In some parts of the world, gold is sold by the gram and not by the
ounce.
Why not make grams (SI) standard to avoid confusion so people will be
able
to understand how much they are actually buying?
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Vlietstra
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:44 PM
Subject: [USMA:37782] Re: piecemeal metrication
Mike,
It is usual in Europe to measure fuel consumption in L/100 km. If you
regard a litre of fuel as a unit of currency, then this is directly
analgous
to buying apples at 75c/kg or gold at $624.45/troy oz etc. Also,
expressing
fuel consumption that way round makes it easier to calculate the cost of
fuel
per km, the cost of tyres per km, the cost of tax and insurance per km
(assuming a fixed annual amoutn of travelling) etc.
Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hooper
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: [USMA:37754] piecemeal metrication
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.
==========================
