Jim, thank you for your support on this (ARRL metric rulers and tape
measures)! I find the attitude you encountered at the ARRL puzzling.
Ham radio operators were the world's first techie geeks (long before
computer geeks were even thought of), and the hallmark trait of a geek
is a desire to know about and use the latest of *everything*. We need
geeks (I use that term with respect); as you said, hams advanced the
state of the art in wireless communications.
I'd guess that your suggestions to the ARRL may have been combined with
those of other hams who are former servicemen (people who would be very
familiar with metric usage). Many of them probably said to the
ARRL, "Come on, folks, join the 20th century before the 21st ends!"
Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:11 pm
Subject: [USMA:16669] Re: US Ham radio and SI (It's improving)
> Well, I'll be! I had an exchange with the ARRL's editor for QST a year
> or two ago about increasing the use of the metric system. That "for
> accuracy in duplication" was part of my spiel. Not because the metric
> system is inherently more accurate, but because it's easier to measure
> metrically without making mistakes.
>
> I also fussed mightily that I had bought the limited edition hardbound
> Handbook and was really irritated that this Handbook for the future
> seemed hung up on historical units instead of cutting edge, or at
> leastmodern, practices. The basis for that point was that hams
> historicallyhave led the field and that it was insulting to treat
> us as if we
> couldn't learn and use something as "new-fangled" as the metric
> system.Amateur radio operators ("hams") are the people who pushed
> for spread
> spectrum communications and packet radio in the civilian world.
> At the
> time, his reply was a bit, shall we say, testy.
>
> I also pointed out that it was silly to build a 10 m antenna in feet
> instead of meters. What an oxymoron.
>
> Who knows, maybe my drop of water had a little effect. I can at least
> claim credit for trying, if not for making it happen.
>
> Jason, I really like your idea about an ARRL metric ruler. It
> could be
> hawked as something essential for laying out antennas and radial
> fields.
> Jim (WB1ELJ)
>
> James-Jason Wentworth wrote:
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I've been reading the 2001 edition of the ARRL Handbook, the "bible"
> > for ham (amateur) radio in the US. I'm pleased to report that its
> > metric usage has greatly increased. New antenna projects use
> > millimeter dimensions ("for accuracy in duplication"), and the text
> > uses mostly a hard-metric (soft-converted FFU) format.
> >
> > Some of the older material covering large wire antennas uses
> feet "so
> > that US hams can use their English rulers and tape measures to build
> > them," which gave me an idea: What if the ARRL sold metric-only tape
> > measures and rulers with their logo? These items would be an
> > additional source of income for the ARRL, and they would free US
> hams> from the fool's errand of having to calculate antenna
> dimensions in
> > meters and then having to convert them to feet and inches. No other
> > hams on the planet are saddled with this unnecessary chore.
> >
> > I believe there are a few hams on the USMA list. What do you think?
> >
> > Jason
>
> --
> Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
> James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
> 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
>
>
