General > General Technical Chat
why is the US not Metric
KL27x:
--- Quote from: vk6zgo on December 06, 2019, 07:07:31 am ---
--- Quote from: KL27x on December 06, 2019, 05:00:11 am ---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. And when they were asked to measure their raw materials in kg's, what the hell, why not? What the hell else would they do, since their measuring equipment was imported, too? 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.
--- End quote ---
Just when I get to think you are fairly rational, you post abject "duck poo" like the above.
Mud huts, my backside!
Even the least developed Commonwealth countries had far more complex economies than you suggest.
Australia has been an independent nation since 1901, & had its own manufacturing sector of the economy.
Yes, some stuff was imported, but much of our needs, including measuring equipment was locally made.
--- End quote ---
Looks like my Keynesian world economics classes from 20 years ago are still pretty relevant to current day Australia.
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australia-is-rich-dumb-and-getting-dumber-20191007-p52y8i
99% of Australia's exports are raw materials, still, today.
Once again, this is not an insult. Australians are intelligent and educated and relatively wealthy. But you can say the same thing about Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.
My point is that even if US company like John Deere has been using metric only since the 80's, the equipment that they use to make these metric tractors is not necessarily all metric, itself.
The car plant that GM and Australia built was just an assembly plant. The pieces parts of the factory and the car parts that were sent there for the Australians to build were made in many countries, and some of that on machinery built around inches.
America has tech. Physical tech. Physical manufacturing/machining things. That are made in inches. Were desiged and made in inches since before this tech even existed. Stuff that was made at great expense during WWII and is still in service. It was made in times of need, and now we still have it. Think ToT's basement machine shop, but 50x bigger, to make giant cannons and imperial threaded parts that are 4 foot in diameter to go in earth moving equipment and battelships. This stuff is not going to be remade in metric. Some of this stuff, when it's finally clapped out, it going a graveyard and not going to be replaced... until there is more dire need of it to exist again. America has some real reasons to continue using inches that Australians did not to the same degree. Period. Australia had a very successful metrication compared to many other countries. And there are multiple reasons for that which are not so obvious maybe, when you just say "metric is obviously superior because..." Well, you have to look at the real world, too.
bsfeechannel:
--- Quote from: KL27x on December 14, 2019, 10:43:29 am ---America has tech. Physical tech. Physical manufacturing/machining things. That are made in inches. Were desiged and made in inches since before this tech even existed. Stuff that was made at great expense during WWII and is still in service. It was made in times of need, and now we still have it. Think ToT's basement machine shop, but 50x bigger, to make giant cannons and imperial threaded parts that are 4 foot in diameter to go in earth moving equipment and battelships. This stuff is not going to be remade in metric. Some of this stuff, when it's finally clapped out, it going a graveyard and not going to be replaced... until there is more dire need of it to exist again.
--- End quote ---
This argument can be easily refuted by the fact that European countries, Japan, China and other industrialized economies adopted the metric system successfully, but not the US.
So now we have to answer the following question: Why is the US not metric, when all the other equally industrialized nations are?
It is certainly not because I can't provide a study with figures on the change of road signs to metric. (I can, but that'll cost you).
vk6zgo:
--- Quote from: KL27x on December 14, 2019, 10:43:29 am ---
--- Quote from: vk6zgo on December 06, 2019, 07:07:31 am ---
--- Quote from: KL27x on December 06, 2019, 05:00:11 am ---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. And when they were asked to measure their raw materials in kg's, what the hell, why not? What the hell else would they do, since their measuring equipment was imported, too? 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.
--- End quote ---
Just when I get to think you are fairly rational, you post abject "duck poo" like the above.
Mud huts, my backside!
Even the least developed Commonwealth countries had far more complex economies than you suggest.
Australia has been an independent nation since 1901, & had its own manufacturing sector of the economy.
Yes, some stuff was imported, but much of our needs, including measuring equipment was locally made.
--- End quote ---
Looks like my Keynesian world economics classes from 20 years ago are still pretty relevant to current day Australia.
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australia-is-rich-dumb-and-getting-dumber-20191007-p52y8i
99% of Australia's exports are raw materials, still, today.
Once again, this is not an insult. Australians are intelligent and educated and relatively wealthy. But you can say the same thing about Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.
My point is that even if US company like John Deere has been using metric only since the 80's, the equipment that they use to make these metric tractors is not necessarily all metric, itself.
The car plant that GM and Australia built was just an assembly plant. The pieces parts of the factory and the car parts that were sent there for the Australians to build were made in many countries,
--- End quote ---
You have a habit of making assumptions.
No, the bodies of the cars built at the GMH plant were made from steel mined in Australia, refined in Australia, rolled into sheet metal in Australia, pressed into body parts in Australia.
The engine blocks were from cast iron, & later aluminium, mined in Australia, cast in Australia, machined in Australia, & had the pistons , crankshafts, conrods, camshafts also sourced in Australia in the same way.
The gearboxes, rear ends, suspensions, steering, glass, internal trim, dash instruments, electrical system, etc were also made in Australia.
Obviously, there were a few minor items sourced from elsewhere, but they were, when GMH was at its peak, minimal.
In later years, meddling from Detroit led to an increase in overseas sourced parts.
Significantly, the reliability of Holdens fell off from that time on.
GMH were importers of overseas vehicles as well, both complete, & CKD, which fitted into particular market niches.
They were sold alongside the homegrown ones.
By the way, we used to export Holdens to the Persian Gulf, but this stopped (more Detroit meddling?)
--- Quote ---
and some of that on machinery built around inches.
--- End quote ---
Indeed, in Australia, by Australians, prior to Metrication ( Obviously, things didn't change overnight, but if you have a car factory, you can pretty much control the rate at which a new standard is introduced)
--- Quote ---America has tech. Physical tech. Physical manufacturing/machining things. That are made in inches. Were desiged and made in inches since before this tech even existed. Stuff that was made at great expense during WWII and is still in service. And which current America might not even justify expense to replace,
--- End quote ---
A lot of the stuff made by all that equipment was repaired, & even replicated in Australia during WW2 after battle damage, because a damaged warship was a "sitting duck" trying to get back to the USA through enemy controlled waters.
Every "made in the USA" or " Made in Great Britain" component had to run the same gauntlet, so the catchcry was import replacement".
Australia industrialised on an previously unparalled rate, to both manufacture war material & to repair the equipment of ourselves & our Allies.
The motive behind the Govt/GM project, was to keep at least some of this industrial capability when peace was achieved.
--- Quote ---
at all, even. It was made in times of need, and now we still have it
--- End quote ---
But do you, or has it all been turned into scrapmetal?
--- Quote ---
Think ToT's basement machine shop, but 50x bigger, to make giant cannons and imperial threaded parts that are 4 foot in diameter to go in earth moving equipment.
--- End quote ---
Before someone in a suit thought it was "cheaper" to buy everything from Korea or China, we could do stuff like that, too
We used to build our own ships, which required parts of the size you quoted & crew them with Australians, but now we don't do either of those things.
How many ships docking at US ports are made in the USA?
--- Quote ---
America has some real reasons to continue using inches that Australians did not to the same degree. Period. Australia had a very successful metrication compared to many other countries. And there are multiple reasons for that which are not so obvious maybe, when you just say "metric is obviously superior because...
--- End quote ---
I didn't say that, so you are answering someone else.
I only pointed out that some of the obstacles you believed to be insurmountable were not, & had been easily overcome in other countries.
--- Quote ---" Well, you have to look at the real world, too.
--- End quote ---
Most of this is "off topic", but your answer to people questioning the lack of metrication in the USA is to immediately go on the offensive,
making ill informed comments about other countries, bringing in "red herrings" like the Swedish change to driving on the right, when it is obvious that such a change was far more radical than changing speed signs.
The kindest thing I can say is "You are not as bad as rstofer
KL27x:
^vk6zgo, lots of interesting stuff there. I am not going to reply to that, yet. You take it too personally and are sensitive, and your post isn't completely wrong. Let's just say making steel and welders don't care cm or inches, and America was among the first of the former Commonwealth to start teaching and learning the metric system, before Australia.
Great you mine ore. Look at the machines you use to mine it. Look at the machines you use for agriculture. Tell me they are all made in Australia? I dunno. You guys trade more with EU and China. Maybe the are buying your Australian tractors and tunnel digging machines. We just get your metric glass bottles filled with wine. So are you exporting mining and agricultural technology? Or are you exporting the raw materials and simple products obtained by using pre-existing technology which you imported? Cuz the latter would be much smarter for your country.
bsfeechannel:
--- Quote ---This argument can be easily refuted by the fact that European countries, Japan, China and other industrialized economies adopted the metric system successfully, but not the US.
--- End quote ---
Dear genius of geniuses. Germany adopted the metric system in the late 1800's, relatively early in this ascension in tech. Around the same time most of Europe also adopted metric. It might have had something to do with a short French guy consolidating the continent; but he didn't make it to America (apparently, horses don't swim that well). What was high tech in the late 1800's? Britain still ruled the seas with steam engines (that and the sewing machine were two of Britains most important technological achievements). Combustion engines were invented 1876... 4 years after Germany adopted metric. They essentially build their tech in mm. And other countries like Japan, where to you think they traded and bought and copied these tools from? They didn't reinvent wheels in shinto units; they advanced the already metric wheels. (Japan has a lot to do with the advancement in manufacturing of combustion engines esp in the mid-late 1900's... which we know they did this in metric. Back then. They didn't switch after the fact.) Even in America we buy German and Japanese heavy industrial tools and tech. But we also developed these things and have always made these things in America.
A lot of things happened between 1870 and 1960. In Australia a lot of this change was imported; I don't know history that great, maybe you can tell me when Australia was the tip of the technology spear? Was metrication your shining moment of technological progress, is changing their road signs? Of course Australia has little use for imperial anymore. Esp Britain's version. Not just Australia, but the entire rest of the world has not been buying British steam engines and sewing machines for a long time. Australia is buying from metric EU.
In America, this century of change happened in inches. They continue to use them, yet America embraced metric before Australia did. They just kept it practical, not symbolic. Americans can buy a pound of butter and still use metric.
Even in UK, people still use a lot of imperial. Australia was kinda unique in how they could completely forget imperial and have no significant effect in their industries/workplaces. They were already buying metric commodities.
If America started changing to 40mm drain pipes and 1 meter wide doors, we be paying cost of market inefficiencies in America for the next 100 years, before it might save a few cents a year. Changing road signs is dead cost, only.
;;;;;;;;;;;;
Our existing technology is important. If we destroyed all of it, today, all the oil wells, all the machinery. All the nuclear power plants. But we kept metric? We would be in the dark ages for centuries. All the easily accessible fossil fuels are gone. We need highly advanced technology to even reach what is left or to re-create nuclear power.
bsfeechannel:
--- Quote from: vk6zgo on December 14, 2019, 12:23:56 pm ---The kindest thing I can say is "You are not as bad as rstofer
--- End quote ---
I was about to compare KL27x's statements with rstofer's. I prefer the latter, because they're less verbose and to the point. In short, "The US is not metric because we think we're special and the (sensible) logic that led all the other countries to full metrication doesn't apply to us".
Obviously, parts of the country that can't afford to adhere to that ideology have already gone metric.
After this thread, however, I'd rather see the US embrace metric piecemeal as they're doing. My fear is that, if they haste their adoption, they bring to metrication old imperial habits that metrication itself came to abolish.
The US people are in need of further pedagogical efforts so that they can understand that, since the metric system is based on the fundamental constants of nature, and not some piece of rod in a museum in Paris, going fully metric won't make them have to speak French (as the Canadians do), they'll not give up their sovereignty to a foreign country, they will not advance some "progressive" agenda, they'll not be part of EU, they're not going to stop being special.
But this is a subject for another thread, I guess.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version