Thank you one and all for your insight and thoughts. But my question remains
unanswered.

Has Boeing gone metric in their basic aircraft design world of HP, thrust,
Lbs/sq/in, drag, coef friction, tensil strengths, elongation, stress,
strain, materials, heat treatment parameters in f, times in minutes, miles
and not meters.... wire gauges, fasteners and on and on an on which made
them the greatest manufacturer of quality aircraft in the world?

Please. I'm not bashing the metric system. Just plain curious as to why
anybody would discard a century of technology simply to satisfy some
imaginary concept that just because the rest of the world jumps off a cliff,
why should we?

Lemmings?

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:23:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Nick Mueller" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


Maybe you find a planet where a = 10 m/s^2. :-)

There probably is no such planet, which makes my point. The natural world
and natural phenomena do not succumb to attempts to make "rationalized"
multi-dimensional systems of measurement, most particularly systems that try
to build everything from a minimum (seven, in the case of the SI) number of
base units, which are themselves derived from only three fundamental units.

It works great in theory and doubtless it's an aid to many scientists
working in many fields. For others, including the field of medicine, where
I've been writing for the past few years, it simply results in a lot of
clumsy derived units. Thus, you'll see older CGS units mixed with SI units
in many fields, as a simple matter of practicality.



Nonsense. The Newton is defined in terms of kilograms, as well. It's just
that it's defined in terms of acceleration rather than as force itself.

You didn't understand the SI-system. It is based on **as** **few** **as**
**possible** units, the rest is derived/partially defined by them.
They a kg, s, K

Yes, from which the base units of the metre, the kilogram, the second, the
ampere, the kelvin, the mole, and the candela are defined. And then dozens
of other units are derived.

It's a theoretically elegent system. By using those base units, the SI
committee has developed a system that is theoretically coherent and
conceptually minimalist, but which also forces you to keep things in your
head that are far abstracted from what you're actually measuring, or to
memorize the system without thought -- which obviates any "rational"
advantage the system may have, in much practical use.

Again, we're not arguing over the advantages of the SI system to a scientist
performing elaborate calculations about celestial bodies and their
photometric properties, or remotely measuring their mass and angular
velocity. We're talking about the everyday measurements that make up the
vast majority of numerical evaluations made by people in the world. For
them, defining the unit of force in terms of acceleration, when they're
interested in how big they'll have to make a support to keep a cistern off
the ground, forces them to use (if they're using SI units), abstractions
that they'll have to memorize or convert roughly into something sensible --
the weight of that cistern when it's full of water. They're forced to use
Newtons, when what they're dealing with is kilograms of force, or pounds, if
they're so inclined.


snippage of noise and opinions :-)

Ed:-
I will be using Imperial measure until I die. Damnit, I will use Whitworth and
BSF threads in preference to others until I no longer have the capability to
make them. But.. The SI system holds together far better than the Imperial
system for anything that involves any form of calculation. I have no problem
with a 1 hp motor, but going from there to 550ftlb/S and 2,545Btu/hr
as opposed to a 1kW motor being 1000Nm/S and 1000J/S brings it home that the
SI system is _rational_

Other derived units:- 1F=1V/C=1Vs/A What's a Jar worth?
1Tesla=1W/m^2=1Vs/m^2 , I don't even know if there is an Imperial unit of
magnetic flux density!

The conversion factor between base and derived units is always 1, PI or E.
That really helps when checking a calculation for consistency. You _can_ do
the same with fps units, but only if you stick to base units. This isn't
abstract science, this is everyday engineering, Things like calculating the
impedance of a length of power line, or the size of the flywheel needed on a
press.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
The SI system will entirely replace the Imperial system and pretty much has
done in all of the world except for the USA and some scattered romantic
holdouts in the rest of the world. In 30-40 years time when the (federal) EU,
China and India all have larger economies than the USA, what will be the
advantage of using a measurement system that the rest of the world thinks is
mediaeval?
/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE



Mark Rand
RTFM

For myself, I calculate in metric in Physics and Engineering.
In the home shop I use drills from my sets of wire 80-1, Letters, Fractions to
1/64 and metrics by .1mm through 25mm or 30 - been a while since I was in
that box. I use all of them - have charts that list all of them in order.
When I want to drill slightly larger or smaller - it is from the total list.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Ivan Vegvary wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:4hcHi.1822$fz2.1760@trndny03...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

When it comes to measurement, the advantages of metrics are illusory.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, could you please explain the above so I can understand.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary
Sure. If you're doing a calculation involving, say, force, volume, and
mass, metrics usually (but not always) make your work easier. If you're
measuring the diameter of a crankshaft journal, metrics provide no
advantage whatsoever.

Most manufactured metal parts can be measured in inches; we don't get
involved with feet, yards, etc., and the rest of the red herrings that the
pro-metrics folks toss into the discussion. It's mostly inches and decimal
inches.

So the units don't matter. Mathematically, we handle them the same,
whether they're inch or metric. And most of the occasions we have in
manufacturing to use inch (or Imperial) units versus metric ones are cases
of linear measurement.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, thanks for the insight. I do agree that most machining can be done in
inches and decimal parts thereof. However, at some point you still have to
reach for a drill and get involved with fractions and letter designations.
That part of the process could use some improvement. Why don't they simply
make/package drills in decimal inches?

Ivan Vegvary



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

At Standard Temperature and Pressure STP only. Water changes if not
on the mark.

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:04:10 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:




If I get the ghist of it right, that was the intent of the metric
system in the first place, to reduce the number of systems in use. It
just added another.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

the intent was to base the systems on interrelated values rather than
arbitrary values with conversion factors between them.

a litre of water is a thousand cc's and weighs a kilo.

as opposed to 23 and a half kilderkirkins weighing 2 cwt 56 lbs 31
ounces in king james footric measures. :-) ....sorta thing

I do most of my work with a vernier marked out in mm and in 128ths of
an inch. it is wonderful and direct. whichever system gives me
fractionless numbers gets the nod.

Stealth Pilot

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I use decimals. Using metric is like using wire drills or letter sizes.

I still prefer Imperial threads. It tells you the major diameter and the
threads per unit.

What the heck does M8x30 mean?

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
For myself, I calculate in metric in Physics and Engineering.
In the home shop I use drills from my sets of wire 80-1, Letters,
Fractions to 1/64 and metrics by .1mm through 25mm or 30 - been a while
since I was in
that box. I use all of them - have charts that list all of them in order.
When I want to drill slightly larger or smaller - it is from the total
list.

"Trevor Jones" wrote in message
news:WEuHi.57291$Pd4.27737@edtnps82...
I do know that a friend of mine called me in the wee hours of the
morning, swearing, as he needed a 17mm socket to reach the flywheel bolts
on his GM truck. He also, was a metric holdout. He's starting to see the
necessity, though he does not like it.

Digital measuring tools make it a push of the button to check the
dimension to see where it fits into the scheme best.


Cheers
Trevor Jones

Shoulda told him that an 11/16" was a damn near perfect fit!

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
Thank you one and all for your insight and thoughts. But my question
remains
unanswered.

Has Boeing gone metric in their basic aircraft design world of HP, thrust,
Lbs/sq/in, drag, coef friction, tensil strengths, elongation, stress,
strain, materials, heat treatment parameters in f, times in minutes, miles
and not meters.... wire gauges, fasteners and on and on an on which made
them the greatest manufacturer of quality aircraft in the world?

Please. I'm not bashing the metric system. Just plain curious as to why
anybody would discard a century of technology simply to satisfy some
imaginary concept that just because the rest of the world jumps off a
cliff,
why should we?

Lemmings?

I left Commercial over a year ago. The 787 I don't know much about, but
ISTR in my limited work with some tiny projects for it, it's still imperial.
Nobody I've talked to has mentioned metric in any way, and believe me,
they'd say something. Boeing isn't about to make the switch to metric
unless there's a serious need, and I have a hard time seeing it. They're
not resisting metric just because they want to conform to some silly notion
of conformity, but trying to change all that to metric is economic suicide
for any company heavily tied to engineering designs.

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:23:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


"Nick Mueller" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


Maybe you find a planet where a = 10 m/s^2. :-)

There probably is no such planet, which makes my point. The natural world
and natural phenomena do not succumb to attempts to make "rationalized"
multi-dimensional systems of measurement, most particularly systems that
try
to build everything from a minimum (seven, in the case of the SI) number
of
base units, which are themselves derived from only three fundamental
units.

It works great in theory and doubtless it's an aid to many scientists
working in many fields. For others, including the field of medicine, where
I've been writing for the past few years, it simply results in a lot of
clumsy derived units. Thus, you'll see older CGS units mixed with SI units
in many fields, as a simple matter of practicality.



Nonsense. The Newton is defined in terms of kilograms, as well. It's
just
that it's defined in terms of acceleration rather than as force itself.

You didn't understand the SI-system. It is based on **as** **few**
**as**
**possible** units, the rest is derived/partially defined by them.
They a kg, s, K

Yes, from which the base units of the metre, the kilogram, the second, the
ampere, the kelvin, the mole, and the candela are defined. And then dozens
of other units are derived.

It's a theoretically elegent system. By using those base units, the SI
committee has developed a system that is theoretically coherent and
conceptually minimalist, but which also forces you to keep things in your
head that are far abstracted from what you're actually measuring, or to
memorize the system without thought -- which obviates any "rational"
advantage the system may have, in much practical use.

Again, we're not arguing over the advantages of the SI system to a
scientist
performing elaborate calculations about celestial bodies and their
photometric properties, or remotely measuring their mass and angular
velocity. We're talking about the everyday measurements that make up the
vast majority of numerical evaluations made by people in the world. For
them, defining the unit of force in terms of acceleration, when they're
interested in how big they'll have to make a support to keep a cistern off
the ground, forces them to use (if they're using SI units), abstractions
that they'll have to memorize or convert roughly into something
sensible --
the weight of that cistern when it's full of water. They're forced to use
Newtons, when what they're dealing with is kilograms of force, or pounds,
if
they're so inclined.


snippage of noise and opinions :-)

Ed:-
I will be using Imperial measure until I die. Damnit, I will use Whitworth
and
BSF threads in preference to others until I no longer have the capability
to
make them. But.. The SI system holds together far better than the Imperial
system for anything that involves any form of calculation. I have no
problem
with a 1 hp motor, but going from there to 550ftlb/S and 2,545Btu/hr
as opposed to a 1kW motor being 1000Nm/S and 1000J/S brings it home that
the
SI system is _rational_

That's fine if you're doing calculations involving joules and motor output,
Mark. But for every design engineer doing conversions there are ten people
who have to figure things such as, say, how much of the 500-kg load they
just put in their trailer should be shifted so that roughly 10% of the load
is on the tongue. Do you seriously think they should convert the load to
Newtons, and then gauge the tongue weight by estimating it in Newtons? I
don't think so.

My point is that the traditional, non-SI units more often are based on
measures that relate to our senses, without conversion. Even if they result
in inelegant units, they often are more practical for ordinary measurements.

Even where metrics stand up well in those every-day measurements, the SI
usually has little or no advantage. Sometimes, like with tongue weights and
converting kilgrams of force to Newtons and back, the SI results in a
confounding complication.

Again, on the whole, I wouldn't claim that the inch, or Imperial, or CGS
metric systems are superior to the SI. I'm just saying that the supposed
advantages of the SI don't apply in practical uses by most people, and that
sometimes they can actually be a disadvantage.


Other derived units:- 1F=1V/C=1Vs/A What's a Jar worth?
1Tesla=1W/m^2=1Vs/m^2 , I don't even know if there is an Imperial unit of
magnetic flux density!

Not many people would care, either. d8-)


The conversion factor between base and derived units is always 1, PI or E.
That really helps when checking a calculation for consistency. You _can_
do
the same with fps units, but only if you stick to base units. This isn't
abstract science, this is everyday engineering, Things like calculating
the
impedance of a length of power line, or the size of the flywheel needed on
a
press.

You're talking about design engineering. We started this discussion talking
about manufacturing, where it matters little, and I've tried to point out
that most people who measure things are interested in neither scientific nor
engineering calculations. I also have mentioned that, where metrics are
preferred, we use metrics in the US. We even use the freakin' froggie SI.
d8-)

Virtually all of our scientific calculations are done in metrics. Like
scientists in various specialties everywhere, we don't always prefer the SI
to CGS. Medical science still uses calories, for example, pretty much
worldwide.

None of this has had an influence on our exports or imports. Nor has it
seemed to retard our capabilities to invent and innovate. So, what is your
point, in the end?


DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
The SI system will entirely replace the Imperial system and pretty much
has
done in all of the world except for the USA and some scattered romantic
holdouts in the rest of the world. In 30-40 years time when the (federal)
EU,
China and India all have larger economies than the USA, what will be the
advantage of using a measurement system that the rest of the world thinks
is
mediaeval?
/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

Well, the news here last week reported that the EU has decided to let your
pubs continue to use the pint measure. I didn't realize the EU had that
authority, but it was damned sporting of them, don't you think? d8-)

Perhaps they read Huxley's _Brave New World_, which addresses this very
issue.

--
Ed Huntress

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

are hydraulic systems now labeled in Newtons or still in lbs/sq/in?

I hope not! VBG


Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de

Ed Huntress wrote:

Maybe you find a planet where a = 10 m/s^2. :-)

There probably is no such planet, which makes my point.

No, the point is different. You have to distinguish between force and mass.
For some simple minded people (pun intended or not?) it is the same, but it
ain't.

It works great in theory ...

It works even greater in practice!

For others, including the field of medicine, where
I've been writing for the past few years, it simply results in a lot of
clumsy derived units.

Have no insight into medicine at all.


It's a theoretically elegent system. By using those base units, the SI
committee has developed a system that is theoretically coherent and
conceptually minimalist, but which also forces you to keep things in your
head that are far abstracted from what you're actually measuring, or to
memorize the system without thought -- which obviates any "rational"
advantage the system may have, in much practical use.

The coherent system (why do you always say "theoretical", it *is* coherent)
has a lot of advantages as soon as you start to make calculations.

A simple and cyclic example:
Your did some math and the result's unit is [kg * m / s^2]
Now what's that? It is force, so the unit is [N]. And how do you know?
By the formula f = m * a. If you do the check with units it is:
[N] = [kg] * [m/s^2]

That system is really great as soon as your calculations are a single step
behind adding. Do a check with the units and you see whether you made some
nonsense or not.

If you do have a problem "converting" mass to force, simply multiply the kg
by 10 and you do have Newton.

We're talking about the everyday measurements that make up the
vast majority of numerical evaluations made by people in the world.

Are you supposing to do the calculations in SI and then convert them to
imperial? Don't ask for the famous prove what the result is.

For
them, defining the unit of force in terms of acceleration, when they're
interested in how big they'll have to make a support to keep a cistern off
the ground,

Hmm ... I mean is someone is failing to understand the difference between
mass and force and isn't able to calculate the resulting force, will he be
able to properly dimension the legs (Euler's buckling resistance)? I bet
no.
Or the other way round:
Does it help Joe Bar in calculating the stress of some odd-shaped column
when he is using odd units?
As soon as that Joe Bar wants to find out whether a screw is strong enough
to keep his trailer together, it doesn't help to work in pounds when he
considers the torque the screw is tightend with and the resulting stress
and clamping forces (that was a longish German sentence :-))


I don't wonder of anybody who doesn't agree but at the same time doesn't
understand the difference between mass and force.

I understand it quite well, thank you very much.

G Then it's OK! But wait ...

I only have to look at the domain-dependant units of pound, pondal, pound
force and whatever to see what mess it is.

I don't know anyone who uses pondals, and the pound, both as a unit of
force and as a unit of mass, is quite handy within its domain.

I remember a discussion about a year ago. It was such a mess that I had to
bail out. And again "he pound, both as a unit of force and as a unit of
mass, is quite handy" is just quite confusing and will only result in
errors.


Read about the SI-system before you talk about it.

You really can be annoying at times, Nick.

Yes, I can! ;-)


It's very unlikely that you've
read as much about the SI system as I have, unless you spent more than a
year, as I did, outlining a book on quality assurance.

So, I do have to be annoying again:
| Units of force, for example: the Newton equals roughly 0.101 972
| kilograms of force (kgf).
That's what you wrote!

I have several answers:
a) There is no such thing like kgf
b) did you mean kp?
c) kp was left behind 1960 and replaced with N
e) from the factor 0.101972 I see that we live on the same planet
(1 / 0.101972 = 9.806..) but I doubt that this is true everywhere.
f) from e) I feel that you didn't fully understand the difference between
force and mass.

Sorry! I do *not* want to kick your ass, I'm just a bit pi**ed when people
are confusing things. And I see it so many times here that people write MM
when they meant mm (what would MegaMega mean?) or write S when they meant s
(I don't know what Siemens (the inverse of Ohm) has to do with time) etc.

But!!!:
If you reduce the discussion to inch vs. metre (or meter) it is not worth
continuing. There is just a factor to convert between them. Neither meter
nor inch is more precise.
The discussion starts when you look around and see things like feet, AWG,
steel gage for sheet metal, drills by numbers and letters, etc. No such
thing in the metric system.


Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de

"Carl McIver" wrote in message
...
"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...
Thank you one and all for your insight and thoughts. But my question
remains
unanswered.

Has Boeing gone metric in their basic aircraft design world of HP,
thrust,
Lbs/sq/in, drag, coef friction, tensil strengths, elongation, stress,
strain, materials, heat treatment parameters in f, times in minutes,
miles
and not meters.... wire gauges, fasteners and on and on an on which made
them the greatest manufacturer of quality aircraft in the world?

Please. I'm not bashing the metric system. Just plain curious as to why
anybody would discard a century of technology simply to satisfy some
imaginary concept that just because the rest of the world jumps off a
cliff,
why should we?

Lemmings?

I left Commercial over a year ago. The 787 I don't know much about,
but
ISTR in my limited work with some tiny projects for it, it's still
imperial.
Nobody I've talked to has mentioned metric in any way, and believe me,
they'd say something. Boeing isn't about to make the switch to metric
unless there's a serious need, and I have a hard time seeing it. They're
not resisting metric just because they want to conform to some silly
notion
of conformity, but trying to change all that to metric is economic suicide
for any company heavily tied to engineering designs.


AMEN.... amen.... amen...

Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne

Wayne Lundberg wrote:
"Carl McIver" wrote in message
...

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...

Thank you one and all for your insight and thoughts. But my question
remains
unanswered.

Has Boeing gone metric in their basic aircraft design world of HP,

thrust,

Lbs/sq/in, drag, coef friction, tensil strengths, elongation, stress,
strain, materials, heat treatment parameters in f, times in minutes,

miles

and not meters.... wire gauges, fasteners and on and on an on which made
them the greatest manufacturer of quality aircraft in the world?

Please. I'm not bashing the metric system. Just plain curious as to why
anybody would discard a century of technology simply to satisfy some
imaginary concept that just because the rest of the world jumps off a
cliff,
why should we?

Lemmings?

I left Commercial over a year ago. The 787 I don't know much about,

but

ISTR in my limited work with some tiny projects for it, it's still

imperial.

Nobody I've talked to has mentioned metric in any way, and believe me,
they'd say something. Boeing isn't about to make the switch to metric
unless there's a serious need, and I have a hard time seeing it. They're
not resisting metric just because they want to conform to some silly

notion

of conformity, but trying to change all that to metric is economic suicide
for any company heavily tied to engineering designs.



AMEN.... amen.... amen...

Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne




I can give you another uplift as well,
Im with Boeing, as a desiner, maker and marketer of my own products,
direct to the user.
Like Boeing, I stand or fall by my own efforts, competing in my busines
field with other co.s similar to my work.
My customers choose my products not on wether they are made in metric
units or imperial units but on my overall competitive value.
Im in the UK which has standardised on the Metric system except where it
conflictswith old tradition , like a pint of beer our road distances
are still in miles of 1760 yds with 36 ins in a yard. we can still buy
a pound of bananas tho the weight is given in both lbs and kilos.
I use the imperial system just like Boeing, because all my machinery
is set to work this way. my lathe is imperial.
I can make everything in metric but it costs more, just like it would
from Boeing.
As for the Newton, well, its a vague name so could mean anything , but
lbs per sq in . says what it is. and thats why folk prefer it, and will
continue to do so.

Ted Frater wrote:

As for the Newton, well, its a vague name Â*so could mean anything , but
lbs per sq in . says what it is. and thats why folk prefer it, and will
continue to do so.

Pressure is in Pascal. :-))


Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:37:15 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:


Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne




Standing alone with the aid of $2Billion per year in government subsidies!
Your tax dollars at work, a triumph of free market lobbying :-)

And with all that money they still can't manage to convert to the measurement
systems that the rest of the industrialised world uses. Quite sad really.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Mark Rand wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:37:15 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:



Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne



Standing alone with the aid of $2Billion per year in government subsidies!
Your tax dollars at work, a triumph of free market lobbying :-)

And with all that money they still can't manage to convert to the measurement
systems that the rest of the industrialised world uses. Quite sad really.

Mark Rand
RTFM
Its not that simple unfortunately,
Its not about conversion to what every one else in the industrial world
uses.
Its about all the suppliers of everything to Boeing, for example, all
the US nut and bolt makers, screw makers wire and plug makers etc that
supply the majority of US customers.
It would need for the whole of whats left of the US manufacturing base
to change all their manufacturing machinery and cnc programmes to suit
who?s requirements? They dont need to at the moment.
It will never happen.

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:37:15 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:


Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and
not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne




Standing alone with the aid of $2Billion per year in government subsidies!
Your tax dollars at work, a triumph of free market lobbying :-)

And with all that money they still can't manage to convert to the
measurement
systems that the rest of the industrialised world uses. Quite sad really.

Why should they bother? Heck, you can't even convert your pints of beer. g

But "why should they bother" really is a serious question, Mark. Please,
tell us.

--
Ed Huntress

Gerald Miller wrote:

SWMBO is currently baby sitting 3 grand daughters in the other London,


London, Kentucky?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:16:33 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gerald Miller wrote:

SWMBO is currently baby sitting 3 grand daughters in the other London,


London, Kentucky?
No, that third world, union run country that still has it's royal
family.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Until as recent as a few years back, the international measurment
standard was a platinum bar with 2 X's engraved on it, preserved in
Paris. The X's are 1000mm apart. This bar is the standard that all
measurements were defined from, with the Inch being defined as
25.4mm. Now the standard length is calculated from the distance light
travels in a vucuum. Tradition tells us that the inch was one twelth
of the length of Hercules foot.

It is interesting to note that while people may argue against
metrification, in reality the Imperial system is now derived from the
Metric system.

This year the BSPF and BSPT thread standards have now been given a new
"Metric" Designation ISO Rc Series (Taper) and ISO G Parallel
Series. They are still designated with fractions and TPI, but have
been incorporated into SI standards. This is a good example of
"Inchification". Hope this makes some of you Yankees feel a bit
better.

Cheers from Down Under

Dominic.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:37:15 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:



Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and
not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne


Standing alone with the aid of $2Billion per year in government subsidies!
Your tax dollars at work, a triumph of free market lobbying :-)

And with all that money they still can't manage to convert to the
measurement
systems that the rest of the industrialised world uses. Quite sad really.


Why should they bother? Heck, you can't even convert your pints of beer. g

But "why should they bother" really is a serious question, Mark. Please,
tell us.

--
Ed Huntress



There are a number of other things to consider when it comes to aviation
and metric. Flight levels... in feet. Runway distances and aircraft
performance figures in the US are all in feet. All the aircraft
instruments are in feet, inches or lbs/sq. in. When you have a working
system you stay with it unless there is a vast improvment with a new
system. It's the same as some countries using 50 cycle ac power when
60 cycles is a lot better.

John

Dom wrote:

Until as recent as a few years back, the international measurment
standard was a platinum bar with 2 X's engraved on it, preserved in
Paris. The X's are 1000mm apart. This bar is the standard that all
measurements were defined from, with the Inch being defined as
25.4mm. Now the standard length is calculated from the distance light
travels in a vucuum. Tradition tells us that the inch was one twelth
of the length of Hercules foot.

It is interesting to note that while people may argue against
metrification, in reality the Imperial system is now derived from the
Metric system.

This year the BSPF and BSPT thread standards have now been given a new
"Metric" Designation ISO Rc Series (Taper) and ISO G Parallel
Series. They are still designated with fractions and TPI, but have
been incorporated into SI standards. This is a good example of
"Inchification". Hope this makes some of you Yankees feel a bit
better.

Not likely as those standards are British and not US. US thread
standards differ from British in TPI for most sizes and the included
angle of the thread.


Cheers from Down Under

Dominic.

Nick Mueller wrote:

Ted Frater wrote:

As for the Newton, well, its a vague name so could mean anything , but
lbs per sq in . says what it is. and thats why folk prefer it, and will
continue to do so.


Pressure is in Pascal. :-))

I've been asked to modify some software to accept N/mm^2 instead of
MPascals but they are the same thing, it's a display thing as different
parts of the world are used to different unit designations.

Nick, out of interest with this software, what is the German
abbreviation for seconds, sek (sekond), or sec.



Nick

Dom wrote:
Until as recent as a few years back, the international measurment
standard was a platinum bar with 2 X's engraved on it, preserved in
Paris. The X's are 1000mm apart. This bar is the standard that all
measurements were defined from, with the Inch being defined as
25.4mm. Now the standard length is calculated from the distance light
travels in a vucuum. Tradition tells us that the inch was one twelth
of the length of Hercules foot.

It is interesting to note that while people may argue against
metrification, in reality the Imperial system is now derived from the
Metric system.

I believe laser wavelength is used as a primary
standard. This would then be directly converted
to either imperial or metric. I don't see how
imperial standards would be derived from metric
standards.

This year the BSPF and BSPT thread standards have now been given a new
"Metric" Designation ISO Rc Series (Taper) and ISO G Parallel
Series. They are still designated with fractions and TPI, but have
been incorporated into SI standards. This is a good example of
"Inchification". Hope this makes some of you Yankees feel a bit
better.

Cheers from Down Under

Dominic.

David Billington wrote:


Nick Mueller wrote:

Ted Frater wrote:

As for the Newton, well, its a vague name so could mean anything , but
lbs per sq in . says what it is. and thats why folk prefer it, and will
continue to do so.


Pressure is in Pascal. :-))

I've been asked to modify some software to accept N/mm^2 instead of
MPascals but they are the same thing, it's a display thing as different
parts of the world are used to different unit designations.

Nick, out of interest with this software, what is the German
abbreviation for seconds, sek (sekond), or sec.

And why do we see air pressure in BAR
instead of Pascals?

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:15:28 -0400, john
wrote:



There are a number of other things to consider when it comes to aviation
and metric. Flight levels... in feet. Runway distances and aircraft
performance figures in the US are all in feet. All the aircraft
instruments are in feet, inches or lbs/sq. in. When you have a working
system you stay with it unless there is a vast improvment with a new
system.

Remember the Gimli Glider

It's the same as some countries using 50 cycle ac power when
60 cycles is a lot better.

John
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

Thank you one and all for your insight and thoughts. But my question remains
unanswered.

Has Boeing gone metric in their basic aircraft design world of HP, thrust,
Lbs/sq/in, drag, coef friction, tensil strengths, elongation, stress,
strain, materials, heat treatment parameters in f, times in minutes, miles
and not meters.... wire gauges, fasteners and on and on an on which made
them the greatest manufacturer of quality aircraft in the world?

Please. I'm not bashing the metric system. Just plain curious as to why
anybody would discard a century of technology simply to satisfy some
imaginary concept that just because the rest of the world jumps off a cliff,
why should we?

Lemmings?


They didn't jump. They were pushed off that cliff by a sick practical
joke from the French. No one realized it was a joke because, quite
frankly, they aren't that funny. It has snowballed to the point it is
out of control.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Nick Mueller wrote:

Ted Frater wrote:

As for the Newton, well, its a vague name  so could mean anything , but
lbs per sq in . says what it is. and thats why folk prefer it, and will
continue to do so.

Pressure is in Pascal. :-))


Pressure is a full bladder, a diuretic, and no bathroom available.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Ted Frater wrote:

As for the Newton, well, its a vague name so could mean anything , but
lbs per sq in . says what it is. and thats why folk prefer it, and will
continue to do so.


A 'Newton' is a fruit filled cookie.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Mark Rand wrote:

Standing alone with the aid of $2Billion per year in government subsidies!
Your tax dollars at work, a triumph of free market lobbying :-)

And with all that money they still can't manage to convert to the measurement
systems that the rest of the industrialised world uses. Quite sad really.


Yawn. Like none of England's corporations EVER received ANY
government money.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Newton a vague name ?

A Pascal describes a programming language.

Parsec is a what ?

Newton-meter now that is fun.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Nick Mueller wrote:
Ted Frater wrote:

As for the Newton, well, its a vague name so could mean anything , but
lbs per sq in . says what it is. and thats why folk prefer it, and will
continue to do so.

Pressure is in Pascal. :-))


Nick

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

You don't need German this or that.
You need a Metric SI book - a unified name and structure.
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Jim Stewart wrote:
David Billington wrote:


Nick Mueller wrote:

Ted Frater wrote:

As for the Newton, well, its a vague name so could mean anything , but
lbs per sq in . says what it is. and thats why folk prefer it, and will
continue to do so.


Pressure is in Pascal. :-))

I've been asked to modify some software to accept N/mm^2 instead of
MPascals but they are the same thing, it's a display thing as
different parts of the world are used to different unit designations.

Nick, out of interest with this software, what is the German
abbreviation for seconds, sek (sekond), or sec.

And why do we see air pressure in BAR
instead of Pascals?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

David Billington wrote:

out of interest with this software, what is the German
abbreviation for seconds, sek (sekond), or sec.

Sekunde: "sek." or "s"


Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de

Many Americans are quite happy with metric units. Unfortunately, they
are subject to mandatory constraints. In a free market, many more
products in the supermarket would be labeled just in liters and grams.
Manufacturers such as Proctor and Gamble have said that they would use
metric-only labels if it were not for Federal laws such as the FPLA
making it illegal. Such laws are called 'Technical Barriers to Trade'
because it makes it difficult for products to cross international
boundaries even if customers want to buy them.

In US aviation, the FAA controls the pace of metrication by its rules.
The mandated unit was Fahrenheit up until 1996, then it changed to
Celsius.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Many Americans are quite happy with metric units. Unfortunately, they
are subject to mandatory constraints. In a free market, many more
products in the supermarket would be labeled just in liters and grams.

Not if they wanted to sell them.

I'm sure that most people here realize why the US never adopted the metric
system for everything. Until the last couple of decades, and even now, in
fact, the US market is so self-contained compared to other developed
countries that the pressures European countries felt to adopt a uniform
system (the UK agreed kicking and screaming, and they still kick a little --
witness the pint/pub fiasco that was decided by the EU last week) never
existed here.

Without market and political pressures, and with the supposed "advantages"
of the metric system applying mostly to specialized areas, consumers and
much of manufacturing just did the most economic thing, which was to stand
pat. As the Europeans, Australians, etc. here likely know by now, the US is
fully metricized in those fields in which it provides an economic or other
substantial advantage. Once you move beyond the fields in which most use of
physical units is confined to linear dimensions or volumes, metrics dominate
in the US.

I was once a big advocate for metrics but decades of questioning its
advantages in the marketplace has led me to realize we're doing the thing
that provides the best economic result. The cost of converting would be far
greater, I believe, than the slight friction it adds to trade. If that
changes, we'll finish converting to metrics, but not until it pays to do so.

--
Ed Huntress

"Nick Mueller" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Maybe you find a planet where a = 10 m/s^2. :-)

There probably is no such planet, which makes my point.

No, the point is different. You have to distinguish between force and
mass.
For some simple minded people (pun intended or not?) it is the same, but
it
ain't.

It works great in theory ...

It works even greater in practice!

For others, including the field of medicine, where
I've been writing for the past few years, it simply results in a lot of
clumsy derived units.

Have no insight into medicine at all.


It's a theoretically elegent system. By using those base units, the SI
committee has developed a system that is theoretically coherent and
conceptually minimalist, but which also forces you to keep things in your
head that are far abstracted from what you're actually measuring, or to
memorize the system without thought -- which obviates any "rational"
advantage the system may have, in much practical use.

The coherent system (why do you always say "theoretical", it *is*
coherent)
has a lot of advantages as soon as you start to make calculations.

I mean coherent according to physical theory, rather than to sense
experience. It's based on theories of fundamental physics rather than the
kinds of things we see and feel when we do most of our measuring in life.

And yes, if you're involved particularly in design work involving more than
diminsional measurement and you're doing calculations, it's a neat system --
particularly if you have enough knowledge of physics to be comfortable with
the derived and multi-dimensional units. For the rest of the world, the
advantages, if any, are slim or nonexistent.


A simple and cyclic example:
Your did some math and the result's unit is [kg * m / s^2]
Now what's that? It is force, so the unit is [N]. And how do you know?
By the formula f = m * a. If you do the check with units it is:
[N] = [kg] * [m/s^2]

Most people don't do the math. If they do, in the US or anywhere else,
they're probably using metric units and possibly SI units.


That system is really great as soon as your calculations are a single step
behind adding. Do a check with the units and you see whether you made some
nonsense or not.

Don't forget to double-check your decimal places. If people would stop using
that damned centimeter they'd have far fewer errors of that type. d8-)


If you do have a problem "converting" mass to force, simply multiply the
kg
by 10 and you do have Newton.

Arghh! I thought you were arguing for accuracy. Ten N does not equal a kg of
force. 9.80665 N equals a kg of force (by gravity, at the earth's surface at
the equator, anyway, which sure beats the hell out of the accuracy you get
when you "multiply the kg by 10"). It's one of those nice, neat,
whole-number relationships in the metric system, so useful when rocket
designers are calculating thrust-to-mass ratio. g


We're talking about the everyday measurements that make up the
vast majority of numerical evaluations made by people in the world.

Are you supposing to do the calculations in SI and then convert them to
imperial? Don't ask for the famous prove what the result is.

What famous proof? And what "result"? Most current "Imperial" measurements
are defined in terms of metric units.


For
them, defining the unit of force in terms of acceleration, when they're
interested in how big they'll have to make a support to keep a cistern
off
the ground,

Hmm ... I mean is someone is failing to understand the difference between
mass and force and isn't able to calculate the resulting force, will he be
able to properly dimension the legs (Euler's buckling resistance)? I bet
no.

Tell me, does the average consumer who weighs his kilogram of potatoes keep
in mind that he's actually measuring force, and that he's not actually
getting a kilogram of potatoes unless he's using a beam- or pan-balance? Do
they not use springs in the scales at grocery stores in Europe? Even if he
knows Newtons, is he fully aware of the difference between mass and force? I
bet no.


Or the other way round:
Does it help Joe Bar in calculating the stress of some odd-shaped column
when he is using odd units?
As soon as that Joe Bar wants to find out whether a screw is strong enough
to keep his trailer together, it doesn't help to work in pounds when he
considers the torque the screw is tightend with and the resulting stress
and clamping forces (that was a longish German sentence :-))

If Joe Bar is calculating the Euler's buckling resistance of columns, he is
not part of this discussion.



I don't wonder of anybody who doesn't agree but at the same time doesn't
understand the difference between mass and force.

I understand it quite well, thank you very much.

G Then it's OK! But wait ...

I only have to look at the domain-dependant units of pound, pondal,
pound
force and whatever to see what mess it is.

I don't know anyone who uses pondals, and the pound, both as a unit of
force and as a unit of mass, is quite handy within its domain.

I remember a discussion about a year ago. It was such a mess that I had to
bail out. And again "he pound, both as a unit of force and as a unit of
mass, is quite handy" is just quite confusing and will only result in
errors.

It can, if you're being fussy. But the errors are nothing like the ones you
get when you say to multiply the number of kilograms by 10 to get Newtons.

Nick, I wish I could summarize my points on this sufficiently to clear up
all of the arguments. It may surprise you to know that a big bottle of Coke
in the US is a 2-liter or 3-liter bottle. It is not a 2-quart bottle.
Furthermore, the engine in a Ford or Chevy is not identified on the trunk as
a 183 cubic inch engine; it's a 3-liter engine. Despite this we don't
encounter enough problems involving, say, the speed of light and the mass of
a banana to have much trouble with the dual system.

And so on. The US is not hidebound to the Imperial system. We just use it as
a matter of economic good sense. Given the economic filtering process that
free-market economics puts us through, you can be sure we'd be 100% metric
if it truly was an advantage. We're much better at that than any country in
Europe has been, although you do seem to be coming around to a fuller
appreciation of the useful power of markets.

And the people doing complex calculations with force, acceleration, and so
on are using metrics with few exceptions. As for the SI, it's a mixed bag,
in the US as well as in the rest of the world. There are a lot of holdouts
for CGS (usually expressed as "cgs," but who's editing...) everywhere in the
world.

--
Ed Huntress

..Thank you!

Those who pursue the metricattion road are mostly political and not creators
of things who must economize at every step of the way. A quater twenty
tap/die/drill/screw is a penny. A six MM with all the off-size drills and
taps make it cost a dollar. That's the bottom line.

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

A quater twenty tap/die/drill/screw is a penny.

I couldn't even buy that crap here without hunting around.
That's why I don't buy products with imperial screws.


A six MM ...

What is a MegaMega?


... with all the off-size drills and taps make it cost a dollar.

A 5mm drill (for M6) costs 35 cents.


That's the bottom line.

Now what's your point?


Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:04:19 GMT, Ted Frater wrote:

Mark Rand wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:37:15 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:



Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne



Standing alone with the aid of $2Billion per year in government subsidies!
Your tax dollars at work, a triumph of free market lobbying :-)

And with all that money they still can't manage to convert to the measurement
systems that the rest of the industrialised world uses. Quite sad really.

Mark Rand
RTFM
Its not that simple unfortunately,
Its not about conversion to what every one else in the industrial world
uses.
Its about all the suppliers of everything to Boeing, for example, all
the US nut and bolt makers, screw makers wire and plug makers etc that
supply the majority of US customers.
It would need for the whole of whats left of the US manufacturing base
to change all their manufacturing machinery and cnc programmes to suit
who?s requirements? They dont need to at the moment.
It will never happen.


It will happen, given time. Why? Because US manufacturers also buy and sell
from other countries. When Imperial components cost more than metric ones
because of lower production volumes and additional inventory costs, then the
American manufacturers will be at a competitive disadvantage. When a customer
has to buy non-standard tools to fit US fasteners, it becomes an item in the
purchasing decision. So eventually, Metric production will creep across the
US. As it does, sticking with imperial measure will become less and less
attractive. Add to this, undergraduates being taught science in metric measure
will take that with them and will see Imperial measure as clumsy. And so it
goes.

It's already happening isn't it? The auto industry is IIRC using more metric
components even on US vehicles. Of course The foreign branches of the US auto
manufacturers have been making pretty well entirely metric vehicles for a
couple of decades now.

I have no axe to grind one way or the other. In the workshop at home. I'll
stick with Imperial measure except when I'm working to metric dimensions. At
work we use Metric measure for everything except for where we are working to
Imperial dimensions (a 2 1/4" BSW Turbine half-joint bolt is unlikely to fit a
30 year old turbine if made with an ISO metric thread :-)


regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:04:19 GMT, Ted Frater
wrote:

Mark Rand wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:37:15 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:



Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and
not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the
problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at
them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA
rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne



Standing alone with the aid of $2Billion per year in government
subsidies!
Your tax dollars at work, a triumph of free market lobbying :-)

And with all that money they still can't manage to convert to the
measurement
systems that the rest of the industrialised world uses. Quite sad
really.

Mark Rand
RTFM
Its not that simple unfortunately,
Its not about conversion to what every one else in the industrial world
uses.
Its about all the suppliers of everything to Boeing, for example, all
the US nut and bolt makers, screw makers wire and plug makers etc that
supply the majority of US customers.
It would need for the whole of whats left of the US manufacturing base
to change all their manufacturing machinery and cnc programmes to suit
who?s requirements? They dont need to at the moment.
It will never happen.


It will happen, given time. Why? Because US manufacturers also buy and
sell
from other countries.

Mark, when I was in high school, in the early- and mid-60s, they told us
that the US would be 100% metric within ten years. Then we heard it again in
the '70s, after Caterpillar converted. Then the US car makers started their
tortuous, two-step conversion, and we heard it again.

It hasn't happened, obviously. Now, that being said, a lot of US
manufacturers make their products in metric dimensions and with metric
fasteners, and they have for 30 years. There is very little serious
machinery in production today that can't switch from inch to metric with the
push of a button.

When Imperial components cost more than metric ones
because of lower production volumes and additional inventory costs, then
the
American manufacturers will be at a competitive disadvantage. When a
customer
has to buy non-standard tools to fit US fasteners, it becomes an item in
the
purchasing decision.

Those factors have been in play for more than 40 years, and none of it has
happened.

So eventually, Metric production will creep across the
US. As it does, sticking with imperial measure will become less and less
attractive. Add to this, undergraduates being taught science in metric
measure
will take that with them and will see Imperial measure as clumsy. And so
it
goes.

I was a science student in the '60s and early '70s, and we were 100% metric
then. Which US is it you're talking about, anyway? d8-)

It's already happening isn't it? The auto industry is IIRC using more
metric
components even on US vehicles.

You're roughly 30 years late with that one.

Of course The foreign branches of the US auto
manufacturers have been making pretty well entirely metric vehicles for a
couple of decades now.

I think it's more like most of a century.


I have no axe to grind one way or the other. In the workshop at home. I'll
stick with Imperial measure except when I'm working to metric dimensions.
At
work we use Metric measure for everything except for where we are working
to
Imperial dimensions (a 2 1/4" BSW Turbine half-joint bolt is unlikely to
fit a
30 year old turbine if made with an ISO metric thread :-)

And beer in your pubs.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:08:49 -0400, Gerald Miller wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:15:28 -0400, john
wrote:



There are a number of other things to consider when it comes to aviation
and metric. Flight levels... in feet. Runway distances and aircraft
performance figures in the US are all in feet. All the aircraft
instruments are in feet, inches or lbs/sq. in. When you have a working
system you stay with it unless there is a vast improvment with a new
system.

Remember the Gimli Glider

It's the same as some countries using 50 cycle ac power when
60 cycles is a lot better.

John
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

A good example of why working in the same units that the rest of the world
uses will reduce problems :-).

To be fair, in the mid 70's a Viscount turbo-prop did a dead stick landing in
a farmer's field a couple of miles short of Exeter airport in the UK, IIRC The
Spanish airport had delivered 600lbs less fuel than the paperwork said. In
that case, it was probably simple incompetence.


Mark Rand
RTFM