According to the discovery channel, the US use neither imperial or metric, but mini vans for weight, football fields for lenght and swimming pools for volume.
Martinus sigsgaard Everything is measured in football fields! The funny part is that a football field is 120 yards long; the end zones are part of the field.
OMG I just realized we've been using a new customary measure for a while now. 1 football field = 100 yards. So instead of saying 500 yards people on TV say 5 football fields. Why? Because more people understand how long a football field is than 100 yards. People hear yard and think of out the back door not a unit of measure. A dare you to walk 17 football fields in his shoes. :)
Football fields... and they do not even refer to proper football fields. Their sport have nothing to do with feet (except for running, not contacting with ball) and it isn't even a freakin' ball! Why not call it American Rugby? That or make the descriptive name accurate: Armpitleatherprojectile instead of Football.
In a way, this is still pretty much the case: 1 nickel is 5 pennies 1 dime is 2 nickels 1 quarter is 2.5 dimes (or 5 nickels) 1 dollar is either 4 quarters, 10 dimes, or 20 nickels The numbers aren't as odd as the ones for distance (inches to feet to yards/miles/etc), but the only conversions that use sensible numbers are pennies to dimes to dollars (1:10:100)
The Danish recommended limit for alcohol intake for adults was set too high, because it was based on an English study. The study had been (wrongly) converted from pints to litres. So for 20 years the Danes have drunk too much alcohol due to a conversion error.
in summer of 2001 I was on a vacation in italy (I am german, so it is not that far away from where i live). I met an american tourist, and she seemed really open to all the european culture and what not. one evening, we talked about gas prices and she said, that she always heard gas was so much more cheaper in the US than in europe, but she saw a gas station where it stated only 2000 Lire per galone (Lire was the italian currency before the Euro, and if i remember correctly, it was around 1500 Lire per dollar) which would have been pretty cheap. I laughed and said, "No it is 2000 Lire per liter" and she replied...."what's a liter?"
You have to keep in mind that America is a whole continent unto its self. Each state is the size of a country, so please do not think less of Americans for being used to American stuff. It is quite natural after all.
I do not know a single U.S. State that uses the Metric System. Also, the U.S. does not use the Imperial System, but rather U.S. Customary. I know it is confusing, but the measurements are different.
H.J. Fleischmann I have not said that U.S. States use the metric system, i'v said that most American states use it, theoretically all American states adopted the metric system except the U.S. .
Just some fun stuff... American gallon = 3,79 litres Imperial gallon = 4,54 litres Fuel consumption used to be measured in "miles per gallon" but in most countries I've been to it's now "litres per 100km". Using the gal/litres conversion button on American calculator not knowing this produces some amazing consumption figures. The city of Johannesburg South Africa was laid out some 160 years ago. Two surveyors were contracted with a certain straight street making up the border of their respective areas. For some reason they started setting out from the outside and working inwards towards this street. Weird, but that's how the story goes... After many months of work, they met at this common street. Since they were setting out a perfectly rectangular grid, they expected to find all the crossings lining up perfectly. Unfortunately one surveyor was using "English" feet and the other "Cape" feet. This was in about 1870 - long before motor cars, so the authorities decided "what the heck? We can live with it!" So that is why, if you drive along this common street, you will notice the crossing streets are perfectly aligned at a certain point but are increasingly misaligned as you go along. Last one, before metrication of my country's currency from £/s/d to ZAR/c, it was a nightmare being sent to the grocery store with a £2 note and being expected to bring back the correct change from buying 2lbs of sugar at 5s,6½p the lb, ½lb of tuppenny rice and 5 lollipops at 3 for a farthing. Does the USA still use the penny system for nail sizes i.e. "go to the store and get 5 dollars worth of three-penny nails"? Them were the days...
I'm American and I don't even know how to measure properly using the American measurement system... that's why I switched to Metric for everyday use.. At least this way I don't need to do weird conversions and unnecessary math. lol
Blowingmind exactly. I’d like to switch over to metric completely but I just need to take the time to rewire my brain to figure out the distance for a kilometer without comparing it to a mile
The Duodecimal system is mathematically superior to the decimal system. But we don't use it for the same reason: change is difficult and potentially dangerous (but potentially beneficial).
@@alainprostbis Correct me if I'm wrong, but people generally stop relying on their fingers to count fairly early on, like at 10 years old. The fact that we have 10 fingers becomes irrelevant to the way we think of numbers after that point. Besides, you can count the duodecimal/dozenal system on your fingers as well. You have 2 joints on each finger, making 3 parts on each finger. Excluding the thumb, that makes 12 parts to count with. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal The only reason our brain understands the decimal system so easily is because we've done it our whole lives. I strongly believe that if you were raised using the dozenal system, itd be 2nd nature to you.
The Ranger well that is not the case. never at school are you even encouraged to count on your fingers. that is something completly intuitive. you always have your 10 fingers in front of you and your world representation is the way it is because of that. to force a 12 base unit would be like to force a left handed person to write with their right hand. people used to do that in the past with very limited success. all that because of a stubborn refusal of using the metric system...that is so lame. also don't think that just changing the metric system alone from base 10 to 12 would work and make your life easier. you would first and foremost have to change our numerical system as it is a 10 based system. you know that you go from 9 to 10 and at this point you reach a different category of numbers for instance. (from 1 digit to 2 digits)...good luck changing the numbering system...would Americans ever considering ditching the 10 base numbering system? of course not... a 12 base measuring system with a 10 base numbering system would be useless. this is the main reason the metric system is so useful and intuitive. people who have adopted it don't go back. not for a long time at least.
to give you an idea of the change you would need 1 more symbols, say t , to represent our 10, and another one, say e, to represent eleven. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9,up to that point ok. then t (meaning 10), e (meaning11), then 10 (meaning actually 12), 11 (meaning 13, )...and so on...oh my the simplicity...every thing changes of meaning beyond this point. an alternative would be to design 12 entirely new symbols. but it would be even weirder... does any advocate of the 12 base measuring system ever talk about this? I think not...
I just moved to Canada and thought "oh well, I'll be fine... they use the metric system" And now I am here, trying to find an apartment and everything is in fucking square foot??? I mean why? 0.o
ParticleFairy I think it is because it sounds like a lot of land when it actually is little, business thing. It sounds more impressive to say 860 sq ft than 80 sq m.
It's also kinda awkward in my hometown, Taiwan. Although we use metric system in most stuff, we use the unit "Ping(3.305m2)" to measure apartments, and use the unit "Kah(9699m2)" when it comes measuring farmland. "Ping" is originated from Japan, which is half of the size of a Tatami (a kind of grass mat). On the other hand, we get "Kah" from Dutch East India Company. (the original Dutch word: Akker; only the second half of the word is used nowadays by us)
Because the USA is the main trading partner of Canada, so Canada cannot say goodbuy to the imperial system as a whole. When the USA switched to the metric system, Canada is the first to follow.
The key reason that area for living space is measured in sq ft is that construction in Canada is still based on imperial measurements. Because the US is our largest trading partner, and especially for lumber, all construction materials are based on feet and inches. Once beyond that scale though everything is metric (i.e., we use meters instead of yards). I'm a Gen Xer so I was taught both units in school (and I've done DIY construction), but anyone born after the mid-1980s (or immigrants) likely has difficulty working with imperial units unless in a profession that uses them regularly. Similarly, baking units in Canada are in imperial (as evidenced by the frustrations that lead to this video). Humourously most baking supplies are SOLD in metric equivalents of imperial units (you'll often see 454 g of flour... or 1 lb). This too is because of our trading partner to the south. I can only imagine the frustrations of those who can't instinctively convert because they are too unfamiliar with the units.
This video does NOT make metric system seem logical. You should've given more examples. Like how a litre of water weights 1kg. Or that 1 cubic centimeter of water weights 1gram and takes 1 joule to heat it up 1 degree. Or how water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100. Or that 10mm is 1cm, 100cm 1m and 1000m is 1km. Instead you told us that 1m is the distance light travels in 3.33564095 nanoseconds..
A year late, but Celsius isn't metric. Edit: I'm misinformed. It is a derived metric unit but not the base unit of temperature. Thanks below commenter.
It takes 1 calorie to heat 1 cm^3 of water 1 K (indeed, that's the definition of calorie, give or take a few boundary conditions). 1 Joule is the quantity of energy transferred to an object when a force of 1 N is exerted on it by the distance of 1 m.
@@Hugodenbeste A derived unit is a unit that is part of SI but is not one of the fundamental 7 units (m, s, [k]g, cd, A, mol, K) °C are a metric unit defined (derived) as K + 273.15
Consistency is key for all convertions. Metric is always based om a factor of 10, in every single case. I would probably understa amerikans better if they had the same logic. Havind different convertion rates is what makes it witchcraft to me.
The reason you don't "understand" is because you irrationally assume a measurement system's value is in all in its unit conversion, rather than measurement itself. Imperial measurements are based on units of practical size. Nobody in their day-to-day lives has to convert inches to miles, or cups to gallons, or ounces to tons; you just pick whichever unit is more convenient for the sort of thing you're measuring.
Whether the unit is fraction friendly, whether it's easy to scale to larger/smaller units, whether the unit size happens to be convenient to what you are measuring, or whether you are a neophyte that prefers the system you were raised with are all pretty concerns. The biggest problem with non-metric unit systems is that they do not have provisions to associate one kind of measurement with another. Converting between mechanical, thermal , chemical, and electrical measurements is cumbersome and often only resolved through empirical measurement. The real reason that the metric system is important is because it has these associations built in as part their definitions. That makes converting from one system to another trivial. If I need to know how much current I need to drive a 220v hydrolic pump motor that will lift a 2000kg car up 2m in 5s , I can make that calculation without having to look up conversions from mechanical forces/distances to electric measurements. I can also directly figure out how much heat must be dissipated to lower the car and what temperatures the pieces of equipment might reach in the process of doing so with relative ease. That is the real compelling reason for the metric system.
@Craig X His point is that one system uses arbitrairy values with no direct relation to one another whilst the other has a foundation in the decimal base (the base used for arithmetic). You always have to "memorize a bunch of numbers", however the accuracy and by extention the simplicity of what you have to remember is vastly different between the two. How tall are you in inches? In feet? In feet+inches? In yards? How many decimals do you drop when you actually talk about your length? Inch is the smallest practical unit in terms of length after all (which is aprox 2.5 centimeters!), and we still have millimeter. A millimeter is a little smaller than 1/25th of an inch. I'm 173 cm or 1.73 m, or 1730 mm, or 17.3 dm, or 0.00173 km. I can pick the unit depending on the required accuracy. Which in terms of a person's height would be m or cm and in terms of driving distance would be km. And the numbers remain the same regardless of the unit because the units are related to eachother by base 10. How many gallons fit in a square foot? How many cups? 1 decimeter³ (10x10x10 cm) contains 1 liter. 1 centimeter³ contains 1 milliliter or 0.001 liter. How many inches is a foot? Now how many inches long is YOUR foot? My foot is 25 cm long (0.81 feet). How many ml goes into a teaspoon? How many ml goes into YOUR teaspoon? Our feet and teaspoons come in various sized. The arbitrairy and unrelated measurements of the imperial system give way to inaccuracies. The point of an empirical system is for it to be universal. Once you learn a measurement system, it doesn't really matter. It becomes natural to you. However in terms of simplicity of conversion and use, the metric system has a clear advantage. Because all the measurement units are steps in the decimal base, which is what we use for arithmetic. Hexadecimal(16) base uses a-f to represent 10-15. Imagine saying you're 1f years old (that's 31 by the way). It sounds impractical right? That's because you think in tens! That's what the imperial system is to metric users. It doesn't take "how we think numbers" into account and therefor makes calculation more complex than they need to be. The metric system on the other hand, is neat and tidy, and its rules are universal. Am I losing accuracy due to the unit I'm using? Just go down a step. Am I being too accurate and have too many zeroes at the end? Just go up a step. So I didn't walk 1.540.000 millimeters to the store, I walked 1.54 kilometers. And I'm 1.73 meters tall. But my index finger is 11 millimeters wide. There's always a unit for your required accuracy and it's always easy to relate to any other measurement. Neat, tidy, and simple to use. For fun, translate all the metric numbers I've used in this post to imperial. Look at the complex numbers you end up with and compare that complexity to the numbers I've given. That's the difference in "ease" you are denying.
@Craig X It comes down to how complicated the equations are. Computers have no problem 'memorising' a bunch of different numbers. However if one equation has much less 'conversion' variables to calculate then the computer can do that faster. Not a problem if you are only doing a single calculation but if you are doing millions, or billions, that can make a difference. There is a reason most, if not all, fields of science and engineering uses metric, even in the US, and that is because metric is just better at doing the job most of the time.
@@NLTops you might want to check your ³ to l conversions again ;) 1 dm³ = 1 l 1 cm³ = 1 ml or 0.001 l Squares and cubes mix it all up a bit ;) An interesting MS unit is the bar. Not sure if it's completely part of SI, but it's the pressure of a 10m tall column of water on 1 cm², which is approximately the pressure of the atmosphere at sea-level. Pretty convenient, no? And also quite practical for other applications.
@@MadManchou Right! I'm an idiot! Imagine how bad I'd mess up if I had to work in the American Standard System. xD No idea why I added liters to be honest. It's about just another unit for volume.
I do not understand how a big country like the USA so advanced in technology can be so behindhand in measureing system. It's completely archaic to add feet with fingers and coffee spoons with teaspoons, really people do not realize ? However there are many people from over the world in the US and they find amusing to return to the Middle Ages ?
danny Touet Well, it is consistent with the results of our elections, especially the latest one. Metric is used in the US for trade in certain commodities: soft drinks in half liter (500 ml), liter, 2 liter, and 3 liter bottles, but the (US variant of) Imperial for small serving sizes, such as fountain drinks and cans (most commonly 12 ounces (FLUID ounces, a measure of volume, not mass or weight, because one fluid ounce of water has a mass of about one (avoirdupois) ounce)). Illegal drugs are sold between dealers in kilograms, and legal prescription and over the counter dosages are in milligrams (or for really concentrated pills, International Units (IU), which is a measure of biological effect, not actual mass). Because of the influence of Olympic Games, standard running events are mostly metric (riddle: what's the most appropriate place for a 5K run? Three Mile Island), with a few exceptions due to historic records, such as the mile run and 100- and 40-yard dash, and the marathon (26.2 US miles, based on the distance from Marathon to Athens, Greece). And in the late 1960s and 1970s, when tobacco was still advertised on US television, there were long, thin cigarettes (because of the idea that a longer smoke path meant less tar; but that's only true if you stop halfway) advertised as 100 millimeters, and one brand advertised their 101 millimeter cigarettes as "a silly millimeter longer"). The main advantage of the Imperial system is as a source for many trivia questions. There are units for volume of loosely packed items of produce, such as ears of corn (maize), called "dry measures," such as bushels and pecks; powders and liquids, or fluid measures, all of which have British (true Imperial) and US variants. There are very small fluid units formerly used to dispense and mix medicines, such as drams (with a D) and minims, and stretching the meaning of "medicine," an old term for bars specializing in whiskey is a "dram shop" (because a shot glass holds about a Dram?). Large amounts of wine are stored in bottles named for Biblical kings, ranging from a Jeroboam up to a Nebuchadnezzer. Horse racing tracks are measured in furlongs (furrow-lengths), 220 yards in a furlong, 8 furlongs in a mile, and the horses themselves are measured in hands of height (4 inches, or about 100 mm) and weighed in stones (14 pounds). And a special weighing system for PRECIOUS metals: 12 Troy ounces (bigger than avoirdupois ounces) in a Troy pound, smaller than the avoirdupois pound, which is 16 avoirdupois ounces (hence a (Troy) pound of gold is LIGHTER than a (avoirdupois) pound of feathers)! Have fun figuring out the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight (14 days or two weeks)!
Body measurements are actually very convenient. Do you carry a meter stick with you everywhere you go? I do carry feet and a thumb with me everywhere I go. If you're measuring for something that will fit on your desk at the hardware store, not a life or death aerospace calculation or something, it's very helpful to be able to get pretty close like that. And the math is equally easy so long as you just use one unit at a time, it becomes exactly like metric.
I was bought up with the Imperial system but converted 30 yrs ago, now I use both, converting back and forth in my head, I curse the Imperial system, I truly wish I had never heard of it. please get rid ASAP, Metric is way, way easier and kids pick it up very fast...
British, feel the same. I wish I had learned metric as a kid. Our roads still have speed limits in MPH. We weigh ourselves in stones, and yanks use pounds , so we need a calculator to find out how much American football guys weigh. I use metres and cm for small distances, and miles for long distances. It's great being over 50. Young Americans, rise up! Use metric, and ignore old men who hate science and love the sound of their own voice.
Not so fast! There are things in the imperial system that are better, such as the thread standards for screws. Divide length unit by 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 36 for the "base system". Multiply by 2 or divide by 2 to get finer/coarser threads. Metric system does not have such simple standard. It is much more complicated to set up change gears for lathe to cut threads in metric. Even metric lathes can't cut as many metric threads as imperial lathe with the provided gearing. Way worse is that metric threads are way too fine (look at all the TH-cam videos of people removing stripped bolts from engine blocks. This happened since metric threads are used on engines.) The threads strip before the screw breaks, and are not tolerant of fitting tolerances. Airplanes are held together with imperial fasteners (Army/Navy standard), & many "utility threads" subject to repeated use (such as the ones on cameras & lenses for mounting on tripods) are imperial, despite camera innovation & design being primarily in Europe & Japan. Mystery is why image file standards are in pixels per inch & not metric.
Whats better is that our systems foot and pound standard is based directly off of the kilo and meter standard. One inch isn't almost 2.54cm, it is exactly 2.54cm. Same with the Quart, it is .946L. Why an inch can't be 2.5cm and a quart be exactly 1L is beyond me.
my guess is that so many people used both, it would be to much work to change entire civilizations, because the measurement systems didn't convert in nice round numbers
Sorry Pladimir Vutin, but your mistaken 1 inch equals 25.3937mm, when I trained to be a Fitter and Turner back in the 1970's we had to learn both metric and imperial systems. and EXACT conversions as we often worked to within .0001 of a inch or 1 micron
Which country changes their system overnight? None! So this isn't an excuse to say America can't change. Because changing overnight is the most stupid way to change, it takes time to do so. If you even start that is. Edit:Ngl, i did completely miss the pun. The point was a very realistic argument that was commonly used for countering change of the imperial system.
Nacho it would be a slow process that would take a while to fully convert. But it sure would make us less stupid to the global community if we switched.
The UK went from pounds, shillings and pence to decimal currency in the late sixties, but the process was not overnight. Before the change over there was a long period of public education. It worked out fine in the end and the only people that didn't like it were the really old and people who just moan anyway.
10 clicks is a tenth of a mile. So no the U.S.Army has not been using the metric system since the 1970's You must not be an American or you don't really know any thing about the military.
Yeah, but strangely NATO uses imperial. So while Swedish Viggen fighters had everything defined in metric, the more export-friendly and NATO compatible Gripen uses imperial. Thanks, America.
@@RealMrTea How have you used bolts? Most have threads too fine (my joke is that metric bolts have their threads "painted on"). In the imperial system, there are 2 standards: "national course" and "national fine". The coarse is for "normal everyday" use where fastener is not under high stress. There is a lot of clearance built-into the standard so bolts don't jam if they get dirty or the manufacturing is not held to tight tolerances. This is good for bolting the plow onto the tractor, or holding cheap shelving units together. The fine standard is used for critical fasteners (engine head bolts, airplane bolts) which ate made to high standard with tight clearances and tolerances, and hardened steels. "metric" bolts are really not metric, they are "European", and are made as if every bolt cost $10 to make, being precision machined from hardened steel. But most of them are made cheaply from the softest steel, and to loose tolerances. This causes them to strip and break (or they strip out the hole they are threaded into). What is weird about metric bolts is that design extends to the head geometry, slot type, and steel alloy (these have nothing to do with the metric standard). Metric threads are more difficult to cut on a lathe, even for metric lathes (you need more gears to cut all standard metric threads).
Hi @@bpark10001 ! By beeing an european citizen, it's hard to verify, but the Mxx normalisation, for exemple the M10 is based on an ISO rule. And ISO members are most country in the World, including all North America country, si normaly not so "Just an european thing" ;) See membership : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization In addition, i've made and use bolts from my studies to my firsts workplacement, including heavy machinery and never see specialy faulty bolt. In another way, prices un US are realy cheaper than in Europe and i'm not so surprise, if i learn that for cost efficiency, Metric Bolts importations are cheap ones ;)
@@bpark10001 Thats pretty incorrect. Compare aircraft screws: they have even finer threading and take MORE load. Fine threads distribute the load better then coarse ones and the bolt core diameter is larger. UNF is more than 10% stronger than UNC, coarse metric is between UNC and UNF and fine metric is even finer than UNF. Or ask someone at Böllhoff to explain this to you, since when it comes to fasteners, they know what they are doing. I've also put a number of M4 to M6 into plain plywood, and even there I managed to rip bolt heads off and not pull the threading out.
Its very strange, some countries still use imperial for specific things... maybe its just my imagination but Top Gear still uses miles for all distances and fuel ratings. Despite most other countries using km for speedometers and road signs/fuel consumption averages, could the UK be holding it back as well?
The Scope of Science In the U.K. We measure height in ft and inches, and miles (which are actually just labels used for kilometres). Older people use it in cooking. Most people do their weight in imperial too. That said, metric is so much easier it's what we're taught as children. For what it's worth, I like the variety, I feel like if we used metric for everything the world would lose some of its beauty.
I am American and I use both. It's hard to switch when you grow up being taught one way. But when I started building furniture and needing to add and subtract fractions down to the 64th I switched to decimals and later I just switched to using a metric tape and putting metric scales on my tools. Made the math a lot easier.
Here in Argentina, a lot of cities are built in a extremelly regular fashion, so most blocks are 100 mt. So, lets say, I have a friend of mine that lives 16 blocks away from me, I know that he lives 1600 meters away from me, that's 160000 centimeters, or 1,6 km. I know a lot of cities are not that regular, but it baffles me how hard the whole mile-feet-etc convertion is in comparision
When I went to the uni to get my Master in chemistry I worked with US-American publications as well. One day I really found PSI as a pressure unit. Fortunately I knew that PSI is pounds per square-inch. And fortunately I knew about what an inch was. But my trouble was about the pound…. WHICH pound?! As you use several different pounds and our pound (old and not used anymore) is different to yours I faced some trouble! :-D There was no internet in the lab. ;-)
Answering to myself: Btw: Do the US have imperial seconds, too? Is a cubic foot equal to a gallon? If a gallon was put in a cubic shape how long would the cube's length be in inches? If you poured this gallon of water into a cubic vessel with a volume of one cubic yard... what would be its fill-level in inches?
The international pound was adopted in 1959. The second is universal, not metric or Imperial. It is incorporated in SI as a legacy unit. Your questions about liquid measure are not to be taken seriously. That is not how liquid measure works in common units. By the way, the USA have never used the Imperial System. We use US Customary units.
@@GH-oi2jf The US uses the inch, the foot, the yard.... the spoons, the cups and the gallons... and ounces troy and avoirdupois.... and pounds troy and avoirdupois. And about my questions concerning liquid measurements you are mistaken... seriously! Imagine the calculations for constructing a culvert: If there's rain and the amount is 3 mm.... what is the amount of rain in liters per square meter? And now with 'US-units': If it has rained an 1/8 of an inch... how many gallons of rainwater have dropped on a square yard?
@@knutritter461 A Masters in Chemistry? And you are that easily confused? You need to get out more. 1/2 foot diameter sphere holds 1/2 gallon. Simple huh? Easy to visualize too. Just think of a fish bowl. Now, I can make metric seem just as complicated as you are trying so poorly to attempt with U.S. units.
I’m from the UK, though officially metric some things are still imperial, eg Petrol (gas) is bought in litres but car performance is measured in miles per gallon (uk gallon is 5 litres). What I like about the metric system are the equivalences such at 1,000cm cubed is a litre and 1 litre of water weighs 1Kg. So if I buy 2 litres of drinks I know it will weigh 2kg. Also our paper sizes are metric, an A0 sheet of paper is 1 square meter. The other useful attribute of metric paper is that all paper sizes have the same ratio of 1:square of 2, thus images can be enlarged or reduced and the image will correctly fit the new paper size.
The constant ratio of DIN paper sizes is interesting, but in the US we commonly use two different ratios purposefully. Our “legal” size is the same width as “letter,” but longer. That means that the sizes can be intermixed in a binder which holds the papers at the top. Lawyers (and some others) find this convenient. Everything is a tradeoff.
I wish you had also mentioned all the awesome relationships and common sense in Metric... IE Boiling is 100 degrees & Freezing is 0. 1 Litre of Water weights 1KG. The Metre was originally defined as so: The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. In 1799, it was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889). In 1960, the metre was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86. In 1983, the current definition was adopted.
Yah, I might end up making a video titled "Whats great about the Metric system" or something - there are so many things, and I'm shocked that apparently (as I've learned from some of the comments on this video) a lot of people just don't get that. :/
While Celsius makes sense for water Fahrenheit makes more sense for humans. 0 F is frigging cold, 100 F is frigging hot, while 0 C is pretty cold and 100 C is death.
Fahrenheit doesn't make any more sense for humans, and frankly it actually makes less sense than Celsius. Ice is made of water so it's very useful to know when it becomes ice, for example when driving. Also 100 C is not death.
1x1x1 meter is 1000 litres and weighs 1000 kilos... Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and boils at 100 degrees celsius. Metris will always be superior because it makes sense and is easy.
Percentages, are hard in imperial measurements too, for example 80 percent of 1kg is 800g, but 80 percent of a pound is 12.9714285714 ounces (that not a joke!)
Since I'm unable to reply to all of you, here are 4 edits/notes: 1) Yes, I know the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. That was an accidental omission. I'm sorry for being terrible. *META EDIT*: Actually, it is constant. It 'slows down' by being absorbed/emitted by things in its way, but that doesn't change it's speed. I stand by my original statement. 2) As for me mixing up 'Imperial' with 'US Customary Units' - thats what the rest of the world calls it, and as a Canadian I thought no one actually used that name. Oh, and I mixed up tablespoons with tablespoons. (Huh? Exactly). 3) Yes, kilo*-litres*/litres are not official metric units, but a lot of the world uses them, and they are completely metric-compatible. 4) Easy on the name calling, you Imperial rebels! I'd rather not have to force you to play nice. *Thanks for watching!* edit: meant kilo-litres, not kilograms (fixed).
Yes! a friend and I were talking. The speed of light is always constant - it just takes extra time to get absorbed and re-emitted when it hits things that are in its way.
The UK is also not a metric country - we use miles and yards on road signs (though all the building work is done in metric), we use pints in pubs for beer and cider (but wine and spirits are dispensed in ml volumes) , pints for milk bot metric for all other food packaging. Then there's cars - petrol is dispensed in liters but fuel economy is measured in imperial gallons. People use feet and inches etc in everyday conversation and weigh themselves in stones (1 stone = 14 lb.) and lb etc etc In other words it's a mess that hasn't moved on in nearly 50 years from a botched transition to metric.
my favourite example for the crazyness of the imperial system is the meazurement of foot-pound. In the metric system that's Newton-meters It's the Energy that is necessary to apply 1 newton for the distance of 1 meter. And 1 Newton is the force necessary to accelerate a 1kg object to 1m per sec within 1 sec. now foot-pound is the energy necessary to lift the equivalent mass of 7000 grains of barley (taken from the middle of a standard ear) over a height of the foot of the roman commander "Nero Claudius Drusus" (died little before the birth of Christ) in the average field of gravity on earth.. Conveniently we can define that a lot better using the imperial system: 1 foot is also the length of 12 times the triple length of a grain of barley mentioned above. So 1 foot-pound is the energy necessary to lift 7000 grains of barley (taken from the middle of a standard ear) over the height of 12 times the triple lenght of a grain of barley (taken from the middle of a standard ear) in the average field of gravity on earth - bloody piece of cake. Only one question remains: How did they manage to get to the moon? Well 9 years before the moon landing NASA decided to only use the metric system in future, so there's that.
Yeah I actually really don't like Newton Meters actually. I prefer to use foot-pounds (or pounds-foot) as a unit of torque specifically for Automobiles. That is what I have grown up with and that is what i am used to.
@@ThePetersilie Well, to be honest, even having grown up with Newtons in school, I don't have any intuition how much force that would be, but "lifting one pound (~500g) over a distance of one foot (~a bit less than a third of a meter)" I can even get without being used to the American system. And that's really the one thing that the imperial measurements have going for them - they are more intuitive, for everyday tasks. An inch is roughly the width of my thumb, a foot is roughly the length of my foot. Which can surely be more useful in estimating(!) a small length or area than a meter - if you have no tools on hand. Even if it's horrible to calculate in if you're doing anything serious. And even though I'd like to shoot anyone posting recipes in cups instead of grams and mililiters.
@@drsnova7313 well the argument that imperial is better for rough estimation is very flawed. Because metric has these same tricks you learn in primary school. 10 cm is roughly the distance between your thumb and you indix while shaping a "C" A Meter is roughly the distance of a large step.. depends all on what you are told when growing up so I wouldn't call that something Imperial "has going for it"
The real question is: how many toes is a foot? How many feet is a leg? How many legs is a refrigerator? How many refrigerators is a car? How many cars is a average house? And how many average houses are a flattened elephant? And...... what fraction of a flattened elephant is 0.76 refrigerators?
I was shopping in Toronto, I got an HDMI cable at one shop and an extension cord in another, in both cases the employee proclaimed the cable was "six feet long". Although I know perfectly well that it's around 2 meters, I pretended not to know and asked them to convert it to metric for me.
Please note that the nautical mile is a very different beast, with some unique properties. This measurement is still a very important navigation tool, corresponding to the world’s "base 60" grid of latitudes and longitudes; traditionally defined as "≈ one minute of latitude". But the world is not a perfect sphere and there were slightly different variants of the nautical mile for many years in different countries. Today the nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m. And even the meter was originally based on the physical world, as one ten-millionth of the distance from the north pole to equator. Via France, of course! Measured back in 1793.
But France got the measurement of the Earth wrong anyways so that the metric system for measuring distance only applies to itself and nothing natural like it does with weight and temperature.
How did I miss this?! See the advantage of being American and Canadian you get to memorize that crap. I did a rant on it where I just ramble equivalents off my head. In geology. The foot is an easier unit. Then we divide it into tenths and hundredths to make it easier (that was sarcasm). Don't forget metric also inter translates. For example 1cubic cm = 1 ml. th-cam.com/video/x8ePY1HBqbI/w-d-xo.html
+Sarie FYI - Imperial was introduced in Britain in 1824 (they used 3 or more types of inches side by side before that). Therefore the US never used Imperial, although they agreed with the British on the international inch (closer to customary inch than the imperial inch) in 1960. I think the different US states use different units, some metric, some international inch, some customary inch, none imperial inch.
Division of a quantity of grain on a plate by 2s and 3s is simple. So is dividing a distance. Dividing by 5 requires some more complex geometrical knowledge and skill. That's why there exist people who are as passionate about moving to a dozenal (base-12) number base system. That would destroy the utility of the metric system's base-10 system, which is only convenient because of the number system we happen to use. Thirds aren't repeating decimals in dozenal (1/3 = 0.4). Moving to dozenal would reconcile our systems of angle measurement and time which are based on multiples of 12 as well. edit: further trivia. The name inch is derived from the Latin _uncia_ , meaning "twelfth"
My favourite fact about the Imperial System is the following question. What weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? This is a real question because in Imperial gold and feathers use different values for ounces and pounds. A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold. Checkout the Avoirdupois units versus Troy (for gold and some other things).
UteChewb 😖 Sometimes a person can be too clever by half! The problem you quote compares two dissimilar items that create confusion in the listener, if he pays no attention to the word ‘pound’. There is NO mention of avoirdupois or Troy units per se. Thus the correct answer to the question is that they weigh precisely the same. A similar question might ask ‘Which is the rectangle? A square or a four sided shape?’ As before, the answer has to be that they are the same by the definition of a rectangle. Unless you are told that one shape looks like a kite or a rhombus, how else can you answer the question?
@@GH-oi2jf , actually it isn't a puzzle. It is an observation I made. Imperial can't even get a single definition of 'ounce' or 'pound'. It is weighed down with archaic units. I find it particularly funny that the mile is named after the Roman 'mille passus', which translates to 1,000 paces. The Roman mile was closer to being metric than the current mile. I was raised and taught under the Imperial system, but it was soon pretty clear to me that it was an idiotic system. As soon as I learnt metric, and my country adopted it I just rejoiced.
@@UteChewb - The pound is an international unit. There is only one International Pound. “Pound” means International Pound.” “Troy Pound” is a different unit, used only for certain things.
Consider the following math riddle: how many times do I have to fold a piece of paper in half, in order for its thickness to reach the moon? The thickess of apiece of paper is 0.1mm or 40thou and the distance to the moon is about 380'000km or 240'000miles With the metric units it is pretty straightforward, 0.1mm=10^-4m and 380'000km=3.8*10^8m, divide the two and the distance to the moon is about 3.8*10^12 widths of paper. If you have that mumber, you just have to find the closest power of 2. This number I could find in my head using metric measures (I am not particularly strong in mental math). Now consider the nightmare of conversion needed to find this number going from thoussands of an inch, to feet, to miles I've seen americans say metric is for people who can't do maths. Well, I can give an answer to the riddle in my head. Can you do the same using imperial? Maybe yes, but it's far more dificult, with a lot more room for mistakes and errors
Imperial measurement was assembled out of various measurements used in separate fields to be convenient to use offhand instead of trying to eyeball like 53 units at once. Conversion isn't simple because they weren't intended to be readily converted. Metric isn't so much a system designed with conversion in mind as it is a singular arbitrary unit used for everything and then pegged to wherever it fell on whatever universal constant you could cobble together. And it's weird to pretend like you can't do (1/3)(1/16) while remembering the specific 1/3 of a tablespoon measure and then act like anyone can just measure a universal constant in their backyard.
And you nailed it, the metric system is to the imperial system what the civil code is to common law. Two different vision, one focus on arbitrary principle, and one focused on everyday life.
I agree the metric system is obviously better, all engineering classes I took (in the US) were taught with metric units, they would occasionally throw one problem with imperial units so they didn't come as a surprise if we were to ever encounter them in the real world. However the only reason I still use imperial units is purely for cultural reason, its what I grew up with. I know what 60 miles per hour means more than 60 kilometers per hour intuitively. I feel its a bit far fetched to blame the usage of units and lack of conversion as the reason behind the failures you mentioned in the video. Sure, that's why they happened but I would say its more of a problem with lack of competence, not the unit. With all that said, yes I wish I grew up with the metric system.
You could call it incompetence, or lack of communication because one party was using SI units and the other one was using imperial units. NASA needed data to land the probe delivered in SI units but got data in imperial, Air Canada needed fuel in kilograms but got in pounds. Either way both accidents could have been avoided if all parties involved would have used the same system of units.
@@compphysgeek In the NASA case, part of the problem was that in those days it was not easy to show units to large volumes of tabulated data, which tended to be transmitted in numerical form. So although you're correct in ascribing the error to humans, it is asking for it to used mixed measurement systems within a project. Cute story: In the days of the Concorde's design, the French half was metric and the British half was imperial. A friend of my family's was in charge of the design of the (I think, galley) bulkhead between the zones, and all the fittings passing reticulated services through that bulkhead had imperial threads on one end and metric on the other.
A number of years ago, I bought a roll of insulating tape. It was marked "10 yards. Approx 9.144 metres." I wondered at the time why anyone would convert to "approximately" the nearest millimetre. It's not just measurements which can cause problems. If you live in France and buy a generator or any other equipment using an American motor, such as Briggs and Stratton, you will find a sticker saying "use only gas oil mixture". "Gas oil mixture" is 2-stroke petrol and oil. In France, "gasoil" is diesel fuel. Don't mix the two up!
I work in video and broadcast. If you think Imperial is bad, think about NTSC. It uses a framerate of 59.94 frames per second. Compare that with PAL (60 fps), and you get an idea about how frustrating it is to work with NTSC. Yet the only reason we still use fractional framerates is because America won't let NTSC die. No one else cares about it.
When navigating at sea or in the air, distances are still measured in nautical miles, this is true even for countries that never used the imperial system.
The Imperial system was adopted in 1820s as a response to the metric system. The U.S. customary units were standardized in the 1830s and are not the imperial system though both yard and pound were standardized exactly in 1959 as 0.9144 m and 0.45359237 kg respectively. The most obvious difference is in the gallon.
The US gallon was adopted long before the Imperial System defined its gallon, though. The reason for the difference is that “gallon” was not originally a universal unit of liquid measure, but a volume of a particular thing. The US gallon is the old British wine gallon.
The "Gimli Glider" accident was not a conversion failure. Jets measure their fuel by weight. The fueler looked at the number, and assumed that number was pounds. As a pound is a bit more than half a Kilo, he loaded just over half the fuel needed for the trip. The press blamed the fueler, but the accident was 100% the fault of the pilot. His brilliant flying aside, it was HIS fault, and no one else's, that the plane ran out of fuel. The plane's fuel gauge was broken so they used a computer to calculate the amount of fuel they had. But the computer didn't actually measure the fuel volume, it calculated the volume based on fuel used. If the number you enter at the start is wrong, the calculated fuel is also wrong.
@@Kosake82 The DEFINITION of what an imperial unit like inch or mile or gallon is, is given in International ISO (metric) units. So the scientific BASE of any of the old cumersome and outdated units is now tied to the ISO system (because the imperial units had no such scientific referece to natural constants and laws.
As an American, I don't know how to feel about this subject as i was raised around Imperial but i see the benefits of metric. What a do know though is that as an amature scientist I do use metric to do science. I also use Imperial throughout my day. That is how it is and i like it that way. I understand the measurements around me and when going to another country I simply just think in metric. Calling us Americans "old fashioned" and saying we need to get with the times will not do anything, in all honesty you really just spark a need to spite you inside us. All in all yes we should use metric for science but if you want everyone in the US to just randomly switch to metric and insult the system they grew up with you are gonna face some resistance.
I come from germany, and I don't really care who uses which system for themselves. Everybody should use the one he can handle better. Unfortunately there are people who say that America is behind or whatever. But there are also many (also here in the comments) who say that the imperial system is better, the metric system would make no sense or that people who say the metric system is simpler, just too lazy or too stupid in mental arithmetic. But the fact is: the metric system is simpler. If you would teach a person (who has no education) the metric system and the imperial system , he would calculate and think everything in the metric system to almost 100% probability. I once saw an episode of "American Choppers". I think they all grew up with the imperial system, and yet they discussed 5min because they had to calculate 4/7 + 3/8 + 1/3 inch and didn't have a calculator. In the metric system this is just a matter of seconds to calculate in your head. I didn't really want to write that much. All who still read it: I wish you all a wonderful day/night.
For some reason, calories are still used in European food labeling (in addition to kilo joules). It's absurd, but the main reason is probably that the media talks about how much "calories" this or that food has or your intake should be. They specifically don't talk about energy content, just calories that are some kind of fattening things contained - often "hidden" - in various edible things. Energy and energetic are more positive words.
Aviation still uses imperial system for reasons unknown to me. Heights are measured in feet, when they should be in meters. The distances in miles, when they should be in kilometers. And the speed in knots, when it should be in kilometers/hour. And still can't find a reason for all of this.
The US does do metric. I'm an Engineer. Everything I do professionally is in metric. Where don't I use it? In my private life. Why? Because I don't want to recalibrate my internal references. There is no reason for me to do this. There is no personal benefit to me should I do this. If you don't approve, that's too bad. I'm still going to demand MPH in my car.
Well if you all hurried up and started using the Dozenal System already the imperial system would make a little more sense. 10 inched would equal 1 foot.
The only little problem is that as far as I know the inch to foot conversion factor is the *only* common one in the whole Imperial or USC system that is 12. Most others are powers of 2, or odd (as in "unusual", as well as not even) factors like 14, 110 or 112. Other factors of 12 are found in Troy and Apothecaries measures, but these are rather arcane and uncommon
Of course that still leaves 1028 dozenal yards in a mile or 3080 dozenal feet in a mile Even better, 6080 decimal feet is a nautical mile, but only 3628 dozenal feet for the nautical mile :P Interestingly a tablespoon which is 1/6th a fl oz or 0.1666... decimal would be 0.2 dozenal. In fact, I do seem to remember something about the dozenal system being a lot better with fractions and that pesky 0.999... == 1 problem (where I only managed to convince my friend that there's no measurable difference, but he insisted they weren't the same) But where as the entire imperial system is defined in metric and getting ready to implement it would essentially mean taking the extra conversion step at the factory out, converting to a dozenal system would require a lot more effort.
The imperial system was evolved long before the metric. One mile is 1760 yards Half mile 880 yards quarter mile 440 The metre is the length of an arbitary piece of metal in a room in Paris, the fraction of a light year was deduced much later than the metre bar, hence the long run of decimals in your figure. Being brought up working in both systems side by side I can use either as suits the job wanted. Both have drawbacks like decimal having only approximate values for fractions like one third. Where the decimal system does score is in physics and engineering where the system of foot pounds and poundels can be difficult to follow.
Brian Morton so your argument is that, because imperial was first, it is better then new metric system? System that is easier to explain and understand and follow, system that can give more accurate measurents etc.? So by your logic, why the hell are we using numerals and not roman numbers? I mean they were first...(in europe anyway)
Fahrenheit degrees are 80% more precise than Celcius degrees, without having to go to numbers after a decimal point. Fahrenheit has 180 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water VS Celcius' 100 degrees.
@@greggv8 and how does that make it more precise? in Cecius water freezes at 0 Celcius, Fahrenheit it's at 32, water boils at 100 Celcius but at 212 Fahrenheit. So tell me how does it make it more precise or easier system to understand and learn?
Great video! Small correction though: The metre is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum, not just the speed of light which is in fact variable. You make a point of saying metric is based on things that will never change so I think this small details ought to be added.
You're totally right - I knew the speed of light was like that, but it totally slipped my mind while I was making this. My bad. Can't win'm all I guess, right?
Also we could add that a metre was not defined this way, simply later we found much time it takes the light to travel that previously defined distance and changed the definition of a metre. So theoretically you could do the same with imperial.
You are right. But I should add that we shouldn't speak about "the speed of light in a vacuum" because it is an abstraction (there is no such thing in nature as a real vacuum). We still call that speed the "speed of light" only for historical reasons. We should be speaking about the constant of the universe which is the speed limit of causality, as it is defined by the theory of special relativity, and as it appears in many physical phenomena some of which has nothing to do with light (like in E=mc²). We could shorten it into "the speed of causality" or something. Light in a vacuum is going at this speed (in a vacuum) only because the photon is massless.
"All of the metric system is based this way. It's based on fundamental laws of the universe." Except the kilogram, we don't talk about the kilogram. (Disclaimer: I do support the metric system and know this is being reconsidered)
@@alainprostbis It isn't, well I mean it is, approximately, but that's not the definition. It used to be defined as a platinum iridium cylinder in vault in Paris. It was defined by physical object. But today that's no longer the case. It is now based on fundamental laws of the universe.
It's just so that the pilots can feel better about themselves, telling friends and family they flew at 30,000 instead of a lousy 9144 which wouldn't impress a toddler. ATC likes to mess with the pilots telling them they can only fly at FL300.
Right, they use feet for altitude and miles for distance all over the world. But it's nautical miles not US land miles. Nautical mile is 1800 m. And they use knots for speed.
The units of the metric system are based off water not the speed of light. 1ml is exactly 1cm³ and 1ml of water weighs exactly 1gram. if these units weren't based of water all these numbers would not be 1
You missed the real magic of the "old" metric system: conversion of length (m) to volumes (L) to weight(kg) to density (g/cm3) to pressure (kg/cm2) etc…
Well in England, they have a massive mess of a system that everyone (well everyone I've asked, and I've asked a lot of people) simply turns a blind eye to. The fuel economy (mileage) of all cars is in MPG (miles per gallon) but petrol (gasoline) is only sold in litres.
I think it was back in the seventies when the Government said that from then on fule pumps were no longer allowed to dispense in gallons but had to use litres instead. They did not legislate on how we measured our fuel consumption so we still carried on using mpg and we still do. The computer on my modern German made car displays fuel consumption in mpg - long may this continue.
UK imperial makes even less sense than US imperial too. A fluid ounce of water weighs an ounce. A pound is 16 oz, so there should be 16oz in a pint, right? This is true in the US, but in the UK there are 20 fl. oz in a pint, so it weighs a pound & a quarter. There are also very few Brits who know how many yards there are in a mile or how this number is attained. I am one of the few & I think it is crazy! A mile consists of 8 furlongs. A furlong is 10 chains. A chain is 22 yards. This was just about visible on the chart in the video. So a mile is 22 * 10 * 8 = 1760 yards. A yard is 3 feet & 1 foot is 12 inches, so to go up from an inch to a mile, you need to work in 5 different factors. I can understand people using imperial because they are used to it, but there is no way it can be defended as being sensible when there is a much more structured & logical system which can be used instead.
@TheRip72 I think the continued use of 'cups' for cooking and baking, plus the lack of 'stones' for weighing humans makes US standard even more confusing than UK Imperial measures! That said, I wish both countries would switch over fully to metric ASAP.
I agree with most points, BUT the argument that imperial is defined by metric whereas metric is defined by light speed is complete nonsense. First of all, just because most people know metric and need to use it to convert yards and feet doesn't mean that those are defined by metric. In fact imperial units used to be much more commonsense in the past. When people said 10 feet they meant ten lengths of my foot one in front of the other. This of course is variable and unreliable when comparing the measurements to the point of traders employing women with small feet for measuring to hike up the prices. Without a unified measurement unit this is the best we had and much more intuitive than metric. Secondly, just because we have measurement of speed of light in terms of metric units and use it as a universal standard for this measurement doesn't mean they were defined by speed of light . The original meter was defined as a 1 ten millionth part of distance from equator to the north pole. What happened is that we have changed the meter into 1c/299792458s. This is a different unit to the previous metric meter. To prove you wrong all I have to do is write yard as the distance light travels in 0.9144/362628957196800 fortnights. There you have it. Imperial unit defined directly by the speed of light (which is not in metric units). For a metric unit to be defined in terms of speed of light the unit should be round not something ridiculous like a fraction with 9 random numbers under the fraction bar. Even if it was 1/300000000 (which is equal to 0.9993 of an actual meter) I could begrudgingly accept it as defined in terms of speed of light, but not 1/299792458 . The unit defined by speed of light should be its decimal fraction with the numerator set as 1. In a way we could've made the foot as our golden standard unit by changing it's value (like they did with meter) to the distance light travels in one billionth of a second (it would be about 10% longer than it is). After all, as I've mentioned earlier, the foot was not an exact measurement but simply the length of your own foot. The imperial unit of foot is a completely arbitrary distance that happens to be about the length a foot can have.
Airlines still use imperial because it is the standard internationally to talk in nautical miles and feet. It would probably cause a few major incidents if everyone suddenly decided to start talking in KM and metres. We still use miles in the UK. We buy our fuel in litres then work out the miles per gallon. Which is different to US miles per gallon because we use a larger gallon.
My father, an Engineer, was an immigrant from Germany, here in South Africa, and liked the Imperial System because it made a person think. I guess it's much like personal computers before Windows, where Basic programming was regularly used, which also made a person think.
This relates to your post on why learning is so difficult. I've seen numerous youtube posts about why the imperial system is better than the metric system -- all by uneducated 'Muricans who don't know what they are talking about, but who like to think that they know more than they do. Anyone who has learned physics and math knows that the metric system is infinitely easier to use.
Yah.. we really need to make an effort to having the fewest barriers between science and children. Having it be a separate language of measurements, thats certainly a barrier.
this is why the scientists of the world have collectively agreed to use metric. The imperial system needlessly complicates any mathematical calculation involving weight or distance.
I think it is easier to use in a scientific or engineering environment. It's natural in physics and maths. However those decimal places can become meaningless very fast in a real-world, nearest approximation situation which the Imperial system and other measurement systems were built on. Try buying land in India! How many Marla's in one Bigha? 17% of the world's population use land measurement defined by Akbar in the 16th Century. That includes estimations on the sides of hills and in valley with just a glance. Do that with square metres. The bottom line is the metre and square metre are incredibly crude measurements! Interestingly India has a semi-metric currency. Except they use the Lakh (1,00,000) and Crore (1,00,00,000) to move those damn decimal points back a bit to reflect real world monetary values. So you can be a Lakhpati or Crorepati based on your income. That's like being a 100thousandaire, or a 10Millionaire. Measurement systems still have significant social context. Is it decimal? That's an interesting question! As an oldy coming through the imperial system, learning (and using daily) the metric system and dealing daily with the Indian currency system learning new and old is easy AND fun. The brain just switches instantly into the required context. This guy is just wrong in making the comparison about easy and hard learning WRT a 10's based system. They all have simple rules. Learn them and move on. But never remove social context. I am 6'1" and still trying to get my weight down to 85Kg from 91Kg. That's a target of 13.5 Stone. I don't care how many pounds it is. The human brain is an awesome instrument.
My builder brother-in-law uses mm to measure everything. That's the rule for all builders in the UK. When he says for example to my sister "it's 127 mm", she says "what's that in centimetres?" I thought metric was supposed to be easy.
The metric system is not based on science except is an ad hoc way. Otherwise the meter would be the distance light traveled in 3 nanoseconds or some such. The reason it is the absurd and arbitrary 3.33564095 nanoseconds is because that is the length of the platinum iridium prototype meter.
The second is defined similarly there is no reason for being 1s being 1s. That also applies to our 10 based Number System. *In fact non of our guidelines for interpreting nature have a better justification.* Why? There is no objectively better way. As you can see that argument has no point.
Being a private pilot in germany I can tell, it can be even worse. We have nautical miles to measure flight distance, feet to measure altitude, knots (nautical miles per hour) for the airspeed - unless you fly a glider or ultralight, then it's km/h. But we use meters and kilometers to discuss runway length and visibility, also to space our aircraft from clouds. Kilograms for aircraft weight & balance, degree celsius for temperature and hectopascal for atmospheric pressure.
A few notes. The metric is based on science today. Originally, you had objects kept at standard conditions so you could reference off them. The science based definitions came after and were based of said objects - you can easily say the metre is defined by how long it took light the cross the length of the original stick at controlled conditions. As for metric, I wouldnt say you convert between units. There is really only unit, the metre. The other "units" are just scientific notation disguised/shortened as Latin sounding prefixes.
There are different units. There’s grams, metres, seconds, kelvins, candelas, and moles. Then you have derived units such as Hertz, Newton’s, Pascals, Joules, Watts, Ohms, and a whole host of others. Funny fact, the US is officially metric. All their units are described in terms of their SI counterparts by NIST, and then converted to Imperial.
@@AdeptPaladin kinda obvious I was talking only about the units of length... unless you think it makes sense to make a simple convertion from meters to kevin or liters, then I am all ears as you explain. Just gimme a sec, I will warm the popcorn
I always say that the English were the best at maths when we used the pre-decimalisation currency. You try working out £1 5\6 when £1 is 240p and a crown five shillings (being 12p each)
@@GH-oi2jf ehmm... What's your height? 6'2''? Well that means nothing in the rest of the world. 190cm is 6'2'' 191cm is 6'2'' and also 192cm is 6'2'' 🤣 like what you talking about kid, USA is literally born 200years ago wtf you wanna teach the world how to live? Lmao
Some years ago in the UK I went to buy some floor covering. The roll was exactly 2.5 m wide. So I measured up my kitchen floor and went into buy some linear metres of the covering only to be told it was sold by the yard!
The metric system causes people to forget how to use fractions. For precise measuring the US standard system uses tenths, hundredths, thousandths etc. of an inch- every bit as accurate as the metric system. The difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit is arbitrary but Fahrenheit's degrees are smaller giving it the advantage for accuracy. Fahrenheit's 0 degrees for the point salt water freezes (salt water makes up a majority of the Earths surface) and 100 degrees (approximately human body temp) make sense too.
But the inch is still defined by metric standards. Fahrenheit is a logarithmic scale. How is that more accurate than Kelvins, which is on a linear scale?
No , this Video is riddled with mistakes..! There is "zero correlation" between setting any original Imperial measurement as the Metric System was invented "too late" in history.. From Industrial Revolution & majority of Inventions, to the fastest Jets & Moon landings,, were almost entirely produced , using the Imperial measurement system. Add to the fact, that almost all of the technology on the Allies side for WWII was produced using Imperial measurements for making all components. (we supplied France & Russia). The Nautical Mile, is based upon the circumference of the Earth & "remains the standard" because Metric FAILS this relationship & Metric is also inferior in numerous applications. If anyone thinks that kilometres per litre functions better than miles per gallon "is mad",, quantifying "thousands metres per litre",, does not work as well as : miles per gallon... Then, the BS about the speed of light??? Totally Wrong , the distance measurement was approx on the distance around the Poles of Earth "through Paris". Then the relationship of "ten base" simply followed on from ten fingers and toes for counting ; nothing scientific. Assigning Speed of Light as a factor is extreme BS. This ONLY became a set comparative in a later relationship ;"if it were original", it would have been a more proportional number... Metric has advantages with the uniformity of base 10 , although , Imperial has advantages for proportional values such as an inch/foot/yard , whereby Metric is a nondescript index... As an engineer, I've worked equally with both systems ; I found Metric to be very overrated and quite possibly a metric mistake, changing to it...........
MH's post is rather more riddled with mistakes (and vague assertions) than the clip. Here's a few samplers: the Metric system was invented before the imperial system was formalised. It was first described in 1668 and officially adopted by France in 1799. NASA used metric units to calculate the trajectories and kinematics for all their moon landings. Subcontractors and engineers had to convert NASA's requirements to imperial in cases where they could not manage metric. The nautical mile is essentially a measure of angle subtended at the centre of the earth, not distance. It's used because navigation requires spherical trig, not 2D plane-surface trig. It is neither imperial nor metric: like degrees of arc, it is based on the number 360.
first things first. Metric IS NOT more accurate than Imperial. the only thing metric improves over imperial is the ease of use by going full decimal. how does 5 tablespoons and a teaspoon not make sense. a teaspoon is 1/3 of a tablespoon, it's not that hard. and, were talking measuring spoons, not eating spoons, as I so often see people not used to the imperial system use. eating spoons are not a specific volume, like measuring spoons are, and they vary greatly from what we're talking about. yes, imperial length is a mess of different measurements, but they all have their uses. and there's a reason we don't use Roman miles any more. yes, imperial is defined by the metric system, NOW. but that only happened after the metric system started being defined by the speed of light as a way to better improve imperial's uniformity. since the re-defining, Imperial is no less based on "Logical Science™" then metric. by saying "First of all, Metric is based on 'Logical Science™'" as an argument against Imperial, you're saying since Imperial is defined by the metric system, and the metric system is based on "Logical Science™", then you're saying Imperial is based on that same science, which it IS now. try to remember, a meter was originally defined by the length of a specific platinum bar, as a fraction of the length from the equator as measured from the north pole through Paris. it wasn't defined by the speed of light until 1983, where the speed of light was defined as 299,792,458m/s. that's basically defining a measurement by a constant which is defined by the same but older and faulty measurement of the circumference of the Earth. that's no more scientific than saying an inch is the length of 3 average barleycorns, or a foot is the length of King James' foot, then defining a mile from that, and then redefining the inch/foot from that mile. circular definition is just that. also, if metric were truly defined by the speed of light, why base it on 1/299,792,458 instead of 1/300,000,000 or something more decimally correct, like 1/100,000,000 or even 1/1,000,000,000? also, time is not a decimally defined measurement, either. basing the speed of light on a decimal length and dual dozenal:sexagesimal:sexagesimal temporal unit doesn't make much sense either, if you think about it. What you're taking issue with is the units in Imperial, and how they were originally defined, and how that confuses your decimally limited mind. the only thing switching to metric brings is a bit of a loss in mathematical thinking. conversion errors cost money, not the measurement systems themselves. you can have conversion errors going from metric to metric just as easily as you can imperial to imperial, or metric to imperial to metric.
No, errors dont happen as often going from metric to metric. Also you do notice the difference between '1 tablespoon' of sugar or 20gramms of sugar. 20gramms of sugar means you know EXACTLY how much sugar you need...to a single crystal. One tablespoon of sugar could be 250 sugar crystals or 300 crystals and you wouldn't even know the difference. It's just inaccurate.
In the Imperial, and US, System there doesn't seem to be anything shorter than an inch. Or, at least not a standard, or that I've heard of. An inch is also quite long. So, when referring to shorter lengths, there must be cumbersome fractions of an inch. Whereas, in Metric there's the millimetre, which is very short. And, in Metric the lengths can go down to very microscopic lengths, like the attometer.
@@GoodVideos4 hardly anyone uses the Decimeter. People's heights are measured in centimeters. Why list someone's height as 182 centimeters instead of 18 decimeters, 2 centimeters? Nobody has ever said a six foot tall person is 288 quarter inches. Metric tends to have commonly used units that are too small, thus requiring a large number of them, or units that are too large, and thus less precise without resorting to a fraction of a unit. For example a Fahrenheit degree is 80% more precise than a Celsius degree. Thus 71F is plenty accurate, even for all but the most temperature critical of processes. But between 21C and 22C there's a wide enough gulf to ruin a process that really needs to be 21.6C so a C temp gauge *must have* at least two digits after the decimal to read as precisely as an F temp gauge that only reads whole degrees.
@@greggv8 I know that hardly anyone uses the decimeter, and especially for height, or for anything else! It must be referring to that other comment I made. I prefer to reply to the comment, not the person. And, I'd prefer to reply at the comment. The point that I was trying to make there is that saying someone is two yards high, would be much like saying that someone is 18,3 decimeters high. I also mentioned that there! With Celcius measuring, I've found that it often doesn't really matter how much between 21 C or 22 C a temperature is. That is with 21 C or 22 C being good enough, or close enough.
decimeter exists because, basically, each zero has a "rank", the fact people dont use it as much has no bearing on it. since, like you pointed out, its still the same exact amount/size.
I live in a country that converted to the metric system decades ago but I've just recently started working with heavy machinery and I've had to train myself to work with the imperial system. All the hydraulic hoses, fittings, bolts and the pivots pins and pistons for the hydraulic cylinders are in imperial. The trick is to not try to convert everything to metric, which is what I was doing at the start so I could visualise the part I wanted - you have to think in imperial. You have to know that a 15/16th is the next size up from a 7/8th as opposed to just taking it for granted that a 24mm is bigger than a 22mm.
All of my school classes (though college) used the metric system, except for my 6th grade teacher. My 6th grade teacher insisted we bring to school rulers that had the imperial system, and forbade rulers with both. She was also science-illiterate, teaching us absolutely nothing about science, always with a smile on her face. Anyways, it wasn't particularly difficult learning both systems. I am amazed at people who are stubborn and unwilling/unable to learn the metric system. That's America for you.
Your 6th grade teacher was unusual, because rulers with dual scales have been the norm in US elementary education for a very long time. I expect that in most districts such a rule imposed by a teacher would be a basis for a complaint.
Yeah sure, the metric system is easy to learn, but it is a system devoid of any culture or history. The imperial system is based on a history, a culture, and a people. Sure it has some crazy conversions, but if you grow up with it, it's memorized. There are some insane rules in the English language, but nobody's about to give it up for some made up monolithic language that may be a little easier. In a world full of global cosmopolitan culture, it is important to retain the intricate and diverse systems of measurement that humans have invented.
The French revolution and the Enlightenment isn't enough culture and history for you? That's the cultural and historical background for the metric system.
"because its parto our culture", carefull there, you might not like to poke that bear. if everything was kept the same because of culture, im pretty sure america would still be part of england...
"Devoid of any culture or history" - that perfectly describes yourself. The metric system was defined before the Imperial was fully systematised (1793 vs. 1825).
Dont worry about kids needing to know about the metric system to do science, Trump is well on the way to making sure Science will be a thing of the past in US schools.
Well, the Nautical Mile has survived also on European ships. It's 1852 meters. The reason for it to exist is that a Nautical Mile is supposed to be exactly 1 minute of latitude. Which it is, more or less (varying from 1861 meters at the poles to 1843 meters at the Equator).
In the UK we use both! On the roads we use miles and miles per hour; for the height of people we use feet and inches; for weight we use stones and pounds; for milk and beer we use pints. However, for most other drinks we use the metric system! For petrol and diesel we use litres. For temperature we mostly use Celsius. For the weights of food we mostly use metric. In athletics events we use metric. It get's pretty confusing at times but we are definitely not just using the metric system...
Create legislation that all liquids must be labelled and sold to millilitres and litres (Milk, water, fuel); and all food is labelled and sold in grams and kilograms - without accompanying it with imperial equivalents on the label. The whole population would be thinking in Metric measurements in two years. Then move on to distance length measurements after that - and tada - you've changed the country to catch up to the rest of the World.
The Scope of Science No thanks, that would just lead to price gouging, I can already see oil companies charging to same price they do now but just change to liter which in end will cost you 4 times as much for the same amount (since there is about 4 liters in a gallon)
The nice thing about units of measure like "teaspoons" and "tablespoons" is that they are based on things everybody already has in their kitchen. If the recipe called for grams, it would have to assume that everybody had a small scale in their kitchen - which they don't.
In addition, I find the argument that people always use against the Imperial system - that it uses seemingly random and arbitrary numbers to distinguish its units of measure - is exactly what makes the system unique and interesting. This argument also discounts the reason WHY it uses such seeming arbitrary distinctions. Which of course is because each unit was designed to be a convenient size for the things it is designed to measure. I'm 5'9", which tells me that my height is in the ballpark of between 5 and 6 feet (and a little closer to 6 than to 5). Compare that to the meter which being most people are taller than 1 meter and shorter than 2 m makes it in my opinion a pretty poor unit to measure human height.
I have many more examples of course but I think my point has been made. In short, I don't like to argue in favour of one system over the other, I think both systems are quite useful and each has their own pros and cons. Basically, I prefer my rulers to have centimeters one side and inches on the other.
well, a teaspoon in your kitchen may not be the same as a teaspoon in my kitchen. Even the teaspoons in my kitchen drawer differ in size. Yeah, I don't think that speaks for teaspoons as a valid measurement method. It may work for everyday use in your kitchen. But it doesn't work in scientifiy applications. Not unless the teaspoon has an alternative more precise definition. And about scales in the kitchen: I have never been to a european household, where I haven't seen a smal scale for measuring grams.
@@ichbrauchmehrkaffee5785 "It may work for everyday use in your kitchen. But it doesn't work in scientifiy applications." So, more or less exactly what I have said - there are pros and cons for each system of measure. For example I used to work in construction where we had to frequently divide measurements in two. Inches are particularly well suited for that whereas centimeters are not. Try dividing 11.75 by 2 in your head... it's hard without a calculator Now divide 11 and 3/4... which one can think of as 10 and 1 and 3/4, which gives you 5 and 1/2 and 3/8, ie. 5 and 7/8. It looks complicated when I type it out but it's super simple when looking at the tick marks on a tape measure. A good framer can make these divisions in a fraction of a second, much faster than you anyone could calculate it on their phones. The point is is that inches are designed precisely for this purpose and they work extremely well in this capacity. I also have worked with pressure vessels in big refineries, and I much prefer Pounds per Square Inch over Kilopascals. For instance, if a vessel is at 150psi that means that each square inch of it is experiencing 150 lbs. of pressure - pretty easy to visualize. The metric equivalent, which I believe is about 1000 kPa, is a little bit more esoteric as 1 pascal is defined as being 1 kg over 1 meter x 1 second squared - much more scientific and probably prefered by engineers, but a little harder to visualize in real world applications.
America doesn't (and has never) used the Imperial System. The Imperial System is purely a British System, which was formerly used within the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and the British Parliament's "Imperial Weights and Measures Act of 1824" had no affect on America whatsoever, as they'd already been independent from England for about 50 years by the time this new system of weights and measures was created. Funny enough, in this new "Imperial System," the British decided that their new Imperial Gallon would hold approximately 10 pounds of pure water @62°F, therefore the British "Imperial Fluid Ounce" holds approximately the mass of 1 Avoirdupois Ounce of pure water @62°F. The older U.S. Liquid Gallon holds approximately 8.34 pounds of water at the same specified temperature, therefore giving the "U.S. Fluid Ounce" a mass of 1.043 Avoirdupois Ounces when holding pure water at a certain pressure, and a specific temperature of 62°F, meaning that there's a 4.3% difference between both the Fluid Ounces, which doesn't seem like a bunch, but trust me it is. By the way... - 1 U.S. Tablespoon = 14.93 mL - 1 Imperial Tablespoon = 17.76 mL That's a difference of 2.83 mL! By the Way, America's system of Weights and Measures is based on an older version of English Units, around the time of Queen Anne and a little before, and America's units are referred to as "U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS," to save confusion with England's newer developed "Imperial System." So, U.S. Customary Units do in fact predate British Imperial Units by 50 years, probably even more! The main difference between these two sets of English Units are the units of Volume, Mass, and Length. For Example, the U.S. Ton is 12% less than an Imperial (Long) Ton. And the Mendenhall Order of 1893 redefined the to exactly 3600/3967 m. That's why America has a set of U.S. Survey Measures (Survey Feet, Survey Mile), as well as the set of International Measures agreed upon by America, Britain and the Commonwealth in 1959. That's why the U.S. Survey Foot and the International Foot differ in size by 1.83 microns, and also why the two Tons differ in size by by 240 lbs.
A major reason we should dump the imperial system is expensive international construction projects. There is a true story of a space venture where to parts of a system wouldn't match up, on made using imperial measures in USA, and one made with metric in Europe. The root of the problem: The European engineer assumed that there was 10 inches per foot. So they interface they created to couple the subsystems was too small.
The metric system failed in the US for reasons. While I do like the metric system overall, two things keep me from embracing it completely. 1. Millimeters. Yes, there are centimeters and decimeters etc., but that becomes a problem. People don't like to use so many different units, and as you say... conversions lead to errors. Most engineering drawings use millimeters exclusively, even when the numbers start to get so large that it becomes difficult to conceptualize... It is WAY easier to envision 50 inches than 1,270mm. The alternative would be to go ahead and use meters, centimeters, decimeters etc. on engineering drawings. You laugh at the Mars satellite thing, but just imagine how often manufacturers would mistake units... Receiving parts that were 10 times too big or too small than what you ordered would be commonplace. The metric system's heart was in the right place, but they had such a hard-on for making units "make sense" when comparing length to weight to volume, that they ended up with a base unit (meters) that just wasn't very useful for most things. An inch is just a more useful length, regardless of the history of how it became an inch in the first place. If they just would have taken an inch and made milliinches and kiliinches etc., I would have been all in. If there were 10 inches in a decainch, instead of 12 inches in a foot. The U.S. would have converted in the 1970s. Overall though, I would gladly just switch to metric system, rather than having to convert between two systems all of the time. 2. Temperature. Same issue as above. The metric system has such a hard-on for making different units make some sort of scientific sense that they ended up with a base unit that isn't useful for the other 7 Billion people on the planet who aren't scientists. The proponents of Celcius will go on and on about how their scale makes more sense with water. and water is the most important thing to know the temperature of. sigh. I really, REALLY like the idea of 0-100 scales. I'm ALL for it. Lets get a show of hands for how many people here can even remember the last time (if ever) that they had to measure the temperature of their water. Ok, now how many can remember the last time they wanted to know the temperature of their DAY? 0 degrees Fahrenheit = It's really fucking cold out and if you don't take precautions you will die. 100 degrees Fahrenheit = It's really fucking hot outside. If you don't take precautions, you will die. Is it scientific? not at all. More useful for the VAST majority of human beings? yep
Fahrenheit is still so intuitive it’s ridiculous. Think of it as a percentage of how hot it is. 0%, you’ll freeze your head off. Quite cold going up to around 40, when you figure you’ll be okay. 60% hot and up is quite nice, but you’re practically dead past 100. See?
I was brought up with both & that is not intuitive at all. You have simply got used to it. 0 was defined as the freezing temperature of fully saturated brine & 100 was defined as the blood temperature of the person who defined it....except blood temperature is 98.2, so they had a fever when designing the scale! Celsius is defined by the freezing & boiling points of pure water at room temperature, which is much more repeatable. Anything in the negative will be icy & anything positive will not.
TheRip72 I meant in terms of the temperature outside. Celsius is great for science, but if you want to know what to wear outside, Fahrenheit is the way to go for me. -An American
Americans wanted to do something different than what Great Britain did they didn’t want to follow Great Britain cause they wanted to be independent. The roads is another example.
One convenient thing about the foot (as opposed to the meter) is that it's divided into twelve smaller segments. Thus, there are more easy fractions than a system with ten sub-units. For example, 1/3 of a meter is 33.3333cm, where 1/3 a foot is 4in. Aside from basic arithmetic, there's no excuse to keep USCS. We just do it because we wanna be different
The benefit to the imperial system is visualisation and estimation. If I say something is 10ft it's easy to visualize how big that roughly is when you reference your foot. Saying 3.048 meters doesn't really work as well for that. This is why for rough work I feel imperial is faster. I use both systems but if I'm doing rough carpentry it is MUCH faster to use imperial. Easier to remember lots of measurements without having to write them down.
According to the discovery channel, the US use neither imperial or metric, but mini vans for weight, football fields for lenght and swimming pools for volume.
As tall as two empire state building plus a statue of liberty!!!! Thats 3211 feet and 11 + 5/16 inches! (Or... 979 meters).
Martinus sigsgaard Everything is measured in football fields! The funny part is that a football field is 120 yards long; the end zones are part of the field.
OMG I just realized we've been using a new customary measure for a while now. 1 football field = 100 yards. So instead of saying 500 yards people on TV say 5 football fields. Why? Because more people understand how long a football field is than 100 yards. People hear yard and think of out the back door not a unit of measure. A dare you to walk 17 football fields in his shoes. :)
Football fields... and they do not even refer to proper football fields. Their sport have nothing to do with feet (except for running, not contacting with ball) and it isn't even a freakin' ball! Why not call it American Rugby? That or make the descriptive name accurate: Armpitleatherprojectile instead of Football.
James Bernadette
"Armpitleatherprojectile"
Thanks for the laugh! :D
Some alligators can grow up to 15 feet.
But, most only have 4. :-)
@Vayne Carudas Solidor "feets" the plural form of "feet" which is Tha plural form of "foot".
Well well well Mr. Russell Coight
@@Marnige Footseses.
Lmao nice
some have 3 due to their friend mistook it for a food, or was it?
For imperial system users, I still don't understand why a cent is not 1/53 of a dollar.
Just saying.
Love this as a analogy.
For the same reason the meter is based on a 20 decible place second?
In a way, this is still pretty much the case:
1 nickel is 5 pennies
1 dime is 2 nickels
1 quarter is 2.5 dimes (or 5 nickels)
1 dollar is either 4 quarters, 10 dimes, or 20 nickels
The numbers aren't as odd as the ones for distance (inches to feet to yards/miles/etc), but the only conversions that use sensible numbers are pennies to dimes to dollars (1:10:100)
Completely different. Vent means 100, there is a direct relationship. US units do not have relationships to each other
Could somebody explain this?
Edit: Answered below by Tobias Johansson.
The only Imperial thing i like is the Imperial Star Destroyer.
And of course the "Imperial March"...
I can only imagine this is from Star Trek or lost in space or something like that?
Lee Jones Wrong. It is from Star Wars. 😂
Kylar195 I knew I’d draw someone in 😉🤣
1 ISD (Imperial Star Destroyer) = 1.200 Meter
The Danish recommended limit for alcohol intake for adults was set too high, because it was based on an English study. The study had been (wrongly) converted from pints to litres. So for 20 years the Danes have drunk too much alcohol due to a conversion error.
Known fact: Danish people can't drink too much tuborg beer.
Det er rigtigt, har selv hørt det.
Cannot think why The Danes made a mistake; it is, after all, simple arithmetic. 1 pint (UK) = 568 mL.
Finns do not care of recommended amounts. They drink until they pass out.
@@beaker2257 perhaps they used american pints, which are different
Are you sure that was an accident? (cf Heisenberg miscalculating the critical mass of Uranium)
in summer of 2001 I was on a vacation in italy (I am german, so it is not that far away from where i live). I met an american tourist, and she seemed really open to all the european culture and what not.
one evening, we talked about gas prices and she said, that she always heard gas was so much more cheaper in the US than in europe, but she saw a gas station where it stated only 2000 Lire per galone (Lire was the italian currency before the Euro, and if i remember correctly, it was around 1500 Lire per dollar) which would have been pretty cheap. I laughed and said, "No it is 2000 Lire per liter" and she replied...."what's a liter?"
yeah im america its so cheap like its what.. 2 /2,5 a gallon and a gallon is about 4 liters
You have to keep in mind that America is a whole continent unto its self. Each state is the size of a country, so please do not think less of Americans for being used to American stuff. It is quite natural after all.
H.J. Fleischmann But most state of America already adopted the metric system, only U.S.A. still keeps the imperial System .
I do not know a single U.S. State that uses the Metric System. Also, the U.S. does not use the Imperial System, but rather U.S. Customary. I know it is confusing, but the measurements are different.
H.J. Fleischmann I have not said that U.S. States use the metric system, i'v said that most American states use it, theoretically all American states adopted the metric system except the U.S. .
I always found it fascinating that americans have no idea what a centimeter is, but they know exactly what 9mm are :D
Yes because they got 9mm in their brain with mother's milk but not cm.
Very good argument!
Run
Ask them about the 10mm they'll know that too so after that you can combine the two info for them;)))
@Gazz_TFP ...and that's why the Mars Orbiter crashed...
CENTimeter... weird... but 100 CENTs to the $$... no problem :-)
Just some fun stuff...
American gallon = 3,79 litres
Imperial gallon = 4,54 litres
Fuel consumption used to be measured in "miles per gallon" but in most countries I've been to it's now "litres per 100km". Using the gal/litres conversion button on American calculator not knowing this produces some amazing consumption figures.
The city of Johannesburg South Africa was laid out some 160 years ago. Two surveyors were contracted with a certain straight street making up the border of their respective areas. For some reason they started setting out from the outside and working inwards towards this street. Weird, but that's how the story goes...
After many months of work, they met at this common street. Since they were setting out a perfectly rectangular grid, they expected to find all the crossings lining up perfectly. Unfortunately one surveyor was using "English" feet and the other "Cape" feet. This was in about 1870 - long before motor cars, so the authorities decided "what the heck? We can live with it!"
So that is why, if you drive along this common street, you will notice the crossing streets are perfectly aligned at a certain point but are increasingly misaligned as you go along.
Last one, before metrication of my country's currency from £/s/d to ZAR/c, it was a nightmare being sent to the grocery store with a £2 note and being expected to bring back the correct change from buying 2lbs of sugar at 5s,6½p the lb, ½lb of tuppenny rice and 5 lollipops at 3 for a farthing.
Does the USA still use the penny system for nail sizes i.e. "go to the store and get 5 dollars worth of three-penny nails"?
Them were the days...
I'm American and I don't even know how to measure properly using the American measurement system... that's why I switched to Metric for everyday use.. At least this way I don't need to do weird conversions and unnecessary math. lol
Agreed. I use it for personal stuff too.
I kinda never use Imperial units besides mph and mi anymore
Blowingmind exactly. I’d like to switch over to metric completely but I just need to take the time to rewire my brain to figure out the distance for a kilometer without comparing it to a mile
way to go
@@tomb5862 That's fine. Switching from national currency to € was weird as well for a short while.
The metric system is a mathematically superior system of measurement.
The Duodecimal system is mathematically superior to the decimal system. But we don't use it for the same reason: change is difficult and potentially dangerous (but potentially beneficial).
The Ranger no its not. not to the human mind. we have 10 fingers and it makes the metric system better. like way better.
@@alainprostbis Correct me if I'm wrong, but people generally stop relying on their fingers to count fairly early on, like at 10 years old. The fact that we have 10 fingers becomes irrelevant to the way we think of numbers after that point. Besides, you can count the duodecimal/dozenal system on your fingers as well. You have 2 joints on each finger, making 3 parts on each finger. Excluding the thumb, that makes 12 parts to count with.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal
The only reason our brain understands the decimal system so easily is because we've done it our whole lives. I strongly believe that if you were raised using the dozenal system, itd be 2nd nature to you.
The Ranger well that is not the case. never at school are you even encouraged to count on your fingers. that is something completly intuitive. you always have your 10 fingers in front of you and your world representation is the way it is because of that. to force a 12 base unit would be like to force a left handed person to write with their right hand. people used to do that in the past with very limited success.
all that because of a stubborn refusal of using the metric system...that is so lame.
also don't think that just changing the metric system alone from base 10 to 12 would work and make your life easier. you would first and foremost have to change our numerical system as it is a 10 based system. you know that you go from 9 to 10 and at this point you reach a different category of numbers for instance. (from 1 digit to 2 digits)...good luck changing the numbering system...would Americans ever considering ditching the 10 base numbering system? of course not...
a 12 base measuring system with a 10 base numbering system would be useless. this is the main reason the metric system is so useful and intuitive. people who have adopted it don't go back. not for a long time at least.
to give you an idea of the change you would need 1 more symbols, say t , to represent our 10, and another one, say e, to represent eleven.
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9,up to that point ok.
then t (meaning 10), e (meaning11),
then 10 (meaning actually 12), 11 (meaning 13, )...and so on...oh my the simplicity...every thing changes of meaning beyond this point.
an alternative would be to design 12 entirely new symbols. but it would be even weirder...
does any advocate of the 12 base measuring system ever talk about this? I think not...
I just moved to Canada and thought "oh well, I'll be fine... they use the metric system"
And now I am here, trying to find an apartment and everything is in fucking square foot??? I mean why? 0.o
ParticleFairy welcome to my whole life in Canada. kilometers for vehicles, ft and inches for height, liters for volume, ounces for deli... its crazy
ParticleFairy I think it is because it sounds like a lot of land when it actually is little, business thing.
It sounds more impressive to say 860 sq ft than 80 sq m.
It's also kinda awkward in my hometown, Taiwan. Although we use metric system in most stuff, we use the unit "Ping(3.305m2)" to measure apartments, and use the unit "Kah(9699m2)" when it comes measuring farmland. "Ping" is originated from Japan, which is half of the size of a Tatami (a kind of grass mat). On the other hand, we get "Kah" from Dutch East India Company. (the original Dutch word: Akker; only the second half of the word is used nowadays by us)
Because the USA is the main trading partner of Canada, so Canada cannot say goodbuy to the imperial system as a whole. When the USA switched to the metric system, Canada is the first to follow.
The key reason that area for living space is measured in sq ft is that construction in Canada is still based on imperial measurements. Because the US is our largest trading partner, and especially for lumber, all construction materials are based on feet and inches. Once beyond that scale though everything is metric (i.e., we use meters instead of yards). I'm a Gen Xer so I was taught both units in school (and I've done DIY construction), but anyone born after the mid-1980s (or immigrants) likely has difficulty working with imperial units unless in a profession that uses them regularly.
Similarly, baking units in Canada are in imperial (as evidenced by the frustrations that lead to this video). Humourously most baking supplies are SOLD in metric equivalents of imperial units (you'll often see 454 g of flour... or 1 lb). This too is because of our trading partner to the south. I can only imagine the frustrations of those who can't instinctively convert because they are too unfamiliar with the units.
This video does NOT make metric system seem logical. You should've given more examples. Like how a litre of water weights 1kg. Or that 1 cubic centimeter of water weights 1gram and takes 1 joule to heat it up 1 degree. Or how water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100. Or that 10mm is 1cm, 100cm 1m and 1000m is 1km. Instead you told us that 1m is the distance light travels in 3.33564095 nanoseconds..
A year late, but Celsius isn't metric.
Edit: I'm misinformed. It is a derived metric unit but not the base unit of temperature. Thanks below commenter.
@@Hugodenbeste it is. The metric system is nowadays a synonym for the International System (SI) in which the degree Celsius is a derived unit.
@@Triattt
I'm not exactly sure what derived unit means.
The base unit for temperature in SI is Kelvin (K).
It takes 1 calorie to heat 1 cm^3 of water 1 K (indeed, that's the definition of calorie, give or take a few boundary conditions). 1 Joule is the quantity of energy transferred to an object when a force of 1 N is exerted on it by the distance of 1 m.
@@Hugodenbeste A derived unit is a unit that is part of SI but is not one of the fundamental 7 units (m, s, [k]g, cd, A, mol, K)
°C are a metric unit defined (derived) as K + 273.15
Doing Geometry in Imperial must be a Nightmare! 😂😂
Are you being sarcastic or serious? I can't tell.
Noel Masson
I think he/she is serious
Doing anything in Imperial must be a nightmare.
@@noelmasson serius
Imagine doing Quantum physics in imperial units......
Consistency is key for all convertions.
Metric is always based om a factor of 10, in every single case.
I would probably understa amerikans better if they had the same logic. Havind different convertion rates is what makes it witchcraft to me.
We kinda just choose our favorites
Floz, lb, in/ft/mi are generally all we ever use. After that we just watch the numbers grow really
The reason you don't "understand" is because you irrationally assume a measurement system's value is in all in its unit conversion, rather than measurement itself. Imperial measurements are based on units of practical size. Nobody in their day-to-day lives has to convert inches to miles, or cups to gallons, or ounces to tons; you just pick whichever unit is more convenient for the sort of thing you're measuring.
Bill M exactly I don't how these non Americans don't get it
Bill M right, they try to apply metric logic to our system and wonder why things don’t work.
"Metric is always based om a factor of 10", only for the most part! What about time, magnetic units, and heat units?
Whether the unit is fraction friendly, whether it's easy to scale to larger/smaller units, whether the unit size happens to be convenient to what you are measuring, or whether you are a neophyte that prefers the system you were raised with are all pretty concerns. The biggest problem with non-metric unit systems is that they do not have provisions to associate one kind of measurement with another. Converting between mechanical, thermal , chemical, and electrical measurements is cumbersome and often only resolved through empirical measurement.
The real reason that the metric system is important is because it has these associations built in as part their definitions. That makes converting from one system to another trivial. If I need to know how much current I need to drive a 220v hydrolic pump motor that will lift a 2000kg car up 2m in 5s , I can make that calculation without having to look up conversions from mechanical forces/distances to electric measurements. I can also directly figure out how much heat must be dissipated to lower the car and what temperatures the pieces of equipment might reach in the process of doing so with relative ease.
That is the real compelling reason for the metric system.
@Craig X His point is that one system uses arbitrairy values with no direct relation to one another whilst the other has a foundation in the decimal base (the base used for arithmetic). You always have to "memorize a bunch of numbers", however the accuracy and by extention the simplicity of what you have to remember is vastly different between the two.
How tall are you in inches? In feet? In feet+inches? In yards? How many decimals do you drop when you actually talk about your length? Inch is the smallest practical unit in terms of length after all (which is aprox 2.5 centimeters!), and we still have millimeter. A millimeter is a little smaller than 1/25th of an inch.
I'm 173 cm or 1.73 m, or 1730 mm, or 17.3 dm, or 0.00173 km. I can pick the unit depending on the required accuracy. Which in terms of a person's height would be m or cm and in terms of driving distance would be km. And the numbers remain the same regardless of the unit because the units are related to eachother by base 10.
How many gallons fit in a square foot? How many cups?
1 decimeter³ (10x10x10 cm) contains 1 liter. 1 centimeter³ contains 1 milliliter or 0.001 liter.
How many inches is a foot? Now how many inches long is YOUR foot? My foot is 25 cm long (0.81 feet). How many ml goes into a teaspoon? How many ml goes into YOUR teaspoon? Our feet and teaspoons come in various sized. The arbitrairy and unrelated measurements of the imperial system give way to inaccuracies. The point of an empirical system is for it to be universal.
Once you learn a measurement system, it doesn't really matter. It becomes natural to you. However in terms of simplicity of conversion and use, the metric system has a clear advantage. Because all the measurement units are steps in the decimal base, which is what we use for arithmetic. Hexadecimal(16) base uses a-f to represent 10-15. Imagine saying you're 1f years old (that's 31 by the way). It sounds impractical right? That's because you think in tens! That's what the imperial system is to metric users. It doesn't take "how we think numbers" into account and therefor makes calculation more complex than they need to be.
The metric system on the other hand, is neat and tidy, and its rules are universal. Am I losing accuracy due to the unit I'm using? Just go down a step. Am I being too accurate and have too many zeroes at the end? Just go up a step. So I didn't walk 1.540.000 millimeters to the store, I walked 1.54 kilometers. And I'm 1.73 meters tall. But my index finger is 11 millimeters wide. There's always a unit for your required accuracy and it's always easy to relate to any other measurement. Neat, tidy, and simple to use.
For fun, translate all the metric numbers I've used in this post to imperial. Look at the complex numbers you end up with and compare that complexity to the numbers I've given. That's the difference in "ease" you are denying.
@Craig X
It comes down to how complicated the equations are. Computers have no problem 'memorising' a bunch of different numbers. However if one equation has much less 'conversion' variables to calculate then the computer can do that faster. Not a problem if you are only doing a single calculation but if you are doing millions, or billions, that can make a difference. There is a reason most, if not all, fields of science and engineering uses metric, even in the US, and that is because metric is just better at doing the job most of the time.
This is not true. Imperial has units like slugs, pound-force etc. Which do the same thing, but are only really used by engineers, not common people.
@@NLTops you might want to check your ³ to l conversions again ;)
1 dm³ = 1 l
1 cm³ = 1 ml or 0.001 l
Squares and cubes mix it all up a bit ;)
An interesting MS unit is the bar. Not sure if it's completely part of SI, but it's the pressure of a 10m tall column of water on 1 cm², which is approximately the pressure of the atmosphere at sea-level. Pretty convenient, no? And also quite practical for other applications.
@@MadManchou Right! I'm an idiot! Imagine how bad I'd mess up if I had to work in the American Standard System. xD No idea why I added liters to be honest. It's about just another unit for volume.
I do not understand how a big country like the USA so advanced in technology can be so behindhand in measureing system.
It's completely archaic to add feet with fingers and coffee spoons with teaspoons, really people do not realize ?
However there are many people from over the world in the US and they find amusing to return to the Middle Ages ?
danny Touet Well, it is consistent with the results of our elections, especially the latest one.
Metric is used in the US for trade in certain commodities: soft drinks in half liter (500 ml), liter, 2 liter, and 3 liter bottles, but the (US variant of) Imperial for small serving sizes, such as fountain drinks and cans (most commonly 12 ounces (FLUID ounces, a measure of volume, not mass or weight, because one fluid ounce of water has a mass of about one (avoirdupois) ounce)).
Illegal drugs are sold between dealers in kilograms, and legal prescription and over the counter dosages are in milligrams (or for really concentrated pills, International Units (IU), which is a measure of biological effect, not actual mass).
Because of the influence of Olympic Games, standard running events are mostly metric (riddle: what's the most appropriate place for a 5K run? Three Mile Island), with a few exceptions due to historic records, such as the mile run and 100- and 40-yard dash, and the marathon (26.2 US miles, based on the distance from Marathon to Athens, Greece).
And in the late 1960s and 1970s, when tobacco was still advertised on US television, there were long, thin cigarettes (because of the idea that a longer smoke path meant less tar; but that's only true if you stop halfway) advertised as 100 millimeters, and one brand advertised their 101 millimeter cigarettes as "a silly millimeter longer").
The main advantage of the Imperial system is as a source for many trivia questions. There are units for volume of loosely packed items of produce, such as ears of corn (maize), called "dry measures," such as bushels and pecks; powders and liquids, or fluid measures, all of which have British (true Imperial) and US variants. There are very small fluid units formerly used to dispense and mix medicines, such as drams (with a D) and minims, and stretching the meaning of "medicine," an old term for bars specializing in whiskey is a "dram shop" (because a shot glass holds about a Dram?).
Large amounts of wine are stored in bottles named for Biblical kings, ranging from a Jeroboam up to a Nebuchadnezzer. Horse racing tracks are measured in furlongs (furrow-lengths), 220 yards in a furlong, 8 furlongs in a mile, and the horses themselves are measured in hands of height (4 inches, or about 100 mm) and weighed in stones (14 pounds). And a special weighing system for PRECIOUS metals: 12 Troy ounces (bigger than avoirdupois ounces) in a Troy pound, smaller than the avoirdupois pound, which is 16 avoirdupois ounces (hence a (Troy) pound of gold is LIGHTER than a (avoirdupois) pound of feathers)!
Have fun figuring out the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight (14 days or two weeks)!
I prefer the simple logic of our metric system
Body measurements are actually very convenient. Do you carry a meter stick with you everywhere you go? I do carry feet and a thumb with me everywhere I go. If you're measuring for something that will fit on your desk at the hardware store, not a life or death aerospace calculation or something, it's very helpful to be able to get pretty close like that. And the math is equally easy so long as you just use one unit at a time, it becomes exactly like metric.
danny Touet because we aren't behind you dip
Allan Richardson yes because Hilary was so advanced and great for America. You're a moron
I was bought up with the Imperial system but converted 30 yrs ago, now I use both, converting back and forth in my head, I curse the Imperial system, I truly wish I had never heard of it. please get rid ASAP, Metric is way, way easier and kids pick it up very fast...
British, feel the same. I wish I had learned metric as a kid. Our roads still have speed limits in MPH. We weigh ourselves in stones, and yanks use pounds , so we need a calculator to find out how much American football guys weigh. I use metres and cm for small distances, and miles for long distances. It's great being over 50. Young Americans, rise up! Use metric, and ignore old men who hate science and love the sound of their own voice.
@@neilwilson5785 In Britain,it is much more important to drive on the right side of the road than make a metric measurement!
@@bpark10001 Wrong - In Britain, it's more important to drink beer by the pint
Not so fast! There are things in the imperial system that are better, such as the thread standards for screws. Divide length unit by 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 36 for the "base system". Multiply by 2 or divide by 2 to get finer/coarser threads. Metric system does not have such simple standard. It is much more complicated to set up change gears for lathe to cut threads in metric. Even metric lathes can't cut as many metric threads as imperial lathe with the provided gearing. Way worse is that metric threads are way too fine (look at all the TH-cam videos of people removing stripped bolts from engine blocks. This happened since metric threads are used on engines.) The threads strip before the screw breaks, and are not tolerant of fitting tolerances. Airplanes are held together with imperial fasteners (Army/Navy standard), & many "utility threads" subject to repeated use (such as the ones on cameras & lenses for mounting on tripods) are imperial, despite camera innovation & design being primarily in Europe & Japan.
Mystery is why image file standards are in pixels per inch & not metric.
@@steve-wright-uk And then drive on the right?
Whats better is that our systems foot and pound standard is based directly off of the kilo and meter standard. One inch isn't almost 2.54cm, it is exactly 2.54cm. Same with the Quart, it is .946L. Why an inch can't be 2.5cm and a quart be exactly 1L is beyond me.
It's because the Imperial System was defined first then the metric came in so they couldn't change the imperial anymore to fit the metric units.
actually the builders of the pyramids of giza already used the metric system, but obviusly didnt use the word metric for it.
my guess is that so many people used both, it would be to much work to change entire civilizations, because the measurement systems didn't convert in nice round numbers
Sorry Pladimir Vutin, but your mistaken 1 inch equals 25.3937mm, when I trained to be a Fitter and Turner back in the 1970's we had to learn both metric and imperial systems. and EXACT conversions as we often worked to within .0001 of a inch or 1 micron
Mike, the US imperial system was redefined in 1959. A yard became exactly 0.9144 m, and an inch became exactly 25.4 mm. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch
What would happen if the USA changed from Imperial to metric overnight?
There would be mass confusion!
Which country changes their system overnight?
None!
So this isn't an excuse to say America can't change.
Because changing overnight is the most stupid way to change, it takes time to do so. If you even start that is.
Edit:Ngl, i did completely miss the pun. The point was a very realistic argument that was commonly used for countering change of the imperial system.
Nacho it would be a slow process that would take a while to fully convert. But it sure would make us less stupid to the global community if we switched.
A lot, but for sure everybody will be driving really slow.
The UK went from pounds, shillings and pence to decimal currency in the late sixties, but the process was not overnight. Before the change over there was a long period of public education. It worked out fine in the end and the only people that didn't like it were the really old and people who just moan anyway.
Was that pun intended?
The US military has been using Metric since Vietnam, "The LZ is 10 clicks away (10 Kilometres)". It's been in all the movies.
10 clicks is a tenth of a mile. So no the U.S.Army has not been using the metric system since the 1970's You must not be an American or you don't really know any thing about the military.
dduffey60 They do use metric in military.
A click is military speak for a kilometre. You must not have ever served. Or done any orienteering.
Yeah, but strangely NATO uses imperial. So while Swedish Viggen fighters had everything defined in metric, the more export-friendly and NATO compatible Gripen uses imperial. Thanks, America.
@@dduffey60 if 10 clicks is a tenth of a mile, then 50 clicks must be a fiftieth of a mile ;)
Who needs M6, M8, M10 etc nuts and bolts when you can have 13/16ths Whitworth or 7/8th BSF or.....
Actually, if you use the M6, M8, ...etc. they will break or strip. Most metric bolts have threads so fine they could be painted on!
@@bpark10001 I don't understand. I've used for years metric bolts and have no problem.
How do you use them ? ;)
@@RealMrTea How have you used bolts? Most have threads too fine (my joke is that metric bolts have their threads "painted on"). In the imperial system, there are 2 standards: "national course" and "national fine". The coarse is for "normal everyday" use where fastener is not under high stress. There is a lot of clearance built-into the standard so bolts don't jam if they get dirty or the manufacturing is not held to tight tolerances. This is good for bolting the plow onto the tractor, or holding cheap shelving units together. The fine standard is used for critical fasteners (engine head bolts, airplane bolts) which ate made to high standard with tight clearances and tolerances, and hardened steels. "metric" bolts are really not metric, they are "European", and are made as if every bolt cost $10 to make, being precision machined from hardened steel. But most of them are made cheaply from the softest steel, and to loose tolerances. This causes them to strip and break (or they strip out the hole they are threaded into). What is weird about metric bolts is that design extends to the head geometry, slot type, and steel alloy (these have nothing to do with the metric standard).
Metric threads are more difficult to cut on a lathe, even for metric lathes (you need more gears to cut all standard metric threads).
Hi @@bpark10001 !
By beeing an european citizen, it's hard to verify, but the Mxx normalisation, for exemple the M10 is based on an ISO rule.
And ISO members are most country in the World, including all North America country, si normaly not so "Just an european thing" ;)
See membership : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization
In addition, i've made and use bolts from my studies to my firsts workplacement, including heavy machinery and never see specialy faulty bolt.
In another way, prices un US are realy cheaper than in Europe and i'm not so surprise, if i learn that for cost efficiency, Metric Bolts importations are cheap ones ;)
@@bpark10001 Thats pretty incorrect. Compare aircraft screws: they have even finer threading and take MORE load. Fine threads distribute the load better then coarse ones and the bolt core diameter is larger. UNF is more than 10% stronger than UNC, coarse metric is between UNC and UNF and fine metric is even finer than UNF. Or ask someone at Böllhoff to explain this to you, since when it comes to fasteners, they know what they are doing. I've also put a number of M4 to M6 into plain plywood, and even there I managed to rip bolt heads off and not pull the threading out.
Its very strange, some countries still use imperial for specific things... maybe its just my imagination but Top Gear still uses miles for all distances and fuel ratings. Despite most other countries using km for speedometers and road signs/fuel consumption averages, could the UK be holding it back as well?
Yah, its the same way in Canada - we officially use metric, but we actually use a bit of both... its infuriating!
adam the only ones that use a little bit of both is the uk and some of their colonies.
The Scope of Science In the U.K. We measure height in ft and inches, and miles (which are actually just labels used for kilometres). Older people use it in cooking. Most people do their weight in imperial too. That said, metric is so much easier it's what we're taught as children.
For what it's worth, I like the variety, I feel like if we used metric for everything the world would lose some of its beauty.
The Scope of Science the uk uses a little of both for one simple reason. the metric system was invented by the French. pride trumps progress it seems.
The oldest text about the meter is from John Wilkins first secretary of the Royal Society of London. The U.K. has no pride it seems.
I am American and I use both. It's hard to switch when you grow up being taught one way. But when I started building furniture and needing to add and subtract fractions down to the 64th I switched to decimals and later I just switched to using a metric tape and putting metric scales on my tools. Made the math a lot easier.
Here in Argentina, a lot of cities are built in a extremelly regular fashion, so most blocks are 100 mt. So, lets say, I have a friend of mine that lives 16 blocks away from me, I know that he lives 1600 meters away from me, that's 160000 centimeters, or 1,6 km. I know a lot of cities are not that regular, but it baffles me how hard the whole mile-feet-etc convertion is in comparision
"The Imperials think we need their laws" ~Stormcloaks
When I went to the uni to get my Master in chemistry I worked with US-American publications as well. One day I really found PSI as a pressure unit. Fortunately I knew that PSI is pounds per square-inch. And fortunately I knew about what an inch was. But my trouble was about the pound…. WHICH pound?! As you use several different pounds and our pound (old and not used anymore) is different to yours I faced some trouble! :-D There was no internet in the lab. ;-)
Answering to myself:
Btw: Do the US have imperial seconds, too? Is a cubic foot equal to a gallon? If a gallon was put in a cubic shape how long would the cube's length be in inches? If you poured this gallon of water into a cubic vessel with a volume of one cubic yard... what would be its fill-level in inches?
The international pound was adopted in 1959. The second is universal, not metric or Imperial. It is incorporated in SI as a legacy unit.
Your questions about liquid measure are not to be taken seriously. That is not how liquid measure works in common units.
By the way, the USA have never used the Imperial System. We use US Customary units.
@@GH-oi2jf The US uses the inch, the foot, the yard.... the spoons, the cups and the gallons... and ounces troy and avoirdupois.... and pounds troy and avoirdupois. And about my questions concerning liquid measurements you are mistaken... seriously!
Imagine the calculations for constructing a culvert:
If there's rain and the amount is 3 mm.... what is the amount of rain in liters per square meter?
And now with 'US-units': If it has rained an 1/8 of an inch... how many gallons of rainwater have dropped on a square yard?
@@knutritter461 A Masters in Chemistry? And you are that easily confused? You need to get out more.
1/2 foot diameter sphere holds 1/2 gallon. Simple huh? Easy to visualize too. Just think of a fish bowl. Now, I can make metric seem just as complicated as you are trying so poorly to attempt with U.S. units.
@@knutritter461 Yeah, we can all bring up units that are not used much. Ask your non science friends how far is a hectometer.
I’m from the UK, though officially metric some things are still imperial, eg Petrol (gas) is bought in litres but car performance is measured in miles per gallon (uk gallon is 5 litres).
What I like about the metric system are the equivalences such at 1,000cm cubed is a litre and 1 litre of water weighs 1Kg. So if I buy 2 litres of drinks I know it will weigh 2kg.
Also our paper sizes are metric, an A0 sheet of paper is 1 square meter. The other useful attribute of metric paper is that all paper sizes have the same ratio of 1:square of 2, thus images can be enlarged or reduced and the image will correctly fit the new paper size.
The constant ratio of DIN paper sizes is interesting, but in the US we commonly use two different ratios purposefully. Our “legal” size is the same width as “letter,” but longer. That means that the sizes can be intermixed in a binder which holds the papers at the top. Lawyers (and some others) find this convenient.
Everything is a tradeoff.
I wish you had also mentioned all the awesome relationships and common sense in Metric... IE Boiling is 100 degrees & Freezing is 0. 1 Litre of Water weights 1KG.
The Metre was originally defined as so: The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. In 1799, it was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889). In 1960, the metre was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86. In 1983, the current definition was adopted.
Yah, I might end up making a video titled "Whats great about the Metric system" or something - there are so many things, and I'm shocked that apparently (as I've learned from some of the comments on this video) a lot of people just don't get that. :/
While Celsius makes sense for water Fahrenheit makes more sense for humans. 0 F is frigging cold, 100 F is frigging hot, while 0 C is pretty cold and 100 C is death.
Fahrenheit doesn't make any more sense for humans, and frankly it actually makes less sense than Celsius. Ice is made of water so it's very useful to know when it becomes ice, for example when driving. Also 100 C is not death.
Quasar 0406
Death to whom? People usually wear clothes outside.
Ray Simonsen i
1x1x1 meter is 1000 litres and weighs 1000 kilos...
Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and boils at 100 degrees celsius.
Metris will always be superior because it makes sense and is easy.
Percentages, are hard in imperial measurements too, for example 80 percent of 1kg is 800g, but 80 percent of a pound is 12.9714285714 ounces (that not a joke!)
where can we find the graph of imperial units you shown in the video?
Since I'm unable to reply to all of you, here are 4 edits/notes:
1) Yes, I know the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. That was an accidental omission. I'm sorry for being terrible. *META EDIT*: Actually, it is constant. It 'slows down' by being absorbed/emitted by things in its way, but that doesn't change it's speed. I stand by my original statement.
2) As for me mixing up 'Imperial' with 'US Customary Units' - thats what the rest of the world calls it, and as a Canadian I thought no one actually used that name. Oh, and I mixed up tablespoons with tablespoons. (Huh? Exactly).
3) Yes, kilo*-litres*/litres are not official metric units, but a lot of the world uses them, and they are completely metric-compatible.
4) Easy on the name calling, you Imperial rebels! I'd rather not have to force you to play nice.
*Thanks for watching!* edit: meant kilo-litres, not kilograms (fixed).
Regarding 1), aren't you technically correct since the photons still move at the same speed if not in vacuum, just taking longer routes?
Yes! a friend and I were talking. The speed of light is always constant - it just takes extra time to get absorbed and re-emitted when it hits things that are in its way.
Did you use Imperial, rebels and force in the same sentence? dun dun dun da de dun da de dun
I’m just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe.
The UK is also not a metric country - we use miles and yards on road signs (though all the building work is done in metric), we use pints in pubs for beer and cider (but wine and spirits are dispensed in ml volumes) , pints for milk bot metric for all other food packaging. Then there's cars - petrol is dispensed in liters but fuel economy is measured in imperial gallons. People use feet and inches etc in everyday conversation and weigh themselves in stones (1 stone = 14 lb.) and lb etc etc
In other words it's a mess that hasn't moved on in nearly 50 years from a botched transition to metric.
my favourite example for the crazyness of the imperial system is the meazurement of foot-pound.
In the metric system that's Newton-meters
It's the Energy that is necessary to apply 1 newton for the distance of 1 meter. And 1 Newton is the force necessary to accelerate a 1kg object to 1m per sec within 1 sec.
now foot-pound is the energy necessary to lift the equivalent mass of 7000 grains of barley (taken from the middle of a standard ear) over a height of the foot of the roman commander "Nero Claudius Drusus" (died little before the birth of Christ) in the average field of gravity on earth..
Conveniently we can define that a lot better using the imperial system: 1 foot is also the length of 12 times the triple length of a grain of barley mentioned above.
So 1 foot-pound is the energy necessary to lift 7000 grains of barley (taken from the middle of a standard ear) over the height of 12 times the triple lenght of a grain of barley (taken from the middle of a standard ear) in the average field of gravity on earth - bloody piece of cake.
Only one question remains: How did they manage to get to the moon?
Well 9 years before the moon landing NASA decided to only use the metric system in future, so there's that.
Yeah I actually really don't like Newton Meters actually. I prefer to use foot-pounds (or pounds-foot) as a unit of torque specifically for Automobiles. That is what I have grown up with and that is what i am used to.
A foot pound is intuitive
@@RalphReagan a foot pound is as intuitive as a newten meter. It only depends on where you grew up and what you are used to.
@@ThePetersilie Well, to be honest, even having grown up with Newtons in school, I don't have any intuition how much force that would be, but "lifting one pound (~500g) over a distance of one foot (~a bit less than a third of a meter)" I can even get without being used to the American system.
And that's really the one thing that the imperial measurements have going for them - they are more intuitive, for everyday tasks. An inch is roughly the width of my thumb, a foot is roughly the length of my foot. Which can surely be more useful in estimating(!) a small length or area than a meter - if you have no tools on hand.
Even if it's horrible to calculate in if you're doing anything serious. And even though I'd like to shoot anyone posting recipes in cups instead of grams and mililiters.
@@drsnova7313 well the argument that imperial is better for rough estimation is very flawed. Because metric has these same tricks you learn in primary school.
10 cm is roughly the distance between your thumb and you indix while shaping a "C"
A Meter is roughly the distance of a large step.. depends all on what you are told when growing up so I wouldn't call that something Imperial "has going for it"
The real question is: how many toes is a foot? How many feet is a leg? How many legs is a refrigerator? How many refrigerators is a car? How many cars is a average house? And how many average houses are a flattened elephant?
And...... what fraction of a flattened elephant is 0.76 refrigerators?
But how many barleycorns is a boat?
Wow!
Is this what struck gold feels like
How many football fields is an commercial airplane????
The best thing about the metric system is that a liter of water is 1000cm^3 which weighs pretty much exactly a kg by definition.
That’s the best thing you can think of? Really?
I was shopping in Toronto, I got an HDMI cable at one shop and an extension cord in another, in both cases the employee proclaimed the cable was "six feet long". Although I know perfectly well that it's around 2 meters, I pretended not to know and asked them to convert it to metric for me.
Please note that the nautical mile is a very different beast, with some unique properties. This measurement is still a very important navigation tool, corresponding to the world’s "base 60" grid of latitudes and longitudes; traditionally defined as "≈ one minute of latitude". But the world is not a perfect sphere and there were slightly different variants of the nautical mile for many years in different countries. Today the nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 m. And even the meter was originally based on the physical world, as one ten-millionth of the distance from the north pole to equator. Via France, of course! Measured back in 1793.
But France got the measurement of the Earth wrong anyways so that the metric system for measuring distance only applies to itself and nothing natural like it does with weight and temperature.
How did I miss this?! See the advantage of being American and Canadian you get to memorize that crap. I did a rant on it where I just ramble equivalents off my head. In geology. The foot is an easier unit. Then we divide it into tenths and hundredths to make it easier (that was sarcasm). Don't forget metric also inter translates. For example 1cubic cm = 1 ml.
th-cam.com/video/x8ePY1HBqbI/w-d-xo.html
FYI - Americans use imperial, Canadians use metric officially and in schools. And Canadians often use it day to day(mostly).
Sarie Bennett that was kind of my point.
+Sarie FYI - Imperial was introduced in Britain in 1824 (they used 3 or more types of inches side by side before that). Therefore the US never used Imperial, although they agreed with the British on the international inch (closer to customary inch than the imperial inch) in 1960. I think the different US states use different units, some metric, some international inch, some customary inch, none imperial inch.
Division of a quantity of grain on a plate by 2s and 3s is simple. So is dividing a distance. Dividing by 5 requires some more complex geometrical knowledge and skill. That's why there exist people who are as passionate about moving to a dozenal (base-12) number base system. That would destroy the utility of the metric system's base-10 system, which is only convenient because of the number system we happen to use. Thirds aren't repeating decimals in dozenal (1/3 = 0.4). Moving to dozenal would reconcile our systems of angle measurement and time which are based on multiples of 12 as well.
edit: further trivia. The name inch is derived from the Latin _uncia_ , meaning "twelfth"
Markle2k Further trivia not only inch but ounce and unit are derived from uncia.
My favourite fact about the Imperial System is the following question. What weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? This is a real question because in Imperial gold and feathers use different values for ounces and pounds. A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold. Checkout the Avoirdupois units versus Troy (for gold and some other things).
UteChewb 😖 Sometimes a person can be too clever by half! The problem you quote compares two dissimilar items that create confusion in the listener, if he pays no attention to the word ‘pound’. There is NO mention of avoirdupois or Troy units per se. Thus the correct answer to the question is that they weigh precisely the same. A similar question might ask ‘Which is the rectangle? A square or a four sided shape?’ As before, the answer has to be that they are the same by the definition of a rectangle. Unless you are told that one shape looks like a kite or a rhombus, how else can you answer the question?
It is a puzzle that depends on deception. When using troy ounces, you must always specify “troy.”
@@GH-oi2jf , actually it isn't a puzzle. It is an observation I made. Imperial can't even get a single definition of 'ounce' or 'pound'. It is weighed down with archaic units. I find it particularly funny that the mile is named after the Roman 'mille passus', which translates to 1,000 paces. The Roman mile was closer to being metric than the current mile. I was raised and taught under the Imperial system, but it was soon pretty clear to me that it was an idiotic system. As soon as I learnt metric, and my country adopted it I just rejoiced.
@@UteChewb - The pound is an international unit. There is only one International Pound. “Pound” means International Pound.” “Troy Pound” is a different unit, used only for certain things.
@@GH-oi2jf , who cares? It's an archaic, obsolete system. Get rid of it.
Consider the following math riddle: how many times do I have to fold a piece of paper in half, in order for its thickness to reach the moon?
The thickess of apiece of paper is 0.1mm or 40thou and the distance to the moon is about 380'000km or 240'000miles
With the metric units it is pretty straightforward, 0.1mm=10^-4m and 380'000km=3.8*10^8m, divide the two and the distance to the moon is about 3.8*10^12 widths of paper. If you have that mumber, you just have to find the closest power of 2.
This number I could find in my head using metric measures (I am not particularly strong in mental math). Now consider the nightmare of conversion needed to find this number going from thoussands of an inch, to feet, to miles
I've seen americans say metric is for people who can't do maths. Well, I can give an answer to the riddle in my head. Can you do the same using imperial? Maybe yes, but it's far more dificult, with a lot more room for mistakes and errors
Imperial measurement was assembled out of various measurements used in separate fields to be convenient to use offhand instead of trying to eyeball like 53 units at once. Conversion isn't simple because they weren't intended to be readily converted. Metric isn't so much a system designed with conversion in mind as it is a singular arbitrary unit used for everything and then pegged to wherever it fell on whatever universal constant you could cobble together. And it's weird to pretend like you can't do (1/3)(1/16) while remembering the specific 1/3 of a tablespoon measure and then act like anyone can just measure a universal constant in their backyard.
And you nailed it, the metric system is to the imperial system what the civil code is to common law. Two different vision, one focus on arbitrary principle, and one focused on everyday life.
OMG... YES IMPERIAL IS JUST EGO MAKING HUMANITY inefficient
I agree the metric system is obviously better, all engineering classes I took (in the US) were taught with metric units, they would occasionally throw one problem with imperial units so they didn't come as a surprise if we were to ever encounter them in the real world. However the only reason I still use imperial units is purely for cultural reason, its what I grew up with. I know what 60 miles per hour means more than 60 kilometers per hour intuitively. I feel its a bit far fetched to blame the usage of units and lack of conversion as the reason behind the failures you mentioned in the video. Sure, that's why they happened but I would say its more of a problem with lack of competence, not the unit. With all that said, yes I wish I grew up with the metric system.
You could call it incompetence, or lack of communication because one party was using SI units and the other one was using imperial units. NASA needed data to land the probe delivered in SI units but got data in imperial, Air Canada needed fuel in kilograms but got in pounds. Either way both accidents could have been avoided if all parties involved would have used the same system of units.
@@compphysgeek In the NASA case, part of the problem was that in those days it was not easy to show units to large volumes of tabulated data, which tended to be transmitted in numerical form. So although you're correct in ascribing the error to humans, it is asking for it to used mixed measurement systems within a project.
Cute story: In the days of the Concorde's design, the French half was metric and the British half was imperial. A friend of my family's was in charge of the design of the (I think, galley) bulkhead between the zones, and all the fittings passing reticulated services through that bulkhead had imperial threads on one end and metric on the other.
If I remember correctly Myanmar has its own system
A number of years ago, I bought a roll of insulating tape. It was marked "10 yards. Approx 9.144 metres." I wondered at the time why anyone would convert to "approximately" the nearest millimetre.
It's not just measurements which can cause problems. If you live in France and buy a generator or any other equipment using an American motor, such as Briggs and Stratton, you will find a sticker saying "use only gas oil mixture". "Gas oil mixture" is 2-stroke petrol and oil. In France, "gasoil" is diesel fuel. Don't mix the two up!
I work in video and broadcast. If you think Imperial is bad, think about NTSC. It uses a framerate of 59.94 frames per second. Compare that with PAL (60 fps), and you get an idea about how frustrating it is to work with NTSC. Yet the only reason we still use fractional framerates is because America won't let NTSC die. No one else cares about it.
I think you made a typo on the PAL rate
How far light travels *in* *a* *vacuum*
Explain maybe more metric logic. Like: 1m3 = 1000L and 1L water ~ 1kg
Metric rules!
Melchior Hof : Or mix them up, speed of light is 1 ft/ns... approximately
Approximately isn't good enough.
Actually, the relation between the liter and the cubic meter is not exactly a power of 10. It is a little off!
... That sucks. I maintain my original view, even if that means I must now hate the Metric system also.
@@Gamesaucer they are improving it though
When navigating at sea or in the air, distances are still measured in nautical miles, this is true even for countries that never used the imperial system.
The Imperial system was adopted in 1820s as a response to the metric system. The U.S. customary units were standardized in the 1830s and are not the imperial system though both yard and pound were standardized exactly in 1959 as 0.9144 m and 0.45359237 kg respectively. The most obvious difference is in the gallon.
The US gallon was adopted long before the Imperial System defined its gallon, though. The reason for the difference is that “gallon” was not originally a universal unit of liquid measure, but a volume of a particular thing. The US gallon is the old British wine gallon.
The "Gimli Glider" accident was not a conversion failure. Jets measure their fuel by weight. The fueler looked at the number, and assumed that number was pounds. As a pound is a bit more than half a Kilo, he loaded just over half the fuel needed for the trip.
The press blamed the fueler, but the accident was 100% the fault of the pilot. His brilliant flying aside, it was HIS fault, and no one else's, that the plane ran out of fuel. The plane's fuel gauge was broken so they used a computer to calculate the amount of fuel they had. But the computer didn't actually measure the fuel volume, it calculated the volume based on fuel used. If the number you enter at the start is wrong, the calculated fuel is also wrong.
Imperial isn't based on metric, it was just standardized to that for ease
Imperial isn't standardized to metric, it was just based on that for ease.
@@Kosake82 The DEFINITION of what an imperial unit like inch or mile or gallon is, is given in International ISO (metric) units. So the scientific BASE of any of the old cumersome and outdated units is now tied to the ISO system (because the imperial units had no such scientific referece to natural constants and laws.
As an American, I don't know how to feel about this subject as i was raised around Imperial but i see the benefits of metric. What a do know though is that as an amature scientist I do use metric to do science. I also use Imperial throughout my day. That is how it is and i like it that way. I understand the measurements around me and when going to another country I simply just think in metric. Calling us Americans "old fashioned" and saying we need to get with the times will not do anything, in all honesty you really just spark a need to spite you inside us. All in all yes we should use metric for science but if you want everyone in the US to just randomly switch to metric and insult the system they grew up with you are gonna face some resistance.
I come from germany, and I don't really care who uses which system for themselves. Everybody should use the one he can handle better.
Unfortunately there are people who say that America is behind or whatever.
But there are also many (also here in the comments) who say that the imperial system is better, the metric system would make no sense or that people who say the metric system is simpler, just too lazy or too stupid in mental arithmetic.
But the fact is: the metric system is simpler. If you would teach a person (who has no education) the metric system and the imperial system , he would calculate and think everything in the metric system to almost 100% probability.
I once saw an episode of "American Choppers". I think they all grew up with the imperial system, and yet they discussed 5min because they had to calculate 4/7 + 3/8 + 1/3 inch and didn't have a calculator. In the metric system this is just a matter of seconds to calculate in your head. I didn't really want to write that much. All who still read it: I wish you all a wonderful day/night.
For some reason, calories are still used in European food labeling (in addition to kilo joules). It's absurd, but the main reason is probably that the media talks about how much "calories" this or that food has or your intake should be. They specifically don't talk about energy content, just calories that are some kind of fattening things contained - often "hidden" - in various edible things. Energy and energetic are more positive words.
X Baron fun fact calories is metric not imperial btu (British thermal units) is imperial. Btw 1 btu is 1055 joules of energy
X Baron - One calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius, it is metric
*+X Baron* Same thing with horsepower.
Calories in food are kilocalories. A food item with 230 calories listed actually has 2300 calories.
Aviation still uses imperial system for reasons unknown to me.
Heights are measured in feet, when they should be in meters.
The distances in miles, when they should be in kilometers.
And the speed in knots, when it should be in kilometers/hour.
And still can't find a reason for all of this.
The US does do metric. I'm an Engineer. Everything I do professionally is in metric. Where don't I use it? In my private life. Why? Because I don't want to recalibrate my internal references. There is no reason for me to do this. There is no personal benefit to me should I do this. If you don't approve, that's too bad. I'm still going to demand MPH in my car.
I'm in engineering school and we actually really don't use metric. Even as a student coop intern I used mostly U.S. units.
Oops! Somehow metric did not show up in my comment. Should be "I prefer metric over imperial...."
Don't worry - I got you! #DownWithImperial!!
What comment where? Can go back and edit it.
Well if you all hurried up and started using the Dozenal System already the imperial system would make a little more sense. 10 inched would equal 1 foot.
I haven't heard of that before. Could also have another system where an inch is exactly 2,5 centimetres, a pint is exactly half a litre, etc.
The only little problem is that as far as I know the inch to foot conversion factor is the *only* common one in the whole Imperial or USC system that is 12. Most others are powers of 2, or odd (as in "unusual", as well as not even) factors like 14, 110 or 112. Other factors of 12 are found in Troy and Apothecaries measures, but these are rather arcane and uncommon
Of course that still leaves 1028 dozenal yards in a mile or 3080 dozenal feet in a mile
Even better, 6080 decimal feet is a nautical mile, but only 3628 dozenal feet for the nautical mile :P
Interestingly a tablespoon which is 1/6th a fl oz or 0.1666... decimal would be 0.2 dozenal. In fact, I do seem to remember something about the dozenal system being a lot better with fractions and that pesky 0.999... == 1 problem (where I only managed to convince my friend that there's no measurable difference, but he insisted they weren't the same)
But where as the entire imperial system is defined in metric and getting ready to implement it would essentially mean taking the extra conversion step at the factory out, converting to a dozenal system would require a lot more effort.
The imperial system was evolved long before the metric. One mile is 1760 yards Half mile 880 yards quarter mile 440 The metre is the length of an arbitary piece of metal in a room in Paris, the fraction of a light year was deduced much later than the metre bar, hence the long run of decimals in your figure. Being brought up working in both systems side by side I can use either as suits the job wanted. Both have drawbacks like decimal having only approximate values for fractions like one third. Where the decimal system does score is in physics and engineering where the system of foot pounds and poundels can be difficult to follow.
Brian Morton so your argument is that, because imperial was first, it is better then new metric system? System that is easier to explain and understand and follow, system that can give more accurate measurents etc.?
So by your logic, why the hell are we using numerals and not roman numbers? I mean they were first...(in europe anyway)
BS
Fahrenheit degrees are 80% more precise than Celcius degrees, without having to go to numbers after a decimal point. Fahrenheit has 180 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water VS Celcius' 100 degrees.
@@greggv8 and how does that make it more precise? in Cecius water freezes at 0 Celcius, Fahrenheit it's at 32, water boils at 100 Celcius but at 212 Fahrenheit.
So tell me how does it make it more precise or easier system to understand and learn?
@@takoja507 I explained it. 80 more degrees between freezing and boiling of water. A whole degree F is almost twice as precise as a whole degree C.
1:57 No joke, on UK roads when it says yards it is actually meters. Secretly (not really secretly) our motorways are built in metric as well.
**Metric guy reading american baking recipes**
x cups flour
OKAY WHAT FUCKING CUP, A CUP CAN BE DIFFERENT SIZES, HOW IS THIS A UNIT OF MEASUREMENT!?
Great video! Small correction though: The metre is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum, not just the speed of light which is in fact variable. You make a point of saying metric is based on things that will never change so I think this small details ought to be added.
You're totally right - I knew the speed of light was like that, but it totally slipped my mind while I was making this. My bad. Can't win'm all I guess, right?
Also we could add that a metre was not defined this way, simply later we found much time it takes the light to travel that previously defined distance and changed the definition of a metre. So theoretically you could do the same with imperial.
You are right. But I should add that we shouldn't speak about "the speed of light in a vacuum" because it is an abstraction (there is no such thing in nature as a real vacuum). We still call that speed the "speed of light" only for historical reasons. We should be speaking about the constant of the universe which is the speed limit of causality, as it is defined by the theory of special relativity, and as it appears in many physical phenomena some of which has nothing to do with light (like in E=mc²). We could shorten it into "the speed of causality" or something. Light in a vacuum is going at this speed (in a vacuum) only because the photon is massless.
Mikolaj Witkowski I was wondering about this and the significance 3.3x nanoseconds.
"All of the metric system is based this way. It's based on fundamental laws of the universe." Except the kilogram, we don't talk about the kilogram.
(Disclaimer: I do support the metric system and know this is being reconsidered)
Andrew James could you be more specific?
1 kg is the mass of 1 dm3 of liquid water.
@@alainprostbis It isn't, well I mean it is, approximately, but that's not the definition. It used to be defined as a platinum iridium cylinder in vault in Paris. It was defined by physical object. But today that's no longer the case. It is now based on fundamental laws of the universe.
thatguy .
well then it is defined relative to the mole thus the avogadro number. 1 mole af carbone 12 weighs exactly 12g. or something of that sort.
all airliners use ft instead of meters which is nice pretty annoying
Tiago Oliveira I'm gonna assume you wanted us to vote: nice or annoying. I vote annoying :)
ahhhh, my mistake, i didn't mean to put that nice in there
Tiago Oliveira aha ok then we're in the same page :D. I hate that about planes.
It's just so that the pilots can feel better about themselves, telling friends and family they flew at 30,000 instead of a lousy 9144 which wouldn't impress a toddler. ATC likes to mess with the pilots telling them they can only fly at FL300.
Right, they use feet for altitude and miles for distance all over the world. But it's nautical miles not US land miles. Nautical mile is 1800 m. And they use knots for speed.
The units of the metric system are based off water not the speed of light. 1ml is exactly 1cm³ and 1ml of water weighs exactly 1gram. if these units weren't based of water all these numbers would not be 1
The water standard is obsolete.
Fill up a cup to a third, you're not cooking meth.
Well explained!
Thanks!
You missed the real magic of the "old" metric system: conversion of length (m) to volumes (L) to weight(kg) to density (g/cm3) to pressure (kg/cm2) etc…
Litre is not part of the metric system.
Well in England, they have a massive mess of a system that everyone (well everyone I've asked, and I've asked a lot of people) simply turns a blind eye to. The fuel economy (mileage) of all cars is in MPG (miles per gallon) but petrol (gasoline) is only sold in litres.
I think it was back in the seventies when the Government said that from then on fule pumps were no longer allowed to dispense in gallons but had to use litres instead. They did not legislate on how we measured our fuel consumption so we still carried on using mpg and we still do. The computer on my modern German made car displays fuel consumption in mpg - long may this continue.
@@beaker2257 Please go on purchasing German cars, they are efficient, they are metric.
Just switch the computer of your car to metric if you want.
UK imperial makes even less sense than US imperial too. A fluid ounce of water weighs an ounce. A pound is 16 oz, so there should be 16oz in a pint, right? This is true in the US, but in the UK there are 20 fl. oz in a pint, so it weighs a pound & a quarter. There are also very few Brits who know how many yards there are in a mile or how this number is attained. I am one of the few & I think it is crazy! A mile consists of 8 furlongs. A furlong is 10 chains. A chain is 22 yards. This was just about visible on the chart in the video. So a mile is 22 * 10 * 8 = 1760 yards. A yard is 3 feet & 1 foot is 12 inches, so to go up from an inch to a mile, you need to work in 5 different factors. I can understand people using imperial because they are used to it, but there is no way it can be defended as being sensible when there is a much more structured & logical system which can be used instead.
@TheRip72 I think the continued use of 'cups' for cooking and baking, plus the lack of 'stones' for weighing humans makes US standard even more confusing than UK Imperial measures! That said, I wish both countries would switch over fully to metric ASAP.
@Chiriac Puiu Such a long time yet the modern world was built on us taking too many tea breaks.
I agree with most points, BUT the argument that imperial is defined by metric whereas metric is defined by light speed is complete nonsense.
First of all, just because most people know metric and need to use it to convert yards and feet doesn't mean that those are defined by metric. In fact imperial units used to be much more commonsense in the past. When people said 10 feet they meant ten lengths of my foot one in front of the other. This of course is variable and unreliable when comparing the measurements to the point of traders employing women with small feet for measuring to hike up the prices. Without a unified measurement unit this is the best we had and much more intuitive than metric.
Secondly, just because we have measurement of speed of light in terms of metric units and use it as a universal standard for this measurement doesn't mean they were defined by speed of light . The original meter was defined as a 1 ten millionth part of distance from equator to the north pole. What happened is that we have changed the meter into 1c/299792458s. This is a different unit to the previous metric meter. To prove you wrong all I have to do is write yard as the distance light travels in 0.9144/362628957196800 fortnights. There you have it. Imperial unit defined directly by the speed of light (which is not in metric units). For a metric unit to be defined in terms of speed of light the unit should be round not something ridiculous like a fraction with 9 random numbers under the fraction bar. Even if it was 1/300000000 (which is equal to 0.9993 of an actual meter) I could begrudgingly accept it as defined in terms of speed of light, but not 1/299792458 . The unit defined by speed of light should be its decimal fraction with the numerator set as 1. In a way we could've made the foot as our golden standard unit by changing it's value (like they did with meter) to the distance light travels in one billionth of a second (it would be about 10% longer than it is). After all, as I've mentioned earlier, the foot was not an exact measurement but simply the length of your own foot. The imperial unit of foot is a completely arbitrary distance that happens to be about the length a foot can have.
Airlines still use imperial because it is the standard internationally to talk in nautical miles and feet. It would probably cause a few major incidents if everyone suddenly decided to start talking in KM and metres. We still use miles in the UK. We buy our fuel in litres then work out the miles per gallon. Which is different to US miles per gallon because we use a larger gallon.
My father, an Engineer, was an immigrant from Germany, here in South Africa, and liked the Imperial System because it made a person think. I guess it's much like personal computers before Windows, where Basic programming was regularly used, which also made a person think.
I believe that they use air miles for flight
I get bonus miles on my credit card, not bonus meters.
This relates to your post on why learning is so difficult. I've seen numerous youtube posts about why the imperial system is better than the metric system -- all by uneducated 'Muricans who don't know what they are talking about, but who like to think that they know more than they do. Anyone who has learned physics and math knows that the metric system is infinitely easier to use.
Yah.. we really need to make an effort to having the fewest barriers between science and children. Having it be a separate language of measurements, thats certainly a barrier.
this is why the scientists of the world have collectively agreed to use metric. The imperial system needlessly complicates any mathematical calculation involving weight or distance.
I think it is easier to use in a scientific or engineering environment. It's natural in physics and maths. However those decimal places can become meaningless very fast in a real-world, nearest approximation situation which the Imperial system and other measurement systems were built on.
Try buying land in India! How many Marla's in one Bigha? 17% of the world's population use land measurement defined by Akbar in the 16th Century. That includes estimations on the sides of hills and in valley with just a glance. Do that with square metres. The bottom line is the metre and square metre are incredibly crude measurements!
Interestingly India has a semi-metric currency. Except they use the Lakh (1,00,000) and Crore (1,00,00,000) to move those damn decimal points back a bit to reflect real world monetary values.
So you can be a Lakhpati or Crorepati based on your income. That's like being a 100thousandaire, or a 10Millionaire. Measurement systems still have significant social context. Is it decimal? That's an interesting question!
As an oldy coming through the imperial system, learning (and using daily) the metric system and dealing daily with the Indian currency system learning new and old is easy AND fun. The brain just switches instantly into the required context. This guy is just wrong in making the comparison about easy and hard learning WRT a 10's based system. They all have simple rules. Learn them and move on. But never remove social context.
I am 6'1" and still trying to get my weight down to 85Kg from 91Kg. That's a target of 13.5 Stone. I don't care how many pounds it is. The human brain is an awesome instrument.
My builder brother-in-law uses mm to measure everything. That's the rule for all builders in the UK. When he says for example to my sister "it's 127 mm", she says "what's that in centimetres?" I thought metric was supposed to be easy.
@@beaker2257 It is easy, she's just not that smart. It really is just moving the decimal place, in this case one step to the left.
The metric system is not based on science except is an ad hoc way. Otherwise the meter would be the distance light traveled in 3 nanoseconds or some such. The reason it is the absurd and arbitrary 3.33564095 nanoseconds is because that is the length of the platinum iridium prototype meter.
The second is defined similarly there is no reason for being 1s being 1s.
That also applies to our 10 based Number System.
*In fact non of our guidelines for interpreting nature have a better justification.*
Why? There is no objectively better way.
As you can see that argument has no point.
Being a private pilot in germany I can tell, it can be even worse. We have nautical miles to measure flight distance, feet to measure altitude, knots (nautical miles per hour) for the airspeed - unless you fly a glider or ultralight, then it's km/h. But we use meters and kilometers to discuss runway length and visibility, also to space our aircraft from clouds. Kilograms for aircraft weight & balance, degree celsius for temperature and hectopascal for atmospheric pressure.
A few notes. The metric is based on science today. Originally, you had objects kept at standard conditions so you could reference off them. The science based definitions came after and were based of said objects - you can easily say the metre is defined by how long it took light the cross the length of the original stick at controlled conditions.
As for metric, I wouldnt say you convert between units. There is really only unit, the metre. The other "units" are just scientific notation disguised/shortened as Latin sounding prefixes.
There are different units. There’s grams, metres, seconds, kelvins, candelas, and moles. Then you have derived units such as Hertz, Newton’s, Pascals, Joules, Watts, Ohms, and a whole host of others.
Funny fact, the US is officially metric. All their units are described in terms of their SI counterparts by NIST, and then converted to Imperial.
@@AdeptPaladin kinda obvious I was talking only about the units of length... unless you think it makes sense to make a simple convertion from meters to kevin or liters, then I am all ears as you explain. Just gimme a sec, I will warm the popcorn
imperial is good for everyone who's good at fractions in their heads...
...anybody? hello?
I always say that the English were the best at maths when we used the pre-decimalisation currency.
You try working out £1 5\6 when £1 is 240p and a crown five shillings (being 12p each)
Sorry that you're too fucking dense to pass a 3rd grade mathematics class, EvilAsh.
In 2017 the kg was still a lump of metal in France. Just saying
And now it's not. Just saying.
Thank you, hopefully one day americans will understand that the imperial system is so unprecise.
We use the US Customary system. Precision does not depend on units. A lot of precision machinery has been built using customary units.
@@GH-oi2jf ehmm... What's your height? 6'2''? Well that means nothing in the rest of the world. 190cm is 6'2'' 191cm is 6'2'' and also 192cm is 6'2'' 🤣 like what you talking about kid, USA is literally born 200years ago wtf you wanna teach the world how to live? Lmao
Some years ago in the UK I went to buy some floor covering. The roll was exactly 2.5 m wide. So I measured up my kitchen floor and went into buy some linear metres of the covering only to be told it was sold by the yard!
Not the end of the world.
The metric system causes people to forget how to use fractions. For precise measuring the US standard system uses tenths, hundredths, thousandths etc. of an inch- every bit as accurate as the metric system. The difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit is arbitrary but Fahrenheit's degrees are smaller giving it the advantage for accuracy. Fahrenheit's 0 degrees for the point salt water freezes (salt water makes up a majority of the Earths surface) and 100 degrees (approximately human body temp) make sense too.
But the inch is still defined by metric standards.
Fahrenheit is a logarithmic scale. How is that more accurate than Kelvins, which is on a linear scale?
No , this Video is riddled with mistakes..! There is "zero correlation" between setting any original Imperial measurement as the Metric System was invented "too late" in history..
From Industrial Revolution & majority of Inventions, to the fastest Jets & Moon landings,,
were almost entirely produced , using the Imperial measurement system.
Add to the fact, that almost all of the technology on the Allies side for WWII was produced using Imperial measurements for making all components. (we supplied France & Russia).
The Nautical Mile, is based upon the circumference of the Earth & "remains the standard"
because Metric FAILS this relationship & Metric is also inferior in numerous applications.
If anyone thinks that kilometres per litre functions better than miles per gallon "is mad",,
quantifying "thousands metres per litre",, does not work as well as : miles per gallon...
Then, the BS about the speed of light??? Totally Wrong , the distance measurement was
approx on the distance around the Poles of Earth "through Paris". Then the relationship of "ten base" simply followed on from ten fingers and toes for counting ; nothing scientific.
Assigning Speed of Light as a factor is extreme BS. This ONLY became a set comparative in a later relationship ;"if it were original", it would have been a more proportional number...
Metric has advantages with the uniformity of base 10 , although , Imperial has advantages
for proportional values such as an inch/foot/yard , whereby Metric is a nondescript index...
As an engineer, I've worked equally with both systems ; I found Metric to be very overrated and quite possibly a metric mistake, changing to it...........
MH's post is rather more riddled with mistakes (and vague assertions) than the clip. Here's a few samplers: the Metric system was invented before the imperial system was formalised. It was first described in 1668 and officially adopted by France in 1799.
NASA used metric units to calculate the trajectories and kinematics for all their moon landings. Subcontractors and engineers had to convert NASA's requirements to imperial in cases where they could not manage metric.
The nautical mile is essentially a measure of angle subtended at the centre of the earth, not distance. It's used because navigation requires spherical trig, not 2D plane-surface trig. It is neither imperial nor metric: like degrees of arc, it is based on the number 360.
first things first. Metric IS NOT more accurate than Imperial. the only thing metric improves over imperial is the ease of use by going full decimal.
how does 5 tablespoons and a teaspoon not make sense. a teaspoon is 1/3 of a tablespoon, it's not that hard. and, were talking measuring spoons, not eating spoons, as I so often see people not used to the imperial system use. eating spoons are not a specific volume, like measuring spoons are, and they vary greatly from what we're talking about.
yes, imperial length is a mess of different measurements, but they all have their uses. and there's a reason we don't use Roman miles any more.
yes, imperial is defined by the metric system, NOW. but that only happened after the metric system started being defined by the speed of light as a way to better improve imperial's uniformity. since the re-defining, Imperial is no less based on "Logical Science™" then metric. by saying "First of all, Metric is based on 'Logical Science™'" as an argument against Imperial, you're saying since Imperial is defined by the metric system, and the metric system is based on "Logical Science™", then you're saying Imperial is based on that same science, which it IS now. try to remember, a meter was originally defined by the length of a specific platinum bar, as a fraction of the length from the equator as measured from the north pole through Paris. it wasn't defined by the speed of light until 1983, where the speed of light was defined as 299,792,458m/s. that's basically defining a measurement by a constant which is defined by the same but older and faulty measurement of the circumference of the Earth. that's no more scientific than saying an inch is the length of 3 average barleycorns, or a foot is the length of King James' foot, then defining a mile from that, and then redefining the inch/foot from that mile. circular definition is just that.
also, if metric were truly defined by the speed of light, why base it on 1/299,792,458 instead of 1/300,000,000 or something more decimally correct, like 1/100,000,000 or even 1/1,000,000,000? also, time is not a decimally defined measurement, either. basing the speed of light on a decimal length and dual dozenal:sexagesimal:sexagesimal temporal unit doesn't make much sense either, if you think about it.
What you're taking issue with is the units in Imperial, and how they were originally defined, and how that confuses your decimally limited mind. the only thing switching to metric brings is a bit of a loss in mathematical thinking.
conversion errors cost money, not the measurement systems themselves. you can have conversion errors going from metric to metric just as easily as you can imperial to imperial, or metric to imperial to metric.
No, errors dont happen as often going from metric to metric. Also you do notice the difference between '1 tablespoon' of sugar or 20gramms of sugar. 20gramms of sugar means you know EXACTLY how much sugar you need...to a single crystal. One tablespoon of sugar could be 250 sugar crystals or 300 crystals and you wouldn't even know the difference. It's just inaccurate.
In the Imperial, and US, System there doesn't seem to be anything shorter than an inch. Or, at least not a standard, or that I've heard of. An inch is also quite long. So, when referring to shorter lengths, there must be cumbersome fractions of an inch. Whereas, in Metric there's the millimetre, which is very short. And, in Metric the lengths can go down to very microscopic lengths, like the attometer.
@@GoodVideos4 hardly anyone uses the Decimeter. People's heights are measured in centimeters. Why list someone's height as 182 centimeters instead of 18 decimeters, 2 centimeters? Nobody has ever said a six foot tall person is 288 quarter inches. Metric tends to have commonly used units that are too small, thus requiring a large number of them, or units that are too large, and thus less precise without resorting to a fraction of a unit. For example a Fahrenheit degree is 80% more precise than a Celsius degree. Thus 71F is plenty accurate, even for all but the most temperature critical of processes. But between 21C and 22C there's a wide enough gulf to ruin a process that really needs to be 21.6C so a C temp gauge *must have* at least two digits after the decimal to read as precisely as an F temp gauge that only reads whole degrees.
@@greggv8 I know that hardly anyone uses the decimeter, and especially for height, or for anything else! It must be referring to that other comment I made. I prefer to reply to the comment, not the person. And, I'd prefer to reply at the comment. The point that I was trying to make there is that saying someone is two yards high, would be much like saying that someone is 18,3 decimeters high. I also mentioned that there!
With Celcius measuring, I've found that it often doesn't really matter how much between 21 C or 22 C a temperature is. That is with 21 C or 22 C being good enough, or close enough.
decimeter exists because, basically, each zero has a "rank", the fact people dont use it as much has no bearing on it. since, like you pointed out, its still the same exact amount/size.
How can anyone live with this?
I live in a country that converted to the metric system decades ago but I've just recently started working with heavy machinery and I've had to train myself to work with the imperial system. All the hydraulic hoses, fittings, bolts and the pivots pins and pistons for the hydraulic cylinders are in imperial. The trick is to not try to convert everything to metric, which is what I was doing at the start so I could visualise the part I wanted - you have to think in imperial. You have to know that a 15/16th is the next size up from a 7/8th as opposed to just taking it for granted that a 24mm is bigger than a 22mm.
All of my school classes (though college) used the metric system, except for my 6th grade teacher. My 6th grade teacher insisted we bring to school rulers that had the imperial system, and forbade rulers with both. She was also science-illiterate, teaching us absolutely nothing about science, always with a smile on her face. Anyways, it wasn't particularly difficult learning both systems. I am amazed at people who are stubborn and unwilling/unable to learn the metric system. That's America for you.
Your 6th grade teacher was unusual, because rulers with dual scales have been the norm in US elementary education for a very long time. I expect that in most districts such a rule imposed by a teacher would be a basis for a complaint.
it is astonishing, incredibly ASTONISHING, that the USA in the year 2019 still use this moronic way to calculate their stuff...
Have you ever tried to measure a length of wood using only a stopwatch and a flashlight?
@@Ruskettle have you? You could also use a measuring tape based upon a universal system, like the metric.
Yeah sure, the metric system is easy to learn, but it is a system devoid of any culture or history. The imperial system is based on a history, a culture, and a people. Sure it has some crazy conversions, but if you grow up with it, it's memorized. There are some insane rules in the English language, but nobody's about to give it up for some made up monolithic language that may be a little easier. In a world full of global cosmopolitan culture, it is important to retain the intricate and diverse systems of measurement that humans have invented.
I couldn't agree more. The Imperial system is part of what makes me English and it is really easy to use if you're brought up with it.
The French revolution and the Enlightenment isn't enough culture and history for you? That's the cultural and historical background for the metric system.
Well now you've made the most compelling reason why British and Americans will NEVER fully adopt metric: the French! ;-P
"because its parto our culture", carefull there, you might not like to poke that bear. if everything was kept the same because of culture, im pretty sure america would still be part of england...
"Devoid of any culture or history" - that perfectly describes yourself. The metric system was defined before the Imperial was fully systematised (1793 vs. 1825).
Dont worry about kids needing to know about the metric system to do science, Trump is well on the way to making sure Science will be a thing of the past in US schools.
Science has the very inconvenient feature that it delivers answers which take no heed of what you *want* to think is true.
orange man bad
@@Gottenhimfella I.e. Science doesn't care if its facts 'hurts your feelings'.
We fired him.
Well, the Nautical Mile has survived also on European ships. It's 1852 meters. The reason for it to exist is that a Nautical Mile is supposed to be exactly 1 minute of latitude. Which it is, more or less (varying from 1861 meters at the poles to 1843 meters at the Equator).
In the UK we use both! On the roads we use miles and miles per hour; for the height of people we use feet and inches; for weight we use stones and pounds; for milk and beer we use pints. However, for most other drinks we use the metric system! For petrol and diesel we use litres. For temperature we mostly use Celsius. For the weights of food we mostly use metric. In athletics events we use metric. It get's pretty confusing at times but we are definitely not just using the metric system...
Create legislation that all liquids must be labelled and sold to millilitres and litres (Milk, water, fuel); and all food is labelled and sold in grams and kilograms - without accompanying it with imperial equivalents on the label. The whole population would be thinking in Metric measurements in two years. Then move on to distance length measurements after that - and tada - you've changed the country to catch up to the rest of the World.
skoR this is the right way to do it! in order for it to be successful we can't have both units side by side.
I mean, the US has decimal currency... it's not like they can't grasp the concept - they're already using it every day.
The Scope of Science No thanks, that would just lead to price gouging, I can already see oil companies charging to same price they do now but just change to liter which in end will cost you 4 times as much for the same amount (since there is about 4 liters in a gallon)
The nice thing about units of measure like "teaspoons" and "tablespoons" is that they are based on things everybody already has in their kitchen.
If the recipe called for grams, it would have to assume that everybody had a small scale in their kitchen - which they don't.
In addition, I find the argument that people always use against the Imperial system - that it uses seemingly random and arbitrary numbers to distinguish its units of measure - is exactly what makes the system unique and interesting. This argument also discounts the reason WHY it uses such seeming arbitrary distinctions. Which of course is because each unit was designed to be a convenient size for the things it is designed to measure.
I'm 5'9", which tells me that my height is in the ballpark of between 5 and 6 feet (and a little closer to 6 than to 5). Compare that to the meter which being most people are taller than 1 meter and shorter than 2 m makes it in my opinion a pretty poor unit to measure human height.
I have many more examples of course but I think my point has been made.
In short, I don't like to argue in favour of one system over the other, I think both systems are quite useful and each has their own pros and cons.
Basically, I prefer my rulers to have centimeters one side and inches on the other.
well, a teaspoon in your kitchen may not be the same as a teaspoon in my kitchen.
Even the teaspoons in my kitchen drawer differ in size.
Yeah, I don't think that speaks for teaspoons as a valid measurement method.
It may work for everyday use in your kitchen. But it doesn't work in scientifiy applications.
Not unless the teaspoon has an alternative more precise definition.
And about scales in the kitchen: I have never been to a european household, where I haven't seen a smal scale for measuring grams.
@@ichbrauchmehrkaffee5785 "It may work for everyday use in your kitchen. But it doesn't work in scientifiy applications."
So, more or less exactly what I have said - there are pros and cons for each system of measure.
For example I used to work in construction where we had to frequently divide measurements in two. Inches are particularly well suited for that whereas centimeters are not. Try dividing 11.75 by 2 in your head... it's hard without a calculator
Now divide 11 and 3/4... which one can think of as 10 and 1 and 3/4, which gives you 5 and 1/2 and 3/8, ie. 5 and 7/8.
It looks complicated when I type it out but it's super simple when looking at the tick marks on a tape measure.
A good framer can make these divisions in a fraction of a second, much faster than you anyone could calculate it on their phones.
The point is is that inches are designed precisely for this purpose and they work extremely well in this capacity.
I also have worked with pressure vessels in big refineries, and I much prefer Pounds per Square Inch over Kilopascals.
For instance, if a vessel is at 150psi that means that each square inch of it is experiencing 150 lbs. of pressure - pretty easy to visualize.
The metric equivalent, which I believe is about 1000 kPa, is a little bit more esoteric as 1 pascal is defined as being 1 kg over 1 meter x 1 second squared - much more scientific and probably prefered by engineers, but a little harder to visualize in real world applications.
We (in the US) need special measuring cups and spoons. They are inexpensive, though, and don’t need batteries.
America doesn't (and has never) used the Imperial System. The Imperial System is purely a British System, which was formerly used within the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and the British Parliament's "Imperial Weights and Measures Act of 1824" had no affect on America whatsoever, as they'd already been independent from England for about 50 years by the time this new system of weights and measures was created.
Funny enough, in this new "Imperial System," the British decided that their new Imperial Gallon would hold approximately 10 pounds of pure water @62°F, therefore the British "Imperial Fluid Ounce" holds approximately the mass of 1 Avoirdupois Ounce of pure water @62°F. The older U.S. Liquid Gallon holds approximately 8.34 pounds of water at the same specified temperature, therefore giving the "U.S. Fluid Ounce" a mass of 1.043 Avoirdupois Ounces when holding pure water at a certain pressure, and a specific temperature of 62°F, meaning that there's a 4.3% difference between both the Fluid Ounces, which doesn't seem like a bunch, but trust me it is.
By the way...
- 1 U.S. Tablespoon = 14.93 mL
- 1 Imperial Tablespoon = 17.76 mL
That's a difference of 2.83 mL!
By the Way, America's system of Weights and Measures is based on an older version of English Units, around the time of Queen Anne and a little before, and America's units are referred to as "U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS," to save confusion with England's newer developed "Imperial System." So, U.S. Customary Units do in fact predate British Imperial Units by 50 years, probably even more! The main difference between these two sets of English Units are the units of Volume, Mass, and Length. For Example, the U.S. Ton is 12% less than an Imperial (Long) Ton. And the Mendenhall Order of 1893 redefined the to exactly 3600/3967 m. That's why America has a set of U.S. Survey Measures (Survey Feet, Survey Mile), as well as the set of International Measures agreed upon by America, Britain and the Commonwealth in 1959. That's why the U.S. Survey Foot and the International Foot differ in size by 1.83 microns, and also why the two Tons differ in size by by 240 lbs.
The US Survey foot is being phased out, finally. “Foot” without qualification always means the international foot.
A major reason we should dump the imperial system is expensive international construction projects. There is a true story of a space venture where to parts of a system wouldn't match up, on made using imperial measures in USA, and one made with metric in Europe. The root of the problem: The European engineer assumed that there was 10 inches per foot. So they interface they created to couple the subsystems was too small.
The metric system failed in the US for reasons. While I do like the metric system overall, two things keep me from embracing it completely.
1. Millimeters. Yes, there are centimeters and decimeters etc., but that becomes a problem. People don't like to use so many different units, and as you say... conversions lead to errors. Most engineering drawings use millimeters exclusively, even when the numbers start to get so large that it becomes difficult to conceptualize... It is WAY easier to envision 50 inches than 1,270mm.
The alternative would be to go ahead and use meters, centimeters, decimeters etc. on engineering drawings. You laugh at the Mars satellite thing, but just imagine how often manufacturers would mistake units... Receiving parts that were 10 times too big or too small than what you ordered would be commonplace.
The metric system's heart was in the right place, but they had such a hard-on for making units "make sense" when comparing length to weight to volume, that they ended up with a base unit (meters) that just wasn't very useful for most things.
An inch is just a more useful length, regardless of the history of how it became an inch in the first place.
If they just would have taken an inch and made milliinches and kiliinches etc., I would have been all in.
If there were 10 inches in a decainch, instead of 12 inches in a foot. The U.S. would have converted in the 1970s.
Overall though, I would gladly just switch to metric system, rather than having to convert between two systems all of the time.
2. Temperature. Same issue as above. The metric system has such a hard-on for making different units make some sort of scientific sense that they ended up with a base unit that isn't useful for the other 7 Billion people on the planet who aren't scientists. The proponents of Celcius will go on and on about how their scale makes more sense with water. and water is the most important thing to know the temperature of. sigh.
I really, REALLY like the idea of 0-100 scales. I'm ALL for it.
Lets get a show of hands for how many people here can even remember the last time (if ever) that they had to measure the temperature of their water.
Ok, now how many can remember the last time they wanted to know the temperature of their DAY?
0 degrees Fahrenheit = It's really fucking cold out and if you don't take precautions you will die.
100 degrees Fahrenheit = It's really fucking hot outside. If you don't take precautions, you will die.
Is it scientific? not at all.
More useful for the VAST majority of human beings? yep
Teaspoons in the US? Here I was thinking the smallest spoon they had was a ladle.
5 teaspoons is 1 mouthful, and 4 mouthful is 1 vomit. Pretty easy, you peasant
Fahrenheit is still so intuitive it’s ridiculous. Think of it as a percentage of how hot it is. 0%, you’ll freeze your head off. Quite cold going up to around 40, when you figure you’ll be okay. 60% hot and up is quite nice, but you’re practically dead past 100. See?
I was brought up with both & that is not intuitive at all. You have simply got used to it. 0 was defined as the freezing temperature of fully saturated brine & 100 was defined as the blood temperature of the person who defined it....except blood temperature is 98.2, so they had a fever when designing the scale! Celsius is defined by the freezing & boiling points of pure water at room temperature, which is much more repeatable. Anything in the negative will be icy & anything positive will not.
TheRip72 I meant in terms of the temperature outside. Celsius is great for science, but if you want to know what to wear outside, Fahrenheit is the way to go for me.
-An American
Americans wanted to do something different than what Great Britain did they didn’t want to follow Great Britain cause they wanted to be independent. The roads is another example.
One convenient thing about the foot (as opposed to the meter) is that it's divided into twelve smaller segments. Thus, there are more easy fractions than a system with ten sub-units. For example, 1/3 of a meter is 33.3333cm, where 1/3 a foot is 4in.
Aside from basic arithmetic, there's no excuse to keep USCS. We just do it because we wanna be different
The benefit to the imperial system is visualisation and estimation. If I say something is 10ft it's easy to visualize how big that roughly is when you reference your foot. Saying 3.048 meters doesn't really work as well for that. This is why for rough work I feel imperial is faster. I use both systems but if I'm doing rough carpentry it is MUCH faster to use imperial. Easier to remember lots of measurements without having to write them down.
We just have to agree whose feet to visualize first. They tend to vary a lot in size, you know. A meter does not.