| General > General Technical Chat |
| why is the US not Metric |
| << < (154/291) > >> |
| bsfeechannel:
--- Quote from: forrestc on December 06, 2019, 12:20:31 am ---I don't see anyone defending the imperial system. --- End quote --- Yeah. Who would be crazy to defend something that has no future? --- Quote ---The cost to leave our road signs alone is minimal. The cost to switch is enormous. The benefits of switching are dubious. So it doesn't get switched. I recently came across the document at https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf which had an estimate of $754 million (754 megadollars) to switch state and local road signs to km in 1995. This is nearly $1.3 billion in today's dollars. And this appears to be just the signage and not everything else which would trickle down from it. In order to get engineering types to want to switch, one would have to come up with benefits exceeding $1.3 Billion (1.3 Gigadollars) at the bare minimum. I still don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. On the other hand, the cost to switch much of science and engineering was minimal, and the benefits were great, so it largely got switched. And for those who say we still measure temperature in *F, one should note that the national weather service apparently operates at least some of their systems internally in *C and just converts for public-facing reports. Because these are computer-generated, it isn't a big deal. The cost to switch the ATC system's elevation readouts worldwide from Feet to Meters would be high, and even higher is the risk of serious accidents as a result of this switch due to the confusion caused. So it doesn't get done. --- End quote --- Conclusion, the imperial system is perfect for penny-pinching drivers, people without a degree in meteorology and frightened pilots. --- Quote ---These are all engineering decisions. Often the correct system is the one which is already in place, even though something better might be available. Every engineer worth their salt has learned this lesson. --- End quote --- No sir, a good engineer would also analyze why and how all others switched to a different solution than what is already in place and would study how to repeat the same successful experience. What we have seen up to now on this thread is only denial. |
| vk6zgo:
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on December 06, 2019, 03:31:45 am --- --- Quote from: Tepe on December 05, 2019, 11:57:39 am --- --- Quote from: KL27x on December 05, 2019, 11:51:25 am ---We use all the prefixes in electronics. We need 'em all. And whadya know, Americans use these units in electronics, too. --- End quote --- Yeah, you are slowly learning. Those doubly prefixed millimicrofarad (mµF) are past history now. --- End quote --- That's an interesting remark. One of the things that these guys that "know everything" about the metric system don't get is that the metric system is not the imperial system with different units. The metric system was designed to prevent the creation of ad hoc units, i.e., improvised units for a particular purpose only, lacking generality. A classical example is that for horizontal distances people use the mile, but for vertical distances the foot. Two thousand years ago that made perfect sense because units were basically ad hoc, with no regard one for the other. Today, the use of such expedient is ridiculous. There are plenty of other examples. And when these guys have to use the metric system they tend to bring the same cacoëthes they acquired by the prolonged harmful exposure to imperial. So, you almost certainly can decide if someone is fully conversant in metric if they write 100nF, instead of 0.1µF. Because for the metric guy, the unit is F, but for the imperial guy it is µF. --- End quote --- Not really, for many years, the Farad was pretty much a "laboratory curiosity", & microfarads were the useable unit. Hence, the usage of uF and decimal parts of it, along with picofarads. If you look at old schematics from Metric countries, nanofarads are noticeable for their absense. Somewhere along the way, it became the "received wisdom" that people were morons & would have the utmost difficulty with decimal points and zeros-----hence the nanofarad, & the insane practice of specifying large lengths of materials in mm. nanofarads are easy to use, but they are not any more "Metric" than decimal fractions of uF. I can look at 0.1uF & say that's 100nF, or vice versa. |
| bsfeechannel:
--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on December 05, 2019, 11:30:04 pm ---Almost as funny as someone imposing engineering practice on the entire population. --- End quote --- What engineering practice? |
| SilverSolder:
When all is said and done - isn't it really about priorities? For example, what should USA do first: implement universal health care similar to most other advanced economies, or switch over to the metric system? |
| KL27x:
v6kgzo: --- Quote ---It is a shame that the USA didn't manage to export their rationalised ton & gallon to the world, prior to Metric appearing. Imagine how easy it would be to convert if there were 2 lbs to a kg, & 2000lbs to a ton/tonne, but, alas, that was not to be, & that part of Metric grew from the already established traditional ton, gallons, etc. --- End quote --- If we had the internet back then, it would have been so much easier! Hmm... so... I just figured something. A stone is 14 lb. 14 lb x 160 = 2240 lb. So... what's the Brit obsession with the stone? OTOH, could Frenchy have made metric to fit better with imperial? There's not much good reason I can fathom why the meter has to be based on the circumference of the earth. Maybe it had to be completely different and appropriately sciencey in order to be accepted, but if Frenchy had wanted to, could he have made things more compatible? But as it is, the only extra number I really seem to need in order to live with two systems is 2.54. So I think things worked out pretty good. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; bsfeechannel: --- Quote ---No sir, a good engineer would also analyze why and how all others switched to a different solution than what is already in place and would study how to repeat the same successful experience. --- End quote --- You are not doing this. The "why" other countries did this is not nearly the same situation that modern America is in. Because of modern education and the internet. Also because of the size of our road system. Also, because of the manufacturing and machining history of America, upon which we relied on our own standard (we did not accept Brit standards made in 1825, because we had already gained our independence). We needed tools to build tools to make stuff. And we made them to our own internal standard, requiring and utilizing ever increasing degrees of precision and standardization. We did it in inches. We didn't care if they were compatible with the rest of the world, cuz we were on the other side of an ocean, and we were making stuff that didn't exist, yet. You just got your stuff from Britain and other EU countries. We were not part of that club. Many of the former british colonies did not have much cost to changing, other than road signs and measuring cups. They were only changing a method of measuring the mud to build their homes and to measure the cuts to make their horse drawn carriages. Their economies were based on export of raw materials and import of things that were made with fancy tooling. More advanced nations sold tractors and logging equipment and mining equipment to these countries, so they could produce even more raw materials for export. All their imported pipes and doors and screws and wallpapers and brackets and veneers and tools were all being made in metric sizes. Even their measuring equipment was imported. Once more than half the manufactured goods and tools in their country were metric, and this condition was only increasing, and when they were asked to measure their raw materials in kg's, what the hell, why not? Why would they not change? All they wanted was continued mutually beneficial relationships and fair pay for their output. And then there are the politics, which I'm sure had some part in nearly every single metrication story. All of these changes as might affect other countries, America was able to make without actually changing too much of its internal usage. That's partly due to modern education level and internal manufacturing capability. And now the internet/connectivity. And partly due to size; no one needs to drive from Canada to Mexico or vice versa, on a day trip. We essentially don't need to change in the way that was beneficial in other countries in other times. We don't have the pressures, today, that many of those other countries faced, financially and politically and practically. --- Quote ---Conclusion, the imperial system is perfect for penny-pinching drivers, people without a degree in meteorology and frightened pilots. --- End quote --- Hmmmm. 99% of the world does not hold a degree meteorology. Of the 1% that studied meteorology and received their degree, let's say 90% drive. And of those, let's say half are thrifty. Then let's add the 4 meteorologist pilots who are frightened. So your message is... for roughly 99.5% of the world's population, imperial is the perfect system? --- Quote ---What engineering practice? --- End quote --- bsfeechannel, earlier in the thread: "Is driving a car on a road not engineering?" :-DD |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |