Slashdot Mirror


Another English/Metric "Spacecraft" Problem

SuperDry writes "There's been another spacecraft failure that's been attributed to an English/Metric units problem, this time at Tokyo Disneyland's Space Mountain. An axle broke on a "spacecraft" (a.k.a. roller coaster train) mid-ride, causing it to derail (nobody was hurt). The final investigation report has been released, and the root cause has been determined to be a part being the wrong size due to a conversion of the master plans in 1995 from English units to Metric units. In 2002, new axles were mistakenly ordered using the pre-1995 English specifications instead of the current Metric specifications. Apparently size does matter, even if it's only a 0.86mm difference."

18 of 748 comments (clear)

  1. Miscommunication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the Article:

    In September 1995, the design specifications for the size of the axle bearing for Space Mountain vehicles was changed from inches to the metric scale. Accordingly, the axle diameter was also changed, in this case from 44.14 mm to 45.00 mm. However, appropriate action to revise and maintain the design drawings was neglected. Consequently, two different drawings existed within our company after the changes were made and the old drawing showing the 44.14 mm diameter was used to order (in August 2002) the axles that were delivered in October 2002.

    They actually changed the specs. The conversions were all done correctly but they failed to update everyone.

  2. 0.86mm? That's a HUGE difference! by cnelzie · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the automotive industry being off by that 'gigantic' mile of a discrepancy can be the difference between an entirely safe system or a potentially dangerous event just waiting to happen.

    Anything from rubbing away the lining of important wires or hoses, different stress locations resulting in tear apart pieces that shouldn't be tear apart can happen by being off by that much...

    0.86mm might at well be 3 feet off. A part that comes out that far off is nothing but scrap material. (Well at least in our area of automotive work.)

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    1. Re:0.86mm? That's a HUGE difference! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, 1mm of play in something like a trailer coupling probably won't make a difference. 1mm of play in a wheel bearing would make the wheel and hub wobble appreciably (on a car it would make it very unpleasant to drive), and that same 1mm in an engine's main bearings would cause the engine to hammer itself to bits in minutes.

  3. Re:Who's at fault here, really? by flewp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, if you RTFA, you'd see that the parts were ordered using older specifications, and the parts delivered were consistent with the designs that were ordered. The problem was they put it in an order for the wrong size.

    Consequently, two different drawings existed within our company after the changes were made and the old drawing showing the 44.14 mm diameter was used to order (in August 2002) the axles that were delivered in October 2002.

    --
    WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  4. English/Metric by Ianoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please don't say English/Metric units. The UK is effectively metric now, all schoolchildren are only taught metric units and everything has to be priced in metric units. I don't even have intutitions about how long feet are or how heavy a stone is. Pretty much everyone under the age of 25 only deals with litres, metres and kilograms. The only exception is vehicle speed, which is still measured in mph (and hence all our road signs are in mph). You won't, however, catch any British Engineers or scientists using Imperial units.

    Better ways to describe them would be "Imperial" (what we call them), "American" or "Archiac". I think it's about time the US caught up with the rest of the world and ditched these stupid and difficult-to-remember units once and for all.

    1. Re:English/Metric by CaptainAlbert · · Score: 4, Informative

      The UK is effectively metric now, all schoolchildren are only taught metric units

      Except by their parents, who will teach them the Imperial units anyway.

      My experience is at odds with this assertion that all the youngsters talk metric. Although when at work, just about everything is metric (except if it's American :)), everyone I know (including those younger than me) measures their weight in stones and pounds, and their height in feet and inches. And, more importantly, their beer in pints!

      I much prefer units I can relate to, personally. If the metric system has given us nothing else (which it hasn't), at least we have the Centigrade scale. I'm all for keeping the old-fashioned units alive, but really! Who thought water freezing at 32 and boiling at 212 was a sensible scale?

      I know the significance of 0F as being the lowest acheivable temperature where salted water remains liquid, but can anyone explain the rest? It still completely baffles me!

      P.S. Slashdot ate my ° markup, sorry!

      --
      These sigs are more interesting tha
    2. Re:English/Metric by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh, for temperature, most of the world uses Celcius. A one degree change in Celcius is equal to a one degree change in Kelvin.

      In fact, the Kelvin scale is based on the Celcius scale. 0 degrees Celcius = freezing point of water, 100 degrees Celcius = boiling point of water. How hard is that?

      The only reason why the Fahrenheit scale used a non-zero value for the freezing point of water was that people of the time didn't have a strong grasp of the concept of negative numbers. So, for simplicity's sake, the freezing point of water was set at 32 degrees.

      The concept of negative numbers isn't too difficult for people to grasp now, so is there any reason to stick to such an antiquated temperature scale?

      Metric (or SI) units better on so many levels, especially in science. For example, you can convert from one SI unit to another easily: eg, 1 Newtons = 1 kilogram metre per second squared.

      Also, Imperial measurements aren't standard: some of them vary from country to country, which is equally ridiculous.

      Your "kiloseconds" example is ridiculous, as the second is the SI unit for time. For simplicity and historical reasons we use hours and minutes (because those are easy to comprehend and interpret divisions of a day), but if you were going to perform a time-critical experiment or calculation then you would measure in just seconds. Of course, at the end of your calculation you might convert those seconds into days, hours, minutes and seconds so that your result can be more easily interpreted but you'd never do the mathematics in anything other than an SI-based unit.

      Just because you were raised with Imperial measurements it doesn't negate the intrinsic "clunkiness" of them or the significant advantages SI units possess over them.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  5. It had nothing to do with the conversion directly. by bluprint · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you had read the article, you would know that the problem was, while converting to metric, they also changed the specification of the axle size, but didn't record the new axle size correctly. So, the problem really had nothing to do with any mathematical error, just an error in incorrect documentation.

    --
    A modern day witchhunt.
  6. Google's Cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
  7. The Japanese did the conversion. by mookoz · · Score: 5, Informative
    Bob Gurr (ex-Disney Imagineer) tells the story of the Tokyo Disneyland conversion here:

    http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID108300.asp

    Great set of columns, by the way. I've always been a fan of how some of the disney technology was invented and implemented.

  8. Re:Who's at fault here, really? by sacherjj · · Score: 3, Informative

    The conversion formula isn't rocket science. 25.4 mm per inch. It's been that way for a LONG time.

  9. Re:Imperial, not English... by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Informative

    We (USians) adopted the metric system in 1893 (yes, thats the 19th centry), and actually Imperial (or English as their more commonly known) units have been _altered_ so that they more closely round to a metric equivalent. For example, the inch is now _defined_ as 2.54 cm, it has nothing to do with some king's thumb or anything.

    Maybe, just maybe, we can start using the metric system? Isn't 100 years enough time to transition?

  10. Re:English units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Isn't the American version slightly different, in respect to fluid units, etc?

    Only with respect to fluid units. And the base unit, the ounce, is the same. Measurements based on the pint are different: a US pint is 16oz an Imperial pint (the only legal Imperial measure left in the UK!!!!) is 20oz. A gallon is 8 pints, a cup is a half-pint, but a US gallon or cup is 4/5 of the British counterpart.

    I thought the Brits moved glacially since the UK has been metric since 1971... officially (except for beers. I don't know how long road measure will remain Imperial). Then I found out that the US has been co-metric since Ben Franklin (http://www.nist.gov).

    No system of measure is inherently better or worse than another. But, when everybody you trade with uses a different system, it might be time to reconsider (not that the UK should adopt the Euro....)

  11. Re:The source of the problem by B'Trey · · Score: 3, Informative

    No. The meter is currently defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. (The definition has changed a couple of times as science has advanced to make the definition more precise.) The meter is based on the Earth's merideans (lines of longitude) - it is 1 / 10 millionth of one meridian.

    --

    "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

  12. Re:Who's at fault here, really? by Stalus · · Score: 4, Informative

    The .86 error was because someone decided that they wanted round numbers, so when they changed the spec, they decided to round up. Well, in the process they forgot to throw out the old documentation. So, they ordered the correctly sized part for the old spec and got it wrong.

    Probably a good example for software engineering class. "See, changing the specification, once released, may result in bodily harm!"

  13. The right term is "U. S. Customary" by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Informative

    (And the right term for "metric" is "SI").

    SI units are legal in the United States and have been for a very long time. The inch was set at precisely 25.4 mm _by definition_ in July 1959.

    The additional units, such as inches, miles, quarts, pounds, etc. which I believe are all legally defined by reference to SI units, are officially and properly referred to as "U. S. Customary" units. They have, of course, a strong historical connection to English units.

    Unofficially, "Metric" and "English" are the U. S. customary designations for "SI" and "U. S. Customary."

  14. Fahrenheit's reasons by medscaper · · Score: 4, Informative
    The only reason why the Fahrenheit scale used a non-zero value for the freezing point of water was that people of the time didn't have a strong grasp of the concept of negative numbers.

    Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing!

    From boson.physics.sc.edu :

    At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer (famous for making the first measurements that showed that the velocity of light is finite) devised a temperature scale of his own for use with the alcohol-in-glass thermometers that he constructed. His thermometers attracted the attention of Gabriel Fahrenheit (1686-1736), a manufacturer of meteorological instruments in the Netherlands. In 1708 Fahrenheit traveled to Copenhagen to meet Roemer and see his thermometers, which were based on two reference points. For one reference Roemer used a mixture of ice, water, and salt to reach the lowest temperatures then attainable in the laboratory, which he called zero. His other reference was the boiling point of water, which he arbitrarily designated as 60 degrees.

    Fahrenheit returned home to make thermometers like Roemer's. In 1714 he overcame technical difficulties with alcohol thermometers by substituting mercury as the expanding liquid. The use of mercury extended the range of temperature measurements from well below Roemer's zero to well above the boiling point of water. Furthermore, mercury expanded and contracted more uniformly than the other liquids then in use. As a result, Fahrenheit could mark his mercury thermometers more accurately and with finer divisions.

    By 1724 Fahrenheit had adopted a new scale, similar to Roemer's but with much finer divisions. For the zero point he chose the same reference as Roemer. However, since his thermometer was intended for meteorological observations, he wanted a second reference point that would be nearer the maximum observed temperature for weather. He chose the normal temperature of the human body as the upper reference point, which he called 96. Fahrenheit gave no reason for his choice of 96, but it may have been due to his desire for a finer scale and because 96 is evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12.

    Why didn't Fahrenheit choose the freezing point of water for his zero reference, as Newton had done before him and as Celsius did later on? Perhaps Fahrenheit was influenced by Roemer, or he may have wanted to avoid the inconvenience of repeatedly using negative temperatures during winter. Also, in the early 1700s it was widely believed that water did not always freeze at the same temperature. Soon, using his newly calibrated thermometers, Fahrenheit learned that water always froze at 32 on his scale. He immediately added this third reference point to his instruments.

    --
    Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
  15. Canada: the metric, imperial and american systems by procsyskernel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hello, I live in Montreal, Canada. Here we use three different systems; officialy, we use the metric system, for example: - road signs and cars are in kilometers - the pumps calculate gas in liters - outside temperature is indicated in Celcius by the medias - only the metric system is shown in school But, we also use the imperial system, which is the system of the English empire that we used previously (Canada is part of the Commonwealth as being one of the oldest english colonies). For example, lots of my uncles and aunts (I'm 25) will talk to you about their cars doing miles per gallon, miles per hour, etc. They will also buy stuff at the store in pounds. I personnaly weight myself in pounds and mesure myself in feet. That is not close to change... even if then babies are weighted in kilos at the hospital, and measured in centimeters, they also indicate the conversion on the official papers, otherwise the parents don't have a clue. Also, I personnaly have trouble reading the inside temperature in Celsius... I know exactly how warn I like it, but it's in Farenheits... (even if we only calculate the outside temperature in Celsius, and nobody converts them to understand, not even my grandfather). Also, I have never seen someone calculate the temperature of the pool or spa in Celsius... Don't ask me if 25 Celsius is hot or cold for a pool, I really don't know ! And finally, we also use the American system. The american system is different that the imperial for some measures like "gallons". For example, an imperial gallon is almost exactly 4 liters, while an american gallon is 3.78 gallons... this is why it's always frustrating when you put windshield washer fluid in your car, and they sell you the fluid in 4 liters containers, but the damn US car's ww fluid container is only 3.78 liters ! You always have to carry the damn container because they is always some left... Also, all the contruction is done in feet and inches. We produce the materials, lots of them, but none of it is produced in meters, because the main market is the US, so they just don't bother with our small market and produce everything in feet. This means that architects and engineers, even if they only learn the metric in school, must learn the english and american systems when in university. The same applies for a lot of people that do plumbing, mecanics, and even furniture. However, the people here always use the same terms as before, even if the units have changed; for example, we will say "a pint of milk", even if nore it's no more a pint, but it's a liter... Which system I prefer ? Well, I don't really care... I find the metric system the best, but I would certaintly have problem purchasing furniture in centimeters when all my house as been constructed in feet. I do like the feet and inches, because I find them conveniently easy to estimates, but when you start evaluating distances that are longer than the terrain my house is built on, I will say "300 meters further, turn left"... and will calculate in kilometers. The thing is, if the damn US could convert to the same thing as the rest of the world (which will never happen, or perhaps never before China is the new superpower), we will be stuck with the three systems in Canada...