I don't know and neither do I care. It's relatively easy to convert our imperial system to metric through a little math anyways. It's like, one of the first things you learn to do in a science class.
Thats what im saying. You just count an 8th or 32nd but its still easier (ever so slightly) just to count the number you want. doing anything with these numbers is going to be a lot trickier than working with decimals (also considering calculators dont like fractions). Also 1/32 is 0.9mm and 1/64 is 0.45mm but what about all the measurements in between. The fractions youve given me are only the easy ones. As soon as you go to a scale of 0.1mm or even 0.01 your getting some awkward fractions whereas anything between 0.45 and 0.9 can easily be understood and calculated easilythe doom cannon said:except i could just count 1 inch and 3 1/8 inch marks. heck, a lot of precision measuring tapes will give me 32nds.shootthebandit said:
the mass unit for imperial is a slug, just fyi. And nobody ever uses it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)
acceleration is feet per second per second, no different from meters per second per second.
but when will I ever practically use anything smaller than a 32nd of an inch? If I am going to use smaller measurements, I just use a x 10^b inches. At that point, any physical interpretation is arbitrary. I don't need to have a real world equivalent of a 64th of an inch, or 128th of an inch, etc, in order to be able to utilize itshootthebandit said:Thats what im saying. You just count an 8th or 32nd but its still easier (ever so slightly) just to count the number you want. doing anything with these numbers is going to be a lot trickier than working with decimals (also considering calculators dont like fractions). Also 1/32 is 0.9mm and 1/64 is 0.45mm but what about all the measurements in between. The fractions youve given me are only the easy ones. As soon as you go to a scale of 0.1mm or even 0.01 your getting some awkward fractions whereas anything between 0.45 and 0.9 can easily be understood and calculated easily
Thats also precisely my point how can feet per second per second be calculated using pounds and slugs. It cant and thats why the newton is a sensible unit of force (hence why the pascal is based on it to). Its ties all the units together so everything can be calculated from one another without adding needless steps
Just frames and sheetrock no, for everything that makes up a modern house yes. You are talking changing hundreds of different items and making sure they all still match up and work,costing millions if not billions, simply because you like the units better.Heronblade said:TLDR: Imperial is easier because people have been using Imperial. The numbers I gave were approximations of what a metric standard size might look like, I know they are not exact conversions of what is being used now.direkiller said:40 cm is not equal to 16in exactly so yes it is a problem when you are dealing with the length of a wall, or floors.Heronblade said:40 centimeters is a less convenient dimensional standard for a frame than 16 inches? I'm not sure I see it. Switching from square foot tiles over to 9 square decimeters doesn't seem like too much of a hassle either.direkiller said:Quite simply it is good for practical things when building. Wood Frames are 16" center to center, even in places with metric, it's not a number that works out nicely, and quite simply it saves time. Tiles are done in sq feet aswell due to there size.Amaror said:Ok, then let's get this started. I read up a bit on the Imperial System and i just can't find any great benefits to it.
Also how often do you have to convert? that is all I hear people say when it comes to metric, and i almost never see it even in science, they still want it in base units. So with that the strength of metric is out the window and it just comes down to what numbers you remember more, and quite frankly the imperial numbers are just easier when wood and steel are involved.
As to how often I have to convert, go look up a couple of intermediate dynamics problems and try to stick with imperial units throughout, I dare you.
there is also 12" and 24"CC frames which are standard for one simple reason, they line up with drywall and plywood which are the same size wherever you go. It's far better to just use imperial units then to have the sheetrock/drywall not line up with the studs,because some dumb ass was .6cm off every time he placed a stud.
As for floor space it's less about the area and more about an estimate on the amount of tiles you need, rounding the room dimensions to the nearest foot gives you a quick and dirty estimate for the cost.
I realize i am saying imperial is easyer because all the building materials match up nicely with imperial units because ameica.
but yea Imperial just leaves you with easier numbers
Let me ask you this, if the companies that supply sheetrock shifted over to a 60 centimeter width, and other dimensional standards in architectural plans adjusted to similar simple standards do you think a building company would really have that much trouble adjusting their frames to match?
Youve just proved my point for me (x10^) is used excusively in metric because it makes sense for any scale of numbers. You have basically just said if its below a 32nd you will just convert it to metric. x10^ doesnt work well with inches because it isnt a base 10 measurement and thats why we use mm because it works on every possible scale and is designed to be used in situations where x10^ is required.the doom cannon said:but when will I ever practically use anything smaller than a 32nd of an inch? If I am going to use smaller measurements, I just use a x 10^b inches. At that point, any physical interpretation is arbitrary. I don't need to have a real world equivalent of a 64th of an inch, or 128th of an inch, etc, in order to be able to utilize itshootthebandit said:Thats what im saying. You just count an 8th or 32nd but its still easier (ever so slightly) just to count the number you want. doing anything with these numbers is going to be a lot trickier than working with decimals (also considering calculators dont like fractions). Also 1/32 is 0.9mm and 1/64 is 0.45mm but what about all the measurements in between. The fractions youve given me are only the easy ones. As soon as you go to a scale of 0.1mm or even 0.01 your getting some awkward fractions whereas anything between 0.45 and 0.9 can easily be understood and calculated easily
Thats also precisely my point how can feet per second per second be calculated using pounds and slugs. It cant and thats why the newton is a sensible unit of force (hence why the pascal is based on it to). Its ties all the units together so everything can be calculated from one another without adding needless steps
You are overestimating the difficulty and underestimating the benefits.direkiller said:Just frames and sheetrock no, for everything that makes up a modern house yes. You are talking changing hundreds of different items and making sure they all still match up and work,costing millions if not billions, simply because you like the units better.Heronblade said:TLDR: Imperial is easier because people have been using Imperial. The numbers I gave were approximations of what a metric standard size might look like, I know they are not exact conversions of what is being used now.
Let me ask you this, if the companies that supply sheetrock shifted over to a 60 centimeter width, and other dimensional standards in architectural plans adjusted to similar simple standards do you think a building company would really have that much trouble adjusting their frames to match?
Yea, it's not going to happen.
what? since when was x10^ whatever exclusively metric? you can break anything you want into powers of 10. When conceptualization isnt an issue, 0.000438 inches is a perfectly acceptable number to come up with. In fact, that's a pretty good number for the deflection of a steel beam per inch of length. please tell me what 0.000483 mm looks like. You can't, and I can't tell you what 0.000483 inches looks like either. When it comes to doing calculations, units don't matter as long as you keep them consistent. When dealing with physical applications, inches and feet are a lot easier to conceptualize than mm, cm, and m because they were designed that way.shootthebandit said:Youve just proved my point for me (x10^) is used excusively in metric because it makes sense for any scale of numbers. You have basically just said if its below a 32nd you will just convert it to metric. x10^ doesnt work well with inches because it isnt a base 10 measurement and thats why we use mm because it works on every possible scale and is designed to be used in situations where x10^ is required.
I am an American, and ever since I learned the metric system in a special-placement math class when I was ten years old, I have always felt that it was superior and the fact that America doesn't use it is nonsensical.Amaror said:First of all. I know this i probably going to be a pretty difficult discussion. Everyone here has grown up with one or the other measurement system, so nobody can be really objective about this.
Ok, then let's get this started. I read up a bit on the Imperial System and i just can't find any great benefits to it.
It's not just signs that would have to be changed though. Literally every material good manufactured and used in the US would have to find a new standard that also matched the existing buildings/machines/every thing out there.remnant_phoenix said:I am an American, and ever since I learned the metric system in a special-placement math class when I was ten years old, I have always felt that it was superior and the fact that America doesn't use it is nonsensical.Amaror said:First of all. I know this i probably going to be a pretty difficult discussion. Everyone here has grown up with one or the other measurement system, so nobody can be really objective about this.
Ok, then let's get this started. I read up a bit on the Imperial System and i just can't find any great benefits to it.
The only argument I've heard that has any reasonable substance (and not much substance, just a little) for keeping the Imperial system is "that's what we've always used and it would be too much trouble and too costly to make the change." So, the only benefit of the system, as far as I can tell, is that it allows America to maintain the status quo and not go through the not-completely-insignificant-but-completely-manageable-and-worth-it difficulty of restructuring educational materials, redoing all the speed limit signs to KPH, etc.
Seriously, that's it. American complacency and respect for tradition, though in this case it is a completely meaningless tradition; there is nothing sacred about our measurement system. On that note though, you may be interested to know that here they're not referred to as "imperial" and "metric." They're called "standard" and "metric." Harmless enough labels on the surface, but the semantic implication is that imperial is normal and metric is deviant, even though from a broader perspective the opposite is more accurate.
I appreciate your consideration of differing cultural and social norms, but, as an American, I say that the imperial/metric issue is an instance where it is perfectly fitting to say that America is being silly and backwards.
The British has arbitrarily changed words as well. For example, "Aluminium." The word, with out spelling reforms should be "alumium."Rainbow_Dashtruction said:Why does America use the Imperial system? Same reason they change the spelling of a bunch of words, because America likes being the special child who eats all the glue but everyone goes "Oh don't worry, that's just little Timothy working his creative brain again"
Its not exclusively metric sorry that was bad wording but it is the fundamentals of metric. You are correct anything can be broken into powers of ten however metric is designed to be broken into powers of ten. You mention not being able to conceptualise certain numbers such as the 483 nano metres (or 10^-9 metres, can you tell me what 10^-6 inches is equivelant to in feet, yards or miles of the top of your head?). trying to conceptualise something as a fraction is ridiculous, what is 1/64 of anything? 63/64" is an absolutely rediculous way of saying 25mm. I could describe 1.25mm as 1/8cm and so on but i dont because it just doesnt make sense and its completely illogical compared with a logical increment of 1mm for every one increment of the scale. If i want a spanner 1 increment smaller than a 10mm spanner i select a 9mm whereas with imperial its not that logicalythe doom cannon said:what? since when was x10^ whatever exclusively metric? you can break anything you want into powers of 10. When conceptualization isnt an issue, 0.000438 inches is a perfectly acceptable number to come up with. In fact, that's a pretty good number for the deflection of a steel beam per inch of length. please tell me what 0.000483 mm looks like. You can't, and I can't tell you what 0.000483 inches looks like either. When it comes to doing calculations, units don't matter as long as you keep them consistent. When dealing with physical applications, inches and feet are a lot easier to conceptualize than mm, cm, and m because they were designed that way.shootthebandit said:Youve just proved my point for me (x10^) is used excusively in metric because it makes sense for any scale of numbers. You have basically just said if its below a 32nd you will just convert it to metric. x10^ doesnt work well with inches because it isnt a base 10 measurement and thats why we use mm because it works on every possible scale and is designed to be used in situations where x10^ is required.
Does that mean it isn't worth the trouble? That's for each person to decide. I for one believe that it IS worth the trouble, and I work in a field (education) that would be greatly effected by the change, ergo I would have to bear some of that trouble and I still say it's worth it.Sean951 said:It's not just signs that would have to be changed though. Literally every material good manufactured and used in the US would have to find a new standard that also matched the existing buildings/machines/every thing out there.remnant_phoenix said:I am an American, and ever since I learned the metric system in a special-placement math class when I was ten years old, I have always felt that it was superior and the fact that America doesn't use it is nonsensical.Amaror said:First of all. I know this i probably going to be a pretty difficult discussion. Everyone here has grown up with one or the other measurement system, so nobody can be really objective about this.
Ok, then let's get this started. I read up a bit on the Imperial System and i just can't find any great benefits to it.
The only argument I've heard that has any reasonable substance (and not much substance, just a little) for keeping the Imperial system is "that's what we've always used and it would be too much trouble and too costly to make the change." So, the only benefit of the system, as far as I can tell, is that it allows America to maintain the status quo and not go through the not-completely-insignificant-but-completely-manageable-and-worth-it difficulty of restructuring educational materials, redoing all the speed limit signs to KPH, etc.
Seriously, that's it. American complacency and respect for tradition, though in this case it is a completely meaningless tradition; there is nothing sacred about our measurement system. On that note though, you may be interested to know that here they're not referred to as "imperial" and "metric." They're called "standard" and "metric." Harmless enough labels on the surface, but the semantic implication is that imperial is normal and metric is deviant, even though from a broader perspective the opposite is more accurate.
I appreciate your consideration of differing cultural and social norms, but, as an American, I say that the imperial/metric issue is an instance where it is perfectly fitting to say that America is being silly and backwards.
For the majority of the goods you mention, that will not be necessary. Most companies that do a significant amount of overseas business will have metric standard versions of their products already.Sean951 said:It's not just signs that would have to be changed though. Literally every material good manufactured and used in the US would have to find a new standard that also matched the existing buildings/machines/every thing out there.