On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:41:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

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.


Did you bother to read the quoted post that I was responding to before you
snipped it? Doesn't seem like it.

regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:29:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


And beer in your pubs.

I would have no problem with quaffing my draught ale by the half litre,
provided that it was a good real ale and had been carefully cellared at 55 deg
F. It would, of course, be illegal for the pub to sell it in that volume, that
law has been in place since 1699. I might complain of short measure if the
publican gave me a 16oz pint though :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:19:22 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:



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.

If the north american manufacturers don't adjust their mix to what
people want, they won't be around much longer anyhow.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:13:29 -0400, the renowned Gerald Miller
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:19:22 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:



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.

If the north american manufacturers don't adjust their mix to what
people want, they won't be around much longer anyhow.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

If you build the whole thing offshore you'll probably want to use
metric components unless your market requires Imperial fasteners or
compatibility with legacy parts is required. On custom parts, it
doesn't matter whether the threads are metric or Imperial, but the
standard part will likely be cheaper if you go with a standard M3 or
whatever rather than a 6-32.

I see designing in metric* as one of the keys to keeping the front end
of the manufacturing process "here". The back end is already gone, and
it ain't coming back.

* actually an example of designing to whatever components are most
available and economical at the manufacturing point, no matter how
uncomfortable that may be, rather than sticking with what is familiar.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:13:29 -0400, the renowned Gerald Miller
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:19:22 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:



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.

If the north american manufacturers don't adjust their mix to what
people want, they won't be around much longer anyhow.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

If you build the whole thing offshore you'll probably want to use
metric components unless your market requires Imperial fasteners or
compatibility with legacy parts is required. On custom parts, it
doesn't matter whether the threads are metric or Imperial, but the
standard part will likely be cheaper if you go with a standard M3 or
whatever rather than a 6-32.

I see designing in metric* as one of the keys to keeping the front end
of the manufacturing process "here". The back end is already gone, and
it ain't coming back.

* actually an example of designing to whatever components are most
available and economical at the manufacturing point, no matter how
uncomfortable that may be, rather than sticking with what is familiar.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

I am on the team developing a robotic device which we hope will help find
and destroy IEDs in our fight against terrorists. We are having a ball going
through all the catalogs with specifications in both systems trying to match
one to the other. For example a motor for sale boasts 65 Newtons while
another catalog boasts a motor with 10/inch/lbs torque at 180 RPM. I can
visualize ten pounds at the end of a rod attached to the shaft rotating at
180 RPM but damned if I can visualize the Newton thing. So why bother? I'll
go for the inch pound solution since it is visible. Let the rest of the
world wrestle with non-visializable dimensions if they want. Five ft. two
and eyes are blue... how many cms around the waist? and what cup size?

Mark Rand wrote:

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



Its the responsibity of the flight crew to verify that they have the
fuel on board that they need for the flight. I guess they were not
doing their job.

John

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:48:16 GMT, the renowned "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:

I am on the team developing a robotic device which we hope will help find
and destroy IEDs in our fight against terrorists.

Sounds interesting, and valuable, although I don't see the connection
with terrorists.

We are having a ball going
through all the catalogs with specifications in both systems trying to match
one to the other. For example a motor for sale boasts 65 Newtons while
another catalog boasts a motor with 10/inch/lbs torque at 180 RPM. I can
visualize ten pounds at the end of a rod attached to the shaft rotating at
180 RPM but damned if I can visualize the Newton thing. So why bother? I'll
go for the inch pound solution since it is visible. Let the rest of the
world wrestle with non-visializable dimensions if they want. Five ft. two
and eyes are blue... how many cms around the waist? and what cup size?

100gm of meat and/or cheese is about right for a sandwich.

A thou is big for precision work, a tenth a bit small, wheras 0.1mm or
0.05mm is about right.

100kg is a big guy, 50kg is a small gal

When I design in Solidworks I key in mm or inches interchangably or
even mixed (0.125" + 0.5mm, for a clearance dimension for example).

It's like you speaking Spanish, I'd imagine, a bit of effort but no
big deal, and you see benefits in the long run for a some work in the
short term. There are lots of people who say scr*w Spanish, let them
speak English if they want to do business, right? ;-)


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

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

Any "Bus Drivers" out there? I still want to know...

Did Boeing ever write that section of the flight manual covering
'All Engine Out" flight, the glide rate, optimum speeds, install
mechanical altimeters with rate of descent gauge, etc.? Did they ever
quantify the safety of side-slipping or other techniques you may need
to use in a dead-stick approach?

And one of the things Captain Bob Pearson mentions is that "Luckily
we were in a Boeing - you can't side-slip an Airbus, the computers
won't let you." Did Airbus ever correct that?

Murphy's Law Number (mumblety-seven...): When you ask about a rare
emergency and they say "Oh, you don't have to worry about optimum
glide speeds in a Jumbo Jet, since that can NEVER happen!" you can
rest assured that it in fact /can/ happen. And you're liable to be
the guinea pig that gets a front row seat to see how it turns out...

In EMT Class they told me I'd *never* witness a Grand Mal seizure
from the onset, so learning how to use (or improvise) a bite stick
wasn't really necessary... Two inside of a year.

-- Bruce --

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:13:54 -0700, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:



Murphy's Law Number (mumblety-seven...): When you ask about a rare
emergency and they say "Oh, you don't have to worry about optimum
glide speeds in a Jumbo Jet, since that can NEVER happen!" you can
rest assured that it in fact /can/ happen. And you're liable to be
the guinea pig that gets a front row seat to see how it turns out...

In EMT Class they told me I'd *never* witness a Grand Mal seizure
from the onset, so learning how to use (or improvise) a bite stick
wasn't really necessary... Two inside of a year.

-- Bruce --


Can be needed until the glycogen/glucose kicks in with a major hypoglycaemic
incident. DAMHIKT



Mark Rand
RTFM

Seems as though the Improvised Explosive Devices are the main killing
machines used by the terrorists... ok, militants. Our aim is to quickly
deploy a device capable of doing point work as a convoy goes into dangerous
territory.

I'm having a ball trying to relate specs from metric originated suppliers of
motors and controllers which really seem to be contrived and not really
honest metrication... but massaged from prior art in HP, inch, pound... the
so called Newton is a joke in the real world. Try as I might, I can't
visualize applying a force to a one kilogram bowling ball to accelerate it
to a speed of one meter per second par second. But I can see a horse lift
550 lbs one ft. in one second. No problem there. I know I can do a 1/20 HP
for a second or two. Easy to see. Impossible to visualize that rolling
kilogram bowling ball... on what surface? In zero gravity? out in space?
with a spring loaded plunger?

Oh well, live and learn something every day. This has been an exciting
thread!


"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:48:16 GMT, the renowned "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:

I am on the team developing a robotic device which we hope will help find
and destroy IEDs in our fight against terrorists.

Sounds interesting, and valuable, although I don't see the connection
with terrorists.

We are having a ball going
through all the catalogs with specifications in both systems trying to
match
one to the other. For example a motor for sale boasts 65 Newtons while
another catalog boasts a motor with 10/inch/lbs torque at 180 RPM. I can
visualize ten pounds at the end of a rod attached to the shaft rotating
at
180 RPM but damned if I can visualize the Newton thing. So why bother?
I'll
go for the inch pound solution since it is visible. Let the rest of the
world wrestle with non-visializable dimensions if they want. Five ft. two
and eyes are blue... how many cms around the waist? and what cup size?

100gm of meat and/or cheese is about right for a sandwich.

A thou is big for precision work, a tenth a bit small, wheras 0.1mm or
0.05mm is about right.

100kg is a big guy, 50kg is a small gal

When I design in Solidworks I key in mm or inches interchangably or
even mixed (0.125" + 0.5mm, for a clearance dimension for example).

It's like you speaking Spanish, I'd imagine, a bit of effort but no
big deal, and you see benefits in the long run for a some work in the
short term. There are lots of people who say scr*w Spanish, let them
speak English if they want to do business, right? ;-)


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

but massaged from prior art in HP, inch, pound... the
so called Newton is a joke in the real world. Try as I might, I can't
visualize applying a force to a one kilogram bowling ball to accelerate it
to a speed of one meter per second par second. But I can see a horse lift
550 lbs one ft. in one second. No problem there. I know I can do a 1/20 HP
for a second or two. Easy to see. Impossible to visualize that rolling
kilogram bowling ball... on what surface?

Man oh man! With your knowledge, it would be better for you to work as a
lumber jack!
Newton is force (lbf), not torque, torque is Nm (lbf x ft). Speed is
not "one meter per second par second" it's m/s (ft/s), ms^-2 is
acceleration(ft/s^2). HP is called kW in SI (and needs a factor to convert
to; about 0.745*) for HP). HP is not lbs x ft / s, but lbf x ft / s. Note
the difference?
And if you are so lame that you can make only 1/20 HP for a second or two,
you'd better not leave the bed.

*) But that would be too easy to multiply voltage by amperage to get the
input wattage of the motor. And maybe multiply it by its efficency. You
prefer converting it to HP first. *Much* easier. LOL!

And someone like you -who doesn't understand his own system- thinks he is in
the intellectual position to say that SI is ****?


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

"Nick Mueller" wrote in message
...
Wayne Lundberg wrote:

but massaged from prior art in HP, inch, pound... the
so called Newton is a joke in the real world. Try as I might, I can't
visualize applying a force to a one kilogram bowling ball to accelerate
it
to a speed of one meter per second par second. But I can see a horse
lift
550 lbs one ft. in one second. No problem there. I know I can do a 1/20
HP
for a second or two. Easy to see. Impossible to visualize that rolling
kilogram bowling ball... on what surface?

Man oh man! With your knowledge, it would be better for you to work as a
lumber jack!
Newton is force (lbf), not torque, torque is Nm (lbf x ft). Speed is
not "one meter per second par second" it's m/s (ft/s), ms^-2 is
acceleration(ft/s^2). HP is called kW in SI (and needs a factor to convert
to; about 0.745*) for HP). HP is not lbs x ft / s, but lbf x ft / s. Note
the difference?
And if you are so lame that you can make only 1/20 HP for a second or two,
you'd better not leave the bed.

*) But that would be too easy to multiply voltage by amperage to get the
input wattage of the motor. And maybe multiply it by its efficency. You
prefer converting it to HP first. *Much* easier. LOL!

And someone like you -who doesn't understand his own system- thinks he is
in
the intellectual position to say that SI is ****?


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

Never said it was ****. I just ask the question why a world leader in
technology would even think of spending the fortunes in converting all their
experience into a system that is just another system. Good or bad.

Tell me how many times you can lift a 55 lb anvil one foot in one second and
then tell me to stay in bed. That's only a tenth of a HP...

And I agree that my brain is becoming mush and that is why I seek
enlightenment through your wisdom and others in the newsgroup. I'm humble
enough to recognize the need. Thanks for sharing your insight, I do
appreciate reading your notes, albeit a bit arrogant.

Wayne

A liter isn't SI. How about that!
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/


Wayne Lundberg wrote:
"Nick Mueller" wrote in message
...
Wayne Lundberg wrote:

but massaged from prior art in HP, inch, pound... the
so called Newton is a joke in the real world. Try as I might, I can't
visualize applying a force to a one kilogram bowling ball to accelerate
it
to a speed of one meter per second par second. But I can see a horse
lift
550 lbs one ft. in one second. No problem there. I know I can do a 1/20
HP
for a second or two. Easy to see. Impossible to visualize that rolling
kilogram bowling ball... on what surface?
Man oh man! With your knowledge, it would be better for you to work as a
lumber jack!
Newton is force (lbf), not torque, torque is Nm (lbf x ft). Speed is
not "one meter per second par second" it's m/s (ft/s), ms^-2 is
acceleration(ft/s^2). HP is called kW in SI (and needs a factor to convert
to; about 0.745*) for HP). HP is not lbs x ft / s, but lbf x ft / s. Note
the difference?
And if you are so lame that you can make only 1/20 HP for a second or two,
you'd better not leave the bed.

*) But that would be too easy to multiply voltage by amperage to get the
input wattage of the motor. And maybe multiply it by its efficency. You
prefer converting it to HP first. *Much* easier. LOL!

And someone like you -who doesn't understand his own system- thinks he is
in
the intellectual position to say that SI is ****?


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

Never said it was ****. I just ask the question why a world leader in
technology would even think of spending the fortunes in converting all their
experience into a system that is just another system. Good or bad.

Tell me how many times you can lift a 55 lb anvil one foot in one second and
then tell me to stay in bed. That's only a tenth of a HP...

And I agree that my brain is becoming mush and that is why I seek
enlightenment through your wisdom and others in the newsgroup. I'm humble
enough to recognize the need. Thanks for sharing your insight, I do
appreciate reading your notes, albeit a bit arrogant.

Wayne



----== 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 =----

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
A liter isn't SI. How about that!

Yes. The SI folks prefer the much more rational and intuitive "cubic
decimeter," or "10^-3*m^3".

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
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 do not understand the grammar of that response. The FPLA forbids
Proctor and Gamble from selling metric-only products.



we'll finish converting to metrics, but not until it pays to do so.

Your analysis is one of the best I have seen but it omits the legal
barriers to metrication. Voluntary conversion is forbidden by law.
Companies like Proctor and Gamble want to offer metric-only products
right now. But the FPLA and other laws make metric-only products
illegal in the US.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:24:14 -0700, wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
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 do not understand the grammar of that response. The FPLA forbids
Proctor and Gamble from selling metric-only products.



we'll finish converting to metrics, but not until it pays to do so.

Your analysis is one of the best I have seen but it omits the legal
barriers to metrication. Voluntary conversion is forbidden by law.
Companies like Proctor and Gamble want to offer metric-only products
right now. But the FPLA and other laws make metric-only products
illegal in the US.


I assume that there is no problem at all with selling 1kg of sugar that is
also labeled as 2lb 3 1/4oz etc. That gets the punter used to the size of
metric quantities and makes the change to metric only labeling less
traumatic.Doesn't have to be instantaneous. 40 years is probably not
unreasonable to let people grow up with the ideas, and it's already happening.


Mark Rand
RTFM

wrote in message
ups.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:
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 do not understand the grammar of that response. The FPLA forbids
Proctor and Gamble from selling metric-only products.



we'll finish converting to metrics, but not until it pays to do so.

Your analysis is one of the best I have seen but it omits the legal
barriers to metrication. Voluntary conversion is forbidden by law.
Companies like Proctor and Gamble want to offer metric-only products
right now. But the FPLA and other laws make metric-only products
illegal in the US.

Well, you said "in a free market." I think that US consumers would be wary
of metric-only volumes and weights in many categories of products. So it
would be necessary to have both metric and Imperial measures printed on
bottles and containers to avoid losing those customers who wanted to know
how many ounces or pints, etc., they were buying.

In most categories that wouldn't be a high percentage. But it would be a
measurable loss of market share, and that always hurts.

Even though 2 liters is slightly more volume than 2 quarts, people I've
talked to believe that the liter-based volumes are a ploy to sell less for
more. So printing the Imperial volumes under the liter volumes probably
helps Coke and Pepsi avoid the skepticism. I don't think, in other words,
that Coke and Pepsi would print only the liters on the bottles if they were
allowed to do so.

--
Ed Huntress

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:24:14 -0700, wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
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 do not understand the grammar of that response. The FPLA forbids
Proctor and Gamble from selling metric-only products.



we'll finish converting to metrics, but not until it pays to do so.

Your analysis is one of the best I have seen but it omits the legal
barriers to metrication. Voluntary conversion is forbidden by law.
Companies like Proctor and Gamble want to offer metric-only products
right now. But the FPLA and other laws make metric-only products
illegal in the US.


I assume that there is no problem at all with selling 1kg of sugar that is
also labeled as 2lb 3 1/4oz etc. That gets the punter used to the size of
metric quantities and makes the change to metric only labeling less
traumatic.Doesn't have to be instantaneous. 40 years is probably not
unreasonable to let people grow up with the ideas, and it's already
happening.

Yes to the first part, and yes to the second part, to a modest degree. I
think that most consumers only care if they're shopping for value in terms
of cost-per-weight or cost-per-volume. There are some of those, and it
varies by category.

However, we're used to seeing metric measures now, as long as the Imperial
measures are somewhere on the container.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


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.

I don't have an opinion on english versus metric in products, but I will
tell one small war story from the software realm:

Some years ago, on a project to build a very large UHF early-warning
radar (these are ten-story buildings with antenna patches at least 50
feet in diameter, with ranges measured in the thousands of miles into
space), the issue of units came up early in the development. I
suggested use of the SI system in the software, and this was accepted.
The rationale was that having a consistent-physics-based system of units
would save money by reducing errors in the software (~600,000 lines of
C++). The exception was that many kinds of data needed by the software
comes in legacy units of measure, so in these cases we convert to SI
internally as soon as possible, so the bulk of the software uses only SI
units.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


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.

I don't have an opinion on english versus metric in products, but I will
tell one small war story from the software realm:

Some years ago, on a project to build a very large UHF early-warning
radar (these are ten-story buildings with antenna patches at least 50
feet in diameter, with ranges measured in the thousands of miles into
space), the issue of units came up early in the development. I
suggested use of the SI system in the software, and this was accepted.
The rationale was that having a consistent-physics-based system of units
would save money by reducing errors in the software (~600,000 lines of
C++). The exception was that many kinds of data needed by the software
comes in legacy units of measure, so in these cases we convert to SI
internally as soon as possible, so the bulk of the software uses only SI
units.

That sounds perfectly sensible, and I would be alarmed if you told us the
decision was to use anything else. In fact, I find it remarkable that any
science or the loftier realms of engineering use anything else, after most
sciences switched in the 1960s or even earlier, in some cases.

Apparently there are some stragglers.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
(...)I don't think, in other words,
that Coke and Pepsi would print only the liters on the bottles if they were
allowed to do so.

I just noticed how painlessly we adopted the liter as a unit of measure
for cola and how easily intuitive that unit is, in the U.S. now.

--Winston

"Winston" wrote in message
news:15UIi.10$9r4.7@trnddc04...
Ed Huntress wrote:
(...)I don't think, in other words, that Coke and Pepsi would print only
the liters on the bottles if they were allowed to do so.

I just noticed how painlessly we adopted the liter as a unit of measure
for cola and how easily intuitive that unit is, in the U.S. now.

--Winston

Yeah. It's a little more than a quart. d8-)

Members of this NG are hardly representative, but I think that most of us
probably are comfortable with either system of measure. When I'm doing
calculations these days I have to look everything up to remind myself,
anyway.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


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.

I don't have an opinion on english versus metric in products, but I will
tell one small war story from the software realm:

Some years ago, on a project to build a very large UHF early-warning
radar (these are ten-story buildings with antenna patches at least 50
feet in diameter, with ranges measured in the thousands of miles into
space), the issue of units came up early in the development. I
suggested use of the SI system in the software, and this was accepted.
The rationale was that having a consistent-physics-based system of units
would save money by reducing errors in the software (~600,000 lines of
C++). The exception was that many kinds of data needed by the software
comes in legacy units of measure, so in these cases we convert to SI
internally as soon as possible, so the bulk of the software uses only SI
units.

That sounds perfectly sensible, and I would be alarmed if you told us the
decision was to use anything else. In fact, I find it remarkable that any
science or the loftier realms of engineering use anything else, after most
sciences switched in the 1960s or even earlier, in some cases.

Apparently there are some stragglers.

We were starting from scratch, so we had the luxury of choice. If we
had been upgrading something without replacement, no way could we have
switched.

Joe Gwinn

Mark Rand wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:24:14 -0700, wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
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 do not understand the grammar of that response. The FPLA forbids
Proctor and Gamble from selling metric-only products.



we'll finish converting to metrics, but not until it pays to do so.

Your analysis is one of the best I have seen but it omits the legal
barriers to metrication. Voluntary conversion is forbidden by law.
Companies like Proctor and Gamble want to offer metric-only products
right now. But the FPLA and other laws make metric-only products
illegal in the US.

I assume that there is no problem at all with selling 1kg of sugar that is
also labeled as 2lb 3 1/4oz etc. That gets the punter used to the size of
metric quantities and makes the change to metric only labeling less
traumatic.Doesn't have to be instantaneous. 40 years is probably not
unreasonable to let people grow up with the ideas, and it's already happening.


Sugar is usually sold in multiples of 5 pounds so they would have to
buy three tiny bags if they do it your way.

A lot of stuff sold in the US already has the metric equivalent marked
after the pounds, ounces or fluid ounces.


--
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

Steve Austin wrote:

Winston wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
(...)I don't think, in other words, that Coke and Pepsi would print
only the liters on the bottles if they were allowed to do so.

I just noticed how painlessly we adopted the liter as a unit of measure
for cola and how easily intuitive that unit is, in the U.S. now.

--Winston

OK. How many cups in a liter?


1 liter = 4.22675282 US cups


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GWYA&q=cups+in+a+liter&btnG=Searc h


--
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

The best was the compliance to 4.7625 IIRC for a 3/16 !

Just conversion to get to compliance.
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/


Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:31:25 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:

That's what makes my blood boil. To think that Pelosi or the queen will
force us into metrication by dictum. It's been tried and tried and tried.
But those of us who believe in American supremacy will not bend. Thank God!

OK... got carried away there. Delete last sentence if it offends you.

Wayne


You should explain your theories on metrication to the folks at the GM
plant and see how it fits in.

There's lots of room in the human brain for learning a new thing or
two. Like it or not, metric is all around you.

It's the great thing about standards! There are so many to choose
from! :-)

Just another standard.

Cheers
Trevor Jones


I wish someone would tell the Big Three to make up their minds.

I need both standard and metric to work on just about any car made
after 1985

Gunner


----== 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 =----

Steve Austin wrote:
Winston wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)I don't think, in other words, that Coke and Pepsi would print
only the liters on the bottles if they were allowed to do so.


I just noticed how painlessly we adopted the liter as a unit of
measure for cola and how easily intuitive that unit is, in the U.S. now.

--Winston


OK. How many cups in a liter?

A little over four.
I just Googled 4.2 so I was a little off.

About 9216 drams per firkin

What's your point?

My point is that because we in the U.S. are comfortable buying cola
drinks in 1 liter bottles, we now have an intuitive grasp of 'how much'
one liter is. The implication being that, as with hot tubs, immersion
begets familiarity.

This is a Good Thing even if cola is not.

--Winston

It might have been a bargaining point, but I doubt it.

We all lost a lot of famous inventor names for the work they did in that
grand experiment of making 4 versions of metric and scientific measurements
into one. SI.

It caused many a book to be re-written.

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/


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
A liter isn't SI. How about that!

Yes. The SI folks prefer the much more rational and intuitive "cubic
decimeter," or "10^-3*m^3".

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



----== 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 =----

Yea - liter Coke, three liter of Coke and all of that non SI but metric stuff.
Booze is also in Liters not 1/5's of a Gallon.

What kicks me - the U.S.A. teaspoon volume value does not equal that of
Canada's. Different sizes of spoons :-)


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/


Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Mark Rand wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:24:14 -0700, wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
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 do not understand the grammar of that response. The FPLA forbids
Proctor and Gamble from selling metric-only products.



we'll finish converting to metrics, but not until it pays to do so.
Your analysis is one of the best I have seen but it omits the legal
barriers to metrication. Voluntary conversion is forbidden by law.
Companies like Proctor and Gamble want to offer metric-only products
right now. But the FPLA and other laws make metric-only products
illegal in the US.
I assume that there is no problem at all with selling 1kg of sugar that is
also labeled as 2lb 3 1/4oz etc. That gets the punter used to the size of
metric quantities and makes the change to metric only labeling less
traumatic.Doesn't have to be instantaneous. 40 years is probably not
unreasonable to let people grow up with the ideas, and it's already happening.


Sugar is usually sold in multiples of 5 pounds so they would have to
buy three tiny bags if they do it your way.

A lot of stuff sold in the US already has the metric equivalent marked
after the pounds, ounces or fluid ounces.



----== 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 =----

Right - that was for Canada and Mexico. One thing - a Liter is not SI metric.
It is 'old school' metric.

But the high up managers are 'old school' so we understand!

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/


Winston wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
(...)I don't think, in other words, that Coke and Pepsi would print
only the liters on the bottles if they were allowed to do so.

I just noticed how painlessly we adopted the liter as a unit of measure
for cola and how easily intuitive that unit is, in the U.S. now.

--Winston

----== 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 =----

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Right - that was for Canada and Mexico. One thing - a Liter is not SI
metric.
It is 'old school' metric.

But the high up managers are 'old school' so we understand!

Martin

..
You mean one liter is no longer one thousand cubic centimeters weighing one
gram each so a liter of water is one kilogram, and there are a thousand
millimeters to a meter? And one calorie is one cubic centimeter of water
heated by one degree Celsius? And one Newton is the force required to move
one kilogram of mass to a velocity of one meter per second per second? And
the circumference of the earth at the Equator is not 40,000 kilometers just
to do away with the messy Babylonian standard of 360 degrees? What happened?

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Right - that was for Canada and Mexico. One thing - a Liter is not SI
metric.
It is 'old school' metric.

But the high up managers are 'old school' so we understand!

Martin

.
You mean one liter is no longer one thousand cubic centimeters weighing
one
gram each so a liter of water is one kilogram, and there are a thousand
millimeters to a meter?

The liter is not a "legal" SI unit. The SI unit is the cubic decimeter. And
"weight" is an ambiguous term that is not accepted under the standard.

And one calorie is one cubic centimeter of water
heated by one degree Celsius?

The calorie is not a "legal" SI unit, either.

Use of the SI vs. cgm continues to be unsettled in many fields.

--
Ed Huntress

Various authors wrote:
I assume that there is no problem at all with selling 1kg of sugar
that is also labeled as 2lb 3 1/4oz

Correct. For products controlled by the FPLA, both must be present.


Sugar is usually sold in multiples of 5 pounds so they would have
to buy three tiny bags if they do it your way.

The container size and the text on the label are related but distinct
issues. The FPLA law only relates to labels. As far as I know, sugar
conainer size is not controlled by law.

If a manufacturer/importer offers a product with a metric-only label
and customers will not buy it, that should be up to the marketplace.

You can read what manufacturers are saying if you look for
'Permissible Metric-Only Labeling' on the page:
http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasure...c/mpo_home.cfm


A lot of stuff sold in the US already has the metric equivalent marked
after the pounds, ounces or fluid ounces.

Yes. That is because the FPLA controls most (but not all) of the
prepacked things in the supermarket.

Milk is controlled by the USDA. They mandate non-metric labels. Metric
is merely optional. Metric-only milk labels are illegal.

Wine and liquor are controlled by the TTB. They mandate metric labels.
Non-metric only labels would be illegal.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Right - that was for Canada and Mexico. One thing - a Liter is not SI
metric.
It is 'old school' metric.

But the high up managers are 'old school' so we understand!

Martin

.
You mean one liter is no longer one thousand cubic centimeters weighing
one
gram each so a liter of water is one kilogram, and there are a thousand
millimeters to a meter?

The liter is not a "legal" SI unit. The SI unit is the cubic decimeter.
And
"weight" is an ambiguous term that is not accepted under the standard.

And one calorie is one cubic centimeter of water
heated by one degree Celsius?

The calorie is not a "legal" SI unit, either.

Use of the SI vs. cgm continues to be unsettled in many fields.

--
Ed Huntress


Wow! What an eye opener. It would appear to even a blind person that whoever
is running this SI operation is self destructing. They got a toe-hold, now
they want the moon!

Same thing is happening with the ISO 9000 debacle --- got a good start, now
stalling because it was mostly hype to those who actually certified -- good
for press releases, lousy for the folk on the factory floor. I know. I was
there.

So... bottom line.... the metrication movement must rely on traditional
inch/lb/hp standards to even be credible. So... why bother changing a
working system. My original question.

Wayne

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Right - that was for Canada and Mexico. One thing - a Liter is not
SI
metric.
It is 'old school' metric.

But the high up managers are 'old school' so we understand!

Martin

.
You mean one liter is no longer one thousand cubic centimeters weighing
one
gram each so a liter of water is one kilogram, and there are a
thousand
millimeters to a meter?

The liter is not a "legal" SI unit. The SI unit is the cubic decimeter.
And
"weight" is an ambiguous term that is not accepted under the standard.

And one calorie is one cubic centimeter of water
heated by one degree Celsius?

The calorie is not a "legal" SI unit, either.

Use of the SI vs. cgm continues to be unsettled in many fields.

--
Ed Huntress


Wow! What an eye opener. It would appear to even a blind person that
whoever
is running this SI operation is self destructing. They got a toe-hold, now
they want the moon!

Same thing is happening with the ISO 9000 debacle --- got a good start,
now
stalling because it was mostly hype to those who actually certified --
good
for press releases, lousy for the folk on the factory floor. I know. I was
there.

So... bottom line.... the metrication movement must rely on traditional
inch/lb/hp standards to even be credible. So... why bother changing a
working system. My original question.

Ha! Well, I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that they have had mixed success
in "cleaning up" the metric system itself. There are units that are in
common use (kgm, for kilogram [mass]; calorie; liter; micron), for the same
reason many of our inch/Imperial units are in common use: they relate to
experience of the senses, or they apply a single dimension to a commonly
used unit when the SI demands multiple-dimension units.

Converting the world from cgs to SI remains a work in progress, after close
to 50 years.

--
Ed Huntress

The thousand cubic centimeter is it. cm^3 The liter name itself is not
allowed in metric.

"revolution" isn't SI but allowed to be used with it.
right angle, degree, grad, minute, second. All non SI.
mho, current/circular mil, franklin, faraday, watthour, dyne, watt, newton, BTU,
therm, megaton TNT (4184 Terajoule) , frigorie, erg, electronvolt, watthour
calorie.
the electronvolt can be used but not SI.
dyne, angstrom, fermi, micron, caliber, point, pica, astronomical unit,
parsec, angstrom, bohr, fermi, lambert, gilbert, oersted maxwell, gauss, gamma,
bel, neper, bar, rad, Rankine, calorie, c, knot, poise, stokes, liter, and lambda.

There are many others that were specifically Imperial or American or British.
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/


Wayne Lundberg wrote:
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Right - that was for Canada and Mexico. One thing - a Liter is not SI
metric.
It is 'old school' metric.

But the high up managers are 'old school' so we understand!

Martin

.
You mean one liter is no longer one thousand cubic centimeters weighing one
gram each so a liter of water is one kilogram, and there are a thousand
millimeters to a meter? And one calorie is one cubic centimeter of water
heated by one degree Celsius? And one Newton is the force required to move
one kilogram of mass to a velocity of one meter per second per second? And
the circumference of the earth at the Equator is not 40,000 kilometers just
to do away with the messy Babylonian standard of 360 degrees? What happened?



----== 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 =----

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

Same thing is happening with the ISO 9000 debacle


You are NEVER to speak of this again! The meetings! The endless,
mind numbing meetings! Then the idiots conducting quarterly audits!!!!
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--
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

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wayne Lundberg" wrote in message
...

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...

Right - that was for Canada and Mexico. One thing - a Liter is not SI

metric.

It is 'old school' metric.

But the high up managers are 'old school' so we understand!

Martin


.
You mean one liter is no longer one thousand cubic centimeters weighing
one
gram each so a liter of water is one kilogram, and there are a thousand
millimeters to a meter?

The liter is not a "legal" SI unit. The SI unit is the cubic decimeter.

And

"weight" is an ambiguous term that is not accepted under the standard.


And one calorie is one cubic centimeter of water
heated by one degree Celsius?

The calorie is not a "legal" SI unit, either.

Use of the SI vs. cgm continues to be unsettled in many fields.

--
Ed Huntress



Wow! What an eye opener. It would appear to even a blind person that whoever
is running this SI operation is self destructing. They got a toe-hold, now
they want the moon!

Same thing is happening with the ISO 9000 debacle --- got a good start, now
stalling because it was mostly hype to those who actually certified -- good
for press releases, lousy for the folk on the factory floor. I know. I was
there.

So... bottom line.... the metrication movement must rely on traditional
inch/lb/hp standards to even be credible. So... why bother changing a
working system. My original question.

Wayne





And they still use Hectares to measure acreage in France and other parts
of the world.

John

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

The thousand cubic centimeter is it. cm^3 The liter name itself is not
allowed in metric.

"revolution" isn't SI but allowed to be used with it.
right angle, degree, grad, minute, second. All non SI.
mho, current/circular mil, franklin, faraday, watthour, dyne, watt,
newton, BTU,
therm, megaton TNT (4184 Terajoule) , frigorie, erg, electronvolt, watthour
calorie.
the electronvolt can be used but not SI.
dyne, angstrom, fermi, micron, caliber, point, pica, astronomical unit,
parsec, angstrom, bohr, fermi, lambert, gilbert, oersted maxwell, gauss,
gamma,
bel, neper, bar, rad, Rankine, calorie, c, knot, poise, stokes, liter,
and lambda.

There are many others that were specifically Imperial or American or
British.
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/


You left out rch units.

John

Ed Huntress wrote:

Ha! Well, I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that they have had mixed success
in "cleaning up" the metric system itself. There are units that are in
common use (kgm, for kilogram [mass]; calorie; liter; micron), for the
same reason many of our inch/Imperial units are in common use: they relate
to experience of the senses, or they apply a single dimension to a
commonly used unit when the SI demands multiple-dimension units.

Ah, you are confusing things!
SI-units are the smallest possible set of units to do all the calculations.
Metric units are based on the SI-units. They do have a few "shortcuts" like
the liter or bar (= kPa). F.e., the liter is clearly derived from SI (1
dm^3). But nothing like kgm, as kg is already mass.
The micron is not a new unit, it is just an lazy abbrev. of micrometer (µm).

Some old non-SI-non-metric units seem to be more persistent. Like calorie or
HP. Calorie only for nutrition, HP almost only for cars.

And coming back to SI and liter. As soon as you do make math with it, the
liter gets unhandy. So you'll convert it as soon as you write down its
value.
Example, that also shows the advantage of the factors-of-ten-thing:
Volume = 4.2 l = 4.2 dm^3 = 4.2 * 10^-3 m^3

And an example (verbose) to do math with the units:
If I want to know the height of water poured onto 1m^2 (with the values from
above)

height = Volume / area = 4.2 * 10^-3 m^3 / 1 m^2
Units: m^3 / m^2 = m^3 * m^-2 = m
Result: 4.2 * 10^-3 m = 4.2 mm

That's elegant! No pocket calculator involved.


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