# Forum More Stuff At the end of the day  Metric vs imperial

## PlatypusGardens

:Smilie:

----------


## OBBob

Well here's the opposing argument ... but I have to say, it isn't that convincing.      *6 Reasons the Metric System Stinks*_by_ _wiseman_ _on_ _August 25, 2014_  *Q:* _“__Why does America stick with the Imperial system instead of going to the metric like the rest of the world?” - Vick T._   *A:* There seems to be a consensus even among Americans that the metric system if superior and that it’s only stubbornness that gets in the way of its implementation here in America. However, I disagree.While the metric system does have advantages over the imperial system, it’s not “clearly superior”, and I offer you something you don’t hear very often…a defense of the imperial system of measurement! *#6 – The Metric System Stinks for Everyday Life*Sure, the metric system is great for science and math, but it stinks for everyday life. That’s because of the way it is designed. The metric system is designed to be easy to convert and plug into math equations. But, the imperial system is designed to be the most practical in the ways we use it the most – in day-to-day life.
Despite claims from those who are ‘pro-metric-system’, neither system is based on arbitrary numbers. The metric system is based largely on something abstract – numbers – in order to make conversions easier. The imperial system is based on the way our brains work and based on what we actually use measurements for. *#5 – Our Brains Can’t Handle Certain Numbers*As much as we like to think of our brains as being perfect tools for perceiving the world, they are actually very imperfect. Our brains are not made to understand abstract numbers. This is why we have such problems with money, and why we make so many dumb decisions. How much money is $1,000? What does 1,000 jelly beans look like? The only way we know how much $1,000 is, is by relating it to something we know that costs that much. But how does the cost of a car relate to the cost of dinner? How many dinners is a car worth?
How much is a million dollars? How much is a billion dollars? That’s why you have these shocking illustrations that relate these large numbers to something we can understand better. Like, if you count one number a second, how long would it take you to count to one thousand? What about 100,000? What about a million? A billion?
The only way to figure those things out is to do the math. But, even though you can figure the answers out, that doesn’t mean your brain can really UNDERSTAND the amount. We can do okay with small numbers, but the larger the numbers get, the harder it is for our brains to truly comprehend it.
Our brains are made to help us survive in this world. We need to be able to understand the number of things we can see at any given time. How many kids do we have? How many people fit in our hut? How many bison are there? Once the number got large enough it no longer really mattered how many, just that there were “a lot”. There’s not much difference between 50 bison running straight toward you and 1,000,000 of them. If you don’t move, you are dead either way.
The imperial system is designed to allow our brains to handle it easily. You never need to visualize more than 11 inches. With the metric system, you have to measure things with up to (and often exceeding) 100 centimeters. That’s extremely hard for our brains to comprehend. *#4 – Conversion Isn’t that Important*In science and math it’s necessary to be precise. But, in everyday life, it’s not that important. The imperial system is made for what we use it for the most. Every unit of measurement is tailor-made for what we need it for. The downside of that is that the different units don’t convert very easily, but why would you need to?
Assuming you aren’t a scientist or a mathematician (or an architect), how many times in your life have you had to convert anything? Not very often, if at all! If it fits in your lap, you use inches. If it’s bigger than that you use feet. The only time you need to convert is usually because someone insists on using metric. *#3 – Visualizing is Important*In everyday life, the main reason you need something measured is so that you can either visualize it, estimate something, or compare two or more things. Will this TV fit on my stand? How tall was the man you saw? How big was the fish you caught?
There are times when things are described that you need to visualize, and measurements are an important part of that. If someone says how big the fish they caught was, you need to be able to visualize it. If the forecast says it’s going to be 80 degrees on Saturday, you need to be able to feel that in your head. If google maps tells you how far your destination is away, you need to be able to understand how long that is.
In order to visualize things, you need a point of reference. Our brains aren’t like our computers. Computers rely on algorithms and programs. Our brains rely on associations. They aren’t equipped to understand certain things, and the metric system doesn’t take this into account.
What’s the most common thing we use measurement for? Just going on personal experience, I would say it’s the measurement of people. How tall is she? How tall am I? How much has he grown? Human height has to be the most common use of feet/inches in everyday life! Yet, the metric system is HORRIBLE at measuring people. Outside of the U.S. people’s height is measured in centimeters! That’s insane! It takes a lot of work for the brain to be conditioned to the point where 133 centimeters can be visualized.
For most things that we need to measure, a centimeter is too small and a meter is too big! But, feet and inches are naturally easy to visualize and they are the perfect size to measure most things we deal with. *#2 – The Imperial System is Based on Things that Make Sense*Hold your hands out straight in front of you, arms locked. Turn your palms toward each other as if to say “it was about this big”. The distance between them is a foot (or pretty stinking close to it). Now stick your index finger and thumb out so they are parallel to each other like you are saying something is “itty bitty”. If they are parallel, they are an inch apart (or pretty stinking close). The length of your forearm is about a foot, and your actual foot (in a shoe) is about a foot. The length of your knuckle to the tip of your thumb is about an inch. These are units we can easily visualize because we see them every day.
One of the big complaints evangelists of the metric system uses is that the imperial system doesn’t have any unit of measurement between a yard and a mile. But, that’s just the point. When is the last time you’ve ever needed to measure something too big for yards that wasn’t related to driving distance?
But, even with driving distance, miles isn’t the preferred unit of measurement unless talking about geography. We use time instead because it’s better at getting the job done! Distance is very relative. What we need to know is how long it is going to take till we get there. So, our culture has evolved to using that as the main unit of measurement. “It’s about 30 minutes away”
Really the only other thing that we need to visualize that’s larger than a yard are skyscrapers. Obviously, this is a relatively new thing and wasn’t a concern 100 years ago. Feet and yards are too small of a measurement, as is a meter, and a kilometer and mile are too large. So, we use “stories” to communicate height. That’s the most effective unit of measurement. We can visualize how tall a story is because we’re in rooms every day. We can visualize how tall an average room is from floor to ceiling.
But what about temperature? Celcius is based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. That makes sense, right? Well, maybe if you are a scientist. But, how does that help us in everyday life?
What do we use measurement of temperature on probably 90+% of the time? The temperature of the air, right? We want to know how hot or cold it is outside, or what the thermostat is set on! This is why Fahrenheit makes sense. It’s based (intentionally or not) on the temperature we can tolerate. If it is higher than 100 or below 0 outside, stay inside! That’s the typical range of weather. In Celcius, that’s -17 to 37 degrees and it relies heavily on decimals because it’s a much larger range of temperature per degree.
Anything past about 120 degrees F or below -10 degrees is just a number, anyway…something we can’t possibly comprehend because we’ve never experienced it. Can you conceive of what 180 degrees F weather would feel like? I doubt it because you’d be burnt to a crisp!
The only time I can think of when we use temperature outside of a lab is in cooking. But, even then, it’s not something we need to really visualize or perceive of. If the oven needs to be set on 375, just set the oven to that number. If water needs to boil, heat it on high till it boils. Problem solved. If water needs to be frozen, put it in the freezer till it freezes. Water won’t get hotter than the boiling point, nor will water get colder than the freezing point, so the precise temperature doesn’t matter.
I’m not too familiar with cooking, but I would guess the non-metric system of cups, quarts, and gallons, and teaspoons is based on what is most efficient for following recipes. And unless you are a scientist, I doubt you ever use volume measurements outside of the kitchen! *#1 – It’s Easier to Learn*Both systems require some memorization and getting used to. However, I believe the common argument that the metric system would be just as easy for the normal population to use as the imperial system if they were used to it is wrong. There is some truth to it, but it is a much bigger strain on the brain to learn the metric system because it’s based on things our brain doesn’t do well.
As I stated above, our brain works on associations. So, the only way we can know how tall 133 centimeters is, is by memorizing something that is about that tall and associating that number with it. The imperial system fits in wonderfully with what our brains do normally. Sure, you have to memorize that 32 degrees is the freezing point of water, but that’s a whole lot easier than memorizing the seemingly arbitrary range of -17 to 37 and what they all relate to.
The imperial system takes what your brain does automatically and allows you to project and visualize things you haven’t seen before. Very little memorization. *Bottom Line:*Both the metric system and the imperial system have their purposes and I don’t see it as a competition between them. They serve two different purposes. The metric system stinks in everyday life, but is great in areas where measurements need to be extremely precise and/or where uncommon things need to be measured.
The imperial system is based on what is most efficient for the individual purposes of the people doing the measuring, while the metric system is based on abstract things like math so that conversions are easier.
So, in everyday life I suggest we use the imperial system to be more efficient and effective. And the sciences and architects should use the metric system and then convert the results when informing the public. They already have to convert results anyway, because when dealing with such large or small measurements we have no base of comparison.

----------


## Blocklayer

Just look what the Metric system did to the Mars Climate Orbiter ($125 million) *Nov. 10, 1999: Metric Math Mistake Muffed Mars Meteorology Mission | WIRED * ​Hard to believe NASA could even get anywhere near this. Should have stuck with Imperial?

----------


## PlatypusGardens

:Rofl5:  OBBob!  
that's hilarious    :Rofl:

----------


## sol381

youd be mad to use either. i always use rods. links and chains in construction.. much easier and more accurate.. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## OBBob

Wowser is that true?? So they didn't check that the accelerator was calibrated correctly ... amazing they got as close as they did.

----------


## phild01

I prefer a lot of what the imperial system offered.  To me it has a better sense of scale relevant to what we do.
I still can't get my head around litres/100k, whereas mpg is so much easier.
Accuracy is far better with imperial using 1/64", 1/32" or 1/16", instead of the clunky and inaccurate mm as a standard measure.
Also don't like the clumsy word kilometre and the dopey way it's pronunciation was arbitrated...love miles!

----------


## Spottiswoode

I think its funny when the imperial system gets diss'd ie when you are watching an American video (TV/Youtube) and they switch to grams for small measures but talk in inches, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8th etc. Last night I was watching mythbusters and they were using a 375ml bottle and a 2l bottle to make dry ice bombs. 
On OBbob's post, I'm a child of the metric system, but still describe stuff in feet, inches when talking about stuff. The post is right, it is a handy recognisable tool for guessing a size. But every time I use a tape measure mm is the only way, so much easier to measure to 1276mm and not have to remember that 9/16 is bigger than 1/2 and 3/4 is smaller than 13/16.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

I'll never understand what some people find so complicated about 1, 10, 100, 1000 and all the numbers in between. 
We learn to count to 10 then 100 and so on at school.
i don't recall ever counting in imperial.  :Unsure:     
Clunky?
Inaccurate?   :Rofl5:    
1L of water weighs 1000g, it boils at 100 degrees and freezes at 0
Your move, Imperial, try to make more sense and be less clunky than that   :Wink:    
The only people who prefer imperial are Yanks and anyone over 50.    :Stirthepot:

----------


## Spottiswoode

Yanks: "But it will cost too much to change to metric now" 
and yet they've probably spent billions on computer code to do all the stupid conversions when they could do it with "divide or multiply by 10".

----------


## phild01

> i don't recall ever counting in imperial.     
> Clunky?
> Inaccurate?

  So not a fan of octal or hexadecimal numbering systems, they might be a better way of counting! 
mm is definitely inaccurate compared to the once used imperial system.  A mm allows more error than the finer imperial system.  When I order anything, my only option is to allow for a +/- 0.5mm error and can't get the accuracy I want had I ordered accuracy to 1/32".

----------


## Spottiswoode

isn't 1/32" 0.79mm? Hardly different to 1mm. I can't see anything measured with a tape measure needing greater than 0.5mm accuracy, it's the wrong tool not the measuring system. If you need that level of accuracy use the right tool and specify the correct accuracy (+/-0.25mm will beat 1/32") 
I guess if when the metric system was invented they had been using computers we'd probably be using a hexadecimal system, but we've still got 10 finger and toes (most of us). If we had 8 or 16 computers would cope a lot betterer.

----------


## chrisp

> mm is definitely inaccurate compared to the once used imperial system.  A mm allows more error than the finer imperial system.  When I order anything, my only option is to allow for a +/- 0.5mm error and can't get the accuracy I want had I ordered accuracy to 1/32".

  The accuracy comment reminded me of a sign I saw in a deli department of a supermarket located in a country town. 
It was a metric conversion chart for the young staff so they could deal with the requests from older customer. 
The sign (in big bold hand written lettering on the back wall) stated: 
"If they ask for a pound, give them 500 grams
If they ask for 2 pounds, give them 1kg"

----------


## sol381

1mm isnt the smallest metric measuremnt.. 1 micron has 1,000 mm in it.. not sure what the equivalent imperial is.. for most day to day jobs its more than fine to talk mm..Ive often wondered how they work stair treads out..a lot easier diving by 12 or 13 in metric..12ft 5 and 7/32 inches divided by 9..holy hell..I guess tho the universal language when talking about the male appendage will always be imperial..saying mine is 173mm long just doesnt seem right..

----------


## ringtail

Rods to the hogshed. Gold  :Biggrin:  
I use both depending on who I'm talking to. I did have to google "points of rain" to blend in at the farm.  :Tongue:

----------


## ringtail

> ..I guess tho the universal language when talking about the male appendage will always be imperial..saying mine is 173mm long just doesnt seem right..

  On the tough ?  :Biggrin:

----------


## csdaly

Quite interesting to think that it was a (notionally) conservative government (Menzies) which introduced both metric measurements (1970) and decimal currency (1966). At least the Americans were ahead of us in the latter.

----------


## sol381

good lord.. was the first number that popped into my head..seemed ..er.. average..

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> mm is definitely inaccurate compared to the once used imperial system.  A mm allows more error than the finer imperial system.  When I order anything, my only option is to allow for a +/- 0.5mm error and can't get the accuracy I want had I ordered accuracy to 1/32".

  
I'm not sure what you're "ordering" that needs such precision. 
And... as said above... a "mm" isn't the smallest metric unit.

----------


## Spottiswoode

> 1mm isnt the smallest metric measuremnt.. 1 micron has 1,000 mm in it.. not sure what the equivalent imperial is.. for most day to day jobs its more than fine to talk mm..Ive often wondered how they work stair treads out..a lot easier diving by 12 or 13 in metric..12ft 5 and 7/32 inches divided by 9..holy hell..I guess tho the universal language when talking about the male appendage will always be imperial..saying mine is 173mm long just doesn't seem right..

  That's what gets me too, dividing into. Adding 12ft 5 and 7/32 to 2ft 3 and 3/16 or even just taking 5/16 is hard enough. Try doing it with a calculator (I can't add mm in my head - calculator generation)

----------


## phild01

> I'm not sure what you're "ordering" that needs such precision. 
> And... as said above... a "mm" isn't the smallest metric unit.

  I remember measuring things I made in 32nds and the measuring devices at hand catered for this.  Don't get me wrong, fairly happy with mm but when I get things made, the accuracy is poor.  I'd rather work with half mm, but tape measures don't have that.

----------


## Spottiswoode

> I remember measuring things I made in 32nds and the measuring devices at hand catered for this.  Don't get me wrong, fairly happy with mm but when I get things made, the accuracy is poor.  I'd rather work with half mm, but tape measures don't have that.

  but steel rulers and verniers do.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> I remember measuring things I made in 32nds and the measuring devices at hand catered for this.  Don't get me wrong, fairly happy with mm but when I get things made, the accuracy is poor.  I'd rather work with half mm, but tape measures don't have that.

  Still curious what it is/was you're ordering and making   :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

> Still curious what it is/was you're ordering and making

  With woodwork, half a mm inaccuracy can show up as a noticeable gap. With kitchen door orders, the error can detract from the overall look you want.  I can only specify in mm when I'd rather specify to half that measure.  I can't and the supplier can argue that 3/4 of mm doesn't matter.  Haven't you noticed how modern cars are made to very tight tolerances, it's noticeable.  IMO mm inaccuracies just don't cut it and when the world works in a world of mm as a base unit, this will likely have greater variability in the finished good.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> IMO mm inaccuracies just don't cut it and when the world works in a world of mm as a base unit, this will likely have greater variability in the finished good.

  What's that got to do with the metric system?
More to do with the manufacturers/suppliers for not going below 1mm tolerances.
Be it their choice or because of their machinery, who knows.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> 1 micron has 1,000 mm in it..

  
You what?

----------


## sol381

you can specify all you want but the table saws still only cut to the mm..unless they are 50 grand digital.. my cabinetmaker has a guide with the tape measure on the top.. he slides the stop to the line, cuts it,, always comes out perfect.. i challenge anyone to pick half a mm difference in the height of a door...

----------


## ringtail

> 1mm isnt the smallest metric measuremnt.. 1 micron has 1,000 mm in it

  Well now we can't believe anything you say about tackle length.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Well now we can't believe anything you say about tackle length.

   :Rofl5:

----------


## sol381

i am extremely accurate when it comes to measuring that..

----------


## Spottiswoode

> i am extremely accurate when it comes to measuring that..

  if you don't get it right, the fish just wont bite?

----------


## pharmaboy2

It's all relative.....

----------


## sol381

> if you don't get it right, the fish just wont bite?

  
i dont use it as bait.. i use it as a rod..

----------


## pharmaboy2

Anyway, what sounds bigger, 6" or 152.4mm? 
and is it gravity assisted or gravity defying?

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Anyway, what sounds bigger, 6" or 152.4mm?

  Did you just measure yours?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Did you just measure yours?

  no imperial rulers in this house, not metric ones down to the tenth either.  So I'm going off std, just like a door is assumed to be 2040 high untill proven otherwise

----------


## davegol

interesting article from just last week about the history of metrification of the USA.  Why the Metric System Hasnât Failed in the U.S. - The Atlantic

----------


## Cecile

> Well now we can't believe anything you say about tackle length.

  OMG you guys.  There are ladies present.   :Rofl:  
I just returned home from six weeks in the US and I was going mental with imperial measurements.  "It's hot, it's over 90 degrees."  WTF???  I had to switch the hire car over to metric measurements so I knew how far I was going, and what the temperature was.  I carried a little 2M tape measure everywhere so I knew exactly how big things are. 
And yes, I grew up with inches and feet, and I'm 60. I recall my European father telling us as children that inches and feet were a nightmare, and that metric so easy, everything in multiples of ten.  He was right.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> OMG you guys.  There are ladies present.   
> I just returned home from six weeks in the US and I was going mental with imperial measurements.  "It's hot, it's over 90 degrees."  WTF???  I had to switch the hire car over to metric measurements so I knew how far I was going, and what the temperature was.  I carried a little 2M tape measure everywhere so I knew exactly how big things are. 
> And yes, I grew up with inches and feet, and I'm 60. I recall my European father telling us as children that inches and feet were a nightmare, and that metric so easy, everything in multiples of ten.  He was right.

  
Thank god you're here Ma'am. 
Sort these ratbags out will ya.
They've turned my thread in to a you-know-what-measuring competition    :Sigh:

----------


## Moondog55

An Imperial mile is actually a metric measurement being 1000 Roman Legion paces, trust the English and Henry #8 to stuff up something so simple

----------


## Bros

I walked the royal mile a few years ago.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> I walked the royal mile a few years ago.

  
I've walked a few country miles.....jerrican in hand.....as I ran out of fuel......again.....  
And there was nothing royal about the wave I gave all the cars who just passed me by without stopping!!!!    :Rofl5:

----------


## Bros

An old Pom like you never walked up the Royal Mile.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> An old Pom like you never walked up the Royal Mile.

  
Who you calling old? 
And Pom?     :Unsure:

----------


## OBBob

Phil I think

----------


## FrodoOne

> Quite interesting to think that it was a (notionally) conservative government (Menzies) which introduced both metric measurements (1970) and decimal currency (1966). At least the Americans were ahead of us in the latter.

  The Russians were the first to have "decimal" currency with 100 Kopeks to the Ruble. "Peter the Great,in 1704 reformed the old monetary system and ordered the  minting of a 28-gram silver ruble coin equivalent to 100 new copper kopek coins."  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruble)  It was not until 1792 that the U.S. Congress passed a Coinage Act which authorized the production of various coins, including "DOLLARS OR UNITS" The U.S. dollar was then  based upon a decimal system of values and, In addition to the dollar the coinage act officially established monetary units of  mill or one-thousandth of a dollar (symbol ₥), cent or one-hundredth of a dollar (symbol ¢),  dime or one-tenth of a dollar, and _ eagle_ or ten dollars.. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)

----------


## FrodoOne

> Just look what the Metric system did to the Mars Climate Orbiter ($125 million) *Nov. 10, 1999: Metric Math Mistake Muffed Mars Meteorology Mission | WIRED * ​Hard to believe NASA could even get anywhere near this. Should have stuck with Imperial?

  It was NOT the "Metric System" which caused the problem.  It was the use of "English" measurements INSTEAD of Metric Measurements (As specified in the contract that NASA had with Lockheed Martin.) 
From "Mars Climate Orbiter, Mishap Investigation Board, Phase I Report, November 10, 1999"  http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/MCO_report.pdf 
  Page 16. 
"The MCO MIB has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file, “Small Forces,” used in trajectory models. Specifically, thruster performance data in English units instead of metric units was used in the software application code titled SM_FORCES (small forces). The output from the SM_FORCES application code as required by a MSOP Project Software Interface Specification (SIS) was to be in metric units of Newtonseconds (N-s). Instead, the data was reported in English units of pound-seconds (lbf-s). The Angular Momentum Desaturation (AMD) file contained the output data from the SM_FORCES software. The SIS, which was not followed, defines both the format and units of the AMD file generated by ground-based computers. Subsequent processing of the data from AMD file by the navigation software algorithm therefore, underestimated the effect on the spacecraft trajectory by a factor of 4.45, which is the required conversion factor from force in pounds to Newtons. An erroneous trajectory was computed using this incorrect data."

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, this thread is gold. 
A micron has 1000 millimeters, imperial is more accurate than metric ... oh my  :Rofl5:  
A system of measurement can not be more or less accurate because it simply represents a measure. One inch of timber is as accurate or as sloppy as the person measuring and as accurate or inaccurate as the device used. If anyone ever worked on a lathe and had to measure small increments, you can not possibly say that imperial is more practical for small measurements. One mil a tenth or a hundredth is an extremely practical way to measure accurately. Try the same with a thousand of an inch. Good luck! 
Imperial is good for rough measurements. give me inches and feets for measuring timber anytime. Metric for steel any day of the week. 
it's a pity that we have not gone metric in angles and time. The sexagesimal system is from 3000 BC and absolutely stinks.

----------


## Spottiswoode

> it's a pity that we have not gone metric in angles and time. The sexagesimal system is from 3000 BC and absolutely stinks.

  So should we be starting with 100 metric degrees to turn all the way around and 100minutes in an hour and 25 hours a day (obviously need to shorten a second to make that work) might as well go to a 10 day week while we are at it. 
then there's tennis, need to make scoring metric there too.

----------


## phild01

> Phil I think

   :Confused:  
Can't be me. :No:

----------


## Marc

The French army uses a 400 degree full circle, nothing new there. As far as the others you propose, they may sound absurd today but they are not more absurd than using body parts as units and then use a mish mash of other units that do not relate to each other in a big confusing mess. 
And we still do it with bloody Pascal !!

----------


## Spottiswoode

Had no idea anyone used a metric angle system. Consider that something learned today.

----------


## FrodoOne

I have had an interest in this matter since a "post" on this site about 18 moths ago. 
I suggest that that you all may find it "interesting" to view several YouTube videos  by Pat Naughtin (who, sadly, is no longer with us.)
These can be found at   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgtsSM7vN0M 
In these videos you will find that the "Metric System" although "developed" in France (after the "French Revolution" of 1789) was "invented" in England by John Wilkins.
(A Fellow of the Royal Society and a tutor of Isaac Newton.) 
The Book in which John Wilkins describes the "Metric System (_Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language)_  was published on Monday, April 13 1668 and is about 600 pages long. However, his description of the Metric System occupies only five pages in this book. 
You may also wish to view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Australia and correct it, if necessary.

----------


## Blocklayer

> It was Not the "Metric System" which caused the problem.  It was the use of "English" measurements INSTEAD of Metric Measurements (As specified in the contract that NASA had with Lockheed Martin.)

  Hey, I was joking.
I grew up with Pounds and Pence, and learned bricklaying in feet, inches and fractions. (the fractions are hardest) 
When we changed to $, all the 12 pence, carry the 2 et al went away.
When we went Metric lengths (plans) all the hard math went away. 
Now (and for a long time) I work daily with both Metric and Imperial, so it's easy to compare. *Imperial sucks.* 
Although, as someone who was born in the Imperial era, I still default to a persons height in feet and inches, and miles per gallon.
That's just bad luck.

----------


## Uncle Bob



----------


## FrodoOne

> Hey, I was joking.
> I grew up with Pounds and Pence, and learned bricklaying in feet, inches and fractions. (the fractions are hardest) 
> When we changed to $, all the 12 pence, carry the 2 et al went away.
> When we went Metric lengths (plans) all the hard math went away. 
> Now (and for a long time) I work daily with both Metric and Imperial, so it's easy to compare. *Imperial sucks.* 
> Although, as someone who was born in the Imperial era, I still default to a persons height in feet and inches, and miles per gallon.
> That's just bad luck.

   It is interesting that you say that! 
I suggest that you now have some fun and "have a go" at our "American Cousins" - to help them to sort out their problems at DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum 
Good Luck.

----------


## commodorenut

Even though currency & cars were into metric when I was born, I'm still old enough (and listened to many elder influences) to have a strong grasp of the imperial system.  Actually, driving cars with MPH speedos is a constant reminder of conversions that become second nature.   
Feet are easy enough to understand, and yards too.  It's only the tolerance error creeping in that makes it hard - eg 1 inch is not just 25mm, but 25.4mm, however most people still accept 6 feet as 180cm without a second thought. 
Working with a lot of machinery and hydraulic equipment, you soon understand fractions - and these days it's natural to convert them to something one of my smart-ass colleagues calls "imperial decimals" : 3/8" = 0.375" simply because computers these days don't like the / as a fraction divider.
I have a good grasp of fractions from 8ths, to 16ths, down to 64ths (actually that learning curve was in the machine shop, selecting the right drills for tapping threads - but were they BSPP or BSPT or bloody UNF?)  In my experience, and what I see around me at work and in the field, threads are one of the hardest imperial systems for people to grasp.  
About 10 years ago I witnessed what a young guy thought was being helpful, turn into a disaster.
I was in one branch of an engineering supplies group when a rather burly Harley rider came in, wanting to pick up a length of 3/8" threaded rod.
Guys behind the counter couldn't see anything suitable listed in stock.
Burly customer starts to get a bit impatient, explaining that he rode over an hour because the guy on the phone told him it was in stock in that store.
After a few tense, very short sentences were exchanged, it was established that he'd actually ordered the part over the phone, and had an order number to give them.
They punched it into the computer, and found was for a length of M10 threaded rod, which was in stock. 
After a small ouburst of expletives describing various useless things, he left the store - much to the relief of the staff.  They rang head office, and spoke to the young fellow who took the order.  He told them since he couldn't find any stock of 3/8 on the computer, he figured 10mm was close enough, and keyed that on the order instead....

----------


## FrodoOne

> Even though currency & cars were into metric when I was born, I'm still old enough (and listened to many elder influences) to have a strong grasp of the imperial system.  Actually, driving cars with MPH speedos is a constant reminder of conversions that become second nature.   
> Feet are easy enough to understand, and yards too.  It's only the tolerance error creeping in that makes it hard - eg 1 inch is not just 25mm, but 25.4mm, however most people still accept 6 feet as 180cm without a second thought. 
> Working with a lot of machinery and hydraulic equipment, you soon understand fractions - and these days it's natural to convert them to something one of my smart-ass colleagues calls "imperial decimals" : 3/8" = 0.375" simply because computers these days don't like the / as a fraction divider.
> I have a good grasp of fractions from 8ths, to 16ths, down to 64ths (actually that learning curve was in the machine shop, selecting the right drills for tapping threads - but were they BSPP or BSPT or bloody UNF?)  In my experience, and what I see around me at work and in the field, threads are one of the hardest imperial systems for people to grasp.  
> About 10 years ago I witnessed what a young guy thought was being helpful, turn into a disaster.
> I was in one branch of an engineering supplies group when a rather burly Harley rider came in, wanting to pick up a length of 3/8" threaded rod.
> Guys behind the counter couldn't see anything suitable listed in stock.
> Burly customer starts to get a bit impatient, explaining that he rode over an hour because the guy on the phone told him it was in stock in that store.
> After a few tense, very short sentences were exchanged, it was established that he'd actually ordered the part over the phone, and had an order number to give them.
> ...

  Interesting, but 3/8 (of one inch) threaded rod (as specified by "Whitworth") is still readily available - even at Bunnings,

----------


## Marc

To become excited and personal about metric versus imperial makes as much sense as fighting over taste in food.  
I hate English cuisine, it's not even cousine, it's reminiscence of post war scarcity, give me knackwurst and sauerkraut any day ...  :Smilie:  
Now that makes a lot of sense 
Is a knackwurst 100 mm long or 3 15/16"  ?

----------


## r3nov8or

I do wonder about car tyre sizes. Imperial rim diameter and metric width. Who ever thought that was a good idea? 
Edit: although I actually don't have a problem visualising the results  :Smilie:

----------


## r3nov8or

Wonder what will come first... USA getting tough on gun laws or moving to metric. Doubt many of us will be around for either...

----------


## commodorenut

> I do wonder about car tyre sizes. Imperial rim diameter and metric width. Who ever thought that was a good idea? 
> Edit: although I actually don't have a problem visualising the results

  They did make metric rims & tyres for a little while in the 80s - they had R390 (rim diameter) on some Jags, and one model of Ford LTD.  Pain in the ass to get reasonable price replacements......

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Wonder what will come first... USA getting tough on gun laws or moving to metric...

  Well they do love their 9mm guns/bullets so they're used to the metric already haha 
ha

----------


## Marc

9mm ? Nee, american popular calibers are mostly 30 caliber, that is 7.62mm Although there is a shift to 22 (5.56) and lately 24 caliber that is 6mm.
What no one told them yet is that 6.5x55 is the way to go  :Rofl5:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> 9mm ? Nee, american popular calibers are mostly 30 caliber, that is 7.62mm Although there is a shift to 22 (5.56) and lately 24 caliber that is 6mm.
> What no one told them yet is that 6.5x55 is the way to go

  Glock 9mm is one of the most popular handguns (allegedly)
It's often mentioned by rappers as well in their lyrics.

----------


## commodorenut

> Interesting, but 3/8 (of one inch) threaded rod (as specified by "Whitworth") is still readily available - even at Bunnings,

   Try finding it in stainless - hence why he travelled over an hour to pick it up.

----------


## OBBob

> Can't be me.

  Whoops, should've know from the love of thongs.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Moondog55

OK So what's wrong with using the old measurements of thumb. fist. foot Oh tha's right we all have different sized bodies but if I have to give somebody an idea of size quickly then body parts work. 
Most verbal recipes use a dash of that and a handful of this etc

----------


## r3nov8or

> OK So what's wrong with using the old measurements of thumb. fist. foot Oh tha's right we all have different sized bodies but if I have to give somebody an idea of size quickly then body parts work. 
> Most verbal recipes use a dash of that and a handful of this etc

  Those aren't Imperial, they're Simperial (C)    :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> OK So what's wrong with using the old measurements of thumb. fist. foot Oh tha's right we all have different sized bodies but if I have to give somebody an idea of size quickly then body parts work. 
> Most verbal recipes use a dash of that and a handful of this etc

  
Absolutely true, that is why imperial is a colloquial form of measurement. Your weight in stones if you grew up with that is great. Gallons for large amounts of liquid is the best, inches and feet for a carpenter builder. Miles for when you are a long way from town, sure.
A pinch a dash a handful, yes, but don't try to run a chemistry lab based on them, that would be nonsense.

----------


## commodorenut

> OK So what's wrong with using the old measurements of thumb. fist. foot Oh tha's right we all have different sized bodies but if I have to give somebody an idea of size quickly then body parts work.

   Don't forget horses are measured in hands.  Who's hands?  And they can win by a nose, but is that a small nose or big nose?  OK, I'll stop....

----------


## ringtail

> Glock 9mm is one of the most popular handguns (allegedly)
> It's often mentioned by rappers as well in their lyrics.

  Glocks and bitches. Don't forget the bitches PG  :Biggrin:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Fo shizzle

----------


## Marc

Yes, 9mm handgun was always the poor cousin to the 45, until they made the wide frame and fitted 15 rounds in a magazine. Firepower over stopping power. Our police uses 10 mm though. An odd choice.

----------


## havabeer

at the powerstation i work at its a @@@@ fight,  the place was basically built with everything in imperial, which is understandable as it was started to be built in the 60's/70's but its a mix of BSW and UNC which aren't really compatible with each other, and now that alot of things are becoming obsolete we basically have to replace them with items of plant that use the metric system. it just makes it a pain in the @@@@ as you have to carry an imperial and metric set of tools where ever you go. i did my apprenticeship fairly recently and we did it all on the metric system, might have been a small amount of imperial thrown in there somewhere, but i just can't get my head around the fraction side of things, especially with adding and subtracting them.   so if i have a 1" 1/4 piece of steel and i need to machine it down to 3/4 how much do i have to take off?  if i have a 32mm piece of steel and i need to get it down to 19mm i know i have to remove 13mm worth of steel off it.  its just a bit confusing when you have a 1/32th as a measurement, so i need to take 1 inch, divide it into 32 separate bits, and what i want is 1 of those 32 bits. i guess its because the metric starts with smallest piece and works it way up to larger, where the imperial starts with a larger chunk and breaks it down.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> if i have a 1" 1/4 piece of steel and i need to machine it down to 3/4 how much do i have to take off?  if i have a 32mm piece of steel and i need to get it down to 19mm i know i have to remove 13mm worth of steel off it. 
>  its just a bit confusing when you have a 1/32th as a measurement, so i need to take 1 inch, divide it into 32 separate bits, and what i want is 1 of those 32 bits.

   
Yet, some people claim that metric is stupid and makes no sense   :Rofl5:

----------


## Marc

To be fair, it is only confusing to havabeer, you because you are in the metric system. I have seen turners working in imperial measurement very comfortably and doing a lot of calculation in their head no problems. It's all in the training. The only time the comparison is fair, is when you look at both system objectively from a point of view of learning and using it. I rather teach someone the metric system than the imperial. As far as the old timers turning using the imperial system, If I asked them to turn me a shaft 18mm diameter they would reach for a calliper in a dark corner of the draw accompanied by a string of expletives.

----------


## Spottiswoode

> To be fair, it is only confusing to havabeer, you because you are in the metric system. I have seen turners working in imperial measurement very comfortably and doing a lot of calculation in their head no problems. It's all in the training. The only time the comparison is fair, is when you look at both system objectively from a point of view of learning and using it. I rather teach someone the metric system than the imperial. As far as the old timers turning using the imperial system, If I asked them to turn me a shaft 18mm diameter they would reach for a calliper in a dark corner of the draw accompanied by a string of expletives.

  and there is the reason there are people still hanging on to imperial measurements. Teaching old dogs new tricks takes a lot of time and effort. Getting old dogs to teach young pups how to do different to the way they learnt is even harder.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

It is interesting though.....how random imperial is.
Seems to be just made up on the spot based on whatever someone felt like calling something    
My foot is this length......let's make that a standard measurement....and call it a foot... 
How heavy is that stone over there....let's make that a measurement unit....and call it a stone.... 
What is the reach between your extended hands....let's call that a fathom.... 
etc  
Well...I say "random"......it's only random when compared to the far more logical metric system of course   :Rolleyes:

----------


## phild01

Imperial system has passion! 
I don't mind either but still prefer miles over km :Smilie:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

As a Swedish ex-pat it took me a while to get used to referring to distances in kilometres...   
Because..... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_mile  
And still (even though I left Sweden in 1995) when talking to my parents, I have to stop and think and convert K to "mil" as they still don't think of anything over 10K as kilometres
It automatically becomes 1.1 "mil" and so on.   :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

All european countries have ancient units of measure and some survive today in colloquial speech. It's traditional and part of a culture that defines those nations. 
At less than 4 centuries the metric system is young and it was always from its invention a substitute for a complex and unreliable traditional system.

----------


## FrodoOne

> It is interesting though.....how random imperial is.
> Seems to be just made up on the spot based on whatever someone felt like calling something 
> My foot is this length......let's make that a standard measurement....and call it a foot... 
> How heavy is that stone over there....let's make that a measurement unit....and call it a stone.... 
> What is the reach between your extended hands....let's call that a fathom.... 
> etc  
> Well...I say "random"......it's only random when compared to the far more logical metric system of course

  The Imperial system is NOT "Random" BUT it is "complex" and that is the problem with the "Imperial" system of measurement, which we (in Australia) now do not follow. 
Rejoice.
Our measurement system is now SI. (wihch is, of course, the International System of Units)

----------


## Moondog55

C'mon guys You've all forgotten the wonderful "Bushel" where every grain and produce had its own sized basket 
The Up-side is that Imperial was a standardised set of measurements. I have [ or at least I used to have] no problems with measuring to 1/10,000th of an inch.
Can't have a modern technological world wide culture without that set of standardised measurements

----------


## lazydays

So when the Imperial System becomes too messy under 1/64 th of an inch they change over to micrometer measurements based on 1,000's of an inch.

----------


## Spottiswoode

> So when the Imperial System becomes too messy under 1/64 th of an inch they change over to micrometer measurements based on 1,000's of an inch.

  It's always nice to see a decimalised inch measurement.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> The Imperial system is NOT "Random" BUT it is "complex" and that is the problem with the "Imperial" system of measurement, which we (in Australia) now do not follow. 
> Rejoice.
> Our measurement system is now SI. (wihch is, of course, the International System of Units)

  It is random.  
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and so on, is not random 
11/32 and 5/8 is random 
Uneven numbers of uneven numbers making up units is random. 
multiplying by ten is not random 
Mm - cm - dm - m - km is not random 
fractions of inch - inch - feet - feet & inch - yards - yards & feet - yards & feet & inches - miles is random and inefficient    
Just because it's old does not make it better or more logical.
40 years from now, only the yanks will use/understand/care about the imperial system. 
And of course boats will be talked about in feet, and appendages described in inches...maybe    :Smilie:

----------


## Moondog55

Aren't appendages measured like horses??
So many "Hands" long??

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Aren't appendages measured like horses??
> So many "Hands" long??

    :Unsure:

----------


## ringtail

> Aren't appendages measured like horses??
> So many "Hands" long??

  Horse's appendages or the height of the horse  ?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Marc

I don't see the problem with hands, as long as they are 4 inches long and not some other random fraction. In fact I think the main problem of imperial is it's base 12 that turns into 1/2, 1/4, 1/8,1/16, 1/32 and 1/64.
If 12 inches make one foot, why isn't there a 1/12 of an inch and a 1/24 and a 1/48? Or why isn't a yard made of 12 foot? 
Answer: because it is an ancient system made up by traditional means of communication hundreds of years ago when most folks couldn't read or write, just like all the other ancient units made up in order to have a common understanding. Horsepower still in use today is just as random as any of the other units, created to compare horses to steam engines.  
The maritime tradition has a lot more absurdities that persist only due to tradition, let's just mention the custom that persisted to 1930 or so to tell the helmsman to turn to port when the ship had to turn to starboard and vice versa. Logical in ancient ship that had a tiller, absurd for a ship with a wheel.  
The history of measurements is fascinating and a reflection of different civilisations and their evolution. The metric system is unique in that is has always been the consequence of dissatisfaction with the traditional method and never the original way of measuring things.

----------


## r3nov8or

> Horse's appendages or the height of the horse  ?

  Maybe confusing appendage with "up end edge", i.e. the top   :Smilie:

----------


## ringtail

The top of the appendage or the top of the horse ?  :Tongue:

----------


## Bloss

Seems to me that a few posters need to get their hand off it . . .

----------


## Cecile

Boys, boys.  There are ladies present.  Hands off when talking about appendages!

----------


## OBBob

LOL ... can't you just reach over and whack the culprit across the back of the head?  :Smilie:

----------


## Spottiswoode

Only if they are within a few feet.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

If only there was a suitable smiley for this topic.....    
Oh wait, there is...         :Stirthepot:

----------


## Marc

Stirring the one gallon pot ... with a two hand long spoon  :Smilie:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Stirring the one gallon pot ... with a two hand long spoon

   :Rofl5:

----------


## Spottiswoode

Tablespoon, teaspoon or desert spoon? or are you using a metric equivalent?

----------


## phild01

> Tablespoon, teaspoon or desert spoon? or are you using a metric equivalent?

   Oh no, leave the spoons as is  :Wacko:

----------


## Marc

It's a wooden spoon carved out of a hickory branch that was hit by lightning. The pot is forged from a meteorite ...  :Smilie:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

How fast am I stirring? 
And how to measure the speed most accurately?   :Stirthepot:

----------


## Marc

Well ... it seems that you are taking two turns of the spoon for every sixtieth pars minuta prima of the sixtieth pars minuta secunda of the 12 part of a day.    :2thumbsup:

----------


## csdaly

> interesting article from just last week about the history of metrification of the USA.  Why the Metric System Hasnât Failed in the U.S. - The Atlantic

   Yes, good article. Interstate 19 going south from Tucson, Arizona was America's only metric road (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/us/15highway.html; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_19).

----------


## phild01

One trouble with the metric system is that it sometimes fails to have quantitative milestones in their expression. So a person's weight is expressed in kg and it is just a number.   It doesn't evoke any feeling of a measured quantity like stones and pounds does.  I find the imperial measure for weight very easy to grasp as a quantity.      Kg's are quite meaningless to imagine by comparison.

----------


## Marc

It's purely cultural. To me 11 stones means nothing at all, yet 70 kilos I can relate to. It's what you grew up with and also the reason change is so difficult. 
When the french converted the vietnamese writing from Chinese characters to roman alphabet thee must have been millions of objections on similar grounds. Today Vietnamese is the easiest asian language to learn purely on the basis of a simplified logical writing as opposed to an ancient one based on images.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> One trouble with the metric system is that it sometimes fails to have quantitative milestones in their expression. So a person's weight is expressed in kg and it is just a number.   It doesn't evoke any feeling of a measured quantity like stones and pounds does.  I find the imperial measure for weight very easy to grasp as a quantity.      Kg's are quite meaningless to imagine by comparison.

  Can't say I've ever felt un-excited over imagining a person's weight....
....but there's plenty of metric "milestones"  
2L bottle of milk (2kg) 
Bag of ice (4kg) 
Gas bottle (9kg) 
Bag of GP (20kg) 
Average dog (30kg) 
2 bags of GP (40kg) 
Drunk girlfriend/wife (probably about 70kg but feels like 100kg) 
Drunk mate (probably about 90kg but feels like 120kg and doesn't smell as nice as girlfriend/wife)    :Rofl5:

----------


## Marc

I visualize weight by converting it into liters of water. Small laundry bucket 10L = 10K ... big bucket 20L = 20k
Smaller amounts are easier to see thinking in terms of packaged food .. 1/2k pasta, one kilo flour 2k leg of lamb etc. 
Tins of paint can help too, litres = kilos. More or less of course.
Bigger amounts can relate to things you are familiar with ... 40k small anvil, 80k medium anvil, 150k large anvil 
400K medium horse ... and then you have the car's weight to give you ideas for larger things

----------


## Jon

I am similar to Marc when guestimating weight except i relate back to litres of milk as it is something i pick up on a fairly regular basis. 
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

----------


## FrodoOne

> I visualize weight by converting it into liters of water. Small laundry bucket 10L = 10K ... big bucket 20L = 20kSmaller amounts are easier to see thinking in terms of packaged food .. 1/2k pasta, one kilo flour 2k leg of lamb etc. Tins of paint can help too, litres = kilos. More or less of course.Bigger amounts can relate to things you are familiar with ... 40k small anvil, 80k medium anvil, 150k large anvil 400K medium horse ... and then you have the car's weight to give you ideas for larger things

  Of course, it is "Mass" that you are visualizing.

----------


## Marc

Mass, sure. 
Phil, how is a stone or a pound different from a kilo in your mind? I suppose that a 6k stone is something I can picture, but a pound? Someone "pounding" on the desk I suppose?

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> "pounding" on the desk I suppose?

  
 I'm sure there's a joke there somewhere   :Unsure:

----------


## phild01

> Phil, how is a stone or a pound different from a kilo in your mind? I suppose that a 6k stone is something I can picture, but a pound? Someone "pounding" on the desk I suppose?

  For a person'd weight, you can can relate to your own weight quite easily in stones and pounds.  So a person can generally have weight between 7 and 20 stone.  Easy to visualise lightweight to overweight with the increments in between. The pounds also provide easier milestones for those people losing weight.
With kg, the numbers are messier with no milestones in between.  And pounds is a finer measure than a clunky kg. 
Interesting word - 'milestone'!  People like milestones as they travel too.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milestone

----------


## r3nov8or

I'm old enough to have learned stones and pounds, but now they are totally foreign to me and I never use the terms. If gaining/losing weigh I easily relate to 100s of grams. I easily relate to feet and inches for people's height, but would never use them in building something. Centimetres for people's heights comes just as easily to me these days.

----------


## Marc

Aah centimetres ... when I first arrived Australia I used to refer 
measures in meters and centimetres and only then millimetres ... oh boy did I get some tongue lash then ...what is that! That is foreign language!
My reply ... learn the metric system in full not just half ... ha ha 
Pounds ... sure I can translate pounds roughly as half a kilo and I can quickly convert 5'3" into metric for someone's height but no particular emotions involved, they are all just units to me. 
Someone showed me a Chinese measuring tape with "inches" that had 30mm in them ...  :Whatonearth:  
When you have to work out calculations for chemistry or physics or maths, converting units back and forth is part of the problem and cultural issues do not come in it. Sure you protest against units that make your life harder. 
I bet students in the US would love to go metric.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Interesting word - 'milestone'!  People like milestones as they travel too.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milestone

   Well.... of course that's where the expression comes from. :Unsure:  ...you did know that....right?  
We still use milestones (although in the far easier to comprehend and more logical Metric system) these days.   
Here's one, 65K from "M"     
M for Metric     :Biggrin:

----------


## phild01

Funny how the mind works.  I like imperial for people's weight but prefer metric for a bag of cement. Use either for building. A hand-span is usually around 9 inches which made things easy when you didn't have a tape.  :Erm Smile:

----------


## Marc

I do the hand span trick and count 22 centimetres for each span. Easier to add up. 22 44 66 88  :Smilie:

----------


## Spottiswoode

> For a person'd weight, you can can relate to your own weight quite easily in stones and pounds.  So a person can generally have weight between 7 and 20 stone.  Easy to visualise lightweight to overweight with the increments in between. The pounds also provide easier milestones for those people losing weight.
> With kg, the numbers are messier with no milestones in between.  And pounds is a finer measure than a clunky kg. 
> Interesting word - 'milestone'!  People like milestones as they travel too.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milestone

  I have absolutely no concept of what a stone is weight wise, someone says their grandfather was xx stone I don't know whether he was huge or tiny. The only reason I can relate to pounds is a rough 2x conversion from kg. kg are easy for me growing up with metric, the so called 'milestones' are easily estimated in 5's or 10's. Most people would generally estimate to the nearest 10kg. Easy enough. 
I used to do a lot of measuring road widths for laying asphalt. 1m was three feet and a little bit, that is three size 10 boots toe to heel then about the width of the steel cap on the boot. Near enough to not bother with a tape measure most of the time, but that's with an accuracy that only required to the nearest 100mm.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Hehe I use the hand span (thumb to middle finger) a lot as well.
Amazes a lot of people. 
What!??!! 
you know how big your hand span is?  :Shock:     :Unsure:  
Well...yes...I measured it once and remembered it......
....amazing huh  :Rofl5:  
I also know that there's 100mm between the tip of my index finger and the palm line between it and the thumb.   :Wink:

----------


## Spottiswoode

Body parts, the new imperial - for when the accuracy of metric just isn't required.

----------


## Marc

The index finger is a handy one, mine is also 100mm probably most people. I use thumb to little finger for 22cm ... thumb to middle finger gives me 20cm ...  mm ... easier to add up than 22  :Smilie: 
I wonder If I can use my fist for the space between balusters or should I use my head for every two and then add one in the middle? Ha ha 
Come to think of it, I use large steps for measuring meters rather effectively, done it since I was 15 or so 
I think we should standardise this measurements and call them ...  
hum "anatomically correct measures" 
mm no discriminatory against those who are not anatomically correct. lets see. "Sustainable units" that always get the green tick. 
"Unitomics"? that sounds very modern  :2thumbsup:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Thumb to middle gives me 220mm if I stretch and 200mm if I do it casually    :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

That's good, 10% + - is acceptable error in unitomics.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Unitomics..... 
am I correct in suspecting that your German heritage makes it sound like "ooni-tomikz" rather than "you-knee-tomics"......?   :Biggrin:   
.....and....is it Der, Die or Das Unitomics....?   :Unsure:

----------


## Marc

Die selbverständlich  :Smilie:

----------


## OBBob

This thread title is annoying... all I see is METRIX vs the Imperial Empire.

----------


## cam_jim

I'd like to shoot the guy who decreed we use the totally stupid measurement litres/100 kms. What was wrong with Kms/litre?

----------


## phild01

> I'd like to shoot the guy who decreed we use the totally stupid measurement litres/100 kms. What was wrong with Kms/litre?

  No, mpg is better :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> I'd like to shoot the guy who decreed we use the totally stupid measurement litres/100 kms. What was wrong with Kms/litre?

  Once we moved from mpg, I preferred L/100km. We're dealing with 100km, so the consumption average is easier to understand and once you are used to it, it's easy to work out the range available from the available fuel in the tank. 
Lets say we get 5.6L/100km. That is far more easy to accurately understand than 17.857142 Kms/litre

----------


## Marc

That is very subjective however ... if you look at it from the perspective of someone testing a car for fuel usage, he would strap a one litre bottle to the carbie and see how many KM he can do before the car stops. Unit used is KM/L
If you have a full tank, say 60L and want to know how far you can go, you need to know the amount of KM you can do with one litre and multiply by 60. To know how much you will use for 100K is backwards.
For a car dealer to tell you that you car will "only" use 9L to do 100K instead of the 10 used by the competition may sound better but still does not justify the use of a non existing unit, the "100 Km" unit for this purpose. 
In the absence of a unit representing the work done by the machine, in this case a car covering distance, or when the unit would not represent the work done accurately, marine engines, earthmoving equipment and similar machines have to use fuel usage per unit of time. Generators are usually measured in litres of fuel used per hour but can also be measured in KW/L if they work at a constant pace.
How many Km per litre is the only sensible way to describe a car's fuel usage if you ask me. 
So far no one asked me  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

100km is a more accurate assessment than a single litre. 
The reason some people prefer Km/L is that they have mpg stuck in their heads, but as we already know a gallon is 4.5 x the volume of a litre. mpg is also a more accurate assessment than Km/L.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> This thread title is annoying... all I see is METRIX vs the Imperial Empire.

    :Rofl:

----------


## Moondog55

OK I've sorted it out; I'm no longer 110 kilos heavy I'm only 99 bricks Much lighter

----------


## Marc

You can not refer to units in term of accuracy. Two completely different concepts. 
Accuracy is dependent on the method or tool used to measure. Moondog's method of measuring his own weight in bricks can be more accurate than the doctors scale.  
 Of course that taking a larger sample of the work done will result in a more accurate average of fuel consumption yet if the volume of fuel is measured by guesstimating on the dash fuel gage that has an accuracy of + - 10 litres, I am afraid that all bets are off. 
 If fuel is measured in litres, then the most pertinent measure is the work that can be achieved with one unit of fuel, so how many KM can we cover with one litre. Having said that, there are many metric countries that talk about Km covered with 20 litres of fuel, and motorist measure their car fuel usage in how many Km they can do with 20 litres. I remember that the old 1960 F100 would do 100K with 20L. It was outrageous even then.

----------


## Spottiswoode

I wonder if they started using L/100km so that a lower fuel consumption figure is better. A deliberate ploy for us to think that using less was better ready for when it all runs out (or the Saudis stop selling it)? When talking mpg a bigger number is better, which is a little counter-intuitive to saving fuel.

----------


## woodbe

> You can not refer to units in term of accuracy.

  Correct, but if you are measuring consumption of a vehicle that has variable consumption based on many inputs (speed, gradient, traffic, acceleration, etc) it is better to measure consumption over a longer distance otherwise your consumption figures are biassed on a small volume of fuel used over a short distance.  
Accuracy is an issue because we don't want to have five units after the decimal point, so we usually round it to one (or none) units after the decimal point.

----------


## Whitey66

> Body parts, the new imperial - for when the accuracy of metric just isn't required.

  Just remember to use the correction factor when using "certain" body parts in cold weather  :Smilie:  .

----------


## webtubbs

> Correct, but if you are measuring consumption of a vehicle that has variable consumption based on many inputs (speed, gradient, traffic, acceleration, etc) it is better to measure consumption over a longer distance otherwise your consumption figures are biassed on a small volume of fuel used over a short distance.  
> Accuracy is an issue because we don't want to have five units after the decimal point, so we usually round it to one (or none) units after the decimal point.

  That's not accuracy. Accuarcy is the ability to measure the same every time. What you mean is precision which is the ability to measure exactly.

----------


## woodbe

> That's not accuracy. Accuarcy is the ability to measure the same every time. What you mean is precision which is the ability to measure exactly.

  Correct. Accuracy is an issue because of lack of precision due to rounding.

----------


## UseByDate

> Quite interesting to think that it was a (notionally) conservative government (Menzies) which introduced both metric measurements (1970) and decimal currency (1966). At least the Americans were ahead of us in the latter.

   World events tend to trump local decisions. In 1965 the Federation of  British Industry informed the UK  Government that they intended to adopt the “metric system”. This would mean that Australia's major trading partner, at that time, would be using the metric system for trade and commerce. It was only sensible for whomever was governing Australia to switch to the metric system. Most other countries still using the Imperial measurement system also decided to adopt the metric system at that time.

----------


## UseByDate

> The French army uses a 400 degree full circle, nothing new there. As far as the others you propose, they may sound absurd today but they are not more absurd than using body parts as units and then use a mish mash of other units that do not relate to each other in a big confusing mess. 
> And we still do it with bloody Pascal !!

   The Gradian  (400 to the circle) is used in many countries in the world; not just in France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradian

----------


## UseByDate

> Had no idea anyone used a metric angle system. Consider that something learned today.

   The SI unit for an angle is the Radian not degrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian

----------


## Spottiswoode

Went to a servo yesterday. Advertising on the top of the pumps was for coffee. 4 sizes, small to massive, BUT each was detailed as a number of oz. 4, 8, 12, 16. WHY????? What's wrong with our standard measure of ml. Ok, they are reasonable numbers, but are we going backwards? I'm schooled in metric and have no idea how much liquid I'll get if I order 8oz, except it's the second smallest and possibly a normal cup size. 
Stupid....American... Take... Over... of... advertising/machinery.  
Ok I calmed down a little, went and googled conversion from 8oz to ml and got 236ml. Why not 250ml - the standard Australian cup measure.

----------


## Ozcar

> That's not accuracy. Accuarcy is the ability to measure the same every time. What you mean is precision which is the ability to measure exactly.

  You have got that, more-or-less, the wrong way around.

----------


## UseByDate

> The Imperial system is NOT "Random" BUT it is "complex" and that is the problem with the "Imperial" system of measurement, which we (in Australia) now do not follow. 
> Rejoice.
> Our measurement system is now SI. (wihch is, of course, the International System of Units)

  Actually the fact that the Imperial measurement system is complex was once used to argue that we should keep it. The argument was that when trading with foreigners they would be at a disadvantage because they would have to learn our complicated measurement system. We had the advantage because we could easily learn their simple measurement system.

----------


## UseByDate

> For a person'd weight, you can can relate to your own weight quite easily in stones and pounds.  So a person can generally have weight between 7 and 20 stone.  Easy to visualise lightweight to overweight with the increments in between. The pounds also provide easier milestones for those people losing weight.
> With kg, the numbers are messier with no milestones in between.  And pounds is a finer measure than a clunky kg. 
> Interesting word - 'milestone'!  People like milestones as they travel too.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milestone

  As “Fredo” has already reminded everyone the kg is a measurement of mass, not weight. The unit for weight is the newton which is about the weight of an apple. (Easy to remember because of Newton sitting under the apple tree pondering why the apple fell). The weight of an apple (newton) is quite high resolution when contemplating the weight of a person.

----------


## phild01

12oz (355ml) is easy, about a can of drink (375ml)
Can scales be got to measure my weight in newtons :Smilie:

----------


## Ozcar

> 12oz (355ml) is easy, about a can of drink (375ml)
> Can scales be got to measure my weight in newtons

  Sure, why not?  SciChem International- Science Equipment for Schools, Technicians Essentials, Laboratory Supplies - - Scales bathroom Newton 1200N x 10N

----------


## phild01

> Sure, why not?  SciChem International- Science Equipment for Schools, Technicians Essentials, Laboratory Supplies - - Scales bathroom Newton 1200N x 10N

  Wow, imagine giving your weight in Newtons, hardly anyone would know what you are on about...one for the ladies!

----------


## r3nov8or

> Wow, imagine giving your weight in Newtons, hardly anyone would know what you are on about...one for the ladies!

   'She' may not like multiplying her kgs by 9.81!

----------


## phild01

> 'She' may not like multiplying her kgs by 9.81!

  Then maybe imperial is better; smaller digits with stone weight.

----------


## Marc

https://youtu.be/r7x-RGfd0Yk

----------


## r3nov8or

> Then maybe imperial is better; smaller digits with stone weight.

   They would be happier with 1 rock. 1 small lady rock. 1 medium lady rock. 1 large lady rock.

----------

