Why The Metric System Will Never Replace The Imperial System In The United States

My guess is that the current situation of "bastardised" metric will prevail: 25.4mm, et al.

Eventually, new products will be designed without reference to the old systems. For the forseeable future, both will run in tandem as legacy kit will take many years to be replaced. Look at the number of Victorian items still in use - with Whitworth and other obsolete threads & standards.

In our lifetime - no chance, but inevitably it will happen.

You read/understood my post wrongly!!! Here is the first sentence again from my last post that you commented on:-

Nobody here is trying to force the USA to go in a particular direction, they would just like the USA to decide, all on its own, to follow one or the other. Not both.

I would like to see the USA to stop sitting on the fence, nothing more, nothing less. The USA is a big enough market that they can set the rule one way or the other....it would not matter which.

I do believe that possibly the present situation could be damaging the US economy.

I had expected better of you than to completely misunderstand what I was writing IN EACH AND EVERY POST HERE!!! I have not said one or the other, I have just said ONE only....

No, I neither misread nor misunderstood your post(s). I'm trying to agree with you that we need to choose.

Now, since I agree we should make a choice, in my view it would be extremely short-sighted for that choice to be the Imperial system. This view has not changed since I became educated enough to understand the metric system, somewhere between 50 and 60 years ago.

I also agree that the present situation is bad for the US economy.

We are on the same side, though I have no problem with either system, just not both together....

OK, so why are eggs sold in sixes and twelves and not fives and tens? Eh? Eh? What's that all about?

Why has the week got seven days and not five or ten? Eh? Eh?

Metric time - why are there 24 hours in a day and not 10? And 60 minutes in an hour and not 50 or 100? Eh? Eh?

Nyah! See?

Anyway, rumo(u)r has it that the USA is inching towards metrication despite what anyone says....

"OK, so why are eggs sold in sixes and twelves and not fives and tens? Eh? Eh? What's that all about?"

Chickens use Base 12. Don't take my word for it; ask one.

"Metric time - why are there 24 hours in a day and not 10? And 60 minutes in an hour and not 50 or 100? Eh? Eh?"

Babylonians used Base 60. You can ask one but you may have to wait awhile for the answer. They don't say much.

"Anyway, rumo(u)r has it that the USA is inching towards metrication despite what anyone says...."

You've been talking to Babyonian chickens, haven't you? Did they mention the Comfy Chair? Punitientiaries?

"rumo(u)r...despite what anyone says"

Printed rumo(u)rs, you mean?

<...Chickens use Base 12...>

There's no scope for measuring portion size in centichickens, then?

_{<Enough! Unsubscribes with grace>}

UK started metrication in the early 70s. Sugar was sold in 2lb bags, so 10% extra in the 1kg was easy to sell - and few noticed the slight price hike!

Milk was sold by the pint, so losing 68ml for a half-litre did not go down well - hence there are still pint cartons on the shelf 40 years later, just labelled "1 pint / 568ml".

Timber was always sold in nominal sizes, so conversions as discussed in previous posts were mainly change of units - and you can still ask for an 8x4 sheet and get what you want.

Street signs are still imperial - I often get caught behind European visitors who think that 60mph signs mean 60km/h. Distances to exits were measured in yards, so not much difference if they ever get round to using metres instead. (A metre measures 3'3")

"I often get caught behind European visitors who think that 60mph signs mean 60km/h. Distances to exits were measured in yards."

In Texas they use these to get those slowpokes movin':

That number isn't in yards, btw, but they don't know that and it doesn't matter anyway.

In Texas they use these to get those slowpokes movin':
We change wheels @55 mph. We waste a lot of metal making speed limit signs.

btw, how many cents to the Dollar?

When?

The USA has landed itself in a "No-Mans-Land" between imperial and metric which may be affecting manufacturing and exports negatively.....maybe part of the reason that China (metric) has been able to step in and take over so much that the US did on its own in past years.....

I learnt imperial and the metric system at school in the 50's and 60's, I have no problem using either.

I also credit this doubling up with my ability in being able to think in any base, which was a useful talent in the computer industry.....people who only learn the metric system, do not develop this ability without a lot of practice, which few bother to do......I have worked with them and their Hex, Dec and Octal calculators, without which they were completely lost.....

I don't know what is best for the USA, I tend to think metric to make them compatible with the rest of the world, but I could easily be wrong, but sitting in the middle does not appear to be doing much good......

I do feel that how I learnt did not harm me in any way, in fact I feel it was positive, so why not learn both and practice just one of them country wide? A decision should be made. Sooner rather than later......

One of the Mars landings failed due to an Imperial/Metric screw-up, that cost the taxpayer Billions of $$$$$, and while we are about it, the US should fix the number of zeros in a Billion to reflect the same number as the rest of the world uses too!!!! Maybe it will make the cost of that screw-up look less on paper at least!!!

"One of the Mars landings failed due to an Imperial/Metric screw-up, that cost the taxpayer Billions of $$$$$"

If you're thinking of the Mars Orbiter, which did fail, it didn't land because it was an orbiter. The failure, moreover, had nothing to do with Imperial vs Metric screw-ups. More likely the cause was two pins on one of the craft's processor chips had inadvertantly been shorted together for twenty seconds. I know because we fielded that call.

"...the US should fix the number of zeros in a Billion to reflect the same number as the rest of the world uses too!!!"

It'll never happen. The U.S. has long since abandoned Billion in favor of Trillion. Just look at our deficit. Very popular here, Trillion.

All is not lost, however. There's been a lot of talk inside the Beltway of switching to scientific notation as a more succinct way of expressing our National Debt. Opponents of the idea argue that the cost of bringing Congress up to speed on the new format will itself require exponential notation.

In the big scheme of things, does that detail make a difference? Hair splitting?

Does it reduce the value of Dollars lost?

Does it make the screw-up less of a screw-up?

This is a further prime example that the USA needs to get itself organized either Imperial or Metric (PICK ONE!), till then the world watches and laughs......

Have a great day.

"Imperial or Metric (PICK ONE!)"

can you imagine the US eliminating all metric values? That would be REALLY stupid. We MUST switch to metric sooner or later, so why wait?

Of course the answer to that is politics...

....also known as inertia (as well as by other, less polite names)....

Well, when the time comes we'll certainly know whom to consult for their sage advice, won't we? Oh, btw, how's that LIBOR scandal coming along? That involves billions, doesn't it? I'm sorry, Trillion$? My mistake.

What was that Clinton scandal with savings and loans? (as a single example only!), Whitewater or something!

Also "Blow jobs" are not sex!!! Come on!!!! They found his sperm on her dress.....after he denied (I was in Boston that week!):- "I never had sex with THAT woman!"

It was the "THAT" that got me pissed. He should have said (still lying!) as a Gentleman:- "I never had sex with Miss Lewinsky!"

Hilary appears to have condoned it, less work for her maybe?

We could "tit 4 tat" for ages. Germany wastes Billions every year......what country doesn't? At least our main politicians are not "dicking around" in such ways as Clinton did.

I could name a few others in the US too (if you wish) that are shameful and waste Billions.....do I need to? You know them as well if not better than I do....just everything is far bigger in the USA due to the sheer size of the population....

[takes own advice and gracefully steps away from toxic person. <unsubscribe> ]

Don't start what you cannot finish......

You opened the can of worms not me...... I was just returning the compliment......

US politics/politicians is/are the front page news in most of the free world.......

Angela is simply too strait laced for most Journalists..... I have NO idea what her love life is like, but she is married.

When I first came here, the outing of communist spies was feeding the front pages here.....politics were well down the list....

Have a great day anyway in spite of me....

Hmm...that's funny...that's not what NASA released in any of their official reports. You must be one of those black-project guys who knows the REAL truth!

Nothing to do with...hunh...how weird...

It would seem that the director of JPL (that's a NASA thing) would disagree with you!

re:

Douglas Isbell Headquarters, Washington, DC Sept. 30, 1999 (Phone: 202/358-1753) Mary Hardin Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (Phone: 818/354-5011) Joan Underwood Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, CO (Phone: 303/971-7398) RELEASE 99-113 MARS CLIMATE ORBITER TEAM FINDS LIKELY CAUSE OF LOSS

A failure to recognize and correct an error in a transfer of information between the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft team in Colorado and the mission navigation team in California led to the loss of the spacecraft last week, preliminary findings by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory internal peer review indicate.

...

The peer review preliminary findings indicate that one team used English units (e.g., inches, feet and pounds) while the other used metric units for a key spacecraft operation. This information was critical to the maneuvers required to place the spacecraft in the proper Mars orbit.

"Our inability to recognize and correct this simple error has had major implications," said Dr. Edward Stone, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We have underway a thorough investigation to understand this issue."

Their later report stated a bunch of adminstrative mumbo-jumbo...basically the checks and balances system to ensure the Imperial and Metric screwups didn't happen again!

Cheers!

Hi Andy,

do they still sell eggs in 6-packs and 10-packs in Germany?

In fact it's not "metric" or "decimal" anymore, it's "the SI".

I use the binch (binary inch) for mental reckoning: 1 binch = 25.6 mm, so 1/16" = 1.6 mm, 1/8" = 3.2 mm and so on. Error is (256-254)/254 < 2/250 or .8%.

"Billion to reflect the same number as the rest of the world": not quite the ROW!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Short_scale_countries_and_regions

Even the UK has changed from 10^12 to 10^9 in 1974! It's roughly related to the 50 Hz vs. 60 Hz case...

They still pack their eggs here in either a 6 pack, sometimes attached to another 6 pack, and 10 packs....

They still call their metric 2 meter wooden rulers(?) a "Zollstock", which means "inch-stick"! Water pipe threads are still in inches, as are I believe gas pipe threads......

Most of the world still uses the British Standard Gauge railway width between the tracks, which originally (some believe) came from Roman chariots....See here:-

Standard gauge

I don't personally find it too bad if a complete industry is Imperial or Metric, that seems to work here and in the UK most of the time anyway, I see possible problems when the same industry mixes and matches.....there appears to be no rhyme or reason for which system to use in the USA....though that is only the impression of an outsider....me!

The Gimli Glider.

reference timber (lumber) size; a 4x2 sawn timber is bigger than a 4x2 planed timber

What would happen if a doctor told the nurse "give this patient 15/64 of a pint stat"?

I dont want to be the patient.

For instant loss of weight go from English to Metric(pounds to KG)

During undergrad courses at the University of Illinois all units were metric. It was much easier to use than the silly "english" units. After graduation, I used metric for all construction projects, and for experiments at work.

But it became nearly impossible to continue it because the USA just refused to adapt. I hardly know where my metric rulers are any more!

It seems to me that by sticking to the imperial system we put ourselves at a considerable economic disadvantage in a global economy that is almost entirely metric. The industrial revolution was based to a large extent on the idea of interchangeable parts. We are digging a hole for ourselves here, and every time an engineer spec or a machinist drills and taps a 1/4-20 threaded socket that hole gets a little deeper.

Here's how I solved the tool problem, works perfectly on anything I've had to unfasten:

http://www.metrinch-tools.com/

I wish the thread title had steered the discussion more in the direction of what (if anything) to replace both with. It would be theoretical, as the impracticalities of what to do with all the tooling, etc., based on either system, would probably preclude any serious attempt to adopt any alternate system. But it seems both are arbitrary enough that the idea of a third, better system should pose the question, "Why not?" I didn't realize it until just a few minutes ago that there is also an interest in a decimal time system. The whole discussion of "standards" becomes interesting.

Exactness and repeatability seem to be basic criteria. (And basing the system on our toes and fingers -- base 5 anyone?) And what of math? That, too, is relative, depending on what the characters we have are defined as and applied to. Our numerical symbols would, initially, mean nothing to an alien race that happened upon our deserted planet 100,000 years from now, except for the fact that these characters would be common and prevalent between the different systems of characters that might have survived. Will English persist in it's popularity that long? And if they only have 3 or 4 fingers/toes, as depicted by some? Is binary the most universal representation of information? (A hammer seems like it would be a pretty universal tool. And what would an alien say if he hit one of his "appendages" with one?) Musing... Maybe an equilateral triangle is a quite universal "idea."

Globalization should be supportive of such an idea. Ideally, a third system should be based on measurements that are more accessible than, say, being based on a certain wavelength of light or a length traveled by light in another, arbitrarily chosen, time frame. But these are the most exact and repeatable references we have come to know about -- that and astronomical observations. Isn't is bass-ackwards, anyhow, to apply such exacting measurements to earlier, arbitrary measurements of a "foot" and a "meter?" Shouldn't it be the other way around?

What makes it somewhat humorous is the fact that most of our practical use of measurement acknowledges variances. Specifying a "tolerance" in construction instructions (machining, especially) is a discipline of study. Home/wood-based construction is the first example that comes to mind. Lumber isn't a "true" material and has variances. How accurately the construction adheres to the standards we use is only as good as the person(s) doing the construction and where the constructor decides at any moment that the reading on their level or plumb line is "good enough" to nail 'er down. And that "squarely" placed stud moves as soon as you start driving the toenail. What is not so humorous, though, is when you don't know if the bolt you are trying to loosen has a metric or imperial head. The manufacturing world really would make life less stressful if there was a universally adopted standard.

And have you ever compared outdoor thermometers in a store and noticed the variance? The most obvious course of action in choosing one is to group them by agreement and assume that manufacturing should be consistent enough, so that those that agree will be a majority group. That still offers no guarantee that the one you buy would more readily agree with a "standardized" thermometer. (You don't find too many thermocouple-based thermometers in garden centers.) This doesn't seem so important until the freezing point of water is the number of interest. Even then, we err on the side of caution in protecting plants and rarely worry about exactitude. I would suggest that a properly selected container filled with water might be just as effective for what a plant is experiencing. (If only the industrialized countries could be so "practical" in agreeing on some course of action regarding climate change or global warming.)

Another example of the practical use of items around us is the number of times I've used floor tiles for measuring a length of cable or wire for a particular job. If I'm thinking in meters it becomes cumbersome again.

Practically speaking, time is probably the most universal standard that affects our lives. That "measure" is in our minds more than distances.

The fact that both systems we have are based on arbitrarily chosen "measurements" is an indicator that it isn't so easy to come up with a better system. And both have been used enough that they are both entrenched. (Why not advocate for a "republic" of systems? Each community would have it's own system. Each neighborhood? Each block???) Any alternate system would be arbitrarily chosen. Making a case for any proposed system would be interesting, though. I'd bet there are some very clever ideas in this group. Let the revolution begin here.

You are seriously wrong if you think that most measurements were chosen arbitrarily.....there was some excellent thinking used, if a bit "aged" nowadays....

O.K. You are correct. "Relative" would have been a better choice of words, in most instances in my previous post since that is more what I meant.

This explanation of how a "foot," as a measurment was decided upon doesn't bring to mind "The Thinker" pose.

But I would be interested if you, or anyone reading and thinking about this, think a more universal or better system might be devised.

The foot, of course, is not a metric unit. Most metric units, including the meter, are far less arbitrary in their origins.

No system is perfect; there is always room for improvement. I understand that quite a few scientists are currently working on a fundamental unit of mass based on elementary particles, rather than a platinum-iridium cylinder stored in Paris. This will, if successful, eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the errors that inevitably occur when making copies of the standard mass. Although the official definition of a gram or kilogram may be changed, the quantity of matter involved should not.

While we're thinking about metric vs imperial and the inefficiencies of having two systems, we need to focus on the big picture, something we have missed.

Some here claim that having two systems causes undue stress and problems. I think we in the US can agree that it sure is upsetting to take our your socket set (or end wrenches) and find out that the bolt is the wrong type (metric or SAE). Very inefficient and frustrating! The logical progression from this is to ask the question; Why can't we use a standard system?

As wasteful as having two measuring systems seems to be, there is something we do that is even worse. Why can't we use a single system to communicate? You know, language! Think of all the money we waste in the US, because we need to print things in English and Spanish. This is just the US - now take a look at the whole world! Why not have a standard language for everyone to use - a language where we can all communicate amongst each other.

I know that a standard language is not possible for numerous reasons, so why should we try to have a standard measuring system? In the US, if we changed everything to metric, the cost of conversion would be extremely high, both in economic cost and the additional stress.

So we'll probably keep our standards language (imperial) and the rest of the world can speak their standard language which is metric. At least there are only two ... except for the strange things coming out of Britain (money is pounds but so is weight, which can be a stone ... ) Just giving you folks on the other side of the "pond" a hard time.

There was a time when certain coins of English money could be used as weights when weighing. Ever heard of a "Pennyweight"? 1/240 of a pound weight.....Decimalization screwed that up!!!

Simply said 240 old Pennies weighed a pound...and were worth a pound in currency....

Air traffic controllers all over the world understand and speak English because it is the language spoken by the pioneers of the airline industry. If China had been the pioneers, the language would be Chinese. English prevails throughout the world for a reason.

This thread has turned out to be a popular springboard for additional areas of interest. here is a great example of a metric/Imperial screw-up that was brought up by Europian.

Any retired naval architects might remember this. When I was working on a U.S.Navy ship building project back in the early 60's, there was a modernization project in the works which involved cutting an oil tanker in half and adding a 100' section. The plans were drawn up using Imperial measurements and the job was sent off to Japan for the construction while the 2 halves of the tanker remained here. The plans also had metric dimensions, which the Japanese used for construction. The job went along fine and the new section was barged back to the U.S. for incorporation into the ship. When the pieces were joined together, the outer hull from side-to-side, came together perfectly as did the first 2 or 3 longitudinal's. As the long's progressed further outboard, they started to be out of alignment with the existing long's. It soon became evident what had happened. The Japanese layed out the locations of the long's using continuous metric dimensions (not baseline) and as a result, the misalignment became progressively larger until it was about 12" at the shell. In order to fix this, 3' of the misaligned long's had to be burned out and transition pieces used. This happened with 2 ships of the class; AO-105 and AO-106.

There's no real way to screw up 'm' and 'mm'.

Turn it up to 11!

11 what?

Whatever your view(s) on this matter, this is a really interesting blog. Many thanks to all concerned.....

Andy is correct in his statement that the U.S. should not be using both systems. We should be using only one system, but due to International concerns, we have been forced to deal with both systems. What all of this boils down to is: Who is going to change? A switch would cause untold cost to both sides. People will not switch their language for a different one. If we can speak from a position of strength, then the Imperial system will prevail. I wouldn't want to go to war over it.

It appears that you have the all-too-common American trait of short-sightedness. Just because you are accustomed to a particular system does NOT make that system better!

Of course changing will require effort and expense in the short run (a few decades, or with real leadership, possibly only one or two), but in the long run (many decades or centuries), we and all the world will be more efficient and more economical.

Slide rules were wonderful devices when there was nothing better, and I still have several, but the last time I used one to actually do useful calculations was around 30 years ago. Many of the same things that make a scientific calculator or spreadsheet superior to the slide rule also apply to the metric vs. imperial dilemma. There is no question among educated people which is superior; SI wins hands down!

How can you call short-sightedness an American trait? The U.S. has been in the fore-front of technology for the past 150 years. I would consider us to be cautious, but not short-sighted. The rest of the world has the technology thanks to us and now they expect us to switch for their convenience. Let them change. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Imperial system. It was used to create the infrastructure that's runs this great country. You sound like a liberal who wants a "one economy, one government", everyone equal kind of world.

As for being "educated", I'm certain I have a better education than you. You probably went to one of those liberal schools like UC, Berkley. People with education don't go around labeling others as "uneducated".

Indeed! They wot feel compelled to characterize others in this fashion do so at the risk of proving they've yet to rise above it themselves. Bigotry by any other name is still bigotry, whether or not it comes speaking with a degree in hand. (sigh) GA

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I do see a lot of signs of short-sightedness here in the USA, including, for example, the incredible amount of credit spending ("I can't wait 'till I can afford it; I want it NOW), and the shift away from quality (appliances used to last 30 years or longer; now 10 years is considered acceptable) and (I'm still regularly using a soldering gun that was a gift to me in 1951).

"The rest of the world has the technology thanks to us and now they expect us to switch for their convenience." We have indeed created a very large amount of technology here in the US, but we certainly can not claim we did it all, and much of that which we did create was done with major input from others all over the world.

'They' don't expect us to switch for their convenience."

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Imperial system." You gotta be kidding! I won't waste time starting a list, beyond the use of non-decimal fractions...

I certainly do NOT want one economy nor one government worldwide, but it would sure be nice if we could buy from and sell to anyone worldwide, and that would be significantly facilitated if we all used one measurement system.

I'm not going to argue about who has the better education (only the 'C' is correct in your guess for my original formal education), but I can't understand how any person educated for engineering could possibly think there are no flaws in the Imperial system of measurement.

No problem, friends?

I guess you were answering a lot of people in the same post as most of the other original comments did not come from me.....nor do they in any way represent what I think.

Thinking that the metric system isn't replacing the the Imperial system-it is wrong !!

In US+UK it is used parallely in every existing material standard !!

The Electric standards-from the begining use MKSA; (Metric,Kilogram,Second,Ampere System)

Every Energy used with Metric system too!!

By the way 1 inch=25.4 mm - is not an exact number,but it was adapted formally,to lower the dimension discrepancies caused (during the II WW-if I am correct)

In this "small village" world-it will very soon-for sure..

'....Every Energy used with Metric system too!!...'

.

How interesting! And all along I thought 'tons of TNT' and 'BTU' were imperial units.

.

.

By the way, about your 'by the way' :

1 inch=25.4 mm - IS exact. It has been for several decades.

The large number of comments to this theme is amazing. But the discussion has turned to non related themes. Metric System has nothing to do with ethnic culture. The real issue is technical and economic biased by personal perceptions and even some nationalism or pride and resistance to change. The objections are subjective.

But if you check the recent editions of the classic engineering handbooks edited in the USA, such as Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook or Mark's Standard Handbook of Mechanical Engineering, you will find that all the technical data and tables are in SI units (the scientific version of the Metric System).

The base 10 units have another advantage: they are directly introduced in the keyboards of any calculator or computer program. On the opposite, you need a conversion utility to key a figure like 6 feet, 5 inches and 7/32 in order to make any calculation.

Some good points here.

Metric/SI : Imperial is now 1:0 ?

We should do further comparisons as to what is best.....what say you Guys.....?

I am sitting on the fence at this moment....

Don't get me started, I don't have time right now.

But for starters, just do any simple calculation, like: What is the weight of the air in a room 12'5 1/8" by 14' 7 1/2" by 7' 11 3/32" high?

Or go to the grocery store and try to decide which container of a particular product is the most economical, when they use several different units on different brands...

I agree entirely, but the USA must decide for themselves....

Okay, I get it. I admit that the Imperial system is somewhat less than perfect. I even prefer using SI units.

.

But certainly the SI system has glaring flaws, too.

.

If you are going to become adamant about the US changing over to another system, because the Imperial system has flaws, wouldn't it be a good idea to have the system you recommend be as flaw free as possible?

.

I would find it much easier to support additional expense for conversion, if we we're converting to something that solved more than just a couple nuisances.

.

For those of you getting all blustery and indignant about my suggestion that the SI system is less than perfect, let me highlight some problems:

..

.

.

Lets begin with the unit of length: the Meter.

.

.

What is the basis for the standard meter?....'The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of ¹⁄_299,792,458 of a second....'

.

Oh! Well the simplicity of that is downright brilliant! Who could possibly think of anything more intuitive?

..

.

Let's move on to the second. What is the basis for the standard second?

.

'...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....at absolute zero...;

.

Again! Wow. Genius, really. I know somebody who is getting a nomination for a McAuthur grant! I mean, 9,192,631,770 periods! Of course! Who could ever forget it? Why didn't I think of that?

.

.

In addition, you get a choice of temperature scales where either 'absolute zero' is assigned a non-integer value far below the actual number zero, or one where zero starts at zero but the value of each degree is based on two points, neither of which are integers on the scale.

.

And, glory be! You've made units of mass work out so that Avogadro's number is the ever convenient 6.02x 10^23 , the gravitational constant and most other truly fundamental measurements do a great job of avoiding simplicity.

.

.

I get that the Imperial system could be better, but I'd be a lot more receptive to supporting a change to a system that wasn't also so obviously flawed.

.

Please feel free to resume the adamant insistence that we abandon out flawed system for your much more perfect system, once your system is much more perfect.

In everyday use, the derivation of the metre is irrelevent (and such precision was added many years after the standards were accepted!). There were 10,000,000 metres from North Pole to Equator at sea level. This is certainly more accurate than the distance from the king's nose to fingertip [yard].

For time, one day was the period between consecutive middays. That was split into 24 hours, then each into 60 minutes as greater accuracy was required. By now, the scientists are able to work out the tiniest deviation in these values, and require to override them to get meaningful results!

The metric system makes conversion easier, as one cubic centimetre equals one millilitre - and for water (at STP) equals one gram. For any other material, just multiply by the relative mass. Is such conversion as simple in imperial units?

That's the reaction I expected:

.

Emphatic insistence that the US should admit there are flaws in the Imperial System and take action to change the system, in spite of the historic use....

.

juxtaposed with

.

A refusal to even consider that the SI system might have flaws and an appeal to the value of the standards from a historical perspective.

.

.

You seem to be recommending we accept an argument and take action base thereon....but are unwilling to even consider the same when presented with the same information? peculiar.

.

The arguments insisting the US complete a conversion to SI units (and I'm not exactly sure what implementation is being recommended...confiscation of all measuring cups, yard sticks and 1/4 pounders?) seem to be based generally on:

.

A dislike of Imperial units, because even though we regularly used x10ⁿ with non integer amounts, it also has divisions that don't originate from base 10. But since we actually actively utilize base ten with our unit, that is a pretty empty complaint.

^.

Also it is claimed that Imperial units are not as simple to work with as they could be, and are not based on fundamental physical qualities. This seems like a reasonable argument to me. But if a change is to be made, why would we change to something that also has glaring flaws? Because it is already in use elsewhere? Weak.

.

.

Can you really not see the problem with basing your measurement on something that isn't fundamental and stable?

.

By the way, you do realize that traveling north from the equator for 10,000,000 meters leaves you a couple kilometers short of the pole, right?

.

Also if the day is such a good thing to base the second on, why are the leap seconds needed and not regular?

.

.

It is pretty hypocritical to suggest the US give up our historical system of measurements because of its flaws, an yet be unwilling to go with any system except SI units because those imperfect measures should be retained for historical value.

.

.

A base ten system could be developed using fundamentals like speed of light in a vacuum, and an even base ten number of carbon atoms in a particular crystal formation. If you are arguing that a change should be made to a better system, how can you still support SI?

I have worked with the Imperial System, and the additional calculations required make it more likely that mistakes will be made.

The comments about the history of the Metric System were to show that a newer system still has flaws, but they are not as volatile as those which went before

At some point, the SI System will be replaced, but the requirement is not yet obvious and the replacement not designed. The problem will be to devise something both accurate and easy to work with.

I do not insist that the US converts, only point out (as others have) that by not doing so they will lose some business to those who work to the latest system.

In the UK, and Germany (where they converted years earlier), there are still 1/4 pounders, measuring cups have dual measurements.

Days are used for measurement of time as they have been since the first humans - one period of light followed by a period of dark. But now it has been discovered that even those change as the Earth's rotation slows. Do you envisage every clock and other timing device being replaced? Seconds are good enough for almost every application for now. Atomic clocks are supposed to be more accurate than the rotation of the planet, but which is correct? Is time really linear, or just so close that we have not worked it out yet?

Each standard was developed to make 'things' compatible, be it SI, http, USB, Whitworth, 33/45/78. Some last, others are updated, the rest die off as they are replaced with something more universally accepted. It is not always the best that survive.(Betamax?)

GA

A good sensible post (for a change here!!!)

What an odd thing to post anonymously!

.

Rating a post as 'Good Answer' already makes an anonymous statement that the post is a GA.

.

I have mixed feelings about the option to anonymously post. Even though I never post anonymously, I tend to think the option should be kept.

.

This previous post has convinced me that a better system would be to display on each rated comment the identity of the member who made each vote. Keep the ability to post anonymously, but a vote in support or in opposition of a post isn't very meaningful if the member is unwilling to admit it is their opinion.

.

.

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to display the user names beside the votes on a particular comment?

No measurement system will satisfy everyone. The ideal measurement system would have everything decimal, but that is impossible, since for example the number of days in a year is not a multiple of ten. As has been pointed out, the exact definition of any measurement unit makes no difference to most people, as long as everyone agrees on the result. Ideally, the definition of every unit should be such that, with appropriate equipment, a standard value could be established anywhere, including on other planets or farther away. Scientists are continually improving the ability to measure and count, and they are working on better standards to reach those goals.

Among the weaknesses of the Imperial system is the total lack of any intentional relationship between liquid and solid volume measurement, and the lack of a single base measurement of either. One liter is the volume of a cube exactly one decimeter on a side. What are the dimensions of a cubic volume that contains one quart, gallon, etc?

It seems to me that anyone who could want to keep the Imperial measurement system either has never done calculations of any significant complexity, or has never had the opportunity to see how much easier the same kind of calculations become when done using metric units.

The funny thing is that for many calculations I prefer SI units. There are some things that I use the Imperial system for without fail.

.

I mistook your comments as indication you were among those insisting the US change. Since that is not your position, we don;t have much meaningful disagreement.

.

SI units are definitely more intuitive and easier to use and the tie-ins to other units are great. My push back is mainly with non-US citizens who believe it is their duty to dictate action the US should take to switch to a better system, but are offended when asked to consider switching to a better system themselves.

If you don't fall into that category, then my previous comments shouldn't have been such a bother to you....but you still seem bothered.

.

I don't think it is unreasonable that units of time and length and every other unit is based on less than idea quantities of fundamental units, because of historic reasons. What I think is unreasonable is to insist on correcting some of those (Imperial), but not others (SI).

.

Can you really not appreciate that those things are isomorphic?

GA

Another sensible post for a change!!!!

Again...what an odd thing to choose to post anonymously.

.

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to display in the comment, a list of those who voted for and a list of those who voted against a comment?

.

Votes would be much more meaningful.

TINAC, nice comments across several posts that support what I was referring to, not necessarily arbitrary decisions, but, the fact that any "system" of measurement is relative and could be based on almost anything.

One thing that I hoped others might offer thoughts about is what I do consider the backward logic of using a foot or meter as a standard and then using ultra-fine and stable references like light wave lengths to define precisely those "units."

meter: the fundamental unit of length in the metric system, equivalent to 39.37 U.S. inches, originally intended to be, and being very nearly, equal to one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole measured on a meridian: defined from 1889 to 1960 as the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar (the "International Prototype Meter") preserved at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris; from 1960 to 1983 defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red radiation of krypton 86 under specified conditions; and now defined as 1 / 299,792,458 of the distance light travels in a vacuum in one second.

And, so now, at least by one definition, we have to have a very accurate measure of a second to aid in getting THE standard for a meter.

second: One second is defined as the amount of time required for 9,192,631,770 periods of the wavelength of light associated with the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom.

(And I think an integral number for wavelengths would be better. Why not round the 1,650,763 up x,764. Aren't wavelength "nodes" easier to detect? x.763.73 seems absurd to me. Does the time definition cause this fraction? )

And no matter how accurately we define it, our measuring instruments do not resolve to the basic "standard" units as defined (except by calculation).

Does this mean that there is no logical alternative that is any better or more universal? Probably. I was just wanting to see if any of us could start with a very accurate "standard" (of your choosing) and work "up" to a unit based on that, with some reasoning behind it, that argues to be more easily accessed for reference. As it currently stands, I'd need to go to Paris or Colorado to check my caliper -- or some secondary source that is certified. But nothing tertiary or beyond.

I can check my clocks/watches to the WWV broadcast. We all rely on the manufactured measuring instruments we use to be traceable, with some specified tolerance, to THE standard as defined. But as I noted in a previous post, referring to the variance in thermometers in any store display (and there is a variance), you do begin to wonder which one is the most accurate compared to THE standard. We could carry around a glass full of ice water, but many thermometers wouldn't fit the container.

I doubt that there is any inherent advantage to one system over the other. Once any measure is expressed as a decimal, moving decimals by 10's to get smaller or bigger units of measurement (an oft cited advantage of the metric system) is the same. We could have centi-inches, milli-inches, etc. (Mils, in fact, is used for milli-inches.) Errors due to conversion is the most likely disadvantage of 2 systems vs. 1 -- that and other inconveniences as mentioned in previous posts in the thread.

My comments and questions do stray from the original post's subject. But how can we talk about measurement systems and not think about whether there is any better alternative to either of the ones we have? A more practical "standard" to base a larger accepted "unit?" How many of us have Krypton 86 or Cesium-133 laying around, along with the accompanying apparatus, to check our instruments?

As an aside, aside... What of the Great Pyramid? We measure it (and its parts) using our systems. Their "system" of measurement was, supposedly, based on the cubit. And we still marvel at its precise construction. Maybe we should consider going back to the cubit? I've not done any calculations concerning its measurements, but many others have. There is no dearth of this type of analysis. For instance. Or this. Its construction seems driven by ratios. And ratios are unit-less.

Despite what many say or think, we do live in a "tolerant" world.

We could also use a "standard" measure of sanity. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't measure "correctly" (?) in that system. (Oh, right, I forgot. IT exists.)

We certainly have the capability of making a system of units that is more friendly to use in base ten that originates from invariant (as far as we know) natural phenomena.

.

I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, so I'll come back to this later:

Think about a system that defined

mass with one unit being 1/12th of say 10^24 (or 10^10) carbon 12 atoms

length as one side of a cube made of 10^24 carbon 12 atoms (would this be a line of 10^8 carbon atoms ?)

time as the lapse required for light in a vacuum to cover a unit of length.

.

Having mass length and time, we can derive the reset fairly readily, right?

This lenghty discussion shows the importance of the subject of Metric vs Imperial. It should be the theme of several multi disciplinary congresses with the attendance of engineers, public, scientists, economists, lawmakers, industry leaders, etc. to discuss it in depth and with objectivity. Certainly, to reach a conclusion will take lots of ink (or bytes) and time. Years, maybe, in addition to the 3+ decades since the change was proposed.