UK to revert to Imperial Measurements?

Boris Johnson to reportedly bring back imperial measurements to mark platinum jubilee

Being Australian, born in the mid-70s, I've never known anything other than metric measurements. yet learning woodworking primarily from online resources like YouTube, out of necessity, I've had to pick up and use some imperial measurements - and often convert them back to metric, make corresponding adjustments, etc.

Any of you fervently for or against either measurement system, or happy to use which ever makes more sense for the project you're working on? Anyone who is proficiently bi-measurement?? Interested to hear people's thoughts!

Being a lot older than you, I grew up with imperial measurements but consider myself proficient in metric which I now use for woodworking.

As a retired pharmacist, we went metric in the early 1960s and had no option but to learn it for weights and liquid measurements as we were still making a lot of mixtures, creams etc at that time.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other, I prefer a metric dozen myself......

Metric is so much simpler and consistent.
Imperial length measures are a dog's breakfast.
12 inches = 1 foot
3 feet = 1 yard
5-1/2 yards = 1 rod
4 rods = 1 chain
22 yards = 1 chain
66 feet = 1 chain
10 chains = 1 furlong
220 yards = 1 furlong
8 furlongs = 1 mile
80 chains = 1 mile
1760 yards = 1 mile
5280 feet = 1 mile

Now go to it converting one to and from the other.
And then we have fractions......

Now, while I am very old school and quite comfortable with imperial, it is the proverbial Saigon brothel on payday.
Metric is so much more elegant - and that other word beginning with "E" - EASY

Tom

I started the Carpentry trade in 1970. All our work at Tech (you call it Tafe now) was in Imperial. In 1973 the company I worked for had a guest speaker come to run through what we needed to know about Metric. I don't remember any confusion with the transition. I am happy to work in either but I am more prominently use Metric.

England has a unique way of doing things that are simple and turning them into ......crap/mush. They have road signs and speed signs in English (miles) but the trades seems to be Metric and then there was the Pound going "Metric"?? .When Australia went to dollars and cents the whole thing was based on 10/- being $1 that was easy, but the Poms went new pence and their "dollar" was based on their Pound being 20 shillings. I think it would have been a nightmare

I am German, naturally I am biased [emoji6]

Imperial Measurements Explained ???!!! - YouTube

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

I’ve always been reasonably proficient in both systems; when I design something I’ll use a mixture although I tend towards metric when the drawing board and tee-square cone out. I’ll also use metric to scale down Imperial measurements; ie I’ll use 1 or 5mm to represent an inch…. if I’m honest I think better in Imperial; always estimating or visualising sizes in feet and inches.

Weirdly though my schooling was 99% metric… but I always understood fractional inches and had no issues with them despite not being able to recall ever being taught about them. A few weeks ago I came across my 1968/9 copy of Aeromodeller Annual which I acquired in 1984. In that book are the partial plans of a plane called “Grey Ghost” which I successfully built from scratch; where the dimensions were missing I had calculated them using proportional values and written them in the book… all in fractional inches at the tender age of 14. I didn’t get any formal education in Imperial measurements until I began my engineering apprenticeship and was required to read Imperial verniers and micrometers.

I've always measured my weight in Stones & Lbs, (Which can make for confused looks from the Doc when they ask 'what weight are you?')

I have no idea why, nowadays I pretty much use metric for everything else except when imperial is forced upon me.

Although, in another life when I did some work as a chippy, I'd get some odd-looks when I'd call off a measurement to the docker in mixed feet, inches and mm. 'Four foot two & five mil." :D

Being a 60's bush baby I grew up conversant with both systems... and using both quite happily. But I guess as imperial has fallen out of favour I've been lazy and gone with the flow for long enough now that imperial has become 'work' to use.

It must be April Fools Day! American industry is slowly dragging the US into the metric measurement world and British industry has already converted so I doubt the idea will go over well with industries that have spent squillions to convert to imperial when there is basically no imperial tooling left in the world for manufacturing. I think he has been looking at the bottom of a few bottles or maybe more than a few. He might give Scotty a call and get some advice from him.

It looks like it’s merely allowing grocery trades to revert to Imperial systems. Back in the nineties when the UK joined the EU there was a furore when Brussels dictated that pounds, ounces, pints and gils had to go and be replaced with metric equivalents. Industry of course easily bends to consumer demand and so produce thereafter was simply supplied in the exact metric sizes that matched the Imperial sizes that everybody was used to. Milk was supplied in 570ml bottles and minced beef in 454g packs. Boris’ plan simply allows grocers etc to revert to pricing in either which will keep several million home cooks happy.

Incidentally; despite being a metric country Aus did exactly the same with timber and it still hasn’t changed to fully metric other than in pricing. You can’t buy 2 yards of 6” by 3/4” DAR or an 8’ by 4’ sheet of 3/8” ply…. except that’s exactly what you get. And stuff like framing timber despite being “sold” by the meter it is only supplied in feet and yards.

BJ probably thought up the idea on April 1st, as a distraction from his current problems.
He probably wont be there long enough to introduce anything significant.
I doubt he could get enough support for anything that significant because of the disruption and cost it would cause.
Pollies are all about the next election.

There are still huge anomalies in the use of metric and imperial measurements. While in general metric is easier and more logical to use there are some things that seem to lend themselves to the imperial system such as the use of "thou" in engineering and pints if you are drinking beer.

Perhaps Boris' announcement is just an excuse for another party.

Regards
Paul

Party????
Party party or Political party?
Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Duke

Party????
Party party or Political party?
Regards

---

Hugh

Either way I suspect he is history waiting for a book.

Regards
Paul

This is a Dead Cat issue.

A stinking dead cat is thrown on the table, it distracts instantly from all the other issues.

I know nothing of British politics, but this is only a desperate ploy from another failing government. Just like ours tried it on with Katherine Deves for Warringah Liberals and the attempts at "Boats are Coming!" SMS.

These rancid stinking politics are the distraction of parties at their very end. If there are any tame English here, enlighten us?

Ah yes, the issue: Metric wins. Imperial is dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chief Tiff

You can’t buy 2 yards of 6” by 3/4” DAR or an 8’ by 4’ sheet of 3/8” ply….

---

Recently I’ve noticed sheets of MDF (or maybe it was ply) are now 2400x1200, whereas they were 2440x1220.

This has been discussed many times before, recently in the jokes thread we have been tealed...


Metric is great for people who prefer not to divide by 12. The issue I have always had with it is the imperial system was developed by engineers (deverloped not invented). For example an imperial coarse thread is coarser than the metric equivelent while there are fine threads finer than the standard metric fine. There are solid engineering reasons for this. Most of the time it doesn't matter, sometimes it does.


I grew up with both. I can use both and think in one or the other depending on the situation but if I had to choose I'd pick imperial all day long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

This is a Dead Cat issue.

A stinking dead cat is thrown on the table, it distracts instantly from all the other issues.

I know nothing of British politics, but this is only a desperate ploy from another failing government. Just like ours tried it on with Katherine Deves for Warringah Liberals and the attempts at "Boats are Coming!" SMS.

These rancid stinking politics are the distraction of parties at their very end. If there are any tame English here, enlighten us?

Ah yes, the issue: Metric wins. Imperial is dead.

---

For what it's worth the British never readily like adopting anything that is foreign to their shores.A suggestion of going back to the Imperial system (because it's ours ) is a no brainer considering the moves & possibly time & effort into going down the metric route.Taking one step backwards does not necessarily mean you are going two steps forward.

Guys, despite what the thread title says the UK is never going to “revert back to Imperial” measurements. All BoJo is doing is removing the legal requirement for goods to be priced and sold ONLY in metric units. This means that should there be sufficient demand products can be sold in pints, ounces, feet and inches as well as OR instead of metric units. In reality the only actual changes will be in groceries where they can relabel all the 570ml bottles back to being pints and you can ask for 2lb of bacon and 7oz of cheese at the deli. Possibly some hardware and habidashery may go back to selling in inches, feet and yards again but only if there is enough demand.

I’m a dyed in the wool imperialist. For a very good reason too. When I work with people who use only metric, they all seem to make a basic mistake when measuring and it’s always 10 or 100 mm. They cut things too short because there’s no interim stage in a metre, unlike a yard that had a division f three feet. 3ft 9 1/4in is unmistakeable but1145mm can introduce the 10 pr 100mm error. They do it, I do not. I’ve also got lovely sub divisions if I need them. 10ths, 16ths and 12ths of an inch. You haven’t got that with your millimetres. Same goes for weights. I do have an odd retractable tape measure that measures in U units, but that’s for measuring data racks and patch panels. I can accurately step a yard but not stride a metre and can measure a yard from nose to finger but not the extra 3 inches for a metre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Reynolds

I’m a dyed in the wool imperialist. For a very good reason too. When I work with people who use only metric, they all seem to make a basic mistake when measuring and it’s always 10 or 100 mm.

---

Working in science and engineering for 5 decades my experience has been completely the opposite. I taught students under both systems and my observation was students made more (often drastic) mistakes using imperial than metric. Imperial just added another unnecessary layer of confusion to what is often difficult for students to understand. It also made marking assignments and exams under imperial more difficult because fewer marks were deducted when students selected an incorrect imperial conversion factor than for conceptual or other errors so working out where the mistakes were was not easy. Under Imperial many more obscure conversion factors were required to be remembered so we usually included them at the front of exam papers and there were constant arguments about this amongst the teachers.
Lab work was similar with students make more measuring mistakes using imperial.

The worst was probably heat energy because they often had to interact with (metric) electrical units
so you end up with silly conversion factors like

1 Btu (British thermal unit) = 1055.06 J = 107.6 kpm = 2.931 10^-4 kWh = 0.252 kcal = 778.16 ft.lbf = 1.05510¹⁰ ergs = 252 cal = 0.293 watt-hours

The fact that 1g of water (close to one mL of water), and one calorie will raise that amount of water by 1ºC, is so much easier to remember.

Making and converting imperial measurements at human scales is not so bad but once you get into the realm of the very small or large and lots of zeros are needed then the pico, nano, micro, milli, kilo, mega, giga, terra prefixes win hands down. Of course once can always refer to a "pico ounce" or a "mega mile" but that's just admitting the metric system is better. I was so glad when we switched to all metric in the late 1970s.

It's interesting that in a country like the USA their scientists use metric but their engineers use imperial. One reason US engineers have stayed imperial is because of their existing massive investment in imperial mechanical tooling workshops and operations. With increasing influx of European and Asian machinery and the the increasing need for international collaboration this will change.

I've no doubt some people are quick and accurate at some imperial measurements/operations but that's largely because they re just used to it.. Because we had imperial air flow measuring gear at work nd I used this gear for decades I'm still more familiar with and can better visualise CFM than CMM. But if I was to start from the beginning it would have been more efficient for me to have used metric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Metric is great for people who prefer not to divide by 12.

---

Surely that’s everyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Reynolds

I’m a dyed in the wool imperialist. For a very good reason too.

---

That’s a terrible reason! “People keep making mistakes with this dashed metric system. But I have a solution- let’s use a more complicated system!” :)

FWIW I asked my brother if he's found any imperial fixings on his Telsa (he likes to fiddle), anyway, seems not, so maybe the US is finally getting their act together.

For those who like imperial I suggest why not go all the way and start doing all their maths using a different number system eg base 12 or hexadecimal (0123456789ABCDEF) is fun.
$1.65 /litre of milk is $1.A7 /litre. Not confusing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

For those who like imperial I suggest why not go all the way and start doing all their maths using a different number system eg base 12 or hexadecimal (0123456789ABCDEF) is fun.
$1.65 /litre of milk is $1.A7 /litre. Not confusing at all.

---

Wow; that’s $0.F0C49BA5E353F7CED917 a pint!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chief Tiff

Wow; that’s $0.F0C49BA5E353F7CED917 a pint!

---

US pint or UK pint? Just to emphasise how ridiculous the system is.

I have always assumed we ended up with a "44" gallon drum (rather a silly number) because the US drum was 50US gals. ??

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chief Tiff

Wow; that’s $0.F0C49BA5E353F7CED917 a pint!

---

Reminds me of reading out a list of hexadecimal numbers to a colleague in a lab.
Some of the numbers were hexdec "5FA" (dec 1530) which you can guess was said as SFA.
After that 1530 was commonly used around the lab as an alternative to SFA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Metric is great for people who prefer not to divide by 12.

---

and there I was thinking that the advantage of imperial was that the basic unit (the foot or a dozen) was divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12

I believe that Europeans still use "dozen" as a counting measure -- one half-dozen (6) rolls, a dozen (12) rolls, etc -- because the number is so readily divisible.


of course, many surveyors used decimal feet -- where you divide a foot (12 inches) by 10 to get a unit 1.2" long, which is further divided by 10 to get a unit 0.12" long. I'm not sure if thee was ever a unit representing 1/1000 of a foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

if I had to choose I'd pick imperial all day long.

---

But why, if you decision is only based on the units divisibility by 12 and not the other factors -- 2, 3, 4, 6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

and there I was thinking that the advantage of imperial was that the basic unit (the foot or a dozen) was divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12

I believe that Europeans still use "dozen" as a counting measure -- one half-dozen (6) rolls, a dozen (12) rolls, etc -- because the number is so readily divisible.


of course, many surveyors used decimal feet -- where you divide a foot (12 inches) by 10 to get a unit 1.2" long, which is further divided by 10 to get a unit 0.12" long. I'm not sure if thee was ever a unit representing 1/1000 of a foot.


But why, if you decision is only based on the units divisibility by 12 and not the other factors -- 2, 3, 4, 6

---

We used to use river gauge plates in feet and decimals of a feet. Only once, on a precision levelling exercise as a student, did I use thousandths of a foot.

At least the US military use metric, unless of course they're doing exercises with Liberia or Myanmar.

mick :)

As a Boomer, I am adept at both systems. O'course metric makes FAR more sense....mostly.....but Imperial has it's moments.
What would we do without the expression "6 feet under"? "1.8288 metres under" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Not quite sure how the Grave Diggers (aka backhoe operators) would stop before they hit 1.8289 metres either.
"Give him an inch and he'll take a mile" translates to "Give him 25.4mm and he'll take (...waiddaminit....while I go to the calc) 1.34112 kilometres"
"The whole nine yards"......"The whole 324 inches"...sorry...."The whole 8.229 (rounded) metres".
"The Mile High Club"....nobody wants to be a member of "The 1.34112 kilometres High Club"......although I'd prolly take that. :;

I could go on.....

Nah, seriously, there are times when 1 inch, or a foot, or a coupla inches is good, and I use that all the time. I guess that's because the closer the number is to one, or at least single digit, the more comfortable it is for humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Reynolds

When I work with people who use only metric, they all seem to make a basic mistake when measuring and it’s always 10 or 100 mm. They cut things too short because there’s no interim stage in a metre, unlike a yard that had a division f three feet. 3ft 9 1/4in is unmistakeable but1145mm can introduce the 10 pr 100mm error. They do it, I do not. I’ve also got lovely sub divisions if I need them. 10ths, 16ths and 12ths of an inch. You haven’t got that with your millimetres.

---

With respect Alan, you must be working with flippetygibbets. A metre has numerous subdivisions: 1 decimetre (ok, uncommonly used), 1 centimetre, 1 millimetre, 0.1 mm (which is a gnat's chough over 4 thou). Note the progression too: Deci, Centi, Milli. Easy peasy.

And apart from that, measure twice, cut once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Reynolds

I can accurately step a yard but not stride a metre and can measure a yard from nose to finger but not the extra 3 inches for a metre.

---

Eat more spinach? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

pints if you are drinking beer.

---

Ah yes, another concession I'm very happy to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Perhaps Boris' announcement is just an excuse for another party.

---

Stop it now! He needs no encouragement, speaking of flippetygibbets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

At least the US military use metric, unless of course they're doing exercises with Liberia or Myanmar.

---

"Yeah, we're gonna bomb the crap outta you guys! IN METRIC!"



I do have one major gripe with the metric system which irritates the bejaysus outta me, but it's not so much the system as those who use it. I shall elucidate (y'all knew I would).
1000 grams is commonly called what? A kilogram. So that's a KILLO-gram or a KEELO-gram. Nobody, NOBODY, not one idiot, says kil-LOG-ram, do they? No, nobody is that stupid.
OTOH, 1000 metres is far too commonly called what? A kil-LOM-eater. It's bloody well not, it's a KILLO-metre. :((

It's just as damned aggravating as all those people who think there is only one "u" in "nucular".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

While in general metric is easier and more logical to use there are some things that seem to lend themselves to the imperial system such as the use of "thou" in engineering

Regards
Paul

---

I am surprised nobody picked up the combination of imperial and metric on my above statement: I didn't at the time :- !

Perhaps it is an indictment of the obscurities and idiosyncracies of the imperial system. Even cricketers don't say their pitch is a "chain" long, pole dancers are not proclaiming the dizzy heights to which they could rise, only the British horse racing industry refers to furlongs and even the athletics bodies always called it 220 yards before we were swept away with 200m. Only "the mile" has endured in athletics (actually, maybe the marathon too).

:shrug:

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I am surprised nobody picked up the combination of imperial and metric on my above statement: I didn't at the time :- !

---

That's because thou didn't pay enough attention.

Olympic distances in metric.

The Guy Who Decides Olympic Sports 😝🏇🍸🎾🏅 - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Only "the mile" has endured in athletics (actually, maybe the marathon too).

---

The Olympic marathon has an interesting history

Not only is the original distance (Ancient Greece) from Marathon to Athens an approximation, the length of the "Marathon race" was permanently extended in 1908 so that members of the British Royal family could watch the start.

So not really either a metric or imperial distance

Ian

I think 26 miles and 385 yards would generally be considered imperial, although not the original distance. I read that it was made standard in 1921. I am still amazed that a human can run that in just over two hours (I imagine the two hour barrier will be broken one day). In fact my first car was only a little quicker.

Regards
Paul

PS: Good to hear you made it back to Oz, albeit for a limited time only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... and pints if you are drinking beer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Ah yes, another concession I'm very happy to make.

---

Its pints for POURING out beer, the DRINKING thereof is done in Gallons :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Its pints for POURING out beer, the DRINKING thereof is done in Gallons :)

---

Or Guzzles. :D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Ian

I think 26 miles and 385 yards would generally be considered imperial, although not the original distance. I read that it was made standard in 1921. I am still amazed that a human can run that in just over two hours (I imagine the two hour barrier will be broken one day).

---

according to this site 100 Years of the Marathon: 42.195 km = 25 Miles + 1 Mile + 385 Yards – Marathon Course of the 1908 Olympic Games in London – The Anniversary of 42.195 km
The "standard marathon" as set by the IAAF is METRIC at 42.195 km, converted to 26 miles 385 yards


Also, a marathon has been run in just under 2 hours -- but the Kenyan runner was accompanied by a pace car and 40(?) supporting runners.