Mike:
It seems we need to distinguish among engineers: those that read, remember and
follow guidelines, and those who do not. In my write-up, I was thinking
globally.
Locally, US personnel is perhaps the most UNlikely to follow. Among US
personnel, NASA engineers are the MOST UNlikely to follow. Nuclear might not be
too far behind. I still remember the words of one NASA supervisor whom I was
trying to persuade to provide his engineers with any guidelines for
metrication: We want our engineers to be creative; we do not want that
(standards and guidelines).
That was an extreme. But in my training practice, after 3-days of lecturing,
exercises, uncounted examples, and written guidelines, a month later someone
will ask me "cm okay?" (on drawings). Rrrrr.
That's inevitable, I guess. Stan
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Millet
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: 2007 Feb 15, Thursday 15:36
Subject: [USMA:37977] Re: mm vs. cm
Stan,
Are we talking standardized in the US or worldwide? I know nuclear engineers
that do reactor walls in mixtures of mm and thousandths of an inch or whatever
the most equivalent unit is. A lot of government work done at the DOE
laboratory near where I live use a mixture of both. Heating vacuum and Air
conditioning also seem to use both interchangeably :).
I remember some of the nuclear engineers complaining because they're
collaborating with Australian scientists meaning they'll have to change their
units instead of using "the ones that make sense"
It was funny actually as I thought about it.
Mike
On 2/15/07, Stan Jakuba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have not followed the discussion of mm. vs. cm but feel compelled to add
to Pat's. I apologize if this was already covered.
All engineering professions thru their representatives on various committees
agreed decades ago that all dimensions with technical information such as on
drawings or in specifications will only be in mm. Thus engineering info in
mechanical, nuclear, bio-mechanical, electrical, chemical, civil, naval,
space, you name it, ought to do that because their reps said so. Only. There
is no law about it. (But do not confuse dimension with distance.) Most of
these societies issued guidelines to that effect in all industrialized
countries.
Why mm? Because it was the compromise that all found if not convenient, at
least acceptable. WHY to unify at all? Standardization among all branches
of
engineering, countries and languages benefits everybody in the long run. For
example, as a result of this CONVENTION, dimensions need not be accompanied
by a unit. "Everybody" knows, mm is understood.
Pat brings up that some companies in Australia used cm. In engineering
documentation, I presume. They deserve the fate Pat described, because they
should have joined and paid dues in their society, or form one, and follow
its guidelines.
I hope I have contributed a bit to this endlessly discussed subject. Let the
culinary, sartorial, publishing and similar societies or individuals use
whatever they want if there are no guidelines from some standards writing
representation of them. Or if the guidelines recommend cm or angstroms or
light-year, let it be; it is their choice.
Stan Jakuba
----- Original Message -----
From: < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: 2007 Feb 14, Wednesday 19:50
Subject: [USMA:37967] Re: mm vs. cm
> Pat,
>
> Thanks for the useful clarifications!
>
> I'm still wondering what people say in daily conversation.
>
> For example, if a random sample of Australians was asked to guess the
> length, height, and width of a desk that they were standing in front of,
> how would that sample break down in terms of using millimeters,
> centimeters, and Imperial in their answers?
>
> Are there any attributes (such as age, education level, metric usage in
> the industry where an individual works, etc.) that correlate strongly and
> positively with a particular usage (mm, cm, or Imperial).
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Ezra
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Dear Ezra,
>>
>> The situation in Australia is that many (probably most) industries
>> adopted a
>> measurement policy as part of their move to 'go metric' in the 1970s.
>> These
>> were, I stress, measurement policies set by individual industries < the
>> policies, the implementation dates, and the individual practices were set
>> by
>> the particular industry metrication committees.
>>
>> Most of these worked and worked extremely well and metrication was more
>> or
>> less all over within a year or two. So much so that most people don't
>> even
>> remember the process, and in particular, they don't remember any pain
>> that
>> was associated with 'going metric'.
>>
>> Let me be clear: there was no directive.
>>
>> There were no government directives and there were no industry
>> directives.
>> An industry advisory panel simply devised a metrication policy for the
>> industry and the people in that industry were free to follow that policy
>> or
>> not as they saw fit in the interests of their own businesses. I
>> personally
>> saw some sad cases where individual business owners tried to keep their
>> old
>> imperial measures in an increasingly metric world < they have now all
>> gone
>> broke or they have changed their ways to metric.
>>
>> Notable successes were those where the industry leaders chose a policy
>> based
>> on millimetres.
>>
>> Some industries did not devise a clear metrication policy so the people
>> in
>> that industry had to either devise their own measurement policy or to try
>> to
>> operate without a measurement policy. These industries often ended up
>> with a
>> truly garbled collection of units from all around the world, particularly
>> from other English speaking countries especially the UK and the USA.
>>
>> Notable failures were those that chose a measurement policy based on
>> centimetres < they are still struggling with metric conversions if they
>> are
>> still in business.
>>
>> Most people were unaware that metrication was an issue. They went along
>> with
>> the metric policies of their industry leaders and got with it; got over
>> it;
>> and then got on with it!
>>
>> You will still hear old pre-metric words to describe metric items. For
>> example 12 mm copper tubing is often called '1/2 inch' even though it has
>> been a ling time since this tubing was made in inches.
>>
>> Similarly, the mass of newborn babies is back translated to lbs and ozs
>> to
>> make comparisons with grandma's babies < I believe that about 10 000
>> babies
>> die each year from medical errors that are based on this conversion
>> practice.
>>
>> On 2007 02 15 9:17 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>>
>> > To clarify: what I'm curious about is what most people in Australia in
>> > the
>> > absence of a particular directive (like the one to use mm in
>> > engineering
>> > drawings or cm in the textile industry) "chose" to use in their daily
>> > lives
>> > when describing lengths that often are expressed with cm in other
>> > metric
>> > countries.
>> >
>> > Ezra
>> >
>> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 2/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I'm wondering if our Australian folks can tell us what people
>> >> > Down
>> >> Under
>> >> > prefer to use when talking about the height cleared by a high
jumper
>> >> > or the
>> >> > length of skis.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ezra
>> >> >
>> >> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> >> > From: "Harry Wyeth" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>> > > I cast my vote for continued use of cm. mm is useful, of
>> >>> > course,
>> >> > depending on
>> >>> > > the size involved. It's easy to say that a sliver in your
>> >>> > finger is
>> 3 mm
>> >> > long,
>> >>> > > but much more convenient to say your skis are 180 cm in
>> >>> > length or
>> >>> that the
>> >> > down
>> >>> > > tube on your bike is 46 cm or that the high jumper cleared
>> >>> > 195 cm.
>> My
>> >> > height is
>> >>> > > 176 cm, or "one seventy six". People understand the
>> >>> > differences >>>
>> between
>> >> > mm and
>> >>> > > cm, and I don't really think there is danger of confusion.
>> >>> > Using cm
>> a lot
>> >> > will
>> >>> > > not delay whatever progress we may make in metrication in
>> >>> > this >>>
>> country.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > HARRY WYETH
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> > From: "Harry Wyeth" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" < [email protected]>
>> >> > Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:06:17 +0000
>> >> > Subject: [USMA:37956] mm vs. cm
>> >> >
>> >> > I cast my vote for continued use of cm. mm is useful, of
>> >> > course,
>> >> depending
>> >> > on the size involved. It's easy to say that a sliver in your finger
>> >> > is 3
>> >> mm
>> >> > long, but much more convenient to say your skis are 180 cm in length
>> >> > or
>> >> that the
>> >> > down tube on your bike is 46 cm or that the high jumper cleared 195
>> >> > cm. My
>> >> > height is 176 cm, or "one seventy six". People understand the
>> >> > differences
>> >> > between mm and cm, and I don't really think there is danger of
>> >> > confusion.
>> >> Using
>> >> > cm a lot will not delay whatever progress we may make in metrication
>> >> > in
>> >> this
>> >> > country.
>> >> >
>> >> > HARRY WYETH
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
