Inches and Gallons??

Hi there,
Evry time I deal with U.S. products I get faced with the same problem.
I'm sure this has been asked before, but:

Why do Americans still use imperial measurements? Feet and inches, pounds, etc.?
But then, I guess, one could also ask why on Earth do the rest of the world insist on using something different...
It would make my life easier, and it would be much appreciated if the U.S. would convert to metric. Gone on, I'll buy you a beer.

Rob

[foxxaero]

Originally Posted by RThompson

Hi there,
Evry time I deal with U.S. products I get faced with the same problem.
I'm sure this has been asked before, but:

Why do Americans still use imperial measurements? Feet and inches, pounds, etc.?
But then, I guess, one could also ask why on Earth do the rest of the world insist on using something different...
It would make my life easier, and it would be much appreciated if the U.S. would convert to metric. Gone on, I'll buy you a beer.

Rob

I agree with you Rob - there should be a standardized measurement system.

As an 'old Canadian' I grew up learning the imperial system. Then suddenly everyone wanted to change to metric ??? What?...

I am an old dog, and it's hard to learn new tricks. Today, I have trouble talking to my kids about 'measurements' because they grew up learning metric and they have no idea of what I am talking about when I talk about ft, yds, or mph... conversley, I need a calculator which converts 'imperial' to metric to understand them.

HELP !!!

[dkubiak]

Originally Posted by foxxaero

I need a calculator which converts 'imperial' to metric to understand them.

HELP !!!

I just go to google.com and type in the conversion I need. It'll do it for you. Actually, what google not do?? Try it: type "2 feet 3 inches to meters" and hit "search"

[Eric Sponberg]

The reason we American's do not convert to the metric system is because it takes an act of congress to pass the effort into law. This is never going to happen because the congressmen are cowards. Back in the 70s we tried to convert miles to kilometers over a long period of time, and the effort never got anywhere--people did not pay attention. You cannot transition from one system to another, you have to do it overnight. This will cause only about 2 months worth of confusion, then everyone will be on the right track. But Congress will not act because they, and the people, are afraid of what they don't know--what are the conversions. Believe me, people will learn and convert really fast if they have the issue forced on them.

Also, metrics is just not in the public mindset right now. We are consumed with our presidential election and reality TV. And if it isn't that, its gay marriage, the economy stupid, and our terrible national reputation overseas. Metrics just ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

By the way, did you see Dave Gerr's Parting Shot article in the back of the current issue of Professional Boatbuilder, "Under Metric Pressure"? He raises a very good point that metrics is not simply metrics. There are metric units and there are many different kinds of metric units. Would America switch to meters-kilogramforce-seconds, or millimeters-Newtons-seconds, or centimeters-Pascal-seconds? Take your pick. The national debate in this country would be so boring that it would put us all (except engineers) to sleep.

Eric

[dereksireci]

The simple answer to your question is money. Anyone who has worked with the metric system knows how easy it is to use. It costs money to re-tool machines and factories to adapt to the metric system.

[mmd]

As another "old Canadian", I too grew up in Imperial, then in high school had to switch to metric. All went well for while, but now most of my clients work in Imperial, so I've had to switch back. Go figure!

(BTW, I prefer metric.)

[duluthboats]

I would prefer metric; all the machines in my shop will work with both. It’s only confusing when trying to compare one to the other. While we’re at it let’s set ONE standard for materials. I have a dozen books just to cross reference material specs.

Gary

[Duane Mc]

My understanding of the imperial verses metric argument reveals three important concepts.

First, it seems that the only real advantage the metric system has over the imperial system is the decimal scaling method of multiplying and dividing the linear numerical value of object sizes. The meter size value -- of which the metric system is based on, represents the basic unit of a measurement scaling format that French scientist developed in Napoleon times. This basic meter unit was based on the north to south quadrant measurement of the earth which, at the time, was thought to be very accurate.

Second, the imperial system was not developed from some random king's foot size, but was based on a very ancient mathematical understanding wherein the cubic size of water when weighed at the numerical value of about 62 pounds would reveal the measurement of 12 inches on all the sides. The numerical value of 62 was chosen apparently because that number best represented a very important mathematical concept in nature now known as the "Golden Section" or "Golden Mean", which has a rounded value of 5 to 8 -- or 62.5%.

Actually, a more exact value of 61.8% best represents this important mathematical concept -- but that's another story for later. The origin of the pound weight is based on the numerical value of about 200 cocoa beans -- which is interesting because the cocoa bean is native to the New World and not from the geographical realm of the British Isles where the Imperial system was thought to be created.

Why the number 12 was chosen as a divisional unit of inches to one foot is not truly known, but it may have been chosen because the number 12 is equally divisible, like the four seasons, four times. Apparently, there once existed an attempt to standardize the measurement of length units with time units -- as in 12 months to a year or 12 units to a 24 hour clock face.

Perhaps if our ancestors who invented the Imperial system used 10 units to represent the foot instead of 12 units, there would not have been the need to invent the metric measurement system. But they did and the Imperial system has been used to send astronauts safely to the moon and back several times -- and that's quite the testament in how good it works.

And thirdly, there exist another measurement system based on the ancient Stadia unit. My research has uncovered data that suggest the Stadia unit once measured at about 100 yards -- or almost 109 meters. Now some reference books give larger values to this ancient measurement unit ranging from 607 to 738 feet, but I believe they are wrong because of several reasons. For example, the first Olympic foot race was the 100 yard dash -- and all professional sport stadiums around the world have a field that measure at the 100 yard value. Somebody doubled the true value of this ancient measurement during translation long ago and added a few feet more.

When I see a length measurement given in meters, I just think yards -- and if I want to know the foot value, I just multiply by three to get the rough foot value. My point is that the yard measurement -- although about one meter, is based on a very old measurement that uses feet better than meters.

Now all this data about the origin of large measurements doesn't help the mechanic who angrily discovers his imperial tool doesn't fit a metric fitting -- but I just thought I would give my views on the matter.

Personally, I would like to see a new measurement system based on the Nautical Mile and do away with the Statue Mile -- but that would probably just complicate measurement standards even more.

[Kreso]

Hi, as european I grew with metric system but I realy love more when length of yacht is defined in feets, for me it has lyrical sound. By

[Dutch Peter]

Originally Posted by Duane Mc

Personally, I would like to see a new measurement system based on the Nautical Mile and do away with the Statue Mile

I'll second that, and then base volumes on coconuts (stranded on the beach)

Originally Posted by Eric Sponberg

The reason we American's do not convert to the metric system is because it takes an act of congress to pass the effort into law. This is never going to happen because the congressmen are cowards.

Yee-Ha! Go Eric! Them thar are fightin' words!!
I'll send some boys over to do some clandestine dirty work.
(National standards can't be overthrown without a little clandestine dirty work. Even if they could, I'm sure we could fit some late night scheming and dirty work in there somewhere.)

I haven't read Dave Gerr's article (ProBoat is delivered to this end of town sporadically to say the least). So, without his enlightenment, I would assume if one was to change to metric, then SI units would be the "obvious" choice.

However, without the benefit of a Big Brain, and a working knowledge of the alternative units (and why they are "so") I would have to agree with Duane Mc. - the only advantage of Metric units being the ease of using them with mathematics/science.
But crikey, what an advantage.
It seems so much easier to relate a milli-metre, to a metre, to a kilo-metre, -than relating an 1/16 inch to a yard, to a mile. And thats not even starting with derivative measurements (acceleration, force etc.)

Anyway, on with the day.

Rob

[Willallison]

Aww - gotta put my 2.2459 cents in
As one who was educated in the metric system (but who also thinks of how long a boat is in feet) I have to say that I find the imperial system an illogical and baffling beast at best!
for instance - 2.35m is just that - 2 metres, 35 cm: but 2.35 feet...well that's 2.35 - 2 = 2 feet times 12 = 4.2, minus 4 x 8 = 1 and a bit 8ths, or x 3 and a bit 16ths.......
Gimme metric any day!

[redcoopers]

Aww come on. Imperial isn't so hard...

When I restored my MGB, I had to use metric, imperial, and whitworth sockets (actually, only one bolt needed whitworth). As long as you have the tools, it's not hard to use any system.

But that's my point. From a designers perspective, using decimals with feet isn't any more complex than using centimeters and millimeters. However, from a technician's perspective, he'll want to use 1) whatever he's used to and 2) whatever he has the tools for.

No intelligent naval architect can possibly tell me that it's too difficult to convert metric to imperial (except maybe if you work for NASA...). Aren't designers meant to "supply" designs to boat builders? Than lets just give them plans for whatever system they want and stop all this fussin' and feudin'

My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I like it!
-Jon

[JR-Shine]

I have always used Imperial growing up here in the States. I decided to give metric a shot on the flats boat Im building - Oh I have seen the light! as an example when offsetting a station, It was a lot easier to subtract 25mm from 914mm, than say 3 feet minus 5/8 inch.

This hasn’t changed my mind on anything else – I’m not going to start taking French lessons or anything like that.

[mmd]

Aww come on. Imperial isn't so hard... (JR-Shine)

Oh yeah?!! Show me an easy way to do a vector diagram of wind pressure on the sails as quantified in slugs and tensile strength of shrouds in psi resulting in a torque imparted on the hull as measured in foot-pounds!