Americans are used to feet
Newbie question re: units of measure.
- Thread starter RS
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
thomjinx
Contributor
I live in America but dive often in Southeast Asia, so I have had to get used to both. I use an SPG that is calibrated in both Imperial and Metric, and a wrist computer that will use either set of values.
This way when the DM is giving a dive briefing, or asks how much air I have during the dive, there is no confusion or converting.
I agree with the poster who suggested teaching metric values for scuba. Since most of the terms and values are new to new divers, it really wouldn't matter much which values were used.
Or we could use cubits.
This way when the DM is giving a dive briefing, or asks how much air I have during the dive, there is no confusion or converting.
I agree with the poster who suggested teaching metric values for scuba. Since most of the terms and values are new to new divers, it really wouldn't matter much which values were used.
Or we could use cubits.
Some of the "seasoned" divers on this board may remember when Jimmy Carter tried converting the U.S. to metric during his presidency. He started by converting the interstate highway signs to read in kilometers and miles. Well that was too confusing for most Americans so when Ronald Reagan became president he ended the program.
Knots and nautical miles are common terms on the ocean, even for nominally metric countries, so it's surprising that folks in a sea-oriented sport would push all that hard for metric.
I just don't think that Verne would have done as well with "96560.832 Km Under the Sea"
I just don't think that Verne would have done as well with "96560.832 Km Under the Sea"
Walter:
Exactly! And Ill add my voice to Andys Oy vey!
The Mushroom King:
Bingo!
The Mushroom King:
At least thats their story and, so far, theyve stuck to it. Now, do the math and see what YOU think!
Randolphscott:
But then, how do you talk about ascent rates? ATM/min? That'd be kinda weird, no? Not to mention what you'd say when your non-diver chums back at the ranch ask you how deep you were.
Actually the distinction between pressure and depth is a useful one, although almost everyone confuses the two. I can't count the number of times I've seen, in reputable dive publications, actual dive profiles referred to as, for example, "80 fsw". NO! The depth is how far you were from the surface ... 80 feet, period. Yes, depth gauges are really pressure gauges and read "correctly" only when the medium is salt water, but that has nothing to do with how far down your dive took you.
Randolphscott, that's why you can't find any references to conversion factors between length and pressure. There really isn't any such thing. Stating pressure in units of fsw or, for the metric crowd, msw, is really just a convenient shorthand for a true unit of measure that includes the density of the medium. They do it in weather reports, too, saying the pressure is 29.92 inches or 760 mm, for example. That too is just a shorthand for inches or millimeters of mercury, and buries the density of mercury in the conversion.
--ECR
CMAN:
Maybe it was just too confusing for Reagan
He wasn't exactly a mental giant. Sorry-y-y-y-y. Now back to your regularly scheduled original topic.
--ECR
I agree with ECR on mental giant...sorry....Democrat here, too
ok, I thought NASA FUBAR was with decimal placment....ie kilomerters (km) vs. meters (m) and that someone left off units to a numerical value and someone else assumed a unit that was incorrect.
Se you don't have these issues with ft and miles as you do with km and m
You do have a point that for pressure, divers could be started off on metric. However, come on, ft is what we can visually estimate if our gauges go haywire or if we don't pay attention to our gauges on the safety stop we can eyeball and say, "i am too shallow or I am too deep, what depth am i at?" and look at our gauges.
But alas, this would make referecing past texts problematic and cause overhauls to recent texts. I say, write future dive texts in both (which is the case for PADI's Nitrox text) and let the diver choose.
ok, I thought NASA FUBAR was with decimal placment....ie kilomerters (km) vs. meters (m) and that someone left off units to a numerical value and someone else assumed a unit that was incorrect.
Se you don't have these issues with ft and miles as you do with km and m
You do have a point that for pressure, divers could be started off on metric. However, come on, ft is what we can visually estimate if our gauges go haywire or if we don't pay attention to our gauges on the safety stop we can eyeball and say, "i am too shallow or I am too deep, what depth am i at?" and look at our gauges.
But alas, this would make referecing past texts problematic and cause overhauls to recent texts. I say, write future dive texts in both (which is the case for PADI's Nitrox text) and let the diver choose.
Similar threads
