Metric History

[Bob D.]

View attachment 1

 

[squall_line]

View attachment 1

I prefer weights to volumes when baking.  It's a toss-up for other types of cooking.

My coffee prep is done by metric weight for solids (beans), and US volume for liquids (water).

YMMV (or YkmMV)

 

[mino]

...
It's actually too bad that the meter wasn't defined as a whole number divided by the speed of light in a second. Then, for instance, the speed of light in a vacuum could simply be 300,000,000 meters per second.

That would be of little use - you cannot /practically/ measure that in a planetary setting. Like on Earth. Having a true vacuum for a start and being able to measure the light speed in the chamber are anything but easy, if possible at all. You would need to measure the distance at a practical scale, NOT to precise-estimate its Limit (which is enough for everything else ref. Light).

This was re-standardised only in the 1960's because a hard requirement was a BETTER accuracy and BETTER reliability than the (physical) standard-based approach provided. And the equipment able to provide that came along only in the 50s. So it took the better part of two centuries and a huge development in physics understanding and instruments to beat the original mechanics-based approach.

Besides, the whole point of a "meter" was that it was a set standard with a formal calibration chain established and international agreements to support that. That was and is the gamne changer. The particulars are just a practicality. The "new standard rod" being made in 1875 was no accident - it was the result of negotiations making the SI system of units trully international which required each major SI member had their own "secondary" rod or two.

 

[Bob D.]

Robs thoughts on why he prefers the Imperial system.

 

[mino]

TLDR:
He is right for himself, but is IMO doing actual harm to others by pushing HIS limited situation as if it was a general woodworker's situation. And bending arguments to push that narrative - like having a crappy scale on a tape measure or claiming Imperial is base-12 which is clearly is not etc. etc.

------------------------
IMO that video well explains how someone raised on a base-2 (yes, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 .. is a base-2) combined with a base-12 mid layer and a base 10 highest layer would justify promoting this to those who are sitting on the fence still.

I am sure that FOR HIM - an artisan of sorts - IT WORKS(TM) so why change? And he is right FOR HIMSELF.

The thing is, assuming cabinetry-only and NO INTERACTION with outside world BOTH inches and centimeters work JUST FINE.

This is especially tue for a bespoke/artisan furniture maker where dimensions are secondary as there is expected to be free space around that and that standalone piece. Effectively, it is closer to painting pictures for a gallery than manufacturing of today. Ever heard a gallery asking for a specific picture size down to a millimeter (1/32") ? I did not. But I heard a lot of cases where furniture is first utilitarian and one wants it to fit exactly with even less than a mm tolerance allowed.

There, a base-10 system starts making a LOT more sense. It allows a precise and EASY capture of dimensions using the least amount of characters and in a unified manner. From the road builder to the drawer maker.

Definitely more sense that a base-2 system using fractional notation(!) intertwined with a base-12 using a base10(!) notation.

If inches were respresented in 0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/A/B (i.e. base-12 positional notation) and base 12 was used also for fractions of inches so you would have 1.2" meaning 1+2/12 inches THEN all his arguments would be valid. But that is not how the Imperial system is structured, is it?

Ah, and do not get me started on the "base-3" yards and "base-1760?!?" mile.

So lets see, we have these units and notations in Imperial system:
=========================================================
base-2 with decimal-positional-inside-fractional(!) notation for smaller than an inch:
(1-127)/128 *2 > (1-63)/64" *2 > (1-31)/32"  *2 > (1-15)/16" *2 > (1-7)/8" *2 > (1-3)/4" 1/2"
base-10 with decimal(!) positional notation for inches:
(1-12)"
simple for feet:
(1-3)'
base-10 with decimal positional notation (huh ?!) for yards (1760 == 2*2*2*2*2*5*11(HUH?)):
(1-1759)y
base-10 with decimal positional notation for miles (finally, partial sanity returns):
(1-) miles

So 2 different(!) but-alternating systems of notation in just the length description but with (4!) different/possible multiplications between the data.

So, lets see, how to describe a certain /arbitrary/ length in various Imperial units:
7 miles 1181 yards 1' 245/128"
  notation: decimal positional, then /1760 and decimal positional, then /3 and simple, then /12 and decimal positional, then decimal positional inside base-2 fractional
13501 yards 1' 245/128"
  notation: decimal positional, then /3 and simple, then /12 and decimal positional, then decimal positional inside base-2 fractional
48605045/128"
  notation: decimal positional, then decimal positional inside base-2 fractional
=========================================================

See the problem? The more bigger /or smaller/ units are used, the LESS legible the notation gets as 3 different notations are seen in a single length note.
The real issue being that only the "full" notation - aka the most complex - results in a legible result.

And now lets do the same in the SI system:
=========================================================
base-10 positional notation:
... (1-999)um *1000 > (1-9)mm *10 > (1-9)cm *10 > (1-9)dm *10 > (1-999) m *1000 > (1+) km

Example from above:
12 345 678,9 mm
  notation: decimal positional, base-10
1 234 567,89 cm
  notation: decimal positional, base-10
123 456,789 dm
  notation: decimal positional, base-10
12 345,6789 m
  notation: decimal positional, base-10
12,3456789 km
  notation: decimal positional, base-10

=========================================================

As can be seen from above, one can use even the km unit pretty efficiently to note

 

[Bob D.]

"And he is right FOR HIMSELF."

And Rob says as much more than once in the video.

My opinion is his primary goal is he's found a topic to create a video around and grab a few thousand views.
Who knows maybe he's a member of this forum and saw all the babble in this thread and thought "I could spin a video around that".
If his reasoning happens to work for someone else well OK, if not to each his own.

Does he do the internet a disservice by voicing his opinion? I don't think so. He is giving his view on the subject though as you claim his math is flawed, but he is not trying to convert anyone. Only a weak mind would be bent by his words.

 

[Cheese]

I prefer weights to volumes when baking.  It's a toss-up for other types of cooking.

Actually baking is considered a science so precise weights need to be used, however cooking is considered an art because ingredients can be changed by the cook, so volume measurements are "good enough".

 

[mino]

... Only a weak mind would be bent by his words.

Heh, I guess I post for the weak minds then.

Seriously, the only thing thta triggered me was him arguing about the base-12 and related as it is false to the point it is THE issue with Imperial lengths.

At same, this "math thing" is all sufficiently abstract that your average gal or guy trying out stuff and watching guys like him will take it as presented. People just "ate it along with the spoon" ... just check the comments to that video.

Unseriously, no one should take this too seriously to begin. Just wanted to "put up" the math behind as this topic is as appropriate for such a rant as it gets.

Ended with B5 for a reason.
[cool]