[Info-vax] Where is EISNER:: and who funds it?

[alanfe...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe... at gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: 
> >> In article <00B6DA8D... at SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- 
> >> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: 
> >> 
> >>>>> As is inches, feet, yards, miles, pounds, quarts, gallons, etc ... 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> :-) 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Right, I have heard about that. While the rest of the world has moved on. 
> >>> 
> >>> Dynes or newtons? 
> > 
> > Excellent point. 
> > 
> >> Both are metric, but newton is the SI, and hence preferred, unit. Same 
> >> with tesla over gauss. 

The SI unit for temperature is kelvin, not Celsius. (Or kelvins. I never got that bit straightened out. Used to be degrees kelvin. That was better.

> > Depends on the purpose. Use the right too for the job. And to my European freinds: How many Newtons do you weigh?
> I think I might have hit reply instead of follow up. But instead of a 
> long rant, I'll just observe that newtons is force. 
> 
> And newtons are defined as kg * m/2^s. Anyone using SI units thus have a 
> pretty easy time to figure out how many newtons of force he asserts, 
> based on his mass. If you are lazy, you just add a "0" after your 
> weight, and you have approximately how many newtons you are asserting at 
> the surface of the earth. If you want to be a bit more precise you 
> multiply your weight by 9.81, and if you want to be very precise, you 
> need to know the actual gravity at the point where you are, and you 
> multiply your mass by that to find the force. (But then you need to also 
> really figure out what your mass is, which isn't that easy to figure out.) 
> 
> And of course, if we move to the moon, our weight, and the force we 
> assert will be all different. 
> 
> But in the most simplistic terms, since if you step on a scale, you get 
> a number for your weight, in kg, just multiplying it by 10 is usually 
> good enough for newtons. 
> 
> Do you have any other "difficult" questions for your European friends? 
> 
> And while we're at it, how many lbf do you weight? And what is lbf? 

You bet! I weigh myself every morning and can tell you in an instant. I'd rather not on a public forum though! And I don't even have to add a 0, which is not quite accurate enough in my book. If memorizing 32 and 212 is too much effort  (which you don't even need to know the majority of the time you use temperature), then multiplying by 9.8 certainly is! Yes, you can figure it out, but if you go by that standard, neither system is superior.

And it's lbs., not lbf. Well, I suppose you could use lbf. I'd have to look it up. Not really relevant here.

> Force in pounds for acceleration expressed in m/s^2 ? So if you want it 
> in lb * foot/s^2, there isn't even a unit? How messed up is this thing?

I never said anything about acceleration. I was talking about weighing things, esp. yourself. Well, I recall a value of 32 ft/sec/sec for g. Different system, different units and such. What's wrong with ft/sec/sec?

> > Back to Fahrenheit: It has its advantages. When the temperature is in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s -- each range conjures up a different feeling. The Celsius degree is too big for that. "But is based on 0 and 100 for water!" So F what [pun not intended!]. How often do you even think of those when you are involved with the temperature. You've got two numbers: 32 and 212. Is this too hard to memorize? And when you hear those numbers you know it's temperature-related. 0 and 100 could be 'most anything.
> There is absolutely no problems looking at celcius in ranges and figure 
> out a feeling based on that. Most people do. Nonsense to think you can't. 

Really? I'm talking ranges of 10. In Celsius if you say it's in the 20s, what does that really mean? Anywhere from 68 F to 86 Fahranheit. Is it hot out or comfortable? If I say 70s F, it's comfortable or slightly warm. Sure, if you give a particular number, like 23 deg C., you can have a feel for it. But in ranges of tens, F is clearly better. 

> 
> It's not about memorizing. Any human should be able to memorize. It's 
> about how easy or hard it is to use. 
> Yes, when you are used to one thing, it is always easy. If you learn 
> one, and then move to another. The interesting question is - do you want 
> to move back? That's what tells you which you should be going with. 
> Don't torment kids with the broken systems of their ancestors just 
> because it is easier for you...

Teaching the kiddies Celsius _instead_ of Fahrenheit would be "torture." Just watch or read any U.S. weather forecast. 

> > Again, the reason Americans don't adopt Celsius is the same reason you haven't switched from the QWERTY to the Dvorak keyboard.
> Definitely true in a sense. It's about using what you are used to in a way. 
> But you can both argue the superiority of Dvorak, and also observe and 
> countries like France and Germany don't even use Qwerty. 

Really? What do France and Germany use instead? Just askin'.

> 
> Johnny

Alan