English vs Metric Units: Pros and Cons

[Bryan Parry]

Just wondering how many people here use English units as opposed to Metrical ones. That is, people living in the english world (UK, USA, Australia, Canada etc)


Also, in your dealings with either English units or metrical ones, what have you found to be the major shortcomings of the system?

 

[russ_watters]

I use pound-mass most of the time, but I've never heard of a "poundal." Anyway, I think the drawbacks of the English system are obvious, but in my particular industry (HVAC), its the one we use.

 

[Bryan Parry]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I use pound-mass most of the time, but I've never heard of a "poundal." Anyway, I think the drawbacks of the English system are obvious, but in my particular industry (HVAC), its the one we use.

You use the pound-mass but have never even heard of the poundal? Oh my God, what kind of weird system do you use?? The poundal is the English unit of force when you use the pound as unit mass. You will find it in any technical manual of any quality. Here would be an interesting set of questions for you, though: do you use the slug? Do you use inches more than feet? Do you use pound-force as well as pound-mass?


BTW, what drawbacks? What I mean is, what drawbacks do you encounter when using the system? That is, drawbacks does not equal some theoretical idea that not usinga prefixing system is bad. I mean actual problems you have run into whilst using English units. I would be interested to know :)

 

[Bryan Parry]

Why all the numbers, Mike? PS exlaborate.

 

[Bryan Parry]

Sorry if I sound a bit dim, but those numbers are not familiar to me. Also, I do not see how "2.63 children" is metric.


I am 6'1".

BTW Mike, nobody who uses the metric system measures their height to an accuracy of 0.1mm. In fact, many metric users round to the nearest 2cm. I can tell your figure has come about because you really know your height in inches and feet (68") and have just applied the forumla 1mm = 1/25.4"

 

[Njorl]

A pound is weight, not mass. The slug is the English unit of mass (1 slug at 1 g is 32 pounds). I never heard of a poundal either.

Njorl

Editted - didn't notice the very top. Didn't even notice it was a poll.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I voted other because I use more than one of the choices (bad poll design to allow only one). I use foot pound in everyday life because those are the standard units where I live, and I use SI units in technicl work. I date back to cgs units (Hell, I date back to "centigrade"), so I have a lot of units in my head. You should have also included "natural", i.e. Planck units.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Bryan Parry
I am 6'1".

BTW Mike, nobody who uses the metric system measures their height to an accuracy of 0.1mm. In fact, many metric users round to the nearest 2cm.

what?? I'm living in pure metric world, and height is rounded to nearest 0.5cm. What you said makes it obvious that people you refer to come from inch world - they round to nearest inch.

ps. I'm 184.5cm. Kinda also 6'1". So, are you taller or shorter than me? Do you even know your height precisely enough to compare?

edit: oops, I just realized I'm not the target audience of the quiz.. sorry. I voted for SI, so substract one if you think it skews the poll.

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

The "average" person in the U.S. does't have any idea whatsoever what a kilometer is or what a cubic meter is. It's very nice to use a system of measure that is as logical as the metric system, however, most of the people that I have to deal with on a day to day basis have no Idea of how the metric system works. If I use the metric system and then have to convert back to the english system, instead of just moving a decimal point, I end up dealing with the very same fractions and decimals that the metric system is supposed to eliminate. I was taught the metric system in public school in the 1960s because we were going to convert soon. Unless there are great advances in increasing life expectancy, I will not be buried in a hole that is 1.8288 meters deep.

 

[Bryan Parry]

Originally posted by Njorl
A pound is weight, not mass. The slug is the English unit of mass (1 slug at 1 g is 32 pounds). I never heard of a poundal either.

Njorl

Editted - didn't notice the very top. Didn't even notice it was a poll.

I am sorry, but the pound is a unit of mass primarily. It is only a unit of force as much as the kilogramme is a unit of force i.e. never, but the pound[-force] and kilogram[-force] are commonly used. the poundal is *THE* English unit of force. The slug is only unit of mass in the gravitational system.

Your post is frustrating because there is a widespread misconception, even amongst engineers, as to this point. The pound is a unit of mass.

 

[Bryan Parry]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I voted other because I use more than one of the choices (bad poll design to allow only one). I use foot pound in everyday life because those are the standard units where I live, and I use SI units in technicl work. I date back to cgs units (Hell, I date back to "centigrade"), so I have a lot of units in my head. You should have also included "natural", i.e. Planck units.

I don't believe I CAN do more than one option. I should have said Planck units, but forget about 'em. Ooops! :O

 

[Bryan Parry]

Originally posted by wimms
what?? I'm living in pure metric world, and height is rounded to nearest 0.5cm. What you said makes it obvious that people you refer to come from inch world - they round to nearest inch.

ps. I'm 184.5cm. Kinda also 6'1". So, are you taller or shorter than me? Do you even know your height precisely enough to compare?

edit: oops, I just realized I'm not the target audience of the quiz.. sorry. I voted for SI, so substract one if you think it skews the poll.

I know many, MANY immigrants from totally metric nations- nations metric forever, like former french african colonies. The yoften measure to the nearest 2 kg and cm. That is a fact. Also, it is customary to measure down to the qtr-inch in English- I am 72.75", but ususally say 6'1 for simplicity sake :)

BTW, whatever, it does not change the fact that people do not round to 1/10mm as that man did.

 

[Bryan Parry]

Originally posted by Michael D. Sewell
The "average" person in the U.S. does't have any idea whatsoever what a kilometer is or what a cubic meter is. It's very nice to use a system of measure that is as logical as the metric system, however, most of the people that I have to deal with on a day to day basis have no Idea of how the metric system works. If I use the metric system and then have to convert back to the english system, instead of just moving a decimal point, I end up dealing with the very same fractions and decimals that the metric system is supposed to eliminate. I was taught the metric system in public school in the 1960s because we were going to convert soon. Unless there are great advances in increasing life expectancy, I will not be buried in a hole that is 1.8288 meters deep.

Mate, what is so difficult about fractions? Ans: nothing.

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

At last you get my point, there is absolutely nothing wrong with fractions. To me, being 5 and 8/12 feet tall is just fine. That's why there is nothing wrong with using the english system. Americans are very stubborn, it will probably take a century for the metric system to be in everyday use here.

 

[Bryan Parry]

Originally posted by Michael D. Sewell
At last you get my point, there is absolutely nothing wrong with fractions. To me, being 5 and 8/12 feet tall is just fine. That's why there is nothing wrong with using the english system. Americans are very stubborn, it will probably take a century for the metric system to be in everyday use here.

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you were a metric supporter favouring decimals only. I get you. I myself am a member of the dozenal society of Great britain as well as the British Weights and Measures Association, so am an English supporter. But back to the thread!


[edit] Although Mike, there *is* a tendency towards decimal in America (such as 1.5ft, often seen)

 

[wimms]

There is obviously nothing wrong with any consistent system, like there is nothing wrong with octal or hexadecimal numeric systems. When you get used to one, it seems natural. There really can't be fundamentally any major shortcomings of the system.

Problem is the very issue of conversion. It starts to really piss you off when deep space probes start missing their targets due to faulty conversions, or when it wastes awful lot of your time when communicating, which is obviously not problem of any system, but fact that there are too many different ones.

Metric system was never historically natural to any nation. It was artificially made to simplify calculations, bringing it closer to decimal numeric system, and for unification. Imo, any debates of english vs. metric system is really debates about historical vs logical international system of units.

I wonder what you seek with this poll? (btw, what is "dozenal society")? Are you seeking for some justification for scrapping metric system as useless?

 

[Bryan Parry]

As to what I hope to achieve with this poll... I am saying not a lot. But I do not wish to show metric as something to be scrapped at all.

The Dozenal Society of Great Brtain is a society- with its American sister organisation- that aims ot promote dozenal (duo-decimal) numeral systems, attempt to show the benefits of such a system etc etc. Though, I believe even in base ten there is nothing wrong with factors other than ten used in weights and measures.

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

Bryan and Wimms, I agree with both of you on several very good points. I have nothing against the metric system. It is a major pain to have to do conversions all the time for no good reason. If each country would just pick a system(I can live with any of them) and use it, It would save a lot of time and effort. There is no good reason to make conversions all the time on things that aren't going to cross any borders. Many dumb mistakes have been made by intelligent people that have cost lives. -Mike

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Bryan Parry
The Dozenal Society of Great Brtain is a society

Now that I've found it by google, I'd say very peculiar way to spend ones short lifetime, and most probably even more futile than just going for decimal/metric.

Just found this: http://www.metric4us.com/
Check out the why pages.

 

[Bryan Parry]

Originally posted by wimms
Now that I've found it by google, I'd say very peculiar way to spend ones short lifetime, and most probably even more futile than just going for decimal/metric.

Just found this: http://www.metric4us.com/
Check out the why pages.

I've read that all before. Much of it is pure nonsesne, anyway. Like, for instance, how many pounds in 200 ounces- when in the hell would you continue measuring in ounces beyond two ro three pounds? Complete and utter rubbish.

 

[Bryan Parry]

Actually, re-reading that page, it is even more offensive and full of bollocks than I remembered. I will put my own put-down to every single point and post it online if I have the time.

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

I checked out the metric4us website. I never realized how rich and elegant that the English system really is. It contains much of the history of physics, science, engineering. It shows how the many branches of science were not seen as being connected to each other. I think this unique system tells a beautiful and interesting story, and I believe it should be preserved.
-Mike

 

[Bryan Parry]

Are you being sarcastic? [?] [?]

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

Bryan- I am not. Thank you so much for opening my eyes. -Mike

 

[Bryan Parry]

Originally posted by Bryan Parry
You use the pound-mass but have never even heard of the poundal? Oh my God, what kind of weird system do you use?? The poundal is the English unit of force when you use the pound as unit mass. You will find it in any technical manual of any quality. Here would be an interesting set of questions for you, though: do you use the slug? Do you use inches more than feet? Do you use pound-force as well as pound-mass?


BTW, what drawbacks? What I mean is, what drawbacks do you encounter when using the system? That is, drawbacks does not equal some theoretical idea that not usinga prefixing system is bad. I mean actual problems you have run into whilst using English units. I would be interested to know :)

Russ, I am quite curious as to this post of yours. I really wish to know what problems people hav with English units in practical terms, not theoretical, as it is getting me thinking on THEORETICAL reforms to English. That is, to see if your perceived problems with English I can understand and appreciate in my reform ideas :)

 

[Integral]

I can use both, like Self Adjoint, I live in foot pound world but use metric for much of my work. I still feel that the foot system, has many advantages over the metric. Ease of conversion is only a single facet of a very complex question. With the advent of computers, we would be better off to learn and use the base 2 subdivisions of the inch and a base 12 system has more prime divisors so subdivides better then the base 10 metric system.

I vote for a entirely new base 16 system! In fact why not abandon the decimal system for hexadecimal entirely!

By the way 2"x4" is the dimensions of the RAW CUT board, after drying and planning the result is 1 5/8 x 3 5/8. Guess you need to have pulled some green chain in your life to be aware of this little fact.

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

Integral,
The correct dimensions of a dressed 2 x 4 are 1 1/2" x 3 1/2". I remember when we made the change from the dimensions you listed. Precut studs cost $.68 each at the time. We were building houses for about $17,000.00
-Mike

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Bryan Parry
I've read that all before. Much of it is pure nonsesne, anyway. Like, for instance, how many pounds in 200 ounces- when in the hell would you continue measuring in ounces beyond two ro three pounds? Complete and utter rubbish.

[?] [?] [?] Sounds like road to demagogy. Are you saying that there is no increased simplicity to metric system?

I will put my own put-down to every single point and post it online if I have the time.

Please do, would be interesting read.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Bryan Parry
Russ, I am quite curious as to this post of yours. I really wish to know what problems people hav with English units in practical terms, not theoretical, as it is getting me thinking on THEORETICAL reforms to English. That is, to see if your perceived problems with English I can understand and appreciate in my reform ideas :)

Actually, you've already answered most of your own questions and the rest have been answered by others. To put it all together though: I'm an engineer and I deal with practical things, not theoretical ones. I use a system of measurement which makes sense for me and my particular application.

No, I am not clear on the exact nature of the relationship between pound-f, pound-m, slug, and poundal. And that's the problem in a nutshell: its unnecessarily complicated. 4 different weight/mass units? In the SI system, there is force and there is mass. Force is force and mass is mass. Simple.
These days, it seems we are using a hybrid system in the US: I first learned english-si conversions in elementary school when I learned a "pound" is 2.2kg. Pound-f? Pound-m? No, just a "pound." And that's what I use today.

Force and mass are virtually interchangeable: How much does a 150lb man weigh on the moon? 150lb of course! Or did you think I meant he's 150lb on Earth in which case you are using pounds-f as a mass and need to divide by 6? All of my dry food containers say ounces and grams. That's: ounce-force-mass.

We use weight and mass interchangeably in almost every situation where weight, mass, or density is an issue (the density of water is 1g/cc or 62.4lb/sq ft). Is "pound" a force or a mass in this context? I don't care!

In aerospace courses, I was introduced to the slug and still occasionally use it, but not often. In my every day life, I use si if I need an f=ma calculation, because its simpler and less confusing than converting pounds to slugs before putting it into the equation.

So why is the English system bad? Simple and already answered: its counterintuitive and unnecessarily complicated. I'd be quite happy to do away with it.

Much of it is pure nonsesne, anyway. Like, for instance, how many pounds in 200 ounces- when in the hell would you continue measuring in ounces beyond two ro three pounds? Complete and utter rubbish.

Comodities are priced in ounces. A bar of gold weighs (weighs?!) about 50 pounds. How tall are you? Inches? Feet-inches?

The poundal is the English unit of force when you use the pound as unit mass. You will find it in any technical manual of any quality.

Not in the US, you won't. Not to worry: you'll never find a "loo" or a "telly" either.

I am sorry, but the pound is a unit of mass primarily. It is only a unit of force as much as the kilogramme is a unit of force i.e. never, but the pound[-force] and kilogram[-force] are commonly used. the poundal is *THE* English unit of force. The slug is only unit of mass in the gravitational system.

I don't know if this is because of the "loo" and "telly" issue, but that's not how it works in the US. Laymen use pounds as pounds and don't differentiate between mass and weight (force). I just drank 12 ounces of soda (uh oh - they're fluid-ounces, not ounces-ounces - wth is a fluid ounce?). Pounds are a force, mass, or weight depending on what the situation requires (when I'm doing a bench press, am I lifing a mass or a weight, or just applying a force?) Kg are always mass and I've never heard of a kg-f (is there also a Newton-mass?).

As someone in another thread brought up and I pointed out, the SI system isn't perfect in its usage either: a bathroom scale that tells you you weigh 90kg is using weight and mass interchangeably.

Your post is frustrating because there is a widespread misconception, even amongst engineers, as to this point. The pound is a unit of mass.

Maybe in England, but not in the US. Thats another manifestation of the problem caused by all the ambiguity. Here's the american dictionary def of pound: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pound

Abbr. lb.
A unit of weight equal to 16 ounces (453.592 grams).
A unit of apothecary weight equal to 12 ounces (373.242 grams). See table at measurement.
A unit of weight differing in various countries and times.
A British unit of force equal to the weight of a standard one-pound mass where the local acceleration of gravity is 9.817 meters (32.174 feet) per second per second.

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

RUSS-YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD. USE THE SYSTEM THAT MAKES SENSE FOR YOU AND YOUR APPLICATION. BULLSEYE. HOME RUN. -MIKE