Combine this with the reasons I’ve given previously as to why the simplicity of SI is not an issue with the general populace and you will see and understand why metrication has failed in the US & UK.

Metrication has to be tied in with economic issues. If it can be shown that metrication is prospering developing countries and the lack of metrication in the US and UK is a major cause for job loss and industries fleeing, a different attitude towards metrication will develop.

Honestly, how often have you read a news article about metrication or the metric system that even mentioned economic reasons for metricating as opposed to the often mentioned ease of use?

Yes, I would like to see a campaign hit all the fronts, but first I’d like to see less of an emphasis on ease and more of an emphasis on economy.

I’m sure that those who are accustom to imperial units would not know the significance of 946 mL as this amount does not have an imperial equivalent. An imperial quart would be 1136 mL, a difference of 190 mL.

I would also think that those products which come in soft converted US sizes are those that come from American companies. Products of Canadian origin or those that come from elsewhere in the world would either come in a 1 L size or some other rounded metric amount. Only the Americans would use increments of 946 mL.

Metrication does not have anything to do with the choice of product sizes. That is up to the industry. Metrication has occurred when the old units no longer appear, even though the numbers may seem odd. I would prefer to see 1 L as opposed to 946 mL, but I would accept 946 mL by itself than see packages include references to extinct units.

Given that metric has overwhelming advantages as a system why not say so?

We need to campaign on all fronts!

Call it nitpicking, but Canada did revert to imperial. Using metric units to denote imperial quantities makes a mess of the metric system. Imagine America converting all imperial units to metric and calling it complete metrication? Imperialising metric units is the worst anyone can do because it alienates metric inclined people without winning one convert.

Because of the complexity, inter-imperial/USC conversions are never done and a whole culture has evolved around not doing such conversions. A change to metric would not alter that culture.

Metric supporters need to preach the gospel of lost jobs due to not using metric and with lost jobs a loss of the good life and the middle class living standard. Americans and British have to be informed that businesses wanting to use metric to make more money for themselves are not going to waste their profits on training an unwilling employee to work in the metric system. Instead they will close the doors and go elsewhere to where the metric system is already understood and the culture of the metric system is ingrained.

Most pro-metric supporters seem to be too afraid to confront the established order and as a result help perpetuate the problem. The present economic situation in the US and UK is the perfect time for pro-metric supporters to get the word out that unemployment will continue to rise and manufacturing industries will continue to relocate to metric countries until they receive positive reinforcement that the US and UK people’s have adopted a pro-metric attitude.

I can’t imagine what damage was caused to UK industry when the news spread around the world last year that the British were overjoyed that they can continue to use imperial and despite having an education in metric, claimed not to understand it. I’m sure that the purchase of British goods from other lands was very much affected.

I’m sure if the UK had switched to USC from imperial instead of to metric, the back slash from the fringe groups would have been just as intense. Even though some like to claim that the US uses imperial, and they know there is a significant difference, then their motive is to deceive.

Even though the US market is larger then that of Canada there is no reason that Canada can’t flood the US with metric designed and produced products. If Chinese, Mexican, European, Japanese, and every one else easily produces metric products for the US market, then so can Canada and the UK.

Back in the early ’80s when it was obvious the US was not going to change, I had heard that Canada was wooing US companies to relocate to Canada to produce American brand products in the metric system and selling them all over the world. I wonder how many took Canada up on the offer. Even if many didn’t relocate to Canada to take advantage of Canada’s metric atmosphere, they instead went elsewhere, such as Mexico and Asia. Either way the US is now flooded with metric products from elsewhere that Americans refused to make in metric, but seem to have no problem buying them when made in metric elsewhere.

The confusion comes from Pat using an inch millimetre conversion factor of 25.4 which did not exist until 1960. So how can it be precisely applied to 1668?

According to this website: http://home.fonline.de/fo0126/geschichte/groessen/mas7.htm, the Rheinland Zoll had a value of 26.154 mm (based on 1 Rheinland fuss equaled 0.31385 m) in 1842 and 26.145 mm (based on 1 Rheinland fuss equaled 0.31374) in 1816.

If we assume that 38 Rheinland Zoll always equaled 39.25 inches, then that would put the value of John Wilkens’ “standard” between 993.5 & 994 mm. In 1842, the Rheinland zoll was approximately 1.03 times longer the the English inch. This would make 38 Rheinland zoll equal to only 39.13 English inches and not 39.25 as in 1668. 39.13 inches x 25.4 mm/inch (using the 1960 definition as Pat did), gives a value of the “standard” of about 994 mm. 994 mm is 3 mm smaller then Pat’s over-precise 996.95 mm value.

Of course none of these values would apply in 1668. The point of this all is that we don’t know exactly what the inch of 1668 (either London or Rheinland) was relative to the present metre would be. So it is incorrect to state to 2 decimal point accuracy a value for John Wilken’s “standard” based on the definition of the inch from 1960.

Even the Americans recognize that the pre-1960 inch and the post-1960 definitions are different enough to retain the old value of the foot for surveying.

I would like to see Pat reflect that John Wilkins “standard” was close enough to the present metre that he could be considered as the father of the metric system. If a value needs to be stated, the a range of values would be most appropriate and could be based on the fact that pre-metric dimensions were never precise and never intended to be precise. Saying that John Wilkins “standard” was equal to about 994 mm +/- 2 mm would best fit the uncertainty of the units discussed.

Well, your example proves the point again. What some pro metric people have yet to learn is that trying to convince people to switch to the metric system because it is so much better does not work.

Maybe a plausible study of how much it costs per annum to maintain that unholy mess in Canada and the US will convince metric averse citizens in both countries to think again?

He took it to court as an act of martyrdom. He lost in court – but instead of the Canadian government of the day using this as a symbol of confirmation, they got cold feet instead, and decided all future metrication would be using a ‘softly softly’ approach. The inevitable happened, and there has been much reversion to old imperial units, helped in no small measure by Canada’s proximity to, and huge trade with, the USA. Add in the original Free Trade Agreement, followed by NAFTA, which allowed a free-for-all in product sizing, and the sheer force of the USA overwhelmed Canada’s conversion process.

Many of the products now sold in Canada have reverted to old imperial sizes (e.g. shampoo, which was once sold in 1 L sizes, but is almost universally now sold in 946 mL sizes). Now, it is a mess. I recently bought a house in Nova Scotia. Lot sizes, once given in m2 or in ha, are now sometimes shown in acres, sometimes in square feet – impossible to compare.