Here are more comments in response to an earlier story about SI standards.

GO HEXADECIMAL -- The World is Digital
From Charles C. Evans

All this blather regarding English vs Metric totally ignores two better options for numerical standards - Octal and Hexadecimal. This is an increasingly digital world that obsoletes both the English and Metric Systems. "Ten" wastes 40% of a byte! The aggregated time for these conversions, executed every time a computer does a numerical conversion of some kind, must be enormous. Just think of the power, time, memory and disk space being wasted because of requirements for these conversions.

Maybe a more politically-correct way to handle this is to design and deploy a new system that will force EVERYONE to change, based on Octal or Hexadecimal. I'd vote for Hexadecimal. It's Byte-sized and ready to use. Face it, folks, there's nothing magic about 10 except its pervasiveness. Indeed, if the designers of our present Arabic numbering system had not counted their thumbs as fingers, we'd probably already be using Octal.

A world standards committee assembled to promulgate and promote standards based on Hex could devise 6 new unambiguous "characters" to replace ABCDEF in Hex notation, define standards for all units, and begin to attack other existing anomalies of units and measurements. For instance, we could redesign the circle itself, and perhaps divide an arc into FF (or some other power of 2) "Digigrees", redefine the Nautical Mile, and "simplify" navigation, mapping, and trigonometric calculations, logarithms, and other higher math. The savings for digital signal processing would be enormous. The English system of measurements is binary - at least for fractional sizes. Even the meter itself doesn't have a base-10 root. Something to do with degrees, minutes, and seconds on a 1/4 arc of a great circle going through Greenwich - or something like that! Humpff! No intellectual purity there!

Like it or not, folks, unless the U.S. economy becomes "stranded" by becoming significantly smaller percentage of the GGP (global gross product), this change is NOT going to happen any time soon, except in science and engineering. The proponents of Metric have to face the pervasiveness of the "other" standards in the context of the world economy.

NO METRICS -- Assimilation by the Metric Borge
From Roy Purkiss

In my field, it is very hard to always use metric fastiners. This is because of the tight real estate that small parts afford. Yes, I could use a smaller metric fastiner and make the system less robust, but why when I have many imperial sized fastiners to choose from that would do a better job? Just to conform to someone elses idea of standards? And which standard shall I use when the rest of the world can't make up its mind what the metric standard is? In World War I, part of the reason we won was because the other side couldn't scavange parts from their own allies' equipment -- the fastiners were different metric sizes!

We are the metric Borge! You will be assimilated! It is futile to resist! You will comply…! Not!

GO METRICS -- It Does Not Change Everything, Only Difficult Measurements
From Juan Crawford PE

I have before me a catalog of ball bearing pillow blocks. Dimensions of one size are tabulated as follows: 3/8, 27/32, 2-5/32, 15/16, 35/64, and 59/64. In order to lay out my drawing, I have to add or subtract some of these dimensions, and sometimes to find the center point by dividing by two. Drawings are always dimensioned in decimal inches. 59/64, for instance, is .921875 (I have to look this up - I don't dare trust to memory).

How many decimal places should I call out on my drawing? If I only use three or four, I may end up with a significant cumulative error at the other end of my machine, and my dimension checks will not agree. I recently made a serious mistake. I scaled a dimension off a part as 7/16, but entered it into my computer (from memory - I can't take the time to look up everything) as .6875 (which is 13/16). Parts were made to the wrong dimension.

Water reservoirs are reported in acre-feet. If a person uses an average of forty gallons a day, how many days would one person be supplied by an acre-foot of water? In SI, reserves and uses are both measured in cubic metres.

Water hardness is measured in grains per gallon. How many grains in a 40-lb sack? (Incidentally, by international agreement, including the US, a "meter" is a device used for measuring something, like a voltmeter; a "metre" is a unit of length).

Diamonds are weighed in carats. How many carats in a pound? Which pound, avoirdupois or troy? In SI, diamonds are weighed in grams.

Paper is sold as weighing so many pounds per ream, a ream being 1298.6, 2226.6, 2597.2, 2880, 3000, 3083, 3472, or several other numbers of square feet. In SI, all paper is sold as so many grams per square meter.

Who cares if "2 by 4" lumber measures 1.5 x 3.5 inches or 38 x 89 mm? Or if a "one-inch pipe" has a diameter of 1.315 in or 33.4 mm? You can still call it a "one-inch pipe". How long is a "ten-penny nail"? What is the diameter of a No. 8 screw? (It is .0065 inches larger than a 4 mm screw).

Horse races will continue to be run over furlongs, and a marathon will probably always be 26 miles 385 yards long (quickly, how many yards altogether?) or the equivalent number of metres.

Many of the traditional measurements were invented by the guilds in order to make it difficult for non-members to participate in the trade. Others were local measures, designed to impede imports. (Let's not even mention pharmaceutical measures, and how about agricultural measures - pecks and bushels and dry quarts? Why is a cord of wood better than a cubic metre?)

The cost of change is significant and will continue to increase as we fiddle and delay. How long can we continue to be competitive in the world with such a jumble of measures hung round our necks like a millstone? International automobile manufacturers have made the change without much whining, and so have American (now international) soft-drink manufacturers. What's the big deal?

When the British used their traditional system of measures, they established the most far-flung empire the world has ever known, and spread the English language all over the world. Now that the British Empire is no more, they have been reduced to using the metric system, and even the lordly pound sterling (= 20 shillings = 240 pence) has been reduced to a humble one pound = 100 new pence.

American world supremacy has been established by an industry that uses the traditional measures - with one exception, money. Perhaps, now that the British have abandoned their position, we should return to the traditional values and make 1 dollar = 240 pennies. We just know that decimal is not better. After independence, the first legal currency in all the thirteen newly independent states was the "Spanish milled silver dollar". When the new nation established its first mint, President John Adams in July 1797 proclaimed that: "...all foreign gold coins and all foreign silver coins except Spanish milled dollars and parts of such dollars, shall cease to be a legal tender..."

Note that the Spanish milled dollar accorded such preferential treatment was not a decimal dollar. It was a "pieza de a ocho" - a "piece of eight" worth eight Reales. This is why to this day a quarter dollar is known as "two bits". Why did we ever abandon such a superior method, and allow the liberals to force us into dull old "one dollar = 100 cents"? Perhaps our new dollar should be "one dollar = eight bits" - truly American traditional, dating back to Independence (and not decimal)! Perhaps I should start a new political party, with the ringing slogan: "Eight bits is one good dollar!"

DO SOMETHING -- A New Worldwide Standard is Needed
From Hank Merkle, Application Engineer

I have worked with numerous customers and found that they are requesting what should be their next move as far as design of products. "Should we go Metric?"

Well the answer is definately YES!

Unfortunately, when that product is shipped overseas we do not know if it will be repairable as the fastners that we supply may be made to ISO or DIN standards and not the numerous standards that are available in India, China and elsewhere in the world! Add to that fact the fittings questions and the fastener issues seem to pale in comparison. At least I can call out a specification and purchase that product from someone - at an unknown cost of course. But when it comes to fittings, what style do I choose for use around the globe? Well, I don't because everyone has not agreed.

What needs to be done is some type of world-wide standards and significantly sized companies stepping up and designing in those standards which then makes the piece parts affordable and forces other "Domestic" manufacturers to design and make parts to that system (Domestic implies the place where "you" are [India, China, America, England, etc.)

Until that time, this discussion will rage on and on because money make the world go around and if it costs me more to design a part. Even If I choose it another designer, our value analysis team will come through the product and design it out!

DO SOMETHING -- We Can't Change Everything
From "Jerry" Gerald A. Byington, Mechanical Design Engineer, P.E.

I have to deal with double dimensioning on most of my designs. If we are going to go metric, I say lest go all of the way.

So what does that mean?

So let's get rid of all the jest of the non-base 10 units. Now, let's make all of the math easy so we don't have to worry about any conversions.

We still need to change or redefine some units.

Oh yea, that stupid computer can only count from 0 to 1. You would think that by now we could make a computer that could count to 10 without some special conversion codes (called binary software). Maybe Microsoft can start writing their binary code in metcode (base 10) for the binary deprived (but that would be going backwards). The computers have strung the zero and ones in lines to form bigger numbers. These larger numbers or base codes are now or have been at base 4, 6, 8, 16, 32, 64, and now 128. The fastest computer games today are now being programed in base 128, for now. I'm sure they will move to a higher base as the need requires. Much of the PC programming is just using 16 and 32 bits and may never change.

What about the nasty natural logs, they use a weird unitless number of 2.7182818285....

How are we going to metricize a circle? What are you going to do about that unitless number of Pi (3.1415926536...)?

For angles, we do have grads, which are set at 100 grads for each 90 degrees. I guess that we could get use to having 400 grads in a revolution.

Got a little time? So lets convert a day to a metday! Therefore time would be truly metricized. A metday would be made up from 100 centimetdays, and each centimetdays would have 100 millmetdays. Just think, you would set your alarm clock at 25:00 centimetdays instead of 7:00am. Midnight, 12:00pm, or 24:00 would now be 100:00 or 0:00 centimetdays. Each centimetday would be 24 minutes. Each millmetday would be 14.4 seconds.

The only problem is how are we must convert the week, months, four seasons, year (365 days), and leap year (366 days) to a metyear? What would you do about your weekends? Well we now have the average sunrise and sunset define to a metday. The only trouble is that the seasons and numbers of days due to our planetary orbit do not divide equally by 100. How cruel of a joke it was for our creator to give us only 10 fingers and 10 toes but not the proper time to make the silly math work out to a base 10 year.

We are going to have to change the rate of the earth's orbit both around the sun and as the earth turns if we are going to have a true metyear. Or, maybe our creator gave us a mind to figure out relationships between objects and as long as we know what they are, it is OK. So use your God given mind and do the conversion -- it will make you smarter.

NO METRICS -- The U.S. Need Not Bow Down
From Jim Netherland

Maybe we should drive on the right side of the road. This would save auto manufacturers money, change our electricity to DC, so as to be in tune with much of the world, convert to PAL television, we must have a world standard. Why not go all the way and let people in other countries vote in our elections. Then, all the problems of the USA will be solved.

Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Every country in the world wants us to change something so as to be more like them or to tear us down.

When I see people that live and work here assisting to make the USA into a generic floormat of the world... I get upset.

GO METRICS -- Invest in a Better System
From Jose Saldivar Olague

I have worked with all systems all my life. The truth is that normally I have to use parts of both U.S. and SI unit systems in order to put an industrial system to work, with the available resources at hand. This goes back to the 80's.

I do not understand the reluctance of the U.S. to adopt the SI system. You see, the U.S. system is not really U.S. since it was imported from England. Furthermore, the Engineering system as it is called, is a decimal system as it is the SI. One inch is divided in tenths, or thousandths, etc. in a decimal way. On top of it we also have the old (and useful) fractions as well, in which an inch is divided by two, successively until having 1/64ths, and from there on we go into the decimal system, and speak of mils or thousandths. I would say that probably only a few units are really U.S. such as the U.S. gallon instead of the imperial gallon, and so on.

I clearly see why small industrials do not want to change (it takes good money), but it should be taken as an investment, not as a loss.

Normally senior students in Mechanical Engineering are completely confused with pounds mass, and pounds force, and they forget that there is a factor of 32.2 over there that it is not gravity in the U.S. or British system.

The SI is not the metric (MKS, etc) The metric is older and not as good as the SI. The SI incorporates the best of all systems, not only non-U.S. systems. We still have Kelvins, Amperes, Newtons, etc., and we have airplanes, which also were influenced by Lillienthal, Rockets thought by Tsiolkovsky to go into space, and the American resources to make all these things possible.

Go to US Metric System Debated (Engineers Exchange Blows)