As a Hackaday writer, you can never predict where the comments of your posts will go. Some posts seem to be ignored, while others have a good steady stream of useful feedback. But sometimes the comment threads just explode, heading off into seemingly uncharted territory only tangentially related to the original post.
Such was the case with [Steven Dufresne]’s recent post about decimal time, where the comments quickly became a heated debate about the relative merits of metric and imperial units. As I read the thread, I recalled any of the numerous and similarly tangential comments on various reddit threads bashing the imperial system, and decided that enough was enough. I find the hate for the imperial system largely unfounded, and so I want to rise to its defense.
What is a system of units anyway? At its heart, is just a way to measure the world. I could very easily measure the length and width of a room using my feet, toe to heel. Most of us have probably done just that at some point, and despite the inconvenient and potentially painful problem of dealing with fractionalization of your lower appendage, it’s a totally valid if somewhat imprecise method. You could easily pace out the length of the room and replicate that measurement to cut a piece of carpet, for instance. It’s not even that much of a stretch to got to the home center and buy carpet off the roll using your personal units — you might get some strange looks, but you’ll have your personal measuring stick right with you.
The trouble comes when you try to relate your units to someone not in possession of your feet. Try to order carpet online and you’ll run into trouble. So above and beyond simply giving us the tools to measure the world, systems of units need to be standardized so that everyone is measuring the same thing. Expanding trade beyond the dominion where one could refer to the length of the king’s arm and have that make sense to the other party was a big driver of the imperial system first, and then the metric system. And it appears to be one of the big beefs people have regarding the United States’ stubborn insistence on sticking with our feet, gallons, and bushels.
How Ridiculous are We Talking?
The argument that imperial units are based on ridiculous things like the aforementioned king’s arm? That’s not an argument when a meter was originally defined as one 10-millionth of the distance from the north pole to the equator. Even rigorously defined relative to the speed of light or the wavelength of krypton-86 emissions in a vacuum, the meter is based on phenomena that are completely inaccessible to the people who will use is, and unrelated to their daily lives. At least everyone has seen a foot that’s about a foot long.
Doing the conversions between imperial units and SI units is tedious and error prone, they say. Really? Perhaps I’d buy that argument a hundred years ago, or even fifty. But with pervasive technology that can handle millions of mathematical operations a second, there’s not much meat on that bone. I’ll grant you that it’s an extra step that wouldn’t be needed if everyone were on the same system, and that it could lead to rounding errors that would add up to quite a bit of money over lots of transactions. But even then, why is that not seen as an opportunity? Look at financial markets — billions are made every day on the “slop” in currency exchanges. I find it unlikely that someone hasn’t found a way to make money off unit conversions too.
Another point of contention I often see is that imperial units make no sense. Yes, it’s true that we have funny units like gills and hogshead and rods and chains. But so what? Most of the imperial system boils down to a few commonly used units, like feet and gallons and pounds, while the odder units that once supported specialized trades — surveyors had their rods and chains, apothecaries had their drams and grains — are largely deprecated from daily life now.
Deal with It
For the units that remain in common use, the complaint I hear frequently is, “Why should I be forced to remember that there are 5,280 feet in a statute mile? And why is there a different nautical mile? Why are there 12 inches in a foot anyway? A gallon has four quarts, why does that make sense?” And so on. My snappy retort to that is, again, “So what?” If you’re not a daily user of the imperial system, then don’t bother yourself with it. Stick to metric — we don’t care.
If you’re metrified and you’re forced to use imperial units for some reason, then do what a lot of us imperials have to do — deal with it. I’m a scientist by training, and therefore completely comfortable with the SI system. When I did bench work I had to sling around grams, liters, and meters daily. And when I drove home I saw (and largely obeyed) the speed limit signs posted in miles per hour. No problems, no awkward roadside conversations with a police officer explaining that I was still thinking in metric and thought that the 88 on my speedometer was really in km/h and I was really doing 55. If I stopped at the store to pick up a gallon of milk and a couple of pounds of ground beef for dinner, I wasn’t confused, even if I slipped a 2-liter bottle of soda into the order.
At the end of the day, I don’t really see what all the fuss is about. Imperial and metric both have their place, and each system seems to be doing its job just fine. If your argument is that imperial units are inelegant and awkward, even though you’re correct I don’t think that’s enough to sway the imperial holdouts. And if you’re just upset because we’re being stubborn and won’t join the enlightened metric masses, then I think you’re probably going to be upset for a long time to come.
Almost always, the system of measurement we learnt when children, what is called the first measurements, or native measurements, will be the primary system of measurement in our thinking, and understanding of measurement.
If a child learns Imperial, he/she will think in Imperial, and will be comfortable to use Imperial, for a lifetime.
On the other hand. If a child learns metric, he/she will think in metric, and will likewise be comfortable to use metric, for a lifetime.
Any other system of measurement become secondary to the native measurements, and must be understood through messy, and often confusing conversions, from secondary measurements, to native measurement. This situation mostly occurs in the U.S. and to a lesser degree in Canada, and the UK, although there is also some other counties that convert from metric to traditional measurements.
All countries use metric. But no country is fully, or totally metric, although some counties are more metric, others less metric. But metric is a progression. A movement. An advancement. Metric continues to advance worldwide, including the U.S. and the UK.
Counties that use two systems of measurement, that overlap in some measurements, are at a disadvantage, to counties that predominately use one system of measurement.
Those that understand, and use metric, have a better understanding of weights and measurement, because metric measures everything, whereas other measurement systems only measures limited properties.
Why is the metric system easier than Imperial, and USC? Or any other measurement structure. The most frequently given answers include:
1…Because metric is simple and consistent. There is only one meter and one kilometer and one liter..Unlike the mile (3 miles, international mile, US Survey mile, nautical mile.) and two gallons (Imperial gallon and US gallon) metric is simple and less confusing, fewer errors, less cost.
2…Because it dramatically reduces conversion factors in calculations. Less time doing calculations, fewer errors, less wastage in material and time, less cost.
3…Because metric prefix’s enable whole numbers only. Avoiding decimal fractions and missinteruptation and errors.
4…Because metric offers units from very large to very small.
5…Because metric dimensions are easier to divide by three.
6…Because it has links between related measurements.
7…Because it uses logical symbols.
8..Because it is the only properly maintained system.
9..Because it is a complete system of measurements. Everything in the known universe can be measured with it.
10.Because practically everyone uses it. For more than 95% of the world population, the metric system is the customary system of units, and for more than half of the industrialized world, it has been for at least a century.
Also I beleive that the metric system is better than Imperial measures because..
The metric system is a system. The metric system is the only measurement method ever developed as a complete system. All previous attempts used random developments at different places, at different times, and for different purposes.
The metric system is universal. The metric system has been gradually adopted by all of the world’s people. Despite often-vigorous opposition, the metric system has always been successful.
The metric system is coherent. Because the metric system was developed as a complete system, it was possible to design it so that it has an internal consistency. Its internal coherence means that if you learn one part of the metric system you can easily extend your knowledge to all other parts.
The metric system is capable. All crafts, trades, and professions can successfully use the metric system. Although the structure of the metric system is quite simple, it can be used in every human activity.
The metric system is equitable. The metric system is fair and just to all who use it.
The metric system is simple. The metric system uses only 7 base units and 22 units with special names — 29 units in all. There are now only 20 old measures left that are non-SI units currently accepted for use with the International System.
The metric system is supported. International treaties and research keep the metric system modern and forward looking.
The metric system is fundamental. The metric system is the only system used internationally. It is now fundamental to all measurements, both old and new.
The metric system is unique. The metric system is unique because: it was planned; it is decimal; it has prefixes; and it is human in scale. It is unique because there has never been a measuring system like it.
The metric system is legal. Legislation in every country in the world supports the metric system. It is often the sole method of measurement recognised by governments. International agreements also support the metric system so that contracts written in metric units have validity across international borders.
[wjong]: Many of your points are invalid:
3) “Because metric prefix’s enable whole numbers only. Avoiding decimal fractions and missinteruptation and errors.” This has nothing to do with “metric” units. The prefixes used for metric measurements are usable with any system of units. Machinists and electrical engineers use mils, which is just a sloppy way of saying “milli-inches”. And microinches when necessary. Nobody in industry uses fractional notation for measurements.
4) “Because metric offers units from very large to very small.” Same as above. “Metric” prefixes and exponential notation are available for use with any system of units.
5) “Because metric dimensions are easier to divide by three.” What???
8) “Because it is the only properly maintained system.” Utter nonsense. All U.S. units of measure used for commerce are based on SI standards.
9) “Because it is a complete system of measurements. Everything in the known universe can be measured with it.” The same could be said for the U.S. customary units. This is not a distinction.
10) “Because practically everyone uses it. For more than 95% of the world population, the metric system is the customary system of units, and for more than half of the industrialized world, it has been for at least a century.” Name a country anywhere in the world whose automobile speedometers are calibrated in m/s.
“The metric system is a system. The metric system is the only measurement method ever developed as a complete system. All previous attempts used random developments at different places, at different times, and for different purposes.” The metric system has had to be expanded to keep up with technology, just like all other systems. All of the electrical units were added much later than the original physical units.
“The metric system is universal. The metric system has been gradually adopted by all of the world’s people. Despite often-vigorous opposition, the metric system has always been successful.” Again, show me that meters/second speedometer.
“The metric system is equitable. The metric system is fair and just to all who use it.” This is a complete non-issue. ANY unit of measure is equitable as long as measurements are based on the same standards anywhere in the world. This is just as true for U.S. customary units as it is for SI.
I will say this again: I AM NOT DEFENDING THE U.S. CUSTOMARY SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENTS. If it were abolished tomorrow I would say “good riddance”. But it just weakens your position when you use nonsense for arguments.
(BrightBlueJim)
****3…Because metric prefix’s enable whole numbers only. Avoiding decimal fractions and missinteruptation and errors.**** Metric prefixes are a very important part of the metric system. They provide both multiple, and sub-multiples (divisors) to the units. For example 523/1000 (523 thousandths) or 0.523 of a liter can be expressed as 523 mL, a whole number, avoiding the fraction, and potentially minimising errors especially in any required calculations. I’ve never seen prefixes used as sub-multiples for the gallon or the fluid ounce.
However, I am aware the prefixes have been adopted from the metric system, into other linear measurement, because of the advantages that prefixes offer, as described above. That doesn’t make metric prefixes, as used in the metric system, invalid or any less important.
****4…Because metric offers units from very large to very small.**** As described in point 3, I am aware that prefixes are used in other measurement structures, and almost exclusively for linear measurement, but again that doesn’t make metric prefixes invalid.
****5…Because metric dimensions are easier to divide by three.**** One would have to use metric measurements, and compare them to imperial/USC measurements to see how this statement is true. Try dividing a liter by three, compared to dividing a gallon by three, or a kilogram by three compared to a pound by three. Hint.. The difference is not in the dividing, but in the recording, of the measurement.
****8..Because it is the only properly maintained system.**** Since the 1790s when metric was developed, the definitions, but not the quantity, of the seven base units, have changed as science and technology has developed and advanced. This has increased the precision and accuracy, and reduced the uncertainty of the measurement of the base units. This is what is meant by “maintained system.” The fact that Imperial/USC units are defined using metric units, and ride on the back of the metric system, means that Imperial/USC units are maintained also, but the key word here is “system,” the metric system is a “system” of interconnected units, Imperial/USC is not a “system” in the same form as the metric system, and has almost no interconnectivity of units.
****9..Because it is a complete system of measurements. Everything in the known universe can be measured with it.**** The same cannot be said for Imperial or USC units. Imperial and USC only measure length/distance, area, volume/capacity, weight and mass, with no interconnected system of units. The metric system measures, the same quantities as Imperial and USC, that being, length/.distance, area, volume, weight, and mass, but also electrical quantities, temperature, time, substance, and luminous intensity, along with other derived units.
****10.Because practically everyone uses it. For more than 95% of the world population, the metric system is the customary system of units, and for more than half of the industrialized world, it has been for at least a century.**** Not sure what you are driving at here. m/s is meters traveled (distance) a second (time). Speedometers have km/h. Also distance travelled an hour of time. km is kilometer a metric multiple of the meter, and h is hour, not an official metric unit, but one that is permitted for use with the metric system. Therefore km/h is as valid as m/s.
The metric system started as a system of measurements, and as you state has expanded as our knowledge of science and technology has advanced. It was “complete” at its start and its “complete” now. Of course it will be added too as we gain scientific knowledge. We cannot say it’s “incomplete” because there is more to be discovered, because we don’t know, ..if there is anything more to be discovered, with regard to measurement.
The metric system is universal. It’s a fact that every country uses the metric system and its measurements, either in part or in whole. That’s what is meant by universal.
Nothing to do with speedometers.
The metric system is equitable. The metric system is fair and just to all who use it. The metric is equitable, and fair because it is set, and defined by international agreement, and the quantity of any of its units cannot be changed without international agreement, of many countries. Some Imperial/USC units are set by international agreement, but others are not, and could be changed by some dictator, King, or Emperor as has happened in the past. This happened in the UK and other countries when pint beer glassware, which was perceived to be an Imperial pint, was changed by some glassware manufactures, to 570 mL.
Finally.. I don’t dislike Imperial or USC. I have used Imperial in the past, but now use metric. I don’t see Imperial/USC vs metric as a black and white situation, but rather as a slow change and progression, from Imperial/USC to metric. But I promote metric measurement, because having used both I firmly believe that metric is better, and although Imperial and USC have served us well in the past, I believe that they are simply not suitable for the 21st century and beyond, whereas metric are more suitable for our future.
It’s not nonsense. I hope I have made these comments more clearer.
>” Hint.. The difference is not in the dividing, but in the recording, of the measurement.”
A third of a gallon is exactly 77 cubic inches, vs. 333(.33…) ml for a third of a liter. It is not possible to write down a third of a liter exactly in metric because the system doesn’t recognize the use of explicit fractions. Try entering 1/3 into a metric CAD program or some such, and it will either reject it, or compute it to 0.333… whereas it’s perfectly fine to change your units into cubic inches and enter “77” – no such option is available in metric. It just can’t do thirds.
So what was your point?
On a more familiar ground, there are 128 ounces in a gallon, so a third of a gallon would be 42 2/3 ounces, or you could round it up to 43 ounces which has an error of 1 part in 384 or 0.26% where the error in metric by writing down 333 ml for 1/3 liters is 0.1% – the difference being practically neglible.
Actually, rounding 42-2/3 to 43 is 1 part in 128 or 0.78% error. The third guy comes up an ounce short, while in metric, one guy gets an extra mL.
Of course a gallon and a liter are nothing alike. If you start with 3.78 L (roughly a gallon), you get 1.26 L each, exactly. This primarily proves, once again, that numbers divisible by three are, in fact, divisible by three, and even Customary has numbers which aren’t. More surprising is that an exact gallon in metric, 3.785 411 784 L is exactly divisible by three with no additional decimal places, 1.261 803 928 L. I also suppose it proves that cherry picking examples makes the point.
Improper rounding is completely independent of the systems of measurement.
Seriously. It is very rare that real problems come in round numbers, so dividing by three is equally difficult in any system of measurement. And you can specify any measurement to any degree of precision you need, again in any system of measurement.
Somebody, some hundreds of comments above (not going to look for it) was all “I have to be able to do the numbers in my head”. Well, waaah. You’re being pretty lucky most of the time if things work out to round numbers.
Jeez. There’s no talking to fanboys. I’ll not address your points individually, but in general.
1) Implying that prefixes and expression with decimal fractions is somehow unique to the metric system is just stupid. Any argument made for SI based on that is lame.
2) The notion that there’s some value to having a “complete” system is utter nonsense. Electric units were added separately (twice, and in incompatible forms), and these units were also used by countries that did not embrace metric.
3) International units are agreed upon by international treaty when used for trade. This is as true of ALL systems used for trade.
I am pro-SI all the way, but I am anti-stupid-logic.
SI is for people who are poor at arithmetic, never learned fractions and can’t remember a few conversion factors. Lord help them if they misplace their calculator.
No, the SI is for people who do engineering calculation and prefer rational calculations without crazy constants. In Imperial, F ≠ ma unless you make up crazy units no uses in the real world like slugs or poundals. How many slugs of potatoes would you like sir? WTF is a slug?
Most confusing for me is a tire size: 16″ inner diameter and 225mm width
Aviation.
Altitude in feet.
Visibility in Km.
Air speed in Knots. (Nautical miles per hour..based in minutes of lattitude)
Now THAT is a bowl of soup.
The only reason we’re having this ‘debate’ is because Imperial remains the dominant system of measurements in the USA. Perhaps we should be asking what it is about the individual and national US psyche that leads to resisting the adoption of what is (other than in the USA) a world-wide standard and consequently accruing (what I believe would be) the resulting cost/efficiency/competitive benefits. Full Metrication certainly has serious cost implications, but this has not stopped adoption elsewhere; it would be very interesting to see what a thorough cost/benefit analysis shows.
Probably for the same reason that despite being officially metric the Chinese still use the so-called “market system” of customary and traditional units of measure in daily life. Like the U.S. system of weights and measures the old base units have been redefined to their nearest SI equivalent, but they are still in regular use. I don’t see anyone getting their shorts in a knot over this, and I suspect that there are more people familiar with those old base-16 units over there than either metric or American measures.
Some people say that the cost, to change to metric, is a reason not to change, and that the cost is too great.
However..
What those people don’t say, is what is the cost of not changing to metric.
Whatever the “one time only cost” of changing from Imperial to metric, it’s not as costly as the “reoccurring cost” of NOT changing to metric. Each year the costs due to conversion, confusion, errors, inefficiently, and not fully understanding measurements, cost the US millions, perhaps billions, of dollars. And that has happened for year after year, and will continue to happen year after year.
Although it is difficult to assess the costs of not changing to metric, those companies and businesses that have changed have, in most cases, recuperated the “one of cost” of changing to metric, within five years after the change through increased efficiencies.
The main problem with changing to metric, within society, the community, and the public generally, is that those that pay for the “one of cost” of change are not necessarily going to be those that gain the benefits of change, and recuperate their costs. The gains and benefits of measurement unity, will be across the whole nation, and will be long term.
Making a lot of statements there that need proving. Installed base of product, and the need for back compatibility just can’t be waved away and that stretches out the time-factor in your ‘one-time costs’ considerably. At any rate, the costs of staying with their own system are borne by Americans, and while I have seen assertions of how much it is costing them to keep it this way, there is very little in the way of hard data or proof that hasn’t been tabled by clearly biased sources.
http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf
The Americans are paying a bigger price. They are falling behind in technology compared to the metric industrial nations in Europe and Asia. No amount of Trump rhetoric will change it.
The whole point of introducing the metric system was that previously every country had a different definition of “mile” and “foot” (presumably their kings had different shoe sizes) and so nobody could claim that their definition was “right” and the other was “wrong” it was agreed to use something completely different again.
Easier calculations aside, that is a very good argument!
If you want to go on using the shoe size of George II or Elizabeth I or whoever came up with it.. fine with me (though I note that even in Britain they aren’t really used any more these days..) but don’t try to defend it as a “better” solution because everybody can use a pocket calculator all the time… try calculating home many gallons fit into 1000 cubic feet – or how many litres in a hundred cubic meters, and you see which one is more practical – by a mile! (yes, you can keep saying that :-)
ag.
The use of the imperial system in US is more a matter of pride and nationalism (aka penis size competition) that was used to strengten the patriotic feeling.
There is no other reason, nor technical, neither practical, just plain politics ! Funny to see how even smart people fall into those traps…
You can argue that the imperial system is better because it’s the US system and that US is the best country in the world because it’s your’s, that’s the only valid argument (but it’s not a technical argument, just patriotism).
What I like on metric system is that every measure is a factor of 10 from others, 1m = 100 cm = 1000 mm, = 0,001km…Quick strait math and simple results. I don’t really care about the origins for the first and current practical values standards. It is just far easier to work with direct powers of 10 proportions. It seems strange to have such dissimilar values such as inches, foot, yards etc… pounds, ounces and so on… I don’t need to keep having in mind a table to know how many inches are in a foot, how many ounces are in a pound, and still know if it is british or north american… 1kg = 1000g, 1T == 1000Kg, 1 liter = 1000ml… All direct and simple.
The same comment applies here as does the one relating to the minor differences in grammar and spelling:
“If the British had won the war back in 1776, we’d all be speaking English today.”
Find something really important to whine about and which needs fixing, and GET OVER THIS.
+1
I believe that the ‘debate’ about which is better (whatever that means) is essentially pointless; to a native Metric speaker the arguments about human-scale, divisible in halves (ie vulgar fractions), etc are gibberish, while decimal fractions, seamless scaling, etc make perfect sense. The native Imperial speaker generally has the opposite view. The reality is that either system can be used successfully.
What is clear is that we would not be speaking about this if it weren’t that the USA is the last bulwark against world-wide standardisation of Metric. I couldn’t care in the slightest if the USA never went Metric, but the cultural and economic influence of the USA is a pervasive and powerful force for keeping Imperial alive (and a nuisance of varying extent) although not powerful enough to create a resurgence. Any other country (even the UK) could essentially be ignored if it stayed Imperial, but not the USA.
I believe that the individual and national US psyche will oppose Metrication, irrespective of whether the cost/benefit ratio is favourable or not. However, I suspect that in the long term, even the USA will find that the pain of individualism will outweigh the pain of joining the world community. Creeping Metrication will eventually have its way. That’s assuming that we don’t all eventually find ourselves speaking Mandarin and using Chinese traditional units of measurement.
Bluntly, America isn’t unified on this position. Most American multinationals are already metric (foreign operations, foreign customers, foreign suppliers as well as domestic). Their workers use metric at work, travel to metric countries and see metric works fine in everyday life, and wonder why they have to screw with Customary at home (well, one answer is we have to do some conversions to fool our American customers into believing we make Customary products).
I’m American and would be happier if Customary vanished tomorrow (except for service parts). We have screwed with voluntary since 1866 with the result that some of us are metric and some of us are Customary. It will never work. Congress needs to exert their Constitutional authority to fix the system of weights and measures (not break it with meaningless fluff about preferred, but must be voluntary.)
Heh, unless we got traditional Russian units, that would be the verst.
I am a native “U.S. Customary” person, but I do NOT agree that there is anything superior about the U.S. Customary system of measurements. But I also do not suffer nonsense arguments, even when they are on my side of the issue.
“do some conversions to fool our American customers into believing we make Customary products” … I can’t decide whether that’s serious or a joke (or a bit of both). Do you see yourself as something of an anomaly with regard to the preference to simply ‘go for it’?
No. Vehicles are designed and built in metric. Literally, the drawing that shows where to place the MPH marks on a “miles” speedo is a metric drawing as is the drawing showing the km/h marks for our Canadian customers. The “miles” odometer is designed in metric. We “translate” overall vehicle dimensions, fuel and oil capacity, power, etc for American spec sheets (Americans seem fine with engine displacement in liters). The company was metric when I joined it, whereas my first employer was only “going metric.”
My first attempt at home brew failed because of the Imperial system. The instructions specified gallons, but not whether to use US (3.9 litre) or UK (4.5 litre) gallons.
Failed brewing = sad. No more Imperial measurements for me !
No beer! If that doesn’t convince the average punter, nothing will.
Wow. This article is so incredibly stupid I can only assume it’s trolling for comments. I guess Dan Maloney drew the short straw and was tasked with increasing the average comment count on HAD articles. I just hope this sort of raw stupidity doesn’t become the mainstay just to get more comments.
He spends most of his time arguing about what the measurements are defined on, glosses over the fact that I should already have memorized all of the different formulas from one unit to the other, and doesn’t cover arithmetic at all. Then tells us to “deal with it” as if we haven’t been.
Quick, what’s 1′ 11 3/8″ + 2′ 8 5/16″? The answer requires changing bases 7 different times.
What’s heavier, an ounce of gold, an ounce of water or an ounce of aluminum? What? You thought they were the same?
Does a 1/4″ screw fit in a hole from a #7 drill?
What’s bigger, a letter A drill or a #5 drill?
How many sheets of 16 gauge aluminum does it take to equal the thickness of an 8 gauge sheet of steel?
If you need 9 sticks 1 3/8″ long, what’s the minimum size material you need to start with?
You measure a hole with calipers to be 35/128″, what common drill size do you use to match it?
Is a 1/4″ drill bigger than a letter E drill? Wait, why do you have two different drills the exact same size?
What’s 1.3m + 1.75m? Yea, you still have to know the metric system anyway, so you didn’t save any effort using the Imperial one.
The metric system uses base 10 for everything. It doesn’t matter where that came from, base 10 is what we use on a daily basis in every major culture. Given that, you need a reason not to use it as the basis of your measurement system. But even had the imperial system used something other than base 10, it still would be a lot easier to use if everything used a common base. I would not be difficult at all to learn F.1A feet + 1.1 feet = 10.2A feet. But, just inches alone are commonly expressed in five different bases, and less commonly in a few more.
I love how some people claim 12 is a good basis for fractions of a foot because it’s divisible by more numbers than 10. But that only matters because dealing with fractions of an inch is so much more difficult than 10th’s of an inch.
“This article is so incredibly stupid I can only assume it’s trolling for comments.”
STFU
What that was SUPPOSED to say (thank you WordPress) was:
“This article is so incredibly stupid I can only assume it’s trolling for comments.”
(continues writing 6 paragraphs of comment)
STFU
I’m a metric native (we kinda sort went metric here in the UK in the 70’s, and I was the first generation not to learn imperial measures). I could never get my head round doing calculations on imperial units – where you can’t, for instance say how much will that 12″ x 12″ x 12″ of container weigh? In metric, I know that a 10cm x 10cm cube of water weighs about a kilogram, and is otherwise known as a litre, so a 30cm x 30cm x 30cm cube of water contains 27 litres, and weighs 27 kilograms. I’m also used to being able to assume that a 2 litre bottle of *whatever* probably weighs about 2kg – oil is slightly lighter, sugary stuff slightly heavier. But the biggest thing to me is that multiplying and dividing these measures still lands you with a measure that makes sense, because, say, millimetres, centimetres, and kilometres are interchangeable, just by moving the decimal point, whereas with imperial, you often have to convert to inferior units.
I’m sure you imperialists have a counter-argument for all these points, but at least a kilogram means the same thing in the UK, Europe, Russia and America. Can’t say the same for imperial units! US gallon = 0.832674 UK gallons, US pint = 0.968938971 UK pints. Are your inches, feet and miles are the same as ours?
But in the UK, we have an even weirder thing – we never completed metricization, so whilst we measure goods in metric, we still weigh people in Stones (14 pounds), travel in miles, but buy fuel in litres, and road signs may be in yards or metres…
Metric American here. The obvious route to solving your 12″ x 12″ x12″ container of water is 12″ = 30.48 m so volume of 28.317 L. 28.317 kg is 62.4 lbm.
You have the ratio of UK to US gallon correct (we use the inverse, 1 UK gallon is about 1.2 US gallons. However, pints are in the same ratio as each is 1/8 of its respective gallon. We use the International inch, foot, and mile just as you do, but for land measurement the Survey foot pops up sometimes different by 2 ppm. We use the same pound as you, but don’t use the stone so we have a 100 lbm hundredweight and 2000 lbm ton.
Typo: 30.48 cm, but the math is correct. Why is there no edit button. With my typing skills, it is clearly required.
You would think with what will be coming down in the Anglosphere between fallouts from the new American administration on one side of the Atlantic and Brexit on the other that there would be greater concerns for English speaking peoples to get bent up about than this topic.
Wow! 844 comments. Oops – 845.
Honestly: Imperial is a archaic way of measurement and should die in a blaze. To defend it is a silly notion only done by those who don’t like the idea of being proven wrong in that it just plainly SUCKS or just get all cranky at some change.
What is so bad in believing one unit should be the standard? Why should we have to deal with more units than is needed, especially if the one in question is significantly older and rather archaic within the modern realms of Math? Nobody i know (includes a lot of imperial users) would mind to see metric be the standard.
The obvious example of imperial being rather ill-suited is how it does not work that well with math that involves any form of Unit conversion. The moment you got to convert inches into feet and whatnot calculations fall out the door and errors can and will happen. Metric is simply in magnitudes of 10 that works with decimal numbers of any resolution. Oh got a measurement in meters in the thousands? Then you are working in kilometers.
Now some may argue that it still has a place and how we already have multple unites as seen within (aplied) science, but most units add something or simplify the measurement in that field. Metric shares this, Imperial does not. It is in the end just redundant and only kept alive out of stubbornness and there is nothing wrong with disliking it. Except for sounding nice in human terms it just doesnt work that well.
As for computing: That is a double edged blade. since computing by default favours calculations in SI Units one can argue why not work in that from the start?
You can’t beat the strangeness of imperial units?
Maybe…
But Germans can: Listen long enough to their news and somewhen you’ll hear someting like “…flooding in XYZZY … 2 times the are of Saarland is covered by the floods…”.
Saarland is a German standard area!
o;-)
2 times the are –> 2 times the area
What a fuss about something that should have been sorted out in the 1970s!
Australia and New Zealand switched to the metric system during that decade without all the fuss that happened in the UK and the US. Now that most of the world has converted to metric measures it makes sense to complete the changeover to metric measures without further delay.
One way for UK voters to support completing metrication is to petition to the UK Government. Here is the link to the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/190317
You claim to be “a scientist by training”.
Well, a scientist would know that meter is in fact still 10-millionth of the distance from the north pole to the equator. The “rediculous” real/official definition “length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second” is there only for precision, because Earth is (as scientist know) not a perfect sphere.
Moreover, second, which is in fact 1/86400 of a day, has (for the similar reasons) a similarly “ridiculous” definition “the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom”. Still, everyone in USA are quite happy to use seconds.
Finally, the same is true for the “foot”. Foot is still approximatelly the lenght of the human foot, but the real/official definition of foot is, ironically, 0.3048 meters! So foot is defined with meter, and meter is defined with light speed, which makes foot double ridiculous!
Next time make sure that your check the facts…
And then there’s ths resistor sizes, but I digress. Both scales arebuseful. Especially if WE know THEIR’S, but they are weak in ours. The CIA reports that only the US and 2 other countries are non-metric, and 2 of them are lying about it. But again it’s good to know both. Imperial can be limiting. When my AeroStar passes 85, it will not report an increase. But rapidly punching in metric, bei g familar w old Nevada and the FRG Autoban, I travel at neyric speed. Thanks AeroStar, for being bilinguil,.
Half a league, Half a league, Half a league onward.
Bring her up to manuvering speed, Scotty – Damn those metric using Klingons!
Really USA is metric, check this video (1) about Kg in National Institute of Standards and Technology in Washington D.C,
(1) https://youtu.be/Oo0jm1PPRuo
Why is metric superior to Imperial (and US Customary Units)? Because it does have human scale measurements but is much much easier to calculate with and cross calculate with.
First, all measures are arbitrary, but the metre defined as 1/10,000,000 part of the line from Paris to the North Pole is much more accurate that the size of a king’s foot (which king?). And who has a foot that is 12 inches long? It’s a pretty big foot (which actually implies that it wasn’t someone’s actual foot in the first place).
Then there are those talking about recipes. Recipes are not about absolute amounts but relative amounts. Provided you have twice as much flour as sugar and x amount of the other you are still going to get a cake. If you use metric amounts close to imperial amounts, the resulting cake will taste the same and within the human scale will look the same size. Therefore converting say 8oz or a cup exactly to metric is unnecessary. And when using cups are you actually measuring volume or weight because it serves both?
Fahrenheit – contrary to what many seem to believe, this is not a human scale. 0F was established as the freezing temperature of a solution of brine made from a mixture of water, ice, and ammonium chloride (a salt). Not an easy definition. The boiling point of water was defined as 180F more than the freezing point which then gave 32F and 212F as the freezing and boiling points. Not “human scale” at all.
As for all the other arguments about “human scale”, they are used by people who don’t understand the metric system. As a New Zealander, I grew up with imperial then we changed to metric. I lived in Europe for 20 years and used nothing but metric but more importantly, learned that metric has human scale measures. A jar of peanut butter is 500g (very close to 454g of a 1lb jar). Milk comes in litres (pretty humanly indistinguishable from quarts). Timber is 50×100 or 2 by 4. My hand is 4” or 10cm wide. A tall man is 1.8m tall (5’11”), speed limits are 50 and 100kph (31 and 62mph or basically 30 and 60).
In real human terms, these differences can’t be distinguished, our margin of error is so great.
Then there is another advantage, the fact that all metric units are related to the others. A litre of water weighs 1kg (a pint of water does NOT weigh a pound in USCU, though in British imperial a pint is 20 floz and weighs 20oz so that a gallon weighs exactly 10lb). A cubic metre of water weighs exactly 1 tonne. The fact that a hectare is the area of a square whose sides are 100m, or 10,000m2. That can be visualised far better than an acre which is the area of 1 chain by 1 furlong or 22 yds x 220 yds, or 66’ x 660’, or 792”x 7,920”. Thus area, length and volume are all easily linked and there is a basic easily calculated link to weight too.
But in imperial, length is measures in inches/feet/yards, area in acres, volume in pints/quarts/gallons and weight in pounds none of which link to each other. And the multiples are just astounding. 12 inches in a foot, 8 pints in a gallon, 16 ounces in a pound, I don’t know how many square feet or yards in an acre.
And can anyone tell me how to divide pints, pounds or even miles by 3? The “imperial divides more easily” only applies to feet and inches. All other common measures are indivisible by 3.
There are many other links. For instance, rain is measured in inches or mm. But 1mm of rain is equal to 1 litre per m2, so if you know how big your roof is, you can work out how much water you’ve collected after a rain shower (we live in rural NZ where we collect our roof water).
Conclusion : metric does have human scale measurements and can be used in every day ways. With its vastly superior calculations and inter-relationships and the fact that it can extend into science and technology without any conversion, we can safely say that imperial should only be kept in history books.