Pushing for total metric in the US: is a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of a small mind?

[Baffle]

@Balthisar

This. I was raised on Fahrenheit (disclosure: I lived on an international border and was exposed daily to Celsius, but never used it myself). But I’ve also lived (and currently do) in metric countries. Either system is perfectly fine by me, and there’s not one that’s more usable than the other. Heck, in my kitchen I regularly use both (sous vide is in F, oven in C, ThermoPen in F, fridge in C).

It just so happens that I was watching a NOVA episode last night, and I wanted to compare the 50 mile altitude that they mentioned to a typical airliner cruising altitude of 36,000 feet. So, yeah, I pulled out the calculator and used my memorized 5280 feet conversion. And you know what? It wasn’t obnoxious in the least. It’s not difficult to remember these conversions. I’m old and use my calculator (or Excel) for pretty much anything these days, and it wasn’t obnoxious to require it, either.

If the given altitude was 80 km and the airline altitude 11 km, you would not have needed a calculator.

And anyone who thinks fractional inches are useful has never found their 3/16 drill bit to be one size too small. Typical thought process: “What comes next… hmm… sixteen is three times as small as 64, so we need to multiply by three… that’s 9/64… one bigger is 10/64… I dont have that size… no wait, it’s 5/32… but wait, that’s smaller than 3/16… oh shit, I actually needed to multiply by 4.”

[kopek]

@running_coach

Same here. I hated having to buy two adjustable wrenches.

Adjustable? <holds fingers in the standard Vampire movie cross shape> Get thee away, foul creature!!!

And on the serious side, there are places where it just isn’t an option. For the regular nut and bolt, sure; some times. But a lot of what frustrates me can be the hex and others where there really isn’t a good “one size fits most” choice and tight spots where something that size/shape just doesn’t fit.

[Yllaria]

@jz78817

. . . where it does matter (science and engineering,) we’ve already converted.

@excavating_for_a_mind

Only if you pick and choose. If you look at petroleum engineering, for example, the available reserves in a particular well is calculated as the number of (42-gallon) barrels. In the newest, biggest, deep ocean drill ships, the drill pipe used is 6-5/8" pipe with 6-5/8 Full Hole connections. The casing sizes are alll in inches. The density of the drilling fluid is measured in pounds per gallon. I guess you could say petroleum engineering doesn’t really matter, though.

Of course, the folks who use such measurements are all oilfield trash, so that may explain it.

Civil Engineering is also American Imperial, at least the public works parts are. Caltrans tried for most of a decade to get everyone to switch, but gave up and went back.

And I’ve never heard of an engineer having to switch miles and yards, but miles and feet, definitely. In fact older engineers used to rag on younger ones who had to look up, say the conversion between gallons and acre-feet. Before personal computers it was a point of engineering pride to have all that memorized and on the tip of your mind.

That’s Petroleum and Civil Engineering - if I had to guess, I’d say that it’s mostly scientists who have converted. Any Mechanical Engineers want to comment?

@jz78817

go look at some old American cookbooks where they tell you to bake in a “slow” or “moderate” oven.

That reminds me of a cooking booklet that I inherited. It was a PR cookbook from a gas company touting the benefits of the new gas ovens that could be dialed to a set temperature. Once the oven came up to temperature, it would stay at that temperature automatically. :eek:

I found an online cookbook review website whose owner collects cookbooks. She gave the booklet a good home.

@Chronos

. . . If an amusement park ride requires a minimum of 56 inches, and my kid is 4’9", should we bother going to the park, or wait until next year? . . .

Make the kid do the calculation. Then it’s not only ‘you have to be this tall’ but ‘you have to be this smart’, too.

[Yllaria]

@ebsarvesh

Okay, thanks for the info. Well I guess you learn something new every day!

But those units are for liquids and are related to the gallon - which is not required because you can use milliliters, centiliters and liters! (In the UK, you often see wine bottles measured in centiliters, e.g. 75 cl = 0.75 l = 750 ml.)

It looks like the wine bottle sizes with the biblical names are also in liters.

[ebsarvesh]

@Baffle

And anyone who thinks fractional inches are useful has never found their 3/16 drill bit to be one size too small. Typical thought process: “What comes next… hmm… sixteen is three times as small as 64, so we need to multiply by three… that’s 9/64… one bigger is 10/64… I dont have that size… no wait, it’s 5/32… but wait, that’s smaller than 3/16… oh shit, I actually needed to multiply by 4.”

Yeah that’s one of the drawbacks of imperial measurements… If you need a drill between 3/16 and 4/16 (1/4), you then have to go to however many over 32, if a 7/32 is then too big you then have to go for something over 64, and my head then gets in a twist due to having to use various different multiples all the time.

With metric, if I find out that 17mm is too big, I can easily find a 16mm, and try that… or use multiples of 0.5mm if required. So simple and easy!

You summed up the Imperial system nicely there.

@Yllaria

Make the kid do the calculation. Then it’s not only ‘you have to be this tall’ but ‘you have to be this smart’, too.

Another thing to remember… how many inches in a foot, and then trying to work out how to get feet back to inches… At least with centimeters and meters, you know how to sort out calculations because they are all linked by factors of 10.

@Yllaria

It looks like the wine bottle sizes with the biblical names are also in liters.

Which is a much easier system to work with, you can cover relatively small amounts (say 0.1 l) or relatively large amounts (say 50 l) all with one unit - comfortably, as well.

[bump]

@PastTense

And it’s trivially easy for you convert yards to miles off the top of your head, right?

Well, yeah. Divide by 1760. It’s probably a piece of trivia that stuck with me, but it would be easily enough calculated, considering that I also know that there are 5280 feet to the mile.

What baffles me the most about the US system is when items aren’t in a round quantity in one or the other system.

I mean, I’ve seen things where it’s like 367 ml/12.4 oz. Why not round up to 370 or 12.5? Weird.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I think most of those are remnants of really old measurements, like “half a hogshead” and the like.

[ebsarvesh]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I think most of those are remnants of really old measurements, like “half a hogshead” and the like.

Still don’t even know what a hogs head is, or would be used for… I can’t get to grips with such weird names and weird measurements! Just give us everything in metric units and all will be fine

[Aeschines]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

At first, I thought this was a parody. None of these are examples of Imperial units being “better”. They are examples of your preferences.

Sort of, but not totally. Switching from yard/foot/inch to meter/centimeter means, quite objectively, dropping in-between unit of the foot and not replacing it with anything. Sure, you can say it’s “my preference” to have such a unit, but apparently it was the preference of a lot of people who used the foot instead of just using yards and inches.

You could also say that the easy conversion of metric units is just a matter of preference–but I wouldn’t.

I find it hard to believe you genuinely can’t tell the difference.

I find it hard to believe you’ve read what I’ve written, then.

[Balthisar]

@Baffle

If the given altitude was 80 km and the airline altitude 11 km, you would not have needed a calculator.

Internationally (and with only a few exceptions), flight levels are derived from feet.

But, yeah, isn’t NOVA a progressive PBS thing? I’m surprised they were using miles.

[Mangetout]

@bump

What baffles me the most about the US system is when items aren’t in a round quantity in one or the other system.

I mean, I’ve seen things where it’s like 367 ml/12.4 oz. Why not round up to 370 or 12.5? Weird.

You may find in cases like that, the price is the rounded-off thing. Products are sometimes sized to meet a specific price point.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

A CNN.com article on ongoing but not entirely consistent American resistance to the metric system: America's only metric road

[BrotherCadfael]

@Blaster_Master

There’s 5280 ft in a mile, and that’s obnoxious

But it’s not completely random, either. The English measurements do in fact relate to each other in interesting ways.

Here is how lengths and area relate:

16.5 feet = 1 rod (once the standard width of a road - also the standard length of a fence rail.)
4 rods = 1 chain (66 feet, still occasionally used as a surveyor’s measure)
10 chains = 1 furlong (660 feet)
8 furlongs = 1 mile (5280 feet)

10 square chains (66 x 660 feet) = 1 acre = 43560 square feet

Interesting from a historical perspective. Not particularly relevant to the English/metric debate.