General > General Technical Chat
why is the US not Metric
<< < (276/291) > >>
bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: angrybird on February 27, 2020, 12:09:06 am ---I just realized what is going on here.

--- End quote ---

No, you didn't. You came late to the discussion.


--- Quote ---If you non-USA guys are so insanely jealous of people that live in the USA, why don't you just move there instead of this futile bashing of such an irrelevant subject?

--- End quote ---

We dismissed this argument long ago. What we are doing is to demolish nonsensical arguments that try to justify the use of imperial system and resist the adoption of the metric system.

ebastler summed it all up in his brilliant comment on the last page. Our arguments are objective, and your counter arguments are subjective. We find embarrassing holes in the their arguments, and the reply is "you're jealous".

Gimme a break.
angrybird:
You don't get it.

As a population, the USA doesn't care about justification or lack thereof.

It is what it is.  You aren't going to change it no matter how much and how long you argue.  This is why I referred to your arguine as "urine into the wind:  :-DD

Go drink a beer!
petert:

--- Quote from: DBecker on February 25, 2020, 04:11:29 pm ---The 8 inch and 5.25 inch floppy were developed in the U.S.  The development happened in Silicon Valley starting in 1967, so every dimension would have been imperial.

--- End quote ---
I am aware of the origin of the 3.5 inch floppy disk.

For the others I just took the German Wikipedia as reference, which claims the 8 inch floppy is really 200mm (instead of 203.2 mm) and likewise for other sizes. A quick search didn't result in any definite references, but there is no reason that the USA as origin would force it to be in inches, besides for marketing.

If you find a reliable reference (not that it's super important), let me know. My major point was that in Europe and Germany, inches do not remain out of laziness to convert, but due to foreign companies/market influences. Actually, as in the example of screens, inches were "reintroduced" and not common for TVs.
petert:

--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 25, 2020, 05:44:43 am ---Question 1:  In metrified countries, how is printer and photographic resolution specified.  In the US it is DPI or dots per inch.  Do metric guys do dots per centimeter or do you do do dot spacing (pitch as defined in the metric world)?  For some reason the metric world seems to gravitate towards the reciprocal of US standard units (liters/km, pitch in mm and so on).  I see no particular advantage to one or the other.  It is kind of like the side of the road you drive on.  Tradition, not advantage.

--- End quote ---
In practice it is messed up, because due to the computer industry being heavily US-influenced, a lot of measures are set to imperial by default.
So it's DPI for the resolution most of the time, but paper size is measured in cm.
Rarely used alternatives are are px/cm or ppmm.

The big advantage of having a fully metric system is that you can easily fit things together physically, without having to convert or calculate much, nor making small adjustments. (Coarser) Standard spacings and dimensions develop over time, if you use different measurement standards you will always have rounding errors, and need to take extra care.

When I started to use US robotic kits (sold in Europe), it became a real hassle to make parts fit, find the right screws etc. Many spacings were slightly off and things that I wanted to add wouldn't fit. When working with standard (yes, metric :p) stuff I rarely had to think about it, if it didn't fit then usually by a big margin.
In other words, inconsistent systems make it hard to just eye ball things.
It's like with software: good product design allows you to not worry about technical details, where they shouldn't matter.

Personally I don't care how the US measures. It's a pity though that resisting the switch has created inconsistentency, ironically, in more advanced technologies, such as printers, cameras, and screens, where this could have been prevented from the start, without much effort.



--- Quote ---It seems that 40 kg would be pushing handling limits pretty hard, while rounding the US standard down to 35 kg would lead to accusations of implementing a hidden cost increase.
--- End quote ---
It might be surprising, but most companies that produce in Europe do so for European customers. So the US-standard wont be compared with at all, except for special cases.

What decides the size of bags or packaging is what fits well with other common sizes or weights of products. How large or thick are the pillars for a fence? That decides how much concrete you need. How are these pillars measured? In cm/meters, and that will decide how much kg you need, etc. Looking at many common use cases will decide what a good average (rounded to a nice number) will be. Since almost everything is in meters et al., US based measures will be irrelevant.
CatalinaWOW:

--- Quote from: petert on February 27, 2020, 02:32:34 am ---
--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 25, 2020, 05:44:43 am ---Question 1:  In metrified countries, how is printer and photographic resolution specified.  In the US it is DPI or dots per inch.  Do metric guys do dots per centimeter or do you do do dot spacing (pitch as defined in the metric world)?  For some reason the metric world seems to gravitate towards the reciprocal of US standard units (liters/km, pitch in mm and so on).  I see no particular advantage to one or the other.  It is kind of like the side of the road you drive on.  Tradition, not advantage.

--- End quote ---
In practice it is messed up, because due to the computer industry being heavily US-influenced, a lot of measures are set to imperial by default.
So it's DPI for the resolution most of the time, but paper size is measured in cm.
Rarely used alternatives are are px/cm or ppmm.

The big advantage of having a fully metric system is that you can easily fit things together physically, without having to convert or calculate much, nor making small adjustments. (Coarser) Standard spacings and dimensions develop over time, if you use different measurement standards you will always have rounding errors, and need to take extra care.

When I started to use US robotic kits (sold in Europe), it became a real hassle to make parts fit, find the right screws etc. Many spacings were slightly off and things that I wanted to add wouldn't fit. When working with standard (yes, metric :p) stuff I rarely had to think about it, if it didn't fit then usually by a big margin.
In other words, inconsistent systems make it hard to just eye ball things.
It's like with software: good product design allows you to not worry about technical details, where they shouldn't matter.

Personally I don't care how the US measures. It's a pity though that resisting the switch has created inconsistentency, ironically, in more advanced technologies, such as printers, cameras, and screens, where this could have been prevented from the start, without much effort.



--- Quote ---It seems that 40 kg would be pushing handling limits pretty hard, while rounding the US standard down to 35 kg would lead to accusations of implementing a hidden cost increase.
--- End quote ---
It might be surprising, but most companies that produce in Europe do so for European customers. So the US-standard wont be compared with at all, except for special cases.

What decides the size of bags or packaging is what fits well with other common sizes or weights of products. How large or thick are the pillars for a fence? That decides how much concrete you need. How are these pillars measured? In cm/meters, and that will decide how much kg you need, etc. Looking at many common use cases will decide what a good average (rounded to a nice number) will be. Since almost everything is in meters et al., US based measures will be irrelevant.

--- End quote ---

My questions were curiosity, not arguments for or against metric.  But since you brought it up I have to comment. 

First, I agree that having a consistent measurement system makes things easier.  But that is true for both imperial in metric.  This was a big problem in importing European goods here as "they didn't quite fit".  Now as metric has taken over worldwide and even here it is the obvious choice to standardize on.  Not because metric fits better, but because standard fits better (and the other simplifications that metric brings.

Second I agree that cement and ready mixed concrete are not usually exported.  Shipping costs are too high.  But it is my observation that studs and fenceposts are generally pretty close in size, regardless of the measuring system.  Similarly the thickness of a sidewalk or floor to support a given load is not changed (by more than roundoff error) by the measurement system.  I am much more convinced that the standard bag sizes are determined by ergonomic law as mentioned by others in prior posts.  With sizes rounded to the local measuring 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