Dear Bill, I have interspersed some remarks in blue.
On 2007 01 27 1:56 PM, "Bill Hooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am becoming more an more convinced that Pat is right in trying to get rid of > the prefix "centi-". My position is clear. I firmly believe that if you want to have a fast, smooth, economical, and successful metric transition, you will choose not to use centimetres and I also believe that there is enough observational evidence to support this view. (see: centimetres or millimetres which will you choose? at: http//www.metricationmatters.com/articles ) I am also aware that the use of centimetres is firmly embedded in some industries (eg. textiles), in some scientific laboratories, and almost all schools. My view is that the folk that work in these areas should settle back, relax and enjoy the slow, bitter, expensive metric transitions that, in my opinion, they are sure to experience. I am not about to waste time trying to get rid of the prefix "centi-" as this is probably too difficult (maybe impossible) once an individual, a company, a laboratory, or an industry has chosen to go down the centimetre pathway. > But there are indeed reasons why it may not be easy. He, himself, quotes some > from South African sources (below). > On 2007 Jan 26 , at 12:06 AM, Pat Naughtin wrote: >> >> Here is an extract from the July/August 1978 edition of the South African >> Metrication News. >>> (snip) >>> 4. It should be noted that the objection to centimetre is confined to its >>> use as a linear measure. When raised to the second and third powers, as in >>> areas and volumes respectively, it is necessary to employ square centimetres >>> and cubic centimetres to render the steps between successive multiples of >>> area and volume, practical ones. You are right that there can be a rather large gap if you don't have square centimetres and cubic centimetres available. We have, however, sort of solved the second of these by using the litre and the millilitre. With the first of these, the square centimetre, there seems to me to be a tendency to avoid this unit altogether in most industries, even if that means larger numerical values or decimal fractions of a metre. The only application that I have seen for square centimetres is for children in junior classes doing early area calculations. I'm sure that there are other applications but I haven't seen them on an industrial scale. > This (above) is another situation where it is going to be difficult to get rid > of centi-, even if we want to. >>> >>> 5. In South Africa the centimetre is used in the clothing and textile >>> industries and therefore also for related dimensions of the human body. It >>> should, preferably, not be introduced elsewhere. > > And here (above) even South Africa compromises on trying to get rid of the > centimetre. > > Bill Hooper > 1810 mm tall > Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA > You will also recall that the choice of centimetre in the South African textile industries meant that the metric transition is still slow, difficult, and expensive after more that 35 years so far. 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]
