2001-12-17
I have a wonderful idea. Maybe you and Jason can contact the "testy" person
you spoke to a year or two ago and offer to provide those nice 250 mm rulers
your company provided. I don't know what it cost you to produce them, but
if it is too much, you can split the cost.
If it is a longer tape measure that is really needed, why not donate, if not
cost prohibited a cheap tape measue in metres, like the ones used for
clothing. I can't see where they would ky-bash the idea if someone else was
donating the tapes.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 2001-12-17 00:11
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 least
> modern, practices. The basis for that point was that hams historically
> have 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
>
