Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   Off Topic Forum (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f80/)
-   -   Convenience of the metric system (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f80/convenience-of-the-metric-system-136055.html)

Lars_L 08-11-2014 13:15

Convenience of the metric system
 
A example where you see the advantage of the SI system.

Lewmars windlasses V1 have according to the datasheet:
The motor has a max power of 700 W.
Working load 113 kg.
To lift 1 kg you need a force of 9.8 N or about 10 N.
The force the windlass pulls with is then 1130 N.
Maximum chain speed is 19 m/min.
That corresponds with 0.317 m/s.
The power on the gypsy is then
1130 N * 0.317 m/s = 358 Nm/s = 358 W
The efficiency of the windlass is then 358 W / 700 W = 51%. Thatís not much but its what you can expect for a worm gear.

I remember that there is 12 inch on 1 foot, but I donít see the logic in that.
I never remember how many yards there is on one mile, and even less the logic in that.
There is 1000 m (meter) on 1 km (kilometre) is very logic since kilo means thousand.
Itís the same that there is 1000 mm (millimetres) on 1 m (meter), because milli means thousandth.
A cube with a side length of 0.1 m (meter) have a volyme of 1.0 l (liter).
1.0 l (liter) of watter have a wight og 1.0 kg (kilogram).


Approximate conversion between the two systems

1 m (meter) is 40 inches (39.37). 1.6% wrong.
1 m (meter) is 3 foot (3.281). 8.6% wrong.
4 l (liter) is 1 gallon (1.057). 5.7% wrong.
1 kg (kilogram) is 2 pound (2.205). 10.3% wrong.
1 m/s (meter per second) is 2 mph (2,237). 11.8% wrong.
1 m/s (meter per second) is 2 knots (1.944). 2.8% wrong.

Blue Stocking 08-11-2014 13:41

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Uuuuhh !! O-o-k-a-y. :smile:

Coops 08-11-2014 13:41

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
"1.0 l (liter) of watter have a wight og 1.0 kg (kilogram)."

You must have a metric spellchecker.:biggrin:

The imperial system was not based on logic, so it needed none to understand it. You just had to learn the tables.:thumb:

Even today if you tell me somebodies height and weight in metric I would have no idea if he was a fat midget or a skinny giant. I learnt the imperial system and it still works for me because I can judge something in inches/feet/yards by eye and do not even try to convert. It is simply what you feel most comfortable with really, nothing to do with being better or worse than the other.:wink:

Coops.

JPA Cate 08-11-2014 13:55

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Oh, Coops, No, no, no! :banghead:

Metric makes the most sense....except it is largely opaque if you learned Imperial as a child.

The problem is getting all those Yanks to change what they do. We came close to metrification, a while back, but as far as I can see, little progress has been made. And we get by okay, as you suggest, because you learn it when you're little and it becomes part of your whole language acquisition skills and it's ruddy well stuck in there! :smile:

Cheers,

Ann

nimblemotors 08-11-2014 13:56

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
The problem with the metric system is based on 10. Why 10, what a stupid number to base a number system on, what is that? Because we have 10 fingers!!! Dumb.

Blue Stocking 08-11-2014 14:02

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
In my spares kit I have BSF,BSW,AF and Metric mm capscrews in 1.25, 1.50, and 1.75 thread pitches. Makes it interesting. On early Mitsubishi cars, you could find all of them on the same vehicle.

Blue Stocking 08-11-2014 14:04

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nimblemotors (Post 1673175)
The problem with the metric system is based on 10. Why 10, what a stupid number to base a number system on, what is that? Because we have 10 fingers!!! Dumb.

Could have based on 20. fingers + toes, but insurance won't let me work with barefeet in engine rooms. :smile:

Reiziger 08-11-2014 14:14

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
In the UK they "almost" converted to Metric, the problem now for example Copper Tube, you can buy Metric and Imperial. Although close they don't fit together.

:smile:They also still drive on the wrong site of the road...

Cheechako 08-11-2014 14:24

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
My only problem with the metric system is it needs something between a meter and a Cm. If you say to me something is 2 ft long I get it. If you say 60cm... My brain has to convert it... If it made sense that things must be described in multiples of ten... well then wouldnt it make sense to only build things in exact multiples of ten?
How about time? should we break it into tens?
How about the naturally occurring number Pi? We'd better round that down to 3.000..
:>)

Reiziger 08-11-2014 14:31

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheechako (Post 1673195)
My only problem with the metric system is it needs something between a meter and a Cm. If you say to me something is 2 ft long I get it. If you say 60cm... My brain has to convert it... If it made sense that things must be described in multiples of ten... well then wouldnt it make sense to only build things in exact multiples of ten?
How about time? should we break it into tens?
How about the naturally occurring number Pi? We'd better round that down to 3.000..

:>)

They are "even in Metric" logics by it self...

Dockhead 08-11-2014 14:33

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lars_L (Post 1673142)
I remember that there is 12 inch on 1 foot, but I donít see the logic in that.
I never remember how many yards there is on one mile, and even less the logic in that.
There is 1000 m (meter) on 1 km (kilometre) is very logic since kilo means thousand.
Itís the same that there is 1000 mm (millimetres) on 1 m (meter), because milli means thousandth.
A cube with a side length of 0.1 m (meter) have a volyme of 1.0 l (liter).
1.0 l (liter) of watter have a wight og 1.0 kg (kilogram).


Approximate conversion between the two systems

1 m (meter) is 40 inches (39.37). 1.6% wrong.
1 m (meter) is 3 foot (3.281). 8.6% wrong.
4 l (liter) is 1 gallon (1.057). 5.7% wrong.
1 kg (kilogram) is 2 pound (2.205). 10.3% wrong.
1 m/s (meter per second) is 2 mph (2,237). 11.8% wrong.
1 m/s (meter per second) is 2 knots (1.944). 2.8% wrong.

Taking last things first:

May I suggest some better rules of thumb.

Not 1m = 3', which is way off, but 3m = 10 feet -- which is pretty close, and plenty close enough for a rule of thumb -- as soon as you need more precision, just go to 1" = 25.4mm and take it from there.

Not 1kg = 2 pounds, but 1kg = 2.2 pounds, which is exact.

Not 1 m/s = 2 mph, but 1 m/s = 2 knots.

And just memorize:

1 statute mile = 1.62 km, so 100 km/h = 62 mph and so forth.

1 inch = 2.54 cm

With just those bits, you shouldn't have any problem with the metric system.



Now, as to 12 inches in a foot -- what is so inevitable about Base 10? 12 is a much better subdivision than 10 -- can be divided more ways. Actually, Base 12 is really powerful, and there is an actual movement to replace Base 10 with it, see: Why We Should Switch To A Base-12 Counting System

Enrique100 08-11-2014 14:35

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!!!

Wotname 08-11-2014 14:38

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Both require a functioning memory :thumb:

The metric system quickly becomes unusable if one forgets value of the multiplier of the micro, milli, deci, centi, kilo, mega, giga, hecto; and that is only the common ones, not the esoteric ones. I see many metric trained people unable to quickly comprehend even simple measurements when say given in millimetres but they were expecting centimetres.

When working in fractions, 12 is a far better base than 10.

Metric is certainly more arithmetic friendly.

Having said that, I really do prefer to be "ambidextrous" and use what is most simple for the job.

Personally I will use thousandths of an inch rather than microns; hectopascals instead of inches of Hg.; PSI instead of Bar; miles or kilometres depending on circumstance. The list is long but I'm sure you get the drift.

Reiziger 08-11-2014 14:40

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 1673202)
Taking last things first:

May I suggest some better rules of thumb.

Not 1m = 3', which is way off, but 3m = 10 feet -- which is pretty close, and plenty close enough for a rule of thumb -- as soon as you need more precision, just go to 1" = 25.4mm and take it from there.

Not 1kg = 2 pounds, but 1kg = 2.2 pounds, which is exact.

Not 1 m/s = 2 mph, but 1 m/s = 2 knots.

And just memorize:

1 statute mile = 1.62 km, so 100 km/h = 62 mph and so forth.

1 inch = 2.54 cm

With just those bits, you shouldn't have any problem with the metric system.



Now, as to 12 inches in a foot -- what is so inevitable about Base 10? 12 is a much better subdivision than 10 -- can be divided more ways. Actually, Base 12 is really powerful, and there is an actual movement to replace Base 10 with it, see: Why We Should Switch To A Base-12 Counting System

:whistling: Very logical............................

Stupid system that only Englishman and Americans understand.

BTW. why you accept the Metrical system for Currency??? The old English system made more sence for me

Blue Stocking 08-11-2014 14:42

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
In land surveying, a Chain is both a measurement, and the tool to determine it. It is 22 yards, the length of a Cricket Pitch wicket. ther ya go.

Canibul 08-11-2014 14:44

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking (Post 1673178)
Could have based on 20. fingers + toes, but insurance won't let me work with barefeet in engine rooms. :smile:

And here I've never once been in my engine rooms with shoes on.

valhalla360 08-11-2014 16:18

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
English units are generally intuitive as they are based on humans.
- Inch = length from tip of thumb to first joint
- Hand and Foot = obvious.
- Yard = tip of nose to outstretched hand.
- Mile = 1000 paces
- Cup = A typical amount a human will drink.

Metric is based on the properties of water and the distance from the equator to the pole.
- Meter = 1/10,000,000th of the distance from the equator to the pole
- Liter = volume of 1/100,000,000th of the distance from the equator to the pole cubed
- Gram = mass of water contained in 1/10,000,000,000th of the distance from the equator to the pole cubed.

Metric is convenient for hand calculations but the mass of 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the pole cubed...isn't very intuitive. Nor is a height of 1.6/10,000,000th of the distance from the equator to the pole very intuitive.

Benz 08-11-2014 17:14

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
It's obvious that Lars is trolling. But I find it amusing that he would calculate how "wrong" in percentages, the Sensible system is compared to metric. We could easily say that metric is wrong by those percentages: why isn't a cm an inch long? would have made better sense. But where he's really wrong is in trying to convert--if everyone did their measuring in inches and feet and didn't bother trying to convert that to metrical, there would be no need to approximate between the two.

Mike OReilly 08-11-2014 19:27

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
As a Canadian who was in school during our transition to metric, I can reasonably move between the two systems with some ease. There is no doubt Metric is far easier to work with when making any sort of calculation beyond the most basic.

For me, some measurements for me are more natural in Imperial (person height or keel lengths), and some are clearer to me in Metric (0 degrees Celsius vs 32 Fahrenheit). A cm is as useful as an inch, a meter is as good as a yard, and a litre works for quart and pints. Millimetres are far better that fractions of inches for machine bits, and km are more obvious to me than (statute) miles. However, I still think more in pounds when it comes to human and boat weights.

Neither system is inherently more "intuitive" than the other. It depends on what you've been brought up with. But there's no way you can argue Imperial is easier to work with for complex measurements or calculations than Metric. Its no accident that even in the USA, scientists have long operated in Metric.

It's only a matter of time before Liberia, Myanmar and that other hold-out country will join the rest of the modern world :wink:.

Sand crab 08-11-2014 19:42

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly (Post 1673362)
It's only a matter of time before Liberia, Myanmar and that other hold-out country will join the rest of the modern world :wink:.

There are a few other countries that still use that old mile standard including Canada. When will the railways there join the modern world?:biggrin:
From Wiki:

While most countries replaced the mile with the kilometre when switching to the International System of Units, the international mile continues to be used in some countries such as Liberia, Myanmar,[3] the United Kingdom[4] and the United States.[5] It is furthermore used in a number of countries with vastly less than a million inhabitants, most of which are US or UK territories, or have close historical ties with the US or UK: Am. Samoa,[6] Bahamas,[7] Belize,[8] British Virgin Islands,[9] Cayman Islands,[10] Dominica,[10] Falkland Islands,[11] Grenada,[12] Guam,[13] The N. Mariana Islands,[14] Samoa,[15] St. Lucia,[16] St. Vincent & The Grenadines,[17] St. Helena,[18] St. Kitts & Nevis,[19] the Turks & Caicos Islands,[20] and the U.S. Virgin Islands.[21] The mile is even encountered in Canada, though this is predominantly in rail transport and horse racing, as the roadways have been metricated since 1977.[

Schrewsburyduo 08-11-2014 23:24

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Add this. Celsius means 0 degrees is the freezing temp if h2o. 100 degrees is when it gets boiling. Simple.

avb3 09-11-2014 00:36

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Canada converted to the metric system in the mid 70s, 35 years ago. My kids learned it in school.

To this day, imperial units are still used. The rural land grid is 1 mile x 2 miles, that won't change. Houses were built with 2x4 or 2x6 studs, that won't change. Plywood is 4'x8', and that won't change.

A baby weights 6 pounds 4 ounces, and if you tell the mother that her child weighs 2835 grams no one will know what the heck that means. Same for height.

The reality is that although the metric system makes all sorts of sense, for those countries that are not on it or for many years were not on it, standards evolved that can not change, such as how buildings were built.

Even after 35 years of metrification, even after the children learned only metric in school, after all that, the imperial measurement is still referred to. In stores, legally they have to sell by the kilogram, yet all prices are marked in pound weight.

That is the market.

Delancey 09-11-2014 05:06

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Might think the diameter of the solid fuel rocket boosters of the space shuttle would be an arbitrary dimension best suited for launching into space. But no, they are really sized to fit through rail road tunnels between Utah where there were made and Florida where the space shuttle was launched.

The rail road tunnels in the US were of coarse based on the dimensions of the first railways which were developed in England. These first railways were of coarse built by the carriage makers whose craft lent itself well to this new mode of transport.

The carriage makers of course had been sizing their carriages to work on the roads that existed in England prior to the railways. The dimension for the ruts in the roads from which the carriage makers built the new railways was of coarse based on the carriages the Romans had used when the roads were first made.

So basically a key design constraint for the space shuttle was the wheel width of a Roman cart.

valhalla360 09-11-2014 05:23

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Delancey (Post 1673528)
Might think the diameter of the solid fuel rocket boosters of the space shuttle would be an arbitrary dimension best suited for launching into space. But no, they are really sized to fit through rail road tunnels between Utah where there were made and Florida where the space shuttle was launched.

The rail road tunnels in the US were of coarse based on the dimensions of the first railways which were developed in England. These first railways were of coarse built by the carriage makers whose craft lent itself well to this new mode of transport.

The carriage makers of course had been sizing their carriages to work on the roads that existed in England prior to the railways. The dimension for the ruts in the roads from which the carriage makers built the new railways was of coarse based on the carriages the Romans had used when the roads were first made.

So basically a key design constraint for the space shuttle was the wheel width of a Roman cart.

You forgot the punch line.

Some roman bureaucrat determined the original with of a cart based on the width of two horses asses.

So when all is done and said the size of the space shuttle rocket boosters are based on the width of a horse's ass.

valhalla360 09-11-2014 05:26

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3 (Post 1673478)
Canada converted to the metric system in the mid 70s, 35 years ago. My kids learned it in school.

To this day, imperial units are still used. The rural land grid is 1 mile x 2 miles, that won't change. Houses were built with 2x4 or 2x6 studs, that won't change. Plywood is 4'x8', and that won't change.

A baby weights 6 pounds 4 ounces, and if you tell the mother that her child weighs 2835 grams no one will know what the heck that means. Same for height.

The reality is that although the metric system makes all sorts of sense, for those countries that are not on it or for many years were not on it, standards evolved that can not change, such as how buildings were built.

Even after 35 years of metrification, even after the children learned only metric in school, after all that, the imperial measurement is still referred to. In stores, legally they have to sell by the kilogram, yet all prices are marked in pound weight.

That is the market.

I used to work for a state transportation department. We spent 5years converting all the plans, specifications and standards to metric....but the contractors would take the plans and convert them back to English units.

Eventually, the powers that be came to their senses.

GordMay 09-11-2014 05:28

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Americans claim to use the Imperial Measurement System, rather than the Metric one.
Yeah right, they all know what 9mm is though.

Canibul 09-11-2014 05:29

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
In my former career in the underwater acoustics business I had to constantly work with scientists, commercial operators, and military from one NATO navy or another. I don't know the point at which I started preferring metric units of measurement, but it did happen. Even today, when I need to buy a new tape measure, for example, I will choose one that has both inches/feet and also millimeters on it. I'm a long time woodworker, and have built a lot of fairly complex furniture over the years. Right now I'm cutting some relacement mahogany corner mouldings for the boat. I much, much prefer working with millimeters for measuring and cutting. Trying to measure and divide 11/64's or adding a series of lengths together can be really problematic with the "old" US system.

I also plan, someday, to renumber my sets of wrenches and to engrave a new designation on them. I have found that working on my own cars, trucks, motorcycles, airplanes, and boats that I definitely need to have two complete sets of imperial and metric wrenches, sockets, allen keys, etc. And over the years, I find that I've learned to think of them in combined terms. The slight differences in similar sized wrenches, for example, can be extremely useful. Especially when working on old or corroded machinery.

Take the example of a corroded 1/2" nut that is diminished in mass by rust and wear. It's not uncommon to find that a 1/2" wrench will slip and round the remaining edges of a worn 1/2" nut. Or bolt head. BUT if you "drop down one size" to a metric 12 mm, often you can get a snug fit.
Conversely, sometimes I might need to go up a half size due to rust scale or maybe a coating.

I have wondered why someone doesn't just combine the two sets of wrenches, and renumber them according to their increasing size. And give them the appropriate numbers. So if a 5/16" socket is too loose on a nut, The next size down would actually be metric and a 7 mm. In my perfect wrench set, that might mean putting down the # 6 and picking up a #5. With #6 being 5/16" and #5 being 7mm.

THEN I could quit going back and forth from one tool box to the other.

Combine them ALL and re-label them according to increasing size.

And the same thing could be done in other areas. No reason you shouldn't be able to choose based upon increasing unit of measure, and still have the "stops" in the assortment to accomodate standard item sizes or values from years ago.

No reason a 12 oz soda or beer couldn't be still be the same size physically, to fit all those six pack coolers. No reason that allen head screws couldn't be graduated the same way, with metric and imperial intermixed according to size.

K_V_B 09-11-2014 06:33

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wotname (Post 1673208)
The metric system quickly becomes unusable if one forgets value of the multiplier of the micro, milli, deci, centi, kilo, mega, giga, hecto; and that is only the common ones, not the esoteric ones. I see many metric trained people unable to quickly comprehend even simple measurements when say given in millimetres but they were expecting centimetres.

Really? I have never had any problem memorising the multipliers since I learnt them in primary school. I have never met anybody who had problems with the difference between "centi" and "milli". They are logically and mostly self-explanatory.

Quote:

When working in fractions, 12 is a far better base than 10.
60 is even a better base. But there you have a point. It's one reason why I'm not in favour of going to a metric clock... (Even though some employers here do use a metric clock in time accounting.

barnakiel 09-11-2014 06:33

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Sailing is a simple sport and in its pure form does not call for rarefied levels of calculating prowess.

I grew up in metrics but I fail to see any convenience of this particular system. I am happy with miles and degrees and fathoms.

I prefer a gallon over a liter too. Especially to measure our rhum tankage.

b.

transmitterdan 09-11-2014 06:39

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
I would prefer my polar tables to compute furlongs per fortnight. Who only sails for one hour at a time anyway?

Canibul 09-11-2014 06:39

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
having preferences is fine, to a point. and moving that point right or left to divide or multiply by ten is easier with metric.

And who really cares how much volume the beer stein or rhum glass holds? You will still always reach for 'the big one'.

K_V_B 09-11-2014 06:43

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360 (Post 1673268)
- Meter = 1/10,000,000th of the distance from the equator to the pole

No, the meter is 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum.
Before that it was the length of a bar kept somewhere in Paris.
Before that they indeed took 1/10000000 of the distance from the equator to the pole, because that ended up a good size, about the length of a pace...
Incidentally the nautical mile is defined in a similar way, as the length of one arc minute measured on the equator. This gives all kinds of advantages when doing astronomical navigation. For the same reason surveyors in metric countries will measure angles in "gon", of which 400 go in a circle...

GordMay 09-11-2014 06:48

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Some interesting conversions:
1 million microphones = 1 megaphone
1 million bicycles = 2 megacycles
2000 mockingbirds = 2 kilomockingbirds
10 cards = 1 decacards (or is it 52 cards = 1 deck-a-cards?)
1/2 lavatory = 1 demijohn
1 millionth of a fish = 1 microfiche
453.6 graham crackers = 1 pound cake
10 rations = 1 decoration
10 millipedes = 1 centipede
3-1/3 tridents = 1 decadent
10 monologs = 5 dialogues
2 monograms = 1 diagram
8 nickles = 2 paradigms
2 wharves = 1 paradox

K_V_B 09-11-2014 06:49

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Delancey (Post 1673528)
Might think the diameter of the solid fuel rocket boosters of the space shuttle would be an arbitrary dimension best suited for launching into space. But no, they are really sized to fit through rail road tunnels between Utah where there were made and Florida where the space shuttle was launched.

The rail road tunnels in the US were of coarse based on the dimensions of the first railways which were developed in England. These first railways were of coarse built by the carriage makers whose craft lent itself well to this new mode of transport.

The carriage makers of course had been sizing their carriages to work on the roads that existed in England prior to the railways. The dimension for the ruts in the roads from which the carriage makers built the new railways was of coarse based on the carriages the Romans had used when the roads were first made.

So basically a key design constraint for the space shuttle was the wheel width of a Roman cart.

Nice story. But factually wrong. The railway track gauge has nothing to do with the romans, but everything with Stephenson starting with a nice round number...
And the loading gauge is another different matter. That is a lot larger then the one used in the UK... (In the US everything is larger after all...)

K_V_B 09-11-2014 06:53

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheechako (Post 1673195)
My only problem with the metric system is it needs something between a meter and a Cm.

But we do have something between m and cm : dm. The decimeter. Not used a lot as most people do fine with just m and cm, or m and mm.

Quote:

well then wouldnt it make sense to only build things in exact multiples of ten?
Interestingly eggs do come in boxes of 10 here...

Canibul 09-11-2014 07:01

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by K_V_B (Post 1673584)
. (In the US everything is larger after all...)

Ah, I think you might be getting confused between the USA and Texas. They are two completely different places.

Ex-Calif 09-11-2014 07:15

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay (Post 1673583)
Some interesting conversions:
1 million microphones = 1 megaphone
1 million bicycles = 2 megacycles
2000 mockingbirds = 2 kilomockingbirds
10 cards = 1 decacards (or is it 52 cards = 1 deck-a-cards?)
1/2 lavatory = 1 demijohn
1 millionth of a fish = 1 microfiche
453.6 graham crackers = 1 pound cake
10 rations = 1 decoration
10 millipedes = 1 centipede
3-1/3 tridents = 1 decadent
10 monologs = 5 dialogues
2 monograms = 1 diagram
8 nickles = 2 paradigms
2 wharves = 1 paradox

Exfcellent Gord! :thumb:

At some point I did the mental math of the use converting to the metric system in terms of road signage.

There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. England OTOH has about 250,000 miles.

Not a small undertaking to convert.

Sand crab 09-11-2014 07:28

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay (Post 1673536)
Americans claim to use the Imperial Measurement System, rather than the Metric one.
Yeah right, they all know what 9mm is though.

Well, actually I don't. I'm not a gun guy and am about the only one in Montana!

I was talking to my hunting guide friend about bullet size a while back. I had the millimeters figured out but never thought about the caliber size. I asked him if it was based on something and he said it was totally random measurement. It took me less than a minute to find out it was based on 100ths of an inch thanks to Mr. Google. So here we have a hunting guide that has probably shot 10s of thousands of bullets that has no clue what a bullet size comes from. Think about that!

bill352 09-11-2014 07:29

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
And let's not forget the metric unit every sailor should know - the millihelen.

K_V_B 09-11-2014 07:31

Re: Convenience of the metric system
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Canibul (Post 1673593)
Ah, I think you might be getting confused between the USA and Texas. They are two completely different places.

Well, I just came back from a conference and one could spot the Americans hectometers away.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 20:52.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.