General > General Technical Chat
why is the US not Metric
<< < (93/291) > >>
Zero999:

--- Quote from: forrestc on November 15, 2019, 07:24:46 am ---
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on November 15, 2019, 03:16:47 am ---The explanation that it costs a fortune to change is not convincing. If the US were an impoverished country, full of starving children, I'd agree with that argument.
But the fact is that the rest of the world converted to metric, proving that it is not so expensive, much less difficult, as the US claim.

--- End quote ---

I think you're still under the mistaken impression that the US hasn't adopted the metric system.   And also under the mistaken impression that all other countries have not only adopted the metric system but converted every last thing in their country to metric.

Just because the US has not seen fit to replace all of their street signs with metric, and still use degrees F does not mean that we've not adopted the metric system.

When I go to the doctor (in the US) I'm weighed in kilos and it's entered in the computer that way.   Yes, my scale at home still reads pounds, and most people know their weight in pounds instead of kilos, but that's because people are more familar with that scale.  But the medical profession uses kilos.  Note that other countries are similar.  For some reason in the UK, humans are weighed in stones....

Airbus still builds planes (in the EU) using inch hardware.

Automobiles built in the US use metric hardware pretty much exclusively.

De-facto standards are hard to replace.   The problem isn't the 'cost' to do it in the US.  It's the "cost/benefit" ratio.   And for things like our road signs and ambient temperature, I can pretty much guarantee that the amount of savings (i.e. benefit) to switching all of the signs from miles to km is pretty close to zero, with an enormous cost.    What is it *costing* the US to continue to use miles on our road system?   Well, maybe cars are a tiny bit more expensive because they have to have US instrument panels and metric instrument panels.   But since this is either a couple of lines of software (for a digital display) or a bit of printing difference, it's only going to be a tiny amount.   I can guarantee that the rest of the system (other than the display) is identical worldwide.    So there is little economic benefit to do so, for this example. 

Anywhere there is a strong economic benefit to do so, the conversion has been done.   And as technology marches on, things which are simpler when implemented in metric are going to get done that way.   And things (like the road signs) which don't end up saving us money, in the long run, won't be done.   Technology is actually making this divide wider - things which are done *inside* the technology are being done in metric, and the displays are staying in customary units because the cost to do so is marginal, even though the calculations under the surface is 100% metric.

--- End quote ---
Yes, I agree. Also note that in electronic systems, quite often, neither metric nor imperial/customary are used internally. For example, in a weighing machine, a strain gauge will output a voltage per Newton, which is sampled by an ADC, giving X number of counts/Newton, which is converted to metric or imperial/customary for the user. In precision applications, the local gravitational constant will be used, by calibrating it where ever it's going to be used, with a standard mass.


--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on November 15, 2019, 02:29:14 pm ---Either the cost is "enormous" or "marginal". Make up your mind. All road signs have to be replaced from time to time. If you were really willing to convert to metric, you would have already put a plan into action decades ago to gradually convert those signs and by now you wouldn't have to repeat those paradoxical explanations that no one buys.
--- End quote ---
Some things are cheap to convert to metric, others are very expensive. Road sings fall into the expensive category. It's not safe to replace road signs on an ad-hock basis, especially speed limits, because it would confuse drivers. All road signs would need to be replaced in one go, at great expense. There would be little benefit in converting to metric because no one is performing calculations in feet, yards and miles. There is only one unit: miles per hour and it's no easier to use km per hour or even metres per second, which is the true SI unit for velocity.

Changing units on food packaging to metric and insisting commodities are primally sold in metric would be fairly cheap and would have some benefit, but I suspect this is already the case to some degree. I wouldn't be surprised if metric is already found on US food packets, as they export them to metric countries such as Canada and Mexico.
bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 15, 2019, 07:06:52 pm ---
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on November 15, 2019, 06:59:20 pm ---It is free and you don't get lectured about going to the moon, Uranus or some place where the sun doesn't shine, every time you use it.

--- End quote ---

Ahah, I liked this one. :P

--- End quote ---

Finally someone with some sense of humor.  :)
bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on November 15, 2019, 09:09:38 pm ---Some things are cheap to convert to metric, others are very expensive. Road sings fall into the expensive category.

--- End quote ---

If everyone in the world contributed with just $1 for the US metrication cost, we would have $7.4B. Do you think that with that money we could change the US road signs?

If the answer is yes, shut up and take my money.
tpowell1830:

--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on November 15, 2019, 07:31:34 pm ---I don't see why people from other countries are so concerned about what measurement standards we use in the U.S. If you like the metric system, fine, use it, but don't try to force your opinions on everyone else (only we're allowed to do that  ;)). In any case, U.S. manufacturers will ultimately use whatever system the market demands (and already do, for the most part).

--- End quote ---

Yes, I believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how wrong they are...  ;D
KL27x:
Zero999:
--- Quote ---As I said before, it's not so much the different bases which make imperial/customary difficult, but the fact that mass, length, volume are totally different systems. Metric is all one standard international system, with everything being multiples of powers of 10.

Example: we have a cuboid shaped fish tank, 4ft 6in long, 18in wide and 15in high. Calculate how many US gallons of water required to fill it to fill it to a depth of 1ft. I wouldn't have a clue how to figure it out using purely customary units. I'd just convert everything to metric:
--- End quote ---

So you know how to convert liters into gallons, but you can't figure out how to convert cubic feet into gallons?

We have internet. We don't have to go to the library of congress to look up either.

And if you can convert L and gallons, you can convert gallons and cubic meters. So you have already all you need without looking up anything.

If you want to say, no, I will leave answer in liters, ok. You can leave answer in cubic inches or feet, too. You said gallons.

Scary part is where you say you have no clue. This is evidence we must keep imperial as IQ test for engineer. Half the fuss is people angry over standardized tests. In real world, you do not have this problem. People who do actually do things don't care. People who take test and sit in front of computer and don't even use unit other than to read how many mL in their consumer face cream somehow care.
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