why is the US not Metric

[bsfeechannel]

^What argument? Your position has been that the common person in America uses imperial because they are ignorant and arrogant.

I never said that. What I said is that the common citizen doesn't understand the benefits of metrication.

And since you tried to put words in my mouth, I'm afraid you lost the "internet argument" (or whatever you mean by that).

And that is costs a significant amount of money, but you can't seem to even comprehend what this means.

I showed you that I paid 10 times more for an oilite bronze bushing just because it was imperial. And now I add that I also wanted some imperial screws to replace the old rusty ones. However, they also cost an unreasonable amount of money compared to the metric equivalent. So I passed and kept the rusty ones.

If you engage no more than two of your brain cells to think about it, you'll promptly understand that those who really benefit from the refusal to metricate are certainly not you, not me, nor anyone down the street.

You don't accept that Americans learn metric and use only metric in school. They know everything about metric that you do. Every single American. Knows everything you do about metric.

They don't know how to use metric exclusively. And this shows that they don't know everything about metric.

And they also know what a quarter pounder is. The reasons they use imperial [...] [yaddayadda] [...] something better suited to our version of English for km. "Killems?" Maybe in another 30 years that would turn into "kims?" Our military might say "clicks," but maybe I saw that in a movie.

If that kind of gibberish is all that the imperial fan boys can produce, any speck of doubt that imperial is doomed has now vanished.

[bsfeechannel]

The article in the picture is from my local newspaper yesterday.  It perfectly encapsulates all of the points from this thread.  America is metric where it matters for commerce.  And doesn't really care or have a good reason to change in the remaining areas. The US is way behind the other nations when it comes to metrication, and when people are questioned about it, they give lame excuses.

TIFIFY

[CatalinaWOW]

The article in the picture is from my local newspaper yesterday.  It perfectly encapsulates all of the points from this thread.  America is metric where it matters for commerce.  And doesn't really care or have a good reason to change in the remaining areas. The US is way behind the other nations when it comes to metrication, and when people are questioned about it, they give lame excuses.

TIFIFY

I guess if I was fully metric I would understand the TIFIFY acronym.  But since I am not I am not efficient enough to express whole thoughts without using whole words.  Oh well, my loss.  And another area where America is way behind.   

[KL27x]

The fish is getting testy. Biting the hook enough to move the bobber. Taking a shit all over the place and darting back under the rock.

TIFIFY: There, I fixed it for you.

[CatalinaWOW]

Taint fixed.  Bfees is correct when he says we are behind.  But when we tell him we don't care he explains that he knows better.  Maybe we we should care.  Maybe the reasons given why we don't care are lame.  But we don't.  I use metric when it is useful to me.  I will probably find my way successfully to the grave without ever fully converting.  And don't see how that trip would be improved in any way that matters to me by a full conversion.  Surprisingly making bfees happy is on that list of things that won't improve the trip.

[KL27x]

I never said that. What I said is that the common citizen doesn't understand the benefits of metrication.

The common American citizen probably understands it fairly well. You seem to have some basic misunderstandings.

I showed you that I paid 10 times more for an oilite bronze bushing just because it was imperial. And now I add that I also wanted some imperial screws to replace the old rusty ones. However, they also cost an unreasonable amount of money compared to the metric equivalent. So I passed and kept the rusty ones.

Well, that cost the world a lost sale of a few metric screws. But I think the expensive bushing more than made up for it? That's a net win, is't it? That increased the GNP of the world. You seem really naive to think this is about you and your screws, and that this would be a benefit worthy of getting out of bed for, if metrication would even affect it at all. (Spoiler alert, it won't).

If you engage no more than two of your brain cells to think about it, you'll promptly understand that those who really benefit from the refusal to metricate are certainly not you, not me, nor anyone down the street.

Metrication will benefit those put in place to oversee the process. Those put in control of choosing the contractors. Those workers who get $100 an hour* to stand in a crane bucket, because of who they know. It will do next to nothing for the average American citizen. We just get to pay for it (well, our children, too, since we would need to borrow more money from China). The benefit of leaving things alone is to NOT do that.

Is this it? We view the world from the opposite perspective. I don't want that. You think ^ all that is good? That's just the tip of the iceberg. This is government mandated redistribution of wealth. And everyone in the chain will take their cut. The pricetag will shatter previous records due to the size of our road system and our politics and legal system. Anytime Congress lets out another chunk of money, it's the average citizen that suffers the "transaction fees." You're not paying for a road. You're paying the system from top down. And in the end you might eventually get some signs up.

You don't accept that Americans learn metric and use only metric in school. They know everything about metric that you do. Every single American. Knows everything you do about metric.

They don't know how to use metric exclusively. And this shows that they don't know everything about metric.

So you think if they knew everything about metric, they would exclusively use metric? Or are you saying that only by exclusively using metric can you learn everything about metric? I'm trying to debug the malfunction in your wiring.

And they also know what a quarter pounder is. The reasons they use imperial [...] [yaddayadda] [...] something better suited to our version of English for km. "Killems?" Maybe in another 30 years that would turn into "kims?" Our military might say "clicks," but maybe I saw that in a movie.

If that kind of gibberish is all that the imperial fan boys can produce, any speck of doubt that imperial is doomed has now vanished.

So do you say "clicks" or not?

*After manipulating schedules to intentionally cross overtime with hazard pay, you could be looking at more than than, realistically. Nothing but cockroaches, here, and government money brings out our best. We are top notch slackers and cheaters of any system, and when the purse strings open, it's business as usual. Oops? We didn't finish the job under budget? I guess we need more money, which Congress will ok as long as we keep splashing enough of it in the right direction.

[Cubdriver]

I showed you that I paid 10 times more for an oilite bronze bushing just because it was imperial. And now I add that I also wanted some imperial screws to replace the old rusty ones. However, they also cost an unreasonable amount of money compared to the metric equivalent. So I passed and kept the rusty ones.

If you engage no more than two of your brain cells to think about it, you'll promptly understand that those who really benefit from the refusal to metricate are certainly not you, not me, nor anyone down the street.

That's an interesting example you cite.  You do realize that even if the US were to go totally, completely, 100% metric TOMORROW that it would not cause the legacy equipment you were apparently fixing to magically transmogrify from inch to metric, right?  Engage a few of your brain cells and you'll realize that if we go full on metric that the oilite bushing you're bitching about the price of now would likely become even more difficult to obtain, and its cost would be even higher than 10 times the metric one.  And you'd still need it, because that shaft wouldn't change size.  Same with those rusty imperial screws.  After the change they'd still be the same size, but even harder and more expensive to get.

I'm fine with our refusal to fully metricate.  Here in the US it effectively gives me the best of both worlds - both metric and imperial hardware is readily available to me.  Shame you're apparently hamstrung in that regard by living in your metric only world.  Maybe you should just ditch anything you have with inch-sized hardware and just replace it with all metric gear.  That would increase your efficiency and save you a lot on maintenance parts like that bushing, right?  Why do you even have any of that archaic, obsolete equipment, Mr. Metric?  Given the great advantages you've been touting here, I don't understand why you'd ever have any need for inch sized things, as you should have purged anything using that inefficient and outmoded system years ago. 

I'll stick with the option, especially given the vast base of currently existing legacy things out there with US standard sized hardware.

-Pat

[m98]

Do you think China ATC gives planes clearance to ascend from 8 hectometers to 1.5 kilometers? Or do you think they stick with the one unit that makes the most sense for the scale?

Don't know about China ATC, but here in Germany, Gliders already operate all-metric. Metric ICAO map, metric units over radio, only metric gauges. It just makes so much more sense. Why would the length of some old kings foot be the intuitive choice for altitude measurement? And why would altitude be given in a unit that can't be easily converted into the unit for distance? And what's up with knots, I ain't flying no boat. That unit is just inconvenient for most types of aircraft.

[KL27x]

Don't know about China ATC, but here in Germany, Gliders already operate all-metric. Metric ICAO map, metric units over radio, only metric gauges. It just makes so much more sense. Why would the length of some old kings foot be the intuitive choice for altitude measurement? And why would altitude be given in a unit that can't be easily converted into the unit for distance? And what's up with knots, I ain't flying no boat. That unit is just inconvenient for most types of aircraft.

China ATC uses meters, alone, for altitude. That was my point. They don't change to kilometers when the plane gets high enough.  That's cool that Germany changed its gliders. It's their butt, and their butt alone, so if they want to kill themselves in meters, they ought to use meters. If they find it more better, then that's great.

It has been suggested that American fighter pilots have an advantage because they already think in feet. But I think it's BS. IMO, the system is just a knob on a guitar. For instance, what altitude is "scary low" isn't something you really know until you fly the plane. You will be taught some benchmarks numbers by an instructor. But after you take off and land and refer to your gauge is when you will get a feel for the scale. Or after you crap your pants after barely clearing a ski lift (or not). The altitude where you need pressurization and/or oxygen is just another number. The altitude where the air gets too thin for cruising (a given plane) is just another number. They're just numbers that you have to learn. And when you build and fly a plane that goes higher and faster and farther, you have to get calibrated to new numbers. If you can control the plane in meters, you can control the plane in feet, and vice versa.

I think the reason the rest of the world went along with imperial for ATC is they felt comfortable in following along. In WWI, over 50% of plane crews that took off were lost and killed by navigation errors and resulting failure to have a safe place to land. More were lost to weather and mechanical failures of the planes. Only like 10% actually completed a mission and returned to base. Safe air travel is an entire system that developed over a long period of time. And in plane development, itself, America's military and military contractors sacrificed 100 test pilots for every Chuck Yeager. Once you figured out the tech and systems and radar and ATC setup and protocols, it became safe. America had the tech and knowledge and experience, first (well, of the winning side of WWII, at least). And then they had a huge monopoly on equipment and planes (ATC equipment and radar and such; not just planes), you could say until Airbus. The units aren't important. They're there for consistency, though. If it ain't broke.

[m98]

China ATC uses meters, alone, for altitude. That was my point. They don't change to kilometers when the plane gets high enough.  That's cool that Germany changed its gliders. It's their butt, and their butt alone, so if they want to kill themselves in meters, they ought to use meters. If they find it more better, then that's great.

Nobody is killing himself so far due to this. The gliders never changed, btw. They just never had to convert to the "international standard".
Of course changing the prefix for the same attribute without a change over several orders of magnitude is unnecessary and can lead to confusion.
Best example are kilometers for distance. There is just no relevant distance on earth long enough that you'd need to express it in megameters. Some combinations of prefixes and units are less useful than others. Ever used megaampere or picocandela?

It has been suggested that American fighter pilots have an advantage because they already think in feet. But I think it's BS. IMO, the system is just a knob on a guitar. For instance, what altitude is "scary low" isn't something you really know until you fly the plane. You will be taught some benchmarks numbers by an instructor. But after you take off and land and refer to your gauge is when you will get a feel for the scale. Or after you crap your pants after barely clearing a ski lift (or not). The altitude where you need pressurization and/or oxygen is just another number. The altitude where the air gets too thin for cruising is just another number. They're just numbers that you have to learn.

I am familiar with both worlds. Still, by your argument, why don't we just use smoots?
Head-calculations with conversion factors of 0,164579 and the like are something I am personally not capable of, therefore it is a lot more inconvenient. But yes, this is less relevant for powered flying where you don't need to systematically care about glide distances. I still think it's just a unnecessary complication

[vk6zgo]

^^^ thought re: vk6zgo

Not really, millennia refers to "thousands of years", not "millions of years".

Yeah, thanks. It's  kiloyears, I take it.

----there are no "Long Tonnes" or " Short Tonnes".

Agreed. Bringing up long tons and tower oz is a strawman argument. It's 2019.

You would certainly know, as you have strewn strawmen higgledy-piggledy throughout this thread.
It appears you were a little premature in consigning long & short tons to the"ancient history" category.

It turns out that a "short ton" is the US "customary measure" of 2000lbs, which is what an American would mean when referring to a "ton".(yet another US "rationalised measure----pity the Brits didn't adopt it, instead of sticking with their silly figure).
A "long ton" is the "Imperial ton" of 2240 lbs.

They also both seem to be alive & well & used in commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton

In the normal metric form you ought to call it a megagram, though. "Ton" was and is still in usage. The fact you use the word ton instead of megagram shows an example of the metric benefit that doesn't hold up to real world language and usage. In the multiple kiloyears of usage of what I still call imperial (American Customary?) the names of units somehow became quite efficient.

"Ton" is a good start for metric. And if you say a "ton" is a metric ton without qualification, then I welcome you to it. Majority rules, right? I hope that holds up and becomes even legally recognized in America. I would have thought it might require occasional clarification even in formerly imperial countries, and I hope it is as you say. When you're buying/selling tons, the $$ is usually pretty important. Now, since I can do that, can you stop bringing up long tons? The long ton now really, really doesn't matter anymore, to me, seeing as I have essentially agreed never to use the word "ton" again in my own country, and I'm totally fine with that. For the sake of world progress. I hope the world can enjoy metric's second halfway decent unit name, unmolested by the ghosts of the short ton and long ton. (Gram is awesome).

Like, maybe, metres?

Of course they use meters in China's ATC. That was my point.

And your point was a "strawman".
Nobody ever suggested you should use the more obscure prefixes.
Various fairly unuseable units have faded out of general use over the years.

Who ever uses the "Bel"?
It is still a recognised unit, but "dB" are far more convenient'

How about "Nepers"?

Hell, I learnt the unit resistivity of metals in "circular mil-feet"!

And in the majority of the world, they use feet. The fact there is such a weird number of 6075 feet in a nautical mile doesn't matter to a pilot, because they only use feet for altitude. Same as they only use meters in China. The "decimal point shift" is one of the supposed advantages of metric that looks great on paper but actually doesn't mean a lot in the real world in this particular context.

You can blame all that [the lack of say centiliter and hectogram in common usage] upon the SI system.

I wonder now if a unit such as centiliter would be allowed in legal documents? Even if it weren't for "SI" or legal acceptance, I still think your friends would call you a dumbass. The imperial units are mostly 1 or 2 syllables for a reason. There are only so many 3-4 syllable unit names you want to use/recognize to avoid confusion, and there are only so many good shortened versions that you will come up with. This is why SI made its recommendations. The lego plug n play works great on paper, in text, in computer programs, in emails. Not always so good in real time conversation, though.

To my understanding"clicks"was a Vietnam Veteran "thing"-----I've heard a few people in Oz use the term, but most people just say "ks".
Context is everything in using shortened forms, & nobody would think you were referring to kHz or kg, if you said:-
"Fred lives a coupla "k" down the road."

Yeah, that works. Like "quart" is a quarter of a gallon. You have "kay" for kilometer, and I would assume "kee'-low" for kilograms. And that pretty much covers it. Cuz you probably don't need kilo-anything else for common language.

In Australia, kilo is mostly pronounced as "kill-uh", as the full form of most units is mostly used.
Among the exceptions which occur, we have "k" as above for kilometre, & for mass, we would normally say, using the shortened form, 'one"keelo", two "keelos", etc.

 Ohh, &, I forgot to add, we use the term "K" Ohms.

Most people have Electricity connected, which is charged for in kilowatt-hours. ("kiluhwatt hours")

[KL27x]

^^^ thought re: vk6zgo

Not really, millennia refers to "thousands of years", not "millions of years".

Yeah, thanks. It's  kiloyears, I take it.

----there are no "Long Tonnes" or " Short Tonnes".

Agreed. Bringing up long tons and tower oz is a strawman argument. It's 2019.

You would certainly know, as you have strewn strawmen higgledy-piggledy throughout this thread.
It appears you were a little premature in consigning long & short tons to the"ancient history" category.

It turns out that a "short ton" is the US "customary measure" of 2000lbs, which is what an American would mean when referring to a "ton".(yet another US "rationalised measure----pity the Brits didn't adopt it, instead of sticking with their silly figure).
A "long ton" is the "Imperial ton" of 2240 lbs.

They also both seem to be alive & well & used in commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton

In the normal metric form you ought to call it a megagram, though. "Ton" was and is still in usage. The fact you use the word ton instead of megagram shows an example of the metric benefit that doesn't hold up to real world language and usage. In the multiple kiloyears of usage of what I still call imperial (American Customary?) the names of units somehow became quite efficient.

"Ton" is a good start for metric. And if you say a "ton" is a metric ton without qualification, then I welcome you to it. Majority rules, right? I hope that holds up and becomes even legally recognized in America. I would have thought it might require occasional clarification even in formerly imperial countries, and I hope it is as you say. When you're buying/selling tons, the $$ is usually pretty important. Now, since I can do that, can you stop bringing up long tons? The long ton now really, really doesn't matter anymore, to me, seeing as I have essentially agreed never to use the word "ton" again in my own country, and I'm totally fine with that. For the sake of world progress. I hope the world can enjoy metric's second halfway decent unit name, unmolested by the ghosts of the short ton and long ton. (Gram is awesome).

Like, maybe, metres?

Of course they use meters in China's ATC. That was my point.

And your point was a "strawman".
Nobody ever suggested you should use the more obscure prefixes.
Various fairly unuseable units have faded out of general use over the years.

Who ever uses the "Bel"?
It is still a recognised unit, but "dB" are far more convenient'

How about "Nepers"?

Hell, I learnt the unit resistivity of metals in "circular mil-feet"!

And in the majority of the world, they use feet. The fact there is such a weird number of 6075 feet in a nautical mile doesn't matter to a pilot, because they only use feet for altitude. Same as they only use meters in China. The "decimal point shift" is one of the supposed advantages of metric that looks great on paper but actually doesn't mean a lot in the real world in this particular context.

You can blame all that [the lack of say centiliter and hectogram in common usage] upon the SI system.

I wonder now if a unit such as centiliter would be allowed in legal documents? Even if it weren't for "SI" or legal acceptance, I still think your friends would call you a dumbass. The imperial units are mostly 1 or 2 syllables for a reason. There are only so many 3-4 syllable unit names you want to use/recognize to avoid confusion, and there are only so many good shortened versions that you will come up with. This is why SI made its recommendations. The lego plug n play works great on paper, in text, in computer programs, in emails. Not always so good in real time conversation, though.

To my understanding"clicks"was a Vietnam Veteran "thing"-----I've heard a few people in Oz use the term, but most people just say "ks".
Context is everything in using shortened forms, & nobody would think you were referring to kHz or kg, if you said:-
"Fred lives a coupla "k" down the road."

Yeah, that works. Like "quart" is a quarter of a gallon. You have "kay" for kilometer, and I would assume "kee'-low" for kilograms. And that pretty much covers it. Cuz you probably don't need kilo-anything else for common language.

In Australia, kilo is mostly pronounced as "kill-uh", except for mass (but only if using the shortened form).
Most people have Electricity connected, which is charged for in kilowatt-hours.

Good grief. 
Look, pot. I'm not the one constantly bringing up the "well, you'd have to clarify barrel or IMPERIAL barrel. That's why imperial sucks." I'm not saying it is you doing it, but that is one of the petty arguments against imperial, and you ARE the one that brought up LONG tons and short tons. I know pretty much the last country that still uses imperial has one ton that is also is known as a short ton in UK... the country that no longer uses imperial so why you keep bringing it up?

But now here you are claiming "we just say ton, and everyone automatically knows it's a metric ton!!!! Even though there are at least two other tons that wikipedia says are still in use!! Cuz metric is magic!?!?"

I'm seriously ok with you believing that, and wish you luck when you use ton, and you never get asked for clarification. Because everyone you ever talk with will never have known about any other ton. Just by hearing you say "ton" means metric ton, I'm done with it. It's meaningless now. Maybe in some years, it will have a meaning again. If I were to need to use (metric) ton frequently, I'd be all over megagram, just to avoid confusion, esp seeing as other systems were already using ton at the time?!

Nobody ever suggested you should use the more obscure prefixes.

I brought up the stupid exotic prefixes because of the idiots bringing up long tons and tower oz and rods and chains and hogshead. It cuts both ways. 

Lots of folks tout the superiority of metric because you can "just shift decimal places to turn one unit into the other totally different unit with a different prefix!" But as you confirm, this is not really practical to use every type of unit in metric because it will create more confusion. There are only so many units you will want to commonly use before you start to have to pause and doublecheck what the heck you are hearing. In many real world uses of units, we stick with just one. As you agreed, when flying a plane or a glider or w/e, you will stick with just one. When driving a car, you don't change miles to feet, either. So this conversion issue really doesn't hardly ever mean anything in the real world daily usage. I think we agree then. That there is absolutely no reason for Americans to not use imperial for daily life. Unless you have some stake in the politics.

The way we use metric in the world in daily life is nearly identical to the way we use imperial units in real life. When you plan a hike, you picture it as a certain distance in km or miles, the number of which you can cover in so many hours. With so much effort, time, and food. We don't say, well, I can cover 1 meter in about 1 second. And I might need one almond and 1mL of water for that step. So multiply that by 1000.

The way we skip over centiliters and hectograms is the same way we skip over rods and perches and furlongs. Cuz like no one cares about saving a zero here or there.

There is nothing magical about metric until you start doing physics or chemistry. And Americans (who do physics and chemistry) use metric for physics and chemistry. We have no problem using both systems. And no problem using metric when you want to attract or address a foreign audience.

As for ATC, I would be inclined to believe that no pilot has ever had to do mental conversion between feet and meters other than the ones that have to change.* If the pilot learned in feet, he flies the plane in feet. He didn't have to do a conversion to figure out how high that looks. He didn't know how high that looks until he got up there and looked at his gauge in feet. I would believe that the EU pilot that has already learned and got his license and experience will NOT want to change to metric. I mean, if I go up in the sky and come back down alive in feet, just once? I'm sticking with feet. But maybe I am wrong.

*Or flights between metric and imperial ATC. And since most of the world uses imperial, already...

[Tepe]

Do you wonder why centi seems to only ever be used for centimeters... hecto only ever seems to be used for hectares; all this versatility, and not that much of it actually useful in practice? If you use centiliters or hectograms in your communications, do you think people would thank you for saving them the hassle of a couple zeros? Or would your friends tell you to stop being a dumbass?

cl, hg, hPa:

[KL27x]

^Wow, lol. Those pics do not help the case for Americans to change to metric. Hg is mercury, lol. Cl is chlorie? The last one, I don't even know what that is.

JK. Of course, here, we would be listing the price of candy as $ per 100 grams over that atrocity. Soda is already labelled in ml, here. But it's nice that other countries can use metric rods and perches if they choose.

[Tepe]

^Wow, lol. Those pics do not help the case for Americans to change to metric. Hg is mercury, lol. Cl is just... The last one, I don't even know what that is.

Mercury is Hg everywhere, of course. Context is everything, like kg is "kilo" in everyday speech, hg is "hekto".
Using cl instead of ml for soda and beer seems reasonable to me, as the latter indicates more precision than is reasonable.

The last one shows our local weather service uses hPa for atmospheric pressure (instead of mbar).

JK. Of course, here, we would be listing the price of candy as $ per 100 grams over that atrocity. Soda is already labelled in ml, here. But it's nice that other countries can use metric rods and perches.

Atrocity? Totally reasonably use of prefixes, I'd call it   

[KL27x]

^Entitled to yours! Touche!


v6:

Ohh, &, I forgot to add, we use the term "K" Ohms.

Most people have Electricity connected, which is charged for in kilowatt-hours. ("kiluhwatt hours")

Yeah, true. But I was thinking about common usage in daily life, the units for which in imperial we have mostly single syllable unit names. You have used up Kays and Keelos, already. But Kohm and Kwatts are fine how they are. We use all the prefixes in electronics. We need 'em all. And whadya know, Americans use these units in electronics, too.

Also, I don't speak for all Americans, but I say "K" for ohms. But I use the amount of ohms as an adjective where I am specifying the resistance. I don't buy and solder 33Killiohms. I buy and solder 33"K" resistors. So the context is automatically there. No worries.

[Tepe]

We use all the prefixes in electronics. We need 'em all. And whadya know, Americans use these units in electronics, too.

Yeah, you are slowly learning. Those doubly prefixed millimicrofarad (mµF) are past history now.

[KL27x]

Yeah, you are slowly learning. Those doubly prefixed millimicrofarad (mµF) are past history now.

Patronizing, much? I have used metric my entire life, now. Some of you guys still aren't learning that Americans use metric every place it remotely matters!

[Tepe]

Americans use metric every place it remotely matters!

So do most of the rest of the world.

[KL27x]

Americans use metric every place it remotely matters!

So do most of the rest of the world.

Was that ever a point of contention? Who is accusing the metric world of not using metric where it makes a difference?

(Right there on the first couple pages of the thread is a picture of a piece of the "daily usage" algorithm utilized by some Canadians. )

[vk6zgo]

We use all the prefixes in electronics. We need 'em all. And whadya know, Americans use these units in electronics, too.

Yeah, you are slowly learning. Those doubly prefixed millimicrofarad (mµF) are past history now.

Nice try, but I've been around the traps for a long time, & I have never seen "millimicrofarad', which, of course, translates to "nanofarad".

The normal units in the old days were microfarads(uF), & picofarads(pF).
The most common capacitor values were in whole microfarads & decimal parts of uF, with the next level down in pF.
In some very old UK , US, & Australian equipment, you will find the label on a cap of "micromicrofarads", which, is equivalent to pF.

A snappy rejoinder is lost on KL27x, especially if you get your facts wrong.

[KL27x]

A snappy rejoinder is lost on me, because I probably wouldn't recognize it. 

Going back to my internal monologue:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Someone mentioned "why not use smoots for ATC?"

If we already used them, then yeah. We would use smoots. And no one would be doing conversions of smoots to meters while flying a plane. ATC and pilots would know certain important altitudes in smoots. ATC would know how many smoots apart to place traffic to allow planes a safe circling pattern. Would you know this in meters without experience of increasing profits while not crashing planes? For years, while dealing with bad weather and other unforeseen problems and juggling 14 extra planes and trying to keep everyone alive? Then why do you need to convert it to meters in your head? Go to the smoots that ATC tells you, until it's your turn to land. Then extend the flaps at the # smoots you learned to for your plane. Keep your speed at the kilosmoots/hr that you learned. Then descend at the smoots/second that you learned. Then land and still be alive. I think whilst keeping everyone alive, by cleverly noticing and avoiding collisions with the earth and other planes in visual range, and by lining up and touching down on a runway, you might have gotten a pretty good idea of how much distance a smoot is. And in a context and feel that you would not have gotten, and which is actually what is important, simply by knowing these distances in meters.

Pilots would fly in smoots. Maverick and Goose would have bragged that they flew right up to a mig, only 6 smoots away. Inverted!

But we already invested a lot of lives and experience in feet, so we continue to use feet. ATC has perfected this juggling act in feet. Changing to metric for the sake of metric will cost lives for... nothing important.

If I had lived to fly a plane into the sky and land it. Even just once. I think I'd stick with w/e I used that first time. Staying alive is good.

[vk6zgo]

Good grief. 
Look, pot. I'm not the one constantly bringing up the "well, you'd have to clarify barrel or IMPERIAL barrel. That's why imperial sucks." I'm not saying it is you doing it, but that is one of the petty arguments against imperial, and you ARE the one that brought up LONG tons and short tons. I know pretty much the last country that still uses imperial has one ton that is also is known as a short ton in UK... the country that no longer uses imperial so why you keep bringing it up?

The UK, nor any other country bar those in North America  ever used the term "short ton" or "long ton".
The Brits know what an Imperial ton is----2240lbs!
For some unfathomable reason, the USA uses both the local ton & the Imperial ton in commerce, & hence must distinguish between them.

But now here you are claiming "we just say ton, and everyone automatically knows it's a metric ton!!!! Even though there are at least two other tons that wikipedia says are still in use!! Cuz metric is magic!?!?"

No, it's because we live in a Metric country, so in general speech, there is not much likelihood of error----nor would it matter much, anyway,in everyday work, as the "Imperial ton" is only 1.6% larger than a "tonne".

Where it is important, such as doing trade with other countries, nobody relies on the spoken word, & it is obviously written as "tonne".
Anybody in the USA who is buying from a Metric country will know what "tonne' means, &  make the required corrections into US "customary tons".

I'm seriously ok with you believing that, and wish you luck when you use ton, and you never get asked for clarification. Because everyone you ever talk with will never have known about any other ton.

Now, that's just silly when it comes to Australia, as there are still many people around who were adults in 1974 & knew Imperial tons well.
As I pointed out above, they are so close, it doesn't really matter for most everyday things.
What most of us never knew was that the US ton was different.(the gallon thing is well known)
 

Just by hearing you say "ton" means metric ton, I'm done with it. It's meaningless now. Maybe in some years, it will have a meaning again. If I were to need to use (metric) ton frequently, I'd be all over megagram, just to avoid confusion, esp seeing as other systems were already using ton at the time?!

Just call the bloody thing a "tonne", even pronounce it as it's spelled.
If other systems are using distinctly different "tons", you will always have to check which one, but a "tonne" is always the same, whether I pronounce it funny or not!

Nobody ever suggested you should use the more obscure prefixes.

I brought up the stupid exotic prefixes because of the idiots bringing up long tons and tower oz and rods and chains and hogshead. It cuts both ways. 

Even the most obscure metric prefixes can be related back to familiar ones, by simply working out what the prefix stands for, & calculating what the measurement is in those familiar units, using powers of ten.
All the panoply of Imperial measures require individual translation.
Both calculations are tiresome, although the metric one is much less so, hence, in both systems, we avoid the exotic units.

Lots of folks tout the superiority of metric because you can "just shift decimal places to turn one unit into the other totally different unit with a different prefix!" But as you confirm, this is not really practical to use every type of unit in metric because it will create more confusion. There are only so many units you will want to commonly use before you start to have to pause and doublecheck what the heck you are hearing. In many real world uses of units, we stick with just one. As you agreed, when flying a plane or a glider or w/e, you will stick with just one. When driving a car, you don't change miles to feet, either. So this conversion issue really doesn't hardly ever mean anything in the real world daily usage. I think we agree then. That there is absolutely no reason for Americans to not use imperial for daily life. Unless you have some stake in the politics.

I wouldn't want to have anything to do with US politics---Australian ones are nightmarish enough!
Do whatever you like.
I only got into this because many of your arguments didn't hold water.

The way we use metric in the world in daily life is nearly identical to the way we use imperial units in real life. When you plan a hike, you picture it as a certain distance in km or miles, the number of which you can cover in so many hours. With so much effort, time, and food. We don't say, well, I can cover 1 meter in about 1 second. And I might need one almond and 1mL of water for that step. So multiply that by 1000.

The way we skip over centiliters and hectograms is the same way we skip over rods and perches and furlongs. Cuz like no one cares about saving a zero here or there.

The difference is, with rods, furlongs, etc, is that you don't save any zeros, you just end up with lots of odd numbers.

There is nothing magical about metric until you start doing physics or chemistry. And Americans (who do physics and chemistry) use metric for physics and chemistry. We have no problem using both systems. And no problem using metric when you want to attract or address a foreign audience.

As for ATC, I would be inclined to believe that no pilot has ever had to do mental conversion between feet and meters other than the ones that have to change.* If the pilot learned in feet, he flies the plane in feet. He didn't have to do a conversion to figure out how high that looks. He didn't know how high that looks until he got up there and looked at his gauge in feet. I would believe that the EU pilot that has already learned and got his license and experience will NOT want to change to metric. I mean, if I go up in the sky and come back down alive in feet, just once? I'm sticking with feet. But maybe I am wrong.

*Or flights between metric and imperial ATC. And since most of the world uses imperial, already....

Someone mentioned "why not use smoots for ATC?" If we already used them, then yeah. We would use smoots. And no one would be doing conversions of smoots to meters while flying a plane. ATC and pilots would know certain important altitudes in smoots. ATC would know how many smoots apart to place traffic to allow planes a safe circling pattern. Would you know this in meters without experience of increasing profits while not crashing planes? For years, while dealing with bad weather and other unforeseen problems and juggling 14 extra planes and trying to keep everyone alive? Then why do you need to convert it to meters in your head? Go to the smoots that ATC tells you, until it's your turn to land. Then extend the flaps at the # smoots you learned to for your plane. Then descend at the smoots/second that you learned. Then land and still be alive.

Maverick and Goose would have bragged that they flew right up to a mig, only X smoots away. Inverted!

But we already invested a lot of lives and experience in feet, so we continue to use feet. ATC has perfected this juggling act in feet. Changing to metric for the sake of metric will cost lives for... nothing important.

[Tepe]

Nice try, but I've been around the traps for a long time, & I have never seen "millimicrofarad', which, of course, translates to "nanofarad".

The normal units in the old days were microfarads(uF), & picofarads(pF).
The most common capacitor values were in whole microfarads & decimal parts of uF, with the next level down in pF.
In some very old UK , US, & Australian equipment, you will find the label on a cap of "micromicrofarads", which, is equivalent to pF.

A snappy rejoinder is lost on KL27x, especially if you get your facts wrong.

Here are some millimicrofarads. 50 of them, in fact:

[Cubdriver]

Nice try, but I've been around the traps for a long time, & I have never seen "millimicrofarad', which, of course, translates to "nanofarad".

The normal units in the old days were microfarads(uF), & picofarads(pF).
The most common capacitor values were in whole microfarads & decimal parts of uF, with the next level down in pF.
In some very old UK , US, & Australian equipment, you will find the label on a cap of "micromicrofarads", which, is equivalent to pF.

A snappy rejoinder is lost on KL27x, especially if you get your facts wrong.

Here are some millimicrofarads. 50 of them, in fact:
(Attachment Link)

I too have never in my life heard the term 'millimicrofarad'.  Old caps in the US were typically abbreviated as MFD (for microfarads) and MMFD (for micro-micro farads, or picofarads).  I've no idea why they didn't us pF for picofarads, but MFD makes sense from back in the day when we didn't have desktop publishing where we could type alt-230 and get a 'µ' symbol; perhaps they just did MMFD for some sort of strange consistency.

-Pat