I am pleased to be able to report the following dialogue which took place in a furniture shop on Sunday.

A family (man and woman, two daughters) are looking to buy a sofa. They are looking at a particular item and are discussing it with the shop assistant when they request that its length be measured.

"Hold on, I'll just get the tape measure" says the assistant, who then brings it across and is helped by one of the daughters to span the sofa.

"Do you want it in inches or centimetres?" he asks.

The mother says, "centimetres?" in a hopeful way, looking at the father, who confirms, "centimetres".

The assistant then immediately announces, "one metre ninety", which they seem to understand perfectly.

Later they wish to find out the size of a larger item, which is quickly reported as, "two twenty three".

It all seemed very efficiently handled and they seemed to understand what was going on.

In other news, a few more things over the past few days:

On Neighbours, Chloe Lambert said, "I can't believe I was only a hundred metres away when it happened".

On Holiday last night, Linda Barker said, "Look at the size of that wall, it must be about a metre thick!".

Another conversation I overheard yesterday, admittedly one person said something like, "I fancy a ten foot chocolate bar", but less than 20 seconds later another told of how he had swam, "forty lengths, that's a kilometre!".

Just to show that this system is more widely used than some would like to make out.

This is what makes me feel sorry for the metriphiles.

They hear people talk metric and latch on to it - like a golden moment.

Meanwhile everyone else is using imperial measures so often that it just goes by without even noticing.

Heck, if I noted all the imperial measures used on the radio (eg LBC in the morning, Chris Moyles in the evening) or all the imperial measures people mutter as they go about their normal day 2 day life I'd be here writing a list a mile long! (oops just did it then).

But you, on your shopping expedition, found it impressively exciting that a family say "metres" - I'm quite sorry for you.

I don't wish to upset you but talk to the future (teenagers) about their interests, they harp on about 18" alloys, 2 pound carps, losing 10 lbs for the boyfriend, hitting 60 in 8 seconds, 3 inch tailpipe, being over 6ft, inch long fingernails etc etc - probably quite demoralising.

Imagine if I got excited 'cos someone mentioned "feet" in neighbours and was talking about the depth of their flood, or a drop down the side of a hill etc - if i were like you i'd be in a state of perpetual excitement.

Nice try though, but pretty lame really you have to admit.

I have to say that it made my day, and in posting this I of course intended to get reactionary comments such as yours.

These were not metric fans wearing "metric rules OK" T-shirts and taking a knife to the assistant's throat for mentioning the word "inches".

They were "ordinary" people who chose to use the metric system as their primary system of measurement. They are not part of the 3% of metric extremists who are so often lambasted on this board, but apparently part of the "silent" majority of imperial supporters who have quite clearly modernised their DIY and home planning.

"I of course intended to get reactionary comments such as yours."

Sorry, that should have been "expected".

They are not the metric fans, you are.

Can you not accept that the vast majority of people, age independant, use imperial day to day?

I honestly accept that we are in second place here. What I do not accept are the constant claims of the imperial lobby that "no one" uses the metric system in everyday usage and that "everyone" opposes its introduction.

This board itself proves those statements to be incorrect, and albeit anecdotal evidence such as I have shown here demonstrates that the acceptability of the metric system goes beyond the "hard core".

The other main point is that the process of conversion of people's minds has begun, and history shows that once these things start they move quite quickly.

>>What I do not accept are the constant claims of the
>>imperial lobby that "no one" uses the metric system
>>in everyday usage and that "everyone" opposes its
>>introduction.

You've got the wrong tack, I'm sure I am speaking for most - if not all - here in saying
1) People *do* use metric
eg. some say "metres" i.s.o. yards - not as many as
the "yard" sayers though. Some say km i.s.o. miles,
a tiny minority. Some say mm i.s.o. 16ths - here the
majority would choose mm.

2)I don't oppose its introduction - I simply say let the public and the freemarket decide. If I want to export to europe I'd be stupid not to use metric, but why should HM Gov force me to use metric to my fellow Brit? What's a private transaction to do with the govm? It is this sort of action that leads to some people hating the metric system without it being the fault of the metric system! Do you see what I'm driving at? It's not "metric"'s fault - it those idiot politicians - mainly up at Brussels (but not exclusively).


>>The other main point is that the process of
>>conversion of people's minds has begun, and history
>>shows that once these things start they move quite
>>quickly.

I'm sorry to say that history is proving otherwise here. Look at the post about TV and some shops. In my short life I have never seen and heard imperial being used more than it is today. I don't go around looking for it - and it may have something to do with being a 70's kid (we were only taught metric at lower school level, unlike today). It could also be a backlash - familiarity in imperial may have come back because it tends to get into the news for all the wrong reasons!

"I don't oppose its introduction - I simply say let the public and the freemarket decide."

You may think that, but as I understand it the whole point of the BWMA is to oppose the use of the metric system in principle. Its policy is to protect the use of imperial for its own sake and would keep banging on about it no matter how popular the metric system became.

"What's a private transaction to do with the govm?"

Quite a lot, in fact the imperial system itself was introduced in order to regulate transactions and make sure everyone is conforming to a common standard.

My point about minds is slightly more subtle. I mean that there are many examples of thinking that on the other side of a proposed change things will be vastly different and in reality we hardly notice it. For example, I once owned a watch with a black face and had become very accustomed to it until I had to replace it and chose one with a white face which was quite new and unfamiliar. After a matter of two weeks it had become very normal and later I looked back at the old one which I had kept and it looked very strange.

When Prime Ministers' Questions was merged into a single weekly session on Wednesdays it seemed dramatically different, but if it were to be changed back to Tuesdays and Thursdays again it would be strange. The new style BBC News looks rubbish, but after a while we will become accustomed to it and the old version will be unusual when we look back at it.

This is the way the human mind works, and will quickly adjust to new circumstances. What is required is firm leadership to ensure that the changes are actually made and then a short period will pass before most people will have adjusted. Obviously it will take slightly longer than the examples above, but considering that this process has been underway since the mid-19th century it will be a relatively short period.

It does happen though. If I went to my local shop and asked for a peck of apples they would simply stare in confusion.

<<
What's a private transaction to do with the govm
>>

As long as things are going smoothly, nothing. Once problems arise, then the courts get involved.

The government introduces regulations to clamp down on rouge traders. These regulations involve calibration of weighing devices, orders regarding how items should be priced and so on. In fact, it is the duty of the government to ensure that there is a "level playing field" so that private transactions can take place.

Now consider the hypothetical example - a dutch person writes to a British market trader ordering "een pond aartappelen" (one pound of potatoes). Did he mean 454g or 500g? If a dispute arises as to what he meant, how will the courts decide. That is why governments regulate market places.

"The government introduces regulations to clamp down on rouge traders"

I assume you mean traders that lean towards communism here? Only joking.

Your "dutch" example is off track - dual labelling or exporting in metric only would work here.

What I find unacceptable is that from 2009 onward it will be illegal to put the extra ink at the bottom of a pack of tesco bacon showing the imperial size for British customers - that's close to Nazism.

I think our views on the function of the state differ - which is fair enough, they're both popular viewpoints.

As Lord Justice Laws said, there may be human rights issues relating to the post-2009 situation, but they can only be considered at that time.

From a metrication point of view, the units can never achieve common use and acceptance as long as dual labelling is used. For the smooth running of the system, centuries of experience have told us that the only efficient way to run an economy is with a single prescribed list of weights and measures.

Your statement:

For the smooth running of the system, centuries of experience have told us that the only efficient way to run an economy is with a single prescribed list of weights and measures.

Is not quite true. We've been comfortably using two systems here in the US for almost 150 years now and we've only had one major problem (ie the Mars Lander). Why? Becuase it has almost become one complete system. We all know what both are and consider both normal. Dual labeling and somethings in metric and some in customary have not caused any other major problems here in the US and everyone seems to be quite happy.

So knowledge of the metric system is widespread in the US, and everyone understands it? I think not somehow.

Like the UK they are taught both systems at school.

For science purposes, metric is used.

I always feel uncomfortable with people who do not believe people are allowed to use what units they choose to use.

I'm not an anarchist, but you appear to be the opposite.

<<
Like the UK they are taught both systems at school.

For science purposes, metric is used.
>>

One of the reasons why science and engineering are suffering in the UK is that they a "special" language (ie the metric system). Remove the "special language" and scinece and engineering will become more accessible to Joe Public.

This removal can be done in one of two ways:

a) Teach science and engineering using Imperial Units
b) Adopt metric units for everything.

Since (a) is not going to happen, we are left with option (b). It is little wonder that a significant number of those who favour metrication are engineers and scientists.

That's rubbish.

And anyway - what proportion of the country is "engineers" and "scientists"

And by that standard you are saying that the UK and US have the worst engineers and scientists in the world!

Pull the other one!

<<
And by that standard you are saying that the UK and US have the worst engineers and scientists in the world!
>>


If the units of measure in use were the only thing that determined the quality of our scientists and engineers, then yes, you would be right, but there are many other factors. Next time you read a report in the papers berating the standard of Maths and Science in British schools, note which countries Britain is being compared to. YOu will find these other factors present in the countries with whcih Britain is being compared, but absent form those that are not in teh comparison tables.

Ross wrote:

"As Lord Justice Laws said, there may be human rights issues concerning the post-2009 situation [criminalising the mere mention of pounds and ounces in a shop], but they cannot be considered before then".

Really?

Suppose the government passes a law next week saying that all judges whose surname begins with L will be sentenced to death without trial after 1 April 2005.

Will Lord Justice Laws still say: "Ah, but we can only consider the human rights implications after 1 April 2005"?

My God, Tony, sometimes you're really posting crap !

Your posting makes no sense at all !

BWMA agrees that the 2009 deadline can be considered prior to implementation, since the issue concerns the legality of the regulations.

HOWEVER, trader Peter Collins was appealing against his conviction under the 1994 regulations (separate to 2009). I am not sure whether, in the Appeal Court, the 2009 matter could have been raised.

The defence barrister (Quinton Richards) did not explore the commercial speech point.

Conrad, I'll put it another way.

Could it ever be right for the human rights implications of a law to be considered *before* that law comes into effect?

Interestingly, although Lord Justice Laws said that the human rights implications of banning all mention of pounds and ounces in shops could not be considered until 1 January 2010, in fact under British law [Human Rights Act 1998], the Minister who introduces new legislation must issue a certificate claiming that s/he has considered the 'human rights implications' of any legislation - and that 'there are no human rights implications'.

Usually, the Minister gets away with saying (even in the case of repressive legislation limiting free speech) "there are no human rights implications in this Bill".

The only exception I can think of was the recent Terrorism Act, passed in September last year, under which non-British citizens could be locked up without trial; 13 such suspected terrorists [all Muslim militants] are now accommodated in Belmarsh and Woodside prisons. The government had to tell the European Commission on Human Rights that they were withdrawing from the provisions governing the right to a fair trial (Article 6) because of 'national emergency'.

Lord Justice Laws knows fine well that there will be no effective redress if a trader claims after 31 December 2009 that his/her human rights to sell his/her products in pounds have been breached

{This removal can be done in one of two ways:

a) Teach science and engineering using Imperial Units
b) Adopt metric units for everything.

Since (a) is not going to happen, we are left with option (b). It is little wonder that a significant number of those who favour metrication are engineers and scientists.}

So, you want to buffalo everybody into metricating so a tiny minority of the population can benefit?

There's a name for that--oligarchy.

<<
So, you want to buffalo everybody into metricating so a tiny minority of the population can benefit?
>>

A small minority will benefit greatly, but a large number of people will benefit a small amount, For example, the lorry driver whoi might do a trip form Birmingham to Plymouth one week and dutiful log his distances in kilometers, then that weekend he takes his family for the annual holiday in Cornwall, but, because he is now using his ordinary car, is assumed to know nothing about kilometres whatsoever.

Anotehr example, how many pounds does a 2-pint carton of juice weigh? (useful when you are doing the shopping unless you are too innumerate to care). A 1 lire carton weights about 1kg.

RE:

"A litre weighs about a kilogram"

Er, yes, and a pint of most things weighs about a pound

<<

RE:

"A litre weighs about a kilogram"

Er, yes, and a pint of most things weighs about a pound
>>


TOny, I was under the impression that 1 Imperial gallon of water weighed 10 lbs at 62 deg F, making 1 pint 1.25 pounds.

However, 1 litre of water at 4deg C weighs 1kg (or so close as to make no difference). I used the word "about" to allow for any impurities caused b the orange juice and to allow for the carton itself.

>>>"A 1 litre carton weights about 1kg".

Since the conversion is not exact, except for (distilled?) water at 4 degrees C, what is the advantage over a UK pint weighing a pound and a quarter?

<<
Since the conversion is not exact, except for (distilled?) water at 4 degrees C, what is the advantage over a UK pint weighing a pound and a quarter?
>>

In the real world, nothing is exact. If one is being really pedantic about one's measurements, one should quote the measurement and the tolerance associated with that measurement. One then looks at why the measurement is being made and decides whether the tolerance is acceptable, or whether a mor accurate technique shoudl be used.

My kitchen scale weights to better than 1%. DIstilled water at a temperature of 45 degrees has a relative density of 0.99.

Ordinary tap water has less than 0.1% impurities. Thus, using my kitchen scale, it would be difficult to tell the difference in weight between tap water at 20 deg C and distilled water at 4 deg C (Both would be within 1% of each other). 1% is significantly less than 25% which is the error that one gets using Tony's approximation.

To answer the question then - unless one is working is a laboratory, the eror in assuming that 1 litre of water weighs 1kg is negligable, but the assumption that 1 pint of water weight a pound can easily be detected by kitchen scales and indeed, if one concentrates by a person comparing two weights.

"Tony, I was under the impression that 1 Imperial gallon of water weighed 10 lbs at 62 deg F, making 1 pint 1.25 pounds."

That's because you wacky Brits use a goofy gallon. It's a wonder to me that an imperial gallon was not defined as the mass of 8 avd pounds of water instead of ten. The US gallon is a lot closer, because it is defined as the weight of 8 avd pounds of wine.

On the other hand, the nice thing about the Imperial gallon is the fact that 1 fluid ounce of water weighs 1 avd ounce and as we know, there are 16 ounces in a pound.

So TO ALL YOU METRIC FANATICS:

1 imperial ounce of distilled water, at 62 degrees F, barometer at 30 inches, weighs 1 avd ounce

1 US pint weighs almost exactly 1 pound (owing to the difference between wine and water).

So I don't want to hear any more about 1 litre = 1 kilo. In the US a pint is a pound, and in the UK an fluid ounce is an ounce.

So Matt, in the US a pint is a pound, and in the UK an fluid ounce is an ounce ??? Well, well, well...

Let me tell you something Matt, EVERYWHERE in the world 1 litre is 1 kilo, 1 decilitre is 1 decigramme and 1 millilitre is 1 milligramme !

Hmm... Which system would be the more logical one ?
And which system would be the easier to work with ?

>>> EVERYWHERE in the world 1 litre is 1 kilo, 1 decilitre is 1 decigramme and 1 millilitre is 1 milligramme.

...With the sole exception of every liquid that is not water at 4 degrees Centigrade.

A pint does not weigh a pound, nor does a fluid ounce weigh an ounce. Pints and fluid ounces are measures of volume. Volume has no weight. Only matter has weight.

The values of the pint and pound are fixed to the weight of a quantity of a specific substance. In British fluid measures, this is water. In American fluid measures, it is wine.

Thus, one British fluid ounce of pure water at the specified temperature weighs exactly one ounce; one American fluid ounce of wine at the specified temperature weighs exactly one ounce.

Since a British pint is 20 fl. oz., one British pint of water weighs 1¼ lbs. An American pint is 16 fl. oz., so an American pint of wine weighs exactly one pound.

In the UK, they say "A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter."

In the US, we say "A pint's a pound the world around". This was accurate at the time the phrase was coined, since the fluid measures in use in the US predate those in use in the UK by 120 years.

Conrad's lack of understanding of the concepts involved in measurement explain his preference for the metric system.

"...one American fluid ounce of wine at the specified temperature weighs exactly one ounce."

Which wine ?
Is there an "American standard" wine ?

As little as strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government
wine is no basis for a measurement of volume.

Which is probably the reason why the US itself came up with idea of basing the Imperial system on metric measures.

Ralf

Prior to the 1820's there were at least three different gallon in England - the wine gallon, the beer or ale gallon and the corn gallon - all were used for trading purposes, but none for engineering and science. These gallons were exported to the American COlonies which in the late eighteenth Century became the USA.

In the 1820's both the UK and the US Governements saw the need for a single gallon and both set about passig legislation for such purposes. Unfotunately they did not speak to each other and both countries were inward looking so did not look beyond their borders for inspiration (not invented here syndrome). The result - two differnet gallons. The US selected the smallest gallon - the wine gallon as the basis of their measure while the UK made a half-hearted attempt to develop an alternative system to the French and chose a totally new gallon - one that had the same volume as 10 lbs water.

Meanwhile, across the North Sea the Dutch were faced with a similar problem. They had seem the metric system at work when they were incorporated into France in 1811 and saw that the system had considerable metric. AS a result, when they reorganised their system, they did so using the metric system as the basis for their new measurements (pond = 500g etc). A few years later, the German Custimes Union (Zollverein) was formed and they followed the Dutch example. At about hte same time, the French re-introduced the metric system into France

The result - the Dutch, Germans and French had a common system which was to become world-wide, while the US and UK each had their own systems with a few common units (eg the foot). In the latter years of last century, US and UK industry was forced ot adopt much of the metric system (eg nuts and bolts in teh car industry and metric standards for the paper industry - (UK, but not the US)).

In consequence, the UK and US are half metric and half imperial/customary (and unable to agree what a gallon is), whilethe rest of the developed world has a common system on which they can all agree.

Very well put, Martin !

There is a sheep above me!
No mind....

"the lorry driver whoi might do a trip form Birmingham to Plymouth one week and dutiful log his distances in kilometers, then that weekend he takes his family for the annual holiday in Cornwall, but, because he is now using his ordinary car, is assumed to know nothing about kilometres whatsoever."

Apart from write the numbers down, do you think he cares whether it's km, miles or martian foogles? Ask him directions and he will "dutifully" tell you in miles! You're mixing real life with rules and regs again!

"Anotehr example, how many pounds does a 2-pint carton of juice weigh? (useful when you are doing the shopping unless you are too innumerate to care). A 1 lire carton weights about 1kg. "

Umm, who cares?
If I buy my pint of milk or litre of oracnge juice I don't sit there working out its weight, I just buy it!

Also I don't *only* buy pure water when I go shopping so it's totally irrelevant (I use the "tap")

Quite right, many of the alleged benefits of metric are purely theoretical that have no value in the practical world.

Would you care to give an example?

In earlier years it was common to measure the heat produced by a gas boiler in BTU's per hour (thankfully now outlawed by the EU), but to measure the heat produced by electrical heaters in kW.

If somebody wishes to compare the proce of gas energy and electrical energy, it is now a simple matter of comparing like for like.

It is much easier to compare alcoholic contents using metric measures than using Imperial measures.

How does one compare the alcohol content of a tot (one sixth of a gill) of 60 degree proof whisky against a six fluid ounce glass of wine (14% alcohol). (It is even more difficult if you use a 125ml glass of wine since wine has never been sold The metric measure is much simpler.

Metric units makes is much simpler.

It is also required to have your car's output written in kW in the specification sheet nowadays. That means you can suddenly compare
a) the car's output with (horsepower)
b) the AC's power consumption (BTUs)
c) your stereo's power consumption (W)
(previous measurement in parantheses)

Ralf

At great expense I had to buy a new gas boiler recently.

IT's pretty flash and is about the size of a "tower" PC with all flashing lights on it.

It was sold to me using BTU's - with the model number showing that. The engineer gave me a choice - all in BTUs.

Facts are quite required sometimes.

So,
how much will this boiler cost you per month ?
I guess you pay electricity in kWh in the UK as well, do you ?

Ralf

In the US, heating and cooling appliances are almost always described in terms of BTUs.

Note that the BTUs describe not the power consumption of the appliance, but rather its heating/cooling output. The relationship between power consumption and output is hardly a cosntant one; it depends on many variables specific to each individual applance.

The 30 year old air conditioner in my apartment has obscenely high power consumption, but only has average cooling power.

Power consumption on such appliances is, of course, given in Watts; this makes it easy to compare to the electric bill, which is assessed in kWh. Since we measure ambient temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit, BTU is likewise the most useful measure for the output of a heating/cooling appliance.

For comparing the efficiency of appliances, BTUs per Watt is a perfectly practical metric (no pun intended).

To metric fundamentalists, such mixing and matching of units is heresy. To reasonable people, improvisation often provides the best solutions to meet their needs.

Just the fact that there is the word "Fahrenheit" in the definition of a BTU doesn't make it suddenly a meaningful number for air conditioning.
Face it, the BTU is a completely stray unit that relates to nothing else. You don't even know how efficient your AC is unless you know how many Watts there are in a BTU/hour.

Ralf

One BTU is the amount of heat required to raise one pound of water at highest density (39 deg. F, I beleive) by one degree Fahrenheit.

Granted, for its usual applications, it might be better to base the BTU on a volume of air rather than a weight of water, but it's still much more closely linked to the way we measure ambient temperatures than Watts.

As I said, since power is sold by the kW/hr, and the HVAC system's output is measured in BTU/hr, using BTU/kW or BTU/W is the easiest way to compare efficiencies.

If you know your power rates, you could also compare efficiencies in terms of price per BTU/hr, but this only works under your specific circumstances.

>As I said, since power is sold by the kW/hr, and the
>HVAC system's output is measured in BTU/hr, using
>BTU/kW or BTU/W is the easiest way to compare
>efficiencies

1.) No, it's sold by kWh, not kW/h. One is energy, the other one is how much you fiddle with your AC within an hour.

2.) You realize BTU is a measurement of energy, not of power, right ?
BTU/kW = 3.7 seconds. Basta.

Yes, the ease of use is jumping right at me...

Ralf

The watt is clearly an example of the general public's familiarity with an SI unit, mainly through lightbulbs. If we were to use whatever the imperial or "traditional" unit is, I'm sure a lot of people would be *very* confused.

If you remember your GCSE physics, you might recal that Watts = amp * volts.

There have never been any Imperial alternatives to amps and volts. It is noteworthy that the definition of amps and ohms have been tuned so that one unit of power that is genreated by a current of one amp having a potential drop of one volt is exactly the SI unit of power.

To answer some questions:

The watt and amp are neither imperial or metric.

However, can someone help me out here? Were these measures invented before or after the advent of the current SI system?

Back to Ralf now:

My boiler is in BTU - FACT!
My bills show cubic feet of gas used - FACT!
When I update my gas card I go to my gas supply unit and write down the figures off a box that says "cubic feet" - FACT!
Then I pay my bill.
To be honest, I don't sit there working out watts and stuff and its probably true that its quoted on the bill. My concern is that they get the correct amount of gas on the bill so I don't pay too much.

BTW - My Bosch (german) A/C shows BTU! (ouch)

Extract from the formal definition of the seven base SI units:

<<
The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2 × 10-7 newton per metre of length.
>>

The volt is formally described by the BIPM as "amps/watts".


Amps and Volts do in fact predate SI. In its first incarnation, VOltage was the primary measurement and current followed. Voltage was defined in terms of the potential from a photo-voltaic cell, but as time passed, it was found that current could be measured with greater accuracy than voltage, so current became the base unit. In any respect, current and voltage were always related to each other using Watts.

SI was formally established in the late 1940's (I think). It was a major revision of the earlier metric system which had got in a bit of a muddle over magnetic and electrical units. SI reconcilled the two.

Steve wrote

<<
To be honest, I don't sit there working out watts and stuff and its probably true that its quoted on the bill. My concern is that they get the correct amount of gas on the bill so I don't pay too much
>>

If you want to compare the price of electrical energy and gas energy, it might be useful to convert both to the same units. This would be the case if you were thinking about the best way to heat your villa in Spain (many Brits have villas there - I don't know if this is your scene or is ever likely to be your scene).

So what did Newton use rather than a metre?
(Assuming newton made his discovery before the 1940's!)

Also, no, I have no reason to work out the energy used from my gas boiler - just that my bill is correct from the stuff I consumed (ie the foot cubes of gas).

The BTU thing was handy when buying the boiler as they mentioned the best BTU rate for my house (depends on number of rooms/size/semi or detached etc).

BTW, my preferred destination in Spain is Ibiza or Andorra (not strictly spain) and I don't have the inclination to buy a pad in either.

Newton did not use electricity (he died in 1727?)

So what did Ben Franklin use?

BTW, I seem to remember that a calorie has a similar definition to a BTU...something like

the amount of energy required to raise one gram of water one degree celcius?

So what's the difference? You can get even more goofy with units when you add in boiler horsepower and the like. So what? My father uses them everyday with no trouble (he's a Mechanical Engineer, I'm a Civil Engineer and I like my feet and gallons thank you). You don't realize that the system seems to be strange to you because you don't use it. It works quite well for those of us who do. It works well because the way these units were developed was due to convenience. That's the way all good things develop. BTW, the foot is so much more conveniet than the meter. It fits in a desk drawer.

<<
So what did Ben Franklin use?
>

Electricity (in 1745) - Newton died in 1727

MattS wrote

<<
I'm a Civil Engineer and I like my feet and gallons thank you
>>

I trust that you will keep any designs that you make in the US - your gallons are different to ours and if somebody working outside the US is not aware of this, there could be problems.

I know of a problem of this nature in Johannesburg. In 1886, when the city was being laid out in a grid fashion, the Northern half of the city was given to one surveyor and the SOuthern half to another surveyor. The surveyor who was laying out the Northern half did not realise that he should have been using Cape (or Rheinish) feet and not English feet. (There are 1.033 English feet in one Cape foot). As a result some of the road that cross Bree Street have a dog-leg in them.

Had the plans been made in metres, there would have been no scope for an error of this nature.

I meant that Benjamin Franklin used Electricity extensively. He was well into his study before the metric measures. What did he use to measure, say current, or power and the like?

As for feet, who the heck would make the idiotic mistake of not using a US survey (English) foot. I do not give much credence to your surveyor who did not use the correct foot. As for gallons, it is very well known that there is a difference between a US gallon and an Imperial one. One only has to specify the difference.

When I work in cubic feet per second (cfs or cusec) which is the most common unit of flow, this unit is *very* well known in all English speaking countries. In fact, the authoritative source (written before metrication but still *the* book in use) on open channel flow was written by F.M. Henderson from Christchurch, NZ and he dedicates an entire section to the unit of the cusec or cfs.

Furthermore, we do not do international work of that kind of nature in my business, and if we do, they only want "soft" conversions since all the materials are made in the US. I would specify, say, an 18 inch pipe (because it would be manufactured in the US) and then I would give the metric equivalent(45.74 cm). I did this kind of work when doing the Portugese embassy. We deal entirely in US Customary measures and have no time or need for metric ones.

MattS wrote

<<
I meant that Benjamin Franklin used Electricity extensively. He was well into his study before the metric measures. What did he use to measure, say current, or power and the like?
>>

As far as I know Benjamin Franklin did not measure anything. Furhtermore Georg Ohm formualted his laws in 1827, some 80 years after Franklin's work.



<<
As for feet, who the heck would make the idiotic mistake of not using a US survey (English) foot. I do not give much credence to your surveyor who did not use the correct foot. As for gallons, it is very well known that there is a difference between a US gallon and an Imperial one. One only has to specify the difference.
>>

The correct foot in the instance that I gave was in fact the Cape (or Rheinish) foot, as that was the legal unit of measure for survey purposes in the South African Republic (as the former Transvaal province was named in those days). Prior to 1972, Sout Africa had the situation where the Cape foot was the legal unit of land measure in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and teh Cape Province while the the English foot was the legal unit in Natal. Furthermore,the legal unit in South West Africa (now Namibia) which at that time was a de facto fifth province was the metre. The reason behind this was quite clear - the Dutch (or the Boers) performed the first surveys in the provinces that used the Cape foot, the British in the province that used the English foot and the Germans in SOuth West Africa.


<<
Furthermore, we do not do international work of that kind of nature in my business, and if we do, they only want "soft" conversions since all the materials are made in the US. I would specify, say, an 18 inch pipe (because it would be manufactured in the US) and then I would give the metric equivalent(45.74 cm). I did this kind of work when doing the Portugese embassy. We deal entirely in US Customary measures and have no time or need for metric ones.
>>

Many developing countries require that a certain proportion of the good used in the contract be locally manufactured. When it comes to commodity items such as pipes, they might well require that locally produced pipes be used and in many countries such pipes would only be specified in metric units.

Again, I don't give much credence to your surveyor (this time the one who used the illegal foot). If in fact the legal unit at the time was the cape foot, then that is the one that should have been used. Units, if standard (as the cape foot was)whether metric or customary should be well known by those who use them and enforced. This was not a problem with the system of measurement, this was a problem in procedure.

If there was a legal unit (as the cape foot was) then it was the one required to be used. There was nothing wrong with the unit, there was something wrong with the surveyor who used the English foot, and the enforcer of the law at the time. The same could happen if the legal unit was the meter, but some goofy surveyor decided to use the cubits for all his work, but did not communicate he was using a cubit. The cubit is not legal and then the problem would not be the meter, but the goofy surveyor.

The unit which is customarily used in the US is the foot. The meter may be legal, but you will find no land measurement done in meters because all deeds in the US are in feet and are required that way. If a surveyor uses a meter, he would be making a mistake. It's not that the system of measurement was wrong, it's that the surveyor did not follow procedure.

As for your response about local production, that may be true, but in large projects, the materials *have* to come in large quantities and the only places that I would specify manufacture this stuff, manufactures it to American standards, and thus the measurements are in inches. You will not find an American engineer who is doing international work to use a company with which he (or she) is not familiar. I know one or two pipe companies, and so they will be who I specify. They manufacture pipe in standard inch sizes and so I would provide that specification on my design with the metric in parentheses. Trust me, I have done this work many times.

<<
Again, I don't give much credence to your surveyor (this time the one who used the illegal foot).
>>

I agree with you - I do not know his name, but I have seen the results of his error. In his defence, up to 1885 the South African Republic was an impoverished state, but when gold was discovered things changed and changed very quickly. I will not bore you with the details of SOuth African history, but I will merely say that this was an accident waiting to happen - I put more blame on the aerospacve contractors who were responsible for the loss of the Mars probe a few years ago when one company used customary US units and the other SI. (NASA works in SI).

Matt S said :
<<
Again, I don't give much credence to your surveyor (this time the one who used the illegal foot). If in fact the legal unit at the time was the cape foot, then that is the one that should have been used. Units, if standard (as the cape foot was)whether metric or customary should be well known by those who use them and enforced.
>>

If only the BWMA (and green grocers in Sunderland) would heed your wise words and use the units that are legal under UK law !

And there was our contrubutor from the "I love the state" group (part of the "who cares about the people association) !

{EVERYWHERE in the world 1 litre is 1 kilo, 1 decilitre is 1 decigramme and 1 millilitre is 1 milligramme ! }


1 millilitre is 1 milligramme? Are you sure???

I think that there was a slip of the keyboard - 1 millilitre of water weights 1 gramme at its point of maximum density.

Unlike the Imperial system, there is a one-t-one correspondence of units of mass and units of volume of water accross the entire range of wieghts. (Conrad also forgot to mention that 1 cubic metre of water has a mass of one tonne {1000 kg}).