I just wanted to remark that every Brit I've met so far (in real life) had the following opinion:

1.) "Give it 20 years or so and the UK is fully metric"

2.) "Do I miss it ? Not at all, it was a horrible system..."

The one I talked to yesterday pointed out how horrible it is knowing your weight in stones but having scales in pounds, therefore having to divide by 14 !

According to you the people I've talked to must completely misrepresent the UK public. Can't think of a reason why, though...

Ralf

"Give it 20 years or so and the UK is fully metric"

That is EXACTLY what people said 20 years ago.

Err, so, are you complaining that the UK IS going metric or that is hasn't gone metric yet ?

Ralf

Ralf: If these are Britons you've met on the continent or in academia, they are clearly a heavily selected and unrepresentative sample.

I on the other hand have never met anybody in real life that wanted to be forced to use metric. Most are inclined to volunteer their frustration with metrification without even being asked, especially in shops, where they often turn to speak to complete strangers to complain.

Ralf

To think that the average Brit doesn't think and speak in imperial is lunacy!

Suggestion: Go for a walk in a crowded park - and *listen*

Dear Sirs,

All civilized beings are exactly 4 feet tall.
They are not exactly 123 centimeters tall
the are 4 *feet* tall and they have hair
all over too.

Thank you,

B Baggins

I see I have carelessly misspelled my
name on the previous post. It was of
course not from Leonard whoever he is but
from B Baggins.

Thank you,

B Baggins

Are you sure you don't mean four foots high? As the old saying goes, wear your foots with pride.

QUOTE: "So, are you complaining that the UK IS going metric or that is hasn't gone metric yet?"

ANS: We're saying that metric won't happen just because it is projected as an inevitability.

BWMA wrote "We're saying that metric won't happen just because it is projected as an inevitability."

I say: "Metric will happen, JUST BECAUSE it is projected as an inevitability."

SteveH:

>To think that the average Brit doesn't think and
>speak in imperial is lunacy!
>Suggestion: Go for a walk in a crowded park - and
>*listen*

That's not what I said, I know that quite a lot of british people still think in imperial.
I pointed out that all the people I've met so far were looking forward to the full use of metric and won't shed a tear about the imperial system because they consider it arbitrary.

Ralf

To L Higgins; why will metric will happen just because it is projected as an inevitability?

Just wanted to add that the situation on the other side of the ocean is not much different. I haven't met any American yet who says that the US shouldn't go metric.

Today I actually got explained what funny sight it is at a rollercoaster when people have to state their height in inches instead of feet. You have this long queue of people, standing there, using their fingers to calculate the number.

Ralf

Look up the word arbitrary, Ralf. Metric is arbitrary.

Rollercoaters:

Yes, I've always found it tedious when those signs say XX inches (or XX cms). Luckily in Blackpool (the bestest rollercoaster place on earth) most of the signs say it sensibly (ft and inches)

Ralf, I'm sorry, but I don't actually understand your point to do with the rollercoadters. Are you saying it is difficult for people to calculate how many inches they are under or over the height restricton? If you are, then you must have been in line with some very stupid people, indeed. There are 11 little bits before you get to the next 'bit' when dealing in feet and inches- I really don't believe that a) most people can't count up to twelve, and b) Most people are incapable of doing the standard multiplication tables (2-12)

BWMA wrote: "To L Higgins: why will metric will happen just because it is projected as an inevitability?"

Let me put it this way: Metric will happen because IT IS inevitable !

Also, the Earth and it's lifeforms will end because the sun will "go out" at some point!

It's inevitable!

Yes, but why is it inevitable?

SteveH: I realise you were being tongue in cheek, but you might be interested to learn that the heat death of the universe isn't the inevitability you may have been led to believe:
http://www.paulbirch.net/Population.zip

Yes I was being tongue in cheek!

Those are big reports, I will read them when I get a moment, Ta.

Bryan:

I can only report what I was told, I see no reason why that person would make up a story about the system she has to deal with daily. According to her, people are NOT able to do those multiplications in their heads and start using their fingers. One might start to ramble about the American educational system, however, in metric noone needs their fingers to say their height in centimeter when they know it in meters.

As a side question: Do you really learn the multiplication table up to 12 in the UK ? On the continent, we only have to learn it up to 10.

Ralf

Half the schools teach up to 12, the others 10. Suffice it to say, if you know your tables up to 10, then you can do 11 and 12, as 11 is easy (11,22,33,44 etc) and the 12s are hardly complex (12,24,36,48 etc), also you could just double your 6s.

I know that there are 12 inches in a foot and 3 feet in a yard. I know that 2/3 of a yard is 24", a half is 18", a quarter is 9" and that I am 73" in height. Quite simple and not at all complex.

^ just to add: It's only when you start your 13s, 14s and beyond that the tables get a little tricky. 12s are easy, as all you are doing, obviously, is your 1 times table, and your 2s.

As far as I know it does go up to 12 times table. IT did when I was there.

However I was never good at anything above the 1-times table!

I am glad that someone mentioned that 14 times tables are tricky.

If people were asked their weight in pounds, given that they normally know it in stones and pounds, I wonder how would fair then.

Just for you Steveh:

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12
2---4---6---8---10--12--14--16--18--20--22--24
3---6---9---12--15--18--21--24--27--30--33--37
4---8---12--16--20--24--28--32--36--40--44--48
5---10--15--20--25--30--35--40--45--50--55--60
6---12--18--24--30--36--42--48--54--60--66--72
7---14--21--28--35--42--49--56--63--70--77--84
8---16--24--32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96
9---18--27--36--45--54--63--72--81--90--99--108
10--20--30--40--50--60--70--80--90--100-110-120
11--22--33--44--55--66--77--88--99--110-121-132
12--24--36--48--60--72--84--96--108-120-132-144


I hope it was good for you...

Ah that brings back the old days! That was the sort of matrix I wrote to help me out! I really was astonishingly bad at (arithmetic) maths.

Re: Stones and Pounds. In my opinion people tend to know there height in ft/in and st/lb without questioning what that would be in a "base unit" of lbs or inches.

BTW: Considering tha Americans say "Math" instead of "Maths" (short for mathematics) do they also say "Physic" instead of "Physics"?

"I am glad that someone mentioned that 14 times tables are tricky.

If people were asked their weight in pounds, given that they normally know it in stones and pounds, I wonder how would fair then."

One hundredweight is 8 stone (112lbs). From that it is relatively easy to figure out your weight. Say you are 13st. 6lbs, you= 168lbs is 12 stone+ 20 pounds.

Or, say, 23 stone 11 pounds, you may: 10x14=140*2=280. 3 stone is 42lbs, hey presto! 322lbs+11 (333lbs)
- if that was too much for you to do in your head withing 5 seconds (it's not for me, and maths is hardly my speciality) then simply know that 8 stone is one hundred weight, and then there are 3 cwt in 23 st. minus 3 lbs, and you get, by using simple binary multiplications in your head- 112/224/336, then subtract 3.

Often, the binary numbers in Imperial make this kind of sum easy eg. 4840 sq yds in an acre, 2240lbs in a ton, 112lbs in a cwt and so on.

^^ "Re: Stones and Pounds. In my opinion people tend to know there height in ft/in and st/lb without questioning what that would be in a "base unit" of lbs or inches."

Definately, but as explained in my previous post, there are rules, if people know them, that make this kind of stone-to-pounds sum very easy.

'BTW: Considering tha Americans say "Math" instead of "Maths" (short for mathematics) do they also say "Physic" instead of "Physics"?'

Probably not considering that, whilst they spell it 'dialog' and 'analog' they do not, as far as I know, spell it 'leag'

Bryan: But look how they pronounce Kansas quite sensibly yet go all weird with Our-can's-sore Arkansas! What are they like? Next thing you know they'll be pronouncing Featherstonehaugh as Fanshaw and Cirencester as Sissister. Or Reading as Redding. Oh, hold on a tick ...

Ok, Bryan, considering that people apparently already have trouble multiplying by 14 in their head, you suggest juggling multiples of 112 makes it easier for them ?

Maybe you should step back and look at the posting you produced there (the "Stanly Re: Stone & Pounds" one), I only see a heap of numbers (112 , 4840 , 2240) that don't make me jump up and exclaim :"Wow, that's easy !"

Ralf

Yeah, but Ralf, you are completely missing the point. There is a standard unit called the "Hundredweight"- you may or may not have heard of it. It is equal to 8 stone and is 112 lbs. If you know that, this task of st-lbs(which you will never be required to do) is made very easy. You see, half of 112 is 56 (110/2+1 for the deca-lovers) and half of that is 28 which is a quarter (Leonard's beloved tod) hich is quite simple to calculate as it is double 14. You see, if there were 12 or 16 stone in a cwt, it may become difficult, but 8 is very low making an 8-base counting system a stupid idea, but for basic binary problems, the best. If a stone 1/8 of a cwt, then 1/4 is obviously 28-that takes less than a second to figure out- and half of 112 is 56, meaning that it is very simple indeed.

Now that I have shown why 112 lbs= 1 cwt= 8 st. is easy, let us take the weight of a person, OOPS! I already did that. Ralf, once you know the basic rules of Imperial, it is not too difficult really it's not, and just to reiterate the point- why oh why would you ever need to know how many lbs you weigh? I honestly cannot see how that would ever be an issue outside of abstract maths puzzles that you may have gotten in school, in which case it completely irrelevant to your every day life.

A furlong is 1/8 of a mile and is 220 yds, thus half a mile is 880 yds. If I decided to calculate what a half mile was by doing, in my head, 1760/2, I may find it a little tricky, but by knowing that there are 8 furlongs in a mile and that a furlong is 220 yds, the half mile is as easy as the half kilometre.

Our weights (avoirdupois):

16 drams= 1 ounce
16 ounces= 1 pound
14 lbs= 1 stone
8 stone (112lbs)= hundredweight
20 cwt (2240 lbs)= 1 ton

> why oh why would you ever need to know how many lbs
>you weigh?

Aren't your scales in pounds ? I mean, the ones you stand on in the morning ? Or do they actually measure in stones ?

I don't know, the more you are explaining that stuff with stones, pounds, hundredweights etc. to me which involve factors of 12,112,1760,2240,4840, the less I understand why you actually defend this.

To use a simile, the imperial system is like a wild bush in which everything grew on its own, making it difficult to navigate through, whereas the metric system is like a well-mowed lawn.

Ralf

And luckily one ton is so close to one tonne as to make the Metric vs Imperial argument null and void - in that case!

To Ralf: Our scales say stones and pounds - like 1,2,3,4,5 etc stone and 14 little markers in between each one.

Actually mine is electronic and tells me straight in stone,pounds (and a half).

I won't be advertising my weight...!

People weigh themselves by the stone, that is why we use the stone, becasue we weigh people by the stone.... Our scales are in stones- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7... all the weigh (tee hee) upto 20, usually, with 14 divisions in each stone, thus, we would only need to convert from lbs to stone if our scales were not in stone, in which case we would either switch to weighing ourselves in lbs only, or not have our scales scaled, as it were, in pounds.

Seriously Ralf, I hope you don't think I'm being funny or anything, but I simply do not understand why you are finding this so difficult to understand- I have explained the weights system as well as I can in relation to hundredweights and tons and am not sure what else I can say- our system has many advantages that metric doesn't and that even many metric people agree is a slightly bad thing eg. metric has no "middle" steps such as feet, and numbers who scale changes according to the task and is suited to human purposes. But in order to make going up or down easier, we have our numbers to a basis that makes it easy- the binary-"two times table mentality".

"And luckily one ton is so close to one tonne as to make the Metric vs Imperial argument null and void - in that case!"- but unluckily it makes metrification easier.

Ralf's simile of the wild bush
(bush country, open space, natural environment)
is a good simile. Does what similes are
supposed to do.

I don't mean it is 100% right, no simile
ever is a completely accurate model.
Or that Ralf should get a swelled head
because he is such a great poet. But there
is no danger of that. I just mean it is
an excellent simile and kind of adds to the
discussion.

I can say this honestly Leonard: you are an intelligent, kind, funny and extremely colourful character. It is good hearing you talk. Or seeing you write. Or, rather, reading your write.

"but unluckily it makes metrification easier" I see it more on a good side - they can keep their mits of our ton!

Apparently a small "t" on a roadsign means tonne and a big "T" means Ton!

Bryan I appreciate your approval. It could
be directed collectively since the group at
BWMA board currently includes several people
of considerable merit and originality.

And I would say that all our eccentric-credentials
appear to be in good order. Even those of
EuRobert whose next utterance I await with
eagerness and dread.

Also I can honestly say the same to you but
if we exchange too many compliments we will
begin to forget the main issues.

As I said earlier today- yes, this board is indeed wonderful as it is full of so many intelligent characters with their own pet projects and ideas.

Amen to that. There is someone who used to post
here I wish would come back--Andrew Usher.
I got email from him recently and he is working
on a pound-inch system in which (this is rather
appealing to me) the speed of light is exactly
600 million inch/trice.

This may not seem interesting to you but the
metric speed of light is messy and causes bother
by being 299,792,458 meters per second. In certain
contexts one is always having to use it: to
change frequency to wavelength (as when making
an antenna to pick up a certain signal) or
mass to energy or in relating distances to signal
delay times. And also it is sort of one of the main
proportions in nature according to which the universe
is constructed. So I think it would be nice if
Andrew constructs this pound-inch system in which
the c number is exactly 600,000,000.

And it would have the inch exactly the same length
as it is now. And I think then with his system one
might start thinking of a mile as 60 thousand
inches and then the speed of light would be
tenthousand miles per timeunit, which would also
be nice.

I like thinking of a mile as 60 thousand inches because
it is so divisible. One knows immediately what is
half a mile and a quartermile and a third of a mile
and so on.

However I will not advocate this (it is a slight
modification of the pound-inch we have so far) because
it is Andrew's project which he told me about in email.

Now I think I have lost the thread of the discussion
which was Statistics (?) of public approval of
traditional. These informal polls depend so much on
non-verbal cues from the questioner. If Ralf for example asked me didn't I believe Metric was the
sure winner and so on I would probably be quaking in
my boots because he is this very big imposing serious
guy (and a good computer programmer probably) and
I would say "Oh yes Ralf traditional is no good! I
will be so glad when they do away with it!" I don't
like to argue, you see. But if he were a friendly
little guy I would probably say "Well Ralf you know
there are some pretty interesting traditional units
that it would be nice to keep in use! And things don't
always have to be in one totally uniform consistent
system." Depends on who's asking and how.

A 5000 foot mile, eh? Very Roman. What about the three foot yard, though. Wouldn't that be ruined

What about a 1000 metre kilometre ?
Or a 1000 gramme kilogramme ?

^ Nah. It's just too far fetched

{Just wanted to add that the situation on the other side of the ocean is not much different. I haven't met any American yet who says that the US shouldn't go metric.}

Then you have selective hearing.

{Today I actually got explained what funny sight it is at a rollercoaster when people have to state their height in inches instead of feet. You have this long queue of people, standing there, using their fingers to calculate the number.}

I've never seen a roller coaster sign that didn't have heights in feet.

Maybe you have selective sight ?

Ralf

^ Or maybe you have. Regardless, it is very easy to calculate your height in inches, but I have never seen any signs of this kind in inches only.

I have seen many roller coaster signs that had heights in metres... well, er...on the Continent... (grins)

In the Algarve, Portugal the height restrictions are in cm and ft/in I am pleased to say.

Catering for the safety of Brits and Yanks, I would have thought.

I like the Portuguese, nice people!

steveh, re your remarks about the symbol for ton/tonnes.

It may interest you to know that the only legal unit for weight on road signs is the tonne. So when you see T or t they both mean (in Britain) the metric tonne.

However the correct symbol for it is t, not T, so many road signs have it wrong, just as they have the symbol m wrong, the international symbol for the metre not the mile.

Actually, the correct symbol for the metric tonne is Mg.

Unless of course you mean the tonne-weight, for which the symbol ought to be Mgf.

The abbreviation for tonne is just "t".

The lower case t is an accepted alternative symbol for the metric tonne in SI. It is used on public signs in preference to Mg for obvious reasons.

The issue of weight versus mass in this context is academic.

The upper case T is not accepted because it conflicts with the T for Tesla, the magnetic unit.

Ton and tonne can exist on British roads and are both legal, so is the CWT.
Furthermore you can see signs that actually say "Ton" or "Tonne"

Anyway, like I said, Ton and Tonne are more or less the same.

Am i not right in saying that "tonne" isn't actually SI but a derived unit? (like km/h)

In SI, the tonne (t) is a barely acceptable deprecated unit - you're supposed to use the Megagram (Mg). In imperial, the ton can be abbreviated as tn, T, or t. So a road sign with a capital T clearly means an imperial ton - though whether or not they're supposed to be in imperial or metric I'm afraid I don't know. BWMA probably does.

steveh: perhaps you could indicate to us where in the TSRGD it says that CWT and Ton are still allowed.

Signs still explicitly showing Ton may be older signs that have not been updated.

Paul: The lower case t is still internationally recogised as a tonne. You can't expect roadsigns to be changed over-night just because SI is phasing it out, if indeed it is.

Oh and by the way steveh you are quite right about the Imperial and Metric ton(ne) being nearly the same. But then so are the yard and the metre but certain people get quite cross about it all the same.

Lower case t is also recognised as one of the symbols for ton in the UK. To paraphrase your own words, you can't expect us to stop using it just because a bunch of foreigners use it for something else.

With respect that wasn't quite what I said. I did use the phrase "overnight". Whether roadsign conventions will move to Mg in future I have no idea. But the issue here is more to do with clarity and other practical issues rather than refusing to comply with the dictates of another authority.

In response to the query about derived units.

The metric system only has a small number of units (metre, gram, second, three or four others). All other indications are derived units ie a kilometre is a thousand metres, a hectogram is one hundred grams.

However, this means that, under metric SI, there is no such thing as a "tonne" (correctly stated, a megagram). A "litre" is, in fact, a cubic decimetre, and a "hectare" is a 100 metres squared.

However, without these words, the metric system would be unworkable. Therefore, terms such as litre, tonne and hectare are tolerated and treated as "units", even though they are not. Some in the metric/SI community would like these words removed.

Moreover (I think I am right in saying the following), the gram has been replaced as the unit for mass by the kilogram (again, for reasons of workability). Thus, paradoxically, the base unit is 1,000 "units".

Not such a neatly cut lawn, after all.

Okay, but SI has NEVER approved of units like the tonne. So if Britain WERE to change to metric signing (whether overnight or not) why should it change to a symbol already out of date and which, being identical to one of the customary symbols for our own ton, is certain to lead to ambiguity? Why not, in that event, take the logical step of using the SI standard, Mg, instead of copying the obsolete usage of the Continent?

Because people would immediately see tne metric system for what it is and reject it. Since 1965, metric's implementation has been on a slice-by-slice approach, each stage carefully concealed until it is completed, and then the public are presented with a fait accompli.

Of course, you're perfectly correct - that's the politics of it. But if metrification were REALLY a matter of being logical and rational and forward-looking, why, the half-hearted halfway house of the tonne wouldn't be tolerated for a minute!

...wouldn't be tolerated for 60s.

BWMA:

I note your remark in your last posting that people will see the metric system for what it is and reject it.

Could you please elaborate on how you see it. I ask because I genuinely wish to know.

Hi Stanley, Paul can do a really good job
answering but I will just interject something
about the CGPM (General Conference on Weights and
Measures).

A lot about SI metric is (if you look at its
official workings without enough respect) slightly
ludicrous and the way to get that view is to
actually go to a handbook like CRC Chem&Phys
that has a chapter laying down JUST EXACTLY what
the CGPM in its august wisdom declared and especially
what the CGPM "deprecated". There is a kind of
Olympian tone which can be entertaining.
There might even be a WEBSITE with lots of CGPM
pronouncements!

Anyway the General Conference meets every few years
and votes on redefinitions of the units and what
one shall and shall not say. One shall not say
"degrees Kelvin" one shall say "Kelvin" and so on.
And the Conferences' word is LAW. It is the body
which by treaty and all the powers of convention
hands down the official WORD about the official
system.

So that is kind of an answer to your question. There is
no doubt about what metric, or at least official SI
metric is, it is what the CGPM says it is.

Don't take me for altogether irreverent. This is how
it has to be. They do a good job. I really like the
work of several influential metrologists who are
leaders in CGPM. And the metric system has certain
beauties which I admire. But the ponderosity of it
is entertaining too.

Stanley:

Your post "indicate to us where in the TSRGD it says that CWT and Ton are still allowed"

I can only answer by saying that two signs I saw recently erected in Wycombe say "ton" and "cwt" - so it's merely personal experience rather than knowing any policy statements.

Your other post "Oh and by the way steveh you are quite right about the Imperial and Metric ton(ne) being nearly the same. But then so are the yard and the metre but certain people get quite cross about it all the same."

This may be true but put it in perspective - if the weight limit for a bridge was two tons or two tonnes what would the real difference be? Now calculate the difference in distance between "railway crossing 800yds" and "railway crossing 800mtrs".

Question: Do they use tonne or "Mg" in Europe (ie mainland)

steveh:

The difference between the metre is about 10%.

How much does this matter when driving along in a car?

Is that the real reason for the guard the yard campaign?