Pat,
Your paper points out why the only way to go with metrication is with direct metrication.
It should be plain to all. If the
The
Linda Bergeron
From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:37840] RE: piecemeal metrication
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:26:27 +1100
<< Whatismetrication_ >>
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count. Title: Re: [USMA:37758] RE: piecemeal metrication Dear Linda, Bill, and All,
I have been thinking a lot about what you have had to say about piecemeal metrication and I essentially agree with your thoughts.
However, I also have some other ideas that I have incorporated into the attached article, What is metrication?
I would appreciate your comments.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216
Geelong, Australia
61 3 5241 2008
Pat Naughtin is manager of http://www.metricationmatters.com an internet website that primarily focuses on the many issues, methods and processes that individuals, groups, companies, and nations use when upgrading to the metric system. You can contact Pat Naughtin at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17/01/07 9:25 AM, "Linda D. Bergeron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am going to have to agree with Bill on this one. The US has had 30 years to convert 'slowly'. Not only has it not done so, there are areas of backslidding. For instance several years ago, at my local Wal-Mart you could find all kinds of metric measuring cups and scales. Now most everything of that sort has gone back to Fred Flintstone Units.
Thus we have seen the "slow" way does not work. Congress needs to get off its duff and carry out its constitutional duty and designate the metric system as the only lawful system for the US, effective by a specified date. And then have the political guts to stick by it when this or that special intrest screams boldy murder.
Although I do not see that happening anytime soon. Even with the Democrats in control of Congress.
Linda Bergeron
From: Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:37754] piecemeal metrication
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:49:20 -0500
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.
==========================
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get it now. <http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2746??PS=47575>
