Hi Cole,
My first recommendation is to keep your conversations friendly.
Information is the key. My experience has been that nearly all people who
know BOTH customary units and the modern metric system fairly well naturally
arrive at the conclusion that metric is the way to go. So study up!
I like to point out that in the modern metric system (officially called "SI",
from the French for "international system") there is exactly one unit for
every type of quantity. You can adapt that unit to any size range by adding
a prefix:
meters: mm, cm, m, km
Watts: mW, W, kW, MW, GW
grams: mg, g, kg, Mg (1 Mg = 1 metric "tonne")
Compare that to customary units
inches, hands, feet, yards, fathoms, rods, cables, furlongs, miles, nautical
miles
teaspoons, tablespoons, ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons, cubic inches,
cubic feet, cubic yards
One of the biggest flaws of customary units is that they have different sizes
in different places and contexts. I can think of at least 5 different kinds
of ounces, 3 pints, 2 quarts, 2 gallons, 3 miles, 2 pounds, etc. Using the
metric system permanently solves this problem.
Sometimes opportunities arise naturally that allow you to show the advantages
of the metric system. For example, if someone tells me something in ounces,
pints, or quarts, I tend to ask, "which one?" Everyone is surprised when I
explain that the pints and quarts used to measure berries are NOT the same
sizes as the pints and quarts used to measure milk, even in the same store!
Then you can point out that a liter is a liter everywhere, from Afghanistan
to Zimbabwe, to China, Paris, New York, or London.
A trick question: Is a quart bigger than a liter, or smaller. Answer: Both!
A US dry quart is bigger, and a US liquid quart is smaller.
The metric system has official symbols for all the official units, and they
are the same world-wide, in all languages. Customary units don't even have
globally-accepted sizes, let alone names or abbreviations!
The metric system is CONNECTED. I've never seen anyone point this out before,
but here is an example: You're driving in Europe. A sign says something is
500 m ahead. When you visualize 500 m, it's connected both to smaller things
(e.g., 5 x 100 meter playing fields) AND to longer things (half of a
kilometer). Customary units, on the other hand, have lots of fuzzy ranges.
If I say "440 yards" you will know it's 4 football fields long, and if I say
"1/4 mile" you will think in terms of how far to drive a car. If I say 15840
inches you will have no idea it's a a quarter mile!
Which is bigger, a 25,000 square foot lot or a half acre lot?
A lot of size ranges don't even have a convenient customary unit. Electronic
integrated circuits are designed in micrometers. Can you imagine trying to
design something 0.000004 wide all inches? I get tired of counting zeros!
I could go on all day, but instead will point out that some of the strongest
arguments for the U.S. to adopt the metric system have nothing to do with its
inherent technical advantages. Those arguments involve compatibility with
the rest of the world, which is nearly all-metric.
John
On Friday 27 February 2004 20:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am currently working on convincing my fellow classmates and relatives
> that the Metric system is FAR superior to that of the US Customary system.
> So far, I only get luke-warm (20 degrees Celsius) support. Anyone have any
> effective ideas that would make other people join in the active campaign
> for US Metrication?
