Dear John,
I have interspersed some remarks in red.
On 2009/04/05, at 1:35 AM, John M. Steele wrote:
Pat,
You understandably write from a Commonwealth or Australian
perspective (I don't mean spelling),
True.
and as a metric consultant, you may have a vested interest in making
old
I agree with Bll Potts. Leave expressions like 'inch by inch' or 'not an inch'
alone. Those opposed to metric would love it if we wanted to change such things.
In the Netherlands a folding measuring stick is called a 'duimstok', which is
'inch stick' in English. I have a wooden duimstok or inch
We have spent enough time on record size on this and other boards that I did
some research. I shall play Solomon; you are each awarded half a child for the
merits of your position. :)
Wikipedia is not the greatest source, but they say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record
There is a thread on You Tube called: Germany vs America, about similarities
and differences beteen the two countries. There are two videos about Celsius
and Fahrenheit and one 'Meter vs Yard'.
In Canada, butter is packed in hard metric sizes (250 g, 500 g, etc), but is
not called a pound. There a pound is still 454 g.
In the 30 years I lived there, I don't ever recall coming across a 'stick' of
butter - that must be a unique US term.
John F-L
- Original Message -
From:
I interspersed some remarks in GREEN below.
From: Pat Naughtin pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com
To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 4:39:26 AM
Subject: [USMA:44368] Re: Even with dual, you can't please everybody
Dear
You don't need to change anything. You just don't have to use them and in
their place come up with new sayings that is measurement neutral. For example,
inch by inch can be replaced with bit by bit or a little at a time. Not
an inch can be replaced with not one iota or not at all or not one
John,
Thanks for verifying what I have said. We now have proof that I am correct and
Stephen is wrong. But I highly doubt Stephen will change his position and
continue to spout error.
The RIAA spec is very interesting as it butts up against an interesting problem
in converting millimeter
On Sunday 05 April 2009 05:54:11 Han Maenen wrote:
I agree with Bll Potts. Leave expressions like 'inch by inch' or 'not an
inch' alone. Those opposed to metric would love it if we wanted to change
such things. In the Netherlands a folding measuring stick is called a
'duimstok', which is
Can you provide the links?
Just a note, the use of the yard in the US is very rare. Only in American
football is the term commonly used. I'm sure if it was used more often then it
might be easier to just switch to the meter as they are practically the same
thing. Even in the UK the word
I would say that legally the pound is still defined as 454 g, but in some
practical applications 500 g is understood as a pound and vice-versa.
Does butter in Canada ever come in bars that are divided into quarter sticks?
Thus if there were, then a 500 g bar would be divided into 125 g sticks.
It just goes to prove that whoever named them inch worms didn't have any idea
how long an inch was or was simply doing what is normal for inches by using
them as a vague reference. Thus to give exact meaning to pre-metric units is
really the wrong thing to do.
Thanks for clearing up the
I'd like to comment on this idea of the changing inch as it illustrates the
problem of being too liberal in rounding a conversion factor. Measured data
should be rounded consistent with its measurement accuracy. However,
conversions are either declared values (legal definitions) or the
Your dimension of 302 mm is correct, more correct than the nominal 12.
However, Steve's assertion that it is inch based is also correct, as written in
the specification.
Since the International size is claimed to be 300 mm, and 302 mm differs from
it by a few multiples of the tolerance, as
The point was that no one was entirely right or entirely wrong. Don't get such a big head that in the first two sentences you say someone is absolutely right and another is absolutely wrong.
Original Message
Subject: [USMA:44375] RE: Records
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
Stephen asserts the records are true to their name (ie a 12 inch named record
is really 305 mm in diameter). But since the rounded metric sizes are the true
and original sizes, then they are metric based and only were converted to
inches for US manufacturing at the time. It is obvious from
If the goal is to mimic a 300 mm International size, 11 13/16 inches is almost
perfect (300.04 mm), again with the same 1/64 tolerance. Obviously a conscious
decision was made NOT to match 300 mm, although the reason is not apparent to
me.
--- On Sun, 4/5/09, Jeremiah MacGregor
Mathematically:
1) Convert to decimal inches, by dividing by 25.4 mm/in
2) Record and subtract the integer inches to deal with only the decimal.
3) Multiply by the largest denominator I am willing to entertain (8, 16, 32,
etc)
4) Mentally round to closest integer
If I get a result that is even,
Brian,
The long playing record was developed by Columbia records but by a Hungarian
engineer. This will give more strength to the concept that he designed it to
be a rounded metric size. He was educated in metric and obviously was more
comfortable with it so there is good reason to believe
One of the popular brands of butter (Gaylea brand) in Southern Ontario is sold
in 454 g packages. It comes in block form (not sticks) and is wrapped in a
foil-like material. To their credit, Gaylea also has a 250 g package of butter.
Visit Gaylea's website, www.gaylea.com , and you can see
Actually there can only be one truth. Either the records are metric or they
are not. The proof has been presented that they were conceived in metric.
Thus I can claim that I am entirely correct.
This is very important for metrication to show that even in the past engineers
and developers
Yes, and I brought that issue up in my original post. I speculated that they
may have wanted an extra millimeter on the radius possibly for a wider leader.
Jerry
From: John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net
To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu
Obviously the steps (or similar) that were taken when the dimensions were
converted in the past. Can't say whether they used 25.4 or some other inch
definition from the time.
The point is that with the record dimensions what they are, it shows that they
were converted and rounded to the
I consider finding the spec IN INCHES a counterproof.
I would further note that if the desire is to approximate 300 mm and 250 mm,
better inch based numbers are available. 11 13/16 inches ± 1/64 is superior to
11 57/64 ± 1/64, and 9 27/32 ± 1/64 is superior to 9 57/64 ± 1/64.
I suspect the
I guess it goes back to the old joke of you say toe-may-toe and I say
toe-mah-toe. Is it Care-a-bee-ann or is it Ca-rib-bee-ann?
But I got a kick out of how some of the voices pronounced joule (jewel) as
jow-ul.
Jerry
From: m. f. moon
Except that the Europeans (like Emile Berliner of Germany and Peter Goldmark of
Hungary) invented the records first and European immigrants brought their
existing designs to the US or in the case of Goldmark thought in metric at
Columbia. The US industry copied the designs and changed them to
I've just measured a number of my old LPs, acquired or produced in a number of
countries (UK, USA, Canada, South Africa, France, Germany, USSR). The
European, South African and British ones are all exactly 300 mm in diameter,
+/- about 0.2 mm, no more. The American and Canadian ones are all
John,
Thanks again for providing the proof.
Isn't just wonderful what you can discover from simply measuring something
instead of assuming it has been something else just because someone told you it
was?
Isn't funny how they were all able to shrink to such a precise rounded metric
value?
Well, that is a testable claim. Lets look at 11 13/16 assuming International
inches (300.0375 mm), and survey inches (300.0381 mm). Nope, not much
difference. Both are far better than the chosen size. If they were mimicing a
sensible 300 mm, why did they go up 5/64 over the optimium
Found this on the Gaylea site:
* Ginger Lime Butter - great over grilled fish. Combine 1/4 cup (50 mL)
Gay Lea Spreadable Butter with 1 tablespoon ( 15 mL) grated fresh gingerroot, 1
clove garlic, minced, 1 tablespoon (15 mL) lime juice and pinch red pepper
flakes.
* Maple
Regarding the recent discussions on dual marking/labelling in respect of the
UK, I just thought I'd do a quick check on various items I have in my house. I
have listed a total of 57 items (no connection to Mr Heinz!), these I feel
being somewhat representative of our shopping and DIY
Jerry,
Yes, a copy of a polished draft of FPLA 2010 to the White House, in the hope
that the goal of harmonization of US Public Law and the EU Directive will
stimulate attention.
However, the FPLA contains many other Acts of Congress which assign authorities
to the FDA, USDA, FTC, BATF, EPA,
Stan,
Thanks for your proposals. I'm working on the second draft of FPLA 2010 which
will include improvements based on your suggestions. i.e. with emphasis on
the symbols for SI multiples rather than on the full names of multiples.
Gene.
Original message
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009
Interesting. They offer butter in 454 g and 250 g sizes. They say it is
available in quarters (I assume only the 454 g size).
http://www.gaylea.com/products/catid/1
(it says only available in Ontario)
Take a look at their recipe book, not just one recipe. They round liberally: 1
cup = 250
Jerry,
Two things:
1) Please do Han the courtesy of assuming that is command of Dutch is better
than yours - the .nl at the end of his e-mail address suggests to me that
Dutch is probably his mother tongue.
2) I can vouch for the fact that the word duim means both thumb and
inch in
I don't have specific text to propose, but three thoughts for your
consideration:
*I am not expert in legalese. With respect to units and prefixes, where you
say multiples is it necessary to say multiples and submultiples to include
prefixes less than one?
*Do we need to allow l for liter?
John, see my responses below.
John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
...
With respect to units and prefixes, where you say multiples is it necessary
to say multiples and submultiples to include prefixes less than one?
The examples
On Apr 3 , at 12:30 PM, Bill Potts wrote:
The penalty for lobbying isn't severe -- just loss of tax-exempt
status.
Loss of tax exempt status is not insignificant.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==
SImplification Begins With SI.
Ordinarily ones height is not usually recorded anywhere - but for the NPLA
database the data is collected if you are pulled over. It's then extra info
(including colour, nationality etc). The data then 'builds up' and becomes
more valuable for those who become suspect. The entry on the form
I've offered photos to prove my case here for you - I'm surprised you refuse to
make me your 'reference' for the UK.With regards to pub soft drinks I can
supply a photo attachment of a receipt if you like? Also you ask for a photo
of my gas meter - I can do that too. If I do that will you
On 2009-04-05, at 14:47-0700, mech...@illinois.edu wrote:
Attached is a second draft of FPLA 2010 by Eugene A. Mechtly to
include contributions by Pat Naughtin and by Stan Jakuba.
FPLA-4-5.pdf
Nice job.
Did you see: http://gometric.us/xwiki/bin/view/Labeling/ ?
I posted it a while ago
Sorry - my intention was not to make you angry.
Yes 'tee' (tea) is packed in metric (probably not exclusively) - however it's
not served in metric.Furthermore - people don't go to Tesco to buy tea via a
measurement system - people tend to go by package sizes.
You've already been told that some
Sorry JPS - I have debated with many people on this forum - Carelton being one
of them. you'd be surprised how many people know that you are John P
Schweisthall (plus the other names you've posted as - euric, kilopascal,
ametrica etc). Obviously I keep these emails in the confidence they
I'm surprised (again) that you cannot take on board an area where imperial is
used. Pro-metric people have even explained to you that you are wrong
regarding this and most of your 'findings' from google.
Concentrate on the weight factor of vinyl records - the fact that they are
expressed in
Indeed - Brian - you hit the nail on the head. The use of imperial here is
because of an historical element. It's not really that important. The
question is - would imperial be the unit if vinyl records were invented' today?
Probably not I would guess.
From: br...@bjwhite.net
To:
Rather than putting words in to my mouth why not quietly back off? It would
work better.
Remember that these sizes are as they are or historical reasons more than
anything else.
You should not get wound up about it. It's such an 'extreme' reaction ;-)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:52:34 -0700
Let me think now.
A couple of people here think they're metric - whereas *even a majority of
pro-metrics* believe they are inch based - add to that those who don't get
involved in the measures debate and you don't even need the pro-imperials to
join in.
have a guess if this very forum has
On 2009/04/06, at 1:01 AM, John M. Steele wrote:
Mathematically:
1) Convert to decimal inches, by dividing by 25.4 mm/in
2) Record and subtract the integer inches to deal with only the
decimal.
3) Multiply by the largest denominator I am willing to entertain (8,
16, 32, etc)
4) Mentally
On 2009/04/06, at 12:24 AM, John M. Steele wrote:
I'd like to comment on this idea of the changing inch as it
illustrates the problem of being too liberal in rounding a
conversion factor. Measured data should be rounded consistent with
its measurement accuracy. However, conversions are
John,
Shame on you for showing us that imperial is virtually dead in the UK. Stephen
wanted everyone here to believe that imperial is everywhere. I sure would like
to see what is in Stephen's cupboards and fridge. If a person refuses to buy
anything metric then I would expect his fridge to
If President Obama can fire the CEO of GM, I'll bet he can sign your FPLA draft
into law without an approval from the Congress. George Bush set the wheels
into motion for a president to ignore Congress. When the Congress becomes
ineffective it is time to go over their heads and deal with the
Martin,
I agree that the duim is a body part that some people used it to measure things
with in the past like the foot. I don't agree that it is the same as the
inch. The inch was defined as three barley corns round and dry. Can you tell
me the original official definition of the duim? I
I mentioned nothing in my response about a form, just doubting you were asked
information that is normally not asked. Couldn't they tell by looking at you
how tall you were? Or is their feel for imperial units lacking due to lack of
use?
Jerry
From:
If it means that much to you I might, but on a case by case basis.
John has provided evidence from his own kitchen as to what length UK products
use imperial. Very little from what he reported. Maybe you could do an
inventory of yours.
Tenerife is Spanish territory, so why wouldn't they be
I agree that people buy things more so based on looks, pretty labels, history
(how well they like the taste from past experience) and price. Measurements
fit in along with price. Package sizes fit in with measurement systems.
From what you have told me you don't need to work out fuel
Second attempt — the subject line looked like a dog's breakfast before.
On 2009/04/06, at 12:24 AM, John M. Steele wrote:
I'd like to comment on this idea of the changing inch as it
illustrates the problem of being too liberal in rounding a
conversion factor. Measured data should be rounded
No. There is an old saying The proof is in the pudding. I believe that
records are fully metric in origin simply based on the people who were involved
with their conception and the outcome before me. I posses no record (and
neither does anyone else, including you) that has a diameter
*sigh*. Who cares? Let's move on. haha...My gosh.
Original Message
Subject: [USMA:44428] RE: Records
From: Jeremiah MacGregor jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Date: Sun, April 05, 2009 8:12 pm
To: "U.S. Metric Association" usma@colostate.edu>
No. There is an old
The names were obviously chosen to be close approximations to the actual metric
sizes the records were made to. I believe it was done to satisfy the English
speaking public at a time when metric unit names were either unknown or
feared.
As you noted in the previous post that if the records
Beliefs don't establish proof. The proof is in the pudding.
Your own countryman measured his records and discover to his joy that they are
truly metric. What more proof do you want?
Those who claim to be metric supporters and insist without proof that the
records are inch based then there
It is Sunday night. I'm about finished for the week. Next week we can pick a
new topic.
Maybe you can pick something discuss.
Jerry
PS. Don't forget to measure your records.
From: br...@bjwhite.net br...@bjwhite.net
To:
I'd like to know how they were able to measure the yard to 8 decimal places way
back in 1893. What instrument did they use?
Jerry
From: Pat Naughtin pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com
To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu
Cc: U.S. Metric
On Sunday, a Fox News Channel clip from Prague television showed the date
format of the clip as (.mm.dd) i.e. 2009.04.05
Isn't it interesting that others are moving to the ISO standard date format?
Stan Doore
63 matches
Mail list logo
