Pat, James and all sirs: >The mil (0.001 in) is also called a "thou" in the U.S.
As a student learning the Metric units, I often came across 1/1000th on inch "a thou" which is 0.0254mm. BUT the emphasis need be placed among studet community to find the nearest equaivalent in other units to 'imagine' conversions for implementing their long term goal. I often used the 'vernier callipers and micrometre - both internal & external' to measure smaller distances of wire gauges or sheet metal. 1mm is 0.03936996 inch. The need, I feel is EDUCATION - the earler the better 'rather than find the stumbling blocks to delay the process of conversion' and let my grand children suffer in silence. Where do these children START! Regards, Brij Bhushan Vij (MJD 55371)/1726+D-186W26-04 (G. Thursday, 2010 June 24H13:04 (decimal) EST Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda The Astronomical Poem (revised number of days in any month) "30 days has July,September, April, June, November and December all the rest have 31 except February which has 29 except on years divisible evenly by 4; except when YEAR divisible by 128 and 3200 - as long as you remember that "October (meaning 8) is the 10th month; and December (meaning 10) is the 12th BUT has 30 days & ONE OUTSIDE of calendar-format" 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) ******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar***** "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" My Profile - http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf Author had NO interaction with The World Calendar Association except via Media & Organisations to who I contributed for A Possible World Calendar, since 1971. HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ Contact via E-mail: [email protected] From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:47937] Re: Another application of millimetres Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:56:17 +1000 On 2010/06/24, at 11:16 , John M. Steele wrote: Be that as it may, it beats measuring in inches and converting as the article suggests. Dual is easy to find here, metric-only is generally not sold in DIY stores, you have to buy on eBay, or maybe from a pro tool company. So realistically, my choices are to measure in metric with a dual tape, or to measure in inches with an inch tape and convert. Which is more metric? If we forced Congress to ban one or the other, they'd probably ban the metric based on other abuses of the joke "metric is preferred" Dear John, You are right to suggest not letting politicians anywhere near this issue. In Australia, an attempt was made to restrict importation of inch-only and inch-metric tapes and rulers. The politicians heard of this and moved to prevent any restriction of this kind indefinitely into the future. The net result of the politician's actions was a proliferation of dual scales and inch-only scales to the eventual confusion of the general population (but not of crafts and trades people who soon moved to a millimetres only mindset because they used millimetres every day). The delaying effect of this political interference in Australia is what I use to base my prediction for the USA – a metrication process nearer the 200 year end than the 2 year end of the possible spectrum of metrication time options. This quote from Kevin Wilks' book, Metrication in Australia, is relevant. ## The Board consistently opposed the use of dual measurement statements and dual tape measures and other measuring instruments. Ample evidence existed to show that dual units inhibited attempts by the public to try their hand at metric measurements and significantly delayed the process of learning metric by continually postponing the opportunity to learn by experience. Yet clear evidence also existed that, faced with a situation of inevitability, metric units in everyday use were far from difficult and people learned quickly from an extraordinarily small number of experience repetitions. Arising out of this policy towards dual measurement, the Board sought and obtained an amendment to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations to prohibit the importation of non-essential, non-precision measuring instruments for ordinary use, except where it could be demonstrated that they were essential for the continued operation and maintenance of existing imperial plant which it would be unduly costly or impracticable to convert. At the same time, an agreement between local manufacturers of measuring instruments was obtained, if somewhat reluctantly, to manufacture dual or imperial instruments for the Australian market, only under conditions which would have applied if those instruments were to have been imported. The purpose of these regulations and agreements was to limit the growth in the number of non-essential measuring devices which would become obsolete or obsolescent as Australia progressed towards total metrication. It was felt that many of the dual tape measures being purchased by the public were not essential as all building and handyman materials were sold in metric and the public had been sufficiently exposed to metric processes to be only minutely inconvenienced by being obliged to work in metric. >From the continuing complaints about the unavailability of dual tape measures >and the resurgence of buying that followed announcement of the withdrawal of >the regulation, it had to be assumed that, while the logic of the process was >probably correct, the psychology of it apparently was not. In continuing to obtain imperial instruments, people were not necessarily talking about a logical situation but about the fears, rational or otherwise, they had of being caught in a situation in which they would be unable to understand the measurements being used. In the case of measuring tapes they seemed to wish to obtain dual, not so much because they needed them to measure with, nor because they wished to practice converting back and forth from metric to imperial to educate themselves, but as a safeguard against being caught in a situation in which they could not understand the measurements being used. Until people had experienced metrics in as many different situations as it required, and they adjudged themselves competent to understand metric in all such situations, they would not declare that they had "got used to metrics". It seemed that to change public attitudes from inefficient involuntary learning with dependence on dual measurement for as long as it took to get used to metric by usage and involuntary experience, to a more efficient but more painstaking voluntary education might have required the Board to popularise metrication to overcome public disinterest, if not dislike, of metrication. Lethargy and disinterest appeared to be the main problems and it would have required some definite incentive for the public to depart from a learning process which, on the surface, appeared to require no personal effort, in favor of voluntary self education in metrics which did. Such a process would have required the Board to attempt to popularise metric measurements and metrication which, by its nature, would have been no easy task. Unfortunately, the Board chose not to pursue a change in public attitudes through usual public relations processes but chose instead to bring about a change in measurement usage through a change in the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. These regulations were not primarily intended to regulate the units of measurement used in a particular field but were for a different purpose altogether. Regrettably, in hindsight, this action by the Board was inappropriate and bureaucratic and a departure from the policy of conversion by consensus which had worked so well before. Although metrication was primarily a technical exercise it was also a social and cultural change. There was a large number of people from all walks of life whose daily work activities did not give them experience in metric measurement but whose hobbies and interests were measurement related. Although this group included many well-educated people, it also included people of lesser educational attainments who might have found difficulty in seeing the advantages of rapid self re-education, and, therefore, shown little inclination to depart from dual measurements. ## Cheers, Pat Naughtin From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 8:02:50 PM Subject: [USMA:47931] Re: Another application of millimetres On 2010/06/24, at 08:36 , John M. Steele wrote: I am thankful I at least live in a country sufficiently metric to have DUAL measuring tapes. :) Dear John, During the metrication of the Australian building industry (which you will recall was over and done with in a little under two years) we used the catch phrase, 'Don't duel with dual.' We were aware of how extended the metrication process could be if we encouraged all tradespeople and their assistants to constantly compare and convert from metric measures back to the old pre-metric measuring words. It is my opinion that in encouraging the use of dual measuring tapes you are (inadvertently perhaps?) supporting a metrication process nearer the 200 year end than the 2 year end of the possible spectrum of metrication time options. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, seehttp://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY 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/ to subscribe. On 2010/06/24, at 08:36 , John M. Steele wrote: I am thankful I at least live in a country sufficiently metric to have DUAL measuring tapes. :) From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 6:18:13 PM Subject: [USMA:47923] Another application of millimetres Dear All, For the cyclists among us: http://www.catalinasbeachsuites.com/bicycle-speedometer-schwinn Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, seehttp://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY 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/ to subscribe. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
