Some remarks preceded by an *
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:12 AM
Subject: [USMA:15114] Re: Weights and Measures
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 16:08:58 kilopascal wrote:
2001-09-02
Metrication was accomplished quicker in Europe in the 18-th century simply
because the old units were set equal to rational metric units.
*Some countries tried it that way. France attached old names to decimal
metric units in 1809. The Netherlands did so in 1820. It did not help much;
in France it was just a step towards the disaster of 1812.
In the Netherlands almost all old names slowly died away. Ons and pond (100
and 500 g) have survived, pint means a large glass, akker a field for
growing crops. The mud (dry measure of 100 L) died in the 1960's. By law of
1937 the old names were outlawed.
> ??? How can that be, John? There are literally hundreds of ifp units,
besides, since they are all "irrational", how could they ever be "brought in
line" via "rational" values??? Also, do not forget that many, many of these
old units were "completely" off vis-a-vis one another. Finally, the burden
of proof is on you, my friend, to show that metrication "worked" due to the
"bastardization" of these people's old units. Please don't mix *a few*
"rational" values (like the example you like to bring, pound=500 g) of old
ifp units with *the whole* process.
>
> Even in Europe today (and I'd bet Brasil too), some, not all, of the old
names persist.
* See remark above. They slowly tend to wither away.
>
> I can speak about Brazil and can assure you that ABSOLUTELY NO "old names"
persist that are attached to *measurements*. What we have are *expressions*
like "gallon" which refer to **large containers** (rather than some 4. some
liters) or "palmo" (only related to popular jargons - again, no connexion
with measurements at all), "vara" as just some piece/stick of wood with
undefined length, and "alqueire" (area), who even the habitual "users" don't
have a clue of how big it is!!!
>
> Ah, and yes, there is the hideous "arroba" (mass) that still persists, but
only in commodities trading because no attempt whatsoever has ever been made
to "convert" it to a kilogram equivalent!!!
> So, as you can see, your assumption is not necessarily true. The real
"problem" will be unveiled a little further below.
> If the authorities of the time did not change the values of the old units
to those that equaled rational metric units, the resistance would have been
stronger and the metric system might have died out completely. We have to
look at this reality.
> ? I honestly doubt it. But if you can provide hard evidence of such
"social" behaviors on the part of those countries that underwent this
metrication process I may be willing to take a second look at it.
>Even is countries supposed to be 100 % metric, older units still persist
in conversation and trade.
* These are usually Anglo-Saxon units, used in certain areas. Our own pure
old units have gonem, apart from the left over metricated names.
> Not completely true. Please, see my earlier comments on this above.
>
But, the official units and devices are metric.
Metrication would never had worked in many of these countries if there
wasn't some sort of compromise between the old and the new. And it does
make it easier for everyone when the old units are set equal to rounded
numbers in metric. There is nothing wrong with making a pound equal to 500
g, as long as no scale or label uses the word pound. The word pound is
restricted to spoken usage only. A customer asks for a pound. The scale
used to determine that pound is one calibrated in kilograms and the vendor
weighs out 500 g. That is the way it is in most of the world. And this is
the way it will work here.
> ? Where is the proof of this for the *other units*? The pound situation,
for all I know, is just a very isolated case in Europe (besides, where is
this true in Europe, i.e. how many European countries treat "the pound" in
this fashion? Anyone?)
>
> >By doing exactly what others did in the past that worked, is the path we
must take today. I believe it is the only way that will work. FFU must
become a form of hidden metric.
* FFU or ifp is a hidden form of metric, Imperial and USC are second hand
metric in fact since the Mendenhall Order of 1893 and the standards
agreement between English speaking nations of 1959. Metricating the
standards and definitions of ifp has not helped the metric cause at all. In
the contrary, it has helped to strengthen ifp and allowed it to survive. And
it allows the use of ifp for high tech applications, a fact that is used in
the propaganda of the BWMA and F2M. Boeing aircraft, the Space Shuttle etc.
> I don't honestly think so. In Brazil NO such tactics were EVER used.
When metric came about 140 years ago things simply changed and the
population went along. What you describe above might only be the case in
some few countries where there might have been some special... "attachment"
of the people towards those old units. But even so, I honestly don't see
much evidence of this left.
>
> Once the population has adjusted to the new
> >definitions, then they can be lured away from the old terms. The old
terms
> >would never be official, and never appear as legal units, just slang
terms
> >spoken amongst the majority ignorant.
> >
> You seem to be forgetting a fundamental "ingredient" that was actually
responsible for the success of metric: its DECIMAL nature! That's what
carried and won the day actually. It's a pity but it's simply impossible to
come up with rational approximations to every single old ifp unit out there.
It simply can't work because metric is decimal whereas ifp is...
hexadecimal, binary, duodecimal, octal?... Whatever!!! ;-)
>
> >It is not a method of making FFU friendly, but bringing metrication about
in
> >a sneaky, back door sort of way.
> >
> As I commented earlier the real problem here is with anglo-saxon countries
"emotional" attachment to their beloved (GGGGRRRRR....) stone-age units!
Some of these people simply don't care, they want their gallons, ounces,
pints, feet, inches, bla-bla-bla... And no *complete* rationalization of
these units can ever be brought about. Again, it's MINDSET. That's what's
gotta change! Until we can successfully work this out in their minds we
have little chance.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
> http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
>
>
