Should Americans (re)adopt the metric system? The US was supposed to go metric back in the early to mid 70s, but the effort just seemed to fizzle and die. The increased accuracy in measurements, reduction of errors in production facilities and improved scientific thinking of those in the education system would seem to make this conversion inevitable, but the cost would be enormous.

Everything from street signs and road maps would all have to be converted (some are already). Less obvious are the impacts on the manufacturing sector. The producers of machine tools, equipment and parts would face massive retooling costs in many cases. Sadly, going metric is much like a decision as to what side of the road you will drive upon. You can't do a partial adoption or gradual changeover to such a comprehensive policy. Swift conversion to metric would represent an astronomical cost, which seems to be the ultimate disincentive for America to do so.

Peace.

:rolleyes: ...and very few people have the vision to see past the comfortable day-to-day routines of saying 'foot' and 'inch'. In other words, a lot of Americans are stubborn.

Originally posted by Congratulations
the comfortable day-to-day routines of saying 'foot' and 'inch'.What do you mean... we won't be able to go to the ball park and ask for a ".30 meter-long with chili and cheese??" We'll loose those tired phrases like: "give 'em 2.64 centimeters and they'll take 1.61 kilometers??"

Jeeez. What WILL we do? :D

What I think would work would be changing the actual system to metric yet keeping our American names. That way computation gets easier but we don't have to introduce some sort of toxin to American culture.

Simple.

The US hasn't needed to go Metric in order to become the single most accomplished nation since the formation of the planet.

Why should we be dragged down to everyone else's level of performance? ;)

(A friend passed this on to this hamster.)

Process work, as you know, involves getting people to change the way they do things. Here is a little story that explains many things.

The US standard railroad gauge (width between the two rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates. Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing.

Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads?

The first long distance roads in Europe and England were built by Imperial Rome for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads?

Roman war chariots first formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for (or by) Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever!

So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you might be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses. Thus, we have the answer to the original question.

Now the extraterrestrial twist to the story...... When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on it's launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, ..... and the railroad track is about as wide a two horses' behinds.

So, the major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.

And you wonder why it's so hard to make things change.

For a start, you Americans would lose fewer multi-million dollar space probes if you went metric along with all the sensible countries of the world.

...multi-million dollar space probes...

Pocket change to US, life-savings to you. ;)

Perspective. :p

If the rest of the under-performing world wasn't so dependent on metri-phonics the US wouldn't suffer the infrequent consequences of conversion confusion.

Which metric-standard spacecraft has accomplished more science than the typical non-metric standard, high-endurance US spacecraft -- like Pioneer 10, 11, Voyager 1 or 2, Hubble, a Bazillion other US spacecraft, or any of the KH-11 or 12's and others?

Metric is a conformal standard, not a performance standard!

US scientists already use metric. There must be a reason for them to do that.

the only reason us builders use the metric system is to convert it back to english decimal.

a prime example of metric vs english decimal

build a chain with 1000 pieces each 10 mm and having a tolerance of .05 mm each piece must have a degree of the listed tolerance built into it.

build a chain with 1000 pieces each .3875 (3/8ths) of an inch give it a tolerance of .05 of an inch each piece must have a degree of tolerance built into it.

why not say you can't have a tolerance? because in this setup prototype we are taking real world mass production into account. no 2 pieces of metal are going to have the same grain. during production machines heat up so metal expanse effecting the setup. one shift might not check each lot has closely has the next and so on. :bugeye:

now pull on the chain and see which one has more stretch.

you guess it. the metric chain. why? because .05 mm is not as small, thus not as accurate, as .05 inches.

This is why even today they use english decimal for precise machining in japan

it might not sound like much but in a machine like the space shuttle that has 1,000,000 parts that .05 mm is a hugh difference.

wayne,

That's a strange argument against the metric system. Also, it doesn't work.

If you want a certain tolerance, you want a certain tolerance. The units you quote it in make no difference to the physical specification.

James R.,

US scientists already use metric. There must be a reason for them to do that.

Shhh. That's supposed to be a secret. ;)

I once asked an American why the US still uses it's system of measurement rather than the metric. I asked "Why don't you guys switch to the metric system like the rest of the world? I mean, there's only about 4 or 5 countries that still use feet and inches."

To which he replied "Yeah, but those are the better countries." Typical American ;)

:D

Typical American
Yeah American=stupid. I can attest to that. The problem goes back to the education system here. We are taught in metric in science class and then in both systems in math class. Then we are told to throw away the metric system. Too many mixed messages. We are taught evolution and then some go around spreading the idea that such knowledge is useless. Even the teachers don't take any stances. I once had a teacher that was ambushed in a discussion about his view on evolution. He responded using bible symbology to validate his position. We are that backward. The other problem: every person becomes a rennaisance man. Talk about overload, even into the college system we are meant to take a variety of classes. The result: confusion. Now onder we still use inches. Wait it gets worse, we use ounces, but then liters are also presented. Probably no person here, including myself can articulate an amount of liquid in terms higher than tsp and tbsp. It is a sad state indeed.

The US Currency is already "metric" eg: divisible by "10".....:rolleyes:

It never wasn't! It almost went to some strange system based on Spanish currency, with like 594 centimes equalling a 'mark'.

True, yet if you measure a dollar bill in America, what side of the ruler will you use? Tell me?

As I neither live in the US nor have a $ bill, I'll pass on that one!:rolleyes:

Try it- it'll change your life.

Try it- it'll change your life.

I wish!:rolleyes:

I'M A TEACHER....it's not fair to lump us all in one category. I INSIST my students learn the metric system and if they turn in ANY paper -- lab report or science project in the English system....they are screwed....they get so many points off it leaves them spinning!

Anyway, when I passed by Arizona....at least in Tucson....they have road signs in both miles and kilometers. I find that cool. Eventually they'll be changed (I hope) to just kilometers.

As far as the "give them an inch and ...." idioms.....hell, there are many archaic idioms no longer relevant in today's world....new ones are being formed all the time....why should we confuse the next generation with multiple systems of measurement just to keep idioms around? ;)

Why should we change the past to suit the present, surely both can live side by side? Idioms such as "give them an inch and they will take a mile" are common place sayings. I, for one, detest this switch to a more "pc" language - horizontally challenged - indeed!!! Fat is FAT!! :rolleyes:

Australia is a completely metric country. Nevertheless, if you ask many people their height, they will say things like "I'm six foot two." That is one example where "old" measurements are still used in a specific circumstance, though I suspect that over time that will disappear. There will always be sayings which will remain long after their relevance has been lost. But it is probably enough to know that different systems of measurement exist without having to use them merely to maintain some turns of phrase.

Nicely put............:rolleyes:

Well, I think we've given a few reasons why we haven't changed, but why SHOULD we change? Granted, our science is done in metric, but for the most part it's simply not that important. This debate is sort of like debating wheter a green car or a blue car is better. As long as we all know what we're talking about, it seems like the actual units are pointless. A city is just as far away in kilometers as it is in miles as it is in inches as it is in cords. As long as the local populace is capable of visualising it, we could use Tom Cruise as our unit of measurement. For instance, I am 1.1 Cruises in height. A mile would be about 600ish Cruises long, give or take, or what we could call 6 hexaCruises, for those who need the metric prefixes.

The fact of the matter is that we're very unlikely to change just because the rest of the world is doing it. A lot of the world drives on the left-hand side of the road, too, but I doubt America is planning any sort of change to that, either.

Originally posted by Riomacleod
As long as we all know what we're talking about, it seems like the actual units are pointless."My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!" - Abe Simpson :D


Peace.

But why have an illogical system when you can have a logical one?

12 inches to a foot. 3 feet to a yard. 6 feet in a fathom. How many yards in a mile? Who cares?

Compare:

1000 millimetres in a metre ("milli-" means "thousandth").
100 centimetres in a metre ("centi-" means "hundredth").
1000 metres in a kilometre ("kilo-" means "thousand").

Everything is a clearly-denoted power of 10. What could be simpler?

And consider problems like "How many square inches are there in a square yard? Answer: (12*3)^2 = 1296"
Compare: "How many square millimetres are there in a square metre? Answer: 1000*1000 = 10⁶. Easy to do in your head."

1760 yards in the mile!! 5280 feet! 63360 inches! As you say - who cares! You have what you want in the USA - we were not given any choice in the matter here in the UK! :rolleyes:

What’s half of twelve? A third? A fourth? The system met the needs of the time.

As humans learned to count using hands the decimal system took over computation. A system based on twelve might have worked better.

What’s the easiest system with which to do computations?

Mixing binary with the archaic decimal system is leading to confusion. How big IS your hard drive? Does “kilo” mean a 1000 or 1024? Who knows these days?

Once AI’s take over teaching, children will learn the modern rational binary system. /777 will insist. Hehe.

As I grew up with feet and inches, imperial measures etc I CAN see the logic in having things divisible by 10 - not a problem but the old sayings will stay for years. I STILL buy a pint of milk! I still buy a pint in the pub (actually they are still pints too - no metric there); I still use saying like "As queer as a nine bob note" a reference to a ten shilling note being "normal"!! Thy went out in early 70s. I remember when LSD was NOT a drug but currency! just! If the US wish to remain "imperial" so what!:rolleyes:

<i>What’s the easiest system with which to do computations?</i>

For us, or for computers? The distinction is relevant.

James R, you still haven't satisfied me on what makes the metric system so much more important to a person in their daily lives. I have to be honest, I've never had to sit down and get square inches of something from the square yardage.I know that it's 90 miles (1021.93 Cruises) to Indianapolis from here, is it really that important that I convert it to feet? I can. Given time, I can convert it into rods, or cords, or hands, too. Outside of science, the only reason that we really need measurement is to communicate sizes to one another. And really, even within science, as long as its accurate we can really measure in any system that we want. It's just that metric is easier to use in that case because american sceintists have to communicate their results worldwide.

So, the question's to you: WHY should we change?

Originally posted by James R
<i>What’s the easiest system with which to do computations?</i>

For us, or for computers? The distinction is relevant.

If that is directed at me, I suppose the answer would be - humans! As all pc's use binary and work in "10s" if you see what I mean?:rolleyes:

I apologise, I misspoke, it is actually 91,974.19 Cruises to Indianapolis. It is 1021.93 Cruises to a mile.

Originally posted by Riomacleod
It is 1021.93 Cruises to a mile.I think your quest to use Cruises as a standard of measure is inherently flawed.

I just wanted to do a quick math check on you (cuz I’m anal that way) and I had to do a double-take on the results. One mile = 5,280 feet = 63,360 inches; no problem. “There are 1021.93 Cruises to a mile.” (63,360/1021.93)/12 = 62. Tom Cruise is only 5’2” tall?? No Way!! So I go searching the web for answers. Some folks say that Tom Cruise is 5’5”, 5’8”, 5’9”. Well, goddammit, how tall is the guy? And where are the sources to prove it? I mean, if Mr. Cruise is to be used as the base unit of measure, shouldn’t we all agree on it?

Peace.

As Tom Cruise has to stand on a box to kiss his leading ladies - then I assume 5' 2" is nearer the truth........:rolleyes: He isnt called Tiny Tom for nothing!

He's REALLY short. There're alot of the "big" actors who are small like that. I'm pretty sure I heard that he's really 5'2".

I'M A TEACHER....it's not fair to lump us all in one category. I INSIST my students learn the metric system and if they turn in ANY paper -- lab report or science project in the English system....they are screwed....they get so many points off it leaves them spinning!
That was my point. Tell them that the metric system alone matters and then send them into the world in which the opposite is ussually the truth. Is it not forseeable that they will be confused?

wayne_j

are u insane? LOL

because .05 mm is not as small, thus not as accurate, as .05 inches.

thats backwards

this is an inch (roughly)

------------

this is a millimeter

-

now how is .05 mm BIGGER than .05 inchs?

thank god you Americans don't go metric....look how much u already know lol

now maybe i am lost, but i dont think so.

Old english money:

240 p = 1 pound = 20 shillings

1 shilling = 12 p

4 shillins and 6p = 1 crown

etc etc.

For the longest time, the English avoided decimalisation because it was too complicated.

And BTW, there are approx 40 1/000ths of an inch in a mil.

The US is such a big ship that it takes a while to steer it in a different direction. Under its own steam it realistically doesn't need to. But conformity in the global community would benefit all.

A question (from Australia) do US made vehicles have a combination miles/kmh odometer ?

For those of us on the Imperial measurement system here is something that helps visualize what metric measurement is...

1 millimeter is roughly twice the width of the lead of a mechanical pencil.

1 cenimeter is roughly the thickness of a piece of sliced bread.

1 meter is about 3 inches longer than a yard.

1 kilometer is almost 2/3rds of a mile.

1 kilogram equals 2.205 pounds.

When rough estimating is necessary this is a quick reference that always helps me.

Most cars do have the conversion available, but it's small, and sometimes hard to read on a speedometer.

Still there's no good reason on the table to go to metric. Granted, it is wise that our science uses the metric system, so that information is communicated more eloquently between the intelligences of different countries. BUT, if I go down to the store and by a pound of ham, how does me buying a half-kilogram of ham make things better for anyone?