why is the US not Metric

[KL27x]

Just call the bloody thing a "tonne", even pronounce it as it's spelled.
"tonne" is always the same, whether I pronounce it funny or not!

Interesting. I didn't know it's pronounced differently. I can't figure out how it should sound.

Even the most obscure metric prefixes can be related back to familiar ones, by simply working out what the prefix stands for

So you just work it out with your knowledge of latin? Or do you mean, you have to actually look it up?

& calculating what the measurement is in those familiar units, using powers of ten.
All the panoply of Imperial measures require individual translation.

If by panoply, you mean a very tiny handful of units that are so common they each have a single syllable name that is instantly recognizable, yeah. There's a panoply Americans have no trouble knowing. The ones you may have used as a colony of Britain were obviously too many for an average brain, hearing of your troubles! In America, we manage to only use the ones that are useful to us.

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

Exactly why no one in America in the last 100 years has ever used these weird units that you guys mention. No wonder the backlash is so strong. Sounds like Britain tortured you guys by making you measure things in chains and furlongs. Probably to cheat you guys in trade, lol.
 
All of the former commonwealth has followed mother UK into metrication, but American feels no need to stop using imperial. If you guys are metric but you still like and know your british imperial units, no wonder you can't stand american customary. Pints is wrong! Ton is wrong! Gallon is wrong! Here, we just use the units which are legally defined by metric and cover daily life, and we don't worry about what Britain did 100 years ago. Or what you guys did up until however many decades ago. For some strange reason, you care what we do... even though you stopped using imperial, altogether. Our imperial is short and sweet and consistent and easily converted back and forth to metric, and it causes no trouble in our daily lives. It sounds like that was never the case in Australia.

Most metric-only people could easily live in America without a care, only figuring out how many gallons of gas fit in their car (but most people just look at the price) and getting the feel for F and for miles. But someone from a former british colony would apparently experience PTSD.

To wit:

The Brits know what an Imperial ton is----2240lbs!

This is imperial. And it is a seemingly random and inconvenient number. And you don't use it. But you care about it. The Brits know!

For some unfathomable reason, the USA uses both the local ton & the Imperial ton in commerce

I would venture guess that the american or short ton (a "metricized" 2000 lb) was/is used for civil engineering more than trade. The only other country to have ever officially recognized an American ton was Canada. I would venture that if we still use "normal" tons for international trade, it's with businesses in other former british colonies that still use them. But if one American business wants to trade with another American business in big blue buckets, that doesn't concern me. If I wanted to enter into that business, I would pick up a calculator.

But I concede. America fucked up to call this engineering ton a "ton." And to start calling the "real ton" a "long ton." American should have given the 2000 lb ton a unique name. Like Britain kinda sorta did by adding the "-ne" and apparently pronouncing it differently. Tunnay? Maybe we can start calling meters yardays?

[bsfeechannel]

You guys are still going at it eh? 

Of course. There's nothing more hilarious than to see a bunch of guys defending the imperial system on an engineering forum.

[Tepe]

(Attachment Link)

I too have never in my life heard the term 'millimicrofarad'.

In a way those 6 8/10 volts are more fun :-)

[CatalinaWOW]

You guys are still going at it eh? 

Of course. There's nothing more hilarious than to see a bunch of guys defending the imperial system on an engineering forum.

Almost as funny as someone imposing engineering practice on the entire population.  Kind of like asking everyone to wear a pocket protector.  It really is practical.  It protects the shirts.  It makes loading up in the morning more efficient and the same with unloading in the evening after work.  I can't imagine why everyone doesn't come on board.   Just think of the savings. 

[KL27x]

^Lul. But you can't wear it only when you are carrying a pen. You don't realize the true savings and convenience until you burn all your pocketless shirts and wear it all the time! We did it! You can, too!

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

When you pinch off a loaf and look in the toilet, you have to see it in cm. Anything else is a thought crime that costs the world a bunch of money. And progress.

[forrestc]

Of course. There's nothing more hilarious than to see a bunch of guys defending the imperial system on an engineering forum.

I don't see anyone defending the imperial system.   Maybe a bit of good-natured ribbing about names being better, but I think that most of us agree that in a circumstance where there were no legacy systems that metric would be preferable. 

Let's put this in engineering terms:

The switch to metric has both costs and benefits.   A good engineer will look at both sides of the equation and determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs.   Just like you wouldn't use a .0001% resistor where a dirt cheap 1% metal film one would do, a good engineer won't pick something just because it has better tech specs and ignore the costs.  That is, cost is something you have to include in determining which solution is better.

The cost to leave our road signs alone is minimal.   The cost to switch is enormous.   The benefits of switching are dubious.   So it doesn't get switched.   I recently came across the document at https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf which had an estimate of $754 million (754 megadollars) to switch state and local road signs to km in 1995.  This is nearly $1.3 billion in today's dollars.   And this appears to be just the signage and not everything else which would trickle down from it.   In order to get engineering types to want to switch, one would have to come up with benefits exceeding $1.3 Billion (1.3 Gigadollars) at the bare minimum.   I still don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

On the other hand, the cost to switch much of science and engineering was minimal, and the benefits were great, so it largely got switched.   And for those who say we still measure temperature in *F, one should note that the national weather service apparently operates at least some of their systems internally in *C and just converts for public-facing reports.   Because these are computer-generated, it isn't a big deal.

The cost to switch the ATC system's elevation readouts worldwide from Feet to Meters would be high, and even higher is the risk of serious accidents as a result of this switch due to the confusion caused.   So it doesn't get done.

These are all engineering decisions.   Often the correct system is the one which is already in place, even though something better might be available.   Every engineer worth their salt has learned this lesson. 

[Cubdriver]

Of course. There's nothing more hilarious than to see a bunch of guys defending the imperial system on an engineering forum.

I don't see anyone defending the imperial system.   Maybe a bit of good-natured ribbing about names being better, but I think that most of us agree that in a circumstance where there were no legacy systems that metric would be preferable. 

Let's put this in engineering terms:

The switch to metric has both costs and benefits.   A good engineer will look at both sides of the equation and determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs.   Just like you wouldn't use a .0001% resistor where a dirt cheap 1% metal film one would do, a good engineer won't pick something just because it has better tech specs and ignore the costs.  That is, cost is something you have to include in determining which solution is better.

The cost to leave our road signs alone is minimal.   The cost to switch is enormous.   The benefits of switching are dubious.   So it doesn't get switched.   I recently came across the document at https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf which had an estimate of $754 million (754 megadollars) to switch state and local road signs to km in 1995.  This is nearly $1.3 billion in today's dollars.   And this appears to be just the signage and not everything else which would trickle down from it.   In order to get engineering types to want to switch, one would have to come up with benefits exceeding $1.3 Billion (1.3 Gigadollars) at the bare minimum.   I still don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

On the other hand, the cost to switch much of science and engineering was minimal, and the benefits were great, so it largely got switched.   And for those who say we still measure temperature in *F, one should note that the national weather service apparently operates at least some of their systems internally in *C and just converts for public-facing reports.   Because these are computer-generated, it isn't a big deal.

The cost to switch the ATC system's elevation readouts worldwide from Feet to Meters would be high, and even higher is the risk of serious accidents as a result of this switch due to the confusion caused.   So it doesn't get done.

These are all engineering decisions.   Often the correct system is the one which is already in place, even though something better might be available.   Every engineer worth their salt has learned this lesson.

VERY well said!

-Pat

[KL27x]

BTW the French still pour wine by the finger. Wine? Yes, 3 fingers. That would be the level in the wine glass.

BSF logic: By switching to mililiters vs fingers, this would improve efficiency. The French wine industry is 9 billion euros a year. An improvement in the efficiency and quality of wine pouring of only 1% would save France 90 million euros a year. If the true savings were only even a tenth of that, it would still be 9 million euros a year!

Brought to you by the French Association of Metric Winetards, a French instutition! You see, France? Even your finest people understand how costly these fingers are in money and progress as proven by this detailed report. It's obvious. Economy of scale and things. Use metric and $profit-baby Cha-ching!!!! Jackpot lotto!!! $ $ $

Fingers benefit the 1%. Go metric, and Jack and Jenny will be rolling in dough!

More BSF logic: Are you saying that drinking a glass of wine isn't engineering?

[vk6zgo]

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

Even then it was silly.(& yes, we did it in Australia, too.)

A lower case "u" is so close to a "mu" sign, that "they could kiss without sin", so for decades after the use of the capitals ceased, was used as a substitute for the proper symbol, so that very many capacitors & drawings of them in schematics  were labelled "uF",or more rarely, "uuF".

This was just one of the "workarounds" printers used, like the "beta" sign for the German "double s" symbol.

[bsfeechannel]

You seem really naive to think this is about you and your screws,

The same straw man again? Can we proclaim you Your Majesty, the King Of The Straw Men? Of course it is not about me and my screws. The screws are an indication of a FACT: imperial costs more to maintain. And that's the point.

[Cubdriver]

You seem really naive to think this is about you and your screws,

The same straw man again? Can we proclaim you Your Majesty, the King Of The Straw Men? Of course it is not about me and my screws. The screws are an indication of a FACT: imperial costs more to maintain. And that's the point.

Not here in the US it doesn't.

-Pat

[Cubdriver]

You seem really naive to think this is about you and your screws,

The same straw man again? Can we proclaim you Your Majesty, the King Of The Straw Men? Of course it is not about me and my screws. The screws are an indication of a FACT: imperial costs more to maintain. And that's the point.

And as I pointed out in my response to you earlier, even if the US goes full on hard core metric tomorrow, those legacy screws in existing things are still going to be the same as they are today.  So, I'm asking again - why do you still have things with inch hardware in them if metric is so much better and cost efficient?  If you purge your life of such things you won't need to worry about expensive, hard to find replacement hardware.

-Pat

[vk6zgo]

Just call the bloody thing a "tonne", even pronounce it as it's spelled.
"tonne" is always the same, whether I pronounce it funny or not!

Interesting. I didn't know it's pronounced differently. I can't figure out how it should sound.

Even the most obscure metric prefixes can be related back to familiar ones, by simply working out what the prefix stands for

So you just work it out with your knowledge of latin? Or do you mean, you have to actually look it up?

& calculating what the measurement is in those familiar units, using powers of ten.
All the panoply of Imperial measures require individual translation.

If by panoply, you mean a very tiny handful of units that are so common they each have a single syllable name that is instantly recognizable, yeah. There's a panoply Americans have no trouble knowing. The ones you may have used as a colony of Britain were obviously too many for an average brain, hearing of your troubles! In America, we manage to only use the ones that are useful to us.

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

Exactly why no one in America in the last 100 years has ever used these weird units that you guys mention. No wonder the backlash is so strong. Sounds like Britain tortured you guys by making you measure things in chains and furlongs. Probably to cheat you guys in trade, lol.
 
All of the former commonwealth has followed mother UK into metrication.

Nope! Most of us went Metric earlier than the Brits.

 but American feels no need to stop using imperial. If you guys are metric but you still like and know your british imperial units, no wonder you can't stand american customary. Pints is wrong! Ton is wrong! Gallon is wrong! Here, we just use the units which are legally defined by metric and cover daily life, and we don't worry about what Britain did 100 years ago. Or what you guys did up until however many decades ago. For some strange reason, you care what we do... even though you stopped using imperial, altogether. Our imperial is short and sweet and consistent and easily converted back and forth to metric, and it causes no trouble in our daily lives. It sounds like that was never the case in Australia.

Most metric-only people could easily live in America without a care, only figuring out how many gallons of gas fit in their car (but most people just look at the price) and getting the feel for F and for miles. But someone from a former british colony would apparently experience PTSD.

To wit:

The Brits know what an Imperial ton is----2240lbs!

This is imperial. And it is a seemingly random and inconvenient number. And you don't use it. But you care about it. The Brits know!

For some unfathomable reason, the USA uses both the local ton & the Imperial ton in commerce

I would venture guess that the american or short ton (a "metricized" 2000 lb) was/is used for civil engineering more than trade. The only other country to have ever officially recognized an American ton was Canada. I would venture that if we still use "normal" tons for international trade, it's with businesses in other former british colonies that still use them. But if one American business wants to trade with another American business in big blue buckets, that doesn't concern me. If I wanted to enter into that business, I would pick up a calculator.

But I concede. America fucked up to call this engineering ton a "ton." And to start calling the "real ton" a "long ton." American should have given the 2000 lb ton a unique name.

It is a shame that the USA didn't manage to export their rationalised ton & gallon to the world, prior to Metric appearing.
Imagine how easy it would be to convert if there were 2 lbs to a kg, & 2000lbs to a ton/tonne, but, alas, that was not to be, & that part of  Metric grew from the already established traditional ton, gallons, etc.

Like Britain kinda sorta did by adding the "-ne" and apparently pronouncing it differently. Tunnay? Maybe we can start calling meters yardays?

I think "tonnes" probably came from the old French word for "ton', & (again I conjecture) was probably the same mass as that ton.
(The French & Brits would have to differ, even if only by 1.6%.)
Your French equivalents, back in the day would probably have "gone to the barricades" to protect their non Metric Tonne, otherwise.

From memory, the correct pronunciation of "tonne" was supposed to rhyme with "gone" or "Don", but we were lazy, &, as it didn't matter much, slipped back into our old pronunciation.

[bsfeechannel]

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.

That's an interesting remark. One of the things that these guys that "know everything" about the metric system don't get is that the metric system is not the imperial system with different units.

The metric system was designed to prevent the creation of ad hoc units, i.e., improvised units for a particular purpose only, lacking generality. A classical example is that for horizontal distances people use the mile, but for vertical distances the foot.  Two thousand years ago that made perfect sense because units were basically ad hoc, with no regard one for the other. Today, the use of such expedient is ridiculous.

There are plenty of other examples. And when these guys have to use the metric system they tend to bring the same cacoëthes they acquired by the prolonged harmful exposure to imperial.

So, you almost certainly can decide if someone is fully conversant in metric if they write 100nF, instead of 0.1µF. Because for the metric guy, the unit is F, but for the imperial guy it is µF.

[vk6zgo]

You seem really naive to think this is about you and your screws,

The same straw man again? Can we proclaim you Your Majesty, the King Of The Straw Men? Of course it is not about me and my screws. The screws are an indication of a FACT: imperial costs more to maintain. And that's the point.

Not here in the US it doesn't.

-Pat

Yeah?----Try finding BSF, Whitworth or BA screws in the USA.

They all have a perfect "Imperial" heritage.
Admittedly, BSF is pretty much obsolete, but we are talking about "legacy" equipment.
Most Brit test equipment up into the '80s used BA extensively.

Frankly, I think you would have a much better chance of finding Metric

Of course, if you are fixing up old Brit cars, there are lots of BSF, & the delightful "Lucas" thread that "The Prince of Darkness" used for the battery connection to some of his older starter motors.

Even if you stick to US cars, you may come unstuck.
My 1936 Chev had, on the front hubs, what were referred to by an old mechanic, as "General Motors" threads.
(I dropped the nut, couldn't immediately find it, & was trying to find a replacement.)
I'm not sure if he was correct, but, if he was.......

[bsfeechannel]

I don't see anyone defending the imperial system.   

Yeah. Who would be crazy to defend something that has no future?

The cost to leave our road signs alone is minimal.   The cost to switch is enormous.   The benefits of switching are dubious.   So it doesn't get switched.   I recently came across the document at https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf which had an estimate of $754 million (754 megadollars) to switch state and local road signs to km in 1995.  This is nearly $1.3 billion in today's dollars.   And this appears to be just the signage and not everything else which would trickle down from it.   In order to get engineering types to want to switch, one would have to come up with benefits exceeding $1.3 Billion (1.3 Gigadollars) at the bare minimum.   I still don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

On the other hand, the cost to switch much of science and engineering was minimal, and the benefits were great, so it largely got switched.   And for those who say we still measure temperature in *F, one should note that the national weather service apparently operates at least some of their systems internally in *C and just converts for public-facing reports.   Because these are computer-generated, it isn't a big deal.

The cost to switch the ATC system's elevation readouts worldwide from Feet to Meters would be high, and even higher is the risk of serious accidents as a result of this switch due to the confusion caused.   So it doesn't get done.

Conclusion, the imperial system is perfect for penny-pinching drivers, people without a degree in meteorology and frightened pilots.
 

These are all engineering decisions.   Often the correct system is the one which is already in place, even though something better might be available.   Every engineer worth their salt has learned this lesson.

No sir, a good engineer would also analyze why and how all others switched to a different solution than what is already in place and would study how to repeat the same successful experience.

What we have seen up to now on this thread is only denial.

[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.

That's an interesting remark. One of the things that these guys that "know everything" about the metric system don't get is that the metric system is not the imperial system with different units.

The metric system was designed to prevent the creation of ad hoc units, i.e., improvised units for a particular purpose only, lacking generality. A classical example is that for horizontal distances people use the mile, but for vertical distances the foot.  Two thousand years ago that made perfect sense because units were basically ad hoc, with no regard one for the other. Today, the use of such expedient is ridiculous.

There are plenty of other examples. And when these guys have to use the metric system they tend to bring the same cacoëthes they acquired by the prolonged harmful exposure to imperial.

So, you almost certainly can decide if someone is fully conversant in metric if they write 100nF, instead of 0.1µF. Because for the metric guy, the unit is F, but for the imperial guy it is µF.

Not really, for many years, the Farad was pretty much a "laboratory curiosity", & microfarads were the useable unit.
Hence, the usage of uF and decimal parts of it, along with picofarads.

If you look at old schematics from Metric countries, nanofarads are noticeable for their absense.

Somewhere along the way, it became the "received wisdom" that people were morons & would have the utmost difficulty with decimal points and zeros-----hence the nanofarad, & the insane practice of specifying large lengths of materials in mm.

nanofarads are easy to use, but they are not any more "Metric" than decimal fractions of uF.
I can look at 0.1uF & say that's 100nF, or vice versa.

[bsfeechannel]

Almost as funny as someone imposing engineering practice on the entire population.

What engineering practice?

[SilverSolder]

When all is said and done - isn't it really about priorities? 

For example, what should USA do first: implement universal health care similar to most other advanced economies, or switch over to the metric system?   

[KL27x]

v6kgzo:

It is a shame that the USA didn't manage to export their rationalised ton & gallon to the world, prior to Metric appearing.
Imagine how easy it would be to convert if there were 2 lbs to a kg, & 2000lbs to a ton/tonne, but, alas, that was not to be, & that part of  Metric grew from the already established traditional ton, gallons, etc.

If we had the internet back then, it would have been so much easier!

Hmm... so... I just figured something. A stone is 14 lb. 14 lb x 160 = 2240 lb.  So... what's the Brit obsession with the stone?   

OTOH, could Frenchy have made metric to fit better with imperial? There's not much good reason I can fathom why the meter has to be based on the circumference of the earth. Maybe it had to be completely different and appropriately sciencey in order to be accepted, but if Frenchy had wanted to, could he have made things more compatible?

But as it is, the only extra number I really seem to need in order to live with two systems is 2.54. So I think things worked out pretty good.                   

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
bsfeechannel:

No sir, a good engineer would also analyze why and how all others switched to a different solution than what is already in place and would study how to repeat the same successful experience.

You are not doing this. The "why" other countries did this is not nearly the same situation that modern America is in. Because of modern education and the internet. Also because of the size of our road system. Also, because of the manufacturing and machining history of America, upon which we relied on our own standard (we did not accept Brit standards made in 1825, because we had already gained our independence). We needed tools to build tools to make stuff. And we made them to our own internal standard, requiring and utilizing ever increasing degrees of precision and standardization. We did it in inches. We didn't care if they were compatible with the rest of the world, cuz we were on the other side of an ocean, and we were making stuff that didn't exist, yet. You just got your stuff from Britain and other EU countries. We were not part of that club.

Many of the former british colonies did not have much cost to changing, other than road signs and measuring cups. They were only changing a method of measuring the mud to build their homes and to measure the cuts to make their horse drawn carriages. Their economies were based on export of raw materials and import of things that were made with fancy tooling. More advanced nations sold tractors and logging equipment and mining equipment to these countries, so they could produce even more raw materials for export. All their imported pipes and doors and screws and wallpapers and brackets and veneers and tools were all being made in metric sizes. Even their measuring equipment was imported. Once more than half the manufactured goods and tools in their country were metric, and this condition was only increasing, and when they were asked to measure their raw materials in kg's, what the hell, why not? Why would they not change? All they wanted was continued mutually beneficial relationships and fair pay for their output. And then there are the politics, which I'm sure had some part in nearly every single metrication story.

All of these changes as might affect other countries, America was able to make without actually changing too much of its internal usage. That's partly due to modern education level and internal manufacturing capability. And now the internet/connectivity. And partly due to size; no one needs to drive from Canada to Mexico or vice versa, on a day trip. We essentially don't need to change in the way that was beneficial in other countries in other times. We don't have the pressures, today, that many of those other countries faced, financially and politically and practically.

Conclusion, the imperial system is perfect for penny-pinching drivers, people without a degree in meteorology and frightened pilots.

Hmmmm.
99% of the world does not hold a degree meteorology. Of the 1% that studied meteorology and received their degree, let's say 90% drive. And of those, let's say half are thrifty. Then let's add the 4 meteorologist pilots who are frightened.

So your message is... for roughly 99.5% of the world's population, imperial is the perfect system?

What engineering practice?

bsfeechannel, earlier in the thread: "Is driving a car on a road not engineering?"

[forrestc]

Conclusion, the imperial system is perfect for penny-pinching drivers, people without a degree in meteorology and frightened pilots.

Exactly!   Now you get it !!!!!

Well, I'm not sure that frightened pilots is exactly right - I'd probably switch to "Risk Adverse Aviation Regulators".   And I'm not quite sure drivers are the right people to say that that part is perfect for (maybe penny-pinching road departments instead), but yes, you finally get it!

And if it's perfect why would one want to change to something else?

Finally!!!!  We agree!!!!  Thanks for coming around to our viewpoint!!!!

[vk6zgo]

v6kgzo:

It is a shame that the USA didn't manage to export their rationalised ton & gallon to the world, prior to Metric appearing.
Imagine how easy it would be to convert if there were 2 lbs to a kg, & 2000lbs to a ton/tonne, but, alas, that was not to be, & that part of  Metric grew from the already established traditional ton, gallons, etc.

If we had the internet back then, it would have been so much easier!

Hmm... so... I just figured something. A stone is 14 lb. 14 lb x 160 = 2240 lb.  So... what's the Brit obsession with the stone?   

OTOH, could Frenchy have made metric to fit better with imperial? There's not much good reason I can fathom why the meter has to be based on the circumference of the earth. Maybe it had to be completely different and appropriately sciencey in order to be accepted, but if Frenchy had wanted to, could he have made things more compatible?

But as it is, the only extra number I really seem to need in order to live with two systems is 2.54. So I think things worked out pretty good.                   

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
bsfeechannel:

No sir, a good engineer would also analyze why and how all others switched to a different solution than what is already in place and would study how to repeat the same successful experience.

You are not doing this. The "why" other countries did this is not nearly the same situation that modern America is in. Because of modern education and the internet. Also because of the size of our road system. Also, because of the manufacturing and machining history of America, upon which we relied on our own standard (we did not accept Brit standards made in 1825, because we had already gained our independence). We needed tools to build tools to make stuff. And we made them to our own internal standard, requiring and utilizing ever increasing degrees of precision and standardization. We did it in inches. We didn't care if they were compatible with the rest of the world, cuz we were on the other side of an ocean, and we were making stuff that didn't exist, yet. You just got your stuff from Britain and other EU countries. We were not part of that club.

Many of the former british colonies did not have much cost to changing, other than road signs and measuring cups. They were only changing a method of measuring the mud to build their homes and to measure the cuts to make their horse drawn carriages. Their economies were based on export of raw materials and import of things that were made with fancy tooling. More advanced nations sold tractors and logging equipment and mining equipment to these countries, so they could produce even more raw materials for export. And when they were asked to measure their raw materials in kg's, what the hell, why not? What the hell else would they do, since their measuring equipment was imported, too? All they wanted was continued mutually beneficial relationships and fair pay for their output. And then there are the politics, which I'm sure had some part in nearly every single metrication story.

Just when I get to think you are fairly rational, you post abject "duck poo" like the above.
Mud huts, my backside!

Even the least developed Commonwealth countries had far more complex economies than you suggest.
Australia has been an independent nation since 1901, &  had its own manufacturing sector of the economy.
Yes, some stuff was imported, but much of our needs, including measuring equipment was locally made.

We sold stuff to  countries with all systems of measurements, & unlike your estimation of your own countrymen, knew how to translate between units.

Unfortunately, "market forces"have decreed we should buy crap from overseas, instead of making our own stuff.
The imported stuff is cheaper, but you usually have to replace it at quite short intervals, so the savings are illusory.

Another "ex colony" is India, which produces enormous quantities of manufactured goods.

All of these changes as might affect other countries, America was able to make without actually changing too much of its internal usage. That's partly due to modern education level and internal manufacturing capability. And now the internet/connectivity. And partly due to size; no one needs to drive from Canada to Mexico or vice versa, on a day trip. We essentially don't need to change in the way that was beneficial in other countries in other times. We don't have the pressures that many of those other countries faced, financially and politically.

Conclusion, the imperial system is perfect for penny-pinching drivers, people without a degree in meteorology and frightened pilots.

Hmmmm.
99% of the world does not hold a degree meteorology. Of the 1% that studied meteorology and received their degree, let's say 90% drive. And of those, let's say half are thrifty. Then let's add the 4 meteorologist pilots who are frightened.

So your message is... for roughly 99.5% of the world's population, imperial is the perfect system?

What engineering practice?

bsfeechannel, earlier in the thread: "Is driving a car on a road not engineering?"

[KL27x]

Just when I get to think you are fairly rational, you post abject "duck poo" like the above.
Mud huts, my backside!

Even the least developed Commonwealth countries had far more complex economies than you suggest.
Australia has been an independent nation since 1901, &  had its own manufacturing sector of the economy.
Yes, some stuff was imported, but much of our needs, including measuring equipment was locally made.

Well I went too far. But I didn't say Australia, exactly. Nor did I specify the year. There were plenty of tropical islands that were part of the commonwealth. Countries that are still 100% dependent on imports in order to have even building material for houses, cars, refrigerators, the whole nine yards. America also started out as a raw material factory for Britain. We all did.

But back to Australia, you mentioned a car industry? What company? Did Australia develop this industry independently? Or did a car company in another country help to build a plant in Australia? This is before metrication?

At the time of WWII, America was so self-sufficient it basically ignored the war until near the end. America had most all the raw materials, agriculture, and manufacturing tech it needed, and it was pretty content to watch the rest of the world kill each other. Until Pearl Harbor, or something like that. I would think most of the rest of the former commonwealth did not have this situation. I thought they had economies that were more closely intertwined with their neighbors.

Not trying to ruffle feathers, but I work with folks doing business in Australia. And they liken the retail marketplace to America 20 years ago. As far as internet vs brick and mortar, anyway. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe it's good that your country isn't taken over by Amazon, yet.

None of this was meant as an insult. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel. If it has already been done and perfected, it is easier to buy it or copy it than to start all over. This is why most of the developed world has AC, refrigerators, cars, cable TV, internet. This is why we trade. The stuff Australia was importing from its neighbors was increasingly metric.

And you can't deny that Australia didn't have the internet when it metricated. Al Gore still hadn't even invented the computer, yet. We were all still getting our world education and local propaganda huddled around a TV; no VCR to even record it for posterity. If your government got the feeling to change, you watched it live on TV. It was a group, national experience. "Our country faces a grave threat. We must change to metric, or we will be left behind." And then you looked at each other, all serious. Sheila and Bruce and Peyton. And said, "G'day, mate! Shrimp on the barbie!"

Today, if our president suggested it, we'd be making fun of him on Twitter within 5 seconds.

[Tepe]

The cost to leave our road signs alone is minimal.   The cost to switch is enormous.   The benefits of switching are dubious.   So it doesn't get switched.   I recently came across the document at https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf which had an estimate of $754 million (754 megadollars) to switch state and local road signs to km in 1995.  This is nearly $1.3 billion in today's dollars.

Enormous? The US population in 1995 was 266.6 million so $2.87 per capita...
For comparison the same year the US spent $321.6 billion on the military or about $1,206 per capita.
The total national health expenditure that year was $1,022 billion or $3,833 per capita.
Add all the other public spending and that drop in the bucket becomes even more negligibly small.

It's not the cost that keeps the US from metricating the road signs, it is lack of will and that is totally understandable. It wouldn't really serve any purpose.

[Mr. Scram]

When all is said and done - isn't it really about priorities? 

For example, what should USA do first: implement universal health care similar to most other advanced economies, or switch over to the metric system?

If Sweden could get it done I gather the greatest country in the world should be able to manage.