General > General Technical Chat
why is the US not Metric
<< < (229/291) > >>
Zero999:

--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 16, 2020, 09:54:16 pm ---Another point of view on the topic of this thread starts with a question.  We mostly all agree that the metric system was designed from ground up to be self consistent and relatively easy to use.  Esperanto is language designed from the ground up to be self consistent and easy to use (regular verbs and all that stuff).  Why doesn't everyone speak Esperanto?

I would assume that the reasons we haven't leaped to metric here in the US are very similar to the reasons that almost no one on this forum speaks Esperanto.  Arrogance isn't number one on the list.  The only difference between Esperanto and metric is that metric does have the advantage of widespread utilization.  But if widespread utilization is the dominant reason for adopting something, why doesn't everyone speak English?  Or Chinese if you want to go by numbers instead of breadth.

--- End quote ---
That's not a very good analogy. Languages are by their nature organic and evolve over time. People pick up their first language during a critical period, rather than being taught it in a structured manner. Moving to Esperanto would require everyone learning it as a second language which is notoriously difficult. The only way it could work to put many people with totally different mother tongues, on an island and teach them all Esperanto so they could all use that to communicate. Such an experiment would probably fail, in the long term, as they'd mix their own languages with Esperanto and the resulting language would be completely different within a couple of generations.

Measuring systems are taught in school and it's fairly easy to learn a new one, compared to a different language.
paulca:

--- Quote from: vwestlife on January 17, 2020, 08:53:35 pm ---Or, for that matter, why hasn't the rest of the world adopted the English spelling reforms that were pioneered and have become commonplace in the U.S.? I.e., "centre" -> "center", "gaol" -> "jail", "plough" -> "plow", "manouevre" -> "maneuver", "programme" -> "program", etc.

--- End quote ---

I think you have that backwards.  US English was branched before the spelling reform in the civilised world.
bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: stefan_trekkie on January 16, 2020, 10:04:04 pm ---The real reason US is not metric is that US is self contained too. For the most part they had everything self produced.     

--- End quote ---

That doesn't explain why other "self contained" countries decided to go metric long ago. That could be a contributing factor, but I think that the crucial components were perhaps the cultural proximity to England and the economic success of both. Success is a bad teacher. That way they could not assess the the real implications of full metrication. Up to this day many of them treat metric as a mere alternative to imperial, when metric represents a leap forward.

What is ironic is that today the US is everything but self-contained and now even their flags are produced by their economical rivals.

Then


Now
tooki:

--- Quote from: mariush on January 16, 2020, 01:17:31 pm ---
--- Quote from: KL27x on January 13, 2020, 10:53:14 pm ---Also, the problem with "pure metric," is for when you are done doing the calculations. When you are building your thingamabob, you might have more than one gauge of wires at your work. It's easier to "Hey Bob, we're running low on the 14 gauge. Can you order some more?" Vs saying "hand me the 0.01787mm^2 wire." So why not use both?


--- End quote ---

How is it easier to say 14 gauge... do you keep in your head all the diameters and areas for all gauges?

For example AWG 14 is 0.0641 in or 1.628mm diameter,  or 2.08 mm2  ... you could just round it and ask for 2mm2 wire or 2.1mm2 wire

0.01787 mm^2 area would correspond to something between AWG 34 and AWG 35...  0.00561 in , 0.143mm diameter and  0.0160mm2  ... just round it up and ask for 0.15mm diameter  or 0.02mm2 area ?

Instead of 40 gauges and 4 different 0 gauges, you could have 0.01mm .. 1mm in 0.01 steps or 0.025mm steps , 1mm..2mm in 0.1 steps, 2mm+ in 0.25mm steps ... not that hard.

Would be easier to just say directly the area or diameter... or maybe use another parameter like resistance per meter where actual thickness is less relevant (ex use aluminum wires or steel wires vs copper wires)

--- End quote ---
It doesn’t matter. Ultimately, when you need to choose a wire, you calculate the amps it will carry and then use an ampacity chart to choose the right one. Whether the result is a mm2 cross section, diameter, or AWG is irrelevant.


--- Quote from: stefan_trekkie on January 16, 2020, 07:38:32 pm ---We don't use diameters for wires. We use the aria of the wire .. 0.5mm² .. 6mm² ... etc ..

--- End quote ---
Except this isn’t true, either: stranded wire is given in mm2, but solid wire is given in diameter!



--- Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 16, 2020, 10:02:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on January 16, 2020, 09:27:49 pm ---Wire gauges are crap compared to using the cross-sectional area

--- End quote ---

And are backwards: thicker wires have smaller AWG # :o

--- End quote ---
That is intuitively backward until you think of it like this: how many times must the wire be drawn through a die to reach that size? Thinner wire = more dies = higher number.



--- Quote from: paulca on January 18, 2020, 01:25:35 pm ---
--- Quote from: vwestlife on January 17, 2020, 08:53:35 pm ---Or, for that matter, why hasn't the rest of the world adopted the English spelling reforms that were pioneered and have become commonplace in the U.S.? I.e., "centre" -> "center", "gaol" -> "jail", "plough" -> "plow", "manouevre" -> "maneuver", "programme" -> "program", etc.

--- End quote ---

I think you have that backwards.  US English was branched before the spelling reform in the civilised world.

--- End quote ---
English has never had a spelling reform, since English has no standards body to define what is and isn’t correct. All of our standards are de-facto, not de-jure.
Zero999:

--- Quote from: tooki on January 20, 2020, 06:30:14 am ---It doesn’t matter. Ultimately, when you need to choose a wire, you calculate the amps it will carry and then use an ampacity chart to choose the right one. Whether the result is a mm2 cross section, diameter, or AWG is irrelevant.
--- End quote ---
No it's not. Want half the voltage drop? Simply double the cross-sectional area. No need to refer to any charts. Quite the voltage drop is the limiting factor, long before the insulation starts to melt.


--- Quote ---Except this isn’t true, either: stranded wire is given in mm2, but solid wire is given in diameter!
--- End quote ---
Solid core wire for use in building wiring is normally specified in mm2.
https://www.screwfix.com/p/prysmian-6242y-twin-earth-cable-2-5mm-x-10m-grey/82572#product_additional_details_container


--- Quote ---That is intuitively backward until you think of it like this: how many times must the wire be drawn through a die to reach that size? Thinner wire = more dies = higher number.
--- End quote ---
That's only relevant to the manufacturer. The end user doesn't care about that. Cross-sectional area is plain and simple to understand, compared to an archaic gauging system.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod