Pounds Vs Kilograms

Even tho I am able to understand the metric system and all that, I am still overelated that I can go to my local City Market and buy my meats in pounds. My problem is with the Bulk Barn, and the little amounts I pick up always seem to cost me a fortune. Ex: 69 cents per 100 grams sounds like a good buy, so I scoop up a couple of kilos On the other hand,it is preferable to tell others that my weight is a mere 16 stone.
I'm screwed for life because Canada switched to Metric when I was in Junior High, I think in pounds, grams, kilos. inches, meters. So much adding, pucking math, I would of been fine if they had just left what wasn't broken alone.
I am used to metric; I know my weight better in kilograms than I do pounds.
I don't discuss my weight ever!!! Never ask a woman that question.
lol, I didn't give my weight! My policy is the same as yours! lol
Two young men came to my place to do the Enumeration for the election and the first question they asked was "When where you born, and how old are you." I shut the door in their faces, I did it as a lark but I guess that is not an uncommon thing to have happen.
What makes it hard for us is that our biggest trading partner,the US,hasn't switched, and probably never will
Stick to Imperial.

America put Man on Moon using Imperial measurement.

And can you imagine the band "9 Inch Nails" having to change their name to "22.86 Centimetre Nails"?
I thought that the United States had switched to the metric system, formally?
Better get changing those names then.

Chicago's Magnificent Mile Gardens should now be known as Wonderful 1.609.344 Kilometer Gardens
Pounds versus kilograms, I don't care really as long as I don't gain in either catagory.
I prefer kilograms. Smaller numbers make me feel better.
Smaller numbers?

Then why use Metric?
Because ... my weight in kilograms is less irritating than my weight in pounds.

Besides, the metric system actually makes sense.
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

I thought that the United States had switched to the metric system, formally?

United States abandons metrication

A revealing report appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 30 June, by its Washington correspondent, Ben Fenton, headlined: "US prefers an imperial past to a metric future". We would have preferred "an imperial future to a metric past", but what followed was very good news. We quote:

"America is rapidly abandoning metric weights and measures, having decided that people prefer the imperial system.

Louisiana, Missouri and Illinois scrapped kilometres on road signs last Easter, bringing to 18 the states that have reverted to miles.

Fairfax County, Virginia, yesterday reverted to feet and inches in building codes, dropping its rule that plans had to be submitted in metres and centimetres.

'It's a small victory but a great victory', said Seaver Leslie, director of a lobby group called Americans for Customary Weights and [Measures].

'The latest attempt to impose this unnatural system on us has been a fizzle, a failure and an expensive flop.'

After spending at least $70 million (£46 million) on abandoning the old ways, it seems likely that all states will soon throw out the new. Congress tacitly removed the five words mandating the use of metric measures in federal contracts last year. ...

Shell Oil has already felt the costs of American public ambivalence to the litre. In 1989 it spent tens of millions of dollars converting petrol pumps to metric, only to find its customers leaving in droves and having to spend tens of millions more changing back to imperial."

Compulsory metrication ended

As a result of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which was signed into law on 9 June 1998, "the American highway industry's on-again, off-again love/hate relationship with metric is on the rocks. After years of training, arm-twisting and missed or extended deadlines, obligatory metrication of the federal highway program is dead as a doorknob. Section 1211 of TEA-21 eliminates the Sept. 30, 2000 date for states to convert to metric." (Tom Kuennen, Expressways Publishing Project.)

The following month the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published the results of a survey of metric conversion intentions, and received comments which included the following (states indicated by two-letter codes):

· "Since the public, most industries, and many government agencies are not converting, it is difficult to justify the highway industry going metric since the majority of our customers are not changing. Our customers are the public, contractors, material suppliers, real estate operations, environmental agencies, highway signs, etc." (NC).

· "Weights and loads are still on English units because it is more convenient when dealing with large quantities." (PR).

· "We are doing a recent State funded program in English units. Contractors have indicated metric increases costs by 5% — politics maybe involved." (OK)

· "Several recent actions have resulted in a decision to end the Department's conversion to the metric system and return to the use of customary (English) units for all future improvement projects. First, the recent passage of the national transportation legislation (TEA-21) made the metric conversion optional instead of required. Second, at a recent meeting, representatives of town, village, city and county governments were unanimous in opposition to using the metric system and strongly encouraged us to drop its use. Third, Wisconsin contractors (as represented by WTBA) are opposed to working with two systems and have noted that many local and/or private projects are still being prepared using customary units. Fourth, some construction material suppliers have not converted and the field conversions between systems is causing problems. Fifth, a survey in January 1998 of WisDOT designers indicated there are only minor efficiencies gained using the metric system." (WI)

Further confirmation

Our friend Bob Jones from Washington DC kindly sent us cuttings from the US press.

One article, "Iowans Nix Metric Signs", reported: "Metric doesn't make the grade. State Department of Transportation officials in Iowa said 'Forget it!' to the Fed's preference for the metric system, and switched back to the standard system of feet, yards and miles. Congress passed legislation last June upholding a state's right to choose either system but, according to Iowa's DofT, after a five-year process trying to go metric, Iowans have had enough."

The Washington Times of 28 June states that, "According to Federal Highway Administration statistics, 21 states have reverted to English units of measure in the past two years." This movement back has accelerated in the last couple of months.

It also reports that, "Dozens of Internet pages are devoted to metric horror stories and pro-English-unit rhetoric: 'Don't let unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and careless, unresponsive legislators sacrifice it under the steamroller of world "harmonization",' writes the author of a Web page called Freedom2Measure."

Of course, this rejection of metric units by the U.S. will hardly deter promoters of metrication in Britain from continuing to assure us that the U.S. is accelerating its own metrication programme!

users.aol.com/footrule/usaband.htm (external - login to view)
And here are some problems that shopkeepers in Britain have had after they have converted from Great British Imperial Measurements to the Napoleonic French Metric Measurements -

8 June 1999


Trebor (the company that makes sweets) should rename Mint Imperials as Mint "Metricals" to draw consumers' attention to the fact that new metric packet sizes are smaller than the traditional imperial sizes.

Until last month, packets of Mint Imperials, Murray Mints and Everton Mints, as produced by Trebor Bassett, contained 8 ounces, the traditional weight for bags of confectionery packets. However, over the past few years, Trebor Bassett has removed all references to 8oz from the bags and displayed instead only the metric equivalent - "227g".

Last month, we discovered why. Trebor has re-launched its range of mints with colourful new " Fundays" packaging that conceals one fundamental difference - the new bags weigh only 200g - the equivalent of just 7 oz. Yet, prices remain the same.

In other words, conversion from imperial to metric has given Trebor the opportunity to slip in an overnight price INCREASE of 13%, not noticed by most consumers since the price rise has been achieved by a weight reduction rather than an increase in the actual price paid.

Trebor's metric downsizing is only the latest example in a long line of metric scams; for instance, Heinz reduced their cans of beans from 16oz to 14.8oz (disguised as "420g"); Mattessons reduced packets of sliced ham from 4oz (113g) to 100g; and Bostic reduced tubes of glue from 2oz (57g) to 50g. Many milk producers have replaced pints of milk with 500ml cartons, containing 12% less milk than the full 568ml.

The British Weights & Measures Association calls on Trebor and other producers to restore traditional quantities and to put customers first. Recent proposals by the European Commission will allow British firms to use English units alongside metric for at least another ten years. Producers should therefore make maximum use of this change and display traditional units on packaging. These are the units that the vast majority of consumers want and understand.

users.aol.com/footrule/metrical.htm (external - login to view)

11 February 2001


BWMA today releases an Internet report on the Great Metric Rip-Off - the scandal of "product downsizing" . www.bwmaOnline.com (external - login to view)

The findings of the report demonstrate that metric conversion is the primary cause of "downsizing", the size reduction of packaged foods - without customers being made aware - during conversion from imperial to metric. Initially companies delete imperial units from product packaging and replace them with metric equivalents. Later, after references to imperial units have been removed, the physical quantity is decreased, BUT THE PRICE REMAINS THE SAME.

Metric reduction goes beyond the trimming off of one or two grams to prevent odd numbers (eg reducing 454g to 450g). Research shows that companies use metric to make size reductions of up to 10% or 15% with no comparable decreases in price. For instance, for the same price:

· Milk containers - reduced from 2 pints to 1 litre (equivalent to only 1¾ pints)

· Sliced meats - reduced by 12% on conversion from 4 ounces to 100 grams

· Sweets - switched from pricing per ¼ lb to per 100 grams, a reduction of 12%.

· Tinned foods - reduced by 9% from 1 lb to 415 grams

It is estimated that THE TOTAL COST TO CONSUMERS OF METRIC DOWNSIZING IS ABOUT £3 BILLION p.a. The cost to consumers of metric cans of baked beans alone is estimated to be at least £20 million per year.

A key motivation for companies adopting metric is that it gives them an unfair competitive advantage over firms using traditional imperial units. Using metric means that firms can sell smaller quantities at the same price as imperial while making no OBVIOUS change to the size of the outward packaging. The result is to give metric firms a price advantage over imperial firms, while the consumer loses out.

Astonishingly, CONSUMER GROUPS ARE INDIFFERENT to the Great Metric Rip-Off. The National Federation of Consumer Groups actually supports metric conversion, as does the Consumers in Europe Group, which calls for "rapid transition to full use of the metric system". The government, with true Orwellian "Newspeak", claims metrication is "for consumer protection", and "to avoid confusion."

In the absence of any opposition to metric conversion by consumer groups, BWMA calls on consumers to respond to the Great Metric Rip-Off by joining the Great Metric Boycott - buying only foods from companies that include lb/oz/pint equivalents.

"Don't Buy Metric"

For further information CONTACT: Mr Vivian Linacre, BWMA Director, 45 Montgomery Street, Edinburgh EH7 5JX (Tel. & FAX: 0131 556 6080),

Or e-mail Research Officer John Gardner: johngardner@bwma.freeserve.co.uk (external - login to view)

users.aol.com/footrule/ripoff.htm (external - login to view)
And Metric Measurements, being French, are based on flawed calculations.

For example, how did the French come up with the idea of inventing the metre? Well, in the 18th Century a group of French scientists set out to measure the distance from the North Pole to the South Pole. When they came up with the answer, they then decided to divide that length by a certain amount of units, and they called each of those units a metre. But, years later, it was found that their distance from Noth Pole to the South Pole was actually the WRONG distance.
Link Error: Can't contact servlet runner at localhost:6703

I have to laugh at that post; it makes it sound as though this "epic battle" between the metric and Imperial system in the United States is some sort of case of values and morals. This is absolute rubbish. "Freedom to measure?" Methinks these people are just looking for something to fight about, for the Hell of an argument.
I think Canada converted to metric as Trudeau wanted to edge Canada closer to France and away from the USA.

Remember the Gimli Glider? A metric FU.

www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...5cmy2_143.html (external - login to view)

Anybody have any idea instantly what 11.6 liters per 100kms means in MPG?

The wind shield temperature of 30 below zero in Watts per square meter?

They can't even spell liter and meter correctly for Crisakes!
Dexter Sinister
Ahem... a long and probably pointless explanation and rant:

An odd and interesting subject, and an interesting study in human nature. I have no problem with either the Imperial or metric system of units, I use both freely and have for decades, I find no source of confusion in either of them, and frankly I don't understand how anyone with at least a 3-digit IQ (i.e. minimum 100, the average, by definition) could have a problem understanding either of them. The metric system is internally more sensible and coherent and consistent, the only conceivable strikes against it are its unfamiliarity and the fact that people don't like change.

Think about it. The Imperial system is inordinately complex and illogical, compounded by the fact that different countries use the same word for different units. Two pints in a quart, four quarts in a gallon, is true in both the United States and Britain, but the pints, quarts, and gallons, are different sizes. A U.S. gallon is about 3.8 liters, an Imperial gallon is about 4.6 liters. That's a more than 20% difference. Ever been driving in the United States, bought gas by the U.S. gallon and figured your fuel consumption in miles per gallon and wondered why it's 20% less than you get in Canada?

It gets worse. Sometimes the same words mean different things even in the same country. Ever wondered which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers? A pound of feathers is heavier, because they're weighed in what are called avoirdupois (French for, approximately, "to have weight") ounces, 16 of which make a pound, and precious metals are measured in troy ounces, 12 of which make a troy pound. The troy ounce is a little bigger than the avoirdupois ounce but 12 of them are smaller than 16 avoirdupois ounces.

Lunacy. If we were talking about grams or kilograms of gold and feathers, or liters of gasoline, at least we'd all understand the same thing.

A mile is 1,760 yards, or 5,280 feet. You think you know how far a mile is? Next time you're out on a highway in unfamiliar territory, fix your eye on some distant landform and try to guess how many miles away it is. If you get it right within 20% I'll be very surprised. You have no idea how long a mile is. You have no idea how much a pound is either. Pick up some unfamiliar object and guess how many pounds it weighs, then weigh it. You'll be lucky to be within a factor of two of its real weight. What you actually know is things like the physical size of a roast beef described as being 5 pounds, and how many people it'll feed, and that's just a matter of long familiarity: a 5 pound roast is like |<-----this------>| big and it's enough for 7 or 8 people, depending on how piggish they are. How long would it take you to become familiar with the fact that a 2½ kilogram roast is close enough to the same size as makes no difference?

Once you figure it out, the metric system is actually easier and more convenient for most things. Suppose you're on a Canadian highway where the speed limit is 100 km/hr, as most are where I live, and you see a sign that tells you your destination is 143 km away. How long will it take you to get there at the speed limit? 1.43 hours. Just move the decimal point two places left. Want it in hours and minutes? How accurate do you want it? 60 minutes in an hour, 6 times 4, or 60 times 0.4, is 24, it'll take you a little under an hour and a half.

What's so hard about that?

"Anybody have any idea instantly what 11.6 liters per 100kms means in MPG?"

Why do you need to convert? That's not a legitimate criticism of the metric system. Don't you understand, or can't you figure out, the significance of 11.6 liters per 100 kms compared to, say, 10 liters per 100 km? (hint: smaller is better.)

"Remember the Gimli Glider? A metric FU."

No, it was a pilot FU. Anybody smart enough to get a commercial pilot's licence shouldn't make a mistake like that, and if we'd had one unified, comprehensive, and comprehensible system of units he wouldn't have. It was the conversion between systems that screwed him up, not the systems themselves.

"The wind shield temperature of 30 below zero in Watts per square meter?"

You know what the equivalent unit in the Imperial system really is? Horsepower per square foot. You have no more idea what that means than watts per square meter. That's not a conversion issue at all. And that's wind chill, BTW, not wind shield.
A great post, Dexter Sinister.
Oi now.
It is windshield temperature if there is no wind and the car is travelling at 30 mph.

How many girls are there between Edmonton and Calgary? 299?
Doesn't make sense in metric.

In Imperial it is about 187. Makes perfect sense now doesn't it?

( A Miss is as good as a mile)
Imperial is superior to Metric.

In Metric, they like to mainly divide measurements by 10 - and 10 is only divisible by 1,2,5 and itself.

Whereas Imperial likes to mainly divide things into 12 pieces - and 12 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,6 and itself.

Stick to Imperial.
Dexter Sinister
Imperial divides things into seemingly random numbers of pieces.

3 feet to a yard, 4 quarts to a gallon, 2 pints to a quart, 16 ounces to a pound, 8 ounces to a cup, 3 teaspoons to a tablespoon, 2 tablespoons to an ounce, 2000 pounds in a ton, 2200 pounds in a long ton... Quick now, how many ounces in a quart? How many square feet in an acre? Need I go on? We can get into bushels, pecks, hogsheads, barrels, rods, chains, furlongs, the confusions between liquid and dry measures that use some of the same words for volume and weight... Ah, I could pound on this all day.

It's like trying to do arithmetic with Roman numerals. It's an antiquated, inconvenient system and there's a vastly superior alternative available that most of the world uses. It can also hurt commercially not to use it. Want to sell a boatload of lumber to the Netherlands? They'll want metric sizes, so we'll have to sell them the next largest size in Imperial units for the same price, then they'll trim it down to the metric size and sell the shavings to the Swedes, who'll turn it into particle board and sell it back to us as low-end Ikea furniture...

What's the big deal about being able to divide 12 by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12? That's hardly a point in favour of the Imperial system. How about 60? It's divisible by even more numbers, so should we switch to a sexagesimal number system? Division by 10 is far easier in most cases.
"who'll turn it into particle board and sell it back to us as low-end Ikea furniture... "

Blackleaf wrote:

America put Man on Moon using Imperial measurement.

Actually, they didn't. NASA has always used metric. Whenever the astronauts talk about weights and measures or velocity, it's in kilograms or metres per second.
I'm not entirely right about this.

NASA Inspector General's Assessment of NASA's Use of the Metric System, G-00-021

Date Released: Tuesday, February 20, 2001
Source: NASA Office of Inspector General

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Office of Inspector General
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Reply to Attn of: W February 20, 2001

TO: A/Administrator

FROM: W/Inspector General

SUBJECT: Assessment of NASA's Use of the Metric System, G-00-021

Following the loss of the Mars Climate Observer, the NASA Office of Inspector General initiated a review of the Agency's use of the metric system. By law and policy, the metric system is the preferred system of measurement within NASA. However, our review found that use of the metric system is inconsistent across the Agency. A waiver system, which was required by law and put into effect to track metric usage and encourage conversion, is no longer in use. In addition, NASA employees are given little guidance on the Agency's policy and procedures regarding use of the metric system.

Based on our review, we made eight recommendations intended to improve the use of the metric system within NASA in accordance with national policy and NASA guidance. We recommended NASA:

* reexamine the Agency's effort to convert to the metric system and develop a new approach for converting to the metric system,
* closely monitor technical interfaces between metric and English units,
* reinvigorate the metric waiver system, and
* use the metric system as the preferred system for interactions with the public.

Management concurred with all of the report's recommendations, except the recommendation that NASA use the metric system for interactions with the public. In responding to this recommendation, management agreed to use metric units in all education programs and when communicating with the public about programs that use metric or hybrid metric/English units. However, the Public Affairs Office plans to use English units of measurement when communicating about programs that use English units exclusively. We continue to hold that since public law requires NASA to use metric units where economically feasible, the Agency should use metric units in all communications with the public.

As the United States continues its slow transition to the metric system, NASA must decide whether it wants to be a leader or a follower in the transition process. Both roles come with a cost. If NASA chooses to push forward with the Agency's use of the metric system, near-term costs may increase and short-term risk (both to schedule and mission success) may rise to some degree. However, if the Agency follows the aerospace industry's slow transition to SI, the protracted period during which NASA uses mixed metric and English systems may further increase costs and risks for NASA programs.

NASA is the nation's most visible science and technology agency, and is involved in highly publicized cooperative projects with a world that almost exclusively uses the metric system. Certainly an argument could be made that as the nation's symbol of technological prowess, NASA has a role in promoting acceptance and use of the metric system. We believe the Agency should reassess its conversion to the metric system and determine the most appropriate approach for the Agency to successfully transition to the metric system.

[original signed by]

Roberta L. Gross

They lost a $125 million space craft because somebody used imperial measures or because of a faulty interfacebetween the two systems of measure.
Hasn't the American military always used metric?
Metric has been used in the U.S. military for some time but it's use has been spotty and inconsistant. The conversion to metric is finding a lot of inertia. The public doesn't want it.

I can understand this because Canada's switch to metric caught me close to the end of my career. I didn't really switch. For a couple years I did my load calculations in Imperial and did a hard conversion at the end. There were so many little rules of thumb and fudge factors that I was used to. I was too stubborn to change.

3 feet to a yard, 4 quarts to a gallon, 2 pints to a quart, 16 ounces to a pound, 8 ounces to a cup, 3 teaspoons to a tablespoon, 2 tablespoons to an ounce, 2000 pounds in a ton, 2200 pounds in a long ton...

So does time -

60 seconds in a minute

60 minutes in an hour

24 hours in a day

7 days in a week

2 weeks in a fortnight

4 weeks in a month

12 months in a year

10 years in a decade

10 decades in a century

100 years in a century

1000 years in a millennium

10 centuries in a millennium

So what's the problem?

They lost a $125 million space craft because somebody used imperial measures or because of a faulty interfacebetween the two systems of measure.

America put Man on the Moon using Imperial measurements.

When Europe lost its Mars probe in 2003, it was using Metric measurements.
no new posts