3 ms·
That seems exceedingly unlikely. No-one in Europe would even consider using anything other than metric units even for buying their groceries, let alone a critic
by 3chelon 10y ago
That seems exceedingly unlikely. No-one in Europe would even consider using anything other than metric units even for buying their groceries, let alone a critical engineering task.
That said, _if_ there were any US companies involved then perhaps there might have been complications. Many years ago I worked on guidance software for tunnelling machines and we had a US client who insisted that we reprogrammed the entire system for them to work in "centifeet", i.e. 100th of a foot or approx 3mm.
I well remember the chaos and arguments caused by adopting such a ridiculous chimera of a unit, and was struck by how resistant some people are to adopting something as universal and transferrable as SI units.
- PLenz 10y ago10ths (and hundredths of an inch) are completely standard in US surveying. For example: https://www.amazon.com/Lufkin-FE200D-Engineers-Fiberglass-Measure/dp/B001R1UFP6/ https://www.amazon.com/Lufkin-FE200D-Engineers-Fiberglass-Me...
- 3chelon 10y agoInteresting to know - 100th of an inch is extremely small - certainly not visible with my eyesight! Seems odd to need that for surveying.
- sethrin 10y agoThere are actually a fair few problems with SI units. The candela is fairly ridiculous, the kilogram needs to not depend on a physical object (it's also a little silly to have a prefixed base unit). The ampere is not practical to measure with its current definition, and apparently with the current definitions of Hz and radians, 1 Hz = 1/s = 1 radians/second. Other people take issue with the mole, as well. SI is an improvement but it is not quite perfect. As long as we have a choice of imperfect systems, we have to pick which is most convenient.
- 3chelon 10y ago> it's also a little silly to have a prefixed base unit I somewhat agree with that - I had the exact same conversation with my kids very recently. Re. physical object: well, whatever physical reference artefact is used, to all intents and purposes the physical stuff is water, with the basically sensible equivalence 1L = 1kg = 1000cc. As you point out, it's not perfect because of the somewhat arbitrary scales (kg, cc), and it gets worse when you bring temperature into it (I believe it's supposed to be measured at 4 degrees C, but I'm not totally sure of that). You're right in that it is not perfect, but at least it is a fair attempt at coherence.
- tremon 10y agoI believe it's supposed to be measured at 4 degrees C Correct; it's because at that temperature water is at its densest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#States
- auxbuss 10y agore: the kilogram issue: Redefining the Kilogram with the DIY Watt Balance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQkE8t0xgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQkE8t0xgQ