Dear Brij,
Let me take your first point first.
> (1) there was NO alternative to foot, like the *decimetre*
With respect, I do not think that that is so. We have had metric measures in
the world, now, for a little over two hundred years and during that time I
am sure that all combinations of millimetres, centimetres, and decimetres
(on their own and in various groupings) have been tried as the small unit(s)
for metrication in various industries and in various countries.
I believe that from these attempts we can draw some conclusions. If you
choose:
millimetres on their own your metrication process will be smooth and rapid.
centimetres on their own and your metrication process will be characterised
by much forward and backward movement and it will be painfully slow.
centimetres and millimetres together* and your metrication process will be
characterised by continuous confusion, much to-ing and fro-ing to old units,
and it will be even more painfully slow.
I don't think that anyone has ever seriously tried to conduct a metrication
process using decimetres (on their own or in combination with one or other
of the small units), as I think that this process is far too hard and far,
far too long (see note on centimetres and millimetres together below)
* It is extremely rare from my observations to see centimetres used on
their own; the textile industry is an example of where it has been tried
(unsuccessfully here in Australia over the last thirty years and
continuing). However, even in the textile industry, there is often a need
for more precision than a centimetre provides. At that point workers
bifurcate into the halves and quarters and to the millimetre camps � and
never the twain shall meet.
If you develop your mindset in decimetres what do you do when you need more
precision � do you then say 1 metres 2 decimetres 3 centimetres and 4
millimetres? Please regard this question about decimetres as pure conjecture
on my part � I have insufficient data to draw any reliable conclusions.
And now for your second point.
> and (2) mere
> conversion and NO 'rationalisation' in day-to-day work got the better over
> 'centimetre and metre'. The measurements were NEVER brought to the common
> folk!
I think that there are two issues here, both of which are about "how to" do
a metrication program.
1 You have to set clear goals. As an example, let me quote the Australian
Construction industry metrication goals:
"The metric units for linear measurement in building and construction will
be the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), with the kilometre (km) being used
where required. This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the
centimetre (cm) shall not be used.' and 'The centimetre should not be used
in any calculation and it should never be written down".
I think that these are clear and that they can be readily understood by "the
common folk!".
2 You have to communicate clearly to the relevant people. The goals listed
above were provided on a small pamphlet to fit in the tool box of every
construction worker and these were distributed to all construction workers
through local council offices where builders had to go to get their building
approvals. Note that I am not suggesting anything as vague as an education
policy, but a specific, targeted, communication, program.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin LCAMS
Geelong, Australia
on 2002-12-26 07.41, Brij Bhushan Vij at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> John, Jason, Pat and all:
> The reason 'yard and foot' have survived for so long was for TWO reasons:
> (1) there was NO alternative to foot, like the *decimetre* and (2) mere
> conversion and NO 'rationalisation' in day-to-day work got the better over
> 'centimetre and metre'. The measurements were NEVER brought to the common
> folk!
> Tussel between usage of SI metric Units and FFU's is getting the simmilar
> way! The governmet and allied bodies must recognise *between NEED and 'NO
> need*.
> Brij B. Vij<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [USMA:24231] Re: Megagram, shmegagram!!!
>> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 12:29:34 -0500
>>
>> 2002-12-25
>>
>> Metrication in the Commonwealth countries did not occur by direct
>> government
>> involvement. Basically the governments said we are going to do it, but we
>> will allow each business to formulate and co-ordinate metrication based on
>> their business cycles. The governments involvement was to initiate the
>> change; industry had to carry it out.
>>
>> Committees were set up with representatives from various sectors of the
>> economy. They had to investigate, plan, schedule, and implement
>> metrication
>> based on input and feedback from industries within their sectors.
>>
>> There is no reason a similar plan can not be initiated by the US
>> government.
>> This is what I meant earlier when I said we have the experience of others
>> to
>> fall back on. That includes the example of Canada and Britain whose
>> metrication's were stalled somewhere in the middle and as a result are
>> experiencing confusion that has to be extremely costly. Maybe this is part
>> of the reason why the Canadian dollar is weak.
>>
>> Metrication does not have to be unpopular. It is unpopular because no one
>> of importance has spoken up for it. If someone in industry or government
>> would go on national TV and say that not being metric is hurting out
>> competitiveness, productivity, profits and employment in high paying jobs,
>> etc. metric would become very popular over night. If someone would explain
>> the hidden costs of not being metric, such as industrial mistakes, lost
>> orders, shut out of some foreign markets, medical mistakes, etc. the public
>> might be persuaded.
>>
>> Basically the public needs to hear that they are paying more for everything
>> to compensate for these costs. If the public thinks keeping FFU is worth
>> the costs, then they can choose to the status quo. And we will keep paying
>> a hefty. But at least this way when people lose their jobs, go to bed
>> hungry, lose their homes, they can be happy knowing they at least kept the
>> metric monster from ruining their lives.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "James-Jason Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 2002-12-25 01:50
>> Subject: [USMA:24230] Re: Megagram, shmegagram!!!
>>
>>
>> A millimeter/meter convention is the ideal that I would like to see
>> implemented in the US, but unfortunately it would never "fly" here.
>>
>> A parliamentary government like that in Australia has much more
>> latitude to act without direct public participation at every step.
>> ("They elected our party, we've selected our Prime Minister, and we
>> will proceed with these programs. If the public doesn't like it, they
>> can change parties in the next election.") In the US congressional
>> system, the two parties share power and the President is elected
>> separately. Because of this power sharing and the constant deference
>> that Congress and the President give to public opinion, unpopular
>> things like metrication are seldom implemented at the federal level. I
>> do wish our leaders would actually lead more based on what would be
>> good for the country rather than just consult poll results to formulate
>> policy, but that is the nature of the US system. -- Jason
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 7:05 pm
>> Subject: Re: [USMA:24218] Re: Megagram, shmegagram!!!
>>
>>> Dear Jason and All,
>>>
>>> I have interspersed some remarks.
>>>
>>> on 2002-12-25 10.59, James Wentworth at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> From my experience, plumbers and carpenters in the US *really*
>>> dislike large
>>>> items measured in millimeters.
>>>
>>> That's what they said here too, before they had ever used any metric
>>> measures. In short, the Australian plumbers and carpenters were
>>> using the
>>> same conjecture but without any experience.
>>>
>>>> Millimeter-sized screws and drill bits are
>>>> fine with them,
>>>
>>> Same here. They claimed that small measures would be OK in
>>> millimetres.However, some then claimed that centimetres might be
>>> better for bolt, screw,
>>> and nail lengths. Again, Australian plumbers and carpenters were using
>>> conjecture without experience.
>>>
>>>> but not things like 2400 mm sheets of plywood.
>>>
>>> Australian architects, bricklayers, carpenters, and plumbers now
>>> happily use
>>> millimetres to measure the whole job. I have seen drawings for a
>>> house set
>>> on land that was 151 340 x 20 160 and the only reference to any
>>> measurementunits was the statement in the block of information in
>>> one corner that read,
>>> "All dimensions in mm".
>>>
>>> I reckon (again from my direct experience) that it took Australian
>>> tradesmenabout a month to master these kinds of large numbers. And
>>> the simple
>>> statement, "All dimensions in mm" meant that they would never have
>>> to use a
>>> fraction ever again, nor would they have to convert between units
>>> of any
>>> kind. For this sort of simplicity, they quickly learned to accept
>>> largenumbers.
>>>
>>>> Tradesmen
>>>> here just don't like dealing with large numbers. Any US
>>> metrication effort
>>>> that does not have the support (or at least no opposition) from
>>> these "Joe
>>>> Sixpacks" is doomed to failure. -- Jason
>>>
>>> In 1970, I could have written that sentence referring to Australian
>>> tradesmen; they proved me wrong!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Pat Naughtin LCAMS
>>> Geelong Australia
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 2:14 PM
>>>> Subject: [USMA:24215] Re: Megagram, shmegagram!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 2002-12-22 00.42, James Wentworth at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> [4] The decimeter should be included in any program to
>>> popularize the
>>>>> metric system in America. The most common complaint I've heard
>>> and read
>>>>> from tradesmen is that "the meter is too big and the centimeter
>>> is too
>>>>> small." Like Baby Bear's porridge, the decimeter would be
>>> "just right."
>>>> It
>>>>> is close enough to the inch in size that carpenters and
>>> plumbers (more of
>>>>> those "Joe Sixpacks") would more readily accept metric rulers
>>> if they had
>>>>> three unit sizes to choose from (dm, cm, and mm). Even the USMA's
>>>>> Swiss-made metric tapes are demarcated in decimeters by
>>> printing each
>>>>> decimeter in a different background color, so the decimeter
>>> must be used
>>>> at
>>>>> least somewhat in Europe.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> My direct experiences are in direct contradiction to the
>>> suggestions that
>>>> you make in this paragraph.
>>>>
>>>> In Australia, the industries that chose to use millimetres made
>>> a smooth and
>>>> rapid conversion to metric measures, and the industries that
>>> chose to use
>>>> centimetres are still struggling with the conversion more than
>>> thirty years
>>>> later.
>>>>
>>>> No Australian industry chose decimetres for their metric conversion.
>>>> Worldwide experience has shown that decimetres have never been used
>>>> successfully during the change to metric. Their use around the
>>> world is
>>>> still quite limited.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea why it is simpler and easier to convert to metric
>>> using> millimetres and so much more difficult using centimetres. I
>>> only know that
>>>> my experience in working with the agricultural, architectural,
>>> building,> carpentry, clothing, footwear, furniture, leather,
>>> plumbing, textiles,
>>>> timber, and welding industries tells me that this is so.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I have no gripe with the units centimetre and
>>> decimetre. I can
>>>> slither decimal markers backwards and forwards quite readily
>>> (and I �
>>>> sometimes � assume that others can do the same)
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that the choice of units has little to do with Baby
>>> Bear's> porridge and to assume it does is simply conjecture. If
>>> you are looking for
>>>> a model of metric conversion that works, then look for it in
>>> those places
>>>> where metric conversion has been done successfully. Conjecture
>>> serves no
>>>> useful purpose here.
>>>>
>>>> If you want a smooth and rapid conversion to metric measures, I
>>> strongly> recommend that you choose millimetres for your small unit.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Pat Naughtin LCAMS
>>>> Geelong, Australia
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
> http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminateviru
> ses_3mf
>
