Metric system dumbs us down.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by StuM

Funny, I heard the exact opposite. Swords were a lot more common than shields for travellers. People on horseback tended to keep left so that their sword arm was on the side of the approaching horseman.

Serious, if meaningless, question: Was Nappy left handed?

[IdoraKeeper]

I just love it when my speedometer reads 100 kilometers/hr...makes me feel like a hotrodder��..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Cite.

Here's the official adoption of the current definition of the yard for the US: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Fe...doc59-5442.pdf

If you read that, you will see that in 1959, the US re-defined their yard as 2 parts per million smaller than it had been since 1893.

Here's the background according to the Wikipedia page of the Yard:

In 1930 the British Standards Institution adopted an inch of exactly 25.4 mm based on the 1927 light-wave definition of the meter. The American Standards Association followed suit in 1933. By 1935 industry in 16 countries had adopted the "industrial inch" as it came to be known.[8][9]
In 1946 the Commonwealth Science Congress recommended a yard of exactly 0.9144 metres - i.e. exactly 36 industrial inches - for adoption throughout the British Commonwealth.[10] This was adopted by Canada in 1951.[11] In the late 1950s, the directors of the national standards laboratories of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa came to an agreement to adopt a uniform system of weights and measures in their respective countries.[1]

So yes, they did in effect say "Let's make the yard 0.9144 the length of a meter?" although it was actually a consequence of people earlier saying "Let's make the inch exactly 2.54 centimeters"

Note: you can see from the above, that between 1933 and 1959, the US yard was not exactly 36 inches - it was actually 2/1,000,000 larger than 36 inches.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Wait. I get it.

They invented the meter and had the yard sitting around and said, How are we going to plug the yard into the meter. And everyone said, "Well the yard is .9144 of the meter."

Are you the word game guy in the math department?

Riddle me this, "Which came first, the foot or the meter?"

You got it!

It's not a question fo which "came" first. It's a question of which was "accurately defined" first.

From the cite in the previous post:

"Effective July 1, 1959, all calibrations in the U.S. customary system of weights and measures carried out by the National Bureau of Standards will continue to be based upon metric measurement standards"

[StuM]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Serious, if meaningless, question: Was Nappy left handed?

A lot of sources say he was, but it is uncertain.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by StuM

...in 1959, the US re-defined their yard as 2 parts per million smaller than it had been since 1893.

In my home shop I have an old (ca. 1947) yard stick, and one that is only a year or two old. I'll be darned if I can detect the difference. Could be me my eyesight.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

In fact the imperial measures are not based on a kings body part. The Kings of those days were smarter than that. The base was the "barleycorn". Although nowadays the definition of the yard (from which all others are derived) is 0.9144 m.
Yes, the imperial units are derived units, derived from metric units...

Stu, this was K V B's original post I was replying to. In it he says that the imperial units were "derived" from metric units. I was calling him on the use of "derived."

https://www.google.com/search?q=deri...i#dobs=derived

I get it that the attempt to determine the exact length of the meter led to attempting to determine the exact length of other units but it's amusing to me than in all this, when they couldn't agree, they threw up their hands and rounded the nautical mile to the nearest whole number of meters.

So much for counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[buzzstar]

Q: Was Nappy left handed?

A: A lot of sources say he was, but it is uncertain.

Could explain the supposed order on which side to operate the wagon, but I wonder what the law was in Boston, in say, 1765, and 1825, and whatever it may have been, if it changed, and when. Not that this directly relates to sailing, but it could to boats since one suspects that the operators or the readily maneuverable smaller vessels tend to, in general, adopt or adapt to driving practices.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Stu, this was K V B's original post I was replying to. In it he says that the imperial units were "derived" from metric units. I was calling him on the use of "derived."

What we have here is a difference of meaning.

When K V B and I talk about "derived units", we are using it in the technical sense. As in:

"
derived unit
noun 1. (in physics, chemistry, etc.) a unit derived from fundamental units of length, mass, and time.


"
and as used inthe US national Bureau of Standards document linked earlier:

"Since 1893 the National Bureau of Standards and its predecessor agency, the Office of Standard Weights and Measures of the Treasury Department, have derived the yard and the pound and the multiples and submultiples of these units from metric standards, namely, the international meter and the international kilogram.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Q: Was Nappy left handed?

A: A lot of sources say he was, but it is uncertain.

Could explain the supposed order on which side to operate the wagon, but I wonder what the law was in Boston, in say, 1765, and 1825, and whatever it may have been, if it changed, and when. Not that this directly relates to sailing, but it could to boats since one suspects that the operators or the readily maneuverable smaller vessels tend to, in general, adopt or adapt to driving practices.

Relating it back to sailing, my wheel is on the starboard side of the cockpit, which makes it harder to see the other vessel when passing port-to-port, especially when on a starboard tack.

But it does make it easier to see vessels on my starboard beam that I have to give way to and lets me see close channel markers better when sticking to the starboard side.

[Factor]

The statement is oxymoronic

[StuM]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Q: Was Nappy left handed?

A: A lot of sources say he was, but it is uncertain.

Could explain the supposed order on which side to operate the wagon, but I wonder what the law was in Boston, in say, 1765, and 1825, and whatever it may have been, if it changed, and when. Not that this directly relates to sailing, but it could to boats since one suspects that the operators or the readily maneuverable smaller vessels tend to, in general, adopt or adapt to driving practices.

In all the movies and old pictures of the "wild west", the stagecoach driver sits on the right, unlike today's left-hand-drive vehicles.

Same with most early American automobile pictures, so when did the change take place?

Edit: Found an answer: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2013/03...l#.WMuG32eLC00

[mrm]

Originally Posted by StuM

Funny, I heard the exact opposite. Swords were a lot more common than shields for travellers. People on horseback tended to keep left so that their sword arm was on the side of the approaching horseman.

Yes, funny and interesting. Seems the way most people travelled in a given region might have influenced things a lot.

Originally Posted by DumnMad

In the more civilised counries they stayed on the left so they could shake hands.

No need to be uppity. No country with any history to speak of started as civilised - it is a process...

[Benz]

Originally Posted by StuM

Try this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...le_radians.gif

Radians are usually not labelled, so if you see an angle which is not followed by "°" or "g" or "mils" then you can assume it is in radians.

There are centigrads but since there are 40,000 of them in a circle, there is not much point in trying to divide them further.

How do you divide a circle into degrees with just a ruler? Normally it takes a compass as well.

But if you can do it in one system of units, you can do it the same in another.

Stu, thanks for the link to Rads. I now am confirmed in knowing that rads are useless for the division of circles, at least for my commonest application, which requires an exact, whole number reciprocal for each whole degree. But I appreciate knowing what Rads are.

I'll describe degree division by ruler later on--I have to go to work now.
Ben

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Cite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendenhall_Order

All y'all are taking this too seriously. Instead of arguing which system is best you should be rebelling and go back to measure your own body parts. According to some sources, the whole standardization of measures and weights was nothing but a ploy on the part of governments to get more taxes. You people are nothing but tools of the establishment helping stuff their bloated pockets with more tax dollars <insert evil laugh>!