EV CHARGING AND FUSE

[ebee]

USA and their units etc

 

[robinbanks]

why I said "about" and my reply was "Well bytes and kilobytes! etc "

These days you can say kilobyte when you mean a thousand of them, and kibibyte when you mean 1024 of them (and similar for mebi/gibi/tebi etc); a contraction of kilo-binary-bytes.

Helpfully both abbreviate to kb, so hard disk manufacturers can carry on saying offering you a larger sounding drive than you're getting

Strictly speaking kilo etc is 1000

 

[ebee]

These days you can say kilobyte when you mean a thousand of them, and kibibyte when you mean 1024 of them (and similar for mebi/gibi/tebi etc); a contraction of kilo-binary-bytes.

Helpfully both abbreviate to kb, so hard disk manufacturers can carry on saying offering you a larger sounding drive than you're getting

Strictly speaking kilo etc is 1000

That was exactly my point when I used the word "about"

 

[morqthana]

A bloke asked me in the pub, "how many grams in a kilogram?" my reply was "about a thousand". Yes ok some asked me why I said "about" and my reply was "Well bytes and kilobytes! etc " .

Yeah, but you were wrong. There are exactly 1,000g in 1kg - always have been.

These days you can say kilobyte when you mean a thousand of them, and kibibyte when you mean 1024 of them (and similar for mebi/gibi/tebi etc); a contraction of kilo-binary-bytes.

Helpfully both abbreviate to kb, so hard disk manufacturers can carry on saying offering you a larger sounding drive than you're getting

Strictly speaking kilo etc is 1000

It is. Always has been, when being correct.

When values which were powers of 2 came about, like 1024, 1048576, etc, it became convenient to co-opt 'kilo' and 'mega', but it was never correct.

And in a (sadly) rare bit of sanity, instead of the incorrect use becoming legitimised, in 1999 the IEC came out with 'kibi', 'mibi' etc to use.

Took a while to catch on, though...

 

[SUNRAY]

Yeah, but you were wrong. There are exactly 1,000g in 1kg - always have been.


It is. Always has been, when being correct.

When values which were powers of 2 came about, like 1024, 1048576, etc, it became convenient to co-opt 'kilo' and 'mega', but it was never correct.

And in a (sadly) rare bit of sanity, instead of the incorrect use becoming legitimised, in 1999 the IEC came out with 'kibi', 'mibi' etc to use.

Took a while to catch on, though...

Unfortunately I don't really think it has caught on, I'll try and drop it into a zoom meeting later and gauge the reaction. Breath and hold not being applied in the same sentence.

 

[ebee]

I will not mention a hundredweight being 112 pounds then

I think I’ve already said that

 

[JohnW2]

I will not mention a hundredweight being 112 pounds then .... I think I’ve already said that

You probably did, but I don't think you mentioned that this is/was another case of transatlantic differences, the US hudredweight having been (I don't know if it still is) 100 pounds

 

[Risteard]

I'll try again:

You said:


I interpreted this to mean "[the number of] kWh [delivered] in an hour [is] NOT kW"

--

Yes it is. A 7kW charger running for an hour will deliver 7kWh.

A charger that delivers 7kWh in an hour, is flowing power at 7kW

This is what I said, and it's what your second post said, so you can't start a post with "wrong" and then agree with what I said

--

The rest of your post is just talking in a circle and then either making a typo with your units or losing the grasp of understanding you demonstrated prior.

You can't have "7kW per hour" when talking about the amount of energy delivered or the rate at which it was delivered because "per is divide", and 7kW/h doesn't make sense unless you're talking about the rate of change of power, i.e. "This charger is a 700kW charger, but it ramps up linearly at a rate of 7kW/h. If you set it going now, in 100 hours' time it will be delivering 700kW of power"


I'm not certain you can be so definite as to be delivering that as a fact/rule that all should obey. If you want to prefix it with "when using my granny charger I keep to a rule of thumb of '...'", that works

So in a nutshell you admit that you have (deliberately) misrepresented what I stated in order that you might argue against it.

 

[SUNRAY]

You probably did, but I don't think you mentioned that this is/was another case of transatlantic differences, the US hudredweight having been (I don't know if it still is) 100 pounds

This is another of the various myths regarding American weights and measures where most believe they are all bigger, I know there are variations between conparable units, I knew they had 2000 pounds to the ton and 100 pounds to the hundredweight, knowing that I was under the impression for a while that therir pound = 1.12 imperial pound making the ton and hundredweight the same weight both sides of the pond similarly their fluid measurements followed the same ratio.

However I soon found out about that one when working at an American company's London branch some years ago, as I learnt there (and I sincerely hope I have this thde right way round) the pound is the same weight making the US. ton and hundredweight ~90% of UK (imperial) but their fluid units don't follow the same ratio with the US gallon being ~80% however the US floz is a fraction bigger which I assume means they have fewer floz to the pint.

Despite our observations, USA supposedly changed to the metric system under an executive order by George Bush

This is all from memory from 15-20 years I assume/hope I'm close and nothing has changed since.

 

[JohnW2]

Despite our observations, USA supposedly changed to the metric system under an executive order by George Bush

If that is true, it sounds as if he must have forgotten to tell the rest of the US citizens about it

 

[ebee]

If that is true, it sounds as if he must have forgotten to tell the rest of the US citizens about it

He might also have forgotten to tell himself about it too.

A customer once remarked to me "To be an American President you need to be a Jerk or a crook or both, America plays a little joke on the world every 4 years and call it a Presidential Election!"

Hmmm, difficult to argue against that one!

 

[SUNRAY]

If that is true, it sounds as if he must have forgotten to tell the rest of the US citizens about it

It seems he did:

Executive Order 12770 - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

But it started before that with:
Cited as "Metric Conversion Act of 1975" but as a voluntary action - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg1007.pdf#page=1 and from that in appears they were signatories to the 1875 treaty of the meter (pressumably the same as the 1875 treaty of the metre) I haven't bothered looking. and from 1866 where their measurements were redefined from metric:

 

[morqthana]

This is another of the various myths regarding American weights and measures where most believe they are all bigger, I know there are variations between conparable units, I knew they had 2000 pounds to the ton and 100 pounds to the hundredweight,

I knew that in the USA 'ton' generally means short ton, whereas here it's long ton.

Short ton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

knowing that I was under the impression for a while that therir pound = 1.12 imperial pound making the ton and hundredweight the same weight both sides of the pond similarly their fluid measurements followed the same ratio.

lb / oz are the same.

However I soon found out about that one when working at an American company's London branch some years ago, as I learnt there (and I sincerely hope I have this thde right way round) the pound is the same weight making the US. ton and hundredweight ~90% of UK (imperial) but their fluid units don't follow the same ratio with the US gallon being ~80% however the US floz is a fraction bigger which I assume means they have fewer floz to the pint.

Their pints are smaller (16 floz) and therefore their quarts & gallons.

I never knew until now that their floz and ours are not the same.

Fluid ounce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SUNRAY]

Their pints are smaller (16 floz) and therefore their quarts & gallons.

I never knew until now that their floz and ours are not the same.

Fluid ounce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I must admit I was under the impression they had 6 pints/3 quarts to a gallon for a long time for that same reason.
Without checking, at 80% of our gallon that must be somewhere near our 6-7 pints


EDIT: Google convert says 6.661

 

[ebee]

Yes I got the impression that their weights and measures tend to short changing us and their billions etc tend to exaggerate.
Couple that with an attempt to "monetarise" everything going and allowing Fleabay trading and misspelling/mispronouncing a lot of stuff.
It all leads to a poor view of them as traders you can trust.
I will not mention their political candidates, ours are bad enough but theirs ? Phew!
They did get the first man to the moon and they are quite good at computers, although they do get times and dates all jumbled up and claim to have won many WW2 battles they did not attend.
But hey ho I suppose they not all as bad as they want us to believe, well not quite all of them anyway.