No metric system

Many countries had their own units of measurement, which often followed a similar logic but were not equal to the English units of measurement - for example, a Portuguese vara was over 20 cm longer than the Castillian vara, which were both roughly equivalent to the English yard - For a country to say that they'll be converting their units to some other nation's standard would be easily seen as a statement of submission.

I think that any country which decided to adopt the common measurement system used by about ⅓ of the world's population, including the two leading manufacturing nations, would see that as pragmatism rather than submission.

Was it 'a statement of submission' when the Spanish and Portuguese converted their units to the French standard?
 
You decide if you don't like SI because the original definitions were not accurate enough or because this flaw was corrected 33 times


But we use decimal numbers, not 12-3-1760-mal

The original flaws  haven't been corrected by any of the 33 revisions.

The correct system is actually 12-3-11-10-2-8 for distances from inch to mile. Weights are simpler at 14-8-20
 
Probably just a kind of boring answer here. Spain and Portugal and Sweden and Russia and Turkey and China and most of the other countries in the world just, maintain their traditional systems of measurement, same way as how the Americans and British did for so long in the face of the metric system.
I think that any country which decided to adopt the common measurement system used by about ⅓ of the world's population, including the two leading manufacturing nations, would see that as pragmatism rather than submission.
Depends on the country really. Hell, America maintains a whole different system in the face of the entire world out of nothing but lazyness and spite. Some countries may modify their systems to conform to a larger nations standard, like say, Spain could mold theirs to fit better with France, or maybe Sweden with Prussia, but others, i struggle to imagine doing that. I doubt that say, France or Russia would be willing to mold *their* systems to fit an English standard.
 
The original flaws  haven't been corrected by any of the 33 revisions
What are the flaws? In practical terms, the meter standard rod (which was theoretically associated with the meridian) is no worse than the rod associated with the length of King Edward's foot.

The correct system is actually 12-3-11-10-2-8 for distances from inch to mile. Weights are simpler at 14-8-20
Metric with 10-10-10-10-10 for distances from cm to km is better

Russia would be willing to mold *their* systems to fit an English standard.
IOTL Russian inch was equal to English
 
Depends on the country really. Hell, America maintains a whole different system in the face of the entire world out of nothing but lazyness and spite.

As has been mentioned many times in this thread, the US is not alone 'in the face of the entire world' and in 1963 the Commonwealth countries also used the ISU. Only the advent of republican administrations in Australia saw that nation adopt the metric system. Before the UK joined the EEC and began partial metrication, the metric system was not the dominant one globally.
 
You forget about industry standards and blueprints. Without the international standards of units, international engineering will turn into a metric clusterf*ck.
Which is fixed by doing one of two things. Either every makes a habit of specifying which on they are using e.g. 23 Fr ft and you convert it to whatever unit your doing, one additional step but a very simple math equation.
Generally industries are going only be working with material from only one or two different countries so while someone in a German company will have to know the conversion for English feet but they couldn't care less what the conversion for Spanish feet. Not much different than translating Kanji to the Latin alphabet, which happens all the time in the industry fields.
This isn't even going to be a common problem until we get to post-ATL WW2 though when globalization takes hold (if it does in OTL).

Or and my personal opinion, there would probably be an eventual international standard, probably borrowing whatever the sciences do. Whether it is picking a specific countries measurements to be standard or not.

And even if industries uses a standard that does not mean the common people do. Similar to how the imperial system is still used situationally in Britain.

To circle back, to the OP question, my thinking is that there would still be some standardization, it would just happen later and may or may not be a crossed the board.
 
What are the flaws? In practical terms, the meter standard rod (which was theoretically associated with the meridian) is no worse than the rod associated with the length of King Edward's foot.


Metric with 10-10-10-10-10 for distances from cm to km is better

The standard of measurement is actually the yard.

In your opinion, but not in that of many others.
 
Or and my personal opinion, there would probably be an eventual international standard, probably borrowing whatever the sciences do. Whether it is picking a specific countries measurements to be standard or not.

And even if industries uses a standard that does not mean the common people do. Similar to how the imperial system is still used situationally in Britain.

To circle back, to the OP question, my thinking is that there would still be some standardization, it would just happen later and may or may not be a crossed the board.

No metric system means that the minute differences between the Imperial, Commonwealth, and US Customary standards might not be noticed, but at ⅙" per mile it isn't going to cause too many problems until, maybe, the late 1960s with aviation, spaceflight and computing.

If there's no metric system (OP) to compete, then the standards used by ⅓ of the world's population (including the two largest manufacturing nations) are adopted globally in 1918/1919.
 
No metric system means that the minute differences between the Imperial, Commonwealth, and US Customary standards might not be noticed, but at ⅙" per mile it isn't going to cause too many problems until, maybe, the late 1960s with aviation, spaceflight and computing.

If there's no metric system (OP) to compete, then the standards used by ⅓ of the world's population (including the two largest manufacturing nations) are adopted globally in 1918/1919.
For the most part I agree with you, but I would say slightly earlier. Because of transportation of large volumes of oil/gasoline and such.

But we are still only talking the 40s-ish
 
As has been mentioned many times in this thread, the US is not alone 'in the face of the entire world' and in 1963
Exactly the United States defined its measures as a derivative of the meter back in 1893

In your opinion [about Metric with 10-10-10-10-10 for distances from cm to km is better than Imperial], but not in that of many others.
It is not opinion. It is the reality of the decimal positional number system used by modern humanity.

This isn't even going to be a common problem until we get to post-ATL WW2 though when globalization takes hold (if it does in OTL).

Or and my personal opinion, there would probably be an eventual international standard, probably borrowing whatever the sciences do. Whether it is picking a specific countries measurements to be standard or not.
It was the problem in 1870s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_Convention

ITTL without the Metric system just in the middle of the 19th century will come to the need for international standardization of measurements and then the TTL "meter" will appear after disputes over which of the dozens of feet should be considered standard. Most likely, the standard will be based as a derivative of the nautical mile, which, let me remind you, appeared in the 16th century.
 
Exactly the United States defined its measures as a derivative of the meter back in 1893


It is not opinion. It is the reality of the decimal positional number system used by modern humanity.
Not everyone used based 10 in modern humanity.
It was the problem in 1870s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_Convention

ITTL without the Metric system just in the middle of the 19th century will come to the need for international standardization of measurements and then the TTL "meter" will appear after disputes over which of the dozens of feet should be considered standard.
A problem for governments (and my aforementioned others), not most of the common persons. Just because governments, industry, and science have some sort of standard for international stuff does not mean the rest of us have to bother with it.
And if a company buys foreign oil in the standard system, it is not difficult for them to plug it into a math equation before selling it on the domestic market. They do stuff like this all the time in OTL.
Most likely, the standard will be based as a derivative of the nautical mile, which, let me remind you, appeared in the 16th century.
I'll agree with you that the standard may start from nautical units, though they need not reinvent the whole system if they don't want to. Simply standardizing the sizes and inter-unit conversions would be enough. It's not like the major powers didn't all have related customary units.
 
We already had freedom units. Maybe everyone just rolls with those, especially once English becomes the language of international business.
This is one of my foughts too. There have been some early instances of coordination as well for example Russia matching up its measures to British ones.
However the traditional French system could be a big contestant as well given the French dominance during the Napoleonic era and the fact that most European measures where often defefined in reference to the French ligne, prior to metrication.

Would like to see a reformed English system. 10 inches in a foot. 5k feet in a mile. 100 ounces in a gallon and so on. I use the metric system and it’s fine, save for kilos being both a weight and a distance. Also the units all sound very sterile.
Lastly I like English temp. Just wish water froze at 30 and boiled at 200 or something. I like how saying it’ll be in the 70s today, is an easy way to say the temp without having to say a lot. It’s quick and has a good amount of accuracy
Many German states did do something like this before switching to metric and you also had units like links and chains used for survy purposes, that could potentially replace linear measurs. However given that the imperial system was deviced after the metric one and kept the non base 10 relationship, I don't think a fully decimal system would arise.

Temperature is compleatly distached from metric units, so let's not talk about that.

Fahrenheit wanted 100 to be normal human body temperature. He missed slightly and ended up with it being the threshold for a fever. But that would preclude 200 bring the boiling point of water at sea level.

Fahrenheit is actually better because the boiling point of water decreases with elevation.
I am pretty sure that he wanted body temperature at 96 degrees. This gives you 64 degrees between the freezing point of water and body tempurature. Divide that by to annd you have 3 equally sized intervalls between his low temperature mixture, the freezing point of water and body temperature. Each of the three sections now contains exactly 32=2*2*2*2*2 degrees, so you can mark the individual degrees just by 5 successive steps of adding half lengh markings (which is much easier to do by hand them any other fraction). But year Fahrenheit vs Celsius has little to do with metric units.
There are more reasons to prefer ISU, but this post is already long enough.
This post shouldn't be about which system is better, but there are some things, I'd like to point out without giving any judgement.

The metric system is now on its 33rd revision. Imperial measures were revised just twice in almost 1,000 years.
See this list for UK weights and measurement acts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weights_and_Measures_Acts_(UK)
Not all of them changed the units but many of them do. In fact I am aware of 3 different definitions of the imperial gallon in the last 100 years alone.
The SI metre is the wrong length, it was defined to be 1/10,000,000 of the distance from pole to equator via Paris. Actual distance: 10,001,966m
The SI gramme is the wrong mass, it was defined as the mass of 1cm cubed of water at standard temperature and pressure. Actual mass: 1·000028g
The SI second is the wrong interval and the slowing rotation of Earth will only exacerbate that in future. One mean solar day is  NOT 86,400 SI seconds.
One of the main objective of the metric system was to create a system that was somehow convincing enough to be considered unbiased in a way that nations where willing to embrace it and where multiple partys could agree on a common standard for. In this task the metric system was extremly successfull.

The "logical" relationship between the units was a "nice" to have and was originally considered necessary to achive that objective but was abandomed (at least for the metre) relativly quickly, as the definition procedure was found to be flawed (you could come up with different equally valid definitions of fitting the earth's crust to an ellipsoid that give different values for this distance).

The standard temperature and pressure are equally abitray and the solar day lengh is not constant over longer timescales.

The solution to this problem was to require all of these relations only approximatly, go back to physical standards and device a mechanism to assert internation agreement and ultimatly come up with a "build you own standard" manual.
Many people mistakenly think that the UK is fully metricated, but there is specific legislation in place which enshrines certain ISU standards in law.
Year, many people use this weird US, Liberia and Myanmar list of countries that did not adapt the metric system, which is so wrong in every single aspect. In fact a lot of countries do allow or even mandate units outside of the SI or the supplementary units to bigger or lesser degree, while all countries (including these 3) officially adoped the metric system.

Certain liquids (beer and milk are those most often quoted) can only be dispensed loose in pints or fluid ounces. They may (but not  must) be sold prepackaged in other units.
Nitpicking here: I am pretty use that it is only the pint and not fluid ounces and this is also only true in very specific setups.
 
Last edited:
No metric system means that the minute differences between the Imperial, Commonwealth, and US Customary standards might not be noticed, but at ⅙" per mile it isn't going to cause too many problems until, maybe, the late 1960s with aviation, spaceflight and computing.

If there's no metric system (OP) to compete, then the standards used by ⅓ of the world's population (including the two largest manufacturing nations) are adopted globally in 1918/1919.
This differenc would likely be noticed still. Also the US would not have had decided to abandom it's reliance on British standards in favor to relying on metric ones 70 year prior, as this option was not available. The difference was allready very relevant in geodesic applications, but this specialised areas might just have lived with the fact that they would have to convert from British feet to US feet.
The consens was mostly driven by the fear of loosing out to metric in the scientific field in OTL, but may still come for convenience in TTL as well.
 
Generally industries are going only be working with material from only one or two different countries so while someone in a German company will have to know the conversion for English feet but they couldn't care less what the conversion for Spanish feet.
It wasn't that simple. To take the steel industry around the turn of the 20th century as an example: the most productive iron ore deposits were found around Lake Superior in the USA, Bell Island in Canada, Sweden, Cuba, and "Lorraine" (in a basin that actually stretched out over Belgium, Luxembourg, France, and Germany). These were so dominant that it was pretty much unavoidable for any country to not use at least 2 of those for steel production alongside their local deposits + other smaller sources. Germany for example imported millions of tons from Sweden, France, Spain, and Luxembourg. On top of that the steel industry needed coal, which was often not sourced from the same set of countries as the ores. And then there's the market for various trace elements that were added to improve the steel too which I'm not even going to get into.​
 

Basils

Banned
But the point is Kilo just means 1000, just as Mega is 1000000. It is unitless, people are dropping the unit hence why militaries just use click for distance to stop confusion.
I think that it has to have units, and uses them in different measurements is somewhat a flaw and confusing. They could have used a Greek measurement for weight. Or something else. Imho I find metric to be very sterile
 
It wasn't that simple. To take the steel industry around the turn of the 20th century as an example: the most productive iron ore deposits were found around Lake Superior in the USA, Bell Island in Canada, Sweden, Cuba, and "Lorraine" (in a basin that actually stretched out over Belgium, Luxembourg, France, and Germany). These were so dominant that it was pretty much unavoidable for any country to not use at least 2 of those for steel production alongside their local deposits + other smaller sources. Germany for example imported millions of tons from Sweden, France, Spain, and Luxembourg. On top of that the steel industry needed coal, which was often not sourced from the same set of countries as the ores. And then there's the market for various trace elements that were added to improve the steel too which I'm not even going to get into.​
I admit, I oversimplified a bit.

It still does not mandate the requirement for a universal standard though, as it is handleably without one it's just not as efficient. And it is still entirely possible for the steel industry (and others) to have a standard for international trade but there not have an everyday global measurement set.




Actual here's an idea that might make an interesting footnote for a timeline or something. Each related industry using it's own standards for international trade. Such as the steel/coal using British, while the oil uses French, etc.
 
I think that it has to have units, and uses them in different measurements is somewhat a flaw and confusing. They could have used a Greek measurement for weight. Or something else. Imho I find metric to be very sterile
What? Kilo is just one of the (many) size prefixes used on all SI units, not an SI unit in itself. Kilojoule (on food nutrimental labels ) and kilowatt ( rating of electrical equipment ), are as commonly used as kilogram and kilometre.
 

Basils

Banned
What? Kilo is just one of the (many) size prefixes used on all SI units, not an SI unit in itself. Kilojoule (on food nutrimental labels ) and kilowatt ( rating of electrical equipment ), are as commonly used as kilogram and kilometre.
I explained this already. Please don’t quote me without reading my other responses
 
Top