How Convenient

[Magnus Lundstedt]

If the base 10 system is so great, why is the whole world still using the 12 hour day?
I can count to 12 using the fingers joints on one hand and using the thumb to hold my place. Try that with the base 10 system.

Most of the world is using 24 hours per day. ;-)

The duodecimal (base 12) numbers system is great, mostly for the ease of multiplication, but not so much in use.

 

[BRT]

Most of the world is using 24 hours per day. ;-)

The duodecimal (base 12) numbers system is great, mostly for the ease of multiplication, but not so much in use.

Still, if it is really worth changing to have a decimal system you would think the world would be clamoring to change the time system.

 

[Magnus Lundstedt]

Still, if it is really worth changing to have a decimal system you would think the world would be clamoring to change the time system.

The world is allready using the decimal system. (base 10)

 

[BRT]

The world is allready using the decimal system. (base 10)

Not for time!

 

[Snoweman]

We can try both:

I try -40°F first

T(K) = (T(°F) + 459.67) × 5/9

T=(-40+459.67)* 5/9
T=419.67*5/9
T=(459.67*5)/9
T=2098.35/9
T=233.15 K

T(K) = 5/9 (T(°F) - 32) + 273

T=5/9(-40 -32) +273
T=(5/9)*(-72)+273
T=-40+273
T=233

The first one is spot on, second allmost correct, just should had 273.15 instead of 273, but thats just a matter of precition.

The second one, if using the correct T(K) = 5/9 (T(°F) - 32) + 273.15 instead, is acctualy a workaround converting first to °C [T(°C) = 5/9 (T(°F) - 32)] And then add 273.15

If you instead start with °C you just have to add 273.15, and that I can do in my head.

I stand corrected. When I did it on my calculator between 30F and 100F, it was a decent approximation. When I did 200F on my calculator, it was way off.

After your post, I put it into a spreadsheet and was surprised how well it correlated between -40F and 200F.

My bad.

 

[dmaziuk]

Not for time!

Sure they do, for sub-second and multi-year intervals.

 

[Diving Dubai]

But gasoline (petrol) mileage is expressed in liters (litres) per 100km, which makes my head hurt.

Actually I get your point, but it's not that hard

I buy my Petrol in L and my distance is in Km. Thus it's easy. BUT the fact that I average 20l/100km is hard to visualize - is that good or bad? Having a readout that displays remaing fuel (in Litres) means you can quickly guage if you need to refuel or not

In the UK distance is miles and fuul qty requires some mental gymnastics (4.5 litres per UK gallon or 3.7 US) btw I rounded up (for the pedants)

The answer btw , is 20l/100Km is 14mpg with UK gallons, or 11mpg with US gallons Because I was always brought up with MPG I can relate to that number.

 

[Diving Dubai]

More on relative measurements.

I long ago gave up imperial

However

A person's height - I can visualise 6'3" but not 190cm

I'll still think of 8x4 sheets of wood (even though they're 1.2 x 2.4m)

Altitude. 25000 feet is easier for me to visualise rather than 7620m..

 

[gcarter]

In the UK distance is miles and fuul qty requires some mental gymnastics (4.5 litres per UK gallon or 3.7 US) btw I rounded up (for the pedants)

Actually, you rounded down

4.546 imperial and 3.785 us

 

[Diving Dubai]

Actually, you rounded down

4.546 imperial and 3.785

There's always one