On 2009/01/31, at 7:46 AM, Michael Payne wrote:
Reference the ASTM B88 Copper Tubes which sound like what I have.
Why would they have Nominal and Actual sizes for all pipe/tube? I'm
using the word interchangeably. Is it because it was originally
metric and it's been changed to all inches or is there another
reason? It just seems plain dumb to be calling something one size
when it's actually a different size. I notice in the specifications
everything is in inches only, If I have time I'll see what they all
are in millimeters.
It's very frustrating as a homeowner who can do some of this work
themselves, drives down to the hardware store with measurement in
hand only to find there is no correlation. I've found the only way
to get anything that fits is to take the old one to the store for
comparison. Buying wood falls has the same problem, Newer wood
products made in the last 20 years are smaller but called by the
same name (measurement). I hate to think of the time and fuel wasted
annually in just the United States on this sort of thing.
Mike Payne
Dear Mike and All,
I have emphasised the last sentence of your email to ask what others
think about the cost to the USA of being non-metric. As you know, I
had a try at estimating this in the 8-page article, Cost of non-
metrication in the USA (http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf
), but I have never been happy with my estimate (guesstimate) for
the annual cost of non-metrication of the USA — I keep thinking that
1.28 trillion dollars per year is way too small.
Whenever, I hear of examples from specific industries, such as the
mess in pipe sizes and the costs that everyone in the manufacturing,
marketing, purchasing, and fitting processes has to bear to do
something that could be, and should be, insanely simple, I cringe in
frustration.
It's like that YouTube movie where the guys are trying to subtract the
design and build dimensions of 140 millimetres from 180 millimetres (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omh8Ito-05M
). It's hard to believe that when a job that can be done in less
than 10 seconds for an individual (180 – 140 = 40 mm) can take 4
engineers more that 2 1/2 minutes — and you know that this is going to
happen over and over again — that this cost can be limited to my
estimate of 9 % of GDP.
Hence my thinking that my estimate of the cost of non-metrication in
the USA, at 1.28 trillion dollars per year, is far too low.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com
for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected]
or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
