Change date/time format in Pan newsreader?

[Dänk 42Ø]

I'm one of several dozen Americans who not only understands the
international 24-hour time format, but who also prefers it to the archaic
12-hour "AM/PM" system.

The Pan newsreader for Linux I am using only displays AM/PM, and I would
also like to display dates as YYYY-MM-DD, including the full date/time
string for every post. Is there any way to change the default setting?

On a related subject, does anyone know where to find an alarm clock that
displays 24-hour time? In all my life I have never seen an ordinary
retail store clock that does. I used to work night shifts and it can be
very disorienting waking up at "7:00" in the summer and not knowing
whether I've overslept because my eyes are too blurry to see the tiny am/
pm indicator dot.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, May 1st, 2013, at 14:22:16h -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:

> I'm one of several dozen Americans who not only understands the
> international 24-hour time format, but who also prefers it to the archaic
> 12-hour "AM/PM" system.

Maybe you need to move to Quebec? ;) ;) ;)

> The Pan newsreader for Linux I am using only displays AM/PM, and I would
> also like to display dates as YYYY-MM-DD, including the full date/time
> string for every post. Is there any way to change the default setting?

Where exactly is the date being displayed in the format that you do not like?

If it is the date in the header of individual postings such as yours,
for which I see

Subject: Change date/time format in Pan newsreader?
From: Dänk 42Ø <da...@ak47.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 14:22:16 -0500'

then that is being set in the preferred Usenet format by the
posting software and possibly sometimes by the news servers
themselves, so changing that is not feasible.

> On a related subject, does anyone know where to find an alarm clock that
> displays 24-hour time? In all my life I have never seen an ordinary
> retail store clock that does.

Maybe it is because the models which are sold in North America are for
most North American's preference of 12h display?

24 hour display on alarm clocks has not always been so readily available
on digital display clocks even in Europe, and usually what the models most
often offer is a switch to change from 12h to 24h format.


If you really cannot find one from a USofA retailer, then
here is a suggestion for a brand that I can personally recommend --

<http://www.amazon.DE/Mebus-Funkwecker-digital-Weckzeiten-Ma%C3%9Fe/dp/B005M7QKUU>



But a quick search on US amazon.COM reveals


*1*) <http://www.amazon.COM/Elgin-2-Inch-Multifunction-Alarm-Smartlite/dp/B0052EKXB0/>

QUOTE

Elgin 2-Inch LCD Multifunction Alarm with Smartlite

2-inch displays time in 12/24-hour format, month, date and alarm time

UNQUOTE


*2*) <http://www.amazon.com/Pick-Your-Color-Alarm-Clock/dp/B000WKY2H0/>

which according to one reviewer

QUOTE

Elgin 1.8-in. LCD Day & Date Alarm Clock with 7 Color Display Options

It displays in 12/24 hour mode

UNQUOTE


*3*) <http://www.amazon.com/Casio-Calendar-Thermometer-Digital-Travel/dp/B000VIFY5M/>

QUOTE

Casio Auto Calendar Thermometer Digital Travel Alarm Clock

12/24 Hour formats

UNQUOTE


A rather unusual one, more in the form of some countdown clocks seen on TV

*4*) <http://www.amazon.COM/Digital-Circling-second-indicator-Square/dp/B00BUS30JY>

indicating only this format --

QUOTE

Military Time - 24 hours

UNQUOTE


So it would appear that you have not done much searching online ...

[tigger]

Dänk 42Ø writted thus:

This frustrated me for a while, but Pan will not show a full date for
messages that are less than a week old. I've searched, asked and begged
but the date format is encoded and I can't find a way to change it.



--
http://db.tt/aI6WBZ7w

[flatula...@deadspam.com]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 22:45:49 +0000 (UTC) tigger wrote:-

Have you guys considered Claws Mail at all?

Runs both mail and Usenet as well as RSS; however only use here for
Usenet, and very satisfied.

And very configurable; although the filtering needs a while to get used
to.

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-05-01, Dänk 42Ø <da...@ak47.com> wrote:

> On a related subject, does anyone know where to find an alarm clock that
> displays 24-hour time? In all my life I have never seen an ordinary
> retail store clock that does.

How good are you with a soldering iron?
The chip LM8650N chip they use in LED clocks supports 24h
but you'll need to rearrange the display a bit
(adding a few extra segments)

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Dänk 42Ø]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:06:15 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 1st, 2013, at 14:22:16h -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> I'm one of several dozen Americans who not only understands the
>> international 24-hour time format, but who also prefers it to the
>> archaic 12-hour "AM/PM" system.
>
> Maybe you need to move to Quebec? ;) ;) ;)
>
>> The Pan newsreader for Linux I am using only displays AM/PM, and I
>> would also like to display dates as YYYY-MM-DD, including the full
>> date/time string for every post. Is there any way to change the
>> default setting?
>
> Where exactly is the date being displayed in the format that you do not
> like?
>
> If it is the date in the header of individual postings such as yours,
> for which I see
>
> Subject: Change date/time format in Pan newsreader? From: Dänk 42Ø
> <da...@ak47.com>
> Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 14:22:16 -0500'
>
> then that is being set in the preferred Usenet format by the posting
> software and possibly sometimes by the news servers themselves, so
> changing that is not feasible.

No, I mean changing the time format in the header pane, which displays
"Apr 20 4:20 PM" rather than the "2013-04-20 16:20" I would prefer.

AM/PM, ounces and pounds, miles, hogsheads, pennyweights and other
archaic "imperial" English/American units disgruntle me immensely. I
can't change the poor education of my fellow countrymen, but I should be
able to change my default software settings!

>> On a related subject, does anyone know where to find an alarm clock
>> that displays 24-hour time? In all my life I have never seen an
>> ordinary retail store clock that does.
>
> Maybe it is because the models which are sold in North America are for
> most North American's preference of 12h display?
>
> 24 hour display on alarm clocks has not always been so readily available
> on digital display clocks even in Europe, and usually what the models
> most often offer is a switch to change from 12h to 24h format.

A switch is all I ask for. Once you learn it, 24h time makes perfect
sense. The American military uses it and also metric, so it isn't
impossible for Americans to learn them.

The only three imperial units I cannot avoid using are miles and degrees
Fahrenheit. Most car odometers only record miles, our highways use miles
for distance signs (and exits are numbered by their mile mark on the
highway), and American cities (especially those in western states) are
laid out as grids, with major streets exactly one mile apart, and ten
neighborhood blocks in between. Using kilometers is possible, but the
numbers would be weird.

Kitchen appliances and most thermometers all use degrees Fahrenheit, and
converting between them and degrees Celsius is not a simple multiplier
operation like converting between other imperial and metric units. When
I cook I weigh and record my recipes in grams, but my oven can only be
set in degrees Fahrenheit! And gallons are impossible to avoid, with
gasoline (petrol) and milk only sold by that unit. Disgruntle! (Even
worse, the US gallon is not the same size as the UK gallon, making it
really worthless unit of measurement.)

> If you really cannot find one from a USofA retailer, then here is a
> suggestion for a brand that I can personally recommend --
>
> <http://www.amazon.DE/Mebus-Funkwecker-digital-Weckzeiten-Ma%C3%9Fe/dp/
B005M7QKUU>

Danke mucho schön! I will order one from the US Amazon site, since
shipping it from Germany is probably expensive.

[David W. Hodgins]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:22:16 -0400, Dänk 42Ø <da...@ak47.com> wrote:

> The Pan newsreader for Linux I am using only displays AM/PM, and I would
> also like to display dates as YYYY-MM-DD, including the full date/time
> string for every post. Is there any way to change the default setting?

When starting pan, try
LC_TIME=en_DK.utf8 pan

That set's the variable LC_TIME for the duration of the pan command.

If that works, either modify the menu entry for starting pan, or add
export LC_TIME=en_DK.utf8
to your startup profile script (~/.bash_profile, or ~/.profile, etc,
depending on which shell you use, and how you start).

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, May 4th, 2013, at 19:34:42h -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:

> No, I mean changing the time format in the header pane, which displays
> "Apr 20 4:20 PM" rather than the "2013-04-20 16:20" I would prefer.

Sadly there is no preferences setting for changing the date format in
the headers pane but as the source code is available, you could always
change it there.

And I do concur that the format used in the headers pane is not good
and that the sorting by date does not work as expected, as it only sorts
within topic and not all postings.

> so it isn't impossible for Americans to learn them.

It is not the possibility to do so (since Canadians have managed to
change to SI with even the weather forecast giving the pressure in
kPa) that is the problem; it is the desire and motivation which is lacking.

Hope you find a 24h format clock in your preferred LED color ...

Here is another one (actually the alarm clock I use. although I did not
buy it online) for your to consider, but sadly there does not
appear to be a North American distributor

<http://www.skyview.co.UK/acatalog/WS8055.html>

[Bill Marcum]

On 05/01/2013 03:22 PM, D�nk 42� wrote:
> I'm one of several dozen Americans who not only understands the
> international 24-hour time format, but who also prefers it to the archaic
> 12-hour "AM/PM" system.
>
> The Pan newsreader for Linux I am using only displays AM/PM, and I would
> also like to display dates as YYYY-MM-DD, including the full date/time
> string for every post. Is there any way to change the default setting?
>

Maybe you could write a script that changes LC_TIME and starts Pan.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, May 8th, 2013, at 10:44:05h -0400, Bill Marcum suggested:

> Maybe you could write a script that changes LC_TIME and starts Pan.

One could do that but it would not change the format of the date
in the headers pane, because sadly, pan (0.139 was used for the test)
does not respect the LC_TIME setting for the format of the date.

Maybe somebody should send in a bug report requesting this feature?

[Justin]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:34:42 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:


> The only three imperial units I cannot avoid using are miles and degrees
> Fahrenheit. Most car odometers only record miles, our highways use
> miles for distance signs (and exits are numbered by their mile mark on
> the highway), and American cities (especially those in western states)
> are laid out as grids, with major streets exactly one mile apart, and
> ten neighborhood blocks in between. Using kilometers is possible, but
> the numbers would be weird.
>
> Kitchen appliances and most thermometers all use degrees Fahrenheit, and
> converting between them and degrees Celsius is not a simple multiplier
> operation like converting between other imperial and metric units. When
> I cook I weigh and record my recipes in grams, but my oven can only be
> set in degrees Fahrenheit! And gallons are impossible to avoid, with
> gasoline (petrol) and milk only sold by that unit. Disgruntle! (Even
> worse, the US gallon is not the same size as the UK gallon, making it
> really worthless unit of measurement.)

Actually, the US doesn't use the "Imperial" units of measurement. I don't
know the exact differences but the Impterial shit has something to do with
the now defunct British Empire.

Do you remember that Mars probe that crashed because some dipshit with a
PhD forgot to convert units from metric to Standard?
The offocial name is "US Customary Units."
Back in my undergrad days we had to write a program that converted from
all sorts of measurements to various others - plus make it exmandable.
Part of the lesson was that software engineers would have to become
virtual experts in the field they were programming for. So we had to
learn what Cubits, daktylos (ancient greek), Drams and all sorts of others
were. Then, the prof tossed us a curveball, the last week of class, he
told us to implement another system of measurement - one he made up - in
24 hours.

[John Hasler]

Justin writes:
> Actually, the US doesn't use the "Imperial" units of measurement.

No. The official USA system is the metric system, with the derived
units of the US Customary System also legal for trade.

> I don't know the exact differences but the Impterial shit has
> something to do with the now defunct British Empire.

The US Customary System is based on the consensus standard in use in the
Colonies before the Revolution. It was adopted and standardized by
Congress in 1832, as authorized by the Constitution. In 1866 the metric
system was authorized as legal for trade. In 1893 the metric system was
made the fundamental USA system, with customary units remaining legal
but being derived from metric ones.

The British Imperial System was adopted by Parliament in 1826.

> Do you remember that Mars probe that crashed because some dipshit with
> a PhD forgot to convert units from metric to Standard?

Actually, that had to do with meters and nautical miles. The latter is
commonly used in navigation but is not an official USA unit.

BTW I cannot find a package label in my house that does not include both
customary and metric units, and all the measuring utensils in my kitchen
are also labeled both ways.
--
John Hasler
jha...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[Justin]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:40:25 -0500, John Hasler wrote:

> Justin writes:
>> Actually, the US doesn't use the "Imperial" units of measurement.
>
> No. The official USA system is the metric system, with the derived
> units of the US Customary System also legal for trade.

I didn't know that.

> Actually, that had to do with meters and nautical miles. The latter is
> commonly used in navigation but is not an official USA unit.

Yeah, I was going to get my pilots license after college and learned about
'knots.' Instead I went to grad school. I *think* I made the right
decision...

>
> BTW I cannot find a package label in my house that does not include both
> customary and metric units, and all the measuring utensils in my kitchen
> are also labeled both ways.

Back in the 80's didn't it looks like the country was going completely
metric? I vaguely remember a Super Bowl announcer going on about various
plays in Meters.
I must have been five years old.

[John Hasler]

Justin writes:
> Back in the 80's didn't it looks like the [USA] was going completely
> metric?

There are bursts of metrification enthusiam from time to time.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2013-05-15, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Justin writes:
>> Back in the 80's didn't it looks like the [USA] was going completely
>> metric?
>
> There are bursts of metrification enthusiam from time to time.

I think more happens in this regard due to outside forces by trading
partners that are far less tolerant. It seems like no one really cares
one way or the other on this side of the pond. That would require that
people actually bother to read product labels (and most don't).

--

cat /dev/video0 > tivo-sucks.mpg & |||
mplayer tivo-sucks.mpg / | \

[John Hasler]

JEDIDIAH writes:
> I think more happens in this regard due to outside forces by trading
> partners that are far less tolerant.

Exported goods have been specially-labeled to comply with the weights
and measures laws of the destination since before I was born. Imported
goods need not be since metric is legal for trade here.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2013-05-16, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH writes:
>> I think more happens in this regard due to outside forces by trading
>> partners that are far less tolerant.
>
> Exported goods have been specially-labeled to comply with the weights
> and measures laws of the destination since before I was born. Imported
> goods need not be since metric is legal for trade here.

...like I said, nearly no one gets excited about it here but plenty of people
like to get overly excited about it elsewhere and let their beaurocrats run amok.

[bad sector]

On 05/15/2013 04:24 PM, Justin wrote:

> On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:34:42 -0500, Dänk 42Ř wrote:
>
>
> Actually, the US doesn't use the "Imperial" units of measurement. I don't
> know the exact differences but the Impterial shit has something to do with
> the now defunct British Empire.

who gives a shit what the us uses?

otherwise there is poetic justice in the plight of Great Brittain: that
mighty empire upon which the sun used to rise and set now all rises and
sets right there :-)

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-05-15, Justin <justinthe...@hatespam.edu> wrote:

> Back in my undergrad days we had to write a program that converted from
> all sorts of measurements to various others - plus make it exmandable.
> Part of the lesson was that software engineers would have to become
> virtual experts in the field they were programming for. So we had to
> learn what Cubits, daktylos (ancient greek), Drams and all sorts of others
> were. Then, the prof tossed us a curveball, the last week of class, he
> told us to implement another system of measurement - one he made up - in
> 24 hours.

A linux program very like that is avaiable now, called "units"

you can convert cups to cubic parsecs... or any other unit conversion
you want, and add a new system of measurement by editing the config file
in 24 minutes (includes reading to docs).

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

The iPad has Wolfram for that,and another just for unit conversion called
"convert free". Which of course means that it is a free iPad app with
free spam annoyances.

[John Hasler]

Jason Betts writes:
> A linux program very like that is avaiable now, called "units"

It was available then, too. Units has been a standard Unix utility
since time out of mind. It has no pointies or clickies, though, so
moderns won't use it.

[PhilterdPhilosopher]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:16 -0500, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>Jason Betts writes:
>> A linux program very like that is avaiable now, called "units"
>
>It was available then, too. Units has been a standard Unix utility
>since time out of mind. It has no pointies or clickies, though, so
>moderns won't use it.

Can't get kids to start at the beginning any more either. they are all
jaded right out of the box.

Try to get them to learn about the first micro-chip from Fairchild to
the 8088 and get them on DOS or Linux on a 80286 PC, and teach them about
the volumes of data being processed and the difference between reaching a
"high" at 5 volts and how long that takes, and reaching a "high" on a 3.3
volt logic system and how much quicker that transition can occur, and
teach them about what they are using. BUT NOooooo...

They are jaded. If it won't play the latest and greatest games and
suck your wallet dry on a monthly basis, it is not worth having!

And they do not want to know anything about what is making it work!

And a lot of these punks grow up to make more money than I do!

[Norm X]

"Justin" <justinthe...@hatespam.edu> wrote

> Do you remember that Mars probe that crashed because some dipshit with a
> PhD forgot to convert units from metric to Standard?

That was the excuse given when Mars probe #1 failed. A pair of probes was
launched. Mars probe #2 also failed. Duh? Sometimes it is not wise to
believe the veracity of stories reported in the media. Excuse #1 was just
someone covering their ass. Excuse #2 was not forthcoming. As far as I know,
the plasma dynamics of Mars re-entry probes is not fully computed.

Learn to forget !

[mach2]

Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement system?
It makes no sense what so ever to be using it.

--
-mach2

[Paladin]

We have 35mm cameras and 2 liter sodas ... we're using metric.
Our roads were paved using miles, the cost of paving them in kilometers
would be too high.

[Thad Floryan]

On 7/21/2013 5:54 PM, mach2 wrote:
> [...]

> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement system?
> It makes no sense what so ever to be using it.

Metric used in medicine and the sciences.

During the 1970's during the phony oil shortage the highway speed limits
across the USA were dropped to 55MPH. At about the same time, a number
of highway speed limit signs in California displayed both MPH and km/H
but when the USA metrification committee was shortly thereafter disbanded
that stopped and all the km/H signs are l-o-n-g gone.

When will the UK, Hong Kong, India, et al switch to driving on the correct
side of the road? That's a more important safety issue for tourists than
the use of the metric system. 72% of the world drives on the correct side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic

Thad

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

"Research in 1969 by J. J. Leeming showed countries driving on the
left have a lower collision rate than countries driving on the
right"

72% of the world drives on the wrong side.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, <http://cfajohnson.com>
Author:
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[Thad Floryan]

On 7/21/2013 6:45 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2013-07-22, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> On 7/21/2013 5:54 PM, mach2 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement system?
>>> It makes no sense what so ever to be using it.
>> Metric used in medicine and the sciences.
>>
>> During the 1970's during the phony oil shortage the highway speed limits
>> across the USA were dropped to 55MPH. At about the same time, a number
>> of highway speed limit signs in California displayed both MPH and km/H
>> but when the USA metrification committee was shortly thereafter disbanded
>> that stopped and all the km/H signs are l-o-n-g gone.
>>
>> When will the UK, Hong Kong, India, et al switch to driving on the correct
>> side of the road? That's a more important safety issue for tourists than
>> the use of the metric system. 72% of the world drives on the correct side:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic
>
> "Research in 1969 by J. J. Leeming showed countries driving on the
> left have a lower collision rate than countries driving on the
> right"
>
> 72% of the world drives on the wrong side.

Any report from 1969, 44 years ago, can be safely ignored because conditions
have changed dramatically since then (better roads, safer cars many with
collision-avoidance RADAR, etc.). This is the 21st Century now. Google:

which is safer driving on left side or right side of the road

Thad

[John Hasler]

mach2 writes:
> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement
> system?

The USA has never used the Imperial system, and the metric system has
been legal for trade here since the middle of the century before last.

[mach2]

On 07/21/2013 07:06 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> mach2 writes:
>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement
>> system?
>
> The USA has never used the Imperial system, and the metric system has
> been legal for trade here since the middle of the century before last.
>

Not technically, I stand corrected. However, the UK and the United
States did bring the American System and the Imperial System pretty much
together. And as a result most simply refer to the system in use in the
US as Imperial.

Are there differences that you're aware of that exist today?

--
-mach2

[Mike Easter]

John Hasler wrote:
> mach2 writes:
>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement
>> system?
>
> The USA has never used the Imperial system, and the metric system has
> been legal for trade here since the middle of the century before last.

However, the 'masses' in the US still 'think' in gallons, miles, inches,
feet, gallons, quarts, pints, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, pounds,
ounces... and there must be some more that don't come to mind at this
moment.

I think the US masses should be more 'bilingual' so that such ratios as
mpg can be conceived in km/l and the USian won't be mystified.

The US has a really long way to go about 'metrification' and isn't
showing me any sign of progress except in the sciences.


--
Mike Easter

[mach2]

Agreed.

Major hassle for those of us that work with other countries. I mostly
think in metric but no one else that I know seems to.

--
-mach2

[Henry Crun]

On 22/07/13 04:45, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2013-07-22, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> On 7/21/2013 5:54 PM, mach2 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement system?
>>> It makes no sense what so ever to be using it.
>>
>> Metric used in medicine and the sciences.
>>
>> During the 1970's during the phony oil shortage the highway speed limits
>> across the USA were dropped to 55MPH. At about the same time, a number
>> of highway speed limit signs in California displayed both MPH and km/H
>> but when the USA metrification committee was shortly thereafter disbanded
>> that stopped and all the km/H signs are l-o-n-g gone.
>>
>> When will the UK, Hong Kong, India, et al switch to driving on the correct
>> side of the road? That's a more important safety issue for tourists than
>> the use of the metric system. 72% of the world drives on the correct side:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic
>
> "Research in 1969 by J. J. Leeming showed countries driving on the
> left have a lower collision rate than countries driving on the
> right"
>
> 72% of the world drives on the wrong side.
>

Oldie (OT warning)

The country of <IYFEG*> decided to change to driving on the right side of the road.
To change in stages: First week -- trucks only..

*) See http://alpha.mike-r.com/jargon/I/IYFEG.html



--
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/php/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before

[Jasen Betts]

Tons!

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On 22 Jul 2013 08:27:20 GMT

Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 2013-07-22, mach2 <ma...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> > On 07/21/2013 07:06 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> >> mach2 writes:
> >>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement
> >>> system?
> >>
> >> The USA has never used the Imperial system, and the metric system
> >> has been legal for trade here since the middle of the century
> >> before last.
> >>
> > Not technically, I stand corrected. However, the UK and the United
> > States did bring the American System and the Imperial System pretty
> > much together. And as a result most simply refer to the system in
> > use in the US as Imperial.
> >
> > Are there differences that you're aware of that exist today?
>
> Tons!
>

Excellent! That made my day.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

[Mike Easter]

mach2 wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> John Hasler wrote:
>>> mach2 writes:
>>>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement
>>>> system?
>>>
>>> The USA has never used the Imperial system, and the metric system has
>>> been legal for trade here since the middle of the century before last.

John's statement addresses the difference between what is referred to as
the two similar systems, the US customary system vs the Imperial system,
which are not the same and the wiki has several articles on the
similarities and differences, such as this^1 one.

>> However, the 'masses' in the US still 'think' in gallons, miles, inches,
>> feet, gallons, quarts, pints, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, pounds,
>> ounces...

>> The US has a really long way to go about 'metrification' and isn't
>> showing me any sign of progress except in the sciences.
>>
>>
> Agreed.
>
> Major hassle for those of us that work with other countries. I mostly
> think in metric but no one else that I know seems to.

The significant disappointments to me in the world of standardization are:

- failure of the US to properly become a lot metric
- failure of the entire world to properly/adequately disambiguate the
concepts of kilobyte base 10, kilobyte base 2, and kibibyte base 2
- failure of the entire world to properly get on the same ISO 8601
page about the syntax^3 of how to properly express time and date


^1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems
Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems

^2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte The binary prefix kibi means
1024, therefore 1 kibibyte is 1024bytes. ... The kibibyte is closely
related to the kilobyte. The latter is often used in some contexts as a
synonym for the kibibyte, but formally refers to 103 bytes = 1000 bytes,

^3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_time Date and time expressed
according to ISO 8601


--
Mike Easter

[John Hasler]

Mike Easter writes:
> The significant disappointments to me in the world of standardization
> are:

> ...

My #1: Two parallel systems for threaded fasteners. I can do unit
conversions in my head, but this costs me time and money.

And then there is the idiocy of kilograms per square centimeter as a
unit of pressure. At least psi passes dimensional analysis using the
old definition of the pound, which was in effect when the unit was
created.

[mechanic]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:55:45 -0500, John Hasler wrote:

> And then there is the idiocy of kilograms per square centimeter as a
> unit of pressure.

Pascal is the SI unit of pressure.

[TJ]

There's a lot more in manufacturing than there used to be. I'm a farmer,
and do many of my own repairs. I have to have two sets of wrenches to
work on US brand-name equipment, SAE for older stuff, and metric for the
newer. Part of that is because many US brands outsource their
manufacturing, but more it's because they need to use metric fasteners
if they want to sell anything outside the US.

TJ

[John Hasler]

I wrote:
> And then there is the idiocy of kilograms per square centimeter as a
> unit of pressure.

mechanic writes:
> Pascal is the SI unit of pressure.

Yes, I know. Nonetheless, Kg/cm^2 is widely used. That's part of what
makes it idiotic. It's not as though it's a traditional unit on it's
way out, like "stone" in Britain.

[John Hasler]

TJ writes:
> There's a lot more in manufacturing than there used to be. I'm a
> farmer, and do many of my own repairs. I have to have two sets of
> wrenches to work on US brand-name equipment, SAE for older stuff, and
> metric for the newer.

Then there is the stuff that has *both* on the same machine.

[sam E]

On 07/21/2013 08:42 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:

[snip]

> When will the UK, Hong Kong, India, et al switch to driving on the correct
> side of the road?

[snip]

If I was to ask, "which side (left or right) is correct, and why?" I
predict that over 90% of the answers would not be to that question.

A lot of the answers would refer to things like "the way I do it" or
"the way most people do it", without considering that NOTE of that has
anything to do with what's best.

I'm not actually asking the question.

[Bruce Sinclair]

In article <87txjmo...@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>I wrote:
>> And then there is the idiocy of kilograms per square centimeter as a
>> unit of pressure.
>mechanic writes:
>> Pascal is the SI unit of pressure.
>Yes, I know. Nonetheless, Kg/cm^2 is widely used. That's part of what
>makes it idiotic. It's not as though it's a traditional unit on it's
>way out, like "stone" in Britain.

Pressure is one of the remaining 'legacy' areas where there are still many
standards used in many areas (unfortunately :) ). Common here are bar and
mbar, atmospere, pascal and it's derivatives, and PSI (I have not seen
kg/cm^2 used anywhere, but it might be).

Standards are good ... then we all know what we are talking about and there
is no confusion (or at least, any confusions are minimised :) ). The classic
example that demonstrates this for me is the old unit ...

Calorie

Well defined you say ? ... <buzz> sorry, wrong. When nutritionists (still !)
use 'calorie' they actually "mean" kilocalorie (ie a factor of 1000 out !).
This use comes entirely from context and has no basis in reality ! <sigh> :)
There is no such confusion with the correct SI energy unit, the joule (at
least, not yet :) ).

SI units are the way to go ... and should be the only way to go.

But as someone once said, the wonderful thing about standards is that there
are so many to choose from ! :) :)

[John Hasler]

Bruce Sinclair writes:
> I have not seen kg/cm^2 used anywhere, but it might be

AFAIK it was "standard" in the USSR and is still common in Eastern
Europe: lots of old Soviet equipment around. Fortunately it works out
to 98 kPa so it might as well be 100 kPa on analog gauges.

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-07-22, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Mike Easter writes:
>> The significant disappointments to me in the world of standardization
>> are:
>> ...
>
> My #1: Two parallel systems for threaded fasteners. I can do unit
> conversions in my head, but this costs me time and money.
>
> And then there is the idiocy of kilograms per square centimeter as a
> unit of pressure.

who uses that unit?

Pa is N/m^2 (which admittedly is too small most for everyday
uses, but that's why there are SI multipliers




--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-07-22, Bruce Sinclair <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:
>
> Pressure is one of the remaining 'legacy' areas where there are still many
> standards used in many areas (unfortunately :) ). Common here are bar and
> mbar, atmospere, pascal and it's derivatives, and PSI (I have not seen
> kg/cm^2 used anywhere, but it might be).

I've not seen it either, but have seen mm and inch of mercury, and
metre of water.

> Standards are good ... then we all know what we are talking about and there
> is no confusion (or at least, any confusions are minimised :) ). The classic
> example that demonstrates this for me is the old unit ...
>
> Calorie
>
> Well defined you say ? ... <buzz> sorry, wrong. When nutritionists (still !)
> use 'calorie' they actually "mean" kilocalorie (ie a factor of 1000 out !).
> This use comes entirely from context and has no basis in reality ! <sigh> :)
> There is no such confusion with the correct SI energy unit, the joule (at
> least, not yet :) ).

they're starting to use kilo joules (correctly) now.

[Bruce Sinclair]

In article <ksldqo$1i3$1...@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx>, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>On 2013-07-22, Bruce Sinclair
> <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:
>>
>> Pressure is one of the remaining 'legacy' areas where there are still many
>> standards used in many areas (unfortunately :) ). Common here are bar and
>> mbar, atmospere, pascal and it's derivatives, and PSI (I have not seen
>> kg/cm^2 used anywhere, but it might be).
>
>I've not seen it either, but have seen mm and inch of mercury, and
>metre of water.

mm Hg used to be common (m of water less so). Haven't seen them used for a
while now.

>> Standards are good ... then we all know what we are talking about and there
>> is no confusion (or at least, any confusions are minimised :) ). The classic
>> example that demonstrates this for me is the old unit ...
>> Calorie
>> Well defined you say ? ... <buzz> sorry, wrong. When nutritionists (still !)
>> use 'calorie' they actually "mean" kilocalorie (ie a factor of 1000 out !).
>> This use comes entirely from context and has no basis in reality ! <sigh> :)
>> There is no such confusion with the correct SI energy unit, the joule (at
>> least, not yet :) ).
>
>they're starting to use kilo joules (correctly) now.

.. and Hoora ! we all say.
It is,however, still used incorrectly in the nutrition area today. Often and
(sadly), regularly. In most cases I've seen recently it's as a general form
meaning 'energy' (eg "you need to eat less calories").

Then there's the USA. "Officially" changed to SI units back in the 60s or
70s IIRC (from the NIST web site I think ?) ... but no sign of SI units
there anywhere in "real life" as I understand it. :) :)

[John Hasler]

Bruce Sinclair writes:
> Then there's the USA. "Officially" changed to SI units back in the 60s or

> 70s IIRC...

SI became legal for trade in the USA in 1866. In 1875 the USA was one
of the original signatories to the Metric Convention. In 1893 the
Metric System (to become SI in 1960) became the basic system of units
for the USA, with the customary units being defined in terms of it.
NIST does all its work in SI.

> ... but no sign of SI units there anywhere in "real life" as I
> understand it.

Every package in my house is labeled in SI units as well as customary.
Pharmaceuticals use SI exclusively as do the USA military.

[Mike Easter]

John Hasler wrote:
> Bruce Sinclair writes:
>> Then there's the USA. "Officially" changed to SI units back in the 60s or
>> 70s IIRC...
>
> SI became legal for trade in the USA in 1866. In 1875 the USA was one
> of the original signatories to the Metric Convention. In 1893 the
> Metric System (to become SI in 1960) became the basic system of units
> for the USA, with the customary units being defined in terms of it.
> NIST does all its work in SI.

That sounds good, but "The 2006 CIA Factbook stated that the "US is the
only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system"

Having some kind of 'theoretical' system which isn't used by the masses
isn't the same thing as (real) metrification.

The US is waiting for the public to metrify themselves, but without any
$$ being spent to change any road signs to include km along with mi.

All of that signatory, basic system, and NIST stuff doesn't change how
the public/masses think - much.

>> ... but no sign of SI units there anywhere in "real life" as I
>> understand it.
>
> Every package in my house is labeled in SI units as well as customary.
> Pharmaceuticals use SI exclusively as do the USA military.

Little by little over the last 150 years. Maybe a few more people will
be thinking metric in the next 150 years.


--
Mike Easter

[John Hasler]

Mike Easter writes:
> That sounds good, but "The 2006 CIA Factbook stated that the "US is
> the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric
> system"

Yes. So what?

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-07-23, Bruce Sinclair <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:

> .. and Hoora ! we all say.
> It is,however, still used incorrectly in the nutrition area today. Often and
> (sadly), regularly. In most cases I've seen recently it's as a general form
> meaning 'energy' (eg "you need to eat less calories").

"Energy" can be ambiguous when describing people, the word was
borrowed by scientists when it already had a mundane meaning.

And people say "voltage" meaning "electromotive force" and "amperage"
for "(electric) current" (gack!)

> Then there's the USA. "Officially" changed to SI units back in the 60s or
> 70s IIRC (from the NIST web site I think ?) ... but no sign of SI units
> there anywhere in "real life" as I understand it. :) :)

To quote The Catherine Tate show "Do I look bothered?"

[TJ]

On 07/23/2013 10:11 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>
> The US is waiting for the public to metrify themselves, but without any
> $$ being spent to change any road signs to include km along with mi.
>

In the present US political climate, you might get road signs that are
new or replacements for damaged ones to have both km and mi, but
changing signs that don't need it except for metrification is unlikely.
We are too busy arguing over the growing budget deficits, national debt,
entitlement system, whose taxes need to be raised, whose benefits will
be cut, etc, etc, to do that.

TJ

[Alastair Black]

On 07/24/2013 02:15 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2013-07-23, Bruce Sinclair <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:
>
>> .. and Hoora ! we all say.
>> It is,however, still used incorrectly in the nutrition area today. Often and
>> (sadly), regularly. In most cases I've seen recently it's as a general form
>> meaning 'energy' (eg "you need to eat less calories").
>
> "Energy" can be ambiguous when describing people, the word was
> borrowed by scientists when it already had a mundane meaning.
>
> And people say "voltage" meaning "electromotive force" and "amperage"
> for "(electric) current" (gack!)
>
>> Then there's the USA. "Officially" changed to SI units back in the 60s or
>> 70s IIRC (from the NIST web site I think ?) ... but no sign of SI units
>> there anywhere in "real life" as I understand it. :) :)
>
> To quote The Catherine Tate show "Do I look bothered?"
>

Voltage is named after an Italian dude. Amperage
is named after a French dude. All the named units
for important stuff is named after people who
made a significant contribution to our body of
knowledge. It think it's rather nice that their
efforts are memorialized somehow.

Volta
Ampere
Hertz
Mach
Henry
Ohm
Joule
Faraday

Maybe if the NomenclatureNazis come after us,
we should just change the names of Santa's
reindeer.

Alastair

[Bruce Sinclair]

In article <87vc40n...@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Bruce Sinclair writes:
>> Then there's the USA. "Officially" changed to SI units back in the 60s or
>> 70s IIRC...
>
>SI became legal for trade in the USA in 1866. In 1875 the USA was one
>of the original signatories to the Metric Convention. In 1893 the
>Metric System (to become SI in 1960) became the basic system of units
>for the USA, with the customary units being defined in terms of it.
>NIST does all its work in SI.
>
>> ... but no sign of SI units there anywhere in "real life" as I
>> understand it.
>
>Every package in my house is labeled in SI units as well as customary.
>Pharmaceuticals use SI exclusively as do the USA military.

Thanks John. Good to know. :)

[Bruce Sinclair]

In article <kso2fv$h97$1...@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx>, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>On 2013-07-23, Bruce Sinclair
> <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:
>> .. and Hoora ! we all say.
>> It is,however, still used incorrectly in the nutrition area today. Often and
>> (sadly), regularly. In most cases I've seen recently it's as a general form
>> meaning 'energy' (eg "you need to eat less calories").
>
>"Energy" can be ambiguous when describing people, the word was
>borrowed by scientists when it already had a mundane meaning.
>And people say "voltage" meaning "electromotive force" and "amperage"
>for "(electric) current" (gack!)

Yep. But as with most things, context is king. Using energy in my example
above is not confusing, where calories certainly is. :)

>> Then there's the USA. "Officially" changed to SI units back in the 60s or
>> 70s IIRC (from the NIST web site I think ?) ... but no sign of SI units
>> there anywhere in "real life" as I understand it. :) :)
>
>To quote The Catherine Tate show "Do I look bothered?"

Don't know ... don't care ? :)

[Nollaig MacKenzie]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]

On 2013.07.22 01:45:39,
the amazing <cfajo...@gmail.com> declared:

> On 2013-07-22, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> On 7/21/2013 5:54 PM, mach2 wrote:
>>> [...]

>>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement system?

>>> It makes no sense what so ever to be using it.
>>
>> Metric used in medicine and the sciences.
>>
>> During the 1970's during the phony oil shortage the highway speed limits
>> across the USA were dropped to 55MPH. At about the same time, a number
>> of highway speed limit signs in California displayed both MPH and km/H
>> but when the USA metrification committee was shortly thereafter disbanded
>> that stopped and all the km/H signs are l-o-n-g gone.
>>

>> When will the UK, Hong Kong, India, et al switch to driving on the correct

>> side of the road? That's a more important safety issue for tourists than
>> the use of the metric system. 72% of the world drives on the correct side:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic
>
> "Research in 1969 by J. J. Leeming showed countries driving on the
> left have a lower collision rate than countries driving on the
> right"
>
> 72% of the world drives on the wrong side.

Sweden switched over a few decades ago. What were the accident rates
a year before and a year after the switchover?

On metrification: Yesterday was the anniversary of the Gimli Glider.

--
Nollaig MacKenzie
http://www.yorku.ca/nollaig

[Nollaig MacKenzie]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]

On 2013.07.22 02:48:13,
the amazing <ma...@hushmail.com> declared:

> On 07/21/2013 07:06 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> mach2 writes:

>>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement
>>> system?
>>

>> The USA has never used the Imperial system, and the metric system has
>> been legal for trade here since the middle of the century before last.
>>

> Not technically, I stand corrected. However, the UK and the United
> States did bring the American System and the Imperial System pretty much
> together. And as a result most simply refer to the system in use in the
> US as Imperial.
>
> Are there differences that you're aware of that exist today?

The American gallon is (I think) 0.833 Imperial.

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2013-07-22, mach2 wrote:
> On 07/21/2013 07:06 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> mach2 writes:
>>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement
>>> system?
>>
>> The USA has never used the Imperial system, and the metric system has
>> been legal for trade here since the middle of the century before last.
>>
> Not technically, I stand corrected. However, the UK and the United
> States did bring the American System and the Imperial System pretty much
> together. And as a result most simply refer to the system in use in the
> US as Imperial.
>
> Are there differences that you're aware of that exist today?

American pints are 16oz; UK pints are 20oz.

I think the ounces may be slightly different, but not
by much.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, <http://cfajohnson.com>
Author:
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[Alastair Black]

On 07/26/2013 12:06 AM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2013-07-22, mach2 wrote:
>> On 07/21/2013 07:06 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>>> mach2 writes:
>>>> Still, when will the United States drop the imperial measurement
>>>> system?
>>>
>>> The USA has never used the Imperial system, and the metric system has
>>> been legal for trade here since the middle of the century before last.
>>>
>> Not technically, I stand corrected. However, the UK and the United
>> States did bring the American System and the Imperial System pretty much
>> together. And as a result most simply refer to the system in use in the
>> US as Imperial.
>>
>> Are there differences that you're aware of that exist today?
>
> American pints are 16oz; UK pints are 20oz.
>
> I think the ounces may be slightly different, but not
> by much.
>

"A pint's a pound, the world around."

Alastair

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 22-07-13 15:55 schreef John Hasler:

> Mike Easter writes:
>> The significant disappointments to me in the world of standardization
>> are:
>> ...
>
> My #1: Two parallel systems for threaded fasteners. I can do unit
> conversions in my head, but this costs me time and money.

And both, metric and customary US systems, have for example fine and
course threaded fasteners.
Thank God we (Europe) got rid of things like Whitworth, BSF and UNC!

>
> And then there is the idiocy of kilograms per square centimeter as a
> unit of pressure. At least psi passes dimensional analysis using the
> old definition of the pound, which was in effect when the unit was
> created.
>

The Kg/cm2 is just another pressure unit that's based on metric
standards (= not SI) and very close to average atmospheric pressure.
Italy is a country where you might find it in use, for customer level
equipment it can be considered sufficiently equal to the Bar or the Atm.
or Atmosphere that's popular in Germany.

Countries that were used to atmospheric pressure in millibar are
converting to the equal Hectopascal.

[John Hasler]

Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
> The Kg/cm2 is just another pressure unit that's based on metric

> standards...

Kg/cm^2 is not a unit of pressure. It is a unit of mass per unit area.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 26-07-13 19:31 schreef John Hasler:

> Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
>> The Kg/cm2 is just another pressure unit that's based on metric
>> standards...
>
> Kg/cm^2 is not a unit of pressure. It is a unit of mass per unit area.
>

Ah so you want to say when I step on the bathroom scales and it shows
100 Kgs that it is my mass?

[John Hasler]

Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
> Ah so you want to say when I step on the bathroom scales and it shows
> 100 Kgs that it is my mass?

Sure. Your scale is a force transducer calibrated to register mass in kg
in a 1G gravitational field.

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:06:42 -0500
John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
> > Ah so you want to say when I step on the bathroom scales and it
> > shows 100 Kgs that it is my mass?
>
> Sure. Your scale is a force transducer calibrated to register mass
> in kg in a 1G gravitational field.

What a shame it is that there isn't a standard term for mass that
doesn't equate to weight.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
T i m non cogitat, ergo dumb

[Mike Yetto]

In a world where Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsPengPod>
posts to Usenet.

> On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:06:42 -0500
> John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>> Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
>> > Ah so you want to say when I step on the bathroom scales and it
>> > shows 100 Kgs that it is my mass?
>>
>> Sure. Your scale is a force transducer calibrated to register mass
>> in kg in a 1G gravitational field.

> What a shame it is that there isn't a standard term for mass that
> doesn't equate to weight.

How about something like boned? Microboned all the way to
bigboned.

Mike "or even tromboned" Yetto
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson

[unruh]

Yes. the SI unit of force is the Newton. The force with which the earth
holds you up about 10 times the Kg indicated on the scale. Since the
gravitational acceleration is about constant on the surface of the
earth, the scale does the conversion for you between the force with
which it holds you up to your mass internally. However, that can be
inaccurate if you are for example on top of My Everest or down in the
Sudbury mine. (or even in Denver compared to Seattle)

In British units there is a confusion as to whether pounds
are a unit of mass or force. If it is force, then mass is in slugs. If
it is a mass, then the unit of force is the poundal.
In that case your scales can be read either as measuring the force the
scale is exerting on you (in which case it is accurate anywhere on the
earth, or anywhere in the universe), or as measuring your mass (in which
case there is a conversion just as for Kg, and depends on where it is as
to whether it is accurate.)

[Paladin]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:21:35 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:06:42 -0500 John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
>> > Ah so you want to say when I step on the bathroom scales and it shows
>> > 100 Kgs that it is my mass?
>>
>> Sure. Your scale is a force transducer calibrated to register mass in
>> kg in a 1G gravitational field.
>
> What a shame it is that there isn't a standard term for mass that
> doesn't equate to weight.
>

The kilogram ... weight is expressed in newtons.
But, since the kg is based on a piece of metal and hence has weight,
maybe eV is the answer.

> Cybe R. Wizard





--
Ex mea sententia

[mechanic]

On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:53:29 +0000 (UTC), Paladin wrote:

> But, since the kg is based on a piece of metal and hence has weight,
> maybe eV is the answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram
- good article on trends in standards for the kg.

[Martijn Lievaart]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:07:13 +0000, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

> But as someone once said, the wonderful thing about standards is that
> there are so many to choose from ! :) :)

I believe in standards. Everyone should have one!

M4

[Paladin]

Didn't realize so many prototype copies existed.


--
Ex mea sententia

[unruh]

The eV is an energy, not a mass or a weight. Of course, relativity tells
us that there is universal factor (not just terrestial as with weight and mass)
that converts energy to mass.
>
>> Cybe R. Wizard
>
>
>
>
>

[Paladin]

Yeah, E=mc^2.
Subatomic particle masses are commonly expressed in eV/c^2 and just eV.

I don't weigh anything that way, nor do I regularly express mass in it's
pure energy form ... I was answering a question, if it even was a
question. :)


--
Ex mea sententia

[Mike Easter]

Paladin wrote:

> mechanic wrote:

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram - good article on trends in
>> standards for the kg.
>
> Didn't realize so many prototype copies existed.

Even more importantly than the copies is the significant advancement in
the elimination of that last remaining SI which is based on an artifact
and subject to 'corruption'.

Since the kg is the last artifact to fall, and since the kg is at the
heart of most of the SI measurements, the advancement of strategies to
eliminate the artifact/s is very important.

To that end, the refinement of both the watt balance and the
interferometer gravimeter seem to be far along the path to sufficient
reproducibility -- 30 parts per billion -- to justify replacement of the
artifact kg by the electronic kg.

However, there are also competing strategies based on Avogadro numbers
of atoms, but I think the watt balance is the closest to achievement.


--
Mike Easter

[Paladin]

On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:24:45 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

> Paladin wrote:
>> mechanic wrote:
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram - good article on trends in
>>> standards for the kg.
>>
>> Didn't realize so many prototype copies existed.
>
> Even more importantly than the copies is the significant advancement in
> the elimination of that last remaining SI which is based on an artifact
> and subject to 'corruption'.
>
> Since the kg is the last artifact to fall, and since the kg is at the
> heart of most of the SI measurements, the advancement of strategies to
> eliminate the artifact/s is very important.
>
> To that end, the refinement of both the watt balance and the
> interferometer gravimeter seem to be far along the path to sufficient
> reproducibility -- 30 parts per billion -- to justify replacement of the
> artifact kg by the electronic kg.
>

True.
The exactness of the artifact produced over a hundred years ago is to be
marveled at. The fact that some are losing mass, others are gaining mass
will be a problem at some point (which is why they are dealing with it)

> However, there are also competing strategies based on Avogadro numbers
> of atoms, but I think the watt balance is the closest to achievement.

I want one of those silicon spheres :)



--
Ex mea sententia

[Robert Wolfe]

+ User FidoNet address: 1:116/18
> From: mechanic <mech...@example.net>

> On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:55:45 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> And then there is the idiocy of kilograms per square centimeter as a
>> unit of pressure.

> Pascal is the SI unit of pressure.

You mean the Star Trek unix of pressure :)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The FidoNet News Gate (Huntsville, AL - USA) +
+ The views of this user are strictly his or her own. +
+ All data is scanned for malware by Avast! Antivirus +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 26-07-13 21:06 schreef John Hasler:

> Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
>> Ah so you want to say when I step on the bathroom scales and it shows
>> 100 Kgs that it is my mass?
>
> Sure. Your scale is a force transducer calibrated to register mass in kg
> in a 1G gravitational field.
>

Now so many have had their word in on the subject I think we can
conclude mass is not measured with regular scales but rather something
like an accelerometer and the Kg was and is meant to be a defined unit
of weight as in 1 Kg of mass at 1G.
This Kg of force acting on a square centimeter results in a pressure.

For my work I use something called a Dead Weight Tester, it is a
(hydraulic) balance to accurately measure and generate pressures,
calibrated weights are used as the reference.
A field DWT instrument will assume a gravitational force of 1G, the
laboratory ones are subject to a factor that corrects for the local
gravity and air pressure. This correction factor is traceable to
national and international standards.

The DWT is mainly used to calibrate high-accuracy pressure gauges and
because there are officially recognised standards we can express the
results just as easily and accurately in Bar, Pascal or indeed Kg/cm2.
High-accuracy as in 0.0001 Bar over a range from 0-1000 Bar.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_tester"

[John Hasler]

Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
> Now so many have had their word in on the subject I think we can
> conclude mass is not measured with regular scales but rather something
> like an accelerometer and the Kg was and is meant to be a defined unit
> of weight as in 1 Kg of mass at 1G.

Mass is correctly measured with a balance, comparing it indirectly with
that lump of metal in Paris (which is currently the definition of the
kilogram). Spring scales offer a convenient but imprecise method of
approximating mass.

[unruh]

On 2013-07-28, Dirk T. Verbeek <dver...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Op 26-07-13 21:06 schreef John Hasler:
>> Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
>>> Ah so you want to say when I step on the bathroom scales and it shows
>>> 100 Kgs that it is my mass?
>>
>> Sure. Your scale is a force transducer calibrated to register mass in kg
>> in a 1G gravitational field.
>>
> Now so many have had their word in on the subject I think we can
> conclude mass is not measured with regular scales but rather something
> like an accelerometer and the Kg was and is meant to be a defined unit
> of weight as in 1 Kg of mass at 1G.
> This Kg of force acting on a square centimeter results in a pressure.

No. The Kg was and is defined, and was meant to be defined, as a unit
of mass. When the French defined the gramme, the notion of mass and the
difference betwen mass, weight, and force were well understood.
As to How you compare masses, you did it via force and Newton's laws,
and sometimes the universality of gravity, but they were under no illusion that
that comparison implied that mass was somehow the same as weight.

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:47:53 -0500
John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
> > Now so many have had their word in on the subject I think we can
> > conclude mass is not measured with regular scales but rather
> > something like an accelerometer and the Kg was and is meant to be a
> > defined unit of weight as in 1 Kg of mass at 1G.
>
> Mass is correctly measured with a balance, comparing it indirectly
> with that lump of metal in Paris (which is currently the definition
> of the kilogram). Spring scales offer a convenient but imprecise
> method of approximating mass.

The same confusion due to inexact working arises yet again. A balance
only measures /weight/, not mass. That, "lump of metal," is a weight.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with mass.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Is this a suitable subject to discuss on a Sunday?

[John Hasler]

Cybe R. Wizard writes:
> The same confusion due to inexact working arises yet again. A balance
> only measures /weight/, not mass. That, "lump of metal," is a weight.
> It has nothing whatsoever to do with mass.

A balance compares masses. It will produce the same results on Earth,
on Mars, on the Moon, or in a centrifuge. It requires only that the
acceleration be equal on the two pans and that you accept the
equivalence principle.

[unruh]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]

[unruh]

On 2013-07-28, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsPengPod> wrote:

Yes, a balance measures if the weight (the force required to hold the
object up) of the object in question is the same as the weight of the
standard. But since the weight in each case is Mg, and since g is common
to both and is exactly the same for both, the balance also measures
whether the masses are the same. Now if the balace were such that one
pan was in New York and the other on the top of mount everest, then
balancing the balance would not indicate equal masses. But few balances
are used that way. As a result by indicating equality of weight they
also indicate equality of mass.
That lump of metal is a MASS. It has an inherent property called its
mass, independent of its weight and whether it is on earth or on the
moon, or orbiting the earth. It is a weight only once it is accelerated
upward in earth's gravity by the balance pan at the standard acceleration of gravity.
(General Relativity speak-- most would say that that its weight is the
force exerted on the mass in order to balance the attraction of gravity).

>
> Cybe R. Wizard

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:20:28 -0500

"Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsPengPod> wrote:

> The same confusion due to inexact working arises yet again.

GAK! "WorDing," not working.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
On an infinite timeline all bandwidth is unlimited.
Steve Lamb

[Bruce Sinclair]

Hopefully, that's what it is calibrated to show (at ~ 1 g of course. :) )
.. otherwise it wouldn't be much use would it. ? :)

[Bruce Sinclair]

In article <slrn201307261810...@may.eternal-september.org>, Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> wrote:
>In a world where Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsPengPod>
>posts to Usenet.
>> On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:06:42 -0500
>> John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Dirk T. Verbeek writes:
>>> > Ah so you want to say when I step on the bathroom scales and it
>>> > shows 100 Kgs that it is my mass?
>>>
>>> Sure. Your scale is a force transducer calibrated to register mass
>>> in kg in a 1G gravitational field.
>
>> What a shame it is that there isn't a standard term for mass that
>> doesn't equate to weight.
>
>How about something like boned? Microboned all the way to
>bigboned.
>
>Mike "or even tromboned" Yetto

<chuckle> thanks for that. :)

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 12:45:21 -0500
John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Cybe R. Wizard writes:
> > The same confusion due to inexact working arises yet again. A
> > balance only measures /weight/, not mass. That, "lump of metal,"
> > is a weight. It has nothing whatsoever to do with mass.
>
> A balance compares masses. It will produce the same results on Earth,
> on Mars, on the Moon, or in a centrifuge. It requires only that the
> acceleration be equal on the two pans and that you accept the
> equivalence principle.

If it requires acceleration then it determines weight, not mass. I will
stipulate that it is a valid way to compare two masses for equivalence
in a known gravity (or acceleration) field and does so to a fairly high
degree of accuracy as long as one has a known-quantity sample for
comparison, but it does /not/ determine mass by itself any more than
any spring scale does.

[Bruce Sinclair]

Also interesting about the mass kg is that it's the only unit to be actually
defined as 1000 of something. I suspect we would be better off trying to get
a good standard "g" instead ?

[John Hasler]

> I will stipulate that it is a valid way to compare two masses for

> equivalence in a known gravity (or acceleration) field...

The field does not have to be known. It just has to be constant over
the time it takes to make a measurement and uniform in the region of the
balance.

And a one kilogram mass is currently defined as that which balances the
standard kilogram (that lump of metal in Paris).

Are you saying that you reject the equivalence principle? If so
Dr. Einstein would like to have a word with you (as may Dr. Unruh).

[unruh]

It is known exactly. It is exactly 1/1000 of a Kg. :-)


>
>
>
>
>

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 21:16:45 GMT
unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

> That lump of metal is a MASS. It has an inherent property called its
> mass, independent of its weight and whether it is on earth or on the
> moon, or orbiting the earth. It is a weight only once it is
> accelerated upward in earth's gravity by the balance pan at the
> standard acceleration of gravity. (General Relativity speak-- most
> would say that that its weight is the force exerted on the mass in
> order to balance the attraction of gravity).

You are right, of course. I was speaking of it in relation to its use
in a balance scale. My whole point is/has been that there is an
inherent confusion between the terms weight and mass caused mostly
because of their seeming equivalence under a steady
acceleration/gravitational field.

Thinking that the 180 pound man on earth is only 30 pounds on the moon
will certainly give rise to injuries when one fails to take into
account that the 180 'pounds' of mass remains the same.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Force needed to accelerate 2.2lbs of cookies = 1 Fig-newton

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 20:23:55 -0500
John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> > I will stipulate that it is a valid way to compare two masses for
> > equivalence in a known gravity (or acceleration) field...
>
> The field does not have to be known. It just has to be constant over
> the time it takes to make a measurement and uniform in the region of
> the balance.

You are right. Any steady field will do for the comparison.

>
> And a one kilogram mass is currently defined as that which balances
> the standard kilogram (that lump of metal in Paris).

That is my whole position; that the equivalence is only valid in a
gravitational field or under an acceleration (which, as I understand
it, are really equivalent).

>
> Are you saying that you reject the equivalence principle? If so
> Dr. Einstein would like to have a word with you (as may Dr. Unruh).

Not at all. I only bemoan the equivalence of terms for <things> that
mean such different properties of matter.

[Jasen Betts]

It has mass (innertia) too, as anyone who has hit the wrong nail
with a 1Kg hammer can attest.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Jasen Betts]

Yes, a balance compares weights, but given that weight is directly
proportional to mass and that the gravitational field is essentially
uniform on a small scale, balances offer a convenient, and acurate
method for comparing masses.

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-07-29, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsPengPod> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 12:45:21 -0500
> John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Cybe R. Wizard writes:
>> > The same confusion due to inexact working arises yet again. A
>> > balance only measures /weight/, not mass. That, "lump of metal,"
>> > is a weight. It has nothing whatsoever to do with mass.
>>
>> A balance compares masses. It will produce the same results on Earth,
>> on Mars, on the Moon, or in a centrifuge. It requires only that the
>> acceleration be equal on the two pans and that you accept the
>> equivalence principle.
>
> If it requires acceleration then it determines weight, not mass.

If it's measuring innertia, it is measuring mass.

[unruh]

But on a balance scale, you would still "weigh" 180 lbs (or rather lets
say 80Kg since there is no confusion over force and mass there)
Ie, you would balance with a mass marked 80Kg.-- or if you slid the
little weights on the balance beam, they would still slide over to mark
you as being 80Kg. If you used a "spring"
weighing machine (like the one probably in your bathroom) , or a piezoelectric one,
then the scales would say you
are 13Kg on the moon, but not a balance weighing machine.
>
> Cybe R. Wizard

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:44:55 GMT
unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

> on a balance scale, you would still "weigh" 180 lbs (or rather lets
> say 80Kg since there is no confusion over force and mass there)
> Ie, you would balance with a mass marked 80Kg.-- or if you slid the
> little weights on the balance beam, they would still slide over to
> mark you as being 80Kg. If you used a "spring"
> weighing machine (like the one probably in your bathroom) , or a
> piezoelectric one, then the scales would say you
> are 13Kg on the moon, but not a balance weighing machine.

Thanks, but I know the difference between spring and balance scales
and the difference between weight and mass. Most folks don't, though,
and equate the two, never even suspecting that mass will remain the
same in different fields. It isn't so much of an impediment for people
right now, but if we /ever/ get to space in large numbers it will
be.

This is the basis of my problem with identical terms. There wouldn't
be a problem if there were different terms for weight vs mass.
Otherwise, someone is going to be fooled by the difference which isn't
always apparent (as we can see by the confusion of the two terms which
has been amply demonstrated in this thread).

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Disbelief in magic can force a poor soul into believing in government
and business.
Tom Robbins

[Bruce Sinclair]

Yeah :) ... but I suggest that aint a useful definition, only a theoretical
one. :) :)

[unruh]

On 2013-07-29, Bruce Sinclair <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:
> In article <k5kJt.110750$zd5.1...@fx18.iad>, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>On 2013-07-28, Bruce Sinclair
>> <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:
>>> In article <b5ivlb...@mid.individual.net>, Mike Easter
>> <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:

...

>>> Also interesting about the mass kg is that it's the only unit to be actually
>>> defined as 1000 of something. I suspect we would be better off trying to get
>>> a good standard "g" instead ?
>>
>>It is known exactly. It is exactly 1/1000 of a Kg. :-)
>
> Yeah :) ... but I suggest that aint a useful definition, only a theoretical
> one. :) :)

Nope a Microsoft definition. As in that old Joke-- Accurate but useless.
{For the one reader who has not heard it:}
[ A Helicopter pilot lost in the fog in Seattle shouts out to some
people in a window-- "Where am I?" "Here". "Ah now I know where I am"
says the pilot. "That's Microsoft Support headquarters."]



>

[Bruce Sinclair]

In article <XeEJt.71356$iM7....@fx05.iad>, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2013-07-29, Bruce Sinclair
> <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:
>> In article <k5kJt.110750$zd5.1...@fx18.iad>, unruh <un...@invalid.ca>
> wrote:
>>>On 2013-07-28, Bruce Sinclair
>>> <bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:
>>>> In article <b5ivlb...@mid.individual.net>, Mike Easter
>>> <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:

>....

>>>> Also interesting about the mass kg is that it's the only unit to be
> actually
>>>> defined as 1000 of something. I suspect we would be better off trying to
> get
>>>> a good standard "g" instead ?
>>>
>>>It is known exactly. It is exactly 1/1000 of a Kg. :-)
>>
>> Yeah :) ... but I suggest that aint a useful definition, only a theoretical
>> one. :) :)
>
>Nope a Microsoft definition. As in that old Joke-- Accurate but useless.
>{For the one reader who has not heard it:}
>[ A Helicopter pilot lost in the fog in Seattle shouts out to some
>people in a window-- "Where am I?" "Here". "Ah now I know where I am"
>says the pilot. "That's Microsoft Support headquarters."]

:) I know this one as ...

A balloon pilot descends and asks a chap on the ground "where am I". The
chap gives latitude, longtitude and height data, to which the balloon pilot
says "ah, you must be an engineer. Those coordinates, while accurate, are
unhelpful".
The chap on the ground replies ... "Ah ... and you must be a manager. I
given you the information you asked for, and it's still my fault you are
lost!".

:) :)