metric made easy

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

This is way too hard. Look, the distance between my first and second knuckle is 1 inch, the distance from my heel to toe is 1 foot, the distance of one pace is 1 yard and the distance around my head is the same as a ripe casaba melon. Life should be easy...
 
Another nice convenient value in metric.
The average adult has a body area of 2m2 (2 square meters) so for each 1mm of suit thickness you need 2kg extra lead minus the weight of the suit itself.
(Of course this assumes a non-compressible suit so the reality may be a little less.)

The first time I saw this figure I didn't believe it but after checking out some of the many formulae on the Internet for body area as a function of weight and height and then doing some measurements on myself I came to the conclusion that my own skin area is 1.96m2, close enough for most purposes.
 
Im not convinced by that one given it doesnt account for bone density, body fat % and various other things.

A pint of beer here costs about £2 (E3.20 or so). Im glad we arent using that crap :)
 
Metric Is easy! How on earth can you guys stand the imperial? Drives me nuts - especially since it means I have to know both cz the Us is a huge player in the AV industry.. argh...


Z...
 
liberato:
This is way too hard. Look, the distance between my first and second knuckle is 1 inch, the distance from my heel to toe is 1 foot, the distance of one pace is 1 yard and the distance around my head is the same as a ripe casaba melon. Life should be easy...
I bet my knuckle distance, foot size and pace are not quite the same as yours - so which one is truly those measurements?? :wink:

Ok, so Mark was wrong on a bit of math, cant expect to be math/physics wiz's as a scuba instructor :wink: The weight of water changes for both imperial and metric by temp and salinity, so thats not a real arguement against either system, its just physics. Then onto the rest of the stuff, really it all relates and forms a nice simple base 10 system. Imperial measurements used to have some basis, but that system is way too complex with a variety of different ways of expressing the same thing, and none of them are related by the same kind of base number, sometimes 2, 4, 8, 12, 14.7, 32.2, 33, 1000, 2000, 5280 and 43560 as ratios for starters - i am sure there are others :wink:
 
Hank49:
Charlie99:
Hank49:
.
You know, I met this genius young chemist, beer brewer who swears that man can live on brocoli and Guiness. So it must be food.

the man was a true genius, however if you can include bacon in the equation I think you have defined culinary nirvana.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stand by the 1 cm square and the one meter high water column.

think about it in imperial terms: If you get slightly less than two pints and put it in a half inch tube, will it be one yard high or ten yards high?? (roughly)

I am well aware about the cal, Cal, kCal thing, I was trying to make Metric simple

Those of you who have mentioned the specific weight of the water, we are talking about pure water at standard temperature and pressure.

Salt water is not a standard, pure water is.

I was joking about the beer, and it took 12 posts for someone to call me on it.. However here in Mexico, I can get a 10 peso beer, so the statement stands..

now, my summary of this thread so far is: The hubble telescope was not shortsighted because of the metric components.

rattle your dags people..
 
cancun mark:
I stand by the 1 cm square and the one meter high water column.

think about it in imperial terms: If you get slightly less than two pints and put it in a half inch tube, will it be one yard high or ten yards high?? (roughly)
I am with you on everything else, but lets just work this out:
1 litre = 0.001 cubic metre (not meter, that's what you use to measure flow rate, pressure and such, not a distance ; )
1 litre = 0.01m (1cm) x 0.01m (1cm) x 10m = 0.001m^3
Simple volumetric maths.....

Now try it with 1 cubic metre (1000 litres):
1m x 1m x 1m = 1m^3
0.01m x 0.01m x 10,000m (or 10km) = 1m^3 - i would not however like to see the hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of that column of water - i like the 1m high version better :wink:
 
cancun mark:
Hank49:
Charlie99:
the man was a true genius, however if you can include bacon in the equation I think you have defined culinary nirvana.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stand by the 1 cm square and the one meter high water column.

think about it in imperial terms: If you get slightly less than two pints and put it in a half inch tube, will it be one yard high or ten yards high?? (roughly)

I am well aware about the cal, Cal, kCal thing, I was trying to make Metric simple

Those of you who have mentioned the specific weight of the water, we are talking about pure water at standard temperature and pressure.

Salt water is not a standard, pure water is.

I was joking about the beer, and it took 12 posts for someone to call me on it.. However here in Mexico, I can get a 10 peso beer, so the statement stands..

now, my summary of this thread so far is: The hubble telescope was not shortsighted because of the metric components.

rattle your dags people..


Mark,

On the 1 cm square area, you're wrong. Convert everything back to meters, and work away. 1 cm = 0.01 m, so 1 cm^3 = (0.01x0.01x0.01)x(mxmxm)=0.000001 m^3.

I'll wager you a beer :wink: (I'm very sorry that I'm not going anywhere near Cancun over the next few years; otherwise, I'd love to dive there!)

Hy

p.s. The Hubble originally was short-sighted because the optical design was new, and they tested it incorrectly. They built the big mirror to the exact specs specified by the designer. The mirror manufacturer (U of Az optical center, I think) even accounted for the gravitational distortion for grinding the mirror on earth & having the mirror operate on zero g. Nothing to do with metric/vs/english. If you really want some yuks, go check out the "Gimli Glider" on the net...
 

Back
Top Bottom