air volume formula?

> > 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

When you do happen to use decimals? What base do you work to? Base 10?
That is the underlying principal of the metric system.

It has standardized the way to convert between various units.

You don't use one factor to convert from one unit to another. Then you need
another factor to convert to the next unit and another to the next and
another to the next.... You get the picture?

In the metric system there is one(and only one) factor (10) to convert from
one unit to the next and to the next and the next.

Really everything fits together in a very consistent manner.

The reason you have problems with the metric system probably stems from the
fact that you are not used to visualize the various units. Has you grown-up
in a country that employed the metric system universally then you would not
have had any problems with that.

The funny thing is the in the US you employ the decimal (base 10) system in
some areas and in other areas not.
Now that is very inconsistent.

Just to further illustrate this inconsistency look at this:
When you convert from inches to feet you use factor 12
- from feet to yards you use factor 3
- from yard to chain factor 22
- from chain to mile factor 80
You see what I'm getting at?

In the metric system you do not have this inconsistency.
To convert from millimeter to centimeter you use factor 10
- from centimeter to decimeter (factor 10)
- from decimeter to meter (factor 10)

This example is just for distances but this principal extends through the
entire metric system. With the unit system employed in the US you have
different factors to to convert from one unit to the next.

Further more every single base unit in the metric system can be scientificly
described.
Example: 1 meter is the wavelenght of a certain isotope of a centain
element ( not sure off hand which)
1 litre is equal to 1 cubic desimeter. 1 cubic desimeter =
0,01 cubic meter
Using this basis one can be sure that 1 meter in Eurupe is exactly the same
as in Japan as is on the Moon.

What is the scienticfic description exists of an inch, foot, yard?
It used to be that a yard the distance from the tip of the nose to the tip
of the index finger (of a certain person who shall remain unnamed)(or
something similar). This fellow died a long time a ago. This atleast had
been the first definition of a yard. I'm sure that the definition has since
been updated. This just illustrates that there is absolutely no scientific
basis to this system.

The first definition of a meter had a scientific basis. Something that
could be accurately calculated. That definition was that 1 meter is equal
to one ten thousanth of along the cicumference of the earth of the longitude
line though Paris from the true north pole to the equator.

Rather precise for a first definition, wouldn't you agree? Very scientific.
Some thing that could be accurately calculated a very long time before the
meter was defined as such.

The true reasons why the metric system is beter than any other system
currently in use anywhere in the world is the following:
- It can be exactly defined.
- It is consistent in everything.

The fact the the metric system employs the base 10 numeric system just adds
to its ease of use. It will work just as well in for example in a base 2
numeric system. However base 10 is a lot more easier for humans to
conseptualise that a base 2.

I hope that I have made somethings a bit more clear to some of you.

Syahria

"Syahria" wrote

Do you really suppose that anybody involved in this discussion fails to
understand the concept of factors of 10?

> What is the scientific description exists of an inch, foot, yard?
> It used to be that a yard the distance from the tip of the nose to the tip
> of the index finger (of a certain person who shall remain unnamed)(or
> something similar). This fellow died a long time a ago. This at least
had
> been the first definition of a yard. I'm sure that the definition has
since
> been updated. This just illustrates that there is absolutely no
scientific
> basis to this system.
>
> The first definition of a meter had a scientific basis. Something that
> could be accurately calculated. That definition was that 1 meter is equal
> to one ten thousandth of along the circumference of the earth of the
longitude
> line though Paris from the true north pole to the equator.

Amusing comments. Which, in its original version, was more easily measured
with precision, the distance from some guys nose to his finger or the
circumference of the earth? Which do you suppose was more precise then.
How sure are you that it's not the same now? Scientifically derived indeed.
Both were nothing more than an attempt at a standard.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:nmgnb.6524$X22.5462@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Syahria" wrote
>
> Do you really suppose that anybody involved in this discussion fails to
> understand the concept of factors of 10?
>
> > What is the scientific description exists of an inch, foot, yard?
> > It used to be that a yard the distance from the tip of the nose to the
tip
> > of the index finger (of a certain person who shall remain unnamed)(or
> > something similar). This fellow died a long time a ago. This at least
> had
> > been the first definition of a yard. I'm sure that the definition has
> since
> > been updated. This just illustrates that there is absolutely no
> scientific
> > basis to this system.
> >
> > The first definition of a meter had a scientific basis. Something that
> > could be accurately calculated. That definition was that 1 meter is
equal
> > to one ten thousandth of along the circumference of the earth of the
> longitude
> > line though Paris from the true north pole to the equator.
>
> Amusing comments. Which, in its original version, was more easily
measured
> with precision, the distance from some guys nose to his finger or the
> circumference of the earth? Which do you suppose was more precise then.
> How sure are you that it's not the same now? Scientifically derived
indeed.
> Both were nothing more than an attempt at a standard.
>
> Lee
>
>
Now the definition of a meter centimeter etc, comes from the side of a cube
of pure H2O. one centimeter is the side of a cube of one cubic centimeter.

It may once have been guessed at as distance, but once the system was up and
going, it can be checked by comparing weight, volume and size against each
other with a know substance.

rnf2 <rnf2@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz> skriver:
> distance is definced as a multiple of the length of the side of the 1000cc
> cube of water. thats where distance cm, dm, m, km etc all derive from. the

Isn't that a circular definition then as cc is the cube of a lenght
messuremnt?

The current definition of the SI base units are at
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

They also have the historical bacgourd to why each units is defined as
it is.

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

"rnf2" wrote

> Now the definition of a meter centimeter etc, comes from the side of a
cube
> of pure H2O. one centimeter is the side of a cube of one cubic centimeter.

You just used the measurement to define the measurement. I presume you
meant a cube of water that weighs one gram? Either way, let me know the
next time you see a freestanding square of liquid water.

Lee

"Anders Arnholm" <Anders+news@Arnholm.nu> wrote in message
news:slrnbpsfe6.cmb.Anders+news@tika.arnholm.nu...
> bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> skriver:
> > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:26:20 +0100, Anders Arnholm
<Anders+news@Arnholm.nu> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Now seeing it once or twine gives me a good idea what this size is.
> Probaly the same way as you have learned to visilasy your units when
> you was younger. By seeing something and geting to know how big that
> was. In my world this happens with metric units so I have very easy to
> visilase meters, km and the other metric units, I however has a hard
> time guessing how long a couple of inches is, I have to convert this
> into metric and then look a about 10cm or something. At the moment
> living i England I have to try to get a hang of the starange unit
> miles that they insist on having on all road sings. 1/3 mile is about
> 500m and serius time to get of the motorway. So far I have gotten but
> I have no idea how long time it takes to drive 30 miles.
>


At 30 miles an hour, it takes one hour. At 60 miles an hour it takes 1/2 an
hour. Any other questions?

<snip>

Chris Guynn <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> skriver:
>> 500m and serius time to get of the motorway. So far I have gotten but
>> I have no idea how long time it takes to drive 30 miles.
> At 30 miles an hour, it takes one hour. At 60 miles an hour it takes 1/2 an
> hour. Any other questions?

Yes, but I seldom has the opertunity to drive at a fixed speed for one
hour, most of the time one has to change speed accrding to different
road on the way. On onkown roads in Sweden with a given number of km
(or Swedish mil thats 10km) I gan give a good estimations of how long
time it will take. Given the numbers in miles, I don't have a clue.
The I can calculate the distance in km (sometimes it possible in my
head) then I know how far it is. The bottom line, the system you have
been brought up with is probaly esiest for you to use. The metric
system seams to have all the possibilites of being easyest to tech
convertions in.

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

"Chris Guynn" wrote

> At 30 miles an hour, it takes one hour. At 60 miles an hour it takes 1/2
an
> hour. Any other questions?

At 120 miles an hour, the time varies. Sometimes it takes 15 minutes,
sometimes it takes more than a day depending on your access to a bail
bondsman.

Lee

"Anders Arnholm" <Anders+news@Arnholm.nu> wrote in message
news:slrnbpt3qe.cmb.Anders+news@tika.arnholm.nu...
> Chris Guynn <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> skriver:
> >> 500m and serius time to get of the motorway. So far I have gotten but
> >> I have no idea how long time it takes to drive 30 miles.
> > At 30 miles an hour, it takes one hour. At 60 miles an hour it takes
1/2 an
> > hour. Any other questions?
>
> Yes, but I seldom has the opertunity to drive at a fixed speed for one
> hour, most of the time one has to change speed accrding to different
> road on the way.

Sure, but that's true no matter which system you use. Average speed is
calculated the same regardless.

> On onkown roads in Sweden with a given number of km
> (or Swedish mil thats 10km) I gan give a good estimations of how long
> time it will take. Given the numbers in miles, I don't have a clue.

1 mile is approximately 1.6 km.
For an estimation, double the miles, then divide by three (or, if you
prefer, just divide by 1.5) and you should have an estimation of the number
of km and can then guesstimate how long it will take.

> The I can calculate the distance in km (sometimes it possible in my
> head) then I know how far it is.

If you do this enough for it to really matter, you'll be comfortable enough
making the conversion that eventually you won't need to. It's very much
like speaking a second (non-native) language. Eventually, you don't have to
interpret the words into your own language, you just understand them.

> The bottom line, the system you have
> been brought up with is probaly esiest for you to use. The metric
> system seams to have all the possibilites of being easyest to tech
> convertions in.
>
> / Balp
> --
> http://anders.arnholm.nu/ Keep on Balping

Anders Arnholm wrote:
>The current definition of the SI base units are at
>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

That is a good site. Thanks.

The official SI website is:
www.bipm.org/en/si