# Use Metric system only in discussions



## Whiskey (6 May 2008)

It would be good if everyone used the metric system in their discussions. 

I know a lot of people still think in imperial for some things, but it's a rubbish system clearly.

Metric has been the only system taught in schools for the past 40 years.

The one that gets under my skin the most is people saying what area their house is in square feet. 

Or how many miles per gallon a car does (its litres /100kms by the way)

Or people who say their weight in stones and lbs.

As for length, maybe it's ok to say you are 6ft tall, but better to say you are 182cm (or is it 183cm !)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 May 2008)

I don't know. I for one still think in the Imperial system mostly. Apart from speed limits. 

If I see Sq metres, I have to convert it back to square feet. 

Brendan


----------



## ClubMan (6 May 2008)

An oz of prevention is worth an lb of cure.


----------



## z103 (6 May 2008)

> I know a lot of people still think in imperial for some things, but it's a rubbish system clearly.


It has its merits.
For example,  I can get a rough measure of how many feet something is by walking toe to heel. Twelve inches in a foot. You can divide twelve by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 - unlike rubbish ten which can only be divided by 1, 2, and 5.
For small measurements, the 'halving' system works quite well. 1/2 inch, 1/16 inch etc...


----------



## ClubMan (7 May 2008)

Alan Turing once mounted a stout defence of the _British _currency system of pounds, shillings and pence versus the decimal system used elsewhere:


> This remark in turn gave rise to a dispute as to which system of measures and currency, the traditionally chaotic British one or the lucid decimal system used in France and Poland, could be regarded as the more logical and convenient. Turing jocularly and eloquently defended the former. What other currency in the world was as admirably divided as the pound sterling, composed of 240 pence (20 shillings, each containing 12 pence)? It alone enabled three, four, five, six or eight persons to prceisely, to the penny, split a tab (with tip, generally rounded off to a full pound) at a restaurant or pub.


----------



## GeneralZod (7 May 2008)

Until the experiment with the metric system is proven I'm sticking with Imperial.  

I find rulers that only come in cms and speedometers that only have kph to be missing something. 
It's nice to have a choice of standards. Each has it's own advantages.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 May 2008)

That is inspiring.

Let's start a campaign to scrap the metric system and bring back the Imperial system. 

We can form a committee of 12 people and have three sub-groups of 4 members. 

When we rent a campaign headquarters, we can check the auctioneer's measurements by walking the rooms.

The craic will be 90, or should that be 16¾  ?

Brendan


----------



## Whiskey (7 May 2008)

The problem with having two standards is that it makes comparison difficult. Like on a typical AAM forum, one poster is saying how much a builder charges per square foot, and another poster is saying how much a builder charges in square meters. Best to have one standard.
Also, every regulation from the EU and from Ireland is in metric.

Legally as a country, we are 100% metric (except for pints in pubs and clubs only).

I noticed today as I walked to work in Dublin some butchers advertising the price of 2lbs of minced meat (with no metric equivalent). Clearly they are breaking the law. 
I suppose olde habits die slowly.


----------



## ClubMan (7 May 2008)

Whiskey said:


> I noticed today as I walked to work in Dublin some butchers advertising the price of 2lbs of minced meat (with no metric equivalent). Clearly they are breaking the law.


I hope you alerted the _Gardaí_ to this heinous crime!


----------



## Caveat (7 May 2008)

Whiskey said:


> It would be good if everyone used the metric system in their discussions.


 
I agree in principle but I don't see it happening any time soon.

Anyway, I'm off now for 568ml of lager.


----------



## ClubMan (7 May 2008)

One we have weights and measures sorted we can move onto timekeeping!


----------



## efm (7 May 2008)

ClubMan said:


> One we have weights and measures sorted we can move onto timekeeping!


 
Yup...and then onto days and years


----------



## Carpenter (8 May 2008)

I was taught the metric system  in school; I work in the construction industry and am commonly expected to use both imperial and metric measures! I still order meat in lbs, timber in feet and inches (and metric too of course) and am only now getting to grips with litres per 100 km!  Where certain building materials are concerned, imperial dimensions will always be with us (most sheet materials are still sold in 8' x 4' format). I find it useful to be able to use (and think in) both systems.  I'm continually amused by the use of "centimetres"- the engineering and construction industry use metres or millimetres and never the centimetre.


----------



## Satanta (8 May 2008)

Carpenter said:


> I'm continually amused by the use of "centimetres"- the engineering and construction industry use metres or millimetres and never the centimetre.


That's something I do daily and never even noticed it before. I'd never dream of saying 10cm, it's always 100mm (or "mil" to the cool kids ).

Ever come across a reason for this? 

I assume I do it out of convention (monkey see, monkey do), but I'm guessing there's something behind it.


----------



## Hoagy (9 May 2008)

Whiskey said:


> I noticed today as I walked to work in Dublin some butchers advertising the price of 2lbs of minced meat (with no metric equivalent). Clearly they are breaking the law.


 
I don't think so.....


----------



## Whiskey (9 May 2008)

Hoagy said:


> I don't think so.....


 

I read this article differently to you.

The EU are happy to tolerate the following (indefinitely)

1. pints for milk in reusable bottles, as well as beer and cider on draught
2. mile for road traffic signs and speed and distance measurements
3. troy weight for precious measurements.

All other measurements must be in metric (and optionally also in imperial).

However, legally in Ireland, we have gone further than the EU directives, pints are only legal in pubs, and the mile is obviously not used anymore, and the troy ounce is not legal.

A butcher shop advertising the price of 2lbs of minced meat (without displaying the price in metric) is breaking the law I think.

However as other posters have said, it's hardly a heinous crime, a lot of people like using imperial.


----------



## Caveat (9 May 2008)

Satanta said:


> Ever come across a reason for this?


 
I suppose if anything (from length of wood to drill bit) is less than 1M, you can talk about dimensions more precisely and less clumsily if you use mm?

With wood for example, lots of adjustments and planing goes on which will almost inevitably be in mm - e.g. "take about 4 mils of the end of that" v.s. "take just under half a cm off that"

Sections of joinery related stuff can come in all shapes and sizes I suppose, so whereas 10 cm might be fine as an alternative to 100 mm, there could also be an 11.5 cm version - better just to say 115 mils maybe.

Not a scientific explanation I know but it sort of makes sense to me...


----------



## ClubMan (9 May 2008)

Caveat said:


> I suppose if anything (from length of wood to drill bit) is less than 1M, you can talk about dimensions more precisely and less clumsily if you use mm?
> 
> With wood for example, lots of adjustments and planing goes on which will almost inevitably be in mm - e.g. "take about 4 mils of the end of that" v.s. "take just under half a cm off that"


4mils? 4ml? I presume you mean 4mm? Anyway how is 4mm any more accurate than 0.4cm? 


> Not a scientific explanation I know but it sort of makes sense to me...


Doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## Caveat (9 May 2008)

ClubMan said:


> 4mils? 4ml? I presume you mean 4mm?


 
Yes, of course.  Was using the 'cool' vernacular - see a few posts above 



> Anyway how is 4mm any more accurate than 0.4cm?


 
I don't mean it's more accurate - I mean that the info can be imparted more accurately and more fluently if mm is used. e.g. When talking about measurements less than 1mm it's not very practical to start saying 0.05 cm etc.  

I suspect also, as Carpenter says, that because a lot of materials are described/sold in dimensions of mm it becomes second nature to talk about them that way.


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 May 2008)

I suspect we're going to get great kilometrage out of this discussion.


----------



## ClubMan (9 May 2008)

Caveat said:


> I don't mean it's more accurate


Sorry - I assumed "precise" and "accurate" were, for all intents and purposes, synonymous.


----------



## efm (9 May 2008)

DrMoriarty said:


> I suspect we're going to get great kilometrage out of this discussion.


 
 That was very good; one of your better ones in fact!


----------



## Caveat (9 May 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Sorry - I assumed "precise" and "accurate" were, for all intents and purposes, synonymous.


 
Yes, I would agree - but it is neither "precise" nor "accurate" to infer that I suggested 4mm, as a measurement, 'is more accurate' than 0.4cm. 

Anyway, hopefully Carpenter can advise on the mm/cm thing?


----------



## Purple (9 May 2008)

I think in metric most of the time and also use Meters and millimetres (not centimetres) but I have no problem using both.
My background is in manufacturing engineering and many drawings were in metric and imperial with many of the imperial drawings using fractions (which I hated).


----------



## S.L.F (10 May 2008)

I was taught in the metric system but after a few years dealing with both methods I now mainly use the imperial system because it's far easier to use.



Whiskey said:


> As for length, maybe it's ok to say you are 6ft tall, but better to say you are 182cm (or is it 183cm !)



Neither its 0.0018288km, 1.8288m, 182.88cm or 1828.8mm

or to use another method 41.1891892 u

or you can just say 6 feet.


----------



## S.L.F (10 May 2008)

DrMoriarty said:


> I suspect we're going to get great kilometrage out of this discussion.



This thread is definitely dying by 25.4mm's.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 May 2008)

On a related note...

A colleague of mine mentioned that she had a python which was "four foot long" 

Another asked her in all seriousness, "What is that in feet?". 

Which is correct? Is "four foot long" an Irish expression?


----------



## S.L.F (10 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> Is "four foot long" an Irish expression?



It really would depend on whether you are comparing it to something 1219.2mm precisely.

If it isn't exact then it's around 4 foot, Irish or otherwise.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2008)

S.L.F said:


> It really would depend on whether you are comparing it to something 1219.2mm precisely.
> 
> If it isn't exact then it's around 4 foot, Irish or otherwise.



I think the question is more should it be "four foot long" or "four feet long".


----------



## S.L.F (10 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> "What is that in feet?".



Normally people say," in feet and inches" to describe the method of measurement.

I think 4 foot long sounds right to me not 4 feet long


----------



## ClubMan (10 May 2008)

Purple said:


> I think the question is more should it be "four foot long" or "four feet long".


They measure horses in hands. Maybe they measure snakes in foots?


----------



## TreeTiger (10 May 2008)

I think in imperial for just about everything except MS Word.



Whiskey said:


> Metric has been the only system taught in schools for the past 40 years.


I had a carpenter around recently doing some work in the house, drew up everything in metric for him to make it easier.  The first thing he said was "what's that in inches?".  And I doubt he's 40 years old yet!


----------



## Whiskey (11 May 2008)

Brendan said:


> Which is correct? Is "four foot long" an Irish expression?


 

I don't think "four foot long" is an Irish expression.
A lot of people in the english speaking world use foot as the plural of foot.

There is a website called Four Foot Snake
www.*four**foot*snake.org.uk (however it's under construction)


And look at the Satchi gallery in London, there is a six by four foot painting
[broken link removed]



http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv312.shtml
The BBC page above says the following

*"Six foot* (or six feet) *three* (inches) would describe a fairly tall man. Note that we would normally say six foot despite the plural reference, although six feet is also possible."


----------



## DrMoriarty (11 May 2008)

It's simple; when it's an adjectival phrase describing something else, it's a six by four foot painting, a ten foot bargepole, a 12 inch ruler, a five mile run, etc. You wouldn't use the plural in any of these expressions.

When it's a measurement, followed for example by the adjective 'long' or 'tall', then it's ten feet long, four feet wide, six inches in diameter, five miles away, etc.


----------



## kkman (11 May 2008)

ClubMan said:


> 4mils? 4ml? I presume you mean 4mm? Anyway how is 4mm any more accurate than 0.4cm?
> 
> Doesn't make much sense to me.


i work in engineering and what the poster is saying makes perfect sense... i could never understand the need for centimetres. measurements in centimetres are usually reserved for sales staff in furniture shops, its the only place i have ever come accross the use of the centimetre when measuring...........


----------



## GeneralZod (11 May 2008)

Here I must come to the defence of the centimetre. 

The [broken link removed] system of units has the best names.

Ergs, emus, dynes, calorie, stokes.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 May 2008)

Dr M

Thanks for that. I can follow that rule. But why? Is that a formal rule of grammar? You use the singular in an adjectival phrase? Are there other examples not using measurement?

Brendan


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 May 2008)

I can't quote you the exact rule, Brendan (if there is one?) — but I guess it's the same principle that would make us say 'a three-bedroom (adj.) apartment' to describe an apartment with three bedroom*s* (n.), a twenty euro note, a ten-page booklet, etc.

Which leads me neatly to the equally fascinating area of hyphenation...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Graham_07 (12 May 2008)

I'm just worried that metrification will kill off some traditional sayings. 
"Give them 2.54 centimetres and they'll take 1.609344 kilometres" just doesn't quite have the same ring about it.


----------



## Whiskey (12 May 2008)

I think we have stumbled on the one advantage of Imperial over metric.

Nearly all the measurements are one syllable only. Pound, Ounce, Stone, Inch, Pint, Quart, Gill, Mile, Roud, Foot, Yard.
A few have two syllables like acre, gallon, furlong.

And of course some of the well known expressions which have been with us since Shakespeare may die out, like a pound of flesh. 


As for metric, the base units have 2 syllables like metre, but mm, ml, km, cl etc all have 4 syllables, easier to write than to say.


----------



## Sherman (12 May 2008)

Whiskey said:


> And of course some of the well known expressions which have been with us since Shakespeare may die out, like a pound of flesh.


 
Imperial measurements will in no way die out while America/Canada continue to use them, and while America's cultural influence on the world continues to grow ever stronger.

Then again, what does China use?


----------



## rmelly (18 May 2008)

Whiskey said:


> Use Metric system only in discussions


 
Ridiculous - next you'll be monitoring the curvature of my lunchtime banana. This askaboutmoney experiment has gone too far and needs to be reigned in - vote NO.


----------



## ajapale (18 May 2008)

Moved from  to Letting Off Steam.


----------



## Deirdra (18 May 2008)

Sherman said:


> Then again, what does China use?



Li for kilometres
Catty for Kilos

I suppose as the metric system has 'been in operation' unsuccessfully for 30+ years, we might as well try something else.


----------



## BillK (18 May 2008)

When I was a Work Study Officer in Local Government back in the 1960's we used to work in centiminutes i.e. 100ths of a minute rather than in seconds. The catchphrase was, "If it moves, time it; if it doesn't, then measure it" (in feet and inches, square yards, acres etc, of course)


----------

