Metrication

[kalvado]

Ok, people know what acre is
Can someone put 100 bushels per acre into perspective?

[jeffandnicole]

I don't even have an intuitive understanding of an acre.

Oh, that's an easy one. My backyard times 2.

My property size growing up was 0.45 acre, so an acre was just smaller than our yard plus an adjoining property.

My property size today is 1/6 of acre, and would easily fully fit on my parent's front yard

[US 89]

An acre is ten square chains, a chain being 66 feet or four rods.

Which of course doesn't play nice with units more familiar to us. A square with an area of one acre measures 66*sqrt(10), or 208.710326..., feet per side, so an acre is 43,560 square feet.

[kalvado]

An acre is ten square chains, a chain being 66 feet or four rods.

Which of course doesn't play nice with units more familiar to us. A square with an area of one acre measures 66*sqrt(10), or 208.710326..., feet per side, so an acre is 43,560 square feet.

The point here, of course, is that chains, feet, acres, miles  all require the knowledge of each of them. Same conversation about backyard size in metric would require knowledge of what meter is, and  a 100x100 meters called   hectare. 
Again, hectare holds its place in metric system for land use - especially agricultural - as a side unit. Square (kilo)meter would be a more compliant one, but traditions...

[Brandon]

An acre is ten square chains, a chain being 66 feet or four rods.

Which of course doesn't play nice with units more familiar to us. A square with an area of one acre measures 66*sqrt(10), or 208.710326..., feet per side, so an acre is 43,560 square feet.

It actually does, at larger scales.  A mile is 80 chains long, and a chain is 100 links.  Hence, a section is 80 chains on a side, for a total of 6,400 square chains or 640 acres.

[mgk920]

"What's a 'bushel'?"   

Mike

[US 89]

An acre is ten square chains, a chain being 66 feet or four rods.

Which of course doesn't play nice with units more familiar to us. A square with an area of one acre measures 66*sqrt(10), or 208.710326..., feet per side, so an acre is 43,560 square feet.

It actually does, at larger scales.  A mile is 80 chains long, and a chain is 100 links.  Hence, a section is 80 chains on a side, for a total of 6,400 square chains or 640 acres.

I don't think a chain counts as a "unit more familiar to us" , though...

[TXtoNJ]

An acre is ten square chains, a chain being 66 feet or four rods.

Which of course doesn’t play nice with units more familiar to us. A square with an area of one acre measures 66*sqrt(10), or 208.710326…, feet per side, so an acre is 43,560 square feet.

The point here, of course, is that chains, feet, acres, miles  all require the knowledge of each of them. Same conversation about backyard size in metric would require knowledge of what meter is, and  a 100x100 meters called   hectare. 
Again, hectare holds its place in metric system for land use - especially agricultural - as a side unit. Square (kilo)meter would be a more compliant one, but traditions...

The biggest cognitive shift is realizing that prefixed values aren't units in and of themselves, but abbreviations of core (meter, kilogram [exception that proves the rule], second) or derived (liter, kelvin, ampere) units. That saying "100 km" and "100k m" are the same thing. That, and the interconnections among SI units, all being derived from m/kg/s, are the true value over the customary and Imperial systems.

[Poiponen13]

An acre is ten square chains, a chain being 66 feet or four rods.

Which of course doesn't play nice with units more familiar to us. A square with an area of one acre measures 66*sqrt(10), or 208.710326..., feet per side, so an acre is 43,560 square feet.

The point here, of course, is that chains, feet, acres, miles  all require the knowledge of each of them. Same conversation about backyard size in metric would require knowledge of what meter is, and  a 100x100 meters called   hectare. 
Again, hectare holds its place in metric system for land use - especially agricultural - as a side unit. Square (kilo)meter would be a more compliant one, but traditions...

The biggest cognitive shift is realizing that prefixed values aren't units in and of themselves, but abbreviations of core (meter, kilogram [exception that proves the rule], second) or derived (liter, kelvin, ampere) units. That saying "100 km" and "100k m" are the same thing. That, and the interconnections among SI units, all being derived from m/kg/s, are the true value over the customary and Imperial systems.

This is one of the reasons that US should use metric system.

[Brandon]

An acre is ten square chains, a chain being 66 feet or four rods.

Which of course doesn't play nice with units more familiar to us. A square with an area of one acre measures 66*sqrt(10), or 208.710326..., feet per side, so an acre is 43,560 square feet.

The point here, of course, is that chains, feet, acres, miles  all require the knowledge of each of them. Same conversation about backyard size in metric would require knowledge of what meter is, and  a 100x100 meters called   hectare. 
Again, hectare holds its place in metric system for land use - especially agricultural - as a side unit. Square (kilo)meter would be a more compliant one, but traditions...

The biggest cognitive shift is realizing that prefixed values aren't units in and of themselves, but abbreviations of core (meter, kilogram [exception that proves the rule], second) or derived (liter, kelvin, ampere) units. That saying "100 km" and "100k m" are the same thing. That, and the interconnections among SI units, all being derived from m/kg/s, are the true value over the customary and Imperial systems.

This is one of the reasons that US should use metric system.

Why?  What would be the point of changing units if they don't match how things were surveyed?  And before you comment, P13, please read up on the Public Land Survey System (PLSS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System

We already used a mixed system anyway.

[TXtoNJ]

An acre is ten square chains, a chain being 66 feet or four rods.

Which of course doesn't play nice with units more familiar to us. A square with an area of one acre measures 66*sqrt(10), or 208.710326..., feet per side, so an acre is 43,560 square feet.

The point here, of course, is that chains, feet, acres, miles  all require the knowledge of each of them. Same conversation about backyard size in metric would require knowledge of what meter is, and  a 100x100 meters called   hectare. 
Again, hectare holds its place in metric system for land use - especially agricultural - as a side unit. Square (kilo)meter would be a more compliant one, but traditions...

The biggest cognitive shift is realizing that prefixed values aren't units in and of themselves, but abbreviations of core (meter, kilogram [exception that proves the rule], second) or derived (liter, kelvin, ampere) units. That saying "100 km" and "100k m" are the same thing. That, and the interconnections among SI units, all being derived from m/kg/s, are the true value over the customary and Imperial systems.

This is one of the reasons that US should use metric system.

Why?  What would be the point of changing units if they don't match how things were surveyed?  And before you comment, P13, please read up on the Public Land Survey System (PLSS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System

We already used a mixed system anyway.

Legally, metric does match how things were surveyed. It's only because of a lack of need for precision at that scale that feet 1200/3937 meters in length can be used.

[kkt]

"What's a 'bushel'?"   

Mike

A bushel basket is big... about as big as one person could easily carry by themselves when it's full of vegetables or berries etc.

[MikeTheActuary]

I don't even have an intuitive understanding of an acre.

It's the amount of land that a person and an ox can plow in one day.  It's a practical measurement for a pre-industrial agricultural society.

[kalvado]

I don't even have an intuitive understanding of an acre.

It's the amount of land that a person and an ox can plow in one day.  It's a practical measurement for a pre-industrial agricultural society.

Does anyone have an intuitive understanding of an ox these days?

[Rothman]

I don't even have an intuitive understanding of an acre.

It's the amount of land that a person and an ox can plow in one day.  It's a practical measurement for a pre-industrial agricultural society.

Does anyone have an intuitive understanding of an ox these days?

Sure.  Looks like a big hairless cow.

[kalvado]

I don't even have an intuitive understanding of an acre.

It's the amount of land that a person and an ox can plow in one day.  It's a practical measurement for a pre-industrial agricultural society.

Does anyone have an intuitive understanding of an ox these days?

Sure.  Looks like a big hairless cow.

Ah, so an acre is  the amount of land that a big hairless ape and a big hairless cow can plow in one day... Now that makes sense!

[1995hoo]

I don't even have an intuitive understanding of an acre.

It's the amount of land that a person and an ox can plow in one day.  It's a practical measurement for a pre-industrial agricultural society.

Does anyone have an intuitive understanding of an ox these days?

[mgk920]

Now, what is a 'bushel' as defined in farm commodities markets?  Wouldn't prices in '(whatever local monetary units) per metric tonne'(1000 KG)' make for sense to the public?

Mike

[kalvado]

Now, what is a 'bushel' as defined in farm commodities markets?  Wouldn't prices in '(whatever local monetary units) per metric tonne'(1000 KG)' make for sense to the public?

Mike

Karats for diamonds, troy ounces for precious metals, barrels of oil,  bushels... 
That's the way things work (so far)

[kkt]

For gems and precious metals, $ or Euro or whatever per gram would be reasonable.  Scap gold dealers already set their prices that way.

[kalvado]

For gems and precious metals, $ or Euro or whatever per gram would be reasonable.  Scap gold dealers already set their prices that way.

I am not saying "unreasonable". I am saying "traditional is hard to change"

[TXtoNJ]

For gems and precious metals, $ or Euro or whatever per gram would be reasonable.  Scap gold dealers already set their prices that way.

I am not saying "unreasonable". I am saying "traditional is hard to change"

Traditional is not hard to change. There are costs associated with it (that is, investments that will be inherently unprofitable), and in the US, business owners being able to shunt those costs off to their customers is politically unpopular. So the status quo remains, with small, incremental, relatively inexpensive changes being made along the way.

[Poiponen13]

Each state would decide if they have metric speed limits. The limits would be same in every state. The maximum limit would be 150 km/h.

[hotdogPi]

Each state would decide if they have metric speed limits. The limits would be same in every state. The maximum limit would be 150 km/h.

Speed limits should be based on design speed. In the eastern third of the US, there are very few roads with that high of a design speed. Roads built in the plains states are either built that high (e.g. Texas Interstates) or are basically unlimited because it's a straight road with no obstacles (e.g. US 2), but roads aren't built that way in much of the country.

[GaryV]

The maximum limit would be 150 km/h.

Do you realize that there aren't any roads in the US with that high of a speed limit today? Most places are equivalent of 120 kph or far less.