The rule of 1000 is not at issue here for human height. Ease of use,
application and standardization are.
If the meter is used, a decimal point is needed to provide sufficient
refinement/detail. Use of the millimeter does not require a computation since
no decimal point is required.
If the centimeter is used, then only three positions are required but a
computation is need to drop the millimeter digit. Moreover, the cm is not fine
enough for research purposes to discover changes in height during the day after
sleeping. This would require a decimal point to display four digits plus an
added position for the decimal point if the cm is used or five positions.
The millimeter is the logical unit and the most flexible, comprehensive and
straight forward to use.
The mm should be the US standard for human height measurements.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Stan Jakuba
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 10:39 AM
Subject: [USMA:45477] Re: centimetre versus metre
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
