Got an email sent to all of IT here today about a young Ozzie couple that used to work here.

The email was sent by a temp South African secretary for the deparment (she's in her early twenties). It goes like this:

Dear All,

"Mandy's baby arrived in the early hours of this morning, a baby boy named Kyle, 8lbs 7oz. Mum and baby doing well although Mandy's a bit exhausted after a 4 day labour!"

That should keep some of you fitting for a while!

(wait for it... I can hear it now... what is it? Oh yes "it was said like that for the Grandparents!!!" ROTFL!!!)

Where was the baby born - UK or Oz?

BTW, when my son was born, he clocked in at a nice round 3.50kg

mlv,

I predict that one day, your son will want to know how much he weighed in lbs. and oz. when he was born.

I make it 7 lb. 11 oz. - oh, and congratulations by the way

International firm - the email was internationally sent to an international audience.

Aw shame!

"BTW, when my son was born, he clocked in at a nice round 3.50kg"

Perfect weight.

Did you purchase some cocaine at the same time?

(you get that sort of image when talking kilos!!)

""BTW, when my son was born, he clocked in at a nice round 3.50kg"

Perfect weight."

Too bad that kilograms measure mass not weight.

Pounds are also a measure of mass, not wieight!

I know that these are measures of mass, not weight and I knew someone would pipe up with that when I was clicking 'post'.

Suffice it to say that this is the 'popular' or 'human' interpretation which the imperial lobby relies so much on.

"Pounds are also a measure of mass, not wieight!"

Pounds are a measure of weight, not of mass. Slugs are a measure of mass in the British Engineering system. There are such things as pounds-mass and pounds-force, but here in the US, pounds are a measure of weight and slugs a measure of mass. I used slugs in all customary computations in Engineering where I needed a unit of mass.

As an addendum, kilograms measure mass, and Newtons measure weight. I found this extremely entertaining in the world of the metric system. You all love to say I weigh x kilos but in reality, you are massed at x number of kilos. If you want your weight, you must multiply by 9.81 m/s^2 and state your weight in Newtons. One Newton is about 0.224809 pounds.

MattS

Could you please state precisely how many Newtons is the equivalent of 1 kilogram of mass?

If it is not '1 Kilo = 1 Newton', could you also tell me, for example, precisely how many Newtons a person whose mass is 75 kilograms weighs - many thanks

Newton's law states F=ma. The Newton is a measure of force or weight. Therefore, one must take the mass and multiply it by the acceleration of gravity to compute weight.

So if someone's mass is 75 kilograms. He must multiply his mass by 9.81 m/s^2 to yield:

(75 kg)(9.81 m/s^2) = 735.75 (kg-m)/s^2 or

735.75 Newtons since the definition of a Newton is a (kg-m)/s^2

Tony: "Could you please state precisely how many Newtons is the equivalent of 1 kilogram of mass?"

I think I know what Tony will tell next time he's on the radio... (grinning)

<<
Slugs are a measure of mass in the British Engineering system
>>

They are not. They are part of the American Engineering system, at least that is what I was told in my first year Physics lectures (a course that was given jointly to Science and Engineering students before the UK and South Africa announced their metrication programs).

...all this from one email about a baby!

The slug *is* the unit of mass in the British engineering foot-pound-second system (O'Hanian 1985, pp. 14 and 96-97). One slug is the mass accelerated at 1 foot per second per second by a force of 1 pound. Since the acceleration of gravity (g) in customary units is 32.17404 feet per second per second, the slug will weigh 32.17404 pounds on earth. The slug is used in calculations in mechanics and engineering. The unit was called the "engineer's mass unit" during the late nineteenth century. The British physicist A. M. Worthington first called it a slug in a 1902 textbook.

See: http://feenix.metronet.com/~gavin/physics/wgt_mass.html

The Newton is the unit of force in the SI system needed to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at the rate of one meter per second per second. (In CGS the force unit is strangely called the dyne. There are 10^5 dynes to one newton). The newton is a derived unit equivalent to 1 (kg-m)/s^2

I say that I weigh 130 lbs. That is my weight here on earth in my house on my bathroom scale. If I weighed myself on the moon, I would weigh about 22 lbs. since the gravity on the moon is 1/6 of the earth's. My mass, however is a constant at 4.0 slugs whether on the moon or on earth. Weight is a measure of the force of gravity on an object. Mass is a measure of matter.

In the SI system, kilograms are the measure of mass and newtons are the measure of force (in this case weight). In the British Engineering System (foot-pounds-seconds) the slug is the measure of mass and the avoirdupoids pound is the measure of force.

Slug it to 'im !!!

<<
In the SI system, kilograms are the measure of mass and newtons are the measure of force (in this case weight). In the British Engineering System (foot-pounds-seconds) the slug is the measure of mass and the avoirdupoids pound is the measure of force.
>>


I have done a little research and found that we were talking at cross-purposes. One paper that I found refers to three unit systems:

1. SI (kg, m, s)
2. English Engineering System (lb, ft, s)
3. British Gravitational System (slug, ft, s)

It seems that the BGS is popular in the US, but was not used in the United Kingdom and for this reason my University (in South Africa), mentioned, but did not teach the BGS.



Winston S. Churchill - "The United Kingdom and the United States are two countries divided by a common language"

Well that resolves that issue, but we still have the problem with stating weights in SI units in kilograms. If I weigh something, I should be reporting my weight in newtons, not kilograms.

<<
Could you please state precisely how many Newtons is the equivalent of 1 kilogram of mass?

If it is not '1 Kilo = 1 Newton', could you also tell me, for example, precisely how many Newtons a person whose mass is 75 kilograms weighs - many thanks
>>

COuld I put it more simply. On Earth the acceleration due to gravity is about 9.8m/sec^2, while on the Moon it is about 2.1m/sec^2.

If I have a lump of metal with "1kg" stamped on it, then "1 kg" is a representation of the number of atoms in that lump of metal.

On Earth, gravity exerts a force of 9.8 Newtons on that lump of metal, while on the Moon gravity exerts a force of 2.1 Newtons.

MattS wrote
<<
Since the acceleration of gravity (g) in customary units is 32.17404 feet per second per second
>>

One of the biggest drawbacks of the British Gravitiational system is that one needs to fix g to make it work)

g is however not fixed - if one finds a location on earth where g = 32.17404 ft/sec^2, then this figure will only hold good for a range of 3.3 feet in the vertical direction - after that the last digit will change!

Proof
=====
Law of gravitation states:

F = G.m1.m2/r^2

If m1 is the mass of the earth, then

g = G.m1/r^2 ( F = m2.g )

Differentiating the equation for g and manipulating the symbols, we get

dg/g = -2dr/r.

setting dg = 0.00001, g = 32.17404 and r = 5280*4000, we get dr = 3.3.

Martin,

The SI system has the same drawback in my line of work. I have to fix g in order to do computations of force.

For example. I'm designing a truss. I could care less about the masses of the truss or the things going over it. I'm concerned about their weights because weight is force. I need to know the forces bearing down on the truss in each member. To do that I *must* take their masses and multiply by a value for g. In SI, the force unit, the newton, is derived and thus you run into the problem of g.

In the British Gravitational System, as you call it, the pound is not derived whereas the slug is. Thus I never need to deal with g since the pound force is the defined unit and the slug is the derived unit.

You see, there are many times where weight is necessary over mass. In my system, I never deal with g. In your system, you constantly have that g running around.

Matt,

If you a building a truss and you are building in a 50% safety factor (I don't know if 50% is a reasonable figure - that is your job, not mine), then a 0.5% variation in g between the Poles and the Equator is small fry, so I agree that in your application there is a case for using slugs.

If however you are working in an area where high precsion is needed - the the laborartory where I am working at the moment, it is essential that the mass of samples is weighed to 1 part in 100,000. Working is such an environment makes me nervous about developing a system in which the changves in g can be neglected.

You are correct. The variation in g makes no difference in my work. I'm dealing with numbers in the thousands of pounds on a regular basis. I have a 5 ton truck driving over my bridge and a guy walking who may weigh 150 lbs. These numbers are so "round" that in my design if I have to deal with a number for g then I use not 32.174 or even 32.17, but I use 32.1 f/s^2. If I'm off by a hundredth or even a tenth, it makes no difference.

But again, I rarely use slugs. I always work in pounds because it's the forces that make a difference in my design, not the masses. That's why I have a system that works with a defined force unit and a derived mass unit. So I have a standard weight for a car, truck, bus or man moving over my bridge. Wherever I am doing work, those are the standards, whether it's on top of Mt. McKinley or in Death Valley.

Go to the hospital where the child was born and check the records. I'll bet they only give metric information. Meaning in order to know imperial, one must do a conversion.

Metrication means that imperialists must take everything recorded officially in metric and make a conversion to get it in imperial. Then what do you do with the funny numbers? Round them so it appears as if imperial was intended? Then if you forget the result, you have to go back to the original source and do a reconversion?

And after you tire of that, then what?

<<I say that I weigh 130 lbs. That is my weight here on earth in my house on my bathroom scale. If I weighed myself on the moon, I would weigh about 22 lbs. since the gravity on the moon is 1/6 of the earth's. My mass, however is a constant at 4.0 slugs whether on the moon or on earth. Weight is a measure of the force of gravity on an object. Mass is a measure of matter.>>

On a spring-based bathroom scale, you are correct. However, on an "honest weight -- no springs" (ie, a balance beam) scale, you would still be 130 lbs against a set of standard weights. The local force of gravity would compare your mass to the mass of a standard weight set; on the moon, it might have less sensitivity, but it would get the same basic result.

NIST Special Publication 811 acknowledges the duality or ambiguity of weight (section 8.3):
"In science and technology, the weight of a body in a particular reference frame is defined as the force that gives the body an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference frame.
. . .
In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance weight is usually used as a synonym for mass, . . . , and the verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of." In commerce, you would like your "pound" or kilogram of produce to be the same amount of matter at the equator or northern Canada.

Poundals, pound-mass, pound-force, and slug have always been extremely confusing to me, and my school taught that ALL engineering calculations were to be done in rationalized mks, converting English units, if necessary. Points were deducted for calculations in English units other than conversion. I have, of course, done a few (but not many) calculations in English units. I normally use pounds-force and slugs, occasionally both lbm and lbf, with modified Newton's 3rd law F = ma/g (it is really immaterial whether you divide pounds-mass or acceleration by g.

I acknowledge that in your work, you only care about the force the object exerts on your structure. Recognize that in commerce, people care about the mass of what they buy, even if they call it weight. They are far more likely to adopt the kilogram than the slug. :)

"""On a spring-based bathroom scale, you are correct. However, on an "honest weight -- no springs" (ie, a balance beam) scale, you would still be 130 lbs against a set of standard weights. The local force of gravity would compare your mass to the mass of a standard weight set; on the moon, it might have less sensitivity, but it would get the same basic result."""

This is the confusion one expects when using non-metric units. I'm still not sure if a pound is a mass unit or a weight unit. It seems it is suppose to be mass, but it is treated as weight.

At least with SI, there is no confusion. If you are 60 kg on earth, you are 60 kg on the moon, your weight on earth, about 600 N would be only 100 N on the moon.

MattS wrote
<<Pounds are a measure of weight, not of mass. Slugs are a measure of mass in the British Engineering system. There are such things as pounds-mass and pounds-force, but here in the US, pounds are a measure of weight and slugs a measure of mass. I used slugs in all customary computations in Engineering where I needed a unit of mass.>>

That is incorrect. NIST (and all standards agencies which define it at all) defines the pound the as a unit of mass. Without auxillary label, it is a unit of mass. The pound-force (lbf) should be clearly labelled. This article is a nice summary of the issue, and the use of poundals or slugs as computational aids (not units cutomarily used) in mass-force problems.
(Of course, it also says real scientists and engineers don't use fps any more, which will ruffle a few feathers :) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound

When Einstein published his equation

e=mc^2

what units was he using? The equation certainly holds if e is in joules. m in kg and c in m/s. What units should be used when evaluating this in Imperial units?

What PDF version of the BIPM document did einstein use?

If you accept energy units of lb.ft^2/s^2, you're good to go.

Since Imperial is irrational, you generally need a conversion constant in equations. If you want your energy unit to be a force unit times a distance unit, you have an acceleration left over. In some form, you are converting lbm to lbf, and the acceleration would be g-sub-zero. You could introduce that explicitly into the equation and use lbf and lbm, you could convert the mass to slugs, and use lbf, or you could convert the pounds-force to poundals.

The last is a bad idea (at least for me) as eventually you'll want power and i have no clue how many foot.poundals/s are in a horsepower, or whether you want a big english horse or one of those little metric horses.

With lbf and lbm, E = m x c^2/g would give foot pounds of energy. More conversions ahead for BTU. or m' = m/g, E = m' x c^2.
(Note that g may be expressed as pounds/slug as well as ft/s^2.
While I hate it, I can labor through engineering calculations in Imperial or Customary)

<<<What PDF version of the BIPM document did einstein use?>>>

I have no idea what you are attempting to ask, but virtually all science (as opposed to engineering, which changed later) was done in metric in the US from the mid-1800's on. The metric system was legalized for trade in 1866, and the US yard and pound standards were retired to a museum in 1893, being replaced by statutory fractions of the meter and kilogram standards (those fractions were revised in 1958, in harmony with the UK and other English speaking nations). We may not be able to convert the man in the street even as well as the UK, but metric has been around.

I would imagine that Einstein used CGS units as they seemed much more popular than MKS units in physics and chemistry in the early 20th century.

"""what units was he using? The equation certainly holds if e is in joules. m in kg and c in m/s. What units should be used when evaluating this in Imperial units?"""


The equation does not work in FFU. You can try and try and try for an eternity and you won't get it to work. You can create a new formula E=kmc^2, in which k is the fudge factor needed to make the FFU units work, but then it wouldn't be E=mc^2.

Another example of imperial not working in the real world.

That's a little harsh, as the "kludge" is trivial and worked out above. If people would just measure mass in slugs, no kludge would be required (of course, pigs would be natural born aviators, too).

The problem is really simple. The pound-force accelerates a pound-mass way too fast relative to chosen units of length and time to represent a rationalized unit system. No kludge in f = ma is merely one of the tests of rationalized units. While this equation isn't f = ma, it is the f= ma flaw that causes the problem and not an independent flaw. (Horsepower and BTU are no great shakes either.)

I don't think imperialists are interested in creating new units or redefining others to make formulas workout without a fudge factor. They want to retain them as they are and justify everything based on how far back in time they claim their units existed. The older the unit the more they can say it is practical. If it was good enough for Moses, it is good enough for everyone today.

SteveH: "Babies, eh?"

Rip's reply: Yes, babies, Steve.

3.83kg newborn infant. A pretty big infant.

Was he stopped on the Colombian border?

RIP,

Are you from Australia? I thought I read that somewhere in one of the posts, so I just want to make sure.

One of the above posts states the hospital actually measures in metric and that is what is stated in the hospital records. Thus the pound/ounce is a conversion. When converting, you don't know how much liberty was taken or what error was made, so reconverting it back to metric might produce a number much different from the original.

When a hospital measures a newborn's weight (mass) how would it be stated in the record? How many digits would they use? Would it be 3.83 kg, or 3.8 kg (accurate to only one decimal place), or would it be 3800 g? Do you have an idea? If you were born after Australia went metric, you may wish to contact the hospital you were born in for your own record and see how they stated it. Maybe request a copy.

SteveH: "Was he stopped on the Colombian border?"

Rip's reply to SteveH:

No. He wasn't in Colombia. And he wasn't a bag of cocaine. He was a 3.8kg Australian infant. Don't be silly, Steve. You're as silly as a wheel sometimes.

Rip's reply to Dan Jackson:

Yes I am an Australian. And in Australian hospitals I think that the birth weight of a newborn baby is recorded in kilograms to the first decimal place, eg 3.8kg. I simply made a slightly harder conversion in taking it to the second decimal place, but such a conversion is not usual for the official-weight record.

My son was born overseas and his weight was likewise recorded in kilograms to the first decimal place. It seems to be the standard maternity-ward/hospital practice in metric countries. But I will confirm this the next time I speak to a friend of mine and his wife who have had their three boys all born here in Sydney. If there is any difference I'll let you know. But I'm pretty sure that formally and officially its kilograms to the first decimal place.

And despite what you may read on these boards, Australian newborn children's weights are first and foremost given in metric, and reported in newspapers etc. in metric. There may be some local variations with conversions to imperial for older extended family members, but metric is the norm and the standard always.

In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard a baby's weight reported in Australia in pounds and ounces. They used to do it sometimes in the early and mid 80s when metric was still pretty new, eg television reports when some celebrity or local identity had a baby, and they'd give the weight in metric and imperial. But that's died out in the last 18 or 20 years.

Rip

Birth weights here in Britain are recorded in metric as well - but are always reported in imperial

That's for the rules that is.

<<There may be some local variations with conversions to imperial for older extended family members>>

That always tickles me that one. They say it so that granny understands! LOL!

Does someone actually sit at a desk with a pen, paper and calculator and do the kilograms to pound conversion, then the decimal pounds to ounces conversion (if they know how to do it), and come up with an answer? Or do they just wing it and pull a number out of the air? Like MPG calculations, I can't see most people doing it or knowing how to do it.

I would guess graphical conversion. If you look at a dual unit thermo,eter, degrees F on one side, C on the other, tube of red fluid in the middle, you get the idea. Even if the tube breaks, it is still a handy converter.

The CDC has graphs of weight and height percentiles for boys and girls from agoes birth-36 months, and 2-20 years. The grid of the graph and primary scales are kilograms and centimeters vs age. A secondary scale (slightly less resolution) in pounds (to nearest 1/4) and inches.

My kids are adults now, but when they were born, the US certainly reported pounds-ounces. I don't know what they do know.

oops, . . . do now.

Danny - why don't you think before you post?

Or at least pause before the Return button is hit?

I asked a valid question to which I am seeking an answer. What is so wrong with that?

To Dan Jackson: The Administrator of the Maternity Hospital of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, one of the largest maternity hospitals in Sydney, assures me that throughout Australia newborn babies' weights are only recorded and given to the family in kilograms to the first decimal place, no conversions to pounds and ounces are made. So if granny wants to know the weight of her newborn grandchild in pounds and ounces she has to do the conversion herself. I hope that settles the matter.

Rip

"Winston S. Churchill - "The United Kingdom and the United States are two countries divided by a common language"

Are you sure? I always thought that this quote was from George Bernard Shaw.

My favourite is the one attributed to Henry Ford: "Exercise is bunk. If you're healthy you don't need it. If you're sick you shouldn't take it."

Quite right, Henry. Soundly logical.

Rip

<<Like MPG calculations, I can't see most people doing it or knowing how to do it.>>

That's what I was talking about!
Why not try looking in the book.

P.S. - Do *ALL* Australian hospitals refuse to give lb/oz weights when the baby is born?

Just wondering - with the "granny excuse" how 120yr old people are still being used in this joke.

<<<P.S. - Do *ALL* Australian hospitals refuse to give lb/oz weights when the baby is born?>>>

What do you mean refuse? Unless they have a conversion chart or know the conversion (which I very much doubt), how will they find out what the baby weighs in lbs?

UK hospitals weigh babies in metric. They then have conversion charts to convert the weight to lbs, because there is a demand for it. An Australian hospital is hardly likely to prepare that for the benefit of a handful of people.

Henry Ford also once said that people can have their cars painted any color they want as long as it is black. Maybe we can modify this quote to say that people can measure in any units they want as long as they are metric.

Rip,

How often do you encounter non-metric measurements in your day to day routine? In casual speech, do the PEOPLE speak metric or English? Over time, would you say that the use of English units in speech is increasing, decreasing or no-change?

SteveH: "P.S. - Do *ALL* Australian hospitals refuse to give lb/oz weights when the baby is born?"


It's not a matter of refusing; they just don't do it. If the relatives want to know the imperial equivalent of the kg weight the relatives work it out. Don't use loaded terms like "refuse." HOSPITALS THROUGHOUT AUSTRALIA ONLY record and give babies' weights in kilograms to the first decimal place. This implies all Australian hospitals. However, if you want to inquire of each and every hospital in the country, you do it yourself. Face the facts, after 25 years imperial is hardly used in Australia. We have one and only one system of weights and measures. Just accept it.

To Dan Jackson: Below is a reply I gave to Metre who asked much the same question as you did. Rather than type it for a second time, I've just copied it and post it here now.

Metric in Australia June 28 2005, 4:36 PM


Dear Metre,

In answer to your inquiry of how metricated Australia is, the answer is very metricated. In fact, I would go so far as to say that with the possible exceptions of South Africa and New Zealand, we are the most thoroughly metricated English-speaking country going. It seems that metric has taken off in English-speaking countries in the southern hemisphere to a degree not realized in the British Isles or North America. As a middle-aged Australian and one schooled in both imperial (in the 1960s) and metric (in the 1970s), I am surprised at the resistance to metric in English-speaking countries north of the equator. I would suggest that in Australia the imperial system did not have the same nationalistic and cultural significance that it clearly does in the UK and the US. Weights and measures are not as emotional an issue here as it is elsewhere.

In retrospect, there was surprisingly very little resistance from the Australian public to the adoption of metric through the 1970s: only a few newspaper articles decrying "metric madness" and the usual letters to the editors of local newspapers, but metric conversion certainly met with no organized resistance. By and large, metric conversion was taken in its stride by the Australian public. There are now occasional uses of imperial measures in advertising some very few products, such as computer-screen widths, but no-one with any sense exaggerates the significance of the odd ad in imperial. On the whole, the use of imperial in advertising is pretty rare these days. And in commerce generally it is even more imited.

I'll give you an example from my recent experience. I went into a furniture shop and was browsing at various articles when the shop assistant asked me if I wanted any help. I replied by asking her if the store stocked the item I was looking at in a four-foot unit, here I had obviously lapsed into imperial, but the answer from the shop assistant was could I give her the size in centimetres or metres. So I had to make a rough mental conversion to 1.2m, roughly 12in = 30cm, 30cmx4= 120cm. And that's a practical example of how metric has taken here.

Another one is if you ask directions from someone on the street, nine times out of ten you'll get directions in metric, even from people born in the 1930s and 40s, e.g. something like: The nearest newsagency is twenty metres on the right. Most Australians shed their initial self-consciousness about using metric units in their daily speech a long time ago, especially in the larger cities.

Australia is thoroughly metricated after 25 years (since 1980) of using the metric system, and 35 years (since 1970) metric conversion began. And Australians have generally shown admirable common sense and pragamatism in adapting to and using metric in that time. Any doctrinaire imperial or metric purist in this country is taking the whole issue, and themselves with it, far too seroiusly. There is no "imperial-metric debate" in Australia; such a debate would be superfluous. The matter was settled years ago. Rip

"That's what I was talking about!
Why not try looking in the book."

The book gives you ideal numbers under ideal conditions with a brand new car perfectly tuned. The whole idea of calculating it at each fuel purchase and keeping a record is to be able to see if your consumption is increasing over time, meaning time for some service work.

It is like your vinyl records....then may give perfect sound the first time played, but with each playing they wear and the sound quality diminishes. You can't go by a products functionality only when it is new.

Can I assume that you say that out of pure ignorance? Its just that I have next to no knowledge about photography - perhaps I should start expressing nonsense about it then?

What's your hobby (apart from the obvious)? I'd like to tell you all about it, but only if I haven't got a clue about it!

:-D




<<Maybe we can modify this quote to say that people can measure in any units they want as long as they are metric.>>

First you need to have control over how people choose before you can do that.

Rip - Can I assume that all the Australians I've met in fact did not express their heights as "six footer" ever? Maybe I had that awful selective hearing that day!

http://www.wedderburn.com.au/products/personal_medical/baby/tiblb12/TIBLB12.htm

A product designed for Australia. Simple- its just a switch that tells you it however you choose it.

Oh - and could this be REAL Australians (young too) talking in a natural way:

http://www.heinzforbaby.com.au/content/community/ViewMessage.asp?cc=59&sc=69&messageid=14779&forumid=57&Mode=ByForum

erm

sorry about this but:

http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=166


(shall I stop now?)

Note to Danny:- "Real" people from australia.

I'll let Rip take it from here. He can explain to you what real people there do.

<<I'll let Rip >>

I thought there was a bit of a whiff in here.

;-)

<<sorry about this but:

http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=166
>>

Actually, most posters gave the weight both in Imperial and metric. Of those who also stated length, it was 100% in centimeters. Damn odd for an Imperial country. :)

<<Actually, most posters gave the weight both in Imperial and metric>>

I thought it was imperial or imperial and bracket metric

Weight: 3, imperial only, 6 dual, 1 metric only
Length: 5, metric only, no dual or imperial

On the dual, I didn't bother to tally which was first.

Although commerce is required to be dual in the US, I would use one or the other depending on audience, and find it a bit odd to give baby weights in dual.

SteveH: "I thought there was a bit of a whiff in here."

Rip's reply: There always is when you're in the room, Steve. I realize you have an aversion to cleanliness, but you could consider others. That'll be the day!

And what's this drivel about real Australians? You wouldn't know a real Australian from a bar of soap. But then I realize you're not that experienced with soap either. Oh, leave the room, Steve. I can smell you from here.

So Stench, a Wedderburn infant-weighing digital scales gives you the option of kg or lb operation, is this some feeble attempt to show that they DO weigh babies in Australia in pounds? Big deal!

Well they don't use pounds officially and formally, and of course they shouldn't as it's unnecessary because we use the metric system of weights and measures, and after 25 years if any Australian does NOT know what a kilogram is in weight then they are not trying or are brain dead. This Wedderburn model you use to "prove" that we weigh our infants, newborn or otherwise, may be made for export to the UK or US or Burma or Liberia or the Grand Duchy of Grand Fenwick for all you know? Who knows? And even if the odd private hospital does give the imperial equivalent to the child's metric weight to the newborn infant's family, what does that mean to anyone? It has no legal or formal standing in Australia, and it is not an official record, because the country is an officially and formally fully metric country and the vast majority of Australians like it and want it that way.

You poor British imperial fools, just get over the fact that we in Australia ditched your system of weights and measures in a trice and that our conversion to metri