Units of Measure

[morphymick]

Jerry Tee - 2/8/2005 11:52 PM

Some things will not go metric the nautical mile will be with us for the forseeable future because it relates to an angular distance across the earths surface , and there are others.

And then there's always the Angstrom unit. But then again chemists are weird.

Mick

[Barry C]

It's not really weird. When things are that small it makes no sence to use such huge numbers with so many zeros. Big small numbers if that makes sence

[morphymick]

But we Physicist already use nano- and pico- metres, so why do Chemists have to be different?

10 to the -10? Weird.

Mick

[morphymick]

clickerati - 3/8/2005 12:17 PM

p>I couldn't find one that said "I love inches!" </p>

Don't worry Clicky, it was probably baked in an 8" cake tin.

Mick

[Barry C]

I used the angstrom while studying nuclear physics. I dont think we can totally blame the chemists. But as they say. A biologist is a chemist, a chemist is a physicist and a physicist is really a mathmatician </p>

[morphymick]

Too true Barry, too true.

So what does that make a mathematician? A physicist who can't apply himself?

Mick

[clickerati]

morphymick - 3/8/2005 8:50 PM </p>

Don't worry Clicky, it was probably baked in an 8&quot; cake tin. </p>

Mick

</p>

Almost too good to be true! </p>

[hvymetalcowboy]

I take it you,re refering to a snack cake that perhaps one would enjoy with an afternoon tea? Over here,cakes are somewhat larger.One would be baked in closer to a 10" pan and would generally be enough for more than just one serving.Unless of course one really enjoys alot of cake all at once.Although you would quite simply be, literally! full of cake. I find all this talk of cake leaving me with a sweet tooth.Must do something about that...note to self.....must get cake!

[Little Miss Purple]

You'd better have a constant supply HMC as there is always cake talk on here!!

[Mick]

I'm one of the oldies Barry thinks should have been put down years ago and I voted metric! At school in the fifties we were taught that 36 inches made a yard and there were 144 pennies in a pound.
By the early sixties when I was an apprentice joiner, scale drawings for the construction industry started to appear with metric measurements, by the early seventies all building materials were sold in metric sizes and there were now only 100 pennies to the pound. We had no choice but to enbrace the metric system in order to earn a living, to mix the two is confusing-though I still find myself asking for 2.1m of 4"X2" at the timber merchants-
As for archery, well I prefer the Fita to the York round. If you aspire to shoot at national/international level you'll need to submit your scores to GNAS and metric round scores are the ones that count. Yet- At least in my county- The York and Portsmouth rounds predominate. Even in our county team matches we shoot four York rounds and only one Fita during the outdoor season. Given that county level is the logical stepping stone to the national squad I'd have thought it should be the other way round. So I say consign the York round to the longbow men and let's shoot FITA. By the way, as for you young uns saying the metric systm is eaiser to learn? Can't be! Otherwise why do so many of you need calculators to total their scores. Wouldn't have been allowed in my day, Oh no.