Ok, ok – I know this is a hot button issue with many of us independent-minded Americans. “Why should we switch, just because 99% of the rest of the world has figured out that the metric system is far superior to the old English system that we now use?” (the British ditched the English system in the early 1960’s – “BTU’s” or “British Thermal Units” is no longer used by the Brits, replaced by the “Joule”).
I was in Canada in the 70’s while their conversions were taking place: weather was given in both metric and English and road signs were replaced with Metric as they were needed; cooking utensils had both units listed – if you check your measuring cups now, I suspect most of them have both – so there – you won’t even have to buy new measruing cups! Most of you new cars now require metric socket sets, right? Why fight it? Metric is far better anyway!
And here’s a nice fact:
According to the US Metric Association, ‘The only other countries that have not officially adopted the metric system are Liberia (in western Africa) and Burma (also known as Myanmar, in Southeast Asia).’
According to a web page found here.
Do we really want to share this distinction with Liberia and Burma only?
The Metric system was developed in France during the Napoleonic reign of France in the 1790’s. The metric system has several advantages over the English system which is still in place in the U.S. However the scientific community has adopted the metric system almost from its inception. In fact, the metric system missed being nationalized in this country by one vote in the Continental Congress in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s. The advantages of the Metric system are:
It was based on a decimal system (ie:powers of ten). Therefore, it simplifies calculations by using a set of prefixes which we will discuss in a few minutes.
It is used by most other nations of the world, and therefore, it has commercial and trade advantage. If an American manufacturer that has domestic and international customers is to compete, they have to absorb the added cost of dealing with two systems of measurement.
Ok – here’s the lesson:
Milli – 1/1000th,
Centi – 1/100th
Deci – 1/10th
Kilo – 1000X
Now you have learned Metric! Isn’t that easy! 100 centimeter are in a meter (approximately a yard, for those of you (McCain) who like to stick to the old ways!), 1000 meters are in a kilkometer (km).
No more 3 tsp to a tbsp, which has no relation to 4 quarts in a gallon, or 16 oz. in a pint or is it a quart?, or 8 oz. in a cup? – does anybody have ANY idea what the heck a peck is and how it relates to a bushel? How many square feet in an acre? Argghh!
I am fairly math-challenged so I knew that God had a sense of humor when I had to learn the math and the metric system (I took Biology so I wouldn’t have to learn math – yeah right).
I can remember the date – September 2 or 3rd in 1975, for oh, say just about 1/2 hour – that it took me to learn the metric system in high school chemistry. I have been a convert ever since.
Yes – I use it extensively as a scientist (there is a cool conversion that helps a lot: one cubic centimeter of water (1 cc) is equal in weight to 1 gram (1 g). SOoooo.. when you are measuring small amounts of a liquid, you don’t have to use tiny little measuring cups, you can just weigh it on your nifty lab scale!
For reference, 1 liter is a little more than 1 quart. One teaspoon equals about 5 milliliters.
Prefix Multiply by
milli- 0.001
centi- 0.01
deci- 0.1
deka- 10
hecto- 100
kilo- 1000So for example:
1 hectometer = 100 meters
1 centigram = 0.01 gram
3 milliliters = 3 X (0.001 liters) = 0.003 liters
0.9 kilometers = 0.9 X (1000 meters) = 900 meters
*** see the pattern here? Milli, centi, kilo – all the same prefixes, no matter what the unit of measurement is! For length, weight, volume, heat, electricity, etc…***
Length:
1 millimeter = 0.001 meter
1 centimeter = 0.01 meter
1 decimeter = 0.1 meter
1 kilometer = 1000 metersThe abbreviations are:
1 millimeter = 1 mm
1 centimeter = 1 cm
1 meter = 1 m
1 decimeter = 1 dm
1 kilometer = 1 kmVolume:
1 milliliter = 0.001 liter
1 centiliter = 0.01 liter
1 deciliter = 0.1 liter
1 kiloliter = 1000 litersFrom these units, we see that 1000 milliliters equal 1 liter; so 1 milliliter equals 1 cubic centimeter in volume (remember my chemistry measurements that don’t require the tiny measuring cups above?). We abbreviate these volumes as follows:
1 milliliter = 1 ml
1 centiliter = 1 cl
1 deciliter = 1 dl
1 liter = 1 l
1 kiloliter = 1 kl
For reference, 1 liter is a little more than 1 quart. One teaspoon equals about 5 milliliters.
Oh yes – here’s a good one for you weight-conscious folks out there: a kilogram (kg) is larger than a pound, so a 150 lb. man would weigh only 70 kg! So… it sounds like you weigh less – metric is good for your mental health!
We are all used to 2 liter and 1 liter bottles, so how easy would it be to figure out liters of gasoline and milliliters for cooking? How many recipes would be saved by not using the wrong amount? (“you mean there are 3 tsp in a tablespoon? I thought there were 4!”)
Also, We are already metric on many of our units:
Amps, Watts, Volts and Hertz are Metric.
More on the metric system:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm
A comprehensive list of metric units:
http://www.mathleague.com/help/metric/metric.htm and
http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
This consitutes an educational public service posting by RightPunidts – we are here for you!









February 15th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I’m with Liberia on this issue. How much of our idiosyncratic culture must we give up to accomodate a new world order? And what about our senior citizens, already confused by the spectacle of American Idol on TV, now having to learn a new trick? Granny’s snickerdoodles are just too important to screw up. Next thing ya know, they’ll want us to give up our farthings.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I agree the metric system is far superior, especially in my field of work. But it will never happen in my lifetime. They were telling me in kindergarden that the United States would switch over to the metric system in the “near future”….that was 26 years ago! And we are no closer to the metric system than we were back then. I’ve given up all hope.
Plus, what would they do with NFL football, a sport entirely based on “yards”? “1st and 9.144″ doesn’t have the same ring to it as “1st and Ten”.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Dave has a good point. Don’t mess with football. That slipper slope could lead to a 10 point touchdown and 100 minute halves. And those minutes, of course, would be 100 seconds each as part of a ten hour day. Who said math is supposed to be easy?
And how would you remake “10,000 Leagues Under the Sea.” I mean, we all already know what a league is, right?
February 15th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Alright – we’ll concede to the sports neanderthals that the game of football will remain “yards.” The rest of our society will be in metric!
Time will not change McCain – afterall, how could we dispense with 60 sec./min and 24 hrs/day and 365 days/year?
My darling daughter, whom I love and adore, stated when she read this post: “Mommy I don’t want to learn metric – I don’t want to learn a whole new system!” Fair enough, her open-minded mother thought. “Ok – how many oz are in a pint?” [no answer] “how many tsp. in a tbsp? [2? - she sheepishly answered] OoooKay… says her mother thankful for the 11 years of tax-dollar supported public education that has been invested into this lovely child before her: “how many quarts in a gallon?” [2?] “Ah…” says her mother self-righteously, “Since you have obviously NEVER LEARNED the English sytem, the metric system would be a piece of cake!”
How many of you came through your public or worse, parochial education in the same shape?
milli: 1/1000th
centi: 1/100th
deci: 1/10
kilo: 1000 times
there! consider yourself educated! Just think of all the tax dollars we can save in trying to drill the useless English system into their little brains?
David – you are probably right – we have been fighting this battle since the 1790’s!
February 15th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Gosh, just think of a darling little girl eating a lousy gingerbread boy, and then somewhere deep inside, thinking ill of granny for the rest of her lifetime.
Hey about those minutes and seconds and hours, is there any scientific reason for 12s and 60s? Why not 100 second minutes and 100 minute hours ticking at whatever rate is necessary to make a day? And if Al Gore could just move us a little further from the sun, we could enjoy 1000 day years.
February 15th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Should the U. S. switch to the metric system? Absolutely! If for no other reason than we wouldn’t need two sets of wrenches to work on cars [the parts that can still be worked on, anyway]:). Actually, the country switching over to metric would be better for football if it, as it should, stayed in yards. If everything else was referred to in metric stuff, when yards were mentioned, it’d be immediately apparant that football was being referenced. So switching to metric would make football even more unique! How cool is that?
Canadians and Aussies use the metric system, how do they work it with thier per…uh…thier versions of football, I wonder? For that matter, how does the rest of the world measure it’s sports? Never really thought of it before [guess I'm a "sports isolationist"-not a "world player", or something].
Plus, the metric prefixes are just kind of fun to say. C’mon – hecto hecto hecto. Kinda makes your mouth “happy” dunnit?
February 16th, 2007 at 6:16 am
IM1 – amen! I couldn’t agree more. However, if football switched to metric, there really wouldn’t be much of a difference. A yard is very close in length to a meter. A meter is 3.3 feet long, to the football field would be a total of 30 feet longer! Just think how the dynamics of the game would change! The field width would probably change slightly too – either a little narrower or wider – so a whole new generation of plays would have to be invented to make up for the longer field and narrower (or wider) field! Perhaps we can have 12 men on the field!
As for the cars – yup – my complaint too!
February 16th, 2007 at 6:22 am
McCain – I’ll give you a roadmap on this: it will be 100 Meters, not yards, and be equivalent to instead of 300 feet, about 330 feet. It would still be first and 10 to go on the downs and there would be no real difference in how the downs are counted – just each would be a little longer. Perhaps each touchtown could count for a little more: perhaps 7 points for the goal with a one point conversion?
February 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Some stadiums as currently constructed might not be able to fit a field that is thirty feet longer….
February 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
See – a whole new construction industry would be started – new longet stadioums – or we could just keep it in yards…. Or better – all new ones would be in meters and the old ones stay in yards – how interesting would that be?
February 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
All yards (yay!) or all meters (boo) for football. A mix would be terrible for teams to have to swicth back and forth from as they played different teams. If it’s not all the same rules everywhere, it just wouldn’t work out. New plays aren’t needed. It doesn’t seem that folks have trouble coming up with plays using the same system that’s been used for awhile. It doesn’t need to be “improved”. No “New Coke”ing of football, please. Besides, it just wouldn’t be physically or financially practical to extend every football field in America. All games must be the same, or they’re not the same game
Bigger picture of the U.S. going metric? You can see what’s important to Americans.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
i think we should switch because me im a child and we have to learn this stuff and it is very,very hard.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
yeah i agree this stuff is hard in school and we have to do the metric system in school and it is to hard. so thank you for reading this and email me on your advice
April 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I first heard that the USA will be switching to metric in 1975. I was 8 years old then and eager to learn it to the extent that I became proficient in its use within one hour. In 1983, my body measurements went metric, fully aware that the numbers would be quite large. I did measure my penis in centimeters in 1975, just to get a feel for it. I knew the number would be more than double what it would be if I used inches. In 1992, my weight went metric, knowing that the number would be somewhat less than half of what it would normally be. The switch could boost a person’s ego for some body parts.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:07 am
We want to GO Metric NOW.
WE want to remove the old Imperial measuring system and WE WILL DO IT.
http://www.metrication.us
January 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I’BE BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY FOR ALMOS HALF A CENTURY AND I WAS SO HAPPY TO HEAR IN THE MID SEVENTIES THAT THE UNITED STATES MIGHT FINALLY GO METRIC BUT NO NO AVAIL FOR SOME REASONS THAT ARE NO GUOD FOR THE COUNTRY AND ESPECIALLY OUR KIDS TO LEARN AN EASY WAY WHICH IS THE METRIC SYSTEM.
AS PER THE LARGE INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES THEY WILL BENEFIT IN A SHORT TIME AND ALL THE EXPENSES INCURED WILL BE FORGOTEN BECAUSE OF THE TRADE IN METRIC WITH THE WHOLE WORLD.
THE REST OS THE GAMES ARE OF NO CONCERN TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND TO THE HAPPY STUDENTS ALLOVER THE UNITED STATES WITH THE NEW SYTEM (THE METRIC SYSTEM)
January 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
But would we have to rename the inchworm?
January 27th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
ALTHOUGH I MADE A COMMMENT ABOVE BUT IN THESE FEW LINES I’M REPETING ALMOST THE SAME FOR THE METRIC SYSTEM. IT SHOULD BE SUBMITED TO THE GOVERNMENT AND WE SHOULD CHANGE THE ENGLISH SYSTEM THAT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO LEARN FOR THE STUDENTS EROM THE PRIMARY TO THE COLLEGE +
THE TRADE WITH THE WORLD WILL BE TREMENDOUS AND THE SWITCH BENEFITS ARE WITHOUT A DOUBT SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WILL ENJOY AFTER THE SWITCH TO THE EASY METRIC SYSTEM
I’M ORIGINALLY FROM EUROP WHERE I STUDIED THE METRIC SYSTEM AND LATER ON I HAD TO LEARN THE EMLISH SYSTEM. WHAT CAN WE DO TO CONVINCE THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE THE METRIC SYSTEM?
AKILE PAPAJ Akilepapajnasi@aol.com
january.27-2008
January 28th, 2008 at 4:00 am
Akile Papaj, I agree 100% with everything you said. Last night we were trying to teach our son centimeters and millimeters – in 5 minutes he had it, then a few minutes later, he needed to know about tablespoons…. 3 tsp in a tbsp.,… ridiculous. The ENGLISH don’t even have the English system anymore.
Metric: easy – just remember 10’s and 100’s.
As for who to go to – elect me as president, and I’ll change the system. Short of that – I can’t help you there. Americans are terrified to change the current system and no politician wants to take the chance. Its almost as bad as suggesting a change in social security.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:01 am
McCain – we’ll call it the centipede. Wait – that name is taken….
February 10th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Unfortunately old people are too dumb to learn and hate change. Best thing we can do is emphasize the metric system in our schools.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
“too dumb to learn”
Huh. No – what’s really dumb is saying ignorant stuff like that.
What’s your definition of old?
March 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Maybe it’s not that the metric system is easier to learn….maybe it’s because your kids don’t pay attention in school or maybe you didn’t pay attention.
“Oh no not my little timmy/sally, they are perfect students, why let me teach them the metric system you’ll see!”
Don’t cry about it, be about it.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:31 am
There is a real simple solution for football. Don’t change the field length – just renumber it! Each half of the field should be 45.7m long. The half line should just be renamed from the 50 yard line to the 45.7m line (or the “point-seven� line). The field would then be 91.4m long (100yards). Every 5m should have the same type of line across the field with a marking. A first down would still be 9.1m (actually since the referees measure it, it can stay exactly 9.144m). The announcers can do something called round! Instead of saying “first and ten� they could say “first and (a long) nine�.
Football doesn’t have to change anything except for the markings on the field!
March 12th, 2008 at 7:44 am
When moving the ball across midfield, you would cross your own 40m line, then the “point-seven” line, and then your opponents 40m line. When measuring a first down across midfield, the math would be a little tricky for your standard joe sixpack, but this is all done for you now days anyway by the referees and by computers with a big digital yellow line.