Mailport July 2013 Issue

Mailport: July 2013

Measuring Standards

I liked the intent of your April 2013 anchor shank article, but I really object to the metric units. What percentage of your readership do you possibly think can relate to newtons, megapascals, etc.? Some day, the U.S. may go metric, but I do not think PS should take the lead on this. Please stop.

Jack Rackliffe
Marina del Rey, Calif.

We apologize for any irritation the use of metric may have caused. The test was conducted in Australia, using metric equipment. The editor, his brain reeling from spring refit projects, made a foolhardy attempt to again test the readership’s readiness for a metric conversion. This was, as his 10-year-old son would say, “an epic fail.“ In the future, we will convert when feasible, or offer both metric and U.S. Because the conversion from megapascals to pounds per square inch results in nine-digit numbers for anchor steel (1 megapascal = 145 pounds per square inch), and because megapascal is the most common term used for the strength of anchor steel these days, we intend to stick with megapascals, unless we hear an uproar from more readers who insist on pounds per square inch. In the end, the relative numbers are what matter here.

Next: Auto-Draining the Bilge

Comments (1)

I fully agree with PS's response here and use of more logical metric system. The relative numbers are far more important then the units, and psi would be wholly inappropriate. We may have a sense for a few hundred psi, but what is 50,000 psi? And since the US Imperial system does not scale easily, we would be force to use something convoluted like tons per square inch. In American engineering schools, material science is taught with megapascals because it is widely used and of appropriate scale.

Posted by: DAMON L | July 14, 2013 6:59 PM    Report this comment

New to Practical Sailor?
Register for Free!

Already Registered?
Log In