Metric vs Imperial Units

patto wrote: That is at least the second time you have used that arguement.

Not nearly as many times as you using the rest of the world argument...Fact is, it'd be a lot of PITA for most people in the US to convert to metric w/o any benefits. Not to mention the amount of actual established US standards (building height, joist spacing, bed dimension, etc, etc) that would almost be a hard-to-remember number if converted to metric. Those things won't go away for decades to come.

patto wrote:As an engineer... And yes hand calcs are still done frequently.

As an engineer maybe you should learn to use a smart phone that can convert all your units for you instead of still use an actual calculator. But no, everyone should all use something convenient to you.

I'm a software engineer & it'll make things easier for me if we all use base 2 units (instead of relying on the number of your fingers or toes). Maybe the rest of the engineering fields can catch up to the digital age? After all, 6 year olds do just fine...

Some arguments that bring back memories!
I studied during the time when the UK changed from:-

Imperial (fractions)to
Imperial (decimal)to
CGS (centimetre/gram/second) to
MKS (metre(kilogram/second) to
SI (Sysem International).
And all were used side by side for a long while. Nowadays I work to DIN anyway.
One learns a certain amount of mental flexibility is in order!The important thing to learn is that they are just numbers, nothing more.

In engineering it was interesting though, some machines had different measuring scales for different axes as conversion parts weren´t available so the cross slide on a lathe might be in decimal inches and the tail slide in fractions. And you´d be making a part designed in metric. Naturally you had to lug around three different sets of measuring gear like verniers.

Fractions are great for a technology level which involves using a piece of string and folding it in half, after that they are worthless which is why even the USA uses the decimal system for anything involving accuracy.

reboot wrote: Not nearly as many times as you using the rest of the world argument...Fact is, it'd be a lot of PITA for most people in the US to convert to metric w/o any benefits. Not to mention the amount of actual established US standards (building height, joist spacing, bed dimension, etc, etc) that would almost be a hard-to-remember number if converted to metric.

So why do these arguments only apply to the US? Do you think other countries didn't have similar challenges to overcome? The standard numbers need not be any harder to remember.

Ball wrote: Inches are base 12, fractions are base 2. I have yet to hear any benefits to using base 10.

Huh? Last time I checked there is no base 12 units of length in Imperial units. Fractions can be any base you want.

The world operates on a base 10 system of numbers. Hence the advantages of using a measurement system in that base.

reboot wrote: If calculation is such a problem, why don't we make everyone to use a metric/decimal based time unit as well?

patto wrote: We do. It is called seconds. Oh and days can't be metricized because that is fixed. Years are changing in length and are not whole number of days. Seriously does this really need to be explained?

Umm? Seconds=decimals?

decimal-base 10. Seconds- 1/60th of a minute. But, you knew that.

Greg D wrote: Umm? Seconds=decimals? decimal-base 10. Seconds- 1/60th of a minute. But, you knew that.

Seconds is an SI units. Like any unit it can readily be used in decimals rather than fractions. Minutes are not an SI unit.

Speaking of which here is a relevant map:


But you know. Lets keep the Imperial system and vote in Trump while we are at it! Cause fuck common sense!

Of course the funny thing about all this is the only way an Inch is defined is in terms of SI units. This pretty much applies to all Imperial units these days. Not to mention a British and Canadian Inch is different to a US survey inch.

This "rest of the world does it" argument would be a lot more compelling if the US weren't out-performing the rest of the world in science and engineering. Maybe they should be emulating our practices instead of the other way around ;)

Greg D wrote: Umm? Seconds=decimals? decimal-base 10. Seconds- 1/60th of a minute. But, you knew that.

Seconds are a sexagesimal system but you knew that, right?
Minutes or seconds were never an Imperial unit, time was not included in the system. The second is however an SI fundamental unit.

The USA doesn´t use the Imperial system anyway, they use the USCS as the USA was ondependent before the Imperial system was introduced. that´s why some of the units are a different size from British ones.
The units themselves in USCS have been defined in the meter and kilogram since 1893 anyway.

Kedron Silsbee wrote:This "rest of the world does it" argument would be a lot more compelling if the US weren't out-performing the rest of the world in science and engineering. Maybe they should be emulating our practices instead of the other way around ;)

I expect someone else will come along and point out science and engineering in the USA uses almost exclusively the metric (SI) system:-)

Jim Titt wrote: Seconds are a sexagesimal system but you knew that, right?

Actually, yes.

Jim Titt wrote: I expect someone else will come along and point out science and engineering in the USA uses almost exclusively the metric (SI) system:-)

Not to mention the success of science and engineering in Western Europe, China, Japan, and South Korea...

The reason the USA is getting so many refugees and immigrants is because they are trying to escape the oppression of the metric system.

Ball wrote: Inches are base 12, fractions are base 2. I have yet to hear any benefits to using base 10.

Tell me again how many cubic inches are in a bushel.

I can tell you how many liters in a cubic meter in about two seconds; no calculator needed.

(Nice to see we're still beating this dead horse after 50+ years.)

patto wrote: So why do these arguments only apply to the US? Do you think other countries didn't have similar challenges to overcome?

Because US has the largest economy in the world and China is more than willing to make shit in ft & inches? (Even shipping containers are measured in ft). Smaller nations stand to gain from standardizing w/ other nations, a large one doesn't, duh?

patto wrote:Lets keep the Imperial system and vote in Trump while we are at it! Cause fuck common sense!

Funny thing about democracy is even the ones lacking "common sense" stills have the same voting power. Ever think people are voting for Trump (& to a lesser extent Brexit) b/c of people like you who advocate for stuff the majority of the populous do not stand to gain from?

Gunkiemike wrote: Tell me again how many cubic inches are in a bushel.

Just rephrase to "[Siri/Ok Google] how many cubic inches are in a bushel ?" and say it into your smartphone? Yes, distance/volume/energy conversion is easier w/ metric, but how often does the average person need to know?

patto wrote:Huh? Last time I checked there is no base 12 units of length in Imperial units. Fractions can be any base you want. The world operates on a base 10 system of numbers. Hence the advantages of using a measurement system in that base.

12 inches to a foot, and fractions of an inch are in base 2.

"The world" used to operate on base 6 and 12. Then some of the world went full retard and adopted base 10 because they couldn't count without using their fingers like a moron.

Gunkiemike wrote: Tell me again how many cubic inches are in a bushel.

When has anyone had to use this conversion? Every unit has its context just like nobody talks of cubic meters to identify engine capacity. Bushels are used for things like foodstuffs which is why it's based on the ounce/cup/pint/gallon (another base 2 system, which is why there are 64 US pints to the bushel).

reboot wrote: Because US has the largest economy in the world and China is more than willing to make shit in ft & inches? (Even shipping containers are measured in ft). Smaller nations stand to gain from standardizing w/ other nations, a large one doesn't, duh? Funny thing about democracy is even the ones lacking "common sense" stills have the same voting power. Ever think people are voting for Trump (& to a lesser extent Brexit) b/c of people like you who advocate for stuff the majority of the populous do not stand to gain from? Just rephrase to "[Siri/Ok Google] how many cubic inches are in a bushel ?" and say it into your smartphone? Yes, distance/volume/energy conversion is easier w/ metric, but how often does the average person need to know?

The Chinese don´t "make" anything in feet and inches, they make it using the metric system and re-label it in units rednecks might understand.

Jim Titt wrote: The Chinese don´t "make" anything in feet and inches, they make it using the metric system and re-label it in units rednecks might understand.

By your reasoning nobody makes anything in any units. That 1/2" wrench? It was made in 12.7mm, even though for other markets only 12 or 13mm wrenches are available?

reboot wrote: By your reasoning nobody makes anything in any units.

Like I said, they are all just numbers. Just their machines measure the numbers based on the SI system, not a US one. The dimensions for a 1/2" wrench are defined in millimeters even in the USA.

Ball wrote: Inches are base 12, fractions are base 2. I have yet to hear any benefits to using base 10.

You're incorrect about what "base" means. Units do not have a "base". Fractions are certainly not "base 2" (unless you do fractions in binary). Does 1/4 = 1/100?

Everything we do on a normal day-to-day basis, imperial or metric, is base 10. If you have 9 inches and you add one, how many do you have? 10. 1-0. That is because we could in base 10.

The fact that there is a multi-page thread where people are arguing for the metric system is really sad.

Jim Titt wrote: Like I said, they are all just numbers. Just their machines measure the numbers based on the SI system, not a US one. The dimensions for a 1/2" wrench are defined in millimeters even in the USA.

So you chose a different interpretation of "in" to argue with me about?