News Can the US switch to the Metric System?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phoenixy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric System
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the debate on whether the United States should adopt the metric system, especially in light of arguments that America is a center-right country. Participants express skepticism about the practicality and necessity of switching from the Imperial system, citing the costs of replacing signage and the lack of perceived benefits. Some argue that the U.S. has been officially metric since the 1970s, although everyday usage remains predominantly Imperial. There are contrasting views on the advantages of the metric system versus the Imperial system. Proponents of the metric system highlight its simplicity in calculations and conversions, while critics argue that the Imperial system is more intuitive for everyday use. The conversation also touches on educational aspects, with some suggesting that the way the metric system is taught in U.S. schools contributes to confusion and resistance. Overall, the discussion reflects a deep-seated ambivalence towards changing measurement systems in the U.S., with many participants believing that the transition to metric is unlikely due to cultural inertia and practical concerns.
  • #51
turbo-1 said:
When I was a process chemist in a pulp mill, one of the older engineers kept one on his desk. What a cool little machine.

I have seen them only on the web and in SciAm (?) few years ago, but I felt in love at first sight. If they were not that expensive I could buy one just to play with it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Borek said:
I have seen them only on the web and in SciAm (?) few years ago, but I felt in love at first sight. If they were not that expensive I could buy one just to play with it.
He had a number of nice gadgets, including a kind of cylindrical slide rule, circular slide rules, etc.

He was at least 30 years older than me, but not an old fogey - he was an early and enthusiastic convert to HP's RPN calculators and one of the first engineers to splurge on HP's flat pocket-sized programmable scientific calculators.
 
  • #53
Borek said:
I have seen them only on the web and in SciAm (?) few years ago, but I felt in love at first sight. If they were not that expensive I could buy one just to play with it.

I was tempted by just the poster http://www.vcalc.net/cu.htm
 
  • #54
Ha, the metric system! believe it or not it was a big bonus for the fuel companies. We here in metric Canada have been overpaying for fuel for 30 years or more. When we moved back to Canada in 1995 gas was 45 cents a liter, it was 98 cents a gallon in Virginia. WOW 45 cents sure sounds cheap! well it is 4 times the price of a us gallon. We regularly have price swings of 10 to 15 cents a liter. Some times several times a week, not so bad i guess till you look at it in gallons. Would you tolerate price swings of 60 cents a gallon several times a week in the U.S. I don't think so. It is kind of a mask of the real price we pay as most of the current generation cannot or don't think to compare the relative price VS the rest of North America. After all the price of a liter is always less than the price of a gallon isn't it? AHHHH Tools having to buy 2 sets of every wrench, socket, drill, gauge is a real pain. Makes the tool box heavy for sure. Right at this point I cannot think of a real positive for the metric system. I mean come on 100 grams of lunch meat for $3.99 Is that a deal? Dunno. If you change the market will fill the vaccume created by the lack of knowlage and understanding. It is the perfect oppertunity for big business to give you less and charge you more and make you feel ok about it. DON'T DO IT! fwiw.
 
  • #55
Oh Yeah. When you misplace all those lil decimal points in the metric system stuff can go real bad real fast. From construction grades to french rockets, bad things happen. It is really hard to screw up feet and inches. really hard.

RE measuring.
 
  • #56
There is always this tale of metric woe:
JPL said:
MARS CLIMATE ORBITER TEAM FINDS LIKELY CAUSE OF LOSS
A failure to recognize and correct an error in a transfer of information between the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft team in Colorado and the mission navigation team in California led to the loss of the spacecraft last week, preliminary findings by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory internal peer review indicate.

"People sometimes make errors," said Dr. Edward Weiler, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science. "The problem here was not the error, it was the failure of NASA's systems engineering, and the checks and balances in our processes to detect the error. That's why we lost the spacecraft ."

The peer review preliminary findings indicate that one team used English units (e.g., inches, feet and pounds) while the other used metric units for a key spacecraft operation. This information was critical to the maneuvers required to place the spacecraft in the proper Mars orbit.

"Our inability to recognize and correct this simple error has had major implications," said Dr. Edward Stone, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We have underway a thorough investigation to understand this issue."

Two separate review committees have already been formed to investigate the loss of Mars Climate Orbiter: an internal JPL peer group and a special review board of JPL and outside experts. An independent NASA failure review board will be formed shortly.

"Our clear short-term goal is to maximize the likelihood of a successful landing of the Mars Polar Lander on December 3," said Weiler. "The lessons from these reviews will be applied across the board in the future."

Mars Climate Orbiter was one of a series of missions in a long-term program of Mars exploration managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, DC. JPL's industrial partner is Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, CO. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html
 
  • #57
Yup, that will forever be the classic screw-up that people remember. But even within the metric system mistakes can happen:

A former boss of mine once sent a drawing to a machine shop to get a part made, telling them that it was in metric units. What he did not tell them was that he had used cm, rather than mm which is standard in this line of work. The part arrived, 10 times smaller than it should have been.

By the way, this happened after he had previously given them the drawing with no mention of units whatsoever, in which case the shop assumed inch dimensions and the part that arrived was 2.54 times too big.

Moral of the story: always specify the units. Even when everybody involved is using metric.
 
Back
Top