🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@mithrandir

Ooops, yes your right.. my brain mixed it with the first few digits of pi apparently :)

@cjd

@lupyuen why does the chicken look raw, is this some sort of native food thing, is it really just steamed or something and looks raw? Any spices? Any good? (I love learning about how people eat in other countries :)

Ps, yes I just used an emoji smiley to simultaneous act as a smiley and to close a parenthesis.

@mithrandir

9.1418 newtons would be pretty close yea.

@cjd

@mithrandir

No it isnt, thankfully.. it is acceleration of 1 m/s^2

@cjd

@cjd A newton is the same idea s a pound-force but applies to kg with simpler numbers.. 10 kg in weight is similar the same force (exerted due to gravity) as 1 newton.. everyone is familiar with it too. the difference is the math is based on simple multiples of 10...

Now ask any random american to calculate something from a pound-force and the numbers are so convoluted even experienced people often cant.. "What if I apply 5 ounce-force to a ton of bricks how fast will it accelerate".. good luck finding a single american who can answer that... however ask "if i apply 5 millinewton to 10 kg of metal how fast will it accelerate", then youc an do the math in your head and most europeans would have little problem doing it if they know even basic math.

Sorry but i am not seeing where the advantage of a pound-force is here at all.

@cjd Everything you said applies just as much to imperial as metric... Newton is no more a basic unit than the pound-force is.. However a newton is a combination of the same units in metric as pound-force is in imperial, except that of course imperial units use convoluted numbers and multiplies where metric does not.

In metric is really simple, a newton is the force it takes to make 1 kg of mass accelerate at 1 m/s^2, nice and easy... not so much with the imperial pound-force. 1 pound-force is equal to the force it takes to accelerate 1 pound by 32.174 ft/s2 (good luck remembering that).. or if you really want to get convoluted 1 ounces (16 ounce-force) by 514.784 ft/sec^2

I think its quite obvious that newtons are far more intuitive and easier to remember than the convoluted pound-force.

@cjd

> I already told you: PSI, foot-pounds (torque) and foot-pounds (work). They are intuitive to anybody who knows two of the most basic units of that system of measures.

Yes but that was trivially debunked... Anyone working with the metric system has equivelant units.. Pascal (pressure), Newton-meters (torque) and Newton-meters (work), which require only knowledge of the two most basic units of the metric system, meters and newtons...

So you havent in any way given why imperial is superior at all.. you just said "if i already know how to work with these really obscure units that no one in the world but me and people near me use then its easier cause im familiar with it"... thats a horrible excuse considering we live in a wider world..

Moreover there ARE disadvantages beyond just familiarity.. the lack of easy to remember prefixes being the most notable which makes the imperial system far far less intuitive when working PSI or foot-pounds at large or small scale, while its trivial to work at large or small scales in the metric equivalent.

so while you did try to make that argument it ultimately failed quite poorly IMO.

Moreover forcing a system of measurement on a people is only bad if its arbitrary, when the new system of measurement is significantly superior, as metric is, then it isnt a bad thing at all. Americans would be better off in the end by far considering they are adopting a system with many advantages and leaving behind a system without a single advantage aside from familiarity (which is temporary).

@js290 It feels like this guy doesnt have the first clue what he is talking about (over and over again he says misleading and incorrec tthings) and is just quoting wikipedia or something without understand it.

@js290 What are youa sking or stating by sharing that.. he says some misleading things you probably picked up on.

@cjd Your expiernce is not in question. I was merely pointing out that scienctists that tend to take on personal projects need to work with every single one of those pieces of equipment as well. Building devices is hard to escape in most areas of science and they tend to have demanding specifications.

Thing is, you havent actually given a single reason that the imperial system is better, the few you gave were simply incorrect (like implying that newtons wasnt based on base metric units).. .yet there are quite a few reasons metric is superior (intuitive units that scale by simple powers of 10).

If you could list even one example of how imperial units are easier to work with in any context at all (that doesnt rely on simple familiarity with imperial units itself) then I'd be happy to consider it. But so far there isnt a single advantage mentioned to imperial units of any kind, not a single setting where imperial units are the norm (outside of the USA), and quite a few reasons metric units are suprior.

There is a reason the entire world, except the USA, uses metric units whether its science, woodworking, carpentry, metalwork, lathe, or any other field you can imagine.. because its the better choice in every field except in the USA which for whatever reason prefers to stay in the dark ages when it comes to unit of measurements.

@cjd You probably dont realize it but doing science tends to require building things, and often those things can be fairly advanced with very critical specifications. A few millimeters off and you wind up with something that doesnt work at all or bad data.

Have you ever built a particle accelerator by hand for example?

@cjd yes many times both in metric and imperial units. All the ones in the netherlands and europe are exclusively metric of course.

In fact aside from a small global population in the USA virtually the entire world of people who work with such things all do so in metric...

your point?

@cjd You seem confused...

you said

> If instead of Newtons there was just kg-force

A newton is a unit force, so adding kg into it as kg-force makes no sense. A newton (as any force would be) is mass-acceleration which in this case is the standard kg * m/s^2

So its already in standard units and all nice simple multiples (unlike PSI which becomes quite confusing in any other multiple like feet)

@wolf480pl

Its a miniature excavator. 1/10th scale :)

@cjd

@wolf480pl

yea disregard my answer, I replied a few minutes after i work up, wasnt thinking clearly.

@cjd

@cjd

#1 - sort of.. ATM is only used when no calculations need be applied to it, it is not metric, but its useful if you want to know why your ears popped or when dealing with pressure from altitude changes to know your relative pressure.. Its not really a unit like PSI or pascal is, it is a ratio (the ratio of one pressure to another as in the ratio of pressure at one altitude to another altitude).

#2.. You are correct.. I misremembered the unit as N * m^3 it is infact N / m^3.. though that mistake has little to do with the units as the same mistake could just as easily been made on PSI. I literally responded in bed on my cell a few seconds after I woke up, I should have waited till I was up.

@cjd Pascal would be the metric unit of pressure, ATM is only used in non-workshop settings...

1.5 cm2 with 200 pascal pressure is 200 / 1.5 = 133 and 1/3 newtons pressure.

@cjd "say you have this piston of this really obscure and confusing measurement called an inch and it is 1.5 square inch".... thats not an argument for it in my mind as it relies on the idea that PSI is more useful only if you already know an obscure measurement no one uses outside of the USA and is inherently less useful as it doesnt allow for metric prefixes...

On the other hand lets say you had a piston of an actually more useful base measurement, say 1.5 cm squared... all of a sudden metric is just as easy and with multiple additional advantages not the least of which being that the base unit is more intuitive

@cjd
An ATM is far more intuitive than a PSI even if you work with foots pounds and inches, its literally a multiple of ambient atmosphere pressure.

But the problem with your whole premise is your saying "as long as i already work with obscure and confusing measurements, and as long as i never have to work with them at large or amall scales, their great".. everything about that statement suggests their broken, especially considering that you cant in any practical sense avoid working with them at scale anyway.

@duponin
Even forgetting prefixes the metric ATM is literally the pressure as a multiple of atmosphere pressure. This seems way more intuitive than PSI
@cjd