Ghyll talk:Chesix System Of Measures - Revision history

Jcowan: Deleting obsolete talk; correcting errors in units.dat

2005-05-25T17:03:48Z

Deleting obsolete talk; correcting errors in units.dat

Jcowan: Added lugyup to units

2005-02-16T18:45:33Z

Added lugyup to units

Jcowan: /* Chesix System in units.dat format */

2005-01-28T23:42:33Z

Chesix System in units.dat format

Jcowan: Chesix System in units.dat format

2005-01-28T23:38:41Z

Chesix System in units.dat format

Dok: So they've been revamped again

2004-09-23T23:46:57Z

So they've been revamped again

Morbus Iff: Still confusion...

2004-09-23T21:34:53Z

Still confusion...

Dok at 20:56, 23 September 2004

2004-09-23T20:56:32Z

Morbus Iff: A sugro-nanit has been established as fact; you must follow the facts.

2004-09-23T11:15:16Z

A sugro-nanit has been established as fact; you must follow the facts.

Dok: Explained my changes (a bit)

2004-09-23T05:44:43Z

Explained my changes (a bit)

DrBacchus: Oops. Forgot to sign

2004-09-23T00:44:24Z

Oops. Forgot to sign

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Chesix System in units.dat format ==
 Add the following to your system's /usr/share/units.dat (must be root):
-  # Chesix System of Units
+  # Chesix System of Measures
   nanit           20 cm
   sugro-          201168|25
-  quiendsrod      3657 sugro-nanit
+  quiendsrod      1|3657 sugro-nanit
   lunanit         11 kunanit
   kunanit         9 unanit
@@ Line 39: / Line 14: @@
   linanit         1|13 kinanit
   lele            9 lunanits
-  gyup            wurp waterdensity
+  gyup            1|1331 wurp waterdensity
-  lugyup          1331|0.86037 gyup
+  lugyup          1|0.86037 wurp waterdensity
   wurp            nanit^3
   yip             degC
-Then the units program will understand Chesix as well as metric, Imperial, and U.S. Customary units.
+Then the units program will understand Chesix as well as SI (metric), Imperial, and U.S. Customary units.

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
   lele            9 lunanits
   gyup            wurp waterdensity
   wurp            nanit^3
   yip             degC
 Then the units program will understand Chesix as well as metric, Imperial, and U.S. Customary units.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 28 January 2005
Line 25:		Line 25:

	== Chesix System in units.dat format ==		== Chesix System in units.dat format ==
		+	Add the following to your system's /usr/share/units.dat (must be root):
		+
		+	# Chesix System of Units
		+
		+	nanit 20 cm
		+	sugro- 201168\|25
		+	quiendsrod 3657 sugro-nanit
		+	lunanit 11 kunanit
		+	kunanit 9 unanit
		+	unanit 16 nanit
		+	inanit 1\|11 nanit
		+	kinanit 1\|9 inanit
		+	linanit 1\|13 kinanit
		+	lele 9 lunanits
		+	gyup wurp waterdensity
		+	wurp nanit^3
		+	yip degC
		+
		+	Then the units program will understand Chesix as well as metric, Imperial, and U.S. Customary units.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 28 January 2005
Line 23:		Line 23:

	Well you were right. I wasn't thinking clearly when I put the 1000 rods per sugro-nanit comment in. I have gone through all the units to try and tidy up the complexity. It cannot be removed completely since the original ratio of nanits to sugro nanits is 8046.72 - but I think I have got it right now. Gee this certainly turned out to be tougher than I thought it would be when I started. --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 19:45, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)		Well you were right. I wasn't thinking clearly when I put the 1000 rods per sugro-nanit comment in. I have gone through all the units to try and tidy up the complexity. It cannot be removed completely since the original ratio of nanits to sugro nanits is 8046.72 - but I think I have got it right now. Gee this certainly turned out to be tougher than I thought it would be when I started. --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 19:45, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Chesix System in units.dat format ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:46, 23 September 2004
Line 21:		Line 21:

	I personally suck and abhor math, so I'm not understanding things. If 1 rod is 2.67672 nanits, doesn't 1000 rods equate to 2676.72 nanits? How is 2676 nanits the same as 8046 nanits, as per a sugro-nanit? This seems to defy your own conversion rates listed in the chart below the thousand rods statement. Are you saying that there are some people who say a sugro-nanit is 8046 nanits, and some that say a sugro-nanit is 1000 rods? If that's intentionally what you're saying, I almost wish it was clearer (or rather, explain that its unexplained <g>). Without this Talk: discussion, it just seems like a blatant error. On the other hand, I just could be laughably moronic when it comes to calc.exe <g>. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:34, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)		I personally suck and abhor math, so I'm not understanding things. If 1 rod is 2.67672 nanits, doesn't 1000 rods equate to 2676.72 nanits? How is 2676 nanits the same as 8046 nanits, as per a sugro-nanit? This seems to defy your own conversion rates listed in the chart below the thousand rods statement. Are you saying that there are some people who say a sugro-nanit is 8046 nanits, and some that say a sugro-nanit is 1000 rods? If that's intentionally what you're saying, I almost wish it was clearer (or rather, explain that its unexplained <g>). Without this Talk: discussion, it just seems like a blatant error. On the other hand, I just could be laughably moronic when it comes to calc.exe <g>. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:34, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)
		+
		+	Well you were right. I wasn't thinking clearly when I put the 1000 rods per sugro-nanit comment in. I have gone through all the units to try and tidy up the complexity. It cannot be removed completely since the original ratio of nanits to sugro nanits is 8046.72 - but I think I have got it right now. Gee this certainly turned out to be tougher than I thought it would be when I started. --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 19:45, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 23 September 2004
Line 19:		Line 19:

	Morb, if you do the calculations, you will find that there is no inconsistency between SBP's nanits per sugro-nanit and my nanits per sugro-nanit. They both work out to be 8046 (plus change) nanits per sugro-nanit. The complexity that I was refering to is the fact that 1 sugro-nanit is the same as 1000 rods, but 1 rod is 2.67672 nanits. The decimals in the conversion factors add complexity and colour (I think). --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 16:55, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)		Morb, if you do the calculations, you will find that there is no inconsistency between SBP's nanits per sugro-nanit and my nanits per sugro-nanit. They both work out to be 8046 (plus change) nanits per sugro-nanit. The complexity that I was refering to is the fact that 1 sugro-nanit is the same as 1000 rods, but 1 rod is 2.67672 nanits. The decimals in the conversion factors add complexity and colour (I think). --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 16:55, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)
		+
		+	I personally suck and abhor math, so I'm not understanding things. If 1 rod is 2.67672 nanits, doesn't 1000 rods equate to 2676.72 nanits? How is 2676 nanits the same as 8046 nanits, as per a sugro-nanit? This seems to defy your own conversion rates listed in the chart below the thousand rods statement. Are you saying that there are some people who say a sugro-nanit is 8046 nanits, and some that say a sugro-nanit is 1000 rods? If that's intentionally what you're saying, I almost wish it was clearer (or rather, explain that its unexplained <g>). Without this Talk: discussion, it just seems like a blatant error. On the other hand, I just could be laughably moronic when it comes to calc.exe <g>. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:34, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 23 September 2004
Line 17:		Line 17:

	Hrm - I think leaving the inconsistency in is "against the rules". Since Sbp has already established, as fact, that a sugro-nanit is ''X'' amount of nanits, your entry has to accept that as fact and follow it (''though you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation''). I'd end up correcting this during a copyediting phase (later tonight). --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 07:15, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)		Hrm - I think leaving the inconsistency in is "against the rules". Since Sbp has already established, as fact, that a sugro-nanit is ''X'' amount of nanits, your entry has to accept that as fact and follow it (''though you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation''). I'd end up correcting this during a copyediting phase (later tonight). --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 07:15, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)
		+
		+	Morb, if you do the calculations, you will find that there is no inconsistency between SBP's nanits per sugro-nanit and my nanits per sugro-nanit. They both work out to be 8046 (plus change) nanits per sugro-nanit. The complexity that I was refering to is the fact that 1 sugro-nanit is the same as 1000 rods, but 1 rod is 2.67672 nanits. The decimals in the conversion factors add complexity and colour (I think). --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 16:55, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 23 September 2004
Line 15:		Line 15:

	I have fixed up the inconsistencies (I think). All the "nanit" measurements retain consistency with the entry in [[Cranee Historical Society]]. The nanit is now roughly 20cm in size. The Rod is now roughly 50cm. I thought about tiding up the difference between the sugro-nanit as defined by SBP, and then thought better of it. The unexplained complexity adds colour to the world and leaves room for the future. If such inconsistencies already exist, then it may be that they exist elsewhere. Enjoy. --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 01:44, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)		I have fixed up the inconsistencies (I think). All the "nanit" measurements retain consistency with the entry in [[Cranee Historical Society]]. The nanit is now roughly 20cm in size. The Rod is now roughly 50cm. I thought about tiding up the difference between the sugro-nanit as defined by SBP, and then thought better of it. The unexplained complexity adds colour to the world and leaves room for the future. If such inconsistencies already exist, then it may be that they exist elsewhere. Enjoy. --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 01:44, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)
		+
		+	Hrm - I think leaving the inconsistency in is "against the rules". Since Sbp has already established, as fact, that a sugro-nanit is ''X'' amount of nanits, your entry has to accept that as fact and follow it (''though you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation''). I'd end up correcting this during a copyediting phase (later tonight). --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 07:15, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:44, 23 September 2004
Line 13:		Line 13:

	For whatever it's worth, I was thinking that a Bindlet Ball was around the same size as a soccerball (football for you yurpeens) or a basketball. That would make it in the range of 20cm, rather than 10cm. However, if this makes the entire universe slightly off-kilter, then I can adjust my world view. After all, one of the necessary consequences of this form of fiction is that things can get defined after I've already written about them, right? --[[User:DrBacchus\|DrBacchus]] 20:44, 22 Sep 2004 (EDT)		For whatever it's worth, I was thinking that a Bindlet Ball was around the same size as a soccerball (football for you yurpeens) or a basketball. That would make it in the range of 20cm, rather than 10cm. However, if this makes the entire universe slightly off-kilter, then I can adjust my world view. After all, one of the necessary consequences of this form of fiction is that things can get defined after I've already written about them, right? --[[User:DrBacchus\|DrBacchus]] 20:44, 22 Sep 2004 (EDT)
		+
		+	I have fixed up the inconsistencies (I think). All the "nanit" measurements retain consistency with the entry in [[Cranee Historical Society]]. The nanit is now roughly 20cm in size. The Rod is now roughly 50cm. I thought about tiding up the difference between the sugro-nanit as defined by SBP, and then thought better of it. The unexplained complexity adds colour to the world and leaves room for the future. If such inconsistencies already exist, then it may be that they exist elsewhere. Enjoy. --[[User:Dok\|Dok]] 01:44, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, 23 September 2004
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Thank you --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 21:48, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)		Thank you --[[User:PhineasCrank\|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 21:48, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

−	For whatever it's worth, I was thinking that a Bindlet Ball was around the same size as a soccerball (football for you yurpeens) or a basketball. That would make it in the range of 20cm, rather than 10cm. However, if this makes the entire universe slightly off-kilter, then I can adjust my world view. After all, one of the necessary consequences of this form of fiction is that things can get defined after I've already written about them, right?	+	For whatever it's worth, I was thinking that a Bindlet Ball was around the same size as a soccerball (football for you yurpeens) or a basketball. That would make it in the range of 20cm, rather than 10cm. However, if this makes the entire universe slightly off-kilter, then I can adjust my world view. After all, one of the necessary consequences of this form of fiction is that things can get defined after I've already written about them, right? --[[User:DrBacchus\|DrBacchus]] 20:44, 22 Sep 2004 (EDT)