Found this on the Conversions Forum on the Internet French Property (IFP) site.
http://www.infora.com/cgi-bin/infora.pl Well, well, now the 'Imperialists' are blaming the metric system for the trouble of converting from inches to centimeters and needing a calculator to do it! Also, see the idiotic metric values involved. Obviously Trevor thinks that THIS is the way the metric system is being used all the time! Yes, and we also use rulers with 2.54 cm increments, I presume! >For the use in drafting, which method is best? Why? (Trevor had divided an inch value by 3 and came to 1'10-13/24") Trevor stated: "make it 1 ft 10 & 13/24 in - and I used NO paper (did it in my head) Now to do it in metric, I had to use a calculator!: 67.625 in X 2.54 = 171.7675 cm / 3 = 57.255833 cm (altho' I could have done the 'divide by 3' in my head!) Metric was quicker ONLY because I used a calculator." My answer: In the first place: I would round 171.7675 cm to 172 cm and then divide by 3. This value was an exact conversion from Imperial to metric. This had nothing to do with metric. The calculator was necessary because a CONVERSION from Imperial to metric had to be made. Anything that uses metric from the outset will never use figures like 171.7675 cm or 57.255833 cm either. Claims that metric uses such crazy values are anti-metric propaganda. Suppose it had been 100 cm; divided by 3 would have been 33.3 cm. If you choose 120 cm, divide it by 3: 40 cm. I surely do not need a calculator for that. I far prefer the metric method; I reject British and USA units. A method, metric or Imperial, may be best for any individual who is familiar with one or the other. Han Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
