metric systems shortfall

metric rocks !

having to sue both oover here (UK) is bloody stupid. all the old people don’t unerstand the new system while none of the yong people understand the old one.

IMHO metric is best due to ease of calculations.

mixtec’s proposed compromise is an intresting idea.

IMHO over here we should just swich everything over at once because we have had generations educated in metric and they are driviing on the roads with imperila signs while everything else is in metric.

when we converted our currency from imperial to metric (see america you do use metric) we did it quick and that worked and it was much simpler.

rabie :9

btw – the confusion is costly as show by that nasa mars probe

RE: metric systems shortfall

Good point Garry. The problem with my metric foot being 1/3 of a meter is that you cant use it with centimeters without going back to uneven conversions. This wouldnt be a problem with metric gallons because liters would be .25 which factors evenly into 10. So in woodworking type situations I think your 3 decimeter idea would be better.

I forgot to mention, Vortex is right, horsepower is more than a static force because it uses time. Its weight moved a certain distance per amount of time.

RE: metric systems shortfall

“Since its directly convertable to metric by 1/3, their measures will be readily convertable to metric, and will allow them to make measures that people with the metric system can use. People who use the metric system might also find these measures practicle and use them also.”

This adds multiples of three to the system. The whole idea of the system seems to me that one unit is used so that it is all base ten type calculations.
(What I mean is that centi, milli, kilo etc are used instead of 1/3rd or 1/4th. The calculation of changing between centimetres and millimetres is no calculation at all… you just shift the decimal point one place. If you add 1/3 of a metre then to convert to metres then you have to actually do a real calculation.

“I mean isnt it more exacting to refer to a room 12 feet by 8 feet rather than 3.6 meter by 5.8 meters”

If your house has a room that is 12 by 8 ft the metric conversion makes the numbers awkward. But only in the sense that they are no longer round numbers.
The fact that builders like round numbers was probably why the room is 12ft by 8ft.
When builders adopt the metric system the room will probably be made bigger… ie 6m x 3m or 6m x 4m.

Here in New Zealand we adopted the metric system in about the 70s or 80s. All the builders I know have no problem working in Metres in both new and old houses… whether they are really old houses with 12ft ceilings or newer ones with 8ft ceilings. My brother in law builds houses and renovates old ones… he doesn’t use feet and inches on the old houses and metres and cms on the new… he uses Metres and cms on all.
When old people estimate distances they still give their results in feet then usually give a metric equivelent estimate. Younger people just give their figures in metric.

One Decimetre is 10cms… so instead of a metric foot why not use 3 decimetres?

Going back to my brother in law… he uses metres, cm or mm depending on the accuracy required… ie whole metres is good enough for room/section/building size, whereas cms is often good enough ordering materials (usually a couple of cms more than is needed… too long is better than too short) while for cutting materials mm is used so there are no gaps or as small a gap as possible.

RE: metric systems shortfall

>>>Yes Im proposing that a few metric equivelants of the Imperial system be added to the metric system, I listed 5 additions to the metric system and 5 alternatives of nomanclature for those used to the names in the Imperial system.

So when you say
metric foot= 1/3 meter

do you want the metric system to change to accomodate the metric foot or do you want the imperial foot to change to accomodate the metric system. Because what you advocate would for sure mean that one of the systems would have to change to accomodate the other, or are you proposing a new set of measurements to be used in place of the current imperial system?!!?

The more I explain this, the more I think Im complicating a simple thing.
No, I dont want the metric system or imperial system to change. I just want to add 5 additional measures, sort of a mini add-on to the metric system to provide a middleground between metric and imperial systems. Having a metric foot will allow people who use the imperial system to use a measure that is very practical and is missing in the metric system. Since its directly convertable to metric by 1/3, their measures will be readily convertable to metric, and will allow them to make measures that people with the metric system can use. People who use the metric system might also find these measures practicle and use them also.

>>>As Puffadder pointed out feet are commonly used in european aviation and boating because metric measures just arent practical.

Feet is commonly used in aviation and sailing because of convention not because of ease of use. I find it hard to believe calculations conversions in ft/lb are easier than in SI.

I NEVER said they were easier to convert. The size of the foot itself makes it easier to estimate/visualize distances. And it produces numbers to work with that are rounder.

Hence in SI we have kph and not mach numbers to measure speed. one has to use a practical scale to measure what one wants. Certainly one would not use mm or inches to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon. It can be done but one always uses a practical unit.

Let me make it clear, Im not advocating its use when doing calculations. But I believe you will find that feet are easier to work with in everyday use, not in science/technology where in design use they are combined/converted constantly. Yards I think are too bulky and more difficult to visualize when estimating size of large objects (large as in a room or a flag pole). Maybe you who use metric are accustomed to using a yard size measure to measure a room and it doesnt bother you to refer to a room as 2.3 x 4.6 meters, I personally would like the option of feet measure in addition to meters/yards, and it wouldnt bother me if the size of the foot were slightly changed to make it directly convertable to metric.

RE: metric systems shortfall

>Using Kg as weight is scientifically wrong, …

I know; mass = density x volume strictly speaking = kg; strictly speaking!

>you are suggesting mass is NOT constant when you go to various
>places on earth

No sir, mass will remain constant no matter where one is – i’m sorry I was unclear in my earlier post. Force acting on the mass varies, depending on gravitational acceleration. Therefore one “weighs” less on the moon than on the earth, and one is “weightless” when one orbits the earth. Here “weight” is used instead of force

>There are many other examples and all it takes is to convert between them, so what’s the big deal.

I agree. So long as one is abel to get a “feel” of what someone is talkign about it should be fine

RE: metric systems shortfall

>>>The fact is, all the measures convert evenly althouth not to exact multibles of 10 like the metric system.

Not really – for instance ft to yard. feet to fathom, and feet to mile = 3′; 6′ and 5280′. Then when I convert back from yd to ft; fathom to ft and mile to ft i get = 1/3; 1/6 and 1/5280! not very handy that; inspite of what you may think.

OTOH for mm to m and mm to km = 1000 mm and 1,000,000 mm, when I convert back again, I just have to move the decimal point to the left by the required amount to arrive at any reverse conversion very simply and very easily ie 1/1000 and 1/1,000,000. Being multiples of ten is the advantage of the metric system, one only requires to move decimal points to arrive at quicker conversions

>>>You guys keep making a big deal about the Imperial System originating from body parts. Who cares where the standard originated, whether its a platinum rod in a french vault or the kings elbow.

Never said that vortex used it as a support for feel. I could care less about the body parts either.

>>Yes Im proposing that a few metric equivelants of the Imperial system be added to the metric system, I listed 5 additions to the metric system and 5 alternatives of nomanclature for those used to the names in the Imperial system.

So when you say
metric foot= 1/3 meter

do you want the metric system to change to accomodate the metric foot or do you want the imperial foot to change to accomodate the metric system. Because what you advocate would for sure mean that one of the systems would have to change to accomodate the other, or are you proposing a new set of measurements to be used in place of the current imperial system?!!?

>>>As Puffadder pointed out feet are commonly used in european aviation and boating because metric measures just arent practical.

Feet is commonly used in aviation and sailing because of convention not because of ease of use. I find it hard to believe calculations conversions in ft/lb are easier than in SI. Maybe if he can explain more clearly, I would understand better. For instance I know 1 m/s = 0.001 km / s x 60 = 0.06 km / min x 60 = 3.6 kph – its that simple!!! CAN YOU tell me how many miles an hour is 1 ft/s WITHOUT USING YOUR CALCULATOR.

>>>You guys keep mentioning “feel”, which I assume means being accustomed to visualizing/estimating measures in the real world. Im not saying the Imperial system has better feel than metric, if I used mach numbers to measure the speed Im driving, Im sure I could estimate my speed as well as any other system, its just the numbers itself would be cumbersome to work with (ie mach .012745 on highway signs).

Again feel was mentioned by Vortex I think.

Hence in SI we have kph and not mach numbers to measure speed. one has to use a practical scale to measure what one wants. Certainly one would not use mm or inches to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon. It can be done but one always uses a practical unit.

Let me illustrate with an example to you. The mean orbit of the moon around the earth is 192,201.5 km which if I want to convert to mm will only mean that I have to add six zeros to the above figure arriving at 1,922,015,00,000 mm. Its that simple and right off the top of my head. OTOH I’d bet there are a very few people who could tell me the mean orbit of the moon around the earth in inches WITHOUT USING A CALCULATOR even if I give the number = 103,780.51 as nautical miles. Please do try and give that to me in inches without using a calculator!!!

>>>The fact that the Imperial system is man made and not multibles of one single scientific measurement means it the size of the measurement handles specifac ranges better without resorting to fractional numbers.

On the contrary!!! since there is no equivalent of ml/mm or cl/cm in the imperial system, i could just as easily count 1/4 litres/metres as 25 cl/cm or even as 250 ml/mm which is more accurate with NO FRACTIONS. Or 1 ft = 304.8 mm or 304,800,000 micrometres (microns). In the above examples clearly SI has the better scope of accurately depicting measures without fractions. If required we could drill deeper and get into the micrometre and nanometre ranges = 1/1,000,000 and 1/1,000,000,000 AND STILL WORK WITH WHOLE NUMBERS as desired by you. I also think working with decimals is far easier than working with fractions. I dont have to remember least common denominators and highest common multiples to multiply and divide fractions. One can simply multiply and divide the numbers with each other – therefore easier to do in ones head.

RE: metric systems shortfall

got to correct you there, a horsepower is “power” not a force. A poundforce is the usual association of the word “pound”, while a poundmass is associated with mass. In English units, mass is usually associated with “slugs”. What i don’t understand is why are engineers so reluctant at times to learn both systems. It certainly brings out a very interesting perspective if you can view it both ways. Engineering is a practice of getting good at guesstimating. To develope a “feel” is very important, even in non-tangibles like electrical engineerings. You can’t feel an electron, but you can feel other parameters like time and space an electron is moving through materials (conductance). For orders of magnitude feel i like to use SI since everything is based ten. In designing physical objects i like to use inches because everything is fractional. Sure, there are also decimal systems for inches called “mil”. One mil is 1000th of an inch. This an interesting subject since we’ve been at it before too. To “feel” pressure, i like to use psi or atm. I can directly think of 1psi as one pound of force on one square inch, that’s a very powerful visualization. It’s very hard for me to picture 1 Pascal, or 1000Pascal as 1000N per square meter. Or if i try to simplify it, 10,000Pascal is about 1N on 1 cm squared(approx 1/10 of an atmosphere), but then back to how much is 1N. Using Kg as weight is scientifically wrong, you are suggesting mass is NOT constant when you go to various places on earth (i don’t mind using Kg as body weight though, it’s ok, no big deal). There are many other examples and all it takes is to convert between them, so what’s the big deal.

RE: metric systems shortfall

I think the Imperial system too has a weight definition equivalent to Newton, but I don’t know for sure, and have no idea about the conversion factor.

Theyre called footpounds. Horsepower is also a measurement of force which is converatable to newtons. The fact that there are so many measures of force illustrates my point that a measure is not always practical if it doesnt fit into the range of units its supposed to measure.

Are you proposing a metric equivalent Imperial system; or are you saying that SI should be changed so that 1′ = 1/3 m = 1 yd??????

Yes Im proposing that a few metric equivelants of the Imperial system be added to the metric system, I listed 5 additions to the metric system and 5 alternatives of nomanclature for those used to the names in the Imperial system. As Puffadder pointed out feet are commonly used in european aviation and boating because metric measures just arent practical. I think it would be better to use a type of feet that are more readily convertable.

You guys keep mentioning “feel”, which I assume means being accustomed to visualizing/estimating measures in the real world. Im not saying the Imperial system has better feel than metric, if I used mach numbers to measure the speed Im driving, Im sure I could estimate my speed as well as any other system, its just the numbers itself would be cumbersome to work with (ie mach .012745 on highway signs).
You guys keep making a big deal about the Imperial System originating from body parts. Who cares where the standard originated, whether its a platinum rod in a french vault or the kings elbow. The fact is, all the measures convert evenly althouth not to exact multibles of 10 like the metric system. The fact that the Imperial system is man made and not multibles of one single scientific measurement means it the size of the measurement handles specifac ranges better without resorting to fractional numbers.

RE: metric systems shortfall

Hi Garry
I´m a metric guy myself and the system is great. However, in the field of aviation there are some simple calculations that a pilot can easily perform in his head if he uses the imperial measurement. If he tries to use the metric equivalents he wouldn´t be able to do it without a computer. Speak to any French or German pilot and you´ll have him talking imperial measurements when it comes to aviation.

RE: metric systems shortfall

Shalav
“mixtec I dont understand what you are saying if we do as suggested “

I think what Mixtec is suggesting is that when he uses the Imperial measuring system he finds some equivelents handy. One foot of measurement is actually reasonably close to one adult persons foot size. As most of the Imperial measurements were derived from the human body rather than intangible things like the distance light travels over a certain time period etc the average person can roughly estimate these measures. In my case my feet are slightly bigger than 12 inches when I am wearing shoes. This means I know I can use my feet to estimate quickly a short distance… say the size of a room with my shoes… deducting a small amount for the difference between my shoe size and 12 inches means I canbe quite accurate. There is no shoe sized equivelent in the Metric system so if Imperial was forgotten he is suggesting I could no longer use my shoes.
This is of course wrong as I have measured my shoe size in cms which makes the calculation just as simple. (ie 10 shoe lengths for a wall might equal 12 ft of actual distance… but I worked it out by multiplying the size of my shoes by the size of my shoes. If I knew my shoes were 35cm long then I’d know the wall was about 350cm or 3.5 metres. Metres and Cms and mm are all decimal numbers… I think that is their advantage. No more multiplying by 12 or whatever. Length has one standard measure unit (metres) rather than many (inches, feet, yards, miles, etc etc)

RE: metric systems shortfall

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-07-02 AT 07:11 AM (GMT)]>”Like how much you weight? That would be in Newtons wouldn’t
>it? “
>
>No, it would be Kgs which I can also estimate by handling
>much as you can estimate in pounds.

A strict physics definition of weight = “kg” is “volume x density = mass”

“force = mass x gravitational acceleration = Newtons (N)”

I think the Imperial system too has a weight definition equivalent to Newton, but I don’t know for sure, and have no idea about the conversion factor.

In our normal everyday, down to earth lives we use kg as a definition weight, since gravitational acceleration is constant in our lives at every moment.

RE: metric systems shortfall

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-07-02 AT 06:55 AM (GMT)]Let me put this another way. Perhaps you may understand my POV too!

I grew up with the metric system of weights and measures, though where I come from (India) we have our local W&M too.

Like Arthur pointed out the metric system logically evolves into the various measures.

1 metre (or meter in America) is = Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1/299 792 458 of a second. I think this was adopted in the 80s. Before this the definition was something to do with 1.65 x 10^6 wavelengths of orange light in a vacuum(!???!), before that it was a platinum rod maintained at a certain temprature and humidity which was the worldwide reference.

The logical extensions for this measurement are:

millimetre = 1 m x 10^-3 = 0.001 m
centimetre = 1 m x 10^-2 = 0.01 m
decimetre = 1 m x 10^-1 = 0.1 m
metre = Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1/299 792 458 of a second or 1m x 10^0
decametre = 1 m x 10^1 = 10 m
hectometre = 1 m x 10^2 = 100 m
kilometre = 1 m x 10^3 = 1000 m

BTW 300 decimetres = 30 m = 32.81 yds :9

1 second = “The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.” – dont ask me what that means! BTW the definition comes from here http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

0 deg Kelvin is = Absolute freezing = -273.15 deg C (which “freezing” point of distilled water at sea level) = -373.15 deg C (which is the “boiling” point of distilled water at sea level). 0 deg C as the freezing point and 100 deg C as the boiling point, makes referencing a lot simpler – at least to my mind it is a better reference than 32 deg F for freezing of water and 212 as the boiling point of water!

A metric ton = 1 cubic metre of distilled water at 4 deg C (where water is at its is the densest) at sea level or 1,000,000 (100 x 100 x 100) cubic cm (cc) of water with the same conditions.

1 litre = 1/1,000 of a metric ton = 1 kilo = 1,000 cc (with water being the measure with same conditions as above). Therefore if I have a litre of water of water in my hand I know I am holding 1 kilo, if I have .453 litres of water in my hand I know I am holding ~ .453 kilos etc… etc… Conversely if I am holding about .25 kilos of water in my hand I know I have about .25 litres of water or 250 cc – simple isn’t it? No factorials, no divisors and no fractions. Instantly convertible between a weight and a measure, which is the basic advantage of SI or the metric system for that matter.

Coming to the point of easy understanding or “feel” – because I grew up with this system I have a rough idea of a metre and kilo as a measure of distance and weight. “ROUGHLY” I can say a metre is 1 step – more or less the same as a yard. If I need a more accurate measure I break out my measuring instruments. I know a kilometre is how much I can walk in about 9-10 minutes which is roughly equal to 15 minutes for a mile in the imperial system! Or personally I would associate it as a relationship with the distance to the nearest significant landmark. For instance I may say 1.5 km = about 1 mile = about 3 times the distance to the streetcorner from my house!!!

Further I find it difficult to immediately associate miles/lb to any meaningful W&M when I hear them being referred to. I have to mentally convert into SI to make sense out of the weights and measures being quoted before I could respond.

As mentioned earlier it is a matter of choice, and one would always associate a W&M to a personal experience, such as a multiple or divisor to the street corner from ones house for instance.

mixtec I dont understand what you are saying if we do as suggested

metric foot= 1/3 meter
metric ounce= 1/32 kilo

1 foot = 0.3048 m which changing to 1 metric foot = 1/3 of a m = 0.3333 m which is about 3 cm (~1 1/5″) more than the standard m/ft conversion

1 metric oz = 1/32 = 0.0311 kg anyway [scratches head in confusion] 😮

etc… etc…

Are you proposing a metric equivalent Imperial system; or are you saying that SI should be changed so that 1′ = 1/3 m = 1 yd??????

Hope I haven’t rambled too much. 😀

RE: metric systems shortfall

“Like how much you weight? That would be in Newtons wouldn’t it? “

No, it would be Kgs which I can also estimate by handling much as you can estimate in pounds.

Sounds to me like some Americans are planning to do with the metric system what they did to the English language… the result will of course be a standard that is not standard… kinda defeats the purpose really.

But you do what you like… just don’t expect us to adopt it… }>
(Or understand it… we are used to not understanding you now… }> )

RE: metric systems shortfall

Arthur, i think mixtec is trying to say that units should be associated with “feel” also. That’s certainly true for some everyday things. Like how much you weight? That would be in Newtons wouldn’t it? Most Americans can roughly guess how much a pound is (a standard size grapefruit 😉 ). I deal with both systems daily and i covert between them all the time so basically it becomes much easier for me to “feel” the physical world. Helps a lot if you’re an engineer, especially a designer. Use the best of both worlds. The down side? None, because i’m not lazy to convert it and it actually helps me to solve both ways. As to which is the best, well certain Americans can also say our system is perfect. To be perfect is to talk about non-dimensional numbers }>

RE: metric systems shortfall

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-07-02 AT 03:21 AM (GMT)]Arthur- Ill admit my post is a bit jumbled and not very clear, so let me spell out clearly the modifications to the metric system Id like to see:

metric foot= 1/3 meter
metric ounce= 1/32 kilo
metric gallon= 4 liters
metric pint= 1/2 liter
metric cup= 1/4 liter

As you can see these measures are fully compatable with the rest of the metric system. They just make up for sizes of measure that are lacking in the metric system, but which the english system addresses.

I also would like an americanized nomanclature for equivelant measures between english and metric:

meter- metric yard
centimeter- metric inch
kilometer- metric mile
kilogram- metric double pound
liter- metric quart

Ive always enjoyed cheap IQ tests, so of course I cant pass yours up:

Allright then… how many pints go into a case which is 13 inch long, 2 foot wide and 1 yard long? And if you pour a fluid in there which weighs 1/3rd pounds for each cubic inch, how much does that container weigh?

Well if your refering to metric pints(2000 sq centimeters) which is what Im suggesting, they will convet quite readily to metric inches(centimeters), metric feet(1/3 meter) and metric yards(meters). Admittedly the 1/3 meter for metric feet makes this calculation a little difficult, but Im only advocating use of metric feet for descriptive measurement, I mean isnt it more exacting to refer to a room 12 feet by 8 feet rather than 3.6 meter by 5.8 meters???

Or a simple one: if you walk two-thirds of a mile, how many yards is that?

Thats a kilometer!!! Again Im not advocating the adoption of english miles, and I simply want kilometers to be refered to as metric miles.

Oh, and a pound is not 2 kilos, it is 454 grams. Or 0.454 kilos if you like. Or the weight of 454 cubic centimetres of water.

Im just making a general comparison.

RE: metric systems shortfall

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-07-02 AT 10:00 PM (GMT)]Arthur,

“Or a simple one: if you walk two-thirds of a mile, how many yards is that”

I believe it is 1,173 yards and 1 and 1/5th of an inch.

Regards,

kev35

(Or I could be wrong?)

RE: metric systems shortfall

I’m in the UK, and am used to the metric system. To me it’s great because every measurement is in nice blocks, e.g 10mm in a cm 100cm in a metre etc. But I have to admit, the imperial system does seem to make more sense because an inch is roughly the distance from the knuckle on your thumb to the tip of the thumnail. I can’t remember any others, but all imperial distances are taken from the average persons body. Of course there are going to be differences because everyones different, but you can see where the measurements came from.

RE: metric systems shortfall

Allright then… how many pints go into a case which is 13 inch long, 2 foot wide and 1 yard long? And if you pour a fluid in there which weighs 1/3rd pounds for each cubic inch, how much does that container weigh?

Or a simple one: if you walk two-thirds of a mile, how many yards is that?

Seems to me like an impossible job in the imperial system. Metrically you can do it by heart in a matter of seconds. The great thing about the metric system is that ALL measurements are logically connected to each other, and are very easy to combine. Even weights are logical, since one kilo equals the weight of one cubic decimeter (=one litre) of water.

Oh, and a pound is not 2 kilos, it is 454 grams. Or 0.454 kilos if you like. Or the weight of 454 cubic centimetres of water.

Perhaps you don’t like the metric system because you’re not used to it. Fair enough, but that’s not a shortfall of the metric system which i consider to be perfect, I think it’s your shortfall.