why is the US not Metric

[KL27x]

Re: skymaster,
Cool to hear your experience in french Canada. Viva the inch?

Just an FYI, because of the part where you quoted me. I discovered, since then, that I was wrong about Matthias Wandel. I noticed him using millimeters in a recent video, and I discovered he consistently uses metric. I should have noticed a year or 4 back, when he made the video about a gag combo ruler that obviously poked fun of imperial. (I thought it was weird that he wasn't making more fun of metric, TBH, but I thought he was just being nice.  )

[Bud]

It is common that at the Home Depot here in Toronto they sell tape measures that are inch/foot only. If i need a metric one i have to specifically check them.

[bsfeechannel]

Naturally. Please inform bsfeechannel of this. He thinks the speed of light is based on the meter.

I don't mind that your posts be rife with fallacies, misconceptions and sheer ignorance. But when you attribute to me things that I didn't say you are establishing a dangerous precedent. And that's the second time you do this.

But since I am still under the influence of the metric inebriation I've had recently, I'll try to educate you into the more advanced concepts of metrology which lacks in general for those who resist metrication (and that's precisely why they do it).

Decades after Laplace, Legendre, Lagrange, Lavoisier and other luminaries proposed and made the brilliant metric system happen, which was enthusiastically adopted by the nations who managed to see that it represented the future, giants of science such as James Clerk Maxwell and Max Planck considered using fundamental constants of physics and properties of the subatomic world to define its units. The reason being they are much more stable than the previous standards based on macroscopic prototypes and properties of the earth.

In 1960 the meter was defined in terms of the wavelength of krypton-86 radiation (so much for the rod). In 1967, the second was defined in terms of the frequency of a specific radiation emitted by the caesium-133 atom. You might have seen several threads on the forum with members discussing about their caesium (or cesium) frequency standard units. You can buy them for cheap off ebay, apparently.

Now prepare your imperial head for this important explanation because, for someone who uses one unit for distances (mile), another for altitudes (foot), yet another for screws (inch), a fourth one for football fields (yards) and invented a nonsense fifth one for machining (thou) because the ancient Romans didn't think of that, this may be a bit difficult to grasp.

Since the speed of light is constant all over the universe, if you DEFINE an arbitrary value for it in meters per second, let's say 299792458 m/s in vacuum, then you can define the meter in terms of that constant and the second. And that's what happened in 1983, replacing the old standard based on the krypton-86.

So, the meter is now exactly the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second, also known as 3.335640952 ns. Any entry-level cheap-ass oscilloscope these days is capable of distinguishing pulses 3 ns apart, of course with a very limited precision, but this goes to show that with relatively modest means you can reproduce the exact same standard anywhere you want. The meter standard is right in front of your nose.

And in fact this happens every day when people use laser distance meters. It shoots a laser pulse and measures, against a calibrated time base, the time it takes for the reflected pulse to come back. So it is not measuring distance, it is measuring time. Then it converts this time, using the speed of light as a factor, to meters, to cubits, or to any of your laughable (for 2020) units of your pitiful system of measures. You can find those laser distance meters from $12.

So you need no unit of length, not even the meter. We already do that for astronomical distances, we use the light-year: time multiplied by the speed of light. We could say, for instance, that we saw a 20 light-ns high (6 m) house or that we bought a 33 light-ps (10mm) drill bit, etc. But we don't because, if there still are people in the world that can't understand that using just one unit of length is enough for any task, how difficult it would be for them to understand that we need none!

As soon as Einstein taught us that time and space are related by the speed of light, the metric system absorbed that achievement, while the imperial system lagged behind counting feet and paces. This shows how the metric system is miles, oops, kilometers ahead of those who insist in using archaic solutions.

Imperial? It belongs to oblivion. Or at best in a museum.

[cs.dk]

^ It would appear that someone in France wanted to make everything into 10's and 100's.

If that had caught on, we would be making right angles of 100 degrees/grads (a hectodegree?). Triangles would have 200 degrees/grads. Circles and polygons would add up to 400 degrees/grads.

There is indeed 400 grads compasses. I think the military used that system long time ago.

[tooki]

...
Now, seriously, I confess that I don't really care why (or why not) the US is not metric... what really worries me, what keeps me awake at night, is why US ringbinders have 3 holes...    I mean.. Why? Why? What in the hell is wrong with you people!!

Canada became officially 100% metric in 1978. Our ring binders have 3 rings. Standard paper sheet is 8.5 inches x 11 inches.

I had a job where I had to travel the world and get LARGE documents printed in Canada and shipped to the customer, while I was at the customer place. It seems that only United States and Canada use the proper 3 rings binder and the correct 8.5 inches x 11 inches paper sheet. Everybody else is using 4 rings binder and paper that is not wide enough and too long. Why? What in the hell is wrong with you people!! 

 

Personally, I prefer the aesthetics of the 8.5x11" ratio (or even more, the ratios of 8x10.5" of common notebook paper and 7.5x9.75" of composition notebooks), but man do I love the way that ISO paper formats are always halves of the next size up, so that you can fold or cut one size and get the next size down, or use multiple smaller sheets to make big posters or whatever. Makes layout changes so much easier, and allows things like automatic booklet making without leaving asymmetrical margins.

As for 3 vs 4 holes, I'm fairly indifferent. What I hate is the 2-hole standard that is far, far, far more common with ISO paper than the 4-hole system. (The 2-hole standard is simply the center two holes of the 4-hole standard.) This leads to pages curling if a binder isn't totally full, and binding on the rings when turning pages, since it's easier to be off-axis. (In fairness, it's possible that the binding is more due to the smaller holes used in ISO hole punches.)

Only high-grade hole punches even have the 4 holes (ordinary ones are just the 2), and so comparatively few binders have 4 rings, and those cost a lot more.

I got a $100 die-cast 4-hole puncher at a thrift store for $5, so I punch 4 holes, and maybe someday I'll look for a cheaper source of 4-ring binders to switch to.

[ebastler]

Centimeters. Made by man in order to divide a circle into 400 degree. And so we can have these beauties:
https://www.123rf.com/photo_97469762_yellow-metric-measuring-tape-isolated-on-white-background.html

You mean those don't exist in the "imperial" part of the world? What do American tailors use to measure people and patterns?

[tooki]

It's just the metricness of it he's referring to. American tailors use the same kind of tapes, except that they've got metric on one side and inches on the other.

[stefan_trekkie]

I did not find such a post but.. Someone from the US that works with mechanics on machines and classic mechanics .. Do you use imp. or metric in your practical work?
What really strikes me is the use of portions for the imp units.. Every one can adjust quickly from one to the other system but is strange to use portions instead of .... 0.5 or 0.25 of the thing (no matter the unit)..
Also the metric system is of french origin and after the independence the US left with close ties with UK

[SkyMaster]

...
Also the metric system is of french origin and after the independence the US left with close ties with UK

Are you sure about this? Canada kept a close tie with UK, but United States literally gave the middle finger to the UK (Great Britain back then).

 

[SilverSolder]

I did not find such a post but.. Someone from the US that works with mechanics on machines and classic mechanics .. Do you use imp. or metric in your practical work?
What really strikes me is the use of portions for the imp units.. Every one can adjust quickly from one to the other system but is strange to use portions instead of .... 0.5 or 0.25 of the thing (no matter the unit)..
Also the metric system is of french origin and after the independence the US left with close ties with UK

Anyone doing practical mechanical work in the US will have both a Metric and an Standard (inch) socket set, for example.   The reality is bilingual.

[bsfeechannel]

but the centimeter is defiantly too short to be useful.

The metric system reflects the advancements in precision by the manufacturing processes in the last two centuries. Today hobbyists and even unskilled people can easily achieve millimetric precision using the modern tools we have.

Billions of people cope just fine with centimeters and millimeters without being cyborgs.

they cope yes

You'll have to excuse those who apparently do not have English as their first language. What is meant is that billions of people do very well with centimeters and millimeters to their own advantage.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"Why do they teach in kilos and grams?"
"https://youtu.be/U7R7dDJmwPY?t=160

[vwestlife]

I like the Fahrenheit scale better.

0 degrees F = really cold, and 100 degrees F = really hot

while

0 degrees C = just chilly, and 100 degrees C = death!

And an adult male can easily estimate a length in feet just by walking with one foot directly in front of the other (logically enough!).

[ebastler]

I like the Fahrenheit scale better.
0 degrees F = really cold, and 100 degrees F = really hot
while
0 degrees C = just chilly, and 100 degrees C = death!
And an adult male can easily estimate a length in feet just by walking with one foot directly in front of the other (logically enough!).

Let's face it: You grew up with inches and Fahrenheit, hence are used to those units and have developed a "gut feel" for them. I grew up with degrees Celsius and meters, hence am used to these units and have developed a "gut feel" for them. Either of us feels more comfortable with the units we grew up with, and feel that they are "more natural", "more logical", or whatever.

I am surprised that this bears repeating for 39 pages of forum thread, and counting... 

[KL27x]

Tooki:

It's just the metricness of it he's referring to. American tailors use the same kind of tapes, except that they've got metric on one side and inches on the other.

Actually, it's the small size of the cm necessitating that the cumulatively running numbers have to be placed sideways on a metric tape measure. Virtually all metric tape measures run 1-10, only, because of the spacing issue. Virtually all imperial tape measures have cumulative numbers on every inch mark, and they don't have to be labelled sideways.

Naturally. Please inform bsfeechannel of this. He thinks the speed of light is based on the meter.

I don't mind that your posts be rife with fallacies, misconceptions and sheer ignorance.

I am not going to quote your entire post, because it was redundant the first time around, Captain Obvious.

The speed of light is in meters per second to you. But in America we realize that the speed of light is ALSO
983,571,088 ft/s
1.08085305 E10 inches/s
704,227,509 miles per hour
582,856,941 knots

In another 50 years you might figure this out.

The metric system reflects the advancements in precision by the manufacturing processes in the last two centuries. Today hobbyists and even unskilled people can easily achieve millimetric precision using the modern tools we have.

You can call it "millimetric precision," but in machining, that is called garbage. Have you ever made machine parts out of steel? I have made tooling and parts to the nearest half a thous. That's about 1/80th of your millimeter.

Building furniture, perhaps within the nearest mm is useful. But in any place you build furniture or cabinets
you will usually joint and plane all your wood down to the same thickness within say 5 thous. And you will cut matching/symmetrical parts to match by using a using a stop block or cutting them at the same time. Which in furniture size wood, you should be able to repeat cuts to within 5-10 thous. You can convert that to metric, if you like. I'm sure you would think of these kinds of things in metric (if you actually built things like this).

Framing a house, OTOH, the nearest eight an inch is all you will care, and a mm would be stupid small.

IOW, the precision to which you make something has nothing to do with the units you choose to use. But it does have an effect on the numbers you end up working with and to. In America we use whichever is easier for the job, whether that's "millimetric precision LOL" or otherwise.

[ebastler]

Actually, it's the small size of the cm necessitating that the cumulatively running numbers have to be placed sideways on a metric tape measure. Virtually all metric tape measures run 1-10, only, because of the spacing issue. Virtually all imperial tape measures have cumulative numbers on every inch mark, and they don't have to be labelled sideways.

That is patently untrue. All my tape measures and folding rulers have centimeter scales, all of them have the full numbers printed every cm, and all of them have the numbers running along the length of the ruler, not rotated by 90 degrees. (Or should that be 100 degrees? )

And yes, those numbers run into the hundreds. Scary, ain't it?

Fun fact: In Germany, we still call the folding ruler "Zollstock" -- "inch stick".

[KL27x]

Put that on a tape, and show me. Pics.

Hint: a ruler only goes to like 30 cm and is ok to have fine numbering, even just light etching on a metal ruler. In a 25m+ tape measure, have fun with that idea. If you put cumulative numbers on each cm and did not turn them sideways, it will end up looking like someone writing pi out to the 50 thousandth decimal place.

Show me this metric tape measure that you would use outside, in the field, doing framing with a circular saw, day in day out. Not a ruler for cutting paper at a desk with an exacto knife.

Choosing the size of the meter was a compromise. Belgie didn't put the same priorities on all tasks, esp when he decided there are 400 degrees in a circle.

[ebastler]

Put that on a tape, and show me. Pics.

Hint: a ruler only goes to like 30 cm and is ok to have fine numbering, even just light etching on a metal ruler. In a 25m+ tape measure, have fun with that idea. If you put cumulative numbers on each cm and did not turn them sideways, it will end up looking like someone writing pi out to the 50 thousandth decimal place.

None of my tape measures or Zollstocks is longer than 10 m, so three digits will do. (None is longer than 5m, actually.) And we are not talking about an "idea" of mine, but everyday products. Sheesh...

(That's a "Stanley" brand tape measure, btw.)

[KL27x]

IMO, and it's only an opinion, that looks like shit.  And it only gets worse when you get to 200's.

[tooki]

Tooki:

It's just the metricness of it he's referring to. American tailors use the same kind of tapes, except that they've got metric on one side and inches on the other.

Actually, it's the small size of the cm necessitating that the cumulatively running numbers have to be placed sideways on a metric tape measure. Virtually all metric tape measures run 1-10, only, because of the spacing issue. Virtually all imperial tape measures have cumulative numbers on every inch mark, and they don't have to be labelled sideways.

Dafuck you talking about? I’ve used metric measuring tapes here for ages, and they count up just like an inch tape. As for rotational orientation of the numbers, that’s a design decision, nothing more.

[bsfeechannel]

I am not going to quote your entire post, because it was redundant the first time around, Captain Obvious.

The speed of light is in meters per second to you. But in America we realize that the speed of light is ALSO
983,571,088 ft/s
1.08085305 E10 inches/s
704,227,509 miles per hour
582,856,941 knots

In another 50 years you might figure this out.

You still don't get it. It is the meter that is defined by the speed of light, not the other way around. And the meter is defined by arbitrarily setting the speed of light at 299792458 m/s.

The meter is an SI BASE UNIT, upon which many useful units and even your stupid foot/inch/mile/knot depend.

You still think there is some rod somewhere defining its quantity. There is not.

I don't hope you understand this not even in the next 50 years. The metric system is already too advanced for those whose brain has been damaged by years of the misconceptions that orbit the imperial practice.

And since metric keeps evolving with science, technology and engineering, those countries that rightly decided to fully metricate themselves are updated, while those who decided to resist are still living in the metrological dark ages.

Hold my beer, while I weep for you.

You can call it "millimetric precision," but in machining, that is called garbage.

That's why we have the µm. If you're not satisfied with that, try the nm.

[Tepe]

There is indeed 400 grads compasses. I think the military used that system long time ago.

I have a 400 grad Silva compass from my scouting days. It must be from about 1973.

[KL27x]

Bsfeechannel:

You still don't get it. It is the meter that is defined by the speed of light, not the other way around. And the meter is defined by arbitrarily setting the speed of light at 299792458 m/s.

We do not arbitrarily adjust the speed of light, dummy. We measure it. In units that are arbitrarily sized.

If we arbitrary define the speed of light, we could just make it 1, instead of 299792458. This light-second would be the basis of our measuring system. And it would be way more logical to make the meter a base ten division of this light second. But no. The meter has already been arbitrarily defined to divide the surface of the earth into grads. So we get this odd number. And God didn't happen to make the earth to the size where the circumference is cleanly divisible by 400 when measured in light-second units.

If the meter is defined by the speed of light, the inch is also defined by the speed of light. It's a logical truth. The inch is defined by the meter, the meter defined by the speed of light. Therefore, the inch is defined by the speed of light. It's called logic. Same way a kilometer is defined by the speed of light. Give it another 50 years, and it might sink in. If you think there's a fundamental difference between meters and inches because of the SI definition of the speed of light, you are a curious specimen which I am happy to be able to investigate.

You still think there is some rod somewhere defining its quantity. There is not.

I understand that the prototypes do not define the units, at this moment in time. But thanks, Captain. The US was a contributor to the current definitions, and you are welcome.

That's why we have the µm. If you're not satisfied with that, try the nm.

Again, our thanks, Captian Obvious. You are chock full of enlightenment. You are a national treasure. Very intelligent. I am positive you got lots of gold stars in 4th grade physics and math. And it has possibly gone to your head.

I will quote my own post, since you consistently ignore the 99% actual content of my posts in an attempt to nitpick inconsequential bullshit.

IOW, the precision to which you make something has nothing to do with the units you choose to use. But it does have an effect on the numbers you end up working with and to. In America we use whichever is easier for the job, whether that's "millimetric precision LOL" or otherwise.

Just as a for instance, we might spec and make a part to 1 thous precision and flatness. In metric you might call it plus or minus 20 micrometers? The one part isn't more precise than the other due to the measuring system. It just changes how you describe it and the numbers you end up having to use/know.

[unitedatoms]

I wonder if speed of light relationship to meter is involving requirement to have gravity field of earth. There is something time dilation something relativistic there in physics.

[SkyMaster]

...
The meter is an SI BASE UNIT, upon which many useful units and even your stupid foot/inch/mile/knot depend.

...

I feel the need to point out that knot and nautical mile have nothing to do with the US or the Metric system.

The knot and nautical mile are used in aviation (and probably still in use in maritime operation) all over the world, and that work just fine.

The nautical mile is a beautiful unit of measure (for its intended application). The nautical mile is not an arbitrary unit like most imperial units are 

Please, carry on.