|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: The mil as a unit of angle.
From: Richard M. Pisko (rmpisko1@XXX.XXX)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 14:07:25 EST
Back before the dawn of time (on Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:25:00
+0000, to be exact), Robert Eno <enoid@XXX.XXX> wrote:
>I still have an old "mil" compass from my very short-lived career in the
>army. Never could wrap my head around those units of measure.
>
One "advantage" is that the old points on a compass rose can
be matched to even numbers on the US mil system. For
example: 0 is North and 1600 is East. 800 is NE. 400 is
NNE. 200 is N by E. 300 would be NE by N, I think.
I have no idea what would correspond to 100mils.
>I've read
>about all kinds of efforts to replace the sexigesimal system for reckoning
>angles (as well as the quirky system that we use for reckoning the passage
>of time) and it appears, much to my delight, that these efforts have
>failed miserably. The sexigesimal system is here to stay.
>
Maybe as long as the earth still has (roughly) 360 days in a
year?
But the Guinea, Shilling, Farthing, Sixpence and half-penny
have not thrived. The pound, ounce and grain are mostly
limited to the USA, I believe, and to historians.
Measurements such as the chain, furlong and acre are simply
related, were quite useful, but are fading left-overs from
very old English usage.
Those failed French "decimalized" pocket watches from just
after their Revolution are quite valuable, I have been told.
I wouldn't mind having a working replica, and making some
appointments according to that system. :-)
-- Richard ...
|