2002-01-30

I'll bet the use of the BTU in Romania came from imported Chinese air
conditioners.

I'm not saying the Chinese are part of a plot to de-metricate the world by
introducing FFU in metric countries, but I am saying that they have made air
conditioners to sell from American designs or American built plants.  These
air conditioners are built to SI, but the use of BTU is a copy of American
usage with out knowing what the term means.  It is sold like it is a model
number.

The Chinese copy many products, and I'm sure if they appear to be FFU, it is
only coincidental.  They copy them in SI.  I've seen this in Taiwan a few
years back.

This reminds me of a story I heard.  The US military was testing some type
of "device" that fell apart as soon as it was launched.  The investigation
found the bolts had sheared.  The bolts were traced to a company in China.
The bolts were suppose to be "grade 5", or something like that.  But, tests
on the remains indicated they were not, even though they were marked as
grade 5.

The US military went to the plant in China and ask why the bolts were marked
as grade 5 but were not and the response from the Chinese manager was: "What
is grade 5?".

They had no clue, they just copied the bolt, not paying attention to the
strength.  Maybe if they were told the required property class it had to
meet, there would not have been a problem.  I'll bet they have no problem
with metric bolts.

Using FFU terms in metric countries only tends to weaken FFU even more.  FFU
is then seen more as a language of trade names, and not a system of units.
And with FFU not legal elsewhere, if someone makes a mistake in FFU, they
aren't going to care.  And why should they?

This may be a blessing in disguise.  By the US exporting FFU, they may be
doing more to help dilute it with error then getting people to use it in
their daily life.

John








----- Original Message -----
From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 2002-01-29 05:39
Subject: [USMA:17729] BTU in Romania. Was: Democracy and metrication


> A country that was never defiled by ifp now uses the BTU/h for
> airconditioning output, prodded by an 100% US oriented industry (A. Jadic
in
> USMA 17702). Well, well, that is good news for the BWMA and F2M. This
> is how anti-metric industries have been spreading the infection for
decades.
> It
> is what Danloux Dumesnils warned about in the sixties. Long live market
> forces, as used by industries which are 100% oriented towards the USA and
> which do not bother to accommodate their other customers.
>
> "The USA uses the BTU and BTU/h, screen sizes in inches, disk sizes in
> inches, fl.oz for cosmetics, flies in feet, output of computer ventilators
> in CFM, etc, so everybody else must accept these units as the USA is our
> largest market. Giving metric equivalents for other countries is too
> expensive.
> (And whispering: we would like to see a global changeover to ifp.)
> This is why we in the TABD want metric-only regulations in the EU and
> elsewhere cancelled forever".
>
> The BTU/h cannot really have entered the minds of the Romanian people and
> replacing it by the kW through  the W&M law should still be possible
without
> difficulties. If these industries object, they will be showing their real
> colours.
> The Romanian people cannot know what a BTU is and it should be kicked
> out as soon as possible.
> This is why the TABD must never succeed in getting a new delay. I have
also
> seen the BTU/h on air conditioners some time ago, but I have not seen it
for
> some time. Leaving measuring units 'free' leads to the corruption of
metric
> countries as ifp is used by the most powerful nation and market in the
> world.
> Simply allow market forces to lead the way, in a world with only one super
> power which is non-metric as well and SI will win! NOT!!!
>
> Yes, find a balance between regulation and non-intervention, I will never
> believe that non-intervention alone is the best way. The history of
> measurement shows it very clearly.
>
> Han
>
>

Reply via email to