ECN Forum
Posted By: C-H AWG to MWG? - 07/25/03 04:54 PM
I looked at a table with AWG to mm&#178 conversions and it occured to me the sizes are very close to each other. If you fit the AWG to a metric size: E.g. #18 to 0.80 mm&#178, #17 to 1.00 mm&#178 and #16 to 1.25 mm&#178 you end up with something that is only five percent or less smaller than the true value.

As I know that these 1.25 mm&#178, 2.00 mm&#178 etc. sizes are used in some countries, I got the idea to devise a new wire gauge. Let's call it MWG, Metric/Metricated(???)/Metrified(???) Wire Gauge.

The scale then goes like this:

30______0.0500 mm&#178
29______0.0630 mm&#178
28______0.0800 mm&#178
27______0.100 mm&#178
26______0.125 mm&#178
25______0.160 mm&#178
24______0.200 mm&#178
23______0.250 mm&#178
22______0.315 mm&#178
21______0.400 mm&#178
20______0.500 mm&#178
19______0.630 mm&#178
18______0.800 mm&#178
17______1.00 mm&#178
16______1.25 mm&#178
15______1.60 mm&#178
14______2.00 mm&#178
13______2.50 mm&#178
12______3.15 mm&#178
11______4.00 mm&#178
10______5.00 mm&#178
9_______6.30 mm&#178
8_______8.00 mm&#178
7_______10.0 mm&#178
6_______12.5 mm&#178
5_______16.0 mm&#178
4_______20.0 mm&#178
3_______25.0 mm&#178
2_______31.5 mm&#178
1_______40 mm&#178
0_______50 mm&#178
00______63 mm&#178
000_____80 mm&#178
0000____100 mm&#178
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 07/28/03 11:01 AM
I see where you're coming from on this, but as any new system would run alongside existing standards rather than replacing it (at least in the short term), I can't help thinking that it would result in some confusion.
Posted By: C-H Re: AWG to MWG? - 07/31/03 05:52 PM
Just for comparison the actual values are like this:

AWG___mm&#178

4/0__107
3/0__85.0
2/0__67.4
1/0__53.5
1____42.4
2____33.6
3____27.0
4____21.2
5____16.8
6____13.3
7____10.6
8____8.35
9____6.62
10___5.27
11___4.15
12___3.31
13___2.63
12___2.08
15___1.65
16___1.31
17___1.04
18___0.823
19___0.653
20___0.519
21___0.412
22___0.325
23___0.259
24___0.205
25___0.163
26___0.128
27___0.102
28___0.0804
29___0.0646
30___0.0503

As you can see, the difference is significant only for sizes 0 and larger.

At the same time, anyone familiar with metric sizes will object. Quite correctly: The last few sizes in the first message don't exist. For some reason the sizes leave logic after 25mm&#178. Instead of 40 like you would expect, they have choosen 35. And this then goes on with illogical sizes like 95mm&#178. The whole thing should be reworked.

Here's the MCM to actual metric to my suggested 'rough' conversion. Why are there so many MCM sizes? You can't possibly stock them all.

2000___1013____1000mm&#178
1750___887_____Remove size
1600___809_____800mm&#178
1500___760_____Remove size
1250___633_____630mm&#178
1000___507_____500mm&#178
800____405_____400mm&#178
750____380_____Remove size
700____355_____Remove size
600____304_____315 mm&#178
500____253_____250 mm&#178
450____228_____Remove size
400____203_____200 mm&#178
350____177_____Remove size
300____152_____160 mm&#178
250____127_____125 mm&#178

Look at the numbers and you'll see that the conversion is rather simple...
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 07/31/03 06:18 PM
I see no reason to introduce a new wiring gauge standard just because the Americans have to be different from everyone else. If the present square millimetre standard is the most universal, then it is up to countries like the US to adopt it.

However, if the Americans want to be different and keep their wire standard, they can at least establish new names for their wires (based on the information in your chart) on the square millimetre designation.

The advantage to this for both the US and the world would be the ease at comparing sizes. Without a chart handy, one only can guess if a 2.50 mm² can be used in place of a #14 AWG. If the Americans renamed #14 AWG as 2.00 mm², then it is obvious that 2.50 mm² can be used in applicatons where 2.00 mm² is specified, but not the reverse.

Most of the Asian countries do not use the same sizes as the Europeans. The 1.25 mm² and 2.00 mm² you referance are two of the sizes used in Asia. The Asian sizes may have been based on the AWG standard, but long ago adopted to the square millimetre naming designation. In other words, they may be using the AWG sizes with a square millimetre designation. The two "standards" are easily comparable as a result.

All the Americans need do is investigate if the Asian sizes can safely be used in the US and if they can, it would be so easy just to adopt new names without changing anything or changing it ever so slightly.

The only reason the Americans won't do it is because of attitude. We are better then everyone else. They must change to our ways, not us to the theirs. The only reason for the resistance to adopting SI in the US is because the Americans are afraid the world would interpret the change as the US having been wrong for 200 years and gods are never wrong. So, everything is done the hard way. The US is only hurting itself.
Posted By: C-H Re: AWG to MWG? - 07/31/03 06:40 PM
Welcome to ECN, John!

Harsh words there.

One shouldn't harmonise for the sake of harmonisation. However, I know that the Americans wire manufacturers are trying to figure out a way of harmonising the mm2 with the MCM and AWG system since they want to sell abroad. The sheer number of AWG to mm2 tables on the net indicate that people often have to convert. Just not for electrical stuff, but electronics, audio gear and various strange things.

Just like you point out, the Asian countries (including Japan and Korea) are using metric versions of the AWG. I've looked at the Japanese sizes, and either I've got something wrong they have been converting a bit at random since some sizes are rather strange, like 5.5, 14 and 22mm².

[This message has been edited by C-H (edited 07-31-2003).]
Posted By: C-H Re: AWG to MWG? - 07/31/03 08:31 PM
An old ROP for the 1999 NEC (I think!) from SouthWire touching this subject
http://www.southwire.com/tech/pubs/pcu/97/pcu0897.htm

It isn't in the 2005 draft.
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 07/31/03 11:09 PM
Quote
One shouldn't harmonise for the sake of harmonisation
I agree entirely -- Which is why there is no need for America to change its wire sizes at all.

AWG has been the standard in the U.S. (and beyond) for decades, and introducing a new system would result in unnecessary confusion.

It seems to me that the ROW (Rest Of World) is frequently berating America for not falling into line with "established international standards," whether those standards are electrical or anything else.

I see the situation from the point of view that America already has its own standards which are perfectly satisfactory and understood right across the country. (And in many cases, the American standards have been in use much longer than the Johnny-come-lately ROW standards.)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/01/03 04:32 AM
The US doesn't have to change the physical suze of its wire, just give the wire a square millimetre name.

If the US was an isolated country or a net exporter like it was 30 years ago or more, then there would be no need to make any changes.

But, that is no longer the case. American differences cause grief to both sides, in the form of errors and economy.

With the US continuing to export its manufaturing and now engineering base, it becomes even more important to harmonise. It isn't harmonsing for the sake of harmonising, it is harmonising for the sake of safety and economy.

With huge deficits, the rise of the euro against the dollar and the demise of dollar hegemony, the US is either going to have bend some towards harmonising or suffer the consequences of being different when it can no longer afford to be so.
Posted By: C-H Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/01/03 02:48 PM
Well said John.

My point is that the American electricians wouldn't know that they had a new system. The difference is to small to need any adjustment in ampacity. Only the engineers and the cable manufacturers would know that an adjustment has taken place. And those who for one reason or another want to use the advantage of metric sizes. (Like being able to calculate voltage drop in a run on the back of an envelope, without a table)
Posted By: C-H Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/01/03 07:25 PM
Link to LG cables

You can look at the 600V cables. It looks like the Koreans and the Japanese follow the American colour code, use their own sizes and have European-inspired cable designations. [Linked Image] You will find the ampacities for the cables too.

Anyway, the wire sizes in these tables are as follows: (* indicates that it coincides with my suggested sizes)

mm²

2.0*
3.5
5.5
8.0*
14
22
38
60
100*
150
200*
250*
325
400*
500*
600
800*



[This message has been edited by C-H (edited 08-01-2003).]
Posted By: CTwireman Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/01/03 11:04 PM
John, I don't disagree with you on the need for the US to harmonize with the rest of the world. However, what is the point of adopting metric equivalent sizes for AWG here in the US?

Obviously, I agree with Paul.
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/02/03 12:58 AM
Quote
The US doesn't have to change the physical suze of its wire, just give the wire a square millimetre name.

If you're not planning on actually changing the physical size of the conductors, why introduce another system at all? I don't quite see what you're getting at.

If the problem is just that non-U.S. countries might not understand AWG, why not just print the metric equivalent alongside, e.g. 14 AWG (2.08 sq. mm) ???
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/02/03 11:38 PM
The whole concept of adopting a common name for wire sizes is for ease of comparisons. With globalisation a reality and machines and products from one country being sold in another, one can not always assume the wiring will match what is used in the home market.

With a common naming standard applied to all wire, no matter where it is used or sold makes it easier and safer to replace or work with wire from different sources.

If a machine has 2.5 mm² installed and at some point needs to be replaced, with what would an American electrician replace it with? Without a chart to guide him or if he misreads the chart, the electrician can make a serious mistake which could cause sever injury or death. If American products are sold outside the US, and American wire sizes are used, a foreign electrician would have the same problem as the American with foreign wire.

As I stated earlier, it is all a matter of safety and economy.
Posted By: CTwireman Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/03/03 12:17 AM
John, I agree with you to a point. An American-made machine for export should be wired with metric sized wire.

However, I can't see the point in calling #12 AWG "3.3 mm2" just for the sake of harmonization.
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/03/03 02:54 AM
Quote
If you're not planning on actually changing the physical size of the conductors, why introduce another system at all? I don't quite see what you're getting at.

If the problem is just that non-U.S. countries might not understand AWG, why not just print the metric equivalent alongside, e.g. 14 AWG (2.08 sq. mm) ???
.

The problem with keeping the AWG number is that the metric number won't be learned at all. Putting the 2 side by side, if done, must be done for a a very short time.

Changing the naming method is the first step towards harmonisation. Then organisations, like the IEC can play an active role in harmonising the sizes, and/or enforcing one standard.




[This message has been edited by JohnS (edited 08-02-2003).]
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/03/03 12:49 PM
I still don't see the problem. Assuming you're keeping the wire sizes the same, an American electrician working in the U.S.A. will continue to call it #14 and that's all he needs to know.

If he has to compare sizes with some imported equipment, then he can look at the cable reel and see that it's 2.08 sq. mm.

I don't think dropping the AWG designations would be very popular. We've experienced a similar situation in Britain where items were first dual-marked -- e.g. 1 lb (454g) --and then the English units were dropped altogether leaving just metric. Then the metric pack sizes were adjusted to make the figures more round, e.g. 450g, or 425g.

Most people here were happy to accept dual-marking, but have been most unhappy at the forced withdrawal of English units.
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/11/03 04:51 PM
Quote
I still don't see the problem. Assuming you're keeping the wire sizes the same, an American electrician working in the U.S.A. will continue to call it #14 and that's all he needs to know.

If he has to compare sizes with some imported equipment, then he can look at the cable reel and see that it's 2.08 sq. mm.

At the present time, no American wire is dual marked, not even the reel. The first step in conversion would be to require that all wire products carry a square millimetre designation, either as the primay or secondary unit as an aid in getting use to the new numbers.

During this time, the standards bodies can test true metric wire to see if it can safely replace the US standard and if it can, the US sizes can be eliminated. When the International sizes are accepted, then the need to include AWG numbers can be dropped. If an electrician wants to call it by its old name, fine, but by the same token he would be required to know exactly what he was using if the wire contained no old names. We can't hold back because some luddites don't want to move forward.

Quote
I don't think dropping the AWG designations would be very popular. We've experienced a similar situation in Britain where items were first dual-marked -- e.g. 1 lb (454g) --and then the English units were dropped altogether leaving just metric. Then the metric pack sizes were adjusted to make the figures more round, e.g. 450g, or 425g.

No change is ever popular. So, worrying about what people think during a transition period is useless. Your sister countries learned that the shorter the transition period, the quicker people will adapt to the new ways. Of course you have to put up with a few weeks of grumbling. So what. Let the people grumble. They eventually get used to it and move on to something else to grumble about.

Britain's problem with metrication is really a problem of arrogance. We were a mighty kingdom. The sun never set on our empire. We pushed our ways on every culture world-wide. Blah. Blah. Blah. And now someone else is telling us what to do. We can't accept this. Metrication is just another nail in the dead empire's coffin.

The truth is the British will learn to buy in grams and kilograms and I'm sure many already have. In the same notion, the US electrician will adapt to international wire sizes. It is just a matter of making sure the transition period is as short as possible.
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 08/12/03 10:31 AM
It may be true that people get used to grams and kilograms on packets, but that's only because they've been left with no choice on those items where English units have been completed removed. But most people I know don't think in metric units. They see 450g on a packet and say, "Ah, that's almost a pound," or they see a 1kg bag of sugar and think "A little over 2 lb."

Your profile says you're in Ohio, but I assume from the way you're talking about "our empire" that you're from Britain originally.

Quote
Britain's problem with metrication is really a problem of arrogance
The problem most people have with metrication these days is not arrogance but the dictatorial way that it is being forced upon us against the wishes of the majority of the people.

When market traders are turned into criminals for selling a pound of beans, is it any wonder that public opinion is turning more and more against this whole harmonization process?

But to get back to cables.....

I don't doubt that the U.S. could adapt to metric cable sizes. My point is that there is no need to mess up a perfectly good staandard which has been in use for decades just to satisfy the rest of the world.
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/01/03 04:42 AM
Quote

It may be true that people get used to grams and kilograms on packets, but that's only because they've been left with no choice on those items where English units have been completed removed.

That is the only way to get use to it. The cold turkey approach. If the whole world can adapt to metrication, the British should be able to too. Most people don't like change, but change is in many instances is necessary for progress and economy.

Quote

But most people I know don't think in metric units. They see 450g on a packet and say, "Ah, that's almost a pound," or they see a 1kg bag of sugar and think "A little over 2 lb."

Fine if they want to go through the hardship of memorising conversion factors and equivalents instead of trying to learn that 450 g means 450 g and a 1 kg means 1 kg. If anyone says metric is hard, what they really mean is they find it hard and a nuisance to have to back convert. End the need to back convert and the hardship vanishes.

Quote

Your profile says you're in Ohio, but I assume from the way you're talking about "our empire" that you're from Britain originally.

No, not at all. My ancestors are German and Slavic. I guess my feelings on the subject are that Germany and the Slavic nations metricated without a big fuss, and I can't seem to grasp why the British can't just accept it as they did. Let's face it, the British have the whole world speaking English, the least they can do is use the metric system.

English is the international language of business. Metric is the international language of measurement.

Keep this motto in mind.

Quote

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain's problem with metrication is really a problem of arrogance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The problem most people have with metrication these days is not arrogance but the dictatorial way that it is being forced upon us against the wishes of the majority of the people.
When market traders are turned into criminals for selling a pound of beans, is it any wonder that public opinion is turning more and more against this whole harmonization process?

I disagree totally. It is arrogance. When a nation was once an empire and got use to the idea of pushing its culture and language on the whole world, it develops a lot of pride in it self. Such a people find it hard to compromise and accept other people's practices as valid.

Under British law, weights and measures are governed by the Weights and Measures Act(WMA). Do you agree? The law makers have the right to set measurement laws and prescribe what units are legal and what units are not via this act. Throughout history, the WMA has been amended to remove units that no longer served the country and added new ones when needed. This of course has always irked those who did not want to see units they considered useful as illegal and of course protested. But, time won out and the changes became accepted.

The latest changes to the WMA put more emphasis on the use of SI units and less on imperial. Thus, the sense that metric is being forced down people throats.

Market traders are not being turned into criminals for not using metric. That is the propaganda of the imperialists and their like. Those who have been charged have been charged for using non-legal scales. It is not legal under the WMA as of 2000-01-01 for a trading standards inspector to renew the validation certificate for a scale not calibrated in kilograms (or grams). A trader who uses a non certified scale for a sale is breaking the law. Even in the US, if a shop keeper used a non certified scale to sell goods, they would be fined and the scale confiscated.

It is not fair to those that comply with the laws for those that do not to get away without being charged. Apparantly, every court your "metric martyrs" appealed to agreed that the law was valid and the traders had an obligation to obey it.

No one is forced to use metric. A customer can still ask for a pound and until 2010, the trader weighs it out as 450 g. After 2010, the pound becomes a non-legal unit, meanings it no longer has legal status. Then traders can interpret of define the pound anyway they wish. Even to make it equal to 500 g if they chose. So, a customer asking for a pound after 2010 may be served a 500 g portion. This will harmonise the pound with the livre, libra and pfund. As these names are still used infrequently on the continent, they always refer to 500 g and thus are not a pound in the British sense.

If you feel metrication is unfair, then campaign to abolish the WMA and go back to the old ways when every trader decided for himself what a unit's value was. Of course, that would lead to wide scale mayhem and cheating. But, that is the way it was before the WMA came into existant. And outside of Britain, there were no standard units until metrication. And of course, as far as imperial units are concerned, that is what is going to happen again in 2010 when imperial units become non-legal in the UK.

Quote


But to get back to cables.....

I don't doubt that the U.S. could adapt to metric cable sizes. My point is that there is no need to mess up a perfectly good staandard which has been in use for decades just to satisfy the rest of the world.

Who says it is perfectly good? It's not just to satisy the rest of the world, but to make the US a team player, not the neighbourhood bully, who will only play with the rest of the kids if they agree to play by his rules. The US is finding out the hard way that the majority when pushed to far will rise up and say NO.

In our increasingly global economy, harmonisation is necessary for quicker understanding, ease of use and most important, for economy. Question is, would the US and UK be groaning so much if harmonisation was based on imperial units and not SI?
Posted By: C-H Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/01/03 06:17 PM
Quote
So, a customer asking for a pound after 2010 may be served a 500 g portion.

I'm told they already do this in some areas of Britain.

Quote
As these names are still used infrequently on the continent, they always refer to 500 g and thus are not a pound in the British sense.

Should read frequently

Quote

And outside of Britain, there were no standard units until metrication.

No, although many people from the English-speaking world and young people anywhere would think so. In reality, measures and scales have been tightly controlled ever since antiquity. In Athens, a seller who was caught cheating by the inspector not only lost the goods but had his scales destroyed too. Each each country (or even city) had it's own measures. If the European countries hadn't converted to the metric system, there would still be the Swedish pound (skålpund = 425g), the Norwegian pound (pund = 498g), French pound (livré = 489.5g), Russian pound (funt = 409.5g) and so on.
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/01/03 10:46 PM
I really don't see how you interpret the desire to retain the units we grew up with as arrogance. It's not a case of trying to force our system on the rest of the world and refusing to accept that other systems and practices are valid.

(Although I admit that in the past Britain has displayed some extreme arrogance, e.g. banning Gaelic in Irish schools during English rule.)

Quote
Market traders are not being turned into criminals for not using metric.
Sorry, but I beg to differ.
Quote
Those who have been charged have been charged for using non-legal scales. It is not legal under the WMA as of 2000-01-01 for a trading standards inspector to renew the validation certificate for a scale not calibrated in kilograms (or grams).
What you say is true in its strict legal sense. But when the authorities refuse to certify scales that aren't calibrated in metric, it amounts to the same thing. Saying that traders aren't being turned into criminals for not using metric is just an argument in semantics. The government is effectively saying "You will sell in metric, or you are an outlaw."

The Weights & Measures acts do indeed have a long history in this country, but their purpose was to protect buyers against unscrupulous traders giving short measure.

To remove archaic units which are obsolete and largely unused from the statute books is one thing, but inches, feet, yards, miles, pounds, ounces, pints & gallons are units which are still used every day by millions of people in Britain. To outlaw their use is ridiculous.

On another point, whether a general change is good or bad, a "cold turkey" swap to a new system doesn't work easily with some things. I submit the IEE's own Wiring Regulations as an example of how not to execute a changeover.

When metric cables were introduced in Britain, the IEE revised our code by changing everything in the book over to metric in one go. No English units were left at all (some measurements were adjusted up or down slightly in the process, e.g. the 6' rule became 2m).

That make-or-nreak change included all the cable rating tables, so the new code books included tables for only the new metric cables, ignoring the fact that existing cables would be in service for many years to come and electricians would need to look up their ratings.

The only way a modern-day electrician can check the ratings of those cables is to refer back to a pre-1970 edition of the code.



[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 09-01-2003).]
Posted By: Hutch Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/02/03 02:12 AM
John S, makes a number of very valid points and in a well laid out manner. I have lived in all worlds. I grew up in the UK with imperial dominant until I left in 1981. I arrived in a fully metricated South Africa and so my conversion was by total immersion and the process was rapid and mostly painless. It was a new world, a new system and there was no need for comparisons or conversions. I found myself thinking and judging metric and would estimate time and distance with reasonable accuracy in kilometres. Interestingly (for me at least [Linked Image] ) was that on trips back to the UK it seemed so natural to do the same in miles.

On the metricated imperial units side, the beer in RSA, in returnable bottles, came in two sizes – one called pints with 375ml and the other called a quart with only 750ml. I mentioned to my friends that the UK WMA would have serious problems with these interpretations! Having a ‘pint’ of cold draught beer in a pub measuring 500ml did not make the experience any less enjoyable. [Linked Image]

Then move to the US where the measurement system is in state of turmoil. The world of science has long been metric and that of technology mainly so. Remember the Mars lander? NAFTA means that metric measurements appear on every item sold in addition to what the Americans refer to as ‘English’ units. This can be very strange to an Englishman because a lot of these units are not the same as those I grew up with. Most noticeable are the volume measures which are 20% smaller – it makes the gallon to litre conversion much easier. I think those British traders were ripping off the colonists – no wonder they revolted!

The mining industry, of which I am a part, is very conservative in its ways and sticks doggedly to the old units. Everything is measured in feet, plans are scaled in inches per X foot so a plan with a scale of 1:1000 is in fact a 1:12000 plan! Gold grades are measured in ounces (troy) per ton (short, 2000lbs) rather than grams per tonne which also equals a useful parts-per-million. I remember in my early days here listening to a surveyor trying to get his head around some borehole maths involving volume measurements with the length in feet, the diameter in inches, the volume in gallons and the weight of additive for a certain concentration given in pounds – he needed a concentration in relative mass by percent. I heard his demented utterings and saw his tortured face and said helpfully “why don’t you just metricate?”

Another difference I have observed is the depreciated use of the yard and long (2240lbs) ton. A sign in my town says Parking – 1000 feet which I find hard to visualise and vehicle weights are given in thousands of pounds rather than tons – a forty ton truck has a lot of zeros on the plate! The US sticking to ‘English’ measures is strange because in many ways they have metricated in so many ways so long ago. The dollar and cents must be one of the first (if not the oldest) metric currency in the world. The hundred weight is 100lbs, etc.

Getting back to South Africa, one had to be careful when converting from pre-metric data because in Natal were I lived they used the Cape Foot which is about 13” sterling. To complicate my life further (which it did), I discovered the Cape Geodetic Foot used in land measurement which differed from the normal Cape Foot only in the seventh decimal metric. Not much you would say, however when the Mercator grid system used there has its origins at the equator, that seventh decimal place adds up. Needless to say I drilled a borehole off by 15m which put me on the wrong farm. Oh the legal torture that caused is fused into my memory – why did I have to pick the most obnoxious and canterkerous farmer in the Province?

I can’t remember whether I’ve mentioned this before on the forum, but I’ll repeat it again because I find it so fundamental and pedestal smashing amongst the traditionalists. Very few conversions from imperial to metric are exact and I suspect many are not even rational (mathematically speaking), but one is. The foot is exactly 304.8mm long, i.e. an inch is exactly 25.4mm. This conversion defines the US survey foot which is the same as the official imperial foot. This is not by chance and was it defined long after the metre was established and standardised. The awesome (for me) truth is that the unit underlying the definition of the good old foot lies not in the Tower of London but is in fact in Paris, i.e. it is the metre!

IMHO, metric is best. There is only one way to change and that is total immersion. The South African way of making all imperially marked objects illegal is way OTT (my wife when a school girl had a six inch marked ruler sent by her UK Granny confiscated by customs). But then the Afrikaner was wanting to rid the country of all things British.

I reckon the way that the Australians did it was the best. Big bang – fully metric but inches and imperial tools can still be found and 2 by 4s are still called 2 by 4s. My Zulu gardener still worked financially in bob up to the early 1990’s. “Ten bob” (10/-) said Pete – it meant one rand. When the South Africans jettisoned the pound, they did it at the rate of £1 = R2. Made life slightly easier on the shillings and pence.

Anyway that’s my 2d worth – which by my reckoning is worth 1.2p!


[This message has been edited by Hutch (edited 09-01-2003).]
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/02/03 05:20 AM
Quote
What you say is true in its strict legal sense. But when the authorities refuse to certify scales that aren't calibrated in metric, it amounts to the same thing. Saying that traders aren't being turned into criminals for not using metric is just an argument in semantics. The government is effectively saying "You will sell in metric, or you are an outlaw."

The Weights & Measures acts do indeed have a long history in this country, but their purpose was to protect buyers against unscrupulous traders giving short measure.

To remove archaic units which are obsolete and largely unused from the statute books is one thing, but inches, feet, yards, miles, pounds, ounces, pints & gallons are units which are still used every day by millions of people in Britain. To outlaw their use is ridiculous.

The situation also works in reverse, where the law prohibits pub owners from selling a litre of beer or from someone who may wish to erect a road sign giving distances in metric units. Both are still illegal under the WMA.

You are missing the point. The trader is not being turned into an outlaw by not selling in metric. The trader's scale must comply with the law. The trader chooses to be a criminal when he/she does not comply. Just like a car driver becomes a criminal when they break traffic laws.

The trader can still sell a pound of apples or whatever, as long as the scale weighs them out in grams. You ask for a pound, and the trader weighs out 450 g. You still get your pound and the trader still makes his sale. Why the fuss?

Thruthfully, how many traders have complied with the law and how many have not? Let's face it, there was no real large scale rebellion on the part of traders, it was a nuisance few. Part of the reason they lost their appeals was that the rest of the traders complied and many felt that the situation would be unfair to the majority that did comply.

Also, the laws don't outlaw non-SI units, they make them non-legal. Meaning they don't have legal backing. You ask for a pound and you get whatever the trader decides the pound is for that day. If you don't like that, then you can ask for what what you want in grams. I'm sure most can, but it is arrogance that prevents one from speaking the g-word. Some people must be fools to think that if they uttered the g-word their tongues would fall out.

And for those that don't know what grams are, how long should it take to learn? If you train yourself to think of a pound as 500 g and you need only a half pound of something, what is so hard about asking for 250 g? And if 250 g seems to be more then what you wanted, the next time you ask for 200 g. You learn to work with the new numbers.

The shops could play a better roll in the teaching process, explaining how to economically shop in metric. Expecting the public to learn on their own is somewhat defeating, as most need to be lead by the hand. The shops taking an active part in the conversion would really ease the consumer into becoming a smart metric shopper. And, if certain luddites refuse to be taught, then there should be absolutely no sympathy for them.

I guarantee you my friend, that the future will not be kind to those that refuse to metricate. The metricated people will move forward and the non-metricated people will struggle just to survive.
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/02/03 05:31 AM
Quote
No, although many people from the English-speaking world and young people anywhere would think so. In reality, measures and scales have been tightly controlled ever since antiquity. In Athens, a seller who was caught cheating by the inspector not only lost the goods but had his scales destroyed too. Each each country (or even city) had it's own measures. If the European countries hadn't converted to the metric system, there would still be the Swedish pound (skålpund = 425g), the Norwegian pound (pund = 498g), French pound (livré = 489.5g), Russian pound (funt = 409.5g) and so on.

From: http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/

livre
a traditional unit of weight in French speaking countries and in Greece. The livre corresponds to the English pound and to the Spanish libra (see above). The livre is divided into 2 marcs or into 16 onces. The French livre varied from market to market, but the official standard from about 1350 to the introduction of the metric system was the livre poids de marc or livre de Paris of 489.5 grams (1.079 English pounds). In modern France, the livre is used as a metric unit equal to exactly 500 grams or 0.5 kilogram (1.1023 pounds). The traditional Greek livre is also about 500 grams.

Notice, that it was the livre de Paris that was 489.5 g, and even though this was the standard since 1350, the livre did vary from "market to market", meaning enforcement was lite.

I'm sure that had the metric system not come along when it did, some international agreement would have set a "standard" for a pound unit.

Another unit that varied all over the place was the foot, and it was said that their were over 5000 variations at the time of the invention of the metric system in the 1790s.

I'm sure there was a pied de Paris too, but it also must not have been enforced universally.
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/02/03 05:50 AM
Quote
Then move to the US where the measurement system is in state of turmoil. The world of science has long been metric and that of technology mainly so. Remember the Mars lander? NAFTA means that metric measurements appear on every item sold in addition to what the Americans refer to as ‘English’ units. This can be very strange to an Englishman because a lot of these units are not the same as those I grew up with. Most noticeable are the volume measures which are 20% smaller – it makes the gallon to litre conversion much easier. I think those British traders were ripping off the colonists – no wonder they revolted!

Exactly! One of the greatest errors that people who cling to old units make is that they all think all the units are the same.

If an American hears that beer is sold in pints in British pubs, it never occurs to the American that the pint is larger by 20 % (568 mL vs 473 mL). The American assumes the pint in Britain is one and the same with the pint in the US.

How many people who use FFU (Fred Flintstone units - a common name for all non-SI units), are really aware that a unit can have multiple meanings?

How many people who claim to know FFU know the difference in the UK vs US units? Or that an ounce of mass/weight is not the same as an ounce of volume or that a pint is not a pound the world around? How many know that a land mile is not the same as a nautical mile, that there is an almost 250 m difference? That 4 nautical miles is almost 1 km longer then 4 land miles?

How many people know that an ounce of gold has more mass then an ounce of lead? Or that a pound of gold has less mass then a pound of lead?

How many British would really understand a person's weight expressed exclusively in pounds, and how many Americans would know what a stone is?

How many British would understand long distance measured in feet and how many Americans really comprehend yards? Except for American football, the only time yards are used is when the media changes the word metres to yards in international news events. The bomb exploded 100 m from my home becomes The bomb exploded 100 yards from my home.

And how many people can realy do the math (maths in the UK) with FFU? What do those who cling to FFU really know about FFU? Answer: very little.

I've heard it said of both the US and the UK, that the measuremnt mess in both countries has made the citizens of both the UK and US innumerate in both SI and FFU. Not something to be proud of.
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/02/03 09:55 PM
Quote
Anyway that’s my 2d worth – which by my reckoning is worth 1.2p!
2d is actually 0.8333p.

Quote
Another difference I have observed is the depreciated use of the yard and long (2240lbs) ton.
I've noticed that too. American signs are far more likely to say "Men working 300 feet ahead" whereas in Britain it would be "Road works, 100 yards."

The long ton is the British/Commonwealth standard by the way. The standard U.S. measurement is the short ton of 2000 lb., although straight pounds does seem to be more common in many fields. My Nebraska driver's license specified "vehicles up to 24,000 lb."

Quote
The situation also works in reverse, where the law prohibits pub owners from selling a litre of beer or from someone who may wish to erect a road sign giving distances in metric units. Both are still illegal under the WMA.
You seem to be well-read on what's going on in Britain, so I assume you're referring to the case a while back where an immigrant set up an Italian or Austrian-themed bar (I forget which) and sold beer in liters and half-liters.

He soon fell foul of the Trading Standards bullies, which led to the ridiculous situation of other traders being prosecuted for refusing to use metric while this guy was being threatened with court because he was using metric! [Linked Image]

The whole shambles would be laughable if it were not costing decent people their livelihoods.

MOre on the Road Signs situation here .

Quote
How many people who use FFU (Fred Flintstone units - a common name for all non-SI units), are really aware that a unit can have multiple meanings?
Probably about the same number as those who know how many c.c.'s in a liter. That's down to education.

Call them Fred Flintstone Units if you wish. They got us to the moon and back.
Posted By: Hutch Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/03/03 02:09 AM
Paul you are quite right - my mental arithmatic was completely upsidedown. Shame on me and to think I used to run the grade/year 6 class shop in 1970 when the two monies ran in parallel! Happy days.
Posted By: djk Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/03/03 02:22 AM
They need to change cleanly to metric units. Ireland has a crazy situation with road signs. Distances on modern signs are in KM while speeds are still in MPH as the UK specification for cars is with MPH speedometers (or at least it was when we converted)

Shops all sell in metric units and have done for years but will serve an approximation if you ask for a pound.. if you ask for X ounces prepare to get a very rough approximation.

I fail to see why some manufacturers have stupidly stuck to 1lb packs and just converted the units to some ridiuculously unfriendly number in grammes.. no wonder people think it's complicated. Why not 500g or 1/2 KG. At least most irish manufacturers have switched to round metric units. Sugar comes in 5KG, 1Kg (normal) or 500g, milk is all liters..

The only weird one is the pint glass in a bar.

you can sell beer in whatever volumes you like but if someone asks for a half pint or a pint it MUST be in an approved glass and filled to a mark so that pints don't vary from place to place.

Spirits are also sold by a standard measure, non metric. (VERY strict regs)

We still have old ladies converting from 2 shillings to "new pounds" to Euros [Linked Image]

Not to mention my grandmother's cooking!

She first converts from Gas Mark VI to Degrees F and finally to celcius before setting the oven!




[This message has been edited by djk (edited 09-02-2003).]
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/03/03 03:52 PM
Quote
to think I used to run the grade/year 6 class shop in 1970 when the two monies ran in parallel!
I was all of 5 years old at the time of the changeover! I still have a "Snap" card game that was issued at the time, with LSD and new money depicted on different cards.

The main point as seen by those of us opposed to enforced metrication is simply that there is no need for the Draconian laws being inflicted upon us.

We are not being arrogant by trying to tell the rest of the world to use English units. We're not even telling people in our own country that they shouldn't use metric if they wish. (And yes, I do use metric in scientific work, where appropriate.) Metric has been perfectly legal in Britain for well over a century.

The point is that we should be free to choose. The Trading Standards people should become involved only in cases where somebody is trying to defraud by giving short measure, be it 15.5 oz. instead of 1 lb. or 950g instead of 1kg.

If you wonder why so many people in Britain are on the defensive over this issue, it's simply because we do not like a bunch of bureaucrats trying to take away our rights and enforce change upon every area of our daily lives.

Quote
Eagle eyed officials from Peterborough's Weights & Measures Department spotted Lynne Gibb's advertisement in her local paper offering to press a 10lb load of clothes for £4.99. They threatened her with a £1,000 fine unless she changed her pricing policy to kilos. (Mail on Sunday 20/5/01)

PLenty more examples at: http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/Metrication.htm




[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 09-03-2003).]
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/03/03 04:50 PM
Quote
I've noticed that too. American signs are far more likely to say "Men working 300 feet ahead" whereas in Britain it would be "Road works, 100 yards."

Neither is very effective as the odometers in cars calibrated in miles has the last digit in tenths of miles, which are not easily translatable into either feet or yards. On kilometric odometers, the last digit is 0.1 km, which easily translates into 100 m.

Quote
The long ton is the British/Commonwealth standard by the way. The standard U.S. measurement is the short ton of 2000 lb., although straight pounds does seem to be more common in many fields. My Nebraska driver's license specified "vehicles up to 24,000 lb."

I thought the long ton was depricated and replaced by the tonne (1000 kg). Since the two are very close in value, it isn't necessary to have both.

Americans like to use units that give big numbers. Sounds more impressive. Every time there is a forest fire, the area is always given in acres, never square miles or square kilometres. The use of acres makes the area sound bigger.

Quote
You seem to be well-read on what's going on in Britain, so I assume you're referring to the case a while back where an immigrant set up an Italian or Austrian-themed bar (I forget which) and sold beer in liters and half-liters.

He soon fell foul of the Trading Standards bullies, which led to the ridiculous situation of other traders being prosecuted for refusing to use metric while this guy was being threatened with court because he was using metric!

No, I was referring to an incident that happened in the mid 90s. The incidents you are referring to happened more recently. And they had to do with theme bars and not your ordinary British pubs.

If people are worried that the pint will be replaced by a 500 mL size, a loss of 68 mL, there is no cause for concern. Britain can follow the Australian example, go to a 600 mL size. This way one gets 32 mL more. And if it makes everyone happy, it can still be called a pint. Just like 500 g can be called a pound.

Quote
The whole shambles would be laughable if it were not costing decent people their livelihoods.

That is why it makes the most sense to complete the metrication process quickly and end the half-way in the middle situation.

Quote
Call them Fred Flintstone Units if you wish. They got us to the moon and back.

A common false assumption. It is assumed that since the US was the first to go to the moon and the US uses FFU, that the moon journey was strictly an FFU adventure.

Actually, the journey to the moon was the work of a German, by the name of Werner von Braun. Von Braun and the other Germans who ran NASA in its heyday, loathed and never used non-metric units. Von Braun said so in an interview before he died. Of course, all his metric designs had to be "translated" into FFU for the Americans to build the rockets and such, but the actual behind the scenes design and calculations were done in metric units. It was hidden metric that got us to the moon.
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/03/03 05:05 PM
PLenty more examples at: blah, blah, blah

Of course the two links you provided in your postings came from the British Warts and Measles Society (BWMA). They are as usful as the "dozental society" and the "flat earth" society.

Why not go to:
http://www.usma.demon.co.uk/misc.htm
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/03/03 05:08 PM
Common misconceptions and deliberate disinformation about the metric system

Floppy disks aren't metric

Yes, they are; 90.0 mm wide, to be exact. Allied to this myth is their description as '88.9 mm', or '89 mm'. ISO/IEC 9529-1 describes the dimensions of the diskette: 90.0 x 94.0 mm (neither of which is 3.50 inches).

Penalties for not using metric units have been imposed only in the UK and the Irish Republic (not in any other country in the EU)

It is up to individual nations how transgressions of national laws are penalized. EU Directives were established to harmonize units of measurements across the member states in order to facilitate trade. The actual legislation to enact these requirements is the responsibilty of each member state, as are the penalties for breaches. The penalties within the UK have not changed substantially since the 1963 Weights & Measures Act, and the most severe are reserved for offenders who persistently give misleading information. All that has changed is the list of permitted units. So someone persistently advertising by the bushel or peck could have been fined after 1968, even before the 1995 metrication legislation was enacted.
The new regulations mean A4 paper is banned

Logical thinking really went out the window with whoever came up with this gem! Absolute nonsense.

There is no justification here for denying freedom of choice

Yes there is (unless you're an anarchist, of course!). All legislation denies 'freedom of choice' to some extent, and weights and measures legislation is there to protect the public, by ensuring that the standards used for measuring equipment are maintained, and that traders are providing honest and open information to the public. There always has been W & M legislation to define what units are legal for trade. Trading Standards Officers are there to protect the public against unscrupulous traders. To permit traders and public to pick and chose which units they want to use would lead to anarchy, and the sort of confusion that anti-metric supporters claim to be against. There was no outcry by such people when a UK publican was fined by Trading Standards for selling his beer in metric measures! Nor were there any complaints when it became illegal to sell by the stone several years ago.

Metrication costs money

This is a statement often used, but grossly exaggerated in many cases, and untrue in others. Whilst it is true that replacing or recalibrating equipment costs money, it has to be remembered that businesses write off equipment against tax over a given period. Also, equipment wears out, and competitive pressures mean that some equipment has to be replaced before it wears out, if the company is to remain competitive. The excruciatingly slow pace of metrication in the UK (35 years an counting) exposes the desperate nature of such claims. In addition, claims of not being given enough warning must be regarded with suspicion (especially when voiced just a few months before new legislation), as the main EU directive behind the latest legislation appeared 10 years ago. Admittedly, the DTI has ducked its responsibility over giving widespread and timely publicity, and much of the press has given misleading information.

Experience by companies who have metricated has shown that metrication can actually save money. British engineering companies, US car manufacturers, and even the US Government (who mandate that new federal buildings be designed in metric) have shown that fewer different stock items and ease of use can reduce costs. Prolonging the process adds to costs.

The USA has not gone metric - why should we?

Not true; although the USA has made erratic progress towards metrication (like the UK), it has nonetheless advanced. Its wine and spirits industry made the change back in the 70s, the car industry went metric in the mid-80s (with considerable savings), and many goods are appearing in shops in rational metric sizes. Dual-labelling of goods is now mandatory for most products. The US is ahead of the UK in one significant area: that of road signs. They repealed the legislation which forbade metric units on signs over a decade ago, something which the UK has still to do. For more detail on practical examples of the changes happening in the USA see Jim Frysinger's Metric Methods site.

Even metric nations use non-metric units

I won't try and pretend that this is not true, but it warrants closer examination. In many cases, it is the historical dominance of the USA in particular fields that has forced the rest of the world to fall into line. Examples are:

Computer screens (though European companies often include the centimetre size as well)
Guns & ammunition - obviously these have to be mutually compatible, and become self-perpetuating
Car wheels - the past dominance of the US car industry
Plumbing fixtures - I understand that some European use inch-based parts. (I'd be grateful if someone could give me the history behind this.)
Aircaft heights and speeds; engine thrusts in pounds force - US industry dominance again

In other cases, names of non-SI units have been retained in a colloquial way. Many bear little or no relation to the 'imperial' units we have used in the UK, e.g. there have been many variants on how long a mile is. (Even within the British Isles the mile often varied by region). In other cases the terms are used as slang for actual metric units, e.g. the livre (pound) in France means 500 g. It has been argued that these units are not permitted by the EC Directives. However, it is important to note that these terms do not have any legal standing. To say that we should not use legally-enforced metric units because of these uses is a non sequitur. This is like saying we should not use terms like 'quid', 'bob', 'fiver', or 'buck', 'penny' in the USA, because these have never been legal terms of currency.
Centimetres are not valid within SI

Complete nonsense! This misunderstanding has its roots in the development of SI as a rational and coherent system of units, and in general good engineering and scientific practice. For such purposes it is recommended that one restricts the use of multiples and sub-multiples of units to factors of 10³, e.g. µm, mm and m. So engineering drawings and building plans are labelled in millimetres only. Regardless of the system of units used, it is not a good idea to mix units (e.g. inches and feet). Unfortunately, our own British Standards Institute promulgated the idea that the centimetre was not an approved unit, and as a result, the millimetre has been used (often expressed in terms that indicate a totally unwarranted precision) for many consumer products where the centimetre would have yielded a much more 'user friendly' figure. Of course, anti-metric folks do not point out the error of such practice, instead seizing on it as proof of the unsuitability of SI more everyday use.

Road signs could only be converted in an 'overnight' manner

The argument against a gradual replacement of road signs by the government is that it would be unsafe. Ireland has successfully converted the majority of its distance signs over a period of years by replacing worn signs and installing new ones with km-only markings. (The deadline for metricating speed signs has been deferred to 2001-06-30.) I do not believe there are any safety issues as far as distance signs are concerned. It should also be noted that vehicles in the transport industry (both people and freight) have metric speedometers and odometers. If safety issues don't arise in an industry where public safety is regulated carefully, why should they for car drivers?

An alternative strategy would be the Canadian one, where decals showing km and km/h were placed over signs on their Labour Day weekend.
Posted By: C-H Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/03/03 05:11 PM
Lads,
I'm pretty sure you won't agree. It was never my intent to start a metric vs. imperial war.

Perhaps we should keep the metric vs. imperial for some other forum?
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/03/03 07:52 PM
Sorry guys, not my intent either, but as you can tell, feelings sometimes run a little high over this issue in Britain.

John,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/06/03 04:30 PM
[quoteJohn,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.[/unquote]

Oh darn, and I was having so much fun.
Posted By: djk Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/07/03 12:14 AM
I'd just like to point out those harsh penalties don't apply in the Republic of Ireland. There is a requirment to display € per KG or € per liter BUT there is absolutely no problem displaying an equivilant in € per LB or € per Pint etc. The units are still legally recognised. However, trading standards require that the price be given in metric units, you can have it in anything else you like after that.
Posted By: JohnS Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/10/03 06:48 PM
{quote]I'd just like to point out those harsh penalties don't apply in the Republic of Ireland. There is a requirment to display € per KG or € per liter BUT there is absolutely no problem displaying an equivilant in € per LB or € per Pint etc. The units are still legally recognised. However, trading standards require that the price be given in metric units, you can have it in anything else you like after that.[/quote]

If, i'm not mistake, and Paul can correct me if I am wrong, but that is the same way it is in the UK. However, some folks are making a noise for themselves by not wanting to follow this simple procedure and as a result those resisting are being charged.

If no one in Eire has been charged with an infraction of the law, it is because all have peacefully complied and see no reason why not to.

Keep in mind though, that the use of price per imperial unit as a secondary declaration in advertisements is only legal until 2009-12-31. After which the secondary declarations must be removed. Their legality is only short term.

For further info see the provisions of EU directive 80/181.
Posted By: pauluk Re: AWG to MWG? - 09/11/03 04:15 PM
Yes, that is correct. The current rules allow dual marking, but only on the condition that the metric quantities be given equal (or greater) prominence to English units.

As you point out, however, the dual-marking has been "granted" to us as a temporary derogation to allow us to continue using English units for a few more years. (How generous! [Linked Image] )

According to the powers-that-be, under EC Directive 99/103 (I think that's the number) it will be illegal to include non-metric units in any way from 2010. Metric only from then; English not even allowed as a supplementary indication. Who is being arrogant by forcing their system upon whom now?

But before we all get on our soapboxes too much again, please let's try to get back to the practical applications as they relate to electrical work.

How about the change of fixture threads on British device boxes as an example of harmonization for no good reason?

When the IEE decided to convert fully to metric, the fixing screws changed from 4BA (British Association) to 3.5mm.

Did that serve any useful purpose? I submit that it did not. You cannot argue that it helped with economy by harmonizing with Europe, because nowhere else in Continental Europe uses British-style boxes and devices.

All that happened was that the screws supplied with new devices would not fit the existing boxes. I still find homes where somebody has tried to install a replacement device using new screws and has jammed the threads up because the old boxes were 4BA threads.


[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 09-11-2003).]
© ECN Electrical Forums