Subject: Re: Feet in the USA. two of them<br/>
Date: Oct 07, 2004 @ 13:48<br/>
Author: Ron McConnell (&quot;Ron McConnell&quot; &lt;rcmcc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="15672.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15680.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic15671.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="15677.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15679.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1939643650"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt; Two definitions of a foot in the USA<br/>
&gt; 1. standard (&quot;international&quot;) foot     = 0.3048 meters<br/>
&gt; 2. U.S. survey foot = 1200/3937 meters = 0.3048006096012 m<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>&quot;aletheiak&quot; says,<br/>
&quot;...this may explain part of the slight discrepancy<br/>
i recently observed between the length of the vawv<br/>
terminal segment as reported by the surveyor<br/>
using state plane coordinates & the same length<br/>
as computed by me with a great circle arc calculator<br/>
or are 4 hundredths of a foot of aberration<br/>
in about 80 feet of run too much<br/>
to be explained away by that...&quot;<br/>
<br/>
  80 ft x ((0.3048006096012 / 0.3048) - 1)  x 12 in/ft = 0.0002 in<br/>
<br/>
So that&#39;s not the reason.<br/>
Measuring 0.2 millinches of distance<br/>
is a challenge for us civilians.  :)<br/>
<br/>
A friend in an offline message notes,<br/>
    START QUOTE<br/>
Hidden in these definitions is the old &quot;political&quot; debate<br/>
over which system of measures (English or Metric)<br/>
should prevail.  Whether the English system of measures<br/>
would define the Metric system<br/>
or the Metric system would define the English system.<br/>
The argument was, who would have to accommodate whom.<br/>
<br/>
If you restate your items [1.] and [2.], above,<br/>
in terms of inches and centimeters we get...<br/>
<br/>
1. 1 inch       = 2.54 centimeters, exactly.<br/>
<br/>
2. 1 centimeter = 0.3937 inches,    exactly.<br/>
<br/>
Notice in item [2.] (the older of the two standards),<br/>
the preference is for the English system,<br/>
since it intrinsically made it easier to convert<br/>
from Metric system to the English system,<br/>
and not vice versa.  This is because the<br/>
factor 0.3927 is an exact value<br/>
with no additional trailing decimal points.<br/>
<br/>
Conversely, in item [1.]<br/>
(the more recent of the two standards),<br/>
the preference has changed to favor the Metric system<br/>
because it is now easier to convert the English units<br/>
into Metric units.  This is because the factor 2.54<br/>
is an exact value with no additional<br/>
trailing decimal points.<br/>
<br/>
...But I suspect that had it not been for the origin<br/>
of the Metric system (i.e., Europe, and France in particular),<br/>
we in the U.S. would have been a thoroughly &quot;metricized&quot; nation<br/>
200 years ago.  With the exception of a primary unit of mass<br/>
called the *kilo*gram, the metric system makes far more sense<br/>
than the goofy English system that only &quot;sluggishly&quot;<br/>
(pun intended) came to grips with the fact<br/>
that a pound is not a unit of mass.&quot;<br/>
<br/>
    END QUOTE<br/>
<br/>
&quot;Not invented here&quot; is not a new thing.<br/>
<br/>
Cheers, 73,<br/>
<br/>
Ron McC.<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:w2iol@...">w2iol@...</a><br/>
<br/>
Ronald C. McConnell, PhD<br/>
<br/>
 WGS-84: N 40º 46&#39; 57.6&quot;  +/-0.1&quot;<br/>
         W 74º 41&#39; 22.1&quot;  +/-0.1&quot;<br/>
         FN20ps.77GU31 +/-<br/>
         V +5058.3438  H +1504.2531<br/>
<br/>
 <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://home.earthlink.net/~rcmcc">http://home.earthlink.net/~rcmcc</a> <br/>
<br/>
Don&#39;t argue about facts.<br/>
 -G. Robert Leopold</div>