Taking the Measure

Rick Nelson, editor in chief of Test & Measurement World and EDN, comments on test, globalization, measurement, machine vision, economics, nanotechnology, the engineering profession, and topics of general interest.

Advertisement

Profile

About Me

RSS Feed

Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Test & Measurement Articles

Blog

Taking the Measure

« Hang up and drive, hang up and... | Main | Watch out for little green ter... »

Monday, July 28, 2008

Metric system rears ugly head in US election

Jul 28 2008 8:10AM | Permalink |Comments (55) |

Americans have clung proudly and stubbornly to the USA measurement system, resisting a switch to the metric system, despite the occasional catastrophe that might be avoided by getting onboard with the rest of the world. Now, the metric system has become an issue in the US presidential election.

Bringing the issue to the forefront was an article in the German tabloid Bild titled “I worked out with Obama!” In the article, Bild reporter Judith Bonesky writes of observing the candidate working out in the gym of the Ritz Carlton hotel in Berlin: “He goes and picks up a pair of 16 kilo weights and starts curling them with his left and right arms, 30 repetitions on each side. Then, amazingly, he picks up the 32 kilo weights! Very slowly he lifts them, first 10 curls with his right, then 10 with his left. He breathes deeply in and out and takes a sip of water from his 0,5 litre Evian bottle.”

Now the report is definitely over-the-top. (If the exclamation marks don’t clue you in, the all-caps conclusion—“WHAT A MAN!"—surely would.) But nothing about Obama's behavior as described by Bonesky struck me as particularly controversial. Fortunately, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto was more observant. In “Take Me to Your Litre,” he points out that the above quoted paragraph embodies the “…single most disturbing thing we have heard about Barack Obama.” Taranto continues, “This shows just how far to the left the Democratic Party has lurched since 2004. Back then, the party decisively rejected Howard Dean, an advocate of the metric system, in favor of the ‘electable’ John Kerry, who kept any pro-metric sympathies to himself. Now the Dems have nominated someone who actually uses the metric system.”

So I guess politically-correct* American citizens must take their own 35- and 70-lb dumbbells and 16-oz water bottles along with them if they plan to work out when overseas. (The extra jet fuel required to transport the weights will be a small price to pay to demonstrate true patriotism.)

Until now, my motto has always been “When in Rome, bench-press what the Romans bench-press.” But now I vow to reform.

*But isn’t the Journal a publication that frequently criticizes political correctness?

Update: Bloggers have questioned whether Obama would be likely to be able to curl 32 kg. The reference to curling may have been introduced in the translation from the German; the original uses “stemmt er” and “hebt er” to describe what Obama was doing with the 16- and 32-kg weights. Perhaps he was performing a dumbbell bent-over row.

Related entries in: Coordinate Measurement Machines | Dimensional Measurement |

Reader Comments

at 7/28/2008 11:05:36 AM, Paul Rako said:
When I was at GM in 1972 they swore that the entire auto industry would be metric by 1976. I guessed they missed that bogey. (Other than renaming 1/4 inch fasters 6.35 mm.) The problem was that the entire country is full of machinists with SAE taps and mechanics with English tools. I have had several mechanical engineers tell the that the English thread system is more practical, the sizes and thread pitch more chosen for strength, as opposed to the metric fasteners that just pick nice numbers for the thread diameter and pitch. All I know is that with 6 Harley's, you can have my SAE fasteners when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

at 7/28/2008 2:22:28 PM, Policebox said:
I would like to know what the fuss is! Back in the 70's the argument that nobody had tools for the metric fasteners was legit. It isn't true anymore. Most machine shops and garages have two sets of tools now.

at 7/28/2008 2:25:25 PM, Cris said:
I worked for years with both systems and my conclusion is that the longer it takes to switch to the metric system the more expensive it will be. Yes, I have no doubt that the metric system will prevail.

at 7/28/2008 2:26:41 PM, Rich said:
I agree that US is stubbornly retaining English measure but this is surely not our most proud action. I recalled (incorrectly) that US became officially metric at inception, but not quite. I found this on the web:
"The metric system originated in France in the 1790's, a few years after Jefferson's proposals. During the mid-nineteenth century, as expanding trade demanded a consistent set of measurements, use of the metric system spread through continental Europe. As they imported goods from Europe or exported goods to Europe, Americans became increasingly aware of the metric system. In 1866, Congress legalized its use in an act reading:
It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system.
As a result, the U. S. has been "metric" since 1866, but only in the sense that Americans have been free since that time to use the metric system as much as they like. Although there has always been popular resistance to changing the traditional measures, the metric system has actually enjoyed strong support from American business leaders and scientists since the late nineteenth century. In 1875, the U.S. was one of the original signers of the Treaty of the Meter, which established the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM). This agency administers the International System of Units, the official version of the metric system. American scientists and engineers have always been among the leaders in improving, extending, and revising the metric system. The general public, however, has lagged far behind."

at 7/28/2008 2:26:48 PM, W17053 said:
We were told the same in school: the U. S. A. would be metric by 1976. We used Metric in Middle and High Schools Science classes, while Drafting still used the inch system. Not much else changed to Metric, and seemed to be dropped in the later years. I heard some of it was due to the large re-investment that would be needed as well as all of the shops and Machinist that had their own tools, not to mention the re-training (re-thinking?) that would be needed. I think the idea was to blend-in the new Metric trained graduates so the transition would happen over a few decades.

at 7/28/2008 2:48:13 PM, BureaucrateNOT said:
Let the market place determine who will win instead of a bureaucrat in Washington or in the EU telling me what to do. Sounds like the English system does have some benefits that metric doesn't. But "NO" a stupid buercratic will make a decision for me. Please help us all!!!!!!!!!!!

at 7/28/2008 2:48:13 PM, BureaucrateNOT said:
Let the market place determine who will win instead of a bureaucrat in Washington or in the EU telling me what to do. Sounds like the English system does have some benefits that metric doesn't. But "NO" a stupid buercratic will make a decision for me. Please help us all!!!!!!!!!!!

at 7/28/2008 4:21:27 PM, NeverMetric said:
As stated earlier, the metric bolts are not as "good" as the english. The sizes are chosen to be convenient and not for optimal strength or usefulness. I guess countries that use the metric system just don't have people who can think when it's not an even multiple. But then again, since the US has saved the world twice now, you'd think the LEAST they could do is use our better measurement system.

at 7/28/2008 4:23:04 PM, Tara Drennen said:
We are metric, whether we use metric measures or not: the inch is *officially defined* as exactly 2.54 cm.

at 7/28/2008 5:57:54 PM, Tarno_INZ said:
Electrical measurements are metric. Volts, Amperes, Watts are all metric measurements. It is all a matter of what measurement system works best for a given task. Screws come in number 2, 4, 6, etc. sizes. This is a measurement system unto itself. And yes, ultimately Tara is correct the US lengths are defined in terms of the meter.

at 7/28/2008 6:04:37 PM, neil said:
You already use the metric system. Camera lense's focal lengths are measured in mm. and I have seen many american magazine articles that include both metric and imperial measuremants in the same article.

Shooting mags for instance and engineering mags.

at 7/28/2008 6:34:52 PM, Jeff said:
Once you get used to the change, the metric system is far easier and more convenient to use. English money used to consist of a pound divided into 20 shillings each having 12 pennies. The penny was divided into halfpennies and farthings (1/4 penny). They had a threepenny piece, a sixpenny piece, a 2 shilling piece, a half crown (2.5 shillings) and a crown (5 shillings). They also had a guinea which was 21 shillings. Meanwhile the USA adopted a Dollar divided into 100 cents. Why we stopped there I will never know but now we even quote stock prices in 1/8% units. Crazy!!!!!

at 7/28/2008 9:09:16 PM, Voice of Truth said:
When we get rid of the inane 9/10 cent added to $4/gallon gasoline prices, you can talk to me about metric vs. English.

at 7/29/2008 1:31:03 AM, Darren Holdstock, UK said:
My flabber is absolutely gasted - how can a professional test and measurement publication possibly defend the archaic imperial system? At least dip a tentative toe into the scientific ingenuity of the 19th century. I'll concede the point about metric threads though - the standard ones are too fine, though coarser versions exist for high-tensile applications. The pinnacle of threading is the Whitworth system, for which the right thread for the right material for the right application for the right diameter were the main criterias. BTW, there are 3 different inches - the US inch, the UK inch, and the international inch, take your pick. None are quite the exact 25.4 mm as advertised.

at 7/29/2008 1:58:34 AM, Notable Enginneer said:
Here here Darren Holdstock...

at 7/29/2008 1:58:34 AM, Notable Enginneer said:
Here here Darren Holdstock...

at 7/29/2008 6:03:27 AM, MLW said:
"rears ugly head" ??? What does that even mean? It's time for journalists and writers to get over it. Making fun of the metric system is cliche and boorish.

at 7/29/2008 6:29:06 AM, Darren Holdstock, UK said:
I've calmed down now. Wait - no I haven't: The US has had the opportunity to lead the world by example, but instead the adherence to imperial leads to costly misunderstanding and puts US engineers at a disadvantage on the international stage. Despite this the USA still manages to produce some of the worlds finest engineers, or is it that the extra brain processing required to work in imperial raises their overall game? Whatever, the rest of the world speaks one eminently sensible language, the US doesn't. I'm of the last generation in the UK to be taught in imperial and metric and I'm equally conversant in both. I don't mind my rented vegetable plot being measured in rods (that's quite cute), but I'd like my datasheets in metric, pretty please.

at 7/29/2008 9:04:26 AM, lcsjk said:
In the US every transistor and IC (and I mean every one) is rated at a room temp of 25C. All temperature ratings are in degrees C. Nearly every electronics component and package is listed in both metric and english equivalents. As far as saying the metric bolts are not as "good" as the english. Perhaps you should ask why Toyota's have been more reliable than any US made car since 1983. Perhaps no one told them that by using the english system they would have been twice as reliable (sarcasm). Engineers should not allow themselves to believe statements that border on stupidity - think for yourself!

at 7/29/2008 9:30:14 AM, Rick Nelson said:
To Paul (first comment): Maybe we can pass an amendment guaranteeing the right to bear SAE fasteners.

at 7/29/2008 10:06:36 AM, That Other Guy said:
You all miss the point. A measurement system is merely a frame of reference. "Definitions" of the units therein exist to provide continuity of use and the ability for conversion to the system the next guy happens to be using. No system is better or worse than another, and none has a distinct advantage, when each person is truly fluent in the system of his upbringing &/or education. Also, you can't blame the measurement system for poor engineering decisions. Just because a certain number metric thread is finer does not mean the engineer has to specify it for a particular application. It's up to the engineer to specify hardware strong enough for the job independent of the system used to measure its size.
I’ll address some specific comments in subsequent posts.

at 7/29/2008 10:08:08 AM, That Other Guy said:
Tara Drennen mistakes a conversion factor for a definition. The English system - called "imperial" by its detractors - predated the Metric, thus it is absurd to assert that English units are defined by the Metric system! This lack of fluency is what leads to errors.

at 7/29/2008 10:09:07 AM, That Other Guy said:
Tarno_INZ asserts that Volts, Amps and the like are Metric measurements. They are also English measurements. They are measurements for non-physical quantities that came about, if I recall correctly, after both the English and Metric systems were in use and as such their definitions exist and works equally well in both systems.

at 7/29/2008 10:10:19 AM, That Other Guy said:
Rich, after calling all of us stubborn (and implying that we should be ashamed) for clinging to the system of measurement we have used since the founding of our country, uses a quote he found on the web (which, we all know, makes it the gospel of truth) as proof that we are "officially" a Metric country and have been for some time. I must have missed that memo. The 1866 & 1875 acts of Congress that gave legal protection to the Metric system and recognized its use in foreign trade do NOT mandate its use internally. They don't even suggest it. To imply otherwise is incorrect, and illogical. Were we to read our Declaration & Bill of Rights with Rich's legal understanding, particularly the part where Congress gave legal protection to religion, we would conclude that we are also "officially" a religious country, and those not actively practicing some form of religion are just stubborn and should be ashamed. (Hmmm... Come to think of it...)

at 7/29/2008 10:11:23 AM, That Other Guy said:
Also, I wonder if, when reading his shooting magazines, neil ever read about .308's, or 30-06's, or 45 caliber guns? Or why engineering magazines speak of horsepower, ft-lbs (sometimes lbs-ft) of torque, MPH/KPH/GPH/PSI, and acres as much, if not more so, than their Metric counterparts? There's as much English as Metric there, too, neil...or do you just tune out inconvenient facts like the rest of the activists?

at 7/29/2008 10:12:41 AM, That Other Guy said:
And finally (for now), lcsjk asserts that Toyotas have been more reliable than “any” US car made since 1983. (Why that year, lcsjk? Why not just say “ever?”) This one’s rich! I almost don’t know where to start! Perhaps I should start by agreeing with lcsjk when he says, “Engineers should not allow themselves to believe statements that border on stupidity…” Hilarious, considering that the whole premise of his response is based on the assertion that it is the system of measurement chosen that makes a particular product (in his example, Toyotas) appear more reliable. So much for the border of stupidity. That assertion certainly crosses it!
If anyone reading this really can’t figure out how cars built with lighter gauge metal, thinner paint, smaller bearings supporting higher-RPM parts, and fewer welds can be made to appear more reliable let me know.

at 7/29/2008 10:56:55 AM, RXon said:
Reliability is about low error tolerance.
Measurement system is about practicality.
Example:
Calculate a side of a cube containing
1000 volume units of water. In a metric
system you do it without even thinking,
but try it with gallons and inches!!

at 7/29/2008 11:27:46 AM, Darren Holdstock, UK said:
Oops, cultural misunderstanding (which is why I put the "UK" after my name, to buy a bit of leeway). I mean no slight when referring to the term "imperial", it's what inches and perches and firkins and stuff are called in Europe. "English" means nothing to us when referring to measurements, but metric means metric the world over. There's a big, big difference between physics in imperial and metric. In the latter system, everything connects neatly to everything else, nice and decimal, with maybe the occasional universal constant. Imperial calculations are shot through with fudge factors due to their intrinsically arbitrary nature. How many square widths of the king's thumb (inches) are there in the amount of land a horse can plough in one day (acres)?

at 7/29/2008 12:44:48 PM, Hopelessly Metrified said:
When consulting the weather, I use degrees F, when operating a semiconductor reactor, it's degrees C, if using cryogenics, it's Kelvins, when working on my '72 Thunderbird, it's SAE, and when working on my mother's '85 LeBaron, it's metric. When in Rome(s)...

at 7/29/2008 2:07:57 PM, Noxid UK said:
No country in the world is metric. To be metric is to be exclusively decimal. The UK uses a mixture and the European Union's system is officially known as the Compound System, because it's a mixture of English and decimal units. All countries use a compound system of their own devising. A scientist recently pointed out to a senior British politician, Geoffrey Howe, who is a pro-metricator, that the real issue is not whether we convert to metric but which compound system is adopted as the international standard, the EU's or another version. In addition to mixed decimal and English systems of weights and measures, some individual units are also compound e.g. the kilowatt hour. The watt and hour are English or non metric (non decimal) units, kilo is metric. The true metric or decimal system disinvented itself as soon as it was invented because nature isn't decimal (eyes, legs and time, etc.) and the great discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries all had to be incorporated into or measured in the English system as they couldn't be incorporated into the metric system.

at 7/29/2008 2:11:58 PM, Robin Hood said:
Actually the Sherrif of Nottingham wants to make it a criminal offence to use our traditional measures. So, where is the freedom? I am a simple English archer and I measure distances in paces of about a yard.

at 7/30/2008 2:43:32 PM, Michael said:
I have designed mechanical contraptions in both english and metric units for years. If I don't do english for a while, I have to look at a chart to remind myself that a #10 screw is .190 and a #8 is .160. If I don't do metric for a while, I know a 5 mm screw is, well, 5 mm. It's way more efficient. My car has a 3.5 l engine. If I want to convert that to cubic meters, I can do that in my head. If I want to convert the equivalent 213 cu in to cu feet, I would not only need to figure out the cube of 12 or remember what that is, but also end up using a calculator to get the final figure. Metric is simply much more efficient. Why do Americans insist on being inefficient? It's ingrained. We waste a huge amount of time doing taxes, run air conditioners rather than insulate, drive around 3 tons to transport one person, go the the store to pick up one quart of milk, burn incandescent bulbs for better "

at 7/30/2008 2:43:32 PM, Michael said:
I have designed mechanical contraptions in both english and metric units for years. If I don't do english for a while, I have to look at a chart to remind myself that a #10 screw is .190 and a #8 is .160. If I don't do metric for a while, I know a 5 mm screw is, well, 5 mm. It's way more efficient. My car has a 3.5 l engine. If I want to convert that to cubic meters, I can do that in my head. If I want to convert the equivalent 213 cu in to cu feet, I would not only need to figure out the cube of 12 or remember what that is, but also end up using a calculator to get the final figure. Metric is simply much more efficient. Why do Americans insist on being inefficient? It's ingrained. We waste a huge amount of time doing taxes, run air conditioners rather than insulate, drive around 3 tons to transport one person, go the the store to pick up one quart of milk, burn incandescent bulbs for better "

at 7/30/2008 2:46:41 PM, Michael said:
(continuation - remainder was cut off) burn incandescent bulbs for better "color", etc. Hurts our competitiveness. But we don't worry about foreigners eating our lunch, do we?

at 7/30/2008 2:46:41 PM, Michael said:
(continuation - remainder was cut off) burn incandescent bulbs for better "color", etc. Hurts our competitiveness. But we don't worry about foreigners eating our lunch, do we?

at 8/2/2008 1:26:03 PM, Michael said:
Currently the USA and Burma are the last countries in the World using the imperial system.
Sooner or later the USA will have to start using the SI Units in order not to loose commercial competitiveness.
BTW, what for export goods does the USA produce anyway? It is all made in the EU or China.

at 8/2/2008 1:39:49 PM, Michael said:
BTW,
forgot to mention that I am a german mechanical engineer who just returned from a trip to Texas. I was kind of disappointed. I thought the USA was a leading country, but it seems the only thing that is leading is the military power and the unreasonalble energy consumption.
What I read here about the english bolts supposed to be better than the metric is just funny. As long as the USA still uses the imperial unit system, the EU has not to worry about technological competition from the USA.
BTW, did you know that Germany has been the World export champion for the fifth time in a row? Basically because of machines and other technological goods?
That also has to do with the SI-Units. It is by far more efficient than the imperial units.

But I really do not care what you do with your country.

at 8/5/2008 1:43:30 PM, Robin Hood said:
It does help to know who people are to understand the reason for their choices.

You should know that many countries still use their traditional measures in some part. In China many measurements use the English traditional system if inches and feet. But my favourite is the basic Chinese character [called a radical] which is pronounced Tsun [Cun in pinyin] and means 'Inch'.

By the by, I am a Maths teacher. But in schoold in England only the Metric system is taught. That is known as indoctrination. It is a bad way to teach children, depriving them of their heritage.

A delegation from the EU visited NIST to discuss how to totally criminalise any mention, even, of traditional measurments.

Robin

at 8/5/2008 1:45:29 PM, Robin Hood said:
It does help to know who people are to understand the reason for their choices.

You should know that many countries still use their traditional measures in some part. In China many measurements use the English traditional system if inches and feet. But my favourite is the basic Chinese character [called a radical] which is pronounced Tsun [Cun in pinyin] and means 'Inch'.

By the by, I am a Maths teacher. But in schools in England only the Metric system is taught. There is a name for that. It is a bad way to teach children, depriving them of their heritage.

A delegation from the EU visited NIST to discuss how to totally criminalise any mention, even, of traditional measurements.

Robin

at 8/5/2008 1:47:28 PM, Robin Hood said:
It does help to know who people are to understand the reason for their choices.

You should know that many countries still use their traditional measures in some part. In China many measurements use the English traditional system if inches and feet. But my favourite is the basic Chinese character which is pronounced Tsun and means 'Inch'.

By the by, I am a Maths teacher. But in schools in England only the Metric system is taught. There is a name for that. It is a bad way to teach children, depriving them of their heritage.

A delegation from the EU visited NIST to discuss how to totally criminalise any mention, even, of traditional measurements.

Robin

at 8/5/2008 1:49:52 PM, Robin Hood said:
It does help to know who people are to understand the reason for their choices.

You should know that many countries still use their traditional measures in some part. In China many measurements use the English traditional system of inches and feet. But my favourite is the basic Chinese character which means 'Inch'.

By the by, I am a Maths teacher. But in schools in England only the Metric system is taught. There is a name for that. It is a bad way to teach children, depriving them of their heritage.

A delegation from the EU visited NIST to discuss how to not allow any mention, even, of traditional measurements.

Robin

at 8/8/2008 11:15:19 AM, Doug McNutt said:
The US of A has had metric currency since Hector waws a pup. That's why I have to explain, regularly, why currency calculations in floating point can never be exact to the penny. The problem is that the decimal fraction 1/100 is a repeating binary fraction that never ends in the 52 bits of an IEEE float. Quarters and bits, in the sense of 8 to a dollar, would be no problem. The US would have been metric years ago if the liter had only been a little less than a quart. Why do we have .75 liter liquor bottles rather than .7 or.8? Why do we have a $20 mbill but a $.25 coin?

at 8/19/2008 4:13:20 AM, Darren Holdstock, UK said:
Michael: "...did you know that Germany has been the World export champion for the fifth time in a row?". It's true, Germany is the worlds biggest exporter of goods (the US is #2); didn't know about the 5-years-in-a-row though, that's quite something. It's because Germany builds the best cars in the world, and the US builds some of the worst - even most US drivers buy German or Japanese. No direct connection to the metric debate as such, except that it's the same tired, lax attitude stagnating the US car industry that props up the imperial system. We used to have a huge volume car industry in the UK; now there's nothing aside from a handful of specialist marques, now foreign-owned. Beware!

at 8/30/2008 11:51:55 PM, juergenwt said:
The rest of the industrialized world just loves it if the US stays with the old inch, pound, gallon, deg.F system.
They have knocked out the competition without spending one dime.
Our stupid politician in Washington have only one thing on their mind: lets not loose a single vote.
Reading some of the above comments makes one wonder about the writer. Are these the same people who would like the national speed limit set at 25 and have someone with a red lantern guiding a car?
One only needs to look at our schools and the sorry state of our manufacturing industry to see that we need all the help we can get. Don't look for help from Washington. The argument about cost for a change over is a myth as proven by GM . Take a look at some very healthy US Manufacturers like John Deere or Caterpillar and many others with world wide operations - all are 100% metric.
As for which is the better system - if you don't know it by now - there is no help.

at 11/15/2008 9:54:57 AM, Paul Trusten, R.Ph. said:
I object to Nelson's use of the hackneyed, and prejudicial phrase, "metric system rears its ugly head." I convict him of the error of contempt prior to investigation. His sentence is to read on. The metric system is a simple, decimal system of measurement. It works the same way as the U.S. system of decimal currency. All one needs to know about metric for every day use is the meter, the gram, the liter, and that they are divided by moving a decimal point along with a logical system of prefixes. Also, far from being "socialistic,"a product of "bureaucratic meddling," "un-American," the power to change over to metric is specified by none other than the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), which empowers the Congress to "fix the standard of weights and measures." Also, since the current U.S. measurement units are derived from former British standards, I say we have not yet fulfilled the requirements of the Declaration of Independence, which calls for "all political connection between [the U.S.] and the state of Great Britain...to be totally dissolved." Therefore, what could be more American than finishing that job, and adopting our own measurement system?

at 11/18/2008 12:38:23 PM, TClose said:
Both the title "Rears its Ugly Head" and the comments in this article are completely misguided. Metric is anything BUT ugly - it is far more elegant that the so-called US system of units. And the notion that metric is somehow un-patriotic is pathetic - the units were inherited from England fer crissake.

Most engineers, especially in electronics work mostly in metrics - Amps, Volts, V/m, W/m2, mm for board layouts, etc.

Our refusal to join the rest of the world only increases our lack of competitiveness that is costing many of us our JOBS.

(note that the ONLY two countries besides us who have not gone metric is Liberia and Myanmar - even next door neighbor Canada gave up on us and went metric in the 70s.)

at 12/4/2008 2:49:57 PM, Dohhh! said:
Hey guys....its not about ours against theirs.....its about what one is the most practical, easiest to use, easiest to teach to our children, its about standardization!

at 12/4/2008 2:49:57 PM, Dohhh! said:
Hey guys....its not about ours against theirs.....its about what one is the most practical, easiest to use, easiest to teach to our children, its about standardization!

at 12/16/2008 2:25:35 PM, greg@axrtech.com said:
It is appaent we can tolerate the metric system , since we have no issue with the metric money system we have been using for quite some time. Pennies, dimes, dollars, 10's...etc. Everyone seems to know how to navigat it well, even if they do not really read well enough for third graders.
No mention of fingers and toes being organized tens, naturually!

at 12/18/2008 5:17:38 AM, arclight said:
All: I'm appalled at the stirrings of emotion that this topic brought up. Please explain to me why insults and denigrations have to be tossed back and forth over the Atlantic (if not the Pacific) because of differences in measurement systems.

One thing is blindingly obvious from all these comments: The ability to measure in metric, or English, or some other set of units, doesn't improve anyone's ability to be kind to their neighbor, or prevent anyone from abusing someone else. Now tell me: Which is more important???

This country is on the road to becoming fluent in metric measurements, but in a free society changes like that happen gradually over a long period of time. Rather than command it from the top and expect it to be done immediately (an immature response that demonstrates no understanding of human nature) a better way to solve this problem is to teach both for a generation or two, back that up by providing common measurements in both sets of units, and explain over and over again that it's a matter of being competitive to be able to work in both universes. Over time, folks will "get it" to a greater and greater extent, and eventually the changeover will be complete. In the meantime, we have to translate. So what?

Don't we have better things to say, and do, than trade insults over this? Is denigration a mark of maturity?

at 12/18/2008 5:17:39 AM, arclight said:
All: I'm appalled at the stirrings of emotion that this topic brought up. Please explain to me why insults and denigrations have to be tossed back and forth over the Atlantic (if not the Pacific) because of differences in measurement systems.

One thing is blindingly obvious from all these comments: The ability to measure in metric, or English, or some other set of units, doesn't improve anyone's ability to be kind to their neighbor, or prevent anyone from abusing someone else. Now tell me: Which is more important???

This country is on the road to becoming fluent in metric measurements, but in a free society changes like that happen gradually over a long period of time. Rather than command it from the top and expect it to be done immediately (an immature response that demonstrates no understanding of human nature) a better way to solve this problem is to teach both for a generation or two, back that up by providing common measurements in both sets of units, and explain over and over again that it's a matter of being competitive to be able to work in both universes. Over time, folks will "get it" to a greater and greater extent, and eventually the changeover will be complete. In the meantime, we have to translate. So what?

Don't we have better things to say, and do, than trade insults over this? Is denigration a mark of maturity?

at 2/4/2009 6:29:00 PM, Will Smith said:
Do some thermodynamc analyses of power cycles in British units. When you are done, look up, and you will see that your colleagues using metric units have already built the plant you just finished designing.

Does anyone on this blog even know what a slug is? If you don't, you aren't qualified for this discussion.

Engineers use metric units because they are faster and less error prone. Engineers use British units only when they have to.

BTW: How many btu's are in that twinkie?

at 2/17/2009 4:41:41 PM, Future said:
Canada started metric in 1970, so we are still making the transition. It takes a generation to transition. The reason being people older than metric use the old system, 30-40 years after metric there is hybrid because older people/parents know imperial but children learn metric in school. Children of transition group (after 30-40 years) don't really get exposed to imperial.

I would think that the people who 5 years after metric used imperial too because more of their education was in imperial. Therefore children with parents 35 or younger probably don't know imperial here.

at 9/2/2009 3:36:50 PM, JimOM said:
Apparently some of the posters here didn't realize that the original article was a joke. Also, there is too much dogma on both sides, each stating categorically that their system is the best no matter what. I like both systems, they each have advantages and disadvantages. One thing backers of metric forget is how handy "english" rulers are for dividing things in half. There are marks on my ruler for 1/2 inch, 1/4, 1/8, etc. On the metric ruler I can only divide 10mm by 2 once, after that, it becomes 2.5, then 1.25, then 0.625, etc. It becomes messy. In fact, what is so special about powers of 10? 10 is actually a pretty odd number, it is only divisible by 2 and 5. Powers of 2 are more universal and useful. Acutally, I think the Babylonians had it right, they used a base 60 system. 60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, and 30! Try that with your metric 10! Even metric countries still use 360 degrees in a circle. Dividing the circle into 100 grads just isn't very practical.

at 9/15/2009 6:36:57 PM, brucejohnson said:
Hi, www.tmworld.com. Just wanted to say hi and get to know this forum a little better never thought signed up. Any new people here like me?

Taking the Measure

Profile

RSS Feed

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Test & Measurement Articles

Blog

Monday, July 28, 2008

Metric system rears ugly head in US election

Reader Comments

Post a comment

Please visit these other Reed Business sites

Display Name

Change Image Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.