|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Don't forget - there's also a sugro-nanit, and Sbp did some calculations over in the Cranee Historical Society. We do have two phantoms, nanit and sugro-nanit, and I'm wondering if this entry supersedes them - it seems silly to actually define an "inch" in a lexicon, especially when we've got a global entry like the following. How do players feel about removing those terms as definable phantoms? --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:44, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| + | == Chesix System in units.dat format == |
| − | | + | Add the following to your system's /usr/share/units.dat (must be root): |
| − | Also, your comment about "being able to survive without writing" is broken. The Nitenmangrey are from -900 EC, which is far too soon for writing to have developed. Similarly, the originating Nitenmangrey entry, Aquentravalkeration, says that "since documents from that period remain undeciphered". A document presumes writing. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 09:59, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Based on his Talk discussion over on Cranee, Sbp is suggesting that a nanit is 20 cm, which would be the size of a Bindlet Ball (as per the Bindlett Ball entry, making it roughly half a foot). That would make your Rod 340 cm, or 11 feet, which seems like more of a hUuUUGe staff (larger than most normal staffs), as opposed to a single-handed rod. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 10:05, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'd like to the Cranee Historical Society nanit/sugro-nanit entries on measurement, and this entry, combined into a single measurement page. After that, I'd suggest the existing phantoms for nanit and sugro-nanit be redirected to that common page. Conceptually, a single page of weights and measures, seems to make more sense in an encyclopedia than individual entries. --[[User:Qwentyth Pyre|Qwentyth Pyre]] 18:54, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Morbus, I had started with the proposition that a Bindelt Ball would be 10cm and worked from there. On the whole, I am happy to make adjustments to the measurment system to fit in with what we know. The existing differences have occured because we didn't have anything before. I was hoping after this entry was complete to start a discussion about the nanit/sugro nanit phantoms as I think they should either point to this page or be removed. As for my sentence about surviving without writing - you are correct - it is broken. I shall fix as many of the inconsistencies as I can find. Happy to take suggestions from anyone. [[User:Dok|Dok]] 19:16, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I agree with [[User:Qwentyth Pyre|Qwentyth]] on this one. A single point of reference is best. Also, it's nice to have something to relate it all to! Knowing that the system is, more or less, based on a 10cm Bindelt Ball makes it all more sensible.
| |
| − | 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? --[[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)
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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)
| |
| | | | |
| − | 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)
| + | # Chesix System of Measures |
| | + | |
| | + | nanit 20 cm |
| | + | sugro- 201168|25 |
| | + | quiendsrod 1|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 1|1331 wurp waterdensity |
| | + | lugyup 1|0.86037 wurp waterdensity |
| | + | wurp nanit^3 |
| | + | yip degC |
| | | | |
| − | 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)
| + | Then the units program will understand Chesix as well as SI (metric), Imperial, and U.S. Customary units. |
| − | | |
| − | == Chesix System in units.dat format ==
| |
