incubator-ooo-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Martin" <>
Subject Re: [Calc] Feature request: Change default cell width from 2,27cm to 2,50cm
Date Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:18:04 GMT
Scooter is right:  this is not the place for this debate, which I regret starting. In any case
it is 
in danger of confusing the different requirements for unit systems -- needed  for scientific,

engineering, academic and like purposes  -- and informal units for particular purposes.  As
happens the founders of the metric system confused them too, but all that matters for 
modern purposes is overall coherence:  everyone should use the same definitions, which 
should be reliably reproducible, and that it should be easy to move from the very large and

the very small.  A good collection is to be found in Stephen Dresner: Units of Measurement,

Harvey Miller and Medcalf, 1971

On 4 Jun 2012 at 11:04, Scooter C wrote:

Send reply to:
Date sent:      	Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:04:57 -0400
From:           	Scooter C <>
Subject:        	Re: [Calc] Feature request: Change default cell width from 2,27cm
	to 2,50cm

> Good Morning Group,
> I don't understand this discussion.
> Imperial or metric. Is this about Open Office (AOO) or mathematics.
> I personally wished that the USA would go metric just to be in sync
> with the global "standard". USA money is metric, but nothing else.
> Which is the one conversion this discussion hasn't discussed. I do
> agree with several of you, It should be OUR choice which
> measuring|mathematical system we want to use, period. At the very
> least, the user should be aware of what AOO is using. Thanks to the
> group for the clues.
> Even Autocad and other CAD programs, allow the client to choose the
> math system or have both, at the same time. The Hubble telescope was a
> great demonstration of what happens when you aren't aware of which
> math system is being used and that was by knowledgeable scientists!
> Take Care.
> Scooter
> College Park, MD USA
> James Knott wrote on 6/4/2012 10:07 AM:
> > Mike Scott wrote:
> >> No way!!! Remind us what the original intent of the metre was - and
> >> how wrong (and pointless). And the current definition is, well,
> >> arbitrary, is it not?
> >>
> >> And how do entities like the litres and are fit into a "rational"
> >> system that already has cubic this and square that?
> >
> > The original "metre" was 1/10,000,000 the distance between the
> > equator and pole. It was later refined to the distance light travels
> > in 1 â„ 299,792,458 second. The second is defined by the
> > oscillations of the cesium atom. Now consider water. One millilitre
> > (1 cm³ or cc) has a mass of 1 gram. A litre = 1000 cc and 1 Kg.
> > Nice and convenient that. Now what about the weight and dimensions
> > of an ounce of water? U.S. vs imperial ounce? U.S. or imperial
> > quart? Gallon? When you work in science or engineering the metric
> > system works out extremely well due to the easy scaling. You
> > certainly can't say the same for the various traditional units.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: For
> additional commands, e-mail:

Niall Martin
Phone 0131 4678468
Please reply to: niall<at>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message