I always assumed it was because there is only one diagonal length, but two side lengths.
And if you know the aspect ratio and a little trigonometry, you can easily calculate length and width.
AFAIK, in the US, cigars have their lengths quoted in inches, and their circumference (“ring size”) in millimeters.
Same here in Luxembourg.
A while back, we were in the market for a new TV. I measured the open space, looked at a few models on Amazon to get a sense of the likely availability of various sizes (in inches), and then converted those to centimeters and went to the MediaMarkt downtown to check out my options in person. I was very surprised to see inches on the French-language info signs; I felt silly for converting, but I did remember the original values. Learned something interesting that day.
Spoken with such authority. I worked in the flat panel display industry for many years. Display sizes use mm.
As I said: construction/engineering. You used mm. Ads use cm.
I am in Europe and see the ads all the time. None, not a single one, has ever quoted the size of a screen, be it TV or computer, in mm. It will be inches or cm depending on location.
I hope that you “people in the metric-land” realize that that is a subset of Americans.
Some deal with the less familiar units “without freaking out”.
With that said, I had my moment of annoyance at units a few weeks back when I was using a graduated cylinder from Cinestill for mixing color negative chemistry: they said “add X ounces of concentrate to make Y ounces of solution” but the darned cylinder had scales for “US Ounces” and “Imperial Ounces”, with the latter being slightly smaller than the former. And I certainly used the wrong one.
I may have said a few unpleasant words about Cinestill not using milliliters, like most Americans use when doing chemistry.
If you used the same (“US” versus “Imp”) for both the concentrate and the solvent, the resulting concentration wouldn’t have been “wrong”, regardless of which you picked.
If you didn’t, that’s your mistake.
Fine, But what is the difference between a big wheel and a small one? What is the advantage of bigger wheels or smaller ones? Why do they drive this backwards?
You’re welcome! Now you mention it, of course 2.54 is much more compatible with the metric/SI than 2.53, a blind person would see that! (Excuse my Germanism, I guess you recognize the literal translation) As an inch is una pulgada in Spanish, where un pulgar is a thumb, we get that the inch is the ideal unit for the rule of thumb, or in proper German: π mal Daumen. The most compatibility-est unit ever!
OK, I’ll remember 2.54 from now on as the proper conversion ratio. Thanks!
I’m not really sure what your problem with this is. One is bigger. You seem to be saying that the fact of it being described in inches makes it confusing but it’s no different than if it said 66cm or 71cm.
No problem at all, but as I felt we were done with TV screens I could ask what the advantages of smaller or bigger wheels are. I guess there is a trade off between something and something else, I don’t know: agility vs durability? And then Chronos writes that they are given in pseudo-precise-inches, converted by rule of thumb from round number metric value:
I find that funny, not a problem.
Minor quibble. The SI system is more precise so it is 0 calories = 0.0 joules.
A larger wheel will be less sensitive to irregularities in the road surface, but it’s also bulkier, and too large makes it impossible to get the frame shape and height you want. I don’t think there’s much more to it.
Wheels of different sizes will also have different mechanical advantage, in themselves, but whatever your wheel size, you’ll just pick a gearing to get the total mechanical advantage you want, so I don’t think that’s a relevant issue.
Just look at a TV that you have. If you don’t know its diagonal take a guess. Shouldn’t be hard to imagine how wide a screen of any practical size would be. How a movie or TV show looks on it is something you have to actually see so if you’re lookng for something substantially larger go to a store and look at one. You can’t get a substantially smaller TV. That’s not allowed.
If you don’t have a TV now or have never seen one I feel terribly sorry for you. Go get a TV now.
This time you didn’t know it all–there is a third option.
I had one graduated cylinder that had US ounces and Imperial ounces as well as milliliters, provided by Cinestill.
I had a second graduated cylinder with US ounces and milliliters.
So when it said “Add 10 ounces of concentrate to make 32 ounces of solution” you can now see what mistake I made: I filled the good US-ounce cylinder a third of the way with water, added 10 Imperial ounces from the bogus cylinder, then completed the 32 US ounces in my good cylinder with water.
But it was still all my mistake: their instructions were clear.
My photos are developing just fine–photo chemistry has quite a bit of leeway.
Yes. I did indicate that if you used different units, that would have been your mistake. Even if the mistake were one of unawareness (not noticing the discrepancy between the two different containers).
Process errors are often of that nature.
An imperial fluid ounce is 1⁄20 of an imperial pint, 1⁄160 of an imperial gallon or exactly 28.4130625 mL. A US customary fluid ounce is 1⁄16 of a US liquid pint and 1⁄128 of a US liquid gallon or exactly 29.5735295625 mL, making it about 4.08% larger than the imperial fluid ounce .
That’s a 1-in-25 accuracy. Yes, like electrical components and baking instructions, the world rarely requires absolutely precise measurements. (And the world did not evolve to add exactly x ounces to y ounces, it’s just convenient to round to the nearest whole number). I used to develop pictures, and as long as the temperature was within a degree or two, I ddn’t fuss over 68° vs 69° and the results were fine…
Even worse, in electronics, the default accuracy for components like resistors and capacitors is 20%.
One bad example I saw once of unit-discrepancy was a ruler that was marked in 32nds of an foot. Mixed in, of course, with a bunch of metric rulers in a physics lab, because it looked just like one (1/32 foot is almost a centimeter), until you actually held up the two directly side-by-side.
B&W chemistry is awesome in that you can do just about anything and still get usable photos.
With C41 color chemistry you need to run a tighter ship, putting your chemicals and Paterson tank in a bath of water at 102F with a sous vide heater keeping the temperature constant.
That’s one reason why I was surprised at Cinestill working in ounces and shipping equipment with the trap dual-ounce scales on it–this is their business, and you would think they would goof proof it a bit better.
Yes, and yes.