US going metric?

(Abe Kouris) wrote in message . com...
[snip]
It is sort of an interesting lesson in economics. When the economic
incentive is there, folks will change. There will be economic incentives
for a long time in some industries NOT to change.

Actually, most industrial specification in the US, especially for
products that are possibly going to be experted, are done in metric
already. The holdouts are things that would be too much of a pain
into the butt to change, like land surveying, or building standards.
But we don't export land or houses to Europe and Asia, so who cares?

In essence the point. Metric doesn't hold much advantage in those
applications and there is a large penalty. As such it may NEVER change.


Probably more
accurately, in some applications, there is little economic advantage
to metric units.

Both systems are equally accurate. Liknlater's book describes some of
the numerical advantages of the US customary units that are divisible
by 4. For activities that involve halving and doubling quantities by
hand, use of such as system can be highy accrate without resort to
mechanical aids. But now, almost eveyrhting commercial is measured
out mechanically, so that advantage is gone.

Actually, the carpentry business still uses various forms of
"dividers" for marking up boards. As long as that is true, measures
which can easily be divided by 4 will be popular.


Metrics have won worldwide, the basic idea of the system is that it's
a standardized system of measures derived form easily reproducible
natural phenomena rather than based on the size of the king's personal
body parts.

You realize that's only a recent developement. For a long time
the meter was defined by a bar in a cave, as well as the kilogram being
defined by a slug in the same cave. And at this point, the fundamental
definition of all of the US Customary units is defined in terms of
the metric units.

[snip]
I'm already seeing "kilograms force"

That's just *******ized physics, not *******ized metric system.

Technically, it's not a unit at all. It is poorly defined.
But it is taking hold.


I've heard of metric "bricks" that aren't multiples of 10 of any
metric unit.

Then they're not metric units. What are they? Are they based on
metric units or are they some non-standardized units that trademen use
to cheat their customers?

They are defined in metric units. But basically they are some
variation on the old brick that was just redefined in metric units.
Kinda like the 2x4 which isn't 2x4.


A guy I knew in snow removal measured in "trucks".
I asked him how many tons or cubic feet and he didn't know.
He knew how many trucks to the mile.


That's just a question of precision, and the miles, being based on the
foot, is, in the end, based on the meter, so he could estimate "trucks
per kilometer" very easily.

But it'd still be trucks, a relatively poorly defined unit which
isn't rooted in metric at all.

"Greg Johnson" wrote in message
...
Is my memory failing, or did NASA have a problem ten years, or so, ago
with a launch where some calculations were made in metrics and some were
not?
I remember that too, and I thought that would be a good time to go
metric, but it didn't happen.

The joke is that folks shouldn't try to convert between systems. They
sometimes get the conversions mixed up. FFM

Abe Kouris wrote:
(me) wrote in message om...

(Abe Kouris) wrote in message . com...



[snip]
more snips

Those kind of "organic" units
are common and don't convert well to arbitrary metric values.


Trucks per mile * 1.6 = trucks per kilometer

OOPS!

If your snow removal guy lived in Europe or Canada, he'd be quoting
you "trucks per kilometer," too. So what makes "trucks per mile" so
organic? It's just an American quirk. By Gawd, we red-blooded
'Mericans ain't gonna use some pansy-assed system devised by a bunch
of Frenchies! Totally irrational.
The joke is that the US customary units are based entirely on the
metric system.

Abe
(who is just finished his 0.5 liter bottle of Coke. Now, if the US
goes metric, maybe we'll call it a "pint," but it will still be half
a liter.)

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:41:59 GMT, "alohacyberian"
wrote:

"MMcC" wrote in message
...
"alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
Can you tell the difference between 84 and 85 F ? I have enough
trouble

No, but, I can tell the difference between 70 and 72.

But can you tell the difference between 71 and 72?

If a 2 degree F difference is as low as you can go then Celsius would work
just fine as 1C is 1.8F


But, as I said, media weather reporting and forecasting is unlikely to use
decimals. KM

Why would they need to?
Like I said, if a 2 degree F difference is the smallest difference
that people can percive (as you seem to attest to), then using Celsius
would work perfectly as 1 C is approximately that.

"Abe Kouris" wrote in message
om...
"jj" wrote in message
...
I'm curious, has there ever been an attempt at going metric in the US?
e.g.
using Celsius? How do people feel about it?

jj

snip

And even today, Europeans apparently have some non-official, but core
convenient, units in common use: the German "pfund" (500 grams),

snip

Strictly speaking, the use of "Pfund" in Germany is unofficial. You will
never see the term in an official documentation. Even though elder folks
still use that term, and sometimes, by imitation, younger ones too, I have
met (younger) salespeople in Germany who will be confused by the term
Pfund. - Similarly, the currency in the UK has gone metric, and there are
still people who will spend a few bob...

"DMW" wrote in message
...
Most of that is just being forced to
adapt to old Farenheit scale thermostats, and visits to the States and
wanting to have a general feel for what the temp was like outside before I
left the hotel room without a jacket.

Well, we COULD just switch to Kelvin, and screw EVERYONE up...:-)

Bob M.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:56:20 -0800, Stephen Dailey
wrote:

That's poor reporting, Steve. If the reporter came through the Peace
Arch crossing then the Home Depot he/she was at is the one I use all
the time. Not only did I buy a "Meter stick" a few weeks ago I also
had a choice of about 4 brands of tape measures with both Imperial and
Metric.

As for the lumber they "call" them 2x4's but they are cut to a metric
size very close to 2"x4". It also shows the metric size right on the
bin label.

- Dimensional lumber was sold in US sizes (e.g., 2x4, 4x6)
- He couldn't find a metric tape measure

There were others, but those are the two that stood out. Interesting
considering this took place in a country that officially went metric ~30
years ago.

===
Steve
Shoreline, Washington USA

6 Jan 2004, 1856 PST

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:56:52 GMT, Brian K
wrote:

The US go Metric? Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Gay Paris. Ha, ha, ha.

Hi Queenie! :-))))))

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Abe Kouris wrote in article
:

(me) wrote in message om...
(Abe Kouris) wrote in message . com...

[snip]
Actually, even the Frenchies and other Europeans resisted the metric
system after it was introduced, but their 19th century authoritarian
governments (Does "Napoleon ring a bell?) made it happen. And even
today, Europeans apparently have some non-official, but core
convenient, units in common use: the German "pfund" (500 grams), and
German and Scandanvian plumber supposedly measure pipe diameters in
"thumbs" or "inches."

Strange belief that units should serve people, instead of people
serving units. They use the units that serve them.

[...]

My personal suspicion is that by the time
any wholesale conversion takes place, you'll see a fairly basterdized
metric system around the world.

No you won't the basis is pretty standardized, even in the few
countries that don't use it in everyday life. Standardized weights
and measures are essential for any kind of globalized economy.

I'm already seeing "kilograms force"

That's just *******ized physics, not *******ized metric system.

[...]

A guy I knew in snow removal measured in "trucks".
I asked him how many tons or cubic feet and he didn't know.
He knew how many trucks to the mile.

That's just a question of precision, and the miles, being based on the
foot, is, in the end, based on the meter, so he could estimate "trucks
per kilometer" very easily.

Those kind of "organic" units
are common and don't convert well to arbitrary metric values.

Trucks per mile * 1.6 = trucks per kilometer

So you get more truckloads from 5/8 miles than from a whole mile?
Methinks trucks per mile / 0.625 might be a better approximation for
trucks per km.

Unless, of course, metric trucks are smaller than imperial trucks. G

If your snow removal guy lived in Europe or Canada, he'd be quoting
you "trucks per kilometer," too. So what makes "trucks per mile" so
organic? It's just an American quirk. By Gawd, we red-blooded
'Mericans ain't gonna use some pansy-assed system devised by a bunch
of Frenchies! Totally irrational.
--
Don

It seems to me I heard somewhere that me wrote in article
:

(Abe Kouris) wrote in message . com...
[snip]
[...]

I've heard of metric "bricks" that aren't multiples of 10 of any
metric unit.

Then they're not metric units. What are they? Are they based on
metric units or are they some non-standardized units that trademen use
to cheat their customers?

They are defined in metric units. But basically they are some
variation on the old brick that was just redefined in metric units.
Kinda like the 2x4 which isn't 2x4.

The 2 x 4 and all other US lumber measures began life with raw lumber.
After finishing a 2 x 4 was roughly 1 3/4 x 3 3/4. Someone cited the
current measurement somewhere in this thread, and apparently it's shrunk
even further, but not because of metrics. The trick is that we tack
metric measures on to what already existed.
--
Don