Serious America and the metric system

[Chou Toshio]

Most people have an organic experience with measuring systems-- so honestly, who gives a fuck which is used in every day life?

After living mostly outside of the US for the last 6 years, I've gained a great comfort with the metric system-- I know that a guy that's 186cm is really tall, I know that 35 degrees is stupid hot-ouside, I know my diet's going good when I get down to 71 kg, and I don't really give a fuck how many liters of beer that beer I just drank was (just like I don't give a fuck about how many ounces were in there).

Now, if you asked me to convert one to the other in my head-- I'd be totally screwed. That's because just an "organic" understanding is sufficient for daily life; so it don't really matter which one you use, and it's all chill. As mentioned by others-- who really cares?

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

It doesn't matter in terms of everyday life - I'll acknowledge that. However, I typically look at metrication in terms of what it means for industry, up-front costs, and potential long-term benefits - which is where it does matter. What I'm saying is, in terms of everyday life it won't matter, but we need to look at more than just everyday life. If industry would benefit from metrication and the long-term benefits would outweigh the short-term costs, then we should give metrication a closer look.

What I've found so far seems to support that conclusion (I've posted links in previous pages but I'm not entirely certain on the credibility, though) but right now I'm reading up on articles relating to Australian metrication. If I find a good one, I'll post it here.

 

[Perfect Cell]

Now, if you asked me to convert one to the other in my head-- I'd be totally screwed. That's because just an "organic" understanding is sufficient for daily life; so it don't really matter which one you use, and it's all chill. As mentioned by others-- who really cares?

Admittedly, most of the time I just remember the measurements and don't offhandedly convert them (I can if needed though), but there are some "tricks" I use that might help out. They're mostly just baselines of measurements and then one can usually go off from there.

Hide

1"=2.54cm
4"=10cm
8"=20cm
1'=30cm

3'3"=100cm
5'=152cm
5'9"=175cm
6'=183cm
6'7"=200cm

2.2lb=1kg
150lb=68kg
100lb=45.3kg
50lb=22.7kg
25lb=11.3kg
200lb=90.7kg
250lb=113.3kg

Don't have anything for C to F and vice versa though.

 

[Vein]

Nah, just use foot-inch for height, and metric system for anything else!

 

[macle]

Oh, that Fahrenheit is simply abominable.

how? its perfect for weather

0 is really cold
100 is hot

if its lower than 0 or higher than 100, you dont go outside

 

[DHR-107]

I can't believe I haven't seen this thread before O_o

Being British I was taught Metric at School and then Imperial at home cause parents are old. Strangely, when I talk about this sort of stuff it's all just totally interchangeable apart from farenheit -> celsius. (Let's be honest, we COULD be working in Kelvin, which would be worse). Like, weights are either Kilos or Stones/pounds, heigh is CM/M or Feet + inches etc... And yet every person notes their height in either (or both) but everyone seems to know exactly how tall that is regardless of the measurement used.

Fuel is the weirdest though. We buy it in litres, but we talk about it in terms of miles per gallon not kilometers per litre :| You would get really strange looks over here if you said your car did 25km to the litre instead of 112mpg (ish). All of our speed limits are in Miles as well. Britain must be some sort of Metric development in action or something, its coming, but no one really knows when or why it should lol

 

[Codraroll]

If you're hardcore Metric, you measure fuel usage in square metres.

L/ 100 km = volume/distance = area. If you've got a fuel efficient car, using 5 L/100 km, your mileage will be 0.05 square millimetres. If your car had ejected a stream of fuel consumed behind it as it drove, this would be the cross-section of the stream.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Fuel is the weirdest though. We buy it in litres, but we talk about it in terms of miles per gallon not kilometers per litre :| You would get really strange looks over here if you said your car did 25km to the litre instead of 112mpg (ish). All of our speed limits are in Miles as well. Britain must be some sort of Metric development in action or something, its coming, but no one really knows when or why it should lol

I've never understood why you sell fuel by the liter but talk about fuel economy in mpg. It just seems... Really confusing.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

So, I apologize for the double post, but upon reading a blog advocating the metric system, I found a link to a PDF of a 1982 Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce report underlining Australian metrication. It's a really long report and I don't think anyone wants to spend time reading all of it, but I'll post a few bits of it I found to be the most significant & most relevant to the US:

In the schools students were taught to memorise, largely by rote, the relationships between inches, feet, yards, chains, furlongs, miles, ounces, pounds, stones, quarters, hundredweights and tons etc. because there was no consistent way of determining these from first principles.

• The metric system is demonstrably easier to teach, learn and remember than the imperial system because all conversion factors between multiples are either 1, 10, 100 or 1000, and the units for different physical quantities are logically related to each other.
• The metric system is demonstrably easier to use in day-to-day commercial and technical calculations because all measurements are already expressed in terms of a single multiple in decimal form.
• In the imperial system most measurements are expressed as mixtures of two or more units and unit fractions such as yards, feet, inches and fractions of an inch which must be converted to a decimal number in terms of any one of these before even the simplest calculation can be performed e.g.
1 yd 2 ft 31⁄2 in = 5.29 ft
5 ft 31⁄2 in = 5.29 ft
2 lb 41⁄2 oz = 2.28 lb
1 ton 2 cwt 3 qt 4 lb = 1.139 tons
2 gal 3 qt 11⁄2 pint = 23.5 pints
1 acre 2 roods 321⁄2 perches = 1.703 acres

Metrication is still in its early stages in the USA which looks to Australia as an example and a model of how the process can be carried out. Because of the USA’s strong cultural influence upon us, Australia’s conversion can never be 100 per cent until that nation has also converted.

The metric system had already been successfully adopted within Australia in many fields of activity without difficulty and with considerable satisfaction to its users.

Although no meaningful estimate could be made of the cost and benefits which would result from the adoption of the metric system, the Committee was satisfied that the ultimate benefits would greatly exceed the costs of the conversion. The actual conversion costs could be considerably reduced by careful planning.

It has sometimes been suggested that Australia could have stood aside from this world movement towards adoption of the metric system which, of course, she could have done. In that case it would be increasingly necessary to live with the irritations of endless conversion associated with international communications, trade and new technology and some of the major problems would be:
• Exports would have to be increasingly repriced and repackaged for sale to metric countries.
• Imports would be increasingly from metric countries and would have to be repriced and repackaged or overprinted in imperial for use in Australia where metric designations would be meaningless.
• Repair and maintenance of imported equipment, cars etc., would become increasingly difficult, requiring special tools and special trade training.
• Manuals and instructions related to imported equipment would have to be converted for use by tradesmen, technical colleges etc. or employees retrained to use them.
• News items from overseas would tend to be less meaningful as also would be Australian news sent abroad.
• People travelling or working abroad would need to obtain a working knowledge of the metric system.
• Children being taught science at school and university would need to be taught the metric system to cope with overseas developments and technology. For much science there are no imperial units and teaching of electrical science would not be possible in imperial.
• Textbooks from overseas would generally be less useful than they are now because they would be in the wrong units.
• Craft books from overseas would have little application here because they would not relate to Australian measurements and materials.

A cost advantage could be expected in the purchase of imported materials from the broadening metric system market, rather than from the shrinking market using the imperial system

The quotes on education are really quite important to me; if a system is easier to learn and makes measurements in just about everything easier, then why aren't we using it? If it doesn't matter in terms of everyday life but does matter in terms of education, then is there really a debate?

Anyway... Not sure how many of you have seen this comic, but just to break the ice:

 

[Zebstrika]

how? its perfect for weather

0 is really cold
100 is hot

if its lower than 0 or higher than 100, you dont go outside

Also Celsius is pretty arbitrary too when you aren't working with water.

 

[Jorgen]

Well, water is kind of everywhere, so it's less arbitrary than most other things.

 

[Codraroll]

Also Celsius is pretty arbitrary too when you aren't working with water.

Well, it turns out that you will be working with water a lot more than it seems at first glance. One word: Precipitation.

Is it above zero degrees, it will fall as rain. The ground will be wet, mud will stay liquid, food can be stored outside, ponds will form and rivers and creeks will be filled up. Snow, if any, will melt.

Below zero, it's an entirely different world. Precipitation will fall as snow. Your drive/walk to work will be a lot more slippery (and biking would NOT be recommended). Food stored outside will risk spoiling by freezing. The ground will be hard and crunchy rather than soft and muddy. Snow, if any, will stay snow.

A quick glance at the forecast will tell you a lot about how you should expect tomorrow to be. Positive degrees are usually annotated in red, whereas negative temperatures are blue. Just by looking at the colours, you can tell if it will be safe to bike to work, or if you should get up early and walk instead. Negative temperatures next week? Better harvest from your apple tree this weekend, before the frost spoils the fruit. First positive temperatures this spring? Make sure your kids are equipped with waterproof footwear instead of snow boots. Temperatures dropping and clouds building up? Get up a little earlier tomorrow, 'cause you might have to get the snow away from your driveway before you can drive to work.

Above or below zero is a very significant difference, and it will usually have an effect on your daily life. It's way less intuitive if that limit goes at 32.

 

[Kingpoleon]

Also Celsius is pretty arbitrary too when you aren't working with water.

Isn't 100°C like 212°F? Anyway, the problem with this is that there are zoning was based on the U. S. system. How are we going to rescale those?

So, I apologize for the double post, but upon reading a blog advocating the metric system, I found a link to a PDF of a 1982 Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce report underlining Australian metrication. It's a really long report and I don't think anyone wants to spend time reading all of it, but I'll post a few bits of it I found to be the most significant & most relevant to the US:















The quotes on education are really quite important to me; if a system is easier to learn and makes measurements in just about everything easier, then why aren't we using it? If it doesn't matter in terms of everyday life but does matter in terms of education, then is there really a debate?

Anyway... Not sure how many of you have seen this comic, but just to break the ice:

Use this conversion^?

 

[billymills]

I have no idea what you are asking with any of the above questions. Please ensure your posts are more intelligible in the future.

 

[Kingpoleon]

I have no idea what you are asking with any of the above questions. Please ensure your posts are more intelligible in the future.

I switched from degrees to yards/meters. Sorry. The conversion I was talking about was in the comic, so yeah. Please tell me you understand the 212°F makes 100°C was a rhetorical question. Other than that, I have no idea why you are so confused.

 

[Stratos]

Well, it turns out that you will be working with water a lot more than it seems at first glance. One word: Precipitation.

Is it above zero degrees, it will fall as rain. The ground will be wet, mud will stay liquid, food can be stored outside, ponds will form and rivers and creeks will be filled up. Snow, if any, will melt.

Below zero, it's an entirely different world. Precipitation will fall as snow. Your drive/walk to work will be a lot more slippery (and biking would NOT be recommended). Food stored outside will risk spoiling by freezing. The ground will be hard and crunchy rather than soft and muddy. Snow, if any, will stay snow.

A quick glance at the forecast will tell you a lot about how you should expect tomorrow to be. Positive degrees are usually annotated in red, whereas negative temperatures are blue. Just by looking at the colours, you can tell if it will be safe to bike to work, or if you should get up early and walk instead. Negative temperatures next week? Better harvest from your apple tree this weekend, before the frost spoils the fruit. First positive temperatures this spring? Make sure your kids are equipped with waterproof footwear instead of snow boots. Temperatures dropping and clouds building up? Get up a little earlier tomorrow, 'cause you might have to get the snow away from your driveway before you can drive to work.

Above or below zero is a very significant difference, and it will usually have an effect on your daily life. It's way less intuitive if that limit goes at 32.

i feel like this scale is more appropriate in norway, where the only weather variance is "cold" to "really really really cold." In most places in the US, snow only comes two or three times a year. It's much more generally useful for weather to use a scale where as macle said, 0 is "too cold" and 100 is "too hot" and everything is in between.

 

[billymills]

Why do we use a centigrade scale at all?
As in why is a measurement out of 100 the standard?

It may be more useful to have a scale where one end is "too cold" and the other is "too hot," but why should the associated values be 0 and 100 respectively?

In my mind, Celsius makes more sense as a difference of 1 degree is actually tangible. Convince me that the difference between 71F and 72F is noticeable at all.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

You know, I live in San Diego where it's hardly ever below 50 degrees Fahrenheit (except at night during winter) and peak temperatures are usually roughly 91-95 (temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit are occasionally recorded though,) but I've never felt that way about Fahrenheit. To be honest, I've never liked the "100 degrees is too hot and 0 degrees is too cold" argument because "too hot" and "too cold" are subjective. Someone might think 80 degrees Fahrenheit is too hot and think that 20 degrees is too cold (or, if you live in Southern California, 50 degrees is too cold - I'm not joking, I've actually heard this from some, but not all of my friends)

The only argument for Fahrenheit that I can see is that 1 degree Fahrenheit is less than 1 degree Celsius, but even then... Can anyone actually feel a difference of 1 degree Fahrenheit, as billymills said? And does it make up for the really weird placement of the freezing and boiling points of water?

 

[DHR-107]

At least we dont go full metric and use Kelvin for temperature... Then Water freezes at like 273 Kelvin and a nice day is about 300 degrees K. A Kelvin degree equates to a Celsius, just the starting point is different. It makes it a lot easier to understand having a fixed point of "Water freezes at 0" as most people know that below 0 is fucking cold and upwards is warmer. UK is very strange because of the weather systems that effect us make us so much warmer than other countries on our latitudinal line. UK is the same latitude as Moscow and most of Canada, but we have very temperate weather (not that much snow at all).

If we used Kelvin: Then ALL metric systems would start from 0 and count up. There would be no "negative" temperatures (which means it equates out with other measures. You cant have negative metres/litres). Actually the more I think about it the more Temperature seems to be the odd one out here...

 

[Codraroll]

^No, you're confusing it with the SI system. SI and Metric are incredibly similar, but in Metric a couple of units are converted for everyday use. Those would be temperature (Celsius instead of Kelvin), volume (litres instead of cubic metres) and speed (km/h instead of m/s). However, the systems are very interchangeable and the connections between them are very intuitive. If you understand one, you probably understand the other too.

 

[asterat]

The metric system is easier to learn and undeniably better than US units. So... Why are Americans so stubborn? Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act in 1975, which ultimately failed. As of now, politicians are not willing to try again (though there is a bill in Hawaii which, if passed, would mandate use of the metric system in Hawaii by 2018, but this seems unlikely to pass given how Americans are in general.)

It seems to me that the vast majority of Americans are simply too lazy to learn a new system of measurements/are used to US units/tradition bullshit. Issues with cost are also brought up, but I find that they focus solely on the up-front costs of metrication. We essentially have to work in metric units for trade, but we also have to use US units for the domestic market, which is really quite inefficient. It also led to the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter in September 1999. Expensive mistake there!

inflammatory

First off can you calm your racist tits. The metric system is not "better," and that statement is ridiculous. US units make total sense because they are a lot more applicable to everyday life. I agree that scientifically the metric system is more sensible but we don't do science in the US for everyday life I think US units are more applicable. For example temperature where I live ranges from roughly 0-100 with 0 and 100 being somewhat extremes. What's more practical than that? The metric system ranges from like -10 to 40 or something, doesn't that seems a lot more confusing? 0-100 is a lot easier to think about. I know 0-100 is what the Celsius scale is based off of, but that's not how it really works unless you're manipulating the temperature with outside forces.

I'll remind you Americans are the only major country that didn't lose 50 million or something people in WWII, and to me that sound smart. Not lazy or stubborn.

 

[Zebstrika]

If we used Kelvin: Then ALL metric systems would start from 0 and count up. There would be no "negative" temperatures (which means it equates out with other measures. You cant have negative metres/litres). Actually the more I think about it the more Temperature seems to be the odd one out here...

And then you could also multiply temperatures, ie 200 K has like twice the thermal energy as something that is 100 K (assuming they are the same state of matter and stuff...yada yada).

It's one of my pet peeves when someone tries to say 30 degrees is twice as hot as 15 degrees in Farenheit or Celsius...

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

First off can you calm your racist tits. The metric system is not "better," and that statement is ridiculous. US units make total sense because they are a lot more applicable to everyday life. I agree that scientifically the metric system is more sensible but we don't do science in the US for everyday life I think US units are more applicable. For example temperature where I live ranges from roughly 0-100 with 0 and 100 being somewhat extremes. What's more practical than that? The metric system ranges from like -10 to 40 or something, doesn't that seems a lot more confusing? 0-100 is a lot easier to think about. I know 0-100 is what the Celsius scale is based off of, but that's not how it really works unless you're manipulating the temperature with outside forces.

I'll remind you Americans are the only major country that didn't lose 50 million or something people in WWII, and to me that sound smart. Not lazy or stubborn.

US units make sense to you in everyday life because you grew up with them. That's the only reason.

Also, what is with this idea of having 0 being "too cold" and 100 being "too hot"? These still strike me as being subjective, but if you want to base a temperature scale on something subjective, we can do that with Celsius too:

40+: Too hot
30-40: Hot
20-30: Warm
10-20: Chilly
0-10: Cold

And if it's negative... Well, make sure you and your kids are wearing coats instead of hoodies.

But in all seriousness, I'd rather have 0 and 100 be defined as something objective, for example 0 being "water freezes" and 100 being "water boils" like it is in Celsius.

 

[Focus]

Since nobody brought this up yet, here is something for you US/customary/British/imperial unit users out there:

xkcd

For everyday use, there's not really a significant advantage over using either customary units and metric units. I have learned both and use both on a daily basis. That being said, I do agree that metric is generally easier to use for scientific and engineering purposes. SI is even better. Honestly, one of the big reasons that I switched from being a petroleum engineering major to an aerospace engineering major was the awful unit conversions and the need to memorize lots of conversion constants like between cubic feet and gallons. In my opinion, metric is a better system overall, even if you do lose some historical flavor. I don't see the US fully committing to the metric system anytime within the next several decades because if there's one country that's averse to short-term pain, it's the US.

It's nice that water freezes and boils at respectively 0 and 100 °C, and it's nice that a liter of water has a mass of kilogram. Sure, a pound is a unit of both pound and mass, but that causes ambiguities and other problems since the acceleration of gravity is not normalized to 1. Degrees Fahrenheit is more precise than degrees Celcius, but realistically a human is not likely to be able to estimate temperature with that kind of precision anyway. Not that metric or even SI is perfect. The whole second-minute-hour situation is an obvious inconsistency with the otherwise nice and easy factors of ten. These factors of 60 are also in angle measurements (degrees, minutes, seconds) and are kinda clunky at times, though miliradians and microradians are often used to measure really small angles.

P.S. As for SI, it is a bit silly how the kilogram is the base unit rather than the gram (millikilogram?). It's probably too much effort to get everyone to call a kilogram something else. Then again, maybe that could come with redefining the "kilogram" to be based off of fundamental constants rather than the mass of some chunk of metal in France. And nobody talks of kiloseconds or higher anyway.

 

[Soul Fly]

P.S. As for SI, it is a bit silly how the kilogram is the base unit rather than the gram (millikilogram?). It's probably too much effort to get everyone to call a kilogram something else. Then again, maybe that could come with redefining the "kilogram" to be based off of fundamental constants rather than the mass of some chunk of metal in France. And nobody talks of kiloseconds or higher anyway.

Scientists around the world are doing exactly that right about now. This video should answer all your questions