EU and imperial measures

[Lime]

The problem for people who say that metrication is the bees knees is that the real world is not based on 10.
If it were then I would be in favour of it but it isn't.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The problem for people who say that metrication is the bees knees is that the real world is not based on 10.
If it were then I would be in favour of it but it isn't.

I don't feel desperately strongly about it one way or the other, though the "real world" not being based on 10 (except our finger, those useful counting aids) doesn't seem to have the slightest relevance to whether 1760 yards or 1000 metres should be the division of length used on road signs, and I get completely lost if you're claiming that it makes more sense to measure land area in units based on the area contained in a rectangle one furlong by one chain (which is, pleasingly enough, one tenth of a furlong) in dimensions (or one inch x 99 miles if you prefer), than to measure it in squares of one tenth of the 1000 metre measurement referred to above, in a system in which a one metre cube contains one tonne of water.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The problem for people who say that metrication is the bees knees is that the real world is not based on 10.
If it were then I would be in favour of it but it isn't.

I don't feel desperately strongly about it one way or the other, though the "real world" not being based on 10 (except our fingers, those useful counting aids) doesn't seem to have the slightest relevance to whether 1760 yards or 1000 metres should be the division of length used on road signs, and I get completely lost if you're claiming that it makes more sense to measure land area in units based on the area contained in a rectangle one furlong by one chain (which is, pleasingly enough, one tenth of a furlong) in dimensions (or one inch x 99 miles if you prefer), than to measure it in squares of one tenth of the 1000 metre measurement referred to above, in a system in which a one metre cube contains one tonne of water.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

In any case, by international agreement, all imperial measurements are defined in terms of their relationship to SI (metric) units, with the inch, for example, measuring exactly 25.4 mm, so imperial units are metric ones.

 

[DaveBrigg]

More confusion comes from tons and tonnes, which are mentioned sometimes on TV with no indication of which system is used. (Not to mention the different versions of 'billion')
On our recent trip to the former colonies, we managed a day at Kennedy Space Centre. The tour guide told us proudly of the crane used to winch the space shuttle upright which can be adjusted vertically to within 1/64 of an inch, and horizontally to within 1/1000 of an inch, with a shuttle weighing something like 8 million lbs. I wonder if the imperial was just for the tourists, or whether NASA design computers are set up to calculate in inches.
Having only been taught metric, can someone explain how to calculate the thickness of one layer of a thermal shield if 17 are needed, and the total thickness of all must be 3 inches?

 

[MdB]

On the contrary to many opinions on this thread I believe imperial to be founded on a much more sensible basis.
None of this circumference of the earth malarky

Some of the earliest records of the use of the foot come from the region of ancient Greece. The originators devised, or perhaps borrowed from Egypt, the degree of longitude, divided the circumference of the earth into 360 degrees, and subdivided the degree for shorter distances. One degree of longitude comprised 600 stadia. One stadion was divided into 600 feet. Thus the degree of longitude measured 360,000 feet.

Ask what a decametre is and the vast majority of the population will not know.

That is because it is not something that is now taught as it is a unit that has been depreciated (the same way the rod, pole, chain etc have gone out of use). However, once you know what a decametre is (10m) then you also know what a decagram, decalitre, decasecond etc are.

Micro, milli, kilo and mega cover most things for most people and are understood to mean the same thing throughout the world. Try covering 12 orders of magnitude in the Imperial range of units for length. Now do the same for area, volume, mass etc and see how many units you have to remember. Oh sorry, you can't do mass in the imperial system as it works on weight instead. Pity gravity isn't a fixed value.

 

[biffvernon]

internationally recognised standard is essential.

But I use English oak and the sawmill sells it by the cube - that's a cubic foot.

2400mm x 1200mm is at long last ousting the older 2440 x 1220,

So they got smaller. Like my field when Defra remeasured it from acres and roods to hectares and it got smaller

 

[MdB]

internationally recognised standard is essential.

But I use English oak and the sawmill sells it by the cube - that's a cubic foot.

I assume that they have also been selling it by the cubic metre since the year 2000 as otherwise they are breaking the law.

 

[MdB]

So they got smaller. Like my field when Defra remeasured it from acres and roods to hectares and it got smaller

My garden turned from half an acre to a third of an acre once I measured it due to slight discrepancy between what the estate agent said and what reality was... I guess there is nothing new there.. (either that or estate agents have their own measurement system...)

 

[Nemesis]

Teaspoons:

http://www.spooncollectors.com/spoon-displays/teaspoon-measurement.asp

 

[Penners]

as for all this wonderful maths made easy by metrication try filling a cardboard box with tins to see how useless the decimal system really is.

What an extraordinary basis upon which to judge a system of weights and measures!

 

[Nemesis]

Am I to assume that boxes are in one type of measure and cans another?

 

[Lime]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
The reality is that boxes don't normally hold ten.
Tins pack in 4s or 6s or 9s or 12s but very rarely 10s.

The point I'm making is that the so called mathematical advantage of metric measurement (being to the power of 10) doesn't really help you when you have to divide a metre by 3 ..or 4 ..or 6 ..or 9 ..or 12


With a yard (36 inches) it is easy.

 

[chuckey]

When I went to Eire some 25 years ago, their black and white roads signs wre in miles and their green signs were in kilometres.
With plaster board if you work out your battens on a basis of 48" wide, your board won't reach the last batten, how do I know.
Frank

 

[CHRIS]

I use feet and tenths when dealing with Civil Engineers in the USA and it is great as you only use 2 decimal places when dimensioning drawings etc. But easy to use when on the side of a mountain adding up in your head as your calculator has frozen in the cold!!!!!

 

[Flyfisher]

To the contrary of many opinions on this thread I believe imperial to be founded on a much more sensible basis.
None of this circumference of the earth malarky and so many atoms in this that or another, good old imperial is based on practical use.

The point about defining something as 'so many atoms' is for reproducibility. So, the 1983 definition of a metre is the distance travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. (from wiki). This means that, unless the laws of physics changes, a lab in the UK can calibrate measuring equipment to the same standard as a lab in, say, Australia without having to resort to some arbitrary physical object deemed to be a standard metre - which, incidentally is how the kilogram is currently defined; it's a lump of platinum alloy stored in some french institute! Scientists are still debating a definition for the kilogram based on nature - which might come in handy if SETI turns up trumps!

I expect the imperial system will die a natural death within a few generations. However, there are still some things where metrication only changes the numbers and not the actual physical dimensions. In electronics, for example, the 19-inch rack system is a worldwide standard whether you call it 19-inch or 482.6mm !

 

[Flyfisher]

The point I'm making is that the so called mathematical advantage of metric measurement (being to the power of 10) doesn't really help you when you have to divide a metre by 3 ..or 4 ..or 6 ..or 9 ..or 12

With a yard (36 inches) it is easy.

. . . only because you've chosen easy numbers! Try dividing a yard by 7 ..or 13 ..or etc.

Having a system with multiple number bases is a complete nightmare; yards (base 3/36), feet (base 12) and inches or a single, base 10 system? Pounds (base 20/240) shillings (base12) and pence or a single base 10 system?

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the reason the Romans were not as good as the Greeks in scientific endeavours was that you can't do maths with roman numerals!

 

[Lime]

No.
3, 4, 6, 8, 9 & 12 are common division numbers often used in construction.
You can attempt to decry that the inches in a foot and in a yard are foolish but they are based on good old common sense and practical use, whether you like it or not.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Can one of the older forum members explain how easy it was to use maps in pre-decimal times? Nowadays it is quite easy to instruct Duke of Edinburgh's Award hikers - On an Ordnance Survey 1:50000 map grid lines are 2cm apart, representing 1km on the ground. Grid references can be instantly calculated to within 100 metres, or to within 10 metres for those with good eyesight and a decent ruler. Measure your route with a piece of string, halve it and you get the distance in kilometres.
Was this process similar for a 1 inch to the mile map?

 

[Flyfisher]

No.
3, 4, 6, 8, 9 & 12 are common division numbers often used in construction.
You can attempt to decry that the inches in a foot and in a yard are foolish but they are based on good old common sense and practical use, whether you like it or not.

OK, fair point about those numbers being common divisors in construction, but surely that's only because of the historical use of yards, feet and inches in the first place.

I accept that these things are based on practical use borne out of history but I find it hard to accept them as common sense.

Also, I'm assuming we're talking about English feet and inches but there are loads of alternatives to choose from. At least there is only one metric system . . . now that's common sense.