Actually Louis Sokol was right when he called the system we use the junk system. I use inch-pound system, basically because there is no Empire anymore and also no customs houses. Mark
----- Original Message ----- From: Natalia Permiakova <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: [USMA:53194] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard" To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > i think "US Customary" is better than "Imperial" > so, I like any of the options: > US Customary and Metric > or US Customary and Standard (too good to be true to see it today on usps.com, in reverse order - event better) or US Customary and The Rest of The World ( ;-) ) > > > > > > From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> > > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:41 PM > Subject: [USMA:53186] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard" > > Since the US system is unique, it needs a unique name. NIST uses the term, U.S. Customary, so we ought to use it. Seems to me that inch-pound is a rather generic term for any system that uses inches and pounds. It could be applied as a "catch-all" to describe commonality of US Customary, Imperial, and any related > versions. The US version is NOT Imperial as evidenced by the different gallon, bushel, ton, and the lack of a stone. Imperial is a measurement system of the United Kingdom, adapted from earlier systems in 1824. It was probably used by most British Commonwealth countries before they went metric. NONE of the new 1824 definitions were adopted by the United States; it continued using various > pre-Imperial units. > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:57 PM > Subject: [USMA:53181] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard" > > > Concerning Metric Pioneer's recent correspondence, I've always had a problem > with what to call the U.S. measurements. > > Officially, the term "inch-pound" has been used. I don't care for that > because it does not indicate clearly a measurement system. Moreover, it > singles out only two measurements, whereas there are many in the "system." > > Another common term used is "U.S. Customary" (USC). Is this a good choice? > > Now "Imperial" is being recommended by some. Is this a good alternative? I > suspect that most people would not connect "imperial" with the United States, > perhaps Canada. > > I agree that "standard" is not a good choice at all. The standard should be > SI metric. > > Paul Trusten and you other USMA officers out there, what is the current > recommendation? > > Martin Morrison > USMA "Metric Today" Columnist > > > > > > >
