On Tuesday 11 March 2008 15:40, ernie edwards wrote: > Can someone bring me up to speed on what is holding up converting > completely to metrics? > > I was exposed to metrics, while living in Spain for 5 years in the mid > 80's. We were building Dept. of Defense buildings in a number of > Mediterranean countries.... metrics sure made sense to me.... > > I am trying to start a dialog in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) > on supporting full conversion and I have sent emails to The Associated > General Contractors (AGC) and The National Society of Professional > Engineers (NSPE) asking their position on metrics. So far, I haven't heard > from either the AGC or NSPE. > > Again, please help me understand where the hold up is?
I'm taking statics, and the textbook (Spiegel and Limbrunner) is set up with all problems either entirely metric or entirely foot-pound, except for a few at the beginning which deal with conversion of units. Someone who goes through that course is going to get the idea that the two sets of units don't mix, and when presented with a foot-sized building with loads in kilograms, or vice versa, he's going to fall apart. The proper way to set up the problems is with each problem being mostly or entirely metric, with the answer expected in metric, but a few data being in feet or pounds. The change to metric-sized CMUs was mismanaged. The proper way to do it, I think, would be to designate some factories to produce nothing but metric blocks, rather than tell each factory to produce some of each and have them easily mixed up in inventory. Pierre
