Tool Maybe Beyond My Skill Set And Needs

[Bandit]

Don’t get me going on lumber sizes. 2X4, yeah rite, 1.5X3.5 and trying to get smaller. Put 2 back to back, a 3X3.5, who figured that out? Now put that in a bracket, which measures maybe 3.5x3.5, some are 4X4, and it gets worse as it goes
And we are worried about metric?

 

[PeterT]

Didn't we spill enough blood, sweat & tears on this subject just recently? Here we go again! LOL. I wonder if humans evolved with eight fingers the metric system would be 'octa' based. Powers of 10 (10^1, 10^2...) would be powers of 8 (8^1, 8^2..), just different prefixes. We are finger biased animals! Well, electronics & code is ultimately binary based for good reason. So when AI & Terminator kicks our butts, we will speak their 010110010 or be anhilatated.

Imperial Units as we know it today is not exactly clean cut depending on what dimension. The standard is a relatively recent creation. Here is an AI quick summary. Some was borrowed from as far back as the Romans. And borrowed in some cases mean what the invading nations provided as parting gifts. What makes a standard is an important guy in a fancy bathrobe said this is the law & has enough power & control to make it so. That little island ruled over a quarter of worlds population, or a third of all nations in its heyday. I didnt know this until just recently, China developed a purely base-10 (decimal) system thousands of years ago. Anyhoo, there are many deviations between British Imperial to current (call it US Customary or N-Am based) units system. You dont have to go any further than quarts, gallons, pints, barrels - they are all volumetrically different. Canada's history & geography puts us in the crossroads Schmutza of different units for different reasons & industries. Carney seems to be exchanging a lot of euro love letters as of late, you guys better brush up on kilo-speak LOL. Unless of course, well... that #51 thing 🙄 Was that 'the line' I just crossed?



The British Imperial System as a formal, standardized legal framework is actually much newer than most people realize—it was enacted by the British Parliament in 1824.

However, its roots are a chaotic, multi-thousand-year patchwork of Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and medieval European trade customs that were gradually standardized over centuries.

1. Where the Units Came From: A Patchwork of History​

Long before there was an "Imperial System," human bodies and everyday agricultural tasks were the standard measuring tapes across Europe and the Ancient Near East:

• The Inch (Uncia): Originates from the Roman uncia (meaning "one-twelfth"), defined as 1/12th of a foot. Early Anglo-Saxon standards defined it as the length of three dried barleycorns laid end-to-end.
• The Foot: Based on human foot size, heavily influenced by the Roman foot (pes).
• The Yard: Originally an Anglo-Saxon measure of length (a "yard" or "gird" meant a straight rod/stick). Popular legend credits King Henry I (1100s) with defining it as the distance from his nose to the thumb of his outstretched arm, though it was likely just the length of a standard wooden yardstick kept at court.
• The Acre: Originally an agricultural metric—it was defined as the amount of land a yoke of oxen could plow in a single day.
• The Mile (Milia Passuum): Directly inherited from the Roman military phrase milia passuum, meaning "a thousand paces" (a pace being two steps, or roughly 5,000 feet). Elizabeth I later adjusted it to 5,280 feet in 1592 so it would neatly equal 8 furlongs.

2. The Turn to Royalty: "The King's Standard"​

During the Middle Ages, trade was severely hindered because every kingdom, duchy, and market town had its own local definition of a "pound" or "bushel."

To collect taxes accurately and enforce honest trade, medieval English monarchs issued royal decrees to establish reference weights and measures:

• Physical Standards: Iron, bronze, and brass master rods and weights were kept in the Royal Exchequer in London.
• The Guilds and Courts: Local magistrates and market officials used official copies of these "King's standards" to inspect local merchants' scales and rulers.

So while kings did mandate standards within their domain, these units were not invented by a monarch—they were attempts to bring order to pre-existing, informal traditional units.

3. The 1824 British Imperial Weights and Measures Act​

What we formally call the "Imperial System" was established in 1824 (with further refinements in 1878) by an act of the British Parliament, long after absolute monarchs held personal control over legal definitions.

The goal of the 1824 Act was to unify the entire British Empire under a single, highly refined legal standard:

• Eliminating Confusion: Prior to 1824, Britain had different types of gallons for wine, ale, and grain. The 1824 Act created a single Imperial Gallon defined as the volume of 10 pounds of distilled water at $62^\circ\text{F}$.
• Global Spread: Because Great Britain was the dominant global maritime and industrial power during the 19th century, this standard was exported across its global colonies (Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, parts of the Caribbean, etc.).

Imperial vs. US Customary Units: A Common Misconception​

People often confuse the Imperial System with US Customary Units.

• The American colonies broke away from Britain in 1776—almost 50 years before the British Imperial System was created in 1824.
• As a result, the United States kept the older English system (based on Queen Anne’s 1707 wine gallon), which is why a US Gallon ($3.785\text{ liters}$) is smaller than an Imperial Gallon ($4.546\text{ liters}$).

 

[Loosenut]

.....there's other calendars....?

Yes. Chinse for one.

a 9" O.D. pipe flange,

Never heard of a odd number dimension fitting above 3". One place were imperial and metric play nice is pipe and fittings, they are interchangeable. The allowable internal high/low in pipe and fittings is 1/16" or 1.5mm, on the internal diameter and most if not all standard imperial and metric pipe/fittings dimensions fit within that. You might have a imperial market fitting that is made in a metric country and it actually is a metric fitting. Pipe is frequently dual marked.

 

[Loosenut]

Here is a thought. Why don't we develop a new system which is NOT based on either metric or imperial that everybody can agree on, that way we can all dish on it together. I propose, as a starting point, the number of beer molecules per square fortnight.

 

[Mega arc 5040dd]

Here is a thought. Why don't we develop a new system which is NOT based on either metric or imperial that everybody can agree on, that way we can all dish on it together. I propose, as a starting point, the number of beer molecules per square fortnight.

I would say we did all agree on a system when 192 out of 195 countries use the metric system. The only countries that don't are the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar. 3 out of 195 is pretty much a rounding error.

 

[Chicken lights]

I would say we did all agree on a system when 192 out of 195 countries use the metric system. The only countries that don't are the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar. 3 out of 195 is pretty much a rounding error.

Canada makes 4, Britain still uses some imperial too so that's 5.... imperial isn't going any where anytime soon 😉

 

[Mega arc 5040dd]

Canada makes 4, Britain still uses some imperial too so that's 5.... imperial isn't going any where anytime soon 😉

Technically we are a metric country as is Britain. While yes we use some imperial we are by no means an imperial country. And the only reason we use any imperial is the USA to the south. Don't get me wrong I work mostly in imperial but that is because of what is available as far as machines, materials, and tooling again mostly because of the states. I do agree imperial isn't going anywhere soon but maybe just maybe one day haha

 

[jorogi]

I propose, as a starting point, the number of beer molecules per square fortnight.

Yes, but at what barometric pressure ?

 

[Chicken lights]

Technically we are a metric country as is Britain. While yes we use some imperial we are by no means an imperial country. And the only reason we use any imperial is the USA to the south. Don't get me wrong I work mostly in imperial but that is because of what is available as far as machines, materials, and tooling again mostly because of the states. I do agree imperial isn't going anywhere soon but maybe just maybe one day haha

Canada is maybe 60% imperial, 40% metric. Maybe not as much with the younger ones coming up. Time to hoard imperial tapes, yardsticks, F thermometers, pound scales, etc to preserve the old knowledge 😉

Luckily the "USA to the south" will never change and hopefully one day Canada goes back to all imperial

 

[whydontu]

Chances of Canada going back to imperial are about the same as my chances of being elected Pope.

I had to learn USGPM, feet of H2O, PSIA, PSIG, ft-lbs, in-lbs, lbs/cu.ft, then we went metric and I had to learn m3/hr, mm of Hg, BARG, KPAG, Nm, Ncm, kg/m3. Keeps my mind active and allows me to talk to engineers in every corner of the world and we can mostly understand what each other is saying.

 

[Susquatch]

Like many divisive topics I don't think any fact will change anyone's mind.

I feel pretty neutral - especially coming from the auto industry which is metric even in the USA.

But since you have chosen a side and raised new rationale not mentioned previously, I feel compelled to weigh in a bit. Not maliciously - just an opposing view.

just that imperial does cost us more.

All the arguments that imperial costs us more are one sided. One could just as easily say that it is the metric complication that adds the cost. Also, many common costs are shared. In each case, the overall per unit costs are reduced because the other exists. It isn't until one is eliminated that the per unit costs are reduced vs their cost in a duplicated world. Even so, the savings are not production related (see below). However, we can't really go one way or the other without an expensive overlap period.

- Fasteners, materials of all kinds, tooling, equipment, is all made in imperial sizes just for this market. That's a custom run. A 6mm nut wholesale in quantity (where it is made) costs less than a 6.4mm (1/4") imperial threaded nuts.

That's an assumption. The runs of either one are soooo big that they are no longer custom. Production happily adds the additional lines because they pay for themselves and add profit. I took a quick look at pricing. Both have exactly the same price. Although there is a very very slight material size advantage for 6mm because it is slightly smaller, it doesn't show up in the pricing. Because these two sizes are the high-volume, standard "go-to" small fasteners in their respective systems (Metric vs. Imperial), there is no significant price premium for choosing one over the other.

- Science & engineering is simpler in metric units. Heating 100ml of water from 0C to 100C uses 1 joule per ml per degree C. 100*100=10,000J.
- Heating one pint (which kind of pint) from 32F to 212F uses...how many calories? BTU? I have no idea.

As an engineer, I disagree. They both are only a matter of what you are familiar with. Most engineers can easily handle either system. If anything, I think most engineers find metric harder to do than imperial because metric units are not intuitive and it is too easy to make errors in order of magnitude (@mbond explained that in another thread).

- Metric / imperial conversion has caused many expensive mistakes (e.g. a Mars lander was lost $300M?).

Neither system can be faulted for this. It's the required conversion that is at fault. These errors can be eliminated by choosing to go imperial or metric. One could just as easily eliminate such errors by choosing imperial for the entire world too.

but don't listen to me... try a PHd Economist. Platypus economics to the rescue! timely post by this Australian American.

I watched it because it was so short. All pure crap. No substance. No evidence. No proof. Just unsubstantiated statements pulled out of the air. All more or less ruined by taking a needless stab at tariffs.

Technically we are a metric country as is Britain. While yes we use some imperial we are by no means an imperial country.

I'd argue numbers closer to 9/16 metric - which of itself being fractional is an intrinsically imperial quantity.

If AI can be trusted, it seems most of Europe and all the Scandinavian countries use imperial lumber (2x4s and 4x8 sheet) that is often converted to metric and sometimes even rounded to metric but is really imperial.

Worldwide, Socker, baseball, and most field games are played on imperial fields.

The entire world still uses imperial drive tools - 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 3/4, 1", etc. There are no metric drives that I know of.

I would say we did all agree on a system when 192 out of 195 countries use the metric system. The only countries that don't are the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar. 3 out of 195 is pretty much a rounding error.

I would argue that counting countries is misleading. The US accounts for 1/4 of the world's economy (GDP). Definitely not a rounding error. If you add in all the fractional imperial usage of other countries like Canada and the global lumber industry, it only gets bigger.

I was born and educated in an imperial Canada. That's the system that my brain learned to embrace. So I think in mostly imperial quantities. However, I lived through Canada's semi-conversion to metric, and I worked in a metric auto industry. So I am somewhat comfortable in both worlds.

I agree with @whydontu. There is plenty of room in this world for all of us.