Pat & all: >.....Now you may not care that the process has taken 225 years so far – but I >do. And I find it incredibly frustrating that you >can propose for the >inevitable upgrade to the metric system should take a further 100 years or >more because of your conjecture >that there is an equality between metrication >using millimetres or centimetres. Problem in US, to me seem, is non reconciliation to *THINK RIGHT* and differentiate between 'decimal divisions vs METRIC' - linked to the length unit - METRE - for any meaningful result/dicussion in getting into process of Le Systeme Internationale d'Unites. How unfortunate?
Metric Reform need be linked to METRE, to belong to SI Metric system of units, is my conviction! Today is July 31st that I propose to be removed & shifted to 2nd month as February 29th (all years) and keeping December 31st outside of calendar format has FOUR EQUAL quarters, to be usable (with or without Leap Days or Leap Weeks). Brij Bhushan Vij (G. Friday, 2009 July31H13:61 (decimal) EST Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 (365th day of Year is World Day) My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ ******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar***** "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:45475] Re: centimetres vs millimetres Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:58:11 +1000 On 2009/07/31, at 8:01 AM, [email protected] wrote: Centimeters is the industry common measurement for cycling (frames) and skiing....so I use them regularly. But this is like the meter vs metre argument. Who cares as long as it's not inch-foot-pounds!!!! Dear Brian, To answer your question – I care. As you know people in the USA have been trying to achieve a rational, fair, and honest measurement method since decimal methods were first proposed by Thomas Jefferson in the 1770s, 1780s, and 1790s (as you can see he was persistent). Jefferson succeeded with decimal currency with help from Benjamin Franklin and George Washington but he did not succeed in the USA with his proposal for decimal measurements. Although Jefferson was not successful with his proposal for decimal measurements in the USA, it is true that Thomas Jefferson with support from Benjamin Franklin was successful in promoting the idea for a decimal metric system in France while he was ambassador there from 1784 to 1789. So the truth of the matter is that the USA has been trying to adopt a better method of measuring – than the one they have now – since the 1780s. Now you may not care that the process has taken 225 years so far – but I do. And I find it incredibly frustrating that you can propose for the inevitable upgrade to the metric system should take a further 100 years or more because of your conjecture that there is an equality between metrication using millimetres or centimetres. As a challenge, could you describe to us on this list where you have seen a smooth, fast, economical transition to the metric system that took less than two years using centimetres. I know of many that have done this using millimetres. By the way, most of my bike riding friends use millimetres for frames and fittings except for old pre-metric specifications of some threads on old bikes. It is interesting that people who are developing new ideas for bikes in the USA routinely use millimetres: See http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5842712.html and http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5842712/description.html It may be that the centimetres you have met are part of a dumbing down process specifically for sales in the USA because bike sales staff don't have any industry guidance on which is best to use what to use – centimetres or millimetres. With respect to skis, the transition from old pre-metric measures began in Switzerland and France following the 'International metric conference' held in about 1798/1799. Given that it is possible to make a metric transition in two years using millimetres this would mean that the ski industry was able to do this by 1801. We know that this didn't work in France until 1840 at least and, without knowledge, I suspect that a similar time lag was also true of Switzerland. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the forthcoming book, Metrication Leaders Guide. 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. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [USMA:45469] centimetres vs millimetres From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> Date: Thu, July 30, 2009 2:50 pm To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Dear Tom, I take exception to the expression, anti-centimeter prejudice. As you know, I am opposed to the use of the centimetre in almost all* practical daily calculations, but this is not on the basis of an anti-centimeter prejudice. My opposition to the centimetre is based on observations of metrication transitions. I simply observed that metrication using millimetres can be done quite quickly, smoothly, and with so little cost that savings are made almost as soon as you begin the metrication process. On the other hand, the attempts at metrication using centimetres are slow – painfully slow, rough – often involving bitter disputes about the 'right' way to go about metric conversion, and so expensive that these metric conversion attempts are often abandoned with the thought best expressed as: 'Never again!' As you may recall, I did not understand why it was so much better to choose millimetres rather than centimetres for your inevitable transition to the metric system, so I involved myself in any debates and discussions that I could to collect the arguments both for and against millimetres and centimetres that I could find. My collection of these thoughts is available from http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/centimetresORmillimetres.pdf and I know that it is rather long because I tried to be exhaustive to be fair to both sides of the argument. * I sometimes – rarely – use centimetres as the basis for cubic centimetres to get the volume of things like a home aquarium in millilitres. However, this does not justify, in my opinion, condemning an entire nation to something like 100 years of metric conversion using centimetres when I have seen the the whole job done in a day using millimetres. As you know the USA were world leaders in measurement reform from the 1770s to the 1790s but they have not yet succeeded in fully adopting the decimal metric system that they had played such a big part in producing. See http://metricationmatters.com/USAmetricsystemhistory.html for a short summary of this history Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the forthcoming book, Metrication Leaders Guide. 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. On 2009/07/30, at 9:10 PM, Tom Wade wrote: It is good of you to promote metric height numbers. However, I do not like centimeter. I want schools to stop teaching and using centimeter. I also want schools to stop teaching inch-pound numbers. So, I want height to be in millimeters. What is it with the anti-centimeter prejudice that many people have on this group ? Just because mm are more appropriate for nearly all industrial use doesn't mean the humble cm doesn't have a role. To place cm alongside inch-pound as in the above paragraph is way over the top, and to try and pretend that that units between kilo and milli don't exist is to miss out on a huge advantage of the use of metric prefixes: the ability to scale the unit to the most appropriate size (and to advocate not teaching a unit that is not only officially recognized but is in wide use internationally simply because purists have a dislike of them is to recommend leaving holes in young people's education). The fact is that cm *are* the most appropriate unit for people's height. If you don't like using cm, then quote your height in meters (which is effectively 'hidden centimeters' as you will typically quote it to two decimal places, i.e. centimeters). Thus the centimeter is the unit that is closest to the required precision for people's height. It also gives a nice manageable range of whole numbers. My height is 174 cm or 1.74 m. If I am writing it down, I may write '1.74 m', but in saying it, I will say "one seventy four" without any units, which can be understood as one hundred seventy four centimeters or 1 meter plus 74 centimeters. Quoting height in millimeters is simply plain stupid - height is never expressed with that precision, as something as simple as a haircut will change your height. People who insist on using mm for height are like people who are so impressed with a screwdriver as a tool, that they think it can be used for everything (whereas a less generally useful tool such as a hammer would be more appropriate for *some* applications). I doubt very much you will see mm being used for height in countries where metric is the system used. Also, using mm for height gives an unnatural feeling, rather like the putative "New York 96.56 km" sign that anti-metric activists insist would replace a more natural "60 mile" sign. As for the choice of using meters or centimeters, I would point at that the use of centimeters has the advantage of yielding a whole integer without the need for decimal places -- something that is often (quite correctly) pointed out by people recommending the advantages of mm over inches or centimeters in other applications such as engineering drawings. Why not apply the same logic here ? Use the unit that is best suited to the range and precision required by the application. Tom Wade _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how. http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009
