On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:25:07 Howard Ressel wrote:
>...
>Also, the US chose what I think is a more rational approach to lane width.
>We use 3.0 m, 3.3 m and 3.6 m wide lanes which corresponds nicely to
>10, 11 & 12 feet....
The observation above made me seriously think and ask a hard question: is it *really*
more "rational" to adopt "rationalized" multiples of old ifp units???
With all due respect to our friend, Howard, here I should say the answer should be no!
Why? We ought to distance ourselves *as much as possible* from ifp thinking!
Adopting such approach above is akin to simply rationalizing conversion factors in the
end, or put it slightly differently, to *rationalize* conversion factors to nice
values, like an inch would be 2.5 cm, a foot, 30 cm, etc. The added "benefit" (SIC)
of this would be to perpetuate and institutionalize ifp thinking forever, as people
would never see a need to switch thinking!!! And this, folks, quite frankly, is NOT
what we want and/or advocate!!!
One other thing which should be a topic for discussion here. What's *really*
important? To continue "compartimentalizing" operations, like construction already
does (and in which case we'd apparently *have to* adopt "modules" that would be
divisible by the largest amount of dividers possible, like ones based on the number
12, which is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6) or to change approaches to "rational
decimal"?
I'd venture say, IMHO, that we should simply go for rational decimal 'blocks'
(modules, whatever...). Here is my point, if the decimal system is based on the
primes 1, 2 and 5, we should create such blocks that would also "mirror" those
factors. This is a mathematical "reality", i.e. that a *pure* decimal-based set of
modules is more efficient.
The other day I *proved* that it would be much more efficient if our monetary system
scrapped the current 25-cent crap and adopt the 20-cent coin, instead, plus create a
2-cent coin. *If* the distribution of numbers is assumed to be non-biased, i.e. that
the likelihood of numbers is "the same", so to speak, one would require a lot less
"coins" with a system that would have the following coins: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 50, as
opposed to 1, 5, 10 and 25! (BTW, that, again, is not difficult to prove, suffice for
one to come up with a table, say, for the optimum quantities of coins from 1 cent to
99 cents to verify this - and if I'm not mistaken, the tally would be over 30% higher
"efficiency" for the system I just described).
Therefore, I'm sorry to disagree with Howard here, but I'd prefer the Canadian system
better, which as someone else described here, would be in "increments" of 25 cm (even
though I'd not approve of those either, but because they are *not* "attached" to ifp
thinking makes it a lesser... evil).
Comments anyone?... :-)
Marcus
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
