Metric?

[mrsmelly]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ok then, I challenge you to work out the 20% VAT to charge on, say, a sale of £17 13s 4d in your head using mental arithmetic. 

Such calcs are easy with metric money.  

I completely agree. Metric is way easier than imperial but that doesnt make it better. If we excercise our brains more they work better. Many youngsters today dont use theirs and cannot now even add in metric without their calculator or " Hand held device "

[MtB]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

I completely agree. Metric is way easier than imperial but that doesnt make it better. If we excercise our brains more they work better. Many youngsters today dont use theirs and cannot now even add in metric without their calculator or " Hand held device "

 

Errr, yes it does!

[mrsmelly]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Errr, yes it does!

In your opinion but not in mine.

[MtB]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

In your opinion but not in mine.

In what way is imperial money better then?

[mrsmelly]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

In what way is imperial money better then?

In the same way that pints and half pints of beer are better than foreign measurements.

[Jerra]

19 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And do you remember when exercise books always had those tables of conversions on the back cover, including rods, poles and perches?

Not on ours.  Plain green with the county crest on and Cumberland Education Authority beneath.

[davem399]

Why don't folk who dislike metric units refer to the engine size of their car or boat in cubic inches?  Perhaps they don't realise that cc's and litres are metric? 

 

[mross]

All text books in English schools have been metric only since 1968.  But young people don't seem to have any understanding of numbers.  I tried to get some engineers on my last ship to calculate some estimates as a mental exercise.  I was shocked when a twenty-five-year old senior watchkeeper could not multiply 3 x 80 in his head.  He could not multiply 3 x 8 without a calculator.  I asked him how much change he would expect if he tendered £5 for an item that cost £3.57 and he could not comprehend what I meant! I doubt if most kids today can understand any facts and figures not presented as a cartoon.

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, mross said:

All text books in English schools have been metric only since 1968.  But young people don't seem to have any understanding of numbers.  I tried to get some engineers on my last ship to calculate some estimates as a mental exercise.  I was shocked when a twenty-five-year old senior watchkeeper could not multiply 3 x 80 in his head.  He could not multiply 3 x 8 without a calculator.  I asked him how much change he would expect if he tendered £5 for an item that cost £3.57 and he could not comprehend what I meant! I doubt if most kids today can understand any facts and figures not presented as a cartoon.

Interesting.  I have in my time taught a lot of "Special Needs" pupils.  While they would not have been able to cope with 10.00 - 3.5  if you put a £ sign in front they coped alright.  Equally put darts in their hands they could "do the sums" in their head which they would have struggled with on paper.

[monkeyhanger]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Interesting.  I have in my time taught a lot of "Special Needs" pupils.  While they would not have been able to cope with 10.00 - 3.5  if you put a £ sign in front they coped alright.  Equally put darts in their hands they could "do the sums" in their head which they would have struggled with on paper.

As a slight aside, but prompted by the above post, when I started teaching in the Northeast in 1969, the students used and were used to the metric system of measurement. At that time I still thought and measured in Imperial units, so I had to adjust my actions pretty quickly. When I moved to a teaching post in London 2 years later, the students there were still using Imperial measurements. Even the O-level and CSE exams boards still used the Imperial system in their exam papers, but were just about on the point of changing. I well remember students at that time using measurements such as "1 foot 2 and a half centimetres"

My original gripe, however, is that, on the canals, we are urged to have a maximum speed of 4mph, or walking pace. I can visualise 4 mph. My GPS shows my speed in mph. My car speedometer shows my speed in mph. Road signs are in mph. Nowhere in this country would we see speed signs in kph-except on the inland waterways. I could accept it if we used knots, as this is a nautical unit. But, for Gods sake, why can't we use mph which everyone can relate to?

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, monkeyhanger said:

As a slight aside, but prompted by the above post, when I started teaching in the Northeast in 1969, the students used and were used to the metric system of measurement. At that time I still thought and measured in Imperial units, so I had to adjust my actions pretty quickly. When I moved to a teaching post in London 2 years later, the students there were still using Imperial measurements. Even the O-level and CSE exams boards still used the Imperial system in their exam papers, but were just about on the point of changing. I well remember students at that time using measurements such as "1 foot 2 and a half centimetres"

My original gripe, however, is that, on the canals, we are urged to have a maximum speed of 4mph, or walking pace. I can visualise 4 mph. My GPS shows my speed in mph. My car speedometer shows my speed in mph. Road signs are in mph. Nowhere in this country would we see speed signs in kph-except on the inland waterways. I could accept it if we used knots, as this is a nautical unit. But, for Gods sake, why can't we use mph which everyone can relate to?

I was also being educated in the north and then teaching in the north.  Fascinating the north should be so progressive.

I suspect you will see more and more use of metric measures as it really is time the country got into the 21st Century and stopped faffing about with one and a half systems of measurement. One and a half as we are basically metricated apart from the emotional attachment to pints of beer and the use of miles because too many "old farts" won't make the change.

[David Schweizer]

2 hours ago, mross said:

Interestingly, The (international) inch has been exactly 25.4 mm since July 1959.  Before that the British inch and US inch were different.  The maina davantage was that imperial and metric lathes could be used for cutting both styles of threads.  The change wheels on the end of the lathe can be fitted with gears having 127 teeth and 50 teeth.  This gives the exact ratio of 25.4.

Prior to 1959 the ratio of imperial inch to millimetres was different in the US and UK.  In the UK it was about 25.2995mm (from memory).

Are you sure about that?  I have rules in my workshop which predate 1959 and they measure exactly the same as modern rules. It uis my understanding that the British Standards Institutuion (BSI) adopted an inch of exactly 25.4 mm in 1930, and that the Americans adopted the same ratio in 1933.

[nb Innisfree]

Evening landlord, 586 millilitres of bitter/mild/lager please... 

[Dalslandia]

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tum

 

we had a Swedish tum (inch) 24.742 mm

 

Poland and germany had there own too

[mrsmelly]

6 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Evening landlord, 586 millilitres of bitter/mild/lager please... 

Just over 568 actualy 

[Jerra]

11 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

Evening landlord, 586 millilitres of bitter/mild/lager please... 

Why on earth would anybody want to ask for such a silly measure surely it would be a half Litre or even a Litre (for those who found the walk to the bar so often too strenuous).

Colloquially people would probably just start asking for "a half".

[rusty69]

Just now, Jerra said:

Why on earth would anybody want to ask for such a silly measure surely it would be a half Litre or even a Litre (for those who found the walk to the bar so often too strenuous).

Colloquially people would probably just start asking for "a half".

Ermm finks it was a joke. 

[Jerra]

12 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Ermm finks it was a joke. 

Very probably but it is indicative of the way some people desperately hang on to an outdated and clumsy system.

[mayalld]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ok then, I challenge you to work out the 20% VAT to charge on, say, a sale of £17 13s 4d in your head using mental arithmetic. 

Such calcs are easy with metric money.  

OK, and breaking it down into steps that can be easily done in the head

First convert to Shillings;

£17 x 20 = 340s

4d = 0.25s

so, our starting amount is 353.25s

10% of that is 35.325

20% is 70.650

extract the pounds (3) leaves 10.65s

so we have £3 10s with 0.65s to account for

.65 x 10 = 6.5

.65 x 2 = 1.3

so 0.65s = 7.8d

You didn't specify what the smallest unit of account is, but as VAT always rounds up, it matters not whether halfpennies and Farthings are still in play, this is 8d

£3 10s 8d

 

[Robbo]

9 hours ago, monkeyhanger said:

Over the last couple of days I have travelled the River Trent, Fossdyke and River Witham. I was surprised to see that the distance markers ( I would have preferred to say mileposts) show distances in kilometers, and outside Burton Waters Marina there is a sign saying "speed limit 6kph".  Which clown came up with this idea, I wonder? As far as I am aware, we still use miles in this country, and I wonder if anyone has the ability to judge their maximum speed as 3.72823mph.

Did it actually say kph?  As that isnt a recognised speed measurement.

[MtB]

Just now, mayalld said:

OK, and breaking it down into steps that can be easily done in the head

First convert to Shillings;

£17 x 20 = 340s

4d = 0.25s

so, our starting amount is 353.25s

10% of that is 35.325

20% is 70.650

extract the pounds (3) leaves 10.65s

so we have £3 10s with 0.65s to account for

.65 x 10 = 6.5

.65 x 2 = 1.3

so 0.65s = 7.8d

You didn't specify what the smallest unit of account is, but as VAT always rounds up, it matters not whether halfpennies and Farthings are still in play, this is 8d

£3 10s 8d

 

 

That's the approach I'd have taken, even using a calculator.

I doubt mrsmelly could have done it even with a calculator! 

(I couldn't have.)

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

That's the approach I'd have taken, even using a calculator.

I doubt mrsmelly could have done it even with a calculator! 

(I couldn't have.)

You would be right.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

You would be right.

 

I'd be disappointed if you said you couldn't work out 20% VAT on £17.67 though.

[mayalld]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

That's the approach I'd have taken, even using a calculator.

I doubt mrsmelly could have done it even with a calculator! 

(I couldn't have.)

As a counterpoint to the Decimal is best example;

If I sell something for £100 including VAT @20% what is the Nett and VAT

• In £sd
• In decimal

Sometimes decimal isn't best!

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'd be disappointed if you said you couldn't work out 20% VAT on £17.67 though.