John:
You have addressed all your remarks to the metric4us webmaster in the second
person. However, they are not his opinions, as should be completely clear
from his disclaimer at the top of that page, namely:
"Let's have a look what supporters of the
English Imperial system have to say and
why it's all nonsense:"
So, while it's fine to take him to task for some descriptive inaccuracies,
it's definitely inappropriate to treat him as if all the opinions on that
page were his. Clearly, they are not.
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of kilopascal
> Sent: June 16, 2001 09:27
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Cc: USMA
> Subject: [USMA:13805] Why not English? - Some corrections
>
>
> 2001-06-16
>
> I was directed to your site by fellow members of the USMA listserver. I
> read your "Why not English" section and would like to make some
> corrections
> know to you. Others also may follow suit.
>
>
> You say: But the English system represents our culture and
> traditions, it's
> our heritage - we can't give it up!
>
> First of all - the English system is not American - it's English! So on
> which cultural grounds are you claiming something English as American
> heritage while you reject something French as alien?
>
> Correction: The English do not use the "English System". The British
> actually used a version called imperial. English System is the name given
> by Americans to their version, for whatever reason. Now, despite some
> resistance from luddites, Britain is more metric then imperial.
>
>
> You say: After all not all other countries switched to metric!
>
> Right, two more third world countries didn't either: Liberia and
> Burma. But
> do you seriously believe that those are the right buddies for the U.S. in
> its lonely battle against the whole world for its outdated system of
> measurement?
>
>
> Correction: Burma authorised the use of the metric system in
> 1920 (just as
> the USA did in 1866). Travellers to Burma and Liberia have the impression
> that they are metric, or changing to metric. I prefer to say "the rest of
> the world is metric". If anyone objects, press them to prove their
> statement.
>
>
> You say: In metricated countries, non-SI metric units live on,
> because they
> are more useful, like the centimetre, or the French quintal.
>
> Addition: Non-SI unit names that have survived in metric countries have
> been redefined to exact metric values. A pound is 500 g, a pint
> is 500 mL,
> a horse power is 735 W, etc. None of these units equals the same
> unit used
> in the US.
>
> You say: Boeings and Space Shuttles can be made using English units.
>
> Better say: They can be made despite using English units! And
> they could be
> made even easier using metric units. In fact you should pay
> special tribute
> to our scientists being able to build planes and spacecraft using such a
> convoluted system of measurement.
>
> Addition: Werner von Braun, the father of NASA, loathed imperial/English
> units and never used them. He designed in metric and other engineers
> converted his units to non-metric to build the rockets. So, even the
> foundation of NASA's designs are metric.
>
> And notice, without von Braun, NASA has gone downhill. For every success,
> there is a failure. Von Braun would never have tolerated such ineptitude.
> Heads would have rolled.
>
>
> You say: Many metric countries even still use English Imperial units.
>
> Still is the right word. There are a few traditions which are very deeply
> established. While thousands of other things are measured in metric units,
> for example tires and pressure plumbing are manufactured to imperial
> specifications throughout Europe. In fact, you can buy plumbing
> supplies in
> Europe and they will fit here.
>
> These are dying standards based on outdated traditions, though. In the
> automotive industry (even U.S. companies), imperial parts are step by step
> replaced by metric parts. Will the plumbing or tire industries experience
> paradigm shifts in the future (and they will for sure, e.g. polymer
> plumbing), the new technology will be for sure to metric specifications.
>
> And - just to mention aside - as imperial units are officially defined in
> terms of metric units, since 1959 everything to imperial specification is
> automatically and inevitably to metric specification. The numbers
> might not
> be as handy, but half an inch is after all nothing else but exactly 12.7
> millimetres.
>
> Correction: Look at all those products still referred to by
> imperial/English names and see if there size really fits their
> names. They
> don't. The so-called inch pipe names are nominal numbers that do not
> reflect an actual size. There is nothing 1/2 inch about a half-inch pipe.
> In fact there are different standards for pipe sizes depending on
> whether it
> is water pipe, gas pipe, or electrical conduit. Half-inch water pipe is
> really 16 mm inside diameter and 18 mm outside diameter. Neither of these
> comes close to 1/2 inch. Therefore it should never be soft converted to
> 12.7 mm.
>
> In fact the ISO has a set of metric names for pipe that go by the
> letters DN
> followed by the nominal size in millimetres. Thus a half-inch pipe is
> called DN15. For more information on the metric series of nominal pipe
> names, go to http://www.nibs.org/cmcnews.html and select SECOND QUARTER,
> 1999 or download this pdf directly:
> http://www.nibs.org/MetricNews/2qtr99.PDF
>
> You say: We can do everything with the English system - we don't need the
> metric system!
>
> No - we can't! First of all - the English units fail to cover enough of
> range for many modern measurements, like wavelength of light, mass of
> bloodcells etc., so metric units have to be used!
>
> And, what's the main point, do you know what the exact, official U.S.
> definition of inch, pound and gallon is since 1959? Now listen:
>
> 1 inch = 25.4 millimetres
> 1 pound = 453.592 37 grams
> 1 gallon = 3.785 411 784 litters
>
> Yes: All the English Imperial units are actually defined by metric units!
> The English system became just a tumour on the metric system!
>
> Addition: What about electrical, radiation and magnetic units? The
> English/Imperial does not have a "set". Unless some luddite knows of some
> the rest of us don't.
>
>
> You say: Since the size of a degree Fahrenheit is smaller that
> of a degree
> Celsius, Fahrenheit is more accurate!
>
> Sure! But you are really arguing against yourself here. You can't
> say on one
> hand that the centimetre is less handy than the inch because it's smaller,
> so measurements result in larger numbers - and on the other hand turn that
> same vice into a virtue when the degree Fahrenheit being smaller than the
> degree Celsius is handier because measurements are more accurate. Sure,
> smaller units produce more accurate measurements, and larger units smaller
> numbers, but this is not an exclusive quality of either system.
>
> Addition: On most Fahrenheit thermometers there is a graduation every 2
> degrees, while on a Celsius thermometer there is a graduation every 1 �C =
> 1.8 �F. Therefore the Celsius thermometer by that argument is the more
> accurate.
>
> There is a big difference between accuracy and resolution.
> Because a scale
> can resolve to a smaller degree, does not make it more accurate,
> especially
> if the media being measured does not produce stable readings in
> the range of
> that resolution
>
> >From a "nature" point of view, temperature does not change
> linearly, but in
> steps. Atoms can absorb certain amounts of excess energy before
> they become
> unstable and have to give it off. Just like a human being can absorb so
> much abuse before he/she may react. A change of 1 degree
> Fahrenheit in many
> cases is too fine.
>
> In an example of resistance in copper wire, the change in
> resistance is very
> linear in the range of 0-100�C per degree Celsius. There are no
> formulas to
> calculate resistance using Fahrenheits, only degrees Celsius and kelvins.
>
> You say: Base 12 or 16 is better than 10, as 12 divides by 2,3,4
> and 6, 16
> by 2,4,8 and 16, while 10 divides only by 2 and 5.
>
> Addition: 4.) A metric system designed for a base 12 system would be
> better, but we don't use a base 12 numbering system, we use base 10. To
> adopt base 12, we would need two extra symbols for numbers 10 and 11 (base
> 10) and 10 in base 12 would equal 12 in base 10. Each number name would
> have to be changed and the way we do math will have to change too.
>
> The problem with imperial, is there is no consistency in the conversion
> factors. And because a conversion factor use 12 or 16 does not make it a
> base 12 or 16 system. These luddites are confusing number bases with
> conversion factors.
>
>
> You say: ....Fractions....Fractional....etc.
>
> Addition: Fractions were devised in an era when people not only could not
> read or write, they could not add, subtract, multiply or divide anything
> complex. also, they could not count past 20. So, the old measurement
> systems evolved to accommodate illiterate and innumerate peoples.
>
> Conversion factors between units are never more than 20. There
> may be 32 oz
> in a quart, but that is a double unit jump. you have to look at the unit
> between ounces and quarts and you will see there is no factor greater than
> 20.
>
> Also, how many people today can readily measure in fractions despite years
> of having them force fed in schools? Very few! Even in the old days,
> people stuck with the simple fractions of halves, quarters and eighths.
> Nothing beyond that. For an illiterate, it is easy to divide something in
> equal parts.
>
> Those who claim that imperial/English is easier is most likely not well
> educated.
>
>
> You say: The metric system is sexist as it was created by men
> disregarding
> the needs of women.
>
> Yes, and it is also racist, as it was created by white men
> disregarding the
> needs of coloured men. We better investigate deep into the roots of the
> English system and find out if all those English ladies and gentlemen from
> whom Americans plagiarised their current system designed inch, pound and
> gallon with respectful regard to human rights.
>
>
> Addition: What about that old rule about the rod being defined
> as taking 16
> men exiting a church on a Sunday morning and measuring their feet end to
> end? Why not 16 women or 8 men and 8 women? Isn't that sexist too?
>
>
> Well, I hope this helps you. Also, I prefer to call the
> "English" units as
> FFU. That is Fred Flintstone Units. Units from the stone age.
> Ancient and
> not meant for modern times.
>
> Please contact me back and let me know what you think of my comments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
