Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.180.170.33; envelope-from=crj@lucubration.com
Message-ID: <451D3641.60008@lucubration.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:05:37 -0400
From: Chad Robinson <crj@lucubration.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel - Weights and Measures
References: <list-1425841@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1425841@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

George Lendich wrote:
> Bob,
> Interesting to say the least - why do I not feel fully satisfied ?
> However your right, it may all be in the records somewhere!
> I will research it.
> BTW I've never fully accepted Metric - still work mostly in inches. I 
> can understand those who want simplicity, but for my own point of view 
> everything seems to have evolved in12's - degrees, time etc.
> I found it interesting to see how some measurements evolved i.e a foot 
> was someone's foot ( perhaps the King's) a yard is taken from the 
> shoulder joint to the finger tips - from what I've read etc. etc. I have 
> just found the variation of the gallon annoying from the Aviation point 
> of view - then one starts to wonder WHY?

I once read an interesting theory (just a theory) that part of this all 
had to do with timing. Before the advent of computers, a base-10 system 
actually doesn't make as much sense as you'd think (despite the finger 
count), because it's harder to divide numbers. If you have 10 of 
something, you can only divide it (evenly) by 2 and 5. If you have 12, 
you can divide it by 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Who wants a third of a chicken? =)

Regards,
Chad