air volume formula?

I'm glad you agree the original question was beneath contempt, but please don't
piggyback on my posts. Stand up for yourself!

Zama left this mess on Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:19:21 +0900 for The Way to clean up:
>
>Shut the fuck up, ass hole!
>
>--
>><(((\">`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><(((º>¸.
>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><(((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><(((º>
>
>"de Valois" <devalois@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
>news:bneou70mf9@drn.newsguy.com...
>> . left this mess on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:30:52 -0700 for The Way to clean
>up:
>> >
>> >If I have a steel 72 cylinder(working pressure 2200psi)and a steel
>> >85(working pressure 2400psi) both filled to 2200psi which has more air?
>> >
>>
>> How stupid are you, and whom should I send my condolences to when you die?
>>
>> Tao te Carl
>>
>> "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003
>>
>
>

Tao te Carl

"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

<Pete S.> wrote

> You mean British Standard Whitworth? A thread standard. Spanners used
> to be sized in the thread size (Whitworth) or AF (across flats) The
> ISO series is easier. When we worked in Imperial we had BSW, BSF, UNC,
> UNF, BSP(T), BSP(P), BA, Conduit, NPT, and when we were changing over
> we had all the metric ones as well. It really is easier now that we
> have a set of units that fit together.

I suppose that's what I mean. The were simply called British Standard when
I intentionally purchased a set. I had a Ford truck that had imperial,
metric and british standard bolts and nuts, all on the same vehicle. As I
recall, it was made in Mexico. So much for buying domestic.

> >How many pence are there in a pound?
>
> 100. There used to be 240.......

Big improvement, I think.

> >We have been using a decimal system for money for so long it really
> >surprises me that we haven't long since converted everything to a similar
> >system.
>
> Of course, you couldn't convert to the SAME system could you.........

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. My statement meant that we
should have converted to a measurement system similar to what we use for our
money, basically, metric. There was a move in that direction quite some
time ago. Measurements were often found both ways. Speed limit and some
highway direction signs were done both ways. Car speedometers, at least on
all 4 of my cars, are still done both ways. Somehow, the movement got
sidetracked. If I recall correctly, the excuse was retooling costs for
manufacturers. Personally I suspect the truth is closer to protection of
domestic markets from foreign imports which, in may cases, were of superior
quality and lower price. Whatever, the movement did not complete.

In diving, of course, the differences are even greater. UK uses liters, we
use cubic feet. UK uses actual volume, we use free gas volume. UK uses
bar, approximately 14.5 psi and ata, approximately 14.7 psi. We use psi and
ata, about our only common factor. UK uses centigrade versus our Fahrenheit
and meters versus our feet. Personally, I use an Excel spreadsheet stored
on all my computers and my pda to do conversions.

Lee

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:20:11 GMT, "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>We have been using a decimal system for money for so long it really
>surprises me that we haven't long since converted everything to a similar
>system.

It doesn't surprise me.

First off, we would have to re-survey all our lands in non-traditional
units, requiring nearly intolerable accuracies in the translations
and risk range wars and secession over boundary disputes. Don't laugh.

Second off, metric is very inconvenient sometimes.

Consider:

we have: SqIn, SqFt and SqYd
they have: SqM, sqCm.

we have: cuFt and cuYd and cuIn (let's skip qts, pecks and bushels)
they have: CuM, liters and cc.

we have inches feet and yards.
they have Cm and meters (and decimeters, though I've never actually
seen anyone use them)

The system we use has very useful and palpable quantities and
subunits. Almost anyone from gradeshool up can estimate the above three
with tolerable accuracy. More importantly, inaccuracies are not
terribly important because of the small multipliers when converting.

Using liters as a measure of volume is woefully difficult to
translate to dimensions, partly because it is so small. CuM
has the reverse problem.

I can say "about 2 cuFt" and you can visualize that space
dimensionally. How about 56 liters? or .056 cuM? Gimme a break.
That sucks. Big time.

Kilos are a pain in the ass too. The damn things are too heavy
as a single chunk. The next step in granularity is 1/1000th?

It's all about what your used to some extent. They adapt with
fractions (we don't need) like 1/2meter and 1/4 kilo...all because
their units are in tens making squares and cubes so large. They're
multiplying and dividing needlessly all the time. I don't think
the liter/bar cylinder standard is such a big bonus. When you consider
the whole package, it's a wash.

1 bar is pretty useless anyway. Is it atmospheric pressure? No.
It's 100,000 pascal or dyn/cm2., whatever the hell those are.
The *important* thing, it's a multiple of 10. whoopee.

1 ata? well that is standard atmospheric pressure, and is re-expressed
as 14.7 Pounds/in2...once again, *palpable*.

Our measuring system, like our language is rich in expression.
It has many useful quanta which minimize the need for decimals
and/or large numbers to be useful and they are all self consistent.

We can express a mile as:
1 mile
80 chains
320 rods
1760 yards
5280 feet

....all with equal precision. We can choose units to keep the number
of digits small, depending on use...

If you want to talk about stupid measurements, ask why our compass
(and circles) are divided into 360 points.

If you want to talk efficiency look to the Chinese. The abacus is
base 5 (count your fingers)...first graders can count to 30 on two
hands....that's three times better than ours.

Throw in the toes, and they can count to 2780.
We can count to 110.
Talk about suck. Base 10 is a shitty system.

The only 'value' to the 'metric' system is 'tens' which
1) are moot since solar powered calculators are a dime a dozen
2) result in unwieldy subunits.

JMO,

bullshark

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:33:42 GMT, bullshark
<bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote:

>we have: SqIn, SqFt and SqYd
>they have: SqM, sqCm.

>we have: cuFt and cuYd and cuIn (let's skip qts, pecks and bushels)
>they have: CuM, liters and cc.

>we have inches feet and yards.
>they have Cm and meters

>The system we use has very useful and palpable quantities and
>subunits. Almost anyone from gradeshool up can estimate the above three
>with tolerable accuracy. More importantly, inaccuracies are not
>terribly important because of the small multipliers when converting.

>Using liters as a measure of volume is woefully difficult to
>translate to dimensions, partly because it is so small. CuM
>has the reverse problem.

Some of what you say has merit, but only because you are used to those
units. If you were used to metric quantities they would also be no
problem.

The real benefit if the SI system is that all the units tie together.
They are not a set of unconnected arbitary units, arrived at through
historical accident.

Pete S.

"bullshark" <bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote> I can say "about 2 cuFt" and
you can visualize that space
> dimensionally. How about 56 liters?
>
> bullshark
>
Yup. Easy.

I'm, from NZ and we have metric, and I'm used to visualising things
metrically, if you were raised with metrics you wouldn't have a problem
either.

and inch, feet and yards are all in different bases, 12 inches to a foot,
three feet to a yard, so many yard to a mile... so much easier to go up in
tens

JMHO

rhys

bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> skriver:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:20:11 GMT, "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>>We have been using a decimal system for money for so long it really
>>surprises me that we haven't long since converted everything to a similar
>>system.
> The system we use has very useful and palpable quantities and
> subunits. Almost anyone from gradeshool up can estimate the above three
> with tolerable accuracy. More importantly, inaccuracies are not
> terribly important because of the small multipliers when converting.

The same is surly true for metric units to, almostr everyone have an
goot idea of one sqM or sqKm. We don't have any problems with
deciliters, liters cubicmeters. And it's so easy to convert that kind
kan do it in there heads from elementary school, or something like
that.

> Using liters as a measure of volume is woefully difficult to
> translate to dimensions, partly because it is so small. CuM

A litre is very good for volumes, it's about two pints (for the
brittish) and a re a loot better that gallons for things like petrol
to a car.

> has the reverse problem.

cubic meetrs are seldome used as it's that big, only for vast
quintieties of oil to ships, as a mesurements of how much water one
uses in a year and thinks like that. Else the litle is perfect. 40 to
60 liters of petron in your car, not that hoge numbers.

> dimensionally. How about 56 liters? or .056 cuM? Gimme a break.

56 liters thats easy, that aboute the same as my petrol tank. No
problems at all visualsing that.

> Kilos are a pain in the ass too. The damn things are too heavy
> as a single chunk. The next step in granularity is 1/1000th?
> It's all about what your used to some extent. They adapt with
> fractions (we don't need) like 1/2meter and 1/4 kilo...all because

Fot your knowledge we also have heko-kilo, that 0.1 kilo and is very
usefull, 5hg is 1/2 kilos, We don't almost never use fractions, thaya
only you with you that need to lean that we have the standard
perefices t add to our units so they fit our needs.

> We can express a mile as:
> 1 mile
> 80 chains
> 320 rods
> 1760 yards
> 5280 feet

And you have to memorice all that different units, we only have to
memorice some simple prefixes, kilo, deci, heko, centi and so for and can
get any suitale unit we like from any base, the same system for
weight, length, speed and preasure. Everything same standard steps on
10. Realy easy to get used to when using decimal numbers.

> If you want to talk about stupid measurements, ask why our compass
> (and circles) are divided into 360 points.

Sure, thats why they tried to changes that into gradiants. 400 of them
in a circle.

> Talk about suck. Base 10 is a shitty system.

Yes why make thinks easy, 3237 cm eavy kid knows is 32,37 meters. But
you need to get into mattematics to figure out that 296 inches is 8
yeards 8 inches, and how does one write that i a convinient number.

/Balp
--
http://anders.arnholm.nu/ Keep on Balping

Pete S <> skriver:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:38:20 GMT, bullshark
><bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:10:21 +0000, Pete S. <> wrote:
>>>Of course, you couldn't convert to the SAME system could you.........
>>Where do you think we got the one we use?
> Something better came along. We adopted it.

Now you just have to learn to drive on the right side of the road, get
you speedometers changes to km/h you distances in to km and then
sooner or later you will become Europeans drinking vine at the cafe
instead and bier at the bierstube :) For that you can't have a pint at
the pub.

/ Balp
--
http://anders.arnholm.nu/ Keep on Balping

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:26:20 +0100, Anders Arnholm <Anders+news@Arnholm.nu> wrote:
>56 liters thats easy, that aboute the same as my petrol tank. No
>problems at all visualsing that.

How convenient. You only have to convert liters to gas tanks and
you can visualize volume. Lucky thing you have a car and take it
apart regularly.

>Fot your knowledge we also have heko-kilo, that 0.1 kilo and is very
>usefull, 5hg is 1/2 kilos, We don't almost never use fractions, thaya

Just what do you think a hecko-kilo is, anyway? If you don't think
that's a fraction, you're seriously mistaken.

>10. Realy easy to get used to when using decimal numbers.

>Yes why make thinks easy, 3237 cm eavy kid knows is 32,37 meters.

You don't think that's math?
How quaint.
You insist on using a comma ',' for denoting the decimal
fraction. WTF up, the parts to the right are called 'decimal places'.

>you need to get into mattematics to figure out that 296 inches is 8
>yeards 8 inches, and how does one write that i a convinient number.

You missed the point. We chose a unit that is convenient for the
measurement being taken and we measure it that way straight off.
If inches are what we want, we get 296 inches, if we want feet, we
get 24.66 feet, or 8.22 yard, if that's what we want. Your limited
expression has blinded you.

No conversions necessary. In your colloquial dreams of unit superiority,
do you imagine that we don't use decimals? How quaint.

The only thing you have is sliding decimal points

safe diving,

bullshark

"bullshark" <bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote in message
news:3vcqpvokr4oeac9suhbcft4ggm88tihohp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:26:20 +0100, Anders Arnholm
<Anders+news@Arnholm.nu> wrote:
> >56 liters thats easy, that aboute the same as my petrol tank. No
> >problems at all visualsing that.
>
> How convenient. You only have to convert liters to gas tanks and
> you can visualize volume. Lucky thing you have a car and take it
> apart regularly.
>
> >Fot your knowledge we also have heko-kilo, that 0.1 kilo and is very
> >usefull, 5hg is 1/2 kilos, We don't almost never use fractions, thaya
>
> Just what do you think a hecko-kilo is, anyway? If you don't think
> that's a fraction, you're seriously mistaken.
>
> >10. Realy easy to get used to when using decimal numbers.
>
> >Yes why make thinks easy, 3237 cm eavy kid knows is 32,37 meters.
>
> You don't think that's math?
While technically it is "math" dividing by 100 is far easier than dividing
by 12 or 64 or several other odd numbers.
I can tach somebody who does *not* know how to divide to do that since it
involves moving teh decimal.

> How quaint.
> You insist on using a comma ',' for denoting the decimal
> fraction. WTF up, the parts to the right are called 'decimal places'.

Cultural differences are hard on some people.

>
> >you need to get into mattematics to figure out that 296 inches is 8
> >yeards 8 inches, and how does one write that i a convinient number.
>
> You missed the point. We chose a unit that is convenient for the
> measurement being taken and we measure it that way straight off.
> If inches are what we want, we get 296 inches, if we want feet, we
> get 24.66 feet, or 8.22 yard, if that's what we want. Your limited
> expression has blinded you.

And your need to cover ignorance has blinded you to the reality of our
world.

Wood products come in feet and all the measurments come in feet and inches.
I've got several tape measures around here. I can measure in feet and or
inches but I don't have one that does not have inches on it, nor do I have
one that measures decimal yards.
Fact is, reality is, that if we want feet we get 24 feet 9 inches.
Then since we have a lot of measurements in feet and inches and want to know
how many feet of wood we may need we need to convert to make adding the
numbers up easier. Or we work with 1/2 and 1/4 and 1/16 instead of the
decimal equivalant (which is a bit easier than adding 3/16 and 5/8)

Now that we've got the wood and the forms built we measure them or take off
the drawing.
8 inches by 3 feet six inches by 14 feet. Good.
Then we order the concrete which comes in yards.
We rarely measure thing in the porper unit "straight off."









>
> No conversions necessary. In your colloquial dreams of unit superiority,
> do you imagine that we don't use decimals? How quaint.
>
> The only thing you have is sliding decimal points

bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote in message news:<1l5qpv48hkj8fivob5iooa8rq9bptq5139@4ax.com>. ..
> >The real benefit if the SI system is that all the units tie together.
>
> You're not SI, you're metric.
> Your cylinders are not described in cuM. They're not even described in
> Cubic Decimeters. They aren't even described in 'liters' (the SI derivation).
> You called them 'litre', which may be the same as a 'liter' but is not SI derived.

You are right that cubic meters, with various prefixes, are the SI
units of volume. However, liters (or litres) are, since their 1964
redefinition as exactly one cubic decimeter, acceptable for use with
SI.

> Your pressure is not described in pascal.

You are right there. Those bars are not SI. They are on the list of
units temporarily acceptable for use with SI, whose use is not to be
encouraged--but even then, many style guides say that their only
acceptable use is in meteorology. Furthermore, in any reasonable
world, that "limited period of time" would have ended years ago.

> Your temperature is not Kelvin.

That would be in kelvins, if you wanted to use SI base units; however,
degrees Celsius are also SI units.

> >They are not a set of unconnected arbitary units, arrived at through
> >historical accident.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> SI unit for time is the second.
> The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
> transition between the two hyperfine level of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom.
> That's not a historical accident? That's not arbitrary?
>
> The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval
> of 1/299,792,458 of a second?
> That's not a historical accident? That's not arbitrary?

The arbitrariness isn't in the definition of any particular unit,
idiot. It is in the relationships between different units for the
same quantity. Between inches, feet, and miles, for example. Or
between ounces, pounds, and stones. And the arbitrariness shows up as
well in the relationships between units for different quantities, as
between pounds and pounds force, or between energy in foot-pounds and
power in horsepower. Can you even tell us what those relationships
are? In SI, the relationship a newton is a kilogram times 1 m/s², and
a joule is a watt divided by a second.

> The kilogram is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.
> I won't even ask where it came from. This is the evil stepmother for the whole system.
> Why? 1000 cc's of distilled water better have a mass of 1 Kg. It's a bootstrap
> nightmare about chickens, eggs, which came first, and why exactly a measurement
> system should be based on a heap of stuff somewhere
>
> The whole thing is no different. It's arranged by treaty.
>
> The International foot, BTW is also defined by treaty. It is *precisely* .3048M.
> Not "sort of", not "about", but *precisely* .3048M.

No, it isn't. It is 0.3048 m. Learn the damn rules. The symbol for
meters is "m" and not "M"; there should be a space between the number
and the symbol for the unit, and there should be a zero in front of
that initial decimal point.

That foot isn't defined by treaty.

It isn't even the foot that is primarily defined. It is a common
definition of a *yard* which was agreed on by the national standards
laboratories of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, South
Africa, Australia, and New Zealand back in 1959. But that wasn't a
treaty, so it wasn't self-implementing. It needed to be enacted into
law in various ways in each of these countries. It was also legally
adopted in some other places not a party to the agreement, such as
Ireland.

> It's all a historical accident. The system you use is no better/worse. It just
> happens to be multiples of 10 all the time, which is pretty neat for remembering
> whole quantities, but proves to be no special aid in computations with real
> world quantities. mm->cm->M? Move the decimal point. That's about the only
> benefit I see. The advent of calculators pretty much renders it moot.
> safe diving,
>
> bullshark


The fact that all units are related by powers of 10 is in fact a
pretty darned big benefit.

The even bigger benefit is that it is an interdisciplinary and
International System of Units.

Any time you do a conversion between units not related by powers of
10, you lose something.

Furthermore, I've never seen a calculator yet that could identify
_which_ mile you are using, or _which_ ounce you are using, or _which_
ton you are using, so that it gets converted correctly. Go search the
internet or look in various encyclopedias or other reference books,
and try to figure out how close Sir Ernest Shackleton got to the South
Pole, in kilometers. Almost everybody who expresses this figure in
kilometers had a calculator to help them in the calculations, I'll
bet. Nonetheless, most of them got it wrong.

--
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
"It's not the things you don't know
what gets you into trouble.

"It's the things you do know
that just ain't so."
Will Rogers