This topic has
been talked to death for years with pros and cons on both sides. The strongest
argument for metrification is, it's easier for people to understand as it is
based on units of tens. Going back a hundred years or so (78 in my case), I was
brought up with the Imperial system and have no problem what-so-ever with it. I
am also comfortable working with the metric system when necessary. I would make
the argument that whatever system you grew up using is the right system if you
paid attention in school. I would suspect there are people in metric countries
that have a problem with metrics; not just in this country. I say; whatever
works is the right system to use. The problem comes when we try to accommodate
both systems into our everyday life. We buy beer in 12 oz cans, coke a cola and
gin in liter bottles and milk and gasoline in gallons. Volume units don't
create any real concern, but when we are dealing with distance, that's where we
get into trouble. Measuring the distance from earth to a distant planet can be
expressed in either system, no problem, but here on earth, the argument for or
against is not so clear cut. Our society is made up of "building blocks",
standards that everything is based upon. In the construction field, the 2x4,
2x8, the 4'x8' sheet of plywood and
drywall, door and window sizes, pipe and fittings, electrical wiring cannot be
changed. We can express them in metric form, but we cannot alter the actual
physical size. In metric countries, their "building blocks" are different from
ours and not compatible. In our country, a 2x4 measures 1-1/2"x3-1/2". In a
metric country, the closest equivalent to a 2x4 is 48x98mm(1.89"x3.86").
Obviously metric lumber would not be compatible with American lumber. Going
metric isn't just the use of the metric system; it's converting to the metric
building block. We know that's not going to happen.
Let's take an
example where metrics would not work. In our highway system, signs are Imperial
for example; "1 mile to the next exit". We would have to either change the sign
to read "1610 M to the next exit" or move the sign to a position that is a
convenient distance from the exit, such as 1 Km or .5 Km. Road markers and all
signs that display distance would have to be changed; no small task and a big
inconvenience.
Another example:
In steel construction, we use standard structural shapes that have no metric
equivalent, like 6x4x7.5#T or 4x8x12# I or 20.4# plate. If we were to use
metric shapes, we would have to go to a size larger than what we would normally
use. I had to do this on a project involving a metric built ship before I
retired. Much of the steel was bad and had to be replaced. Metric form shapes
were not available in the U.S. so I had to use larger U.S. structural shapes
and thicker plates to repair the damaged materials. Obviously going smaller
wasn't an option. I'm talking about 10,000 tons of steel; not a small patch
job. As a result, the ship left displacing a bit more water than when it
arrived. The building blocks that we use in the structural fields of
shipbuilding, bridges and buildings are pretty much set in stone; there is no
changing that.
The two systems
will continue to share the stage in the same way driving on the left or on the
right.
2
Why The Metric System Will Never Replace The Imperial System In The United States
Re: Why The Metric System Will Never Replace The Imperial System In The United State
Good Answers:
"Almost" Good Answers: