h a l f b a k e r yThis would work fine, except in terms of success.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
To celebrate the USA's enthusiasm for Imperial measurements and ways of measuring things that are not used by the rest of the world, there should be a new unit, equal to about half a micrometre, which would be used for measuring very small things. The definition of this unit would be that it is equal
to the difference between the USA's two contradictory definitions of a foot (the "International Foot" and the "US Survey Foot").
[link]
|
| |
(As [a1] points out, NIST are trying to ditch the Survey Foot; however it is still in several states' laws as the designated unit of measurement for surveying) |
|
| |
Calculations using values from a1's link yield a length of about 6.096 * 10^(-7) metres. Seems legit. |
|
| |
However, you need to give this unit an official name.
This needs to fit in with the other traditional length names, to whit:
league, mile, furlong, chain, rod, foot, link, inch (- but apparently not the barleycorn, as far as the US is concerned.) |
|
| |
Given that some of these units are approximately the same length as a readily-available (but variable in size) thing they name, you could use something with an equivalent size. And the name must have the advantage of being short and memorable, because that's really the only thing this system has going for it.
Bacteria are often about half a micrometre wide, so I suggest you name it the "bug". |
|
| |
Their gallon is different too. Having said that, I only use imperial measurements for everything. All of those 00000s confused my brain. |
|
| |
But what are those in cubic US Survey Feet? |
|
| |
//as a fraction, of course// |
|
| |
I make it 3/4921250 metres. |
|
| |