>>> It is one thing to use 25 mm as an approximation and a good one for most applications, but to have a legal definition of both 25 mm and 25.4 mm will create problems somewhere. If high precision is desired and the wrong definition is used, either the metric parts or the inch parts will be in error. Hopefully for us, it will only add more error to inch based usage, thus making the continued use of the inch even more impracticable. >>>
Yep! That's where the Balkanization comes in. >>>Were you doing a project in metric? Or were you just mentally converting everything to metric in your mind for your understanding? If you are working in metric, what product is this? >> We do R&D, and everything in our lab is metric at my insistence. Sometimes we work with university subcontractors (SBIR, etc) who are ifp. Nat Material Sensing & Instrumentation, Inc. http://www.msi-sensing.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2002-11-27 11:20 Subject: [USMA:23618] RE: metric inch > Metric inches are quite practical, given the current state of US conversion. > Defining the inch as 25.0 mm, it simply becomes a grouping of 25 mm, or a > quarter of a base 100 mm module. (much like 25 cents is a quarter of the > base 100 cent module, the dollar). > > I was talking with a supplier the other day who was hard ifp. I was viewing > his inches as 25 mm modules, he was viewing them as self-contained > measurement units independent of anything else. > > We both were happy. > > Nat > > PS Teach this in grade school and you Balkanize ifp within 10 years. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > kilopascal > Sent: Wednesday, 2002 November 27 10:21 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:23615] metric inch > > > 2002-11-27 > > Check this out: > > http://slashdot.org/articles/99/09/30/1437217.shtml > > Look for the metric inch. > > John >
