Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Tot you'uns use dem rods 'n chains? Lik in dat sado/maso/bondo thang? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- I gots me a conversion piece of paper on the wall. Now's i cen tell how many rods in a perch.:-) Dave
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
On 11/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I gots me a conversion piece of paper on the wall. Now's i cen tell how many rods in a perch.:-) European or African? -Arthur, King of the Britons -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Rule: Never convert from one system to another. Use whichever is appropriate. That way you always know tha 10 meters is 10 meters, that 30 feet is 30 feet, and that 20 cubits is 20 cubits. Figuring it any other way make you crazy. Look at watchmakers' who think their American conceived 5/16 inch collet lathe is 8 mm. No, don't try to do the conversion in your head, it does not come out even, and will make you crazy. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- keith_w wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: Very dirty, 7 meters is 23+ feet, that 3 1/2 inch difference per. foot adds up very quickly. If you're depending on 30 feet of rope to span 10 meters of distance you're seriously out of luck. First of all, I get 22 feet, 11 1/2. I used 1 meter as being 39.37 in length. Did you use another conversion? Second of all, if I'm figuring on spanning 10 meters of anything, I'll add plenty of extra to do the job. I'd probably use a calculator, instead of working it out in my head. Even a length of rope 10 meters long isn't going to do it! This was not meant to be an excercise in whose rope is bigger! I stated *quite* clearly that as an estimate of length given in two systems of measurement, my idea of multiplying meters by 3 and adding a little, to get feet, is perfectly okay. I really didn't mean it to bring out the pedants! keith keith_w wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: More like 3 Feet 3.6 inches ~ 1 meter... More than enough to very annoying over 100 yards, (or meters if you prefer). danilo wrote: Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo For order of magnitude conversions, it's just fine. If someone mentions a 7 meter length to you, what do you do? A quick multiplication by three yields 21 feet ~ just add a little bit. For most practical uses, that's plenty close enough. As a inch/feet/mile guy, I can visualize 21+ feet quickly and that's all I need to know. So what if it *IS* betweeen 21 and 23 feet? For a quick and dirty estimate of length, it's just fine. That's for those who can't think in metric yet. keith whaley
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
danilo wrote: Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo Roughly speaking... Certainly good enough for gaining perspective on magnitude. keith whaley
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
That's ~8% too small -- quite a bit. I metre = ~39.3701 inches. D danilo wrote: Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo -- Dr E D F Williams ___ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams See feature: The Cement Company from Hell Updated: Print Gallery-- 16 11 2005
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
More like 3 Feet 3.6 inches ~ 1 meter... More than enough to very annoying over 100 yards, (or meters if you prefer). danilo wrote: Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
P. J. Alling wrote: More like 3 Feet 3.6 inches ~ 1 meter... More than enough to very annoying over 100 yards, (or meters if you prefer). danilo wrote: Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo For order of magnitude conversions, it's just fine. If someone mentions a 7 meter length to you, what do you do? A quick multiplication by three yields 21 feet ~ just add a little bit. For most practical uses, that's plenty close enough. As a inch/feet/mile guy, I can visualize 21+ feet quickly and that's all I need to know. So what if it *IS* betweeen 21 and 23 feet? For a quick and dirty estimate of length, it's just fine. That's for those who can't think in metric yet. keith whaley
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Very dirty, 7 meters is 23+ feet, that 3 1/2 inch difference per. foot adds up very quickly. If you're depending on 30 feet of rope to span 10 meters of distance you're seriously out of luck. keith_w wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: More like 3 Feet 3.6 inches ~ 1 meter... More than enough to very annoying over 100 yards, (or meters if you prefer). danilo wrote: Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo For order of magnitude conversions, it's just fine. If someone mentions a 7 meter length to you, what do you do? A quick multiplication by three yields 21 feet ~ just add a little bit. For most practical uses, that's plenty close enough. As a inch/feet/mile guy, I can visualize 21+ feet quickly and that's all I need to know. So what if it *IS* betweeen 21 and 23 feet? For a quick and dirty estimate of length, it's just fine. That's for those who can't think in metric yet. keith whaley -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
P. J. Alling wrote: Very dirty, 7 meters is 23+ feet, that 3 1/2 inch difference per. foot adds up very quickly. If you're depending on 30 feet of rope to span 10 meters of distance you're seriously out of luck. First of all, I get 22 feet, 11 1/2. I used 1 meter as being 39.37 in length. Did you use another conversion? Second of all, if I'm figuring on spanning 10 meters of anything, I'll add plenty of extra to do the job. I'd probably use a calculator, instead of working it out in my head. Even a length of rope 10 meters long isn't going to do it! This was not meant to be an excercise in whose rope is bigger! I stated *quite* clearly that as an estimate of length given in two systems of measurement, my idea of multiplying meters by 3 and adding a little, to get feet, is perfectly okay. I really didn't mean it to bring out the pedants! keith keith_w wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: More like 3 Feet 3.6 inches ~ 1 meter... More than enough to very annoying over 100 yards, (or meters if you prefer). danilo wrote: Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo For order of magnitude conversions, it's just fine. If someone mentions a 7 meter length to you, what do you do? A quick multiplication by three yields 21 feet ~ just add a little bit. For most practical uses, that's plenty close enough. As a inch/feet/mile guy, I can visualize 21+ feet quickly and that's all I need to know. So what if it *IS* betweeen 21 and 23 feet? For a quick and dirty estimate of length, it's just fine. That's for those who can't think in metric yet. keith whaley
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Just add 1 additional foot for every 4 meters - you'll make it OK. -P P. J. Alling wrote: Very dirty, 7 meters is 23+ feet, that 3 1/2 inch difference per. foot adds up very quickly. If you're depending on 30 feet of rope to span 10 meters of distance you're seriously out of luck. keith_w wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: More like 3 Feet 3.6 inches ~ 1 meter... More than enough to very annoying over 100 yards, (or meters if you prefer). danilo wrote: Wasn't it: 3 feet ~= 1 meter ?? (school was some times ago) Danilo For order of magnitude conversions, it's just fine. If someone mentions a 7 meter length to you, what do you do? A quick multiplication by three yields 21 feet ~ just add a little bit. For most practical uses, that's plenty close enough. As a inch/feet/mile guy, I can visualize 21+ feet quickly and that's all I need to know. So what if it *IS* betweeen 21 and 23 feet? For a quick and dirty estimate of length, it's just fine. That's for those who can't think in metric yet. keith whaley
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Tot you'uns use dem rods 'n chains? Lik in dat sado/maso/bondo thang? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Brooks wrote: Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:40:01 + From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Thank you for subscribing with Affinity Callback Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28/11/05, Doug Brewer, discombobulated, unleashed: Yup, I'm on it. Doug can you let me know if you get the full 10 cm ? Now, can we all see the benefits of Imperial measurments here.:-) Dave Uhhh, maybe 10 cm once became know as One Imperial Length? Simplifies all the counting and keeping track. keith I'm a surveyor. 1 foot means 1 foot, not 10 lowley cm'ers.:-) Dave
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Um??? Ain'at 30 lowley cm's? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Brooks wrote: Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:40:01 + From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Thank you for subscribing with Affinity Callback Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28/11/05, Doug Brewer, discombobulated, unleashed: Yup, I'm on it. Doug can you let me know if you get the full 10 cm ? Now, can we all see the benefits of Imperial measurments here.:-) Dave Uhhh, maybe 10 cm once became know as One Imperial Length? Simplifies all the counting and keeping track. keith I'm a surveyor. 1 foot means 1 foot, not 10 lowley cm'ers.:-) Dave
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:40:01 + From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Thank you for subscribing with Affinity Callback Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28/11/05, Doug Brewer, discombobulated, unleashed: Yup, I'm on it. Doug can you let me know if you get the full 10 cm ? Now, can we all see the benefits of Imperial measurments here.:-) Dave
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Dave Brooks wrote: Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:40:01 + From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Thank you for subscribing with Affinity Callback Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28/11/05, Doug Brewer, discombobulated, unleashed: Yup, I'm on it. Doug can you let me know if you get the full 10 cm ? Now, can we all see the benefits of Imperial measurments here.:-) Dave Uhhh, maybe 10 cm once became know as One Imperial Length? Simplifies all the counting and keeping track. keith
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #3158
Dave Brooks wrote: Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:40:01 + From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Thank you for subscribing with Affinity Callback Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28/11/05, Doug Brewer, discombobulated, unleashed: Yup, I'm on it. Doug can you let me know if you get the full 10 cm ? Now, can we all see the benefits of Imperial measurments here.:-) Dave Uhhh, maybe 10 cm once became know as One Imperial Length? Simplifies all the counting and keeping track. keith I'm a surveyor. 1 foot means 1 foot, not 10 lowley cm'ers.:-) Dave
