Free 173 Best Homemade Tools eBook:

# Thread: Definition of kilogram, amp, and kelvin set to change forever

1. mklotz: (American) football field = 360 x 160 ft = 57,600 ft^2. Ooops! My bad. I have always thought the field was 100yards long by 50yards wide. No wonder I had trouble making those deep sideline passes! On my errored calculation it would have been a touch at 45000ft^2. My thinking considered only the area between the endzones, which is 48000ft^2
The good thing is, however, this gives us the opportunity to review the pizza effect of radius and/or width on increase in area. Afterall, 3 1/3 yds is only 10'. A 14" pizza is nearly half again as large as a 10" pizza.

2. ## "Definition of kilogram, amp, and kelvin set to change 'TIL NEXT TIME..."

Originally Posted by nhengineer
SNIP// I continually distracted myself by wondering how many times dose this make it that the metric system has been 'realigned' while
the Imperial system has remained unchanged since its standardization by the Anglo-Saxons in 1824.
Firstly: - It's unfortunately a common misconception that it has remained unchanged since 1824:
The last line of the top paragraph might suffice.

Secondly: Exactly how could you find a "realignment" to be detrimental to any system of units at all,
if it weren't for a belief in one system of units being "sacrosanct, eternal, natural or intuitive"?
-Given that: - How does the Imperial system itself (or your beliefs thereof) "suffer" from the Metric revisions above?

Personally: In being a "relativist", I don't personally believe in any "eternal truths or values" -
rather mere temporary, ad hoc assumptions, only to be used until proven false or something more operational turns up.
Hence, a realignment (within the system's consistency) is only yet another improvement for its utility.
Sort of a systematic "evolution" - (but then that concept will probably open yet another can of worms).
Thus my suggested realignment of the article's title above...

But then - all of the above is just one of my temporary working theories in using our crude human models
for putting some causality and predictability into an utterly incomprehensible and chaotic universe and its inhabitants.

3. ## The Following User Says Thank You to DIYSwede For This Useful Post:

Priemsy (09-17-2019)

4. Originally Posted by nhengineer
Frank S, you are obviously a clear thinker so please respond to my question regarding the speed of light that I have been asking every person of similar awareness as you for the last sixty years. That would be, the speed of light relative to what exactly? Nothing in the universe is stationary; therefore, the speed of light must be relative to the body emitting it. If that body is moving at, say 3,000 cubits per second relative to the nearest body of mass (which itself is also moving by the way), then the speed of the photons being emitted must be equal to their speed relative to the body emitting them added to the speed of the emitting body but only if the emitting body is moving in the opposite direction as the body of reference. I could carry that out quite a bit further but I save that of another time.
It has been demonstrated that the speed of light is a constant. Which, despite differences − demonstrated through various media, as well as the effects of gravity − means that speeds are not additive, with respect to the speed of light. A moving body will either compress or stretch wavelengths − in relation to an observer. Hence, the attendant red-shift, of a sources frequency is noted. The speed at which the wave is propagated, however, remains the same. It's how astronomers are able to tell whether stars are moving towards or away from us. And provides established evidence, for an expanding universe.

5. ## "-Hello kids, today we explain why even BA threads are metric!"

Some further info on revisions to the Imperial systems since 1824:
not that any revision, per se, makes any system better or worse - but judge for yourself:

"Hence it was determined that the unit of length taken should be the ‘mil,’
and that the decimal system should be adopted for expressing dimensions."

These are the words of "the Small Screws Committee" (sic!) of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science in August 1882.

Info: 'mil' above meaning "thousandth of an inch" -
thus the use of "thou" and fractional measures is banned since August 1882.

Sources:

Their take on "user friendliness" back then:
"the Committee alone is considering, not by any specific dimension, but by a number, which as a rule,
is arbitrarily chosen and does not of itself form a guide to the size of the screw.
" .

Thus the BA system has an angle of thread of 47,5 deg:
a #0 BA screw a diameter x pitch of 236 x 39,4 mil, ( M6 x 1 mm )
and a #20 BA only has a 19 x 4,7 mil, as each successive bigger # BA (but smaller) screw
has a pitch of 0.9 times the previous (lower # BA, but bigger screw).

Clear as mud?
Diameter explanation: "That the series of diameters for screws from 1/100th in. to ¼ in. be that given in millimetres in column V., the nearest thousandths of an inch being given in column II.; these diameters being the series calculated by making P, in the formula D = 6P6/5, having in succession the following values: 1 (or 0.90) mm.; 0.9¹ mm.; 0.9² mm.; 0.93 mm.; … 0.9n mm
Only two significant figures are taken to represent the diameters."

Pitch explanation:
"each pitch being 9/10ths of its predecessor, but that only two significant figures be used in their expression."

6. "Hence it was determined that the unit of length taken should be the ‘mil,’
and that the decimal system should be adopted for expressing dimensions."

Using 'mil' to mean thousandth (not thousand) of an inch is discouraged.

One has to be careful with 'mil' since it's one of the common terms for milliradians. an SI unit...

Also the inferial artillery setters use it as an angular measure. However, to maintain the spirit of inferial confusion, they've "rounded" the 6283... milliradians in a circle to 6400. I suppose the (admittedly slight) error so induced is compensated with more explosive shells.

7. Originally Posted by Scotsman Hosie
It has been demonstrated that the speed of light is a constant. Which, despite differences − demonstrated through various media, as well as the effects of gravity − means that speeds are not additive, with respect to the speed of light. A moving body will either compress or stretch wavelengths − in relation to an observer. Hence, the attendant red-shift, of a sources frequency is noted. The speed at which the wave is propagated, however, remains the same. It's how astronomers are able to tell whether stars are moving towards or away from us. And provides established evidence, for an expanding universe.
Well Scottie, respectfully I respond that you are merely re-quoting someone's theory that you read or heard. Yup, I know lots of research grant dollars were spent on the study of the speed of light but I'm not buying into that theory. I'm an independent thinker. It is not logically possible for the speed of light to be constant. I hope we both live long enough to find that I am right and that other guy was wrong.

Furthermore; I don't buy into the theory that petroleum comes from long buried, rotted, dinosaur carcasses and tropical vegetation or that we all originated from middle Africa or that Venus was originally formed in our solar system. I could go on but I really like this forum.

Check with my friend Immanuel for more information.

8. Originally Posted by mklotz
"Hence it was determined that the unit of length taken should be the ‘mil,’
and that the decimal system should be adopted for expressing dimensions."

Using 'mil' to mean thousandth (not thousand) of an inch is discouraged.

One has to be careful with 'mil' since it's one of the common terms for milliradians. an SI unit...

Also the inferial artillery setters use it as an angular measure. However, to maintain the spirit of inferial confusion, they've "rounded" the 6283... milliradians in a circle to 6400. I suppose the (admittedly slight) error so induced is compensated with more explosive shells.
I've also run into different fields using the same prefix for different things.

Example, PPM is Parts Per Million to a chemist, unless he's working with water systems then it's Parts Per Thousand. Took me a while to figure that out, couldn't figure out why anyone cared about 100 PPM of salts in water for aquaculture.

Also, that same M might also be used as m, uPpEr/lowEr case seems to be ignored by a lot of people.

Oh, and T might also be Thousand.

9. Originally Posted by nhengineer
Well Scottie, respectfully I respond that you are merely re-quoting someone's theory that you read or heard./SNIP

I'm an independent thinker. It is not logically possible for the speed of light to be constant./SNIP

Furthermore; I don't buy into the theory that petroleum comes from long buried, rotted, dinosaur carcasses and tropical vegetation or that we all originated from middle Africa or that Venus was originally formed in our solar system. I could go on but I really like this forum.

Check with my friend Immanuel for more information.
David - your purportedly respectful reply to Scottie is quite a claim from someone not even bothering himself to answer questions,
post relevant and identified facts or some empirically qualified theories,
though demanding that every else should do so.
And when somebody (including myself) does - you "refute" them by calling them "fanatics", or as merely re-quoting someone,
instead of putting in some relevant, qualified and identified facts and theories yourself.

For starters: Please explain those "petroleum, human and Venus origin" ideas of yours,
and then just go on proving that you haven't merely swallowed Mr Velikovskys theories with bait, hook and sinker yourself?

As you presume to be a "Man on a Mission", walking the lonesome path of yet another "independent thinker",
feel absolutely free to experience more of this independence than even you could've imagined!

I, for one, wish you godspeed.

cheers
Johan

10. Originally Posted by DIYSwede
David - your purportedly respectful reply to Scottie is quite a claim from someone not even bothering himself to answer questions,
post relevant and identified facts or some empirically qualified theories,
though demanding that every else should do so.
And when somebody (including myself) does - you "refute" them by calling them "fanatics", or as merely re-quoting someone,
instead of putting in some relevant, qualified and identified facts and theories yourself.

For starters: Please explain those "petroleum, human and Venus origin" ideas of yours,
and then just go on proving that you haven't merely swallowed Mr Velikovskys theories with bait, hook and sinker yourself?

As you presume to be a "Man on a Mission", walking the lonesome path of yet another "independent thinker",
feel absolutely free to experience more of this independence than even you could've imagined!

I, for one, wish you godspeed.

cheers
Johan
Hi Johan, actually I did not 'call' anyone anything. I always try to speak in general terms so as to not offend any specific person; only everyone in general.

With reference to my refusing to answer questions, I believe I will continue to not do that.

Thank you for your interest.

 Post your reply!Join 41,949 of us and get our 173 Must Read Homemade Tools eBook free.

Page 2 of 2 First 1 2

##### Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•