Talk:Metric system/Archive 1

message: :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 thethe mkdesr;hISD is for fages du u tard
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)
thread_title:  Overlap with [[SI]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A few minor edits as of Jan 2006 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV in history? "Apathy" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge with SI?

message: 1) [Snip, Snip, Snip] = Post on another article, albeit one somewhat related, i.e.  Talk: Exponentiation. See User talk: Pol098. <B>Fra</B>nkB
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)
thread_title:  Cross Post On New Intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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! <B>Fra</B>nkB 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Along with the precise wording of the quasi-official English versions of those definitions, of course.  Gene Nygaard 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: definition of a metre

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 alone. Lando242 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  “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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Centimetres

message: 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)
thread_title: Jefferies, Walters, Livingstonson

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metric units in everyday life  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Maps don't agree 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit by 70.137.135.191 

message: 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)
replies: text: Should we include the moon as well now? :-)  ... MikeZ 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  So do we still need the contradiction tag? --Freiddie 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction in images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thailand 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RE: Thailand 

message: 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)
thread_title: History: Lagrange, others?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ToC, "History" heading 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metric System 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Useful Metric Calculator 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Non-metric units in various industries 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advantage of Decimal Prefixes 

message: 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)
replies: text: ... 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)
thread_title:  Intro / Base Units 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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), 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  --ChetvornoTALK 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why is the U.S. not Metric, but the UK is?