Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Cubits

Discussion in 'General' started by Seamus Donohue, Mar 5, 2017.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    This is like saying that trucks can't pull large trailers reliably because your sports car can't.

    Horsepower is based on the average output of draft horses (such as the Clydesdale) over a sustained period of work. The mechanical horsepower formulated from experimentation by James Watt and the various metric horsepower units from Europe are very similar to each other, with the latter group being short of the mechanical horsepower by just ten watts or so, and varying among each other by a few watts.

    Frankly I would not be surprised if the Arabian could output one horsepower over time, given that fast horses have been measured to output up to 14.9hp in bursts. I doubt the work load would be healthy for the horse though.
     
  2. fourthquantum Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,286
    Imperial is a more complicated unit system to use.

    Metric normalises the units. Metric is a much better unit system to use.

    I don't know what my weight is in Kg but I do know what it is in stones, but I still think the Kg measurement is a better way to 'work things out'.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    I really had no idea people actually still used stones for weight. I thought that was just a medieval thing.
     
  4. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    Britain and a few commonwealth countries use the stone often, though I usually see it in print only referring to person-relative weights, such as body weight or for lifting things.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. fourthquantum Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,286
    Well the UK does still have a lot of castles.

    Also, another reason to use metric.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. bigsteve Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    90
  7. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    Has nothing to do with lack of metrication; would have occurred given use of any differing standards between the two software designs, metric or English. The climate orbiter failed due to human error, not unit error.

    There are no situations in which use of differing unit systems have resulted in failures caused by the unit systems themselves. These are all examples of human error and clumsiness. If you want a pure metric example, a bridge between Switzerland and Germany in Laufenberg had to be lowered on the German side before the halves could be joined, as Germany uses sea level as measured from the North Sea, and Switzerland uses it measured from the Mediterranean. This led to the German half of the bridge being 54cm higher than the Swiss half when the design calculation meant to account for them accidentally doubled the 27cm sea level difference instead of removing it.

    I have personally worked in projects that use three different unit systems (I designed in decimal inches, workshop wanted drawings in fractional inches and feet, customer wanted to know dimensions in cm but projected mass in US pounds. Project was based on a model designed in mm.) and the project worked out just fine. Blaming unit systems for human failures is embarrassingly irresponsible on the part of those who made the mistakes, and you do future work no good by parroting their excuses as a form of childish boasting in favor of your preferred system. Ironically in the case of the climate orbiter no one in the investigation blamed the English system for the problem, they blamed it correctly on the failure of the software engineers to modify the software to produce results in the units expected by the standards set for the project.

    Final point, if you're too stupid or sloppy to work with differing unit systems properly, you shouldn't be allowed to work on anything of worth.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. bigsteve Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    90
    Lolz, huamn error not checking what the measurement systemis beimg used.
    Still measuring hieght in US and metric anddirectlycomparing valv3 and not converting is human anddifferent standards.
     
  9. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    In English, please. It's rather difficult to read gibberish. Though from what I can tell, you are clinging to this false notion that using different systems results in unit errors. I have seen it occur more often in metric than in Imperial or US customary usage in my own experience, and that is with people working entirely within metric. Regardless of the degree of metrication, there will always be different standards in use in different applications, and blaming mistakes on the standards being different is simply a childish method of covering ones ignorance or idiocy.

    As mentioned earlier, the failures supposedly caused by "use of US/Imperial units" would still occur in cases if different (but quite legitimate) metric standards had been used instead. For the climate orbiter, if Lockheed's software had output in kilogram-force (I have no idea why any metric standards have this, but it does exist and is widely used despite originating in the old metric standards) they probably wouldn't have had any warning before they lost the orbiter, as the burns would have been almost an order of magnitude smaller than the expected output in newtons. The problem stems not from the actual unit that the software output, but from the fact that it wasn't reported in the expected one. Blaming the use of different standards is like asking a foreign colleague for a letter of recommendation, and blaming the entire French language when you get a letter in French, when you should be bringing them to task for not writing it in English as requested.

    I really do wish metrication proponents would stick to their only strong argument (equivalency of units, though I don't find it very compelling myself) instead of blaming human failures on perfectly functional standards. I often wonder if there is a latent superiority complex and frustration build-up stemming from it that makes them lash out about these things.

    Personally I expect metric to be completely replaced by the next "completely logical system" within a century or two once metric has been cluttered with specialized and derived units enough that the "great minds" of coming days feel it necessary to revamp it entirely, again. They may even try a second time for decimal calendars.
    I expect these people will treat the protests of people using metric with the same contempt that metrication proponents give to those who prefer English units.

    Also, I have noticed you have rated some of my posts as "funny", from the given context this is presumably in an attempt at mockery. Do be aware that the proper reaction is the disagree, as the funny reaction counts positively by the forum, and attempts to use the funny reaction negatively may well cause confusion to onlookers.
     
  10. bigsteve Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    90
    I am not covering for nuffink or noone.
    AAnd spinnimg everythink i say just shows you are covering for somethink, or i know us america just have to say alot about nufink, you should be a politician, as spin is there fortay. And as usual america is great and wecant be wrong.
     
  11. fourthquantum Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,286
    That specific error was caused by the use of two different metric systems. If all those countries/companies involved used a universal metric system then that error would not have occurred.
     
  12. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    • Inappropriate Language
    No, -SNIP BY TODESRITTER. They use the same unit system, the metric system. The difference is in sea level reference standard.

    There is no universal sea level. Germany references the North Sea because they border it, Switzerland references the Mediterranean because they are closest to it.

    And furthermore, there cannot be a useful universal sea level, because sea level is different in different hydrologies around the ocean.

    I reiterate: if your solution to human error regarding multiple standards is to insist on a universal standard, you do not understand standards.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2017
  13. fourthquantum Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,286
    from the link:
    I don't call people idiots.
     
  14. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    From the actual report, emphasis mine:

    The error was in not following procedure. No where does the report put the blame on the English system, they put it on failure to follow the mission's standards. The error was a failure of adhering to standards and would have existed regardless of use of the English system, because Lockheed failed to modify their software to adhere to the unit standards for the mission.

    Good for you. I do.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. fourthquantum Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,286
    . . .

    You should be careful doing that.
     
  16. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    @fourthquantum My earlier post was about the bridge example, because I had thought you were referring to that with the "two metric systems." If I am mistaken, I apologize for my rashness.

    It does not change my point: Differing standards exist, and people will always have to work with them. It is foolish to blame errors in reconciling the standards on the existence of different standards, because there can be no perfect, universal standard, in practical application.
     
  17. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    841
    The only thing going for metric for me is the ratio at which units correlate to each other, but I feel that is a very important part of a unit system; for it to be congruent with itself.

    Kilograms can be used as both "weight" and mass, but when used as "weight" you are actually getting the mass, not the force itself, because that´s Newtons... that doesn´t mean however that it´s wrong, just that it´s something you have to account for.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.