Unabridged Dictionairy calls it "The French System" as it was for the
previous 100 years, and as a physicist I find it convenient for mental
calculations, but for every day hunam scale use it sucks. It was
developed for scientific ellites. I'm sure you know that the units larger than
one use Latin prefixes and those smaller use Greek, something easily noticed by
a classically educated scientist of the 1880's. But for Mr. Goodwrench today?
An 8 mm bolt in grade 8.8 comes in three standard thread pitches and you say
"point seven oh" or "8mm with one point two five mm pitch" instead of "one
quarter twenty four". Fooey. Have you ever tried to shout French measurements
to someone in a noisy constructiuon environment? You can wind up with a doorway
three inches high.

It was officialy adopted by the US more than a hundred years ago. Do you think
it hasn't caught on because people are stuborn or because it has usability
problems (like similar sounding names for various units)? Would you try to make
everybody drive cars they don't like for 150 years? A km is what, the distance
from pole to equator divided by 15,000? What's a nautical mile?

-- Charlie Springer

[PosterBoy]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> "PosterBoy" Wrote:
>
> >>"Regnirps" > wrote in message
> >> Oh, crap! The table uses that French system with the km/hour I can
never
> make
> >> sense of!
> >>
> >> -- Charlie Springer
>
> > I think you mean that nearly universal system with the km/hour. Try:
anip

You have misquoted me. Please correct.

Thanks, and..

Cheers.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 21 Oct 2003 04:26:44 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:


>Have you ever tried to shout French measurements
>to someone in a noisy constructiuon environment?

Yes, and metric was the lingua franca of measurement when I last worked on
building sites here in the UK 15-16 years ago.

>You can wind up with a doorway
>three inches high.
>

One doesn't when the term of measurement is always expressed in
millimetres, no decimal points, no fractions and a lot more convenient and
accurate for general construction use than feet and inches, the nearest mil
being approximately 1/25th of an inch.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Andreas Parsch]

Regnirps wrote:

>
> My 1952 Unabridged Dictionairy calls it "The French System" as it was for the
> previous 100 years,


1952 ... a great up-to-date source ;-). Anyway, it's called "Système
Internationale" or SI. So its _name_ is indeed French.

> and as a physicist I find it convenient for mental
> calculations, but for every day hunam scale use it sucks.


No, it doesn't ... I've used it all my life.



> It was developed for scientific ellites.


Not at all. It was developed to have a common system of measurement
all over Europe at a time when almost every country (and sometimes
village!) had its own pound, mile, etc.

> I'm sure you know that the units larger than
> one use Latin prefixes and those smaller use Greek,


vice versa

> something easily noticed by
> a classically educated scientist of the 1880's. But for Mr. Goodwrench today?
> An 8 mm bolt in grade 8.8 comes in three standard thread pitches and you say
> "point seven oh" or "8mm with one point two five mm pitch" instead of "one
> quarter twenty four". Fooey. Have you ever tried to shout French measurements
> to someone in a noisy constructiuon environment? You can wind up with a doorway
> three inches high.


Not any easier than with U.S. or Imperial units. BTW, a few years
there was this unfortuante incident involving a multi-million $ NASA
space probe and incompetent usage of U.S. units of distance ;-) ...


>
> It was officialy adopted by the US more than a hundred years ago. Do you think
> it hasn't caught on because people are stuborn


Yes. People can be unbelievably stubborn when it comes to giving up
old habits even if newer alternatives would be an improvement.

> or because it has usability
> problems (like similar sounding names for various units)?


Huh?? "Meter" isn't any more similar to "gram" than, say, "foot" is to
"ounce". If you refer to the common prefixes, this is the big
_advantage_. If you know that a kilometer is 1000 meters, you
immediately know that a kilogram is 1000 grams, a kilovolt is 1000
volts, etc. No need to memorize all the factors to convert inches ->
feet -> miles, ounces -> pounds, and whatever.

> Would you try to make
> everybody drive cars they don't like for 150 years? A km is what, the distance
> from pole to equator divided by 15,000?


Roughly the circumference of the earth divided by 40,000. I don't know
the origin of the (statute) mile, but I'm sure you'll tell me that its
defintion is _way_ more intuitive ;-).

> What's a nautical mile?


1852 meters ;-).

Andreas

[John Keeney]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
> Not any easier than with U.S. or Imperial units. BTW, a few years
> there was this unfortuante incident involving a multi-million $ NASA
> space probe and incompetent usage of U.S. units of distance ;-) ...

Naw, it was because some idiot provided some of the terms in
metric instead of proper units.

> Huh?? "Meter" isn't any more similar to "gram" than, say, "foot" is to
> "ounce". If you refer to the common prefixes, this is the big
> _advantage_. If you know that a kilometer is 1000 meters, you
> immediately know that a kilogram is 1000 grams, a kilovolt is 1000
> volts, etc. No need to memorize all the factors to convert inches ->
> feet -> miles, ounces -> pounds, and whatever.

But nobody weighs things in "grams", it's always "kilograms".
Nor do the measure things in "meters" (as was stated concerning
building a house) they measure in "milimeters".

[Seraphim]

"PosterBoy" > wrote in
news:WnMkb.131957$9l5.102654@pd7tw2no:

> "Regnirps" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Oh, crap! The table uses that French system with the km/hour I can
>> never make sense of!
>
> I think you mean that nearly universal system with the km/hour.

Known as the SI system, which derives from its French name "Système
Internationale [d'Unités]" (International System [of units]).

From Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Metric system - a system of weights and measures originating in France...

[Andreas Parsch]

John Keeney wrote:

> "Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Not any easier than with U.S. or Imperial units. BTW, a few years
>>there was this unfortuante incident involving a multi-million $ NASA
>>space probe and incompetent usage of U.S. units of distance ;-) ...
>>
>
> Naw, it was because some idiot provided some of the terms in
> metric instead of proper units.


It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
units consistently.


>>Huh?? "Meter" isn't any more similar to "gram" than, say, "foot" is to
>>"ounce". If you refer to the common prefixes, this is the big
>>_advantage_. If you know that a kilometer is 1000 meters, you
>>immediately know that a kilogram is 1000 grams, a kilovolt is 1000
>>volts, etc. No need to memorize all the factors to convert inches ->
>>feet -> miles, ounces -> pounds, and whatever.
>>
>
> But nobody weighs things in "grams", it's always "kilograms".


Nonsense. It depends - of course - on the size of the items.


> Nor do the measure things in "meters" (as was stated concerning
> building a house) they measure in "milimeters".


And so what? The OP said metric units had "usability
problems (like similar sounding names for various units)". Neither
"meter" nor "millimeter" sound similar to other non-distance metric units.

Andreas

[Pat Norton]

John Keeney wrote:
>it was because some idiot provided some of the terms in
>metric instead of proper units.

Lockheed Martin Astronautics failed to provide metric units as
specified by NASA.

The official investigation report says:
"The MCO MIB [Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board] has
determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was
the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software
file, "Small Forces," used in trajectory models. Specifically,
thruster performance data in English units instead of metric units was
used in the software application code titled SM_FORCES (smallforces).
The output from the SM_FORCES application code as required by a MSOP
Project Software Interface Specification (SIS) was to be in metric
units of Newton-seconds (N-s). Instead, the data was reported in
English units of pound-seconds (lbf-s). The Angular Momentum
Desaturation (AMD) file contained the output data from the SM_FORCES
software. The SIS, which was not followed, defines both the format and
units of the AMD file generated by ground-based computers."
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/risk/mco_mib_report.pdf

[Andreas Parsch]

Pat Norton wrote:

> John Keeney wrote:
>
>>it was because some idiot provided some of the terms in
>>metric instead of proper units.
>
> Lockheed Martin Astronautics failed to provide metric units as
> specified by NASA.
>
> The official investigation report says:
> [snipped]

Hey, thanks :-)!!


Andreas

[B2431]

>From: Andreas Parsch a
>the size of the items.
>
<snip>
>
>And so what? The OP said metric units had "usability
>problems (like similar sounding names for various units)". Neither
>"meter" nor "millimeter" sound similar to other non-distance metric units.
>
>Andreas
>
Milliliter and millimeter perhaps?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Andreas Parsch]

B2431 wrote:

>>And so what? The OP said metric units had "usability
>>problems (like similar sounding names for various units)". Neither
>>"meter" nor "millimeter" sound similar to other non-distance metric units.
>>
>>
> Milliliter and millimeter perhaps?


"liter" and "meter" do indeed sound similar. However, from the context
it should be fairly easy to guess if the speaker means a distance or a
volume. And BTW, I'm not too familiar with English units, but maybe
there are also two similar sounding names of units. As long as units
with similar names are used for different kinds of measurements, the
risk of confusion should be negligible.

As for the identical prefixes, I already said why this is actually an
advantage.

Andreas

[Andreas Parsch]

B2431 wrote:

>>From: Andreas Parsch a
>> Neither "meter" nor "millimeter" sound similar to other non-distance metric units.
>>
> Milliliter and millimeter perhaps?
>


Ok, now I noticed my stupid typo. Of course I wanted to say "Neither
'meter' nor 'millimeter' sound similar to other metric units _for
distance_". Sorry!

Andreas

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Regnirps wrote:

> "PosterBoy" Wrote:
>
>
>>>"Regnirps" > wrote in message
>>>Oh, crap! The table uses that French system with the km/hour I can never
>>>
> make
>
>>>sense of!
>>>
>>>-- Charlie Springer
>>>
>
>> I think you mean that nearly universal system with the km/hour. Try: anip
>>
>
> My 1952 Unabridged Dictionairy calls it "The French System" as it was for the
> previous 100 years, and as a physicist I find it convenient for mental
> calculations, but for every day hunam scale use it sucks.




I happen to be a physicist myself and use the same system both in work
and in daily life (which admittedly consists mainly out of working).
I've never had any problems with it. In fact, using the same system for
everything is very convenient, since it allows me to relate what I do as
a physicist to things in my daily life. Other than that, it's all
rather arbitrary. What the does it matter whether your length is 2 m or
6 feet and 7 inches?

It was
> developed for scientific ellites. I'm sure you know that the units larger than
> one use Latin prefixes and those smaller use Greek, something easily noticed by
> a classically educated scientist of the 1880's. But for Mr. Goodwrench today?
> An 8 mm bolt in grade 8.8 comes in three standard thread pitches and you say
> "point seven oh" or "8mm with one point two five mm pitch" instead of "one
> quarter twenty four". Fooey. Have you ever tried to shout French measurements
> to someone in a noisy constructiuon environment? You can wind up with a doorway
> three inches high.
>

Only if the guy on the recieving end is a bone-head.


> It was officialy adopted by the US more than a hundred years ago. Do you think
> it hasn't caught on because people are stuborn or because it has usability
> problems (like similar sounding names for various units)?


It hasn't caught on because people like to stick to what they know.
That's all.
I have an English friend (a physicist as well) who does pretty much
everything in SI, but if you ask for his weight he answers in `stone'
and has to think hard about how many kilogrammes that is. By the way,
I'm well aware of the fact that kg is the unit of mass, whilst your
weight should technically be expressed in Newtons.
If like me, you've grown up in a country that uses SI, it's very
natural. No problem whatsoever.

Would you try to make
> everybody drive cars they don't like for 150 years? A km is what, the distance
> from pole to equator divided by 15,000? What's a nautical mile?
>

Do you call the distance from the pole to the equator a human measure?
That hardly seems relevant when taking a trip to the supermarket or when
talking about how much gas your car burns when taking a trip to your
relatives.
It just depends on what you're used to.



> -- Charlie Springer
>
>

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Ralph Savelsberg]

B2431 wrote:

>>From: Andreas Parsch a
>>the size of the items.
>>
>>
> <snip>
>
>>And so what? The OP said metric units had "usability
>>problems (like similar sounding names for various units)". Neither
>>"meter" nor "millimeter" sound similar to other non-distance metric units.
>>
>>Andreas
>>
>>
> Milliliter and millimeter perhaps?
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>

Yes, they sound vaguely similar, but I fail to see why that would be a
problem. If any builder would be told to build a doorway of 2200
milliliters tall, I'm sure he'd know that that doesn't make a whole lot
of sense.

Regards,

Ralph Savelsberg

[Terry Simpson]

Andreas Parsch wrote:
>I'm not too familiar with English units, but maybe there are also two
similar sounding names of units.

"There are only 18 ounces of cottage cheese in a 24 ounce tub".

[Jim Battista]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in
:

> It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_
> ;-) ) units consistently.

If things were undocumented, as they were in that case, not so.

One set of programmers could have a routine using mks units, and
another could feed it data in cgs units.

The real problem with metric is that they didn't pick the units right.
They should have made a smaller meter. If a meter were what we call a
decimeter now, than a liter would be a cubic meter and a liter of water
would mass a gram, and there would be less need for all this mucking
about with cgs and mks units; everything would be mgs.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
> John Keeney wrote:
>
> > "Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Not any easier than with U.S. or Imperial units. BTW, a few years
> >>there was this unfortuante incident involving a multi-million $ NASA
> >>space probe and incompetent usage of U.S. units of distance ;-) ...
> >>
> >
> > Naw, it was because some idiot provided some of the terms in
> > metric instead of proper units.
>
>
> It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
> units consistently.

Where outside NASA's fantasy and Russia is altitude in aerospace in units
other than feet? I think the fault lies with NASA.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pat Norton" > wrote in message
...
> John Keeney wrote:
> >it was because some idiot provided some of the terms in
> >metric instead of proper units.
>
> Lockheed Martin Astronautics failed to provide metric units as
> specified by NASA.
>
> The official investigation report says:
> "The MCO MIB [Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board] has
> determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was
> the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software
> file, "Small Forces," used in trajectory models. Specifically,
> thruster performance data in English units instead of metric units was
> used in the software application code titled SM_FORCES (smallforces).
> The output from the SM_FORCES application code as required by a MSOP
> Project Software Interface Specification (SIS) was to be in metric
> units of Newton-seconds (N-s). Instead, the data was reported in
> English units of pound-seconds (lbf-s). The Angular Momentum
> Desaturation (AMD) file contained the output data from the SM_FORCES
> software. The SIS, which was not followed, defines both the format and
> units of the AMD file generated by ground-based computers."
> www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/risk/mco_mib_report.pdf

How could this be the root cause?

Was there no simulation?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Battista" > wrote in message
.. .
> Andreas Parsch > wrote in
> :
>
> > It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_
> > ;-) ) units consistently.
>
> If things were undocumented, as they were in that case, not so.
>
> One set of programmers could have a routine using mks units, and
> another could feed it data in cgs units.
>

Nobody should be using either.

For at least 20 years the standard unit set has been SI

> The real problem with metric is that they didn't pick the units right.
> They should have made a smaller meter. If a meter were what we call a
> decimeter now, than a liter would be a cubic meter and a liter of water
> would mass a gram, and there would be less need for all this mucking
> about with cgs and mks units; everything would be mgs.
>

Eh What ?

The SI system is simplicity itself

A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple

Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
the UK and USA

I considerably myself seriously short changed with
the 16oz US pint , especially when its beer :)

Keith

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:54:13 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>The SI system is simplicity itself
>
>A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple

A Kelvin gram? What's that?

FYI, 1 m^3 of water has a mass of 1 Mg or 1000 kg or 1 t.

>Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
>pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
>the UK and USA

Indeed. And even if you know which you're using, working things out
is still hard. Try these sums:

What's the capacity, in litres, of a box 10 cm by 20 cm by 30 cm?

What's the capacity, in gallons, of a box 10 inches by 20 inches by
30 inches?

I can do the 1st easily, but would struggle with the second (I could
only do it by converting to metric and back again: 1 in = 2.54
cm; 1 gallon = 8 pints; 1 pint = 568 ml).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:44:54 +0200, Ralph Savelsberg
> allegedly uttered:
>I happen to be a physicist myself and use the same system both in work
>and in daily life (which admittedly consists mainly out of working).
>I've never had any problems with it. In fact, using the same system for
>everything is very convenient, since it allows me to relate what I do as
>a physicist to things in my daily life. Other than that, it's all
>rather arbitrary. What the does it matter whether your length is 2 m or
>6 feet and 7 inches?
>
>It hasn't caught on because people like to stick to what they know.
>That's all.
>I have an English friend (a physicist as well) who does pretty much
>everything in SI, but if you ask for his weight he answers in `stone'
>and has to think hard about how many kilogrammes that is. By the way,
>I'm well aware of the fact that kg is the unit of mass, whilst your
>weight should technically be expressed in Newtons.
>If like me, you've grown up in a country that uses SI, it's very
>natural. No problem whatsoever.

I have to agree with you Ralph. As an English (I prefer British,
except during a Rugby World Cup) physicist, I'm more comfortable with
SI for work, but ask me how tall I am, and it's 6'1", and I drive at
xx mph. I know that's inconsistent, and I'd be more than happy to go
entirely SI (except for beer - a litre is too big, and a half-litre
just doesn't sound right!).

Especially living in the US as I currently do, it drives me nuts to
work in mm, inches and U just to get a single box to fit a rack.

Whoever thought of U as a unit of measurement really needs to suffer
in a major way. The sooner racks become standardised on a metric
measurement, the happier I'll be.

Love 'em or hate 'em (and I *am* English;-) ), France's greatest
contribution to the world is the metric system, just as the US' is the
Marshall Plan.

Anyway, enough drunken ramblings, time to get some kip.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:46:16 +0100, "Terry Simpson"
> allegedly uttered:

>Andreas Parsch wrote:
>>I'm not too familiar with English units, but maybe there are also two
>similar sounding names of units.
>
>"There are only 18 ounces of cottage cheese in a 24 ounce tub".
>

But 20 (Imperial) fluid ounces in a (US) pint that consists of 16 (US)
fluid ounces.

Who says Imperial/English/Archaic measurements are sensible? When was
the last time you worked out length in rods chains and leagues?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Ron]

>Who says Imperial/English/Archaic measurements are sensible? When was
>the last time you worked out length in rods chains

Chains are still used somewhat as a measurement on the ground side of wildland
firefighting...


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[B2431]

>Who says Imperial/English/Archaic measurements are sensible? When was
>the last time you worked out length in rods chains and leagues?
>
>---
>Peter Kemp

I say we should start measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:54:13 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >The SI system is simplicity itself
> >
> >A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple
>
> A Kelvin gram? What's that?
>
> FYI, 1 m^3 of water has a mass of 1 Mg or 1000 kg or 1 t.
>
> >Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
> >pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
> >the UK and USA
>
> Indeed. And even if you know which you're using, working things out
> is still hard. Try these sums:
>
> What's the capacity, in litres, of a box 10 cm by 20 cm by 30 cm?
>
> What's the capacity, in gallons, of a box 10 inches by 20 inches by
> 30 inches?
>

Which gallon US or Imperial ?

> I can do the 1st easily, but would struggle with the second (I could
> only do it by converting to metric and back again: 1 in = 2.54
> cm; 1 gallon = 8 pints; 1 pint = 568 ml).
>

The conversion isnt that bad actually

1 cu ft = 62.4 lbs
1 gallon (Imperial) = 10 lbs

You can work it from there

Keith

[Jim Battista]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

> The SI system is simplicity itself
>
> A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple

But that's, at one level, stupid. A cubic meter (or, ideally, liter)
of water should mass a gram. One unit cubed should lead directly to
the other unit. One ought not have to remember that the liter is a
cubic decimeter, not cubic meter, or that a gram is the mass of a
milliliter, not liter, of water. It should be 1 to 1 to 1, not 1 to 10
to 1000.

The only reason that won't work is that they picked a meter that was
too long, such that a cubic meter is an inconvenient measure of volume,
and a cubic meter of water is a very inconvenient measure of mass.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:57:24 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:54:13 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>> >
>> >The SI system is simplicity itself
>> >
>> >A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple
>>
>> A Kelvin gram? What's that?
>>
>> FYI, 1 m^3 of water has a mass of 1 Mg or 1000 kg or 1 t.
>>
>> >Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
>> >pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
>> >the UK and USA
>>
>> Indeed. And even if you know which you're using, working things out
>> is still hard. Try these sums:
>>
>> What's the capacity, in litres, of a box 10 cm by 20 cm by 30 cm?
>>
>> What's the capacity, in gallons, of a box 10 inches by 20 inches by
>> 30 inches?
>
>Which gallon US or Imperial ?

Either would do; in my figures below i was using Imperial gallons
(because I know how big they are).

>> I can do the 1st easily, but would struggle with the second (I could
>> only do it by converting to metric and back again: 1 in = 2.54
>> cm; 1 gallon = 8 pints; 1 pint = 568 ml).
>>
>
>The conversion isnt that bad actually
>
>1 cu ft = 62.4 lbs

It's not exactly a round number, is it?

>1 gallon (Imperial) = 10 lbs
>
>You can work it from there

Indeed so, The calculations are:

volume = 10*20*30/12^3 [ft^3]

mass = volume*62.4 [lb]

vol = mass/10 [gallon]

so it is (10*20*30/12^3)*62.4/10

The metric calculation OTOH is 10*20*30/1000 which can be done in
one's head.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Battista" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> :
>
> > The SI system is simplicity itself
> >
> > A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple
>
> But that's, at one level, stupid.

If you cant be civil this ends now.

Bye

Keith

[Jim Campbell]

(B2431) writes:

> >Who says Imperial/English/Archaic measurements are sensible? When was
> >the last time you worked out length in rods chains and leagues?
> >
> >---
> >Peter Kemp
>
> I say we should start measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to
the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
-- Grandpa Simpson

Which works out to about approximately 10.4 feet per gallon!
(US or Imperial is left as an exercise for the reader)


--
Jim Campbell

[Pete]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote
> >
> > Naw, it was because some idiot provided some of the terms in
> > metric instead of proper units.
>
>
> It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
> units consistently.

Rephrase that to:
"It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units consistently."
Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.

Pete

[Andreas Parsch]

Pete wrote:

> "Andreas Parsch" > wrote
>>
>>It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
>>units consistently.
>>
>
> Rephrase that to:
> "It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units consistently."
> Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.
>


I know! Guess why I posted the " ;) " :-)

Andreas

[Tarver Engineering]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
> Pete wrote:
>
> > "Andreas Parsch" > wrote
> >>
> >>It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
> >>units consistently.
> >>
> >
> > Rephrase that to:
> > "It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units
consistently."
> > Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.
> >
>
>
> I know! Guess why I posted the " ;) " :-)

It is ironic that anyone could envision metric units to be consistent with
aerospace.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:00:20 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
>> Pete wrote:
>>
>> > "Andreas Parsch" > wrote
>> >>
>> >>It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_ ;-) )
>> >>units consistently.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Rephrase that to:
>> > "It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units
>consistently."
>> > Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I know! Guess why I posted the " ;) " :-)
>
>It is ironic that anyone could envision metric units to be consistent with
>aerospace.

Can you tell me what the ICAO standards are for the various elements
reported on an aviation weather report? Not the ones used in the
United Stated, that's not what I'm asking--tell us what the _standard_
is. What are the units, in the ICAO standard, for Runway Visual
Range, for example? Or wind speed? Visibility? Temperature? Cloud
layer heights? Altimeter settings?

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:00:20 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Pete wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Andreas Parsch" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >>It wouldn't have happened if they had used proper (i.e. _metric_
;-) )
> >> >>units consistently.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Rephrase that to:
> >> > "It wouldn't have happened if they had used one set of units
consistently."
> >> > Cubits and millicubits would have worked, had it been consistent.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I know! Guess why I posted the " ;) " :-)
> >
> >It is ironic that anyone could envision metric units to be consistent
with
> >aerospace.
>
> Can you tell me what the ICAO standards are for the various elements
> reported on an aviation weather report? Not the ones used in the
> United Stated, that's not what I'm asking--tell us what the _standard_
> is. What are the units, in the ICAO standard, for Runway Visual
> Range, for example? Or wind speed? Visibility? Temperature? Cloud
> layer heights? Altimeter settings?

I am going to go with feet and clockwise. :)

[B2431]

>From: Jim Battista

<snip>

>But that's, at one level, stupid.

<snip>

>Jim Battista
>A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

If you feel the need to treat someone that way I suggest you change your motto.
It is possible to debate with without personal assaults.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Jim Campbell rchaic

<snip>

>> I say we should start measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to
>the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
>-- Grandpa Simpson
>
>Which works out to about approximately 10.4 feet per gallon!
>(US or Imperial is left as an exercise for the reader)
>
>
>--
>Jim Campbell

How long does it take for your car to accelerate from zero to 60 furlongs per
fortnight?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:57:24 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:54:13 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The SI system is simplicity itself
> >> >
> >> >A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple
> >>
> >> A Kelvin gram? What's that?
> >>
> >> FYI, 1 m^3 of water has a mass of 1 Mg or 1000 kg or 1 t.
> >>
> >> >Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
> >> >pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
> >> >the UK and USA
> >>
> >> Indeed. And even if you know which you're using, working things out
> >> is still hard. Try these sums:
> >>
> >> What's the capacity, in litres, of a box 10 cm by 20 cm by 30 cm?
> >>
> >> What's the capacity, in gallons, of a box 10 inches by 20 inches by
> >> 30 inches?
> >
> >Which gallon US or Imperial ?
>
> Either would do; in my figures below i was using Imperial gallons
> (because I know how big they are).

Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?

[Jim Battista]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Battista" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > The SI system is simplicity itself
>> >
>> > A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple
>>
>> But that's, at one level, stupid.
>
> If you cant be civil this ends now.

Sorry.

Not you that's stupid, the system. It's broken at a basic level --
you should never have to remember anything, which requires 1 to 1 to
1 conversions. Meters lead to liters lead to grams lead to calories
and newtons, all based rigidly off a better-defined meter.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Jim Battista" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > The SI system is simplicity itself
>> >
>> > A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple
>>
>> But that's, at one level, stupid.
>
>If you cant be civil this ends now.
>
>Bye
>
>Keith
>
I agree...it was interesting right up to that point, then things
went to hell in a hurry...shame on you Jim.
--

-Gord.

[Jim Baker]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Jim Battista
>
> <snip>
>
> >But that's, at one level, stupid.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Jim Battista
> >A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
>
> If you feel the need to treat someone that way I suggest you change your
motto.
> It is possible to debate with without personal assaults.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

You people need to learn how to read. Notice the commas? He wasn't calling
anyone stupid, he was calling the system stupid.

How stupid of you to think otherwise! LOL (JUST KIDDING!!!, Krikey)

JB

[[email protected]]

"Jim Baker" > wrote:

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: Jim Battista
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >But that's, at one level, stupid.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Jim Battista
>> >A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
>>
>> If you feel the need to treat someone that way I suggest you change your
>motto.
>> It is possible to debate with without personal assaults.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>You people need to learn how to read. Notice the commas? He wasn't calling
>anyone stupid, he was calling the system stupid.
>

You could certainly be right!...gee...<blush>

Well Jim?...



--

-Gord.

[Jim Battista]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> "Jim Baker" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>> >From: Jim Battista
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >But that's, at one level, stupid.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >Jim Battista
>>> >A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
>>>
>>> If you feel the need to treat someone that way I suggest you
>>> change your
>>motto.
>>> It is possible to debate with without personal assaults.
>>>
>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>You people need to learn how to read. Notice the commas? He
>>wasn't calling anyone stupid, he was calling the system stupid.
>>
>
> You could certainly be right!...gee...<blush>
>
> Well Jim?...

Indeed. But it's up to the writer to avoid constructions that can be
easily misconstrued, so my bad.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

[[email protected]]

Jim Battista > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:
>
>> "Jim Baker" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>>> >From: Jim Battista
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> >But that's, at one level, stupid.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> >Jim Battista
>>>> >A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
>>>>
>>>> If you feel the need to treat someone that way I suggest you
>>>> change your
>>>motto.
>>>> It is possible to debate with without personal assaults.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>>You people need to learn how to read. Notice the commas? He
>>>wasn't calling anyone stupid, he was calling the system stupid.
>>>
>>
>> You could certainly be right!...gee...<blush>
>>
>> Well Jim?...
>
>Indeed. But it's up to the writer to avoid constructions that can be
>easily misconstrued, so my bad.

Good God!...you really know how to hurt a guy don't you...not
only are you not wrong but you take the blame anyway!...hope I
can live up to your example!... :)

Anyway, sorry for the undeserved blast there sir.
--

-Gord.

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
>> >Which gallon US or Imperial ?
>>
>> Either would do; in my figures below i was using Imperial gallons
>> (because I know how big they are).
>
>Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?

Pounds aren't as unit of volume.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:08:31 -0000, Jim Battista > wrote:
>
>Not you that's stupid, the system. It's broken at a basic level --
>you should never have to remember anything, which requires 1 to 1 to
>1 conversions.

It would certainly be possible to have the baisc unit of length 10
cm, the unit of volume that length cubed, and thre unit of mass that
volume of water.

> Meters lead to liters lead to grams lead to calories
>and newtons, all based rigidly off a better-defined meter.

Power and force have a dimensionality that includes time, and i'm
not sure how to define a time unit based on the length-unit. If you
used the amount of time it takes light to travel the length-unit,
you'll have a very small time period. Perhaps you could use the
frequency of a pendulum (under earth gravity) of one length-unit
long. Or define the acceleration due to gravity as one length-unit
per time-unit squared.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[John Keeney]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: Jim Battista
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >But that's, at one level, stupid.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Jim Battista
> > >A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
> >
> > If you feel the need to treat someone that way I suggest you change your
> motto.
> > It is possible to debate with without personal assaults.
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> You people need to learn how to read. Notice the commas? He wasn't
calling
> anyone stupid, he was calling the system stupid.
>
> How stupid of you to think otherwise! LOL (JUST KIDDING!!!, Krikey)

Crap, I wondered through the first couple of messages what
the heck they were getting worked up about. I thought I
must have missed some joke...

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:

> Especially living in the US as I currently do, it drives me nuts to
> work in mm, inches and U just to get a single box to fit a rack.
>
> Whoever thought of U as a unit of measurement really needs to suffer
> in a major way. The sooner racks become standardised on a metric
> measurement, the happier I'll be.

Hate to break it to you, but the U is a metric spec.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Gene Nygaard]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:57:24 , Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>> >
>> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:54:13 , Keith Willshaw
>> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >The SI system is simplicity itself
>> >> >
>> >> >A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple
>> >>
>> >> A Kelvin gram? What's that?
>> >>
>> >> FYI, 1 m^3 of water has a mass of 1 Mg or 1000 kg or 1 t.
>> >>
>> >> >Now the non SI units are the bloody nightmare with
>> >> >pint , gallon and barrel meaning different things in
>> >> >the UK and USA
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. And even if you know which you're using, working things out
>> >> is still hard. Try these sums:
>> >>
>> >> What's the capacity, in litres, of a box 10 cm by 20 cm by 30 cm?
>> >>
>> >> What's the capacity, in gallons, of a box 10 inches by 20 inches by
>> >> 30 inches?
>> >
>> >Which gallon US or Imperial ?
>>
>> Either would do; in my figures below i was using Imperial gallons
>> (because I know how big they are).
>
>Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?

Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.

Of course, there are also the rocket scientists and engineers who are
able to get specific impulse in "seconds," by blithely ignoring the
fact that they are canceling out two units that aren't the same thing,
even if they are both called pounds. While seconds are a base unit in
SI, those "seconds" are not the SI units of specific impulse.
Specific impulse in SI is in units of N·s/kg, or the equivalent m/s.


Gene Nygaard
Time flies like an arrow;
fruit flies like a banana.

[Jim Baker]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >From: Jim Battista
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >But that's, at one level, stupid.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >Jim Battista
> > > >A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
> > >
> > > If you feel the need to treat someone that way I suggest you change
your
> > motto.
> > > It is possible to debate with without personal assaults.
> > >
> > > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > You people need to learn how to read. Notice the commas? He wasn't
> calling
> > anyone stupid, he was calling the system stupid.
> >
> > How stupid of you to think otherwise! LOL (JUST KIDDING!!!, Krikey)
>
> Crap, I wondered through the first couple of messages what
> the heck they were getting worked up about. I thought I
> must have missed some joke...
>
Certainly got their panties in a knot for a moment, eh?

LOL

[Gene Nygaard]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:24:18 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

>In article >, Peter Kemp
><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
>
>> Especially living in the US as I currently do, it drives me nuts to
>> work in mm, inches and U just to get a single box to fit a rack.
>>
>> Whoever thought of U as a unit of measurement really needs to suffer
>> in a major way. The sooner racks become standardised on a metric
>> measurement, the happier I'll be.
>
>Hate to break it to you, but the U is a metric spec.

What are u talking about? What is this U as a unit of measure?
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Battista" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Jim Battista" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > The SI system is simplicity itself
> >> >
> >> > A cu metre of water masses 1 Kg - simple
> >>
> >> But that's, at one level, stupid.
> >
> > If you cant be civil this ends now.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Not you that's stupid, the system. It's broken at a basic level --
> you should never have to remember anything, which requires 1 to 1 to
> 1 conversions. Meters lead to liters lead to grams lead to calories
> and newtons, all based rigidly off a better-defined meter.
>

Ok

You are forgetting the historical context of the system I think

The metric system came about because the French pre-revolutionary
system of weights and measures were chaotic. In Britain (and of course
its colonies) the systems of measurement had been standardised.
One of the first of these standard measures was the yard.
There was a standard yard held centrally and all others were subsidiary
to that. The name of this measure has been incorporated in the
language , it was of course the 'Yardstick'

The French needed some system that could be the standard for
trade within France and the other continental nations, the basic unit
of length had to be something usable in trade and people dont
buy cloth, rope or string in mm portions so they adopted a form of
standardised yard.

You also have to consider the technical limitations of the late 18th
century. Adopting something as small as todays mm or gramme
as standard measures would have caused great problems when
producing secondary standards for regional centres and scaling
up would be a problem.

Keith

[Andreas Parsch]

Jim Battista wrote:

>
> Not you that's stupid, the system. It's broken at a basic level --
> you should never have to remember anything, which requires 1 to 1 to
> 1 conversions. Meters lead to liters lead to grams lead to calories
> and newtons, all based rigidly off a better-defined meter.


I agree that there are some "anomalies" in the SI, like e.g. the basic
(as in "used when deriving other SI units") unit of mass is
"kilogram", while all other basic units are non-prefixed. Still,
1-to-1 conversion factors between units (called "coherent units" IIRC)
are the basic idea behind SI, and are very common - e.g. you need a
force of 1 N to accelerate a mass of 1 kg by 1 m/s^2.

Anyway, if you say SI is "broken at a basic level" because of the
inconsistency involving kilogram/gram/liter/cubic-meter, what do you
call the US/Imperial system? "Utterly and fundamentally broken by
design" ;-) ??

Andreas

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:24:18 -0700,
(Harry Andreas) allegedly uttered:

>In article >, Peter Kemp
><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
>
>> Especially living in the US as I currently do, it drives me nuts to
>> work in mm, inches and U just to get a single box to fit a rack.
>>
>> Whoever thought of U as a unit of measurement really needs to suffer
>> in a major way. The sooner racks become standardised on a metric
>> measurement, the happier I'll be.
>
>Hate to break it to you, but the U is a metric spec.

1U = 44.45mm = 1.75 inches. It may be definable in terms of mm, but
since it generally applies to 19 inch racks (ugh) I consider it an
imperial measure.

Roll on the replacement by V = 50mm :-) in the 500mm rack (500 mm wide
AND deep).

Oh, and Gene, a U is a unit used to measure the height of equipment in
"standard" 19inch racks of equipments, be they computers, radios, or
any other technical equipment.

Of course, even standard 19 inch racks are not standard, they come in
lots of non-standard depths - which can be a real arse when you fly
somewhere for an installation to discover the rack is particularly
shallow and now you can't close the door :-)

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Gene Nygaard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 06:12:29 -0400, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:

>On or about Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:24:18 -0700,
>(Harry Andreas) allegedly uttered:
>
>>In article >, Peter Kemp
>><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
>>
>>> Especially living in the US as I currently do, it drives me nuts to
>>> work in mm, inches and U just to get a single box to fit a rack.
>>>
>>> Whoever thought of U as a unit of measurement really needs to suffer
>>> in a major way. The sooner racks become standardised on a metric
>>> measurement, the happier I'll be.
>>
>>Hate to break it to you, but the U is a metric spec.
>
>1U = 44.45mm = 1.75 inches. It may be definable in terms of mm, but
>since it generally applies to 19 inch racks (ugh) I consider it an
>imperial measure.
>
>Roll on the replacement by V = 50mm :-) in the 500mm rack (500 mm wide
>AND deep).
>
>Oh, and Gene, a U is a unit used to measure the height of equipment in
>"standard" 19inch racks of equipments, be they computers, radios, or
>any other technical equipment.
>
>Of course, even standard 19 inch racks are not standard, they come in
>lots of non-standard depths - which can be a real arse when you fly
>somewhere for an installation to discover the rack is particularly
>shallow and now you can't close the door :-)

Is that really half of the width of a 3½ inch diskette? That standard
size is 90.0 mm, not 88.9 mm.

In other words, was Harry Andreas telling you that this standard size
isn't really 1.75 mm = 44.45 mm, but rather 45 mm = 1 98/127 in or
about 1.77 in? That's what it sounds like to me, but I don't know if
that is the case or not.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Jim Battista]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

> The French needed some system that could be the standard for
> trade within France and the other continental nations, the basic
> unit of length had to be something usable in trade and people dont
> buy cloth, rope or string in mm portions so they adopted a form of
> standardised yard.

Yah. I'm just wishing they'd adopted a standardized tenth of a yard.
Ie, adopting what we call a decimeter as a plain meter.

Then the coherent factors stuff would have worked out well enough --
liters would be the same, and grams would be what we call kilograms
now.

It would also have the benefit of making people 12-20 meters tall.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:

<snip>
> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
>
> Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
> simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
> exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.

I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate a
calculator. In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
units, as si is a slide rule reality.

If we were using drays, I'd calculate in slugs of mass.

> The
> fact that they are canceling out two units that aren't the same thing,
> even if they are both called pounds. While seconds are a base unit in
> SI, those "seconds" are not the SI units of specific impulse.
> Specific impulse in SI is in units of N·s/kg, or the equivalent m/s.

I think the "law of the wall" demonstrates that unit balancing is not in the
pervue of an aerospace engineer.

There are some engineers that go against what is common practice and attempt
to build in units for political correctness. It is also evident that using
alternate units was the cause of the loss of this vehicle and the Glimini
Glider. Childish political correctness, on the part of some, has now caused
two serious incidents.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>
><snip>
>> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
>>
>> Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
>> simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
>> exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.
>
>I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate a
>calculator.

Show me a calculator that will figure out *which* pounds are being
used, so that they get converted correctly.

You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.

>In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
>units, as si is a slide rule reality.

Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
are exact powers of 10, you lose something.

Any time there is a need to make conversions, it is an opportunity for
all sorts of other errors, including misentry of the numbers into the
calculator, transposition of digits in copying the result, or
whatever.

>If we were using drays, I'd calculate in slugs of mass.
>
>> The
>> fact that they are canceling out two units that aren't the same thing,
>> even if they are both called pounds. While seconds are a base unit in
>> SI, those "seconds" are not the SI units of specific impulse.
>> Specific impulse in SI is in units of N·s/kg, or the equivalent m/s.
>
>I think the "law of the wall" demonstrates that unit balancing is not in the
>pervue of an aerospace engineer.
>
>There are some engineers that go against what is common practice and attempt
>to build in units for political correctness. It is also evident that using
>alternate units was the cause of the loss of this vehicle and the Glimini
>Glider. Childish political correctness, on the part of some, has now caused
>two serious incidents.

Your conclusion differs from that of the incident investigation board,
and it differs from the conclusions of NASA's Inspector General report
on NASA's use of the metric system.

Same with the Gimli glider. Why in the world were U.S. gallons ever
involved in that improbable, couldn't-be-written-as fiction string of
errors, when you had a Canadian airline on a domestic flight? It's a
lot easier to mix up gallons and gallons than it is to mix up gallons
and litres.


Gene Nygaard
************************************************** *
At the present time, however, the metrical system
is the only system known that has the ghost of a
chance of being adopted universally by the world.
-- Alexander Graham Bell,1906

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
> >>
> >> Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
> >> simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
> >> exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.
> >
> >I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate a
> >calculator.
>
> Show me a calculator that will figure out *which* pounds are being
> used, so that they get converted correctly.

Aircraft already have units of measure. Why use different units? Why is
anyone working in NASA Operations that does not know aircraft units?

What you write is a non-sequitur.

> You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
> mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
> calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
> drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
> force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
> pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
> a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.

Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary set of units
in the first palce? In my 20 20 hindsight I can say for a fact that
attempting to apply si units to aerospace has come at the cost of confusion
and we are very fortunate to have avoided toumbstones.

> >In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
> >units, as si is a slide rule reality.
>
> Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
> are exact powers of 10, you lose something.

Perhaps, but not enough to matter from an engineering, of operational
standpoint.

> Any time there is a need to make conversions, it is an opportunity for
> all sorts of other errors, including misentry of the numbers into the
> calculator, transposition of digits in copying the result, or
> whatever.

In that case, why stray from what already works and play silly SI games?

<snip>
> Your conclusion differs from that of the incident investigation board,
> and it differs from the conclusions of NASA's Inspector General report
> on NASA's use of the metric system.

> Same with the Gimli glider. Why in the world were U.S. gallons ever
> involved in that improbable, couldn't-be-written-as fiction string of
> errors, when you had a Canadian airline on a domestic flight? It's a
> lot easier to mix up gallons and gallons than it is to mix up gallons
> and litres.

Aircraft buy fuel by weight, so the best I can say for the Gimili Glider
report is that they have to be kidding. At the very least the board has
maintained plausable deniabiliy.

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, Tarver Engineering >
wrote:
> >
> >> >Which gallon US or Imperial ?
> >>
> >> Either would do; in my figures below i was using Imperial gallons
> >> (because I know how big they are).
> >
> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
>
> Pounds aren't as unit of volume.

Immagine that. :)

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:08:31 -0000, Jim Battista > wrote:
> >
> >Not you that's stupid, the system. It's broken at a basic level --
> >you should never have to remember anything, which requires 1 to 1 to
> >1 conversions.
>
> It would certainly be possible to have the baisc unit of length 10
> cm, the unit of volume that length cubed, and thre unit of mass that
> volume of water.

Why not just admit that SI is just another arbitrarily bounded measurement
system and get over the eurocentic ego trip?

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message


<snip>


> Aircraft already have units of measure. Why use different units? Why is
> anyone working in NASA Operations that does not know aircraft units?
>
> What you write is a non-sequitur.
>
>
>>You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
>>mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
>>calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
>>drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
>>force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
>>pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
>>a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.
>>
>
> Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary set of units
> in the first palce? In my 20 20 hindsight I can say for a fact that
> attempting to apply si units to aerospace has come at the cost of confusion
> and we are very fortunate to have avoided toumbstones.
>
>
>>>In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
>>>units, as si is a slide rule reality.
>>>
>>Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
>>are exact powers of 10, you lose something.
>>
>
> Perhaps, but not enough to matter from an engineering, of operational
> standpoint.
>
>
>>Any time there is a need to make conversions, it is an opportunity for
>>all sorts of other errors, including misentry of the numbers into the
>>calculator, transposition of digits in copying the result, or
>>whatever.
>>
>
> In that case, why stray from what already works and play silly SI games?
>
>

<snip>
As much as I dislike feet and inches, I have to agree with you there,
John. Don't you Americans have a saying: "If it ain't broken, don't fix
it!"?
The question of course is whether it's broken :-)
I would tend to think that as long as you're aware that there is a
potential for problems (like the US vs. imperial gallon thing) there
really shouldn't be any.
Still, I'm glad at least scientists tend to use the same system
world-wide (although in my lab the non metric dimensions of equipment
bought in the US still causes occasional difficulties.)

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ralph Savelsberg" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> As much as I dislike feet and inches, I have to agree with you there,
> John. Don't you Americans have a saying: "If it ain't broken, don't fix
> it!"?

Just look at what medling with the units of aerospace has done. Add pounds
and check the aircraft's weight, how simple can it be? Mass flow rate makes
thrust and that is pounds of fuel.

> The question of course is whether it's broken :-)
> I would tend to think that as long as you're aware that there is a
> potential for problems (like the US vs. imperial gallon thing) there
> really shouldn't be any.

Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven by
weight? (mass)

> Still, I'm glad at least scientists tend to use the same system
> world-wide (although in my lab the non metric dimensions of equipment
> bought in the US still causes occasional difficulties.)

I do like the metric system for wavelength type math, but engineering
problems are best done in a "measurement and reference system" consistent
with an easy solution. If the customer needs a different measurement and
reference system, it is usually trivial to remap the results. In the cases
discussed here, the measurement and reference system led directly to
unexpected results.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 06:12:29 -0400, Peter Kemp
> <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
>
> >On or about Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:24:18 -0700,
> >(Harry Andreas) allegedly uttered:
> >
> >>In article >, Peter Kemp
> >><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Especially living in the US as I currently do, it drives me nuts to
> >>> work in mm, inches and U just to get a single box to fit a rack.
> >>>
> >>> Whoever thought of U as a unit of measurement really needs to suffer
> >>> in a major way. The sooner racks become standardised on a metric
> >>> measurement, the happier I'll be.
> >>
> >>Hate to break it to you, but the U is a metric spec.
> >
> >1U = 44.45mm = 1.75 inches. It may be definable in terms of mm, but
> >since it generally applies to 19 inch racks (ugh) I consider it an
> >imperial measure.
> >
> >Roll on the replacement by V = 50mm :-) in the 500mm rack (500 mm wide
> >AND deep).
> >
> >Oh, and Gene, a U is a unit used to measure the height of equipment in
> >"standard" 19inch racks of equipments, be they computers, radios, or
> >any other technical equipment.
> >
> >Of course, even standard 19 inch racks are not standard, they come in
> >lots of non-standard depths - which can be a real arse when you fly
> >somewhere for an installation to discover the rack is particularly
> >shallow and now you can't close the door :-)
>
> Is that really half of the width of a 3½ inch diskette? That standard
> size is 90.0 mm, not 88.9 mm.
>
> In other words, was Harry Andreas telling you that this standard size
> isn't really 1.75 mm = 44.45 mm, but rather 45 mm = 1 98/127 in or
> about 1.77 in? That's what it sounds like to me, but I don't know if
> that is the case or not.

I almost don't want to go here, but... a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really
only 1.75 x 3.75, and I've seen some that are only 1.5 x 3.5

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:42:31 +0200, Andreas Parsch > wrote:

>Jim Battista wrote:
>
>>
>> Not you that's stupid, the system. It's broken at a basic level --
>> you should never have to remember anything, which requires 1 to 1 to
>> 1 conversions. Meters lead to liters lead to grams lead to calories
>> and newtons, all based rigidly off a better-defined meter.
>
>
>I agree that there are some "anomalies" in the SI, like e.g. the basic
> (as in "used when deriving other SI units") unit of mass is
>"kilogram", while all other basic units are non-prefixed. Still,
>1-to-1 conversion factors between units (called "coherent units" IIRC)
>are the basic idea behind SI, and are very common - e.g. you need a
>force of 1 N to accelerate a mass of 1 kg by 1 m/s^2.
>
>Anyway, if you say SI is "broken at a basic level" because of the
>inconsistency involving kilogram/gram/liter/cubic-meter, what do you
>call the US/Imperial system? "Utterly and fundamentally broken by
>design" ;-) ??
>
>Andreas

Actually, the unit of mass is the gram.

Al Minyard

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:41:25 GMT, Gene Nygaard > wrote:
>
>You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
>mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
>calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
>drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
>force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
>pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
>a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.

If everyone standardised on SI units, and used kg whenever they
meant mass, and N whenever they meant force, there would be no
misunderstandings.

>Same with the Gimli glider. Why in the world were U.S. gallons ever
>involved in that improbable, couldn't-be-written-as fiction string of
>errors, when you had a Canadian airline on a domestic flight? It's a
>lot easier to mix up gallons and gallons than it is to mix up gallons
>and litres.

Indeed.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:

> As much as I dislike feet and inches, I have to agree with you there,
> John. Don't you Americans have a saying: "If it ain't broken, don't fix
> it!"?

In the area of US measurements it should be: "If we can't fix it, pretend
that it isn't broken".

> The question of course is whether it's broken :-)

It is.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:41:25 GMT, Gene Nygaard >
wrote:
> >
> >You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
> >mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
> >calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
> >drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
> >force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
> >pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
> >a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.
>
> If everyone standardised on SI units, and used kg whenever they
> meant mass, and N whenever they meant force, there would be no
> misunderstandings.

If we left things alone, instead of being globalist egotistical loons, these
problems would not occur.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Aircraft buy fuel by weight,

Nope. The aircraft don't do any buying at all. Aircraft may display fuel loads
in pounds or kilograms, but that is after the aircraft system converts a tank
level (i.e., quantity or volume) to a weight via density-sensing probes or other
means.

Jet fuel is dispensed and sold by the gallon in the US and by the liter in most
other countries. Airline companies buy fuel by the gallon, and Pilots and
Flight Engineers use calculators, slide rules, and pencil & paper to convert
those liters or gallons to pounds or kilograms for use in load verification and
flight planning.

[Andreas Parsch]

Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> Actually, the unit of mass is the gram.

Of course the gram is a unit of mass, but it's not _the_ unit (depends
on the definition of "_the_" ;-) ). All I said is that the kilogram is
used in SI to derive units, and not the gram (as in 1 N = 1 kg m / s^2).

Andreas

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven by
> weight? (mass)

Because virtually all fuel dispensing systems in common use at airports measure
volume, not mass or weight.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:Cwemb.19132$e01.35959@attbi_s02...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven by
> > weight? (mass)
>
> Because virtually all fuel dispensing systems in common use at airports
measure
> volume, not mass or weight.

Non-sequitur.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:Ymemb.18772$Fm2.9572@attbi_s04...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > Aircraft buy fuel by weight,
>
> Nope. The aircraft don't do any buying at all.

OK, some trash haulers have someone else service their airplane before they
fly.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>>> Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven by
>>> weight? (mass)
> >
> > Because virtually all fuel dispensing systems in common use at airports
measure volume, not mass or weight.
>
> Non-sequitur.

Typical BS response from someone who obviously cannot substantiate his original
premise.

In over 30 years of general and commercial aviation, I have NEVER purchased or
signed for fuel that was dispensed and valued on other than a volume (per gallon
or per liter) basis. That is why I, another pilot, or an airline company
"would... buy fuel by volume."

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:Nwhmb.19463$Tr4.40153@attbi_s03...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >>> Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven
by
> >>> weight? (mass)
> > >
> > > Because virtually all fuel dispensing systems in common use at
airports
> measure volume, not mass or weight.
> >
> > Non-sequitur.
>
> Typical BS response from someone who obviously cannot substantiate his
original
> premise.
>
> In over 30 years of general and commercial aviation, I have NEVER
purchased or
> signed for fuel that was dispensed and valued on other than a volume (per
gallon
> or per liter) basis. That is why I, another pilot, or an airline company
> "would... buy fuel by volume."

And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel vended,
no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the airplane is
checked to see if the fuel got onboard.

So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be ordered
and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel vended,
> no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the airplane is
> checked to see if the fuel got onboard.
>
> So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be ordered
> and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.

Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking about.

In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the fuel vendor
is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms (or pounds, for those so
inclined). The fueler sets that figure on the aircraft fueling panel and starts
the pumps. The aircraft system shuts the inflow valves when it senses the
requested fuel in the tanks.

The pilot does NO conversion of weight to volume prior to fueling. The vendor
does NO conversion of weight to volume. The vendor produces a receipt that
shows delivered fuel in gallons and/or liters ONLY.

There is no FE in the loop in most current "high reliability [systems]." There
is NO calculation of "fuel to be ordered" -- there is only a calculation of
"final fuel" required.

After the fact, the receiver of the fuel may perform a verification procedure to
ensure the fuel delivered, as shown on the receipt, is accurate. That is the
only time any volume-to-weight conversion is done.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:_Bimb.21153$HS4.74853@attbi_s01...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel
vended,
> > no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the
airplane is
> > checked to see if the fuel got onboard.
> >
> > So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be
ordered
> > and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.
>
> Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking about.
>
> In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the fuel
vendor
> is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms

My goodness Weiss, you mean what I wrote in the first place is completely
correct. At least my explanation of the process leaves the glider 767
safety report as a possibility.

What an asshole you are, Weiss.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:12:12 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
>> >>
>> >> Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
>> >> simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
>> >> exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.
>> >
>> >I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate a
>> >calculator.
>>
>> Show me a calculator that will figure out *which* pounds are being
>> used, so that they get converted correctly.
>
>Aircraft already have units of measure. Why use different units? Why is
>anyone working in NASA Operations that does not know aircraft units?
>
>What you write is a non-sequitur.
>
>> You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
>> mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
>> calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
>> drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
>> force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
>> pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
>> a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.
>
>Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary set of units
>in the first palce?

Because it is the interdisciplinary and International System of Units.
There is no reason to have to learn different units of measure for
each activity we engage in.

Such changes have taken place in the past, of course. But when the
air speed indicators of many aircraft were changed in the second half
of the twentieth century, they weren' t changed to metric. Instead,
they were just changed from one Fred Flintstone unit to another.

That's about as silly as if the United States were to change now from
inches of mercury to millimeters of mercury for altimeter settings.

> In my 20 20 hindsight I can say for a fact that
>attempting to apply si units to aerospace has come at the cost of confusion
>and we are very fortunate to have avoided toumbstones.
>
>> >In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
>> >units, as si is a slide rule reality.
>>
>> Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
>> are exact powers of 10, you lose something.
>
>Perhaps, but not enough to matter from an engineering, of operational
>standpoint.

Certainly enough to matter.

Often the "something" which you lose is the sense of how precise a
measurement is.

>> Any time there is a need to make conversions, it is an opportunity for
>> all sorts of other errors, including misentry of the numbers into the
>> calculator, transposition of digits in copying the result, or
>> whatever.
>
>In that case, why stray from what already works and play silly SI games?

Because there is only one way to get rid of the need to do
conversions:

At the present time, however, the metrical system
is the only system known that has the ghost of a
chance of being adopted universally by the world.
-- Alexander Graham Bell,1906

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:12:12 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
> >> >> simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
> >> >> exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.
> >> >
> >> >I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate
a
> >> >calculator.
> >>
> >> Show me a calculator that will figure out *which* pounds are being
> >> used, so that they get converted correctly.
> >
> >Aircraft already have units of measure. Why use different units? Why is
> >anyone working in NASA Operations that does not know aircraft units?
> >
> >What you write is a non-sequitur.
> >
> >> You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
> >> mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
> >> calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
> >> drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
> >> force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
> >> pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
> >> a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.
> >
> >Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary set of
units
> >in the first palce?
>
> Because it is the interdisciplinary and International System of Units.
> There is no reason to have to learn different units of measure for
> each activity we engage in.

When we engage in industry, we must use the language of that industry, as
well as the existing infrastructure. A big part of training to do
engineering is to apply a reference and measurement system applicable to the
problem. Aerospace is expressed in feet, pounds, clockwise and attempts to
use alternative SI units have resulted in problems.

> Such changes have taken place in the past, of course. But when the
> air speed indicators of many aircraft were changed in the second half
> of the twentieth century, they weren' t changed to metric. Instead,
> they were just changed from one Fred Flintstone unit to another.

How is the arbitrarily selected "metric system" inherently better than
another "system of measurement"?

> That's about as silly as if the United States were to change now from
> inches of mercury to millimeters of mercury for altimeter settings.

millibars.

> > In my 20 20 hindsight I can say for a fact that
> >attempting to apply si units to aerospace has come at the cost of
confusion
> >and we are very fortunate to have avoided toumbstones.
> >
> >> >In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
> >> >units, as si is a slide rule reality.
> >>
> >> Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
> >> are exact powers of 10, you lose something.
> >
> >Perhaps, but not enough to matter from an engineering, of operational
> >standpoint.
>
> Certainly enough to matter.

Such added "signifigant digits" of accuracy are a false advantage.

> Often the "something" which you lose is the sense of how precise a
> measurement is.

What we lost is a spacecraft, to prople being silly about political
correctness.

> >> Any time there is a need to make conversions, it is an opportunity for
> >> all sorts of other errors, including misentry of the numbers into the
> >> calculator, transposition of digits in copying the result, or
> >> whatever.
> >
> >In that case, why stray from what already works and play silly SI games?
>
> Because there is only one way to get rid of the need to do
> conversions:

Why?

I'd say it is insane to arrest a vendor for selling banannas by the pound.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:55:34 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
>news:_Bimb.21153$HS4.74853@attbi_s01...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>> >
>> > And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel
>vended,
>> > no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the
>airplane is
>> > checked to see if the fuel got onboard.
>> >
>> > So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be
>ordered
>> > and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.
>>
>> Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking about.
>>
>> In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the fuel
>vendor
>> is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms
>
>My goodness Weiss, you mean what I wrote in the first place is completely
>correct. At least my explanation of the process leaves the glider 767
>safety report as a possibility.

You must be forgetting the first problem with the Gimli
glider--inoperative onboard fuel gauges.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:55:34 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> >news:_Bimb.21153$HS4.74853@attbi_s01...
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >> >
> >> > And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel
> >vended,
> >> > no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the
> >airplane is
> >> > checked to see if the fuel got onboard.
> >> >
> >> > So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be
> >ordered
> >> > and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.
> >>
> >> Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking about.
> >>
> >> In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the
fuel
> >vendor
> >> is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms
> >
> >My goodness Weiss, you mean what I wrote in the first place is completely
> >correct. At least my explanation of the process leaves the glider 767
> >safety report as a possibility.
>
> You must be forgetting the first problem with the Gimli
> glider--inoperative onboard fuel gauges.

Nygaard, if they had bought the fuel by weight, there could have been
confusion about liters.

[Gene Nygaard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:14:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:12:12 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
>> >> >> simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
>> >> >> exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.
>> >> >
>> >> >I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate
>a
>> >> >calculator.
>> >>
>> >> Show me a calculator that will figure out *which* pounds are being
>> >> used, so that they get converted correctly.
>> >
>> >Aircraft already have units of measure. Why use different units? Why is
>> >anyone working in NASA Operations that does not know aircraft units?
>> >
>> >What you write is a non-sequitur.
>> >
>> >> You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
>> >> mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
>> >> calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
>> >> drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
>> >> force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
>> >> pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
>> >> a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.
>> >
>> >Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary set of
>units
>> >in the first palce?
>>
>> Because it is the interdisciplinary and International System of Units.
>> There is no reason to have to learn different units of measure for
>> each activity we engage in.
>
>When we engage in industry, we must use the language of that industry, as
>well as the existing infrastructure. A big part of training to do
>engineering is to apply a reference and measurement system applicable to the
>problem. Aerospace is expressed in feet, pounds, clockwise and attempts to
>use alternative SI units have resulted in problems.
>
>> Such changes have taken place in the past, of course. But when the
>> air speed indicators of many aircraft were changed in the second half
>> of the twentieth century, they weren' t changed to metric. Instead,
>> they were just changed from one Fred Flintstone unit to another.
>
>How is the arbitrarily selected "metric system" inherently better than
>another "system of measurement"?

You complained about arbitrary change. So why is it only "arbitrary"
in your definition if it is to the metric system, and not arbitrary if
it is from one Fred Flintstone unit to another?

>> That's about as silly as if the United States were to change now from
>> inches of mercury to millimeters of mercury for altimeter settings.
>
>millibars.

No, that's not what I said, and not what I meant.

>> > In my 20 20 hindsight I can say for a fact that
>> >attempting to apply si units to aerospace has come at the cost of
>confusion
>> >and we are very fortunate to have avoided toumbstones.
>> >
>> >> >In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
>> >> >units, as si is a slide rule reality.
>> >>
>> >> Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
>> >> are exact powers of 10, you lose something.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, but not enough to matter from an engineering, of operational
>> >standpoint.
>>
>> Certainly enough to matter.
>
>Such added "signifigant digits" of accuracy are a false advantage.

What "added 'significant digits'" are you talking about?

Did you understand this next part at all?
>
>> Often the "something" which you lose is the sense of how precise a
>> measurement is.

It isn't just a "false advantage"--like I said, you've lost something,
even if you have a appropriate number of significant digits, and even
more so if you have too many of them. Or, if you add an explicit
"plus or minus" to replace what was implicit in the original
measurements, you've lost readibility and conciseness of expression.

>What we lost is a spacecraft, to prople being silly about political
>correctness.

We lost a spacecraft because the vendor didn't follow the specs, and
because of sloppiness and indecisiveness on the part of NASA.

Go read the NASA Inspector General's followup report, NASA Use of
Metric Assessment, on this at
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/inspections/g-00-021.pdf

[from the cover letter there]
Following the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter, the NASA Office of
Inspector General initiated a review of the Agency’s use of the metric
system. By law and policy, the metric system is the preferred system
of measurement within NASA. However, our review found that use of the
metric system is inconsistent across the Agency. A waiver system,
which was required by law and put into effect to track metric usage
and encourage conversion, is no longer in use. In addition, NASA
employees are given little guidance on the Agency’s policy and
procedures regarding use of the metric system.

Based on our review, we made eight recommendations intended to improve
the use of the metric system within NASA in accordance with national
policy and NASA guidance. We recommended NASA:

• reexamine the Agency’s effort to convert to the metric system and
develop a new approach for converting to the metric system,
• closely monitor technical interfaces between metric and English
units,
• reinvigorate the metric waiver system, and
• use the metric system as the preferred system for interactions with
the public


Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>> That's about as silly as if the United States were to change now from
>> inches of mercury to millimeters of mercury for altimeter settings.
>
> millibars.

Hectopascals.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Nygaard, if they had bought the fuel by weight, there could have been
> confusion about liters.

But, as you pointed out, industry has to adapt to the infrastructure. The
infrastructure has been dispensing fuel in gallons or liters for years. The
ability to "[buy] the fuel by weight" does not exist in commercial aviation.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, Tarver Engineering >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Which gallon US or Imperial ?
>> >>
>> >> Either would do; in my figures below i was using Imperial gallons
>> >> (because I know how big they are).
>> >
>> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
>>
>> Pounds aren't as unit of volume.
>
>Immagine that. :)
>
True of course...but aircraft fuel is indeed measured in pounds
because you need to know how much weight you have.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:BMjmb.20410$e01.40419@attbi_s02...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > Nygaard, if they had bought the fuel by weight, there could have been
> > confusion about liters.
>
> But, as you pointed out, industry has to adapt to the infrastructure. The
> infrastructure has been dispensing fuel in gallons or liters for years.
The
> ability to "[buy] the fuel by weight" does not exist in commercial
aviation.

All fuel is bought as weight, that is how an aircraft works. The fact that
you pay for volume is a book keeper's issue.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:BMjmb.20187$Tr4.43241@attbi_s03...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >> That's about as silly as if the United States were to change now from
> >> inches of mercury to millimeters of mercury for altimeter settings.
> >
> > millibars.
>
> Hectopascals.

I never saw an hectopascal baro-correction.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, Tarver Engineering
>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Which gallon US or Imperial ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Either would do; in my figures below i was using Imperial gallons
> >> >> (because I know how big they are).
> >> >
> >> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
> >>
> >> Pounds aren't as unit of volume.
> >
> >Immagine that. :)
> >
> True of course...but aircraft fuel is indeed measured in pounds
> because you need to know how much weight you have.

And you burn some pounds per hour, at some SAT.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > > millibars.
> >
> > Hectopascals.
>
> I never saw an hectopascal baro-correction.

So, that doesn't make it any less an international standard for altimeter
settings.

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:42:09 -0700, Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
>Why not just admit that SI is just another arbitrarily bounded measurement
>system and get over the eurocentic ego trip?

Of course SI is arbitrary -- all measurement systems are. Though it
isn't Eurocentric, particularly, since a third of its fundamental
base units were invented outside Europe.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[[email protected]]

Gene Nygaard > wrote:


>Based on our review, we made eight recommendations intended to improve
>the use of the metric system within NASA in accordance with national
>policy and NASA guidance. We recommended NASA:
>
>• reexamine the Agency’s effort to convert to the metric system and
>develop a new approach for converting to the metric system,
>• closely monitor technical interfaces between metric and English
>units,
>• reinvigorate the metric waiver system, and
>• use the metric system as the preferred system for interactions with
>the public
>
>
>Gene Nygaard

Sounds pretty official to me...
--

-Gord.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> If we left things alone, instead of being globalist egotistical loons, these
> problems would not occur.

If we left things alone, we would not progress.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> When we engage in industry, we must use the language of that industry, as
> well as the existing infrastructure. A big part of training to do
> engineering is to apply a reference and measurement system applicable to the
> problem. Aerospace is expressed in feet, pounds, clockwise and attempts to
> use alternative SI units have resulted in problems.

The aerospace industry developed first and foremost in the USA. Before there
was such a thing as "aerospace," the fuel and aviation industries evolved with a
preference for measuring liquid fuels such as gasoline and kerosene in gallons.
By your argument, aerospace should measure fuel in gallons.

[av8r]

Hi

You all might want to read the story below about the Gimli Glider.

http://www.flightsafety.org.au/articles/t0357.php

Here's an extract from the above.

Cheers...Chris

The flight from Montreal to Edmonton, including a brief stop in Ottawa,
required 22,300kg of fuel, an amount expressed as mass because of the
importance of knowing an aircraft's weight.

The mechanics needed to work out how many litres made up 22,300kg. They
could then subtract the 7,682 litres already in the tanks, and use the
fuel gauge on the refueling truck to tell when they had reached the
right number of litres to make up 22,300kg.

But the 767 was the first aircraft in Air Canada's fleet to use metric
units (kilograms) rather than imperial (pounds). Metric units were being
phased in across Canada, and the conversions were still causing confusion.

With the help of First Officer Quintal, the ground crew used the correct
procedure to calculate the weight in kilos. However, they had not been
trained in correct conversion, so the figure of 1.76 provided by the
refueling company on their refueling document, was taken to be the
required multiplier. It was typical of the numbers seen on previous
slips and they assumed that the numbers provided over the previous few
months had indicated specific gravity in the new metric system.

They decided to multiply 7,682 by 1.76. This would mean 13,597kg
remained in the tanks, requiring an infusion of 8,703kg to bring the
fuel level up to 22,300kg. They then divided 8,703kg by 1.76, assuming
that this conversion would give them the correct volume in litres.
Through this calculation, the crew determined that 4,916 litres needed
to be added from the fuel truck.

The problem was that 1.77 is the multiplier that converts litres into
pounds, not kilograms: to convert litres into kilograms you need to
multiply by 0.8. Flight 143 did not have 22,300kg on board, it had about
10,000kg, less than half the amount of A-1 kerosene jet fuel needed to
get the aircraft to Edmonton. The refueller didn't know where the flight
was headed, so no alarm bells rang for him as he poured fuel into the tanks.

Using a computer to calculate fuel also caused confusion over
responsibilities. In the past, when fuel was calculated manually, a
flight engineer's duties included checking the fuel load. Flight
engineers were a thing of the past on this 767, as a Presidential task
force, under Ronald Reagan, had determined that aircraft could be built
to be operated by two pilots instead of three, if the tasks previously
given to the second officer (flight engineer) were either fully
automated or handled by ground staff.

Responsibility for ensuring adequate fuelling had passed to the
maintenance branch. But because these men were not trained to calculate
fuel, they assumed the pilots would make sure it was done properly.
The problem was neither of the pilots was trained in this technical
task. Safety procedures had failed to keep pace with new technology.

As the investigation later concluded: 'Air Canada ... neglected to
assign clearly and specifically the responsibility for calculating the
fuel load in an abnormal situation.'

The investigation attacked Air Canada's training procedures, noting
'both flight crew and maintenance personnel seemed to be somewhat
mesmerised by the complex, computerised characteristics of the 767. They
did not appear to have sufficient background knowledge of these aspects
of the aircraft. They did not appear to have received sufficient
training about some of the critical aircraft systems, in particular, the
fueling system.'

[Jim Thomas]

Wait. How about the 100, 200, 400, etc. meter swim and track and field
races? Not to mention the world altitude flying records, which are in
meters. And more and more...

John Keeney wrote:


>
> But nobody weighs things in "grams", it's always "kilograms".
> Nor do the measure things in "meters" (as was stated concerning
> building a house) they measure in "milimeters".
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering" j

<snip>

>All fuel is bought as weight, that is how an aircraft works. The fact that
>you pay for volume is a book keeper's issue.
>

I have never seen anyone buy avgas by weight for small GA aircraft like the
Cessna 172.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Seraphim]

(Harry Andreas) wrote in news:andreas-2410031001420001
@147.16.85.59:

> I almost don't want to go here, but... a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really
> only 1.75 x 3.75, and I've seen some that are only 1.5 x 3.5

I've heard (but don't really believe) that "2x4" refers to the lumbers
dimensions when it is rough cut. There is sanding (and some loss of water)
involved betwen rough cut and the product you buy at the lumber yard. While
I can belive that sanding could take a quarter inch off a board (1/8" per
side) I find it hard to belive that it could take a half an inch.

[Pat Norton]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary
>set of units in the first palce?

That question does not parse. The problem is not a 'change' from setA
to setB. The problem is multiple units for the same thing. UnitX
coexists with unitY (and perhaps unitZ). You may wish to ask:

Q1. "Why do we want to reduce the co-existence of multiple units for
the same thing?"
Q2. "If that is what we want, then which ones should be eliminated in
which circumstances?"

The units of aerospace are controlled by Annex 5 of the ICAO Chicago
convention.
"The standardized system is based on the International System of Units
(SI) and will eventually eliminate the use of different units of
measurement for the same quantity and provide for the standardized
application of all units of measurement for those quantities used in
air and ground operations. It is nevertheless necessary to retain for
the foreseeable future the use of some commonly used non-SI units , such as the foot [in parallel with the metre]
for the measurement of altitude.
www.icao.int/icao/en/pub/memo.htm

Over a long period, the problem is being resolved. The trend is
towards metric, not away from it. North American aviation converted
from F to C in 1996. US military airports now give Terminal Area
Forecast visibility in metres. All without a fuss.

Similarly there was no fuss in British and Irish aviation when they
dropped the use of many imperial units. The units used in aviation in
Britain and most most countries are now:

nautical mile = long ranges (navigation)
....spoken as 'mile'

metre, cm, mm = short range
(visibility, runway length, rain, snow)

foot = altitude
knot = horizontal speed
ft/min = vertical speed
hPa = pressure
°C = temperature
kg, metric ton = weight
litre = fuel volume

statute mile, fahrenheit = not used

[i]
>Why is anyone working in NASA Operations
>that does not know aircraft units?

One of the more bizarre features of NASA is that they quote height in
nautical miles.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:34:08 GMT, (Goran Larsson) wrote:

>In article >,
>Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:
>
>> As much as I dislike feet and inches, I have to agree with you there,
>> John. Don't you Americans have a saying: "If it ain't broken, don't fix
>> it!"?
>
>In the area of US measurements it should be: "If we can't fix it, pretend
>that it isn't broken".
>
>> The question of course is whether it's broken :-)
>
>It is.

Well, the US has, unquestionably, the most advanced scientific
system in the world, the US economy (GDP) is much larger than
any other, etc, etc. It does not appear that the unit of measure is
"broken".

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:51:10 +0200, Andreas Parsch > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>>
>> Actually, the unit of mass is the gram.
>
>Of course the gram is a unit of mass, but it's not _the_ unit (depends
>on the definition of "_the_" ;-) ). All I said is that the kilogram is
>used in SI to derive units, and not the gram (as in 1 N = 1 kg m / s^2).
>
>Andreas

I look at it as "a kilogram is 1,000 grams, therefore the underlying "unit"
of mass is the gram". Simply a matter of semantics, and I suppose
that the two definitions are interchangeable. :-)

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:57:02 GMT, Gene Nygaard > wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:12:12 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> ><snip>
>>> >> >Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?
>>> >>
>>> >> Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
>>> >> simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
>>> >> exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.
>>> >
>>> >I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate a
>>> >calculator.
>>>
>>> Show me a calculator that will figure out *which* pounds are being
>>> used, so that they get converted correctly.
>>
>>Aircraft already have units of measure. Why use different units? Why is
>>anyone working in NASA Operations that does not know aircraft units?
>>
>>What you write is a non-sequitur.
>>
>>> You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
>>> mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
>>> calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
>>> drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
>>> force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
>>> pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
>>> a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.
>>
>>Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary set of units
>>in the first palce?
>
>Because it is the interdisciplinary and International System of Units.
>There is no reason to have to learn different units of measure for
>each activity we engage in.
>
>Such changes have taken place in the past, of course. But when the
>air speed indicators of many aircraft were changed in the second half
>of the twentieth century, they weren' t changed to metric. Instead,
>they were just changed from one Fred Flintstone unit to another.
>
>That's about as silly as if the United States were to change now from
>inches of mercury to millimeters of mercury for altimeter settings.
>
>> In my 20 20 hindsight I can say for a fact that
>>attempting to apply si units to aerospace has come at the cost of confusion
>>and we are very fortunate to have avoided toumbstones.
>>
>>> >In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
>>> >units, as si is a slide rule reality.
>>>
>>> Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
>>> are exact powers of 10, you lose something.
>>
>>Perhaps, but not enough to matter from an engineering, of operational
>>standpoint.
>
>Certainly enough to matter.
>
>Often the "something" which you lose is the sense of how precise a
>measurement is.
>
>>> Any time there is a need to make conversions, it is an opportunity for
>>> all sorts of other errors, including misentry of the numbers into the
>>> calculator, transposition of digits in copying the result, or
>>> whatever.
>>
>>In that case, why stray from what already works and play silly SI games?
>
>Because there is only one way to get rid of the need to do
>conversions:

You are right, when do you intend to start the conversion to the inch??

Al Minyard

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > > And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel
vended, no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the
airplane is checked to see if the fuel got onboard.
> > >
> > > So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be ordered
and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.
> >
> > Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking about.
> >
> > In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the fuel
vendor is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms
>
> My goodness Weiss, you mean what I wrote in the first place is completely
> correct.

No, your fantasy "explanation" of what you think might happen isn't anywhere
near "completely correct."

First, many airlines don't use pounds as the basis for fuel or aircraft weight
at all.

Second, there is no conversion done "to have the fuel vended." The weight of
the fuel is entirely transparent to the vendor. Even the volume of fuel vended
is unknown until AFTER the fueling is complete -- there is no predicted/expected
number.

Third, the "weight of the airplane" is not checked in the fueling process. The
fuel indicating system in the airplane, which displays the weight of the fuel in
the airplane, is crosschecked with the volume shown as delivered by the vendor.

Fourth, there is no FE in the loop in most modern commercial aircraft.

Fifth, the Captain determines the final fuel figure, not the FE or FO. That
fuel figure is not normally predicated on the takeoff weight of the airplane,
but on the desired landing fuel weight and expected fuel burn as calculated by
the Dispatcher. Only if a Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight is a limiting factor for
a specific flight might the fuel be adjusted to meet a specific takeoff weight
of the airplane.

[Michael Williamson]

Pat Norton wrote:

> Over a long period, the problem is being resolved. The trend is
> towards metric, not away from it. North American aviation converted
> from F to C in 1996. US military airports now give Terminal Area
> Forecast visibility in metres. All without a fuss.

In some cases they might, but the last time I got ATIS here at
Davis Monthan AFB, visibility was in nautical miles, with no
mention of meters. The weather briefing sheet didn't include
metric visibility data either. Temperatures are typically given
in both centigrade and farenheit, but sometimes just one (or,
somwhat confusingly, the other, depending on where you are).

Mike

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:51:44 -0500, Alan Minyard
> allegedly uttered:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:51:10 +0200, Andreas Parsch > wrote:
>
>>Alan Minyard wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, the unit of mass is the gram.
>>
>>Of course the gram is a unit of mass, but it's not _the_ unit (depends
>>on the definition of "_the_" ;-) ). All I said is that the kilogram is
>>used in SI to derive units, and not the gram (as in 1 N = 1 kg m / s^2).
>>
>>Andreas
>
>I look at it as "a kilogram is 1,000 grams, therefore the underlying "unit"
>of mass is the gram". Simply a matter of semantics, and I suppose
>that the two definitions are interchangeable. :-)

True. However the standard SI unit is the kg (makes no sense to me
either, but that's life), and indeed there is a standard kg (of
palladium IIRC) somewhere in Paris that is the grandaddy of them all.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:34:08 GMT, (Goran Larsson)
wrote:

>
> Well, the US has, unquestionably, the most advanced scientific
> system in the world, the US economy (GDP) is much larger than
> any other, etc, etc. It does not appear that the unit of measure is
> "broken".
>
> Al Minyard

The trouble is the US is incurring a cost by using a
standard of units nobody else does and this made
worse by the simple fact that SI units ARE used
in most scientific and reseach estblishments so
even in domestic use its necessary to do these
conversions with the costs and risks that it involves.

Keith

[Scott Ferrin]

>
>I almost don't want to go here, but... a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really
>only 1.75 x 3.75, and I've seen some that are only 1.5 x 3.5

LOL!

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:01:14 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:

> > In other words, was Harry Andreas telling you that this standard size
> > isn't really 1.75 mm = 44.45 mm, but rather 45 mm = 1 98/127 in or
> > about 1.77 in? That's what it sounds like to me, but I don't know if
> > that is the case or not.

> I almost don't want to go here, but... a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really
> only 1.75 x 3.75, and I've seen some that are only 1.5 x 3.5

If you want a 2x4 that's really 2"x4", you have to buy a 8/4x16/4.
There are two size systems that I'm familiar with for buying wood.

One, in inches, uses the unfinished size as nominal, but finishing
uses 1/8" for each size, so the actual size is a quarter-inch
undersized in each direction. This system is used mostly for lumber
like Douglas fir, pine, etc. You frame houses with such wood.

The other, in quarters, uses the finished size as nominal. However,
it's only used for hardwood of fairly high grade, that's bought by
cabinet makers, etc. You make fine furniture with such wood.

Then there's metric, about which I know very little except that there
are common sizes that correspond to the old standards like 2x4, 2x6,
and so on. Whether they use the finished or unfinished size is not
something I know.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Nygaard, if they had bought the fuel by weight, there could have been
> confusion about liters.

Now there's a perfectly nonsensical statement!

OTOH, if you meant to say "...been _no_ confusion...", it makes a bit more
sense, but is still a non-sequitur. As you stated just yesterday:

> When we engage in industry, we must use the language
> of that industry, as well as the existing infrastructure.

Existing infrastructure for refueling of commercial airplanes dictates
volumetric measurement -- gallons or liters -- when dispensing fuel. Therefore,
a commercial flight crew is unable to "[buy] the fuel by weight.

Further, there is NO NEED to change the fuel dispensing infrastructure, because
the aircraft systems and airline procedures work just fine as they are.
Regardless of procedures used, there will ALWAYS be the exceptional case where
someone violates those procedures, with "bad" results.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> All fuel is bought as weight, that is how an aircraft works.

Speaking of nonsensical statements...

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: "Tarver Engineering" j
>
><snip>
>
>>All fuel is bought as weight, that is how an aircraft works. The fact that
>>you pay for volume is a book keeper's issue.
>>
>
>I have never seen anyone buy avgas by weight for small GA aircraft like the
>Cessna 172.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

And I'll back Dan up for the Military (Canadian Mil at least)
It's never bought fuel by the pound either (and I bought a lot
too, pretty well all over the world, it was always ordered and
billed in either Imperial Gallons or US Gallons)
--

-Gord.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, "Gord
writes
(B2431) wrote:
>>>From: "Tarver Engineering" j
>>>All fuel is bought as weight, that is how an aircraft works. The fact that
>>>you pay for volume is a book keeper's issue.
>>
>>I have never seen anyone buy avgas by weight for small GA aircraft like the
>>Cessna 172.
>>
>>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>And I'll back Dan up for the Military (Canadian Mil at least)
>It's never bought fuel by the pound either (and I bought a lot
>too, pretty well all over the world, it was always ordered and
>billed in either Imperial Gallons or US Gallons)

Civilian light aviation in the UK buys fuel by volume, not weight. You
pay for the volume pumped, not the weight change: it's up to you to keep
track of the weight. (Our aircraft could go over MGTOW with a full tank
and two burly occupants: luckily I and my instructor were both wiry
types)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:20:16 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

> Civilian light aviation in the UK buys fuel by volume, not weight. You
> pay for the volume pumped, not the weight change: it's up to you to keep
> track of the weight. (Our aircraft could go over MGTOW with a full tank
> and two burly occupants: luckily I and my instructor were both wiry
> types)

And if you're doing flight research or test, you have to call over and
get the fuel temperature so you can do the conversion to pounds and
compute cg position.

So far as I know, all jets and turboprops fill in gallons and work in
pounds. Of course, the weight is just a straight calibration thing
and approximate, unless the fuel temperature is used to determine
density (which it isn't, that I know of).

The SR-71 was filled on the ground in gallons, but flown in pounds,
mostly for flight limits. The boundaries of the various regions are a
little peculiar because of how the fuel tanks sequenced, mostly to
minimize cg extremes, but this is pretty common for any airplane with
multiple fuel tanks.

Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), the reason this works this
way is because volume is easy to measure, particularly for
free-flowing liquids. Weight is harder. Naturally, the world prefers
the easy way.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Andrew Chaplin]

Mary Shafer wrote:

<snip>

> Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), the reason this works this
> way is because volume is easy to measure, particularly for
> free-flowing liquids. Weight is harder. Naturally, the world prefers
> the easy way.

Shafer's Corollary to Ockham's Razor? ;^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[David Lesher]

Mary Shafer > writes:


>> Civilian light aviation in the UK buys fuel by volume, not weight. You
>> pay for the volume pumped, not the weight change: it's up to you to keep
>> track of the weight. (Our aircraft could go over MGTOW with a full tank
>> and two burly occupants: luckily I and my instructor were both wiry
>> types)

>And if you're doing flight research or test, you have to call over and
>get the fuel temperature so you can do the conversion to pounds and
>compute cg position.

>So far as I know, all jets and turboprops fill in gallons and work in
>pounds. Of course, the weight is just a straight calibration thing
>and approximate, unless the fuel temperature is used to determine
>density (which it isn't, that I know of).


When I worked on a pipeline that send 500k gallons a day of JetA to
the airport, and then pumped it to the ramp, it worked thus:

We pumped/sold it by the barrel -- a barrel being 42 gallons.
(That's an API standard for "custody transfer"...)

The hydrant trucks, with a "in" hose, meter, filter, "out" hose
and a platform to reach the wings, metered it in gallons. The
ticket printer on it read in gallons. That went to the crew.

I'll assume the cockpit all read in pounds, but don't know that from
personal knowledge. But didja know some 737's have fuel gages under
the wing, by the fuel point? There are also switches to control
cross-feeding of the incoming fuel.





--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> >From: Jim Campbell rchaic
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I say we should start measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight.
> >>
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to
> >the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
> >-- Grandpa Simpson
> >
> >Which works out to about approximately 10.4 feet per gallon!
> >(US or Imperial is left as an exercise for the reader)
> >
> >
> >--
> >Jim Campbell
>
> How long does it take for your car to accelerate from zero to 60 furlongs per
> fortnight?
>

In English or Metric units of time ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[[email protected]]

David Lesher > wrote:

>I'll assume the cockpit all read in pounds, but don't know that from
>personal knowledge.

Any that I flew did except Lancasters which read in gallons.

>But didja know some 737's have fuel gages under
>the wing, by the fuel point? There are also switches to control
>cross-feeding of the incoming fuel.

Almost (if not all) larger passenger a/c have this 'pressure
refueling panel' (usually in a wheel-well) with electrical
switches to control the direction and amount of fuel being
uploaded.

Fuel is almost always loaded using gallons and the internal fuel
quantity indicators almost always indicate in pounds. Fuel weight
is a much more useful parameter than volume where a/c are
concerned.
--

-Gord.

[B2431]

On C-130s we had the SPR (single point refuling panel) where they hooked up the
nozzel. It had indicators reading pounds for each of the integral tanks. Just
an observation.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Pat Norton]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3081612.stm

"The court heard he had miscalculated the conversion from US gallons
to litres when requesting fuel before taking off and asked for 90
litres instead of 113.5 litres."


Official accident report at:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_502314.hcsp

[[email protected]]

(Pat Norton) wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3081612.stm
>
>"The court heard he had miscalculated the conversion from US gallons
>to litres when requesting fuel before taking off and asked for 90
>litres instead of 113.5 litres."
>
>
>Official accident report at:
>www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_502314.hcsp

Very interesting Pat, thanks.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"av8r" > wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> You all might want to read the story below about the Gimli Glider.
>
> http://www.flightsafety.org.au/articles/t0357.php
>
> Here's an extract from the above.
>
> Cheers...Chris
>
> The flight from Montreal to Edmonton, including a brief stop in Ottawa,
> required 22,300kg of fuel, an amount expressed as mass because of the
> importance of knowing an aircraft's weight.
>
> The mechanics needed to work out how many litres made up 22,300kg. They
> could then subtract the 7,682 litres already in the tanks, and use the
> fuel gauge on the refueling truck to tell when they had reached the
> right number of litres to make up 22,300kg.
>
> But the 767 was the first aircraft in Air Canada's fleet to use metric
> units (kilograms) rather than imperial (pounds). Metric units were being
> phased in across Canada, and the conversions were still causing confusion.

And so, making a PC change, caused another near disaster.

[John R Weiss]

"B2431" > wrote...
> On C-130s we had the SPR (single point refuling panel) where they hooked up
the
> nozzel. It had indicators reading pounds for each of the integral tanks.

That's a common arrangement. Tactical aircraft with SPR may not have any
indicator at the panel; simple lights indicating a full/not full tank (closing a
float switch) may be used instead. If a partial fuel load is desired, it must
be selected by fully fueling specific tanks and/or monitoring the cockpit fuel
gauges. In the case where over-the-wing fueling is used (in the past, commonly
done with the wing drop tanks on the A-4), either the tanks are filled
completely or a specific quantity in gallons specified. Even though the A-4
fuel system indicated in pounds, the 300-gallon (2000 lb nominal) drop tanks
were filled with 150 gallons for a "half drop tanks" load, regardless of fuel
type or density. Minor weight discrepancies due to fuel type (JP-4 vs JP-5) or
temperature were disregarded, since fuel planning assumed the worst case (low
density or weight) and performance effects due to slightly higher gross weight
with high-density fuel were negligible.

For the SPR systems with indicators on the panels, the person doing the
refueling needs to know little more regarding the specific fuel upload than the
final total fuel load (or sometimes the load in each tank). By manual or
automatic tank selection and shutoff valves, the tanks are fueled until the
final load is achieved. The fueler does not need to monitor or convert volume
(gallons or liters) to weight or mass (pounds or kilograms) -- he simply uses
the indicators in the aircraft fuel system to directly read the fuel on board in
the airplane's native units.

Sometimes, e.g. when several trucks may be required to refuel a large airplane,
an estimate of required fuel may be given to the fuel company dispatcher so
[s]he can dispatch the appropriate number of trucks. In commercial aviation
this figure is seldom, if ever, used as an "order" for a specific quantity; it
is only a planning guideline.

For example, when arriving at a station in a 747, I will notify the ops center
of the estimated fuel remaining (in Kg) on shutdown. They will then estimate
the fuel load required for the next leg and notify the fuel dispatcher. When
the refueler comes to the airplane, he never knows the number of gallons/liters
required. The airline ramp ops people will tell him the preliminary or final
fuel load in Kg, and the fueler will set that figure on the airplane refueling
panel (the 747-400 is almost completely automatic; once a total fuel load is
set, the airplane system automatically controls the feed to individual tanks).
The fueler has no idea how many gallons, liters, or Kg the airplane will
require -- only the final load. He records the gallons or liters delivered,
after the fact, on the receipt for billing.

The bottom line is that conversion of units is seldom a critical problem in
refueling modern commercial airplanes.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pat Norton" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary
> >set of units in the first palce?
>
> That question does not parse. The problem is not a 'change' from setA
> to setB. The problem is multiple units for the same thing. UnitX
> coexists with unitY (and perhaps unitZ). You may wish to ask:

Not at all, in the Western World aerospace has been feet, pounds and
clockwise.

I will agree that your alternative units have merit, but not in aerospace.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > > And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel
> vended, no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the
> airplane is checked to see if the fuel got onboard.
> > > >
> > > > So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be
ordered
> and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.
> > >
> > > Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking
about.
> > >
> > > In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the
fuel
> vendor is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms
> >
> > My goodness Weiss, you mean what I wrote in the first place is
completely
> > correct.
>
> No, your fantasy "explanation" of what you think might happen isn't
anywhere
> near "completely correct."

No.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> You are right, when do you intend to start the conversion to the inch??

One tenth of a foot is already an American engineering standard for
transportation.

[Regnirps]

I was visiting relatives in Sweden with my uncle. They had a nice 10 acre farm.
My uncle is from Texas and said he had a farm and could get in his car, drive
all day and still not be to the other side. The Swedish relative said:

"Ya, I had a car like dat vunce too."

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(Pat Norton) wrote:

<< "The court heard he had miscalculated the conversion from US gallons
to litres when requesting fuel before taking off and asked for 90
litres instead of 113.5 litres." >>

The French System will get ya every time!

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

Hey you guys. The French System (Now called Metric though any system of
measurements is a metric) was officially adopted by the US Congress in the
1800's. I think that over a hundred years of refusal by the people would
convince anybody in business to pull a product. Why do you suppose non-profits
and governments still push metric?

-- Charlie Springer

[Pat Norton]

Michael Williamson wrote:
>US military airports now give Terminal Area Forecast
>visibility in metres. All without a fuss.
>
>In some cases they might, but the last time I got ATIS
>here at Davis Monthan AFB, visibility was in nautical miles

You may be thinking of the METAR rather than TAF. In any case, METARS
use statute miles not nautical miles.

I have just been given the following TAF for Davis Monthan AFB
(visibility in meters):
KDMA 280505 14006KT 9999 BKN290 QNH2990INS WND VRB06KT AFT 17 T29/23Z
T13/13Z

Can you check again?

[Jo Stoller]

Gord Beaman wrote:
>>"The court heard he had miscalculated the conversion
>>from US gallons to litres
>
>Very interesting Pat, thanks.

Here are two more:
**************************************
The aircraft landed firmly in a steep nose up attitude which caused
the tail area to make contact with the runway surface.
[...]
The Loadchit and Load message form was given to the Commander at
Menorca. It was annotated "All weights kilos" ...
Total passenger weight 18,251 kg
Baggage 3,692 kg
On the Loadsheet the Commander had converted the baggage figure into
pounds but had entered the passenger weight as '18251', the weight in
kilograms recorded on the Loadchit. Using the conversion multiple
2.2046, this figure should have been '40236'
**************************************
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_500650.hcsp



**************************************
The accident occurred when both engines lost power during a ferry
flight from Tangiers to Guernsey. The commander ditched the aircraft
into the sea near the island of Jersey but he did not survive. [...]
The aircraft was not carrying sufficient fuel for the intended flight.
The commander apparently ignored pre-flight and in-flight indications
that he should land and refuel in France.

It is difficult to understand why the commander thought the aircraft
could fly for 8 hours unless he miscalculated the endurance. In
aviation, the variety of units used (eg fuel quantities can be given
in litres, Imperial gallons, US gallons, pounds or kilograms) are a
potential trap for the unwary when the need to convert from one to
another is overlooked or miscalculated.
**************************************
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_502535.hcsp

[[email protected]]

(Regnirps) wrote:

>I was visiting relatives in Sweden with my uncle. They had a nice 10 acre farm.
>My uncle is from Texas and said he had a farm and could get in his car, drive
>all day and still not be to the other side. The Swedish relative said:
>
>"Ya, I had a car like dat vunce too."
>
>-- Charlie Springer

Good one...
--

-Gord.

[Michael Williamson]

Pat Norton wrote:
> Michael Williamson wrote:
>
>>US military airports now give Terminal Area Forecast
>>visibility in metres. All without a fuss.
>>
>>In some cases they might, but the last time I got ATIS
>>here at Davis Monthan AFB, visibility was in nautical miles
>
>
> You may be thinking of the METAR rather than TAF. In any case, METARS
> use statute miles not nautical miles.
>
> I have just been given the following TAF for Davis Monthan AFB
> (visibility in meters):
> KDMA 280505 14006KT 9999 BKN290 QNH2990INS WND VRB06KT AFT 17 T29/23Z
> T13/13Z
>
> Can you check again?

I do believe that you are correct on the statute miles vs. nautical
miles. As for checking, the evil schedulers cancelled my flight for
today, so I didn't see the weather briefing sheet. We don't use
either TAFs or METARs directly- we request a 175-1 (weather briefing
form) or verbal briefing from the weather shop and always receive
visibility in miles. ATIS also always gives prevailing visibility
in miles. I've never heard it (in the US) given in meters on the
ATIS (recorded weather and airfield information transmitted at
most airfields).

Mike

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:01:14 -0700, (Harry
>Andreas) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>
>> > In other words, was Harry Andreas telling you that this standard size
>> > isn't really 1.75 mm = 44.45 mm, but rather 45 mm = 1 98/127 in or
>> > about 1.77 in? That's what it sounds like to me, but I don't know if
>> > that is the case or not.
>
>> I almost don't want to go here, but... a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really
>> only 1.75 x 3.75, and I've seen some that are only 1.5 x 3.5
>
>If you want a 2x4 that's really 2"x4", you have to buy a 8/4x16/4.
>There are two size systems that I'm familiar with for buying wood.

....and that doesn't quite work that way either.

Wood sized in quarters (4/4, 5/4, 6/4, etc) is only giving the thickness
of the rough plank. An 8/4 plank will be at least two inches thick, and
often a bit over. The promise is that you can a certain minimum
finished thickness out of such a plank. 4/4 rough promises 3/4 finished.

Quarter-sized wood is sold by the board foot. You get so many feet by
so much width of x/4.

>
>One, in inches, uses the unfinished size as nominal, but finishing
>uses 1/8" for each size, so the actual size is a quarter-inch
>undersized in each direction. This system is used mostly for lumber
>like Douglas fir, pine, etc. You frame houses with such wood.

Actually, for wider planks, the underage goes up. A 1x8 is 7 1/4 inches
wide, not 7 1/2 (and the usual underage for smaller sizes is 1/2 inch,
not 1/4).

>
>The other, in quarters, uses the finished size as nominal. However,
>it's only used for hardwood of fairly high grade, that's bought by
>cabinet makers, etc. You make fine furniture with such wood.
>
>Then there's metric, about which I know very little except that there
>are common sizes that correspond to the old standards like 2x4, 2x6,
>and so on. Whether they use the finished or unfinished size is not
>something I know.
>
yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Jo Stoller]

Jo Stoller wrote:
>>>"The court heard he had miscalculated the conversion
>>>from US gallons to litres
>
>Here are two more:


www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4510.pdf
"the shipper's weights had been in kilograms, not pounds, and that, as
a result, the aircraft was more than 30,000 pounds overweight"

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

Statement 1:
> Well, the US has, unquestionably, the most advanced scientific
> system in the world, the US economy (GDP) is much larger than
> any other, etc, etc.

Statement 2:
> It does not appear that the unit of measure is
> "broken".

There is no relation between these two statements. No one, not even
you, have a clue to what the US GDP would have been today if the US
had gone through with the decision to go metric.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:49:35 GMT, (Goran Larsson) wrote:

>In article >,
>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>Statement 1:
>> Well, the US has, unquestionably, the most advanced scientific
>> system in the world, the US economy (GDP) is much larger than
>> any other, etc, etc.
>
>Statement 2:
>> It does not appear that the unit of measure is
>> "broken".
>
>There is no relation between these two statements. No one, not even
>you, have a clue to what the US GDP would have been today if the US
>had gone through with the decision to go metric.

What I am saying is that, if the countries that use the metric (misnomer)
system were so superior, they would be the leading economies, they
are not. If the US had "gone metric" there would have been significant
economic damage for a long period of time.

At one time gasoline stations sold fuel by the liter and speed limits
were posted in KPH. The citizens of the US did not like, and refused
to tolerate, such usages.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:49:35 GMT, (Goran Larsson) wrote:
>>There is no relation between these two statements. No one, not even
>>you, have a clue to what the US GDP would have been today if the US
>>had gone through with the decision to go metric.
>
>What I am saying is that, if the countries that use the metric (misnomer)
>system were so superior, they would be the leading economies, they
>are not. If the US had "gone metric" there would have been significant
>economic damage for a long period of time.

Why? It's hardly catastrophic. British industry had far worse problems
than "changing units", for an example.

Having been trained in both, it really is a lot easier to do serious
work in SI than to try to work out whether a reference to "pounds" means
pounds, poundals or slugs...

On the other hand, we still buy beer in pints (even if it's officially
..568 litre measures) and measure distance in miles.


One of the more interesting summer work placements I had was rigging up
a gas-turbine engine to run on a novel fuel. One challenge was simply
trying to cope with the multiple screw threads used for the holes
already drilled and tapped: some US, some Whitworth, some ISO.

If the US wants its measurement system to prosper, you need to make it a
_lot_ easier to find the relevant taps, dies and fasteners. Muttering
that the rest of the world ought to do it your way is useless: make your
standard easy to use or see how young engineers drill and tap new holes
for threads they _can_ get easily.

>At one time gasoline stations sold fuel by the liter and speed limits
>were posted in KPH. The citizens of the US did not like, and refused
>to tolerate, such usages.

At what point does this stop being a noble defence of fine units, and
start being King Canute ordering the rising tide to retreat?



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Alan Minyard]

>At what point does this stop being a noble defence of fine units, and
>start being King Canute ordering the rising tide to retreat?

Well that depends on whether it is rising in feet or meters :-)))

OK, end of thread.

Al Minyard