As you read this the National Bureau of Standards is in the final stages of a three-year study of the benefits and problems involved in moving the world's largest, most complicated economy toward a simpler and more sensible system of measuring. Although the Metric Study report won't reach Congress until August, here, pieced together from a variety of sources, si the probable gist of that report: the benefits of a planned conversion to the metric system are real and substantial, especially when viewed against what it could cost the US not to go metric; an overwhelming majority of American industry and customers is ready, willing, and even eager to start going metric immediately; the expense of going metric will not be as high as predicted. The British changeover proves that costs can be kept to a minimum through careful planning; and the conversion should be done over a period of seven to 10 years. What about the cost of metrication? Some anti-metric diehards claim that the time and expense involved in teaching the metric system to everyone in the United States is prohibitive. But advocates reply that everything the average customer needs to know can be learned in an hour or so. As for industrial retooling, the British experience strongly indicates that the cost factor has been greatly exaggerated. For most companies careful planning and gradual phasing out of nonmetric equipment as it becomes obsolete will help keep conversion costs at a reasonable minimum. All in all, going metric will probably be considerably easier than it appeared before the metric study began, and the costs, after all, are one-time costs which will pay for themselves many times over in the future decades.