why is the US not Metric

[CatalinaWOW]

Just to stir the fire, agricultural types and those like me who are only a generation away use bushels and to a lesser extent pecks.  Check the grain markets to see what prices are quoted in.  Bushels are a convenient size, though I suppose you could get along with hectoliters.  And the horse racing world still uses furlongs. 

[vk6zgo]

To our non-American friends...   

This is an example of what a typical American would and not know about our American Customary/Imperial measurement system.

Most Americans would know the following:

• there are 12 inches [in] in 1 foot [ft]
• there are 3 feet [ft] in 1 yard [yd
• there are 36 inches [in] 1 yard [yd
• there are 2 half gallons in 1 gallon [gal
• there are 4 quarts [qt] in 1 gallon [gal
• there are 16 ounces [oz] in 1 pound [lbs]

Some Americans might or might not know:

• there are 3 teaspoons [tsp] in 1 tablespoon [tbsp]
• there are 8 pints [pt] in 1 gallon [gal]
• there is a Fluid Ounce [fl oz] and a Pound Force Ounce [oz]
• there is 8 fluid ounces [fl oz] in 1 cup [cup]

Most Americans would not know (without looking up):

• there are 16 cups [cup] in 1 gallon [gal]
• there are 128 fluid ounce [fl oz] in 1 gallon [gal]
• there are 8.345 pounds [lb] in 1 gallon [gal] of water {or ~milk]
• there are 1.04 ounce [oz] in 1 fluid ounce [fl oz] of water
• there are 256 tablespoons [tbs] in 1 gallon [gal]
• there are 16 tablespoons [tbs] in 1 cup
• there are 231 cubic inches [in^3] in 1 gallon [gal]
• there are 7.481 gallons in 1 cubic foot [ft^3]
• there are 5280 square feet [ft^2] in 1 square mile [mi^2]
• there are 43560 square feet [ft^2] in 1 acre
• there are 1760 yards [yd] in 1 mile [mi]
• there are two types of pounds, a pound mass (lbm) and a pound force(lbf)
• there are 32.1740 pounds [lb] in 1 slug {used to define Pound Force}
• there are 14 pounds [lb] in 1 stone [st] {used a lot in UK but almost all Americans do not know}
• there are 42 gallons [gal] in 1 barrel {think oil or whiskey }
• 1 horsepower is amount of work to lift 550 pounds 1 foot up in 1 second {commonly used to describe power}
• that a USA cup can be either 8 fluid ounces OR 8.115 fluid ounces {think USA Legal cup is 240ml = 8.115 fl oz}

Edits:  Mostly just corrected incorrect units that I found myself and one that vk6zgo found.  Also corrected typos and spelling mistakes.  Also note, the above are in US Customary Units which are Imperial-ish units that have been slightly changed to closer match metric equivalent units over the years.  In the USA, we significantly (and lazily) call our units Imperial when they really are not.

I hate being pedantic...
Hell! Who am I kidding?
I love it!! 

You might want to revisit that last edit (hint:- What does 3x 1760 equal?)

The small "slip ups" reveal the problems with "Imperial", although when I went to school in Oz in the 1950s,
nobody would have been caught out by that one.

[richard.cs]

Just to stir the fire, agricultural types and those like me who are only a generation away use bushels and to a lesser extent pecks.  Check the grain markets to see what prices are quoted in.  Bushels are a convenient size, though I suppose you could get along with hectoliters.  And the horse racing world still uses furlongs.

Here, and I assume the rest of the EU, grain prices are per tonne (metric ton, 1000 kg). As a side note the US and UK bushel refer to different volumes, but although the bushel is a volume unit it seems that US grains are actually sold by weight with a series of standard conversions different for each grain.

[Altair8800]

I hate being pedantic...
Hell! Who am I kidding?
I love it!! 

You might want to revisit that last edit (hint:- What does 3x 1760 equal?)

The small "slip ups" reveal the problems with "Imperial", although when I went to school in Oz in the 1950s,
nobody would have been caught out by that one.

OK, thanks vk6zgo...  I assume you mean my mistake of 1 mi^2 = 27880000 ft^2

I will Edit my list again...

Case in point, doing serious calculating Science/Engineering problems in US Customary Units is unnecessary hard (due to all the conversions you have to do and often you have to look up the conversion factors to be double certain) and as a result you have more greater chance of making errors (than working in Metric/MKS/SI).  I recall getting one question wrong because I had to convert from PSI to lbf/ft^2.  I think after that I started to convert all US Customary Units immediately to Metric MKS (Metre, Kilogram, Second).  Do the maths, then I know I was guaranteed a MSK final result (like Pa/Pascal, N/Newton, J/Joule, W/Watt, etc.) then use the conversion tables to convert what ever the question asked.

Sometimes at the end when I convert my metric result back to US Customary Units I might get some result like 4.99948, which I would just round to 5.000.  A small few of my professors were not pleased me doing calculations this way, but couldn't complain to much because I got the correct result in the end... 

I view doing serious calculations in US Customary Units vs in Metric like doing calculations by hand vs using a calculator.  Yes it can be done, but it is more time and more chance of error.  And it sucks when you know there is a better way...

Thanks again... 

[soldar]

I view doing serious calculations in US Customary Units vs in Metric like doing calculations by hand vs using a calculator.  Yes it can be done, but it is more time and more chance of error.  And it sucks when you know there is a better way...

Just the fact that a calculation needs to be done introduces a chance of error that would not exist if a calculation did not need to be done.

I have an old Casio calculator which has served me well for many decades now but it occasionally has this glitch where a key press will register twice. If I am only paying attention to the keypad and not to the screen I might input pi as 33.11411592665 and get a bigger circumference than I expected. I need to remember to double check every key press.

[bsfeechannel]

Case in point, doing serious calculating Science/Engineering problems in US Customary Units is unnecessary hard (due to all the conversions you have to do and often you have to look up the conversion factors to be double certain) and as a result you have more greater chance of making errors (than working in Metric/MKS/SI).  I recall getting one question wrong because I had to convert from PSI to lbf/ft^2.  I think after that I started to convert all US Customary Units immediately to Metric MKS (Metre, Kilogram, Second).  Do the maths, then I know I was guaranteed a MSK final result (like Pa/Pascal, N/Newton, J/Joule, W/Watt, etc.) then use the conversion tables to convert what ever the question asked.

Sometimes at the end when I convert my metric result back to US Customary Units I might get some result like 4.99948, which I would just round to 5.000.  A small few of my professors were not pleased me doing calculations this way, but couldn't complain to much because I got the correct result in the end... 

I view doing serious calculations in US Customary Units vs in Metric like doing calculations by hand vs using a calculator.  Yes it can be done, but it is more time and more chance of error.  And it sucks when you know there is a better way...

Thanks again... 

This is something some guys can't understand. The customary system has several units to measure essentially the same thing, using different number bases. So it's not enough to base those units on the SI and claim that metrication is done. One of the aims of the metric system is to reduce conversions to a minimum,  so reducing the chance of error and its propagation.

It's a well thought out system that integrates science, engineering, technology and everyday usage in a single standard, reflecting the times we are living.

Imperial is a cobbled up system of traditional units that looks and smells like a bygone era.

[bsfeechannel]

Another weird little thing I just thought about: US customary mostly uses inches divided fractionally in powers of 2. In a way, works really well because it’s easy to shift how much granularity you need without necessarily adding tons of digits. But then in electronics, the normal spacing has been 0.1”, which doesn’t align with the powers-of-2 fractions. That’s just as annoying as making 0.1” spacing play nice with metric! :p

0.1 is short for 1/10.

0.10347109387410387 is short for 10347109387410387/100000000000000000. So the notation is already simplified, and powers of 10 are more convenient, because 10 is the base we already use for numbers greater than 1 and it accomodates more numbers in each position, without having to change the power.

For instance, with powers of two, you have:

1/16
1/8
3/16
1/4
5/16
3/8
7/16
1/2
9/16
5/8
11/16
3/4
13/16
7/8
15/16
1

See that de denominator changed from 1 to 2, to 4, to 8 to 16 so we could have 16 counts.

Now:

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

The denominator didn't change for 10 counts, and when it does, it will be a power of 10. This means that you can use the same unit to measure very big to very small numbers, for instance, the size of the sun, the size of your house or the size of a proton.

[Tepe]

For instance, with powers of two, you have:

1/16 1/8 3/16 1/4 5/16 3/8 7/16 1/2 9/16 5/8 11/16 3/4 13/16 7/8 15/16 1

See that de denominator changed from 1 to 2, to 4, to 8 to 16 so we could have 16 counts.

Now:

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

The denominator didn't change for 10 counts, and when it does, it will be a power of 10. This means that you can use the same unit to measure very big to very small numbers, for instance, the size of the sun, the size of your house or the size of a proton.

There similarity would be more easy to see if the fractions weren't reduced:
1/16 2/16 3/16 ... 15/16 1
1/10 2/10 3/10 ... 9/10 1

Hexadecimal versus decimal:
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.A 0.B 0.C 0.D 0.E 0.F 1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Tomato, tomahto.

The real "problem" is twofold:
1. Imperial changes base. Sometimes it's base 8, or base 16, or 32, or 64 depending on your needs. Then it's suddenly base 12 and what have you. That's not very systematic.
2. Our number system uses base 10.

[tooki]

Another weird little thing I just thought about: US customary mostly uses inches divided fractionally in powers of 2. In a way, works really well because it’s easy to shift how much granularity you need without necessarily adding tons of digits. But then in electronics, the normal spacing has been 0.1”, which doesn’t align with the powers-of-2 fractions. That’s just as annoying as making 0.1” spacing play nice with metric! :p

0.1 is short for 1/10.

0.10347109387410387 is short for 10347109387410387/100000000000000000. So the notation is already simplified, and powers of 10 are more convenient, because 10 is the base we already use for numbers greater than 1 and it accomodates more numbers in each position, without having to change the power.

For instance, with powers of two, you have:

1/16
1/8
3/16
1/4
5/16
3/8
7/16
1/2
9/16
5/8
11/16
3/4
13/16
7/8
15/16
1

See that de denominator changed from 1 to 2, to 4, to 8 to 16 so we could have 16 counts.

Now:

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

The denominator didn't change for 10 counts, and when it does, it will be a power of 10. This means that you can use the same unit to measure very big to very small numbers, for instance, the size of the sun, the size of your house or the size of a proton.

:::whoosh:::

^^^ sound of my point going right over your head.

Case in point, doing serious calculating Science/Engineering problems in US Customary Units is unnecessary hard (due to all the conversions you have to do and often you have to look up the conversion factors to be double certain) and as a result you have more greater chance of making errors (than working in Metric/MKS/SI).  I recall getting one question wrong because I had to convert from PSI to lbf/ft^2.  I think after that I started to convert all US Customary Units immediately to Metric MKS (Metre, Kilogram, Second).  Do the maths, then I know I was guaranteed a MSK final result (like Pa/Pascal, N/Newton, J/Joule, W/Watt, etc.) then use the conversion tables to convert what ever the question asked.

Sometimes at the end when I convert my metric result back to US Customary Units I might get some result like 4.99948, which I would just round to 5.000.  A small few of my professors were not pleased me doing calculations this way, but couldn't complain to much because I got the correct result in the end... 

I view doing serious calculations in US Customary Units vs in Metric like doing calculations by hand vs using a calculator.  Yes it can be done, but it is more time and more chance of error.  And it sucks when you know there is a better way...

Thanks again... 

This is something some guys can't understand. The customary system has several units to measure essentially the same thing, using different number bases. So it's not enough to base those units on the SI and claim that metrication is done. One of the aims of the metric system is to reduce conversions to a minimum,  so reducing the chance of error and its propagation.

It's a well thought out system that integrates science, engineering, technology and everyday usage in a single standard, reflecting the times we are living.

Oddly enough, the fact that different number bases are used also acts as a kind of sanity check. In metric, it’s quite easy to make mistakes with how many decimal points you need to move the mantissa around. With non-10 bases, the mantissa changes as well, so if you suddenly see that it’s the same, you know you missed something.

I say that after literally decades of using both systems side by side. (One issue I take with Customary critics is that they criticize a system they’ve never really used, so their smugness is based on theories, not practical experience.)

Imperial is a cobbled up system of traditional units that looks and smells like a bygone era.

Well, it is an organically evolved system. But in many cases, those old units made sense in isolation. And regardless, there’s often no advantage to changing, but real costs and risks, so you just don’t until the balance of pros and cons changes.


Anyhow, make sure you’re not going all rstofer again.

[Zero999]

For instance, with powers of two, you have:

1/16 1/8 3/16 1/4 5/16 3/8 7/16 1/2 9/16 5/8 11/16 3/4 13/16 7/8 15/16 1

See that de denominator changed from 1 to 2, to 4, to 8 to 16 so we could have 16 counts.

Now:

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

The denominator didn't change for 10 counts, and when it does, it will be a power of 10. This means that you can use the same unit to measure very big to very small numbers, for instance, the size of the sun, the size of your house or the size of a proton.

There similarity would be more easy to see if the fractions weren't reduced:
1/16 2/16 3/16 ... 15/16 1
1/10 2/10 3/10 ... 9/10 1

Hexadecimal versus decimal:
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.A 0.B 0.C 0.D 0.E 0.F 1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Tomato, tomahto.

The real "problem" is twofold:
1. Imperial changes base. Sometimes it's base 8, or base 16, or 32, or 64 depending on your needs. Then it's suddenly base 12 and what have you. That's not very systematic.
2. Our number system uses base 10.

There's a reason why we use base 10: humans have ten fingers and it makes it easier for children to learn to count. In many respects, base 6 or 12 would be better, but base 10 is more intuitive.

Yes, imperial and customary are a nightmare, because they use different bases, even within the same scale: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1790 1760 yards in a mile.

[TimFox]

"Yes, imperial and customary are a nightmare, because they use different bases, even within the same scale: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1790 yards in a mile."

Reply:  the US statute mile is 8 furlongs of 220 yards each, or 1760 yards.

[Cerebus]

There's a reason why we use base 10: humans have ten fingers and it makes it easier for children to learn to count. In many respects, base 6 or 12 would be better, but base 10 is more intuitive.

Yes, imperial and customary are a nightmare, because they use different bases, even within the same scale: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1790 yards in a mile.

Well, if you go back far enough we do have a human number system that had 6 as a basis. The Sumerians (cuneiform) had a number system based on 1, 10 and 60. That's how we ended up with 60 minutes in an hour and probably ultimately why the French call seventy, soixante-dix. (The Babylonians are to blame for there being 7 days in a week.)

[Cerebus]

"Yes, imperial and customary are a nightmare, because they use different bases, even within the same scale: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1790 yards in a mile."

Reply:  the US statute mile is 8 furlongs of 220 yards each, or 1760 yards.

8 furlongs, each of 10 chains, each of 4 rods/perches/poles, each of 5 ¹/₂ yards. It's quite easy to get a grip on, and has the advantage that a chain is, as any schoolboy knows, the length of a cricket pitch - thus any Gentleman, or indeed schoolboy, can easily measure such a distance by merely bowling a ball to the customary distance, repeatedly if necessary. Clearly, the demise of the United States began when they choose baseball in stead of cricket, thus depriving the average American man the ability to accurately judge distances without the help of mechanical assistance.

[rsjsouza]

"Yes, imperial and customary are a nightmare, because they use different bases, even within the same scale: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1790 yards in a mile."

Reply:  the US statute mile is 8 furlongs of 220 yards each, or 1760 yards.

8 furlongs, each of 10 chains, each of 4 rods/perches/poles, each of 5 ¹/₂ yards. It's quite easy to get a grip on, and has the advantage that a chain is, as any schoolboy knows, the length of a cricket pitch - thus any Gentleman, or indeed schoolboy, can easily measure such a distance by merely bowling a ball to the customary distance, repeatedly if necessary. Clearly, the demise of the United States began when they choose baseball in stead of cricket, thus depriving the average American man the ability to accurately judge distances without the help of mechanical assistance.

This made me laugh. Thanks for that!

[KL27x]

I recall getting one question wrong because I had to convert from PSI to lbf/ft^2.

You need to think again, because imperial was not the issue. Unless your mistake was not knowing there are 12 inches in a foot (haha no), you could have made the same kind of mistake converting kg/cm^2 to kg/m^2. "Oh, there are 100 cm in a meter, so it's a 100:1 ratio; we move the decimal point 2 spots to da right..."

(And in real life we don't get to look at the multiple choice answers to see which one matches our numbers but with the decimal point off by a couple places and choose that one.)
 

I think after that I started to convert all US Customary Units immediately to Metric MKS (Metre, Kilogram, Second).  Do the maths, then I know I was guaranteed a MSK final result (like Pa/Pascal, N/Newton, J/Joule, W/Watt, etc.) then use the conversion tables to convert what ever the question asked.

You could leave them in w/e units they start in. If they are in imperial, leave them in imperial. But convert all the distance stuff to a single unit. I.e., if your data includes inches and cubits and HarryPotters, convert everything into inches. You are converting all that stuff AND the inches to metric and then back into imperial, for no reason. You could save some conversions, at least.

You are this stuck to metric that THIS makes sense to you to do this unnecessary calculation. They're just units man. In the reverse scenario, I have no loyalty to imperial. They could be Papasmurfs/PappaJohns ^3, and I'll do the calculations in those units. I'm not going to convert into imperial then back to w/e.

[CatalinaWOW]

All of these references to obscure units that are not widely used anywhere are a reminder that the traditional units did evolve organically, and were chosen for practical reasons.  Either they were a convenient size for the job at hand or were based on a fairly universal standard.  While the accuracy of a forearm length for a cubit, a foot length for a foot, or a thumb width for an inch are laughable now at one time they were the transfer standards of the world and met the need.

We have moved beyond that, transfer standards can be compared worldwide and are chosen largely without reference to convenience.  The meter being nominally a specific ratio to the earths diameter is of almost zero practical significance, although the meter is a convenient length for measuring many things.  The Farad is the best example of this.  For most of my career as an engineer the Farad was a unit that had no relevance to real capacitors, and to this day the capacitors which can be measured in Farads are a tiny, tiny fraction of the total usage. 

The unfortunate thing about the metric system relative to the organically developed units is that the available units are separated by orders of magnitude.  For some things intermediate sizes would be convenient.  Not necessary, just convenient.  Just as having things related by orders of magnitude is convenient.  Not necessary, but convenient.

The weird units like furlongs, bushels and others survive because in their application area they are, or were convenient.  Things like bushels were appropriate when farms were small and human powered because that is about what someone can carry.  Tons in any of their flavors just aren't convenient in that world.  As industrial farming has taken over tons are probably a good convenient unit and bushels will disappear.   Horse racing as a whole is impractical, it is an affectation in today's society.  I see nothing that would drive it away from furlongs.

From a perfection standpoint we probably should abandon the current decimal metric system and define a new one with an octal base or hexadecimal base.  That would eliminate all of the errors which result from approximating our decimal numbers with binary in our computers.  You could keep the base units if it is too much trouble for those currently using metric to change.  If you chose octal you could still teach kids to count using only the fingers - eliminating those interlopers the thumbs.  Or you could show them how to count to thirty two using only one hand if you stuck to binary.

[KL27x]

Or you could show them how to count to thirty two using only one hand if you stuck to binary.

No, officer. I was just expressing "4" in binary.

[Zero999]

"Yes, imperial and customary are a nightmare, because they use different bases, even within the same scale: 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1790 yards in a mile."

Reply:  the US statute mile is 8 furlongs of 220 yards each, or 1760 yards.

Whoops, typo corrected.

I recall getting one question wrong because I had to convert from PSI to lbf/ft^2.

You need to think again, because imperial was not the issue. Unless your mistake was not knowing there are 12 inches in a foot (haha no), you could have made the same kind of mistake converting kg/cm^2 to kg/m^2. "Oh, there are 100 cm in a meter, so it's a 100:1 ratio; we move the decimal point 2 spots to da right..."

(And in real life we don't get to look at the multiple choice answers to see which one matches our numbers but with the decimal point off by a couple places and choose that one.)
 

I think after that I started to convert all US Customary Units immediately to Metric MKS (Metre, Kilogram, Second).  Do the maths, then I know I was guaranteed a MSK final result (like Pa/Pascal, N/Newton, J/Joule, W/Watt, etc.) then use the conversion tables to convert what ever the question asked.

You could leave them in w/e units they start in. If they are in imperial, leave them in imperial. But convert all the distance stuff to a single unit. I.e., if your data includes inches and cubits and HarryPotters, convert everything into inches. You are converting all that stuff AND the inches to metric and then back into imperial, for no reason. You could save some conversions, at least.

You are this stuck to metric that THIS makes sense to you to do this unnecessary calculation. They're just units man. In the reverse scenario, I have no loyalty to imperial. They could be Papasmurfs/PappaJohns ^3, and I'll do the calculations in those units. I'm not going to convert into imperial then back to w/e.

What makes customary/imperial much more difficult than metric is not so much 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile etc. but derived units. The metric system links everything with nice powers of 10. Granted, it's still possible to make mistakes involving the decimal place, but it's much easier to move from linear distances, to area and volume. For example, a litre is 1000cm³, a nice multiple of ten, an imperial pint (20floz) is 34.677in³. This is why it's often much easier just to convert everything to metric, perform the long calculation and convert it back to imperial/customary again.

[KL27x]

^True, and good point.

[Tepe]

The meter being nominally a specific ratio to the earths diameter is of almost zero practical significance

It is of no significance, practical or otherwise, because that's not the definition of the meter.

[CatalinaWOW]

The meter being nominally a specific ratio to the earths diameter is of almost zero practical significance

It is of no significance, practical or otherwise, because that's not the definition of the meter.

Dance around it all you want to.  The original meter was proposed that way.  I am not sure enough of the history to know how it was adjusted so that the density of water is 1.  The original platinum rod in Europe was nominally marked at that adjusted value.  The current definition of the meter is intended to be equal to the nominal length of that platinum rod's marks.  And the comment relates to those who tout the superiority of metric system due to the physical relationships of the basic units.  You know 100 units between freezing and boiling of water, density of water is 1 and the size of the earth comes out in whole units.  It is also convenient that the speed of light to engineering precision is a whole number as is the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the earth. 

There are similar convenient relationships in the traditional system.  A pint's a pound the world around is one I picked up in grade school.  And Grace Hopper's famous "A nanosecond is a foot."

I will repeat for those who need it.  The metric system is superior.  Primarily because it does not confuse mass and force, even though users of the metric system sometimes do.  There are other minor benefits.  And benefits similar to the minor benefits of metric could be achieved by switching from decimal to octal.  Everywhere, not just in measurements.  But the average person worldwide sees no benefit to octal sufficient to overcome the pain of learning a new system and changing all of the existing records.  The same as the average American finds no benefit in switching to metric.

[themadhippy]

A pint's a pound the world around i

Is the american pound lighter than a british pound ?

[Tepe]

density of water is 1

Not quite...

[Zero999]

An imperial pint is different to a US customary pint and so are fluid ounces.

The density of water depends on the temperature and pressure, but 1 litre of water near as damn it weighs 1kg, for most practical purposes.

Although I often curse when I get an enclosure with imperial measurements, I can work with them once I realise it's not metric. The only time I really hate imperial is when it's for torque and cubic inched, which is when I tend to convert to metric.

[Cerebus]

[snip]A pint's a pound the world around is one I picked up in grade school[/snip]

Except it isn't, anywhere, let alone the world around.

The, naturally superior, British pint of water (at 568.26125ml exactly) is ≈ 1 ¹/₄ lb, the weedy American pint (at 473.176473 ml exactly) is ≈ 1 lb 0.69 oz*. Which all goes to show that you should not trust school teachers.  The British school teacher's dictum, that a gallon (eight proper, full strength, Imperial pints) weighs 10 lb is much closer to the truth, being only 0.22% in error.

[The 1959 international pound of 0.453 592 37 kg has been used in all cases, which is the current lb in the US and was the current lb in the UK from 1963 until lbs ceased to be an official unit.]

* I could have used drachms (¹/₁₆ oz) and/or grains (¹/₇₀₀₀ lb) instead of decimal ounces, but nobody, even those using ounces on a daily basis know what the heck those are (except possibly for people who deal with bullets day in and day out, which for some reason are still regularly referred to by their weight in grains even when the calibre in use is inherently metric. e.g. I have shot 7.62mm Lapua 168 gn target rounds.). Just for the record it's 1 lb 0 oz 11 dm 1.45 gr  for the 'merkin pint and the British pint weighs in at 1 lb 4 oz 0 dm 19.61 gn.