> We are re-doing our web site, and it has been suggested that we
> provide a link to a web page that does conversions.
>
> I would prefer a site that converts TO metric only.
>
> Can anyone recommend a site?
Dear Jim,
To provide a link to a metric conversion page is not, in my view, a good idea.
The process of metrication is not encouraged by metric conversions; or to be more blunt, metric conversions are a direct impediment to metrication progress.
I cannot recall any successful metrication program where metric conversion has been a part of the process. On the other hand I have seen many failed or painfully slow attempts at metrication where the use of metric conversions has delayed metric progress to such an extent that the metric conversion has taken many, many years without being completed.
I sometimes feel that many of the anti-metric discussions put forward by some are not really arguments about metrication but about the selection of a poor metrication process that usually involves a large component of metric conversions.
This is not a new thought for me but it is a fairly poorly developed one, so let me float 2 examples here as I try to develop my thoughts.
1 The film department at Kodak chose to decide on 16 millimetre film in 1926 without any reference to metric conversions; they simply said the working part of the film would be 10 mm wide with 3 mm on either side for the sprockets. The metric transition was essentially complete by the end of 1927 (within 1 year). No reference was made to conversions.
At or about the same time, the photographic paper section of Kodak decided to do a metric conversion of their (say) 6 inch by 4 inch paper to 15 centimetres by 10 centimetres; they are still struggling with the concept of metric conversion in 2005 (almost 80 years later). Their 2005 papers are neither accurate in metric sizes nor accurate in pre-metric sizes; everyone who uses photographic papers is best advised to measure each new sheet before using it; Kodak 'standards' are not only not known they are unknowable as they flop back and forth from pre-metric to metric, using various conversion factors, quite often.
2 Often a metrication program begins well and then (inadvertently and innocently) the people involved choose the metric conversion path. Think about the clothing industry where garment makers had an old set of rules of thumb using:
i yards,
ii common or vulgar fractions of yards,
iii inches, and
iv common or vulgar fractions of inches.
Immediately the metrication process was started they now had to contend with:
The old
i yards,And the new
ii common or vulgar fractions of yards,
iii inches, and
iv common or vulgar fractions of inches, for legacy jobs.
v metres,And the conversions
vi common or vulgar fractions of metres (eg halves quarters),
vii decimal fractions of metres with one, two, or three decimal places.
viii centimetres,
ix common or vulgar fractions of centimetres (eg halves quarters),
x decimal fractions of centimetres with one or more decimal places,
xi millimetres, and
xii decimal fractions of millimetres for especially accurate or expensive jobs (eg leathers)
xiii Between yards and metres,
xiv between centimetres and inches,
xv between millimetres and quarters,
xvi between quarters of centimetres and 0.5 centimetres,
etc., etc., etc.
As you can see, it is not the decision to 'Go metric' that is at fault here. It is the decision about the path to metrication that is causing the complexity for the textile workers and not the metric system itself. Had the textile industry leaders chosen to use millimetres and metres only, then the simplicity of metrication would have soon been obvious to all and the benefits (both in the craft and financially) could have been quickly enjoyed.
However given the added complexity engendered by the metric conversion choice, is it any wonder that the metrication transition in the Australian textile industries has, so far taken 30 years and there is no sign of completion being in sight -- there's not even much sign of progress. My guess is that the process using metric conversions might take anything up to 100 years.
Leaving aside the actual requirements for a successful metrication process, I don't think it would be a good idea to associate your company, QSI, with metric conversion as it is a process that has been a notable failure wherever it has been tried.
Let me repeat, 'I cannot recall any successful metrication program where metric conversion has been a part of the process'.
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/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. For more information go to: http://metricationmatters.com
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.
