why is the US not Metric

[KL27x]

Yep. I know the nautical mile as 6075 feet. But it is in fact defined in meters, today, just like all of our units.

If you want to convert into "metric nautical miles" based on 400 grads rather than the 360 degrees used by Euclidian geometry, just multiply by 0.9.

1852m x 0.9 is 1,666.8m. I supposed it should come out to 1,666.6667m, if the earth were a perfect sphere and the French measured it more accurately?

It would appear there is a 3:5 ratio somewhere between the nautical mile and a degree of the surface of the earth?

Edit: 1/60 is 0.01666666666666666667. And there it is. If the 18th century French had respected Euclidian geometry, the meter would not be 3.28084 feet. It would be 3.645 feet. 1,666.667 meters would be a minute of latitude. And a full degree would be 100 km. But they wanted a right angle to be 100 degrees, so a degree of latitude ends up being 111.1111km. Nicely done, France! 

And.... the speed of light would be 269,813,212.2 m/s,

[vk6zgo]

Put that on a tape, and show me. Pics.

Hint: a ruler only goes to like 30 cm and is ok to have fine numbering, even just light etching on a metal ruler. In a 25m+ tape measure, have fun with that idea. If you put cumulative numbers on each cm and did not turn them sideways, it will end up looking like someone writing pi out to the 50 thousandth decimal place.

Show me this metric tape measure that you would use outside, in the field, doing framing with a circular saw, day in day out. Not a ruler for cutting paper at a desk with an exacto knife.

Choosing the size of the meter was a compromise. Belgie didn't put the same priorities on all tasks, esp when he decided there are 400 degrees in a circle.

I'm back!-- just for this one time, though.
To hand, I have two tape measures.
One is a 165 ft (50m ) long one, where the numbers restart 1,2, 3----- etc, every 10cm  (100mm) on the Metric side, so are not cumulative. (yes, the people in the PRC who manufactured it made the amazing discovery that tapes have two sides).

On the Imperial side, the numbers restart 1,2,3 ------etc, every foot (12 inches) & are not cumulative.
It would obviously be impossible to use cumulative numbers of inches for a long tape like that one.(how would you fit the last one in, at 1,980 inches ?)

On both sides, the numbers read along the length of the tape, not across.

The other, small tape does use cumulative inches, but is only 10ft long (even so, it is getting a bit crowded at the top end.
On this one, the Metric scale does restart every 100cm.

Even though ISO, & the dear, departed Metrication Board didn't like centimetres, they are about the smallest unit that can easily be numbered, so won a new lease of life, by default.

When I use the big tape, I measure in metres most of the time, then translate them to mm to keep the hardware suppliers happy.

There may have been some "Metric only" tapes sold in Oz, but since they, like most other everyday things are now made in China, & to a lesser extent, India, all the ones I have use both measurement systems.

[bsfeechannel]

I feel the need to point out that knot and nautical mile have nothing to do with the US or the Metric system.

The knot and nautical mile are used in aviation (and probably still in use in maritime operation) all over the world, and that work just fine.

The nautical mile is a beautiful unit of measure (for its intended application). The nautical mile is not an arbitrary unit like most imperial units are 

Please, carry on.

 

The international nautical mile is exactly 1852 km, adopted by the US in 1954. Since the knot is exactly one nautical mile per hour and 1 hour is exactly 3600 seconds, both have everything to do with the metric system.

[bsfeechannel]

I wonder if speed of light relationship to meter is involving requirement to have gravity field of earth. There is something time dilation something relativistic there in physics.

Of course. All of those factors have to be taken into consideration, depending on the level of precision you want. But the thing is that the metric standard is no longer some physical object deposited in some secluded room in the outskirts of Paris.

[SkyMaster]

I feel the need to point out that knot and nautical mile have nothing to do with the US or the Metric system.

The knot and nautical mile are used in aviation (and probably still in use in maritime operation) all over the world, and that work just fine.

The nautical mile is a beautiful unit of measure (for its intended application). The nautical mile is not an arbitrary unit like most imperial units are 

Please, carry on.

 

The international nautical mile is exactly 1852 km, adopted by the US in 1954. Since the knot is exactly one nautical mile per hour and 1 hour is exactly 3600 seconds, both have everything to do with the metric system.

(Attachment Link)

With all due respect bsfeechannel,

The aviation works in nautical mile. The aviation weather forecast is in knots. The flight planning is done with nautical miles and knots. All the aircraft instruments are in knots and nautical miles. The air traffic control is in nautical miles and knots.

If we fly fast enough and high enough, then we get into the Mach and the Flight Level units.

Please read my post # 985 again 

Why you felt the need to report that in 1954 somebody came up with the meter value representing the nautical miles will remain a mystery.

We pilots, do not give a flying sh*t about the metric value equivalent of the nautical mile.

 

[bsfeechannel]

We pilots, do not give a flying sh*t about the metric value equivalent of the nautical mile.

But we engineers who design the instruments you rely on and the sh*t you fly do.

[SkyMaster]

We pilots, do not give a flying sh*t about the metric value equivalent of the nautical mile.

But we engineers who design the instruments you rely on and the sh*t you fly do.

Surprise... I am an engineer 

The old report you dig out is merely an agreement to have different "important" countries (at the time) agree on the length of the nautical mile.

The nautical mile is not a metric unit 

 

[bsfeechannel]

Surprise... I am an engineer 

Cool! Now you're free to give a flying sh*t.

The nautical mile is not a metric unit 

Never said it was. Just that it is defined in terms of metric units.

[CatalinaWOW]

Surprise... I am an engineer 

Cool! Now you're free to give a flying sh*t.

The nautical mile is not a metric unit 

Never said it was. Just that it is defined in terms of metric units.

Bfeeschannel, you have not announced your country, and thus we have no idea what your native tongue is, or how fluent in English you are,  but you did just a couple of posts ago say that the knot and the nautical mile "have everything to do with metric".

I don't know what you meant by that.  You had quoted the definition in terms of metric units already, so presumably you meant something more than just that they are defined in terms of metric units.  If people have misunderstood you, you must accept part of the blame.  It may be because of a language which is not native for you.  It may be because of some painful incidents in your personal history.  It may be that you are just a troll and enjoy stirring the pot whenever it stops churning a bit.  But whatever it is, many of us are confused by the particulars of your various diatribes against US use of other than metric units. 

We aren't stupid, we understand the ease of multiplying by ten.  In fact we are far enough from stupid that we can remember a handful of non-decimal constants and are able to multiply or divide by them as required.  Sometimes without the use of calculators and computers.  We know that there would be benefits from common worldwide standards.  But we also recognize that there are transition pains from switching and also that there are benefits from barriers to competition with local sources.   Switches occur when we want to, and when we feel it is a benefit to us.  Not to please random folks on an internet chat group. And if that makes you feel superior to us, I am more than happy to let you feel that way.  Whatever floats your boat.  Reality tends to respond to more substantial phenomena than feelings of superiority.  (That applies to proponents of superiority for any system or country.)

[KL27x]

Love the signal to noise ratio when bsfeechannel wakes up and has a thought. No use replying to him. I used to hold him against the aussies and uk guys who are gungho "imperial is for retards." But he is his own category of stupid and should not be held against any other human.

v6kzgo:

On the Imperial side, the numbers restart 1,2,3 ------etc, every foot (12 inches) & are not cumulative.
It would obviously be impossible to use cumulative numbers of inches for a long tape like that one.(how would you fit the last one in, at 1,980 inches ?)

Well, for starters, there's 2.54x as much space on the inch tape than the cm tape. So if you can fit 3 digit numbers on a metric-only tape, you can fit 7 digits in the same font on an inch tape? And second, the inch tape will be 2.54x as long by the time it gets to quadruple digits. So...

On my go-to garage tape, the blank spaces between the numbers are still about the same length as the numbers, when they get to triple digits. And that's on a combo tape. That looks better to me. Like knots on a rope vs a rope made of all knots.

That sucks, though, to have the inches roll over like that at 12. I dare say close to none of our tapes will do that. That is obviously the shitty side of the tape measure, though, right? I would think you guys (in addition to giving more real estate) have the cm on top, and the inches are relegated to the bottom? Compared to here, where a combo tape will almost always have the inches on the top and the cm on the bottom.

edit: in fact, on either my combo or my inch-only tape measures, the length of the (bold, easy to read, nicely spaced) numbers when they hit 100's are respectively 0.55" long and 0.5" long. So this would not even fit on a cm tape without the numbers running over each other.

[Altair8800]

So those with inquiring minds that want to know...  Here is how nautical knots are measured...

[SkyMaster]

So those with inquiring minds that want to know...  Here is how nautical knots are measured...

I think you meant "how nautical knots are WERE measured... 100 years ago." 

 

[bsfeechannel]

you did just a couple of posts ago say that the knot and the nautical mile "have everything to do with metric".

The knot is defined as 1852 meters per 3600 seconds. So it has everything to do with metric. Although it does not belong to the SI. Is my English not clear enough?

We aren't stupid,

It's not me that is saying that. Watch this video.



@ 0:30 we have this dialog between Derek (Veritasium) and Dr. Patrick Abbott of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Veritasium: But what was this meter agreement?
NIST: The Treaty of the Meter?
Veritasium: Yeah! What is that?
NIST: It's the modern day foundation of the metric system.
Veritasium: So the US signed that?
NIST: The US signed it.
Veritasium: As if they were going to become metric?
NIST: Yes.
Veritasium: [laughs]
NIST: It's a little known secret and I'll tell you something else that all the units that we commonly use like feet and gallons and so on are actually defined in terms of metric units so it's just a little translation that we do here but our country is actually on the metric system.
Veritasium: [pauses and then laughs] doesn't that seem crazy?
NIST: Yes. Yes!
Veritasium: Saying that, like, you base all of these measurements on the metric system...
NIST: Uh huh!
Veritasium: ...and you add a conversion factor...
NIST: Yes.
Veritasium: ...and then later some people have to convert back?
NIST: Yes. It's stupid.
Veritasium: [laughs]
NIST: I agree.
Veritasium: Are you allowed to say that?
NIST: It's true.

And if that makes you feel superior to us, I am more than happy to let you feel that way.  Whatever floats your boat.  Reality tends to respond to more substantial phenomena than feelings of superiority.  (That applies to proponents of superiority for any system or country.)

rstofer said that because I didn't go to the moon I accomplished nothing. I'm trying to accomplish something.

[ebastler]

IMO, and it's only an opinion, that looks like shit.  And it only gets worse when you get to 200's.

The grown-up response would have been: "I stand corrected."

It's strange; from other threads in this forum I clearly get the impression that you are a mature person. What is it about this topic that lets you channel your obnoxious-15-year-old self?

[vk6zgo]

Love the signal to noise ratio when bsfeechannel wakes up and has a thought. No use replying to him. I used to hold him against the aussies and uk guys who are gungho "imperial is for retards." But he is his own category of stupid and should not be held against any other human.

v6kzgo:

On the Imperial side, the numbers restart 1,2,3 ------etc, every foot (12 inches) & are not cumulative.
It would obviously be impossible to use cumulative numbers of inches for a long tape like that one.(how would you fit the last one in, at 1,980 inches ?)

Well, for starters, there's 2.54x as much space on the inch tape than the cm tape. So if you can fit 3 digit numbers on a metric-only tape, you can fit 7 digits in the same font on an inch tape? And second, the inch tape will be 2.54x as long by the time it gets to quadruple digits. So...

On my go-to garage tape, the blank spaces between the numbers are still about the same length as the numbers, when they get to triple digits. And that's on a combo tape. That looks better to me. Like knots on a rope vs a rope made of all knots.

That sucks, though, to have the inches roll over like that at 12. I dare say close to none of our tapes will do that. That is obviously the shitty side of the tape measure, though, right? I would think you guys (in addition to giving more real estate) have the cm on top, and the inches are relegated to the bottom? Compared to here, where a combo tape will almost always have the inches on the top and the cm on the bottom.

edit: in fact, on either my combo or my inch-only tape measures, the length of the (bold, easy to read, nicely spaced) numbers when they hit 100's are respectively 0.55" long and 0.5" long. So this would not even fit on a cm tape without the numbers running over each other.

No! No! No!.
The long tape, is like most such, made of material which is pulled out by hand & retrieved by winding a handle.

It has markings on both sides of the tape, so the whole width is available to mark for the different measurement standards.
(This is different to the shorter spring loaded ones, which use concave metal tape, with markings on the concave side only.)

If I look at the inch side, I need to turn the tape over to see the Metric side.
I thus, cannot see both calibrations simultaneously.(which is sometimes, although very rarely, a drawback)

[m3vuv]

one thing that realy pisses me off is most tv programs from the usa or uk ushaly quote speeds in kmh when we both use mph,is it to make it sound more dramatic? !!!

[vwestlife]

one thing that realy pisses me off is most tv programs from the usa or uk ushaly quote speeds in kmh when we both use mph,is it to make it sound more dramatic? !!!

Speeds in km/h are higher than equivalent speeds in mph, so yes, they sound more dramatic.

It's like saying "I survived getting shocked by TWELVE THOUSAND millivolts!"

[unitedatoms]

How lucky the humanity is by having electrical quantities in sensible units. Amperes, Farads, Volts, Ohms, Henries, etc. Except may be magnetics, with Webers and Teslas and who knows what. Imagine conversion from Sumerian Volts to Imperial Electrical Tension units. Oh and those Nepers (had to learn it recently).

[SkyMaster]

one thing that realy pisses me off is most tv programs from the usa or uk ushaly quote speeds in kmh when we both use mph,is it to make it sound more dramatic? !!!

Speeds in km/h are higher than equivalent speeds in mph, so yes, they sound more dramatic.

It's like saying "I survived getting shocked by TWELVE THOUSAND millivolts!"

In the '50s and '60s, slow single engine aircraft had their speed indicator in mph instead of knots (which is not a SI unit); simply because the number in mph was higher than the number in knots, and made the airplane seems to fly faster.

 

[boffin]

one thing that realy pisses me off is most tv programs from the usa or uk ushaly quote speeds in kmh when we both use mph,is it to make it sound more dramatic? !!!

Speeds in km/h are higher than equivalent speeds in mph, so yes, they sound more dramatic.

It's like saying "I survived getting shocked by TWELVE THOUSAND millivolts!"

In the '50s and '60s, slow single engine aircraft had their speed indicator in mph instead of knots (which is not a SI unit); simply because the number in mph was higher than the number in knots, and made the airplane seems to fly faster.

 

A C150 is slow, doesn't matter if it's kts or mph

This actually happened to me:
 YVR Terminal: Please expedite your climb to 3000
 Me: You realize we're in a 150, right ?

[SkyMaster]

In the '50s and '60s, slow single engine aircraft had their speed indicator in mph instead of knots (which is not a SI unit); simply because the number in mph was higher than the number in knots, and made the airplane seems to fly faster.

 

A C150 is slow, doesn't matter if it's kts or mph
...

I wonder why you want to argue about the fact I just identified.

The difference is approximately a 15% higher indicated number when in mph. For marketing purpose, it is 15% increase, at no cost.

[vwestlife]

The difference is approximately a 15% higher indicated number when in mph. For marketing purpose, it is 15% increase, at no cost.

Just like when hard drive manufacturers decided to change the definition of 1 KB = 1024 bytes to 1 KB = 1000 bytes, and when TV manufacturers switched from actual diagonal screen size measurements to the "class" designation that is half an inch smaller in reality. Or, for that matter, advertising 2160p UHD as "4K" which people assume means 4000p. Instant increase in advertised figures at no extra cost!

[Cubdriver]

one thing that realy pisses me off is most tv programs from the usa or uk ushaly quote speeds in kmh when we both use mph,is it to make it sound more dramatic? !!!

Speeds in km/h are higher than equivalent speeds in mph, so yes, they sound more dramatic.

It's like saying "I survived getting shocked by TWELVE THOUSAND millivolts!"

In the '50s and '60s, slow single engine aircraft had their speed indicator in mph instead of knots (which is not a SI unit); simply because the number in mph was higher than the number in knots, and made the airplane seems to fly faster.

 

A C150 is slow, doesn't matter if it's kts or mph

This actually happened to me:
 YVR Terminal: Please expedite your climb to 3000
 Me: You realize we're in a 150, right ?

I clawed my way up a bit over 10,000' MSL in the winter about 25 years ago in a J5-A.  Took the better part of an hour to get there, and the last 1500 feet or so were at a REALLY glacial rate.  Was headed into a rather stiff west wind, too, and often wonder what people on the ground must have thought seeing as I only traveled a few miles horizontally over what must have been 45 minutes.  Fixed wing planes don't typically hover...

-Pat

[Altair8800]

Maybe we should rename it the Myanmar System of Units...   

[TimFox]

With proper grammar, we need an adjective in front of "system".  Try "Burmese system of units".