Talk:Knot (unit)

message: knot is a unit of speed, not velocity.  Speed is a scalar (distance over time) while velocity is a vector (displacement (direction vector) over time).  A knot is obviously the former. Stewart Adcock 18:42, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed

message: I'm changing the name of the article to "Knot (speed)" from "Knot (nautical)", because the unit is used not only for nautical things but also in meteorology and aviation.   GrahamN 15:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about nautical mile per hour? –radiojon 03:09, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)
The thing is known as a "knot", not a "nautical mile per hour".  What's wrong with "Knot (speed)"?  GrahamN 16:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: where is the knot unit used? is it used outside of USA as well? Xah Lee 03:49, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
:I'd guess that the knot is usually used at sea. ;-) Yes, it is widely used outside the US.  It is used in Britain at least. Stewart Adcock 00:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Knots are used around thw world for maritime and aviation purposes, like GMT is. Dolive21 11:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locale 

message: I looked here to see what typical speeds of ships are. The Stad Amsterdam is supposed to be very fast with 16 knots. How fast is that for a tall ship? And what are typical speeds of other types of boats/ships? DirkvdM 10:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For a clipper, that's fast. That's also a little faster than many naval ships typically go, but I know that Nimitz class carriers are capable of around 30 knots. BioTube 01:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: I just removed a big chunk of text which was added by user 69.58.224.12. This was because it was just cut and pasted, probably from this site. --Spondoolicks 09:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've also now removed the 'CleanUp' tag that had been added because of this strange text.  --Nigelj 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text cut and pasted from other site

message: Why do they still use inferior knots and not, m/s or km/h? --- Unsigned comment.
: Read second paragraph of the "Discussion" section in article. --- Safemariner 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: The rational for the name "Knot" is absent from this article.  It is allegedly derived from the number of physical knots in a log line dropped into the water and pulled astern by the way of the vessel that pass in a time period.  But this needs citing prior to insertion in the article.  Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article you may determine that the distance together with the time interval used represented one nautical mile per hour. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: If you have a view on what abbreviation(s) should or should not be used, you may be interested in reading  this discussion. Thunderbird2 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the intent of your most recent change to the knot's abbreviation, I have a bit of a philosophical problem with the IEEE, of all organizations, as a prime reference on a measure of significant interest to the mariner.  :-)  I'd prefer to see a prime reference (i.e named in the text of the article) that is primarily an organization that is nautical or specifically concerned with weights and measures.  Chart 1 (Canada) or Chart 1 (USA) being the standard reference for nautical charts in those respective countries may be preferred. Michael Daly 06:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is unreferenced, custom and practice when I was taught navigation was always "kt" and also the fact that it is stated as a plural "kts".  Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see every reason to state the total universe of abbreviations, noting the preference for kn and the existence of kt and plurals where used, and using  or other appropriate template to reference whatever is required.  Fiddle Faddle 13:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Very good. :-)  Michael Daly 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  abbreviation for knot 

message: I have redone the reference for the abbreviation "kn".  The US (NOAA) document whose citation I have left in place, is, in fact, a document which incorporates IHO Chart INT 1 (the IHO does not publish its own charts), and, therefore, represents the international position on the subject.  The Canadian document which was previously cited is essentially identical, as is New Zealand 201, British Admiralty Chart 5011, and similar publications from other nations. Although called charts, these are in fact 96 page A4 books.  . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation kn reopened 

message: While the expression "knots per hour" is considered erroneous today, this wasn't always so. If you look at 19th-century sources on maritime and naval matters, you will frequently see "knot" used not as a measure of speed, but of distance (synonymous with "nautical mile"), and speeds will often be given in "knots per hour". Searching Google Books for the phrase over that timeframe turns up plenty of examples, often in professional naval and maritime journals that presumably would be careful about proper usage of terminology. Of course, my mentioning this here counts as original research, but hopefully someone can find a discussion of this change in usage in a reliable source so that it can be mentioned in the article. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Knots per hour" wasn't always an error. 

message: I think that someone should probably change the pronunciation to IPA instead of 'not' ThatplaceinMali (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA Pronunciation 

message: A thin gap is preferable to a comma because a comma can be confused with the decimal separator.  In other words, "11,000 m" might be interpreted by some as eleven metres, whereas "11 000 m" can only mean eleven thousand metres. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Talk MOSNUM, commas are very likely to live forever at enwiki. What about the thousands of numbers in articles that currently use commas? Anyway, thanks for your reply to my edit summary (diff), although I imagine there would be lots of enwiki readers who would be perplexed to see a number with gaps in it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not mean to imply that thin spaces are preferred by all.  I interpreted your question as why preferred by some. In my experience people do not find (thin) spaces confusing. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaps vs. commas as thousands separator 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Knot (unit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926000328/http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app4.pdf to http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Knot (unit)#Origin includes:
:This method gives a value for the knot of 20.25 in/s, or . The difference from the modern definition is less than 0.02%.
A recent edit changed the finish to "less than 0.13%". I restored the original based on these calculations:
* → 
And (1.0 − 0.999816)*100 = 0.018 < 0.02. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference 

message: The lede says the knot is used for maritime measurement. Taken strictly this would exclude inland waterways. I recently read an assertion that the knot is never used in inland navigation, but this was in an American novel, so I am unsure how much weight to give it internationally. The book also stated that mph are always used, which further inclines me to think that the usage is just US &/or dated. Personaly, I have always been accustomed to use knots on rivers & lakes. Does anyone know if there sre national or international standards one way or the other? If it can be pinned down it would be a good addition to the article.  --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inland waterway usage 

message: Voice over 143.44.192.119 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knots