Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!onodera-news!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!out.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn From: Brett Robson Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Metric system in crisis Date: 10 Jun 2003 21:36:16 -0700 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <3EE60448.1DC66970@po.cwru.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-916.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Direct Read News 4.20 Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:915 On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:16:08 +0900, Curt ... > > > >Brett Robson wrote: > >> > >> >The last I heard, the Avoirdupois pound was defined as being the weight of >> >27.7015 cubic inches of distilled water at 62 degrees F with the barometer >> >being at 30 inches. >> >> 1. avoirdupois pound is not an imperial pound > >You're right here. Congratulations. Don't let it go to your head >though.... > >> 2. your definition is pound-force not pound > >A pound force is a pound. ... when gravity equals exactly 1. Gravity is not constant in the universe or even on the surface of the earth. > >> 3. your definition is /less/ accurate than using a standard object >> (perhaps this would be an interesting homework project for you. Discuss a >> practical way of maintaining as constant the 3 variables, volume, temp, and >> atmospheric >> pressure. Be sure to mention the effect of measurement on values) > >Umm, why couldn't you use any number of commercially available devices >to maintain the desired temperature, volume, and pressure? Firstly water is notoriously difficult to keep at a constant temp. Secondly these 3 factors are all related to each other. Increase one and you have to decrease the other two. > >>3. how can a measurement system define something without any outside references? > >I don't know. You tell me. If you could include why it is relevant to >this discussion, that would be good too. Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Kevin's definition uses 3 measurements which are defined elsewhere. This is not as much a definition as a conversion between units. > >>if you don't understand any of the above please refer to an introductory physics >> text. > >Could you let me know which introductory physics text you referenced >before writing your post? > I didn't. As phyics is all about measurement of the physically world then if your introductory physics book did not include an extensive section on units of measurement then I suggest you get a new book. --- "he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003