Sidebar Sidebar
  • You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

The Metric System and the US... thoughts?

I suspect it was the commercial industry that ended the push to Metric. I can understand why. I've built a small machine shop equipped with a lathe, both manual and CNC mills, and a complete host of tooling. I'd be looking at $20 to $30 grandages to fully convert my humble little shop.

Maybe your bathroom scale shows kg? Do your kitchen scales show grams, liters, and ounces?

Wasn't Regan that disbanded the metric board due to cost cutting measures?

Anyway, it's very expensive to make a real and complete switch and congress not making it mandatory are the reasons why we have not switched.
 
w9cll said:
When mesureing things I tend to use the metric system over ours, I find it easier.
Click to expand...

When measuring I generally use feet/inches unless it works out to something odd and then metric may be easier. When dividing something up for even spaces it is often a lot easier to space them at 11 cm instead of 4 11/32 inches for example. Adding up a bunch of different lengths is a LOT easier when there are a bunch of odd fractions involved. The biggest resistance to switching is in change itself not so much what the end result is. Most people, especially the older ones, tend to resist anything that is new or different regardless if it is better or not. To them better is familiarity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Just think of the fun you can have with the not so smart people. Hey Fred, will you grab my adjustable wrench for me, no not that one the metric one. :D
 
The Bruce said:
Um, well, since Americans never had their own system to begin with, wouldn't it be moderately neato if they simply got onboard to what 99% of the rest of the world was doing?

You know, there was a time in human history when all numerical calculations of time and space were done in this ancient thing called Roman Numerals (yes, Roman Numerals MCVLIII). We don't use this system to any real extent anymore because Arabic numerals greatly simplified things (that, and the fact that the Romans hadn't yet developed the concept of zero). Likewise, the metric system simplifies things over the English and Imperial systems (which almost nobody uses anymore). So why hang onto it? Some strange devotion to fractional math? I'll sit around a camp fire and reduce, add, subtract, multiply, and divide fractions with the best of 'em, but I don't understand the point of doing so if it isn't necessary (ask your parents about the long-abolished practice of doing addition, subtraction, multiplication, and long division using Roman Numerals -- it'll make your mind bleed).

http://www.rainbowresource.com/products/031093.jpg

Come on, kids, grab your abacus and let's start crunching numbers!
Click to expand...

MCVLIII? Doesn't appear to be a good Roman numeral. MCLVIII would be 1,158.
 
It's a game of centimeters said no one. Ever. Let's stop this ridiculousness.

Personal foul face mask. 13.716 meters. Repeat first down.

I think not.
 
Captain Kilowatt said:
How in the name of God is it unamerican? It's not baseball or apple pie.

So would I since 60 mph is 96.5 km/hr and is thus faster than 89 km/hr. Actually using the metric system for speed should appeal to CBers running amps and such as it means dealing with larger numbers to describe the same thing thus they will think they are going faster than they really are. I suppose then someone will start a discussion about Dosey versus Bird speedometers. :D


No different than most of the rest of the world including us back in 1973. Nobody ever lost an eye or was killed over it.
Click to expand...

The 'Apple Pie' phrase seemed appropriate this morning but I'd knew I'd catch some flak for that. We're used to cubic inches describing our auto engines and various other things. I'm not against metrics per-say. Yes,I boo-booed on the 89kph which should be 55 mph. My work day started at 2:30 this morning so I wasn't firing on all cylinders.
As far as tools go,I never did like all of the standard wrenches and sockets that were in fractions except for 3/8-3/4" ones. Nowadays my standard(useless) tools sit idly by but they make my tool box appear fuller.
I was hoping you were going to comment on the Gimli Glider story. Good thing the pilot flew gliders as a hobby. :D
 
I once worked on a semisubmersible that was built in Singapore, upgraded on transit stateside by some Brits, and worked in the states. It had metric, some British nuts and bolts here and there, and SAE. Poor old mechanic had to tote two 5 gallon buckets of tools to work on anything or make multiple trips.
 
Lil'Yeshua said:
The 'Apple Pie' phrase seemed appropriate this morning but I'd knew I'd catch some flak for that. We're used to cubic inches describing our auto engines and various other things. I'm not against metrics per-say. Yes,I boo-booed on the 89kph which should be 55 mph. My work day started at 2:30 this morning so I wasn't firing on all cylinders.
As far as tools go,I never did like all of the standard wrenches and sockets that were in fractions except for 3/8-3/4" ones. Nowadays my standard(useless) tools sit idly by but they make my tool box appear fuller.
I was hoping you were going to comment on the Gimli Glider story. Good thing the pilot flew gliders as a hobby. :D
Click to expand...

REALLY? Every US car dealer website I have looked at quotes engine size in liters and not cubic inches. While talking on the radio I always here people tell me about the new car/truck they bought with the high performance 5.0 liter (or whatever) engine. I think as far as engine sizes are concerned the cubic inch has long been lost to the liter or CC designation. When was the last time motorcycles were stated in Cu.In rather than CC?

As for the Gimli Glider, yeah that was a screw up in converting some measurements. The fuel gauges were out of service however a perfectly acceptable procedure was to dip the tanks and compute fuel volume. Someone measured in centimeters and calculated the fuel based on inches. The aircraft had less than half the fuel they thought it had. The fact that the pilot was an experienced glider pilot and the co-pilot actually served in the Royal Canadian Air Force and had at one time been stationed at what was then RCAF Station Gimli. Unbeknownst to him however the base had been closed down and the runway converted to a drag race strip.Events were going on there at the time of the landing.

Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
CK,you got a point there. I've been running concrete all day today and haven't had the time to form a coherent thought on the subject other than a smattering of memories from days gone bye. Too busy. It's been a good long while since anybody's referred to engine in cubic inches. I always convert metric into standard such as in the case when I'm checking out 10&11 meter antennas online and on my automobiles engine size just to see how many squirrels are under the hood.
 
Us 16.387 as the conversion factor when going from CC's to cu.in or the other way around. Eg. my truck has a 5.7 liter engine which is 5700CC. 5700/ 16.387= 347.5 cu.in or basically what is called a 350.
 
Cubic inches
64' Pontiac Lemans: 326
68' Buick Gran Sport: 350
64' Pontiac Bonneville: 389
81' Chevy stepside(inline six,3 on the tree and a Rochester Varijet carb: 250.1983279428816
= 27 mpg
00' Chevy Tracker 4 Cyl : 122.0479648501861 = 31 mpg
04' Chevy Tracker V6 :152.5599560627327 = 25 mpg
09' Nissan Versa 4 Cyl : 61.02398242509306 =42 mpg
I haven't had a car that gets the fuel mileage my Versa gets since I bought new a 81' Chevy Chevette Scooter(41 mpg)
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    727.9 KB · Views: 172
2012 Toyota Tundra Crew Max 5.7 liter/345 cu.in. 17-20 mpg depending on city/hwy and our gallons are 25% larger than yours. :cry: On the other hand the power and performance versus style and comfort ratio is :p:
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ BJ radionut:
  • @ BJ radionut:
  • @ Wildcat27:
    Hello I have a old school 2950 receives great on all modes and transmits great on AM but no transmit on SSB. Does anyone have any idea?
  • @ BJ radionut:
  • @ ButtFuzz:
    Good evening from Sunny Salem! What’s shaking?


      Top Bottom
      Back