11 degree or 11%?

[iviehoff]

- radians are as easy to use as degrees, it's just that for some reason we don't seem to use them very often.

Radians are fine if you report them in the form of multiples of pi, because 1 is half a circle, and that is the norm in kinds of technical work where you are integrating and differentiating, though angles in radians are unlikely to found on a site plan or manufacturing blueprint. Reported as plain numbers, well who has a quick and instinctive feeling of what 1.2 radians are?

[[XAP]Bob]

- radians are as easy to use as degrees, it's just that for some reason we don't seem to use them very often.

Radians are fine if you report them in the form of multiples of pi, because 1 is half a circle, and that is the norm in kinds of technical work where you are integrating and differentiating, though angles in radians are unlikely to found on a site plan or manufacturing blueprint. Reported as plain numbers, well who has a quick and instinctive feeling of what 1.2 radians are?

Pi? Tau is where it's heading

I can visualise 1.2 radians quite happily - it's around a circle by it's radius*1.2. It's nice and easy with string too
Of course I *know* that I'm odd... but as I said - it's all about familiarity...

(Come to think of it I can't think when I last used radians in anger, or degrees for that matter...

[iviehoff]

(Come to think of it I can't think when I last used radians in anger, or degrees for that matter...

I am in the process of constructing a weather protection cover to stop water running down the woodburner flue, and then ingressing into the wall where the flue bends into the wall. I decided to have the cover at an angle of 35 degs. I then needed to locate and draw the shape of the hole the flue would pass through the sloping surface. Then there is sizing the struts which will support the surface, and shaping the angles at their ends.

Have you ever seen a protractor marked in radians? It wouldn't be very practical.

[skicat]

I cycled (ok, pushed my bike) up a hill yesterday which my Garmin informed me was 18%. I thought of this thread while I was pushing. It was hard enough to walk up, let alone cycle - I almost had to break out the crampons

[[XAP]Bob]

(Come to think of it I can't think when I last used radians in anger, or degrees for that matter...

I am in the process of constructing a weather protection cover to stop water running down the woodburner flue, and then ingressing into the wall where the flue bends into the wall. I decided to have the cover at an angle of 35 degs. I then needed to locate and draw the shape of the hole the flue would pass through the sloping surface. Then there is sizing the struts which will support the surface, and shaping the angles at their ends.

Have you ever seen a protractor marked in radians? It wouldn't be very practical.

http://www.proradian.net/

They're fine. And the actually help explain things about circles and angles. Whereas degrees are a completely arbitrary measure.

Why did you decide on a little over 3/5 radian?

In the 50s you wouldn't have seen many metre rules, doesn't mean they aren't any use - just that noone was particularly familiar with them. I am happy in either, and have been known to ask for a piece of wood to be cut to 2m4" before.

[MikeF]

They're fine. And the actually help explain things about circles and angles. Whereas degrees are a completely arbitrary measure.

Just like most other measurements then including time. But 1 in 10 (or 10% ), for example, isn't as it's also a ratio, but we can't always use those.

[[XAP]Bob]

They're fine. And the actually help explain things about circles and angles. Whereas degrees are a completely arbitrary measure.

Just like most other measurements then including time. But 1 in 10 (or 10% ), for example, isn't as it's also a ratio, but we can't always use those.

Yes, exactly like other measures
But most measures have no natural definition. Angles do.

[thirdcrank]

For some reason, I never noticed this thread till it was linked to another.

In the rather academic analysis of the different ways that the steepness road climbs might be expressed, the practical needs of cyclists seem to have been missed. It seems to me that a cyclist would benefit from two bits of info about a hill: "in no particular order" how bad is the steepest bit? How much height is gained for distance travelled? All I could say with any certainty is that the current hotch-potch of signs, whether expressed in %ages, ratios or even £-s-d., doesn't provide either. Nor is there any obvious consistency, so something signed 1:10 in one area may go unnoticed elsewhere, or be signed 1:7. Furthermore, and as I've posted before, OS chevrons don't seem to provide much consistency either: I've noted the number of chevrons on a hill increasing between editions - which seems to confirm the reports coming up from my legs but not the reality - and one case of the chevrons being reversed on the same hill.

Remember, the son of the squaw on the hippopotamus, is equal to .....

[Mistik-ka]

OS chevrons don't seem to provide much consistency either: I've noted the number of chevrons on a hill increasing between editions

It's most unkind of you to point that out just when I was taking solace in the thought I was successfully keeping the years at bay

Since I am not driving a heavily-laden lorry on a tight schedule I find the question of grades to be largely academic. In practical terms when I (or we on the tandem) are in the lowest gear and can no longer maintain a speed faster than walking pace (about 3.5 mph for Mrs. M-k and me) it's time to get off and push.

Heading downhill, when my eyes begin to water so heavily from the wind that my vision blurs … then it's time to apply the brakes