Metric System and the USA

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Note about the Chrysler 300: "300" referred to horsepower not cubic inches in the original model. They planned a 300hp V8 prior to it's intro. I don't remember the planned CID but it's wasn't 300. The production car, at intro, went slightly over 300hp but they kept the planned name anyway.

This gets into something I don't like about metric: KW replacing HP. I can't get my mind around KW!
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Very good points, headbang.

When working on a home project several months ago, I had to use drill bits of varying sizes.

It would have been so much easier with metric tools. Trying to visualize that 3/8", 5/16", and 11/32" were consecutive sizes is counterintuitive. would have been easier if it had simply been 10mm, 11mm, and 12mm.

Calculating distances on a map would be simpler, too, if 1cm = 50km were the scale, rather than 1 inch = 10 miles.

It's a little less confusing if you are in the habit of remembering the decimal equivalents, 3/8ths" is .375", 5/16ths" is .325". Drill bits used in industry use still another system, they are designated by wire gauge size, for example, the right size to drill a hole that is the correct amount oversize to fit a 3/16" rivet is a #11, and the one for a 1/8th" rivet is a #30. They are usually stamped with both wire gauge size and decimal equivalent. The size progression is not arithmetic. Wire gauge sizes are different than the same terms used for other things, such as sheet metal thickness. The same gauge is different for galvanized than it is for aluminum.

Surveyors use a system of feet divided into tenths, rather than inches. They sometimes enjoy giving a measurement and not specifying which system it is in.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
It's a little less confusing if you are in the habit of remembering the decimal equivalents, 3/8ths" is .375", 5/16ths" is .325".
I use such things often enough for it to be annoying, but not often enough for it to become second nature. I really don't like having to remember conversions.

Another example that comes to mind was when I used to be an avid home beer-brewer. When I was initially getting started, it required so many conversions and calculations that it was frustrating. When I became a bit more proficient, and was designing my own recipes, I converted everything to metric. That way, if I had to make adjustments, it mostly involved moving a decimal point and doing simple calculations.

The original recipes called for things like "pounds of malt and ounces of hops per 5 gallons of water." When bottling, they called for "one teaspoon of priming sugar per 12-ounce bottle." I learned that I preferred 16 ounce bottles, and preferred priming the whole batch, so I ended up with calculations like "128 oz per gallon times 5 gallons divided by 12 ounces = 53.33 teaspoons of priming sugar." Tedious. I weighed 10 teaspoons of priming sugar, got the average, and weighed it in grams when bottling. My beers were much more consistent, and much easier to formulate & produce, once I converted everything (except the bottle sizes) to liters and grams.
 

kamikazee_club

1st Like
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
The original recipes called for things like "pounds of malt and ounces of hops per 5 gallons of water." When bottling, they called for "one teaspoon of priming sugar per 12-ounce bottle." I learned that I preferred 16 ounce bottles, and preferred priming the whole batch, so I ended up with calculations like "128 oz per gallon times 5 gallons divided by 12 ounces = 53.33 teaspoons of priming sugar." Tedious. I weighed 10 teaspoons of priming sugar, got the average, and weighed it in grams when bottling. My beers were much more consistent, and much easier to formulate & produce, once I converted everything (except the bottle sizes) to liters and grams.

I sometime have to do a double take when I read recipies talking about ounces for liquids or an xx ounce bottle of a drink. I think of ounces as a measure of weight not volume, I know it's fluid ounces but it still seems largely nonsensical, or, to put it another way as sensible as say, fluid Grams....:rolleyes:
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
They hold about two day's worth of liquid for a couple; that is, around four servings of milk, juice, etc...

But what about the smaller two-serving size? Because there's less wiggle room in a smaller pakage, these cartons are a little more generous at 600 ml, rather than half a litre. In the USA, they're not a pint, but rather 20 fluid ounces, or 20/32nds of a quart.

I wouldn't dream of ordering anything other than a pint in a British pub, which the pub police have decided equals half a litre. (They've given me a sip or two bonus, you'll notice). I ask the waitress for a cup of coffee, not 200 ml. And even here in highly metricated Germany, I order a Mass of beer rather than a litre.

I find it interesting that the imperial system is based on the measurements of a human body or some king's body and the metric is all based on an earth measurement. It would follow that measurements that deal with the human body and it's needs would be better described by imperial measurements. The day's need of liquid. The length of one's foot. How much beer you can drink in Germany. It is probably the reason why body based measurements are loved and still in use - because they work. They accurately describe things associated with the needs of the human body.

Interesting enough there are other measurement standards that have pertained to architectural building throughout the world based on body measurements. In Japan the old houses were proportioned and built according to the module and dimensions of a tatami mat called 'Ken'. (roughly 3'x6'). This is derived from the space required by a sleeping person. One half Ken is the space required for a sitting body (3'x3'). The room sizes were decribed in how many tatami mats made up the room. Hence a 4 tatami mat tea room, a 6 tatami mat room. This is how all houses were planned which ensured that they would have proper dimensions to fit a human body.

A more modern measurement system derived from human proportions was Le Corbusier's Modulor. He used this measurement system to size furniture and architectural dimensions to ensure all of his interior spaces were comfortable for human inhabitation. (Not sure this worked in the real world, nice theory though) A standing figure was the dimension loosely based on daVinci's Vitruvian Man, where the ideal height of a man is 8 figure heads tall. He broke down measurements of the human body in different states of rest and poses. Other measurement systems based on nature include the Fibonacci Sequence (think nautilus shell) and the related Golden Ratio which the Ancient Greeks developed to size and proportion their temples. The Golden Ratio is still used by Architects to design facades.

In helped that in 1966, the easiest and most useful "metrication" occurred. Australia switched from a base 12 currency (pounds, shillings, pence, soverigns, florins, and whatnot) to a base 10 currency (dollars and cents).

Interesting Headbang, I never knew there was such a thing as a base 12 currency in modern times. This makes sense because 12 is a magic number of sorts. Eggs still come in a dozen because as a base you can divide them with the greatest number of people, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, hence bartering becomes easier. If you are dealing with gold pieces as currency this base 12 system would make sense. 12 months out of the year too. Coincidence?

And the size of a 2 x 4 was standardised at 50 mm x 100 mm--you may not realise this, but a so-called 2 x 4 measures substantially less than 2 inches by 4 inches, and it has varied from time to time and place to place. I have heard some Australians refer to this woodcut as a "metric two-by-four", curiously.

A 2x4 is really 2"x4" in board feet. That is the measurement of wood before it gets cut. We still calculate wood quanities like this because it is easier to quantify how much lumber a log or block of wood really holds. A nominal sized 2x4 in the US is actually 1 1/2"x 3 1/2" because the saw blade thickness.

So listen up, America. The metric system makes more sense, and it ain't so hard to change. All it takes is an enlightened bureaucracy to work out the details beforehand, a positive attitude to progress, and a little goodwill.

(So I guess it's out of the question.)

That's sad, because the sheer size of the US market sometimes drags the rest of the world along with it.

It would be a lot easier to work with the metric system. I agree with Gillette and everyone here. It is just the coordination that is a bit tricky for the switch.

Again, sorry for the long post.
I actually miss your long posts Headbang.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I find it interesting that the imperial system is based on the measurements of a human body or some king's body and the metric is all based on an earth measurement.
I vaguely remembered the origin of the meter, but remembered a little better the current definition.

The French originated the meter in the 1790s as one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole along a meridian through Paris. It is realistically represented by the distance between two marks on an iron bar kept in Paris. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures, created in 1875, upgraded the bar to one made of 90 percent platinum/10 percent iridium alloy.

In 1960 the meter was redefined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of orange-red light, in a vacuum, produced by burning the element krypton (Kr-86). More recently (1984), the Geneva Conference on Weights and Measures has defined the meter as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds with time measured by a cesium-133 atomic clock which emits pulses of radiation at very rapid, regular intervals.

All other metric standards were based on the definition of a meter - one liter = one cubic decimeter (or one cubic meter = 1000 liters); one liter of water @ 0 degrees C = one kilogram.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I use such things often enough for it to be annoying, but not often enough for it to become second nature. I really don't like having to remember conversions.

Another example that comes to mind was when I used to be an avid home beer-brewer. When I was initially getting started, it required so many conversions and calculations that it was frustrating. When I became a bit more proficient, and was designing my own recipes, I converted everything to metric. That way, if I had to make adjustments, it mostly involved moving a decimal point and doing simple calculations.

The original recipes called for things like "pounds of malt and ounces of hops per 5 gallons of water." When bottling, they called for "one teaspoon of priming sugar per 12-ounce bottle." I learned that I preferred 16 ounce bottles, and preferred priming the whole batch, so I ended up with calculations like "128 oz per gallon times 5 gallons divided by 12 ounces = 53.33 teaspoons of priming sugar." Tedious. I weighed 10 teaspoons of priming sugar, got the average, and weighed it in grams when bottling. My beers were much more consistent, and much easier to formulate & produce, once I converted everything (except the bottle sizes) to liters and grams.

If you were using a British or pre metric Canadian recipe, you would have to remember that their gallon was increased to 160 floz, of which there are 20 to a pint, not our 16. Their fluid ounces are smaller, their pints and gallons larger.
It is also confusing when people in the US refer to our measure as 'English', most measurements are the same, but in some cases the same terms are used for slightly different sizes. Imperial wet and dry quarts and gallons are the same, US dry are slightly larger than wet, theoretically a volume of grain would go by dry measure.

People hear daily oil prices quoted in 'barrels', and picture the standard 55 gallon steel drum, the designation is actually 42 gallons. I don't think I have seen an actual container that size, the next down is 30 gallons. A barrel of beer in the US is 31.5 wine gallons, in Britain 36 Imperial gallons, a US dry barrel is 26.25 dry gallons.

I agree with some of the other posters that base 12 would be better than 10. We also have remnants of the Babylonian base 60 in angular and temporal measure.

Miles used to be decimal, a Roman mile was one thousand standard five foot military paces, mille passus, it was adjusted up by 280 feet in the time of Elizabeth I to equal eight furlongs.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
We won't even go into the confusion between mass and weight. In metric, mass (gram or kilogram) is commonly used, weight (Newton) is seldom used. In the Imperial or English or US system(s) or whatever you call them, weight (pound) is commonly used, and most people have never heard the actual term for mass (slug).

And Kali, I'm sure you know this, but a few may not... mass is the actual amount of matter in question; weight is how strongly gravity pulls on that mass.

So, 32 slugs is 32 slugs, on the earth or on the moon; but 32 slugs on earth weighs one pound, and on the moon, weighs 0.1667 pound.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
All other metric standards were based on the definition of a meter - one liter = one cubic decimeter (or one cubic meter = 1000 liters); one liter of water @ 0 degrees C = one kilogram.

Actually, that's only sort of true. In the late 1700s, the gram was defined as the mass of one cubic centimeter of water @ 0C. This definition underwent several refinements before it was abandoned in 1889 in favor of the international prototype kilogram...a right circular cylinder machined from the same platinum/iridium alloy you mentioned.

Today, the kilogram is the only SI base unit of measurement still defined by a physical entity...all others are now defined by some observable natural phenomenon. As shown in recent news, the prototype is apparently losing some mass for reasons as yet unknown.

mass is the actual amount of matter in question; weight is how strongly gravity pulls on that mass.

Unless, of course, you're too lazy to bother with actual mass/weight distinctions...in which case, you can go ahead and measure mass in pounds and the corresponding force (weight) in poundals. :biggrin1:
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Clinging to an arcane system for almost entirely (so it seems to me) sentimental reasons and using that as an argument for worldwide standards is even less logical. It's especially so when the two main imperial systems in question are themselves largely incompatible anyway...:rolleyes:

I often wonder about the US hesitation to truly take the plunge and convert to the metric system, a system that is far simpler to understand and manipulate for reasons that have been well stated in this thread.

  • Is it fear of having to learn something new?
  • Is it the expense of having to re-tool machines and instrumentation?
  • Is is just sheer contrariness against something perceived as being imposed from the outside, regardless of how well it works?
  • Is it fear that implementation of the metric system in the US will bring on One-World-Government and the biblical "end times."
What is it? And why?
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I often wonder about the US hesitation to truly take the plunge and convert to the metric system, a system that is far simpler to understand and manipulate for reasons that have been well stated in this thread.

  • Is it fear of having to learn something new?
  • Is it the expense of having to re-tool machines and instrumentation?
  • Is is just sheer contrariness against something perceived as being imposed from the outside, regardless of how well it works?
  • Is it fear that implementation of the metric system in the US will bring on One-World-Government and the biblical "end times."
What is it? And why?
No, it's probably 85% arrogance (my way is right, everyone else is wrong), 15% laziness (I don't want to learn all over again) and 3% poor math skills.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
No, it's probably 85% arrogance (my way is right, everyone else is wrong), 15% laziness (I don't want to learn all over again) and 3% poor math skills.

Nah...it's mostly egocentrism. As I mentioned before, the average American looks at the (perceived) effort involved in adopting another system and asks, "What return am *I* getting for my bother?" The answer for most is, "not enough to justify it."
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Nah...it's mostly egocentrism. As I mentioned before, the average American looks at the (perceived) effort involved in adopting another system and asks, "What return am *I* getting for my bother?" The answer for most is, "not enough to justify it."

I suspect this is the case, as well as the examples offered up by DC_DEEP.

So, a question arises: Are there demonstrable overall economic benefits for the US to truly convert to metric?

If so, those benefits should be publicized. After all, economic gain is a powerful motivating factor to change views and behavior. However, if the economic benefits to conversion are not apparent I'm afraid going metric is going to be a much harder sell. So far, the latter seems to have won out in the US.
 

_Alexxx_

Experimental Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Posts
305
Media
1
Likes
9
Points
163
Location
Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Long discussion for an easy topic.

It is easier for anyone to conceptualize the units you are used to. And you always see the other system as weird.

Metric system is more logical and has a more scientific base

It makes no point to force milions of people to change their system. Let them live with what they are used to. Only exception may be UK to make things easier with the rest of the EU (and I said may be)


Just to add a couple of facts that mix things up a bit more:

- In the sea and air the nautical mile is commonly used worldwide. It's not the same size as the statute mile (6076 ft the nautical vs 5280 the statute)

- We all use Calories or kCalories which are result of metrical units. Calorie: energy needed to increase 1ºC a gram of water. KCalorie: energy needed to increase 1ºC 1 kilogram of water.
 

ClaireTalon

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
1,917
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
183
Age
60
Location
Puget Sound
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
As an engineer, I must say both systems, metric and US, are self-contained and reasoned. The pitfalls are when you try to convert from one system to the other. Do you pump more gas if you measure in liters instead of gallons, or less? Also, both (metric and US) aren't as tricky as some very special systems such as the Gauss system, which features the same units for different dimensions, or that killer idea of one mathematician a time ago, who defined Pi = 3 and adjusted all the other numbers.

However, this is something interesting on the conversion of Imperial to semi-metric. Canada has become metric in 1979, and Air Canada ordered new aircraft with metric fuel gauges (kilograms). Knowing the amount of fuel filled in in liters, captain, 1st officer and mechanic used the wrong conversion factor (density in pounds/liter (1.77 lb/ltr.) instead of kilogram/liter (0.8 kg/ltr.).
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Just to add a couple of facts that mix things up a bit more:

- In the sea and air the nautical mile is commonly used worldwide. It's not the same size as the statute mile (6076 ft the nautical vs 5280 the statute) ...
Yeah that does mix things up a bit more. Even if USA changed to metric, aviation and sea navigation would remain nautical. So we'd still have mixed systems. I estimate there's no chance aviation would ever change to metric to due safety impacts. It's feasible that surface navigation could change to metric but I don't see that as likely.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19830723-0
If I read that right, they were flying with one of the fuel guages inoperative. I think that would be a rule violation.
 

ClaireTalon

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
1,917
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
183
Age
60
Location
Puget Sound
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
If I read that right, they were flying with one of the fuel guages inoperative. I think that would be a rule violation.

Believe it or not, it was legal. The MEL (minimum equiment list) admits a flight with inop fuel gauges if the total amount of fuel has been inspected manually, by the use of dipsticks in both wing fuel compartments. Those, however, don't read out a fuel mass or volume directly, but a factor that refers to a volume of fuel in a handbook, factoring in the traverse gradient of both wings, fuel temperature and other facts. However, the flightplan demanded fuel masses, so some conversions needed to be done, especially since the minds of the mechanic and both pilots were calibrated for gallons still. So, how many gallons have to be added, to achieve an amount of kilograms, if you can read out the liters? A bit too much confusion....
 

Jovial

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Posts
2,328
Media
8
Likes
124
Points
193
Location
CA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The tool makers have a conspiracy to prevent us from converting completely to metric. That way we have to buy a set of standard and metric wrenches.

Democracy also prevents us from converting. Enough people complained it was too difficult, so we never switched. If we had a dictator as president, I'm sure we could convert. :rolleyes:

Some random observations:
I'm not sure if American automakers started using metric yet, but Japanese use metric. Everything is 8, 10, 12, 14 or 17mm usually. 3/4 inches is 19.05mm so you really only need one wrench for that size bolt. That's one way I can remember the conversion between inches and centimeters. Having owned and worked on Japanese cars, I like metric wrenches better.

Car tires use both! 225/50R16 means the width of the tire is 225mm and fits on a 16 inch rim! (The 50 means the sidewall is 50% of the width.)

My bare foot is exactly one foot! (size 13 shoe) That alone makes me want to continue to use English measurements. It makes it easy to measure the size of a room, etc.

And I always seem to remember the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface as about 32 feet per second squared rather than 9.81 meters per second squared. It takes one second to fall 16 feet and 2 seconds to fall 64 feet (disregarding wind resistance).

I'm fairly comfortable converting between both so it doesn't matter too much me. It does make us look kind of stupid to the rest of the world though.

- We all use Calories or kCalories which are result of metrical units. Calorie: energy needed to increase 1ºC a gram of water. KCalorie: energy needed to increase 1ºC 1 kilogram of water.
A kilo calorie is usually capitalized as Calorie and a regular one as calorie. The food ones are Calories. The labels on foods also give fat, protein and carbs in grams and most people should know there are 4 Calories per gram of protein or carbs and 9 Calories per gram of fat. Although the calorie is based on metric units, the SI unit of energy is joules (4.184 joules = 1 calorie).

However, this is something interesting on the conversion of Imperial to semi-metric. Canada has become metric in 1979, and Air Canada ordered new aircraft with metric fuel gauges (kilograms). Knowing the amount of fuel filled in in liters, captain, 1st officer and mechanic used the wrong conversion factor (density in pounds/liter (1.77 lb/ltr.) instead of kilogram/liter (0.8 kg/ltr.).

Interesting. There was also the lost $125 million NASA mission: Units Blunder Sent Craft Into Martian Atmosphere: NASA
 

dufus

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Posts
359
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
163
Location
The Briar Patch
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
An orderly US conversion to the metric system was conceived under the Ford administration, initiated and aggressively promoted by the Carter administration, and shut down in 1982 by the Reagan administration. The right wing considers it to be a tool of socialist governments. Before Reagan, weather reporters gave temperatures in centigrade and road signs gave distances in kilometers.