5 ms·

It's better to use Celsius for such articles and in general too. Metrication process in US is really way too slow.

by shmerl 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cesis 6y ago
Or even better - SI Kelvin scale
mschaef 6y ago
> Metrication process in US is really way too slow. I've thought that too, but wonder about what metrification would mean for things like screw thread pitch (which is measured in TPI, and I assume would change if the units changed).
- caf 6y ago
  In Australia, where metrication is 50 years old, hardware stores typically stock both imperial and metric fasteners. It's not an issue in practice.
  - kstenerud 6y ago
    Same in Canada. My parents weren't very adept at metric, my generation could handle either one, and the following generations don't know much about imperial other than the few things still stubbornly hanging on (mostly in construction).
    - rfrey 6y ago
      Construction is the one place where imperial measurements are superior, because they're base 12. Easy division of any measurement into thirds, quarters, half.
      - kstenerud 6y ago
        Perhaps, but it's not enough of an advantage to keep the rest of the planet from using metric in construction. Generally you don't need more than 2-3 decimal places at whatever scale you're working at.
      - HPsquared 6y ago
        For that kind of thing, one can just use multiples of 12 (or whichever number) for measurements. It's common to do things in multiples of 25 mm or 300 mm (i.e. roughly inches or feet, but metric).
  - mschaef 6y ago
    Thanks... I can at least partially relate to that already. US toolkits (wrench/spanner, sockets, and the like) have conventionally included both metric and imperial tools for at least 30-40 years already. (I find myself about evenly using both.)
  - adrianmonk 6y ago
    They already do that in the United States as well, too. so there would be literally no change. Like you, I'm also not seeing how that could be an obstacle.
- phyzome 6y ago
  It doesn't matter. Screw thread pitch isn't a continuous unit in practice, but a category. Might as well call it A, B, C, D.
  - rfrey 6y ago
    I often identify a screw or bolt with a scale. I guess if you know that 16 TPI = "D", then you're ok... but in the same place as now.
tzs 6y ago
It would probably go faster if they just concentrated on length, area, volume, and mass. With those you can make a good case for switching because we routinely deal with quantities of those units over a range of several orders of magnitude. That means we regularly have use of smaller or larger units than the base unit for each, and in the metric system all those smaller or larger units are related to each other and the base units by powers of 10. That fits well with our decimal number system, and makes conversions between units nearly trivial. If you have, say, kilometers and you want millimeters it is a lot easier than if you have miles and want inches. You can make the case that we should switch to metric for length, area, volume, and mass because it is better and because it is used by almost all of the rest of the world. With temperature, on the other hand, we do not generally deal with a large range, and generally don't use larger or smaller units. We just stick to the base unit (C or F). The only significant differences between C and F are the size of their degrees and where the 0 point is. Historically, C set its 0 point at the freezing point of water and the degree size indirectly by setting 100 as the boiling point of water. F used the temperature of a specified eutectic mixture to set 0 and tried to set 96 as human body temperature. (Actually, C originally set 0 at the boiling point of water and 100 at the freezing point, but that was fairly quickly reversed). F came before C by about 20 years. People decided they liked using freezing and boiling of water as their reference points. What should have happened is that F should have simply been redefined so that its reference points were freezing of water at 32 and boiling at 212, keeping the same size degree. That would be compatible with the old F. There was no need to come up with a new degree size to switch to a freezing/boiling of water basis. So because C does not have any inherent superiority over F, unlike other metric units compared to Imperial units, the case for switching comes down to pretty much only that it is what most of the rest of the world uses. Furthermore, F actually has some advantages. F's smaller degree size means many times an integer temperature is adequate where you might need to add a decimal place with C. On F, 0 to 100 is a pretty good match for the weather in most of the US. That would be about -17 to 38 in C. So it is hard to make the case to most people in the US that they gain anything tangible by switching to C, let alone gain enough to be worth the switching cost. Thus, I think US metrification efforts need to table temperature, and just work on the others.
- pmiller2 6y ago

It's better to use Celsius for such articles and in general too. Metrication process in US is really way too slow.

by shmerl 6y ago

It's better to use Celsius for such articles and in general too. Metrication process in US is really way too slow.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cesis 6y ago

Or even better - SI Kelvin scale

mschaef 6y ago

> Metrication process in US is really way too slow. I've thought that too, but wonder about what metrification would mean for things like screw thread pitch (which is measured in TPI, and I assume would change if the units changed).

caf 6y ago
In Australia, where metrication is 50 years old, hardware stores typically stock both imperial and metric fasteners. It's not an issue in practice.
- kstenerud 6y ago
  Same in Canada. My parents weren't very adept at metric, my generation could handle either one, and the following generations don't know much about imperial other than the few things still stubbornly hanging on (mostly in construction).
  - rfrey 6y ago
    Construction is the one place where imperial measurements are superior, because they're base 12. Easy division of any measurement into thirds, quarters, half.
    - kstenerud 6y ago
      Perhaps, but it's not enough of an advantage to keep the rest of the planet from using metric in construction. Generally you don't need more than 2-3 decimal places at whatever scale you're working at.
    - HPsquared 6y ago
      For that kind of thing, one can just use multiples of 12 (or whichever number) for measurements. It's common to do things in multiples of 25 mm or 300 mm (i.e. roughly inches or feet, but metric).
- mschaef 6y ago
  Thanks... I can at least partially relate to that already. US toolkits (wrench/spanner, sockets, and the like) have conventionally included both metric and imperial tools for at least 30-40 years already. (I find myself about evenly using both.)
- adrianmonk 6y ago
  They already do that in the United States as well, too. so there would be literally no change. Like you, I'm also not seeing how that could be an obstacle.
phyzome 6y ago
It doesn't matter. Screw thread pitch isn't a continuous unit in practice, but a category. Might as well call it A, B, C, D.
- rfrey 6y ago
  I often identify a screw or bolt with a scale. I guess if you know that 16 TPI = "D", then you're ok... but in the same place as now.

tzs 6y ago

It would probably go faster if they just concentrated on length, area, volume, and mass. With those you can make a good case for switching because we routinely deal with quantities of those units over a range of several orders of magnitude. That means we regularly have use of smaller or larger units than the base unit for each, and in the metric system all those smaller or larger units are related to each other and the base units by powers of 10. That fits well with our decimal number system, and makes conversions between units nearly trivial. If you have, say, kilometers and you want millimeters it is a lot easier than if you have miles and want inches. You can make the case that we should switch to metric for length, area, volume, and mass because it is better and because it is used by almost all of the rest of the world. With temperature, on the other hand, we do not generally deal with a large range, and generally don't use larger or smaller units. We just stick to the base unit (C or F). The only significant differences between C and F are the size of their degrees and where the 0 point is. Historically, C set its 0 point at the freezing point of water and the degree size indirectly by setting 100 as the boiling point of water. F used the temperature of a specified eutectic mixture to set 0 and tried to set 96 as human body temperature. (Actually, C originally set 0 at the boiling point of water and 100 at the freezing point, but that was fairly quickly reversed). F came before C by about 20 years. People decided they liked using freezing and boiling of water as their reference points. What should have happened is that F should have simply been redefined so that its reference points were freezing of water at 32 and boiling at 212, keeping the same size degree. That would be compatible with the old F. There was no need to come up with a new degree size to switch to a freezing/boiling of water basis. So because C does not have any inherent superiority over F, unlike other metric units compared to Imperial units, the case for switching comes down to pretty much only that it is what most of the rest of the world uses. Furthermore, F actually has some advantages. F's smaller degree size means many times an integer temperature is adequate where you might need to add a decimal place with C. On F, 0 to 100 is a pretty good match for the weather in most of the US. That would be about -17 to 38 in C. So it is hard to make the case to most people in the US that they gain anything tangible by switching to C, let alone gain enough to be worth the switching cost. Thus, I think US metrification efforts need to table temperature, and just work on the others.

pmiller2 6y ago