From: R. Mark Clayton on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:W8-dnQ16jqYTl2fXnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:OLmdnQWi2eLSIGTXnZ2dnUVZ7rudnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>
SNIP
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course the tripod mount thread is 1/4" Whitworth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?! I always just assumed that was SAE too.
>>>>>
>>>> I think he's kidding.....Mine's 1/4-20 SAE.
>>>
>>> That's what I thought. But I don't think he's kidding.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, Whitworth sizes were only used on British products.
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitworth_thread
>>
>> "Within the United States, the Whitworth thread that most people
>> encounter is the quarter-inch thread on the bottom of most cameras for
>> mounting on a tripod."
>
> That's interesting. But the chart on that page shows 1/4-20 to be a
> standard Whitworth size, so a 1/4-20 SAE bolt still fits, even if not
> perfectly. I believe the shape of the threads is slightly different
> between the two.
>
> For American mechanics working with Whitworth bolts, nuts and wrenches,
> the main problem is the difference in wrench sizes -- which is only
> because SAE measures size across the flats while Whitworth measures point
> to opposite point.

Also the angle of the thread may be 60 degrees instead of 55, so it will
turn in for a while and then get stuck - unless of course SAE cribbed it.

Whitworth heads were quite large and were reduced during the war to save
metal.

>
>>
>> Touch�!
>>
>> Even though the Yanks left the Empire they still won't join the rest of
>> the world.
>
> And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for
> most ordinary purposes, and it would cost billions to change everything.

Well what about the cost of not changing it?

Item 1 Mars Climate Orbiter crashes and burns*
$327,600,000.00c

So that's about one dollar per citizen - bad start!

(OK so in the fifties the Brits made a car engine that had metric bolts with
imperial heads... )

> Hexadecimal really makes far more sense than metric, and that is closer to
> the old familiar English systems of measure. You blokes should have stayed
> with what you had. (Well, except for currency I suppose. But even that had
> the advantage of being charmingly quaint.)
>

Well this only works for avoirdupois weight (16 ounces to the pound), but
for troy weight there are only 12 and for fluid measure 20 fluid ounces to
the pint (OK so it is 16 now in our former colony, but what do they know
about measurement or spelling?).

As for the pound sterling this is the last currency in the world that has
any relation to the original pound weight of silver that the Libra (�) in
Lsd stood for in Roman times. By 1914 there were four ounces (~112g) of
92.5% silver to the �, but now one pound will only buy you about 4 to 5g.
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are working hard to reduce this as rapidly
as possible :-((.

The French Livre blew up during their revolution with a loaf of bread
costing �15 or more and was replaced by the Franc (revalued by 100 ~1960).
By the time the Italian Lira was replaced by the Euro there were thousands
to the Euro.





*
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter%23The_metric.2Fimperial_mix-up&usg=AFQjCNHBbstCpB4S2gxZe2bJ9jJJGEClxw&ei=ng37SpzEINeMjAfr0bGxBA&sa=X&oi=section_link&resnum=2&ct=legacy&ved=0CAoQygQ


From: J. Clarke on
nospam wrote:
> In article <h6adnWjrlq08m2bXnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Back in the early 80's IIRC Texas brought out the first hexadecimal
>> calculator (also did decimal, octal and binary). Common in
>> programming dept's.
>
> nope, the hp-16c was the first in 1982. hp also had the 15c which did
> complex arithmetic and the hp-41c which could do pretty much anything.

Christ, I was using a hex calculator back in the early '70s. Of course I
wrote it in APL . . .

From: nospam on
In article <hdf3bu0m6n(a)news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

> Christ, I was using a hex calculator back in the early '70s. Of course I
> wrote it in APL . . .

did it fit in your jeans pocket?
From: Neil Harrington on

"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tlkf5dv03jmudhdl6jij705tkfoom6hj2(a)4ax.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for
>>most
>>ordinary purposes,
>
> Yeah, right. That's probably the reason why 200+ countries are using it
> where there are only 3 that don't.

One of the three that doesn't is the world's only remaining superpower. Who
cares what they're using in Lower Slobovia or West Bongo-Bongo?

>
>>and it would cost billions to change everything.
>
> "Those who are late will be punished by life itself."
>
>>Hexadecimal really makes far more sense than metric,
>
> You got 16 fingers? Amazing!

If you really need your fingers to count on, I can understand why you think
metric is great. For those of us who don't, fingers and toes don't really
come into it.

> And you are fluent in adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing
> them, too? Like 3A4F + BE3 * 2D5? Even more amazing!

Why is it amazing? You're used to thinking in the decimal system so it seems
"natural" and "proper" to you. You need to get rid of the idea that a number
system only makes sense if it matches how many fingers you have. The
ten-based system isn't really any more logical than a six-based system or
for that matter a thirty-based system. It's only comfortable for you because
it's what you're used to.

>
> Besides, what does the radix of a numeral system have to do with metric
> or not?
>
>>and that is closer to
>>the old familiar English systems of measure.
>
> ???
> What? Where except for small liquid quantities?
>
>>You blokes should have stayed
>>with what you had. (Well, except for currency I suppose. But even that had
>>the advantage of being charmingly quaint.)
>
> How many cubic inches are in a gallon, again?

Who cares? Is that a question that comes up often in your life?

> How many tea spoon are in
> one cubic foot of water? And how many inches are there to a mile? And
> how high can I lift 1 pound with the energy provided by 1 BTU in 1 hour?
> And do you even know how a furlong by a chain is commonly called today?

Same answer to all those questions: Who cares? Conversely, what good does it
do you to know how many millimeters there are in a kilometer? Why would you
ever need to know that?

Teaspoons, quarts, inches and miles are all useful units of measure, which
is why they were adopted in the first place. Those that are not useful for
general purposes, e.g. drams and furlongs, have dropped out of general use
except for a few traditional purposes.

The metric system on the other hand is loaded with *perfectly useless* units
of measure, all because of the nonsensical 19th-century notion that
everything should progress by orders of ten, whether it served any useful
purpose or not.

When's the last time you had occasion to measure anything by decameters?
<snort>

Or decimeters, for that matter? Don't get them confused now!

Ever use drops, such as eye drops? Can you tell me how much one drop is in
metric?


From: Bill Graham on

"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:111120091054385997%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
> In article <h6adnWjrlq08m2bXnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Back in the early 80's IIRC Texas brought out the first hexadecimal
>> calculator (also did decimal, octal and binary). Common in programming
>> dept's.
>
> nope, the hp-16c was the first in 1982. hp also had the 15c which did
> complex arithmetic and the hp-41c which could do pretty much anything.

I still have my 15C. It is a companion to my 12C, which is financial, and is
still made and sold by HP. They discontinued the 15C, but it is the finest
calculator for complex arithmetic I have seen to date.