That’s because more than 90% of the world dosen’t need to know imperial since beside the US, only Myanmar and Liberia uses it
Even the UK, where the system comes from, is phasing it out for metric
The only reason Americans keep using imperial is because big businesses are unwilling to pay the price of conversion
the UK has a moronic system of mixing imperial and metric, distance is measured in miles, weight is in stone and lbs (but only for human beings, everything else is in kg), but anything technical is fully metric
The reason the U.S. still uses lbs is because people would think everything got 2.2 times as expensive if they priced it by kg.
You can see this in Canada, where they illegally advertise everything in really big letters using lbs, but then, in tiny tiny letters print the price per kg as required by law. It’s just because it looks cheaper.
Also seeing *no* price by kg or /100g sometimes.
And some things are missing the country origin.
Both illegal. They’re testing the water there to see if they’ll get prosecuted.
On some products like chinese garlic, indian pickles, norwegian salmon, and heinz ketchup, they have trouble selling them because of general awareness that it’s not a good idea.
I don’t know if it’s illegal, but yes they do. In some stores anyway. Also they will frick with you in the produce aisle by pricing one containerized product per pound, and another different-sized one by kilos, so you have to stand there doing math for twenty minutes to find out if the pint of raspberries is cheaper than the 454 g container. Which is why everyone just steals all their produce at the self-checkouts now
>That’s because more than 90% of the world dosen’t need to know imperial since beside the US
Do people in the US need to know metric? I learned some metric for some firearms related things and have found exactly 0 use for it otherwise.
US customary is amazing for flow rate related problems
that one square inch nozzle water flows through at one feet per second? how many teaspoons per second that is exactly is a trivial question
Canada and the UK still use imperial measurement, it’s a weird mix of both systems in both those countries. I work in construction in Canada and haven’t used or needed a metric tape on-site in over 20 years
i'm not either and i find imperial a pain the rare times i run into it
one thing which is so weird to me is the whole using multiple units to describe one measurement thing
Like in imperial you might do something like 4'8-3/16" or something with feet, inches, and fractions of an inch in one measurement, while i'd just say 1427mm, which is trivially also recognisable as 142.7cm, or 1.427m
I'm sure you're used to it, but i don't understand why people defend it
>The thing I learned as a child is just more practical because I say so
Thanks, great insight anon. Now lets wait to hear from someone who learned metric as a child.
I learned metric as a child and can convert and use both interchangably
Metric has a place, i like it for measuring distance and for anything precise or scientific and for smaller measurements especially of mass
But anything 'human' like height and weight, a lot of cooking and building etc. is so much more sovl than muh 157cm tall 98kg
And base 12 is just more intuitive and practical for things like building because its simple to divide and describe the divisions
Same here but the other way around. Doesn't take a genius to intuitively convert to something I'd understand.
Immediately thought that 5'1" 200+ pound person you were describing was a fat fricker though.
I'm a yuropoor who learned inch standard in HS because that's what tango PCB defaulted too.
It literally doesn't matter. You have two types of people, those who can easily learn both and those who never produce anything useful and are irrelevant.
Yea right...60x60cm tile vs 24x24inch tile..
60x40x90cm cabinet vs 24x16x36 inch cabinet
In metric you have easily memorable round numbers, in imperial you have wacky digits that end in 2/4/6/8.
Americans seem to just want to be contrarians, that’s why they’re resisting the metric system.
Every time I go look up some crazy claim about the U.S. it turns out to be true: yesterday it was their “invade the hague” law.
It was said that the reason metric wasn’t fully adopted was the road signage would be too expensive to change—then that mars rover did a faceplant into the martian soil and that argument went out the window.
Oh no. Ot the heckin official report by the people that fricked up.
Think about orbital mechanics for a fricking second. If it's fricked up by a factor of 1.0001 okay, maybe you crash. If it's off by a factor of 25 or 250 or 2.4 you are not entering Mars orbit. They failed to do a correction burn 2 months earlier so they didn't enter orbit correctly.
>Ot the heckin official report by the people that fricked up.
Oh, yeah, you're right, some technical error definitely would have looked worse than "we didn't bother to check whether a mission-critical piece of software was putting out remotely sensible values for its calculations".
Yes because it's like this. It's always those heckin Americans insisting on imperial measurements. If only we had done the one thing all of NASA wouldn't have fricked up.
It's a "brown M&M" failure. The integration was sloppy and a brown M&M (poor unit conversion) got through. When you see a brown M&M in the bowl, you know there likely are other errors. Too bad in this case the evidence was destroyed.
>Americans seem to just want to be contrarians,
yeah sure, that's why britain drives on the wrong side of the road, and their airplane propellers turn backwards because, can't be seen following in line with the Americans.
Nah Canadians and British are the true contrarians. They exist to follow the US’s lead.. but act like they’re much different to nurture a feigned sense of superiority
>It was said that the reason metric wasn’t fully adopted was the road signage would be too expensive to change
Entire industries would have to COMPLETELY retool if we switched to metric at this point. It's probably never going to happen just for that fact alone. Large machine shops for example would be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions, to totally convert.
Same applies to your 110 volt electrical system. But thats a sunk cost fallacy. You increasingly fall behind the rest of the world due to your unwillingness to adapt and innovate. Even 230v is starting to look low what with electrifying everything from stoves to cars.
No, most north american houses have a 240 V feed, split into two 120 V circuits.
Dryers and stoves use the 240 V feed, as well as a car charging port if you get one installed.
Also superior 60 Hz vs. 50 Hz, however marginal that might be.
>Dryers and stoves use the 240 V feed, as well as a car charging port if you get one installed.
yeah and our cooking plate uses 2 of a 3 phase network which is around 400V >Also superior 60 Hz vs. 50 Hz, however marginal that might be.
please elaborate. i don't have high hopes because i have the impression you don't really know what you're talking about
What the frick is a “cooking plate” — please post photo, the plug, and the electrical specs on the back of it near the plug.
Also, two phases does not double the voltage.
Aircraft use 400 Hz, because higher freq is better in some cases.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Also, two phases does not double the voltage.
Depends on how it's wired. A 240V wye setup has 400V between two phases.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Which one produces 208V between all three legs?
5 months ago
Anonymous
None do. At least no standard voltages. The ones in the image are 400V and 240V between legs, respectively. 240V delta produces 208V between each leg and an opposing center tap. It's even highlighted in that image.
5 months ago
Anonymous
sqrt(3) times 220V, moron
someone clearly never had a course about power distribution
5 months ago
Anonymous
Not with respect to neutral.
But, between phases, I’d have to accept something like that.
5 months ago
Anonymous
you really needed wolfram for that? never heard of phasors? just calculate the length between two vectors of equal length with an 120° angle. this is something they teach kids in 8th grade
you already guessed it and the answer is length times sqrt(3)
5 months ago
Anonymous
> phasors
Yes, they are based on the rapid nadion effect. I usually set them to ‘stun’ for messing around the house.
My slide rule in a drawer and was too lazy to get it.
>please elaborate.
The higher the AC frequency, the more efficient simple transformers operate at a given size/weight. 50Hz vs. 60Hz isn't huge, but if you're talking about a national electric grid, things add up.
Split phase, more like shit phase. What are you gonna do if your appliance needs three-phase power?
There's no tangable benefit to 60Hz over 50 aside from being able to fabricate smaller transformers. European analogue TV format (PAL) suffered due to the lower rate but that isn't the case anymore with digital signal.
>But thats a sunk cost fallacy.
Sunk costs are past expenses. Costs to change to a different system are future expenses, and those are proper to include in a cost/benefit analysis.
>change to the base 10 system designed to be easy to use for literal fricking apes because peer pressure
No, frick off. People are stupid enough without simplifying things even further.
that's the thing, your shitty system is base free for all.
how many yards is a 12th of a mile
how many fractional inches is a 3th of an inch
how many fluid ounces is a 12th of a gallon
how many square feet is a 12th of an acre
how many grains are there in a 144th of a pound
i could go on but i think the pattern is clear
Now show me on your gay American tape measure where you would mark exactly 1/3 of an inch.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Now show me on your gay American tape measure where you would mark exactly 1/3 of an inch.
For most applications where a tape measure is accurate enough and depending on the tolerances you want, 5/16" and 11/32" are close enough, within a pencil's width of exact...if you need something more accurate you can go to 21/64" which is .328125".
What you ignore is that is that unlike their closest metric equivalents 1/3 of a yard is *exactly* one foot or 12 inches, and one third of a foot is *exactly* four inches.
It's not just about the math though; divisions of yards and feet correspond to typical measurements and material/ object sizes used in daily life far more readily because that's how they were developed.
Metric goes from mm to meter with only two divisions in between, centimeters and decimeters.
Even if you look at mm level accuracy, 32nds of an inch are smaller increments which allows for greater accuracy.
Centimeters and decimeters are both too small to make typical measuring and layout tasks easier and intuitive and there's no real point to using them...they just complicate things and with few exceptions everyone calls things out in mm when working in dimensions of a couple of meters or less.
If anyone used 32nds or 16ths of an inch as their primary method of calling out distances between 0 and one yard they would be righly seen as morons.
It wouldn't be any less accurate to say that a standard coffee table height is 544/32" but it would be dumb and needlessly complex.
You can pretend that measuring things in 1000ths or 100ths of a meter is vastly superior and intelligent, but it's just as dumb and needlessly complex.
5 months ago
Anonymous
yeah yeah i get it, 3mm bad and inaccurate and 5/16" is "close enough"
gotta love that consistency
don't really feel the need to adress the rest of your nonsense because it's not really worth replying to
5 months ago
Anonymous
>yeah yeah i get it, 3mm bad and inaccurate and 5/16" is "close enough" >gotta love that consistency
Even if we pretend that 5/16" was the only answer given and not cherry picked due it being the least accurate approximation given, it's still only off by 6.25%...
while using 3mm as an approximation of 1/3 of a centimeter is a 10% error.
But its even worse for you because calling 11/32" 1/3 of an inch is only off by 3.12%...
and 21/64" or 0.328125" x 3 = 0.984375" which is an error of 1.56%, which is obviously a far smaller error than 10%.
So it is *consistently* easier and more accurate to divide an inch into thirds using common fractions marked on a tape measure.
(Coincidentally enough, if I'm forced to deal with mm I can just call 25 mm an inch and achieve the same degree f accuracy since 25 mm = 0.984252".)
Then there's the fact that 32nds and 64ths of an inch are smaller than a mm and still readable on a ruler (pic related)...
But below mm the metric increments jump to micrometers (microns) which can't be measured with the naked eye...even if there were a standard increment for 1/10 of a mm it would be unwieldy and impossible to use on any kind of ruler or tape measure without serious magnification.
So common fractions of an inch actually allow for objectively more precise real world measurement using a ruler or tape than a metric ruler that only goes down to mm.
Sorry.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You can get higher precision rulers if you need it, but every common one i've seen is just mm and 16ths inches, for which the mm is smaller
5 months ago
Anonymous
If you can actually think in 32nds you can think in 1/2mm. Anything below 16ths should just use thou or microns.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Anything below 16ths should just use thou or microns.
Tell me you don't use actual measurements without saying "I don't use actual measurements "...
So if I need a hole or rod that's 11/32" in diameter I should call it out as 8,731.2754 microns or 343.75 thousandths?
Even if you "simplify" it by calling 11/32" 8.7312754 mm, how does "thinking in 1/2 mm" units help?
5 months ago
Anonymous
This implies that cutting a 1/2" hole is easier than cutting a 0.500000" hole. Just call it at 0.344" or 8.73mm unless you need more precision.
5 months ago
Anonymous
So I fricked up and that's on me. What I meant to say was "show me on your incredibly gay homoerotic buttfricking homosexual European tape measure where you would mark 1/3 of a meter." I will concede that was my bad and offer the closest thing to an apology warranted to the filthy euro trash that you obviously are.
But more to your point, if I needed to measure exactly 1/3 of an inch, I'd just use picrel. Fractions are very useful. Maybe you homosexual Europeans can find the time to learn how they work in between getting stabbed or run over by future doctors in front of your government buildings, or waiting for the police to ignore your daughters' screams while she's being gangraped by Pakistanis in a government-funded housing project.
i actually accept that, the problem though is that imperial isn't consistently base 12
like there's 12 inches in a foot, but not 12 feet to a yard, or 12 yards to a mile. you also don't divide inches like 1/12, either
it also doesn't help that the number system you use isn't base 12 itself, so you'd never get that nice 10, 100, 1000 thing metric enjoys
A yard is 3 feet, which is a division of a 12 base system.
So is the globe and the latitude and longitude system, divisible by 12 but not by ten.
When you start to do more than a linear or the amount in a cup, the metric system sucks balls.
there are 1760 yards in a mile. 1760/12=?
an inch divided by 12 is what exactly? >it also doesn't help that the number system you use isn't base 12 itself
glad he pointed it out so i don't have to
5 months ago
Anonymous
>there are 1760 yards in a mile. 1760/12=? >an inch divided by 12 is what exactly?
You completely mischaracterize how imperial measurements are broken down into increments.
Both a mile and an inch can be divided by two into more precise increments, that in turn can be divided by two into even higher resolutions.
In the case of a mile this yields whole numbers of yards all the way down to 1/32 of a mile which is 55 yards.
Do that with a kilometer and you only get whole numbers until 1/8 of a km (125 meters); 1/16 of a km is 62.5 meters.
This is a natural and intuitive method of dividing distances that can be done with a string or sheet of paper; dividing by ten is not.
An inch isn't an inch because of being a 1/12 increment of a foot that is rigidly applied to all other measurements, a foot contains 12 inches because that number of inches is a convenient number to work with when you need that degree of resolution.
It's not difficult to understand and the math is maybe 4th grade level...only a moron *needs* everything divisible by ten to make measuring "easier".
5 months ago
Anonymous
The use of decimal fractions is separate from the metric vs. Imperial. It’s less separate from SI (Systèmmè Íntêrnàtionallé). I use 1/2 mm all the time, or the vulgar term ‘pussy hair’
t. just another fricking colony.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Wasn't really talking about decimal equivalents of fractions; the point is that for any system of measurement limiting unit divisions to tenths, hundredths, thousandths, etc. is less intuitive and useful for the vast majority of applications. Even where inches are divided into those increments for things like precision machining, all the larger fractional increments can be and are still used.
5 months ago
Anonymous
i think you fundamentally misunderstand what base 12 actually means. an actual base 12 would look like 0 1 2...9 A B 10. in metric you divide or multiply by 10 to get to the next unit, so a cm/10=mm, cm.10=dm, dm.10=m
one inch/12=frick you and a mile/12 in yards gets you the middle finger as well
there are 12 inches in 1 foot yes but that's where it ends. a pound/12? exactly. and guess how many pounds are in a stone, protip it's not 12
chains and furlongs are used in survoying and this is what happens when i look up the wikipedia page of the chain >The chain (abbreviated ch) is a unit of length equal to 66 feet (22 yards), used in both the US customary and Imperial unit systems. It is subdivided into 100 links.[1][2] There are 10 chains in a furlong, and 80 chains in one statute mile.[2] In metric terms, it is 20.1168 m long.[2] By extension, chainage (running distance) is the distance along a curved or straight survey line from a fixed commencing point, as given by an odometer.
66 feet, 22 yards, 100 links, 10 chains in a furlong, 80 chains in one statue mile
sorry m8 but it's moronic
5 months ago
Anonymous
What if I don't want to walk to the north pole from Paris?
What if I want a reasonable length of chain to carry when I go surveying?
5 months ago
Anonymous
I never said anything about base 12 and explained that subdivisions of imperial measurements are based on fractions.
I also explained that a foot being twelve inches is *not* the result of base 12 but simply because a unit that size is a convenient resolution for common measuring tasks.
If anything is moronic, it's having no corresponding common unit of that size between 1 meter and 1 decimeter for no other reason than "muh divisible by ten".
So you end up with a unit roughly the size of a sugar cube, one roughly the size of a pack of cigarettes, and then something a bit longer than a yard.
5 months ago
Anonymous
A 12 based system can be divided in 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 1/6.
10 based is 1/2 and 1/5.
Sad 10 based Eurogay
>A 12 based system can be divided in 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 1/6. >A 12 based system >12 based
learn how to follow a reply chain
5 months ago
Anonymous
Those posts are by two different anons, moron.
>learn how to follow a reply chain
LOFL, you first.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Why are you doing all that dumb shit.
How much pressure is a yard of water?
36 inches.
See? all the answers are frick you.
5 months ago
Anonymous
i thought it would be funny to make our friends from across the atlantic do some digging about certain constants and why they are that way but i suppose it's easier to avoid the question by nitpicking and calling me an ESL idiot
don't get me wrong i am an ESL idiot but that's not an argument
5 months ago
Anonymous
>constants
conversion factors. yes the esl is strong with this one
I have SAE and metric tool sets.
I know a yard is close to a meter
a quart is close to a liter
a kilometer is only 5/8ths of a mile
my 350 small block is 5.7L
it takes over two and one-half centimeters to equal only one inch
Uropoors a jealous because they only have one system while we have the freedom to choose.
no but it's yet another example of medieval bullshit. how many ounces are there in a troy ounce and why are they different?
apparently a troy ounce is heavier than a regular ounce and a troy pound is lighter than a regular pound.
I'm American and I never really learned to use the imperial system because it was taught at the same time as metric at my school and it seemed easier so I've just went with that. Why not use something that's more precise and already based on on the base ten number system that everyone uses.
But it's not "more precise" for visual measurements using a rule; 1/32" is smaller than the smallest metric increment that is found on rulers (mm), and 1/64" is less than half a millimeter and still visible/useful.
I am going to defend some of SAE.
tools, inches, base 12. I hate it. metric is supreme.
but for temp, distance, pressure. American is superior
who gives a frick when water freezes.
Fahrenheit, 0 is fricking cold, and 100 is fricking hot. very fricking simple. Celsius belongs in a lab, and not to be used for weather.
same for miles, 0 miles well, slow (same in k) but 100 miles per hour is fricking fast. 100kph is like 65? yawn.
also having a vehicle exceed 100k miles without issues is a golden standard. whats that in ks? 160 and change. frick off
pressure. yeah i like larger numbers better. so why the frick do you use bars? like my tire say to inflate to 4.4 bars. what the frick is that? 65 psi makes more sense. again. car tires, low psi scale, small tires. truck tire inflate to 100+ psi. very simply range human use range. 0-100 (hey, whats almost like... metric and shit)
i'll give it a coin toss between using pounds or kilos for weighing stuff. half the metric world still uses lb for body weight.
height too. whatever. we use both.
>who gives a frick when water freezes.
i and a lot of other people do. below zero means snow and ice and above zero means no snow and ice, it's quite convenient actually >Fahrenheit, 0 is fricking cold, and 100 is fricking hot. very fricking simple.
now ask someone from alaska and new mexico what they consider to be very hot and very cold, it's highly subjective and therefore a poor argument >same for miles, 0 miles well, slow (same in k) but 100 miles per hour is fricking fast. 100kph is like 65? yawn.
"yawn" and "very fricking fast", kek. you are really bringing up very solid arguments here. i'm not a fan of kmh either btw, i prefer m/s. an object that experiences 1N of drag travelling at 1m/s requires 1W of power and after 1 second has consumed 1J of energy. when you start using minutes and hours things quickly become messy >also having a vehicle exceed 100k miles without issues is a golden standard. whats that in ks? 160 and change. frick off
the golden standard is actually around 200k kilometers. what's that in miles? 125 and change, frick off >pressure. yeah i like larger numbers better. so why the frick do you use bars?
because it's roughly equal to atmospheric pressure, and if you really like bigger numbers you can always use pascal, hectopascal, or kilopascal. a bar by definition is 100 kilopascal so converting between the two is kind of trivial. 10m of water is also roughly equal to atmospheric pressure which makes it convenient to quickly guestimate hydrostatic pressure but that's because g happens to be fairly close to 10 and is mostly a coincidence. didn't you follow the submarine fiasco? at a depth of 4km the pressure is around 400 bar >half the metric world still uses lb for body weight
you actually believe that? go to PrepHole and ask a random russian or german if he uses pounds instead of kg for his body weight in daily life
i want to elaborate a bit on hydrostatic preasure. if you imagine a box that is one square meter in surface area and 10m in height, fill it with water, it weights 10000kg. if you pretend that g=10 instead of 9,81 that box exerts a force of 100kN on a surface area of 1m^2, which is 100kPa or 1 bar. if it's sea water with a density of 1,02 it really is very close to 100kN (100,062 kN). isn't that convenient and trivial to derive?
now, let's do things with square feet and yards to quickly calculate how much psi a yard of water colum actually is
so how many psi is that? i tried to demonstrate the ease of volumes where a liter is a cubic dm and water has a density of one and how calculating weights and pressure is quite convenient. i'm just going to ask the same question but replace the units with the burger equivalent >imagine a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get, how heavy is it and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
how many psi's was the titan exposed to when it imploded and how do you arrive at that number
a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get
This is a silly setup, but OK. Assuming a square base, the box's dimensions are 1/(60+3602^.5) feet square by 30 feet tall. The volume is 3.6 cubic inches, which is .0156 gallons.
>how heavy is it
Insufficient information. Specify the temperature of the water and the local gravity. Both vary enough on Earth's surface to change measurements.
>and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
Same as above.
Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain? With the water at 25C, located in Helsinki (local gravitational acceleration of 9.825m/s^2), how heavy is that water, and what is the pressure in pascals at the bottom?
5 months ago
Anonymous
If I had to hazard a guess, when the sub IQ euroid said 1 sq ft surface area, he meant the bottom of the box. But because he thinks in some sort of fantasy language with poorly developed grammar and little to no emotion, he couldn't convey it properly
Or he's just a barely functional moron
5 months ago
Anonymous
>when the sub IQ euroid said 1 sq ft surface area, he meant the bottom of the box
Of course. But it's a convenient setup to demonstrate how the powers-of-ten scaling in Metric doesn't necessarily translate to having nice numbers to work with in real applications, and how actual design math is way more complex than unit conversions. Water not actually being 1g/cm^3 most of the time and the variability of local gravity are also convenient issues raised by the choice of problem.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I actually prefer my answer of inches of water. It seems more obvious this is an approximation only suitable for whatever the intended use of this water column machine is if its properly designed
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain?
you get 10 m^3 and there are 1000 liters in a cubic meter, so the answer is 10000 liters, i can even go further than 4 significant numbers, the answer is 10000,0000000 liters. to get the weight in kg you multiply by the density of water, where 1 kg/l is usually more than sufficient unless you want to be anal. i used the word "quickly guestimate" for a reason. if g being 9,81 instead of 10 was the reason your submarine imploded you fricked up spectacularly. rounding g to 10 is a practice i regularly encounter. >akhtually the density of water is 0,998 at room temperature you dumb euro, metric btfo >your 10m of water being a bar is actually only 0,98 bar, aren't you stupid?
as for your math, i think a box of one square foot by 10 yards is a bit more than 3.6 cubic inches, but assuming that number is correct >The volume is 3.6 cubic inches, which is .0156 gallons
how do you know?
I actually prefer my answer of inches of water. It seems more obvious this is an approximation only suitable for whatever the intended use of this water column machine is if its properly designed
they are pretty much the first exercises you encounter in your first course about fluid dynamics but it appears that you are not limited in your ways by higher education
5 months ago
Anonymous
>you get 10 m^3
Incorrect. A box 1mx1mx10m has a surface area of 42 square meters, not 1. Try again.
>1 kg/l is usually more than sufficient
It is not sufficient in this case, because the answer is to be given to four significant figures, and 1kg/l is not a close enough approximation for that. Try again.
>i used the word "quickly guestimate" for a reason.
Because you don't know how to precisely calculate or why people would be interested in that?
>rounding g to 10 is a practice i regularly encounter.
I would hope not when a calculation is to be done to four significant figures.
the density of water is 0,998 at room temperature
At 25C it's 0.9970 kg/l (to four significant figures)
>>your 10m of water being a bar is actually only 0,98 bar, aren't you stupid?
When the answer is to be given to four significant figures, that's a problem.
>a box of one square foot by 10 yards
that's not what you said earlier. What you said was
so how many psi is that? i tried to demonstrate the ease of volumes where a liter is a cubic dm and water has a density of one and how calculating weights and pressure is quite convenient. i'm just going to ask the same question but replace the units with the burger equivalent >imagine a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get, how heavy is it and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
how many psi's was the titan exposed to when it imploded and how do you arrive at that number
a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height
That is, the box is ten yards tall, and the entire box has a surface area of one square foot. Such a box has dimensions 1/(60+3602^.5) feet square (which is not the same thing as "square feet") by 30 feet tall. Approximately, this is 0.008332 feet by 0.008332 feet by exactly 30 feet, resulting in a volume of approximately 0.002083 cubic feet. Since one cubic foot equals 1728 (12^3) cubic inches, this is equivalent to 3.599 cubic inches. Since a gallon contains 231 cubic inches, this is also equivalent to 0.1558 gallons.
>how do you know?
Apply math to what was actually said. Now you try.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>>Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain? >Incorrect. A box 1mx1mx10m has a surface area of 42 square meters, not 1. Try again.
chatgpt post
5 months ago
Anonymous
so how many psi is that? i tried to demonstrate the ease of volumes where a liter is a cubic dm and water has a density of one and how calculating weights and pressure is quite convenient. i'm just going to ask the same question but replace the units with the burger equivalent >imagine a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get, how heavy is it and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
how many psi's was the titan exposed to when it imploded and how do you arrive at that number
a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get
What, you think that only AIs can use correct grammar?
The pint is a French measurement originally and it dosen’t mean the same in every country
Yes we have the metric system, but that dosen’t mean we don’t use cups, handfuls and other imprecise measurements in the day-to-day
>but that dosen’t mean we don’t use cups
Do you use MEASURING cups? As in the volumetric measuring tools commonly found in US kitchens?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>>you get 10 m^3 >Incorrect. A box 1mx1mx10m has a surface area of 42 square meters, not 1. Try again.
are you unironically moronic? that you even managed to solve the captcha
5 months ago
Anonymous
He's right, as pointed out earlier both versions of this problem posted here describe the "surface area" of the hypothetical shape as "one square foot" or "one square meter" by a certain height.
The dimension of the base of such a column is NOT its "surface area", its only the surface area of one side, aka its cross sectional area.
Dumb mistake made by preening morons.
The 3-d shape being described is a hexahedron, which by definition = six sides.
10M H x 1M W = 10 sq M x 4 long sides = 40 sq M
1M x 1M = 1 sq M x 2 ends = 2 sq M
40 + 2 = 42, same as your IQ.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>for those who can read between the lines
Tell me that you are a fricking moron when it comes to math without saying "I'm a moron when it comes to math".
The question was answered enough to point out that you don't know the difference between "surface area" of a three dimensional shape and the area of its minimal cross section.
>A box 1mx1mx10m
has the unit of m^3, not m^2. and since this thread has reached this much of a low point, i feel the need to clarify m^3 is a unit of volume.
holy frick i am really trying not to call you a lot of mean things but you are making it increasingly difficult
also, answer the question
5 months ago
Anonymous
>The question was answered enough to point out that you don't know the difference between "surface area" of a three dimensional shape and the area of its minimal cross
section.
[...] >Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain? >liters
i honestly don't get how you managed to convince yourself the question was about surface area when it was about how many liters the box contains but i do find the irony of you calling others stupid quite entertaining. do continue
I thought it would've been a clever gotchya. I was very disappointed when I reread his question and it didn't mention surface area
5 months ago
Anonymous
just googled "water density" because of too much free time and this is literally the first website and the first text that shows up
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/water-density >The density of water is roughly 1 gram per milliliter but, this changes with temperature or if there are substances dissolved in it. Ice is less dense than liquid water which is why your ice cubes float in your glass. As you might expect, water density is an important water measurement.
why is a website named usgs.gov using gram/ml for water density and why are they using the number 1?
they also use pounds/gallon further down when the writer looked up the density of water (he actually needed to look it up as it's not a number extremely close to 1) but the table right below it uses pounds/ft^3
really makes you think doesn't it
anyway you now know certain values for your calculations because i looked it up for you. 62 pounds/ft^3 is good enough for me
5 months ago
Anonymous
>why is a website named usgs.gov using gram/ml for water density
Because the US government has been trying to get people in the US to switch from US Customary to Metric units for nearly fifty years.
>and why are they using the number 1?
Because Metric is usually sold as simplifying things. And since water's density is usually close to 1g/mL, that looks simpler. However, Metric is not actually precisely fit to those things which look at first glance to be simple, and so there is no simplification in technical matters. Substitution of one constant for another is not much difference regardless, but the point there is to make a political case, not to examine the actual merits of the system.
a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get
This is a silly setup, but OK. Assuming a square base, the box's dimensions are 1/(60+3602^.5) feet square by 30 feet tall. The volume is 3.6 cubic inches, which is .0156 gallons.
>how heavy is it
Insufficient information. Specify the temperature of the water and the local gravity. Both vary enough on Earth's surface to change measurements.
>and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
Same as above.
Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain? With the water at 25C, located in Helsinki (local gravitational acceleration of 9.825m/s^2), how heavy is that water, and what is the pressure in pascals at the bottom?
>imagine a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get, how heavy is it and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
a week later and no one has given an actual reply with an exercise i gave an example of that i could solve in my head within 10 seconds and explicitely wrote out my thinking
lol. lmao even
it should be self explanatory for those who can read between the lines but for those who can't; an inch is as good as a cm for measuring things but when multiple units come together US customary/imperial really becomes "challenging"
5 months ago
Anonymous
>for those who can read between the lines
Tell me that you are a fricking moron when it comes to math without saying "I'm a moron when it comes to math".
The question was answered enough to point out that you don't know the difference between "surface area" of a three dimensional shape and the area of its minimal cross section.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>The question was answered enough to point out that you don't know the difference between "surface area" of a three dimensional shape and the area of its minimal cross
section.
>Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain?
you get 10 m^3 and there are 1000 liters in a cubic meter, so the answer is 10000 liters, i can even go further than 4 significant numbers, the answer is 10000,0000000 liters. to get the weight in kg you multiply by the density of water, where 1 kg/l is usually more than sufficient unless you want to be anal. i used the word "quickly guestimate" for a reason. if g being 9,81 instead of 10 was the reason your submarine imploded you fricked up spectacularly. rounding g to 10 is a practice i regularly encounter. >akhtually the density of water is 0,998 at room temperature you dumb euro, metric btfo >your 10m of water being a bar is actually only 0,98 bar, aren't you stupid?
as for your math, i think a box of one square foot by 10 yards is a bit more than 3.6 cubic inches, but assuming that number is correct >The volume is 3.6 cubic inches, which is .0156 gallons
how do you know?
[...]
they are pretty much the first exercises you encounter in your first course about fluid dynamics but it appears that you are not limited in your ways by higher education
>Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain? >liters
i honestly don't get how you managed to convince yourself the question was about surface area when it was about how many liters the box contains but i do find the irony of you calling others stupid quite entertaining. do continue
American here- I've been using metric for a few years now. I feel comfortable with both systems. I can't get my wife to use Celsius, but everything else has been a success
>bro it's so hot outside it's like 38 degrees
doesn't sound as good as >bro it's so hot outside it's like 100 degrees
celsius is a superior scale for anything scientific, but shit for day to day life.
no
the weather temperature range for Celsius is from 0 to +/- 40
0 freezing
10 cold
20 pleasant
30 hot
40 stay hydrated and in shadow, people start dying above that
In the negatives it's just cold, snow, ice, all along the range.
The pint is a French measurement originally and it dosen’t mean the same in every country
Yes we have the metric system, but that dosen’t mean we don’t use cups, handfuls and other imprecise measurements in the day-to-day
Canadan here, we use both interchangeably. I prefer Fahrenheit for working on shit (I work hvac, easier pressure/temp concersions), celcius for daily shit, and I've used inches and CM long enough that it really doesn't matter which one I'm given I can do a bullshit conversion in my head and only be off around 5-10%
That being said if the states finally got with the program and switched to the metric system I wouldn't be upset about not using imperial anymore. Converting between inches, feet, yards and miles is a frick ton less convenient than centimeters, meters, kilometers, etc.
Phillips screws can suck my wiener though, Robertson is better in literally every single way and the states is moronic for sticking with their shitty brittle star bits.
> Robertson is better in literally every single way
Americans call them “square drive” and refuse to acknowledge their superiority for some reason. Maybe they really like picking up screws after they fall off the bit all day long
>Americans call them “square drive” and refuse to acknowledge their superiority for some reason. Maybe they really like picking up screws after they fall off the bit all day long
It's a ploy by big screwdriver to opress the humble tradesman, I've seen more stripped phillips screwdrivers than good ones working with other techs.
>Maybe they really like picking up screws after they fall off the bit all day long
Laughs in torx and magnetic bit holder
>Americans call them “square drive” and refuse to acknowledge their superiority for some reason. Maybe they really like picking up screws after they fall off the bit all day long
It's a ploy by big screwdriver to opress the humble tradesman, I've seen more stripped phillips screwdrivers than good ones working with other techs.
>I've seen more stripped phillips screwdrivers than good ones working with other techs.
All I've ever seen on high end equipment is hex and torx, and my foundry is relatively old. Sucks to be you, I guess.
I unironically think yuros using metric makes them fundamentally less creative. Sometimes people have a hard time dividing into equal parts, but I can do it quite easily because of being a carpenter who uses imperial
6 minutes into the video, they have measured everything in pounds and ounces (decimal ounces), but apparently additions and substractions were too difficult so they converted everything to grams and converted the answer back
if simple additions and substractions is something people struggle with even with the system they grew up in it's a shitty system
Metric is great and all but I just like the size of an inch more than a centimeter. Centimeters always end up being shorter than what I imagined in my head but I can easily eyeball if something is about an inch long.
t. Yuropoor
Lol Europe had to make a steel beam standard based on American dimensions because they couldn't hack it alone at first. It's ok little bro we'll keep supporting you technologically while you go to the Library of Alexandria to commentate on your favorite poet critics.
Europoors forgot they came late to industrialization
Americans have to use both system since the rest of the world forces metric stuff upon them.
Meanwhile the rest of the world can largely ignore inches, especially since the US isn't really producing any meaningful physical goods for exports, and even the ones which they do produce, foreign customers force them into metric specifications quite often.
The system that emerged organically from real-world use is bound to be better than the system designed by academics and imposed by governing bodies. Do not trust your left hemisphere. He is naively too confident in his own ability. He loves his own intellect. Use his power, but do not let him guide you.
The metric system exists because feudal lords who had fixed taxes they were supposed to be collecting would redefine units from place to place and item to item as a way of collecting more taxes than they were intended to.
Actually the imposition of rigid base-10 number systems is inherently white and colonialist and bigoted against LGBTQIA+ folk.
Anti-semitism is popular these days besides. israelites are literally nazis.
When building materials went metric, everything got just a little bit thinner in the “conversion” … strange how nothing was rounded up to the nearest mm dimension, everything was rounded down. Plywood, lumber, screws and nails — everything. It reminds me of the 1278 coin clipping scheme, except on a much wider scale.
As someone who uses inch and metric daily for work, inch makes more sense when you are doing close(tolerance) work. .0005'' vs .013mm the former being a bit easier to work with.
Anyone who cant use both interchangeable is probably moronic
Y x 25.4= inch to mm
Y/25.4 =mm to inch.
Its not that hard. Its gauging distance in your head thats the issue. Not designing shit. we already use mm for automotive or machine shit all the time. Its the speeds amd distanve thats fricking gay.
On foot, measuring things in km is useful. But driving around mph and gauging distance in miles is easier. Because its what people are used to. Commie units are only good in the scientific community.
Otherwise imperial is superior for every day shit.
Furlongs and farthings per fortnight are preferred. As well as the cubit.
I prefer to weigh your mom in stone as well. Because she fits rite in with my heifer stock.
Ok furry
>this homosexual thinks any pic posted with any cartoon looking animal makes the poster a furry
you spend too much time on /b/. in fact why dont you go back there you stupid butthole
funny thing is, many Americans have a pretty good understanding and can use both systems successfully.
Ask an American to estimate three centimeters, or one meter, and the American will probably get really close.
Ask a Euro to guess something that's eight inches long or four and a half feet tall, and they'd be lucky to even get close.
>funny thing is, many Americans have a pretty good understanding and can use both systems successfully.
This. I have a good understanding of the metric system and know approximations for all the common metric measurements, but still hate it.
> Ask a Euro to guess something that's eight inches long or four and a half feet tall, and they'd be lucky to even get close.
Do you think us Europeans don’t have inch wide thumbs or foot long feet?
>inch wide thumbs
At the knuckle, right?
>inch wide thumbs
Woah, I thought it was America with the obesity epidemic
I think you Europeans see all sorts of 8 inch long things from your refugees.
That’s because more than 90% of the world dosen’t need to know imperial since beside the US, only Myanmar and Liberia uses it
Even the UK, where the system comes from, is phasing it out for metric
The only reason Americans keep using imperial is because big businesses are unwilling to pay the price of conversion
Right, right. Now kneel before us and accept our aid, peasant.
the UK has a moronic system of mixing imperial and metric, distance is measured in miles, weight is in stone and lbs (but only for human beings, everything else is in kg), but anything technical is fully metric
The reason the U.S. still uses lbs is because people would think everything got 2.2 times as expensive if they priced it by kg.
You can see this in Canada, where they illegally advertise everything in really big letters using lbs, but then, in tiny tiny letters print the price per kg as required by law. It’s just because it looks cheaper.
Also seeing *no* price by kg or /100g sometimes.
And some things are missing the country origin.
Both illegal. They’re testing the water there to see if they’ll get prosecuted.
On some products like chinese garlic, indian pickles, norwegian salmon, and heinz ketchup, they have trouble selling them because of general awareness that it’s not a good idea.
>where they illegally advertise everything in really big letters using lbs
do they really?
I don’t know if it’s illegal, but yes they do. In some stores anyway. Also they will frick with you in the produce aisle by pricing one containerized product per pound, and another different-sized one by kilos, so you have to stand there doing math for twenty minutes to find out if the pint of raspberries is cheaper than the 454 g container. Which is why everyone just steals all their produce at the self-checkouts now
>That’s because more than 90% of the world dosen’t need to know imperial since beside the US
Do people in the US need to know metric? I learned some metric for some firearms related things and have found exactly 0 use for it otherwise.
US customary is amazing for flow rate related problems
that one square inch nozzle water flows through at one feet per second? how many teaspoons per second that is exactly is a trivial question
I didn't realize Liberia and Myanmar had their shit together.
yep, imperial is exceptionally rare outside the us
Canada and the UK still use imperial measurement, it’s a weird mix of both systems in both those countries. I work in construction in Canada and haven’t used or needed a metric tape on-site in over 20 years
True we have a hybrid system especially in the automotive industries or the sciences.
Really the only time we use imperial is for gps (miles and feet) or for carpenterty.
Metric is good for precision but getting a quick and accurate measurement is not what its good for at least compared to imperial.
And plumbing, machining, landscaping, height and weight, cooking, packaging of beverages and food, drug quantities...
i'm not either and i find imperial a pain the rare times i run into it
one thing which is so weird to me is the whole using multiple units to describe one measurement thing
Like in imperial you might do something like 4'8-3/16" or something with feet, inches, and fractions of an inch in one measurement, while i'd just say 1427mm, which is trivially also recognisable as 142.7cm, or 1.427m
I'm sure you're used to it, but i don't understand why people defend it
I know my dick is 6 inches and start from there
Inches are significantly more practical for the vast majority of shit people measure for
Sorry, europoor
I want my drywall measured in 1/100000 the distance from the north pole to Paris like god intended, thank you very much
>The thing I learned as a child is just more practical because I say so
Thanks, great insight anon. Now lets wait to hear from someone who learned metric as a child.
I learned metric as a child and can convert and use both interchangably
Metric has a place, i like it for measuring distance and for anything precise or scientific and for smaller measurements especially of mass
But anything 'human' like height and weight, a lot of cooking and building etc. is so much more sovl than muh 157cm tall 98kg
And base 12 is just more intuitive and practical for things like building because its simple to divide and describe the divisions
Same here but the other way around. Doesn't take a genius to intuitively convert to something I'd understand.
Immediately thought that 5'1" 200+ pound person you were describing was a fat fricker though.
I'm a yuropoor who learned inch standard in HS because that's what tango PCB defaulted too.
It literally doesn't matter. You have two types of people, those who can easily learn both and those who never produce anything useful and are irrelevant.
We Americans are taught both systems in school. Euros are taught one. I don’t know what you’re on about.
centimeters are significantly more practical for the vast majority of shit people measure for
Sorry, mutt
Yea right...60x60cm tile vs 24x24inch tile..
60x40x90cm cabinet vs 24x16x36 inch cabinet
In metric you have easily memorable round numbers, in imperial you have wacky digits that end in 2/4/6/8.
>in imperial you have wacky digits that end in 2/4/6/8.
...which are easily divisible multiple ways.
2.54 and a calculator, that's literally all you need
Americans seem to just want to be contrarians, that’s why they’re resisting the metric system.
Every time I go look up some crazy claim about the U.S. it turns out to be true: yesterday it was their “invade the hague” law.
It was said that the reason metric wasn’t fully adopted was the road signage would be too expensive to change—then that mars rover did a faceplant into the martian soil and that argument went out the window.
The Mars rover didn't crash because of le stupid Americans using metric
The factor of error for that wouldn't be 'whoops dang we missed by just a little bit
It would be 'we going to be stuck in an eccentric orbit fore er because we burned through all our fuel'
The spec already says only use metric anyway.
They fricked up and they blamed metric conversions to save face.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure
Oh no. Ot the heckin official report by the people that fricked up.
Think about orbital mechanics for a fricking second. If it's fricked up by a factor of 1.0001 okay, maybe you crash. If it's off by a factor of 25 or 250 or 2.4 you are not entering Mars orbit. They failed to do a correction burn 2 months earlier so they didn't enter orbit correctly.
>Ot the heckin official report by the people that fricked up.
Oh, yeah, you're right, some technical error definitely would have looked worse than "we didn't bother to check whether a mission-critical piece of software was putting out remotely sensible values for its calculations".
Yes because it's like this. It's always those heckin Americans insisting on imperial measurements. If only we had done the one thing all of NASA wouldn't have fricked up.
It's a "brown M&M" failure. The integration was sloppy and a brown M&M (poor unit conversion) got through. When you see a brown M&M in the bowl, you know there likely are other errors. Too bad in this case the evidence was destroyed.
>Americans seem to just want to be contrarians,
yeah sure, that's why britain drives on the wrong side of the road, and their airplane propellers turn backwards because, can't be seen following in line with the Americans.
Nah Canadians and British are the true contrarians. They exist to follow the US’s lead.. but act like they’re much different to nurture a feigned sense of superiority
>It was said that the reason metric wasn’t fully adopted was the road signage would be too expensive to change
Entire industries would have to COMPLETELY retool if we switched to metric at this point. It's probably never going to happen just for that fact alone. Large machine shops for example would be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions, to totally convert.
Same applies to your 110 volt electrical system. But thats a sunk cost fallacy. You increasingly fall behind the rest of the world due to your unwillingness to adapt and innovate. Even 230v is starting to look low what with electrifying everything from stoves to cars.
No, most north american houses have a 240 V feed, split into two 120 V circuits.
Dryers and stoves use the 240 V feed, as well as a car charging port if you get one installed.
Also superior 60 Hz vs. 50 Hz, however marginal that might be.
>Dryers and stoves use the 240 V feed, as well as a car charging port if you get one installed.
yeah and our cooking plate uses 2 of a 3 phase network which is around 400V
>Also superior 60 Hz vs. 50 Hz, however marginal that might be.
please elaborate. i don't have high hopes because i have the impression you don't really know what you're talking about
What the frick is a “cooking plate” — please post photo, the plug, and the electrical specs on the back of it near the plug.
Also, two phases does not double the voltage.
Aircraft use 400 Hz, because higher freq is better in some cases.
>Also, two phases does not double the voltage.
Depends on how it's wired. A 240V wye setup has 400V between two phases.
Which one produces 208V between all three legs?
None do. At least no standard voltages. The ones in the image are 400V and 240V between legs, respectively. 240V delta produces 208V between each leg and an opposing center tap. It's even highlighted in that image.
sqrt(3) times 220V, moron
someone clearly never had a course about power distribution
Not with respect to neutral.
But, between phases, I’d have to accept something like that.
you really needed wolfram for that? never heard of phasors? just calculate the length between two vectors of equal length with an 120° angle. this is something they teach kids in 8th grade
you already guessed it and the answer is length times sqrt(3)
> phasors
Yes, they are based on the rapid nadion effect. I usually set them to ‘stun’ for messing around the house.
My slide rule in a drawer and was too lazy to get it.
>please elaborate.
The higher the AC frequency, the more efficient simple transformers operate at a given size/weight. 50Hz vs. 60Hz isn't huge, but if you're talking about a national electric grid, things add up.
Split phase, more like shit phase. What are you gonna do if your appliance needs three-phase power?
There's no tangable benefit to 60Hz over 50 aside from being able to fabricate smaller transformers. European analogue TV format (PAL) suffered due to the lower rate but that isn't the case anymore with digital signal.
>But thats a sunk cost fallacy.
Sunk costs are past expenses. Costs to change to a different system are future expenses, and those are proper to include in a cost/benefit analysis.
>change to the base 10 system designed to be easy to use for literal fricking apes because peer pressure
No, frick off. People are stupid enough without simplifying things even further.
To frick yourself with your inhuman units.
Just stay down. Nothing happens without our blessing.
We allow you to exist.
We rule by stupidity. You will never understand.
Im going to take up Metric, so I can count on my fingers. My math skills are rather poor
take your 1m board and cut it into 3rds you esl homosexual
No one cut 1/3 of a meter, one cut 30cm.
Your cute is 3cm short. Try the cut again intern.
My saw blade is 1.5cm wide
13 inches.
I measure 333mm, if i want more precision, i measure 333.3mm, don't pretend like your units are divisible evenly by every number
the floorboard won't fit, shave 17 26ths of an inch off the side
yeah I've been using both for over 20 years now. 1/10 got me to reply.
Show me on the metric system where i can divide by 3 and 4 evenly
>Show me on the metric system where i can divide by 3
Okay who cares?
>and 4 evenly
Famously it is impossible to divide 10 by 4.
A 12 based system can be divided in 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 1/6.
10 based is 1/2 and 1/5.
Sad 10 based Eurogay
that's the thing, your shitty system is base free for all.
how many yards is a 12th of a mile
how many fractional inches is a 3th of an inch
how many fluid ounces is a 12th of a gallon
how many square feet is a 12th of an acre
how many grains are there in a 144th of a pound
i could go on but i think the pattern is clear
>3th of an inch
This might surprise you, as you clearly failed math in school, but all numbers are divisible by all others and also themselves. Well except zero.
Now show me on your gay European tape measure where you would mark exactly 1/3 of a centimeter.
Now show me on your gay American tape measure where you would mark exactly 1/3 of an inch.
>Now show me on your gay American tape measure where you would mark exactly 1/3 of an inch.
For most applications where a tape measure is accurate enough and depending on the tolerances you want, 5/16" and 11/32" are close enough, within a pencil's width of exact...if you need something more accurate you can go to 21/64" which is .328125".
What you ignore is that is that unlike their closest metric equivalents 1/3 of a yard is *exactly* one foot or 12 inches, and one third of a foot is *exactly* four inches.
It's not just about the math though; divisions of yards and feet correspond to typical measurements and material/ object sizes used in daily life far more readily because that's how they were developed.
Metric goes from mm to meter with only two divisions in between, centimeters and decimeters.
Even if you look at mm level accuracy, 32nds of an inch are smaller increments which allows for greater accuracy.
Centimeters and decimeters are both too small to make typical measuring and layout tasks easier and intuitive and there's no real point to using them...they just complicate things and with few exceptions everyone calls things out in mm when working in dimensions of a couple of meters or less.
If anyone used 32nds or 16ths of an inch as their primary method of calling out distances between 0 and one yard they would be righly seen as morons.
It wouldn't be any less accurate to say that a standard coffee table height is 544/32" but it would be dumb and needlessly complex.
You can pretend that measuring things in 1000ths or 100ths of a meter is vastly superior and intelligent, but it's just as dumb and needlessly complex.
yeah yeah i get it, 3mm bad and inaccurate and 5/16" is "close enough"
gotta love that consistency
don't really feel the need to adress the rest of your nonsense because it's not really worth replying to
>yeah yeah i get it, 3mm bad and inaccurate and 5/16" is "close enough"
>gotta love that consistency
Even if we pretend that 5/16" was the only answer given and not cherry picked due it being the least accurate approximation given, it's still only off by 6.25%...
while using 3mm as an approximation of 1/3 of a centimeter is a 10% error.
But its even worse for you because calling 11/32" 1/3 of an inch is only off by 3.12%...
and 21/64" or 0.328125" x 3 = 0.984375" which is an error of 1.56%, which is obviously a far smaller error than 10%.
So it is *consistently* easier and more accurate to divide an inch into thirds using common fractions marked on a tape measure.
(Coincidentally enough, if I'm forced to deal with mm I can just call 25 mm an inch and achieve the same degree f accuracy since 25 mm = 0.984252".)
Then there's the fact that 32nds and 64ths of an inch are smaller than a mm and still readable on a ruler (pic related)...
But below mm the metric increments jump to micrometers (microns) which can't be measured with the naked eye...even if there were a standard increment for 1/10 of a mm it would be unwieldy and impossible to use on any kind of ruler or tape measure without serious magnification.
So common fractions of an inch actually allow for objectively more precise real world measurement using a ruler or tape than a metric ruler that only goes down to mm.
Sorry.
You can get higher precision rulers if you need it, but every common one i've seen is just mm and 16ths inches, for which the mm is smaller
If you can actually think in 32nds you can think in 1/2mm. Anything below 16ths should just use thou or microns.
>Anything below 16ths should just use thou or microns.
Tell me you don't use actual measurements without saying "I don't use actual measurements "...
So if I need a hole or rod that's 11/32" in diameter I should call it out as 8,731.2754 microns or 343.75 thousandths?
Even if you "simplify" it by calling 11/32" 8.7312754 mm, how does "thinking in 1/2 mm" units help?
This implies that cutting a 1/2" hole is easier than cutting a 0.500000" hole. Just call it at 0.344" or 8.73mm unless you need more precision.
So I fricked up and that's on me. What I meant to say was "show me on your incredibly gay homoerotic buttfricking homosexual European tape measure where you would mark 1/3 of a meter." I will concede that was my bad and offer the closest thing to an apology warranted to the filthy euro trash that you obviously are.
But more to your point, if I needed to measure exactly 1/3 of an inch, I'd just use picrel. Fractions are very useful. Maybe you homosexual Europeans can find the time to learn how they work in between getting stabbed or run over by future doctors in front of your government buildings, or waiting for the police to ignore your daughters' screams while she's being gangraped by Pakistanis in a government-funded housing project.
> most important thing is how many divisors
Then you should be using base 840 or 1260, not 12.
i actually accept that, the problem though is that imperial isn't consistently base 12
like there's 12 inches in a foot, but not 12 feet to a yard, or 12 yards to a mile. you also don't divide inches like 1/12, either
it also doesn't help that the number system you use isn't base 12 itself, so you'd never get that nice 10, 100, 1000 thing metric enjoys
A yard is 3 feet, which is a division of a 12 base system.
So is the globe and the latitude and longitude system, divisible by 12 but not by ten.
When you start to do more than a linear or the amount in a cup, the metric system sucks balls.
Also, a 12 base
there are 1760 yards in a mile. 1760/12=?
an inch divided by 12 is what exactly?
>it also doesn't help that the number system you use isn't base 12 itself
glad he pointed it out so i don't have to
>there are 1760 yards in a mile. 1760/12=?
>an inch divided by 12 is what exactly?
You completely mischaracterize how imperial measurements are broken down into increments.
Both a mile and an inch can be divided by two into more precise increments, that in turn can be divided by two into even higher resolutions.
In the case of a mile this yields whole numbers of yards all the way down to 1/32 of a mile which is 55 yards.
Do that with a kilometer and you only get whole numbers until 1/8 of a km (125 meters); 1/16 of a km is 62.5 meters.
This is a natural and intuitive method of dividing distances that can be done with a string or sheet of paper; dividing by ten is not.
An inch isn't an inch because of being a 1/12 increment of a foot that is rigidly applied to all other measurements, a foot contains 12 inches because that number of inches is a convenient number to work with when you need that degree of resolution.
It's not difficult to understand and the math is maybe 4th grade level...only a moron *needs* everything divisible by ten to make measuring "easier".
The use of decimal fractions is separate from the metric vs. Imperial. It’s less separate from SI (Systèmmè Íntêrnàtionallé). I use 1/2 mm all the time, or the vulgar term ‘pussy hair’
t. just another fricking colony.
Wasn't really talking about decimal equivalents of fractions; the point is that for any system of measurement limiting unit divisions to tenths, hundredths, thousandths, etc. is less intuitive and useful for the vast majority of applications. Even where inches are divided into those increments for things like precision machining, all the larger fractional increments can be and are still used.
i think you fundamentally misunderstand what base 12 actually means. an actual base 12 would look like 0 1 2...9 A B 10. in metric you divide or multiply by 10 to get to the next unit, so a cm/10=mm, cm.10=dm, dm.10=m
one inch/12=frick you and a mile/12 in yards gets you the middle finger as well
there are 12 inches in 1 foot yes but that's where it ends. a pound/12? exactly. and guess how many pounds are in a stone, protip it's not 12
chains and furlongs are used in survoying and this is what happens when i look up the wikipedia page of the chain
>The chain (abbreviated ch) is a unit of length equal to 66 feet (22 yards), used in both the US customary and Imperial unit systems. It is subdivided into 100 links.[1][2] There are 10 chains in a furlong, and 80 chains in one statute mile.[2] In metric terms, it is 20.1168 m long.[2] By extension, chainage (running distance) is the distance along a curved or straight survey line from a fixed commencing point, as given by an odometer.
66 feet, 22 yards, 100 links, 10 chains in a furlong, 80 chains in one statue mile
sorry m8 but it's moronic
What if I don't want to walk to the north pole from Paris?
What if I want a reasonable length of chain to carry when I go surveying?
I never said anything about base 12 and explained that subdivisions of imperial measurements are based on fractions.
I also explained that a foot being twelve inches is *not* the result of base 12 but simply because a unit that size is a convenient resolution for common measuring tasks.
If anything is moronic, it's having no corresponding common unit of that size between 1 meter and 1 decimeter for no other reason than "muh divisible by ten".
So you end up with a unit roughly the size of a sugar cube, one roughly the size of a pack of cigarettes, and then something a bit longer than a yard.
>A 12 based system can be divided in 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 1/6.
>A 12 based system
>12 based
learn how to follow a reply chain
Those posts are by two different anons, moron.
>learn how to follow a reply chain
LOFL, you first.
Why are you doing all that dumb shit.
How much pressure is a yard of water?
36 inches.
See? all the answers are frick you.
i thought it would be funny to make our friends from across the atlantic do some digging about certain constants and why they are that way but i suppose it's easier to avoid the question by nitpicking and calling me an ESL idiot
don't get me wrong i am an ESL idiot but that's not an argument
>constants
conversion factors. yes the esl is strong with this one
Boy if only metric had some way to increase the precision of the numbers I'm working on.
Oh well, I just have to guess what 1/4 of a metre is I suppose.
I have SAE and metric tool sets.
I know a yard is close to a meter
a quart is close to a liter
a kilometer is only 5/8ths of a mile
my 350 small block is 5.7L
it takes over two and one-half centimeters to equal only one inch
Uropoors a jealous because they only have one system while we have the freedom to choose.
When you start flying you get even more fun units like knots.
At least we got a new sticky.
Idk the math is just easier with fractions for some reason.
>using a system that can't do thirds without some ugly decimal
Nah.
>Better start learn something
You should "start learn" how to properly form a complete sentence.
Then teach me, homosexual
Do it yourself.
>countries that rely on mm all over the world are occupied by a country that can switch between the two
Code talker logic to scale.
Why??
>capitalizing mm
>using centi- and deci-
No.
>europeans this
>europeans that
are americans unaware that it's not only europeans that use metric but pretty much the rest of the world as well?
No, only places that are materially significant and have a future use metric.
the rest of the world isn't white, though
Suck my 5 and 51/64 inch dick. (147.24mm)
Easy way to remember metric length for yanks and liberians. You can say to yourself “my dick is 1 dm long” and the ‘d’ is for ‘dick’.
I'm getting tired of measuring gunpowder in grains and silver/gold in troy ounces. Why can't I just use grams for both?
You can. You just don't have the authority to require others to do too.
silver and gold being in troy has nothing to do with Americans though
no but it's yet another example of medieval bullshit. how many ounces are there in a troy ounce and why are they different?
apparently a troy ounce is heavier than a regular ounce and a troy pound is lighter than a regular pound.
Because thousands of years of men wiser established it before you even showed up.
I'm American and I never really learned to use the imperial system because it was taught at the same time as metric at my school and it seemed easier so I've just went with that. Why not use something that's more precise and already based on on the base ten number system that everyone uses.
>Why not use something that's more precise
But it's not "more precise" for visual measurements using a rule; 1/32" is smaller than the smallest metric increment that is found on rulers (mm), and 1/64" is less than half a millimeter and still visible/useful.
I am going to defend some of SAE.
tools, inches, base 12. I hate it. metric is supreme.
but for temp, distance, pressure. American is superior
who gives a frick when water freezes.
Fahrenheit, 0 is fricking cold, and 100 is fricking hot. very fricking simple. Celsius belongs in a lab, and not to be used for weather.
same for miles, 0 miles well, slow (same in k) but 100 miles per hour is fricking fast. 100kph is like 65? yawn.
also having a vehicle exceed 100k miles without issues is a golden standard. whats that in ks? 160 and change. frick off
pressure. yeah i like larger numbers better. so why the frick do you use bars? like my tire say to inflate to 4.4 bars. what the frick is that? 65 psi makes more sense. again. car tires, low psi scale, small tires. truck tire inflate to 100+ psi. very simply range human use range. 0-100 (hey, whats almost like... metric and shit)
i'll give it a coin toss between using pounds or kilos for weighing stuff. half the metric world still uses lb for body weight.
height too. whatever. we use both.
>who gives a frick when water freezes.
i and a lot of other people do. below zero means snow and ice and above zero means no snow and ice, it's quite convenient actually
>Fahrenheit, 0 is fricking cold, and 100 is fricking hot. very fricking simple.
now ask someone from alaska and new mexico what they consider to be very hot and very cold, it's highly subjective and therefore a poor argument
>same for miles, 0 miles well, slow (same in k) but 100 miles per hour is fricking fast. 100kph is like 65? yawn.
"yawn" and "very fricking fast", kek. you are really bringing up very solid arguments here. i'm not a fan of kmh either btw, i prefer m/s. an object that experiences 1N of drag travelling at 1m/s requires 1W of power and after 1 second has consumed 1J of energy. when you start using minutes and hours things quickly become messy
>also having a vehicle exceed 100k miles without issues is a golden standard. whats that in ks? 160 and change. frick off
the golden standard is actually around 200k kilometers. what's that in miles? 125 and change, frick off
>pressure. yeah i like larger numbers better. so why the frick do you use bars?
because it's roughly equal to atmospheric pressure, and if you really like bigger numbers you can always use pascal, hectopascal, or kilopascal. a bar by definition is 100 kilopascal so converting between the two is kind of trivial. 10m of water is also roughly equal to atmospheric pressure which makes it convenient to quickly guestimate hydrostatic pressure but that's because g happens to be fairly close to 10 and is mostly a coincidence. didn't you follow the submarine fiasco? at a depth of 4km the pressure is around 400 bar
>half the metric world still uses lb for body weight
you actually believe that? go to PrepHole and ask a random russian or german if he uses pounds instead of kg for his body weight in daily life
i want to elaborate a bit on hydrostatic preasure. if you imagine a box that is one square meter in surface area and 10m in height, fill it with water, it weights 10000kg. if you pretend that g=10 instead of 9,81 that box exerts a force of 100kN on a surface area of 1m^2, which is 100kPa or 1 bar. if it's sea water with a density of 1,02 it really is very close to 100kN (100,062 kN). isn't that convenient and trivial to derive?
now, let's do things with square feet and yards to quickly calculate how much psi a yard of water colum actually is
Probably 36 inches of pressure
so how many psi is that? i tried to demonstrate the ease of volumes where a liter is a cubic dm and water has a density of one and how calculating weights and pressure is quite convenient. i'm just going to ask the same question but replace the units with the burger equivalent
>imagine a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get, how heavy is it and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
how many psi's was the titan exposed to when it imploded and how do you arrive at that number
a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get
This is a silly setup, but OK. Assuming a square base, the box's dimensions are 1/(60+3602^.5) feet square by 30 feet tall. The volume is 3.6 cubic inches, which is .0156 gallons.
>how heavy is it
Insufficient information. Specify the temperature of the water and the local gravity. Both vary enough on Earth's surface to change measurements.
>and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
Same as above.
Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain? With the water at 25C, located in Helsinki (local gravitational acceleration of 9.825m/s^2), how heavy is that water, and what is the pressure in pascals at the bottom?
If I had to hazard a guess, when the sub IQ euroid said 1 sq ft surface area, he meant the bottom of the box. But because he thinks in some sort of fantasy language with poorly developed grammar and little to no emotion, he couldn't convey it properly
Or he's just a barely functional moron
>when the sub IQ euroid said 1 sq ft surface area, he meant the bottom of the box
Of course. But it's a convenient setup to demonstrate how the powers-of-ten scaling in Metric doesn't necessarily translate to having nice numbers to work with in real applications, and how actual design math is way more complex than unit conversions. Water not actually being 1g/cm^3 most of the time and the variability of local gravity are also convenient issues raised by the choice of problem.
I actually prefer my answer of inches of water. It seems more obvious this is an approximation only suitable for whatever the intended use of this water column machine is if its properly designed
>Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain?
you get 10 m^3 and there are 1000 liters in a cubic meter, so the answer is 10000 liters, i can even go further than 4 significant numbers, the answer is 10000,0000000 liters. to get the weight in kg you multiply by the density of water, where 1 kg/l is usually more than sufficient unless you want to be anal. i used the word "quickly guestimate" for a reason. if g being 9,81 instead of 10 was the reason your submarine imploded you fricked up spectacularly. rounding g to 10 is a practice i regularly encounter.
>akhtually the density of water is 0,998 at room temperature you dumb euro, metric btfo
>your 10m of water being a bar is actually only 0,98 bar, aren't you stupid?
as for your math, i think a box of one square foot by 10 yards is a bit more than 3.6 cubic inches, but assuming that number is correct
>The volume is 3.6 cubic inches, which is .0156 gallons
how do you know?
they are pretty much the first exercises you encounter in your first course about fluid dynamics but it appears that you are not limited in your ways by higher education
>you get 10 m^3
Incorrect. A box 1mx1mx10m has a surface area of 42 square meters, not 1. Try again.
>1 kg/l is usually more than sufficient
It is not sufficient in this case, because the answer is to be given to four significant figures, and 1kg/l is not a close enough approximation for that. Try again.
>i used the word "quickly guestimate" for a reason.
Because you don't know how to precisely calculate or why people would be interested in that?
>rounding g to 10 is a practice i regularly encounter.
I would hope not when a calculation is to be done to four significant figures.
the density of water is 0,998 at room temperature
At 25C it's 0.9970 kg/l (to four significant figures)
>>your 10m of water being a bar is actually only 0,98 bar, aren't you stupid?
When the answer is to be given to four significant figures, that's a problem.
>a box of one square foot by 10 yards
that's not what you said earlier. What you said was
a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height
That is, the box is ten yards tall, and the entire box has a surface area of one square foot. Such a box has dimensions 1/(60+3602^.5) feet square (which is not the same thing as "square feet") by 30 feet tall. Approximately, this is 0.008332 feet by 0.008332 feet by exactly 30 feet, resulting in a volume of approximately 0.002083 cubic feet. Since one cubic foot equals 1728 (12^3) cubic inches, this is equivalent to 3.599 cubic inches. Since a gallon contains 231 cubic inches, this is also equivalent to 0.1558 gallons.
>how do you know?
Apply math to what was actually said. Now you try.
>>Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain?
>Incorrect. A box 1mx1mx10m has a surface area of 42 square meters, not 1. Try again.
chatgpt post
a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get
What, you think that only AIs can use correct grammar?
>but that dosen’t mean we don’t use cups
Do you use MEASURING cups? As in the volumetric measuring tools commonly found in US kitchens?
>>you get 10 m^3
>Incorrect. A box 1mx1mx10m has a surface area of 42 square meters, not 1. Try again.
are you unironically moronic? that you even managed to solve the captcha
He's right, as pointed out earlier both versions of this problem posted here describe the "surface area" of the hypothetical shape as "one square foot" or "one square meter" by a certain height.
The dimension of the base of such a column is NOT its "surface area", its only the surface area of one side, aka its cross sectional area.
Dumb mistake made by preening morons.
The 3-d shape being described is a hexahedron, which by definition = six sides.
10M H x 1M W = 10 sq M x 4 long sides = 40 sq M
1M x 1M = 1 sq M x 2 ends = 2 sq M
40 + 2 = 42, same as your IQ.
>A box 1mx1mx10m
has the unit of m^3, not m^2. and since this thread has reached this much of a low point, i feel the need to clarify m^3 is a unit of volume.
holy frick i am really trying not to call you a lot of mean things but you are making it increasingly difficult
also, answer the question
I thought it would've been a clever gotchya. I was very disappointed when I reread his question and it didn't mention surface area
just googled "water density" because of too much free time and this is literally the first website and the first text that shows up
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/water-density
>The density of water is roughly 1 gram per milliliter but, this changes with temperature or if there are substances dissolved in it. Ice is less dense than liquid water which is why your ice cubes float in your glass. As you might expect, water density is an important water measurement.
why is a website named usgs.gov using gram/ml for water density and why are they using the number 1?
they also use pounds/gallon further down when the writer looked up the density of water (he actually needed to look it up as it's not a number extremely close to 1) but the table right below it uses pounds/ft^3
really makes you think doesn't it
anyway you now know certain values for your calculations because i looked it up for you. 62 pounds/ft^3 is good enough for me
>why is a website named usgs.gov using gram/ml for water density
Because the US government has been trying to get people in the US to switch from US Customary to Metric units for nearly fifty years.
>and why are they using the number 1?
Because Metric is usually sold as simplifying things. And since water's density is usually close to 1g/mL, that looks simpler. However, Metric is not actually precisely fit to those things which look at first glance to be simple, and so there is no simplification in technical matters. Substitution of one constant for another is not much difference regardless, but the point there is to make a political case, not to examine the actual merits of the system.
Answer to 4 significant figures, btw.
To elaborate. The answer is frick you. It's 36" of water head. That is the easiest way to express it.
Yes it's also 1.35 psi but 36" is what you should write down because that's what you're measuring.
>imagine a box with a surface area that is one square feet and 10 yards in height, fill it with water, then how many gallons do you get, how heavy is it and what is the pressure in psi on the bottom surface
a week later and no one has given an actual reply with an exercise i gave an example of that i could solve in my head within 10 seconds and explicitely wrote out my thinking
lol. lmao even
it should be self explanatory for those who can read between the lines but for those who can't; an inch is as good as a cm for measuring things but when multiple units come together US customary/imperial really becomes "challenging"
>for those who can read between the lines
Tell me that you are a fricking moron when it comes to math without saying "I'm a moron when it comes to math".
The question was answered enough to point out that you don't know the difference between "surface area" of a three dimensional shape and the area of its minimal cross section.
>The question was answered enough to point out that you don't know the difference between "surface area" of a three dimensional shape and the area of its minimal cross
section.
>Now for your turn. Imagine a square-bottomed box with a surface area that is one square meter and a height of ten meters. Fill it with water. How many liters does the box contain?
>liters
i honestly don't get how you managed to convince yourself the question was about surface area when it was about how many liters the box contains but i do find the irony of you calling others stupid quite entertaining. do continue
American here- I've been using metric for a few years now. I feel comfortable with both systems. I can't get my wife to use Celsius, but everything else has been a success
Farenhite is great for high temperatures that will kill you but it's pants on head for things like the weather.. i mean is it frozen outside or not
>but it's pants on head for things like the weather.
it makes more sense specifically for weather though?
No
>bro it's so hot outside it's like 38 degrees
doesn't sound as good as
>bro it's so hot outside it's like 100 degrees
celsius is a superior scale for anything scientific, but shit for day to day life.
>celsius is a superior scale for anything scientific
You misspelled Kelvin.
no
the weather temperature range for Celsius is from 0 to +/- 40
0 freezing
10 cold
20 pleasant
30 hot
40 stay hydrated and in shadow, people start dying above that
In the negatives it's just cold, snow, ice, all along the range.
https://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Metrication/metric_land.htm
https://archived.moe/diy/thread/2495919/
The pint is a French measurement originally and it dosen’t mean the same in every country
Yes we have the metric system, but that dosen’t mean we don’t use cups, handfuls and other imprecise measurements in the day-to-day
Canadan here, we use both interchangeably. I prefer Fahrenheit for working on shit (I work hvac, easier pressure/temp concersions), celcius for daily shit, and I've used inches and CM long enough that it really doesn't matter which one I'm given I can do a bullshit conversion in my head and only be off around 5-10%
That being said if the states finally got with the program and switched to the metric system I wouldn't be upset about not using imperial anymore. Converting between inches, feet, yards and miles is a frick ton less convenient than centimeters, meters, kilometers, etc.
Phillips screws can suck my wiener though, Robertson is better in literally every single way and the states is moronic for sticking with their shitty brittle star bits.
> Robertson is better in literally every single way
Americans call them “square drive” and refuse to acknowledge their superiority for some reason. Maybe they really like picking up screws after they fall off the bit all day long
>Americans call them “square drive” and refuse to acknowledge their superiority for some reason. Maybe they really like picking up screws after they fall off the bit all day long
It's a ploy by big screwdriver to opress the humble tradesman, I've seen more stripped phillips screwdrivers than good ones working with other techs.
>Maybe they really like picking up screws after they fall off the bit all day long
Laughs in torx and magnetic bit holder
>I've seen more stripped phillips screwdrivers than good ones working with other techs.
All I've ever seen on high end equipment is hex and torx, and my foundry is relatively old. Sucks to be you, I guess.
Why don't euros use a ten hour clock?
I unironically think yuros using metric makes them fundamentally less creative. Sometimes people have a hard time dividing into equal parts, but I can do it quite easily because of being a carpenter who uses imperial
t. canadian
6 minutes into the video, they have measured everything in pounds and ounces (decimal ounces), but apparently additions and substractions were too difficult so they converted everything to grams and converted the answer back
if simple additions and substractions is something people struggle with even with the system they grew up in it's a shitty system
Metric is great and all but I just like the size of an inch more than a centimeter. Centimeters always end up being shorter than what I imagined in my head but I can easily eyeball if something is about an inch long.
t. Yuropoor
Lol Europe had to make a steel beam standard based on American dimensions because they couldn't hack it alone at first. It's ok little bro we'll keep supporting you technologically while you go to the Library of Alexandria to commentate on your favorite poet critics.
Europoors forgot they came late to industrialization
Americans have to use both system since the rest of the world forces metric stuff upon them.
Meanwhile the rest of the world can largely ignore inches, especially since the US isn't really producing any meaningful physical goods for exports, and even the ones which they do produce, foreign customers force them into metric specifications quite often.
The system that emerged organically from real-world use is bound to be better than the system designed by academics and imposed by governing bodies. Do not trust your left hemisphere. He is naively too confident in his own ability. He loves his own intellect. Use his power, but do not let him guide you.
The metric system exists because feudal lords who had fixed taxes they were supposed to be collecting would redefine units from place to place and item to item as a way of collecting more taxes than they were intended to.
You make a convincing argument
Colorado?
I think so. The Google tag line when I searched for guillotine said it was the only one in The US
>muh straight lines
Are you a man, or a machine?
Careful, I’ll make the imperial system go away overnight by declaring it anti-semetic.
t. influencer
Actually the imposition of rigid base-10 number systems is inherently white and colonialist and bigoted against LGBTQIA+ folk.
Anti-semitism is popular these days besides. israelites are literally nazis.
When building materials went metric, everything got just a little bit thinner in the “conversion” … strange how nothing was rounded up to the nearest mm dimension, everything was rounded down. Plywood, lumber, screws and nails — everything. It reminds me of the 1278 coin clipping scheme, except on a much wider scale.
The base unit of mass in the SI system is the kilogram instead of the gram.
As someone who uses inch and metric daily for work, inch makes more sense when you are doing close(tolerance) work. .0005'' vs .013mm the former being a bit easier to work with.
Anyone who cant use both interchangeable is probably moronic
measuring in 1/16s is the way
yeah base 12 is the way we do things
The commie teachers just do a shit job teaching
i really like how it's all halves and quarters and then you get to teaspoons and then suddenly it isn't
Y x 25.4= inch to mm
Y/25.4 =mm to inch.
Its not that hard. Its gauging distance in your head thats the issue. Not designing shit. we already use mm for automotive or machine shit all the time. Its the speeds amd distanve thats fricking gay.
On foot, measuring things in km is useful. But driving around mph and gauging distance in miles is easier. Because its what people are used to. Commie units are only good in the scientific community.
Otherwise imperial is superior for every day shit.
Furlongs and farthings per fortnight are preferred. As well as the cubit.
I prefer to weigh your mom in stone as well. Because she fits rite in with my heifer stock.