Metric system dumbs us down.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Benz

Obviously you missed the flap a few pages back about Dl and dL. Those were two metric aficionados who crossed hawses about metric prefixes.

I don understand how there can be a "flap¨. 1 Dl is 10l (but I don think anybody but brewers use that) and 1 dl is 0.1 l. You learn that in second grade. And itś like riding a bicycle. You never forget that.

No one measures 21.425 feet when boatbuilding. We just measure in feet, inches and fractions of inches down to the nearest 64th, though I've worked with boatbuilders who measured to a 64th and a half.

And how is measuring in feet and fractions of inches somehow practical versus just using one unit?

Lastly, I'm not sure why you bring in production volume as an argument. First of all, have you really bothered to find out whether metric boatshops outproduce others?

I think that all non US manufacturers together do indeed outproduce US manufacturers. And given that even some US manufacturers will be metric...

And then, volume can come (and does, in the case of Bavaria, Beneteau, Jenneau, Outremer, Lagoon, Fountaine Pajot, Dufour) at the expense of quality. High-volume builders, even in the 'States where we're using proper measuring systems, usually produce junk.

This is not about quality. The only country where you will find engineering and design firms still using imperial units is the US. And even in the US a lot of engineering is done in metric.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Benz

My claim about sensible people was interpreted correctly: I find it stupid to the point of imbecility to take a perfectly well-working system, that of degrees, nautical miles, cables, fathoms, feet and inches,...

Why is a system that needs 5 different units of length, better than one that only uses one unit?

I agree, and the metric system, IMO, belongs in that faraway fairyland of theory, out of the way us who are getting things done.

Most of the people that are "getting things done" use metric. It's strangely how you will not find someone who grew up in the metric system advocate for switching back to the imperial system, but you will find a lot of people who grew up in the imperial system advocating for the metric system.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by deblen

Metric was definitely a French conspiracy Len

It was part of the same French conspiracy that helped the US gain its independence. :-)

If the metric system had allready been properly created in 1776 the US would have adopted it.

[mrm]

Originally Posted by deblen

Napoleon kept his left arm stuffed in his jacket. / Len

This is a funny thread and an interesting one, in seeing as different geographies/cultures explain the same phenomena (be it in more or less hilarious way) ;-)

To me it is interesting, as the explanation of right-sided traffic I was given referred to Medieval times, where travel was never quite safe and people carried arms and shields. As most folks were/are right handed, they carried shields on their left arm and had their right arm free to handle any weapon they might have (be it a club, a sword, a knife etc.). Then, when they met a stranger on the road coming from the opposite direction and never being sure whether it was a friend or foe, they tended to keep right, to have a shield between them an the coming stranger...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sounds like you just like them because you grew up with them and that's what you are comfortable with...which is fine...but they don't match up with the idea behind metric standardization. It's just a new arbitrary measurement system just like quarts and furlongs set up to meet the needs of a specific user (apparently in this case paper manufacturers and printing companies).

My argument is that the sizes of the papers in the DIN series are not arbitrary. They are indeed something the industry basically imposed on the consumers, but that applies to US paper sizes as well.

When you design something there are some general principles when you choose dimensions. But you always have to make choices, and the first design choice was to use an the square root of 2 as the aspect ratio. That leads to the convenient fact that all the sizes you derive by doubling or halving a sheet have the same aspect ratio. That is hugely convenient.
Photocopiers in Europe typically will have A4 and A 3 in them, And you can enlarge an A4 to A3, and have the same margins all arond still. You can easily reduce an A4 by half and print two side by side.

Then after this first design choice was made a second choice was made. To pick a round number (1) for the surface area of the A0 sheet.
There is also a B series, and a B0 has a short side of 1m, (and thus a long side of 1414) so there a round number was used as basis as well.

(There is also a C and a D series, but I've never seen them used)

So it is not arbitrary at all. It is the result of certain design goals and principles and the choices that resulted from them.

Unlike the US 8.5x11 which apparently traces its origins to what a paper maker, making paper by hand, could handle...

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "Is there such a thing as a milligrad? a kilograd?"

I understand that there is now a Retrograd - located at 38º53'52N, 77º02'12" :-)

Trentepieds

[bvander]

Notice some are implying degrees and nm are imperial, in fact they are not. Both are based on science and nature and not based on size of some old kings thumb and foot.

[David M]

Dumbed down?

You should see some of the more complex scientific math formulas that use the metric system.

I bet the vast majority of us would not be able to solve an equation.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sounds like you just like them because you grew up with them and that's what you are comfortable with...which is fine...but they don't match up with the idea behind metric standardization. It's just a new arbitrary measurement system just like quarts and furlongs set up to meet the needs of a specific user (apparently in this case paper manufacturers and printing companies).

You do realize that paper manufacturers and printers came first right?

Paper is another one of those things we in Canada haven't switched over yet (I argue with those posts who say the millennials will be the full first fully-metric citizens of Canada—not by a long shot). Our system of paper is based on basis weight (pounds of a ream of 500 sheets of a raw, still uncut, basis size). Thus 60lb text (based on 25" x 38") is thinner than 60lb cover (20" × 26"). Bond weight sheets are based on 17 by 22 inches and can be cut into four 8.5-by-11-inch sheets which is the standard for business stationery. Legal (8.5 x 14) just wastes a lot of paper (which I suppose fits in with the whole law profession). Half the fancy stationary paper we used to get from fancy firms was actually text weight paper cut down to letter size and the trim discarded as a custom order because some idiot graphic designer needed to "make a statement." (I know, I used to be one of them.)

I could go on for hours. Of course when we are buying offshore papers we need to start translating gsm's and then it gets really complicated.

So no, the 8.5 x 11 paper size doesn't make any particular sense. But the important thing to remember is that paper is easy to cut.

[Sea Dreaming]

I am suprised that someone hasn't said "monohull sailors use imperial and cat sailors use metric" ....

[Catalysis]

Originally Posted by Cavalier

Explains why an imperial pint is around 20% larger than a US pint!

Sent from mTalk

An imperial pint is 25% larger than a US pint.
However a US pint is 20% smaller than an imperial pint.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by bvander

Notice some are implying degrees and nm are imperial, in fact they are not. Both are based on science and nature and not based on size of some old kings thumb and foot.

In fact the imperial measures are not based on a kings body part. The Kings of those days were smarter than that. The base was the "barleycorn". Although nowadays the definition of the yard (from which all others are derived) is 0.9144 m.
Yes, the imperial units are derived units, derived from metric units...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Sea Dreaming

I am suprised that someone hasn't said "monohull sailors use imperial and cat sailors use metric" ....

Well, I'm partial to boats like the RM 1070, which is a monohull, and thoroughly metric :-)

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

In fact the imperial measures are not based on a kings body part. The Kings of those days were smarter than that. The base was the "barleycorn". Although nowadays the definition of the yard (from which all others are derived) is 0.9144 m.
Yes, the imperial units are derived units, derived from metric units...

Are you saying someone said, "Let's make the yard 0.9144 the length of a meter?"

Or, words to that effect.

[Jason Flare]

Mathematicians trying to figure stuff out. I see a Monty Python skit:

Base unit definitions: Meter