Can the US switch to the Metric System?

[phoenixy]

There is a lot of talk from the rightist talking head on America being a center right country. If all of a sudden they wish to impose European political spectrum definition as the standard, could we do something about the Imperial system as well?

 

[Office_Shredder]

There is a lot of talk from the rightist talking head on America being a center right country. If all of a sudden they wish to impose European political spectrum definition as the standard, could we do something about the Imperial system as well?

No we can't. I don't want to pay to replace who knows how many speed limit signs and mileage indicators

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is a lot of talk from the rightist talking head on America being a center right country. If all of a sudden they wish to impose European political spectrum definition as the standard, could we do something about the Imperial system as well?

The US has been officially metric since the 1970's. (As hard as it is to believe!)

 

[Evo]

The US has been officially metric since the 1970's. (As hard as it is to believe!)

Yep, that's why soda is sold in 2 liter bottles, and the reason I have to hold my measuring cups backwards to measure in "cups".

 

[lisab]

Yep, that's why soda is sold in 2 liter bottles, and the reason I have told hold my measuring cups backwards to measure in "cups".

You could buy left-handed measuring cups (do they even make them?).

 

[Office_Shredder]

The US has been officially metric since the 1970's. (As hard as it is to believe!)

The US has been officially metric since the late 1800s, but nobody cared

 

[Proton Soup]

No we can't. I don't want to pay to replace who knows how many speed limit signs and mileage indicators

same here. there is nothing magical about kilometers. they don't improve your economy. they don't make your children brighter. unless you're doing engineering or physics, etc., metric isn't really an advantage. in fact, F is a better scale for the weather than C.

 

[BobG]

same here. there is nothing magical about kilometers. they don't improve your economy. they don't make your children brighter. unless you're doing engineering or physics, etc., metric isn't really an advantage. in fact, F is a better scale for the weather than C.

How so? Do you really care whether it's -40 F or -45 F? At least there's a real difference between -40 C and -45 C? You can work outside for up to 30 minutes at -40 C, but all outside work should cease at -45 C. (from Candian Centre for Occupation and Health Safety) Personally, I think we should use Kelvin. 230 degrees K is warmer than -45 degrees C.

The metric system makes it a lot easier to resist using obnoxiously large numbers just because no one wants to have to convert from miles to feet. Do you really want to deal with a geosynchronous satellite that's over 117408579 feet above the surface of the Earth? That's like 9 digits you have to keep track of. Knowing the satellite's altitude is only 35786.135 kilometers above the Earth is a lot easier - it's only 8 digits and they stick a decimal point somewhere near the middle so all the numbers don't run into each other in a muddle.

Or, if not the metric system, we could at least switch to a base 60 system. It would make everything more compatible with hours, minutes, seconds and degrees, minutes, seconds.

 

[Proton Soup]

How so? Do you really care whether it's -40 F or -45 F? At least there's a real difference between -40 C and -45 C? You can work outside for up to 30 minutes at -40 C, but all outside work should cease at -45 C. (from Candian Centre for Occupation and Health Safety) Personally, I think we should use Kelvin. 230 degrees K is warmer than -45 degrees C.

F has nearly twice as much resolution as C. most people don't work at -45, so that example is specialized and shouldn't be used when you're thinking of public policy and what most people need. K has the same resolution problem as C. you could list C/K in decimal fractions, but that just makes it more cumbersome. for most applications that involve human habitation, F is a superior scale. 0 to 100 F is where we exist for the most part.

The metric system makes it a lot easier to resist using obnoxiously large numbers just because no one wants to have to convert from miles to feet. Do you really want to deal with a geosynchronous satellite that's over 117408579 feet above the surface of the Earth? That's like 9 digits you have to keep track of. Knowing the satellite's altitude is only 35786.135 kilometers above the Earth is a lot easier - it's only 8 digits and they stick a decimal point somewhere near the middle so all the numbers don't run into each other in a muddle.

or 22236.473 miles. or 2.8053914 equatorial diameters. let's just use Earth diameters, that's easier to picture.

Or, if not the metric system, we could at least switch to a base 60 system. It would make everything more compatible with hours, minutes, seconds and degrees, minutes, seconds.

base 2, it should be easier for our computer-generation kids. think how easy it would be to just break down an inch into 1/2's, 1/4's, 1/8's, 1/16's. surely someone sharp could even come up with a similar system for volume measures. :shy:

 

[BobG]

or 22236.473 miles. or 2.8053914 equatorial diameters. let's just use Earth diameters, that's easier to picture.

Or Earth radii. If people were more familiar with radii, measuring angles in radians would feel more natural.

It would work well in football games, as well. I once watched a high school football game where a team had 3rd and 8.6 microradii once*. Incredibly, the quarterback scrambled 11.8 microradii for a touchdown.

*On the previous play, a touchdown run was called back for an illegal block in the back by the quarterback, no less. The quarterback yelled at the referee about the call, resulting in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, which prompted the coach to start yelling at the ref, resulting in a second unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. They managed to get penalized more than half the distance to their own goal line on one play.

 

[mgb_phys]

By keeping the imperial system you make it easy for the British to take over.
As soon as Obama introdues a 5min waiting period for multiple assault rifles the Redcoats will be back.

The USA should adopt the furlong/fortnight/firkin system.

 

[Proton Soup]

i had to look up the firkin, but i like it. kegs are also a good measure.

 

[turbo]

If we used furlongs/fortnight as a measure of speed, our cars would be incredibly fast - right?

 

[mgb_phys]

And they would get 3000 furlongs per firkin

 

[turbo]

And they would get 3000 furlongs per firkin

Would I have to buy gas by the firkin? That extra 9/10s of a cent per firkin would really hurt, huh?

 

[wolram]

Us Brits use the TAX method of measurement.

 

[Borek]

I know it will sound like I am biased, but this is honest question from someone living from the very beginning in the metric world. Is it really convenient to calculate things like "add 3 feets 7 inches to half of 5 feets and 1 inch"? Isn't it much easier to do such calculations using meters and centimeters? Isn't it cheaper - in terms of time and errors?

I assume such things are routinely calculated in many places, you may need a correct length plank, tube or wire, you may want to land on Mars (OK, the last one was biased). Not all mistakes are as costly as the last one listed, but each one counts.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I assume such things are routinely calculated in many places, you may need a correct length plank, tube or wire, you may want to land on Mars (OK, the last one was biased). Not all mistakes are as costly as the last one listed, but each one counts.

The Mars probe crashed because NASA was using the metric system and a company that was contracted was using English units. If everyone used English units it wouldn't have happened. We should ban use of the metric system in the US

 

[turbo]

I had a physics professor in 1970 that said that if we tried to express results in the English system, he would flunk us. He used the example of expressing speed in "furlongs per fortnight" to illustrate his ban. He also said that if we used the word "analyze" in a quiz, test, or homework turn-in, that particular answer would get a ZERO even if the entire answer was correct. That might have been a bit over-the-top, but hell - he was god.

 

[Proton Soup]

i actually think SI units are superior for physics or engineering calculations, no argument there. i might have actually remembered some of my thermodynamics course if we had actually stuck to one measurement system instead of doing everything in both.

but most people will never need, nor care, that a gram, ml, and cm^3 of water are the same thing.

 

[mgb_phys]

If everyone used English units it wouldn't have happened.

The trouble is when the English English and American English units are different.
When it comes to pints of beer this matters.

 

[Redbelly98]

I know it will sound like I am biased, but this is honest question from someone living from the very beginning in the metric world. Is it really convenient to calculate things like "add 3 feets 7 inches to half of 5 feets and 1 inch"? Isn't it much easier to do such calculations using meters and centimeters? Isn't it cheaper - in terms of time and errors?

I think people should just accept that in America we are not going to change to the metric system. Right or wrong, that fight was lost decades ago.

I've found that British units work just fine if you are used to using them and know what you're doing. And if you don't know what you're doing, even metric units are a challenge. Like the time my mother had to deal with a Danish clothing store clerk who couldn't convert between cm and m!

I wish American physics classes would spend a little more time using our common everyday units. That might help students better realize how physics applies to everyday life.

 

[Integral]

On the whole the metric system is ok. It has its problems. For my home projects I will never give up my ft-In tape measure. I like the many prime divisors of our base 12 system.

Also you can create troubles for yourself if you carelessly use .1 in computations. Since .1 decimal converts to an infinitely repeating binary number it cannot be precisely represented in our digital computers, you would be much better off with the power of 2 subdivisions used in the ft/in system.

I am literate in both systems and cannot see why it makes any difference which I use. For day to day unit conversion estimates are good enough, if I need precision I use a calculator/computer so then the conversion factor doesn't matter. (as long as I stay away from .1!)

 

[mgb_phys]

I think people should just accept that in America we are not going to change to the metric system.

It's your duty as an American to use British Thermal Units ;-)

I've found that British units work just fine if you are used to using them and know what you're doing.

Unless you need to worry about if your state uses survey feet, statute feet or standard feet.

I wish American physics classes would spend a little more time using our common everyday units. That might help students better realize how physics applies to everyday life.

Isn't it confusing having pounds as a unit of force and mass if you are trying to explain the difference?

 

[russ_watters]

I assume such things are routinely calculated in many places, you may need a correct length plank, tube or wire, you may want to land on Mars (OK, the last one was biased). Not all mistakes are as costly as the last one listed, but each one counts.

I once did some troubleshooting on a chilled water plant at a cocoa bean processing plant. The cocoa processing equipment that needed cooling was all made in Germany and Denmark and needed 17 C water. The engineer who selected the chiller was apparently unaware of the difference between C and F. It was a problem...

 

[mgb_phys]

My wife did it the other way around.
She cooked some frozen chicken at 180deg like it said on the packet - unfortunately it was an American cooker.

 

[Redbelly98]

Unless you need to worry about if your state uses survey feet, statute feet or standard feet.

As I said, you do need to know what you're doing.
By the way, I did a google search and it seems that statute and standard feet are the same (=0.3048 m). Is this not the case?

At any rate, the 2 ppm difference between survey and statute is rarely of concern.

Isn't it confusing having pounds as a unit of force and mass if you are trying to explain the difference?

Yes, agreed. From what I remember of high school physics 30 years ago, my teacher would use the pound strictly as a force and for mass we used slugs, when dealing in fps units.
I think the potential payback of using already familar units (okay, except for mass ) would be worth it.

 

[mgb_phys]

There used to be a difference between the UK / USA foot before they were both rebased on the metric inch, I should have said UK-statute foot.

In engineering using inches isn't a problem - you just flick the digital readout on the machine, it takes a bit more thought to know what fraction sized stock you need for a decimal finished part.
US screw thread sizes are a real pain though - although nothing compared to the range of English possibilities ;-)

I can't see the US switching - the UK officially switched 35years ago, but people still think in miles/gallons/pints/feet and stones.

 

[Borek]

I have seen a discussion betwen chemistry teachers on the subject - and I recall that one of the main problems was attributed to the way metric system is taught in US. Instead of concentrating on how easy it is to use, emphasis is put on conversion of feets and inches to meters and centimeters. This is awkward, so most students remember metric system as something confusing and complicated.

 

[mgb_phys]

one of the main problems was attributed to the way metric system is taught in US.

I think the reason for not teaching the metric system is the 'war on drugs'
"If johhny buys 1/2 pound of cocaine, how many grains of Bicarb does he need to cut it with to make 25 1/4 ounce bags."
See the metric system is dumbing down a generation of drug dealers.

 

[Redbelly98]

I have seen a discussion betwen chemistry teachers on the subject - and I recall that one of the main problems was attributed to the way metric system is taught in US. Instead of concentrating on how easy it is to use, emphasis is put on conversion of feets and inches to meters and centimeters. This is awkward, so most students remember metric system as something confusing and complicated.

Borek, you've gotten me curious: in metric-only classes how do they teach unit conversions? You still have to go between mm-cm-m-km. Are students told to "just move the decimal point"? Or to multiply by a factor such as

1m / 100cm​

in order to cancel units? Or is it done a different way?

 

[Borek]

Honestly - I don't know. I may ask around. I don't remember being taught conversions between m, km and cm - so it was probably done in early primary school, when I was 6, 7 or 8. I remember being shown how much a meter, cm and mm are and that was at this time.

Conversion factors - like 1m/100cm - and units cancellation are not taught in Poland, so conversions must be done through decimal point shifting.

I suppose when you are immersed in these conversions from your early school years, they became so natural, that you don't need any special tools to deal with them, but that's just my guess.

 

[Redbelly98]

Honestly - I don't know. I may ask around. I don't remember being taught conversions between m, km and cm - so it was probably done in early primary school, when I was 6, 7 or 8. I remember being shown how much a meter, cm and mm are and that was at this time.

Conversion factors - like 1m/100cm - and units cancellation are not taught in Poland, so conversions must be done through decimal point shifting.

Thanks for answering that, I had wondered about it. I'm also wondering about when advanced students must eventually learn to use non-metric units like parsecs (in astronomy) or Faradays (in electrochemistry), there must be some kind of unit-conversion calculations that come into play.

I suppose when you are immersed in these conversions from your early school years, they became so natural, that you don't need any special tools to deal with them, but that's just my guess.

Actually no, from what I remember, we don't get into unit conversions until we take a chemistry or physics class in high school.

At least that's how I remember it from when I was in school in the 1970's. And from my recent experiences as a private tutor, this seems to still be the case in the USA. Students do need to have already taken Algebra 1, normally taught in 8th or 9th grade, in order to understand the "canceling of units" concept.

Is anyone else here who was in school more recently than I, exposed to unit conversions before high school? Wish I could remember back that far, but I can't

 

[mgb_phys]

Actually no, from what I remember, we don't get into unit conversions until we take a chemistry or physics class in high school.

Junior school in the UK in 70s - we used cm rulers as number lines for elementary arithmatic but that's the only units stuff I remember.
I do remember we were never taught imperial units - even though that was all we would use in normal everyday. I think metric was new and everyone was keen, but I don't remember being explicitly taught anything.

Students do need to have already taken Algebra 1, normally taught in 8th or 9th grade, in order to understand the "canceling of units" concept.

Dimensional analysis was in high school physics. I still think it's one of the most important topics but a lot of ugrads still don't seem to get it.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think the issue of units conversion education isn't all that important. The real issues I think are economic and inertial. The inertia of society, for which adapting seems elusively profitable, like why bother to change all those signs and wrenches and odometers and scales for what actual benefit?

In school I remember converting meters and rods and bushels and pecks and acres and such, but I rather think it was more designed to forward facility with math skills than in teaching units so much.

I mean crikeys if the idea is to make the world uniform and efficient, let's clean up the arrangement of the keys on a qwerty typewriter while we're at it.

Or make the Latin alphabet the international standard. Loose all those ideograms and decorated characters and just learn English - American Enhanced English of course.