 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.03.2018 um 03:48 schrieb Alain:
> The formula use meter, a meter = about 39 inches, or 3 feet and 3 inches
> (3.25 feet in 1 m).
> There are 10.5625 square feet in a square meter.
Sorry to be blunt, but with that many decimals, that number is a lie, as
it implies a precision it doesn't have.
As a rule of thumb, whenever you're doing mathematical computations with
approximate values, it is good practice to round the end result to the
lowest number of significant digits of any of the "input" values.
Also, since the UK imperial and US customary units are defined in terms
of the metric system (yes, you UK folks have been using the metric
system ever since 1930, and you US folks even since 1893(*); it's just
been hidden from you :P), that's what I'd recommend to start with:
(A) from the 1930 BSI (UK) / 1933 ASA (US) definition:
1 inch = 25.4 mm = 0.0254 m
1 foot = 12 inch = 0.3048 m
(B) from the 1959 International Yard and Pound Agreement:
1 yard = 0.9144 m
1 foot = 1/3 yard = 0.3048 m
Either way:
1 square foot = 0.09290303 m^2
1/0.09290303 square feet = 1 m^2
These numbers are exact, by virtue of definition of the UK imperial and
US customary units. Alternatively, here's a high-precision approximation:
10,7639104167097223083335055559 square feet = 1 m^2
(* The 1893 Mendenhall Order (US) definition had 1 yard = 3600/3937 m,
which gives slightly different results, and has remained the basis for
the survey foot.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/03/2018 11:44, clipka wrote:
> Sorry to be blunt, but with that many decimals, that number is a lie, as
> it implies a precision it doesn't have.
>
You are right of course, if bluntly put.
> As a rule of thumb, whenever you're doing mathematical computations with
> approximate values, it is good practice to round the end result to the
> lowest number of significant digits of any of the "input" values.
>
> Also, since the UK imperial and US customary units are defined in terms
> of the metric system (yes, you UK folks have been using the metric
> system ever since 1930, and you US folks even since 1893(*); it's just
> been hidden from you :P), that's what I'd recommend to start with:
Now, I would be surprised if people in the UK did not know that. I guess
I was about 15 or 16 when I was taught it at school.
But as a rule of thumb that an inch is about the length of your thumb's
distal phalanx. Is good enough for children as they more resemble the
size of an adult of bygone years.
BTW has anyone heard or seen a ruler where feet are divided into tenths?
Giving the impression that there are 10 "X inches" to a foot.
I saw one once about 30 years ago.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> BTW has anyone heard or seen a ruler where feet are divided into tenths?
> Giving the impression that there are 10 "X inches" to a foot.
> I saw one once about 30 years ago.
>
>
Not feet into tenth, but with inches divided into 1/5, 1/10, 1/3, 1/6,
1/9 and 1/12.
I've seen one with foot divided into 1/3 and 1/4.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/03/2018 21:00, Alain wrote:
>
>> BTW has anyone heard or seen a ruler where feet are divided into tenths?
>> Giving the impression that there are 10 "X inches" to a foot.
>> I saw one once about 30 years ago.
>>
>>
>
> Not feet into tenth, but with inches divided into 1/5, 1/10, 1/3, 1/6,
> 1/9 and 1/12.
> I've seen one with foot divided into 1/3 and 1/4.
I think it might be industry specific rule.
About 30 years ago. My boss, offshore, took some measurements in the
toolpusher's office using a rule he found there. After getting whatever
it was made. It did not fit. He got a bit of a slagging for it. As you
would. ;-)
He went back up to check only to find that there was 10 "inches" to the
foot.
Drillers use some strange terms. The anchor chain tension is measured in
Kilo-pound-inches. I had never heard of that measurement before I had to
calibrate the load sensors.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/7/2018 7:21 AM, Stephen wrote:
> Now, I would be surprised if people in the UK did not know that. I guess
> I was about 15 or 16 when I was taught it at school.
> But as a rule of thumb that an inch is about the length of your thumb's
> distal phalanx. Is good enough for children as they more resemble the
> size of an adult of bygone years.
>
> BTW has anyone heard or seen a ruler where feet are divided into tenths?
> Giving the impression that there are 10 "X inches" to a foot.
> I saw one once about 30 years ago.
>
>
I have a triangular drafting ruler that is like that.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-3-2018 22:44, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/03/2018 21:00, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> BTW has anyone heard or seen a ruler where feet are divided into tenths?
>>> Giving the impression that there are 10 "X inches" to a foot.
>>> I saw one once about 30 years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not feet into tenth, but with inches divided into 1/5, 1/10, 1/3, 1/6,
>> 1/9 and 1/12.
>> I've seen one with foot divided into 1/3 and 1/4.
>
> I think it might be industry specific rule.
> About 30 years ago. My boss, offshore, took some measurements in the
> toolpusher's office using a rule he found there. After getting whatever
> it was made. It did not fit. He got a bit of a slagging for it. As you
> would. ;-)
> He went back up to check only to find that there was 10 "inches" to the
> foot.
> Drillers use some strange terms. The anchor chain tension is measured in
> Kilo-pound-inches. I had never heard of that measurement before I had to
> calibrate the load sensors.
>
Interesting story. "kilo-pound-inches", could that mean 'thousand pounds
per inch'? the word kilo being used for the thousand's value?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2018 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-3-2018 22:44, Stephen wrote:
>> Drillers use some strange terms. The anchor chain tension is measured
>> in Kilo-pound-inches. I had never heard of that measurement before I
>> had to calibrate the load sensors.
>>
>
> Interesting story. "kilo-pound-inches", could that mean 'thousand pounds
> per inch'? the word kilo being used for the thousand's value?
>
Yes kilo is a multiplier and since it is a unit of work it should have
been KIP, kilo inch pounds which is 112.98 Nm.
I got kpi stuck in my head. :-)
For something so important the transmitter was a simple op amp. Check
the zero and span against the supplied load cell manufacturers data
sheet. Easy peasy. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-3-2018 9:25, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/03/2018 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 7-3-2018 22:44, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Drillers use some strange terms. The anchor chain tension is measured
>>> in Kilo-pound-inches. I had never heard of that measurement before I
>>> had to calibrate the load sensors.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting story. "kilo-pound-inches", could that mean 'thousand
>> pounds per inch'? the word kilo being used for the thousand's value?
>>
>
> Yes kilo is a multiplier and since it is a unit of work it should have
> been KIP, kilo inch pounds which is 112.98 Nm.
> I got kpi stuck in my head. :-)
>
> For something so important the transmitter was a simple op amp. Check
> the zero and span against the supplied load cell manufacturers data
> sheet. Easy peasy. :-)
>
Easy peasy indeed. I imagine the guys calibrating those data sheets:
"Hey John! Lets give it a pound more!" BANG! ;-)
I am always surprised that we got to the Moon at all, or Mars for that
matter, where we were able to crash at least once because of
imperial/metrics confusion... ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2018 09:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 8-3-2018 9:25, Stephen wrote:
>> On 08/03/2018 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 7-3-2018 22:44, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Drillers use some strange terms. The anchor chain tension is
>>>> measured in Kilo-pound-inches. I had never heard of that measurement
>>>> before I had to calibrate the load sensors.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting story. "kilo-pound-inches", could that mean 'thousand
>>> pounds per inch'? the word kilo being used for the thousand's value?
>>>
>>
>> Yes kilo is a multiplier and since it is a unit of work it should have
>> been KIP, kilo inch pounds which is 112.98 Nm.
>> I got kpi stuck in my head. :-)
>>
>> For something so important the transmitter was a simple op amp. Check
>> the zero and span against the supplied load cell manufacturers data
>> sheet. Easy peasy. :-)
>>
>
> Easy peasy indeed. I imagine the guys calibrating those data sheets:
>
More likely Pop. The materials used are designed to take the weight and
are over rated.
> I am always surprised that we got to the Moon at all, or Mars for that
> matter, where we were able to crash at least once because of
> imperial/metrics confusion... ;-)
>
Big mistake mixing units. I may think in imperial but work in metric
when I can.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-3-2018 10:34, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/03/2018 09:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 8-3-2018 9:25, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2018 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 7-3-2018 22:44, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Drillers use some strange terms. The anchor chain tension is
>>>>> measured in Kilo-pound-inches. I had never heard of that
>>>>> measurement before I had to calibrate the load sensors.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting story. "kilo-pound-inches", could that mean 'thousand
>>>> pounds per inch'? the word kilo being used for the thousand's value?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes kilo is a multiplier and since it is a unit of work it should
>>> have been KIP, kilo inch pounds which is 112.98 Nm.
>>> I got kpi stuck in my head. :-)
>>>
>>> For something so important the transmitter was a simple op amp. Check
>>> the zero and span against the supplied load cell manufacturers data
>>> sheet. Easy peasy. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Easy peasy indeed. I imagine the guys calibrating those data sheets:
>>
>
> More likely Pop. The materials used are designed to take the weight and
> are over rated.
Sad. I would like a bit of drama ;-)
>
>
>> I am always surprised that we got to the Moon at all, or Mars for that
>> matter, where we were able to crash at least once because of
>> imperial/metrics confusion... ;-)
>>
>
> Big mistake mixing units. I may think in imperial but work in metric
> when I can.
>
smart. But then you grew up with imperial of course. I find it difficult
(not that I need it).
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
