# Metric vs. Imperial



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I was inspired by the some comments in the 'Meatloaf' thread to start this one.

Being born in the mid sixties, I was educated exclusively in Metric. Although I remember my teachers weren't quick to use it in all applications (this applied straight through to University). Despite or perhaps because of this, I only use the system partially. The closest unit I have embraced fully is temperature (I think it makes more sense having freezing at zero) although I still think of body temp in Imperial.

I'm comfortable with Kilometers but less so with meters and even less, centimeters and millimeters. Weight I still use Imperial, although I can deal with grams.

I've met very few people who use Metric exclusively. We seemed to have created a working hybrid system. Considering it has been 36 years since it's introduction, you would think it would have fully taken root.

What about you? How do you use the Metric system?


----------



## AndyB (Oct 13, 2006)

Great topic. I was born and raised in the UK under the imperial system about 2 years out of school the UK started it's long and still unfinished switch to metric. Personally I'm comfotable with either but I'm really on the Hybrid system.

Politicians never think these moves through to the end i.e. was a complete textile industry going to scrap millions of $ in 54 inch wide weaving machines and buy new 1 or 2 metre machines no so we end up with strange measurements whether it be fabric, beer or copper tube. Who was the winner?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'm comfortable using either and can convert back and forth the most commonly used measurements readily.

The two exceptions that come to mind are pressure (kg/cm^2 vs lbs/sq in) and larger areas (hectares vs acres). Always have to look those two up to convert.

Despite the fact that the metric system has been in place for 36 years, there are still products which are measured in Imperial. Building supplies come to mind. You can buy a 19mm thick sheet of plywood that is 4'x8', 2x6 lumber and insulation that fits either a 16" or 24" stud placement.

And, the last time I checked, it was still first down and 10 yards to go.

AndyB, I'm not sure who the "winner" is/was, but haven't there been some significant problems generated w/ conversions, ie. aircraft fuel (litres vs gallons)? 

I agree with your observation of politicians' short-sightedness. At the same time, it seemed to make sense to have a common measurement system worldwide. Without everyone on board, though, all it's going to do is make things more complex.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

What's "imperial"? There are pounds, ounces, feet, yards and inches. There are grams for weighing jewelry and that's it. There is something else I'm missing?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> What's "imperial"? There are pounds, ounces, feet, yards and inches. There are grams for weighing jewelry and that's it. There is something else I'm missing?


U.S. units are named like the Imperial system from Britain, but often use different values.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What he said.
I'm exactly where FexL is - comfortable in both except tire pressures and no sense of a hectare.

I PREFER Fahrenheit for temperature for it's finer gradient.

Feet and inches and weight for people but Ks etc okay for distance and speed tho I find it easy to convert.
186,000,000 miles per second will always be lightspeed for me.

I find 100gm weight measures = rip off for food cost assessing.

Both systems have their plus and minus aspects for me and I like the choice - like bringing new words into language that "work better".

I agree metric should be taught exclusively in schools and I wish they would include Dvorak in that initiative 


I think it has not entirely rooted here because some of the major divisions are not well suited to "human scale" assessments.

For instance- were teh Kg closer in weight to the lb as KM and miles and yards and meter are - then perhaps acceptance would be easier.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I found it very funny, when I was working in the US, to deal with people who worked with the metric system exclusively in the lab, but couldn't wrap their heads around the exact same units outside of the lab.

I used to tease my boss about having our fish embryos growing at 28.5oC, but she didn't recognize what I meant when I said "it must be almost 30 degrees outside" one summer afternoon.

I still fall back to pounds, feet and inches when I describe someone's size, but apart from that, I'm fully metric.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since it was my post that likely inspired the topic, I guess i should toss in my two cents worth.

I use kilometers with ease and found it quick from the beginning to calculate distance and in particular travel time as in 100 km = one hour. Sure beat dividing miles by 60 to get the same answer.

Hectares is a mystery to me. Now acres I understand, having grown up on 160 of them, (a quarter section) which gave me an appreciation for the measurement that endures to this day.

I have built or remodelled the basements of four homes since metric arrived on the scene and did it all in feet and inches. Even bought the materials at the lumber yard in those very measurements and built it all on 16 inch centres and half inch drywall.

I have adjusted to buying my shaved ham or beef in quantities or multiples thereof of 100 g, but it ends there. I buy my beef and pork by the half in pounds, along with free range chickens by the same weight.

A bottle of Scotch, Rye or Rum will always be a "26" or a "40 pounder" to me, and a beer is poured into a 12 ounce glass.

Those big cans of Tomato juice are 48 oz. in my mind to this day, as are 10 oz. cans of soup. That being said, I can deal with buying my canned shrimp, crab or lobster in gram sized containers rather than the 4 oz. tins they really are. It kind of relates back to the 100 g of shaved luncheon meats.

A steak or a roast on the other hand is in pounds and ounces as is every recipe I ever use. Never did buy any metric measuring spoons and since nearly every recipe out there is given in imperial, I saw and still see no need to rush out and buy any.

In all the miles I flew in corporate jets, we always cruised at an altitude in feet and took on fuel in pounds of weight.

In my spindle business we manufacture two lengths of decorative spindles, 34 or 44 inch and install railings to the code height of 36 inches. Our installers are paid piece work in feet installed be it on the level or along the risers. I buy all my wood railings and wood spindles and associated boards by the foot. They don't even carry them by any type of metric measure at the hardwood warehouse.

I'm with MacDoc on both temperature and the speed of light. Fahrenheit is my preference. I am also convinced the Celsius scale is responsible for the winter blues many Canadians get due to it's negative connotation in that we live in minus temperatures for months each winter when it is really above zero Fahrenheit.

That and I am still five foot eleven inches and weight 186 pounds.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I am also convinced the Celsius scale is responsible for the winter blues many Canadians get due to it's negative connotation in that we live in minus temperatures for months each winter when it is really above zero Fahrenheit.


Interesting. I never thought of it this way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Interesting. I never thought of it this way.


If you think about it, there is a whole new mind set when you are told it is a cold -15 out there on the morning radio news.

Imagine when I was a youngster the announcer saying, "we've got a beautiful mild morning out there at +5".

My Mom never even insisted I wear a scarf unless it was below zero, and nowadays that is -18 which most consider cold. It wasn't then and it isn't now. We've been conditioned to plug in our cars today at -20 and we never did that until -20 fahrenheit (-29 celsius) in the old days. We now promote energy waste because of it.

See my point?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Relax and enjoy


lasseyka = uh oh.

Buh-bye


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Guess the mods are all sleeping in this morning. I reported this one hours ago.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There tons and tonnes, and knots for sailors and pilots.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is likely no coincidence that my 284 liter fuel tank on my Canadian built motor home equals exactly 75 US gallons in the US manufactured Ford chassis.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> Guess the mods are all sleeping in this morning. I reported this one hours ago.


A whole hour ago!  :lmao: 

Just quickly getting ready for MacWorld, getting hair cut etc...


----------



## poisonmonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

I used both as well.

I use metric for distances and lengths (except for paper where 8.5 x 11 is in inches)
I use imperial for weight, I know how much I weigh in pounds not kg... 
Odd but it sorta works... ish.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

I became an instant convert to metric in the early 1960's when I took Grade 11 Chemistry. We were allowed to work in either system, but the constants in Imperial had no consistency - you just had to memorize them. In Metric, though, everything is inter-linked. For example, a cubic centimetre of pure water at standard temperature and pressure weighs one gram. So, being lazy, I chose metric.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> A whole hour ago!  :lmao:
> 
> Just quickly getting ready for MacWorld, getting hair cut etc...


Are you going to be sending us photos and updates and good stuff like that Mr. Mayor?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I'm really screwed up on the entire thing.

Temperatures above 100 F, I need to hear in Fahrenheit to know how hot it is. Temperatures below 60 F, I need to hear in Celsius to know how cold it is. Anything in-between I can handle in both.

For distance, I can do mm, cm, inches, yards and km...I am not clear on fractions of inches, metres and miles.

For speed I need KM/h, not MPH.

For weight I need pounds, not kg; litres, not gallons and everything else is a crap shoot.

I'd like to personally thank the politicians behind this nonsense, my teachers and my parents for helping to make sure that I will be forever confused by this.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Perhaps we should call this phenomenon 'Metrial' or 'Imptric'


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I'm really screwed up on the entire thing.
> 
> Temperatures above 100 F, I need to hear in Fahrenheit to know how hot it is. Temperatures below 60 F, I need to hear in Celsius to know how cold it is. Anything in-between I can handle in both.
> 
> ...


This might be a geographical / age thing. I grew up in Calgary and am clear on exactly everything above, just like you, except I don't understand Celcius above 32˚C, and I know what a cup is = 250 ml (easy). I remember in grade 3 they changed half way through the school year to teaching us metric. I never learnt the term "Imperial". Instead I use "Standard".


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I work at an engineering firm so I basically need to be hybrid -- metric when working government jobs (or private clients who request it), imperial for private jobs. 

Airflow, CFM or l/s. Water flow, US GPM, Imperial GPM, or l/s. Pressure, PSI or kPa. Head pressure, in w.g., mm w.g..

Distance, I'm comfortable in imperial units up to 12', beyond that I have trouble visualizing the distance without converting to metric. I don't like miles, it takes longer to travel a mile than it does a kilometre.

Speed, Usually okay there. 25-40mph in the city, 68mph on the freeway, and most american drivers drive 80mph, including grandmas. So the official insult in the states is "You drive like a Canadian." To me it's all in the name of fuel efficiency. In Vancouver I used to drive 70km/h on city streets and 85km/h on city freeways - go figure.

I'm proficient in both lb and kg, though I tend to give my height and weight in cm and kg.

Celsius is good for me up to 110 C, Fahrenheit well I know that steel melts at 1790 F and I bake my chicken wings at 400F.

Interesting fact from my girl -- in Korea (metric system), TV and monitor screen sizes are in inches, and cars and motorcycles are rated in HP.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I am also convinced the Celsius scale is responsible for the winter blues many Canadians get due to it's negative connotation in that we live in minus temperatures for months each winter when it is really above zero Fahrenheit." Sinc, I think that the "winter blues" are caused by the length and intensity of sunlight, not temps, be they in Celsius or Fahrenheit. I am finally starting to think in Celcius.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> "I am also convinced the Celsius scale is responsible for the winter blues many Canadians get due to it's negative connotation in that we live in minus temperatures for months each winter when it is really above zero Fahrenheit." Sinc, I think that the "winter blues" are caused by the length and intensity of sunlight, not temps, be they in Celsius or Fahrenheit. I am finally starting to think in Celcius.


I am not thinking in terms of the winter blues as being a disease caused by shortage of light (SAD). I refer to the physiological effect those negatives for much of the year have on a person. "Plus five" just sounds and makes us feel so much better than "minus fifteen".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I never thought of it that way. Still, whenever the temps get below -10C here in St.John's, that usually means sunny weather and no snow. 4C to -9C is when we get the least amount of sun and the most amount of snow and sleet, which is VERY depressing.


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

I'm 27 and I suppose that means I grew up in metric. I'm baffled by miles and ounces, but ok with feet, inches and pounds. Imperial is more workable for human-scale stuff


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

I think it might be an age thing. I'm a hybrid, feet and yards for 
people (I'm 6')
paper (8 1/2" x 11")
building measurements (room is 10' x 12' wood is 2" x 4" etc.)
football (1st and 10 yards)
hockey (200' x 85')
golf (hit my 5 iron 165 yards that time)

but I'd never think of a 100 yard dash or a mile race and I drive in km per hour.

Temps I have been more and more in Celsius

Weight for me? Pounds
Weight for the honey ham I bought at the deli counter today? grams

My Diet Coke comes in 2 litre bottles. 

However my kids who are 16 and 13 give me funny looks when I mention feet and inches and say it is 75 degrees out today when I slip and fall back into Fahrenheit


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

I am living in the US so I use both. I like to use Metric better but most people do not use it whitch makes it hard to use. Hoever if I am working by myself I use Metric because of its ease of use and international aceptence. I perfere to use K (Kalven) for tempture though sence it makes more sence ( 0K is abslute 0)dispite the fact that most people don't know what it means.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

There are three; SI (metric), Imperial (formerly used everywhere except the US) and US Weights and Measures.

The US system was initiated after the war of Independence; a US gallon is slightly smaller than an Imperial gallon, which has the effect of making a shipment of X gallons of molasses, for example, appear cheaper from the US supplier. It was done to create a trade advantage for US merchants; the idea was that a buyer would not know the difference in size existed and choose the apparently cheaper US supplier.

A US ounce is bigger than an imperial ounce; 128 US ounces equals one US gallon. In comparison, an Imperial ounce is smaller than a US ounce, but 160 of them creates a larger Imperial gallon.

The Imperial measures have a historical foundation. For example, counting in England after the Roman period was typically done by scores; a score = 20. If you read British text documents of, say, 1600, you will find numbers written in a kind of modified roman numerals. Instead of III for three, it would always be written in lowercase, and the last "one" was always written as "j".

For example, xxij, or "two and twenty" which was understood to mean 2 plus one score, or 22. Another example would be the French word for 80: quatre-vingts, or "four twenties". Another example: the old British pound was 20 shillings (now they have decimal pounds).

"Pound" comes from the roman Libra, and a pound note would be written "li", a pound weight "lb". The symbol £ derives from the Roman abbreviation for Libra, "L".

Thus, one gallon was made up of 8 score ounces. Similarly, one gallon is the exact volume of 10 pounds of water.

The US measures have none of these relationships; they were altered more-or-less arbitrarily just to be different. Since land deeds were already written in miles, acres, etc, and altering all property was impractical, the Imperial mile, and thus the foot, yard, etc., was retained.

A US Gallon is 128 ounces, or four 32 ounce quarts, an Imperial Gallon is 160 ounces, or four 40 ounce quarts. Because the ounces themselves are different sizes, the two Quarts are much closer than you might think to each other and to 1 liter, perhaps showing that it's a handy measure for everyday use.

US Quart = 946.3 ml; Imperial Quart = 1,136 ml; a liter is of course 1000 ml.

Perhaps more than any other country, in Canada people are more familiar with all three measures; the housewife of the 1960's knew exactly how the US and Imperial measures differed, since the success of every recipe and the proper amounts of each ingredient depended on it.

It was common to find canned goods or jars in grocery stores in either measure here, while in the US or the UK you would only find the domestic measure in stores, or used in recipes.

Today, perhaps the most obvious carry-over effect is found in one of my favorite beverages: beer. A Canadian bottle of beer is 341 ml, or 12 Imperial ounces. A can of beer, however, is 355 ml, or 12 US ounces.


----------



## SkyHook (Jan 23, 2001)

>


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

The ultimate paradox, Imperial Cheese measured in grams! 

(I love this cheese BTW...)


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

My wife was raised in Canada and I was raised in France (100% metric), we now live in England (metric + miles & stones). Funny how she can't get her head around size, volumes and weights. For me the simplicity of the system can be summarised as 10cm (0.1m) cubed is 1 litre is 1 kg of water. Everything including cooking ingredients can be estimated from there provided you make minor adjustments for estimated density. So when a recipe calls for 1 cup or whatever I make a quick conversion to the nearest metric unit and then choose weight or volume as appropriate.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Moscool: yes, the metric system was also based on real physical world values: another example is one meter, which was what they calculated to be, at the time, as 1/40,000,000th of the polar circumference of the Earth. 1 litre of water was originally defined from the meter; ie: 1 dm³ (although "cubic decimeter" isn't a very common phrase today).

Although they were out a little on the meter value (no surprise there) they had the good sense to define it. So, even though they realized that measuring the earth was impractical, they did it anyway, and then set about creating an official definition that fit the answer. But, there are two parts to this story.

First came the Englishmen. A definition suggested by Christopher Wren, involved creating a metronome, with as heavy a pendulum and as light a string as practical, and then measuring the length of string necessary to make it swing with a 1-second period. A man by the name of Reverend John Wilkens found 0.4x the length of string fit the size he had in mind; ie what he had calculated circumfrence of the Earth to be. So, that's the official definiton of what he called a "standard". He then went about creating a base 10 system on that length.

If you follow Reverend Wilkens' experiment, you will find the Englishman's "standard" to be 39.25 inches. He defined an "inch" that turned out to be 1 cm; a "mile" that turnes out to be within inches of a km, and a "pint" that is remarkably close to 1 liter. He set out all these, and much more, in a book published in 1668.

110 years later, the Metric System was proposed as a standard system of measurement by the French Academy of Sciences and was defined using the original Earth circumfrence mesurement, today there is a rod of (I think) platinum somwhere that serves as the official meter by which all others can be measured against. I think it likely that someone had come across Wilkens' book, but whether by mistake or simply the result of French Pride and the nature of who writes the history books, the French are often credited with the invention.

Skyhook: Stubbies, green Coke bottles, and anything from the past that was made in Canada and supposed to be 12 ounces is 341 ml.

There was some resistance to metal cans for drinks in Canada, since glass was reused and recycled but metal was not; the original metal cans were steel. Some provinces banned metal cans for a time; others introduced deposits as a means to deal with the disposeable nature of the containers.

The US had no such objections in the 60's and even today there are still states that have no container deposits at all. In places like Arkansas, if you collect a truckoad of cans you get a few dollars; when I was there they paid 60 cents a pound (and it takes _a lot of cans_ to make a pound). Most highway collection and beverage can recycling is done by church groups and community clubs as a civic duty; there is no money in it.

Aluminum was too expensive at the time to be used with the technology of the day; modern aluminum cans are very thin and contain very little metal. One result of all this is that the first plants to bottle in cans were in the US and even after plants were set up in Canada, the materials and machinery is set up to make 12 US ounce cans, or 355 ml.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think the kilogram was the last physical part of metric. All others based on frequencies etc.

Meter is now.
Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1 / 299 792 458 of a second.

your reference GG was



> 1927 October 6 — The seventh CGPM adjusts the definition of the length to be the distance, at 0 °C, between the axes of the two central lines marked on the prototype bar of platinum-iridium, this bar being subject to one standard atmosphere of pressure and supported on two cylinders of at least one centimetre diameter, symmetrically placed in the same horizontal plane at a distance of 571 millimetres from each other.


The kilogram reference sphere is about to be retired as well.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Resistance is futile*
*NASA finally goes metric*

 Tom Spears, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, January 12, 2007

NASA has finally agreed to fly to the moon in metric -- a move its own scientists have wanted ever since they mixed up kilometres with miles and crashed an expensive Mars probe.

More: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=18211507-994e-4bd3-8ede-9e50f9fa3074&k=34407


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> I think the kilogram was the last physical part of metric. All others based on frequencies etc.


The kilogram is also part of the elegant simplicity of the metric system: 1kg = mass of exactly 1 litre of water at 20 degrees. Which means that one cubic metre is exactly one metric tonne etc.

As stated above, metric hterefore allows for quick conversions between weight and volume if you estimate density.

Had not read the British version of the metric system, but it falls within the great tradition of the British inventing and the rest of the world benefiting (e.g. CT Scan, etc.)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> As stated above, metric hterefore allows for quick conversions between weight and volume if you estimate density.


don't forget that kilograms refer to mass, not weight, where as pounds are indeed weight and not mass

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

eg. if you weighed 180 pounds on Earth, you would weigh 30 pounds on the moon, but if your mass is 100 kg on Earth, it is still 100 kg on the moon


----------

