Does the UK’s mixed use of metric and imperial give us a unique ‘superpower’?

48 thoughts on “Does the UK’s mixed use of metric and imperial give us a unique ‘superpower’?”

1. I agree absolutely with these sentiments. You haven’t even mentioned acres! Everyone “uses” them, but hardly anyone knows what they are except vaguely “as large as a sports field”. And how big is that exactly, I ask. The issue of how large is an acre that was raised as a rhetorical question by the old “Dr. Metric”, RIP. He was a school maths teacher and put forward the perfectly reasonable hypothesis that lack of use of the metric system, as happens amongst our schoolchildren, has led to their poor grasp of mental arithmetic. So we have both the older generation and the newer generation failing to understand either system with the clarity needed in modern society.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

2. Does the UK’s mixed use of metric and imperial give us a unique ‘superpower’?
   In a word NO!!
   It is just a perpetual drag on our country. A vast waste of time and very expensive to every one of us.
   If I were to take a guess it would be that any and all costs of full conversion would be repaid within a year or two.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

3. When I did a summer job in Germany in the 1960s it was explained that you could buy “half a pound” of butter in a shop and receive 250 grams. The old measures were understood but interpreted in the new system.

   LikeLike

4. Peter, Why doesn’t the UK do what Germany and others did? I think the situation is the same in China. First, delegalise the imperial units. You don’t make them illegal, but you remove them from the list of units and thus giving them support. Then second, allow and encourage them to take on new values like a pound becoming 500 g and a yard becoming a metre. The pint would be exactly 570 mL and the ounce would be 30 mL and 30 g. This would only be in common speech, not for legal trade. This way there would be no need for imperial pricing. A pound of something would just be 5 X the 100 g price or 0.5 X the kilogram price?
   In Germany, the pfund is pretty much died out among the young, but even when it was in use in the last century as a slang term for 500 g, all of the scales would only display grams. The product was sold by the gram. It was a happy compromise between those who wanted a modern system and those that wanted to cling to tradition. What’s wrong with the English that this hasn’t been done already?

   LikeLike

5. Yes, and they were quite happy serving beer and milk in half-litres. In UK, let the pound and yard fade away like the hogshead and bushel.

   LikeLike

6. I can imagine the discussion becoming even more ludicrous, if Will had gone on to say how he had gained weight. Maybe something like this:

   WS: … Any way, I must have been getting through 40 ounces of ice cream each day …
   [Guests’ eyes glaze over again]
   GUEST 1: What’s that in litres?
   GUEST 2: Yeah, we have the metric system.
   WS: … You’re kidding me, right?

   LikeLike

7. In the UK we don’t have so much a full mixture of metric and imperial units as a disparate assignment for different purposes. Nearly everything for sale in supermarkets is now in metric, but there has been little progress so far on road signage. To talk about the UK being bilingual would suggest using one language for shopping and another for travelling. Hardly a true bilingual arrangement.
    
   We in the UK have the advantage that our mother tongue is one of the widest-spoken languages in the world. We travel abroad hoping that foreigners will understand our language. Yet our road signage suggests a blatant denial of willingness to adopt a measurement system used by almost every country in the world.
    
   Regarding Daniel’s point (2021-12-21) about redefining imperial terms in round metric equivalents:
   This was common practice in the hardware and timber trade in the 1970s. Timber was sold in multiples of 300 mm, which is slightly less than a foot, so the idea of the “metric foot” was born. This caused many complaints and arguments from customers who thought they were being sold short measure. Eventually the traders deferred to customer demand; nowadays timber is sold described exclusively in exact metric measurements after any planing, etc.

   LikeLike

8. @Peter Osborne
   After the Napoleonic Wars, the various states in Northern Germany set up a customs union called North German Confederation (Zollverein). In 1854 the states agreed to use a common unit of mass for inter-state trade. That unit was the Zollpfund (Custons [union] pound) which was defined to be 500 grams. In 1871, when the German Empire was set up, the newly-created state adopted the metric system the Zollpfund was theoretically no longer in use, though of course it lengered on in colloquial speech. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)#German_and_Austrian_Pfund or for those who can read German, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfund for more details.

   LikeLike

9. In 1902, most of the Empire wanted to move over to the metric system. Three years later, the Foreign Secretary polled the governors of the various parts of the ENpire to get their feeeling and ther answers that came back overwhelmingly comfirmed the desire for change. However, British industrials, in particular the Lancashire cotton indsutry, resisted the change because it removed one of the holds that they had over their customers. This lead to the 1907 bill being defeated.

   In 1850, over half the world’s pig iron was made in Britain, but by 1913 both Germany and Briatian had overtaken the British production and were making inroads into the British markets. In the case of the cotton industry, British production peaked during the run-up to the First World War. After the war, production slumped as Japan and other Far Eastern countries undercut British prices. The subsequent demise of these two industries made the 1907 rejection of the metric system self-defeating.

   LikeLike

10. Metricmac,

    Treating 300 mm as a foot generating complaints and resulting in the term foot being dropped completely in the industry is a hoped after result. The result was a sooner than anticipated abandonment of the foot that otherwise may never have happened. But if such a similar situation had already happened in other countries it would then explain why these units disappeared quicker and only the pound remained.

    Maybe the pound remained because in the majority of cases, the 500 g value was more that the original and instead of short measure, one was getting a bonus. I would think that English shops would favour this change as it would allow them to move stock quicker increasing sales. There has to be a loss if you are purchasing from your supplier in kilograms and reselling in pounds.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

11. Martin,

    I wonder what England and the Commonwealth countries would be like metric-wise if they had metricated around 1907. What would have happened post 1960 when SI was created? Would England and the Commonwealth to this day continued as Europe has into preserving cgs units and resisting the adoption of SI? Would the centimetre have more prominence in industry than the millimetre? Would the kilogram-force be the unit of weight and the “metric -horsepooper” be the preferred unit of power over the newton and watt?

    There are numerous complaints about the US refusal to go metric but much of the metric world still does not use SI. SI is incorrectly taught in the schools and the metric usage pretty much parallels imperial.

    LikeLike

12. @Daniel
    Whether changing the UK definition of a pound to 500g would have made a difference in the switch to kilograms is a moot point, since the pound hasn’t been legal for trade now (other than as a supplementary indication) for nearly 22 years.
    Would it have stopped with the pound? Would a new stone be equal to 7 kg? How much would a new ounce be?
    Changing the definition of the pound was never really a practical possibility without virtually every household in the country changing their dual unit bathroom and kitchen scales.

    LikeLike

13. Speaking of this particular subject, the Daily Telegraph has printed another fluff piece on behalf of some English sparkling wine producer, under the guise of being an article on return of sale of “pint” sized bottles, which are actually 500 ml – obviously the maker knows their home nostalgia market but still has a keen eye on export markets elsewhere.

    Quote as article behind a paywall (article here)

    The “modern pint” is fractionally smaller than its imperial cousin, holding 50cl. It has the benefit of being in common production among international glass manufacturers, while the imperial pint bottle has become a comparative rarity.

    So it is basically a marketing slogan, yet it’s being hailed as a push back agaisnt EU laws, even though it is compliant as it is being sold in 500 ml aliquots.

    Lol.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

14. m,

    The reason I mention a redefinition of the pound is because the pound is still used in advertising. If it is redefined, it removes the need to use pounds in advertising, However, if shops continue to advertise in pounds, then the gram and kilogram price would be easy to calculate by either dividing by five or multiplying by two.

    As for road signs, the yard and metre are the same, so this redefinition has already happened. A redefinition of the mile would not be practical though, since speed and distance meters in vehicles are already calibrated to the present mile. A forced change in the automobile instrument panel would have to occur first.

    LikeLike

15. John,

    A similar article on the same subject and company appeared in the fake media some years ago and typical of the fake media on the subject, the topic is being resurrected. Interesting though from your comment as I have mentioned in my own comments, is a redefinition of imperial terms such as a pound of 500 g for use in common speech. In your post you speak of the pint already being redefined as 500 mL and possibly the 570 mL size disappearing. Beers sold in bottles are already sold in 500 mL sizes., it’s just the glassware in pubs that isn’t.

    I believe that covid, with its closing of pubs, will help remove the 570 mL pint from usage more so than any EU regulation. Companies like Pol Roger may only be able to sell a 570 mL bottle in the English market and 500 mL elsewhere. The profits from having both sizes, one to a limited market reach will add costs to production and lower profits. Thus the 570 mL size will never happen and these companies will continue to market the already existing 500 mL size as a pint. The word pint will continue and may even expand, but in the real world it will become a slang term for 500 mL instead of the traditional 570 mL as it already has begun to.

    LikeLike

16. Daniel,
    On the point of pint glasses in pubs, it appears more likely that Brexit will ensure that the pint glass remains. I have seen stories about the crown stamp now re-appearing on new glasses in place of the CE mark that was required until recently and I can’t really see a UK-based regulatory agency set up by a government hell bent on pushing ‘Britishness’ is going to move towards a rational metric unit any time soon. The only think we might hope for is that foreign manufacturers might make point of dropping any attempt to produce ‘imperial’ products for the UK market on items they know will sell here but that’s not going to have any impact on draught sales in pubs.
    As to road distances and speed limits, this has been a favourite gripe of mine for some time. Speedometers on UK cars are allowed by law to over-read by up to 10% at the time of manufacturing and on every new (or nearly new) car I’ve had in the last 20 years the manufacturer has clearly erred on the side of caution. While driving rented cars in the USA and Canada with a GPS-based speedometer on my phone the results always tally almost exactly with the speedometer in the car itself; on my British car (my current one, a 2017 Vauxhall Astra, assembled in Germany) to obtain an actual speed of 70 MPH (a reading of 112 km/h on my phone) the speedometer actually reads nearer 74 MPH (or 118 km/h if I use the digital display). Given the DfT tolerance of 10% for the spacing of signs and other such things I do believe a rounded metric mile of 1600 m would not cause any issues so far as distances are concerned. In fact I’ve noted in recent years that signs for junctions on major roads at distances of 1, ⅔, ½, ¼ and ⅓ mile are quite often near enough to 1600, 1000, 800, 600 and 400 metre intervals respectively that it makes little or no difference. The only factor that prevents them being changed to show metric distances is the arrogant insistence of using ‘m’ to mean miles on many of these signs which the DfT will likely continue to argue would cause confusion (though I think updating sign to read ‘800 m’ rather than ‘½ m’ would be quite clear to almost all intelligent folk).

    LikeLike

17. The article John mention from an archive file:
    https://archive.ph/sk2Ki

    LikeLike

18. Consider this:
    The 500 mL size is already legal for wine but it isn’t popular and most likely more expensive. The government doesn’t have to make any changes as the 500 mL size is already allowed, so it appears to me the industry is using the fake news media to drum up free advertisement to generate an interest in this size. Thus if there is an enough interest in producing more of the 500 mL size the hoped result will be an increase in sales and profits.
    This path has to be tread upon delicately as the 500 mL size will not be proportionately priced compared to the 750 mL size and thus more expensive and people will have to be willing to pay the price.
    500 mL for standard wine may not be profitable, but for sparkling wines it could be. An unfinished bottle of standard wine can be recorked and saved for another day and still retain its flavour, but sparkling wine looses it fizz once opened and needs to be drunk completely once the bottle is opened. Thus a reason to buy this size over the 750 mL and having to either drink all in one sitting or toss the remainder one can’t drink.

    LikeLike

19. Here is an email I just sent to NASA:
    Dear NASA:
    Love the James Webb Space Telescope web site!
    However, the little button that lets you toggle between “miles” and “kilometers” should say “Miles km”.
    Currently, it says “Miles “Kms”, which is quite wrong.
    First, capital “K” is for absolute heat, i.e. degrees Kelvin (not the prefix “kilo”).
    Second, metric symbols never get an “s” at the end to make them plural (according to the official bodies that define how to use metric symbols).
    Please fix this straight away so we look to the rest of the world like we know what we are talking about! Thanks.
    P.S. If there are other web pages on the NASA web site with this or a similar issue, please ask your IT team to fix those as well.
    All the best,
    Ezra Steinberg
    Senior Technical Writer
    Google LLC

    LikeLike

20. Ezra,
    There is no such unit as degrees Kelvin, it is just kelvins.

    LikeLike

21. Further to the recent hysteria generated by certain news organisations about the return of “pints” of champagne, the sparkling wine producer at the centre of all the fuss has a blog post confirming that they are using 500 mL bottles (not 568 mL).

    https://rathfinnyestate.com/about/news/the-pint-bottle-is-the-perfect-measure/

    “… in 2015 we made the decision to produce 800 bottles of our Blanc de Noirs in a ‘Modern Pint’ 50cl bottle. We had to search the continent for the bottle, but eventually found a bottle manufacturer in France who produced a 50cl sparkling wine bottle.”

    “… Bizarrely you can sell still and fortified wines in 50cl bottles but not sparkling wine.”

    “… Whilst the standard bottle contains roughly six glasses, a ‘Modern Pint’ (50cl) has four, so it’s ideal to share.”

    “… Warwick Cairns, a spokesman for the Imperial Weights and Measures Association which is campaigning for the return of imperial measures, said it would be a victory for common sense.”

    Good to see that the “Imperial Weights and Measures Association” is backing the use of 500 mL bottles. Perhaps they will support the adoption of the modern 500 mL pint for draught beer too.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

22. Ezra, well done! NASA have changed the label to “EnglishMetric”. Probably even worse, but that is where we are.

    LikeLike

23. m,

    From the article you posted there is another comment as to why the 570 mL pint will never happen. That is the 570 bottles needs to be able to withstand 600 kPa pressure and for some reason a 570 mL bottle can’t. The 500 mL bottles can. If the 500 mL bottle becomes a success, no one in the future will waste the time and money to try to develop a 570 mL bottle. Simply because such a size if made legal, will only be legal in England and no where else. So the industry would have to market two sizes, a 500 mL size for the world and a 570 mL bottle for England with no guarantee of improved sales but an assured loss of profits in having to maintain two different sizes. To be profitable, a 570 mL bottle would have to be priced close to a 750 mL bottle. If that is the case it would be best to buy the 750 mL size and toss what one can’t drink and goes flat.

    I think once these bottles become the norm, everyone will get use to them and will have no problem referring to them as a pint and even think of them as a pint even though they are 500 mL and not 570 mL.

    LikeLike

24. @Daniel
    Right you are! I found this helpful document for correct SI usage (which also shows “kelvins” as the plural of “kelvin”, which I am glad to be reminded of):
    https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf

    LikeLike

25. @BrianAC
    So glad to see the NASA web site team responded so quickly.
    The other thing I follow up on most of the time is when I see a web site or YouTube video that uses “angstrom” or “micron” by reminding the author or presenter of the correct SI unit and submultiple to use. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t. But we persist! 🙂

    LikeLiked by 1 person

26. It seems they (NASA) added a temperature scale, but with a display to two decimal places. I wonder if the thermometers on the telescope are that precise to warrant the having two decimal places.

    Then to make it really questionable, in the foreignheat display the decimal values are always zero and only in the degrees Celsius display are these values other than zero. How is this possible? I would think that the degrees Celsius is the actual measured temperature and foreignheat units would come about as a result of a conversion.

    This needs to be questioned.

    LikeLike

27. So the UK will have two different definitions of a pint. Is that correct? 50 cl for champagne and 570 ml for beer?

    LikeLike

28. metricnow,

    Don’t they already? 570 mL for beer in a pub in a glass and 500 mL for beer in a bottle? The question is, are more beverages sold in 500 mL pints or 570 mL pints?

    LikeLike

29. But then we have the US pint of 473 and the UK supermarket can apparently of 440 ml., and the ubiquitous US fl. oz. in coffee houses.
    The pint has no meaning in the UK, lets keep it that way. It has no legal status, it has no in-use ‘standard’ apart from supermarket cows milk. I doubt if many in UK would have any idea what it should be anyway.
    Smoke and mirrors nothing more. If it keeps a few luddites happy then let them have their day.

    LikeLike

30. We’re essentially concerned here with measurements in the UK. We all know that the US version of pint and some other measures are different from the UK ones. The pint is spelt out as the required measure for draught beer and cider and for doorstep milk in returnable bottles in this legislation:
    https://www.gov.uk/weights-measures-and-packaging-the-law
    but the legislation does not specify what a pint actually is, either as an imperial definition or a metric one. I suppose the only benchmark to measure it is the marking on a ‘pint’ glass. All other uses of pint for sparking wine or beer in smaller bottles or cans must surely fall foul of the definition of pint as the measure to be used for draught beer/cider and doorstep milk.

    LikeLike

31. @metricnow. The link that you gave is not thelegislation proper, but rather a very quick summary of the legislation. The actual legislation where the pint is defined can be seen at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72/contents. That document defines the pint as “0.568 261 25 cubic decimetre”.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

32. Martin,

    Is there a reason why England is alone in the Commonwealth of defining a pint as 0.568 261 25 cubic decimetre where everyone else defines it as 570 mL, only to be used in the sale of beer in pubs? What type of problems/conflicts and/or confusion results when in one place it is 570 mL and somewhere else it is 568.26 mL?

    LikeLike

33. Martin, thank you for that clarification.

    LikeLike

34. Daniel, unless I am mistaken, the pint is only 570 ml when it is beer or cider served on draught. In that case the glass is marked pint at a fill level of 570 ml. I wonder what the pint delivered to the doorstep in a reusable bottle contains? The same?

    LikeLike

35. Daniel,

    Since the pint is only used for dispensing beer or cider, it is unlikely that the difference will cause any problems. Lets put things into perspective. If the line in the pint tankard is 100 mm above the bottom of the glass, then each millimetre of line will represent 5 ml of beer/cider. The line itself is often one millimetre thick, so the difference between the difference pints is less than the thickness of the line and very few publicans take much notice whether they are filling to the bottom of the line or the top of the line.

    Also, the price of a drink in most pubs is a multiple of 10p, and if a pint of beer/cider costs £3, the diffrence in price resulting form the difference in definitions is about 1p which will not excite anmybody, not even the taxman.

    LikeLike

36. Metricnow,

    All filling machines worldwide are metric, even if they fill FFU amounts. But, their limit is to 5 mL or 5 g. So, the pint bottle tot he door step can not be 568 mL, it would have to be 570 mL minimum. It seems there is a big disconnect between those who work in industry and fill bottles and containers and those who make rules. Obviously the rule makers don’t know what goes on in the filling factories or else they would tailor laws to the real world.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

37. @Daniel:
    Assuming that the United Kingdom follows the recommended regulations published by the International Organisation for Legal Metrology (OIML) as laid out in https://www.oiml.org/en/files/pdf_r/r138-e07.pdf and takes advantage of the exemptions allowed in paragraph 4.1.3, then under para 5.1.1 the maximum permissable error for a pint glass will be ±18 mL. If the manufacturers ensure that the error is always less than ±16 mL, then both the 568 mL and 570 mL definitions of the pint can be honoured by the same glass.

    BTW, many EU regulations concerned with metrology are copies of OIML recommendations.

    LikeLike

38. Good lord – Misery loves company. I am an American unicorn. I am one of very few 100% born and raised, red blooded yanks who wholly and unapologetically uses the metric system in every aspect of my life. I was in my 50’s before I realized what I -thought- I knew, I was 99 & 13/16’s % ignorant of. That would be the imperial “system” (we laid claim to it by calling it “US Customary” but c’mon, we know that’s a lie). I can tell you unequivocally you Brits are Mm’s ahead of us recalcitrant throw backs here in the US, and for that I am envious. There will come a time when the glorious King George III’s foot will be relegated to the English history book but I fear the US will continue to plod on it’s current path, desperately waiting for the world to realize it’s error and turn that big metric ship around! On another note, thanks Britain for the horrendous mess we now claim as our own. 😛

    LikeLiked by 1 person

39. @Jay Emmcee: If you look back at your country’s history, you will see that when your founding fathers were setting up your country, they inherited what at the time was probably the best system of units in the world. The only drawback was the mess in respecting of fluid measure which we corrected in 1824 and your guys corrected by taking the smallest definition of the gallon (and thereby maximising the customs duty payable at the time). The currency system that you inherited was a mess. Prior to 1816 virtually no George III silver coins had been struck and much of your trade was conducted using Spanish pieces of eight. Your founding fathers did the sensible thing and instituted a totally new, decimal based currency which is still in use today.

    Unfortunately the customary system of units is still rooted in the eighteenth century and the imperial system to not much later. Both systems have been resistant to change, not because they are the best – far from it, but because a significant proportion of voters have little incentive to change – the most complex piece of measurement that they will do is to compare two measurements and classify them as “bigger”, “smaller” or “the same”. The moment they have to compare the same quantity that is associated with two dissimilar objects, they get lost (for example, how does the weight of an African elephant compare to the weight of a minibus?) Likewise, if they have to do something “complicated” like working out an average, they will have a problem (let’s not even talk about standard deviations).

    LikeLiked by 1 person

40. Martin,

    You said: “Your founding fathers did the sensible thing and instituted a totally new, decimal based currency which is still in use today.”

    This is only partially true. The US dollar is decimal based in that there are 100 cents to the dollar. But, it ends there. The coinage is far from being decimal, it is hybrid-decimal-fractional based on halves and quarters. There once was a 50 ¢ piece, but normally called a “half-dollar”. In true decimal usage, there would be a 20 ¢, but instead there is 25 ¢ piece called a “quarter”. The 10 ¢, 5 ¢ and 1 ¢ coins do follow a decimal progression but are called dime, nickel and penny, never 10 ¢ piece or coin, never 5¢ piece or coin and never 1 ¢ piece or coin. There is and never was a 2 ¢ coin. It takes more coins to make change than if they had a purely decimal order of coins.

    I believe now that all countries have a decimal currency and the coinage of most is properly decimal and coins come in increments of 1, 2 and 5.

    In addition, the cents are treated separately from the dollars. Even though written as say $ 1.25, it isn’t read as one point two five dollars, but as one dollar and twenty-five cents, in the same manner you might hear from time to time someone say their height is 1 m and 75 cm instead of the proper 1.75 m or 175 cm.

    LikeLike

41. A government minister has undermined his own Government’s assertion that imperial measures are “universally understood”:

    Minister can’t convert ‘universally understood’ imperial measures – Lord Parkinson caught out by weighty questions on TV
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-cant-convert-universally-understood-imperial-measures-zv73c2t9q

    “Parkinson, 39, was asked how many ounces were in a pound. He said 14 ounces but the answer is 16. He was then asked how many grams of sausages he would get if he ordered a pound, and answered 250g. The correct answer is 450g.”

    ““I think the prime minister’s point is that imperial measures are widely used and understood in this country,” he said.”

    “No 10 insisted yesterday that imperial measurements were universally understood in the UK, despite the metric system being taught in schools since 1974.”

    LikeLike

42. Proper metric only education and usage in the public square and in the media is the right answer to getting people to correctly use and understand measurement systems. Let’s hope the UK finally gets its act together before the USA over here gets going and makes it impossible for the UK to cling to Imperial in any case. <:-0

    LikeLiked by 1 person

43. Isaac,
    The problem with this tack will be the same as the last time a similar issue was raised. Instead of admitting that imperial has had its day, the government response was “…. obviously we need to bring back imperial education in schools …” A farce you couldn’t make up.
    That is the mindset of this government and dragging the Queen into it is even more perverse.

    LikeLike

44. @Martin Vlietstra. Regarding the definition of the pint, the pint is a derived unit. It was originally defined as ⅛ of an imperial gallon. In turn the gallon was defined as ten pounds of distilled water at 62 degrees Fahrenheit. Why that temperature? I have no idea – perhaps just a ‘typical’ temperature for still water. Wikipedia, from which I found that definition, helpfully translates it to an excessively precise 16.667 degrees Celsius.

    In any case, the pint was defined in terms of the pound. And as we know, the pound has been defined as exactly 0.453 592 37 kilograms, by that same legislation. This is actually the *international* pound as agreed in 1959, not the Imperial pound as previously defined.

    However, I think the same problem was experienced as with the litre. The litre had been defined as the volume of 1 kg of water, which had been intended to be the same as 1000 cm³. However, the kilogram itself was defined as the mass of the prototype object, and it turned out that the prototype was slightly too large and therefore it was in fact slightly too heavy. The decision was taken to define the litre as exactly 1000 cm³, and fix the discrepancy by restating the density of water at 0°C to be slightly less than 1000 kg/m³. Similarly the pint has been redefined using the same density, allowing for the difference in temperature, also using a length-based volume measurement. So the pint is *also* a metric unit.

    When the 1985 Act was written, the pint was defined as half a quart, the quart as quarter of a gallon, and the gallon itself in cubic decimetres. This was revised in 1995 to remove the definitions of gallon and quart, as no longer permissible trade measures, and instead fix the definition of the pint directly, again in ‘cubic decimetres’.

    LikeLike

45. It seems that attempting to muddle along with 2 measurement systems is not without security issues.

    Daily Telegraph article on the shortcomings of the UK’s Challenger 2 tanks:

    “The Challenger 2, by comparison, requires at least two sets of tools because the turret uses metric measurements and the hull imperial.”

    “Unlike the Challenger 2, the Leopard has a Nato standard 120mm gun, meaning that several countries can supply ammunition for it.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/01/20/ukraine-invasion-germany-tanks-leopards-russia-war-europe-weapons/

    LikeLike

46. “The Challenger 2, by comparison, requires at least two sets of tools because the turret uses metric measurements and the hull imperial.”

    I’m confused. I thought British industry didn’t use imperial anymore and hasn’t for sometime already. So how is this product hybrid? Hybrid products are very typical in US manufacturing, where components that go into a finished product are sometimes metric, sometimes FFU (Fake Freedom Units or Fred Flintstone Units).

    LikeLike

47. Daniel, at school (back in the ’50’s) our teachers had the saying “the exception that proves the rule”,
    I never knew what it was supposed to mean, so I guess it fits this situation. No one knows, just “we are the greatest, so everyone will buy whatever we make”. Except they do not and will not.

    LikeLike

48. @BrianAC
    The expression “The exception that proves the rule” uses the old meaning of “prove”, i.e. to test, as one does when proofreading text. Compare with the German “probieren” which means to test.

    Here is the explanation from The Grammarist site:

    The proverb the exception that proves the rule is often used to justify something that seems to contradict a rule. However, the term the exception that proves the rule actually means this exception under these parameters proves that the rule works in all other circumstances.

    In this case, the word “proves” is used in a semi-scientific sense to mean test. For instance, if a sign at a bakery states “Doughnuts available Sunday morning”, this is the exception that proves the rule that doughnuts are not available at the bakery at any other time. The term the exception that proves the rule is derived from a Latin phrase first used by Cicero, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which means the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted.

    LikeLike

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ