If the American or Imperial measuring tapes are that much more suited to
human needs than metric ones, then I do not understand what I saw some years
ago. In a museum at the university the manager was working at some exhibit.
He had a dual measuring tape (why these should exist in the Netherlands is
beyond me. Let market forces do away with them). I saw him seemingly
measuring with the American/Imperial side. But he was confused and when he
saw what he was looking at, he turned it around to the metric side which his
inferior to the ifp one, at least that is what Mr. Owen is trying to tell
us.

He could just as well plead for the use of 086 to 486 computers and MS-DOS
or Windows 3.1 because they work so well! What about old green or brown
computer screens? Punched cards or music tapes? They are  splendid storage
tools! And they work well!

I would agree, that crazy stuff in American building works, but metric does
as well, and after having *become familiar and hard metric standardized*, it
would work much better. The American proof system for alcohol content works,
but I vastly prefer the system of alcohol in % which we use. And what about
crazy clothing and shoe sizes, etc? They all work but they are trash.

This is probably a sleazy anti-metric book, pointing at supposed errors when
the original measurements were made, and examples like this one here. These
errors were those that will always happen in measurement and those that come
out when the measurements are made again with newer technology. Until he
died Mechain tried to correct the error he had found.

Han

----- Original Message -----
From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 2002-10-13 6:45
Subject: [USMA:22661] carpentry


 2002-10-13

An excerpt from the review of a MEASURE FOR MEASURE by DAVID OWEN


 In fairness, throwing out the clock is a priority for just a lunatic few.
But the same urge for consistency at any cost is often evident among wholly
rational metric advocates, who seldom acknowledge that there could be
situations in which coldly logical metric units work less well than quirkier
alternatives. An example is carpentry. The units in which American building
materials are measured are idiosyncratic in the extreme-they include gauges,
penny sizes, nominal dimensions, and a host of other anachronistic
absurdities-but the over-all system works well, in part because it arose
organically from human activity instead of being imposed from above by
theoreticians. The standard metric measuring tape was clearly not designed
by anyone who regularly worked with wood: a millimetre is smaller than the
tip of a builder's pencil and narrower than the blade of a saw, and the
closely packed, uniform gradations on the tape are hard to make out at a
glance except in bundles of five. In contrast, a customary American
tape-with its easily distinguishable divisions of sixteenths, eighths,
quarters, halves, inches, feet, and sixteen-inch framing intervals-is
harmoniously suited to the way in which it is used. The American building
industry will probably adopt the metric system someday, but American
carpenters are not idiots or Luddites for continuing to use a system that
works.

<snip>



Reply via email to