When will the US officially adopt the metric system?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SW VandeCarr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The United States officially adopted the metric system as a legal standard in 1866 but has not effectively implemented it, leading to its continued reliance on customary units. Despite some progress since the 1975 metrification act, such as dual labeling on products, the transition remains slow and largely voluntary. The discussion highlights the significant costs and logistical challenges associated with a complete conversion, including the need for new road signage and tools. Participants express skepticism about a full metric transition, citing historical resistance and the practical difficulties faced by tradespeople who require both metric and standard tools.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the historical context of the metric system in the US.
  • Familiarity with the 1975 metrification act and its implications.
  • Knowledge of the differences between metric and customary units.
  • Awareness of the practical challenges faced by tradespeople in tool usage.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of the 1975 metrification act on US industries.
  • Explore case studies of countries that successfully transitioned to the metric system.
  • Investigate the economic implications of converting road signage to metric units.
  • Learn about the dual measurement systems in engineering and manufacturing practices.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for policymakers, engineers, educators, and anyone involved in manufacturing or trade who seeks to understand the complexities of metric adoption in the United States.

  • #31
SW VandeCarr said:
You mean like a metric dozen?



I'm curious as to whether the UK still uses acres for land measure. Ads for UK real estate give interior areas in square meters, but I'm guessing you're still using acres if you're still using miles.

I think most land is sold by the acre, though sometimes the size is quoted in hectares.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
SW VandeCarr said:
I'm curious as to whether the UK still uses acres for land measure.

yup! :biggrin:

see for example the royal institute of chartered surveyors report "rural market survey" at http://www.rics.org/ruralmarketsurvey :wink:
 
  • #33
Do you expect me to mow the grass on my meter? Or drink my coffee from a quarter-liter?
 
  • #34
Containment said:
Real reason is nobody wants to live through the nightmare of trying to retrain the parents of the kids who grow up using metric. You thought getting grandma to email was hard? Just you wait till she has to learn metric omg.
Grandma will be just fine. Since 10 years ago 23 countries have changed their currency to the Euro, people adjusted to the new money and change in value just fine.

If the system changed to metric and instead of a gallon of water they would be getting 4 liters, do you really think it would take long for people to realize the quantity they'd get for a certain value?
 
  • #35
It's interesting that the word "mile" comes from the Latin "mille" for one thousand. A Roman mile was 1000 full paces (about 5 feet). So the metric idea is actually ancient. The problem arose when William the Conqueror introduced his French foot to England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile

After a lot of confusion over several centuries, England, by Royal order, settled on a mile of 5280 (French) feet. The acre was redefined in terms of this mile with one square mile being exactly 640 acres. This subdivides nicely into successive quarters of 160, 40 and 10 acres. The last step is a rectangular subdivision of ten acres into one acre strips (for plowing) of 660 by 66 feet, or 1/8 by 1/80 of a mile. So the acre makes some sense in terms of English units. Much of the US is surveyed according to square mile sections subdivided this way. I think it will be virtually impossible to superimpose a metric configuration on this huge area at this point in time. So the 43,560 square foot acre is probably here to stay.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Feodalherren said:
Not really... There's nothing to understand, it's just about having to deal with fractions vs moving the decimal point. Metric is superior in every way.

Just not true. Consider entering measurements into a computer. The metic base of .1 when converted to binary is infintly repeteing and MUST be rounded off. While all of our inch subdivisions are powers of 2 and can be expressed exactly in binary. Further our base 12 foot has more prime divisors then then the base 10 system. I personally want to see everyone move to hexadecimal for our offical number system.:devil:
 
  • #37
Integral said:
Just not true. Consider entering measurements into a computer. The metic base of .1 when converted to binary is infintly repeteing and MUST be rounded off. While all of our inch subdivisions are powers of 2 and can be expressed exactly in binary. Further our base 12 foot has more prime divisors then then the base 10 system. I personally want to see everyone move to hexadecimal for our offical number system.:devil:

I once read a book about someone's idea of a base 12 system. The eccentric author liked to quote "A pint's a pound the world around". Hexadecimal is interesting but converting to either base 12 or 16 measures effectively requires converting our number system as well. The hexadecimal mile consists of 4096 hexadecimal feet (16 inches) which is written as 1000 in hex.

The real reason for converting to metric is not so much the fact that it's decimal. It's because it has worldwide use and any nation that exports or imports must use it to a certain extent. It's very inefficient to do business in two systems.'
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Schools What system of measurment is used in US Universities?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K