I agree with John Wolflein and Adrian Jadic. Whenever possible metric standards should be adhered to by metric supporters. SI needs to be applied in international standards if it is to thrive. There was a time when I had to use inch sized continuous paper on a dot matrix printer. From the two possibilities, 11 and 12 inch, I bought the last one as I would not give in to the 'standard' ifp size. If I have to use ifp in my own country, and it happened to me a few times in the past as in this case, I burn with shame. I bought an inkjet printer and reverted to A4 paper at once; I would also have done it if A4 cost more than inch sized paper, but that time is over at last. The reason: A4 is an international metric standard while the other sizes are ifp. Period. Death to that setup. Period.
Han ----- Original Message ----- From: John Woelflein To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 2002-01-23 19:47 Subject: [USMA:17578] Hard metric sizes, was "Metric Today" paradox Like everything else, no one will use SI sized anything unless the older versions are removed completely. Examples are the "golden" dollar and the dollar bill in the United States. When was the last time you got change with golden dollars? No one is going to give up their paper money unless it is no longer available. People simply do not like change (no pun intended!). A good example of metrication was the soft drink industry, or thr liquor and wine industries. They set an "M" day back in the 70s and then just stopped making the old imperial sizes. Milk could be metric by just stopping the gallon jugs and substituting a 4 L jug. It's that simple, but no one seems to want to do it. Adrian Jadic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I certainly agree that printing MT on A3, which folded, would give A4 format will not move the US toward metrication. Therefore, from this point of view it is not a major issue. However, it makes us consistent with our preaching and it also proves that "when there is a will there is a way". (Or something along those lines) I consider that given the ease of procuring A-series paper it is simply ridiculous not to do it. Secondly, I totally disagree with your statement that A-series is not SI. Actually, it cannot be SI since SI deals only with units of measurement and not with standards for industry/consumer products and practices. For that we have ISO. The A-series formats are as metric as one can get. Or, if you want, they are as metric as the M-series screws are. I will translate from the definition of the format as per DIN 476 T1 ======Start===== "The DIN f! ! ! ! ormat system is built on 3 basic rules: 1. Metric arrangement of the formats. The formats are based on the metric system of measurement. The surface of the basic format is exactly XxY=1 m*2 2.Development of the series through half sizes. Each format is determined through the division of the previous format by 2. 3. Proportionality of the formats. Each format maintains the same proportion between X and Y, given by the equation: X/Y=1/sq rt2. Therefore X and Y for the A0 format are the unique solutions of the equations: XxY=1 and X/Y= 1/sqrt 2." =======END======= Now, show me a more metric definition of the series or any other series. Obviously the A1 format has 0.5 m*2 A2=0.25 m*2.... etc. Needless to say the series have the clear advantage that if one makes (for example) a photocopy of an A3 format reduced to 50% the result will fit exactly on an A4 format. This does not happen in the 8.5/11 (XY ratio = 1.294) and 11/17 (XY rat! ! ! ! io = 1.545) formats. If we continue your line of thought that the A-series are't any more metric than US series than we reach the conclusion that US is already metric and we can dissolve the association and go fishing or join some other cause. The entire US system is based on SI. All they had to do was to find some fixed conversion factors and Bingo! If the M series bolts have dimensions that reach the micrometer precision as do the imperial ones it does not make the M series non-metric or as metric as the imperial ones. Similarly, the US date format is as metric or non-metric as the ISO date format. They both are based on 24 h cycles. So, who cares if you put the year first or not? Finally, I do not consider it reasonable to sustain SI but ignore ISO. ISO is the standard for the practical use of the SI. They do not exist one without the other. ISO makes the best use of SI and creates a rule for international use so that all countries/industries speak the ! ! ! ! same language of measurement, ratings, symbols etc. This is what I support and what I believe USMA is about. In conclusion, I maintain my position about the MT paper format. Adrian ================ Bill Potts wrote in USMA:17548 Adrian: I would also favor the printing of Metric Today on folded A3 paper -- but I don't see it as a major issue. The A series, although based on a metric specification (for the A0 size), is not SI. The fact that it can be congruently split, from each size to the next lower, makes it a very rational standard, but it does not make it SI. However, as the dimensions are not integral centimeter values (or even, before rounding, integral millimeter values) , one could argue that it's perfectly valid to print Metric Today on 279.4 mm x 431.8 mm paper (i.e., the current 11" x 17"). Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric.org [SI Navigator] -- ______! ! ! ! _________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup 1 cent a minute calls anywhere in the U.S.! http://www.getpennytalk.com/cgi-bin/adforward.cgi?p_key=RG9853KJ&url=http:// www.getpennytalk.com Sl�n, John Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail.
