I sent this to bill via the address han posted.  I BCC'd it to the USMA list
server, but since I sent it from my CHIMPSARECUTE@HOTMAIL .COM  it did not
post here.

I am not trying to convert him, just rub it in that metric is growing and
here to stay.

John




2001-05-05

Can you PROVE any of your statements (in posting copied at end of this
e-mail) with facts?  Show me links to websites or documentation that
BACKS-UP what you say.  I see very slow progress towards metric where I
live, and nothing yet that has "reverted".

In the trade journals that I receive at work, they are all mixed when it
comes to units.  There is no pattern.  But, I have seen a significant
increase in metric usage over the last 10 or so years.  I can even recognise
hidden metric now.  That is where something is described as 1.97 inches when
50 mm is meant.

I do see an increase in the unit "yards" used in the news media.  That is
because they are taking the unit metre and changing the name, without
changing the value.  Thus 500 m is reported as 500 yards instead of 547
yards.  Also, square metres are reported as square yards.  Again, 500 m^2 is
reported as 500 square yards, instead of 598 square yards.  I really don't
care, as long as the metres are correct to the reality and the yards are
corrupted.

As for INTEL, a visit to their website reveals a strong use of metric.  They
are not going to switch media reports to metric if they don't use metric
internally.

I just visited the main Intel web site (http://intel.com) and did an
all-site search on wafer fab. The first Intel article/press release to show
up was typical of all of them. Here's the title line and first paragraph:

Intel Hits Key Milestone -- Yields First Silicon From Industry's Most
Advanced 0.13 Micron, 300 MM Wafer Fab

HILLSBORO, Ore. - March 28, 2001 - Intel Corporation has completed
production of its first silicon chips from its 0.13 micron technology, 300
millimeter (mm) wafer development fab located here. Named D1C, this factory
is the first in the industry to reduce fully functional computer chips built
using advanced 0.13 micron process technology on the new, larger 300 mm
wafers.

Further down is the following statement:

The larger wafers provide more than twice the surface area of 200 mm wafers
(about eight inches in diameter) commonly used in the semiconductor
manufacturing plants today.

This statement clearly supports the fact that metric sizes are the norm and
inches are just an after thought. If they were designed to be eight inches
in diameter, Intel would of course have said "8 inch wafers" and might or
might not have added, parenthetically, "about 200 mm in diameter."

The real TRUTH  is the design of wafers went to metric with the 100 mm
version. Like diskettes, they had previously been hard-imperial.  I think
2.5" was the last in this series and so the new sizes still got referred to
in old terms. This extended for many years and included the 200 mm
(so-called 8") wafer. Though the 300 mm wafer was often referred to
(particularly in the press) as 12", it seemed about this time that the
metric descriptions entered common currency.

The spacing of pins on chips is a JEDEC standard.  The 2.54 mm spacing is
one of the firsts.  Since then the spacing has shrunk to 1.27 mm and
smaller.  In the early '90s, JEDEC changed the rules for what the chip
spacing must be.  Now, all spacing must be in millimetres, to a maximum of
two decimal places, in which the second decimal place can be only a zero or
a five.  In other words, spacing MUST BE in increments of 50 �m.

When 1.27 mm was halved to 0.0635 mm, this did not follow the JEDEC rules,
so the size became 0.65 mm.  This was in the early 90's.  Now, chips are
being made with 0.5 mm spacing.

This rule only reflects new designs.  Legacy designs still being produced
will still carry the inch stigma, but when they become obsolete then metric
only will become the norm.  It's all a matter of time.

The Floppy Disk:

The Floppy Disk is commonly called 3.5 inch.  But, none of its dimensions
reflects this size.  3.5 inches is about 89 mm.  The actual dimensions are
per ISO/IEC 9529-1 spec.  And that spec states the dimension as 94 (L) x 90
(W) and 3.3 (H)  mm.  The media inside is 86 mm.  The mass of the disks are
24 g.  None of these dimensions equals 3.5 inches.  If you want to refer
this to inches can you can take the 90 mm and convert it to 3.5433071
inches.  Even CD-ROM's are metric.  Their diameter is 120 mm.  some smaller
ones are 80 mm.  As far as I'm concerned, that is pure metric. Reversion to
or use of non-metric is namely an anti-metric myth, representing wishful
thinking on the part of the BWMA and others.

Eventually the floppy will die out and be replaced by something equivalent
to the LS-120 and the 3.5 inch name will go with it.


NASA uses both USCU and metric.  Everything NEW is metric, everything legacy
is not.  The Space Station is both.  The international portions are metric,
the US portions are not.  The US portion was designed before the command to
go metric. Anything designed before the mid-90's is USCU anything after is
metric.  This is per the rules.  It is this carelessness to following the
rules that caused the 125 M$ loss of the Mars Climate Orbitor.

Why do you advocate Coca-cola to go from litres to quarts?  That would be
DOWNSIZING?  You BWMA friends in an attempt to gain lost ground are picking
at straws.  And one of them is the claim of downsizing?  Sounds like a bunch
of hypocrisy to me.  We see a lot of downsizing on American food products
where metric is not involved.  But, that is ok, nothing is said.  But, if it
was metric, there would be a lot of whining.

As for metric losing ground everyday, I ask where?

This morning I went shopping and noticed a good number of metric products.
I see hair products, mouth-washes, hand lotions, soft drinks, some
detergents and more all using rational metric sizing.  I am not speaking of
the fact that every label has metric in addition to USCU.  I'm referring to
the products that have been going metric in the past few years.  We even now
have a 3-litre milk bottle in our area.  Nothing I've seen that has gone
metric has reverted.  So, you are either lying or exaggerating something
minor.

I'm sure there is some reversions here and there.  But, for every one step
back there are 2 steps forward.  Slow but sure progress.

But, there is something to be said about globalisation.  America is being
flooded with metric products from everywhere.  We are buying 35 G$ monthly
more then we are selling.  When I visit customer facilities, I see machines
and systems from Japan, Taiwan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and others.
Their diagrams are all metric, and their fasteners too.  What America sells
to the world is mostly service.  Metric is not only here to stay but is
increasing and to the point where people notice.  If it wasn't, people like
you wouldn't be complaining.



Difference in distance measurements
April 28 2001 at 11:45 PM Bill Roland

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

One thing I've noticed, mainly since I began coming to this site, is that
you
British seem to measure and mark everything in yards, for example, 100 yards
to
the restroom. In America, we rarely use yards for anything. Feet is the
measurement of choice, for example, Road Construction 1500FT. Just a little
oddity I picked out to mention today. As a metrication report, metrication
seems to lose ground here everyday. I've noticed that more products are
coming
marked in Imperial only. A couple of Imperial only people: Boeing
Corporation,
the Unites States Military (even though some gun sizes are measured in
metric,
they have imperial equivalents commonly used), NASA (they claim to be
metric,
but everything is designed and built in imperial, and flight plans are also
being converted back to imperial). Also of interest, Intel Corporation, who
I'm
sure you've all heard of, is more imperial than is commonly known. The press
loves to mention .18 micron and 300mm wafers, but Intel itself uses "mils,"
or
1,000 of an inch, far more commonly than any metric measurements. Liters are
also nowhere to be found in the gasoline industry, all fuel is in gallons. I
have suggested to Coca-Cola that they convert the liter bottle to quarts,
but
haven't heard back. I think it would be in Coke's best interest to do
something
different than Pepsi, it would certainly get them more publicity. Anyway,
that's all I've got for now. If you ever have any questions for an American,
send me an e-mail. Thanks.

Bill Roland


  Respond to this message

Author Reply
BWMA

 Soft drinks downsizing May 2 2001, 5:56 PM

Bill,
Feet in Britain are used almost universally to describe height - for
instance,
a 15ft bridge. It is very unusual to use feet to describe distance. For
example, a road sign may say: "15 ft bridge, 200 yds".
I've noticed that the US uses a wider variety of fractions to describe parts
of
a mile, for instance, six-tenths of a mile. In Britain, it is usually only
quarter-miles and half-miles.

With reference to Coca Cola and Pepsi, you might want to look at the Great
Metric Rip-Off page. There is a photograph of a US 12 floz Pepsi can
alongside
a metric 330ml can. Needless to say, the metric can is smaller. American
consumers need to be made aware that metric conversion will lead to smaller
quantities being sold for the same price as it has in Britain, so be on your
guard against metric downsizing by Pepsi and Cola.





John

Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrt�mlich glaubt
frei zu sein.

There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
are free!

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)






Reply via email to