Got it. And that does make sense.
“I still remember years ago when the pharmaceutical industry used “grains” from the old “avoidupois” system.”
They still do, as a sidebar to the metric measurement. We still use grains to measure some other things, things you see every day, and it’s not just an “avoidupois” unit.
TSM, do you really think I would be advocating updating legacy aircraft? I was responding only to your comment on not seeing an issue with two different systems. The point I make is it is costly and inefficient to maintain two different systems going forward. I would think your extensive manufacturing background would support that position. The tools are only one aspect of inefficiency …
I think the point may be that you would need to metricize the manufacturing base and maintain THOSE two systems going forward.
It should be noted that British Apache helicopters have Rolls-Royce engines.
yes, we can continue with multiple sets of tools to handle different sized connectors, treating each as different Hardware altogether. A reasonable argument when working on a generation old B52. In that case, it is more efficient. I would argue that the biggest welfare state is the US military and a necessary part of it’s success in that role is an element of inefficiency. When you save too much in one place, you can put someone out of a job in another. Just another warped way of looking at at the “inch”.
TT, the real problem for me is in the manufacturing machinery, tooling, and measuring equipment that’s in inches, and needs to remain so to continue to support legacy (I like that term) aircraft, tank, guns, etc. etc. Mandating metric on all future orders for new items would result in enormous costs for those countless manufacturing houses serving the DOD market, who continues buying legacy parts. Going to metric with a micrometer or a drop indicator is easy. It’s been many, meny years since I’ve seen one that didn;t read in either inches or metric anyway. But milling machines, tooling, stampings, casting dies, multiaxis CNC laths, this stuff is major capital investment. A stamping die along can cost 5 figures.
If the market deems metric to be cost effective, it’ll happen automatically. If not, it won’t. Let it happen naturally. In those market segments where it does not happen, it’ll be because it wasn’t cost efective.
The system of “inches” was never broken to begin with. It was just a different method of measuring. Globalization brought conversion into the car industry, but that doesn;t mean it’s better for other industries. One cannot induce that.
Hey Doc, the arms industry still uses “grains”. How big is your slug? How much powder are you loadiing? It’s all in grains.
Mountainbike; I had the pleasure of being in the cockpit of a commercial airliner and chatting with the pilot and co-pilot. I was surprised they still measure their airspeed in knots!, but of course display the trip chart in the passenger compartment in miles per hour or kilometers per hour.
I’m told in England they finally will stop measuring a person’s weight in “stones”.
My wife has many international cookbooks, and she has all the weight conversion charts pasted on the inside of the cupboard door. She also has a “chef’s converter calculator” , to quickly convert quantities and volumes.
The interesting thing about North American cookbooks and European ones is that the quantities here are always in volume (quarts, cups, teaspoons, tablespoons, etc) while those in Europe call for solid ingredients in WEIGHT! Weighing stuff is much more tedious and messy than measuring by cups, tablespoons, etc.
TSM, your reasoning about maintaining the legacy equipment is exactly why the military has gotten so far behind in certain critical technologies. For example, air to air missiles. The frequency used by the radars in service when the first air to air, radar guided missile was developed is still in use today. Every time a new generation fighter jet is produced, it has to use the old frequency because it has to be able to carry the missiles already in inventory. When a new missile is developed, it has to use the old frequencies because it has to be compatible with the older aircraft.
If modern, more efficient radar frequencies could be used, the weight of the missiles could be lightened by several hundred pounds and at least a 1000 lbs could be shaved off the weight of the fighter. It would also result in a quantum leap in reliability and accuracy. They need to co develop the next generation of fighters and missiles with no requirement for backward compatibility.
Doc, not if you pull out the cook’s scale instead of the measuring cups.
Six of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.
Keith, that isn’t about metrification, that’s about frequencies used. There’s no problem whatsoever creating a rack that’ll mount in inches while accepting metrically dimensioned missiles. That isn;t even difficult.
I understand what you’re saying about the inverse relationship between frequecy and size, but I’m not sure that’s relevant here. I think the frequecies are driven by other factors. Said differently, frequency drives size, not the other way around.
Its not the frequencies I am talking about, its the mindset of backward compatibility, or supporting the old stuff. Its not just radar frequencies, it everything. I dozens of other examples, none of which have anything to do with the metric system or cars. Its the mindset that bothers me and it is the mindset that is holding the military back technologically. Our military used to be the technology leader that spawned a lot of civilian applications, industries and jobs. Now it can’t keep up, not because technology is moving so fast, but because of the mindset in the systems commands.
In fact, the development of systems commands, which was an Air Force development, was initially very efficient at introducing new technologies to the military. It was a catalyst for many advances, now it has become the biggest impediment.
“modern, more efficient radar frequencies”
When did we discover/invent those frequencies? Clearly there’s more to the story. Could you explain the difference? Thanks.
I believe it is generally accepted by those who understand it, is a better, easier to understand, system. The debate is not about which to use, but the problem is about the change. If we could take half the US (east and west of the Mississippi River) and forced a change on one half and maintained our messy mix on the other half, then waited two or three generations, I suspect no one would be in favor of changing back to that crazy system that they used in grandpa’s day.
Comments?
I think there’re actually a few debates intermingled here.
One is the issue of whether the metric system is really better than the inches/feet/meters system from a technical standpoint (engineering, manufacturing, etc.). I honestly don’t believe is is better, just different.
Another is the issue of whether it’s better from a business standpoint. In some industries, such as automotive, it clearly is, and in those industries the market has already effected the change. In some, those that serve the “legacy” market (damn, I LIKE that word!) it clearly is not. In many industries such as construction, it clearly is not. I believe in letting the markets decide.
Still another is the issue of requiring it, either by broad mandate or by mandating it on new orders. I’m against this. I see no “upside” to doing so, and lots of “downside”. And there’s also the issue of is it the governments job to force us to do thing such as this where there’s no national security interest involved? I believe the government has no business enacting such a mandate, wither directly or indirectly.
Was the system grandpa used crazy? I think not. It worked fine for centuries, nay, millenia. Were it crazy, it could not have.
littlemouse, that was just an example, I did not mean to hijack the discussion, but to answer your question, the frequencies currently in use require a vacuum tube to amplify them. There are frequencies that will work with solid state (semi-conductors) for both generation and amplification. The solid state devices would use less power and save a lot of weight.
Thanks. So we’re sending fighter planes up with vacuum tubes in them? Or are these ground-based missiles?
Only 4 more posts until we get to 100. This one is 97!
littlemouse, yes, but only one. They used to use magnetrons. Then they went to KPA (Klystron Power Amplifier). Now they use a TWT (traveling wave tube).
Just an odd thought- My metric sockets still use 1/4", 3/8", or 1/2" square drive so they’ll fit on my ratchets. In the UK, where there’s lots of metric but still some inch size hardware, I’ll bet it’s the other way around.
Many,many years ago while hanging aluminum siding (it was less brittle then) on my house, I decided to use a metric tape measure to make cuts in the evening for the pieces I would hang the next day. I was hooked. Working with numbers like 3.27 meters was a lot easier and less mistake prone for me then working with numbers like 9 feet 7 and 3/16 inches.
I am a simple man and doing things back then like converting liters to cubic centimeters was much easier then quarts to cubic inches. I consider the time lost dealing with two sets of sockets as time lost out of my life better spent for “living”.
IMVHO, the computer has made it LESS advantageous to switch to the metric system. If we still had to do every computation “by hand”, we would have switched more agressively by now.
While teaching advanced math and calculus, day one always included switching the preferences on the old TI-89 to metrics. The students balked…for that first day only. Making entry’s with decimals is so much easier and less mistake prone then using fractions. You guys can argue which is better or necessary for you. For me, I made that decision 35 years ago and never looked back when given a choice.