Replies

Nuff of your game idiot.

The game is "Correcting Editor-Surveyor whenever he gets something wrong". Yep, it's a little bit tedious, but it will be over the moment, Editor-Surveyor starts being correct.
In the meantime: You stated in #116: You're mixing up apples and oranges and getting rotten fruit salad ;o) In 1959 a new unit was created, called the "international foot." That foot was the only one that uses an inch that is defined relative to the meter. The real foot, which is called the "U.S. Survey Foot" is still defined based on a physical standard unit that is stored at the NIST. That unit cannot be changed for serious legal reasons, and it is the only "foot" that can legally used for measurement. (Nobody really knows what the "international foot" is good for)

Yes, there is a physical standard unit, stored at the NIST. It's the prototype meter No. 27. Since the Mendenhall Order, the yard is defined to be 3600/3937 meter. Before this, an Imperial Yard prototype was in use...
The yard kept linked to the meter during the changes of the definition of the meter
The courts held up this definition, i.e., the yard is 3600/3937 meter. The SI gremia would have preferred a slightly different definition - given not as a quotient of natural numbers, but as a finite decimal fraction. Why? For short, while the quotient is symmetric, the decimal fraction discriminates against the conversion from foot to meter...

So, until now, you haven't shown a court decision, linking the U.S. survey foot to an physical standard unit that is stored at the NIST, especially not a foot or yard standard unit.

The NIST is one of the leading metrologic institutes in the world. The current meter definitions are based partly on its work. Why should this excellent institute adhere to outdated standards?