Metric versus Imperial System for Diving?

[dfx]

I think that's why myself and other American's on here don't really get all the Euro ranting and caring about America and the metric system. Many of us can use both systems. Really don't see why some of you are so upset that we are able to use both.

It's not a matter of "being able" to use both, it's a matter of having to use both. For Europeans it's mostly a humorous footnote, unless they travel to an affected area, at which point it becomes a minor inconvenience. Other than that, they really don't care. For Canadians, it's a bit more of an issue, because the American influence is part of the reason why imperial units are still so common here. Dive course are still taught in imperial for this reason.

The metric system is probably easier to learn if you were a blank slate starting from nothing, sure.

Right, which brings us to the second part of my question. Children are a blank slate. Why are you opposed to making things easier for them and generations to come? Is it because it would inconvenience you personally?

A lot of people do things because they are convenient or expedient. Your suggestion that going metric would be overall easier is wrong headed. A previous poster who ran the car repair business confessed it wasn't easier.

I never suggested that "going metric" were easy, I said that the system itself is easier, and everybody here seems to agree with that. The transition would undoubtedly require considerable effort. The fact (if it is a fact) that metric thread sizes come in more varieties than imperial threads is hardly a fault of the system. It merely suggests that it is more used, resulting in more varieties. On the other hand, testing someone whether they can correctly read a tape measure as an assessment of their skill level is serious cause for facepalm.

 

[EFX]

Once again . . .what is so difficult about working with multiples or percentages of ONE???

1 bar-per-minute: the easiest reference number of all for Breathing Gas Consumption Calculations to work with! All you gotta do is multiply your depth in ATA, and you instantly know what your consumption is at that depth --essentially your depth gauge in meters is telling you your depth consumption rate because anything multiplied by ONE is itself. . ! (Click on my blog for a detailed explanation).

Another reason to go metric for diving. But who, has got a SAC of [excuse my imperial] 14.7 psi/min? A small woman? A child? A skip breather? I hear ya though. A more realistic 2 bar/min rate would still make the calculation easy. If I understand correctly: my SPG reads 20 m, so my SAC would be (20/10+1)*2 or 6 bar/min.

 

[dfx]

A 6'x6'x6' full water tank? Can't be done unless you know the weight of the empty tank and if the water is fresh or sea water. The weight of the filled water tank is 72x72x72 divided by 231, with the product multiplied by 8.34 if fresh water or 8.54 if seawater, plus the weight of the tank, which was not given. Simplicity itself.

He said "estimate". And what numbers are those? 231 what? 8.34 what? Simplicity? Pardon me while I laugh.

 

[EFX]

I never suggested that "going metric" were easy, I said that the system itself is easier, and everybody here seems to agree with that.

You are just stating the obvious. Of course, any system we use if we use it long enough will be easy as opposed to a system we don't know or don't use. Conversion in the metric system is of academic interest only as someone has already pointed out. I do very well with my miles not having to ever do a conversion to feet.

Who the F cares? Doing math with it???

 

[dfx]

You are just stating the obvious. Of course, any system we use if we use it long enough will be easy as opposed to a system we don't know or don't use. Conversion in the metric system is of academic interest only as someone has already pointed out. I do very well with my miles not having to ever do a conversion to feet.

Really? Then how do you deal with some highway signs showing a distance of 1,500 feet, others a distance of 1/4 mile? Which one is longer?

And yes, academic interest is a very good reason. You don't want your country to have a disadvantage in the global academic and scientific communities, or do you?

 

[mrdre]

A 6'x6'x6' full water tank? Can't be done unless you know the weight of the empty tank and if the water is fresh or sea water. The weight of the filled water tank is 72x72x72 divided by 231, with the product multiplied by 8.34 if fresh water or 8.54 if seawater, plus the weight of the tank, which was not given. Simplicity itself.

Your post suggests that the metric system is free from decimals and fractions. Not in the real world. Less prevalent, but indispensable.

For metric person the rough estimate is 2x2x2 = 8 metric tons. Yes, no decimals and fractions. no division by 231 and multiplication by 6.34. Yes, in real life in most of the cases it's THAT much simpler in other cases it's "just" simpler.

 

[EFX]

Really? Then how do you deal with some highway signs showing a distance of 1,500 feet, others a distance of 1/4 mile? Which one is longer?

Don't use either. My NAV displays in tenths of a mile! I deal with it the way you would deal with 250 m vs. 1/4 km. [Hint: try moving the decimal point on 250 m to get 1 km.]

 

[dfx]

Don't use either. My NAV displays in tenths of a mile! I deal with it the way you would deal with 250 m vs. 1/4 km. [Hint: try moving the decimal point on 250 m to get 1 km.]

So you don't know either. And nobody uses 1/4 km. It's always 250 m. Nobody uses fractions!

 

[EFX]

I don't need to calculate what a 1/4 of a mile is in feet. I know from using imperial that 1 mile = 5,280 ft, but I don't divide that by 4 to know if 1500 ft on some pathetic road sign is a 1/4 mile. Nobody does this. Most people work on intuition in real life.

 

[dfx]

I don't need to calculate what a 1/4 of a mile is in feet. I know from using imperial that 1 mile = 5,280 ft, but I don't divide that by 4 to know if 1500 ft on some pathetic road sign is a 1/4 mile. Nobody does this. Most people work on intuition in real life.

We all understand that. The question remains: Why are you opposed to eliminating this limitation?