Your text makes interesting reading.
My own, personal, point of view is that metrication isn't happening, or is about to happen. It's already happened.
I view metrication in the same way as computerisation. It has happened. BUT it does not replace technology and ideas that don't require, don't need or are not wanted by computer.
I prefer vinyl records to CD's - there are many many articles that show that the old analogue format is better than the new format. Technologically CD (ie digital) is higher than vinyl (analogue) but they can both co-exist. I would be against any move to bad vinyl because it's "been superceded by CD". There are many examples of my view on metrication above - but this one is closest to me since HiFi is my hobby.
I could tell you why I have a "proper" mini rather that one of those new big ones made by BMW - but I'd probably send you to sleep! (its another hobby!)
BTW - you mention this: "Road makers in the UK use this approach. Roads are designed and constructed in kilometres and millimetres and then labelled (signed) with mileposts and furlong markers"
I've never seen a furlong marker. Our roads use the following signage:
"Finger post" to nearby towns, villages, cities show miles and fractions there-of
"Square signs" show distances to far away places, usually in rounded miles.
Motorways generally have the following:
1 mile from the turnoff sign
1/2 mile from the turnoff sign
Countdown boards /// // / to the exit places one hundred yards apart.
In some cases (where viewability is an issue) the 1 and 1/2 mile boards will show frations of thirds or quarters.
Signs that show that something "impending" is coming up (like, say, traffic lights) use a system of showing a picture of a traffic light in a triangle sign at 800, 600, 400, 200 yd intervals (with 800yds, etc beneath the sign).
Height and width signs show imperial, or metric and imperial.
Weight signs show tonnes or tons (both are so close anyway).
Speed signs tend to show:- 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20.
On motorways you can find (if you go and look for them) mile calibration signs. this composes of 4 disks about 6in (15cm) in size that are placed one quarter of a mile apart from each other. The first one is yellow and the subsequent three go to red in quarters of the disk. I believe that these are used by the police.
From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:32448] Four approaches to metrication Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:32:28 +1100
Dear All,
Recently, in a barrage of emails about metrication and freedom, I was identified as being 'pro-metrication'. This came as a bit of a shock to me. Not because I do not see myself as pro-metrication, but rather because I had believed that my approach was simply based on my close observations of metrication in a range of industries. It hadn't really occurred to me that others were taking my thoughts and applying them in a context of whether or not I supported the metric system. I apologise to anyone to whom I have not made my position on metrication clear.
Anyway, let me make my position clear now. I am pro-metrication. I am pro-metrication because I believe that metrication is inevitable. I believe that it is right for us all to use the fairest, simplest, system of measuring units ever devised by humans. I firmly believe that the metric system is, as Condorcet said, 'For all people, for all time'.
I have been fortunate to have closely observed successful, smooth, and rapid
metrication transitions. I have also closely observed unsuccessful (so far),
rough, and extremely slow metrication attempts.
When I send emails to the USMA, I am not at all conscious that I am arguing
for the use of the metric system � I simply assume that metrication will
happen. My contributions are about how metrication has happened in the past,
and about how I think that metrication will happen in the future. As I see
it, there is no doubt about whether or not metrication will happen � I
regard that as a given.
I suspect that an overwhelming majority of the world's people believe that in the future we will be predominately metric in the way we carry out our personal and commercial dealings. Most don't doubt that this position will definitely be reached in (say) 100 years, by the year 2105; many think that it will take 50 years, till 2055; and there are others who hope that this can be achieved in 5 years, by 2010. I think that all of these will be correct for some people at some time; it will depend on how they choose to go about their metrication process.
This issue of choice is of most interest to me � the ways that people choose
to go about their own metrication process. In observing approaches to
metrication, I believe that we can broadly classify these in four ways.
Four approaches to metrication
Recently, I examined a 'Sizing Chart' for men's clothing. It stated that it consisted of two parts: one where 'Measurements are in inches' and another where 'Measurements are in centimetres'. It looked like a bit of a measurement muddle to me until a quick examination revealed that all of the measurements were really inch measurements converted to over precise centimetre values (to two decimal places!) for the 'Sizing Chart'.
While I was thinking about this strange way of running a business it
occurred to me that there have been four main approaches to metrication. I
suspect, and I know from Australian experience that this clothing company is
using one of these four approaches to metrication. In my classification this
men's clothing company is using 'Approach 3', below.
Approach 1
Keep all design and manufacture in old measures and communicate with the public in old measures.
This is the approach actively promoted by groups such as the British Weights
and Measures Association and used by the Wild West Hall of Fame in the USA.
I used to know a small company in Geelong that made rainwater tanks using this technique � they are no longer in business; and another Australian company that made industrial sheds � they are no longer in business either. I now don't know of any other companies that have consistently tried this approach and are still in business in Australia. I suppose that this approach is based on either, 'Do nothing' or 'Ignore it, and it will go away'.
I also think that this approach is impossible to achieve in the year 2005; go to http://www.metricationmatters.com/articles.html and download, 'Don't use metric'.
Approach 2
Do all design, processing, and manufacture in metric units and then
communicate with the public in old pre-metric units. For example, most
worldwide automotive companies design, build, and market in metric measuring
units only.
However, the automotive industry in the USA designs body parts in
millimetres and engine parts in micrometres, builds to this precision and
then sells to the public with a 'mph' speedometer, 'ml' odometer, 'in.'
tyres with 'psi' pressures. Although a car might have its 10 000 parts
measured some 100 000 times using only metric units, the four labels, 'mph',
'ml', 'in.', and 'psi' are all that is needed to convince many drivers in
the USA that they are driving an English units car and that all is for the
best in this English units world.
Road makers in the UK use this approach. Roads are designed and constructed in kilometres and millimetres and then labelled (signed) with mileposts and furlong markers. Again, many members of the public believe that they are driving an English units car, on an English units road, in an English units world.
The world gold industry mines in tonnes, refines in grams, and milligrams, and then reports sales to the public in Troy ounces.
The world oil industry drills in millimetres and metres, extracts in litres
and cubic metres, sells in kilograms, and then reports the selling prices to
the public in theoretical barrels that never existed.
Approach 3
Design and manufacture in old measures and then use conversions (almost always soft conversions that are too precise) to communicate with the public.
This is the approach taken by the clothing company mentioned above with their clothing sizes. It is an attempt to convince the public that the company is progressively metric while not having to spend a red cent on retraining in the factory because there they are still using inches (and more rarely half-inches and quarter-inches) for all of their design and garment making.
This is also the approach taken by the menswear industry in Australia. For
example, a 38 inch jacket is designed, cut, and made to inch precision, then
labelled as 97 centimetres implying centimetre precision.
I think that many air-conditioners are built to designs based on whole numbers of horsepowers, therms, and BTUs as design element goals, and then these are sold to the public in kilowatts.
Approach 4
Design and build in metric units, and communicate with the public in metric
units. This is the simple and easy approach taken by Australian builders,
carpenters, electricians, fitters, furniture makers, machinists, gasfitters,
plumbers, welders and many others who design, build, and communicate with
the public in millimetres. In some cases metrication in these Australian
industries took less than a month and produced increased annual profits of
10 % or more, which they have enjoyed each year since the mid 1970s.
Combined approaches
Although it is easy to identify the four main approaches to metrication and to identify many companies and industries that use each approach, it is sometimes more difficult to classify groups who have chosen � mostly by default � to use a somewhat messy range of these four approaches.
Consider the cost of the confusion at Kodak where the film division used
Approach 4 to complete metrication in the 1910s while the photographic paper
division is still puddling along with a sort of combined Approach 1 and
Approach 3 in 2005 -- 95 years later -- and they've still got a long way to
go.
You might recall that NASA in the USA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter at a cost of about 1200 million dollars because they confused old measures with metric measures. I won't comment on NASA's measurement practices, except to suggest that various parts of that organisation are using all four of the above approaches, often in conflict with each other.
Timing
The timing to complete metrication using each of the four main approaches is
interesting:
Approach 1 -- never, the muddle continues.
Approach 2 -- metrication is completed internally in the industry within a few years, but the public conversion is designed not to happen until metric measures have developed to a point where it is OK (morally right?) to discuss metric measures in public. This could take a couple of human generations (say) 50 years.
Approach 3 -- very slow conversion will take place as a back-conversion from
the company's public 'metric' position. Typically, you could expect this
type of conversion to take at least 100 years.
Approach 4 -- quick and easy metrication, with a time of less than a few months being possible, and less than two years being typical.
Future
Don't doubt that metrication is inevitable. No individual, no group, no
company, no industry, and no nation that has ever used metric measures (and
especially SI units) for some time ever goes back to using old pre-metric or
pre-SI measures.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin ASM (NSAA), LCAMS (USMA)* PO Box 305, Belmont, Geelong, Australia Phone 61 3 5241 2008
Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by going to http://www.metricationmatters.com and clicking on 'Newsletter'.
* Pat is the editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' chapter of the Australian Government Publishing Service 'Style manual � for writers, editors and printers', he is an Accredited Speaking Member (ASM) with the National Speakers Association of Australia, and a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association.
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may
contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This
email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly
or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any
unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is
prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it
from your system and notify the sender by return email.
