2000-12-08
That is a very sensible and cost effective method of conversion. Since
meters do wear out over time, one can expect a complete changeover after a
given number of years. But, even this method I can't see being adopted in
the US. The only type of change I see would be if the meters could be
changed over a short period to a more digital type. Cost to change from a
mechanical to digital as I described earlier could be justified by the
savings in personnel costs to read each meter.
The reason I don't think such a method as was adopted in Toronto as
happening in the US is the long period that the companies would have to
endure with two unit types. There is a possibility of confusion and error.
Now, maybe in Canada, the people working for the gas or other utilities can
keep the records straight, but Americans can't. The first time there is a
simple mistake, some moron will complain they didn't have this problem when
everything was in feet. Managers would get cold feet if too many errors
occur and kill the whole idea.
Remember Joe, we are the nation that scores the lowest on math and science
tests. So, how do you think this calliper of people is going to be able to
keep straight whose meter is in cubic feet and whose is in cubic metres?
John
Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der sich irrt�mlich
glaubt frei zu sein.
There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
are free!
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Joseph B. Reid
Sent: Friday, 2000-12-08 18:52
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:9642] Cubic metres vs. cubic feet
Jophn wrote in USMA 9636:
>A change in the home meters, such as gas, water and electric will
eventually
>be done in an upgrade to a digital system. There will come a
time, when the
>meters will be tied to your phone line or some other means, so that the
>energy companies can in an instant get a reading. This might be
cheaper and
>safer then sending someone house to house every couple of months and
>estimating those months not being read. In fact they will even be able to
>get a better grasp of peaks and valleys for consumption.
>
>Such a system might be designed in SI or FFU or use some type of unitless
>method. A host computer could then display or calculate for
billing in any
>units desired. when these units are installed in everyone's home, and FFU
>is still and use and these companies decide to use FFU at first,
it won't be
>a big deal for them to go to SI, as all they would have to do is change
>something in the program. A one-time instant switch that is costless.
>
>Just like gas pumps and digital scales made today are. Most, if not all
>could be converted to litres of grams/kilograms with either the flip of a
>switch or if on a central network, a simple software change. Instant and
>costless. The only cost to gas pumps would be the purchase of adhesive
>stickers with the word LITRES on them to cover up the word gallons.
>
>Conversion to SI in many areas is not expensive at all, despite what the
>opposition wants one to believe.
True, but unnecessary. Consumers' Gas (now Enbridge), our Toronto gas
company, changed to billing by the cubic metre some years ago. However
they did not change any meters. When they installed new meters they were
metric. Their billing program kept track of each meter, whether it worked
in cubic feet or cubic meters. The bills it produced showed cubic feet if
the readings were in cubic feet, and gave to the conversion to cubic metres
on which the pricing was based.
