On 28/01/2012 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But of you're so dismissive of a non decimal currency, why does the US
stick to imperial measurements for just about everything else?

.... except pints and gallons of course. The US "English" system has
never been used in England.

Andy

On 29/01/2012 16:28, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/01/2012 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But of you're so dismissive of a non decimal currency, why does the US
stick to imperial measurements for just about everything else?

... except pints and gallons of course. The US "English" system has never been
used in England.


Hah, everybody knows a gallon should be an 8th part of an amphora. If it was
good enough for the Romans it should be good enough for you goddam Yanks too.

On 1/29/2012 11:28 AM, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/01/2012 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But of you're so dismissive of a non decimal currency, why does the US
stick to imperial measurements for just about everything else?

... except pints and gallons of course. The US "English" system has
never been used in England.

And US fluid ounces are just a bit different, too.

In message , recursor
writes
On 29/01/2012 16:28, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/01/2012 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But of you're so dismissive of a non decimal currency, why does the US
stick to imperial measurements for just about everything else?

... except pints and gallons of course. The US "English" system has
never been
used in England.


Hah, everybody knows a gallon should be an 8th part of an amphora. If
it was good enough for the Romans it should be good enough for you
goddam Yanks too.


I thought the American Pint, at 16 fluid Ounces, was simply a hangover
from the old 16th Century English Pint. The early settlers took the
measures over with them to America, and due to chauvinist reasons, never
adopted the later 'Imperial' Pint of 20 fluid Ounces.
--
Chris Morriss

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/01/2012 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But of you're so dismissive of a non decimal currency, why does the US
stick to imperial measurements for just about everything else?

... except pints and gallons of course. The US "English" system has
never been used in England.

IIRC, it has. The UK one was changed sometime after US independence. They
stuck to the old units, understandably.

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 1/29/2012 1:45 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Andy wrote:
On 28/01/2012 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But of you're so dismissive of a non decimal currency, why does the US
stick to imperial measurements for just about everything else?

... except pints and gallons of course. The US "English" system has
never been used in England.

IIRC, it has. The UK one was changed sometime after US independence. They
stuck to the old units, understandably.

Yup.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:
In article ,
Jerry wrote:
Yes pet, a 15amp breaker has the same rating as 30amp breaker if
you say so... One is far more likely to have an appliance lead
that is rated at 15A, even for appliances that have internal 1amp
fuses, rather than such an appliance having a lead that one could
run a domestic -four ring, grill and oven- cooker off...

Thanks for confirming we can add flex ratings to the things you know
nothing about.

Conductors rated at only 1A are very thin - sufficiently so that they do
not have great mechanical strength. Therefore Jerry's statement that
mains leads (in US: line cords) are likely to have a higher rating than
absolutely necessary is valid. Especially if they're of the sort that
has a connector at both ends: if there's a chance that they might be
used for an appliance that draws more, then it is unwise to use
low-current wire/cable for them.

(I am not on either side in the argument between Jerry and others: I
live in UK, but still find ring mains odd.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you bate your breath do you catch a lung fish? (Glynn Greenwood 1996-8-23.)

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:48:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

(I am not on either side in the argument between Jerry and others: I
live in UK, but still find ring mains odd.)

Why do you find ring mains odd? Once you have daisy chained all the
sockets it is an extremely sensible idea to complete the loop back to
the distribution board. For the cost of a few feet of cable, you have
halved both the effective resistance of the mains and the distance to
the furthest socket. I can't imagine a single reason not to do it.

d

On 29/01/2012 20:48, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:
In article ,
Jerry wrote:
Yes pet, a 15amp breaker has the same rating as 30amp breaker if
you say so... One is far more likely to have an appliance lead
that is rated at 15A, even for appliances that have internal 1amp
fuses, rather than such an appliance having a lead that one could
run a domestic -four ring, grill and oven- cooker off...

Thanks for confirming we can add flex ratings to the things you know
nothing about.

Conductors rated at only 1A are very thin - sufficiently so that they do not
have great mechanical strength. Therefore Jerry's statement that mains leads (in
US: line cords) are likely to have a higher rating than absolutely necessary is
valid. Especially if they're of the sort that has a connector at both ends: if
there's a chance that they might be used for an appliance that draws more, then
it is unwise to use low-current wire/cable for them.

(I am not on either side in the argument between Jerry and others: I live in UK,
but still find ring mains odd.)

Indeed, inherently unsafe some would say:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_ci..._whe n_in_use

In message , Don Pearce
writes:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:48:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

(I am not on either side in the argument between Jerry and others: I
live in UK, but still find ring mains odd.)

Why do you find ring mains odd? Once you have daisy chained all the
sockets it is an extremely sensible idea to complete the loop back to

If you happen to have laid them out in a ring manner anyway, yes.

the distribution board. For the cost of a few feet of cable, you have
halved both the effective resistance of the mains and the distance to
the furthest socket. I can't imagine a single reason not to do it.

d

I can see the halving of the resistance (well, at the most remote point
anyway), but not the halving of the distance.

I think maintenance (I mean when modifying, not just general wear and
tear): most extras added to ring mains are spurs. (Also, instinctively,
it's easier to know when one is isolated with a spur, though that
shouldn't be done that way.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The summit of Everest is marine limestone.