20020-02-09 I've seen this many times in product designs. Where a "metric" product is copied or converted to FFU and then later back to SI, where the converted SI does not equal the original SI.
For example: 25 mm becomes 1 inch and 1 inch is later displayed as 1 inch (25.4 mm). The original 25 mm became 25.4 mm. I've even seen old designs in the file draw at work, where drawings from as late as the '70s, done in thousands of an inch were not even close to their fractional equivalents. When I converted some to SI, I was shocked to see some of them appear as something like 179.98xxxx or something that close to a rational SI value, such as 180 mm. I figured either the original design was a copy of something metric (European) or the designer himself thought in SI and just converted to FFU because he had to and made it hidden metric. Whenever I convert a value to SI from inches, I round to the nearest whole number. There is never a problem doing this. In most cases, the inches are to 16-ths anyway and 1 mm is finer than the 1.6 mm the 16-th is equal to. But, I bet others will feel that they have to make the IS equal to what the calculator says, no matter what the number may have been originally. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nikolay O. Malyarov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-02-09 12:41 Subject: [USMA:18090] Re: Olympic event geometries > This reminds me also of all of our Olympic manuals. In some spots it > will refer to the curling stone as 20 kg (XX lbs.), and then in others > as 44 lbs. (19,94 kg). There was a complete lack of consistency > overall. At the E Center Ice Arena, all schedules given out to the > volunteers were in am/pm format. Whereas at the Peaks Ice Arena they > were in the "official SLOC time," i.e. 24-hour format. > > Cheers, > Nikolay > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of kilopascal > Sent: Saturday, 9 February 2002 8.16 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:18081] Re: Olympic event geometries > > 2002-02-09 > > > It is obvious that the rule book was not written by one person, or at > one > time. The various contributors most likely did their own thing. Those > from > countries where national practices are the same as SI rules, got it > right. > Those from countries who practices deviate from to rules or where there > is > no emphasis on correct usage, and thus usage is sloppy, end up with the > results you noted. And those who felt that there is a place in the > world > for the FFU users, felt an urge to include FFU, and thus did so. > > And it could also be that as the book was amended, the preference of the > amender was used. If the proof reader saw no offence in the inclusion > of > FFU or bad style, then the FFU and bad style stuck. It would be nice if > the > editors would strive for consistency. Why does it seem that spelling > mistakes reflect badly on a person, but SI style rules don't? > > And maybe, if the book was written in a language other than English, the > "translators" might have made changes to what they conceived as national > practices in English speaking countries, or more Correctly, the USA. > > > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, 2002-02-08 20:06 > Subject: [USMA:18068] Re: Olympic event geometries > > > > I see that I omitted the key words "ski jump" below. Those are the > runs > > referred to in my first paragraph. > > > > On the USOC site, I did find an pdf file on Olympic events with rules, > > etc. These contain a mixture of SI and American Hodgepodge units, > > depending on event. The style of writing the SI units varies as well; > > sometimes commas are used as decimal point markers and sometimes > periods > > are used. One page pluralizes kg to kgs! The file is organized > > alphabetically by sport and there is no index! One must page through > the > > document to find the desired sport. This file is to be found at > > > > > http://www.olympic-usa.org/education/general_olympic_education/sportsumm > arie > s.pdf > > > > Jim > > > > "James R. Frysinger" wrote: > > > > > > Our local paper has a neat graphic in the sports section today. The > > > graphic gives the basic layout of the runs and the scoring system. > All > > > dimensions are in meters with no conversions provided. The only fly > in > > > the ointment is that the text states the altitude of this venue as > 7000 > > > feet. The graphic was prepared by Associated Press (yes, really!). > > > > > > For example, the normal hill has an 83 m inrun (the path taken by > the > > > jumper prior to take off) and the K point (the scoring reference > point, > > > similar to "par" I suppose) is 90 m past the take off point, which > is at > > > the end of the inrun. The figures for the large hill are 98 m and > 120 m > > > respectively. Skiers gain 2 points on their starting value of 60 for > > > every meter beyond the K point that they land and lose 2 points for > > > every meter short of the K point that they land. Style points are > also > > > available. > > > > > > I have searched www.ksl.com, www.wintergames2002.com, and > > > www.saltlake2002.com without success in an attempt to see similar > > > geometries for all the events. The summer games in 2000 had such > things > > > on the official website as I recall. I'll try the IOC and USOC web > sites > > > next. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > -- > > 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 > > >
