Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:42:14 -0500 From: Malcolm <arpicnopsammail.com> Subject: Re: 1985 2 door turbo aero silver
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:05:29 +0000, Grunff <grunffnopsam.com> wrote: >Malcolm wrote: > >> The entire metric system is not "human friendly". It was an ego thing >> that a little corsican put over on the French only they missed the >> humour. >> >> The metric system may appear easier because of its decimal base but >> the factor "five" as in five times two euquals ten makes it unnatural. >> Inches, feet and yards use two and three as prime factors which make >> it very easy to "eyeball" > >Actually, I completely disagree. As someone whose training is in >science (chemistry) And, Grunff, I agree with you !!!!!! The metric system is great in the lab and here in the U.S. all scientific work is done in metric. But in everyday use and in the building trades, the British System is alve and well. My own training is ; mechanical engineering, naval architecture and finally civil architecture. Today i practice soley in historic preservation and/or restoration. In the British System, one cag, by eye, divide by two or three easily and fairly accurately. The metric system, a decimal system uses ten (5 X 2) and the prime number five is the problem. One cannot divide something into five parts easily... Fourths are easy...half and half again... Never have I had a client ash for someth a fifth as large. The request would probably be something like a bit less than a quarter.. which is the way he is visualizing. The scientific use is great.. dynes per sqare centimeter but in my tires or tyres i like pounds persquare inch and the values 25 30 etc are within a "friendly human range as to are ambient temperatures. Malcolm Mason