On 2009/05/01, at 2:54 AM, <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:
Pat,
On your suggestions in red, many are *four* digits. This
contradicts the limit of *three* significant digits for most
"consumer" labels. How do you justify four?
Dear Gene,
Consider the 2-litre bottle. Are you thinking of insisting that this
cannot be labelled as a 2000 mL bottle. Consider the litre bottle of
spirituous liquor imported from Europe; would the importer have to
change 1500 mL to 1.5 litres with a sticker because of a three digit
limitation?
I have to say that I must have been thinking about 'three significant
figures' rather than 'three digits'. However, that said, let me
support the four digits as a suitable standard for packaging. I can
see several advantages:
1 There are no fractions
+ no common or vulgar fractions
+ no decimal fractions
+ no decimal points
2 All figures are in whole numbers
+ easy to comprehend at a glance
+ easy to calculate (say) for incorporating into recipes for cooking
at home
+ See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/WholeNumberRule.pdf
3 Easy to calculate at the filling factory with fewer errors
+ easier statistical calculations
+ easier fill proportions from known batch sizes
+ easier quality control calculations in factory
+ easier training for factory workers
+ easier statistics for supermarkets
These statements are, in part, based on the Australian experience of
working in millimetres on all of our building sites. Workers, even
those who were barely literate and numerate soon learned the
simplicity of working solely with whole numbers. One of the strange
things we learned when we decided to use millimetres in building
construction in Australia was that by having building workers aiming
for millimetre accuracy (that might rarely be achieved — but they
often go close) the whole of our construction jobs became more
accurate with fewer errors and savings estimated at about 10 % on each
job.
On the other hand, restricting product descriptions to three digits
leaves the possibility that packers and fillers will use decilitres,
centilitres and their mass and length equivalents. This would take the
USA down the long slow pathway to the metric system that was used by
France and in Europe.
On a broader issue, I would like to state where my opinions are coming
from. I sit on the other side of a paradigm shift in that I lived
through the fast, smooth, money-saving upgrade to the metric system in
Australia. In the 1970s I was actively involved in this metric
transition as a trainer in the building industry. I have probably
personally seen most of the metrication methods that work — and that
work smoothly and quickly. I have also worked in the textile industry
where I saw metrication pathways that were slow, bitterly fought, and
so outrageously expensive that many companies went out of business as
they fought over minor measuring issues internally. I have in my mind
this line as I write:
SHOW the COST
The metric system is characterised by SHOW — Simple, Honest, Open, and
Worldwide.
All old methods are characterised by COST — Complicated, Obscure,
Secret, and Territorial.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com
for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected]
or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
