The basic mistake most pro imperial posters continually make on this board is to assume that people still using imperial do so out of love, or preference. While a minority does for more reasons than the stated, an overwhelming majority uses whatever is more comfortable and that of course are old familiar ones. As long as those are legal few people will change. This inertia is reinforced by language. Not only need shoppers acquaint themselves with new quantities; they also have to express them in unfamiliar and awkward terminology. No matter what one does, centimetre and litres will only roll freely of English lips after years of usage. Maybe this helps to explain why voluntary metrication is almost impossible to achieve.

I think the claim that the majority prefer imperial is extremely exaggerated. A poster to the USMA site recently returned from a visit to the UK and reported:

In the UK the past couple of weeks I noticed a lot of real estate ads that gave the area of the office, or apartment, or house, in square meters. Some also gave square feet, but pretty much everyone gave it in square meters.

Get the highways done, and it’s all done.


Another poster who is visiting Ireland and Northern Ireland noted:

At the moment I am in Belfast, Northern Ireland. A mix of Imperial and metric, most head room signs are dual and all speed- and distance signs are in miles. I see more metric than I expected.


The impression given by the pro-imperials is a country where metric is seldom seen, spoken or heard. But visitors are seeing a lot more metric then expected. Indicating metric is prevalent. Not just on signs, but from peoples own lips.

Two women from the UK interviewed for CNN gave the distance they were from the carnage at 15~20 m.


I think it is time for the pro-metrics to push their government representatives to finish the job, at least remove the legal obstacle to prohibiting metric sizes glasses in pubs and prohibiting metric on road signs. At the same time they can make it illegal to deface, damage, destroy or alter a metric sign. What are you doing to further this goal?

<<I think it is time for the pro-metrics to push their government representatives to finish the job, at least remove the legal obstacle to prohibiting metric sizes glasses in pubs and prohibiting metric on road signs. At the same time they can make it illegal to deface, damage, destroy or alter a metric sign. What are you doing to further this goal? >>

And in the same vein, for Americans to push Congress to at least pass the "permissive metric only" amendment to FPLA as proposed by NIST, and for the straggling 5 States to adopt the UPLR for consumer goods whose labelling is controlled at the State level. Forbidding metric-only is not a way to go metric.

It will be much tougher battle to get Congress to require metric-only, but if they can't help, they should at least get out of the way and let industry do it. Now, they are an obstacle to metrication.

I don't think the consumer groups are going to stand for that. Remember that at the present moment in the US, the majority of things are labelled first in a rounded English unit, followed by a conversion to soft metric. The majority of people read the English and ignore the metric. How can Congress justify to the public the act of removing requirements for units that most people understand and requiring different units instead?

Danny boy,

I have responded to that poster on the USMA site. Although he is an honourable poster I believe him to be wrong on this ocassion.
Anyone in the UK will know that

1) Offices are primarily advertised on hoardings quoting:

80% sq ft
<20% sq ft (sq m)
<10% sq m (sq ft)
<5% sq m

2) Houses are sold in l/w and not area. Most show ft,in some have m bracketed.

Feel fee to correct me if I am wrong Daniel, from the USA.

<<I don't think the consumer groups are going to stand for that.>>

Bud,
I think it will be a gradual change. And remember it ISN'T mandatory-metric-only like the EU. Manufacturers can choose to keep or drop the Customary depending on whether they see a market advantage.

I see little advantage to the Customary units following the 2 L on a soda bottle. It still a minority, but I am seeing more labels which are metric first and/or metric round.

My guess is companies would institute a package that is "metric first and round" with trailing odd-size Customary. Then when consumers get used to it, drop the Customary. Food manufacturers, not the government, will take us metric. Just as an example, my dental floss is 50 m / 54.7 yd. I started a thread a while ago on items where both sizes are "odd" amounts, which means you can't tell whether it is primarily Customary or metric. That may be another tactic. I honestly don't think there will be much reaction, if it is done right.

Re: Mandated metrication July 11 2005, 1:18 PM
JS
My guess is companies would institute a package that is "metric first and round" with trailing odd-size Customary. Then when consumers get used to it, drop the Customary. Food manufacturers, not the government, will take us metric. Just as an example, my dental floss is 50 m / 54.7 yd. I started a thread a while ago on items where both sizes are "odd" amounts, which means you can't tell whether it is primarily Customary or metric. That may be another tactic. I honestly don't think there will be much reaction, if it is done right.

metre
Let me describe it in imperial terms what happened here, you took the sail out of my wind.

Re: Mandated metrication July 10 2005, 2:14 PM
DJI
think the claim that the majority prefer imperial is extremely exaggerated. A poster to the USMA site recently returned from a visit to the UK and reported

Metre
Daniel, you are not reading what I say. These are my words:
While a minority does for more reasons than the stated, an overwhelming majority uses whatever is more comfortable and that of course are old familiar ones.

Nowhere do I say imperial is preferred. What I imply is how powerful a force habit is.

"The majority of people read the English and ignore the metric. How can Congress justify to the public the act of removing requirements for units that most people understand and requiring different units instead?"


I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people don't look at either measurements. Nobody would even notice if one or the other were removed. Congress doesn't have to justify anything to the public and the if the public doesn't like it, they don't have to buy products that they don't like.

Maybe you are afraid that the public, if it does pay attention to the units, might understand the metric more then you will allow yourself to believe. Just because you hold yourself back, doesn't give you the right to hold others back too.

If it were more economically beneficial to sell in metric, it would already be much more common. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe, companies do not do things that cut into the bottom line unless they are required to by force of law. If using Customary units were hurting producers, you wouldn't see them used anymore. If there were economic gain to be had manufacturing in metric sizes, the production sector would switch so fast your head would spin. The reason you go to the store and buy a gallon, quart, or pint of milk is because it is an economic benefit to the bottlers to keep using those sizes -- not because of anything the US government is doing. If, at some point, it becomes more profitable to sell in 4 L, 1 L, and 500 mL sizes, you will see milk in those sizes.

Congress is empowered to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Fixing the standard is not the same thing as telling We the People what units to measure in.

<<Congress is empowered to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Fixing the standard is not the same thing as telling We the People what units to measure in.>>

Well, perhaps not how many units to measure out. However, the units are constrained by FPLA as the "most appropriate" units of both Customary and SI.
In the case of volume, that's quart or fluid ounces AND liters or milliters. Imperial quarts, Roman amphoras, etc. are not permitted or any other odd units of volume that is not part of Customary and SI. It is telling commercial establishments what units to measure in.


On permissive-metric-only, NIST is being quite clear and emphateic that it in no way requires round metric sizes. So people could sell 3.78 L of milk under metric-only. (You'd hope they would eventually redesign the package)

<<
I think it will be a gradual change. And remember it ISN'T mandatory-metric-only like the EU. Manufacturers can choose to keep or drop the Customary depending on whether they see a market advantage.
>>
Go back and ask yourself what the purpose of labelling laws is. It is to prevent companies from cheating consumers, and to make sure that consumers don't get ripped off because they don't understand what they are buying. Take the sale of loose fruit and vegetables, for example. I am sure that many stores would be all to happy to drop the pounds, which the public is familiar with, and replace them with kilograms, because this would make it more difficult for people to compare prices from store to store and make it easier for stores to mask price increases. The job of the government is to keep this from happening.


<<
Food manufacturers, not the government, will take us metric.
>>
As you have pointed out earlier, it is the "policy" of the government to encourage metric. So if the manufacturers want to go metric, why hasn't it happened yet?
Let me propose an alternative path: Require both imperial and metric for the time being, and wait until the majority of products are in rounded metric sizes with imperial in parenthesis. THEN, allow companies to start dropping the imperial. How does that sound?
I don't like it too much, but I believe it illustrates my point.







<<
Congress doesn't have to justify anything to the public and the if the public doesn't like it, they don't have to buy products that they don't like.
>>
And they don't have to vote for congressmen they don't like either.

Bud wroet

<<
Take the sale of loose fruit and vegetables, for example. I am sure that many stores would be all to happy to drop the pounds, which the public is familiar with, and replace them with kilograms, because this would make it more difficult for people to compare prices from store to store and make it easier for stores to mask price increases. The job of the government is to keep this from happening.
>>

In the UK is is law and has been law for many years that goods that are packaged in standard sized packages SHALL be sold in metric-sized packets. For example, if I buy some pre-packed beans, the weight is given in metric units. If the Government is to enforce ethical behaviour it must FORCE traders to use the same units of measure on pre-packed foods and onfoods that are sold loose so that prices can be compared. Thanks to the lieks of teh so-called "metric martyrs" and a gullible public, we cannot compare the prices of loose goods with pre-packed goods. Is this what you are supporting?

<<As you have pointed out earlier, it is the "policy" of the government to encourage metric. So if the manufacturers want to go metric, why hasn't it happened yet?>>

Metric alone is illegal. Duality is required by law on consumer goods under FPLA.

<<Let me propose an alternative path: Require both imperial and metric for the time being, and wait until the majority of products are in rounded metric sizes with imperial in parenthesis. THEN, allow companies to start dropping the imperial. How does that sound? >>

I could meet you halfway. Make it item-by-item.

Introduce a rounded-metric package, keep the odd trailing Imperial for 12 months, then the manufacturer can drop it if he wants. Do really gain info from the 66.something FL OZ label on your 2 L soda.

The gradualist approach used in the UK has failed wuith the result that our units of measure are in a mess.

The Australians and South Africans adopted a much better approach - they used compuulsion because tehy realised that without compulsion the critical mass required in order to make metrication work could never be achieved. In both countries the sale of measuring equipment that was calibraterd in imperial units was banned for for a period of between five and ten years.

You might call this dictatorship, but it worked. I lived in South Africa during the metrication period. I had my name taken by the South African Security Police for opposing the Apartheid system. I personally knew a nubmer of people who were deported or who had their liberty restricted without trial for opposing Apartheid. In spite of this, I acknowledge that the South African Government took the right approach regarding metrication. (OK, their Apartheid policy stank. Today, if you ask anybody who lived in South Africa during the 1960's and 1970's, you will find that 90% are in broad agreement with my viwes on both Apartheid and metrication)

Martin,
I understand the sentiment. We (US) are a very litigious society and have certain freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Such an approach in the US would be tied up for decades in court, but on the positive side would result in unemployment for a lot of career politicians. I personally as a US citizen would have problems with the US using some of the steps used by Australia and South Africa, at the same time as I would give them kudos for finishing the job much faster than the US or UK. I applaud the ends, but the means make me uncomfortable.

We could obviously move faster than we are moving. However, for the US, I think the right approach is to concentrate on requiring the right things, not forbidding the wrong things. At the moment, we require dual labeling on consumer goods. That's dumb if the goal is to go metric. The most immediate step for the US is permissive-metric-only in FPLA, and the five straggling states on UPLR. If metric-only were just legal, I think export pressure would handle the fading away of Imperial on consumer goods (as long as the EU and some other countries require no Imperial or Customary on labels).

Better education both in the mechanics of the SI, and the need for change would help too. Unfortunately, our politicians are continually focused on reelection and I don't see the invertebrates developing a backbone or demonstrating leadership in this. Someone (hopefully NIST) needs a long term strategy that maintains slight but continuous conversion pressure that gets the job done without triggering rebellion by a large percentage of people.

"The gradualist approach used in the UK has failed wuith the result that our units of measure are in a mess."

Do a survey of normal people to see how out of step you are.

Re: Mandated metrication July 12 2005, 1:01 AM
Niles

If it were more economically beneficial to sell in metric, it would already be much more common.


metre
Why should selling milk in 4 L containers, or anything else metric in a voluntary conversion world become anytime more “ beneficial” than selling in quarts? This purely commercial view disregards long term advantages metrication offers to everyone and especially coming generations.
Metrication is about replacing an incoherent jumble of units with a simple and easily understood system. A system that saves teaching time, simplifies most computations, eliminates unnecessary and often costly conversion mistakes and integrates America’s economy with the rest of the world to enhance its export potential. Since replacing old and superseded equipment and practices costs money in the short term, few companies with their shareholders in mind take that step voluntarily. This and the disincentive USC habituated shoppers pose, renders voluntary metrication nigh impossible. This is not idle speculation, as it has been shown in Britain. In the 70s carpet shops agreed voluntarily to sell their wares in sq. metres. That worked well until one shop decided to please inch habituated customers and reverted to square yards. Selling in old measures gave the impression that it was cheaper compared to new metres and his sales soared. Metric shops trying to explain what happened got nowhere till they reverted to yards again. Since metrication incurs initially only disadvantages for shoppers, (learning new units and quantities), there is no incentive to change. That said, it is back to the main question on this board, is metric worth the cost and effort and round and round we go again.

JS
Someone (hopefully NIST) needs a long term strategy that maintains slight but continuous conversion pressure that gets the job done without triggering rebellion by a large percentage of people.

metre
I think you overestimate peoples interest in measurements. If I remember correctly the compulsory aspect of metrication was dropped after the congress received 5000 letters decrying mandatory metrication of highways. Shall try to find that article again.

Can anyone remember the tune to "Crossroads" ?

That depends on two things. 1.) How many songs are called "Crossroads", and 2.) If more than one, which one you're thinking of. ;-)

I bet that "Crossroads" never made it to the USA!

In fact I wish it never made it out of Birmingham, or wherever they shot the damn soap.

Meg Mortimer?
Benny?
"Miss Doyannn"?

Give me a rest!

Still, if your mum is addictive to it what can you do?

I still hate the fact that HTV Wales clashed it with Vision On on BBC1.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the limit to that little insight into my primary school years.

<<metre
I think you overestimate peoples interest in measurements. If I remember correctly the compulsory aspect of metrication was dropped after the congress received 5000 letters decrying mandatory metrication of highways. Shall try to find that article again.>>

But you forgot to mention the large campaign checks in the 5000 letters. They were all from contractors building highways. You can't export highways, so it isn't very important anyway whether they are poured in cubic yards or meters. (It would have had some effect on steel for bridges, etc, so I'm not saying it is of ZERO consequence, just that consumer goods are more important right now.)

On consumer goods, I was counting on their lack of interest. Ordinary people would quickly adapt if sizes were rounded metric values and stated first. On a 2 L soda bottle, the Imperial has become completely redundant. It could be dropped with no (or VERY few) angry letters. Going from rounded Customary straight to metric only would not be smart.

Congress has done a few dumb things to encourage Customary
*You already mentioned canceling the deadline on highways, which moves the target date to "when hell freezes over"
*On Federal construction, some jerk Senator got a law passed exempting lighting fixtures and bricks from the metric requirements. This may momentarily decrease costs, but builds a cost FOREVER into designing metric buildings to accommodate English bricks and lighting fixtures. Guess what businesses fund his campaign.

I saw an interesting example of round metric at Costco today. For those not familiar with it, Costco is a "large box" or warehouse type store, and all packages are rather large amounts, either one big package, or a shrink wrap of several normal sized packages, which you can't split.

Olive oil is always by the liter, 2L or 5 L, while other oils are in quarts or gallons. Balsamic vinegar is by the liter, regular vinegar has always been several quart bottles.

Today, they had a large bottle of plain Heinz white vinegar, 5.283 qt, as marked on the pricing sign. What an odd size I thought, and pulled one out of a case. The bottle was marked 5 L / 5.283 QT.

First time I have seen a "commodity" rather than "specialty" food in rounded metric there. I think manufacturers are introducing rounded metric sizes to prepare for "metric only" in the US.

I didn't buy it, as I don't use a lot of vinegar, and most of it is wine vinegar or balsamic vinegar, not plain.

To JohnS-MI and any other engineers:

What is the general consensus among engineers and in the engineering industries about which is the better system for engineering and the practical sciences generally: imperial/customary or metric?
Which system would most engineers honestly prefer to work in, do you think?

2/3 of the engineers I know honestly prefer Customary measures. But that's because they are old and those are the units they used when designing ICBMs for the Department of Defense during the Cold War. The other 33.333...% of engineers I know honestly prefer metric -- because those are the units they used when learning their craft at the University.

That was me and my Costco experience, up two.

Rip,
Science is clearly SI. Engineering is mixed depending on industry and/or technical specialty. I am an electrical engineer (although I was mostly in engineering management) and I worked in both the electronics industry and automotive, which are both metric. So my career (I'm retired) was almost entirely metric, beginning in university in 1962.

Mechanical engineers may face a mixed bag depending on what company or industry they work for.

Outside my own area, it is hard for me to tell what actual practice is. It is easier to look at the various engineering societies and their metric policy. I would say many are leaning heavily towards metric. Aviation/aerospace and petrochemicals are exceptions. They seem to be strongly Customary.

Since 2000, IEEE only publishes new and revised standards in metric, dual has been dropped. Most other societies lean towards metric, but are often dual: ASME, ASTM, ASHRAE, SAE (the reason SAE isn't entirely metric is they have aviation and heavy-duty non-highway equipment wings). ASCE (civil engineers) has a surprising strong metric policy given the way the road construction industry balked at the metric mandate for highways.

I believe Bud and MattS are in engineering areas that are more strongly FPS. Perhaps they can comment on their experience.

I never cease to be amazed that our rocket scientists prefer Customary.

We probably design them that way as a security measure. If the enemy gets a hold of them, they won't be able to understand or use them. And we only export them at 18000 mph.

lol
X-D

I am a chartered information technology engineer. My views on metrication are well known. Although units of measure are seldom used in IT, I have doen a fair amount of work writing software for other engineering disciplines.

My experience in the UK is the the petroleum engineering is mixed, but all other branches of engineening are metric. Typically one particular former colleague who is a mechanical engineer has strong anti-EU views, but strong pro-metric views.

It might be worth pointing out that most engineering bodies (including the British Computer Society) are members of the Engineering Council, an umbrella organisation for the engineering industry. The SOciety of Petroleum Engineers had however decided not to join the Council (thereby betraying its strong American links).

I would say that any well-established engineering industry in the US is in English units (petroleum, construction, water resources, etc.) and any recently emerged industry is metric (biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc.) I believe electrical engineering is also metric, since there are no English equivalents for electrical units. Almost all research is done in metric, so universities teach a lot of metric. Overall, it really all depends on the field.

<<
In the UK is is law and has been law for many years that goods that are packaged in standard sized packages SHALL be sold in metric-sized packets.... If the Government is to enforce ethical behaviour it must FORCE traders to use the same units of measure on pre-packed foods and onfoods that are sold loose so that prices can be compared. Thanks to the lieks of teh so-called "metric martyrs" and a gullible public, we cannot compare the prices of loose goods with pre-packed goods. Is this what you are supporting?
>>

That's like saying "oops, we forced you to convert one, so now you'll have to convert the other one too."
Two wrongs don't make a right.


<<
Introduce a rounded-metric package, keep the odd trailing Imperial for 12 months, then the manufacturer can drop it if he wants. Do really gain info from the 66.something FL OZ label on your 2 L soda.
>>
John, I know you're very fond of the 2 liter soda example. But metric containers like 2 liter soda bottles are the anomaly among items in a grocery store. So using it as an example doesn't prove anything.

The automotive industry and the petroleum industry are both mature and heavily linked (although there are other uses for petroleum, like making plastic for cars :) ). Yet one is metric, one is FPS.

I think the difference has more to do with the scale and nature of the company's international operations, if any.

Against that criteria, Boeing is interesting. They have a lot of international sales, but only domestic manufacture and are FPS.

<<John, I know you're very fond of the 2 liter soda example. But metric containers like 2 liter soda bottles are the anomaly among items in a grocery store. So using it as an example doesn't prove anything.
>>

Fair enough, it is a handy example but perhaps I overuse it.

Can you find some brands of olive oil, herb flavored oils, or balsamic vinegar sold in rational Customary sizes? My observation is they are all or mostly rational metric. I believe it is because the most popular brands are imported, but even US producers seem to have gone along. Wine vinegar and cooking wine are a mixed bag, some FPS some SI sizes.

While an exception only, did you read my 5 L white vinegar story above? What about my dental floss, mouthwash, handlotion?

Bud wrote

<<
That's like saying "oops, we forced you to convert one, so now you'll have to convert the other one too."
Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>

You make the assumption, wrongly in opinion, that metrication is wrong. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the initial decision t metricate, teh job is now half done - measurements in the UK are in a mess, we cannot undo what has been done, so we must complete the job

<<Can you find some brands of olive oil, herb flavored oils, or balsamic vinegar sold in rational Customary sizes? My observation is they are all or mostly rational metric. >>

Now that I've postulated this (and I realize you haven't had fair chance yet to rebut it) I'd like to get to the complaint.

It is easy to compare different brands of olive oil, as they are all metrically sized. When you compare it to an alternative, such as canola oil, the canola oil brands are all in Customary-rational sizes. Olive oil and canola oil are both (relatively) healthy oils to use in cooking. They are not completely interchangable, the strong flavor of olive oil improves some dishes, detracts from others. But in many recipes, either could be used. Which is cheaper? A little hard to compare. The (US) quart and liter are close enough that I can ignore it or make a 5% correction in my head and be in the ballpark, but can the average consumer. With dual labeling, the data is there, but one will be an awkward division requiring a calculator. Should there be complete choice of units. Should Italian olive oil vendors be able to go back to Roman amphoras if they wish (An amphora would be a perfect size for Costco)

Re: Mandated metrication July 12 2005, 4:06 PM
JS
But you forgot to mention the large campaign checks in the 5000 letters. They were all from contractors building highways.

metre
Are you telling me the highest bidder dictates what’s democratic in America?
Now that is altogether new to me!???????????

Bud
John, I know you're very fond of the 2 liter soda example. But metric containers like 2 liter soda bottles are the anomaly among items in a grocery store. So using it as an example doesn't prove anything

metre
It shows that people are not really bothered with metric quantities. No one manned the barricades when spirit and wine quantities were metricated.

<<measurements in the UK are in a mess, we cannot undo what has been done, so we must complete the job >>

Where are you getting this from? (apart from the UKMA, that is)

<<Are you telling me the highest bidder dictates what’s democratic in America?
Now that is altogether new to me!???????????>>


Our campaign laws are a muddle. There is "hard money" and "soft money." I'm not a lawyer and probably can't explain the difference well -- it's definitely "how many lawyers can stand on the head of a pin" stuff.

"Hard money" is given directly to a candidate's campaign. It is pretty tightly regulated, and big trouble if the laws are violated.

"Soft money" is given to political parties or to special action groups, supposedly not directly associated with the candidate, but advertise their special interests in ways where it is pretty obvious how they want you to vote. "Soft money" is severely abused in US politics.

Congress wants to look like they are reforming campaign financing and keep passing tougher laws on hard money while they create more loopholes so they personally can best use the soft money. I think the chances of campaign finance reform on soft money are either zero or negative -- the liklihood is that it will be MORE abused as "hard money" is reformed.

While there are laws to skirt or be careful of, letters from major contributors get more attention than letters from me. My Congressman doesn't really give a crap what I think, but someone on his staff will send me a nonresponsive "quasi-form-letter" personalized with my name and address so I don't feel insulted and fail to vote for him. (I've received a few)

<<
Can you find some brands of olive oil, herb flavored oils, or balsamic vinegar sold in rational Customary sizes? My observation is they are all or mostly rational metric. I believe it is because the most popular brands are imported, but even US producers seem to have gone along. Wine vinegar and cooking wine are a mixed bag, some FPS some SI sizes.
>>
I don't cook much, so I have no idea about these things, but I'll take your word for it. But in almost every grocery store I have been to, the PER UNIT price is displayed (per oz. or fl.oz.) so comparisons are very easy.

"Today, they had a large bottle of plain Heinz white vinegar, 5.283 qt, as marked on the pricing sign. What an odd size I thought, and pulled one out of a case. The bottle was marked 5 L / 5.283 QT. "



Wouldn't that be an up-sized product? The anti-metrics always seem to scream about metric down-sizing. Are they going to start jumping for joy now that metric conversion can mean up-sizing too?

The only people screaming are the fantasists and the fanatics.

JS
Our campaign laws are a muddle. There is "hard money" and "soft money." I'm not a lawyer and probably can't explain the difference well -- it's definitely "how many lawyers can stand on the head of a pin" stuff.

metre
I get the gist. Americans are not unique in that respect, but more brazen perhaps?
I didn't even think about it till you mentioned it.

<< <<measurements in the UK are in a mess, we cannot undo what has been done, so we must complete the job >>

Where are you getting this from? (apart from the UKMA, that is) >>

You don't have to take their word for it. People such as Neil Herron have admitted in the past that we can't go back now.

Thanks JohnS-MI & Niles. So it really is a mixed bag in the engineering fields in the US.

I am not surprised that US defence contractors' preferred to build thermonuclear weapons using customary weights and measures. I would not have thought that any or many US engineers would have been schooled in metric thoroughly enough through the decades of the Cold War.

During the 2nd world war, when Britain and America were dealing with the Soviet Union both sides used their respective systems of weights and measures, and had to constantly convert units given by the other side from one to the other, which of course slowed translations of military documents between the soon-to-be-fractured allies.

On the subject of atomic or thermonuclear weapons, when the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon is given in kilotons or megatons, the "tons" referred to are metric tons, are they not? So metric did at least make one apperance in the calculations used in the development of atomic/nuclear weapons.

<<You don't have to take their word for it. People such as Neil Herron have admitted in the past that we can't go back now.>>

Who said I wanted to go back?
Who said the people wanted to go back?

<<
During the 2nd world war, when Britain and America were dealing with the Soviet Union both sides used their respective systems of weights and measures, and had to constantly convert units given by the other side from one to the other, which of course slowed translations of military documents between the soon-to-be-fractured allies.
>>

That was during the second world war, when most calculations had to be done by hand. Given today's technology, this would not be a problem anymore.

You're up early this morning, Bud!

Except when you enter the wrong numbers, use the wrong conversion factor or press the wrong series of buttons. Like that never happens.

<<
That was during the second world war, when most calculations had to be done by hand. Given today's technology, this would not be a problem anymore.
>>

I understand that the British Army uses metric units for all operational matters. (That is the impression that I get from my son who is seriuosly thinking about applying for Sandhurst).

AS regards international military cooperation - I understand that the de facto means of communications within NATO is in English using metric units.

<<I am not surprised that US defence contractors' preferred to build thermonuclear weapons using customary weights and measures. I would not have thought that any or many US engineers would have been schooled in metric thoroughly enough through the decades of the Cold War.>>

Depends on the school. I started MIT in 1962. It was entirely metric (not sure if it still is) and all departments had rallied around what was being called the rationalized MKSA system. That was the basis of the SI and the name SI had already been chosen in 1960 but was not in wide use yet. However, talking to people who attending other universities in the same time frame, we were an exception. When interviewing engineers (for hiring) I found nearly everyone well versed in metric by the 80's. So they learn metric in school and are forced into an Imperial industry where dinosaurs teach them to convert. Glad both of my emploers were metric.

<<On the subject of atomic or thermonuclear weapons, when the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon is given in kilotons or megatons, the "tons" referred to are metric tons, are they not? >>

They were metric tons. We wanted to be certain that "certain people" knew EXACTLY what we were talking about.

Re: Mandated metrication July 15 2005, 8:33 AM


Rip
During the 2nd world war, when Britain and America were dealing with the Soviet Union both sides used their respective systems of weights and measures, and had to constantly convert units given by the other side from one to the other, which of course slowed translations of military documents between the soon-to-be-fractured allies.

On the subject of atomic or thermonuclear weapons, when the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon is given in kilotons or megatons, the "tons" referred to are metric tons, are they not? So metric did at least make one apperance in the calculations used in the development of atomic/nuclear weapons.

metre
Sorry to disappoint you Rip. In nuclear physics it was pretty well as in rocket science. All calculation were done in metric and converted to USC. Among leading scientists working on the Manhatten project only Oppenheimer and one, or two others, were American. From Hans Bethe to Edward Teller its a string of German, Hungarian and of course one very important Italian name.
Kilotons is the only USC metric hybrid. It expresses USC tons with a metric prefix.

Re: Mandated metrication July 15 2005, 12:02 PM

DJ
Except when you enter the wrong numbers, use the wrong conversion factor or press the wrong series of buttons. Like that never happens.

metre
Thanks for mentioning the obvious. And future generations still have to learn and memorise that cumbersome jumble of units to know which ones they have to feed the computer with.

Re: Mandated metrication July 15 2005, 8:33 AM


Rip
During the 2nd world war, when Britain and America were dealing with the Soviet Union both sides used their respective systems of weights and measures, and had to constantly convert units given by the other side from one to the other, which of course slowed translations of military documents between the soon-to-be-fractured allies.


metre
It was worse than that. American ammunition of the same calibre could not be used in British rifles and guns, nor could bolts, bearings and heaps of other measurement related articles. Now, I am sure there are imperialists out there saying don't you get it, this is why we won the war.

<<Kilotons is the only USC metric hybrid. It expresses USC tons with a metric prefix.>>

That is incorrect, at least now. It may have been correct in 1945, or early in the Cold War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
<<From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A megaton or megatonne is a unit of mass equal to 1,000,000 metric tons, i.e. 10^9 kg or 1 teragram (Tg). The official SI symbol for the megaton is Mt, but MT is also being used; beware that the latter is also (unofficially) used for the metric ton in some contexts. See 1 E9 kg for a comparison with similar masses.

The kiloton or megaton of TNT is used as a unit of energy, approximately equivalent to the energy released in the detonation of this amount of TNT. The megaton of TNT has traditionally been used to rate the energy output, and hence destructive power, of nuclear weapons. This unit is written into various arms control treaties, and gives a sense of destructiveness as compared with ordinary explosives, like TNT. More recently, it has been used to describe the energy released in other highly destructive events, such as asteroid impacts.

A gram of TNT by definition for arms control purposes is 1000 thermochemical calories, which equals 4.184 kilojoules (KJ).
A ton of TNT, (a metric ton = 1000 kg) is therefore 4.184 x 10^9 J = 4.184 gigajoules (GJ).
A kiloton of TNT is therefore 4.184 x 10^12 J = 4.184 terajoules (TJ).
A megaton of TNT is 4.184 x 10^15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
(This definition is a conventional one. The actual measured output of a gram of TNT is a little less, 652 thermochemical calories = 2724 J)[1]>>

I am always a little dubious of Wikpedia as an authoritative source, but NIST SP811 gives a conversion constant that agrees with the (conventional) derivation above, noting that it is a "defined value."

NOTE: Superscripting didn't carry over in the above quote so I added a bunch of ^ to make the powers of ten readable. Hope I caught them all. Also note that real TNT has only 65% of the power of "arms control TNT" and shows why ad hoc physical standards (like water for BTU and calorie) are a problem.

<<metre
It was worse than that. American ammunition of the same calibre could not be used in British rifles and guns, nor could bolts, bearings and heaps of other measurement related articles.>>

True, and it affected all precision machined parts. The standards directors of national labs of English speaking countires agreed on a uniform value (1" = 25.4 mm) in 1958. The previous US inch was about 2 ppm bigger, the UK around 1 ppm smaller. (The consensed value was the Canadian value) The previous US inch was exactly 100/3937 m, I'm not sure I have an authoritative source for the previous UK inch. The pound was also adjusted slightly. The US formally adopted these valus 1959-07-01.

JohnS-MI: "...in engineering areas that are more strongly FPS."

Pardon my ignorance, but what does FPS stand for? I am assume foot-pound-second, is this right?

Martin: "My experience in the UK is the the petroleum engineering is mixed, but all other branches of engineening are metric. Typically one particular former colleague who is a mechanical engineer has strong anti-EU views, but strong pro-metric views."

Thanks Martin for your response: So engineering fields in the UK are predominantly metric with petroleum engineering another mixed bag.

I am surprised by engineers in the US. I would have thought metric to have been preferrable to the majority of engineers in all fields in that country. One of the selling points of metric in Australia when we metricated was that it was a better, more streamlined and efficient system for all engineering than imperial.

Rip