Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How To Make 96,000lbs of WWII Machinery Into High-Tech Research Platform

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the what's-old-is-new dept.

The Military 150

coondoggie writes "The US Naval Research Laboratory is taking a 96,000-pound piece of World War II-era machinery and turning it into a test-bed for leading edge communications and radar applications. The equipment was originally known as a three-axis tilting platform designed to simulate the movements of a large ship at sea. It was built by Westinghouse in 1943 as a gun platform requiring only primitive motion in roll, pitch and yaw, according to the Navy Lab. Specifically it was used as a mechanically operated deck with a heavy machine gun director and a machine gun mount installed. Gun crews and director operators could be trained on the platform under conditions that approximated the movements of a vessel at sea."

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'll bet... (4, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 8 months ago | (#45974455)

In 1943 it probably cost a few hundred thousand $ to build - if that.

Today's "updates" will cost $4.3 billion, be obsolete 6 months before completed, take 6 years, be the subject of multiple disciplinary hearings, congressional investigations and DOJ corruption probes, won't work, then ultimately will be outsourced to China for completion prior to being abandoned for a new technology.

Re:I'll bet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974507)

each 1943 dollar is worth a billion 2014 dollars :D

In the future (2, Funny)

Dareth (47614) | about 8 months ago | (#45975291)

They should print US currency on soft rolls of paper. Then people can't say it isn't worth a crap!

Re:I'll bet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974509)

I think it can be built for $4.3 million and won't be obsolete for two years or so.

A couple of hundred thousand $ with 1943 currency have about the same value as $4.3 million with current currency if you compensate for inflation and the machine was pretty much obsolete after the war.

I base my guesstimate on "Nothing really changes."

Re:I'll bet... (4, Funny)

symes (835608) | about 8 months ago | (#45974571)

Well hello there you little ray of sunshine

Re:I'll bet... (2)

SpzToid (869795) | about 8 months ago | (#45974611)

Now that's sarcasm. Speaking on behalf of the internet, this time I think we've nailed it.

What you're forgetting, though... (2)

swb (14022) | about 8 months ago | (#45974615)

...is that yacht builder Sea Ray and several Mercedes Benz dealers will see a significant boost in revenue.

Re:I'll bet... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#45974635)

They already tell you how much it cost - £96,000, or about $150,000.

Re:I'll bet... (1)

HetMes (1074585) | about 8 months ago | (#45974793)

non-constructive cynicism passes as insightful here?

Re:I'll bet... (0)

Capt.Albatross (1301561) | about 8 months ago | (#45975757)

non-constructive cynicism passes as insightful here?

Troll.

Re:I'll bet... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#45974941)

Is anybody having better luck than I am coming up with the price of ~100,000 pounds of structural steel in 1943? I assume that a US Naval Research Lab project didn't need to dig ration coupons out of the couch cushions to buy hardware; but we were in the process of gearing up for one of the world's largest exercises in throwing men and materiel into the grinder...

Re:I'll bet... (3, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about 8 months ago | (#45975437)

We were still using predominately virgin steel in the '40s, so the costs for this material by weight was probably not significantly different than for other forms of steel from the manufacturer. As the raw steel smelter was selling right to the government or to the durable-goods manufacturer, whatever their price was, should be fairly close.

Or in other words, whoever smelt it, dealt it...

Re:I'll bet... (1)

trongey (21550) | about 8 months ago | (#45975719)

In 1943 it probably cost a few hundred thousand $ to build - if that.

Today's "updates" will cost $4.3 billion, be obsolete 6 months before completed, take 6 years, be the subject of multiple disciplinary hearings, congressional investigations and DOJ corruption probes, won't work, then ultimately will be outsourced to China for completion prior to being abandoned for a new technology.

Of course it will work. It was built for WWII. They made that stuff so you couldn't screw it up. There were still four Iowa class battlships active in the '90s.

Re:I'll bet... (1)

fuzzywig (208937) | about 8 months ago | (#45975977)

Defence contractors wouldn't be so good at bilking the government out of money if they hadn't had years of practice. I'm sure when this thing was first built someone made a killing, even if they couldn't aspire to the giddy heights of larceny practised today.

Re:I'll bet... (4, Interesting)

supercrisp (936036) | about 8 months ago | (#45976005)

Clearly the parent hasn't read much history. Military over-expenditures and boondoggles go way, way back. Hell, I was just reading about similar problems in the 14th century.

What language is this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974465)

headline? goofball?

Jodrell Bank (5, Interesting)

Molt (116343) | about 8 months ago | (#45974505)

This type of reuse of ex-military kit quite often happens, although not normally so long after it was originally used. I'm not sure if it's still running on the same engines but I know that the Lovell Radio Telescope at Jodrell Bank (UK), at one time the largest movable dish telescope, originally had a lot of parts cannibalised from engines taken from two battleships. Lovell, the maker of the telescope, had also previously been using quite a lot of reclaimed military kit for his astronomical observations before the actual radio telescope was built.

Re:Jodrell Bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974597)

Actually it wasn't the engines it was part of the turret training gear.

Re:Jodrell Bank (3, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 8 months ago | (#45974717)

This type of reuse of ex-military kit quite often happens, although not normally so long after it was originally used. I'm not sure if it's still running on the same engines but I know that the Lovell Radio Telescope at Jodrell Bank (UK), at one time the largest movable dish telescope, originally had a lot of parts cannibalised from engines taken from two battleships. Lovell, the maker of the telescope, had also previously been using quite a lot of reclaimed military kit for his astronomical observations before the actual radio telescope was built.

After WWII German Würzburg 'Riese' GCI radar antennas were repurposed for radio astronomy. Some of them remained in use at least into the 1980s. I wonder if any are still in use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W [wikipedia.org] ürzburg_radar
http://www.astron.nl/~leeuwen/video/dloo/JAHH9p3.pdf [astron.nl]

Re:Jodrell Bank (4, Informative)

AlecC (512609) | about 8 months ago | (#45974947)

Not engine parts - the main bearings that carry the dish are gun turret bearings from battleships. Since they are so central to the structure, I doubt they have been replaced.

I like their pigeon prevention mechanisms as well - two nests of peregrine falcons, one in each support.

Re:Jodrell Bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975693)

also main bearings from battleship gun turrets
- I believe they are still in use

Re:Jodrell Bank (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 8 months ago | (#45975925)

The hypoxia research lab where I work has a USAF hypobaric chamber dating back to the early 1950s, still perfectly functional. So not quite that old, but pretty impressive when you think about it.

EPA: Implementing the Hazardous Waste e-Manifest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974541)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued a final rule that is a crucial step in the development of a national electronic manifest (e-Manifest) system, which will upgrade the current paper-based system of tracking hazardous waste to an electronic one.
“Today’s action is a key step in bringing the oversight of these potentially dangerous materials into the 21st century,” said Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “Once fully implemented, the national e-Manifest system will provide greater access for emergency responders to information about the types and sources of hazardous waste that are in transit between generator sites and waste management facilities.”
The final rule authorizes the use of e-Manifests to track hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This will allow the current process, which requires paper forms, to be streamlined and greatly reduce the millions of paper manifests produced each year.
The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act requires EPA to issue a regulation authorizing the use of electronic manifests as the legal equivalent of the current paper manifest forms used to track shipments of hazardous waste from a generator’s site to the ultimate site of disposal. EPA’s goal is to promote the greatest possible use of electronic manifests.
The e-Manifest program is the vanguard of the agency-wide initiative to develop new tools to reduce the reporting burden on regulated entities, and provide the agency, states and the public with easier access to environmental data. EPA estimates the national e-Manifest system will ultimately reduce the burden associated with preparing shipping manifests by between 300,000 and 700,000 hours, and result in cost savings of more than $75 million per year for states and industry. In line with the agency’s e-Enterprise principles, the e-Manifest system will significantly improve access to higher quality and more timely waste shipment data, and will empower communities through increased transparency and more accurate information on completed waste shipments and management trends.
The final rule will establish the legal and policy framework for using electronic manifests; however, several more steps will be needed before the e-Manifest program can be implemented. These include establishing the system and initial fee structure. This year, EPA will work with states, industry and other stakeholders to develop plans for the many key aspects of the system and address concerns of intersystem compatibility. The Agency will also begin developing the initial fee structure of the system, including implementation and compliance dates, through a rulemaking. Stakeholders and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule when it becomes available.
For more information:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/transportation/manifest/e-man.htm [epa.gov]

WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (2, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | about 8 months ago | (#45974569)

Isn't it about time a technical site such as slashdot started using metric units , eg kilos? You know, for the rest of the world outside the USA who has no clue what the hell 96,000 lbs means? Even in the UK hardly anyone under the age of 60 uses lbs as a measurement any more.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (5, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#45974637)

You need to use measurements people have an intuitive grasp of. Nobody in the US knows how much a kilo "feels like" but 96,000 lb is a readily comprehensible number.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 8 months ago | (#45974705)

I realise you're probably one of those americans who've never gone beyond your borders, but there is a world outside the USA where approx 6.7 billion people live and some of us there do read this site. And it would be nice on a *technical* site to have standard units used that the majority of the world understands.

Bitch, bitch, bitch (2, Funny)

Dr. Zim (21278) | about 8 months ago | (#45975037)

I'm one of those Americans that HAS traveled abroad and I cordially invite you to create your own *technical* site with whatever units of measurement you see fit. The fact that you're even able to complain about this 'problem' is due to DARPA. You know them, they're the US agency responsible for the development of the internet.

Everyone wants to bitch about our units of measurement, but nobody seems to have any trouble accepting our units of currency.

Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975133)

lol, your economy is in the toilet and your country is infested with niggers.

Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 8 months ago | (#45975841)

Everyone wants to bitch about our units of measurement, but nobody seems to have any trouble accepting our units of currency.

The currency that has "metric" units (dollars and cents)?
I wonder why.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975499)

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/converter/

What's that? A solution that doesn't involve questioning an entire country for the actions of one "technical" (ha) website... and from an AC no less...

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

amalcolm (1838434) | about 8 months ago | (#45974723)

But US != world. Viol8 was pointing out that most of the world DOES have an intuitive feel for kilos, for example, as they weight themselves, their food etc. in kilos

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (2)

DrXym (126579) | about 8 months ago | (#45974737)

I very much doubt you know what 96,000lb "feels like" either.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | about 8 months ago | (#45974753)

I very much doubt you know what 96,000lb "feels like" either.

It feels quite a bit like 96,000 tons, but quite a bit different from 96,000 grains.

Or in metric: it feels pretty much the same as 96,000 tonnes, but different from 96,000 mg.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974837)

I very much doubt you know what 96,000lb "feels like" either.

It feels quite a bit like 96,000 tons, but quite a bit different from 96,000 grains.

Or in metric: it feels pretty much the same as 96,000 tonnes, but different from 96,000 mg.

So in your world 1lb feels the same as 1 ton? 96,000lbs = 48 tons, just a little less than 96,000 tons...

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (2)

mhajicek (1582795) | about 8 months ago | (#45974979)

As far as "feels like" I think he's right. 10,000 pounds and 100,000 pounds feel the same; they both instantly crush the observer.

Re: WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975063)

48 tonnes?

Man, 96,000lb made it sound staggeringly enormous. Instead it's like maybe a 2 trailer road train (b double).

Big deal.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | about 8 months ago | (#45975863)

96,000lbs = 48 tons, just a little less than 96,000 tons...

Feels the same when you drop it on your foot.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#45974923)

That's the joke.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45976061)

96,000 lbs of cold steel feels like my ex-wife.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

kyrsjo (2420192) | about 8 months ago | (#45975289)

It's a comprehensible number IF you're used to pounds. To most people outside the US, pounds, miles, ounces (in all their weird varieties), galons, miles, yards, fathoms, inches, feet, fahrenheits and other weird US-specific not-base-10 units of measure are only usefull after converting them (mentally or via table and calculator) to the metric system. At least you probably have to learn the metric system at school - other places some of the units are only used as an excuse to practice multiplication (and the conversion constants quickly forgotten).

And Slashdot, while US-centric on political issues (probably because its the largest single country represented here), is read by many people outside the US. So at least providing both unit systems would be useful.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 8 months ago | (#45976209)

So post them yourself then. We American's don't think in metric, don't use it and don't give a damn about anyone who's not an American. Sorry but the fucking poster is the one you need to bitch at as /. doesn't have editors

I'm in the US (1)

Dareth (47614) | about 8 months ago | (#45975327)

I'm in the US and I guesstimate a kilo to be just under a half pound. So divide the number of pounds in half, then you have a rough value for the conversion.

So 1000 kilograms is around 500 lbs. Just don't use it as a conversion of a woman's weight. You may well feel the pain of that "rounding" error.

Re:I'm in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975451)

Awesome, but completely wrong.

Try 1Kg = 2.2lbs

1000Kg = 2200lbs

1lb = 454g

(Assuming UK lbs, not sure if you yanks bastardised them as well).

Re:I'm in the US (1)

nicomede (1228020) | about 8 months ago | (#45975463)

I'm in Europe and you seem to be using Imperial Arithmetics as well as Imperial Units, leading to some confusion in my brain.

Re:I'm in the US (1)

onepoint (301486) | about 8 months ago | (#45975527)

also in the US, but I am shocked at your lack knowledge. a kilo is about 2.2 lbs ( you did it opposite ). talking about in the terms what a kilo feels like ... 2 good study books and a cup of coffee, or 2 t-bone stakes before placing on the grill ... I would not be surprised that you could find similar measurements of what a kilo feels like ( I can not grasp how many pints of beer it would be, but I would guess about 3 )
a bottle of wine feels less than a pound but not near a kilo, a bottle of champagne feels closer to kilo....

Re:I'm in the US (1)

Dareth (47614) | about 8 months ago | (#45975653)

Yeah I swapped my units. But you appear to be cooking vampires. t-bone stakes indeed. ;)

Re:I'm in the US (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 8 months ago | (#45976231)

2 T-Bone steaks? Those aint Texan Steaks then being that small. Remember, everything in Texas is bigger, including our women and food

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 8 months ago | (#45975595)

So i just typed it into Google, and it looks like it can do the conversion
1 lightyear = 1.03461597 × 1014 American football fields
1 lightyear = 4.70279985 × 1014 chain
1 lightyear = 2.06923193 × 1016 cubits

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

trongey (21550) | about 8 months ago | (#45975663)

I'm pretty sure a lot of people in the US know what a kilo feels like. Just ask the folks in Colorado and Washington.
Well, OK, maybe not the whole kilo - unless they toss one in the campfire.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 8 months ago | (#45975883)

I know you're joking, but quite seriously: one liter of water weighs one kilogram. (This is no longer exact since the units have been more precisely defined, but it's close enough.) So if you know what a two-liter bottle of soda feels like, you know roughly what two kilos feel like. Figuring out what 48000 such bottles feels like might be a bit tougher, but at least it's a point of reference.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45976215)

You need to use measurements people have an intuitive grasp of. Nobody in the US knows how much a kilo "feels like" but 96,000 lb is a readily comprehensible number.

On the other hand, everyone in the US knows what lifting two truck trailers feels like.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

CharlieG (34950) | about 8 months ago | (#45974641)

Maybe because the source article (yes I read it) used those obsolete terms, and the /. author didn't bother to convert them for your convenience?

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974749)

Maybe because the source article (yes I read it) used those obsolete terms, and the /. author didn't bother to convert them for your convenience?

/., a site for Dumericans, run by Dumericans. But they'll take the ad-impressions from dirty foreigners anyway.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974701)

I'll go get some pop-corn!
Bring on the metric vs ancient units-foght! 8-)

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (2)

SpzToid (869795) | about 8 months ago | (#45974711)

Assuming the rest of the world has access to something like Google, one might do a simple conversion with a search term as follows:

96,000 lbs = kilos

Here's a working example:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=96%2C000+lbs+%3D+kilos [lmgtfy.com]

I know this isn't a perfect solution, but I'm used to converting foreign texts in a similar fashion. This works for me in edge cases like this, however YMMV [urbandictionary.com] .

Re: WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974731)

The same argument can be reversed. Use SI units like a good scientist (a scientist/technician using imperial units is a real bad scientist/technician) and US people living in the past using obsolete and obscure units can use Google to catch up with the rest of the world. You (the US) are the exception, not the rule and norm.

Re: WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974819)

why yes, we're exceptional, and this is an american website. Don't like it? Build your own slashdot; we've got a (metric) ton of slashtards to send your way. That's about all that's left.

Re: WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974871)

You (the US) are the exception, not the rule and norm.

Yes, we ARE exceptional people, aren't we?

You need to look at history, and see that the USA got to kick ass in war and help rebuild countries they defeated while remaining the only "superpower" around today - all using feet and inches and degrees F, which we still use, and will continue to use.

So Fuck Off, world!

Re: WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about 8 months ago | (#45974999)

Take a look around. The US is diminishing and others are rising.

Re: WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975551)

Actually the US is still rising, but others are rising at a faster rate. This is the rule of advancement and not at all threatening. If you have 1.3 Billion people all making $4000 a year it's pretty easy to advance the economy and get them $5000. Holy shit, 25% growth! Unstoppable! If the mean is closer to $40,000 it's a little more difficult to scale especially if you're dumping money into R&D, foreign aid, providing defense for half the planet, etc. The US economy is still chugging along with fairly stable growth which is better than can be said for most of the "Western" economies. Japan for instance (the last country people thought was going to overtake the US has been sitting in decades of stagflation and is now facing a burdensome aging population.) China, India, Brazil, etc all have their strengths but they have a lot of growing up to do before we talk about them in the same context.

Unless you're just an idiot.

Re: WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975131)

Nope. Fuck off USA. Fuck you.
I will continue to ridicule you for using retarded units. You are increasingly becoming the laughingstock of the world.

Your school system is horribly bad, your politicians the worst any democracy has ever seen, debts are ginormous. And having the NSA doesn't make you quite likeable.

You are in a downward spiral.

And no. You aren't the only superpower. China and Russia are not to be underestimated. India has still a very long way to go but might get there. The EU has already a larger economy than the USA.

Behaving like an arrogant asshole would isolate the USA.

Get real.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974743)

Squeeze many diamonds out of that tight ass? The original freaking article uses the pound figure, dummy....and the fact it was posted here doesn't require andy conversion unless YOU need it.

Idiot.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

GoChickenFat (743372) | about 8 months ago | (#45974973)

Its a US story about a US installation. Why convert that to kilos? Should we also convert every US story that uses Dollars to some other currency? What else is too offensive for you that would need to be converted? Why not just use google to do the conversion for you if it bothers you that much.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975019)

People are familiar with what a US dollar is. Go back to analogy school.

Re: WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975147)

Currencies are not covered by the SI units. Your comparison is ridiculous.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 8 months ago | (#45975017)

For rough calculations, 1 lb = 0.5 Kg. For Fahrenheit to Celsius, subtract 30 and divide by 2.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (2)

dfenstrate (202098) | about 8 months ago | (#45975023)

Isn't it about time a technical site such as slashdot started using metric units , eg kilos? You know, for the rest of the world outside the USA who has no clue what the hell 96,000 lbs means? Even in the UK hardly anyone under the age of 60 uses lbs as a measurement any more.

Explain 'Stones"

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 8 months ago | (#45975275)

Explain 'Stones"

1. the hard, solid, nonmetallic mineral matter of which rock is made, esp. as a building material.
"the houses are built of stone" rock, pebble, boulder More (in metaphorical use) weight or lack of feeling, expression, or movement. "Isabel stood as if turned to stone"
ASTRONOMY: a meteorite made of rock, as opposed to metal.
MEDICINE: a calculus; a gallstone or kidney stone.

2. a piece of stone shaped for a purpose, esp. one of commemoration, ceremony, or demarcation.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

dfenstrate (202098) | about 8 months ago | (#45975475)

Explain 'Stones"

1. the hard, solid, nonmetallic mineral matter of which rock is made, esp. as a building material. "the houses are built of stone" rock, pebble, boulder More (in metaphorical use) weight or lack of feeling, expression, or movement. "Isabel stood as if turned to stone" ASTRONOMY: a meteorite made of rock, as opposed to metal. MEDICINE: a calculus; a gallstone or kidney stone.

2. a piece of stone shaped for a purpose, esp. one of commemoration, ceremony, or demarcation.

3. The stone (abbreviation st) is a unit of measure equal to 14 pounds avoirdupois (about 6.35 kg [nb 1]) used in Great Britain and Ireland for measuring human body weight.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975481)

1 stone = 14 lbs
1lb = 16ozs

It's very, very simple.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 8 months ago | (#45975075)

Judging by the fact that summaries so frequently contain simple errors (this one seemed to be missing an "a" - which sounds kinda stereotypically Japanese in the context of WWII: I then read "Pratform" instead of "Platform"), it seems as though they post the summaries without editing. If that's the case, the units are whatever the submitter submitted. Maybe he's simply an American who prefers pounds, or someone from the UK over 60.

So, if you use your preferred units in the article summaries that you submit yourself, I doubt they would change them. Even if you use "stone".

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975175)

Dunno. But in Canada our units seem to depend on what we're measuring.

I measure my body weight in pounds. But I purchase food in grams/mg/Kg.

The temperature outside is in Celcius. But my oven is set in Fahrenheit.

We measure our properties for Real Estate purposes in metres. But building materials and construction labour is sold in terms of square feet.

I buy bags of fertilizer by the Kg, but dirt by the yard.

Day-to-day it works for us, but the more I think about it the less sense it makes. I blame our southern neighbour for some of this nonsense :)

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | about 8 months ago | (#45975249)

In the late 70s, there was a push to get the US to go metric. Protests from the auto industry that the costs would force them out of business, IIRC, squashed the effort. I don't really understand why we haven't gone metric -- $DEITY knows we all have metric tools to work on our Toyotas, Nissans and Hondas. And the industries (those that are left) have retooled several times since the 70s. It's frustrating being the last holdout, and for no good reason.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975465)

I have to doubt this. I used to own an '89 Chevy Camaro and it it needed both SI and SAE wrenches to carry out some maintenance so they can clearly make metric parts.. It was also made in Detroit but painted in Toronto.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

volmtech (769154) | about 8 months ago | (#45975597)

You answered your own question. The US automakers did almost go out of business converting to metric, and all those Toyotas and Hondas people bought didn't help either.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975397)

The FAQ clearly states that Slashdot is an American site primarily used by Americans catering to Americans.

I'm not opposed to the switch, but the argument that the site has any moral obligation to was shot down before you even started.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975535)

It was made in the US, so it uses US measurements for its weight. If they convert it, you get 43544.9, which isn't a very sexy number.

Re:WW2 machinery and WW2 units of measurement (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 8 months ago | (#45975579)

You know, for the rest of the world outside the USA who has no clue what the hell 96,000 lbs means and aren't bright enough or are too lazy to perform the conversion?

There, fixed that for you.
 
When I encounter an unfamiliar measurement, I familiarize myself with it. Or I use Google or some other service to convert it into a measurement I *am* familiar with. What I don't do is insist that other people alter their behavior to suit me.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

trongey (21550) | about 8 months ago | (#45975637)

We in the USA are really sorry that the rest of the world doesn't have the mental capacity to deal with multiple measurement systems. Now run along and play with your cubic centimeter.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (2)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 8 months ago | (#45975823)

96,000 lbs is the weight of 300 Americans. Seems pretty intuitive.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45976089)

No.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

AbrasiveCat (999190) | about 8 months ago | (#45976127)

Just divide by 2 (2.2 actually) and you will have kg. And don't expect the US to change any time soon. Sorry, it is us.

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 8 months ago | (#45976177)

Now why in hell should /. start using the metric system when even though the U.S. was supposed to be metric back in 1850 by Treaty, we still haven't switched?

Re:WW2 machiny and WW2 units of measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45976223)

Slashdot is owned by Dice Holdings, which is a US-based company. Few people in the US care about kilos (myself included), so pounds is the correct unit of measure.

Anonymous Coward - fuck you (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974591)

Slashdot should ban this user: Anonymous Coward

Otherwise people will stop reading the Slashdot comments altogether.
And Slashdot will lose from that.

I have seen that paid-to-comment model in websites 3 or 4 years ago - and for the last 2 years I don't visit these websites anymore.
Also I think there should be an option to mark a comment as spam.

Re: Anonymous Coward - fuck you (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974747)

Just marked your comment as spam.

Also you are a racist. Just because our family has the habit of giving each family member the same name we shouldn't be belittled. We are the Coward family. It all started with Grandpa Anonymous. He liked his name so much he gave the name to his daughter. Now it's a Coward family tradition. Can you imagine 50 family members all named Anonymous? It's stressful enough. Thank you.

I don't know if this mischievous boy of a nephew Anonymous caused trouble again. Sorry on behalf of the Coward family.

Yours Miss Anonymous Coward.

come again? (2)

tommeke100 (755660) | about 8 months ago | (#45974621)

So it was used back then as a platform to simulate movement at sea, and that's exactly what they are going to use it for now (after a few upgrades).
The F-16 jets were created in the 70s and are still upgraded to this day. I don't see how this is that different.

Re:come again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975959)

Take a look at the operational history of the B-52 or the Chinook

Re:come again? (1)

schlachter (862210) | about 8 months ago | (#45976201)

can't see how it's different? because the F-16 is not used for simulating movement at sea. obviously.

Death & Taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45974627)

Ahh, American Ingenuity! Your average American's tax dollars hard at work... father's tax dollars.... grandfather's tax dollars?

Re:Death & Taxes (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 8 months ago | (#45974751)

I'm not sure if you are trolling, making a bad joke, or are just on the anti-gub'mint bandwagon. But I'll ask anyway: would you feel better if the NRL scrapped it for the $3000 worth of steel it contains, and then built something new from scratch? I'm sure fathers and grandfathers would appreciate that repurposing is often a money-saving technique.

Re:Death & Taxes (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 8 months ago | (#45976119)

No, this is America - these are are children's children's tax dollars hard at work.

This is far better than the more common practice (2)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 8 months ago | (#45975025)

My grandfather served in the Aleutian Islands during the Korean War. They found a floating crane had been sunk in the bay. They pulled it up out of the water, repaired it, and actually got it working again. So the people at Grandpa's navy base proudly told the Pentagon what they'd accomplished. The Pentagon's reply? They were ordered to sink it back into the bay. Otherwise it would cut into sales of newly-manufactured floating cranes.

The payload is not much (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 8 months ago | (#45975073)

Works out to some 42000 Kg. But the picture shows the platform was getting its three degrees of freedom by very heavy gimbals. Though the whole apparatus is very heavy but the payload is not likely to more than any modern aircraft simulation platforms. Modern designs would use six hydraulic jacks and electronics to get not just three rotational degrees of freedom, but also limited degrees of freedom in translation. So wondering why someone would go through the trouble of rescuing that relic. The inertia of the gimbals is so high compared to the payload, upgrading the motors and electronics is going to be so expensive, it is probably cheaper to build a platform of similar capability using modern technology.

Re:The payload is not much (3, Interesting)

onepoint (301486) | about 8 months ago | (#45975651)

While what your saying is correct, I think it's more for the ability to handle weight. ...
while the platform is about 42MT ( 96,000 lbs in case someone needs that )
the original machine gun turret has a low weight of about 80MT ( the Yamato's were in excess of 2200MT )

so I'm thinking it's for that ability.

Came for a tutorial (1)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 8 months ago | (#45975295)

Was disappointed.

Blow up doll. (1)

unixcorn (120825) | about 8 months ago | (#45975381)

So they have a device to mimic the sea in Chesapeake Beach, Maryland which is next to the sea. It seems to me they could be better served by simply taking a boat out and training with the real thing. This is like having sex with a blow up doll while your wife is in the bed next to you.

Re:Blow up doll. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45975503)

On the days it isn't wet and/or blowing then the simulator might be needed.

bring it on: WOII technical records (1)

fonske (1224340) | about 8 months ago | (#45975765)

Eperlecques (near Watten, France) V2 launcher bunker: 120000 cubic meter of concrete
I guess the bombing campaign by the Allies ("Crossbow") was also a record.
The bunker remained intact but the oxygen compressors were too much of an explosion hasard during the earth quakes caused by the "tallboy"-bombs so that the V2 launching got postponed until the end of the war happened.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?