The metric system and its lack of adoption in the US

[Duke87 1,070]

Since it was turning into a separate discussion, from

 

 

But I thought Americans wanted to get rid of all things English?  The old weights and measures system is the last visage of British Imperialism.  Base 12 arithmetic.  Does anyone deserve that?  That system deserves to be deep sixed (fathoms that is).

 

I was told at one point we were considering fully implementing metric. If I remember right, we had signs in both M/ph and k/ph. But it would have been too expensive so we never put it into widespread use. I somewhat have an idea about how metric works, but I don't understand it enough to where I can use it for everyday measurements..

 

 

There was a huge push in the 1970s where a lot of the world went metric. The idea also gained some popularity in the US at first... but whereas other countries had national law put in place mandating the use of metric, that was not politically feasible in the US, so instead congress passed legislation saying that "use of metric is preferred" without having any teeth in it. The result is that while metric has found its way into things a bit (such as all those 2 liter bottles of soda at the store), the idea of a full out conversion fizzled and died because we just decided it wasn't worth it.

 

See, here's the thing: for the rest of the world, it made sense economically and practically to convert not so much because the metric system is simpler but because there is an efficiency and convenience benefit to having the same set of units used everywhere. This way, people traveling from one country to another don't have to learn a different set of units for each country they visit, and manufacturers can use the same standard containers everywhere.

But, the US is large enough and powerful enough to stand on its own with its own set of units, so the same benefit of homogeneity isn't there. Instead, we saw it as being a hugely expensive and disruptive idea (imagine changing every highway sign in the country to have km instead of miles) without the benefit to compensate for that.

 

That, and we Americans have an uncanny habit of wanting to do things our own way without regard for what the rest of the world thinks - the attitude that we use our own set of units because "this is 'Murica" is not just a joke, it's very real. America has American units because America is special. It's a matter of national pride for us.

[Bdub01 201]

The only way to get America to accept the metric system would have to be starting the kids in first grade out with it and going on from there. It can't be done all at once. I'm already stuck in my ways , I'll die being buried six FEET under ground. Even though in nursing I have to use the metric system and yes I hate it with a passion . I'll never get use to switching pounds to kilograms. And ounces to mililiters.

[Zelgadis 638]

There's much to be said for the usefulness of imperial.

 

We've all heard about the benefits of metric, and yes, they certainly exist. Being neatly divisible by 10 has some great advantages. Also, that metric can be easily subdivided into extremely tiny units also has advantages. Metric is great for science.

 

In defense of imperial

 

Imperial has its uses. Its units are based on the human condition. A foot is roughly the length of a man's foot. An inch is roughly the width of a man's thumb. A yard is the length from the tip of a person's index finger to the nose. The list goes on. This is extremely useful when precise measurements are unneeded or unavailable. I can get an approximate square footage of a room in a prospective apartment by stepping it out. Ever watch a seamstress or tailor measure fabric when he/she doesn't need precision (which is often)? Three yards... zip, zip, zip, done in five seconds.

 

Secondly, phonetically and literarily, imperial sounds better. Mile vs. kilometer. Inch vs centimeter. Pound vs. kilogram. Ounce vs. milliliter Note that all the imperial words are shorter and more memorable.  It's not about laziness in saying more syllables. Imperial simply sounds better.

 

"Wow! You can see for miles!" vs. "Wow! You can see for kilometers!"  

Inchworm vs. centimeterworm.  I'm glad we don't have the second one. Even a shortened "centiworm" is still cumbersome.

Mileage vs... what? I'm not sure there's even a metric term for that.

"I'd like a half pound of ham." vs. "I'd like two hundred and fifty grams of ham."  (Side note: why meat and veggies aren't priced by the kilo in metric-oriented supermarkets, I'll never understand.)

 

I've tried to write stories using metric in the past, but the cumbersome words make me cringe every time. They are utterly unpoetic and throw a monkeywrench in the narrative almost every time. This is why people have had to invent new words, like "klicks," to make metric more palatable to the human ear.

 

I like the fahrenheit scale for temperatures too. Yeah, it doesn't freeze at zero or boil at a nice, zero-laden number, but comfort level can be easily expressed in ten-degree increments. Anything over 100 is frying hot. 90s is quite hot. 80s is pretty hot. 70s is a pretty comfy range. 60s is getting cool, but not uncomfortably so. 50s needs a jacket for sure. 40s is getting on the cold side. 30s and it's time to get out a light coat. 20s and now gloves are a necessity even for short periods. Teens is flipping freezing. Single digits and I'm staying the hell home. Etc.

 

I firmly believe that there's room for both imperial and metric in daily life. I like them both and use each for the purposes for which they are best suited.

[Cobraroll 138]

I think switching to Metric would be rather expensive, but also widely practical. There are currently two countries in the world where Imperial units are the official standard system of measurement: USA and Liberia. All the rest use Metric, at least officially. The UK is slightly behind, and I guess that goes for its former colonies too. But for the remaining 80-90% of the human population, the Imperial system is just a pain in the rear. The US is the greatest provider of Internet content and databases, and it bugs me that I have to convert the numbers into sensible units whenever I, for instance, look up the height of a building or the size of an animal.

 

Switching would require a long interim period, in which units were presented in both systems of measurements. For example, juice bottles being labelled "40 oz (1.18 liter)", or cars with speedometers showing both mph and km/h. After a while (a decade or so), the order would be switched, juice bottles would be re-labelled "1.2 liter (40.5 oz)" and stay primarily Metric with Imperial units in brackets until people get used to the Metric ones.

 

As for temperature, I sort of see the appeal of Fahrenheit, but it's completely outclassed by Celsius in my eyes.

Zero marks the transition between "chilly" and "cold". This is especially important in places with a proper winter: Is it below zero, ice will form and driving (and walking) conditions will worsen significantly. Leave your bike at home unless you're really skilled.

At ten degrees, you can swap your winter jacket for a lighter one.

Fifteen, you don't need a jacket.

Twenty degrees means summer is here. Leave your sweaters at home.

Twenty-five, it starts to get nice and warm. 24 degrees is comfort indoor temperature.

It doesn't get any hotter than 30 in Norway, but I guess that treshold has some significance in other places.

37 - heat of human body.

100 - water boils.

200 - pizza temperature.

 

The Nordic countries also use the unit "mile", by the way. Though, up here it simply means "10 kilometres". You can see for miles in some places, indeed.

 

Last, Metric is quite scalable, which is very nice when doing calculations. There are 1000 litres in a cubic metre, likewise 1000 cubic centimetres equals one litre. For most practical purposes, the weight of an object in Newtons can be regarded as ten times its mass in kilograms. You can go between big and small sizes very easily, seeing as the difference between grams, kilograms and tons is a matter of scaling by 1000. A litre of water weighs one kilogram. A Pascal is a Newton by a square meter, a Megapascal is a Newton by a square millimeter (quite nifty for engineering purposes). And so forth.

[astronelson 339]

Imperial has its uses. Its units are based on the human condition. A foot is roughly the length of a man's foot. An inch is roughly the width of a man's thumb. A yard is the length from the tip of a person's index finger to the nose. The list goes on. This is extremely useful when precise measurements are unneeded or unavailable. I can get an approximate square footage of a room in a prospective apartment by stepping it out. Ever watch a seamstress or tailor measure fabric when he/she doesn't need precision (which is often)? Three yards... zip, zip, zip, done in five seconds.

 

You can easily find similar relations in metric too, though - a centimetre is roughly the width of my pinkie finger, 2 centimetres is about as wide as my thumb (certainly closer to that than an inch). A yard is roughly as long as a metre (nine-tenths as long), so that still holds. A metre is also about as long as a decent stride or the length of my leg.

 

Secondly, phonetically and literarily, imperial sounds better. Mile vs. kilometer. Inch vs centimeter. Pound vs. kilogram. Ounce vs. milliliter Note that all the imperial words are shorter and more memorable.  It's not about laziness in saying more syllables. Imperial simply sounds better.

 

"Wow! You can see for miles!" vs. "Wow! You can see for kilometers!"  

Inchworm vs. centimeterworm.  I'm glad we don't have the second one. Even a shortened "centiworm" is still cumbersome.

Mileage vs... what? I'm not sure there's even a metric term for that.

"I'd like a half pound of ham." vs. "I'd like two hundred and fifty grams of ham."  (Side note: why meat and veggies aren't priced by the kilo in metric-oriented supermarkets, I'll never understand.)

 

I won't argue against imperial sounding better poetically (because I admit it does). Although, "you can see for ages" is also perfectly valid.

 

The inchworm is called such because it inches along, not because it is an inch long (although the first inch is derived from the second inch). If metric was the only system that ever existed, then it would be more likely called a creepworm (or loaper caterpillar or surveyor, two other names it has gone by) than a centiworm.

 

With regards to mileage, probably fuel efficiency? Interesting aside: we (by which I mean Australia, a lot of Europe, and New Zealand) don't measure it in kilometres per litre, we measure it in litres per 100 kilometres.

 

Quick question. Over the same distance, which change saves you more fuel: raising the MPG from 15 to 20 or from 30 to 45? Now the same question, but in L/100km: from 15.7 to 11.8 or from 7.8 to 5.2?

 

I don't have a problem with buying 250 grams of ham, half a kilo of bananas, or 2 litres of milk. It sounds perfectly natural to me.

 

I've tried to write stories using metric in the past, but the cumbersome words make me cringe every time. They are utterly unpoetic and throw a monkeywrench in the narrative almost every time. This is why people have had to invent new words, like "klicks," to make metric more palatable to the human ear.

 

For kilometres we tend to use "k's" in Australia. For example, it's about 1000 k's from Brisbane to Sydney along the M1 (at least it was, until they straightened it out. Now it's in the 900's somewhere). If you're used to the units and what people usually call them they're easy to write in.

 

I like the fahrenheit scale for temperatures too. Yeah, it doesn't freeze at zero or boil at a nice, zero-laden number, but comfort level can be easily expressed in ten-degree increments. Anything over 100 is frying hot. 90s is quite hot. 80s is pretty hot. 70s is a pretty comfy range. 60s is getting cool, but not uncomfortably so. 50s needs a jacket for sure. 40s is getting on the cold side. 30s and it's time to get out a light coat. 20s and now gloves are a necessity even for short periods. Teens is flipping freezing. Single digits and I'm staying the hell home. Etc.

 

Sure, but you can do the same with 5-degree Celsius increments, which are 9 Fahrenheit apart.

0 is freezing cold.

5 is cold.

10 is a bit cold.

15 is OK, still a bit cool.

20 is OK.

25 is getting a little warm.

30 is warm.

35 is hot.

40 is too hot.

[dazza262 133]

Personally I don't think it's that big a deal really.

 

Here in the UK we still use the old imperial system alongside the metric.

 

When I go to the pub I buy a PINT of beer, when I go to the supermarket I buy a LITRE of milk.

 

I'm 5 FEET 7 INCHES tall, but I might buy 2 METRES of copper pipe.

 

And all our road signs are in MILES, nobody here would ever say "Oh yeah, that's about 30 KILOMETRES north of London".

 

As long as you have a basic understanding of what the equivalent imperial to metric conversions are, no problem.

[timmie 988]

Mileage vs... what? I'm not sure there's even a metric term for that.

 

In Dutch we say 'kilometrage'. Well, actually, it's French, but we say it in Dutch too. Sounds perfectly normal. I guess it is about what you are used to.

[flatron 83]

I prefer the metric system. At least in my language (German), Zentimeter doesn't sound any harsher than Zoll(inch, but also: toll). By the way, we still say "Siebenmeilenstiefel" (seven mile boots) or "meilenweit"(miles away). Back in the nineteenth century, almost every one of the 300(!) states that make up germany nowadays had their own system of measurement. For example, there was a bavarian pound, a hessian pound, etc. The "Mass"(one litre of delicious beer ) is exactly 1.016 litres, because that was the volume of 1 bavarian bucket... If I am asked  to give my height, I say one ninety five or one metre ninety five, wich is in no way more difficult to say than six feet four. On the autobahn, 130 km/h are recommended, but if you wan't and if your car can, you can drive 250 or more, in built up areas, 50(~30mph) is maximum, and in most residential areas, it's 30 km/h. One pro for the metric system is of course, that your weight is 70kg and not 154lbs(If you proudly say that you now weigh only 154, europeans will think you're still rather fat )

by the way, a pound is now simply 500g. There are still differences between the north and south, as in southern germany, a "Zentner"(used for agricultural products such as potatoes or wheat) is 100kg and in the north, the same unit stands for 50kg.

 

@mileage vs kilometrage: we simply say Strecke(length) or if talking about how much fuel a car uses, we call it "Verbrauch in Liter pro 100 Kilometer" or simply "Verbrauch" as everybody knows what your talking about....

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

In defense of imperial

 

Imperial has its uses. Its units are based on the human condition. A foot is roughly the length of a man's foot. An inch is roughly the width of a man's thumb. A yard is the length from the tip of a person's index finger to the nose. The list goes on. This is extremely useful when precise measurements are unneeded or unavailable. I can get an approximate square footage of a room in a prospective apartment by stepping it out. Ever watch a seamstress or tailor measure fabric when he/she doesn't need precision (which is often)? Three yards... zip, zip, zip, done in five seconds.

 

 

Well yeah, thats only useful until you realize that one guys foot is not the same as another guys foot. Humans come in a lot of different sizes, so yards or foots would for example make absolutely no sense in Asia where people are generally smaller. And if you grew up around meters, like everyone who lives in a country that uses the metric system, you will be able to eyeball the square meters of a room just as easily. 

 

 

Secondly, phonetically and literarily, imperial sounds better. Mile vs. kilometer. Inch vs centimeter. Pound vs. kilogram. Ounce vs. milliliter Note that all the imperial words are shorter and more memorable.  It's not about laziness in saying more syllables. Imperial simply sounds better.

 

"Wow! You can see for miles!" vs. "Wow! You can see for kilometers!"  

Inchworm vs. centimeterworm.  I'm glad we don't have the second one. Even a shortened "centiworm" is still cumbersome.

Mileage vs... what? I'm not sure there's even a metric term for that.

"I'd like a half pound of ham." vs. "I'd like two hundred and fifty grams of ham."  (Side note: why meat and veggies aren't priced by the kilo in metric-oriented supermarkets, I'll never understand.)

 

I've tried to write stories using metric in the past, but the cumbersome words make me cringe every time. They are utterly unpoetic and throw a monkeywrench in the narrative almost every time. This is why people have had to invent new words, like "klicks," to make metric more palatable to the human ear.

 

 

Meh, language wise the metric system has a very simple logic to it. Much more than the random units of measurement they threw together in the Imperial system. Also, we can also say 'half a pound of ham' as pound is a measurement we use as well (at least in the Netherlands). Otherwise one can still say something like 'half a kilo of ham' or 'a quarter kilo of ham' and everyone will instantly know what you mean. But I suppose the beauty of it lies in the eyes of the beholder. Ig you grow up using the Imperial system you are used to it. 

[MandelSoft 2,775]

There are some things in the imperal system I don't like. For instance, the imperal system should be base 12. That's OK, when applied consistently. Base 12 is quite easy for calculations. This Youtube video explains:

The problem is that this is not completely the case. Just take a look at the complete system that's used for lengths. You see that in between the yard and the mild, things get screwed up:

1 inch = 0.0254m

1 foot = 12 inches = 0.3048 m

1 yard = 3 feet = 0.9144 m

1 rod = 5.5(!) yards = 5.0292m

1 chain = 4 rods = 20.1168m

1 furlong = 10 chains = 201.168m

1 mile = 8 furlongs = 1609.344m

So, 1 mile = 8×10×4×5.5 = 1760 yards. This is really hard to convert units. Where I can easily say that 1609.344m is about 1.6 km within a second, I have to get my calculator to convert 2000 yards to miles (which is 1.136 miles, by the way). And it isn't only limited to lenghts (or areas or volumes, for that matter). Take a look at weights:

1 dram = 1.772g

1 ounce = 16 drams = 28.35g

1 pound = 16 ounces = 453.592g

1 stone = 14 pounds = 6.350kg

1 short hundred-weight = 100 pounts = 45.36kg

1 long hundred-weight = 8 stones = 50.80kg

1 short ton = 20 short hundred-weights = 907.2kg

1 long ton = 20 long hundred-weights = 1016kg

Now, let's calculate how many drams there go in one long ton (hint: it's 573440).

As an engineering student, who knows how many times I've converted been different metric units. With imperal units, this would be hell...

And there is another caveat: some of these units may look like each other, but they have a different value. One British gallon is 4.546 liters, but one American gallon is 3.7853 liters. And a nautic mile is exactly 1852m, about 250m longer than the land mile. I can see the Babylonian speech confusion coming up on this one...

As you can see, the problem is consistency...

Although we use metric here for a long time, there are still some remains of the old measuring units, but only for lenghts and weights; they just adapted to the metric system. One thumb (inch) = 2.5 cm and one foot = 30cm, but both are not in use anymore. Old names for weights are more common. We have the dutch ounce = 100g, one pound = 500g and one ton = 1000 kg. So you can still order half a pound of ham at the butcher here and he'll get you 250g ham. Besides, after a while, you gonna get some memory supports about

Secondly, phonetically and literarily, imperial sounds better. Mile vs. kilometer. Inch vs centimeter. Pound vs. kilogram. Ounce vs. milliliter Note that all the imperial words are shorter and more memorable.  It's not about laziness in saying more syllables. Imperial simply sounds better.

Nah, you get used to it. although we often use "kilo" instead of "kilogram", one cubic decimeter is a liter, a cubic meter is a "kuub" (cube). For measuring, we say lenghts like "2 meter 50" if we mean 2.50m (and frankly, we do the same with money: 1 euro 50 is €1.50). For some combined units, we have found other names. For instance, one Pascal is 1 Newton per square meter. 1 Newton is one kilogram meter per second squared (kgms²). If you can decipher these units, you can always do an unit check for your calculations to see if the dimensions are right.

"Wow! You can see for miles!" vs. "Wow! You can see for kilometers!"

It sounds a bit akward in English because you're not used to. In dutch, we say: "Wauw! Je kan kilometers ver kijken!", which doesn't sound that weird...

Mileage vs... what? I'm not sure there's even a metric term for that.

Kilometrage.

"I'd like a half pound of ham." vs. "I'd like two hundred and fifty grams of ham."  (Side note: why meat and veggies aren't priced by the kilo in metric-oriented supermarkets, I'll never understand.)

In supermarkets around here, they are priced by kilo

Best,

Maarten

[timmie 988]

By the way, I've always loved the duodecimal system, it's wonderful to count on your hands. On one hand you can count your phalanx bones with your thumb (there are twelve), on the other hand you can keep track of the number of 'dozens'. Quite a lot more elegant than the way we count on our fingers today. (It's in the video Maarten posted, by the way, near the end.)

 

Although we use metric here for a long time, there are still some remains of the old measuring units, but only for lenghts and weights; they just adapted to the metric system. One thumb (inch) = 2.5 cm and one foot = 30cm, but both are not in use anymore. Old names for weights are more common. We have the dutch ounce = 100g, one pound = 500g and one ton = 1000 kg. So you can still order half a pound of ham at the butcher here and he'll get you 250g ham. Besides, after a while, you gonna get some memory supports about

That's a Dutch quirk I always found odd. Although we speak the same language in the northern half of Belgium, the use of 'ons' (ounce) and 'pond' (pound) is completely foreign to us. The only thing we use is ton.

[Wiimeiser 452]

How do Base 9, 16, 20 and 60 fare?

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

You can have base 60 if you are an ancient Egyptian priest.

 

Here we are officially metric and unofficially mixed.  Grocery stores quote some things by the pound, other things by the kilogram.  Naturally, I've lived through the conversion and have become quite handy with it, but I still mostly think in Imperial units.  My kids are doggedly metric thanks to the school system.

 

OK, so the weather people quote in kilopascals.  Well, if you multiply that by 10 you get to millibars, which is what I am used to.  They also quote rain in millimetres.  Well, 25 mm is close as damnit to an inch.  Snow in centimetres means that 30 cm. is about a foot.

 

I might buy a 15m extension cord, and what I get is a 50 ft. one.

 

One has to be flexible in these difficult times.

 

Meat is quoted in Kilograms, but deli is quoted by the 100 gm. lot.  I get sliced deli meats 150 gm at a time, which is enough for a couple of sandwiches.  Butter comes in 500gm packages of four 125gm sticks.  Glad they've quit the 454 gm (1 pound) package.  In cooking, all measures are approximate except for some precision baking.  I have a metric scale in my kitchen, but then I am diabetic and so many recipes come in metric.  My measuring cups are graduated in both, but the ones for flour and other dry stuff is metric.

 

Believe me, if you are making choux paste, getting the salt wrong gets you some floury little omelets.  But don't let a cream puff scare you, just be exact when making the paste.  Profiteroles are a snap and eclairs can be turned out like lightening.

 

Some of my recipes are in metric, and oven temperatures are in Celsius.  My oven is Fahrenheit.  Not so hard to figure out.  To convert from C to F, double it, subtract 10% and add 32.  Somewhere in there, I was taught to do such things in my head.

 

Most Canadians of my generation, at least, are pretty well metrified with a good solid dose of Imperial salt.

[Duke87 1,070]

Switching would require a long interim period, in which units were presented in both systems of measurements. For example, juice bottles being labelled "40 oz (1.18 liter)", or cars with speedometers showing both mph and km/h. After a while (a decade or so), the order would be switched, juice bottles would be re-labelled "1.2 liter (40.5 oz)" and stay primarily Metric with Imperial units in brackets until people get used to the Metric ones.

 

Our car speedometers have had both mph and km/h since the 1970s and our food packaging has been dual units for just as long. It is, in fact, legally mandated that they be labeled with both sets of units. But the US customary units (not quite the same thing as Imperial) are still the primary unit decades later and no one is looking to change that. The dual unit speedometers are a service to us when we drive to Canada or Mexico, and the dual unit packaging is a service to visitors from other countries. It is not considered to be the first step of us switching.

 

The problem is that this is not completely the case. Just take a look at the complete system that's used for lengths. You see that in between the yard and the mild, things get screwed up:

1 inch = 0.0254m

1 foot = 12 inches = 0.3048 m

1 yard = 3 feet = 0.9144 m

1 rod = 5.5(!) yards = 5.0292m

1 chain = 4 rods = 20.1168m

1 furlong = 10 chains = 201.168m

1 mile = 8 furlongs = 1609.344m

So, 1 mile = 8×10×4×5.5 = 1760 yards. This is really hard to convert units. Where I can easily say that 1609.344m is about 1.6 km within a second, I have to get my calculator to convert 2000 yards to miles (which is 1.136 miles, by the way).

 

To be fair, though, rods and chains are archaic surveying units that no one uses for anything anymore, and furlongs are only ever mentioned in horse racing. In day to day life we just have inches, feet, yards, and miles. Most of us prefer to remember that a mile is 5280 feet than that it's 1760 yards.

 

Miles do provide a convenient conversion, though, because 60 miles per hour (a reasonable speed you might be driving on a trip) = 1 mile per minute, so you can easily estimate how long it will take you to get somewhere if you know the distance. Kilometers do not provide quite the same convenience.

 

Also, a note about chains: a chain was made to be 66 feet due to convenience of conversion for surveying purposes. There are exactly 80 chains in a mile, and an area 1 chain square is exactly a tenth of an acre (an acre is 43,560 square feet, or 1/640th of a square mile). They are called chains because surveyors would literally have a metal chain of that length to survey with.

 

 Take a look at weights:

1 dram = 1.772g

1 ounce = 16 drams = 28.35g

1 pound = 16 ounces = 453.592g

1 stone = 14 pounds = 6.350kg

1 short hundred-weight = 100 pounts = 45.36kg

1 long hundred-weight = 8 stones = 50.80kg

1 short ton = 20 short hundred-weights = 907.2kg

1 long ton = 20 long hundred-weights = 1016kg

Now, let's calculate how many drams there go in one long ton (hint: it's 573440).

As an engineering student, who knows how many times I've converted been different metric units. With imperal units, this would be hell...

 

Again, though, nobody in the US knows what a "stone" is, although people still express their weight in stones in the UK. Likewise, drams, hundredweights, and long tons are not in common usage.

 

As for engineering, we usually only use two units to measure forces: pounds and kips (a kip is 1,000 pounds).

 

I'm also going to point out that since we're talking about force and not mass it would be more technically correct to convert those numbers to Newtons than to kilograms. The pound to kilogram conversion only works on the Earth's surface, and even then only approximately since the value of g varies slightly from place to place.

[MandelSoft 2,775]

How do Base 9, 16, 20 and 60 fare?

Base 9 (3×3): Not a good option. Base 9 has one one prime factor: 3. This means everything that doesn't contain a prime factor 3 (which means at least two-thirds of the even numbers, such as 2, 4, 8, 10, plus all other primes) are getting nasty. For instance 1/2 in Base 9 is 0.444... Not really useful...

Base 16 (2×2×2×2) may have the same problem as base 9, but base 16 has another prime factor: 2. So all even numbers are nicely dividable, but the odd numbers are not. 1/2 = 0.8, but 1/3 = 0.555...

Base 20 (2×2×5) is basically 2 times base 10. It will have the same problems as base 10, just only with twice as many numbers.

Base 60 (2×2×3×5) is 5 times base 12. It does combine the advantages of base 10 and base 12, but the problem is that it's a pretty large set of numbers making it hardly practical as a number system. But you see that this is the reason why we have 360 degrees in a circle, each degree has 60 minutes of each 60 seconds.

The problem is that this is not completely the case. Just take a look at the complete system that's used for lengths. You see that in between the yard and the mild, things get screwed up:

1 inch = 0.0254m

1 foot = 12 inches = 0.3048 m

1 yard = 3 feet = 0.9144 m

1 rod = 5.5(!) yards = 5.0292m

1 chain = 4 rods = 20.1168m

1 furlong = 10 chains = 201.168m

1 mile = 8 furlongs = 1609.344m

So, 1 mile = 8×10×4×5.5 = 1760 yards. This is really hard to convert units. Where I can easily say that 1609.344m is about 1.6 km within a second, I have to get my calculator to convert 2000 yards to miles (which is 1.136 miles, by the way).

 

To be fair, though, rods and chains are archaic surveying units that no one uses for anything anymore, and furlongs are only ever mentioned in horse racing. In day to day life we just have inches, feet, yards, and miles. Most of us prefer to remember that a mile is 5280 feet than that it's 1760 yards.

But still, this is not a really useful number to work with. I'm just showing where that number comes from. True, a lot of these units are not in use anymore, but a bit of history gives you an understanding of the system. It starts to go wrong from yard to rod with that ugly factor 5.5. One rod = 5.5 yards = 16.5 feet = 198 inches. I mean, it was more logical if everything in the system was a factor 3, 6 or 12, but you see factors of 4, 5.5, 8, 10 screwing things up.

If we going to arrange 5280 in prime factors we get 2×2×2×2×2×2×3×5×11. And it's that factor 11 that makes it so nasty to work with...

Also, I can come up in an instant with how many square meters go in a square kilometer, but can you do that with how many square feet go into a square mile or an acre? Is this something you really have to "know" or can you easily calculate it? With metric, you can easily calculate it by adding or substracting a number of zeroes...

Miles do provide a convenient conversion, though, because 60 miles per hour (a reasonable speed you might be driving on a trip) = 1 mile per minute, so you can easily estimate how long it will take you to get somewhere if you know the distance. Kilometers do not provide quite the same convenience.

Why shouldn't this be the same for kilometers? I mean. My grandparents live in Alkmaar, 80km away. On quite some of our motorways we have a speed limit of 120 km/h, or 2km/min. So it would take 40 minutes to get there. However, it's not reasonable to assume such a speed limit. 90km/h is a more realistic assumption, which is 1.5km/min, which would mean we would arrive in 53 minutes. See? It's not that hard to do that with kilometers.

Also, a note about chains: a chain was made to be 66 feet due to convenience of conversion for surveying purposes. There are exactly 80 chains in a mile, and an area 1 chain square is exactly a tenth of an acre (an acre is 43,560 square feet, or 1/640th of a square mile). They are called chains because surveyors would literally have a metal chain of that length to survey with.

That can be true, but the caveat is what happens between the small units and the larger unites. That one step makes this entire system hard to remember.

Take a look at weights:

1 dram = 1.772g

1 ounce = 16 drams = 28.35g

1 pound = 16 ounces = 453.592g

1 stone = 14 pounds = 6.350kg

1 short hundred-weight = 100 pounds = 45.36kg

1 long hundred-weight = 8 stones = 50.80kg

1 short ton = 20 short hundred-weights = 907.2kg

1 long ton = 20 long hundred-weights = 1016kg

Now, let's calculate how many drams there go in one long ton (hint: it's 573440).

As an engineering student, who knows how many times I've converted been different metric units. With imperial units, this would be hell...

 

Again, though, nobody in the US knows what a "stone" is, although people still express their weight in stones in the UK. Likewise, drams, hundredweights, and long tons are not in common usage.

Again, this is just to show how the system works and again, there's a not so nice prime factor 7 in it (it's hidden in the factor 14).

As for engineering, we usually only use two units to measure forces: pounds and kips (a kip is 1,000 pounds).

Actually, that looks like a metric-imperial mix...

Best,

Maarten

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

Miles do provide a convenient conversion, though, because 60 miles per hour (a reasonable speed you might be driving on a trip) = 1 mile per minute, so you can easily estimate how long it will take you to get somewhere if you know the distance. Kilometers do not provide quite the same convenience.

Eh, cars that use the metric system can also drive 60 km/h, which is 1km per minute. Alright, it is slower than 60 mph, but then again, 120 is a pretty commonly used speed on highways, so you go 2 km per minute rather than 1. If you use that as a baseline for determining how long it takes to get somewhere, it is a relatively accurate way of determining how long it takes. Of course, that only works if the vast part of the journey is spend on highways. Then again, I'm not sure if you can drive 60 mph on normal roads? 

[simlink 1,098]

 (Side note: why meat and veggies aren't priced by the kilo in metric-oriented supermarkets, I'll never understand.)

 

Most grocery stores I see quote it in both, price per lb and also price per kilo. The flyers do as well. Though I admit to being thrown off why metric is smaller...

[Superbacon 380]

While most Americans are content with using the imperial system, I try to use metrics as often as I can. Anywhere you go outside the US is going to use metrics, and you have to be "fluent" in it. Same with temperatures.

[Easy Bakes 253]

sorry 40C degrees will just never "sound" hot to me

[MandelSoft 2,775]

It's because you're not used to it. For me, 80 degrees seems like freakin' hot to me, even when it's in Fahrenheit.

[Zelgadis 638]

The US is the greatest provider of Internet content and databases, and it bugs me that I have to convert the numbers into sensible units whenever I, for instance, look up the height of a building or the size of an animal.

 

 

 

Define "sensible."

 

Because in some ways, metric is very sensible. Divisible by 10. Good. Convertible into tiny units. Good.

 

In some ways, however, it's so unsensible that you have to wonder what sort of drugs the people who created it were on. A meter was calculated as being a certain tiny fraction of the distance between the Earth and the sun. What?  That is stupid, arbitrary, and of no use to anyone whatsoever. Why not make it the length of the average person's stride, heel to toe? Why not make it the length of the average person's belt? Still not exact, but it would have been far more helpful.  The meter or centimeter may be applicable to the human experience in some ways, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule and it's always by accident rather than by design.

 

Not to say imperial doesn't have its problems. It'd be nice for it to have uniformity of divisibility. The mile is a concept that's not really useful anymore. It was once based on standard units of property measurement, but that's no longer used. I think it'd be good to change the mile to 1200 yards.  I still give the mile more props than the meter, however, for at least having a practical application at one point in history.

 

Is the reason why America won't switch simply because it's America?  Oh good god, no. That's a silly argument. People would switch readily if the alternative were objectively better. One need only look at Canada for the answer. Canada tried switching and has been about half successful. The simple fact is that imperial is still so very useful for many things and that people simply don't want to switch completely. 

 

Bottom line, neither metric nor imperial is better than the other. Neither is more "sensible" than the other. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The entire world would be done a favor if every kid learned both.

[Sandis_van_Great 346]

 

Imperial has its uses. Its units are based on the human condition. A foot is roughly the length of a man's foot. An inch is roughly the width of a man's thumb. A yard is the length from the tip of a person's index finger to the nose. The list goes on. This is extremely useful when precise measurements are unneeded or unavailable. I can get an approximate square footage of a room in a prospective apartment by stepping it out. Ever watch a seamstress or tailor measure fabric when he/she doesn't need precision (which is often)? Three yards... zip, zip, zip, done in five seconds.

 

You can easily find similar relations in metric too, though - a centimetre is roughly the width of my pinkie finger, 2 centimetres is about as wide as my thumb (certainly closer to that than an inch). A yard is roughly as long as a metre (nine-tenths as long), so that still holds. A metre is also about as long as a decent stride or the length of my leg.

 

 

Secondly, phonetically and literarily, imperial sounds better. Mile vs. kilometer. Inch vs centimeter. Pound vs. kilogram. Ounce vs. milliliter Note that all the imperial words are shorter and more memorable.  It's not about laziness in saying more syllables. Imperial simply sounds better.

 

"Wow! You can see for miles!" vs. "Wow! You can see for kilometers!"  

Inchworm vs. centimeterworm.  I'm glad we don't have the second one. Even a shortened "centiworm" is still cumbersome.

Mileage vs... what? I'm not sure there's even a metric term for that.

"I'd like a half pound of ham." vs. "I'd like two hundred and fifty grams of ham."  (Side note: why meat and veggies aren't priced by the kilo in metric-oriented supermarkets, I'll never understand.)

 

I won't argue against imperial sounding better poetically (because I admit it does). Although, "you can see for ages" is also perfectly valid.

 

The inchworm is called such because it inches along, not because it is an inch long (although the first inch is derived from the second inch). If metric was the only system that ever existed, then it would be more likely called a creepworm (or loaper caterpillar or surveyor, two other names it has gone by) than a centiworm.

 

With regards to mileage, probably fuel efficiency? Interesting aside: we (by which I mean Australia, a lot of Europe, and New Zealand) don't measure it in kilometres per litre, we measure it in litres per 100 kilometres.

 

Quick question. Over the same distance, which change saves you more fuel: raising the MPG from 15 to 20 or from 30 to 45? Now the same question, but in L/100km: from 15.7 to 11.8 or from 7.8 to 5.2?

 

I don't have a problem with buying 250 grams of ham, half a kilo of bananas, or 2 litres of milk. It sounds perfectly natural to me.

 

 

I've tried to write stories using metric in the past, but the cumbersome words make me cringe every time. They are utterly unpoetic and throw a monkeywrench in the narrative almost every time. This is why people have had to invent new words, like "klicks," to make metric more palatable to the human ear.

 

For kilometres we tend to use "k's" in Australia. For example, it's about 1000 k's from Brisbane to Sydney along the M1 (at least it was, until they straightened it out. Now it's in the 900's somewhere). If you're used to the units and what people usually call them they're easy to write in.

 

 

I like the fahrenheit scale for temperatures too. Yeah, it doesn't freeze at zero or boil at a nice, zero-laden number, but comfort level can be easily expressed in ten-degree increments. Anything over 100 is frying hot. 90s is quite hot. 80s is pretty hot. 70s is a pretty comfy range. 60s is getting cool, but not uncomfortably so. 50s needs a jacket for sure. 40s is getting on the cold side. 30s and it's time to get out a light coat. 20s and now gloves are a necessity even for short periods. Teens is flipping freezing. Single digits and I'm staying the hell home. Etc.

 

Sure, but you can do the same with 5-degree Celsius increments, which are 9 Fahrenheit apart.

0 is freezing cold.

5 is cold.

10 is a bit cold.

15 is OK, still a bit cool.

20 is OK.

25 is getting a little warm.

30 is warm.

35 is hot.

40 is too hot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If i understood right you are from Australia? Being nothern european for me its like this

 

0-Cold(point where water turns into ice)

5-a bit cold

10-fine

15-warm

20-warm

25-really warm

30 and up hot

[LexusInfernus 908]

Define "sensible."

 

 

Because in some ways, metric is very sensible. Divisible by 10. Good. Convertible into tiny units. Good.

 

In some ways, however, it's so unsensible that you have to wonder what sort of drugs the people who created it were on. A meter was calculated as being a certain tiny fraction of the distance between the Earth and the sun. What?  That is stupid, arbitrary, and of no use to anyone whatsoever. Why not make it the length of the average person's stride, heel to toe? Why not make it the length of the average person's belt? Still not exact, but it would have been far more helpful.  The meter or centimeter may be applicable to the human experience in some ways, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule and it's always by accident rather than by design.

 

Not to say imperial doesn't have its problems. It'd be nice for it to have uniformity of divisibility. The mile is a concept that's not really useful anymore. It was once based on standard units of property measurement, but that's no longer used. I think it'd be good to change the mile to 1200 yards.  I still give the mile more props than the meter, however, for at least having a practical application at one point in history.

 

Is the reason why America won't switch simply because it's America?  Oh good god, no. That's a silly argument. People would switch readily if the alternative were objectively better. One need only look at Canada for the answer. Canada tried switching and has been about half successful. The simple fact is that imperial is still so very useful for many things and that people simply don't want to switch completely. 

 

Bottom line, neither metric nor imperial is better than the other. Neither is more "sensible" than the other. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The entire world would be done a favor if every kid learned both.

 

How are you to determine someones average height if you do not have anything to measure it by? And no, the meter was not devised by taking the distance between the earth and the sun (I think that one is called AU). Instead the meter was taken as a one ten millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator. Granted, that is still a pretty arbitrary thing to use. But all units of measurement are on some level completely arbitrary. And in that sense, the Imperial system is far worse, as there every unit of measurement is completely arbitrary. Unlike with the metric system, where only the meter can be seen as arbitrary. From there, every other scale is based on the meter. 

 

And why does it take very long for a country to switch between systems? Well, people who grew up learning one way will have a hard time switching, especially if they are not really forced to change. My mom also still converts all the stuff she buys from Euros to Guldens, and it has been 11 years since we changed from Guldens to Euros.  

[hym 358]

In some ways, however, it's so unsensible that you have to wonder what sort of drugs the people who created it were on. A meter was calculated as being a certain tiny fraction of the distance between the Earth and the sun. What?  That is stupid, arbitrary, and of no use to anyone whatsoever. Why not make it the length of the average person's stride, heel to toe? Why not make it the length of the average person's belt? Still not exact, but it would have been far more helpful.  The meter or centimeter may be applicable to the human experience in some ways, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule and it's always by accident rather than by design.

 

It may be somewhat arbitrary and unhelpful for everyday human use, but for the physical sciences, it is helpful to have the base units defined in terms of physical constants.  (I realize that all the base units aren't defined in terms of physical constants, but they are working on achieving this.)

[Zelgadis 638]

 

In some ways, however, it's so unsensible that you have to wonder what sort of drugs the people who created it were on. A meter was calculated as being a certain tiny fraction of the distance between the Earth and the sun. What?  That is stupid, arbitrary, and of no use to anyone whatsoever. Why not make it the length of the average person's stride, heel to toe? Why not make it the length of the average person's belt? Still not exact, but it would have been far more helpful.  The meter or centimeter may be applicable to the human experience in some ways, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule and it's always by accident rather than by design.

 

 

How are you to determine someones average height if you do not have anything to measure it by? And no, the meter was not devised by taking the distance between the earth and the sun (I think that one is called AU). Instead the meter was taken as a one ten millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator. 

 

We did have something to measure it by. Imperial. At the time these average measurements were already known.

 

As for the meter... yes, the meter is taken as what you say. I got it mixed up with something else. It's still entirely pointless and arbitrary though. Why in the world did they choose that?  All the people who created this had to do was to look around and find something of a reasonably common size to use. Simpler is better. Use a pencil. Use a fingernail. Use a bicep. Something. Anything that makes the slightest bit of sense. 

 

 

In some ways, however, it's so unsensible that you have to wonder what sort of drugs the people who created it were on. A meter was calculated as being a certain tiny fraction of the distance between the Earth and the sun. What?  That is stupid, arbitrary, and of no use to anyone whatsoever. Why not make it the length of the average person's stride, heel to toe? Why not make it the length of the average person's belt? Still not exact, but it would have been far more helpful.  The meter or centimeter may be applicable to the human experience in some ways, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule and it's always by accident rather than by design.

 

It may be somewhat arbitrary and unhelpful for everyday human use, but for the physical sciences, it is helpful to have the base units defined in terms of physical constants.  (I realize that all the base units aren't defined in terms of physical constants, but they are working on achieving this.)

 

 

Oh, I heartily agree with that. That's why I think it's useful to learn both. Metric is utterly fantastic for the science and engineering. It all depends on what you do. If I were an engineer, you bet I'd be using metric more often. If I were a tailor, I'd be deeper in imperial. In the end, I'm an English teacher, linguist, and writer. I therefore tend to stick with imperial mostly because metric sounds like crap.  

 

What I'm saying is that the potential was there for metric to be objectively superior in nearly every way to imperial, but they blew it and now we have to live with these two systems.

[LexusInfernus 908]

We did have something to measure it by. Imperial. At the time these average measurements were already known.

 

As for the meter... yes, the meter is taken as what you say. I got it mixed up with something else. It's still entirely pointless and arbitrary though. Why in the world did they choose that?  All the people who created this had to do was to look around and find something of a reasonably common size to use. Simpler is better. Use a pencil. Use a fingernail. Use a bicep. Something. Anything that makes the slightest bit of sense. 

 

 

Basing it on the Imperial system would also be arbitrary. Also, using limbs as your base unit is also incredibly arbitrary. First of all, why this limb and not the other? Second, limbs are not a standard unit. Each limb is different in size. You can of course take the average limb, but that would make no sense today seeing how the average height of people has increased significantly. An average male biceps from 1799 would today anything but average. Using the distance from the north pole to the equator at the other hand is only arbitrary in the sense of why they picked this particular distance. They also could have taken the distance between two other points. But other than that, the distance between those two points is set. It does not change, it was the same in 1799 as it will be in 2299 or 3399. 

 

So arbitrary is not a good argument against the metric system and it certainly doesn't work in favor of the Imperial system, since every scale of measurement there is based on something arbitrary, rather than just the base one. 

[hym 358]

What I'm saying is that the potential was there for metric to be objectively superior in nearly every way to imperial, but they blew it and now we have to live with these two systems.

 

Personally, I don't think the potential was ever there for people to make a system that worked well for everyone.  Take the issue of measuring light intensity.  A candela used to be defined in terms of the light power of a single, standard candle.  This works well for the individual, but not well for precise scientific or engineering work.  Now, it's defined in terms of "the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540×10¹² hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1⁄683 watt per steradian."  This works well for the scientists and engineers, and is completely useless for the average individual.

 

I totally agree that there is a lot of value in people knowing both systems.  (Or, more generally, in people knowing multiple measurement standards.)  At the same time, I don't think that we will be able to create a single standard that works well for everyone.  My math professors demanded that all calculations be done in radians.  My physics professors demanded that all calculations be done in degrees.  The surveying world throws both of these out in favor of the grad.

[Zelgadis 638]

"Arbitrary" is a perfectly good argument.

 

I'm afraid you may have missed my point higher up stating that the fact that imperial is very easy to approximate is extremely useful. This is why many measurements are based on body parts. You can use those body parts to measure when precise tools are unavailable or unnecessary. Is it precise? No. Is it good enough for a great deal of things?  Yes. Tailoring, cooking, and apartment hunting, to name a few. Average body part size may change, but even over the last several hundred years, it's still within acceptable approximation parameters. 

 

You are right that the distance between the pole and the equator doesn't change but... so what? It still means absolutely nothing to me. It's arbitrary because it has absolutely no meaning to almost anyone.

 

A tablespoon means something to me. If I lose my measure spoons, I still have plenty of tablespoons in my drawer that I can use. It's not arbitrary because that's a good standard size of spoon that can fit in a person's mouth with a nice load of vittles.  I can hold up my thumb right now and see an approximate inch. I don't have to search for a measuring device. That is not arbitrary. That good planning.

 

Nobody can tell me that they can look at a meter and immediately say, "Jeepers, that's 1/xxx the distance between the pole and the equator!" It's an entirely pointless and even though there was, technically, purpose behind it, has no meaning and is therefore arbitrary.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

One of the better measures around is the furlong.  It is 1/5 Km, and 1/8 mi.  Exactly.

 

If you think this is awkward, think about the poor seaman.  To him a mile is 6,000 feet (nautical mile) which is 1852 Metres.  Interestingly, if you use the metric system for the circle with 400 grads in a circle, you get the circumference of the earth to be 40,000 Km. (28,000) miles close as anything.  That means that a centigrad is one Km. of longitude at the equator.

 

A shot of chain is 15 fathoms or 90 feet.  Funny, but the last time I purchased anchor chain, it came in shots.

 

Unless Japan has metrified, I think they also have a private system of measure.

 

Gory details of the standard for the metre.

 

I've never heard of any standard having to do with it being part of an AU, which is not constant.

[MandelSoft 2,775]

"Arbitrary" is a perfectly good argument.

I'm afraid you may have missed my point higher up stating that the fact that imperial is very easy to approximate is extremely useful. This is why many measurements are based on body parts. You can use those body parts to measure when precise tools are unavailable or unnecessary. Is it precise? No. Is it good enough for a great deal of things? Yes. Tailoring, cooking, and apartment hunting, to name a few. Average body part size may change, but even over the last several hundred years, it's still within acceptable approximation parameters.

You are right that the distance between the pole and the equator doesn't change but... so what? It still means absolutely nothing to me. It's arbitrary because it has absolutely no meaning to almost anyone.

A tablespoon means something to me. If I lose my measure spoons, I still have plenty of tablespoons in my drawer that I can use. It's not arbitrary because that's a good standard size of spoon that can fit in a person's mouth with a nice load of vittles;I can hold up my thumb right now and see an approximate inch. I don't have to search for a measuring device. That is not arbitrary. That good planning.

Nobody can tell me that they can look at a meter and immediately say, "Jeepers, that's 1/xxx the distance between the pole and the equator!" It's an entirely pointless and even though there was, technically, purpose behind it, has no meaning and is therefore arbitrary.

Nonesense. We just take a decent stride and say it's a meter. If I want to make a rough estimation of an area or something, I just count how many strides I can take, and take that as a meter. Simple. Thumbs may also vary depending if you are fat or not or if you're a kid or an adult. That makes the inch just as arbitrary and equally inaccurate as the metric stride method...

Another way to approximate a meter? Three feet could be used for that...

We did have other measuring units in the past, like the dutch el. An el is the length between the tip of the middle finger to the elbow. This is about two feet, but the definition of this unit did vary from 52 cm up to 76.2 cm. As you see, you may have the same name for it, the exact definition is again arbitrary...

Besides, a mile is even more arbitrary than the meter. How can you estimate a mile without instruments?

Also, if we could redefine the imperial system, I'd slightly tweak the units on the lower end. Now, one feet is 0.3048cm. Let's say we change that to 0.299792458m. What would that do? That would make one foot (which you can estimate easily with your limbs) exactly 10^-9 lightseconds long, so the speed of light is exactly a thousand million or one milliard (yes, I like to use the long system for large numbers) feet per second. It's something you can check anywhere in the universe with advanced equipment, but at the same time you can estimate it in a few seconds.

 

Also, we could build up the system completely using factors of 3 and 12. If you make a mile not 1760 yards, but 1728 yards (which is 12³), you get rid of that ugly factor 11 while still keeping close to the original mile. In this new system, a mile would be equal to 1554.124m, which is less than a 5% difference. This change would make the entire system for measuring lengths completely Base 12. I imagine kids going to school when the teacher asks them how many feet there go in a mile. The right answer would be three dozen gross.

 

Best,

Maarten