---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:27:00 -0600 From: Teresa Hon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Gene Mechtly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Dennis Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Policy on SI (fwd) We did receive your faxed copy and, in fact, your e-mail also. Our service provider was reconfiguring some files which resulted in some of the messages being rejected. Thanks for checking to be certain we received your comments and for taking the time to make them in the first place. Teresa Hon APWA Professional Development Coordinator -----Original Message----- From: Gene Mechtly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:25 AM To: Teresa Hon Subject: Policy on SI (fwd) Dear Ms. Hon: Mr. Ross' Internet server rejected my e-mail below on Friday. Was the APWA server down? Did you receive a copy by FAX? Sincerely, E. A. Mechtly. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:16:41 -0600 (CST) From: Gene Mechtly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Dennis H. Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Policy on SI Dear Mr. Ross: The three policy alternatives on SI, now under consideration by the Engineering & Technology Committee of the American Public Works Association, have been brought to my attention. My first professional contribution in support of SI was authorship of "The International System of Units, Physical Constants and Conversion Factors, published in 1964 by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as Special Publication 7012. SP-7012 was published to improve technical communications within NASA and with NASA contractors by reducing the incoherent babble of mixed units of measurement. Unfortunately, to this day, not all of NASA's aerospace contractors have complied with NASA specifications of SI units. One costly result was the recent loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter. Recommendations by the NASA Inspector General (posted at www.hq.nasa.gov) advocate SI to correct such miscommunications of technical data. More down to earth, and as noted in the APWA Discussion Paper of August 21, many large contracts for *highway* construction now require specifications in SI. An important addition to the APWA list of transitions to SI is the fact that almost all contracts for federal *building* construction now also require SI. Clearly, Policy Alternative #1, *Advocate Metrication* is the best course of action for the APWA. Incidentally, the most recent documentation on SI is published in the Federal Register of 1998 (July 28), "Metric System of Measurement: Interpretation of the International System of Units for the United States; Notice", pp. 40333-40340. Both gpo.gov and nist.gov post this Notice. Sincerely, Eugene A. Mechtly, College of Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
