Latest posts for the topic "Imperial vs. Metric"

Imperial vs. Metric

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:40:42 GMT

Now then, I am a huge fan of the metric system as an engineer who works both in the EU and US. Last year we transfered a product line and were faced with this dilema, my die hard position was we keep it the same (imperial) to make life easy, and it won out. However its not the best solution, and certainly confuses people. Saying that Imperial is the only way I recognise certain things:

Altitude
Snow depth
Height
Depth
Distance (local)

Therefore I propose this thread as a petition to someone we can later determine as suitable, to rebrand the world in feet and inches as these are about the only metrics that count.

I really do have nothing better to be doing today.

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:38:02 GMT

Definately Imperial. Although having said that I am hot on mgm/mcg etc weight I am okay on but size, thats another story. I have made so many bad buys on ebay when I get inches mixed with cms. Hubby could,nt use any-thing else, every-thing is measured in mm/cm. Give me feet and inches any day. Imperial gets my vote.

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:55:00 GMT

Pint or Litre I'm not bothered both go down the same way :lol: :lol:

Imperial vs. Metric

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:45:41 GMT

tino_11 wrote:Now then, I am a huge fan of the metric system as an engineer who works both in the EU and US. Last year we transfered a product line and were faced with this dilema, my die hard position was we keep it the same (imperial) to make life easy, and it won out. However its not the best solution, and certainly confuses people. Saying that Imperial is the only way I recognise certain things:

Altitude
Snow depth
Height
Depth
Distance (local)

Therefore I propose this thread as a petition to someone we can later determine as suitable, to rebrand the world in feet and inches as these are about the only metrics that count.

I really do have nothing better to be doing today.

I can only imagine how hard it is for people not brought up with imperial (referred to as standard in the US), to have to work with American engineering. When I had to take classes here in the US, it was so frustratingly inefficient to do any calculations, requiring so many extra steps. Fortunately, I grew up with imperial and joined the electrical industry in Britain as it switched to metric in the seventies. So I'm used to thinking in both systems at the same time. Totally ridiculous is the sizing of electrical wire. This is measured in AWG (American wire gauge), a totally arbitrary system of assigning a number to a size of wire.

Unfortunately, there is no hope of any real change and it must cost the US economy dearly in incompatibility and inefficiency.

Trencher

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:50:13 GMT

I work in a school.....and we teach the kids in metric...for me (now) anything under a yeard ...metric millimeters...anything over and I'm afraid it has to be feet and inches

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:34:55 GMT

bald-eagleman wrote:I work in a school.....and we teach the kids in metric...for me (now) anything under a yeard ...metric millimeters...anything over and I'm afraid it has to be feet and inches

Do you work in the English Dept by any chance? :D

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:23:57 GMT

A bit b**** cheeky....just can't spell or type and I am a little worst for wear as its my B'day...21 again...it a girlie thing. DT dept actually! )

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:07:54 GMT

It's not that difficult really I know how tall I am 1.80 m, 30 cm is a foot what more do you need to know and I also agree with old baldy, Bandit you being are bit rude...... :wink: :shock: 8)

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:21:23 GMT

Ian Wickham wrote:It's not that difficult really I know how tall I am 1.80 m, 30 cm is a foot what more do you need to know and I also agree with old baldy, Bandit you being are bit rude...... :wink: :shock: 8)

Wickers, I'm not being rude, just observant. If you'd like me to be a bit rude.....

Did you know that you get shorter with age? :P

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:33:40 GMT

Quite right...we do get shorter as we get older. Also do you realise that you are taller in the mornings than in the evenings!! Could be up to .5mm...think that's about 3/16 of an inch in real money! And I believe you are shorter at the poles than at the equator, the earth being an oblete spheroid and being flatter at the top and thus gravity has more effect. Does that mean that when we are skiing in the mountains we are taller than at home? Ps. I've spell checked this! :D

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:10:26 GMT

bandit wrote:

Ian Wickham wrote:It's not that difficult really I know how tall I am 1.80 m, 30 cm is a foot what more do you need to know and I also agree with old baldy, Bandit you being are bit rude...... :wink: :shock: 8)

Wickers, I'm not being rude, just observant. If you'd like me to be a bit rude.....

Did you know that you get shorter with age? :P

My belly is getting shorter with every mile I pedal... :wink:

Just to upset Bandit I have also spell checked but as I'm on a mac it might be Americanism for which I apologies to Bandit :wink: :wink: :wink:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:12:16 GMT

You will have to move down a size soon :D

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:16:19 GMT

Pablo Escobar wrote:You will have to move down a size soon :D

Pabs, I wouldn't want to be that saddle :shock: :shock:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:46:21 GMT

bald-eagleman wrote:Quite right...we do get shorter as we get older. Also do you realise that you are taller in the mornings than in the evenings!! Could be up to .5mm...think that's about 3/16 of an inch in real money! And I believe you are shorter at the poles than at the equator, the earth being an oblete spheroid and being flatter at the top and thus gravity has more effect. Does that mean that when we are skiing in the mountains we are taller than at home? Ps. I've spell checked this! :D

My bold. Half a millimetre = about 3/16th of an inch ...hmmmmm :D

That will be 0.0197 of an inch then :D

Maths, is just not my thing :lol:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:51:26 GMT

0.0197of an inch could be very important for some girls.

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:51:53 GMT

Hi

Depends on whether you're feet are 12 inches or 304.8mm......????,normally if i am working with wood i use feet and inches and metal it's mm's, but as one of the previous replies says it doesn't matter if the beer is in litres or pints mmmmmmmmmm :D

jon

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:33:33 GMT

Agreed, the only way beer should be measured is by how much is left and what time/day it is :)

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:44:06 GMT

Don't talk, get down your neck :shock: :shock:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:45:41 GMT

I am compelled to share my belief that ski length was the first regular metric item to be used in the UK.

Maybe.

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:48:26 GMT

Ski length possibly, more likely engine size or even medical things? Imagine a 162 inch set of skis :lol:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:48:38 GMT

bald-eagleman wrote:Ski length possibly, more likely engine size or even medical things? Imagine a 162 inch set of skis :lol:

Thirteen and one half foot skis, MMmm I wonder :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:16:12 GMT

Ian Wickham wrote:

bald-eagleman wrote:Ski length possibly, more likely engine size or even medical things? Imagine a 162 inch set of skis :lol:

Thirteen and one half foot skis, MMmm I wonder :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Wickers, you will need a bigger ski rack for sure :lol:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:20:13 GMT

bandit wrote:

Ian Wickham wrote:

bald-eagleman wrote:Ski length possibly, more likely engine size or even medical things? Imagine a 162 inch set of skis :lol:

Thirteen and one half foot skis, MMmm I wonder :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Wickers, you will need a bigger ski rack for sure :lol:

I think a bus might be needed :shock:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:22:01 GMT

Imagine how hard it would be to wax them, would take ages :lol:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:29:02 GMT

bandit wrote:Imagine how hard it would be to wax them, would take ages :lol:

Can you imagine turning the rascals... :D :D

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:33:07 GMT

How about a 36 foot snowboard ?

http://generation-outdoors.com/node/711

Or a 252cm board that can actually be ridden

Trencher

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:36:52 GMT

Great, I wondered how long it would take you guy's to dig something obscure up........great stuff :thumbup:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:40:18 GMT

Trencher wrote:How about a 36 foot snowboard ?

http://generation-outdoors.com/node/711

Or a 252cm board that can actually be ridden

Trencher

IMO, that is ridiculous.

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:52:28 GMT

The 252cm board looks pretty cool. Seems to be riding reasonably well...considering 8) :lol:

:thumbup:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:04:10 GMT

bandit wrote:The 252cm board looks pretty cool. Seems to be riding reasonably well...considering 8) :lol:

:thumbup:

Mmmmm 13ft skis may just work :wink: :wink: :wink:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:28:24 GMT

Trencher wrote:How about a 36 foot snowboard ?

http://generation-outdoors.com/node/711

Trencher

1.20m of the video....

JewPS........classic :mrgreen:

Re:Imperial vs. Metric

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:37:28 GMT

tino_11 wrote:

Trencher wrote:How about a 36 foot snowboard ?

http://generation-outdoors.com/node/711

Trencher

1.20m of the video....

JewPS........classic :mrgreen:

You are going down, you do know that doncha :lol: