General > General Technical Chat
why is the US not Metric
<< < (83/291) > >>
bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 11, 2019, 12:00:05 am ---
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on November 10, 2019, 11:51:09 pm ---Other than that, the only "external" force that can make them accept full metrication is, I think, if we manage to concoct some kind of theology that proves that God is metric and the devil, imperial.

--- End quote ---

Ouch. That hurt, but I'll take that as a teasing joke. ;D

--- End quote ---

If you don't leave a life of imperial units behind and believe in the redeeming power of metrication you cannot enter the kingdom of science.
mzzj:

--- Quote from: KL27x on November 07, 2019, 08:47:08 pm ---
None of the non "American customary" units are in use, anymore, to my knowledge, other than troy oz's in the gold industry, definition of foot in land surveying, and pints in a british pub. But if anyone wants to add something that isn't ancient history, feel free to show us where Americans are using slugs and stones and confusing tower oz and imperial gallons. There are probably "old units" used in farming still, in many countries for estimating weight of stuff in the field. But that is not anyone's concern other than the farmer.


--- End quote ---
Oil barrel vs. fluid barrel vs. barrel barrel barrel?

Even in here news often quote raw oil price in usd per barrel, even if hardly anyone has idea what barrel they are talking about and how much it is.  :horse:

"Maximum accuracy when converting bbl to cubic metres
When used to denote a volume, 1 bbl is exactly equivalent to 42 US gallons and is easily converted to any other unit of volume. A volume of 1 bbl is exactly equivalent to a volume of 158.987294928 litres.

In the oil industry, following the definition of the American Petroleum Institute, a standard barrel of oil is often taken to mean the amount of oil that at a standard pressure (14.696 psi) and temperature (60 °F) would occupy a volume of exactly 1 bbl. This standard barrel of oil will occupy a different volume at different pressures and temperatures. A standard barrel in this context is thus not simply a measure of volume, but of volume under specific conditions. The task of converting this standard barrel of oil to a standard cubic metre of oil is complicated by the fact that the standard cubic metre is defined by the American Petroleum Institute to mean the amount of oil that at 101.325 kPa and 15 °C occupies 1 cubic metre. The fact that the conditions are not exactly the same means that an exact conversion is impossible unless the exact expansion coefficient of the crude is known, and this will vary from one crude oil to another.

For a light oil with an API gravity of 35, warming the oil from 15.00 °C to 60.00 °F (which is 15.56 °C) might increase its volume by about 0.047%. Conversely, a heavy oil with an API gravity of 20 might only increase in volume by 0.039%. If physically measuring the density at a new temperature is not possible, then tables of empirical data can be used to accurately predict the change in density. In turn, this allows maximum accuracy when converting between standard bbl and standard m3.

International commodity exchanges will often set an arbitrary conversion factor for benchmark crude oils for financial accounting purposes. For instance the conversion factor set by the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) for Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude oil traded at Hardisty, Alberta, Canada is 6.29287 U.S. barrels per cubic metre.,[21] despite the fact that crude oil cannot be measured to that degree of accuracy. Regulatory authorities in producing countries set standards for measurement accuracy of produced hydrocarbons, where such measurements affect taxes or royalties to the government. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the measurement accuracy required is ±0.25%.[22]

Qualifiers
A barrel can technically be used to specify any volume. Since the actual nature of the fluids being measured varies along the stream, sometimes qualifiers are used to clarify what is being specified. In the oil field, it is often important to differentiate between rates of production of fluids, which may be a mix of oil and water, and rates of production of the oil itself. If a well is producing 10 mbd of fluids with a 20% water cut, then the well would also be said to be producing 8,000 barrels of oil a day (bod).

In other circumstances, it can be important to include gas in production and consumption figures. Normally, gas amount is measured in standard cubic feet or cubic metres for volume (as well as in kg or Btu, which don't depend on pressure or temperature). But when necessary, such volume is converted to a volume of oil of equivalent enthalpy of combustion. Production and consumption using this analogue is stated in barrels of oil equivalent per day (boed).

In the case of water-injection wells, in the United States it is common to refer to the injectivity rate in barrels of water per day (bwd). In Canada, it is measured in cubic metres per day (m3/d). In general, water injection rates will be stated in the same units as oil production rates, since the usual objective is to replace the volume of oil produced with a similar volume of water to maintain reservoir pressure."

So oil barrel is 42 gallons and water barrel  is 41.5 gallons except when water is injected to oil field its same as oil gallon =42 gallons  :wtf: :rant:   
mzzj:
Here in Finland we have saying "Porvoon mitalla" = with some extra.
Comes from times when each town had their own definition of measurements and towns more far away from main trading hubs had to use larger measures to cover for transport and other losses.
City of Porvoo was know to have unusually generous measurements and the saying is still in use.
Rick Law:

--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on November 11, 2019, 12:11:14 am ---...
...
If you don't leave a life of imperial units behind and believe in the redeeming power of metrication you cannot enter the kingdom of science.

--- End quote ---


Yeah, one not doing metric may make one difficult to enter the of "kingdom of science", but it may make one easier to enter the kingdom of the digital world.

4 gills = 1 pint
2 pints = 8 gills = 1 quart
4 quarts = 32 gills = 1 gallon
or in binary
0100 gills = 1 pint
0010 pints = 1000 gills = 1 quart
0100 quarts = 0010 0000 gills = 1 gallon

Easy base 2 stuff for the digital world.  You can easily see .
 
Now instead look at metric 1000 ml=1 liter.  That is 0011 1110 1000 ml = 1 liter.  0011 1110 1000 is a strange number, wouldn't you say?

I have no explanation for 12 inch = 1 foot stuff.  My guess is, the King had in mind 16 inches to the foot, but one of his cronies was corrupt and always pocketed some of whatever the King bestows to the public, so he figure if the King want to give 16 inches to a foot, I'll pocket 4 inches for my own benefit, and gave the foot only 12 inches...

Meter is not a natural unit.  it is an artificial construct just like a dollar or a euro.  What seem "the best unit to use" is based on common perspective and common familiarity within a culture (such as culture of say Chemist vs Civil Engineers vs Nutritionist vs...).   We now use 1/2 life of uranium (or any radioactive sample) instead of 1/10 life of uranium.  1/2 life is something scientist are comfortable with and have a mental gauge of how to apply that number.  We could switch to using 1/10 life of uranium, but what does that gain us?  None I can think of other than confusion.
tooki:

--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on November 11, 2019, 12:01:32 am ---
--- Quote from: tooki on November 09, 2019, 11:22:24 am ---(One issue I take with Customary critics is that they criticize a system they’ve never really used, so their smugness is based on theories, not practical experience.)

--- End quote ---

Does not compute. If I didn't have to use imperial, I wouldn't be criticizing it.


--- Quote ---Well, it is an organically evolved system. But in many cases, those old units made sense in isolation. And regardless, there’s often no advantage to changing, but real costs and risks, so you just don’t until the balance of pros and cons changes.
--- End quote ---

We can only regret that a small percentage of the world's population can't see benefits, but only costs and risks.


--- Quote ---Anyhow, make sure you’re not going all rstofer again.
--- End quote ---

Poor rstofer has become the intemperance unit of the imperial system.

--- End quote ---
You don’t have a country set. Are you American? Or are you in a fundamentally metric country, and only deal with a small amount of Customary? (If the latter, then you’re still within the group of people that don’t really use Customary, and thus aren’t comfortable with it the way someone is who grew up with it.)


I didn’t say that Americans ONLY see costs and risks. As I and others have said repeatedly in this thread: changes do involve costs and risks, and so one will only accept those when the benefits exceed them. At no point did anyone say that Americans see NO benefits. It’s simply that one has to weigh the benefits against the costs and risks. Do I have to spell out this basic logic in any more excruciating detail, or will me typing it out for the tenth time finally break through that noggin? ;)
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