Since large-scale surveying wasn’t very good in the middle ages, it was decided in the early modern era to adjust the English mile to exactly eight furlongs, which is how we ended up with 5280 feet, which is rather more than a Roman mile.
I don’t feel the same love for the metric system. Many things can be improved on but should they? It’s not so much if it’s not broke don’t fix it, but a pompus let them convert to our system. There is a reason we are a super power. I.E. world police, big cheese. Because we don’t think the same way as others do. There is something to be said about simplicity. I think we have done enough to accomidate the rest of the world.
Well, yes, but the non-metric systems aren’t simpler.
Such as…?
1 mi = 5280 ft = 63,360 in
1 km = 1000 m = 100,000 cm
1 ton = 2,000 lb = 32,000 oz = 512,000 grains
1 ton = 1,000 kg = 1,000,000 g
1 gal = 4 quarts = 128 fl oz
1 l = 1,000 ml
I can see your point entirely.
Actually, that’s 1 ton = 2,000 lb = 32,000 oz = 512,000 drams = 14,000,000 grains
Except when 1 ton = 2240 lb = 35,800 oz = 573,440 drachms = 15,680,000 grains
which is 231 cubic inches
Except when 1 gal = 4 quarts = 268.8025 cubic inches
Or except when 1 gal = 4 quarts = 160 fl oz ~= 277.42 cubic inches
You are correct, sir. I dunno why I didn’t just multiply pounds by 7,000 to get grains (which I already knew) rather what I did which was to look up grains per ounce and multiply. I don’t know how drams snuck in; finger bumped a line up, I suppose.
And I figured the point was made without dragging long tons vs. short tons, or imperial vs. US gallons, never mind dragging more obscure references to firkins, furlongs, or stone.
In reality - well, at least in Canada where metric system is in place - the imperial system is still in widely used when it comes to anything related to construction materials (in the aforementioned example, you’d still be asking for a 8 by 4 plywood sheet). Additionally, the imperial system is also widely used for measurement of weight & height of individuals - most people have no idea how they weight in kilograms or what is their height in meters…
:rolleyes:
You’ve obviously never tried to do engineering calculations of any complexity in U.S. customary units. The problem is that in the U.S. system, force and mass are both called pounds.
The correction factor g[sub]c[/sub], equal to 32.174 lbm-ft/(lbf-s[sup]2[/sup]),is used to resolve equations involving both force and mass expressed as pounds. For example, in writing Newton’s second law, the equation would be written as F = ma/g[sub]c[/sub].
Getting involved with fluids, viscosities, Reynold’s numbers, etc. are even more of a pain in the neck.
The SI system (a version of the “metric” system) is infinitely easier to use.
You may not be aware of this, but in the sciences, we have already converted to the SI system. I feel confident in stating that there is no chemistry or physics course being taught today in the U.S. that does not use the SI system.
If we used the metric system in our everyday lives, it would be one less stumbling block for students when they take these courses for the first time. For example, they would already know that pascals ¶ are a unit of pressure, instead of hearing this for the first time in high school.
Nobody is talking about bringing back standard units to Engineering and Physics. Those have been good changes.
What is proposed is a forced conversion to metric for everyday Americans. What benefit could that possibly have?
And if it had a 10 cent benefit, the greedy U.S. capitalists would be all over it in a second.
The free market really does work. The fact that standard units are already established leaves the burden on the pro-metrification people ( I didn’t know any were still alive) that there is a compelling reason to change.
I am perfectly happy buying steak by the pound, and the local butcher is happy selling it by the pound. Convince either or both of us the benefit of retooling our scales and our minds to think of them in differnt measures.
And again, if you could save me money or the butcher money, either of us would jump at the chance. But you can’t, and that was what happened in the '70s and what will continue to happen.
As long as there is a strong internal U.S. market for anything, there will be suppliers who continue with the status quo.
As long as there are houses in need of 4 X 8 sheets of plywood, lumbar yards will crank them out at that size.
As long as people are buying gallons/half gallons/quarts of milk in the grocery store, why would they mess with it? It’s a staple item, and if you replace it with a 4 liter/2 liter/1 liter bottle, do you want asshole customers at the manager’s stand accusing you of cheating them out of 4 cents? Of course not. You don’t mess with success, or even familiarity, unless you can see some real, tangible benefit from it…
Money, money, money…oh and pride. The precious economy. I don’t know much at all(really am not educated)Uhm socialist…,uhm… but I do know greed when I see it. But I do think perhaps a conversion would speed up the overtaking of the rest of the world. Ha, a joke.
But that’s a problem now, without any changing to the metric system.
I did some carpentry work in my Grandmothers house (built pre-1900), only to find problems when I went to install it – her 2x4’s actually were 2" x 4". I had allowed for a smaller size than the nominal, like modern 2x4’s are.
And that happens even with with newer construction. When I was in high school, a 2x4 was really 1/4" smaller – 1-3/4 x 3-3/4. Now they are 1/2" smaller, like you said. So when working on an existing structure, you need to check all the 2x4’s to see what size they really are. Just as you would if your new lumber was in ‘metric’ sizes.
Who, if anyone, sets the standards for lumber and other construction materials?
I naively assumed that anything sold as a 2x4 had better be an actual 2x4.
I’m not sure of the details, but I seem to remember that a 2x4 was 2"x4" before its final finishing, which involves planing down the surfaces. That’s why a finished 2x4 is not necessarily two anythings by four anythings.
I’m sure someone will be along with a cutlass (it’s “Talk Like A Pirate Day,” after all) to slice the above statement to ribbons, though.
RR
That explanation is the way I have understood things to be since they were first explained to me fifty years ago. But if 2x4s were really 2x4" a mere century ago, I’m beginning to wonder if it’s just another manifestation of the same greed that has made it virtually impossible to get pre-aged lumber anymore.
The US has never used the Imperial system.
That same explanation was given to me too decades ago, in shop class.
But I don’t believe it anymore.
It doesn’t explain why the finished size went from 1/4" less to 1/2" less than the nominal size in past years. Did planers suddenly start taking more of the wood? Do modern electronically-controlled planers not work as accurately as the experienced lumberyard workers of the past?
Instead, I believe that the lumber industry arbitrarily cut the size of a “2x4” to make more profit.
Why can’t it be a combinatin of the answers? That is, at one point, it reflected the finishing waste, but now it’s a further downsizing to get more lumber out of the same tree?
The reason I always heard was that “studies” showed that the 1/4 " reduction made minimal changes to safety, maximum loads, etc., and the cost savings were large. Of course this may be an urban legend or complete nonsense…