The basic mistake most pro imperial posters continually make on this board is to assume that people still using imperial do so out of love, or preference. While a minority does for more reasons than the stated, an overwhelming majority uses whatever is more comfortable and that of course are old familiar ones. As long as those are legal few people will change. This inertia is reinforced by language. Not only need shoppers acquaint themselves with new quantities; they also have to express them in unfamiliar and awkward terminology. No matter what one does, centimetre and litres will only roll freely of English lips after years of usage. Maybe this helps to explain why voluntary metrication is almost impossible to achieve.

I think the claim that the majority prefer imperial is extremely exaggerated. A poster to the USMA site recently returned from a visit to the UK and reported:

In the UK the past couple of weeks I noticed a lot of real estate ads that gave the area of the office, or apartment, or house, in square meters. Some also gave square feet, but pretty much everyone gave it in square meters.

Get the highways done, and it’s all done.


Another poster who is visiting Ireland and Northern Ireland noted:

At the moment I am in Belfast, Northern Ireland. A mix of Imperial and metric, most head room signs are dual and all speed- and distance signs are in miles. I see more metric than I expected.


The impression given by the pro-imperials is a country where metric is seldom seen, spoken or heard. But visitors are seeing a lot more metric then expected. Indicating metric is prevalent. Not just on signs, but from peoples own lips.

Two women from the UK interviewed for CNN gave the distance they were from the carnage at 15~20 m.


I think it is time for the pro-metrics to push their government representatives to finish the job, at least remove the legal obstacle to prohibiting metric sizes glasses in pubs and prohibiting metric on road signs. At the same time they can make it illegal to deface, damage, destroy or alter a metric sign. What are you doing to further this goal?

<<I think it is time for the pro-metrics to push their government representatives to finish the job, at least remove the legal obstacle to prohibiting metric sizes glasses in pubs and prohibiting metric on road signs. At the same time they can make it illegal to deface, damage, destroy or alter a metric sign. What are you doing to further this goal? >>

And in the same vein, for Americans to push Congress to at least pass the "permissive metric only" amendment to FPLA as proposed by NIST, and for the straggling 5 States to adopt the UPLR for consumer goods whose labelling is controlled at the State level. Forbidding metric-only is not a way to go metric.

It will be much tougher battle to get Congress to require metric-only, but if they can't help, they should at least get out of the way and let industry do it. Now, they are an obstacle to metrication.

I don't think the consumer groups are going to stand for that. Remember that at the present moment in the US, the majority of things are labelled first in a rounded English unit, followed by a conversion to soft metric. The majority of people read the English and ignore the metric. How can Congress justify to the public the act of removing requirements for units that most people understand and requiring different units instead?

Danny boy,

I have responded to that poster on the USMA site. Although he is an honourable poster I believe him to be wrong on this ocassion.
Anyone in the UK will know that

1) Offices are primarily advertised on hoardings quoting:

80% sq ft
<20% sq ft (sq m)
<10% sq m (sq ft)
<5% sq m

2) Houses are sold in l/w and not area. Most show ft,in some have m bracketed.

Feel fee to correct me if I am wrong Daniel, from the USA.

<<I don't think the consumer groups are going to stand for that.>>

Bud,
I think it will be a gradual change. And remember it ISN'T mandatory-metric-only like the EU. Manufacturers can choose to keep or drop the Customary depending on whether they see a market advantage.

I see little advantage to the Customary units following the 2 L on a soda bottle. It still a minority, but I am seeing more labels which are metric first and/or metric round.

My guess is companies would institute a package that is "metric first and round" with trailing odd-size Customary. Then when consumers get used to it, drop the Customary. Food manufacturers, not the government, will take us metric. Just as an example, my dental floss is 50 m / 54.7 yd. I started a thread a while ago on items where both sizes are "odd" amounts, which means you can't tell whether it is primarily Customary or metric. That may be another tactic. I honestly don't think there will be much reaction, if it is done right.

Re: Mandated metrication July 11 2005, 1:18 PM
JS
My guess is companies would institute a package that is "metric first and round" with trailing odd-size Customary. Then when consumers get used to it, drop the Customary. Food manufacturers, not the government, will take us metric. Just as an example, my dental floss is 50 m / 54.7 yd. I started a thread a while ago on items where both sizes are "odd" amounts, which means you can't tell whether it is primarily Customary or metric. That may be another tactic. I honestly don't think there will be much reaction, if it is done right.

metre
Let me describe it in imperial terms what happened here, you took the sail out of my wind.

Re: Mandated metrication July 10 2005, 2:14 PM
DJI
think the claim that the majority prefer imperial is extremely exaggerated. A poster to the USMA site recently returned from a visit to the UK and reported

Metre
Daniel, you are not reading what I say. These are my words:
While a minority does for more reasons than the stated, an overwhelming majority uses whatever is more comfortable and that of course are old familiar ones.

Nowhere do I say imperial is preferred. What I imply is how powerful a force habit is.

"The majority of people read the English and ignore the metric. How can Congress justify to the public the act of removing requirements for units that most people understand and requiring different units instead?"


I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people don't look at either measurements. Nobody would even notice if one or the other were removed. Congress doesn't have to justify anything to the public and the if the public doesn't like it, they don't have to buy products that they don't like.

Maybe you are afraid that the public, if it does pay attention to the units, might understand the metric more then you will allow yourself to believe. Just because you hold yourself back, doesn't give you the right to hold others back too.

If it were more economically beneficial to sell in metric, it would already be much more common. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe, companies do not do things that cut into the bottom line unless they are required to by force of law. If using Customary units were hurting producers, you wouldn't see them used anymore. If there were economic gain to be had manufacturing in metric sizes, the production sector would switch so fast your head would spin. The reason you go to the store and buy a gallon, quart, or pint of milk is because it is an economic benefit to the bottlers to keep using those sizes -- not because of anything the US government is doing. If, at some point, it becomes more profitable to sell in 4 L, 1 L, and 500 mL sizes, you will see milk in those sizes.

Congress is empowered to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Fixing the standard is not the same thing as telling We the People what units to measure in.

<<Congress is empowered to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Fixing the standard is not the same thing as telling We the People what units to measure in.>>

Well, perhaps not how many units to measure out. However, the units are constrained by FPLA as the "most appropriate" units of both Customary and SI.
In the case of volume, that's quart or fluid ounces AND liters or milliters. Imperial quarts, Roman amphoras, etc. are not permitted or any other odd units of volume that is not part of Customary and SI. It is telling commercial establishments what units to measure in.


On permissive-metric-only, NIST is being quite clear and emphateic that it in no way requires round metric sizes. So people could sell 3.78 L of milk under metric-only. (You'd hope they would eventually redesign the package)

<<
I think it will be a gradual change. And remember it ISN'T mandatory-metric-only like the EU. Manufacturers can choose to keep or drop the Customary depending on whether they see a market advantage.
>>
Go back and ask yourself what the purpose of labelling laws is. It is to prevent companies from cheating consumers, and to make sure that consumers don't get ripped off because they don't understand what they are buying. Take the sale of loose fruit and vegetables, for example. I am sure that many stores would be all to happy to drop the pounds, which the public is familiar with, and replace them with kilograms, because this would make it more difficult for people to compare prices from store to store and make it easier for stores to mask price increases. The job of the government is to keep this from happening.


<<
Food manufacturers, not the government, will take us metric.
>>
As you have pointed out earlier, it is the "policy" of the government to encourage metric. So if the manufacturers want to go metric, why hasn't it happened yet?
Let me propose an alternative path: Require both imperial and metric for the time being, and wait until the majority of products are in rounded metric sizes with imperial in parenthesis. THEN, allow companies to start dropping the imperial. How does that sound?
I don't like it too much, but I believe it illustrates my point.







<<
Congress doesn't have to justify anything to the public and the if the public doesn't like it, they don't have to buy products that they don't like.
>>
And they don't have to vote for congressmen they don't like either.

Bud wroet

<<
Take the sale of loose fruit and vegetables, for example. I am sure that many stores would be all to happy to drop the pounds, which the public is familiar with, and replace them with kilograms, because this would make it more difficult for people to compare prices from store to store and make it easier for stores to mask price increases. The job of the government is to keep this from happening.
>>

In the UK is is law and has been law for many years that goods that are packaged in standard sized packages SHALL be sold in metric-sized packets. For example, if I buy some pre-packed beans, the weight is given in metric units. If the Government is to enforce ethical behaviour it must FORCE traders to use the same units of measure on pre-packed foods and onfoods that are sold loose so that prices can be compared. Thanks to the lieks of teh so-called "metric martyrs" and a gullible public, we cannot compare the prices of loose goods with pre-packed goods. Is this what you are supporting?

<<As you have pointed out earlier, it is the "policy" of the government to encourage metric. So if the manufacturers want to go metric, why hasn't it happened yet?>>

Metric alone is illegal. Duality is required by law on consumer goods under FPLA.

<<Let me propose an alternative path: Require both imperial and metric for the time being, and wait until the majority of products are in rounded metric sizes with imperial in parenthesis. THEN, allow companies to start dropping the imperial. How does that sound? >>

I could meet you halfway. Make it item-by-item.

Introduce a rounded-metric package, keep the odd trailing Imperial for 12 months, then the manufacturer can drop it if he wants. Do really gain info from the 66.something FL OZ label on your 2 L soda.

The gradualist approach used in the UK has failed wuith the result that our units of measure are in a mess.

The Australians and South Africans adopted a much better approach - they used compuulsion because tehy realised that without compulsion the critical mass required in order to make metrication work could never be achieved. In both countries the sale of measuring equipment that was calibraterd in imperial units was banned for for a period of between five and ten years.

You might call this dictatorship, but it worked. I lived in South Africa during the metrication period. I had my name taken by the South African Security Police for opposing the Apartheid system. I personally knew a nubmer of people who were deported or who had their liberty restricted without trial for opposing Apartheid. In spite of this, I acknowledge that the South African Government took the right approach regarding metrication. (OK, their Apartheid policy stank. Today, if you ask anybody who lived in South Africa during the 1960's and 1970's, you will find that 90% are in broad agreement with my viwes on both Apartheid and metrication)

Martin,
I understand the sentiment. We (US) are a very litigious society and have certain freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Such an approach in the US would be tied up for decades in court, but on the positive side would result in unemployment for a lot of career politicians. I personally as a US citizen would have problems with the US using some of the steps used by Australia and South Africa, at the same time as I would give them kudos for finishing the job much faster than the US or UK. I applaud the ends, but the means make me uncomfortable.

We could obviously move faster than we are moving. However, for the US, I think the right approach is to concentrate on requiring the right things, not forbidding the wrong things. At the moment, we require dual labeling on consumer goods. That's dumb if the goal is to go metric. The most immediate step for the US is permissive-metric-only in FPLA, and the five straggling states on UPLR. If metric-only were just legal, I think export pressure would handle the fading away of Imperial on consumer goods (as long as the EU and some other countries require no Imperial or Customary on labels).

Better education both in the mechanics of the SI, and the need for change would help too. Unfortunately, our politicians are continually focused on reelection and I don't see the invertebrates developing a backbone or demonstrating leadership in this. Someone (hopefully NIST) needs a long term strategy that maintains slight but continuous conversion pressure that gets the job done without triggering rebellion by a large percentage of people.

"The gradualist approach used in the UK has failed wuith the result that our units of measure are in a mess."

Do a survey of normal people to see how out of step you are.

Re: Mandated metrication July 12 2005, 1:01 AM
Niles

If it were more economically beneficial to sell in metric, it would already be much more common.


metre
Why should selling milk in 4 L containers, or anything else metric in a voluntary conversion world become anytime more “ beneficial” than selling in quarts? This purely commercial view disregards long term advantages metrication offers to everyone and especially coming generations.
Metrication is about replacing an incoherent jumble of units with a simple and easily understood system. A system that saves teaching time, simplifies most computations, eliminates unnecessary and often costly conversion mistakes and integrates America’s economy with the rest of the world to enhance its export potential. Since replacing old and superseded equipment and practices costs money in the short term, few companies with their shareholders in mind take that step voluntarily. This and the disincentive USC habituated shoppers pose, renders voluntary metrication nigh impossible. This is not idle speculation, as it has been shown in Britain. In the 70s carpet shops agreed voluntarily to sell their wares in sq. metres. That worked well until one shop decided to please inch habituated customers and reverted to square yards. Selling in old measures gave the impression that it was cheaper compared to new metres and his sales soared. Metric shops trying to explain what happened got nowhere till they reverted to yards again. Since metrication incurs initially only disadvantages for shoppers, (learning new units and quantities), there is no incentive to change. That said, it is back to the main question on this board, is metric worth the cost and effort and round and round we go again.

JS
Someone (hopefully NIST) needs a long term strategy that maintains slight but continuous conversion pressure that gets the job done without triggering rebellion by a large percentage of people.

metre
I think you overestimate peoples interest in measurements. If I remember correctly the compulsory aspect of metrication was dropped after the congress received 5000 letters decrying mandatory metrication of highways. Shall try to find that article again.

Can anyone remember the tune to "Crossroads" ?

That depends on two things. 1.) How many songs are called "Crossroads", and 2.) If more than one, which one you're thinking of. ;-)

I bet that "Crossroads" never made it to the USA!

In fact I wish it never made it out of Birmingham, or wherever they shot the damn soap.

Meg Mortimer?
Benny?
"Miss Doyannn"?

Give me a rest!

Still, if your mum is addictive to it what can you do?

I still hate the fact that HTV Wales clashed it with Vision On on BBC1.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the limit to that little insight into my primary school years.

<<metre
I think you overestimate peoples interest in measurements. If I remember correctly the compulsory aspect of metrication was dropped after the congress received 5000 letters decrying mandatory metrication of highways. Shall try to find that article again.>>

But you forgot to mention the large campaign checks in the 5000 letters. They were all from contractors building highways. You can't export highways, so it isn't very important anyway whether they are poured in cubic yards or meters. (It would have had some effect on steel for bridges, etc, so I'm not saying it is of ZERO consequence, just that consumer goods are more important right now.)

On consumer goods, I was counting on their lack of interest. Ordinary people would quickly adapt if sizes were rounded metric values and stated first. On a 2 L soda bottle, the Imperial has become completely redundant. It could be dropped with no (or VERY few) angry letters. Going from rounded Customary straight to metric only would not be smart.

Congress has done a few dumb things to encourage Customary
*You already mentioned canceling the deadline on highways, which moves the target date to "when hell freezes over"
*On Federal construction, some jerk Senator got a law passed exempting lighting fixtures and bricks from the metric requirements. This may momentarily decrease costs, but builds a cost FOREVER into designing metric buildings to accommodate English bricks and lighting fixtures. Guess what businesses fund his campaign.

I saw an interesting example of round metric at Costco today. For those not familiar with it, Costco is a "large box" or warehouse type store, and all packages are rather large amounts, either one big package, or a shrink wrap of several normal sized packages, which you can't split.

Olive oil is always by the liter, 2L or 5 L, while other oils are in quarts or gallons. Balsamic vinegar is by the liter, regular vinegar has always been several quart bottles.

Today, they had a large bottle of plain Heinz white vinegar, 5.283 qt, as marked on the pricing sign. What an odd size I thought, and pulled one out of a case. The bottle was marked 5 L / 5.283 QT.

First time I have seen a "commodity" rather than "specialty" food in rounded metric there. I think manufacturers are introducing rounded metric sizes to prepare for "metric only" in the US.

I didn't buy it, as I don't use a lot of vinegar, and most of it is wine vinegar or balsamic vinegar, not plain.

To JohnS-MI and any other engineers:

What is the general consensus among engineers and in the engineering industries about which is the better system for engineering and the practical sciences generally: imperial/customary or metric?
Which system would most engineers honestly prefer to work in, do you think?

2/3 of the engineers I know honestly prefer Customary measures. But that's because they are old and those are the units they used when designing ICBMs for the Department of Defense during the Cold War. The other 33.333...% of engineers I know honestly prefer metric -- because those are the units they used when learning their craft at the University.

That was me and my Costco experience, up two.

Rip,
Science is clearly SI. Engineering is mixed depending on industry and/or technical specialty. I am an electrical engineer (although I was mostly in engineering management) and I worked in both the electronics industry and automotive, which are both metric. So my career (I'm retired) was almost entirely metric, beginning in university in 1962.

Mechanical engineers may face a mixed bag depending on what company or industry they work for.

Outside my own area, it is hard for me to tell what actual practice is. It is easier to look at the various engineering societies and their metric policy. I would say many are leaning heavily towards metric. Aviation/aerospace and petrochemicals are exceptions. They seem to be strongly Customary.

Since 2000, IEEE only publishes new and revised standards in metric, dual has been dropped. Most other societies lean towards metric, but are often dual: ASME, ASTM, ASHRAE, SAE (the reason SAE isn't entirely metric is they have aviation and heavy-duty non-highway equipment wings). ASCE (civil engineers) has a surprising strong metric policy given the way the road construction industry balked at the metric mandate for highways.

I believe Bud and MattS are in engineering areas that are more strongly FPS. Perhaps they can comment on their experience.

I never cease to be amazed that our rocket scientists prefer Customary.

We probably design them that way as a security measure. If the enemy gets a hold of them, they won't be able to understand or use them. And we only export them at 18000 mph.

lol
X-D

I am a chartered information technology engineer. My views on metrication are well known. Although units of measure are seldom used in IT, I have doen a fair amount of work writing software for other engineering disciplines.

My experience in the UK is the the petroleum engineering is mixed, but all other branches of engineening are metric. Typically one particular former colleague who is a mechanical engineer has strong anti-EU views, but strong pro-metric views.

It might be worth pointing out that most engineering bodies (including the British Computer Society) are members of the Engineering Council, an umbrella organisation for the engineering industry. The SOciety of Petroleum Engineers had however decided not to join the Council (thereby betraying its strong American links).

I would say that any well-established engineering industry in the US is in English units (petroleum, construction, water resources, etc.) and any recently emerged industry is metric (biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc.) I believe electrical engineering is also metric, since there are no English equivalents for electrical units. Almost all research is done in metric, so universities teach a lot of metric. Overall, it really all depends on the field.

<<
In the UK is is law and has been law for many years that goods that are packaged in standard sized packages SHALL be sold in metric-sized packets.... If the Government is to enforce ethical behaviour it must FORCE traders to use the same units of measure on pre-packed foods and onfoods that are sold loose so that prices can be compared. Thanks to the lieks of teh so-called "metric martyrs" and a gullible public, we cannot compare the prices of loose goods with pre-packed goods. Is this what you are supporting?
>>

That's like saying "oops, we forced you to convert one, so now you'll have to convert the other one too."
Two wrongs don't make a right.


<<
Introduce a rounded-metric package, keep the odd trailing Imperial for 12 months, then the manufacturer can drop it if he wants. Do really gain info from the 66.something FL OZ label on your 2 L soda.
>>
John, I know you're very fond of the 2 liter soda example. But metric containers like 2 liter soda bottles are the anomaly among items in a grocery store. So using it as an example doesn't prove anything.

The automotive industry and the petroleum industry are both mature and heavily linked (although there are other uses for petroleum, like making plastic for cars :) ). Yet one is metric, one is FPS.

I think the difference has more to do with the scale and nature of the company's international operations, if any.

Against that criteria, Boeing is interesting. They have a lot of international sales, but only domestic manufacture and are FPS.

<<John, I know you're very fond of the 2 liter soda example. But metric containers like 2 liter soda bottles are the anomaly among items in a grocery store. So using it as an example doesn't prove anything.
>>

Fair enough, it is a handy example but perhaps I overuse it.

Can you find some brands of olive oil, herb flavored oils, or balsamic vinegar sold in rational Customary sizes? My observation is they are all or mostly rational metric. I believe it is because the most popular brands are imported, but even US producers seem to have gone along. Wine vinegar and cooking wine are a mixed bag, some FPS some SI sizes.

While an exception only, did you read my 5 L white vinegar story above? What about my dental floss, mouthwash, handlotion?

Bud wrote

<<
That's like saying "oops, we forced you to convert one, so now you'll have to convert the other one too."
Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>

You make the assumption, wrongly in opinion, that metrication is wrong. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the initial decision t metricate, teh job is now half done - measurements in the UK are in a mess, we cannot undo what has been done, so we must complete the job

<<Can you find some brands of olive oil, herb flavored oils, or balsamic vinegar sold in rational Customary sizes? My observation is they are all or mostly rational metric. >>

Now that I've postulated this (and I realize you haven't had fair chance yet to rebut it) I'd like to get to the complaint.

It is easy to compare different brands of olive oil, as they are all metrically sized. When you compare it to an alternative, such as canola oil, the canola oil brands are all in Customary-rational sizes. Olive oil and canola oil are both (relatively) healthy oils to use in cooking. They are not completely interchangable, the strong flavor of olive oil improves some dishes, detracts from others. But in many recipes, either could be used. Which is cheaper? A little hard to compare. The (US) quart and liter are close enough that I can ignore it or make a 5% correction in my head and be in the ballpark, but can the average consumer. With dual labeling, the data is there, but one will be an awkward division requiring a calculator. Should there be complete choice of units. Should Italian olive oil vendors be able to go back to Roman amphoras if they wish (An amphora would be a perfect size for Costco)

Re: Mandated metrication July 12 2005, 4:06 PM
JS
But you forgot to mention the large campaign checks in the 5000 letters. They were all from contractors building highways.

metre
Are you telling me the highest bidder dictates what’s democratic in America?
Now that is altogether new to me!???????????

Bud
John, I know you're very fond of the 2 liter soda example. But metric containers like 2 liter soda bottles are the anomaly among items in a grocery store. So using it as an example doesn't prove anything

metre
It shows that people are not really bothered with metric quantities. No one manned the barricades when spirit and wine quantities were metricated.

<<measurements in the UK are in a mess, we cannot undo what has been done, so we must complete the job >>

Where are you getting this from? (apart from the UKMA, that is)

<<Are you telling me the highest bidder dictates what’s democratic in America?
Now that is altogether new to me!???????????>>


Our campaign laws are a muddle. There is "hard money" and "soft money." I'm not a lawyer and probably can't explain the difference well -- it's definitely "how many lawyers can stand on the head of a pin" stuff.

"Hard money" is given directly to a candidate's campaign. It is pretty tightly regulated, and big trouble if the laws are violated.

"Soft money" is given to political parties or to special action groups, supposedly not directly associated with the candidate, but advertise their special interests in ways where it is pretty obvious how they want you to vote. "Soft money" is severely abused in US politics.

Congress wants to look like they are reforming campaign financing and keep passing tougher laws on hard money while they create more loopholes so they personally can best use the soft money. I think the chances of campaign finance reform on soft money are either zero or negative -- the liklihood is that it will be MORE abused as "hard money" is reformed.

While there are laws to skirt or be careful of, letters from major contributors get more attention than letters from me. My Congressman doesn't really give a crap what I think, but someone on his staff will send me a nonresponsive "quasi-form-letter" personalized with my name and address so I don't feel insulted and fail to vote for him. (I've received a few)

<<
Can you find some brands of olive oil, herb flavored oils, or balsamic vinegar sold in rational Customary sizes? My observation is they are all or mostly rational metric. I believe it is because the most popular brands are imported, but even US producers seem to have gone along. Wine vinegar and cooking wine are a mixed bag, some FPS some SI sizes.
>>
I don't cook much, so I have no idea about these things, but I'll take your word for it. But in almost every grocery store I have been to, the PER UNIT price is displayed (per oz. or fl.oz.) so comparisons are very easy.

"Today, they had a large bottle of plain Heinz white vinegar, 5.283 qt, as marked on the pricing sign. What an odd size I thought, and pulled one out of a case. The bottle was marked 5 L / 5.283 QT. "



Wouldn't that be an up-sized product? The anti-metrics always seem to scream about metric down-sizing. Are they going to start jumping for joy now that metric conversion can mean up-sizing too?

The only people screaming are the fantasists and the fanatics.

JS
Our campaign laws are a muddle. There is "hard money" and "soft money." I'm not a lawyer and probably can't explain the difference well -- it's definitely "how many lawyers can stand on the head of a pin" stuff.

metre
I get the gist. Americans are not unique in that respect, but more brazen perhaps?
I didn't even think about it till you mentioned it.

<< <<measurements in the UK are in a mess, we cannot undo what has been done, so we must complete the job >>

Where are you getting this from? (apart from the UKMA, that is) >>

You don't have to take their word for it. People such as Neil Herron have admitted in the past that we can't go back now.

Thanks JohnS-MI & Niles. So it really is a mixed bag in the engineering fields in the US.

I am not surprised that US defence contractors' preferred to build thermonuclear weapons using customary weights and measures. I would not have thought that any or many US engineers would have been schooled in metric thoroughly enough through the decades of the Cold War.

During the 2nd world war, when Britain and America were dealing with the Soviet Union both sides used their respective systems of weights and measures, and had to constantly convert units given by the other side from one to the other, which of course slowed translations of military documents between the soon-to-be-fractured allies.

On the subject of atomic or thermonuclear weapons, when the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon is given in kilotons or megatons, the "tons" referred to are metric tons, are they not? So metric did at least make one apperance in the calculations used in the development of atomic/nuclear weapons.

<<You don't have to take their word for it. People such as Neil Herron have admitted in the past that we can't go back now.>>

Who said I wanted to go back?
Who said the people wanted to go back?

<<
During the 2nd world war, when Britain and America were dealing with the Soviet Union both sides used their respective systems of weights and measures, and had to constantly convert units given by the other side from one to the other, which of course slowed translations of military documents between the soon-to-be-fractured allies.
>>

That was during the second world war, when most calculations had to be done by hand. Given today's technology, this would not be a problem anymore.

You're up early this morning, Bud!

Except when you enter the wrong numbers, use the wrong conversion factor or press the wrong series of buttons. Like that never happens.

<<
That was during the second world war, when most calculations had to be done by hand. Given today's technology, this would not be a problem anymore.
>>

I understand that the British Army uses metric units for all operational matters. (That is the impression that I get from my son who is seriuosly thinking about applying for Sandhurst).

AS regards international military cooperation - I understand that the de facto means of communications within NATO is in English using metric units.

<<I am not surprised that US defence contractors' preferred to build thermonuclear weapons using customary weights and measures. I would not have thought that any or many US engineers would have been schooled in metric thoroughly enough through the decades of the Cold War.>>

Depends on the school. I started MIT in 1962. It was entirely metric (not sure if it still is) and all departments had rallied around what was being called the rationalized MKSA system. That was the basis of the SI and the name SI had already been chosen in 1960 but was not in wide use yet. However, talking to people who attending other universities in the same time frame, we were an exception. When interviewing engineers (for hiring) I found nearly everyone well versed in metric by the 80's. So they learn metric in school and are forced into an Imperial industry where dinosaurs teach them to convert. Glad both of my emploers were metric.

<<On the subject of atomic or thermonuclear weapons, when the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon is given in kilotons or megatons, the "tons" referred to are metric tons, are they not? >>

They were metric tons. We wanted to be certain that "certain people" knew EXACTLY what we were talking about.

Re: Mandated metrication July 15 2005, 8:33 AM


Rip
During the 2nd world war, when Britain and America were dealing with the Soviet Union both sides used their respective systems of weights and measures, and had to constantly convert units given by the other side from one to the other, which of course slowed translations of military documents between the soon-to-be-fractured allies.

On the subject of atomic or thermonuclear weapons, when the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon is given in kilotons or megatons, the "tons" referred to are metric tons, are they not? So metric did at least make one apperance in the calculations used in the development of atomic/nuclear weapons.

metre
Sorry to disappoint you Rip. In nuclear physics it was pretty well as in rocket science. All calculation were done in metric and converted to USC. Among leading scientists working on the Manhatten project only Oppenheimer and one, or two others, were American. From Hans Bethe to Edward Teller its a string of German, Hungarian and of course one very important Italian name.
Kilotons is the only USC metric hybrid. It expresses USC tons with a metric prefix.

Re: Mandated metrication July 15 2005, 12:02 PM

DJ
Except when you enter the wrong numbers, use the wrong conversion factor or press the wrong series of buttons. Like that never happens.

metre
Thanks for mentioning the obvious. And future generations still have to learn and memorise that cumbersome jumble of units to know which ones they have to feed the computer with.

Re: Mandated metrication July 15 2005, 8:33 AM


Rip
During the 2nd world war, when Britain and America were dealing with the Soviet Union both sides used their respective systems of weights and measures, and had to constantly convert units given by the other side from one to the other, which of course slowed translations of military documents between the soon-to-be-fractured allies.


metre
It was worse than that. American ammunition of the same calibre could not be used in British rifles and guns, nor could bolts, bearings and heaps of other measurement related articles. Now, I am sure there are imperialists out there saying don't you get it, this is why we won the war.

<<Kilotons is the only USC metric hybrid. It expresses USC tons with a metric prefix.>>

That is incorrect, at least now. It may have been correct in 1945, or early in the Cold War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
<<From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A megaton or megatonne is a unit of mass equal to 1,000,000 metric tons, i.e. 10^9 kg or 1 teragram (Tg). The official SI symbol for the megaton is Mt, but MT is also being used; beware that the latter is also (unofficially) used for the metric ton in some contexts. See 1 E9 kg for a comparison with similar masses.

The kiloton or megaton of TNT is used as a unit of energy, approximately equivalent to the energy released in the detonation of this amount of TNT. The megaton of TNT has traditionally been used to rate the energy output, and hence destructive power, of nuclear weapons. This unit is written into various arms control treaties, and gives a sense of destructiveness as compared with ordinary explosives, like TNT. More recently, it has been used to describe the energy released in other highly destructive events, such as asteroid impacts.

A gram of TNT by definition for arms control purposes is 1000 thermochemical calories, which equals 4.184 kilojoules (KJ).
A ton of TNT, (a metric ton = 1000 kg) is therefore 4.184 x 10^9 J = 4.184 gigajoules (GJ).
A kiloton of TNT is therefore 4.184 x 10^12 J = 4.184 terajoules (TJ).
A megaton of TNT is 4.184 x 10^15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
(This definition is a conventional one. The actual measured output of a gram of TNT is a little less, 652 thermochemical calories = 2724 J)[1]>>

I am always a little dubious of Wikpedia as an authoritative source, but NIST SP811 gives a conversion constant that agrees with the (conventional) derivation above, noting that it is a "defined value."

NOTE: Superscripting didn't carry over in the above quote so I added a bunch of ^ to make the powers of ten readable. Hope I caught them all. Also note that real TNT has only 65% of the power of "arms control TNT" and shows why ad hoc physical standards (like water for BTU and calorie) are a problem.

<<metre
It was worse than that. American ammunition of the same calibre could not be used in British rifles and guns, nor could bolts, bearings and heaps of other measurement related articles.>>

True, and it affected all precision machined parts. The standards directors of national labs of English speaking countires agreed on a uniform value (1" = 25.4 mm) in 1958. The previous US inch was about 2 ppm bigger, the UK around 1 ppm smaller. (The consensed value was the Canadian value) The previous US inch was exactly 100/3937 m, I'm not sure I have an authoritative source for the previous UK inch. The pound was also adjusted slightly. The US formally adopted these valus 1959-07-01.

JohnS-MI: "...in engineering areas that are more strongly FPS."

Pardon my ignorance, but what does FPS stand for? I am assume foot-pound-second, is this right?

Martin: "My experience in the UK is the the petroleum engineering is mixed, but all other branches of engineening are metric. Typically one particular former colleague who is a mechanical engineer has strong anti-EU views, but strong pro-metric views."

Thanks Martin for your response: So engineering fields in the UK are predominantly metric with petroleum engineering another mixed bag.

I am surprised by engineers in the US. I would have thought metric to have been preferrable to the majority of engineers in all fields in that country. One of the selling points of metric in Australia when we metricated was that it was a better, more streamlined and efficient system for all engineering than imperial.

Rip

<<Pardon my ignorance, but what does FPS stand for? I am assume foot-pound-second, is this right?
>>

Exactly. Some people use IPS (inch-pound system). It is "generic" in that it covers both Imperial and Customary by referencing common elements. Also, since it is a factual description, it can not risk the bounds of "derogatory" prohibited on this board.

<<IPS (inch-pound system). >>

I meant "second" not "system". (I should have had another cup of coffee)

On the subject of destruction and armaments, is it true that the term "weapons of mass destruction" is not a correctly technical term but only a layman's term, and that such weapons are described in treaties, formal military documents, etc as "weapons of high destructive capacity" or WHDS?

Let me try that again. Is the correctly technical term "weapons of high destructive capacity" or WHDC in treaties, formal military documents, etc?

Beats me, never heard of it. Searching on the web, the letters are used to mean some other things, but no hits relating to weapons. The phrase seems to be used by two "nut case" bloggers.

WMD or weapons of mass destruction get uncountable numbers of hits

"Weapons of mass destruction", and its abbreviation WMD, is an emotive though hollow term which sounds good in a sound byte, which of course is why it is used. The older technical term that I recall was either atomic-biological-chemical weapons or warfare, or ABC weapons/warfare, then later, nuclear-biological-chemical weapons or warfare, NBC weapons/warfare. On reflection, these are or were the technical terms that were used in formal military terminology. But of course they are too clinical and don't have the emotional impact of "weapons of mass destruction". For an article on same see http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050503I.shtml

Also note that real TNT has only 65% of the power of "arms control TNT" and shows why ad hoc physical standards (like water for BTU and calorie) are a problem.

metre
Thanks for you painstaking research that plainly went over my head.
You are probably right that kilo ton was given proper metric values in treaties later on. Otherwise, I am sure Russians would have said, hey tovarish, what odd ball measurements are those?

Re: Mandated metrication July 17 2005, 5:57 AM


"Weapons of mass destruction", and its abbreviation WMD, is an emotive though hollow term which sounds good in a sound byte, which of course is why it is used. The older technical term that I recall was either atomic-biological-chemical weapons or warfare, or ABC weapons/warfare, then later, nuclear-biological-chemical weapons or warfare, NBC weapons/warfare. On reflection, these are or were the technical terms that were used in formal military terminology. But of course they are too clinical and don't have the emotional impact of "weapons of mass destruction". For an article on same see http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050503I.shtml

metre
My sentiment on that subject is that it makes no bl.... difference to people on the receiving end what you call them.

metre
"My sentiment on that subject is that it makes no bl.... difference to people on the receiving end what you call them."

Metre, it seems that you have a pretty persistent and nasty humanitarian streak in you. Watch it! We don't know who might be reading these posts.

Wasn't the fact that American bolts could not be used with British bolts/nuts due to the difference in thread form/pitch, rather than the difference in the American/Imperial inch?

Prior to the ISO metric thread, metric companies used different threadforms that couldn't be interchanged between countries.

Standard American thread was quite different from Whitworth, but that was known and documented, and "non-standard" parts could be made. The slight difference in the two inches were a problem for precision-fit parts (not threaded)

Yeah the point I was making was that the measuring system used was not responsible for the difference in bolts but the the actual thread form, whereas one of the posts above implied that the imperial system caused the different bolts to mismatch....if that makes sense

"Prior to the ISO metric thread, metric companies used different thread forms that couldn't be interchanged between countries."


Yes, if a German company made an M4 x 0.7 mm threaded bolt, it would definitely fit into a French made M4 x 0.7 mm nut. If however, the French made their nuts and bolts to be M4 x 0.6 mm, then of course they would not fit with the German made M4 x 0.7.

This was not what was meant and wasn't an issue. With any type of fastener, you always specify both the fastener diameter and the thread pitch. And in metric they always mated properly, even before ISO standardization

What was meant was if an American company made a 1/4-20 bolt, it wouldn't fit into a British 1/4-20 nut because the size of the inches were different, not because of different thread pitches used.

DJ,
you also have to consider the thread profile.
When you look at a single thread with a magnifying lens, you see it has a angle associated with the thread walls and both the peak and the root may have a flat, rounded, or peaked characteristic depending on how the side wall intersect.

You can match screw diameter and thread pitch and still have it jam over any of those characteristics.

American and Whitworth threads were completely different in those aspects. The tiny (<3 ppm) difference in inches had nothing to do with threads not working as threads have relatively loose tolerances.

The inch differences matter on other precision fits, bolts in rifle barrels, etc.

After the war "unified threads" in coarse and fine UTC, UTF were developed.

The same issue existed on metric thread standards in different countries.

This thread has been screwed up and turned into a thread about threads.

Btw: What's wrong with siding with the majority? Most people do.

DJ,
The drawing at this link will help you visualize the other key thread specs.
http://www.answers.com/topic/unified-thread-standard. The angle, root and crest diameter and shape in the root and crest have to be specified.

Note that Whitworth is a 55 degree angle, not 60, but I can't find drawing for it on the web.

From the article you referenced via the link:


"The standard was originally adopted by the Screw Thread Standardization Committees of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States on Nov 18, 1949 in Washington, D.C., and applied to screw threads used in the above countries with the hope they would be adopted universally.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) preferred series, based on metric rounded numbers is the standard that has been adopted world-wide and has displaced all former standards, including UTS. In the USA, where UTS is still prevalent, over 40 % of products contains ISO preferred. Of the above mentioned countries, the UK has completely abandoned its commitment to UTS in favour of the ISO preferred series, and Canada is inbetween. As the remnant of products still using UTS complete the switch to ISO preferred, it is just a matter of time before the UTS vanishes completely."



The founding father's of the Screw Thread Standardization Committees must be turning over in their graves. They had hoped their inch based screw standard would become universal but instead one (the UK) abandoned it completely and the other two (US and Canada) are slowly phasing it out. They should have had enough foresight to see that that anything based on inches was doomed to die out and anything based on metric would endure a long time into the future.

<<What's wrong with siding with the majority? Most people do.>>

lol.

If that's your justification for a conclusion, then it's a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

<<
What was meant was if an American company made a 1/4-20 bolt, it wouldn't fit into a British 1/4-20 nut because the size of the inches were different, not because of different thread pitches used.
>>

Don't be silly. The American and British inches were only a few parts per million different, which is definitely not enough to make a difference on bolts and nuts.

Of course metric should be made mandatory if an elected, sovereign government decides it is the national interest to metricate. Governments are elected to lead and govern a country, and to act in the a country's national interest not to bow to and be affected by every pressure group that objects to its decisions. If a government decides that a particular course of action is in the national interest and then falters and wavers in implementing that decision then it is a weak government and does not deserve the mandate to govern.

Re: Mandated metrication July 18 2005, 8:18 AM
Rip
Of course metric should be made mandatory if an elected, sovereign government decides it is the national interest to metricate.


metre
This my friend is heresy and would do away with children having to learn 2 systems, kilo bytes having to be actually 1000 and a host of anomalies that relatively few particularly well endowed voters bring about in the land of the free. Viva democracy.

<<If a government decides that a particular course of action is in the national interest and then falters and wavers in implementing that decision then it is a weak government and does not deserve the mandate to govern.>>

Sounds like a fair description of OUR invertebrates in Congress. Trouble is that we keeping reelecting them.

Re: Mandated metrication July 17 2005, 5:43 PM
Rip
Metre, it seems that you have a pretty persistent and nasty humanitarian streak in you. Watch it! We don't know who might be reading these posts.

metre
You are right of course! I have seen the quack a few times about that malaise and every time he came up with a prescription of rabid nationalism. Take this potion and it will cure you. Alas, it never worked. I am still as susceptible to other people’s suffering inflicted by drum rolling politicians, who always make sure their miserable hides are well protected.

Re: Mandated metrication July 17 2005, 7:39 PM
Yeah the point I was making was that the measuring system used was not responsible for the difference in bolts but the the actual thread form, whereas one of the posts above implied that the imperial system caused the different bolts to mismatch....if that makes sense

metre
You are right and wrong. With bolts it wasn’t the diameter, but the thread. Let me give you an example. If a German tank needed a 20 mm coarse threaded bolt and a partly destroyed Italian tank was nearby any of its 20 mm coarse threaded bolts could have been used. Not so with British and American equipment, their fastener threads were different even if the diameter was identical. So it still boils down to incompatible measurement systems.

Re: Mandated metrication July 18 2005, 4:01 AM

DJ
From the article you referenced via the link:

metre
Sometime after the war Japanese industrialists drew on US expertise and wealth to establish their now very efficient car manufacturing plants. Not content with that help Americans induced Japanese producers to use particular fasteners designated ABC with threads and heads somewhere in between USC and metric in an already 90% metric world. Early Japanese cars assembled with these useless hybrids were the curse of every weekend and professional mechanic. Neither metric nor prevalent USC spanners did the job. That silly and wasteful attempt to undermine metric just shows that crude power often outstrips intelligence by far. Luckily, Japanese manufacturers saw the error of their ways and replaced them with metric fasteners.

Rip: "Of course metric should be made mandatory if an elected, sovereign government decides it is [in] the national interest to metricate."

This naturally precludes the possibility of the matter being decided by referenda. If a country's national government has the constitutional right and authority to fix the weights and measures for that country then deciding whether or not to metricate by referendum is both superfluous and an evasion of that government's responsibility to govern. It is the elected government's constitutional preserve and not a matter for the electorate to decide by referendum. Though naturally it would be easier with popular support. I take it HM Government has the constitutional right and authority to fix the weights and measures for the United Kingdom.

Rip

Metre: "If a German tank needed a 20 mm coarse threaded bolt and a partly destroyed Italian tank was nearby any of its 20 mm coarse threaded bolts could have been used."

My God, Metre, it's the North African campaign all over again!

JohnS-MI: "Sounds like a fair description of OUR invertebrates in Congress. Trouble is that we keeping reelecting them."

The US electorate is starved in national politics of any substantially wide variety of choice, methinks. Not that other countries aren't in a similar situation.

<<
Of course metric should be made mandatory if an elected, sovereign government decides it is the national interest to metricate. Governments are elected to lead and govern a country, and to act in the a country's national interest not to bow to and be affected by every pressure group that objects to its decisions. If a government decides that a particular course of action is in the national interest and then falters and wavers in implementing that decision then it is a weak government and does not deserve the mandate to govern.
>>

It is in the national interest to kill off everyone who has a contagious disease. Why should government bow to the pressure of people that believe these sick people should be allowed to live and infect others? Who cares what the people think? It's in the national interest.

<<
Of course metric should be made mandatory if an elected, sovereign government decides it is the national interest to metricate. Governments are elected to lead and govern a country, and to act in the a country's national interest not to bow to and be affected by every pressure group that objects to its decisions. If a government decides that a particular course of action is in the national interest and then falters and wavers in implementing that decision then it is a weak government and does not deserve the mandate to govern.
>>

It is in the national interest to kill off everyone who has a contagious disease. Why should government bow to the pressure of people that believe these sick people should be allowed to live and infect others? Who cares what the people think? It's in the national interest.

Clearly metricating a country and destroying its contagiously ill are hardly analogous acts in "the national interest". And I repeat that if a sovereign government has the constitutional right and authority to fix the weights and measures of the country that it governs and then decides to metricate that country in its national interest, then it should see its decision through and fully implement it. Yes, metrication is unpopular with many Britons, but any government worthy of the name cannot allow itself to be deflected from implementing a decision, taken on the very best technical and scientific advice in the country, because of the objections from a few but vocal anti-metric elements within the UK. A government is elected to govern, and if it vacillates over a decision that it has made in the national interest because some loudly object, then it is too weak and indecisive to deserve the mandate to govern. Successive British governments have shown themselves to be just that over metrication.

How would it have affected Britain and the British people if over the last 40 years, these same governments had been as weak and indecisive on other, more important issues ranging from the economy to the warring strife in Northern Ireland? It is the fact that the metrication of Britain was and is not seen as any great political priority, and only as a minor and unpopular issue, that its full implementation has been delayed and has dragged on and on. Government indifference being added to and reinforced by its perceived unpopularity.

Sorry, but when you're elected to govern you sometimes have to make unpopular and difficult decisions even on the more minor issues. If you can't then you haven't got the real will to lead and govern, but only to be popular. And unfortunately over the last 40 years, national politics in the various countries of the Western world, and especially in English-speaking countries for some reason, have too much degenerated into popularity contests for gutless, self-serving politicians whose only political ambition is not serving their countries' national interest but getting themselves re-elected so that they can continue to serve themselves.

<<Of course metric should be made mandatory if an elected, sovereign government decides it is the national interest to metricate.>>

That's so wrong in many ways. Can someone find a transcript of the debate in the elected HoC that decided that it should be a criminal offence to use imperial?

<< Governments are elected to lead and govern a country>>

The people own the govt - not the other way around

No it isn't wrong. A sovereign government that has the constitutional right and authority to fix the weights and measures for the country it governs can legislate to adopt any system of weights and measures it deems conducive to the national interest.

The fact that a government does not so legislate or legislates badly to this effect, as in the instance of Britain, does not abrogate the government's constitutional right and authority to so act. This renders resorting to referenda, or any other kinds of popular vote, to decide whether one system of weights and measures should be adopted or retained over another system as not only superfluous but unconstitutional to government. When a government is elected it is elected to govern, not to pander to the objections of every anti-government, anti-policy element in its society that demands a vote on this matter or that.

You may as well as vote as to whether you want to abolish or retain your army, navy, and air force. You cannot vote on such a matter because the defence of the realm, a vital and essential element of the national interest, is the constitutional preserve of the elected, sovereign government. Ditto weights and measures.

But a foreign country has no power over our armed forces.

Oh, hold on.....

And no foreign power took the decision for metric to be adopted by Britain: it was a 100-percent British decision made by the sovereign British government years before the UK's entry into the European Economic Community, as it then was.

Do we have to go over the whole tiresome history of metric in Britain again in yet another vain attempt to demonstrate to the pro-imperial lobby that the recommendation and then the decision to metricate the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was taken well before and independent of the decision to join the EEC?

The history of metric in Britain goes back to the 19th century and onward etc. etc. etc.

SteveH: "But a foreign country has no power over our armed forces.

Oh, hold on....."


That's right Steve, hold on!

It's a good thing I'm not in charge over there. I'd be like Cromwell and send the troops into parliament until parliament got it right. And I'd ban dancing too!

Oliver Cromwell knew what he was doing by replacing that stifling, outmoded, medieval notion of "The Divine Right of Kings", ruthlessly practised upon an suppressed populace by a dictatorial king, with the thoroughly modern concept of a military dictatorship.

And that's what Britain needs now! Another Cromwell who will take parliament by the scruff of the neck and kick its teeth in. Someone who will fully implement the metric system throughout the length and breadth of the land and ruthlessly suppress any and all opposition.

I can tell you're wearing dancing shoes, Steve, even as I type. You are subversive to the national interest, Dancing Man!

:-D

<<And no foreign power took the decision for metric to be adopted by Britain: it was a 100-percent British decision made by the sovereign British government years before the UK's entry into the European Economic Community, as it then was.

Do we have to go over the whole tiresome history of metric in Britain again in yet another vain attempt to demonstrate to the pro-imperial lobby that the recommendation and then the decision to metricate the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was taken well before and independent of the decision to join the EEC?>>

Let me repeat (again).

It's not the advancement or legalisation of metric that I'm against.

What I am against is the banning and illegalising of imperial. And that *IS* a recent phenomenomenomenom

:-D

<<And no foreign power took the decision for metric to be adopted by Britain: it was a 100-percent British decision made by the sovereign British government years before the UK's entry into the European Economic Community, as it then was.

Do we have to go over the whole tiresome history of metric in Britain again in yet another vain attempt to demonstrate to the pro-imperial lobby that the recommendation and then the decision to metricate the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was taken well before and independent of the decision to join the EEC?>>

Let me repeat (again).

It's not the advancement or legalisation of metric that I'm against.

What I am against is the banning and illegalising of imperial. And that *IS* a recent phenomenomenomenom

metre
Bud certainly has a problem with keeping matters in perspective. How can anyone use an argument like this?
I can only presume, he perceives metrication as horrendous as killing people with contagious diseases.
If you apply his and other imperialists democratic model than nothing can be done without first finding out how many people are for, against, or indifferent to every law and innovation introduced. Neither America nor Britain, as far as I know, practice government by by referendum like the Swiss.

Metre: "If you apply his and other imperialists democratic model than nothing can be done without first finding out how many people are for, against, or indifferent to every law and innovation introduced. Neither America nor Britain, as far as I know, practice government by by referendum like the Swiss."

Exactly, Metre. No large or even middle-sized country could be governed by referendum. To try it would make practical government impossible.

Re: Mandated metrication July 19 2005, 11:36 AM

Rip
No it isn't wrong. A sovereign government that has the constitutional right and authority to fix the weights and measures for the country it governs can legislate to adopt any system of weights and measures it deems conducive to the national interest.

metre
Why stop there?! In a democracy Bud imagines he lives in, people should be able to stipulate that their taxes, if they dosn’t decide to withhold them, should only be used for roads, education, health, but not for politicians salaries, nor unemployment benefits, or defence. Spin that utopian yarn any way you like.

I love the idea - and its never been done in a large country outside switzerland (which I taught to eric yonks ago to a sea of insults).

I'd love the swiss method of government (referenda, outside the EU) - trouble is, because they govern by referenda and are outside the EU they are very poor and a 3rd world country.

Innit.

I see Bud has a problem with organized government. Some laissez-faire anarchistic utopian vision is the ideal. I can't see it happening. Organized government is here to stay. What is questionable is the method and quality of that organization. Go metric or go home.

I am home - and it ain't metric! ;-)

<<Some laissez-faire anarchistic utopian vision is the ideal.>>

Yummy! I like! I like!

Did somebody say people own the government? What a naive
notion. At election time they are fed half truths, outright lies and promises that are partly ,or not at all kept. Thereafter they revert to their usual mushrooms state. Kept in the dark and fed bulldust for another 5 years. If nothing proves that, recent history did on both sides of the Atlantic.

Re: Mandated metrication July 19 2005, 2:13 PM

Rip
I see Bud has a problem with organized government. Some laissez-faire anarchistic utopian vision is the ideal. I can't see it happening. Organized government is here to stay. What is questionable is the method and quality of that organization. Go metric or go home.

metre
People like him are in for a shock. Governments of all persuations have all excuses under the sun now to restrict and curtail basic freedoms. America's patriot act is an example. Guantanamo another. !984 here we come.

<<Yummy! I like! I like!>>

You say that now, but if you had to live in a society without organized government and order you would not last 3 minutes. It would be a Hobbesian/Social-Darwinian nightmare.

Metre: "Governments of all persuations have all excuses under the sun now to restrict and curtail basic freedoms."

From dog-eat-dog anarchy in a Hobbesian/Darwinian/Spencerian nightmare to an all-pervading totalitarian state in an Orwellian nightmare. Not much to choose from.

"What I am against is the banning and illegalising of imperial. And that *IS* a recent phenomenomenomenom"

Can you show us what law illegalizes imperial? Do a google search if it helps.

Metric must be made mandatory if it is to be effectively implemented. Voluntary metrication is quite simply unworkable.

"You vill obey" !! LOL!!

<<Can you show us what law illegalizes imperial? Do a google search if it helps>>

Follow your method of retrieving facts?

Ok! I'll give it a go!

..

..

..

Oh My God! I just found out that America DID NOT land a man on the moon!

No really!! It was simply a game of one-upmanship with the Russians!

Cheers Danny boy - I'll run my entire life off the back of google now! Maybe soon I'll have the same number of friends as yo uhave too!

;-)

<<
but any government worthy of the name cannot allow itself to be deflected from implementing a decision, taken on the very best technical and scientific advice in the country, because of the objections from a few but vocal anti-metric elements within the UK
>>

Where is this "very best technical and scientific advice"? The pro-metric side is driven by special interest groups that stand to benefit financially just as much. Almost all government policies are made to satisfy interest groups of various kinds. But of course, those international businesses that will benefit from metrication will try to perpetuate the story that "the government determined that it is for the good of the country," when in fact we have seen no such evidence from an unbiased source.

<<
I can only presume, he perceives metrication as horrendous as killing people with contagious diseases.
>>
No, I never said that. Go look up "analogy."


<<
If you apply his and other imperialists democratic model than nothing can be done without first finding out how many people are for, against, or indifferent to every law and innovation introduced. Neither America nor Britain, as far as I know, practice government by by referendum like the Swiss.
>>
Sometimes it seems like we do here in California. It looks like we will have 15-20 initiatives on the ballot this time around.

Re: Mandated metrication July 20 2005, 9:51 AM


<<
I can only presume, he perceives metrication as horrendous as killing people with contagious diseases.
>>
No, I never said that. Go look up "analogy."

metre
Likewise!

<<
If you apply his and other imperialists democratic model than nothing can be done without first finding out how many people are for, against, or indifferent to every law and innovation introduced. Neither America nor Britain, as far as I know, practice government by by referendum like the Swiss.
>>
Sometimes it seems like we do here in California. It looks like we will have 15-20 initiatives on the ballot this time around.

metre
Maybe that contributes to your financial mess.

Re: Mandated metrication July 20 2005, 9:50 AM
<<but any government worthy of the name cannot allow itself to be deflected from implementing a decision, taken on the very best technical and scientific advice in the country, because of the objections from a few but vocal anti-metric elements within the UK>>

Where is this "very best technical and scientific advice"? The pro-metric side is driven by special interest groups that stand to benefit financially just as much. Almost all government policies are made to satisfy interest groups of various kinds. But of course, those international businesses that will benefit from metrication will try to perpetuate the story that "the government determined that it is for the good of the country," when in fact we have seen no such evidence from an unbiased source.

metre
Actually it is in the economic interest of metric countries that America retains imperial units, it retards its exports no end.

Bud
" when in fact we have seen no such evidence from an unbiased source.

metre
What a fantastic statement. Anyone is biased who comes to the conclusion that metric is a better system because he/she comes to that conclusion. Marvelous reasoning

<<Where is this "very best technical and scientific advice"? The pro-metric side is driven by special interest groups that stand to benefit financially just as much.>>

I'm sure the big food companies were just dying to double label their food products and pressured Congress to amend FPLA in 1994. Oh, wait, . . . they could voluntarily dual label since 1966. Well, I guess they just didn't want the few holdouts to have an advantage.

I'm sure you are convinced that the Metric study of 1968 and Metric Acts of 1975 and Omnibus Trade act of 1968 were just Congressional shills appeasing big business. If big business was so in favor of the Federal government going metric by Executive Order in 1991, why did the Mars orbiter crash because a "big business" wrote Imperial software for its metric thrusters? Why did the Federal Highway Admin. have to rescind their order for metric highway construction due to "big buck campaign contributing" highway contractors.

If anything, there is a lot more business opposition to metric than is warranted.

I would also think that NIST provides reasonably accurate technical and scientific advice. Whenever I have dealt with them or any national labs, they seem to know what they are talking about.

The metrication legislation Congress has passed has two major problems. First, metrication rules were always part of a large bill covering many major issues. When these types of bills are introduced, minor issues tend to be overlooked, because the bill's fate depends on the major issues in it. This means that there was not as much debate in Congress about metrication as there would have been if it had been in a separate act. (I know that the Metric Conversion Act was passed separately, but it didn't have as much force as the Omnibus law.)
Second, about the influence of big businesses, any international company would want to push metric through because it will make imports and exports easier. It would be possible for them to sell the same product to foreign and domestic markets without the labelling looking "strange" to Americans.

I agree with you about NIST... they do know their science. But units of measurement are not only for scientists, they are for the entire population. NIST will make a recommendation on what is best for science and technology, without taking into account the needs of everyone else.

<<I agree with you about NIST... they do know their science. But units of measurement are not only for scientists, they are for the entire population. NIST will make a recommendation on what is best for science and technology, without taking into account the needs of everyone else.
>>

NIST is the author of Handbook 44, the definition requirement of accuracy for measuring devices used in trade. It defines the units permitted, the conversion between them, and the accuracies (and calibration schedules, etc) of the instruments to measure them. All for trade, not lab science. You may disagree with their judgements, but they, by law, make them about trade. Of course, they do metrology at the laboratory level too.

Re: Mandated metrication July 21 2005, 9:16 AM

I agree with you about NIST... they do know their science. But units of measurement are not only for scientists, they are for the entire population. NIST will make a recommendation on what is best for science and technology, without taking into account the needs of everyone else.

Metre
The final report of the study, "A Metric America: A Decision Whose Time Has Come," concluded that the U.S. would eventually join the rest of the world in the use of the metric system of measurement. The study found that measurement in the United States was already based on metric units in many areas and that it was becoming more so every day. The majority of study participants believed that conversion to the metric system was in the best interests of the Nation, particularly in view of the importance of foreign trade and the increasing influence of technology in American life.

http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/lc1136a.htm

Mind you, I am fully aware that all participants of that study are biased, otherwise they would not have recommended metrication.

Sorry, the above post is accindentally headed metre, it should be Bud. metre should head the last paragraph.

Backyard metric.
Remek Kocz
Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:05:40 -0700

A "little" project in my backyard required me to calculate the volume
of gravel I'll need to purchase for the pavers I wanted to install.
The pavers were 2'x3' and needed to be laid out in a simple
rectangular pattern, that worked out to be 6'x16'. The gravel depth
would have to be 4". So here I was faced with the daunting task of
figuring it all either in cubic inches or in cubic feet and then
converting to cubic yards. Dressed in my work clothes already and
reluctant to go home, clean up, get the calculator, and do the
calculations, I decided to go with metric. My rectangle was 2m x 5m,
and my depth was 0.1m. The volume is obviously 1 m^3, so
approximately, I have to go out and buy 1 cubic yard of gravel.

Geez! This took seconds in metric, and was done w/out a calculator.

metre
I lifted this simple testimony about metric simplicity from the USMA list server. Maybe Remec Kocs finds it so easy because like another 6 billion metric users, he is biased toward that system.
(please deduct children and imbeciles from that number)

Catflap.

<<that worked out to be 6'x16'. The gravel depth
would have to be 4". So here I was faced with the daunting task of
figuring it all either in cubic inches or in cubic feet and then
converting to cubic yards. Dressed in my work clothes already and
reluctant to go home, clean up, get the calculator, and do the
calculations, I decided to go with metric. My rectangle was 2m x 5m,
and my depth was 0.1m. The volume is obviously 1 m^3, so
approximately, I have to go out and buy 1 cubic yard of gravel.

Geez! This took seconds in metric, and was done w/out a calculator.

metre
I lifted this simple testimony about metric simplicity from the USMA list server. >>

As much as I prefer metric, I have to say that is both absurd and wrong.

It is (pretty) easy to compute 6 ft x 16 ft x 1/3 ft = 32 cu ft or
32/27 cu yd. I might need the calculator to help me with the 5/27, but he does need about 1.2 cu yd and 1 cu yd won't do it (I'd cheat 5/27 < 5/25, which I can do w/o my calculator). Of course he missed 1 cu yd != 1 m^3. ("!=" represents "not equal" in several computer languages)

Re: Mandated metrication July 25 2005, 4:33 PM

JS
As much as I prefer metric, I have to say that is both absurd and wrong.

It is (pretty) easy to compute 6 ft x 16 ft x 1/3 ft = 32 cu ft or32/27 cu yd. I might need the calculator to help me with the 5/27, but he does need about 1.2 cu yd and 1 cu yd won't do it (I'd cheat 5/27 < 5/25, which I can do w/o my calculator). Of course he missed 1 cu yd != 1 m^3. ("!=" represents "not equal" in several computer languages)

metre
You must be joking? Such a simple calculation and look at the convoluted Salami imperial requires to solve it. Just looking at your explanatory process makes my head spin. Thank god for simple and easy metric. That reminds me of imperialists on this board maintaining that reading an inch ruler is as simple as reading a metric one. Sure, I know pigs can fly they just don’t do it.

Fair enough. Had he actually gotten the answer RIGHT,
I could have gone with "metric is simpler." In many cases it is worth the added conversions. Since he forgot a step, and got the wrong answer, it must have been too convoluted. The WRONG answer is always a bad sign you did it WRONG. Real life doesn't reward "great method, wrong answer," that is only for politically correct schools, where I now read "failure" will be called "deferred success."

Buying 1 cu yd of gravel will defer success on this project.

Re: Mandated metrication July 26 2005, 2:15 PM

JS
Fair enough. Had he actually gotten the answer RIGHT,
I could have gone with "metric is simpler." In many cases it is worth the added conversions. Since he forgot a step, and got the wrong answer, it must have been too convoluted. The WRONG answer is always a bad sign you did it WRONG. Real life doesn't reward "great method, wrong answer," that is only for politically correct schools, where I now read "failure" will be called "deferred success."
Buying 1 cu yd of gravel will defer success on this project.

metre
He is buying 1 m3 of gravel.
My maths is rather dismal, but good enough to tackle this simple task. 5 m x 2 m is 10 m2 x 0.1 m is 1 m3 of sand, or whathever. I won't bother to work out how much that is in cubic yards, but it is certainly more than one, or enough to give him roughly 4" over 10 m2. That is the quantity he arrived at, so please tell me where he, or I went wrong?

Catflap

<<That is the quantity he arrived at, so please tell me where he, or I went wrong?>>

Last step, quoted from his method:
<<The volume is obviously 1 m^3, so
approximately, I have to go out and buy 1 cubic yard of gravel.

>>

Based on what he can actually buy at a US garden store, the answer is wrong unless it is correct when expressed in cubic yards. No partial credit is given; make two trips. (Either 1.2 or 1.3 cu yd would receive full credit)

As an engineering practice, if working an Imperial problem in metric units, exact conversion values should be used, and at least one extra significant figure should be carried as a guard digit to avoid error accumulation, with appropriate final rounding. For a simple example, that belabors the point a little, but you never get into trouble.

<<Catflap>>

As a pro-met, I find it mildly embarassing when other pro-mets get the wrong answer while "proving" metric is simpler. It's like when Tony vandalizes a perfectly legal sign.

I mention catflap because of a story of mine when I fitted a cat flap.

I started the job in metric (I kid you not) but then reverted to imperial.

More details if requested but its an old story of mine here.

<<I mention catflap because of a story of mine when I fitted a cat flap.
>>

I considered those for my "revolving cats" which want to go in and out a lot.

However, both have been apprehended attempting to smuggle not-yet-dead rodents into the house as playtoys, so I think not.

We have a play pen in the back garden for them- a cat flap divides this from the kitchen.

No rodents for us.

Or fleas!

This thread is getting far too domestic.

Lets have a scrap.

Re: Mandated metrication July 26 2005, 3:19 PM

JS
Last step, quoted from his method:<<The volume is obviously 1 m^3, soapproximately, I have to go out and buy 1 cubic yard of gravel.

metre
Trust an engineer to be so finicky. Give him some leeway please, as he said “is obviously 1 m3, so approximately …….? He knows damn well that 1 m3 is more than a cu.yard, and if he doesn’t worry whether the base is 7 or 8 instead of 10 cm, a cu. yard is fine. After all its only laying pavers not building a rocket.

metre
<<Trust an engineer to be so finicky.>>

Why, thank you. We're paid to be.

Re: Mandated metrication July 27 2005, 1:28 PM
JS
Why, thank you. We're paid to be.

metre
Now you have me really worried. Does that mean your standards vary according to pay?

No. I was thanking you for the compliment that even my free advice is finicky.

In reality, 4" of gravel under pavers is a commonly accepted minimum. Over sandy soil in a moderate climate, being short may be of little consequence. In the lousy clay-based soil we have here, and frost heaves as the sopped soil freezes and thaws in the winter, being short may result in the pavers moving, cracking and needing to be replaced. Here, at least, any errors need to be rounded up, and the 4" considered a minimum.

Cost, of course, drives people to accept the minimum as a maximum, and even drives contractors to cheat on the minimum. I would not accept sloppy conversion as an excuse for being short, any more than if I ordered 1 m^3 and got 1 yd^3.

Re: Mandated metrication July 27 2005, 2:21 PM


No. I was thanking you for the compliment that even my free advice is finicky.

metre
Ah man, the tribulations of laying pavers, a veritable nightmare it seems. I rather leave it to experts using metric measurements, otherwise I have to pay for time consuming imperial calculations as well.

I have to warn our transatlantic cousins that if you calculate your requirements in m^3 and order the same in yd^3 you will end up quite significantly short.

1 yd^3 = 0.76 m^3

In other words nearly 25% difference. Don't forget, the difference between a yard and a metre may not be very significant in linear measure but it becomes a lot bigger when you raise it to the power of 3.

Oh all right then.

Grandma! would you like me to show you how to suck an egg?

<< Fair enough. Had he actually gotten the answer RIGHT,
I could have gone with "metric is simpler." In many cases it is worth the added conversions. Since he forgot a step, and got the wrong answer, it must have been too convoluted. The WRONG answer is always a bad sign you did it WRONG. Real life doesn't reward "great method, wrong answer," that is only for politically correct schools, where I now read "failure" will be called "deferred success."
Buying 1 cu yd of gravel will defer success on this project. >>

John,

I'm the one who wrote the Backyard Metric message on the USMA board. I was asked there to use my real name. Anyways, I noticed a bit of a discussion that was generated here, so let me explain myself a bit:

I was very well aware that my calculations won't be dead-on exact. I neglected to mention in my message, that I had some spare gravel laying around, so that's why I needed only a rough estimate. I rounded up my imperial measurements to metric, so I fully expected that whatever it'll be in metric, I'll have to adjust the final imperial figure. The pavers are being installed under the deck that hovers over the entrance to our walkout basement. That area is not affected terribly by the weather and it's out of sight. If I'm off by several cubic feet of gravel, I'm not too concerned.

BTW, I'm reusing these pavers from the walkway in front of our house. Two years after the "professionals" installed them, the pavers settled very unevenly, so we replaced them with something that looked nicer. Surely these pros didn't use the metric trick I resorted to. Or did they? :)

<< metre
Trust an engineer to be so finicky. Give him some leeway please, as he said “is obviously 1 m3, so approximately …….? He knows damn well that 1 m3 is more than a cu.yard, and if he doesn’t worry whether the base is 7 or 8 instead of 10 cm, a cu. yard is fine. After all its only laying pavers not building a rocket. >>

Metre,

Thank you for defending me in this debate. I understand where John is coming from, being an engineer. I was an organic chemist myself, so I do appreciate the value of precise measurements. However, I do agree with you here wholeheartedly. This is a backyard project, and after all, it's just a bunch of rocks.

My metric pleasure. That should put this debate safely under the rocks.

OMG

Did I really just read that?