Just sitting here under a weather system the size of Texas. The Hurricane that caused 2.5 million Floridians to evacuate has settled down a bit – with wind speeds of about 50 mph. Unfortunately, its center is about to move out into the Gulf before coming back over land – meaning that it could become a hurricane again. I hope my roof doesn’t get blown off.

When I heard the weather report, I suddenly remembered that certain metric users claim that customary units are confusing. They would have no idea what to make of such a weather report. But not to worry, I am handy at translating into metric-speak. The tropical storm currently has wind speeds of about 22.22 m/s.

re (Niles): "The tropical storm currently has wind speeds of about 22.22 m/s".

REPLY: I make it 22.35 metres/second, correct to two decimal places. Or 73.32 feet per second

So by the same logic, I could translate a report describing winds of about 80km/h to imperial as 24.303 yards per second.

re (Andy): "So by the same logic, I could translate a report describing winds of about 80km/h to imperial as 24.303 yards per second".

REPLY: Well, I make it 24.302 yards per second, but what's one thousandth of a yard between posters on the BWMA Bulletin Boards? But I think we'd prefer: '24 yards and 11 inches per second' or: '72 feet and 11 inches per second' or even: '73 feet per second'. Or even: '50 miles per hour'

Just because metric is used for science doesn't mean in everyday conversation people talk like scientists.

Using lies and myths to back up your argument doesn't do much for your credibility

Heh!

This appears to be an S.I. versus metric debate!

Well, we lost power, but now its back. Frances is about 115 mi. southeast of Apalachicola, Florida, moving at about 10 mph. So it should reach my region of the state in 11 and 1/2 hours. This is one slow-moving storm system.

Oh, sorry metric people, that’s 185.074 56 km SE and it’s moving at a speed of about 4.470 4 m/s. It will be here in about 41 400 s.

* * *
Andy, use your head. The hour is not a metric unit (any more than a length of 60 meters would be a metric unit). The second is. However, the hour is a very customary unit, hence, we can use it without compromising the ‘purity’ of our measurement system. Do not claim to have an understanding of logic unless you actually identify the relevant premises or you’ll embarrass yourself – wait, too late. The point of my post was to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. It seems you like kilometers; that’s fine, it’s metric. If you like, the wind speed is 0.022352 km/s.

Do not call people liars simply because they disagree with you – it is extremely bad form and reflects a sophistication of argument on a par with that of the basest of politicians.

Sapere aude.

* * *
Alright, Tony, you got me. I used 1600 m/mi. instead of 1609.344 m/mi.

* * *
Well, Steve, it does appear to be that. The second is an SI unit. Metric units are multiples or divisions of 10 of SI units, unless I am mistaken. Therefore the hour cannot be a metric unit.

I was under the impression that all meteorological data collected in the US is in metric and has to be translated into medieval units for Americans to understand. So where does that leave your mangled metric numbers Niles?

Niles wrote

<<
Therefore the hour cannot be a metric unit.
>>

The current definition of "The Metric System" is "The International System of Units (SI)". The definition is maintained by "Bureau International des Poids et Mesures", an international body that was set up under the Convention of the Metre in 1875. Its headquarters are on international territory close to Paris and its current director is British.

Within the defintion of SI, the "hour" is accepted as a "Non-SI unit accepted for use within the International Syatem". For more information, please visit www.bipm.org.

The BIPM knows that the hour is currently used alongside the second in all metric countries, and they have no hopes of changing this, so they are forced to save face and "accept" it for use "with" the International System.

...bit like the "nautical mile" I guess!!!

<<medieval units>>

Lack of knowledge shines through once again.

Bud wrote

<<
The BIPM knows that the hour is currently used alongside the second in all metric countries, and they have no hopes of changing this, so they are forced to save face and "accept" it for use "with" the International System.
>>

The BIPM lives in the real world - they are paid for by tax-payers money and the head of the BIPM has diplomatic status. All right, they recognise that the hour is used in almost all countries, but the huor has the same definition in all countries - 3600 seconds.

BTW Bud, have you actually looked at the formal SI booklet (on the BIPM site).

<<The BIPM lives in the real world - they are paid for by tax-payers money and the head of the BIPM has diplomatic status. All right, they recognise that the hour is used in almost all countries, but the huor has the same definition in all countries - 3600 seconds.>>

1. Which tax payers?
2. Go to any country and ask what an hour is. I'll give you 100 GBP if you get anyone to say 3600 seconds rather than 60 minutes. Try and get yourself out of the rule book, mate.

>>>
Try to get yourself out of the rulebook, mate
<<<

LOL. So many people in this debate, altho' mostly on the metric side, seem to have their heads buried in the rulebook. They've no concept of reality at all.


And yes, the hour and minute etc are only accepted because they have been unable to abolish them. Same thing with the nautical mile, except with that they "metricated" it (altho' not really) just so as to make it seem acceptable and international. The fact remains that metric is supposed to use the centesimal scale and decimal time also. Unfortunately for the metricminds time and angular measurement were not able to be changed, hence a conceptually inferior metric system to-day for it. Woe-betide. Once they accept that the semi-sexagesimal system is okay, they must surely accept that using feet, inches and pounds too is acceptable.

SteveH wrote

<<
1. Which tax payers?
>>

The BIPM budget is of the order of EUR 10,000,000 per annum. This is paid by the member states. I am not too sure what portion is paid by the UK, but I suspect that it follows a similar formula to the one used ot fund the United nations. Thus, to answer your question, the BIPM is funded by the taxpayers of most of the developed nations of the world.

Some of my income goes to supporting a system of measurement that I tend to choose not to use in my private life?

How does the saying go "no taxation without representation"?

Jeesh - how much does it cost to keep something that shouldn't change functioning? Do they pay people to look at the prototype kilogramme to make sure its okay or something? Do they pay people to go round saying "metre" at every oportunity?

Sound statist nonsense to me!

Bryan - maybe that "rulebook" jibe is more pertinent than we think! Remember the little red book in china?

SteveH wrote

<<
Jeesh - how much does it cost to keep something that shouldn't change functioning? Do they pay people to look at the prototype kilogramme to make sure its okay or something? Do they pay people to go round saying "metre" at every oportunity?
>>

Maybe you should spend a bit of time looking at their website. They do a lot more than just look after the prototype meter. Among their higher profil activites is co-ordinatign the various atomic clocks around the world. One practical spin-off from the atomic clocks is GPS.

If we assume that the UK pays 10% of the BIPM budget, it will work out at 1.5p per taxpayer per annum. Are you really getting that hit up about 1.5p/annum?

"How does the saying go "no taxation without representation"?"


Quite. I feel exactly the same when I see imperial road signs which I did not choose to have yet I am required to pay for.

And when the 'direct action' wallys (like of Mr B.) deem metric signs to be 'illegal' and physically remove them, the council tax taxpayers of the area concerned are forced without prior consent, to meet the cost of proscecuting the culprits and the subsequent relocation of the signs.

I could name some other more useful things that I'd prefer to spend my 1.5p /pa on!

<<<Quite. I feel exactly the same when I see imperial road signs which I did not choose to have yet I am required to pay for.>>>

They were there before you were born. They adopted you, not the other way around. Why would you have problems in paying for something you haven't not got - you've got the argument upside down again!!

<<And when the 'direct action' wallys (like of Mr B.) deem metric signs to be 'illegal' and physically remove them, the council tax taxpayers of the area concerned are forced without prior consent, to meet the cost of proscecuting the culprits and the subsequent relocation of the signs. >>

Or more accurately, you are bothered about Mr B being correct and seeing the "little man" win.

Remember that video "Another brick in the wall"?
You'd side with the hammers!

Martin, to answer your question, yes I have looked at the official SI literature. My only comment is that it seems much more rigid than necessary to accomplish its purpose, but they have been quite flexible with permitting supplementary units that are used in specialised fields.