When does the world go metric...

[vondo]

Third, the US headcount is only something around 20% of the world population, which means if there were 10 people in a room, only two of them would be American and of those two one probably won't care and one would be a world "thought leader" that already used the metric system in his/her work. I hardly think that the rest of the world be inclined to give much thought to who was "right" and nobody *at all* would be inclined to follow the apathetic one....

Actually, it's under 5% or one in twenty. There are over 6 billion people in the world and only 300 million in the U.S.

If I recall correctly, the U.S. is officially metric but it's not in common usage. Probably Britain is similar with its miles, stones, and pounds. In fact, I seem to recall that my American cars from the 80's used metric bolts, not "English."

 

[Diver0001]

Actually, it's under 5% or one in twenty. There are over 6 billion people in the world and only 300 million in the U.S.

If I recall correctly, the U.S. is officially metric but it's not in common usage. Probably Britain is similar with its miles, stones, and pounds. In fact, I seem to recall that my American cars from the 80's used metric bolts, not "English."

You're right. I thought 20% sounded too big but I wasn't on the ball enough to see my mistake. Thanks for correcting me. I suspect it only makes the point all that much stronger.

One point I didn't make because I don't have any proof but is that I suspect that having two systems in common use costs the world economy enormous amounts of money every year. Just imagine how much money is spent manufacturing things in all kinds of "odd" sizes just because one or two governments don't have the political wherewithal get in line with the rest of the world..... One the one hand you could argue that it stimulates the enconomy but I would argue that it makes companies spend money doing stupid things when they would rather be spending that money on innovation....

R..

 

[Rick Murchison]

You're right. I thought 20% sounded too big but I wasn't on the ball enough to see my mistake. Thanks for correcting me. I suspect it only makes the point all that much stronger.

One point I didn't make because I don't have any proof but is that I suspect that having two systems in common use costs the world economy enormous amounts of money every year. Just imagine how much money is spent manufacturing things in all kinds of "odd" sizes just because one or two governments don't have the political wherewithal get in line with the rest of the world..... One the one hand you could argue that it stimulates the enconomy but I would argue that it makes companies spend money doing stupid things when they would rather be spending that money on innovation....

R..

On the other hand, if you get the governments *out* of the way, then those companies with inefficiencies would fall by the wayside and the "best" system would emerge by natural selection.
Rick

 

[KOMPRESSOR]

Totally.
Rick

-You're so sure aren't you! :14:

Yeah, perhaps... I'm not the one to lecture here. But anyways, since 1 liter of (fresh) water weighs 1000 grams, a 10 meter pillar of 1 square centimeter weighs... 1000 grams. wouldn't you say that at least they tried to get it right, and then perhaps didn't get it 100%?... -But close enough?

 

[Diver0001]

On the other hand, if you get the governments *out* of the way, then those companies with inefficiencies would fall by the wayside and the "best" system would emerge by natural selection.
Rick

Natural selection has already made it's choice for 95% of the world population as vodo pointed out. Nobody outside the U.S. is likely to take this ethnocentrism seriously..... but it doesn't really matter. Cultural anthropologists will eventually write about these things in the past tense.....

R..

 

[lamont]

Thats why our system is "easier"...a 12l tank will always be larger than a 10-liter tank...If someone in the US asked me to get that "100cft-tank" from a bundle of bottles I´d just stand there looking confused because the 100cft-tank could just as easily be a small as a big one...

that's not inherently a metric vs. imperial issue. that is because you measure the water volume of your tanks instead of the volume of compressed gas it can carry at its service pressure.

 

[o2deep4o2long]

Some of our airplanes have charts and procedures for double and triple checking them. My airplane has a button that converts the altimeter system to meters with feet in the background.

My airplane airspeed indicator is in statue miles per hour!

(1956 Bonanza)

 

[tridacna]

We do! Just not in everything in own country. I can remember during the Carter era we had speed limit signs etc. in both KPH and MPH. Today our vehicles are mostly built with metric. The manufacturers list the specs on their websites in standard and metric. Our scientists work in the metric system.

I am taking lunch while screwing around on the net, but working in standard using cad drawings to mount the front axle and brackets, of my rockcrawler. Doh! I wish it was metric measurements. Fractions; who are we kidding? Puhleasssse...I can move decimel places in my head to convert easily.

Not quite true. In medicine, for some obscure reason, US scientists have arbitrarily chosen strange units of measure. For example, cholesterol or glucose are measured in mmol/l everywhere else BUT in the US where they use mg/dl. Many more examples abound. Why? I have no idea. I can give many more examples of this stupidity.

 

[Rick Murchison]

-You're so sure aren't you! :14:

Yeah, perhaps... I'm not the one to lecture here. But anyways, since 1 liter of (fresh) water weighs 1000 grams, a 10 meter pillar of 1 square centimeter weighs... 1000 grams. wouldn't you say that at least they tried to get it right, and then perhaps didn't get it 100%?... -But close enough?

Yes I am quite sure. Neither the weight of the atmosphere nor the weight of water had anything to do with it at all. The meter was defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the pole. The convenient correlation between the pressure exerted by the atmosphere at sea level and the pressure exerted by 10 meters of sea water is pure coincidence. So the ease of conversion to atmospheres from MSW is convenient but not inherent in the system... just turns out that way.
Rick

 

[Blackwood]

Yes I am quite sure. Neither the weight of the atmosphere nor the weight of water had anything to do with it at all. The meter was defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the pole. The convenient correlation between the pressure exerted by the atmosphere at sea level and the pressure exerted by 10 meters of sea water is pure coincidence. So the ease of conversion to atmospheres from MSW is convenient but not inherent in the system... just turns out that way.
Rick

I always thought the original meter was the length of a 2 second period pendulum.