On 2007 Jan 16 , at 8:38 AM, Mike Millet wrote:
That's why the best and smoothest transition in the US ... (will
be) ... rather from slow gradual economic and societal change.
"Slow" and "gradual" means difficult and expensive. During a long,
slow transition, both the old and new systems would be in effect
causing a great deal of confusion and extra work. Furthermore, when
two systems are both in effect, people would tend to continue using
the old, familiar system. They would not "gradually become familiar"
with the new one.
Mike goes on to say:
give the US consumer some time ... (to become accustomed to dual
labeling) ... then gradually introduce temperature and fuel and
finally road signage changes.
It's difficult to change one things at a time because there are so
many interconnections between units. If one changes fuel measurement
at one time and road signage (including distance) at another time,
when do you change fuel economy figures from miles per gallon to
kilometres per litre (or litres per 100 kilometres)?
Do you first change from miles per gallon to miles per litre (when
litres are adopted) and then change from miles per litre to
kilometres per litre at a later time (when kilometres are adopted).
That would mean having to make TWO changes instead of just one for
fuel economy alone (in addition to the necessary changes from gallons
to litres and from miles to kilometres.
Thus, instead of making a total of three changes at one time:
gal. to L,
mi. to km,
mi/gal to km/L
you'd have to make FOUR changes spread out over an extended period of
time:
gal. to L,
mi./gal. to mi./L,
mi. to km,
mi./L to km/L.
Another example would be cooking times based on oven temperature and
amount of food. We have charts or directions in Fahrenheit and
pounds; we will need to get to Celsius and kilograms.
Do we make TWO changes, first from Fahrenheit+pounds to Celsius
+pounds and later a second change from Celsius+pounds to Celsius
+kilograms? How foolish when we can do it in one change if we convert
all things simultaneously.
There are other relationships that cause would cause problems, too.
We know (actually I had to look up this first one) that there are 231
in^3 in a gallon and 1000 cm^3 in a litre. If we convert volumes from
gallons to litres before we convert inches to centimetres, then in
the interim (when we are using litres and inches), do we need to know
how many cubic inches there are in a litre? (The answer is 61.023
7441, by the way.) Again, MORE conversions are needed when changes
are made in several steps instead of all at once.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==========================
SImplification Begins With SI.
==========================
