Gladly, I consider myself lucky to be of the generation that went from being able to work out answers like £ 3 3/6¼ d , filed down to accuracies measured in
thous, calculated
ergs and dynes (remember the
CGS system?) on a slide-rule (and all the rest), to where we are now, with an international (global) outlook, and happily working away digitally in kilograms, litres, seconds (and all that) and
html.
Your point is a good one, though, Paul, and it was the one touched on earlier by Bill. When doing
practical work (remember that, anyone?), the SI system is not always ideal. The
Imperial system (good word, that) contains elements that are far more of the
human scale. Bits of timber (
etc.) are is still handily referred to as "4 by 2" (meaning inches, of course), and so many
feet in length. How many times have you heard people talking about "centi’s" (for centimetres, supposedly, not centipedes), or "kilo’s" (kilo what? kilograms, or, er, kilo
watts)? Know what I mean? I have even heard people referring to centimetres as the
metric inch. Spare me, please!
I recently had the good fortune (?) to work with some younger people. No doubt they all looked upon me as some sort of ancient dinosaur. Especially when I gave my standard lecture about the superiority of the
BA system (over the metric) when it comes to small nuts and bolts. The real problem there, however, was not the lack of historical knowledge on their part, nor even their lack of basic engineering knowledge (about thread forms, pitch
etc.), but the apparent lack of interest!