There is a rule, however, for sizes to be stepped in the Renard series of preferred numbers. Applies to m, Pa, W, m3, you name it. Nothing particular to metric. Just an ISO (metric) standard.. Stan Jakuba
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Carleton MacDonald <carlet...@comcast.net> wrote: > An easy way to get around that is how wallboard in some countries is sized: > 2400 x 1200 mm. > > Can divide by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12. > > There is no rule that just because you are metric your sizes have to be > even > meters. > > Carleton > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf > Of Martin Vlietstra > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 18:25 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:54668] Re: Iowa State editorial > > One regular complaint of the anti-metric lobby is that 10 is not divisible > by 3 or 4. This is quite true - a fact that was not lost on the committee > that was set up by the French Government in 1790 to investigate weights and > measures and in particular the fact that the "pied" (foot) and the "livre" > (pound) had different values depending on where the user was and what > commodity was being bought or sold. The five members of the committee were > the five most able scientists of the day and included Laplace and Lagrange > (whose names are known to every undergraduate maths, physics or engineering > student today). Their conclusions were: > > 1. Counting and subdivisions of units of measure should have the same > radix - the favoured values being 10 or 12. > > 2. From a philosophical point of view, radix 12 was better than radix > 10. > > 3. The problems of replacing a decimal counting system with a > duodecimal counting system was however doomed to failure. Thus, units of > measure should use the same radix as was used for counting, even if this > meant sacrificing divisibility by 3 and 4. > > With all due respect to the Dozenal Society of America and the Dozenal > Society of Great Britain, I do not see any prospect of the nations of the > world changing to a base-12 system of counting - the use of decimal > counting > is too ingrained in our society to make such a change feasible. In the > early days of the metric system, time was decimalised - the French > Revolutionary Calendar had 10 days in a "week", 10 "hours" in a day and > 100 > "minutes" in an hour. This has long since been abandoned > > In short, there was a very strong commercial pressure for the French to > sort > out their weights and measures, but the system of measuring time worked, so > there was no commercial pressure to change it. That is why the second is > the base unit of time rather than the "metric second" (0.864 seconds). > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf > Of Patrick Moore > Sent: 25 March 2015 20:01 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:54667] Re: Iowa State editorial > > The long link did not work even with Facebook for me, but the following did > work, without Facebook: > > http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_445f120c-d0aa-11e4-86a1-9bb97d > e9119e.html?mode=jqm > > The author (Clay Rogers) clearly has emotional issues and is unlikely to > change his mind. The editors are listed here: > http://www.iowastatedaily.com/home/contact_us > > From: Mark Henschel <mwhensch...@gmail.com<mailto:mwhensch...@gmail.com>> > Reply-To: "mwhensch...@gmail.com<mailto:mwhensch...@gmail.com>" > <mwhensch...@gmail.com<mailto:mwhensch...@gmail.com>> > Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:01 PM > To: "U.S. Metric Association" > <usma@colostate.edu<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> > Subject: [USMA:54666] Iowa State editorial > > For those of you who are not on facebook, there was an article posted > recently from the Iowa State University student newspaper that was very > antimetric. > Paul Trusten and I both responded. > Here is my response: > > Sadly, the author of this article really has no convincing arguments as to > why he prefers the customary system over the SI metric system. I get the > feeling he really does not have much evidence and is looking around to find > some argument that sounds plausible to support his position. The fact is > that the Metric System is easy. It was designed on purpose to be simple. > Everything, from designing and building houses and airplanes to mixing > chemicals or food is much easier using metric units. Anyone who has > actually > done anything or created anything using both systems can tell quite quickly > how much easier it is to do anything that involves any amount of > calculating > using a decimal system rather than a system based on, let's see, maybe 12, > maybe 3, maybe 16, or maybe even 5,280. > There is a reason the entire world uses the Metric System, and why more and > more Americans are seeing the advantages of using the international system > of measurements, now called SI. It is easy. SI is simple to use, and > facilitates communication. As those much smarter than myself have already > pointed out, there is no "if" in metrication. Metrication is only a matter > of "when", not "if". > > > Link to the article in question in case anybody else wants to respond: > > ( > http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_445f120c-d0aa-11e4-86a1-9bb97 > de9119e.html?mode=jqm< > http://l.facebook.com/l/KAQHkp6Vp/www.iowastatedaily.c > om/opinion/article_445f120c-d0aa-11e4-86a1-9bb97de9119e.html?mode=jqm>) > > >
