Talk:Metric system/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

other archives

next →

Expand

How can this article be expanded? What isn't covered by the SI article? In other words, what precisely are the differences between the two? I'd say this article should focus on that. And shouldn't the SI-link be presented a little more prominent? I've expanded it for that purpose, but that's not what I mean. Now it looks like it's just one of the many things it might mean, when it's really the most prominent one. Right? Also, I understand that the two are not synonyms, but that the SI system is a subset of the metric system. Or are there also SI units that are not metric units, in which case the two merely overlap? DirkvdM 08:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded it. How? By merging what was the Metric system section of Units of measurement. The overlap with SI will have to be dealt with. Jimp 25Sep05

By this, IMVHO, you bloated the article and made it (too) SI-centric. The sections “The metre”, “The kilogram” and “The litre” should be removed, because the information therein is already present in the respective articles where it belongs. This pretty much applies to “Metric prefixes” and “The International System of Units” as well.

Note that the original French system was not a CGS system like the current text implies, instead it somewhat continued the tradition of having separate base units for geometrically related dimensions, i.e. metre for lengths, are for areas, stere for volumes and dry capacities and litre for liquid capacities; it also included only few prefixes. It’s debatable whether mesures usuelles (or metrified English unit) is a (true) metric system, too. Christoph Päper 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the article should not be overly SI-centric. That's what we've got the SI article for. Also I don't want to have all this duplication of material either. I'll look into seeing what we can trim out of here. Jimp 28Sep05

Your comments here on the Talk page are more informative than the text of the article. I'm sure you won't mind, Crissov, if I use them in the article. Jimp 30Sep05

The article says that the metre is a certain fraction of the velocity of light, which makes no sense because the metre is a unit of length, not velocity.

Should there not be more attention for the Dutch Metric System, after all it used the same units, but totally different names?ThW5 13:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

i think this article should explain advantages and disadvantages for the metric system.

Overlap with SI

1. SI#History

2. SI#Cultural issues and

3. SI#Spelling variations

are all applicable to the metric system whilst

4. Metric system#The International System of Units

is best suited to SI. I suggest that 1, 2 & 3 be moved to Metric system and 4 be moved to SI. Jimp 28Sep05

There are, at least in History, some things that should remain in the SI article. Maybe split with most everything from 1960 on in the SI article (including, for example, developments related to non-SI liter), and a short paragraph there summarizing some of the earlier history (that the metric system was developed in the 1790s in France, the Meter Convention of 1875, the study resolution of 1948 and adoption of base units in 1954). Use something similar to "Main page" crosslinks to make both readers and future editors aware of the division of the history.

The physicist/engineer (and ordinary people also in the practical engineering camp) "cultural issues" are very much tied to SI (and, of course, the metric system in general and cgs in particular). Some about spelling variations should be in both. Gene Nygaard 11:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have merged Metric system#The International System of Units to SI#History however what remains is to merge part of SI#History to Metric system#History (I'm changing the section name from Origins of the metric system). Also I've removed the following as it s covered elsewhere on SI, Imperial unit & US customary units. Jimp 30Sep05

Cultural issues are tied to SI, you say, Gene, but go on to say that they are tied to the metric system in general also. What I'm saying is that because these issues are general-metric-system issues they should be here. The physicist/engineer bit is about cgs vs SI, right? This a a metric issue. What is metric-system-in-general should be here (this includes spelling too) and what is specific to SI should be there. Of course, this shouldn't be stark black and white: there must be some grey areas of overlap. Jimp 3Oct05

I've brought the Spelling variations section here however, I'll leave a summary at SI#SI writing style. Jimp 5Oct05

---

Some traditional units of measure such as the Imperial units and the U.S. customary units are now defined as fractions of SI units.

The SI includes two classes of units which are defined and agreed upon internationally. The first of these classes are the seven SI base units for length, mass, time, temperature, electric current, luminous intensity and amount of substance. The second of these are the SI derived units. These derived units are defined in terms of the seven base units. All other quantities (e.g. work, force, power) are expressed in terms of SI derived units.

---

I've sorted the two History sections into Metric system vs. SI links remain between the two. Jimp 30Sep05

Goals of Metric System

First of all, my apologies since this, being my first post, probably is messing with proper etiquette. Consequently, I am also reluctant to directly edit the article, any help in this regard will appreciated (besides, my English sometimes fails me, not being my native language).

I feel that the first paragraph about the metric system is somehow failing to describe the purpose of the system.

I would first state that 'metric system' simply means 'measuring system' but that since the more prominent and popular unit is the 'metre', its name got to span the whole system.

There were two main purposes for the metric system:

1. Establish a common, universal and neutral system of measures
2. Develop the procedures under which any laboratory provided with the right technology could reproduce the base units

Regarding the first goal, the idea was to unify the very unmanageable systems of measures then in use. Each country, town and even two markets within a large city might have different units of measure. Also, different guilds had different measures and a lot of them had the same name. Nowadays we still have two different 'gallons' on each side of the pond.

It was meant to be neutral and universal in that it would not rely on the length, width or girth of any body parts of a particular ruler, as was the norm in those days, which would make the new system hard to digest to other countries. Of course, this part still became hard to digest with some monarchies of the time and so we still have an Imperial System.

In this regard, it would be important to correct the popular misconception that the metric system was a crazy thing the French came up, just like the revolutionary calendar. Though the French were, indeed, the designers, their purpose was not nationalistic at all and the metre should not be associated with Brumaire and Floreal. Indeed, they learned from the calendar which failed to be universal because it set the revolution as its starting date and the names were related to local events, such as Brumaire which comes from 'foggy', a weather condition that though widespread, does not occurr everywhere in France itself. The metric system avoided this local or nationalistic bias.

The second goal is even more important and the most significant breakthrough in the whole system. The idea that the designers of the system would not simply craft an arbitrary measuring ruler, a hollow container and a weight and say 'this are the units, come and copy them', but that they would develop a procedure for reproducing them just from the description of the units, without any need to actually carry the physical embodiments of standards around.

As you see, neither the decimalization nor the use of common prefixes for multiples were on the top of the list of goals of the metric system, though they were also very significant concepts. To offer a counter-example, Britain decimalized its currency without changing the value of the base unit which was as arbitrary as it was before (arbitrary in the sense of not related to the properties of any physical object).

A minor goal was that the base units should be handy, literally, that you could actually show them with your hands. I wonder why they failed so badly with the 'gram', which is so tiny as to be useless except in chemistry.

The article fails to mention this procedures which, otherwise, would make the whole system look quite arbitrary.

As said, the designers decided that the units would be derived from the properties of natural objects accessible to everyone, everywhere. Thus, the metre would be a fraction of a meridian of the Earth. This was no new concept at all, the nautical mile is the length of a minute of longitude over the Equator.

The meter is one thousandth of a second of a decimal arc of the Earth measured from either Pole to the Equator. A decimal arc is also a unit of the metric system (originally called 'gon', the Greek for angle) so that a right angle is composed not of ninety degrees but of a hundred 'gons'. A hundred decimal minutes make a decimal degree, and a hundred decimal seconds make a decimal minute, so, a meter is one ten millionth of the distance from any Pole to the Equator which makes the circumference of the Earth of about 40,000 kilometers (at the time it was, by definition, 'exactly' 40,000 kilometers, later measures proved it inexact).

In using a fraction of latitude from any Pole to the Equator, instead of a fraction of longitude over the Equator, as used in the nautical mile, they carried with the 'universality' of the procedure. All countries have access to a chunk of a meridian, few countries have a piece of the Equator.

The goal of making them 'handy' shows in the selection of which fraction of the Earth circumference was used to define the metre. Using the whole circumference would have made the metre four times as long. Likewise, using a millionth instead of a ten millionth would have made it ten times larger, neither of them handy. Basically, they meant the metre to be just about 'this' size (please make proper gesture with your hands).

To get the metre as fit to its definition as possible, they had to measure the circumference of the Earth which was not a practical thing to do, so they went for the next best, measure as long a fraction of a meridian as they could possibly span. They set upon the arc in between Barcelona and Dunkirk, being the longest meridian in western Europe wholly on land and, except of a small section on Spanish territory, most under territory they had access assured. The process lasted several decades and even though in some of those years there were hostilities in between Spain and France, the measuring kept going, the French scientists safely escorted by Spanish troops while in Spain.

The unit of weight was defined as the weight of a cube of water of a certain size. A cube of water a metre on a side weights a metric ton, a ton being the informal name for a million grams. In this, the designers of the system failed the 'handiness' rule because the gram is so small that it is not practical for everyday use. The kilogram is used instead, most often referred to the 'kilo', which is not a unit but the prefix for 'a thousand'.

A cube a metre on a side contains a thousand litres, thus a litre holds a kilogram of water.

So, as you see, anyone with these descriptions, access to proper instruments, who can measure the circumference of the Earth and could distill water could make their own copies of the base units.

As time passed and the instruments improved, it was found that the Earth was not 40 thousand kilometres in diameter so that either the metre had to be redefined or the linkage in between one and the other broken. The first option was out of the question, the precision of the instruments that detected the discrepancy had already spread to the then blossoming mechanical industry and changing the metre at that point would render whole batches of incompatible nuts and bolts. At the time 'screwing', as the standardizing of screws was called, was being regarded as an important stepping stone into the progress of mechanical devices and changing the metre would screw it all up, if I may be allowed a pun.

Thus, for a period, the metre was defined as the length of a ruler stored in Sevres, France. Later on, new and more precise universal means of producing a metre were developed, namely, a certain number of wavelengths of the spectrum of a known and stable natural element. At the time this was hailed as a very important development, forgetting that the original designers meant from the very beginning that the units should be derived from the properties of natural objects.

It was at the time of this interregnum, when no property of any natural object defined the base units, that several countries, unwilling to recognize their measuring system subservient to a piece of metal resting somewhere in France, that they started defining their own systems, conveniently compatible with the French metre. In this regard, I would leave the mention of the CGS, MKS and MTS systems to a rather obscure corner of history, where they belong.

The prefix system didn't encompass all the sizes we use nowadays. Kilo and mili were about as big and as small a multiple as they could figure of any practical use in those days. The concept, though, has been successfully extended to a then unconceivable degree from nanoseconds to gigabytes.

Decimalization has gone beyond the metric system to currencies and in a confusing way, to computer memory. A kilobyte sometimes is 1024 bytes, sometimes it is a thousand bytes, a proper kilo. The small difference in between the two makes the error acceptable.

One missing and very important unit which was not part of the system was the metric day. A day would have been divided into 10 hours each with a hundred minutes in each hour, a difference not really meaningful in that mainly rural society. Actually, the decimal day had been part of the reform of the calendar, which was prior to the development of the metric system, and by the time this was occurring the revolutionary calendar was already falling in disuse and finally abolished and the decimal day with it.

The 'gon' still exists nowadays, called the 'grade' which shows up in most scientific calculators though nobody uses it, 'radians' being far more practical for scientific calculations.

--DevaSatyam 14:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You haven't really messed with the etiquette, don't worry about that. It is usual to put newer categories at the bottom of talk pages however on a page as short as this (as yet) it's hardly an issue. Please, feel free to edit the article, though I would like to make a suggestion first. Now you might have already read through them but, if not, do have a brouse of the related pages, e.g. SI, metre, kilogram, litre, etc. In this way you'll be aware of whether you risk too much duplication of information.

I'm not so sure what you mean when you say "that 'metric system' simply means 'measuring system' but that since the more prominent and popular unit is the 'metre', its name got to span the whole system." The term "metric system" certainly means a lot more than "measuring system": it refers to a specific measuring system (or set of related such systems). Let us not confuse the etymology of the term with its meaning.

You write "the idea was to unify the very unmanageable systems of measures then in use." As I see it, it would be more correct to say "the idea was to replace the very disparate and unmanageable systems of measures then in use with a unified system."

I don't agree with your treatment of the MKS, CGS and MTS systems. It is my understanding that the impetus for the development of these variations on the metric system had more to do with application than any unwillingnes "to recognize their measuring system subservient to a piece of metal resting somewhere in France," CGS was useful in the physics lab whilst MTS was useful in industry. As for MKS, well this being the basis of SI, it is anything but historically obscure.

It seems that you've got a good few interesting facts about the metric system that would be worth adding. Please do so.

Jimp 12Oct05

So I did, and I hope I got it right. There were some changes made to the page while I was editing mine but Wikipedia warned me about them and I hope I managed to include them right.

I would appreciate any corrections to my English besides, of course, any to the contents itself.

My main purpose was to point out the idea of universality of the system, leaving the decimal aspect of it to a second level since, after all, decimalisation explains the relation amongst derived and base units, but not the units themselves.

I also mentioned the very pratical economical reasons for adopting a unified system, otherwise it seems a that a group of mathematicians got together and defined a decimal system of measurement just for the fun of it. Actually, I would like to stress this even further. Most people this days, even those using non-metric systems, think it is just a mater of using pounds or kilograms, yards or metres, mostly unaware of the absolute chaos of those days. Even today we still have different gallons on each side of the pond. Multiply that by a thousand such cases and you might still be short of the chaos of those days.

And I had to add the gon since the metre derives from it and the circumference of the Earth, and that is the start of all the chain of units.

I expanded the list of base units in the introduction because the metric system did, indeed, define more than just two units. The whole system was composed not only of the two prototypes for the metre and the kilogram but also of the procedures to derive these from natural properties and then each additional base unit from these two prototypes. Notice, for example, the importance of the gon as the basis to define the metre though the gon itself does not require a prototype being a magnitude without physical units so that it only requires a definition but not a prototype.

The original designers differentiated the litre as a measure of capacity from the stere or cubic metre as the measure of volume and so I changed capacity for volume in the introduction. Though a stere is exactly a kilolitre it would seem that they meant the litre to measure liquids, grains or other shapeless objects while the stere was for solids.

I also used 'natural philosophers' instead of 'scientists' since the later term didn't exist in those days

And, since I live in Europe, actually relatively close to Barcelona and the Montjuic, the southern end of the arc used to measure the size of the Earth, as per Wikipedia style rules I followed the British spelling as far as I could, though I learned American English and my spell checker is set to U.S. English and kept complaining about standardiSation and coloUr and all that. Of course the article was already localised in British English with metre, litre and so on, but I am sure some other British spelling escaped me and my spell checker.

DevaSatyam 23:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

National

"exclusive national standard" -What nation is this refering to? If you are still talking about France then you need to name it again because its a new paragraph. Alternatively, just append this sentence long paragraph to the previous one.

This sentence was added by User:Arfon as part of what could best be described as an edit intended to give the article an antimetric slant. It doesn't seem that he was refering only to France but to all metricated countries. As to this "measures of tyranny": I'd like to see some evidence that what he wrote is in fact the case. Until a reliable source is produced I suggest this sentence be not included in the article.

Later: OK I've done some rooting around & it seems that "measures of tyranny" is from George Orwell maybe. If so, then it belongs at Metrication arguments and counter-arguments#Cultural references.Jimp 6Nov05

The kilogram

Arfon had also added the following paragraph.

The kilogram, for the past 106 years, remains formally anchored to a single precious 
platinum-iridium cylinder in Sèvres, France but using a mass standard to calibrate other mass 
standards has its disadvantages. So, it too is about to be changed. Le Gran K, as the kilogram 
standard is sometimes called, is pretty imprecise, when compared to other standards. It could 
potentially be damaged or even destroyed and its mass changes slightly with stray dust 
particles and when it is cleaned. And it is available in only one laboratory. For some time, 
scientists have considered replacing the kilogram mass standard with a natural constant. 
Scientists at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology are exploring two possible 
ways of replacing the kilogram mass standard. Both methods would base the kilogram on the 
Avogadro constant, which is defined as the number of atoms in 12 grams of pure carbon-12. One 
method would directly determine Avogadro's number based in part on X-ray measurements in near 
perfect silicon crystals. Another method would determine Avogadro's number based in part on 
electrical measurements in a watt-balance experiment.

Arfon claimed that it is about to be changed. The fact is that this has not yet been decided. It may be changed. The paragraph has since evolved to the following.

Since 1899, the kilogram has been formally anchored to a single platinum-iridium cylinder 
in Sèvres, France. However, this is an imprecise mass standard as it could potentially be 
damaged or even destroyed, and because its mass changes slightly with stray dust particles and 
when it is cleaned. Furthermore, it is only available in one laboratory. Scientists at the US 
National Institute of Standards and Technology are exploring two possible ways of replacing 
the kilogram mass standard, both of which would base the measurement on Avogadro's number. 
One method would directly determine Avogadro's number based in part on X-ray measurements in 
near perfect silicon crystals; the other would determine Avogadro's number based in part on 
electrical measurements in a watt-balance experiment.

The kilogram is precise. The kilogram is defined to be precisely the mass of what our Arfon calls Le Gran K. The potential for loss or destruction is a problem but it doesn't entail imprecision. Nor does the variation in its mass entail imprecision though this too is a problem. It does vary in mass but because of dust and cleaning? Where did he get this info? They keep it in a sealed container (though it is cleaned). The cause of the variation is unknown. Yes, there is only one but there also are national copies. It's by comparison with the copies that the variation in mass is known. There are more than two alternatives under consideration and the US NIST is not the only organisation doing the investigation. This is all covered in great detail where this detail belongs: at the Kilogram article. All that is need here is a breif mention of the main points. This is what I'm about to do. Jimp 9Nov05

A few minor edits as of Jan 2006

The article had read as follows

As the result of scientific progress, refinements, and different choices ...
The modern metric system ... is called the International System of Units (SI) ...
or, simply, "Standard". It is called "Metric" predominantly in places where it is
not the main system, such as in the USA.

I've removed the following.

or, simply, "Standard". It is called "Metric" predominantly in places where it is
not the main system, such as in the USA.

I've never heard SI refered to as Standard. I have, though, heard it refered to as the metric system and have never lived in the USA. I don't believe that the general public knows about the metric-SI distinction nor do I believe that most of them would care. Even in metricated countries (like my own) the distinction is not one that normally needs be made thus the terms will be used interchangeably. I'd say the term metric will be favoured because it sounds less technical.

The article also read as follows.

The acceptance of the system in revolutionary France was not particularly great.
... Napoleon, ... authorized the usage of Mesures usuelles,
ancient measures defined ... this law was canceled ...

I've changed it to the following.

The acceptance of the system in revolutionary France was not particularly great.
... Napoleon, ... authorised the usage of Mesures usuelles,
the traditional French measures redifined ... this law was cancelled ...

Two points: spelling and nonsense. In keeping with the rest of the article I've replaced the US spellings with Commonwealth ones as per Wikipedia Manual of Style. Secondly, and more importantly, Mesures usuelles is based on the traditional French system. It is not untrue that it is therefore based on ancient measures but this is very indirect. It is misleading to simply say that Mesures usuelles is based on ancient measures.

I've also removed the following.

and non-metric system systems of measurement are now only used in
the United States, Liberia and Myanmar (Burma).

It is not true. Things are not so black-and-white. Distances on UK roads are still marked in miles and beer in UK pubs is still sold in pints. In Australian pubs beer is sold in volumes which are based on the imperial fluid ounce simply rounded to the nearest 5 ml. In Japan floor sizes are quoted in tsubo by real estate agents. Canadians often use imperial units. Liberia and Burma, on the other hand, whilst not officially metricated are likely to have adopted the system as well as most other nations in their regions ... but I'm only guessing here. Jimp 02:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in history? "Apathy"

This article attributes the fact that the US and the UK haven't fully switched over to the metric system to general public apathy. This is not a fair, objective statement to make.

mickey 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense- the apathy is rooted in the effort required to change everyday life to something that is uncustomary, alien, less useful day-to-day and downright unfamiliar; Then add in the infrastructural cost across the largest most industrialized nation, and don't look for the USA to metricfy until all that plant and equipment becomes obsolete and in need of replacement. I remember as a boy in the 70's how we would be switched over in the next fifteen years. Ain't gonna happen. The inertia is too great. When will it occur? Sometime after most all new cookbooks are written to present recipees in metric units instead of customary units... Have you seen the first of these released yet? Neither have I. FrankB 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with SI?

Seems to me there's too much overlap and not really enough reason to separate Metric system from SI. I think we should probably merge the two articles. What do others think? ProhibitOnions 18:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Both, the SI article should be about the evolved current standards, not the generalized conceptualized idea of a metric system. Both get referred to in many links in other articles on measurement in general, and the distiction is necessary to preserve the sense of those links. FrankB 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both. There's no good reason to clutter the SI article up with all the historical stuff and the various other metric systems that have been used throughout history. Gene Nygaard 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Both: There are a number of variations on the metric system. To lump them all at SI would make absolutely no sense whatsoever because not all of them are SI. So the question is not whether there is "enough reason to separate Metric system from SI" but whether there is enough reason to separate SI from Metric system. To lump them all together, as Gene points out, would cause too much clutter, wherever they be lumped. It would also further obscure the distinction between what the terms the metric system and SI mean. They are not the same: one is a varient of the other. Jimp 08:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cross Post On New Intro

1) [Snip, Snip, Snip] = Post on another article, albeit one somewhat related, i.e. Talk: Exponentiation. See User talk: Pol098. FrankB

2) Looking over your evolution of [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metric_system&diff=prev&oldid=46287122 metric system ] I am struck by the thought that your familiarity to the SI has blinded you to the need to properly introduce a topic and in particular to remember at the forefront of your mind the audience for whom you are supposed to be writing. Don't get me wrong, what you did is good writing– perhaps even great prose, but I think the prior introductory start was more appropriate and also more in line with the WP:MOS. I suggest you take a week away from the article (a good trick this aiding dispassionate reconsideration) and then comeback to compare the two styles of intro with an editors eyes rather than that of an author. You may find that others have reverted you in the iterim.

I find your explanation to be superior -- just misplaced so far at the top as it introduces the topic with not comprehensible historic phrases gradually building to the technical, but by squarely hitting the lay reader in the eye with yet another incomprehensible bit of technical jargon — the [SI]. Give it some thought and consider rearranging once again to give your fuller clearer explainations more at the end of the intro, not at the top. In the future, please try to clearly indicate in the summary when you are making such a 'major reordering' and rewording. This change took some hunting in the historypage to see where the revolution in the article occured. Thanks from all of us tracking. Best wishes, FrankB 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The above cross post: Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pol098" FrankB

Continuing:

3) I'm going to revert the article to the old form, and then re-revert to the current form to document the dramatic change in the intro introduced by user: Pol098

4) This should be discussion by a lot of editors, so weigh in. FrankB 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

5) It would have been better if the world had waited a while until the compter age was born. A system compatible with base 2 and so base 8 and 16 would have been directly compatible with computer architechture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdavisiii (talk • contribs)

definition of a metre

I am quite sure that the metre is actually defined as how far light travels in a specified time (about 1/3E8 seconds) in a vacuum, not what it says in the article. This is because the speed of light in a vacuum is considered a constant.

You are right; that change was made in 1983. Gene Nygaard 13:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I stayed away from that as my recollection backs up the above, but I'm not sure how current my knowledge was. Someone needs to add a cite with due research into the current standards definition. My specific recollection was it was a specific wavelength tied to some excited cesium compound and was so many wavelengths of that specific frequency of light traveling through a vaccuum. Either definition requires a very precise timing capability, and it may be that this recollection of mine is instead how the standard second is defined. My editing load is overstressed, and the article is actively being pursued by you all. I'd suggest formal footnotes for both aspects. I just happened by in invitation to some discussion on the above section on our talks. Good hunting! FrankB 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, just read the metre article. I added the correct definition, but I think the intro needs a major rework, as it does not reflect current practice. (second is the base unit defined by cesium clock, metre is derived by defining speed of light, kg is the last unit defined by an artifact, etc.)--agr 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

None of which is essential for the introduction here—and all of which are covered in the more specific SI article, and probably already too much here. Gene Nygaard 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, none of them are essential to this article. None is a disputed point. Specific references to the appropriate CGPM resolutions governing the current definitions are provided in detail at SI base unit. Gene Nygaard 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Along with the precise wording of the quasi-official English versions of those definitions, of course. Gene Nygaard 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the the precise definitions need not be repeated here, but they should at least be alluded to. The present intro is heavy on jargon, too long and poorly organized. Also the second has never been "about one 86400th of the mean autorevolution period of Earth" That would be a sidereal day (86,164 seconds); the second was defined in terms of the the solar day. I'm up for taking a whack at a rework but I don't want to start an edit war. --agr 11:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and did an edit. I removed some duplicated content and rearranged things a lot. The opening sentence is based on the definitions in several dictionaries I consulted. --agr 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

UK usage

It's a common misconception, for some reason, that people in the UK use the metric system. We are members of the European Union, of course, and officially we should have adopted the system, but the reality is quite different. Distances on road signs are still measured in miles, rather than kilometres; for the most part, produce (from, say, a greengrocer) is measured in pounds, not grams; and we weigh ourselves in stones and pounds, and measure ourselves in feet and inches. Britain is far away from having adopted the metric system. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large Britain still uses the imperial system of weights and measures. --Stevefarrell 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Past discussions indicate—to me as a fellow European—that the everday experiences of Britons differ, probably mostly by age and education. (The exceptions you list form basically the complete list, when adding the Fahrenheit temperature scale for summer and fever.) This has lead to a lot of annoying “I know better” edits of related articles.

To be considered a “metric country” the official position (laws, regulations etc.) should be considered first and prominently, then official exceptions (like British road signs and the pint, which seems to be the mere name of a kind of beer glass today), then colloquial, foreign-induced and compatibility remnants. Of the last you’ll find examples in basically all countries of the world, although often metricised (like the 500-gram pound). Anyhow, you’re certainly only using a small subset of the 1820s Imperial units, not the whole “system”.

This discussion actually belongs to the article(s) on metrication, where actual adoption is covered in more detail. Christoph Päper 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

True, and I did read this article again and noticed that the UK has indeed officially adopted the metric system, but in everyday use the imperial system is more usual. Personally I feel the metric system makes more sense; I mean, it's multiples of ten. I find myself amused by metric system paranoia in this country (and the US) that seems to think that fully adopting the system would mean all sorts of crazy changes, like straight bananas and crashing your car because you're not sure how fast you're going anymore. --Stevefarrell 16:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the UK is that although most businesses use metric and it's taught in schools and used in shops and what not, the road signs are still in imperial and certain areas of industry still operate purely on imperial (those involved the inland waterways for example), which needs to be sorted out. Once that happens the UK will be fully metric (apart from old people, who were brought up on imperial and younger people who are biased against anything that turns us less British.

The change to a complete metric system will happen eventually, but it won't be any time soon.

I think that the map of non-metric countries should be changed and have the UK in blue or something saying that while it's officially adopted there is still significant use of the imperial system. --62.173.194.7 10:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We do use metric all the time. It only the roadsigns that are imperial. I reckon we should keep the map the same. I don't want people to think we're as backwards as the yanks when it comes down to weights and measurements.

What units are used on the odometers of cars in Britain? Ordinary Person 11:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Miles. Road distances and speeds are still in miles and yards, although actual numbers are posted very rarely. Ireland finally got rid of imperial measures on its roads last year without any great trouble.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 13:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that this world map on the page that shows what countries do not use metric should be updated. It should have another color for those countries that use both metric and imperial measurements, such as the UK.

The metric system IS used in Britain. All kids are taught only metric measurements at school. Produce MUST be purchased in metric measurements however inconvenient that might be for some old people. I only ever hear people use celcius when talking about temperature (on weather programmes and everyday life) except if they talk about body temperature (as 100F is an easy figure to remember) or if they wish to emphasise how hot it is ("London sizzles at 90F", for example, in a newspaper). The only real exception seems to be with regards to miles on road signs although all cars display kilometres and miles on the odometer and general road signs usually use metres nowadays (e.g. "service station in 200 metres"). The only other exception are drug dealers who continue to sell hashish in ounces and tenths of an ounce. Thank god we've finally got rid of the illogical metric system. The USA is now one of only 3 backward countries to continue using such a system! 213.230.129.22 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant "illogical imperial system" there, right? 195.200.34.50 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm 19 (And from the UK ) and I don't actually know or understand the imperial system, my dad is 52 and understands both but usually uses the imperial system and my grandma is 82 and doesn't actually understand the metric system at all. Although the imperial system is still in use, it is dropping off the map. Liam Markham 17:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm 18 and although certain right wing tabloids like to stress how everybody uses the Imperial system, those tabloids are dedicated to fostering a sense of outrage in old people. in practice Imperial measurements are used very rarely. I can only think of five examples

1. Golf (yards etc)
2. Greengrocers when weighing produce out for older people
3. Miles on road signs
4. In american made mechanical components (quarter inch-bolts)
5. Dealers selling quarters and halves.81.77.175.47 15:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How are those "quarters" and "halves" actually measured? I'll bet on a scale calibrated in grams. Question then becomes, how does one know if they are getting what they asked for.

Centimetres

I notice that centimetres are not even mentioned in this sentence, "All lengths and distances, for example, are measured in metres, or thousandths of a metre (millimetres), or thousands of metres (kilometres), and so on." Distance can be measured in centimetres (one hundredth of a metre) and I therefore believe it should be included. I am also unsure that 'or' has been used appropriately in this sentence. I believe that a comma between listed metric measurments would suffice.--MSmith 11:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Decimetres (1/10th of a metre), decametres (10 meters), hectometres (100 meters), megametres (1000 kilometers), etc, aren't mentioned and I dont think every differen't unit in metric needs mentioning either. I beieve thats what the "and so on" is there to cover. One should look to the entries themselves for each definition as there are twenty one different units of length[1] alone. Lando242 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the units are of common use, and others not. Millimetres, centimetres, metres and kilometres being the usual ones, the others existing but almost never used. It probably makes sense to say which are in common usage and which exist by virtue of the system being generic. A bit like hogsheads exist in the imperial system but are hardly ever used... Except as a joke.CyrilleDunant 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

“Common use” is a big word (or two). Dekagrams or hectograms are the primarily used unit in loose food sales in various countries. Decimetres are often preferred when giving water levels of rivers or tides (cf. English hands and horses). Hectolitres are common in breweries and the like. A hectare (from hecto-are) is another, much more popular name for the square hectometre (ha = hm²), like the are itself is a square dekametre (a = dam²). Megagrams are sometimes used to distinguish the metric tonne from English tons. And so on. Just because you do not use it, does not mean noone is using it. Christoph Päper 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will specify, then. Some of the subunits are un general common usage, whereas are in specific common usage. Your examples are very true, but they do not change the fact that some subunits are more common than others, in general terms.CyrilleDunant 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a section discussing common usage in various countries/cultures? In e.g. Norway we tend to use centimetres for distances between 1 cm and 1 m; desilitre is commonly used in cooking (as opposed to UK which uses ml). Nilenico 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not. For one thing, it editors from various countries may know the common usage, but it may be hard to find reliable sources stating what the common usage is. Also, one of the main advantages of the metric system is that people who visit a region, or deal with information from an unfamiliar occupation, can easily adapt to the units that are commonly used in the region or occupation; indeed, it is so easy that I don't think it needs to be written about. --Gerry Ashton 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"All lengths and distances, for example, are measured in metres, or thousandths of a metre (millimetres), or thousands of metres (kilometres), and so on." The "and so on" here refers only to the example, which only mentions prefixes that express powers of ten that are multiples of three, and therefore can be misunderstood. There is no preference, in indicating measurements, for a given set of unit prefixes, namely for those expressing powers of ten that are multiples of three. You can use 12 dm, 120 cm or 1200 mm or 1.2 m or 0.12 dam or 12x10^-4 km, it's all the same -- some are just unusual. The prefix chosen is a matter of convenience for the work at hand, and people prefer better-known prefixes too. Xyzt1234 10:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jefferies, Walters, Livingstonson

The following text was just revised to put in some material about Jefferies, Walters, & Livingstonson. No reference was supplied to support the edit, so I have moved it here:

It was believed that in the late 18th century, Louis XVI of France charged a group of savants to develop a unified, natural and universal system of measurement to replace the disparate systems then in use. This alleged group, which allegedly included such notables as Lavoisier, allegedly produced the metric system, which was then allegedly adopted by the allegedly revolutionary government of France. However, this is not true, as the metric system was actually devised by a group of three Scottish men. One of the three, Walter Jeffreys, who was known to be an avid player and national champion of Chinese checkers, detailed the concept of the system to the other two, his good friends from college, Jeffrey Walters and Pip Livingstonson. Their creation of the metric system led them to become millionaires (by today's standards, billionaires), which also led to them being quite popular with the ladies.

--Gerry Ashton 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

UK or US spelling

User:Samibellina made an edit to change the spelling of decimalise and recognise to use a z instead of an s. We use the UK spelling of metre; does that mean we should use UK spellings for other words too, in this article? (By the way, I don't think Samibellina got all the instances of decimalise.) --Gerry Ashton 00:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this doesn't mean we should use "UK spellings" (which I prefer to call "Commonwealth spellings"). However, I can't think of any reason why we should use US spellings. The policy is to stick with what was originally on the article and not to change from one acceptable spelling standard to another.

"there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, summarized here:

• "Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
• "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
• "Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
• "If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used."

I could argue that the first significant contributor was User:210.237.26.133 who is me and I'm an Aussie therefore we should use Australian English thus we should have "~ise" rather than "~ize" but that would sound too much like blowing my own horn. All I did was merge a couple of sections from other articles here. A lot of what I'd merged here was redundant info which was covered elsewhere. This redunant info I later removed.

It would therefore be fair to discount myself as the first major contributor. So what was the first major contribution which was not simply a merge from elsewhere? It seems to me that it was this edit by User:DevaSatyam. Here's his edit summary "Stressed more the universality of the system rather than the decimalisation and spelled out more clearly the original goals of the system" (emphasis added). Let me quote some of the text he added.

"The proliferation of disparate measurement systems was one of the most frequent causes of disputes ... break with this situation and standardise on a measuring system.

"Later improvements in the measurement ... the standardisation of mechanical parts ...

"All multiples and submultiples ... the relatively recent decimalisation of the British and Irish Pound ..." (emphasis added)

He obviously preferred "~ise" over "~ize".

On 27 October 2005 User:Arfon added the following

"The inconsistancy problem was not one of different units but one of differing sized units so instead of simply standardizing size of the existing units, the leaders of the French post-revolution government decided that a totally new and foreign system should be adopted."

Other "~ize"s came and went but by the time User:Samibellina made his/her edit (15 September 2006) the article was dominated by "~ise"s with only Arfon's "standardizing" and a "Geometricized" in the "See also" section.

The article had lived happily with its "~ise"s for about a year. What reason did User:Samibellina have for changing it? None was given. There is no justification for this type of edit. I've reverted this. --Jimp 6 October 2006

I've not bothered to read further than the title in this discussion. There is no such thing as British English, Commonwealth English or American English. There is just English, invented in England by the English. These terms are just excuses for other countries who can't spell and so bastardise a langauge we spent 1000's of years creating. If they want they can do the same and spell words however they like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.42.10.194 (talk • contribs) 16:37 October 6, 2006 UTC.

212.42.10.194 you are a complete, euro-centric, fool. -/-

212.42.10.194, languages evolve. You can't bastardise something that is made of bits of other languages anyway. We have to accept, English is a shambling mess of a language badly in need of a reform. Oh and by the way, I am English. Liam Markham 17:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A shambling mess it may be but in need of reform ... Jimp 00:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Noah Webster reincarnated! Funny, I thought he was American.--Roonerspism 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Metric units in everyday life

I would like to present the informal definitions of the metric units.

These definitions come in extremly handy when doing back-of-an-envelope calculations.

Examples of informal definitions of metric units.

• 1 meter is choosen such that the equator has a length of 40.000 km
• 1 liter is a cubic decimeter
• 1 kilogramm is the mass of 1 liter of water (at 0 Degree Celsius)
• 1 Newton is the gravitation force acting on 100 gram
• 1 Watt second is the energy needed to lift 1 kilogram up 1 meter, it's also the energy generated by an electric current of 1 ampere over a potential difference of 1 Volt lasting for 1 second

Note: these definitions are correct with a precision of less than 1%, which is usually sufficient in every-day life.

To illustrate my point, I like the following example:

A pump with 1 horse power can lift 1 cubic feet of water 1 yard within 1 second. What is it's efficiency?

A 1 kilowatt pump can lift one liter of water 1 meter within 1 second. The efficiency is of course 1 percent.

I oppose inclusion of this information in every metric related article, and also because it contains errors which I explained elsewhere. I won't bother to say where, because it seems to me that an editor who scatters discussion about a topic should do the work to read all the responses in all the places. --Gerry Ashton 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, definitely not in "every metric related article". And, no, nor here. There is a place for this. It's Metric metersticks metric yardstick. Go there and be dazzled ... or if you're less than dazzled make a few dazzling additions to that article. Jimp 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect that "1 Newton is the gravitation force acting on 100 gram" 0.1kg*9.81m/s^2=0.981N calling it 1N is more than 1% error. just thought i would point that out. Guglido 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, never mind that the earth's equator isn't 40000 km, unless you want to keep redefining the length of a meter every time there's a new more precise estimate of the length of the equator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.216.242 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps don't agree

The first map shows the UK as being a metric user, the second map shows the UK as not converting to metric yet.

I don't know how to edit them.

Ordinary Person 11:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This could reflect the fact that Britain has adopted the metric system but hasn't fully metricized, since the first map shows what countries use the metric system and the second shows which ones have metricized. SteveSims 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ups, sorry. I just noticed that this section is about the same discussion I just started below: Talk:Metric_system#Contradiction_in_images - Can we just continue down there? - Thanks, next time I will be reading first, then posting ;-) Cheers, MikeZ 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit by 70.137.135.191

I realise 70.137.135.191 is not finished editing, but I hope he or she will be a bit more concise and not put the same facts in two different sections.

Also, this article uses UK spelling. Is artefact the correct UK spelling for the word that Americans write as artifact? --Gerry Ashton 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in images

The two images contradict each other in term of metrication of the UK. (Images in opening section and in the history section). Can we agree on the terms, that the UK is officially using the metric system, and to reflect this consistently in both images? In my opinion it's rather irrelevant that some old English imperial measurements are still used in every days life in the UK (e.g. half-a-pint of beer). MikeZ 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the moon as well now? :-) [2] ... MikeZ 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the same in Canada, older generations continue to use the old system for certain things, even on the news a lot of time, so I don't really know how to phrase this. Sure most people know metric, but, like with many things, people like to stick with what they know, especially in carpentry etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.55.25.28 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

So do we still need the contradiction tag? --Freiddie 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. There isn't a contradiction now that the image was changed. 213.107.97.72 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to redo the map showing countries that don't use the metric system, countries that have adopted it but don't use it in their everyday life and countries that have adopted it and actually use it in their everyday life? -HeffeQue 11:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be better, if we could find reliable sources that have that information. Also, the phrase "adopted it" is ambiguous. One could say the U.S. adopted the Metric system in 1866; that's when it was legalized. I doubt you could find a country that hasn't made it legal. The trick is making the preceeding system illegal, or mostly illegal. --Gerry Ashton 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thailand

Thailand uses the metric system, contrary to the indication on the map. Traditional units are also used but the official system is still metric.

Requesting update to the map.

References: http://www.cicc.or.jp/english/hyoujyunka/databook/221.htm http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Thailand.html http://www.tourismthailand.org/about/aboutthailand.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pandafaust (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

RE: Thailand

The country colored blue in the map is not Thailand. That's Myanmar (Burma).

I don't know if Myanmar uses the metric system or not, but I just wanted to point out that the country someone thought was Thailand is actually Myanmar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.129.150.61 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Liberia, Myanmar & the US

Why do these countries not use the metric system? Some explaination should be given why every country in the world except these three don't. 211.30.75.123 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The explaination would need to come from reliable sources. If you read the previous discussion, people would like to see better sources to even confirm that Myanmar and Liberia don't use the metric system, so finding adequate sources to explain why they don't use it is going to be difficult.

The topic of why the US does not use it is covered in Metrication in the United States. --Gerry Ashton 06:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to reassure Both Myanmar(Burma) and Liberia that the USA will defend you with all the power at their disposal. This evil plot called metrication must be stopped. Ha. Oh yeah. Don't forget your bodily fluids. Uhoh have to run. Those damn bodily fluids again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.207.40 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an urban ledgend that these two countries don't use the metric system. The reality is that when the survey was taken back in the '70s, only they and the US had made no official intent to change. However, both of these countries have slowly adopted the metric system due to their trade partners being fully metric. Travellers to both countries have found of mixture of units used. Metric for things new and modern and non-metric for remnant products that haven't faded from use yet, such as old vintage cars or older petrol pumps.

"Three countries use non-metric measurement systems; Liberia, Myanmar, and the United States." reads the caption. If only it were this simple. Here's another country: Japan which continues to use the tsubo extensively in housing, the shō for sake bottles (though labelled as 1.8 litres), and the inch for other various products (e.g. photographs, colthing, TV screens). In an Australian you order beer at the pub by the pint, ¾ pint, ½ pint ... though it be rounded to the nearest 5 ml. Canadian paper sizes are US paper sizes (based on the inch) rounded to the nearest 5 mm. The imperial system is still used extensively in the UK. Then, on the other hand, what do we really know about measurement in Liberia and Burma? Jimp 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inches in these countries are just trade names. You can't actually purchase anything by the inch. The same with pints. A pint is just a trade name for a glass. Pints vary in capacity from 400 to 600 mL depending on the location. The reality is that non-metric hangs on in remnant applications, but anything new is metric.

I thought that although they don't really use the system, the US did sign that metre treaty or something in the late 1800s. So does that count? -- Thai H. Nguyen 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The US federal government and the state governments often force people to use customary units, or often use only customary units in laws and regulations. These governments rarely require the use of metric units to the exclusion of customary units. So I think it is fair to say the US is not a metric country. --Gerry Ashton 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By your argument, the UK must be treated exactly as the US, here in the UK, the Pint is the official unit of measure for lager and milk and Miles are the official measure for distance on the roads. Furthermore, cars must advertise their fuel efficiency in MPG (despite the fact that we buy petrol in litres!) Mkoistinen (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

US law requires the use of the metric system when dealing with the government. If a company constructs a building for the government, it must be metric. Even NASA must now be metric. Metric is used in 40+ % of American industry and all products once made in the US in inches or other non-metric measures and now made outside the US are metric. Thus americans who buy and use imports are using a metric product. American made cars are fully metric too. America's new industries are metric, but america's rust belt industries (if they are still in business) tend not to be.

If American standard paper size is 279 mm x 216 mm and Canadian is 280 mm x 215 mm, then they are close, but not the same.

So basically all this amounts to the map and the whole statement that the US, (at the very least) doesn't use the metric system should probably just be removed as it is untrue and pretty much irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.50.25 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article is "As of 2007 only three countries, the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar (Burma) had not mandated the metric system upon their populace." So far as the U.S. is concerned, the government hardly ever forces inhabitants to trade with each other in metric units. Also, in this context, I don't think it is correct to equate "United States" with "federal government". In this context, "United States" equates to all levels of government, including state, local, territorial, and tribal. Some government entities require inhabitants to deal with the government in metric units, others require them to deal with the government in customary units. --Gerry Ashton 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So if the United States are using the metric system, in which country I'm living here? So Florida doesn't belong to the United Statest? No one use here the metric System. Also in no school they teach the metric system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.74.180 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

At least the money is metric. 1$=100¢. And what about the road signs?--85.179.62.100 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's decimal not metric. JIMp _talk·cont 23:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the volume or weight of every product you buy - trust me, it will have the metric units on the packaging. Also, I learned about the metric system in my grammar school in the US in the 1970 and I know my children are learning about it in the US schools in the 1990's and 2000's. Do you have any basis for your claim? Mkoistinen (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Most products in the US only have metric on the package for reference only. Just in case you want to know how many mililiters are in a 12 ounce coke can. I'll see you at the Auto Parts store when you ask for .5 meters of 5/8" heater hose or 453 grams of Turkey at the supermarket. Ha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle70ss (talk • contribs) 08:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was taught the metric system here in the US, although I don't think I use it out of science class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.134.25 (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

From the box with the map of the countries who have adopted the metric system "The United States is the only industrialised country in the world that has failed to adopt the International System of Units as its predominant system of measurement." This statement is objectionable because the word "failed" is not neutral. It has negative connotations. There is nothing wrong with using the United States Customary System. A better statement would be: "The United States is the only industrialized country in the world that has not adopted the International System of Units as its predominant system of measurement." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.121.70.108 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I support 108.121.70.108's comment (although I wish the USA would use SI units like everybody else) - the current text is perjorative. Adamtester (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

History: Lagrange, others?

It seems hard to find info on early history of metric system, but I understand that after Lavoisier was executed, the great physicist-mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange replaced him as head of bureau of measures, and contributed idea of decimals, which is maybe SI's most popular aspect to this day. But no mention of Lagrange here, nor of other savants who contributed.--MajorHazard 12:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ToC, "History" heading

There is a sizeable chunk of text directly after the ToC, and before the "History" heading. It would be a good idea to incorporate this into the introduction, and other portions of the article. If there is an appropriate banner for this, add it to the top of the page. --67.161.117.214 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I put that ToC there so that readers wouldn't have to scroll down before getting to it. Before that it was just one rather long uninterupted introduction. The thought that putting the ToC after the first paragraph would make it seem as if there were a one-paragraph intro then untitled chunk of text hadn't occured to me but I see how this might be the case now. It seems a good idea to me to incorporate some of this text into the body of the article so that we have an intro reasonably enough sized that it becomes unnecessary to float the ToC within it. Jimp 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Metric System

I think that this article should include a list of the measures by greatest to least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.164.164.63 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

If you mean measures such as kilometre, metre, centimetre, or millimetres I think that the article on SI prefix is enough. If you mean the base units like metre, gram, or litre, the article, International System of Units would be enough. I don't think that we should do something that was already done on other articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thai H. Nguyen (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

A Useful Metric Calculator

As there is a metric unit calculator tool already in the External Links section, I would like to propose the addition of The Converter Site (http://www.theconvertersite.com) - a metric and imperial conversion tool - to the external links part.

Why not put your proposition at Talk:Conversion of units? That is a better place for stuff like this. I'm moving the tool that's on the page. Jimp 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC) ... Okay I went to move the tool that was here to Conversion of units but found comments that external links should be first discussed. Seemed a resonable request so I mentioned it on the talk page. I also made note of the site you, anon poster above, mention. Let's see what they reckon over there. However, if such links are not appropriate on that page, I don't see how they'd be appropriate on this. Jimp 05:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

SI prefixes

Two editors added some, but not all, of the SI prefixes, to the article. I have changed this to refer to the main article SI prefix. If someone feels the information should be duplicated in this article, I suggest they use the SI prefixes template, which contains all the templates. Also, the section heading would need to be changed, since the table contains some rather uncommon prefixes. --Gerry Ashton 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there allready was an article. What you did is much better. CyrilleDunant 05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-metric units in various industries

I have worked in and around the oil industry my whole life. Even though Venezuela is a metric country, the oil industry still measures depths of wells in feet, pipe in inches, pressure in psi, production in barrels per day, etc. Most of the oilfields in South American do the same. Mexico uses use meters for depth. However, for pressure they almost never the official units, but a related unit, kgf/cm2.

Another example: years ago I was at an oil industry exposition in Caracas, Venezuela. An American exhibitor had a display that included a turbine meter to measure the flow of gas in pipelines, and the display showed metric units (cubic meters of gas, basically). I commented to the salesman, he should have brought a device with US units. He answered, that when they were planning the exhibit, they asked the US Commerce department and were told that Venezuela was metric. However, when they got there, every engineer and businessman visiting the booth had remarked, "You have a good product. Too bad you don't have a device that displays US units."

I translate oil industry documents from most countries in Latin America, and it's still true that the oil industry works in US units.

I don't know how this type of information would fit into the main article, but I think it should be addressed somehow. Not to encourage the us of non-metric units, but simply to recognize that in some particular industries, that US units are still commonly used. Marzolian 19:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Aviation does that with altitudes in feet and speed in knots, as I understand it. -Fnlayson 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the only example of the lingering of non-metric units in countries which are officially metricated. It very much is worth breifly mentioning that this type of thing does occur in certain industries/feilds/contexts/etc. Any great detail, though, would be better placed at Metrication#Exceptions. Jɪmp 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• That'd be the better place anyway. Definitely link the Metrication article in History section or wherever to help keep it short.. -Fnlayson 05:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Only reason why oil industry still uses imperial units is that oil is traded and priced by barrels or gallons. Most people (at least in continental Europe) have no idea how much gallon or barrel is. Petrol is priced by litres on petrol stations.88.101.76.122 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Development of the Metric System

1) Just to inform you all that new research by an Australian academic working at Oxford and Cambridge universities has uncovered conclusive evidence that the metric system of measurement was first outlined by an English scientist and presented to the Royal Society 120 years before Louis 15th and his lot developed it. Not got a detailed academic reference as yet but it was reported on BBC Radio 4's "PM" programme this evening, Friday 13th July 2007. Link to a "listen again" of the programme available for the next 24 hours: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm - Astix 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New evidence for origin of metre

The metric system, and metre was first fully described by Englishman John Wilkins in 1668 in a treatise presented to the Royal Society some 120 years before the French adopted the system. It is believed that the system was transmitted to France from England via the likes of Benjamin Franklin (who spent a great deal of time in London), and produced the by-product of the decimalised paper currency system, before finding favour with American revolutionary ally Louis XV. [published work by an Australian linguistics researcher] sources: (more credible ones pending) http://blog.plover.com/physics/meter.html BBC Radio 4 2007-July-13 "PM" programme

I am the author of the article at http://blog.plover.com/physics/meter.html. I can state definitively that it does not argue that Wilkins was the source of the meter, or that what he was describing was actually the metric system.

The article does point out that Wilkins proposed a decimal measurement system based on natural units in 1668, and that his definition of the "standard", the basic unit of length in his system, was extremely close in length to the length of the meter as it was later defined. Moreover, because Wilkins' definition of the units of mass was essentially the same as that later adopted in the metric System, the units of mass that he defined in 1668 were very close in magnitude to the ones that would later be adopted in the Metric System.

Whether Wilkins' definitions were used by, or even known to the French inventors of the metric system, the article does not say, and I do not know.

Although I believe what my article says is correct, it is not a credible source on these matters to the standards that Wikipedia requires. It is just some guy's blog.

-- Dominus 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

saw a clip on bbc news the other day and it stated that the metric system was invented/thought-up by an english bloke a few hundred years back (think it's probably the same as the above post).

sounds about right the british invented/discovered most things

anyone know anymore?

-- found_ur_scoota 21:25, 18 July 2007

• Read the start of the History section and also the Original system section. -Fnlayson 03:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Advantage of Decimal Prefixes

When I have to add up columns of dollar-amounts, the advantages of a decimal system are clear. But I seldom have to tally columns of meters or litres. Do the prefixes really make it that easy to tell that 1680mm + .000553km + 279cm is a decameter? When a family member is away and I have to adjust a recipe, the disadvantages become very clear, as they will to anyone who doesn't have exactly 10 or 100 members in the household. Like many people, I generally make quick calculations or measurements in terms of halves, thirds, or quarters (ex. half-a-litre, half-a-kilometer). I recognize that wikipedia isn't the place to lobby for binary prefixes but I disagree with the idea that the decimal prefixes are advantageous just because they are decimal...they're just prefixes. It seems to me that the advantage of the prefixes is that is lets you define a lot of different measurements, at different scalse, whenever you define just one base measurment. Rods, furlongs, and miles all measure the same thing but at a different scale. The advantage of the metric prefixes is that it lets you have a variety of measurements without naming them all. 204.50.190.50 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you can also add up a liter of milk (>99% water, 1 liter of water masses 1 kilogram) and a kilogram of flour and figure out you'll get about two kilograms of dough. But maybe that's more of an SI problem? --Kim Bruning 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro / Base Units

The version as of Sept. 4, 2007 opened by saying that the metric system is "based on" the metre and gram. It then went on to say that there are variations with different "base units". Finally, it said that SI is now considered the standard metric system. This seems a bit inconsistent to me because:

- SI, the recognized standard system, is actually "based on" the kilogram, not the gram. (Yeah, I know they're related...)

- the metre and gram do not form a complete set of base units, so it's a stretch to say the metric system is "based on" them.

- how can we say in the opening sentence that it is based on specific units, when the next sentence says there are different base units?

My proposed solution was to mention the SI base units, being the base units for the "standard" metric system. However, this change was reversed. We are now left with an intro that doesn't even mention any metric units by name. I'd like to see metre and kilogram (or gram) mentioned in the opening paragraph, if only to indicate to the reader that he or she is in the right place. Any thoughts?Awnmwad 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

... reversed by me. I'd mentioned in the edit summary, that this seemed like too much detail for the intro and that it was overly centred on SI (which is but one metric system, albeit the recognised international standard). I stick by my reasoning on this. I suppose the intro could give examples of units which metric systems are based on but I really don't see why any units need be named in the intro. I doubt that we're talking about a significant proportion of readers who'd be unfamiliar with the term metric system but recognise metre, kilogram or gram. Jɪmp 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the U.S. not Metric, but the UK is?

Yeah sure the U.S. citizens still use english measurements in day-to-day life, but so too do UK citizens. UK citizens talk about "miles" and "gallons" or "pints", and yet the UK is considered metric. Why?

Also, nearly all things in the U.S. are measured with metric (same as the UK). My carton of milk says "3.8 liters". My pop-tarts say "400 grams" and "200 Calories" (kilocalories). My American-made car's engine is "2.2 liters" and outputs "70 kilowatts" of power according to my manual. I'm drinking a "2 liter" bottle of pop (soda? cola? coke?)..... and so on. Metric is the official measurement of U.S. business (same as the UK). - Theaveng 14:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My milk jug says 1 US Gallon. I buy gasoline by the gallon and all speed limit signs are in miles/hour. I buy engine oil by the quart, fuel hose by the foot, and antifreeze by the gallon. My Chevy Silverado is advertised to have 385 HP, 17" alloy wheels, 417 ft-lb of torque,10,700 lbs of towing capacity, and a 350 cubic inch engine. I'm drinking a coke can that says 12 fluid ounces on the tin. The US is neither metric or imperial. We're both.

• Calories are a metric unit. 83.231.208.161 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not an SI-Unit. That's why Calories should not be used. The Joule is the correct SI-Unit for measuring energy and nothing else. I allways use Joule or kWh. 1 J = 1 Ws, so conversion is easy. --91.89.137.197 (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• This really belongs more on the Metrication or Metrication in the United States. Although it could fill up some pages on a discussion forum too. Also, saying metric is official measurements for US business is largely incorrect. US Legislation only makes SI preferred for trade and commerce.-Fnlayson 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some government regulations in the U.S. are stated in customary units (for example, the size of fish that anglers are allowed to keep in Vermont[3]), so I'd say that the U.S. is officially mixed, as opposed to countries where people use pre-metric units informally, but the government never forces anyone to understand a pre-metric unit. I suppose the UK could be considered officially mixed, since I understand that speed limit signs are still in miles per hour. --Gerry Ashton 15:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson once said the law should be written so it can be understood by the common citizen. I guess that "rule of thumb" is still in effect today, and that's why the laws use the units familiar to today's citizens. (If a law stated Vermonters must throw back fish less than 10 cm, would the fishermen understand it? Doubtful.) Doesn't the UK Parliament pass laws using Imperial Units too? - Theaveng 15:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jefferson wanted just the opposite. Jefferson himself wanted the US to join France's metric system, and when that fell through in 1790 he proposed a decimalized US 'metric system' based on the length of the seconds pendulum at 38° N latitude. He wanted to do away with the confusing welter of incompatible traditional units the US had inherited from Britain, which were being used by merchants to defraud people, because uneducated citizens couldn't do the math to convert between units. He wanted to replace them with a single consistent system that any citizen could understand, that was based on powers of ten so it wouldn't require math for conversion. That's the the meaning of your quote from Jefferson. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the dates, Jefferson proposed his Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States prior to the French adopting the Metric System in 1791. It is not true that he wanted to "join France's metric system"- rather he wanted the US to be the first country to adopt a metric system. Indeed, the US was the second to adopt a metric system of currency, before France but after Russia. That, at least, is pretty much universal now.--Noren (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In scientific applications, such as prehistoric archaeology and antropology, metric measurements are used in the U.S. But in historic archaeology (post 1600), inches, feet, yards, miles, pounds, tons are used. Musicwriter (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)