Mountain Project Logo

please use meters

Eliot Augusto · · Lafayette, CO · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 60
Boissal wrote: Obtuse at best.
I never said I am funny. Just hoping.
matt c. · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 155
Marc801 wrote: Much more recent than cams. Friends were the first spring loaded cams that worked well and were reasonably light (there were earlier attempts and there were also passive devices) - they first became available in 1977. The widespread use of meters instead of feet for rope length really became noticeable circa 2000. The common rope lengths were 150' in the 70's which transitioned to 165' in the 80's and continued into the 90's. Many of those historic routes were indeed done with 165' ropes, and, no, they were not sold in 164' lengths - 50m is close enough to 165' for all but the most anal retentive, especially with the length variance in ropes. Going further back in time the "standard" rope length prior to 150' was 120', which explains some of the curious intermediate anchors on some historic routes.
sweet. its cool to see how climbing history has progressed.

time to move on to the next stage in climbing history the cubit...
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
matt c. wrote:time to move on to the next stage in climbing history the cubit...
We could express distances in terms of the height of famous climbers:
I fell just 2 Sharmas from the anchors.
At 45 Hills it's quite an endurance route.
mcarizona · · Flag · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 180

Marc801, I started climbing in 89. The conversation was always about converting the meters to feet in regards to our ropes. Possibly around 2000 I broke down and bought a 60 meter (all that weight?), so maybe that was something to support a turning point. I've never seen one sold in feet. Sorry to nitpick.

Steve

Rob Baumgartner · · Niwot · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 196

With the awesome guesstimation of pitch lengths on here, does it does it really even matter?

teece303 · · Highlands Ranch, CO · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 596

I started climbing in 1994. I have never once seen a mainstream climbing rope measured in anything but meters. 2000 for the time ropes became metric? No, not even close.

As for speeds, I only accept furlongs per fortnight.

Bill Czajkowski · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Oct 2008 · Points: 20

What's the big deal? Smart phones, on-line converters, only an idiot can't figure it out.

StonEmber · · Raleigh, NC · Joined Mar 2013 · Points: 35

Have you ever told a gal "I'm a third of a meter, baby!"

It just doesn't translate....

Petsfed 00 · · Snohomish, WA · Joined Mar 2002 · Points: 989

Maybe I'm just used to translating on the fly. 1m is about 3 feet, and its very nearly the length of my stride, so that's as far as it goes.

If we want people to get used to metric for their distances, that's how we need to sell it. 1m=1stride thereabouts. 10cm=width of fist.

Keep in mind that the metric system, while based on arbitrary metrics, is meant to be intuitive. Thus, 1 litre is about 2 pints (still) and 1 kilogram is about the weight of 2 pints of water. Likewise, the meter is what it is not because there's anything unique about that fraction of the polar-equatorial distance, but because it's the nearest whole number fraction of that distance to a yard.

It makes remembering the speed of light really easy, although it makes a nanosecond harder: the speed of light is 3e8 m/s (as opposed to 186,282 miles per second). A nanosecond is the time it takes for light to go about 1 foot.

I still think that the use of the pound rather than the slug was the most impactful decision ever made regarding the establishment of a unit. Sure, a kilogram (or a slug) is the more fundamental unit. But the fact that a pound is what we actually measure, while a kilogram is always derived, makes imperial units much MUCH more intuitive (even if the rest of the system is, for want of a better term, FUCKED).

Wiled Horse · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2002 · Points: 3,669

Feeters

Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Brian Scoggins wrote:I still think that the use of the pound rather than the slug was the most impactful decision ever made regarding the establishment of a unit. Sure, a kilogram (or a slug) is the more fundamental unit. But the fact that a pound is what we actually measure, while a kilogram is always derived...
Huh?
Eliot Augusto · · Lafayette, CO · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 60
Marc801 wrote: Huh?
There is an object that weighs exactly 1 lb. They use that object as THE standard for weight. Anything that doesn't weigh the exact same as the object doesn't weigh 1 lb.

That's it in a nutshell.
Tyson Anderson · · SLC, UT · Joined May 2007 · Points: 126
Eliot Augusto wrote: There is an object that weighs exactly 1 lb. They use that object as THE standard for weight. Anything that doesn't weigh the exact same as the object doesn't weigh 1 lb. That's it in a nutshell.
A radiolab I recently heard stated exactly the opposite. The only unit of measurement left that uses a physical object to weigh against is the kilogram.

radiolab.org/story/kg/
Daniel Winder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 101

A kilogram is a measure of mass. A pound is a measure of force. Because gravity is assumed to be constant on earth they can be converted. The conversion would be different on the moon for example. You guys all probably knew that though, carry on...

Eliot Augusto · · Lafayette, CO · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 60
Tyson Anderson wrote: A radiolab I recently heard stated exactly the opposite. The only unit of measurement left that uses a physical object to weigh against is the kilogram. radiolab.org/story/kg/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y

That's how I learned about it, I just remembered the pound being still the main unit. But they did make those balls.
Alexander Blum · · Livermore, CA · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 143

Eliot,

Maybe there once was an object that represented exactly one pound, but in the present day every single imperial unit is defined in terms of metric units. This means that the pound is defined in terms of kg/slug/whatever. As far as the actual methods of definition go . . .

Ya'll are talking about two different ways that two different groups are trying to define the kilogram (not the pound). The Veritaseum piece even mentions the guys featured in Radiolab when he talks about people trying to redefine the kilogram in terms of Plank's Constant somewhere near the end. Anywhere, both of those approaches are designed to remove any kind of physical object from the definition of the kilogram. The sphere is definitely an object, but it only exists to prove that an extremely precise number of silicon atoms is equal to one kilogram.

Petsfed 00 · · Snohomish, WA · Joined Mar 2002 · Points: 989
Marc801 wrote: Huh?
A gram (and by extension, a kilogram) is a unit of mass. Thus, its tied, objectively, to the total number of protons and neutrons in a given object.

A pound is a unit of force, and is therefore tied to the forces acting on it, and the more objective number, the mass. The equivalent metric unit is a newton, of which is about a quarter pound. Its very strange that in countries using the imperial system, the force required to support a person is how their bulk is measured, whereas in countries using metric, its a measure of how many atoms their body contains.

Nobody talks about mass in terms of slugs (1 slug weighs 32.2 pounds, at mean surface gravity), nor do they measure human size in newtons (1 newton is about a quarter of a pound). You can see, based on my parenthetical for slugs why the force measure is problematic. The official pound, no doubt kept under lock and key at one of NIST's laboratories, weighs differing amounts at, for instance, the equator vs. the north pole, or over large deposits of coal vs. large deposits of granite.
Ryan N · · Bellingham, WA · Joined May 2009 · Points: 195
Jason Todd wrote:
I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the science community as a whole, including aerospace, use primary metric units? Us included...
George Bell · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 5,050

This has been a fascinating diversion into the units of force and mass, but I vote +1 for the conversion of the entire site to meters, and MKS in general. If we think of this as an international web site, we should use the units overwhelmingly used by almost all countries.

David Tysinger · · Winston-Salem, NC · Joined Oct 2007 · Points: 0

I object to the Base 10 numeral system. I suggest we use Babylonian Numerals Base 60.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "please use meters"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.