This is the kind of letter that only Jim can write. That's why we love him so much. Not THAT kind of love!
As much as I agree with what you say I will try to convince you that the whole scenario has one principal flaw. It will not work because even if the lawmakers will rule the SI in, the population will generate so much resistance which will gain strength by the multitude of ifp standards that make metric life impossible so that the country will be forced to reverse course much like it did in '75. The standards have to be changed first same like the labels on consumer goods so that when the law gets voted the ground for it has already been prepared and it looks like a logical step as it does today in UK. And please be assured that my intervention on metric standards is not due to my misunderstanding USMA's role, but because I truly believe that the US will never advance in metrication if we continue denying the crucial role of implementing hard metric standards before we take a vote on metrication. To answer your argument: No Jim, 60 Hz is as metric as 50 Hz but if the standards for electric motors will not change to hard metric then people will always use the HP ratings and present ANSI mountings which are ifp based and refer to shafts as 1" and keys as 1/4 etc. And no matter how hard you will try you will never be able to rewrite the standard to say that the shaft is 2.54 diameter because everyone will object and even if you did change the standard they will reverse back to English units as so many DOTs did for highways due to so many complaints. And if motors don't change than the ifp bearings will still be there to supply the motors and who needs metric bolts in a mostly ifp motor. And the hodge-podge will continue forever. Let's give another example: ANSI B94 is the standard for Wearing Bushings. All dimensions and tolerances are given in ifp. How will the engineer design a machine using metric units when he has to face the colossal task of converting every dimension and tolerance in that machine and basically redo the drawing and the specs for every wearing bushing or whatever part he is using. Even more the names of the bushings are designated as H-xx where xx is a number representing how many multiples of 0.0156" fit in the OD of the bushing. EX: a 0.5" dia is called H-32. So the ifp is also embedded in the name. If say you rewrite the standard in metric units. How will you call the bushings and how will you justify the rule you used in naming the bushings. If you just go ahead and just soft convert it you will be the laughing stock of every mechanic in the land who will say: screw those bureaucrats! And I can go on like this forever. Finally, I was not saying that USMA should embark on the task of changing US standards, (although I don't know who else) but all I was saying is that, at least, we should stop declaring that we don't promote international standards because this statement is to a great extent incompatible with USMA's goal. I will love to take more time to debate on your letter but my younger daughter turns 1 year old tomorrow and we have a lot of things to do and my wife is killing me! I hope that I made my point clear enough though. Adrian -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James R. Frysinger Sent: Friday, 26 April, 2002 17:17 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:19680] Metric Standards and the USMA Dear colleagues, There seems to be some misunderstandings among those posting here on metric standards and the USMA. Hopefully I can clarify matters rather than further muddying the waters. The goal of the USMA is to promote metrication of the U.S. That means, to cause laws, regulations, and policies to be amended such that only SI units (or those accepted for use with the SI) are used in the U.S. Thus, we would like to see product indications given solely in metric units. To pick the particular example of paper, this goal is just as well met by a pack of paper described as being 216 mm by 279 mm as it would by a pack of paper described as being 210 mm by 297 mm. Both packs of paper would thus be described in SI units. What is the reason, what is the justification, what is the basis for shifting the U.S. to utilization of only metric units? It is a treaty, an article of diplomacy signed by governments, some of which required legislative ratification to make those signatures valid. Thus, it has a basis under diplomatic and international law. More so, it has the common appeal of universality and pandemic support. That universal custom makes it practical to support and to push for adherence to the Treaty of the Meter in the U.S., but that is secondary to the treaty itself, which we have signed and ratified. Under that treaty, a system of measurement was devised, a system which has been called the SI since 1960. Bottom line -- the SI is an international agreement. Now, governments who are signatories to that treaty, and dozens which are not, implement that agreement within their countries through decrees, laws, regulations, rules, or happenstance -- depending on the size and sophistication of the particular government. We are trying to close that loop here in the U.S. At the moment, we stand with one foot on the pier and one foot in the rowboat, which is not tied to the pier. This is very precarious! We are striving to finish the job of transfering ourselves fully into the rowboat so that we can embark on greater things, rather than resting partially static at the shoreline. Bottom line -- we are trying to get the job finished in making this the national U.S. measurement system, casting out all other units. Since this is a national-level matter, our way of doing so may differ slightly from the way other governments do so. For example, the U.K. specifies which sizes of products may be sold for retail; bread may be sold in 400 g or 800 g loaves, but not 500 g loaves, as I recall. Germany may also have a proclivity for regulating allowable product sizes through its beloved DIN system. We Americans chose not to do so; we let market forces determine the sizes convenient to producers and consumers. The same distinction goes for paper. The U.K. might have the ability to specify a national paper size; we in the U.S. do not have a national paper size, but hopefully will someday require that all packs of paper indicate the paper size in metric units only. Thus, the USMA pushes for changes to labeling laws, not for size specification changes -- there being no such specifications to begin with in the U.S. except on a case by case basis. In the meantime, science and technology societies, industrial and commercial organizations, and national government labs have reason to fill in some of the details. It is convenient for all household light bulbs to use the same size sockets and socket thread pitches. We in the U.S. therefore allow industrial standards to be set for that; we do not make it a national requrement. But first, the industries have to want to do that, perhaps as a result of being goaded by the consumers. Those industrial and societal standards can be national (such as the ANSI, ASME, or National Electrical Code standards) or international (such as IEEE, IEC, or ISO standards). But they do not carry the force of law (as do the ones in the paragraph above) or of diplomatic agreement (as does the SI, described two paragraphs above). Bottom line -- these are voluntary standards, unless a national law invokes them. So, there are three levels here that must be seen as being distinct: international/diplomatic, national/legal, and commmercial/voluntary, in descending order of hierarchy. The SI is in the highest level. ISO standards are in the lowest level. Rightly so, ISO uses SI units to write its standards, as does the IEEEE and many others. These, lowest level, voluntary standards are "derivative" in this regard. Bottom line -- the ISO follows the CGPM/CIPM/BIPM's SI. SI kindly takes input from but is not derived from and does not depend on the ISO. The USMA is working at the middle level of these three, to bring the U.S. into greater compliance with the uppermost level. Thus it works with the federal government and with state governments (especially through the NCWM). The USMA does not have the resources to worry about promoting or taking part in developing all of the standards of the lowest, voluntary level. It does help on a case-by-case basis in developing with some of the voluntary standards that will have great impact. Thus I have worked on boards with the American Welding Society and the IEEE (as well as a joint IEEE/ASTM board). I am joined on those two, especially the latter by Lorelle Young and other USMA memebers. But, by a wide margin, its greatest emphasis is on the middle, national/legal level. We are after changes in law and regulation. We attack that goal in various ways: by communicating with legislators, by communicating with industry, and by communicating with the public. Saying that we also have to push for all standards which happen to be written in metric units is asking the USMA to exceed its resources. And, frankly, it is inane. Is 50 Hz electrical distribution more metric than 60 Hz? The former seems more logical and decimal while the latter draws upon that Olde Babylonian Numbering System, so why are the A4 enthusiasts not also pushing to get the Western Hemisphere to change the frequency of our electrical grids? No, we take what we have and we indicate its properties in metric units, in this case hertz (in contrast to the cps of times past). Likewise, we want to take what we have for a common paper size and indicate its properties in metric units, namely, millimeters. Millimeters, Adrian, are SI. Paper is paper. Let the public pick the size of the paper they choose to use, but let them be informed about its size in millimeters. Let me know when your house is shifted from 60 Hz "Babylnian" power and is running on 50 Hz "metric" power, supplied by your local electrical utility, Adrian, and I'll replace all my 216 mm by 279 mm "nonmetric" paper with 210 mm by 297 mm "metric" paper. But you know, Bill Gates will still call those 90 mm diskettes, "three and one-half inch floppy disks". Sigh. 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
