Note: the US doesn't use Imperial; the US customary system is slightly different.

> > According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, roughly two-thirds of global industrial output remains based on customary specifications. The article that contained this figure also claimed that significant other industries are only pseudo-metric: film companies relabeled 1-3/8" film as 35mm film without actually changing the size, in order to make it sound "more accurate."
> >
> What's the problem?

There was no problem. It was just a statement I thought was silly--they made the stated measurement less accurate in order to sound more accurate.

> What I find most amusing about this statement from the U.S. General Accounting Office is that if I request manufacturing/industry standardization protocols from ASTM (The *American* Standards and Testing Materials Institute), I find that *all* the process sheets and procedures they give to me are entirely in metric, not Imperial. At least ASTM knows how to get the job done properly.

The US gov't is required by law to use metric. Individuals aren't. Strangely, the US gov't is also in charge of maintaining the standard system of weights and measures--and it chose the customary system, over many objections. No one ever accused politicians of being too consistent.

--and, for my convenience, from Message 38533:

> The way metrification is *supposed* to work is force the manufacturers and producers to label in metric (as well as in Imperial if they want). The crucial part is that at the same time, teach all schoolchildren according to the metric standard -- which they will prefer over the other method. When everyone who is old enough to remember guineas and farthings and Imperial measures eventually dies off, then bingo, you've standardized the country to Metric fairly painlessly.

That is a perfect description of how metrification is supposed to work and why it hasn't worked in the US. As a country, we detest intrusive and pointless legislation. The law requires metric to be given more attention than customary in school in the US, but students know very well that it isn't used much outside. The funny thing about standards is that they are only valuable if they aren't changed. If people are accustomed to a particular system, then ideas about its being "more logical" and "easier to use" are immediately thrown by the wayside--how is it more effective to switch an entire mode of thought for a different one which will produce no benefits?

The complication to international business is minimal. Given a threat of loss to (foreign) competition because of the system used, any competent firm would switch. Companies will make their products in whatever units are required. The GAO report presumably turned out the way it did because of the longtime strength of the US economy, which provided an incentive for businesses abroad to deal in customary measures as well as metric. Many calculators even have automatic conversion functions for those who can't understand a particular system.

> *Such as launching a NASA space mission without mucking up the horrendously complicated trajectory calculations involved. They've done a conversion error at least twice now, which after flying more than 500 million kilometers to Mars, ended up by scrubbing the missions. Why NASA even lets engineers do critical time-velocity-force calculations in Imperial, which strikes me as stupid and dangerously imprecise, I have no idea.

I'm surprised at you, Wolf. Such the metric partisan! While it is certainly bad planning for NASA to allow more than one set of standards [Non-standard standards? What an idea.], neither system is at all in any way imprecise. For that matter, fractions can achieve accuracy in unusual measures far more simply. How does one write precisely 7/17, or even 1/3, in decimal?

Metrification was never completed in any country. When the system was first proposed by French revolutionaries, they wanted a 10-hour day, a 10-day week, a 400-degree circle, and more. Napoleon responded, "Nothing is more contrary to the organization of the mind, of the memory, and of the imagination. ... The new system of weights and measures will be a stumbling block for generations. ... It's just tormenting the people with trivia." The last sentence is the salient point of this discussion.

It really doesn't make any difference at all whichever system is used. The quantity being measured doesn't change.

gab"uses both; prefers customary for everything but chemistry"by


I'm going to quote from an article in the July issue of "Ideas on Liberty." It says basically the same thing. (And no, Ellmyruh, it isn't my evidence. It's just for people who are interested to read. :-)

"...Today, the use and importance of standardized measurement is vastly greater than at the dawn of the industrial age. Geodetic, topographic, climatologic, political, and road maps of the entire earth have been meticulously calculated with customary units. Surveys are the conceptual infrastructure for the layout of streets, highways, railroads, and parks; for the engineering of bridges, tunnels, canals, and dams; for the installation of pipelines, water mains, power grids, and cable networks; and for the positions of navigational beacons and the orbits of satellites.

"Customary units, in blueprints and hardware, are built into our homes, ships, skyscrapers, churches, monuments, and historical landmarks. The construction and operation of nuclear power plants, airports and aircraft, military equipment, and the International Space Station, to name a few, are predominantly based on customary specifications. Our system is communicated through countless labels, cookbooks, manuals, textbooks, schematics, menus, and traffic signs. Preserved in our literature, songs, and movies, thriving in the daily conversations and habits of a quarter-billion U.S. professionals, consumers, and students, customary measure serves the diverse needs of everyone from carpenters to chefs, children to rocket scientists.

"With such an enormous investment in physical and human capital, there ought to be a convincing reason to justify our suffering the stupendous costs, confusions, and hazards of drastically altering our measurement system."