# Converting Metric Pressure Units to PSI using the Bar-O-Meter

Quote Originally Posted by Emrobu

I know how that theodolite-type thing works

[QUOTE=Kraken;187652]
Sextant?[/QUOTE]

Nah, Theodolite played second base for the Piraeus Pirates.

[QUOTE=Kraken;187652]If you are going to use SI units why does it matter that Imperial units are not [/QUOTE]

I use both. I fix and maintain things that arenât metric. I talk to people who arenât fully metricized. I read old manuals and textbooks. I need both systems.

Sextant?

Yes. That. Thank you. Which, by-the-way isnât divided into tenths of an anything. Show me a metric sextant. Nobody divides circles into 10 parts.

[QUOTE=KPChief;187655]Quote Originally Posted by Emrobu

Nah, Theodolite played second base for the Piraeus Pirates.[/QUOTE]

Itâs a land surveying instrument. I have one here at the house.

Here is an old-timey one.

Itâs what you might use to get a celestial fix on land.

[QUOTE=Emrobu;187656]Yes. That. Thank you. Which, by-the-way isnât divided into tenths of an anything. Show me a metric sextant. Nobody divides circles into 10 parts.[/QUOTE]

A sextant is just an instrument to collect information. In Mathematics we use IS units.

[QUOTE=Kraken;187658]A sextant is just an instrument to collect information. In Mathematics we use IS units.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what your point is, that we should have all used SI units from the start? Isnât it too late for that?

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;187659]Not sure what your point is, that we should have all used SI units from the start? Isnât it too late for that?[/QUOTE]

You should have changed in 1975. But itâs never to late.

[QUOTE=Kraken;187660]You should have changed in 1975. But itâs never to late.[/QUOTE]

I already use metric almost exclusively at work as I mentioned. But I canât buy or sell wood in cubic meters, or land in square meters here in Maine, nobody would know what I was talking about. It would be totally impractical for me to change to metric because the county, the state, the town, my neighbors donât use it. Where would I even start? Grind off the marking on my wrenches and restamp with metric? Insist on my grocer weigh my produce in kgs? It would not just be impractical but Iâd say crazy for me to switch.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;187661]I already use metric almost exclusively at work as I mentioned. But I canât buy or sell wood in cubic meters, or land in square meters here in Maine, nobody would know what I was talking about. It would be totally impractical for me to change to metric because the county, the state, the town, my neighbors donât use it. Where would I even start? Grind off the marking on my wrenches and restamp with metric? Insist on my grocer weigh my produce in kgs? It would not just be impractical but Iâd say crazy for me to switch.[/QUOTE]

Thatâs why changes from one standard to another is something that have to be a top down decision.

And most of the units you use is already defined from a Metric unit. Did you know that a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 meters? Most of the United States customary units are defined from IS units.

[QUOTE=Kraken;187660]You should have changed in 1975.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kraken;187662]Thatâs why changes from one standard to another is something that have to be a top down decision.[/QUOTE]

Which is it? Do you think I am the United States?

[QUOTE=Kraken;187662]
Did you know that a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 meters?[/QUOTE]

Seriously?

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;187663]Which is it? Do you think I am the United States?[/QUOTE]
That would have made it much easier

Itâs my shortcomings in English that strikes again.

I meant âyâallâ should have changed in 1975

Doesnât the US Armed Forces use the metric system, at least in any official and operational context??

I believe military maps are in metrics and USGS maps in standard US units??

If this is correct no one should wonder why there are targeting mistakes.

[QUOTE=ombugge;187670]Doesnât the US Armed Forces use the metric system, at least in any official and operational context??

I believe military maps are in metrics and USGS maps in standard US units??

If this is correct no one should wonder why there are targeting mistakes.[/QUOTE]

Screeeech! thread veers horribly off course Typical good-natured (if predictable)back and forth banter suddenly becomes a thinly veiled if not pointed insult of US military or is it US in general this time? Or is this where you tell us it was just your misunderstood sense of humor? Strange topic to get humorous about.

Clearly your questions were just rhetorical devices to set up your punch line because if you typed âuse of metric system in us militaryâ in to google you would have your answers in short order instead of coming on a professional mariner site and asking. Helpful hint for you: click on the search result from âquoraâ site for a pretty good answer (and read the comments too).

By the way with the military using the metric system in an âoperational contextâ why would they use USGS maps in US standard units to go to war in foreign countries? Is that how you think it works? Have the USGS produce maps of foreign countries for use by US military. Iâm no expert here but I believe they have a whole separate agency (DMA)to produce product for the military. I think they have worked out their measurement systems by now. So your âjokeâ (if it is one) is poorly constructed.

If it is not a joke well, why so serious boobalah? Not all US citizens have the same opinion of military involvement around the world or the use of the metric system. But Iâm pretty sure we are united by baseless pot shots. Jeeze, just have another sip of coffee before you hit send.

[QUOTE=Emrobu;187641]
Itâs a good joke, but I think I just proved it wrong. After all, computers and many other useful technologies were invented and advanced by people who knew both systems.[/QUOTE]

OK, so you have heard that one before. Iâm surprised (Joke)

Now for the question of who invented Computers? Lots of different opinions, but here is one from a reasonably reliable source: http://techland.time.com/2011/11/10/who-really-invented-the-computer/
Of course modern day computers are using neither metric nor US standard units, but binary number system.

Yes, as long as one major country insist on using their own system I assume it is necessary for the few it affects to know both. (4.86% of the worldâs population by last count)

Many Brits are still using Imperial units in their daily life, since they are having problem to adjust to the metric reality of the rest of Europe and the world.(Maybe they will go back to their old way now as part of Brexit??)

Anybody have some good stories of accidents or hilarious situations caused by conversion mistakes?
Here is a few I found in one article: http://mentalfloss.com/article/25845/quick-6-six-unit-conversion-disasters

Pesky furiners; giveâem 2.54 centimeters and theyâll take .3048 of a meter.

[QUOTE=ombugge;187679]

Now for the question of who invented Computers? Lots of different opinions, but here is one from a reasonably reliable source: http://techland.time.com/2011/11/10/who-really-invented-the-computer/
Of course modern day computers are using neither metric nor US standard units, but binary number system.[/QUOTE]

Doesnât matter if you think it was Turing or Babbage or Queen Victoria. Iâm talking about the invention and advancement. Whoever did it could count in base 2 (binary) and base 16 (hexidecimal): while weâre at it, letâs mention 32 bit and 64 bit processors. These numbers come more naturally to people who use fractions: theyâre the numbers on my wrenches and feeler gauges. No one said computers use metric or standard units. What I said was: people who dreamed up computers and ways to make computers better had a fluency in using more than one system. Their mental archetechture was primed to think in a way that allowed them to build up machine complexity.

[QUOTE=KPChief;187676]Screeeech! thread veers horribly off course Typical good-natured (if predictable)back and forth banter suddenly becomes a thinly veiled if not pointed insult of US military or is it US in general this time? Or is this where you tell us it was just your misunderstood sense of humor? Strange topic to get humorous about.

Clearly your questions were just rhetorical devices to set up your punch line because if you typed âuse of metric system in us militaryâ in to google you would have your answers in short order instead of coming on a professional mariner site and asking. Helpful hint for you: click on the search result from âquoraâ site for a pretty good answer (and read the comments too).

By the way with the military using the metric system in an âoperational contextâ why would they use USGS maps in US standard units to go to war in foreign countries? Is that how you think it works? Have the USGS produce maps of foreign countries for use by US military. Iâm no expert here but I believe they have a whole separate agency (DMA)to produce product for the military. I think they have worked out their measurement systems by now. So your âjokeâ (if it is one) is poorly constructed.

If it is not a joke well, why so serious boobalah? Not all US citizens have the same opinion of military involvement around the world or the use of the metric system. But Iâm pretty sure we are united by baseless pot shots. Jeeze, just have another sip of coffee before you hit send.[/QUOTE]

My oh my, are we getting touchy??
I thought my question made it clear that I only asked for confirmation on something I believed to be a fact.

Yes I could have looked it up and I did follow your advise after your post. I did look at Quora, but the articles I could access and the comment you referred to gave a variety of reasons why the US Military is partly metric.

I donât think it is anti-American to point out that there are two sets of maps in use in the US. That there have been accidents from use of wrong maps/conversions while exercising in the US is not a secret, nor is it unknown that this happen in actual live action in foreign countries, with civilian casualties at times, unfortunately. It is a fact, not something that is made up to spite you, or other Americans.

Since your post I also posted a link to other accidents that has been caused by conversion mistakes that could/would have been avoided if there was only ONE system. That some of late ones of those happened to be American mistakes is for the obvious reason that you are the only major country using a system other than SI.
Could some or all these mishaps have been avoided? Yes of course, if there was no need for conversion there would have been no conversion errors.

How does it make sense to maintain an archaic and impractical system just because âit is what we are used toâ?
Does it make sense to have to carry two sets of tools to do repairs on a ship/boat, or have two sets of tools in your garage/workshop at home?

Has anybody calculated how much this silliness cost the American economy every year??
Iâm not talking about from mistakes and additional work alone, but in trade, or loss of trade because your products are not accepted in foreign countries. Yes it is possible to produce two versions of everything, but is that rational?

Maybe a surprise to many, but America was once among the leaders in developing the Metric System, which ended up in the modern day SI. The American Dollar was the first metric currency in the world and Thomas Jefferson proposed the Metric System as the standard system of measurement for US in 1790. Maybe itâs time to implement his proposal?

If anybody is in doubt, here is the timeline for the SI system in the world and in the USA by the US Metric Association: http://boomeria.org/chemlectures/metrichistory.html

Now Iâm going to be accused of being anti-American and a stupid Norwegian that meddle in US affairs again.
OK, I can live with that.

[QUOTE=Kraken;187658]A sextant is just an instrument to collect information. In Mathematics we use IS units.[/QUOTE]

A steel rule is just an instrument to collect information. A pressure gauge is just an instrument to collect information. A thermometer is just an instrument to collect information. A multi-meter is just an instrument to collect information. All of these instruments to collect information are available in metric. But not a sextant. Another one is a chronometer: not available in metric. Why is that? Itâs because itâs not easy to divide circles into tenths. Even in mathematics, we use degrees and radians. I know, letâs take our star fixes in radians, thatâll be much better. Maybe we should talk about this over coffee. Meet me in the mess at pi/2 hours.

[QUOTE=Kraken;187662] Did you know that a nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 meters?[/QUOTE]

1. A perfectly good metric number <sarcasm>

But what if it means something? A code. When did Napoleon become emperor of the French? When did the French make the first air-ship voyage? When was the Birkenhead Drill first used? When was the 4-coulor theorem conjectured? When was Admiral Yamamoto born? What about Alice, from Alice in Wonderland?? 1852.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE. The French invented the metric system, and now, every time you measure out another nautical mile, know that you are actually paying homage to Emperor Napoleon and all that he stands for.

Edit: obviously Iâm referring to Napoleon III.

metric is used a fuckload in the US. Why does it have to be official when itâs very widely used?

[QUOTE=Emrobu;187688]Doesnât matter if you think it was Turing or Babbage or Queen Victoria. Iâm talking about the invention and advancement. Whoever did it could count in base 2 (binary) and base 16 (hexidecimal): while weâre at it, letâs mention 32 bit and 64 bit processors. These numbers come more naturally to people who use fractions: theyâre the numbers on my wrenches and feeler gauges. No one said computers use metric or standard units. What I said was: people who dreamed up computers and ways to make computers better had a fluency in using more than one system. Their mental archetechture was primed to think in a way that allowed them to build up machine complexity.[/QUOTE]

I donât have an opinion about who invented computers, and frankly I donât care. I have used them as a tool since 1985 or so and couldnât live without them now. Irritating as it can be when they donât seams to understand what you want them to do, or some whizkid somewhere change everything, believing that everybody else is like him/her, a computer wizard that know nothing else.
I doubt that any of them think much in terms of fraction of inches to identify wrenches, pipe size or thread pitch though.

I have had to get used to US standard and Imperial system in my over 40 years in the Offshore Oil & Gas Industry.
That doesnât mean that I find it easy, practical or useful, but understandable. I have seen the result of mistakes when the âGood Olâboysâ got confronted by the metric system, some hilarious, some downright dangerous.

Calculating casing volume in Cbm. got one so frustrated he said; âThis is BS, everybody know that a casing is round and a Cbm is square, it ainât going to fit in thereâ.

Measuring drill depth speed in meters and inches/hr. was another. On a rig in Australia I listened to one Toolpusher reporting in such to the Rig Manager ashore, both satisfied that they had a good workable reporting system.

A more serious problem was when rigs designed in US standard measures were built in Singapore from steel purchased in metric measurements. (Always specified in the nearest dimension above)
The rigs ended up too heavy, but since it was standard designed units no DW survey, or Inclination experiment, was carried out on individual units, nor was the Stability Booklet and Weight Calculation Sheets changed, only the name of the units. (All were approved by Class and USCG, though)

These rigs were constantly overloaded by abt. 250 Kips while afloat and abt. 200 Kips while jacking, which was noted by the Warranty Surveyors who attended during rig moves. (I was one of them)
It took years to figure out where the weight came from, not least because the builder were less than cooperative.