zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.

Learn More · Sign-up Now
Welcome to Dozensonline. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, and sending personal messages. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. (You will be asked to confirm your email address before we sign you on.)
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (8) [1] 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Octal Day-gravity-water System, described by D.S.
wendy.krieger
Posted: Dec 1 2017, 09:18 AM


Dozens Demigod


Group: Members
Posts: 2,432
Member No.: 655
Joined: 11-July 12



I wrote a set of values to produce the octal system that Double Sharp mentions.

The day is divided to 8 hours, of 64 minutes of 64 seconds of 64 thirds. The third is the time unit. The length unit is about a digit (2/3 inch), and the weight unit is about a teaspoon of water, or 5g. There are a number of coins in circulation of this weight, for example, the US nickel.

The X-value is exponents, base 8, but 'engineering mode' of every double power is used. The units are SI names occupying the same position, in essence, quantitels by the SI unit.

CODE
OCT (1X1 = 8)

Conventional values
   Specific gravity (spig)      gcc      1.00021604666607 X   0 kg/m3
   gravity                      g        1.00027830000000 X   0 m/s2
   Joule constant               j        0.99998776859504 X   0 J/kg K
   Atmosphere                   atm      9.70651058824854 X   2 Pa
   Solar constant                        20.6586033716191 X   0 W/m2

Time
   third                        thi      25.8907654320987 X  -2 s
   second (day / D5)            s        8.42798353909465 X   0 s
   vipala                                9.70903703703703 X   0 s
   second (day / E5)            s        20.9715200000000 X   0 s
   second                       sec      24.2725925925925 X   0 s
   pala (1/60 gh)                        9.10222222222222 X   2 s
   minute                       min      22.7555555555555 X   2 s
   ghurry                       gh       8.53333333333333 X   4 s
   hour                         hr       21.3333333333333 X   4 s
   day                          d        8.00000000000000 X   6 s
   week                         wk       56.0000000000000 X   6 s
   fortnight                    fn       1.75000000000000 X   8 s
   monþ (30.6 day)                       3.82500000000000 X   8 s
   year (365.2422 day)          yr       45.6552750000000 X   8 s

Length
   micron                       um       15.7533320298967 X  -6 m
   bushel / acre                         2.21208938904365 X  -4 m
   litre / are                           2.46145812967137 X  -4 m
   blinter                      mm       3.84602832761152 X  -2 m
   inch                         in       1.52639249252082 X   0 m
   foot                         ft       18.3167099102498 X   0 m
   yard                         yd       54.9501297307496 X   0 m
   metre                        m        60.0941926189300 X   0 m
   faþom                        f        1.71719155408592 X   2 m
       sea (n.m/1000)                    1.74008744147373 X   2 m
       land (6.6 ft)                     1.88891070949451 X   2 m
   chain                        ch       18.8891070949451 X   2 m
   hectometre                   100m     1.46714337448559 X   4 m
   furlong                      fur      2.95142298358518 X   4 m
   click (US 1000 yd)                    13.4155590162962 X   4 m
   chonter                      km       14.6714337448559 X   4 m
   mile                         mi       23.6113838686814 X   4 m
       sea (6000 ft)                     26.8311180325925 X   4 m
       nautical (6080 ft)       n mi     27.1888662730271 X   4 m
       land (6600 ft)                    29.5142298358518 X   4 m
   Nautical measure                    
       nmile (6Z2)                       27.1887600256040 X   4 m
       dmile (D4),                       28.3216250266708 X   4 m
       mrinal (H2),                      40.7831400384060 X   4 m

Area
   barn                         b        6.98529328510258 X -28 m2
   darcy                        D        3.82691015982254 X -10 m2
   litre / 100 km               cl/km    9.46683769394578 X  -6 m2
   gallon / mile                g/m      41.7843933732373 X  -4 m2
   sq mms                       sqmm     14.7919338967902 X  -4 m2
   sq cms                       cms2     23.1123967137348 X  -2 m2
   sq inch                      sqin     2.32987404122393 X   0 m2
   sq foot                      sq ft    5.24221659275384 X   2 m2
   sq metre                     sq m     56.4267497893916 X   2 m2
   sq faþom (land)              ac/M     3.56798366844308 X   4 m2
   lentor-day                            7.61761122156787 X   4 m2
   square                                8.19096342617788 X   4 m2
   perch                        p        22.2998979277692 X   4 m2
   verge (1000 m2)              vg       13.7760619603006 X   6 m2
   acre, commercial                      46.0741692722505 X   6 m2
   acre                         ac       55.7497448194232 X   6 m2
   kilorood                     km2      3.36329637702653 X  10 m2
   sq mile                      mi2      8.71089762803487 X  10 m2
       land                     k.ac     13.6107775438044 X  10 m2

Volume, Capacity
   minim                                 52.6179920882932 X  -4 m3
   mil                          ml       13.8892082000030 X  -2 m3
   fl scr                                16.4431225275916 X  -2 m3
   fl dr                                 49.3293675827749 X  -2 m3
   teaspoon (floz/6)            tsp      1.02769515797447 X   0 m3
   teaspoon (5 mL)              tsp      1.08509439062523 X   0 m3
   cu in                        cu in    3.55630224504335 X   0 m3
   oz metric                    ozm      5.42547195312619 X   0 m3
   fl oz                        fl oz    6.16617094784686 X   0 m3
   liq oz                       liq oz   6.41801420785168 X   0 m3
   cup (8 floz)                 cup      49.3293675827749 X   0 m3
   cup (1/120 cu ft)                     51.2107523286243 X   0 m3
   cup (250 mls)                         54.2547195312619 X   0 m3
   pint                         pt US    1.60450355196292 X   2 m3
   pint                         pt       1.92692842120214 X   2 m3
   bottle (1/40 cu ft)                   2.40050401540426 X   2 m3
   bottle (26 floz)                      2.50500694756278 X   2 m3
   bottle (750 mls)                      2.54318997802790 X   2 m3
   bottle (1/5 us gal)                   2.56720568314067 X   2 m3
   bottle (1/6 uk gal)                   2.56923789493619 X   2 m3
   quart lq                     qt (US)  3.20900710392584 X   2 m3
   litre                        ltr      3.39091997070387 X   2 m3
   olitre                       ol       3.39101491646305 X   2 m3
   quart                        qt       3.85385684240429 X   2 m3
   pottle                       ptl      7.70771368480858 X   2 m3
   board foot                   bft      8.00168005134755 X   2 m3
   trilter                      3L       10.1727599121116 X   2 m3
   hoppus b.foot                         10.1880554656941 X   2 m3
   gallon, twe                           12.0023793688542 X   2 m3
   gallon liq                   usgal    12.8360284157033 X   2 m3
   stubchen (US)                1.05 gal 13.4778298364885 X   2 m3
   stubchen (UK)                (7 pt)   13.4884989484150 X   2 m3
   stubchen (me)                4 L      13.5636798828154 X   2 m3
   gallon                       gal      15.4154273696171 X   2 m3
   stubchen (1/6 cu ft)                  16.0033601026951 X   2 m3
   cu foot                      cu ft    1.50031500962766 X   4 m3
   bushel dry                   bu       1.86707619220534 X   4 m3
   hoppus foot                  h ft     1.91026039981766 X   4 m3
   bushel                       bu       1.92692842120214 X   4 m3
   anker                                 2.10757796068984 X   4 m3
   firkin                                2.16779447385241 X   4 m3
   bushel, heaped                        2.38567058379488 X   4 m3
   barrel bulk (5 cu ft)                 7.50157504813833 X   4 m3
   barrel                       bbl      8.42364364780533 X   4 m3
   aum, ohm                     aum      8.43031184275938 X   4 m3
   drum (200 L)                          10.5966249084496 X   4 m3
   drum (44 gall)                        10.5981063166118 X   4 m3
   drum (9 cyl ft)                       10.6051018777127 X   4 m3
   drum (50/9 hoppus ft)                 10.6125577767647 X   4 m3
   boll                                  11.5615705272128 X   4 m3
   hogshead, oxhoft             hhd      12.6454677641390 X   4 m3
   quarter                               15.4154273696171 X   4 m3
   puncheon                              16.8606236855187 X   4 m3
   vat (9 bushels)                       17.3423557908193 X   4 m3
   pipe                                  25.2909355282781 X   4 m3
   tun (252 w. gal)                      50.5418618868320 X   4 m3
   tun (210 gallon)                      50.5818710565563 X   4 m3
   tun (960 litres)                      50.8637995605580 X   4 m3
   kilolitre, stere             m3       52.9831245422480 X   4 m3
   calder ,                              1.08389723692620 X   6 m3
   ton shipping (40 cu ft)               60.0126003851066 X   4 m3
   cord                                  3.00063001925533 X   6 m3
   20 × 8 × 8.5 ft (container)  TEU      31.8816939545879 X   6 m3
   acre-inch                    ac in    1.32962487425498 X   8 m3
   meglalitre                   Ml       12.9353331401972 X   8 m3
   acre-foot                    acft     15.9554984910598 X   8 m3
   royal albert hall                     18.5433221099610 X  10 m3
   cubic acre                   cu ac    52.0324575737266 X  10 m3
   sydney harbour               sydharb  24.3461585862119 X  14 m3
   cu mile                      mi3      6.27674401050776 X  16 m3

Weight (mass, force)
   mig                          mg       56.9024877245610 X  -6 kg
   (mig-leo), (dyne)            dyn      58.0405374790522 X  -6 kg
   mite                         m        2.88063998503119 X  -4 kg
   grain (diamond)                       46.0902397604991 X  -4 kg
   grain                        gr       57.6127997006239 X  -4 kg
   carat metric                 cm       2.77844178342583 X  -2 kg
   carat                        ct       2.88063998503119 X  -2 kg
   gram                         g        13.8922089171291 X  -2 kg
   scruple                      scr      18.0039999064449 X  -2 kg
   pennyweight                  dwt      21.6047998877339 X  -2 kg
   dram avoir                   dr       24.6148436220927 X  -2 kg
   drachm                       dr       54.0119997193349 X  -2 kg
   shilling                              1.22754544816670 X   0 kg
   (poundal)                    pdl      3.06106256909366 X   0 kg
   ounce metric                          5.42664410825357 X   0 kg
   ounce                        oz       6.15371090552319 X   0 kg
   ounce twelfty                         6.39346544173672 X   0 kg
   ounce tr                     ozt      6.75149996491687 X   0 kg
   (newton)                     N        22.1407079616745 X   0 kg
   pound (twe)                           1.19877477032563 X   2 kg
   pound                        lb       1.53842772638079 X   2 kg
   glug                         gl       7.62202426523292 X -10 kg
   chog                         kg       3.39165256765848 X   2 kg
   (chog-leo)                            3.45948561901165 X   2 kg
   stone                        st       21.5379881693311 X   2 kg
   slug                         slug     49.4836770618083 X   2 kg
   hundredwt                    cwt      2.69224852116639 X   4 kg
   ton (2000 lbs)               ton      48.0758664493999 X   4 kg
   tonne                        t        52.9945713696638 X   4 kg
   ton (2240 lbs)               ton      53.8449704233279 X   4 kg
   ilp (6 ton twe)                       4.21444255192606 X   6 kg
   ilp (6 tons)                          5.04796597718699 X   6 kg

Density
   breþaliser unit              g/210L   5.11416096353002 X -10 kg/m3
   grain / cu foot              gcf      38.4004687888323 X  -8 kg/m3
   grain / gallon               gpg      3.73734690055853 X  -6 kg/m3
   chog / cu metre              kg/m3    4.09688492714426 X  -4 kg/m3
   grain / cu inch              gci      16.2001977702886 X  -4 kg/m3
   pound / cu foot              pcf      1.02540314301233 X  -2 kg/m3
   pound / gallon               ppg      6.38706745700922 X  -2 kg/m3
   pound / pint                          51.0965396560737 X  -2 kg/m3
   10 lb / gallon UK                     63.8706745700922 X  -2 kg/m3
   100 lb / 12 US gall                   63.9212348890809 X  -2 kg/m3
   chog per litre, PA                    0.99997703299085 X   0 kg/m3
   chog per olitre                       1.00018804061677 X   0 kg/m3
   chog per litre, spig         gcc      1.00021604666607 X   0 kg/m3

Weight per area
   grain / sq ft                gsf      10.9901601128538 X  -6 kg/m2
   gram per sq metre            gsm      15.7567354847615 X  -6 kg/m2
   ton per acre                 tpa      61.8133431508080 X  -4 kg/m2
   BMI unit                     kg/m2    3.84685924920935 X  -2 kg/m2

Weight per lengþ
   poumar (lb/MM yd)            pou      30.0613338150485 X  -8 kg/m3
   tex ( g / kms)               tex      60.6008510250744 X  -8 kg/m
   pound / yard                 lb/yd    38.2249626351020 X  -2 kg/m
   chog / metre                 kg/m     3.61209219843592 X   0 kg/m
   pound / foot                 plf      5.37538537056122 X   0 kg/m
   ton / foot                   tlf      2.93966387452567 X   4 kg/m

Velocity
   furlong per fortnight        fpf      16.8652741919153 X  -4 m/s
   centimetre per minute        cpm      16.9014916740740 X  -4 m/s
   chonter per hour (chog)      kmph     44.0143012345679 X  -2 m/s
   foot per second              fps      48.2960124586666 X  -2 m/s
   mile per hour                mph      1.10678361884444 X   0 m/s
   knot                         knot     1.27447810654814 X   0 m/s
   metre per second, benz       m/s      2.47580444444444 X   0 m/s
       35 mph                   35 mph   38.7374266595555 X   0 m/s
       60 chogs                 60 k     41.2634074074074 X   0 m/s
       60 mph                   60 mph   1.03760964266666 X   2 m/s
       100 chogs                100 k    1.07456790123456 X   2 m/s
       100 mph                  100 mph  1.72934940444444 X   2 m/s
   speed of sound                        13.2127099350761 X   2 m/s
   speed of light                        44.2402064756944 X   8 m/s

Force
   dyne , migleo                dyn      58.0405374790522 X  -6 N
   poundal                      pdl      3.06106256909366 X   0 N
   newton                       N        22.1407079616745 X   0 N
   pound                        lb       1.53842772638079 X   2 N
   kilopond                     kp       3.39165256765848 X   2 N
   ton                          ton      53.8449704233279 X   4 N

Pressure,
   pascal                       Pa       25.1122971788386 X  -4 Pa
   poundal / sq foot            pdl/ft2  37.3712152017511 X  -4 Pa
   millibar                     mb       39.2379643419353 X  -2 Pa
   millihig                     mmHg     52.3129833808763 X  -2 Pa
   pieze                        kPa      6.13093192842740 X   0 Pa
   centihig, torr               cmHg     8.17390365326193 X   0 Pa
   inch Hg                      inch     20.7617152792853 X   0 Pa
   pound / sq in                psi      42.2595268011348 X   0 Pa
   atm tech = chog/sq cm        at       10.0021604666607 X   0 Pa
   bar                          bar      9.57958113816781 X   2 Pa
   atmosphere                   atm      9.70651058824854 X   2 Pa
   atm (imperial) 30 in Hg               9.73205403716498 X   2 Pa
   ton / sq in                  tsi      23.1106787193706 X   4 Pa

Viscosity
   centistoke                   cSt      39.0021694544275 X  -6 m2/s
   ft2 / hour                   ft2/hr   15.7266497782615 X  -4 m2/s
   stoke                        St       60.9408897725429 X  -4 m2/s

Viscosity, Dynamic
   micropoiselle                uPl      2.49667812755891 X  -8 Pl
   centipoise                   cp       39.0105957431080 X  -6 Pl
   poise                        P        60.9540558486062 X  -4 Pl
   Poiselle                     Pl       9.52407122634473 X  -2 Pl

Energy
   erg                          erg      34.8789923897239 X  -6 J
   foot-poundal                 ft pdl   56.0685950952128 X   0 J
   joule                        J        20.7894995151304 X   2 J
   foot-pound                   ft lb    28.1789343820023 X   2 J
   calorie                      mC       1.36003970660185 X   4 J
   metre-chog                   m.kg     3.18466597964621 X   4 J
   British þermal Unit          BTU      5.35506626572603 X   6 J
   Celcius Heat unit            CHU      9.63911927830686 X   6 J
   watt hour                    W.h      18.2720210582201 X   6 J
   Calorie                      Cal      21.2506204156539 X   6 J
   litre-atmosphere             l-a      32.9140005995405 X   4 J
   horsepower-hour              hph      3.32559884049681 X  10 J
   kelvin, kilowatt hour        kWh      4.46094264116703 X  10 J
   thermie                      th       5.18813974991551 X  10 J
   therm                        thm      2.04279566411057 X  12 J
   ton(2240 lb ice)                      6.58924169415508 X  12 J
   ton(Nuclear)                 T        1.26663568113171 X  14 J
   mig                          mg       27.1897739040579 X  14 J

Power
   foot-poundal per second      ft pdl/s 2.30995493708915 X   0 W
   Btu/hour                              16.0651987971781 X   0 W
   watt                         W        54.8160631746604 X   0 W
   calorie per hour             C/hr     63.7518612469619 X   0 W
   foot pound per second        ft lb/s  1.16093632250070 X   2 W
   chog-benz                    kg.m/s   8.39706850102029 X   2 W
   cheval (75 kg.m/s)           ch       9.84031464963315 X   4 W
   horsepower (550 ft lbs/s)    hp       9.97679652149045 X   4 W
   kilowatt (kwatt)             kW       13.3828279235010 X   4 W
   tonne km/hr                  t.km/h   36.4456098134561 X   4 W
   ton ice/day (refrig)                  47.0660121011077 X   4 W
   ton ice/day (refrig)                  19.9922473920438 X   6 W
   calorie per second           cal/sec  56.0319092990876 X   4 W
   ton mile per hour            t.mph    59.5947312217029 X   4 W

Thremm (temperature)
   Farenheit, Rankine           F        3.48086957475994 X   4 K
   Gorem                        G        4.17439463286479 X   4 K
   Celcius, kelvin              K        6.26556523456790 X   4 K
   gas unit (25f)                        1.35971467764060 X   6 K
   ice                          144 F    7.83195654320987 X   6 K
   bp - ip                      100 K    9.78994567901234 X   6 K
   nuclear (TNT)                kK;      1.52967901234567 X   8 K
       Conventional cold        -30C     23.8052319130864 X   6 K
       Ice Point                0C       26.7422156167901 X   6 K
       Conventional hot         +40C     30.6581938883950 X   6 K
       Boiling Point            100C     36.5311823012345 X   6 K
       Gas zero                 250F     38.5979486112482 X   6 K
       Gas ten                  500F     52.1950953876543 X   6 K

Lecky
   Volt                         V        24.4128572354189 X  -2 V
       dry cell                 1.5 V    36.6192858531283 X  -2 V
       power                    115 V    43.8668528448933 X   0 V
       power                    230 V    1.37083915140291 X   2 V
       power                    60 Gv    1.42485712486842 X   2 V
   Ampere                       A        2.24537679658125 X   2 A
   Coulomb                      C        54.5011162002774 X   2 C
       Amp.hour                 Ah       47.9013716604001 X   6 C
   Ohm                          O        10.8724991157783 X  -4 Ohm
       377 do.                  Z        1.00000000000000 X   0 Ohm
   Gauss                        Gs       2.71464708913947 X  -6 t
Top
Double sharp
Posted: Dec 1 2017, 10:33 AM


Dozens Disciple


Group: Members
Posts: 1,400
Member No.: 1,150
Joined: 19-September 15



I think I can describe it for myself, thank you very much, and hopefully without all this gross repurposing of names that already mean something else. And I object to "described by D.S." being in the title of the topic when this is anything but how I would describe it.
Top
wendy.krieger
Posted: Dec 1 2017, 11:37 AM


Dozens Demigod


Group: Members
Posts: 2,432
Member No.: 655
Joined: 11-July 12



Yes, I'm sure you could. This is based on an automatic script, that uses SI units as quantitels (since the units are a more exact conversion point), and essentially the primel line modified for base 8.

The unit of length turns out to be a digit, (a non-thumb finger), and the weight unit is about that cubed (that is, to the first knuckle).

But one notices that COF and Primel differ only after the units are described, the sizes of the units are essentially the same way, since they are standard-water-systems based on 12^-5 day. This one is based on 8^-7 day. Primel essentially copied COF's electrical units. Nifty, eh?

So just as Icarus does automatic tables for number theory, i do the same in WM.

A similar script exists for converting the atomic constants.
Top
Double sharp
Posted: Dec 1 2017, 12:01 PM


Dozens Disciple


Group: Members
Posts: 1,400
Member No.: 1,150
Joined: 19-September 15



The difference is that Icarus' coinages are quite accepted here, while your practice of coopting other names isn't. And indeed you just, perfectly clearly, called the unit of length "about a digit". I do not see why it has to get the name of an already existent unit when that makes such comparisons impossible to make without utter confusion.

I'll let Kode speak for Primel's electrical units, should he wish to.
Top
wendy.krieger
Posted: Dec 1 2017, 12:26 PM


Dozens Demigod


Group: Members
Posts: 2,432
Member No.: 655
Joined: 11-July 12



The units have names. They are not converted using the SI names, but by using a numerical value, such as '733'. The difference here is that you don't have to convert the quantital into dimensions, and then multiply the dimensions.

The other thing is that it correctly distinguishes between magnetic moment (343 Ampere metre squared) and magnetic moment (443 Weber metre).

But carry on.
Top
Oschkar
Posted: Dec 1 2017, 06:53 PM


Dozens Disciple


Group: Members
Posts: 575
Member No.: 623
Joined: 19-November 11



And we have another instance of the three-digit sequence that automatically invalidates any post that contains it.

I mean, it is the area code for Iguala, which is at least a significant site in the history of Mexico, so it’s got that going for it. It’s also the flight number for a rather fateful Asiana Airlines flight that crashed and caused the deaths of over five dozen people. But by no means does it mean “mass” or anything of the sort.
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Dec 2 2017, 12:21 AM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,184
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



Wendy has no business starting a thread that hawks her own dubious ideas and her own tired old scripts, and then misrepresent it both as a kind of "Primel", and as something "described by Double Sharp". It is most definitely neither. This thread should be renamed to honestly state that it is Wendy's typically self-serving material. If she will not willingly make this correction herself, then the admins will be forced to do so.
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Dec 2 2017, 12:59 AM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,184
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



QUOTE (wendy.krieger @ Dec 1 2017, 11:37 AM)
But one notices that COF and Primel differ only after the units are described, the sizes of the units are essentially the same way, since they are standard-water-systems based on 12^-5 day.

Primel is a "Day-Gravity-Water" system of measurement based on the dozen-to-the-negative-sixth-power of the day. Not the negative-fifth. I came up with that result starting from TGM as inspiration, long before I even bothered to look at COF. Primel is a lot more than simply this tedious number-crunching Wendy engages in. It's a matter of style as well. Wendy will never achieve that sort of style by plagiarizing the name.
Top
Double sharp
Posted: Dec 2 2017, 02:04 AM


Dozens Disciple


Group: Members
Posts: 1,400
Member No.: 1,150
Joined: 19-September 15



Well, the 12^(-5) vs 12^(-6) issue is an important one, and is about the same as 8^(-7) vs 8^(-6) for octal. If you pick 8^(-6) of a day, you get an easily used timel and a metre-like lengthel, and the velocitel is around jogging pace. The problem is that the volumel is close to a cubic metre, and the massel is over a metric ton. Since 8^(-6) of a day is about a third of a second, this is going to end up like the metre-tonne-second system.

This might not be a bad thing, though. We see kilonewtons, kilojoules, kilowatts, and kilopascals more frequently than their non-prefixed versions, don't we?
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Dec 2 2017, 04:28 AM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,184
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



QUOTE (Double sharp @ Dec 2 2017, 02:04 AM)
Well, the 12^(-5) vs 12^(-6) issue is an important one, and is about the same as 8^(-7) vs 8^(-6) for octal. If you pick 8^(-6) of a day, you get an easily used timel and a metre-like lengthel, and the velocitel is around jogging pace. The problem is that the volumel is close to a cubic metre, and the massel is over a metric ton. Since 8^(-6) of a day is about a third of a second, this is going to end up like the metre-tonne-second system.

This might not be a bad thing, though. We see kilonewtons, kilojoules, kilowatts, and kilopascals more frequently than their non-prefixed versions, don't we?

I thought of this as being a possible sister system to Primel:

QUOTE (Kodegadulo @ Mar 1 2016, 07:04 PM)
I've toyed with describing a sister metrology, call it "Tertiel", whose ‴timel would be the pentciaday (aka the ′twinkling, a dozen times the ′jiff). This leads to a ‴massel of about 1647d kg (not 1800d, Wendy's math is off -- unless she was talking about US tons rather than metric tonnes, but why would she do that?). This is a pretty big mass, but if you reduce it by three powers, the tricia‴massel would be identical to the triqua′massel, about a kilogram. I suppose that could work as well as Primel, except that I think people are more comfortable scaling small units up than scaling large units down.


I supposed that taking the "triqua-primel-massel" and calling it instead the "tricia-tertiel-massel" would seem somewhat like taking a "kilo-gramme" an calling it a "milli-tonne" instead ...
Top
Double sharp
Posted: Dec 2 2017, 06:45 AM


Dozens Disciple


Group: Members
Posts: 1,400
Member No.: 1,150
Joined: 19-September 15



Well, I don't know if that's a problem. We do deal with centimetres and millimetres in metric, and millilitres more than litres or cubic metres. (Decimetres are not very common, except as cubic decimetres, which are litres.) I get the feeling that most people see each unit for itself and just don't do the power-of-ten conversions all that much; if the name incorporates a prefix, be it a shrinking or an enlarging prefix, then so be it.

I think it's more important for me that the base unit of time be something you can actually perceive, so I think I'll go with the hexosciaday, and let people use submultiples of the oversized volumel and massel. We can always keep the big massel for use in big industry.

For the "branding symbol", the circled eight-pointed star ❂ looks quite promising, if you can see it properly. As I think you suggested, we could use "oc-" as the branding prefix, and maybe "Octel" as the name of the metrology. (I considered doing tetradecimal and hexadecimal as well to get all the most sure human-scale bases, but I'm not sure how to get good branding markers for fourteen- and sixteenfoldness.)

P.S. It might well be even better to latch onto the fact that 8 and 16 are both powers of 2, and stress the compatibility of the octal and hexadecimal systems. But I'll hold off on the base-14 and base-16 systems for now and focus on the base-8 one first.
Top
wendy.krieger
Posted: Dec 2 2017, 09:12 AM


Dozens Demigod


Group: Members
Posts: 2,432
Member No.: 655
Joined: 11-July 12



QUOTE (DoubleSharp)
Which to me results in a very firm preference for Primel, so much so that even for my other flame among number bases (octal), I still use a Primel-like concept: divide the day repeatedly into eighths to determine a time unit that leads to a reasonably-sized length and mass unit. While I still vacillate a lot among {8, 10, 12, maybe 14} as candidates for a "best base", I think these principles for metrology design are so obvious and fundamental that they transcend all of it. Indeed I think of Primel and SDN for the most part as "TGM done right".

But, of course, that partly reflects my metric background. Because of that, too, I tend to avoid all the colloquialisms and auxiliary units, instead preferring the simple "lengthel, unqualengthel, biqualengthel, triqualengthel, etc." To me, figuring out estimates is a job to be done by you, creating mental markers, not by the units. No doubt a USC or BI background leads to a very different perspective. But I'm all for giving the options.


If i read this correctly, it sounds like DoubleSharp wants to create a Primel-like system based on a unit of dividing the day into powers of 8. Since 8^6 would yield a Sunny-style system, and 8^7 would use a Primel-like system, it's pretty unfair to say this:

QUOTE (DoubleSharp)
I think I can describe it for myself, thank you very much, and hopefully without all this gross repurposing of names that already mean something else. And I object to "described by D.S." being in the title of the topic when this is anything but how I would describe it.


We then see Kode chime in with

QUOTE (Kode)
Wendy has no business starting a thread that hawks her own dubious ideas and her own tired old scripts, and then misrepresent it both as a kind of "Primel", and as something "described by Double Sharp". It is most definitely neither. This thread should be renamed to honestly state that it is Wendy's typically self-serving material. If she will not willingly make this correction herself, then the admins will be forced to do so.


Kode then describes Primel as a subset of SWS, in that the time unit is Day/N, where N is a power of some base. COF was put together based on a very similar evaluation, along with lessons learnt and units borrowed from TIOF. There is not a lot in doing the calculations, if you know, or derive, the base units. SWS uses gravity, density of water, and specific heat as base units. You can select any unit for it to pass through.

Of course, it's "her own tired old scripts", but the reality is that he would not say this sort of thing to Icarus. I wonder why? It does quite nicely, using a number of quite advanced ideas. The document is a batch file, processed by a command processor, which is written in terms of a Knuth-style tangle-and-weave thing. The source script is nicely documented, that produces a table of contents when folded. No one else is doing this, and you can just as easily write different documents to run through the mill.

QUOTE (Kode)
Primel is a "Day-Gravity-Water" system of measurement based on the dozen-to-the-negative-sixth-power of the day. Not the negative-fifth. I came up with that result starting from TGM as inspiration, long before I even bothered to look at COF. Primel is a lot more than simply this tedious number-crunching Wendy engages in. It's a matter of style as well. Wendy will never achieve that sort of style by plagiarizing the name.


If you take the definition string for Primel in the program that produced the table in post 1, and replace "1.728" with r_oct=3375/4096, you get the table as above. You also have to replace the base of the exponent from 'D,2' to 'X8,2' to get it to follow octal rather than dozenal powers.

QUOTE ("Kode")
Primel is a lot more than simply this tedious number-crunching Wendy engages in. It's a matter of style as well. Wendy will never achieve that sort of style by plagiarizing the name.


Of course, Essig uses straight metric names for his system. What Kode has done is make his system into something tedious number-crunching, by avoiding using dimension-coordinates for the units. My table simply requires a definition string to chug out the data.

We also see that Kode follows the worst features of the CGS units (brand + quantity) as eg primel lengthel. The thing is that to use this in formulae, you have to assume that the formulae is dimensionally balanced, and you get the effect of 'in CGS units ...'.

QUOTE
Well, the 12^(-5) vs 12^(-6) issue is an important one, and is about the same as 8^(-7) vs 8^(-6) for octal. If you pick 8^(-6) of a day, you get an easily used timel and a metre-like lengthel, and the velocitel is around jogging pace. The problem is that the volumel is close to a cubic metre, and the massel is over a metric ton. Since 8^(-6) of a day is about a third of a second, this is going to end up like the metre-tonne-second system.


Using large units such as the MTS style units is bad for teaching mechanics. This would make SWS systems based on 12^5 and 8^6 much less successful than those on 12^6 (Primel) and 8^7 Oct-SWS.

QUOTE (Oschkar)
And we have another instance of the three-digit sequence that automatically invalidates any post that contains it.


Oschkar would evidently play around with algebraic formulae and roman numerals to do something that a calculator can do. The coordinates were selected to minimalise intersecting confusion.
Top
Shaun
Posted: Dec 2 2017, 12:08 PM


Dozens Disciple


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,115
Member No.: 3
Joined: 2-August 05



Please avoid making this into a 'heated' discussion ...
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Dec 2 2017, 03:24 PM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,184
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



QUOTE (wendy.krieger @ Dec 2 2017, 09:12 AM)
Of course, it's "her own tired old scripts", but the reality is that he would not say this sort of thing to Icarus.  I wonder why?

It's simple, really. Icarus expresses his interests in appropriate places. He has a whole subforum devoted to that, and largely limits his discussion of those topics to that arena. He has some nifty software he uses to explore his interest in bases and number sequences, and to generate the beautiful tables illustrating his results. Others with similar interests are welcomed to participate in his subforum, but he doesn't push his ideas wherever he goes, into discussions where they aren't particularly relevant, or onto people who just aren't interested in the topic. Nor can I think of any time where Icarus would have put words in anyone else's mouth, or co-opted someone else's ideas in a cynical ploy to insinuate his own ideas into a discussion. In my experience, both online and having met him in person, he has never tried to self-promote or self-aggrandize, nor has he ever appeared to be attention-seeking. Yet despite being quite intelligent and capable in many endeavors, and despite having accomplished advances in the topics he has concentrated on, he has never engaged in the pretense that he is setting "the standard", but has instead been the model of self-deprecating humor.

In short, Icarus has good manners.
Top
wendy.krieger
Posted: Dec 3 2017, 09:26 AM


Dozens Demigod


Group: Members
Posts: 2,432
Member No.: 655
Joined: 11-July 12



Of course, I express interests in the appropriate forums too. But the thing is that if you follow a different standard, or different notions, then you are likely to suffer heavy commentry. I don't know.

Double-Sharp did indeed describe a Day-Gravity-Water system based on an octal division of the day. He called it 'Octal Primel'. Since there are not a lot of degrees of freedom here, the toss-up is between 8^6 (a sunny-like system), or 8^7 (a Primel-like system). So the title of this thread, despite your protests, is perfectly correct. The description is about half the length that Prof. Moon describes the dm-kg-ds system.

Since then it is a matter of copying and modifying the primel definition to make it answer to 8^7, and use 8 raised to even powers as commas, you pretty much get the table given in the OP. I did not describe the system, i just put up a peek-table for it.

We see here a hijacking of the thread, based on something entirely different to when Oschkar did his thing with his sws on 6^8 and 120^3. I largely stayed out of those threads.

The point is that SI units are a legitimate dimension point, and searching for 'mechanical ohm', 'thermal ohm', and 'acoustic ohm' in Google will bring up many examples where these units follow the practical units. 'Dyne' and 'Erg' were invented by Prof Preece in 1861, for fps units (pdl, ft pdl), before being coopted by Maxwell into cgs (1873), and 1904 as 'large dyne' for the MKS unit that we now call the newton. So using current units as a kind of 'quantital' is a well-established art.

Where quantitals fail, is that a unit is still an algebraic blob, that can assume values etc, whereas quantities are associated with particular blobs by formulae. The same quantity \(Q\) Coulomb, represents a single size of charge in both the SI and the earlier SU (MKSA (n )), but \(\Phi\) Flux, is still in coulombs, but the rational unit is \(4\pi\) of the unrational one.

In the rational system, the flux \(\Phi\) over a surface is the same measure as the enclosed charge\(Q\), and the density of flux \(\vec D\) is the flux divided by area. In an non-rational system, the flux density \(\vec D\), is that at unit distance from a unit charge \(Q\), and the flux is the integral over the surface. The definitions are logical, we use rational definitions in electricity, but non-rational ones in light.

The program that produced OP is perfectly capable of handling this issue, because it adds extra dimensionality to the issue.

We see in 'mel and lif', that you purposely set to disrupt the thread because you did not agree with the outcome. It was only when Don Goodman III stepped in that we started to see any useful outcomes. Oschkar discussed much the same topic, without any sort of interruption.

Likewise, when i posited that an abacus was a useful base to consider notations, your response was to chastise that no one used these devices. This all vapourised when D.S. appeared on the scene.

The U.E.S. thread was murdered by a large number of off-topic comments from Kode. In essence, it was Kode pushing his theory on top of mine.

Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Dec 3 2017, 01:29 PM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,184
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



QUOTE (Double sharp @ Dec 1 2017, 10:33 AM)
I think I can describe it for myself, thank you very much, and hopefully without all this gross repurposing of names that already mean something else. And I object to "described by D.S." being in the title of the topic when this is anything but how I would describe it.

Wendy, I think this speaks for itself. And D.S. can speak for himself. It's presumptuous of you to start describing a metrology under his name. My further objection is that it's presumptuous of you to describe what you're doing using the terms "primel" and "quantitel" (which you insist on misspelling "quantital", entirely missing the point of the "-el" ending), when in fact your OP is nothing but a showcase for your own pet theories about metrology-building, including your pet strategies for finding names for new units, theories and strategies which not all of us would agree with. If you're going to do that, I think it ought to go under your own name, with your own title, and in your own COF subforum. But now it's clear you are just interested in rehashing all your old grudges once again, veering off topic even from your own OP to dredge them all up. Isn't that rather pointless?
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Dec 3 2017, 02:48 PM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,184
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



P.S. I've categorized metrologies like TGM and Primel and Ashtrian and so forth, as "Day-Gravity-Water" systems, because that plainly summarizes what they are based on, following the sequence of derivation, with that sequence starting from what are arguably the most significant factors.

The choice of using some division of the mean solar day as a timel (a coherent base unit of time) is the first, and certainly the most significant decision made in building such metrologies.

The choice of using Earth's gravity as an accelerel (a coherent base unit of acceleration), and using that to derive a velocitel, lengthel, areanel, volumel, and in fact all of kinematics, is also highly significant. Indeed, Pendlebury called his lengthel a "gravity-foot", or "Grafut", precisely to highlight the importance of gravity as a basis.

It's only after that point that these systems start talking about using the properties of water as a basis, starting with using the density of water as a densitel (a coherent base unit of density), and using that to derive a massel, forcel (weightel), energiel (workel), powerel, pressurel, and all the rest of the units of classical mechanics.

This is arguably a fine and useful basis for deriving a metrology. I will admit that this is my own personal preference. But it's certainly not the only possible basis for a coherent measurement system. And it would be ridiculous to argue that it's even a "standard" way of deriving a metrology. To say something is a "standard" implies that there is some governing body dictating such standards, employing suitable "legal instruments" if necessary. But let's be honest: What we metrology-hobbyists do here are simply idle speculations, or perhaps more charitably, thought experiments. I know of no organization dictating "standards" for how one should go about doing thought experiments, especially if the whole point of such speculations is to diverge from actual standards, such as USC or SI.

I think this explains why I've always found this term Wendy keeps using, "Standard Water System" so puzzling. It seems vacuous, because it does not mention the two most significant factors about such systems, "Day" and "Gravity", but only focuses on the third, "Water". And it presumes to call this category of metrology a "Standard", when I can find no evidence that such systems have ever been generally been accepted as "standards".

Google for "standard water system" and you will come up with a lot of hits for water purifiers and other plumbing equipment, but nothing about metrologies based on the mean solar day and Earth's gravity. This seems to be a term Wendy has invented out of whole cloth, apparently with herself as the self-designated "standards" body. Pardon me if I find that a tad presumptuous.
Top
icarus
Posted: Dec 3 2017, 03:04 PM


Dozens Demigod


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,913
Member No.: 50
Joined: 11-April 06



Folks, let's look at this system for its merits. I am not qualified to totally see its merits.

Now I have changed the name. I do agree with several that one should not co-opt someone else's system name unless they agree to it. One should not presume they completely know what another member is thinking. The use of "primel" could be read as provocative. We should also recognize that though we can calculate a system (which I personally think is interesting - the fact such a thing can be done, etc.) one thing we all know is that the assumptions during code-writing can telegraph into something else (I am not suggesting that happened here, again I am not as well-versed on measurement systems). Just because we can code it does not necessarily mean it is good, the fact the code-writing effort and its results are impressive, aside.

On the other hand, I think we can discuss the merits of the system, like any other system. Just because Wendy posed it doesn't mean it is immediately fowl.

So I have changed the name of the thread. I gather it is in response to something Double sharp wrote, and that is fair, but to surmise that Wendy and Double sharp had mental connections such that she is totally in line with what he was thinking is false. She is riffing on what he thought, much like what has been done in other parts of this forum.

Unless I talk to Kodegadulo and gather as much as I can on how Primel works, endeavor to incorporate his input on how my derivative thought conforms to Primel, I shouldn't call it Primel. It's just not ethical. I had written an automated form of SDN a couple years ago. Before I went to town with it, I exchanged thoughts with him on and off line so as to make double sure I was not misconveying it. There isn't a problem with riffing off another person's idea so long as we acknowledge and consult. Otherwise it can be seen as an attempt to co-opt or muddy that other person's idea, to put words in that other persons' mouth.

The code effort I had undertaken is not perfect. All the years I worked on the "Tour des Bases" and precursor thoughts, I have taken care _not_ to call it a "proof of which is the best base" because "best" is not very quantifiable. One of the advantages of being an "amateur mathematician" is that I have to really go out of my way to make sure and check my facts, frame them to authoritative writing, and subject them to scrutiny. I think it makes for better work! I am happy I have to do this, that people don't simply buy my junk and say, "well it comes from Dr. Icarus, PhD, so it's got to be right, I mean he went to haah-vud." Instead I have indeed invited people to debate and examine these things, here in the forum and in publication and in other spheres, because yes, I could be wrong, and hell, if I am, knock it down. It ain't right. Give it up. The most recent case is verifying a definition of "opaque", something I came up with on the fly while posting once and the idea took flight. Now need to nail it down, and I look to others to see what would be the most useful definition. The goal is truth. Even when my project is over, if someone finds a flaw, I want to know. I'll change it. I am not above everyone else.

Here is my suggestion. Wendy if you would call this "Primel" then it better conform to whatever standards Kode has devised for such. Otherwise it is only "similar to primel". You could name it something else. We should be careful not to speak on behalf of other active members, let them have their own voice, but it is fair to mention that this thread derives from or is tangent to someone else's thoughts. When one does this, one should expect that person to come in to speak for themselves; in fact, you are in effect welcoming a partner to your thread, and implicitly expect that you are of close to the same mind on it. So unless one is prepared for this, I would refrain from connecting our thoughts intimately with those of another unless it is a citation. (I have used, for example, "sevenite" but made sure I understood the term as keenly as possible and referenced/linked it to the thread so others could go back to see what Wendy seemed to mean about the term, to avoid speaking for her. It is true later that I decided another more commonly-accepted term was appropriate and have decided not to use "sevenite" going forward, but the word is valid so long as it is defined). People are going to weigh in on the choice of names, etc., this is an internet forum! I have infamously weighed in on TGM names, etc.; expect it. People have taken issue with my terms too, and that is fair. To move ahead with such names is a decision one must consciously make, taking into account the benefits and drawbacks. Ultimately I knew in quibbling about Pendlebury's names, that the man himself cannot respond, and indeed those are the names in that system and nothing I suggest ought to change them. I suppose we have to presume that those here (and those are who we have) debate in a spirit of good will. If we don't want our system critiqued, then maybe we ought not post it open to critique, but as a fait-accompli or a closed system. "This is what it is, deal with it". The question then would be "why post something you don't expect others to remark about?" But the initial representation of this as "Primel" is starting off on the wrong foot, inviting negativity from the start. Members, we can either debate the merits of the system or just not debate it.

It is fair that there is a claim that this is "Primel" and well, ethically it is not. If you are not happy with my having renamed the thread in as mild a way as possible, please message me. I am not sure I can make everyone completely satisfied.

Let's drop the proxy wars and totaling of slights. Are we talking about the OP in responses to others' remarks, or are we looking to dredge up everything in the world that happened before December 2017 merely to indict everyone who might have wounded us? This belies a possible ulterior motive, making the thread's latter responses smack of revenge.

Let's just talk about the OP and its merits; let it stand or fall based on those. In the end it is just a sketch of a system (not minimizing its potential importance, but putting it in perspective). Would an octal world be better off with this thing? What does it contribute? We know it _isn't_ primel, but since primel was mentioned, how does it compare? (If indeed one insists on it being Primel, then it better do everything it can to conform to it, including working with the author of Primel to make it so.) We can debate its fundamentals, we can talk about names (and the author should be prepared to accept criticism). The naming structure of other systems are not at issue, though they might be referenced where they support us. I think any reader, given the tendencies of long-standing member Wendy, should expect her style in this system as she is the source, and it should not shock or surprise anyone.

I am not sure I've made everyone happy but as a facilitator, I at least want to make things such that we can have a conversation on the OP and move ahead.
Top
Double sharp
Posted: Dec 3 2017, 03:42 PM


Dozens Disciple


Group: Members
Posts: 1,400
Member No.: 1,150
Joined: 19-September 15



Let me just say that when I first called the idea for short "Octal Primel", I had previously referred to it as a Primel-like concept. Still, it is not Kode's, and it is not Primel (though that is what inspired it, certainly), and now that I am fleshing it out (offline first) I am increasingly loath to call it that, and apologise for any confusion that could have been caused by that offhand short naming.

Perhaps we might now move on and discuss what we might call this system. And perhaps get started on discussing some of the possible colloquialisms for the units.
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Dec 3 2017, 08:49 PM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,184
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



Icarus, I know you are trying to be diplomatic, but even "Octal System in a spirit akin to Primel" is not an accurate description of Wendy's OP here.

If it really were in the "spirit" of Primel, then the OP would have used quantitel names to refer transparently to the new system's coherent base units of time, length, area, volume, mass, velocity, force, pressure, energy, power, temperature, and so forth. Perhaps with some appropriate brand mark such as Double sharp's own suggestion of ❂, i.e., respectively, ❂timel, ❂lengthel, ❂areanel, ❂volumel, ❂massel, ❂densitel, ❂velocitel, ❂forcel, ❂pressurel, ❂energiel, ❂powerel, ❂temperaturel, etc.

But instead of something like that, what we see in the rightmost column of Wendy's datadump are these abbreviations, respectively: s, m, m2, m3, kg, kg/m3, m/s, N, Pa, J, W, K, etc. In other words, abbreviations for the names of the coherent units from the International System of Units, i.e., second, meter, square-meter, cubic-meter, kilogram, kilogram-per-cubic-meter, meter-per-second, newton, pascal, joule, watt, kelvin, etc. Apparently Wendy has co-opted these to stand for the coherent units of the new system, but with absolutely no indication or explanation of that fact. Evidently she presumes that SI unit names are fair game as "generic" unit names -- when absolutely nobody alive today would ever assume that. And of course, she has embedded that presumption into her "nifty" datadump script -- which smells to me more like a bug than a "nifty" feature.

So for example, her coherent time unit apparently is to be abbreviated "s", and I suppose it should therefore be called a "second", since that's the name and abbreviation that SI uses for its own coherent time unit. But this directly contradicts Wendy's second paragraph, where she tells us that the unit she has in mind is actually to be call a "third", because, yet again, she has decided to create a wannabe emulation of Babylonian sexagesimal time, only this time in octal. Well, which is it to be, "second" or "third"? Of course, I'm sure she'll soon be arguing that it ought to be called a "day-seventh" or somesuch, because it's the negative-seventh octal power of the day -- and we'll be hearing about Moon or Wilberforce-Mann or whoever yet again. Meanwhile, someone like Treisaran would look at the phrase "day-seventh" and read that to mean Shabbāth.

If Wendy's OP were truly in the "spirit" of Primel and its sister metrologies, then we would be talking about this as the ❂timel. (Quantitels were designed to be generic, with brand markers to disambiguate them. There is no clash here with the Primel unit, because that is the ′timel.) And then we could define the ❂timel as equivalent to the septoscia·day -- and perhaps debate whether the hexoscia·day would be a better choice for it or not.

QUOTE (Double sharp @ Dec 3 2017, 03:42 PM)
Let me just say that when I first called the idea for short "Octal Primel", I had previously referred to it as a Primel-like concept. Still, it is not Kode's, and it is not Primel (though that is what inspired it, certainly), and now that I am fleshing it out (offline first) I am increasingly loath to call it that, and apologise for any confusion that could have been caused by that offhand short naming.

D.S., I don't believe you owe anyone an apology. I think most of us understood quite clearly that you were using figurative or descriptive language there, not staking out a brand. It would be exactly as if, in the early days of my own metrology, I had described it tentatively as a "diurnal TGM" (contrasting TGM itself as a semi-diurnal system). That would not have meant that I would have intended to usurp the name "TGM" for my own system, nor any of Pendlebury's own unit names. It would only have meant that my own metrology was inspired by TGM, but based on dividing the whole day rather than the half day. It would then have behooved me to soon come up with some pithy brand-name for it ... like "Primel". (But that's a hypothetical in my case. I think I came up with the brand name first before fleshing out the actual metrology.)

QUOTE
Perhaps we might now move on and discuss what we might call this system. And perhaps get started on discussing some of the possible colloquialisms for the units.

Yes, but since you are the one who first expressed an interest in working up an octal-based Day-Gravity-Water system, I suggest that we let you start a thread of your own to pursue that idea, in whatever "spirit" you actually wish to pursue it. (You are welcome to do so in the Primel subforum, if you like.) We should let this thread be consigned to the COF subforum, where Wendy can discuss all of her "nifty" ideas to her heart's content ... with anyone who actually has an interest.

Icarus, I suggest renaming this thread "An Octal SWS" (in the COF forum) and let Wendy explain what she really means by "standard water", and what international organizations granted her the authority to declare it a "standard".

P.S. It's truly hilarious that Wendy would have us believe that "kilogram" ("kg") would make a fine name for a mass approximating a teaspoon of water. I got a good chuckle out of that one.
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Dec 4 2017, 12:15 AM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,184
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



It's clear to me now what Wendy's motive was in starting this thread. She wants to be able to claim that, simply because she can plug some parameters into a script and have it create this kind of datadump, she can now stake a claim to "owning" the idea of an octal Day-Gravity-Water system. The moment DS voiced the idea, she leaped to post an OP about it so that she could control the discussion and steer it into all of her favorite tropes. So that even if the originator of the idea himself objects to anything in her thread, she can play the victim and claim as OP that her thread is being "hijacked". I'm sure claim-jumpers during the California Gold Rush would acclaim her as a master of their craft.

What was I saying about good manners?
Top
wendy.krieger
Posted: Dec 4 2017, 08:47 AM


Dozens Demigod


Group: Members
Posts: 2,432
Member No.: 655
Joined: 11-July 12



It is clear that Kode likes to fanticise with himself, in that every move that Wendy makes has some sort of evil intent. There are six posts in this thread where he has made one sort of 'witty' remark about me. The last post has nothing of content, just fanciful remarks.

Firstly, i responded to a post that D.S. put, talking about a 'primel-like' system for octal. The internal allocated name is 'Oct', as can be seen on the table, and like any of the hundreds of other systems, I use SI units as variable points defining the dimension. It's a look-see table, you poke values in, and look at the output. I did mention in the opening text that the SI units were used essentially as quantitels, 'by SI unit'. So in place of the _name_ of the quantity, you get the quantity.

"kg" can of course, point to the coherent unit of the system, which can vary from a electron-mass to that of a black-hole, one light-second across. That's the whole point of it. But it's not a 'massel' (a volume of 150 mL), but a kg. In practice, the working name for the kg is something like 733 or 743, depending on what the governing theory is.

The X-numbers are simply octal powers. So you can regard X2kg as bioctamassel, or a loopydoopydo, or whatever you want to call it. I just give the meanings, it's "8^2 of the unit corresponding to SI kg". How you or doublesharp want to fill it out is your business.

Likewise, the units in the left-hand column are things that i like to see the size of in different systems. They're standard values (ilp = elephant). So you can directly see and draw things like speed-limits etc.

The values are in decimal, but then Icarus uses decimals to describe the digits of his bases. They're intended to be printed off and plugged into a calculator far away from any computer. Some measurement systems are based on 137.03599976 etc.

I don't plan to own it. I just printed off a list of values so people could relate to it, and scribble in things like common values for it.

Is it too much to ask that i don't have evil motives and want to steer things to what ever i wish. But I do note that Kode is all too willing to apply variations of SDN and Quantitels on whoever is unsuspecting.

It should be noted that I think that Quantitels are more opaque than SI prototypes, and further, on the 'wrong side' of the definitions. That is why i resist them. They are for me, wrong. Not because Kode wrote them, but that they are metrologically inapprporiate. Even the dimension numbers like 733 are appropriate, since these can be directly reconstituted into algebraic blobs that fit into the formulae.
Top
jim
Posted: Dec 4 2017, 11:24 AM


Regular


Group: Members
Posts: 164
Member No.: 641
Joined: 20-April 12



Hi Wendy

Quote' Even the dimension numbers like 733 are appropriate, since these can be directly reconstituted into algebraic blobs that fit into the formulae. '

Can you or someone explain to me the significance of the number 733? No problems if you cant just asking.

Jim
Top
wendy.krieger
Posted: Dec 4 2017, 12:22 PM


Dozens Demigod


Group: Members
Posts: 2,432
Member No.: 655
Joined: 11-July 12



Dimension refers to a physics concept.

In essence, units are algebraic blobs, that you can cancel them and convert them, but not evaluate them. So when you write 6 ft * 3 ft, you get 18 ft².

You can covert feet to inches, by thinking a (foot) = (12 inch), and replace ft by inches. This is how people cope with, say how many minutes does it take to fly 300 km at 150 knots. You replace all the units until you can cancel the things out.

In physics, one does a lot of unit multiplication, so 'force' = 'mass' * 'acceleration'. There's a lot of these equations taken standard, and the few quantities not defined are 'base units'. The size of the force unit depends on the mass * length / time², so a newton is 1 kg m / s² and 1 poundal = 1 lb ft / s².

These can be written in generic names like Mass, Length, Time (so force = ML/T²).

Years ago (1976), i found that you would do the numerical calculation on the calculator, and then have to dig out the abacus and slate to do the algebraic work on L,M,T,Q,etc. So i treated them as exponents. You multiply numbers by adding the exponents.

So that i would not get a lot of clashes, and so that the numbers actually had some meaning, i sat down and plotted everything i could find onto some sort of grid. The neat thing is that density and velocity do not vary much from atoms to stars, so i use them as base ideas. This makes time the only other variable.

Time = 1
Velocity = 10
Length = velocity * time = 10 + 1 = 11
Mass = density * length³ = D + 3*11 = D33.

The electrical units need to essentially fit inside 0 to D. In essence, you have the 'dc triangle', in that every quantity can be written as one of (watt, volt, amp, ohm, 1, mho), * length ^x * time^y. Because watt = volt * amp = amp² * ohm, you set something like ohm = 1xx, amp = 3xx, and this gives watt = 7xx.

Since we get

second = 1, metre = 11
ohm = 110, henry = 111, so µ = 100.
ampere = 321, coulomb = 322
volt = 431, weber = 432, tesla = 410
kilogram = 733, newton = 742, pascal = 720, joule = 753, watt = 752.

The units are trated as exponents, so Pascal = Newton/sq metre = 742 - 2*11 = 720.

The base map has been carefully monitored over 30 years, and the decisions appear to be right.

So 733 is simply some kind of logrithm of 'mass'.

It's rather interesting, because the size of the unit is proportional to the length^last digit. 733 Mass, can be thought of as volume (eg fuel), while power 752, is a kind of area (think of the section of the fuel line). Pressure here is 720 (pressure does not depend on size), nor does 10 velocity. What happens is that ft/s and km/h are about the same size, even though 1 km = 3280 ft, and 1 h = 3600 s.

The next step is the 'googol system', where you multiply these numbers by 100, and then add the exponent of the unit.

So 11 (length) becomes 1100 (metre), gives 1097 (mm), and 1103 (km). This gives you a 'coherent unit' near any size in any quantity. The program that produces the table in the OP, uses a system like this, where the exponents are set to the base in question. Here we are using octal. So the unit "X 4 m" would be coded as 1104.

The program correctly handles things like acceleration (11-1-1 = 9), because there are known downwards limits it adjusts for. Here you add and subtract 22.

9 + 22 = 31, less 2,2 gives 1,-1 (velocity / time).

In the days of four-function calculators, you could do the mantissa or digits calculation, and then do the exponent and unit calculation.


Top
« Next Oldest | New Systems of Measure | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now

Topic OptionsPages: (8) [1] 2 3 ... Last »



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0462 seconds · Archive