Metric/imperial

[Kerbart]

9 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Volumetric measurements certainly make it easier to eyeball fractions.

Your recipes call for fractions of eyeballs? What the heck are you baking?

 

[YNM]

29 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

@YNM, OTTD, heh? I love that thing!

One of the mods here were on the forum there too...

18 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Volumetric measurements certainly make it easier to eyeball fractions.

Eh, as long as your dough isn't a four-dimensional dough we can cut it to a half easily. Doesn't matter is it in volume or mass.

[sevenperforce]

7 minutes ago, YNM said:

 

Eh, as long as your dough isn't a four-dimensional dough we can cut it to a half easily. Doesn't matter is it in volume or mass.

Dividing an existing quantity in half? Sure, that's simple regardless of whether you're thinking in terms of mass or of volume. But if you're still measuring out ingredients, it's easier to just fill up a cylindrical measuring cup halfway than it is to weigh out the full mass of an ingredient, then make it into a pile, then cut the pile in half, then return half to storage and add the other half to the recipe. 

Same thing with spoonfuls...if I need to add a quarter-teaspoon of salt, I can use a half-tsp, a quarter-tsp, or even an eighth-tsp measure much more readily than if I was awkwardly trying to weigh out a very very small amount. 

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, Camacha said:

This does not seem to be an actual argument. You have an almost excessive amount of prefixes to reduce accuracy or increase reasonable range. Whenever you feel those might not be appropriate, you still get decimals to suit your needs. You can go both ways as you please and with significant ease. If you still cannot something that fits the bill, you can indicate (in)accuracy by using half, quarter or similar loos-y metrics. Your cat, for example, would be between 4,5 (four and a half) and 5 (five) kilogram. Or actually, 5,0 kg, because the first thing you learn in high school is about significant figures.

Let us be fair: if you cannot find measurements and accuracies to fit your needs in the metric system, the problem is not the metric system.

It is used all right, though decilitre certainly is more common than decimetre. It does, however, illustrate that the metric system is apparently fine grained enough to even drop certain orders of magnitude, because people do not feel the need to use every single one as much.

Decimeter is mostly used then buying planks, they are bought in dm as its an fitting measurement, funny that the width is in cm but the thickness in thumbs because of legacy. So many old houses with planks in thumbs it stayed on. 
Then cutting planks you would use mm or 156.3 cm. but you buy planks in various lengths and its added up.

Deciliter is far more common as its fit for most everyday volumes, cans and bottles tend to in fraction of liters, 0.33, 0.5, 1, 1.5, in many pubs you get 0.4 liter beer rater than 0.5. 

[Ten Key]

16 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Humor me. Between km, m, dm, cm and mm, which every metric grammar school student grows up with, and the  µm which every science/technical student will be more than familiar with, what length unit is the metric system missing that is not sized appropriately for certain applications, and what would be the corresponding imperial units that are?

The foot. I would not miss miles or gallons, but I would miss the foot.

This isn't the scene I mentioned earlier, but maybe it will illustrate the point. Three fishermen are sitting in a boat. One of them is telling a story about the huge fish he caught, the second is laughing and disputing the tale. The third asks, "How big was the fish?" The other two gesture with their hands, "About yay big". One indicated length by holding his hands apart, the other by holding his thumb and index finger apart.

If it were a TV show or picture book, that would be the end of it. . .the gesture would tell the story. But I need to write out a description. The original text was something like, "one held his hands a few feet apart, the other held his thumb and index finger a few inches apart." But we're in metric, so we should use metric units.

Creative writing and technical writing are two very different animals. An author can control the tone of a story by using specific types of language (The Grapes of Wraith is a classic example) and in this particular case I wanted the reader to feel the dismissive shrug in the gesture. Very informal, almost flippant. 

To switch directly from inches to centimeters changes the gesture a bit. A "few centimeters" is about one inch, which from a hand gesture standpoint would mean "really small". It is workable, but feels like the gesturing person would have to care enough to really want to "stick it" to the other person. And he does not. Another option would be to say something along the lines of "a dozen centimeters". That works, but still feels oddly specific to my imperial addled brain.

The real problem is the fisherman gesturing with his hands. A meter feels too big. But to break it up into a smaller length requires either a fraction (or a decimal) of a meter, or an awful lot of centimeters. In either case, to me it starts to read like a math problem or a science text, which is not what I want to have happen. A fraction, or a unit value in the hundreds, is not "about yay big". 

The decimeter feels too long for the inch scale, and too short for the foot scale. But more importantly, everything I've seen indicates it is not widely used. People know what it is, and can work calculations with it, but it's not a unit that comes up in day to day life. It feels inappropriate for informal writing. If someone is carrying a piece of furniture in such a way that they can't see around it, and they cry out, "How much room do I have?", I would not expect the answer to ever be in decimeters. I'm sure there are places where it would be, but to my eye, it would look weird. 

For human scale distances I am used to the imperial system. Metric was used in school, but imperial was used at home in the garage and the kitchen, effectively making metric a second language for certain everyday activities. I know it, but I don't "think" in it, if that makes sense. My brain treats "6 feet, 1 3/4 inches" as three discrete pieces of information, just like reading a clock. Measuring human scale distances in metric feels like trying to express time without using minutes, only hours and seconds. It feels like there's a yawning hole between meters and centimeters where the foot ought to be. 

 

16 hours ago, Kerbart said:

As for "dropping the fraction," the scenario described is just as applicable to a scale that shows pounds and ounces, the student would be dropping the ounces in that case, making the final measurement really not that much more accurate. If you claim, oh, but someone would NEVER drop the ounces, my answer would be that someone (used to metric) would NEVER drop the first digit on a scale either. I sound like a repeating record, but if you're used to a certain system you're not making the mistakes that "the other side" claims are easily made in the other system. It doesn't work that way. 

Maybe some more context here. The standard weight charts the hospital had used in the past were in pounds, and were listed as weight ranges. I assume the switch to kilograms was for the benefit of the pharmacy, and given that they were dispensing more and more medicine designed for humans as the years went by, and that makes sense. But while that worked just fine for the heavier dogs, it seemed to be causing some issues for cats, and it was just one of those rare moments where imperial seemed to have an edge. Our cat was furious. . .that scale was never going to give a reading accurate to two decimal places. It was lucky to have survived the process. If it had been set to pounds/ounces, I expect the technician would have rounded to the nearest pound and been done with it. But the kilogram was large enough to need that extra bit at the end, even though I'm sure it wasn't correct. The scale was bouncing around too much.

 

15 hours ago, Camacha said:

This does not seem to be an actual argument.

It's not an argument love, I'm just offering a different perspective. Obviously, most people use metric on a daily basis with no problems whatsoever. As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Let's change that.

 

@YNM, OTTD, heh? I love that thing!

sous vide operate with enough accuracy to use 0.1 degree, So do various other presisjon stuff. 
At first I thought it was sous vide as it look like mine but see now that its an climate control. 
Indoor temperature is pointless in 0.1 degree, its many degree difference inside an room. 

Here is an fun one: I just replaced my water cooler on the computer.
Cores is from 24-31 degree, cpu package is 32 degree. Water temperature in block is 35.6 degree. 
No it does not make sense. If the temprature reach 90 degree you know something is wrong like that the pump is broken. 
 

[Camacha]

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

And I think that the ease of learning metric compared to the relative difficulty of learning Imperial is part of the reason people seem to think metric is "better" or Imperial is "backwards". Think about it this way: metric has higher data compression than Imperial. Metric is like trying to describe something in Simple English. Easier to learn but also less powerful for certain applications.

This is an argument that has been brought to bear a couple of times now, but has never been substantiated. Please indicate for what applications the imperial system would be more powerful. There does not seem to be a scenario that is not highly trivial. In reverse, there are many examples of how the metric system makes calculations that are complex in imperial a breeze.

The whole concept of the metric system is that it is both powerful and easy. You can traverse the numbers horizontally (quickly changing scale, so going from kilometre to centimetre without making a single calculation). The real beauty, however, is that it also works vertically. If you tell me a pool is 800 centimetre long, 0,006 kilometres wide and 2 metres deep, I can immediately, without a calculator, tell you the respective dimensions in any of those units (8 metres by 6 metres by 2 metres). This also means that calculating the volume is trivial and easily done without a calculator: 96 cubic metres.  Without any additional calculations, I can tell you the pool contains 96.000 litres and filled with water weighs about 96.000 kilos or 96 tonnes.

Try telling me quickly and without pen, paper or calculator what the volume and the weight of the water in a pool 0.003 miles by 20 foot by 120 inches are. As soon as you calculated it in gallons and pounds and someone tells you he needed it in stone and pints, you can whip out the calculator again. We are not talking yet about the fact that there are several standards for ounces, miles and other units.

Imperial seems to work in the select countries it is used, so it certainly is not broken. However, powerful is not a term that springs to mind. It is a system that happened to become whatever it became.

[Camacha]

1 hour ago, Ten Key said:

For human scale distances I am used to the imperial system. Metric was used in school, but imperial was used at home in the garage and the kitchen, effectively making metric a second language for certain everyday activities. I know it, but I don't "think" in it, if that makes sense. My brain treats "6 feet, 1 3/4 inches" as three discrete pieces of information, just like reading a clock. Measuring human scale distances in metric feels like trying to express time without using minutes, only hours and seconds. It feels like there's a yawning hole between meters and centimeters where the foot ought to be.

In reality, this does not seem to be a problem at all. Like explained before, the decimetre is relatively little used. What does this tell you about the needs of people? That the centimetre and metre do the job well enough. There is an extra way of measuring things that is not even used, because people do not feel a need.

If you absolutely need to have your foot equivalent for guestimates, just use the exact same thing that was used in the cat scenario: halves and quarters. You are about half a metre off or The room was a quarter of a metre too short to fit the sofa are both things that are used informally without thinking. People do not have any issue with that at all, because people do not have to think about how many centimetres half a metre is. Anyone barely concious immediately knows that it ~50 and ~25 centimetre respectively. Having base units of 1 and 100 that have a direct relation to each other make things easy.

In creative writing, using dimensions is not a good solution, whatever system you use. There are many useful things other things can be compared to to make the story interesting.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Camacha

[AngelLestat]

Celcius is perfect to set temperature for humans, I guess nobody can feel temperature with the skin and predict the real temperature with more accuracy than celcius without decimals. In fact there is other factor that changes everything.. humidity..  Which give you a different thermal sensation, sometimes can be 10 degrees of difference or more. 
Then wind or a heat surface by radiation also change your thermal sensation, in addiction as someone else said: a room has no constant temperature either.
So is completely pointless.

And in case someone needs decimals for some unit, what is the problem?  Is so hard to understand than 3,5 is the half step between 3 and 4?

Now lets go back to the basic..  why someone would not like to change to the metric system?  Or one step further.. to adopt the whole SI of units.

Just take a look how complicated it is the imperial system just to manage distances (no even mention all the other units)

You can see the Meter tens on the right (I know that you use only 6 or 7 of those, but still..)

With imperial system you also need to learn all the other units like PSI, pound force, BTU, horsepower, slug and try to find some coherence between them...
E=mc2 does not need extra constants because all the units has coherence between them. 
If someone adopt the metric system (SI), it does not need to renounce to call some products or stuff by its mundane unit..
We use those units all the time even if we dont know it, a cement bag, a bottle of soda (they always add 0.25 liters in promotions until they reach 2,25 liters which become the standard on coke or other soda), 4 limons, etc.

But then, the SI makes you life super easy in everything else.

[PB666]

15 hours ago, Hary R said:

They will use gloofies...

If a civilization happen to exist there, their unit of measurement will look nothing like what we have here on earth, this is due to the really arbitrary way imperial, US customary and metric unit were created to begin with ( created for human use only). But due to the nature of physic, i'm sure they will be a way to convert alien gloofies to metric, imperial or US customary units.

The meter is based on the average distance across the surface (flattened) of the earth from the equator to the pole divided by 10,000,000. The unit of volume is defined by a cubic decimeter, and a kilogram is defined by the cubic decimeter and the density of water at STP. second is defined and adjusted by the day divided by 24 major units and 3600 minor units or 86400.

So unless an aliens world is the exact circumferance as ours and if they decided to take a quarter of that circumference, not a 1/2 or all and if they decided to divide it by 10,000,000 (assuming they have 10 digits and have a base 10 system) and if they then decided to carve their meter by a factor of 10 (that is their worlds circumference by 400,000,000) and then cube it to arrive at a liter, and if they use water as the density agent (versus say seawater or sodium chloride or pure sulferic acid, or they might embib from time to time and prefer the density of alcohol). Next rather than using that unit as gram, they decide to call it a kilogram and use the gram (that is use their meter divided by 100) to define not a liter but a milliliter. Of course we have to assume that their day is unlikely 86400 seconds long (minus a few cause we have to keep adding leap seconds, days).

So the metric system is so strait forward that we define it now as 1 / 299792458 sec. Of course this assumes that a second never changes, so now we have to define the second as second has been defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Of course if we assume an aliens second is with plus or minus 2 fold that means from 1/2 to 2 seconds of ours, the probability that their second is our second is 1/(periods * 1.5) (assuming they use caesium). They might know because like the rest of the universe we say cesium.

People who use metric think that it is objective and not subject to all the idiosynchracies of the Kings measurements, but alas if the metric system was so perfect. It assumes that base 10 has some special natural meaning, nope,

The base unit of a volume with be the base unit of length cubed. The base unit of mass would be that volume filled with a pure, non-volatile  inelastic metal. Such as platinum. The unit of time would have been based on physics not astrology. Of course if we set the gravitational constant to 1, and C to 1 we have an objective distance and time. Of course the gravitational constant is not as precisely known as c. The scale of the a natural system should be based in base 2.

 

[Bill Phil]

The liter is not the official unit of volume.

[YNM]

Cubic decimeter then. But with the kilolitre scale in with cubic meter, and mililitre scale in with cubic centimeter, it's not bad to say they're just another way to say SI metric units. Even engines are measured in litres all the time... while output in horsepower. Weird combination there.

Edited February 19, 2016 by YNM

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I'll weigh in here, and say that even though I learned most things in imperial, I think metric is a more sensible system.

[sevenperforce]

4 hours ago, Camacha said:

This is an argument that has been brought to bear a couple of times now, but has never been substantiated. Please indicate for what applications the imperial system would be more powerful. There does not seem to be a scenario that is not highly trivial. In reverse, there are many examples of how the metric system makes calculations that are complex in imperial a breeze.

The whole concept of the metric system is that it is both powerful and easy. You can traverse the numbers horizontally (quickly changing scale, so going from kilometre to centimetre without making a single calculation). The real beauty, however, is that it also works vertically. If you tell me a pool is 800 centimetre long, 0,006 kilometres wide and 2 metres deep, I can immediately, without a calculator, tell you the respective dimensions in any of those units (8 metres by 6 metres by 2 metres). This also means that calculating the volume is trivial and easily done without a calculator: 96 cubic metres.  Without any additional calculations, I can tell you the pool contains 96.000 litres and filled with water weighs about 96.000 kilos or 96 tonnes.

Try telling me quickly and without pen, paper or calculator what the volume and the weight of the water in a pool 0.003 miles by 20 foot by 120 inches are. As soon as you calculated it in gallons and pounds and someone tells you he needed it in stone and pints, you can whip out the calculator again. We are not talking yet about the fact that there are several standards for ounces, miles and other units.

Imperial seems to work in the select countries it is used, so it certainly is not broken. However, powerful is not a term that springs to mind. It is a system that happened to become whatever it became.

I actually gave a few examples already. In particular, the question was posed of how you'd divide 3 3/4 cups in half; as it turns out, I knew without blinking that that's 2 tablespoons less than 2 cups. 

The Imperial system is more powerful when you're converting between units on the level of measurements around which the Imperial system developed, IF you know how to use it. If you grow up with the metric system, it is hard to understand the advantages of the Imperial system. 

If you're trying to jump between orders of magnitude, then yes, the metric system's dependence on base 10 is convenient. But if you need to multiply and divide by single-digit integers, having a system with a lot of units that factor into each other by primes is really useful. For example, let's say you're trying to make matching suits for a father and son, and you need to scale down the father's measurements to fit the child. If you are equally well-acquainted with metric and imperial, I guarantee you will find it simpler to scale it down in Imperial.

The density of water is a bit arbitrary. If it was filled with any other fluid, you're screwed. 

3 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Celcius is perfect to set temperature for humans, I guess nobody can feel temperature with the skin and predict the real temperature with more accuracy than celcius without decimals. In fact there is other factor that changes everything.. humidity..  Which give you a different thermal sensation, sometimes can be 10 degrees of difference or more. 
Then wind or a heat surface by radiation also change your thermal sensation, in addiction as someone else said: a room has no constant temperature either.
So is completely pointless.

And in case someone needs decimals for some unit, what is the problem?  Is so hard to understand than 3,5 is the half step between 3 and 4?

Now lets go back to the basic..  why someone would not like to change to the metric system?  Or one step further.. to adopt the whole SI of units.

Just take a look how complicated it is the imperial system just to manage distances (no even mention all the other units)

You can see the Meter tens on the right (I know that you use only 6 or 7 of those, but still..)

With imperial system you also need to learn all the other units like PSI, pound force, BTU, horsepower, slug and try to find some coherence between them...
E=mc2 does not need extra constants because all the units has coherence between them. 
If someone adopt the metric system (SI), it does not need to renounce to call some products or stuff by its mundane unit..
We use those units all the time even if we dont know it, a cement bag, a bottle of soda (they always add 0.25 liters in promotions until they reach 2,25 liters which become the standard on coke or other soda), 4 limons, etc.

But then, the SI makes you life super easy in everything else.

Err....

E=mc2 is not a "metric" equation. Unless you think the m stands for meters.

Yes, imperial has a lot of units for length. With a lot of different prime factors relating them. That's the point. Feature, not bug. 

[AngelLestat]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

Cubic decimeter then. But with the kilolitre scale in with cubic meter, and mililitre scale in with cubic centimeter, it's not bad to say they're just another way to say SI units. Even engines are measured in litres all the time... while output in horsepower. Weird combination there.

Yeah, cars should be in KW, this will change with new electric cars.
Let me add some things.

Litre, Tonne and Hectare use the same system and they are compatible..  but no.. they are not included in the SI.

1 Liter= 1000cm3  = 1dm3 = 0,001 m3 (For Volume in cubic you need to move 3 places the decimal point, BTW.. we use comma)
1 Hectare= 100m x 100m= 10000m2 = 0,01km2  (For area in square you need to move 2 places the decimal point)
1 Tonne= 1000kg  =  1mg

 

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The Imperial system is more powerful when you're converting between units on the level of measurements around which the Imperial system developed, IF you know how to use it. If you grow up with the metric system, it is hard to understand the advantages of the Imperial system. 

Heh, so the imperial system is  powerful if you are using imperial units?    Is like said the Bible is true because the Bible said that is true.
 

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

If you're trying to jump between orders of magnitude, then yes, the metric system's dependence on base 10 is convenient. But if you need to multiply and divide by single-digit integers, having a system with a lot of units that factor into each other by primes is really useful.

For start, you need to give your result using many units instead one.  Only works in cases where you can use integers...
This guy disagree with on being easier..
Take a look that almost all metric vs imperial videos are made by US citizens.   So even the same people who grow up using imperial are agree that imperial is really bad.

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

For example, let's say you're trying to make matching suits for a father and son, and you need to scale down the father's measurements to fit the child. If you are equally well-acquainted with metric and imperial, I guarantee you will find it simpler to scale it down in Imperial.

Why? Because for you is easier?

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The density of water is a bit arbitrary. If it was filled with any other fluid, you're screwed. 

??  But you need to choose something as base (model)....  What you would choose? 
It is based on a meter scale and the most basic thing that everybody has and need... water.

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Err....
E=mc2 is not a "metric" equation. Unless you think the m stands for meters.
Yes, imperial has a lot of units for length. With a lot of different prime factors relating them. That's the point. Feature, not bug. 

 

Is based on SI units (metric).
What you think that E means in metric?  Or C?   C= coulomb? 
All those variables are based on SI.
Energy=joules
M=kilogram
C=speed of light in meters/seconds 
Take a look to formulas in Imperial, they are full of weirds constants that are impossible to remember.

[fredinno]

OK, OP, WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS THREAD?

[Hary R]

57 minutes ago, fredinno said:

OK, OP, WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS THREAD?

Because we haven't had enough of this debate i guess.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Hary R

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, YNM said:

Cubic decimeter then. But with the kilolitre scale in with cubic meter, and mililitre scale in with cubic centimeter, it's not bad to say they're just another way to say SI units. Even engines are measured in litres all the time... while output in horsepower. Weird combination there.

There is a metric horsepower, I think.

Official unit of volume is the cubic meter, if I recall. But cubic lengths are hard to remember/use sometimes. 

Engines sometimes use ccs.

[kurja]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

I actually gave a few examples already. In particular, the question was posed of how you'd divide 3 3/4 cups in half; as it turns out, I knew without blinking that that's 2 tablespoons less than 2 cups. 

I wouldn't divide fractions of cups and spoons at all because I'd be dividing 9dl in half which I can tell without blinking to be 4 and a half dl, it just isn't any more difficult than that. I just find the notion that dividing a number would be any easier if it's followed by a different unit suffix to be silly :/

[kurja]

41 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

There is a metric horsepower, I think.

Official unit of volume is the cubic meter, if I recall. But cubic lengths are hard to remember/use sometimes. 

Engines sometimes use ccs.

Vehicle registration papers have used kW and cc for decades here.

[kurja]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

The density of water is a bit arbitrary. If it was filled with any other fluid, you're screwed. 

Not really; for different materials you always have to know their density (regardless of unit system), for water it happens to be "1". So you add that one multiplication depending on material. I actually do this on a regular basis at work, it is highly convenient for level measurement by pressure transmitters and such applications.

[RainDreamer]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

OK, OP, WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS THREAD?

Likely due to this:

[YNM]

15 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Dividing an existing quantity in half? Sure, that's simple regardless of whether you're thinking in terms of mass or of volume. But if you're still measuring out ingredients, it's easier to just fill up a cylindrical measuring cup halfway than it is to weigh out the full mass of an ingredient, then make it into a pile, then cut the pile in half, then return half to storage and add the other half to the recipe.

For mass, of course you would divide the number first before massing (weighing) it. Because density stays constant, both is practical to do - even I suppose you'll end up seeing mass being in use when buying ingredients.

On topic of engines, vehicle registrations here use cubic centimeter (cc) for cylinder volume, leaving the power out unregistered.

--------

EDIT :

4 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Litre, Tonne and Hectare use the same system and they are compatible..  but no.. they are not included in the SI.

1 Liter= 1000cm3  = 1dm3 = 0,001 m3 (For Volume in cubic you need to move 3 places the decimal point, BTW.. we use comma)
1 Hectare= 100m x 100m= 10000m2 = 0,01km2  (For area in square you need to move 2 places the decimal point)
1 Tonne= 1000kg  =  1mg

Hmm, we also use commas here... Yes, tonne, hectare and liter are compatible with SI. Should've said they're metric, but not SI.

--------

Second EDIT, just some remarks : I think the thread isn't just about which one is good. It's a good thing to know how someone are used to do with particular scaling. How they use it and whatnot. Which to do first, then later. No need for tempers guys, just share what you're used to here. For instance, I couldn't agree more with the usage of spoon or teaspoon, everything else being metric. It's a matter of preference really.

Edited February 19, 2016 by YNM
remarks

[Kertech]

5 hours ago, fredinno said:

OK, OP, WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS THREAD?

sorry....

Been watching this unfold, getting the same arguments, basically Imperial: easier to factorise but a nuissance when doing conversion and science. Metric: good for conversion and scaling but factorising is more difficult. I'll say for me, if I need to dissolve 1mcg of amiodarone in 20cc of fluid and I have amiodarone in molar solution (0.02mol/L) and saline in L then know what I'm doing. I'd be kind of screwed (as would the patient) if it was in imperial. The NHS (UK) went metric before the UK due to patient safety concerns!

[the_pazter]

On ‎16‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 3:33 PM, p1t1o said:

If you go to the wikipedia page on liquid oxygen, some genius asked in the "Talk" page:

"Why in an English encyclopedia are temps not in Fahrenheit."

Nearly made my eyes pop out.

yes, that guy needs to learn the history of his own country. English= England, The UK uses Celsius, done, it's over with, I'm off.