Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

beigeknight wrote:I've always wondered this. I figure a company founded in England would use metrics. I hope there's some big funny story behind it.

The metric system was commissioned by the French Revolutionary government in the last decade of the 18th century to standardize weights and measures. When Napoleon conquered most of the continent he imposed the metric system everywhere he could. Since he ruled many places for about a decade, the habit sunk in. But Great Britain was at war with France at the time so there was no chance of the Metric system being adopted there. It would have been unpatriotic, even though the metric system is plainly more rational. After that it just became custom, and it's persisted to this day. In Great Britain, like the United States, it's difficult to change customs like this because there are no institutions with authority to regulate them. In Europe, where they have stronger traditions of centralized government and proactive institutions, the situation is different.

Probably not a very funny story, but true nonetheless.

GreatGunz wrote:

beigeknight wrote:I've always wondered this. I figure a company founded in England would use metrics. I hope there's some big funny story behind it.

The metric system was commissioned by the French Revolutionary government in the last decade of the 18th century to standardize weights and measures. When Napoleon conquered most of the continent he imposed the metric system everywhere he could. Since he ruled many places for about a decade, the habit sunk in. But Great Britain was at war with France at the time so there was no chance of the Metric system being adopted there. It would have been unpatriotic, even though the metric system is plainly more rational. After that it just became custom, and it's persisted to this day. In Great Britain, like the United States, it's difficult to change customs like this because there are no institutions with authority to regulate them. In Europe, where they have stronger traditions of centralized government and proactive institutions, the situation is different.

Probably not a very funny story, but true nonetheless.

As stated before, in the UK we joined the EEC in the 70's where we were forced to adopt the metric system for sale of goods. as we are still part of the EU (the then EEC) we still use metric for sales of goods and it tends to be universal. BUT. there remains a good proportion of the population who still use imperial. as both systems have its place.

For more info see my earlier post.

Because the US probably spends the most money due to its massive consumer population. Well, we don't really have money over here anymore, but man do we know how to use credit.

StoneRaizer wrote:I live in Canada, right next to the USA border and I too use both systems.

Speed is measured in KM/H, but don't ask me what my height is in CM or my weight in KG - I only know it in feet/inches and pounds. Travelling distance is measured in KM and M, except in golf and American football where I use yards. Volume is in L and mL, temperature is in 'C.

It would be great if the world used one system, but that would require the world to agree on which one to use and that'll never happen. :(

this is exactly me, Most things in Metric, Some things in Imperial, Emperor help me if you ask me temperatures in F, 32 is freezing and 100 is really hot, that's all I know in that department

Grakmar wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:While the metric system is obviously the more logical and rational system

The metric system is easy for conversions between units in a base 10 number system. But, it's still just as arbitrary and irrational as imperial units.

Arbitrary? Certainly. Any unit of measurement is nothing more than an arbitrary agreement between the parties involved.

Irrational? No, just no.


The metric-system is a completely logical and rational system.

It is a base 10 system through-and-through, that consistently follows the same rules for conversions.

It is compatible with the percentage system, and is has internal logic between the various modes of measurement; 1 liter of water weighs 1 kilogram and fits inside a 10 centimeter by 10 centimeter container. So a container measuring 1 meter by 1 meter contains 1000 liters and weighs 1 ton (1000 kilograms).
It even follow the same logic as most monetary units of measurement.

Also water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius and boils at 100 degrees Celsius*, and 1 Calorie is the energy required to increase the temperature of 1 liter (which is also 1 kilogram) of water by 1 degree Celsius.

When diving the pressure increases by one atmospheric unit for every 10 meters.


The last few countries desperately clinging to the imperial system (as if it has any "system" to it) should just join the rest of the world. The military of those countries have already realized this and the civilian population should just follow along.

Sure it is annoying to learn a new mode of measurement, and sure the countries will have dual specifications for generations.....but you might as well get on with it.



...

Steelmage99 wrote:[


It is compatible with the percentage system, and is has internal logic between the various modes of measurement; 1 liter weighs 1 kilogram and fits inside a 10 centimeter by 10 centimeter container. So a container measuring 1 meter by 1 meter contains 1000 liters and weighs 1 ton (1000 kilograms).
It even follow the same logic as most monetary units of measurement.

Might I point out that the weight depends on the density of the liquid in question, it isn't automatically 1 ton.

jgehunter wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:[


It is compatible with the percentage system, and is has internal logic between the various modes of measurement; 1 liter weighs 1 kilogram and fits inside a 10 centimeter by 10 centimeter container. So a container measuring 1 meter by 1 meter contains 1000 liters and weighs 1 ton (1000 kilograms).
It even follow the same logic as most monetary units of measurement.

Might I point out that the weight depends on the density of the liquid in question, it isn't automatically 1 ton.

I am sorry. You are, of course absolutely, correct.
I should have specified that I was talking about water.

What is so tough about weights and measures in the US?

Talking about water:

1 pint = 1 pound
2 quarts = 1 pint
8 pints = 1 gallon
8 ounces = 1 quart
16 ounces = 1 Pint
128 ounces = 1 gallon


1/2 inch = 1/2 inch
1 mile = 5280 feet
1 foot = 12 inches
3 feet = 1 yard
100 yards = a proper football field (With an extra 10 yards for each end zone)


So Simple!

Steelmage99 wrote:It is a base 10 system through-and-through, that consistently follows the same rules for conversions.

Ah. So, there's 100 seconds in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour, and 10 hours in a day? No? Well, why not? It seems strange to have most of your units in multiples of 10, but 1 that doesn't fit. It's even a little stranger than a system that doesn't have any set base.

Steelmage99 wrote:1 liter of water weighs 1 kilogram and fits inside a 10 centimeter by 10 centimeter container. So a container measuring 1 meter by 1 meter contains 1000 liters and weighs 1 ton (1000 kilograms).

1 liter of water weighs 0.999972 kg at 4C, 0.9584 kg at 100C, 0.9998395 kg at 0C, and 0.9977735 at 22C (room temperature). There's no temperature that 1 L of water weighs 1 kg.

And, the Celsius scale itself is rather broken. It attempts to set 0 as freezing water and 100 as boiling water, but those are dependent on the exact pressure of the atmosphere. And, at standard pressure, water boils at 99.98C, not 100.

I'm not saying the Imperial system is better. In fact, it's much much worse. I'm just saying that metric could be improved upon significantly, especially when it comes to measuring time and making the units actually based on something real.

Grakmar wrote:
1 liter of water weighs 0.999972 kg at 4C, 0.9584 kg at 100C, 0.9998395 kg at 0C, and 0.9977735 at 22C (room temperature). There's no temperature that 1 L of water weighs 1 kg.

I'm not saying the Imperial system is better. In fact, it's much much worse. I'm just saying that metric could be improved upon significantly, especially when it comes to measuring time and making the units actually based on something real.

1 litre of pure H2O (not the one you drink that contains other substances) at 4 °C and 760 millimetres of mercury pressure weights 1 kilo.

Also a "measuring unit" is almost always going to be subjective

And, the Celsius scale itself is rather broken. It attempts to set 0 as freezing water and 100 as boiling water, but those are dependent on the exact pressure of the atmosphere. And, at standard pressure, water boils at 99.98C, not 100.

Anyhow, celsius is very convenient for everyday life and when in need of something more scientifical you just use Kelvin

DeathReaper wrote:What is so tough about weights and measures in the US?

Talking about water:

1 pint = 1 pound
2 quarts = 1 pint
8 pints = 1 gallon
8 ounces = 1 quart
16 ounces = 1 Pint
128 ounces = 1 gallon


1/2 inch = 1/2 inch
1 mile = 5280 feet
1 foot = 12 inches
3 feet = 1 yard
100 yards = a proper football field (With an extra 10 yards for each end zone)


So Simple!

Yes, that is very simple.

Keep in mind that the length of the mile is dependent on the state you are in.

BTW. A genuine question; how does ounce and liquid ounce interact?

jgehunter wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
1 liter of water weighs 0.999972 kg at 4C, 0.9584 kg at 100C, 0.9998395 kg at 0C, and 0.9977735 at 22C (room temperature). There's no temperature that 1 L of water weighs 1 kg.

I'm not saying the Imperial system is better. In fact, it's much much worse. I'm just saying that metric could be improved upon significantly, especially when it comes to measuring time and making the units actually based on something real.

1 litre of pure H2O (not the one you drink that contains other substances) at 4 °C and 760 millimetres of mercury pressure weights 1 kilo.

Also a "measuring unit" is almost always going to be subjective

It doesn't. The definition of a kilogram is an actually physical object.

The definition of a meter (which a liter is based on) is the distance that light travels in 1/299792458 seconds.

Because a meter doesn't change at all (assuming the speed of light doesn't change), but a kilogram does (the standard kilogram has lost a bit of weight in the past 100 years, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12276822 ). That means that there's no way 1L of water can always weigh 1kg. If it does today, that means that it didn't yesterday, and it won't tomorrow.

Grakmar wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:It is a base 10 system through-and-through, that consistently follows the same rules for conversions.

Ah. So, there's 100 seconds in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour, and 10 hours in a day? No? Well, why not? It seems strange to have most of your units in multiples of 10, but 1 that doesn't fit. It's even a little stranger than a system that doesn't have any set base.

You are right. Time is the one measurement that isn't based on tens, even in the metric system. Though we does such terms as "2 miliseconds" to say "2 one-thousandth-of-a-second", which is making use of the basis of the metric system.

Grakmar wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
1 liter of water weighs 0.999972 kg at 4C, 0.9584 kg at 100C, 0.9998395 kg at 0C, and 0.9977735 at 22C (room temperature). There's no temperature that 1 L of water weighs 1 kg.

I'm not saying the Imperial system is better. In fact, it's much much worse. I'm just saying that metric could be improved upon significantly, especially when it comes to measuring time and making the units actually based on something real.

1 litre of pure H2O (not the one you drink that contains other substances) at 4 °C and 760 millimetres of mercury pressure weights 1 kilo.

Also a "measuring unit" is almost always going to be subjective

It doesn't. The definition of a kilogram is an actually physical object.

The definition of a meter (which a liter is based on) is the distance that light travels in 1/299792458 seconds.

Because a meter doesn't change at all (assuming the speed of light doesn't change), but a kilogram does (the standard kilogram has lost a bit of weight in the past 100 years, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12276822 ). That means that there's no way 1L of water can always weigh 1kg. If it does today, that means that it didn't yesterday, and it won't tomorrow.

I stand corrected here (Interesting read BTW)

As has been said. The British have adopted the metric system but only half heartedly.

To put it simply. We may order goods in killos and measure distances in metres at work, but we'll still be ordering a pint when we get to the pub.

I prefer Centimeters, meters, kilometers

grams, kilogram, tons.

makes more sense and precise
(oh its called the metric system, thanks steelmage)

Grakmar wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
1 liter of water weighs 0.999972 kg at 4C, 0.9584 kg at 100C, 0.9998395 kg at 0C, and 0.9977735 at 22C (room temperature). There's no temperature that 1 L of water weighs 1 kg.

I'm not saying the Imperial system is better. In fact, it's much much worse. I'm just saying that metric could be improved upon significantly, especially when it comes to measuring time and making the units actually based on something real.

1 litre of pure H2O (not the one you drink that contains other substances) at 4 °C and 760 millimetres of mercury pressure weights 1 kilo.

Also a "measuring unit" is almost always going to be subjective

It doesn't. The definition of a kilogram is an actually physical object.

For now.

The definition of a meter (which a liter is based on) is the distance that light travels in 1/299792458 seconds.

Now it is. It used to be based on a physical object too......a silver stick, if I remember correctly.



But why is this being used as an argument against the metric system?
What is the imperial system based on that is so different?

Both systems requires a standard to which all others are measured (usually a few).

ifStatement wrote:As has been said. The British have adopted the metric system but only half heartedly.

To put it simply. We may order goods in killos and measure distances in metres at work, but we'll still be ordering a pint when we get to the pub.

AMEN BROTHER!

LunaHound wrote:I prefer Centimeters, meters, kilometers

grams, kilogram, tons.

makes more sense and precise

And, what is up with tons? It's a megagram. No need to come up with some fancy new name.

Grakmar wrote:Ah. So, there's 100 seconds in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour, and 10 hours in a day? No? Well, why not? It seems strange to have most of your units in multiples of 10, but 1 that doesn't fit. It's even a little stranger than a system that doesn't have any set basel.

Don't worry, when I rule the world we will have 100 seconds in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour and 10 hours in a day (I worked it out and I if I remember correctly that it makes each "new" second about 1.6 "rubbish" seconds). There will also be 10 days in a week and 10 weeks in a year (so 100 days in a year - stuff nature, it is what we have electric lights and heaters for )

Steelmage99 wrote:But why is this being used as an argument against the metric system?
What is the imperial system based on that is so different?

Both systems requires a standard to which all others are measured (usually a few).

I'm using it as an argument against both systems.

Grakmar wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I prefer Centimeters, meters, kilometers

grams, kilogram, tons.

makes more sense and precise

And, what is up with tons? It's a megagram. No need to come up with some fancy new name.

It's an old name, with less syllables.

Grakmar wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:But why is this being used as an argument against the metric system?
What is the imperial system based on that is so different?

Both systems requires a standard to which all others are measured (usually a few).

I'm using it as an argument against both systems.

Ah. I see.

Dry ounce and liquid ounce weigh the same. just like a Kilogram of bricks and a Kilogram of feathers would weigh the same (Though they wold have different volume).

Recipes in American English usually do not usually call for Ounces, they call for "Cups" and Teaspoons"

The dry measurements usually use fractions of a measurement called "Cups" 1/2 cup of sugar for example.

Fluid ounces usually use Teaspoons, Tablespoons, and fractions thereof. where 1 Teaspoon is 60 drops.

Here is a conversion chart.

........................teaspoon....tablespoon.......fluid ounce....gill..........cup...............pint................quart.....................gallon
1 teaspoon =......1.................1/3..........................1/6.........1/24........- - -.............- - -...................- - -........................- - -
1 tablespoon =...3...................1...........................1/2...........1/8........1/16.............- - -..................- - -........................- - -
1 fluid ounce =....6...................2............................1.............1/4........1/8...............1/16.................- - -........................- - -
1 gill =..................24.................8.............................4..............1..........1/2...............1/4...................1/8.......................- - -
1 cup =.................48................16...........................8...............2...........1.................1/2...................1/4.......................1/16
1 pint =.................96................32 ..........................16.............4............2..................1.....................1/2.......................1/8
1 quart =.............192...............64...........................32............8............4...................2......................1.........................1/4
1 gallon =...........768..............256.........................128.........32..........16..................8......................4.........................1
1 firkin = ............6912............2304.......................1152......288........144...............72....................36........................9
1 hogshead =..48384..........16128.....................8064......2016.....1008.............504.................252.....................63

Grakmar wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:But why is this being used as an argument against the metric system?
What is the imperial system based on that is so different?

Both systems requires a standard to which all others are measured (usually a few).

I'm using it as an argument against both systems.

But a "measuring System" is just a convention used to compare measures, it doesn't have to "make sense" to be useful.

ifStatement wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I prefer Centimeters, meters, kilometers

grams, kilogram, tons.

makes more sense and precise

And, what is up with tons? It's a megagram. No need to come up with some fancy new name.

It's an old name, with less syllables.

The metric system actually uses the "tonne", rather than the "ton".

DeathReaper wrote:Dry ounce and fluid ounce weight the same.

Nope. Fluid Ounce is a measure of volume. Ounce is a measure of weight. They're two entirely different things.

The only thing they have in common is that they are 1/16th of something else (1/16 of a pound for ounce, 1/16 of a pint for fluid ounce). Unless you're in Britian. Their fluid ounces are smaller than ours, and there's 20 in their pint (which is larger than our pint).

SilverMK2 wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I prefer Centimeters, meters, kilometers

grams, kilogram, tons.

makes more sense and precise

And, what is up with tons? It's a megagram. No need to come up with some fancy new name.

It's an old name, with less syllables.

The metric system actually uses the "tonne", rather than the "ton".

Tonne is the formal term which is barely adhered to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote: their pint (which is larger than our pint)

well duh, we are British after all.

Why inches over centimeters? An inch is bigger so we move further because GW favors assault armies ;D

Exalted Pariah wrote:Why inches over centimeters? An inch is bigger so we move further because GW favors assault armies ;D

Nothing of the sort.


It just happens the creators of GW were born and raised using Inches first.