Fahrenheit

In theory yes, but there wouldn't be a lot of point for most purposes, and would be utterly ridiculous for anything scientific.

Fahrenheit is daft, Celsius works 

Stones pounds and ounces works when describing human weight 

Speed is miles per hour

Distance is miles, kilometres are daft 

Feet and inches for human height 

Bananas should be sold in numbers as opposed to pounds 

For everything else metric is sensible 

I mean who do we blame now for these things

Going back to Fahrenheit seems like a step in the right direction. We could join these forward thinking countries:

charltonkeston said:

I use both imperial and metric measurements in my job. It shouldn’t make any difference, it’s only a unit of measurement. The only part of imperial measuring that annoys me is American screw threads. There seems very little rhyme or reason to them compared to a very logical ISO threads. Anyone know what dimensions  a No.2 X 56 unf pilister head are without looking it up on a chart?

It does though, as soon as you have to go beyond measuring basic lengths and volumes, and start factoring in pressures, forces, energy and so on. Because all the SI units are defined in relation to a bunch of basic standard measurements, then doing calculations based on those measurements is relatively straightforward, while if you're doing it in imperial you risk introducing inaccuracies due to having to use conversion factors. And that's before we get onto the joys of having to check whether the specific non-SI unit you're using is the US rather than the UK one with the same name but a slightly different size.

aliwibble said:

guinnessaddick said:

He was German. Rankine is your man.

Nah, we should be going with Kelvin if we want a traditionally British scale, as that came first :-)

Why not. 

aliwibble said:

charltonkeston said:

I use both imperial and metric measurements in my job. It shouldn’t make any difference, it’s only a unit of measurement. The only part of imperial measuring that annoys me is American screw threads. There seems very little rhyme or reason to them compared to a very logical ISO threads. Anyone know what dimensions  a No.2 X 56 unf pilister head are without looking it up on a chart?

It does though, as soon as you have to go beyond measuring basic lengths and volumes, and start factoring in pressures, forces, energy and so on. Because all the SI units are defined in relation to a bunch of basic standard measurements, then doing calculations based on those measurements is relatively straightforward, while if you're doing it in imperial you risk introducing inaccuracies due to having to use conversion factors. And that's before we get onto the joys of having to check whether the specific non-SI unit you're using is the US rather than the UK one with the same name but a slightly different size.

At primary school we were only taught imperial units, and I had the doubtful joy of learning how to do long division and multiplication of weights in a mixture of ounces (base 16), pounds (base 14), stones (base 8), hundredweights (base 20), and tons.  Similarly for length measurements and money.

I still tend to use imperial in my domestic life, although working life was always in metric.

At secondary school, science introduced me to metric measure - so much easier! - but even at A-level we still had to know how to do mechanics questions in imperial measurements, use (and convert between) Fahrenheit, Celsius (then called centigrade) & Kelvin, and energy was measured in ergs or calories, until adoption of SI units when I went to university brought in the much simpler joule.

So I don't care what measurements are used, so long as they are specified - and yes, it is a pain that the US has the same name as some of the imperial measures, but a different size.  Was this to make the "math" easier, as in the "short" US ton having only 2000 lb instead of 2240 lb in the "long" UK ton?  The one which really drives me mad is fluid measure in recipes, if it is not clear the pint is US (16 fl oz) not UK (20 fl oz)! 

But I don't think schoolkids will thank us in their maths and science lessons if we turn the clock back.

https://youtu.be/nROK4cjQVXM

N01R4M said:

aliwibble said:

charltonkeston said:

I use both imperial and metric measurements in my job. It shouldn’t make any difference, it’s only a unit of measurement. The only part of imperial measuring that annoys me is American screw threads. There seems very little rhyme or reason to them compared to a very logical ISO threads. Anyone know what dimensions  a No.2 X 56 unf pilister head are without looking it up on a chart?

It does though, as soon as you have to go beyond measuring basic lengths and volumes, and start factoring in pressures, forces, energy and so on. Because all the SI units are defined in relation to a bunch of basic standard measurements, then doing calculations based on those measurements is relatively straightforward, while if you're doing it in imperial you risk introducing inaccuracies due to having to use conversion factors. And that's before we get onto the joys of having to check whether the specific non-SI unit you're using is the US rather than the UK one with the same name but a slightly different size.

At primary school we were only taught imperial units, and I had the doubtful joy of learning how to do long division and multiplication of weights in a mixture of ounces (base 16), pounds (base 14), stones (base 8), hundredweights (base 20), and tons.  Similarly for length measurements and money.

I still tend to use imperial in my domestic life, although working life was always in metric.

At secondary school, science introduced me to metric measure - so much easier! - but even at A-level we still had to know how to do mechanics questions in imperial measurements, use (and convert between) Fahrenheit, Celsius (then called centigrade) & Kelvin, and energy was measured in ergs or calories, until adoption of SI units when I went to university brought in the much simpler joule.

So I don't care what measurements are used, so long as they are specified - and yes, it is a pain that the US has the same name as some of the imperial measures, but a different size.  Was this to make the "math" easier, as in the "short" US ton having only 2000 lb instead of 2240 lb in the "long" UK ton?  The one which really drives me mad is fluid measure in recipes, if it is not clear the pint is US (16 fl oz) not UK (20 fl oz)! 

But I don't think schoolkids will thank us in their maths and science lessons if we turn the clock back.

I don't think "they" are too bothered about what young people think mate... 

Wrong!
1 US pint is 16 US fl oz, or 16.65 imperial fl oz, or 0.83 imperial pint.
And since the US fluid gallon holds 8 US pints, it is only 0.83 of an imperial gallon...

It's rumoured that one of the US Mars spacecraft crash landed because of confusions in units in which it and its trajectory were being measured; an expensive mistake if true.