2001-09-01
Han,
Well, it seems they answered you on the most recent questions. Maybe, you
can repose the questions we asked a few months back and never got answered.
Another thing to ask is if they will accept changing the value of imperial
units to match those of metric. If they try to fall back on heritage, ask
them "what heritage?", as the values of imperial units have changed
throughout history every so often, so what is wrong with one more change?
It seems changing the values of imperial units is part of imperials heritage
and it would be keeping with that heritage to change the values again.
The advantages would out-weigh the disadvantages: 1.) The pound could be
set equal to 500 g, thus making it equal to the livre and pfund. 2.) It
would make comparison shopping easier for those who think in imperial and
products are in SI. 3.) Confusion resulting from similar names, but
different values, such as: mile, nautical mile; US pint/quart/gallon and UK
pint/quart/gallon; short ton, long ton, tonne, metric ton - all close in
value but not the same, etc. 4.) It is common practice to interchange the
unit names yard and metre, especially in the press, if the yard is set equal
to the metre then either term will mean the same thing. 5.) And more...
I am not advocating any acceptance of FFU on a legal basis or for FFU terms
to appear in print or be spoken officially. But, the reality is, FFU terms
do persist, even in solid metric countries. If these "slang" terms are
given new meanings with rational SI terms, it benefits both camps. They can
continue to use their old names as part of their heritage and we can feel
comfortable that they are really using hidden metric. It is much easier for
us to work with someone stating their weight as 180 pounds and the pound is
500g, then when it is 454 g. We can instantly convert mentally to 90 kg.
This may be the only way to get metric accepted. When you change the values
of FFU to a point where people can easily convert between the two, then SI
will seem easier to the public. At present, a people use to a pound does
not see the advantage of metric if that pound equals 454 g. They will see
the SI in a better light if a pound is 500 g or half-a-kilogram. Set the
quart equal to the litre and the ton equal to the tonne and you have done
more to promote metric then all the efforts over the past 200 years. Make
FFU a form of hidden metric and the battle is virtually won. I think it is
the only way.
People don't care about how much easier metric is vs. FFU, they care about
the names they have etched into their brains. They don't want to learn new
names. So, set those names equal to something rational, and even if they
are not aware, they will be using SI.
Han, you may be the "force" to convince them that this is their only hope,
as SI will win out with them or without them. Give it a try!
john
----- Original Message -----
From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, 2001-09-01 09:29
Subject: [USMA:15091] Fw: Weights and Measures
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BWMA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 11:53 AM
> Subject: Weights and Measures
>
>
> > Han,
> > You asked some questions recently regarding BWMA and weights & measures.
> Here
> > are some answers.
> >
> > Q: What is the BWMA's position about the present official [metric]
> definitions
> > of the foot, inch, pound, the Imperial gallon etc?
> >
> > A: None. Measurements are determined in terms of distance travelled by
> the
> > speed of light. Scientists largely use the metric system, and did so
when
> > measuring the speed of light, so the definition of distance and other
> > measurements is recorded in metric. When drawing up legislation, these
> are
> > the definitions that legislators used. If BWMA were to have a policy on
> this,
> > I think it is most likely that we would ask that legal definitions be
> given in
> > both metric and inch-pound.
> >
> > Q: What is the BWMA's position on Britain having signed the Metric
> Convention
> > in 1884 and being a member state of the International Bureau of Weights
> and
> > Measures under this convention?
> >
> > A: None. We have no objection to people using metric units.
> >
> > Q: I agree with you about confusing and misleading pricing but not with
> > blaming the metric system per s� for such con-tricks. Defective
> legislation
> > should be blamed for it, not a system of units. Supporters of the metric
> > system oppose and condemn such misleading pricing.
> >
> > A: The current consumer protection laws are watertight - so long as
weight
> and
> > prices are show, no deception has occurred. We argue that lack of
> consumer
> > familiarity/acceptance of metric indications (eg 650g, 450ml, etc)
causes
> > consumers to ignore or disregard the weight indications, thereby
> undermining
> > the legislation.
> >
> > Finally, regarding the private Eye article ("...aubergines 0.395 kg @
> > �2.31/kg"), we draw attention to bad metric practice - however, this is
> not
> > the sole reason for BWMA's opposition to compulsory use of metric - we
> also
> > oppose it for reasons of heritage, consumer protection, bureacracy, etc.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > John
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Visit www.bwmaOnline.com - campaigning for inch-pound industries and
> consumer interests
> >
> >
>
