Pat, Teran says he prefers imperial. Thus that means at least to me that he prefers the units established for use in the UK. Thus the cup he prefers would be the English cup as defined by the organization that monitors and controls imperial units in the same fashion that the BIPM does for SI units. I doubt imperial is involved with Scottish cups or French cups or any random cup from the cupboard.
Imperial also has a defined value for the foot and the pound and every other unit that is a part of its collection. So his choice for what pound or foot to use is would already be defined by the imperial version of the BIPM. Where exactly is the imperial BIPM located and what do they call themselves? Jerry ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2009 1:02:36 AM Subject: [USMA:42943] Re: measurement preference Dear Teran, Thanks for your interesting statement. I have interspersed some comments. On 2009/02/08, at 11:05 AM, Teran McKinney wrote: I happen to prefer Imperial. Do you have the courage to use only Imperial measures - only - without using any metric units at all? The article, 'Don't use metric', at http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/DontUseMetric.pdf might get you started. Eight ounces in a cup, Is this an English cup, a Scottish cup, a French coffee cup, or just a randomly selected cup from your cupboard. As you know these are all a different size and none of them are part of the Imperial Law of 1824. two cups in a pint, two pints in a quart, This seems to be a pint and a quart of your own devising based on your choice of cup size. Is this true? Or are you referring to the 10 pound gallon that was part of the decimalisation of measurement in the UK in 1824. If this is the case could you please let me know how big the pound was at that time and how much does it differ from the 1959 pound. and four quarts in a gallon makes so much more sense than those pesky little litres. Try cubic metres instead of those pesky little gallons, especially for international trade. And how terrible is using decimals with length? I enjoy trying to figure out if 7/18ths or 22/48ths of an inch is larger. It has largely been unnecessary to use fractions since they were essentially replaced by decimals in 1585 with the publication of Simon Stevin's Disme: 'The Art of tenths'. Consider how many people have wasted their time learning about fractions, (and their addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) such as the examples you mention in the last 424 years. This also causes large financial burdens on human commerce. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf for a suggestion about financial losses as applied to the USA. Don't forget that the foot is a natural unit of measure because some people's feet are as long as a foot. No one's feet have ever been a metre long, so it must be unnatural and thus inappropriate. Two seconds ago the world population counter suggested that there are currently 6 772 878 551 people in the world and almost all of them have two feet. One of the problems before the invention of the metric system in England in 1668, the development of decimal divisions in the USA in the 1780s, and its legal development in France in the 1790s was the selection of whose foot to use. In France before the revolution, the king chose his own foot known as 'Le Pied de Roi' (the foot of the king) and this was then almost universally hated sufficiently to become one of the causes of the French revolution. When Bishop John Wilkins published 'AN ESSAY Towards a REAL CHARACTER, And a PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE.(1668)', he intended to provide a 'universal measure' that would allow people to have access to an honest system so that they would not be cheated as was usual between any dealings between the peasantry and the aristocracy. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CommentaryOnWilkinsOfMeasure.pdf for details of Bishop Wilkins' invention. In addition, no nation has ever been prepared to accept the foot of a foreign king as their own foot. For example, the English have always refused to use the French foot. Politically, the choice foot has always been an incredibly difficult decision. This has always had major implications for international trade. For example using pounds for international trade, S. Ricard, in his 'Traité de Commerce' (1722) published a list comparing the various pounds around Europe with the Amsterdam pound. He wrote: 100 pounds of Amsterdam are equal to 108 lbs in Alicant, 105 lbs in Antwerp, 120 lbs in Archangel, 105 lbs in Arschot, 120 lbs in Avignon, 98 lbs in Basil, 100 lbs in Bayonne, 97 lbs in Berg. op Zoom, 166 lbs in Bergamo, 95 1/4 lbs in Bergen, Norw., 111 lbs in Bern, 100 lbs in Besançon, 100 lbs in Bilboa, 105 lbs in Bois le Duc, 151 lbs in Bologna, 100 lbs in Bourdeaux, 104 lbs in Bourg en Bresse, 103 lbs in Bremen, 125 lbs in Breslaw, 105 lbs in Bruges, 105 lbs in Brussels, 105 lbs in Cadiz, 105 lbs in Cologne, 87 lbs in Constantinople, 107 1/2 lbs in Copenhagen, … and this is only up to the letter C. Again consider how much it must have cost to do all the conversions before the gradual acceptance of Bishop John Wilkins' 'universal measure' in the form of the modern metric system. Seriously though, aside from being more used to Imperial, there is no reason that I wouldn't prefer Metric. Sorry if I've offended anyone who has read this email, but I would advise that you do some research if it does offend you. I am not sure that I understand where you are directing me to do research. Could you please be more specific? I have researched the development of the metric system (see http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/MetricationTimeline.pdf ) but I suspect that research into the metric system is not what you have in mind. I am not offended in any way by your statement of your opinion. I am fully aware that whenever people use the metric system for a while they do not willingly go back to using any of the old pre-metric measures that you say you support. This applies to individuals, to work groups, to companies, to industries, and to whole nations. Keep in mind that the Imperial Law of 1824 only covered a few different measures; many others such as the cups you mention have to be added to the few Imperial measures because the Imperial law did not provide for a system of measures. The important Imperial measures are now defined in terms of the metric system. The foot you referred to is probably the metric foot of 304.8 millimetres and the pound you use is probably the metric pound of 453.592 37 grams. Personally, it is my opinion that the adoption of the metric system in inevitable. To quote the French philosopher, Condorcet, the metric system is 'For all time - for all people'. In time this will, in my opinion, even include you! Cheers, Teran Cheers, Pat Naughtin PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
