Metric VS English engineering system of measurement

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the comparison between the metric and English engineering systems of measurement, exploring the challenges and implications of converting from one system to another. Participants share their opinions on the practicality, historical context, and cultural significance of both measurement systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express a preference for the metric system due to its simplicity in conversions compared to the English system.
  • Others argue that the English system is deeply ingrained in American culture and that attempts to switch to metric have historically failed.
  • There are mentions of hybrid systems in certain industries, such as aviation, where both metric and English units are used.
  • Some participants highlight that while metric has been legal in the US since 1866, the English system remains prevalent in everyday use.
  • A few participants share personal anecdotes about their difficulties in adapting to metric measurements, indicating a generational challenge in switching systems.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential confusion and complications that could arise from changing traffic signs and other public measurements to metric.
  • Some participants note that other countries, like the UK, have made transitions to metric more smoothly than anticipated.
  • There is a discussion about the impact of measurement systems on international competitiveness and manufacturing practices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the merits and challenges of adopting the metric system over the English system. Some express a desire for change, while others defend the status quo.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying degrees of familiarity with metric measurements among individuals, historical resistance to change in measurement systems, and the coexistence of both systems in different industries.

Which System is better

  • Metric System (kg, m, L)

    Votes: 19 100.0%
  • English Engineering System (lb, ft, gal)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19
  • #61
SteamKing said:
Torque outputs in the car magazines used to be quoted in units of 'lb-ft' and they still are.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/convertibles/1307_2014_chevrolet_corvette_stingray_z51_first_test/

I wouldn't put too much weight in that presumptuous snob magazine where the readers of that rag never have performed an oil change in their life. Any real gear-head magazine will state ft-lb of torque.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #62
WaaWaa Waa said:
I recently followed The American Society Of Civil Engineers page in Facebook. I found that they are using only Imperial Units. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the Imperial Unit whatsoever :smile: On the contrary, as a civil engineer myself I applaud the American civil engineers for their achievements using the Imperial Units :approve:

The surveying tapes are in 1/100 of a foot.
 
  • #63
Land surveying is one of those professions in the US where the law prescribes certain things. Land descriptions are regulated by the various state governments, and the surveyor obviously must comply with those regulations in doing survey work. The US has been surveyed using the imperial system, and the various state plane coordinate systems have also been laid out using imperial units.

When expansion started westward in the late 18th century, the land was divided into square townships which measured 6 statute miles to the side. There were further subdivision in each township, and if you read the legal description of a parcel of land, it will make reference to the township and subdivision within the township in locating that parcel.
 
  • #64
To be fair lengths are easy enough to just convert as a design exercise. It's a bit more of a pain to have to own two sets of spanners and sockets.

The true pain in the arse is designing a piece to mate two threaded components together. One with a metric thread, the other with a UTS. Doubly so if they are very similar in pitch, but they still need different gauges.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
That's a big reason why metric conversion in manufacturing took so long. Fastener standards took a long time to standardize across industry, and manufacturers in the US were very reluctant to start the process over with metric fasteners. In the UK, with the Whitworth system, special tools were required which could not be used on US fasteners. Since modern machinery is very dependent on standardized fasteners, this is no small consideration in whether to go metric in your manufacturing sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_thread#History_of_standardization
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
21K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K