We seem to have two slightly different issues here ; How one can compare different units of measure, and how retailers display prices.

My first paragraph was intended to tackle the general situation of somebody having no idea of how much a metric size is.

If there were a change to metric, then supermarkets would undoubtedly look for advantage in various ways; If sugar were currently sold in 2lb bags, it would probably benefit them to sell it in larger 1kg bags (even if the true unit cost was the same). I don't know enough of the US situation to comment much on this aspect, but in the UK retailers have to display cost/kg on foods as well as the total pack price. There are exceptions to that, but it's generally how the situation is. Comparing prices between different shops needn't be a problem if the US had/has such a system.

I don't know enough of the US situation to comment much on this aspect, but in the UK retailers have to display cost/kg on foods as well as the total pack price. There are exceptions to that, but it's generally how the situation is. Comparing prices between different shops needn't be a problem if the US had/has such a system.

REPLY

That is also how its done in Canada. I quite often see people with cell phones asking someone what the unit price is - presumably the other person is in the other store.

If th store staff catch you going round with a clip board and writing down prices they toss you out of the store. Guess this is where texting is handy.

Ho ho !

Sorry, I forgot that Maple Syrup might have been a better example to use for Canada.

I think the point Ron was trying to make was a bit like this; He goes to buy a bag of sugar one day, and it's say 50 cents for a bag. In comes metrication, and upon his next visit to the shop it's selling bags in a slightly different size at, say, 60 cents. It's not immediately obvious if he's being ripped off. They may have upped the bag to the nearest round figure in metric units and kept the bulk price the same, or they may have increased it hoping that customers won't notice due to the change in pack size. If shops have different size bags of sugar it's harder to compare. However, if they all display cost/kg on the shelf upon which the bag sits, the problem is no longer. The example also works with salt, but perhaps smaller quantities than Kg.

I guess you could use something like this, but it's much more fun to go around with a clip-board and worry the store manager

if you were seriously asking if the adoption of the metric system would get the united states out of the economic recession hole, my humble and considered opinion is 'no'. the problem of slumping global sales is not the result of an antique mensuration system but the unwillingness to follow basic economic principles.

when the world followed the principles of adam smith's 'causes of the wealth of nations' it demonstrated the validity of the old paradigms. when it deviated, it got stung.

they call economics the 'dismal science'. thats a shame since it affects more people than any other discipline. i urge everyone to read adam smiths book, stumble through the antique phrases, and try not to let your blood boil as you discover the true causes of the economic recession.

Some random thoughts,

Grew up in the U.S.A. Worked as carpenter, then general contractor. The system of yards, feet, inches, fractions of inches can be a real pain to work with when calculating, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 for inches , 12 inches to a foot, then throw in engineering details on plans, tenth of a foot, tenth of an inch. Many potential points for error. Always try to work in decimal equivalent when calculating.The metric system is much easier to cypher.

On the other hand the old system had a human sense of scale that is easier for me to relate to: joint of my thumb is about an inch, my booted foot is about a foot long, my stride is about a yard, I can walk a league in an hour, my outstretched arms are approx. 6 feet, (fathom), the human figure depicted in art is referred to as height in heads.

Had an interesting experience with not paying attention to measurement systems. As a student pilot in mid-70's, flew a handful of different Cessna-150's, 152's. Was taking off in a brand new one and it really climbed off the runway, I thought this is a real hot rod, later realized I was used to driving the old one's with gauge in MPH, the new one was in KNOTS. Traveling significantly faster at point of rotation, more lift.

<...old system had a human sense of scale that is easier...>

A pint is a good handful of beer...

It's sort of like death and taxes (metric system)... Just somthing we need to accept and deal with the best we can!

A question for all: why is there no metrication on the calendar or on the clock?

The French even had a go at that:-

From Wikipedia:- French_Republican_Calendar

Each day was divided into ten hours, each hour into 100 decimal minutes and each decimal minute had 100 decimal seconds. Thus an hour was more than twice as long as a conventional hour; a minute was slightly longer than a conventional minute; and a second was slightly shorter than a conventional second.

The Months were renamed quite poetically: there were twelve 30 day months, and, three 10 day weeks per month (I think this was the real killer for the people: only one day off in every 10).

PWSlack,

There is no metrication of the calender or time, because these are related to the planets directly. The time it takes earth to circle the sun is a year etc.

And time is based on the same thing, just on a smaller scale. bb

When I went to school in the mid seventies, the engineering physics course mixed metric and Imperial measurement in all problems. It was drilled into our heads that you must always, always use dimensional analysis when solving problems, using units and crossing them out throughout the calculation to assure that you used the correct units or made the proper conversions.

Of course, this goes against the "do it the fastest way" mentality of students.

I can't tell you how many times I beat my head against the wall when I did not get the correct answer. There would always be a problem where 5 variables would be in metric, and 1 in Imperial, just to mess you up.

Or, that I would miss that a pound is not mass unit.

Tad

One point that I forgot to mention, due to the fact that the imperial system of weights and measures has no "regularity", it made it very easy for me to adapt to the various Binary systems that in every day usage (today also but most often hidden behind some high level language!) for computer personnel in the early 70's.

As an example for those only used to the metric system for weights:-

16 oz = 1 Lb, 14 Lbs = 1 Stone, 2 Stones = 1 Quarter (28 Lbs), 4 Quarters = 1 Hundredweight(1 CWT) or (112 Lbs), 20 Hundredweight = 1 Imperial Ton....2240 Lbs.

We had to learn the various Binary systems, Binary at Base 2, Octal at Base ´8 and Hexadecimal base 16......

I used each one so often that I could work out the values and convert, in my head.......I am not so fast with converting today as I have hardly used them for years - sadly....

By the way "Imperical" is wrong, as far as I am aware there is no such word as "Imperical", you should write "Imperial"!

Hello Andy,

are you OK?

'Empirical', is the nearest in spelling to the 'emperical' as you mentioned it, and the irony of the meaning made me smile.

Empirical' means: "Relying on experiment or experience". Just made me smile!

bb

I had also noticed, but was afraid of being accused of being "obtuse" if I mentioned it, but it actually fully deserves to be mentioned, thanks for being so kind!!

Its actually also one of my favourite words.....confuses the English speaking Germans no end!! For the non English speaking I use the word "empirisch", which is seldom heard here and confuses even more!!!

Its good to see you here again.....

One of the problems in the US is not only the use of the PI (pound-inch) system but also the way dimensions are communicated: when somebody indicates for instance 50 KAIC rating what is really meant is an interrupting capacity of 50 KA (kilo-amperes), so without using a descriptive name, somebody not familiarized with US abbreviations does not understand what is intended. It is similar for instance as 50 FLA (full load amperes) which is sometimes indicated as FLC (full-load-current) instead of a unitary description as nominal current (In).

A similar situation is in case of cfm (cubic feet per minute) and mph (miles per hour).

It is the inconsistancy ( as in the examples above: the word "per" is abbreviated in one case (mph) but not in the other (cfm)).

Also when indicating the rate of a heater, it is labeled as (for instance) 50000 BTU when in reality is should be 50000 BTH/hr.

So it's not only the English measuring system as itself (in case of the US), but also the lack of enforcing regulations (syntactic or otherwise) in using technical terms.

Sorry, the word ' Imperical ' does not exist.

See post #49....

Obviously, thank you.

Hello ronseto.

Hope you are OK?

Yes, Decimalization affected copper pipes and fittings, bricks, wood, stair tread hieght etc.

The most difficult thing which we had to get over was the copper sizes. Often we would have to rip pipes out and start from the source.

Another problem is where decimal bricks need to 'bond' with Imperial sizes. Where the new size had to fit into the old bond the new bricks had to be sanded down to allow them to fit the full brick/bat virtical line on an extension to an old building. That is still a problem when maintaining old structures.

Matching new to old skirting, and door surround etc was also a problem.

There has been several shops and traders who did not want to change and have been taken to court. I do not agree with them being taken to court, and BTW it was the Government who took them to court. As far as I can recall, these traders were vegetable and fruit sellers so in must cases they were known by the people who traded and when that kind of stuff is bought it is almost always bought per item anyway? They got fined and had to change to decimal. But in at least one cases the people said they would sooner buy in the 'old' weights so things still were sold to people, (usually the older people) who went to the shop because they liked the fact the trader sold in 'old money! So the trader to court was a waste of time.

As comparing the 'new' and 'old' it is easier to stick to working in one or the other, not both. As for measurements, sizes etc, it is easier to work in metric. For instance, if you want to transport something you have not taken in your van or truck, if that was a couple of pallets of liter water bottles (full), then you know a liter weighs a kilo, more or less depending on the liquid. It just makes working things out very much easier.

Can I just say that with regard to this post, I started writing it at about eight P M yesterday, then fell asleep so, I have no idea whether these subjects have been mentioned.

Take care............................

bb

I used to work as an instructor in an engineering training centre, the recruits from school knowing only metric had to be introduced to imperial. I was told by the mechanical instructors that the imperial system was developed empirically and was more fit for purpose in terms of TPI etc. Being electrical / electronic I took it on trust. My previous experience as an HGV mechanic for Leylands in Oldbury necessitated me having three sets of spanners, AF Whit/BSF and metric. Some jobs needed all three. I never heard the reasoning behind the standards brought into question until my time at the training centre, assuming metrication and standardization made sense. I tapped the threads on my Bonnie's Amal carburettor using British Standard Brass with the same TPI as cycle fine? I can't remember. I rebuild bicycles for a hobby and the bicycle industry uses all sorts of threads. It's agony.

Imperial makes no sense when weights and volumes differ between British and American units (it's a good job lengths do not).

However what gets my goat is the Metric Martyrs in this country, we now have dual units in supermarkets and this is used to display price in £ per kg, £ per lb, and then pence per 100g or £ per 100g all mixed up so I can't compare the price of anything with anything else. This is one thing that should be metricated once and for all, unlike the building industry where you have a history. An extension doesn't tie up if you use metric bricks with an imperial brick-built building. With supermarkets there is no justification at all.

And pipes http://www.gizmology.net/pipe.htm see here!

Finally, I had an experience where I bought a tape measure in China which has units of 1/3 of a metre approximating a foot and 1/36th of this approximating an inch. I used it for a while before I realized. The small units translate as market "chun" which differ from traditional chun.

If we are going to standardize on these units, why not standardize on one language - English of course!

As I see in the thread, everybody is giving examples on how easy or how difficult is the transitional/transition part from Imperial to metric and vice versa (in some cases).

But besides the fact that, as mentioned before in a reply, the scientific community irrespective of country or language uses nearly exclusive the SI system, this system is defined and designated to be used universally, irrespective of language or previous natural measuring systems acustomed to. That means that, when looking at a drawing/sketch, etc and seeing 120 mm everybody understands that it is a distance of 120 milimeters, similar to 20m2, 40 dm3, etc. The same as km/h, N/m2, etc.

Here in the US (CA) you usually designate feet by -'- or -ft- and inch by -"-, sometimes abbreviated as "in" or "ins" but when a product comes also with Spanish and French instructions the abbreviation is either "pie", "pulg", "pi", "po" so you cannot simply look at the drawing/guide and understand what is meant, you would have to consider the language it has been prepared to serve.

More historical facts on measuring units (in California)

http://www.ca-missions.org/pauley.html

Worked in a shipyard.......it was the in place skilled labor. We even attempted to change over to dual dimensioning the drawings.

Pete: Leave a 12 mm gap, what the hell is that?

Joe: ....Oh, about a 1/2 inch

One problem: "US customary" units are woven into the fabric of our culture:

"Give him an inch, and he'll take a mile."

"Never try to put 50 pounds of (ahem) in a five-pound sack."

"I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole."

"That must weigh a ton."

Yardstick, rule of thumb, the whole nine yards, ten gallon hat, foot-long hot dog, half-ton pickup truck, hell's half-acre, six feet under.

Yards and inches on the football field, the golf course.

We actually learned to think in those units. I know instinctively about how much an inch is, a yard, a mile, a pound, a gallon, a cup. 300 PSI is two guys balanced on one chair leg. Foot-pounds of torque are easy to visualize. Feet per second is also easy to wrap the mind around. BTU= one pound of water raised one degree Farenheit- easy. An acre-foot of water? A cubic mile of ice? No problem.

I work in Transportation in the US. We made the switch from US customary units to metric units on highway jobs. This was forced by the Feds, since they required metric specifications and plans, otherwise no federal aid!

Sounds good- except everybody in the US grew up with and was used to the old units. How do you put down 13 mm of asphalt with a paver calibrated in inches? How many kilograms does a 20 ton roller weigh? So the contractors would just translate the plans from metric to US customary units for their crews- no chance of error there, none at all.

Imagine for a moment that you are a construction worker on a bridge rehabilitation job. The record plans for the bridge, all the fasteners on the bridge, and all the structural components are in US customary units. But the plans for the job are metric! I swear, I am not making this up.

Now (unless the current administration reverses course again) we are going back to US customary units on highway construction jobs. So someday soon, another contractor will have to do another job on one of those old bridges. The "as built" plans from the last job will be in metric, and the original record plans will be in US customary. Good luck with that.

100 years ago we didn't have calculators, and we used systems of units that didn't require a lot of math. pole, chain, fathoms, furlong, mile, league, link, acre, pound, pint, board feet, acre-foot. The list goes on. But what they have in common is the compartmentalization of the unit to the industry that used them.

Maybe it's because I didn't grow up with the metric system, but I find the fact that most "rules of thumb" don't make logical sense when the only even divisors are 2 and 5 very annoying.

I have a pet theory that says that millimeters and centimeters are small.

Sure they make sense, but a 4' by 8' foot piece of plywood is simply bigger than a 60 by 30, or whatever it is that is standard sized piece of plywood in Europe.

My theory is that since stuff in the US was simply bigger, and moving one big piece of a thing was inherently more efficient that moving a couple more smaller things, overall the economy did just a little better.

As far as the economic situation for the US, it has more to do with exporting every job that you can write instructions for, than anything else.

As an engineer in Australia i find use of the metric system or SI units far simpler (and in most cases superior) to imperial. Yes it is partially because i have grown up with them, but they also carry far easier.

For one, the conversion factors are always in the form 10^x, far easier than base 2 measurements. All the American engineers i have met who were in my field chose to convert to SI or metric before calculation and then convert back to imperial when solved.

I was not born however during the transition stage and can see many problems that will occur during the transition, however I am confident that you can manage. I can understand the resistance of many to the change, particularly manufacturing companies who would have to alter major infrastructure. But the man on the street, or in the shopping mall will be affected so minimally that they won't know the transition.

I can only suggest that during the transition stage, that to cater for the eager and less eager unit converts, that both values be listed, i.e. Metric and Imperial. The products don't need to change, just the labelling. Then when the public is comfortable with the system, the products can slowly change over.

but they also carry far easier....

Yeah my metric scales are for more compact than my imperial ones...
But my 1metre rule is longer than the 1yard, but I s'pose I could saw a few inches centimetres off the end

Del

What you really need Del is one of those tape measures that has feet, and centepedes on it. That way all the numbers crawl around so you just put everything wherever you feel like, and scream curses at cows and birds in Esperanto.