This is an old posting. It relates to the mm, cm. It said:

    Any manufactured product made anywhere is first portrayed on an engineering 
drawing. This can be one drawing, such as for a pin, or a million of them 
together portraying the individual parts, subassemblies, and assemblies of a 
complex machine or building. The skill of a drawing making is called drafting. 
Individual companies in the past had their own drafting language, and one 
learned it upon joining the firm. I should ad that the language includes, 
besides dimensions, a plethora of symbols that convey information not only to 
manufacturing but also quality control, assembly, etc. People in need of 
reading drawings go for weeks long training, people who draw them go to years 
long training and the key people - design engineers - spend years in design and 
drafting training/schooling. 
    Today, with global industrialization, the differences among the languages 
would be a barrier to communication. Thus soon industries, then countries, 
developed what is today the ISO series of drafting standards (128, 129, 406, 
1302, 2553, 2768, 3040, 4063 .....). When ISO became in 1947, the mm was 
already firmly established as the ONLY "unit length" to be used on mechanical, 
chemical, electrical ..... drawings, the stronghold of opposition, the civil 
engineering, yielding to the mm a generation later. 
It seems to me that the Australian companies that failed with the cm failed not 
only because of the wrong "unit length" but also because of ignorance or 
stupidity (or both). Debating this point among us is somewhat similar - we 
mostly comment on what the retailers elect to show on whatever they sell, and 
that may very well be arbitrary and changing next week. 
    There is no such thing as the "rule of 1000." There simply are prefixes 
that mostly go by 1000, and that reflects, in our individual languages, 
thousand, million, billion, trillion, ..... millionth, ....... Existence of 
these "thousand" numbers does not prevent us from using also ten and hundred or 
hundredth if there is not an established practice that forbids it. The same 
with all prefixes. The established practices differ around the world.
Stan Jakuba
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeremiah MacGregor 
  To: undisclosed recipients: 
  Sent: 09 Aug 01, Saturday 08:56
  Subject: centimetre versus metre


  http://forum.gometric.us/jforum/posts/list/195.page

  John Steele said:

  "In European nations that have been metric for 150 years or so, the 
centimeter is well entrenched for measurements that relate to the human body 
(height, clothing size)."

  Actually for height measurements the centimetre tends to be more in use in 
Romance language countries and the metre in the Germanic and Slavic countries.  
 

  The problem with the centimetre having an effect on the speed of metrication 
seems to be more a problem in the English speaking countries with a majority of 
citizens with British ancestry then anywhere else.  Where outside of the 
English speaking world has the centimetre hampered metrication?

  Also is the problem that Pat has seen with the centimetre caused by the 
centimetre or is possibly something else?  I believe that the greatest 
resistance to metrication in the English speaking world comes from women.  In 
industries, such as clothing & cooking in addition the interest  body 
measurements, babies, etc., are primarily female dominated.  These  tend to be 
the areas where metrication hits the biggest snags.  Has anyone ever done a 
study on the feelings toward and the knowledge of the metric system among women 
versus men?

  The slowness of metrication in the English speaking world has a lot to do 
with the greater freedom women have in the national affairs, especially in the 
US.  Women may also be more vocal in business decisions affecting metrication 
in industry.  I know where I work, the women there are all anti-metric and 
complain if I speak metric in their presence.  The men don't.  I'm sure others 
may have a similar experience.

  In Australia and New Zealand the attitude of women may be more pro-metric by 
now, but I'm sure there is still a greater resistance then among men.

  Jerry






Reply via email to