Dear Pat, thanks for adding your thoughts and views about this discussion about metrication. i have added some further remarks, in orange.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Pat Naughtin < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Ron, > > I have interspersed some remarks, in blue. > > On 2010/10/27, at 19:26 , Ron Stone wrote: > > i don't think that metrication need be so complicated. > > > Metrication can be done in a day. It takes about 30 seconds to learn enough > about the metric system to build any building or to manufacture anything > that we use every day. Here is all you need to build the largest sky > scraper in the world (or to remodel your bathroom). > > 1000 grams = 1 kilogram 1000 kilograms = 1 tonne > 1000 millilitres = 1 litre 1000 litres = 1 cubic metre > 1000 millimetres = 1 metre 1000 metres = 1 kilometre > 1 metre x 1 metre = 1 square metre > 1 metre x 1 metre x 1 metre = 1 cubic metre metre > > And that's it! Oh, and by the way, by making these choices you will rarely, > if ever, need to use fractions ever again -- no decimals, and no common or > vulgar fractions either. > > The only reason you would add any other metric system multiples or > sub-multiples is if you feel a need to delay your upgrade to the metric > system for as long as you can. For example, if you add centimetres to the > above mix you can delay your metrication upgrade for 200 years or more. See > http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/centimetresORmillimetres.pdf and, > by the way, I am not saying that the centimetre is not a legitimate part of > the metric system, I am simply reporting on my observation that to use > centimetres for a metrication upgrade slows the entire process dramatically. > > i don't doubt that a practical use of a metric system of measurement would be easier to use. and i believe that it can be easier to learn. > sure, a lot more can be said about good preparation and planning. and there > certainly are many different levels of government involved. > > > Actually, I think that the federal government is the only government level > involved as measurement for the USA is written into the Constitution. > > but this remark is a tangent that ignores the metrication-related and -dependent practices throughout the different levels of government. it is a simple fact that states and localities use measurement words. i was not trying to define any particular role of metrication for any particular level of government. i am only saying that there might be roles of metrication for a user of a metric system. > there has also been a lot of misinformation about metrication. > > > True, see http://www.ukma.org.uk/Why/Myths.aspx?mid=7 > > there are likely roles for metrication throughout the various levels of > government. > > > Different levels of government will often do their best to interfere with > the metrication upgrade in the USA, but it is still a federal government > responsibility under the Constitution of the USA. John P. Kotter, a > professor at Harvard who studies the process of change, writes in *Buy-in > *that opponents of change take these forms: > > the remark about 'different levels of government will often do their best to interfere' sounds stereotypical rather than objective, and i think that you should reconsider whether this leads to a productive approach to metrication. > * fear mongering > * delay > * confusion > * ridicule (or character assassination) > > No doubt, as a proponent of the metric system you have experienced all of > these. For further details of John P. Kotter's writings on the process of > change go to http://metricationmatters.com/ChangeProcess.html where I make > some recommendations of Kotter's books. > typically, i think that most people aren't taking a side, and that there is rather a great inertia about metrication. no doubt there are also roles for metrication amongst businesses and consumers. you also didn't cite any positive roles here and i think that severely limits the remark. > > in any case, because metrication can provide a number of more economic > benefits to any of our communities, i support efforts to metricate in all of > the various levels of government. > > > See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf > > i also think that the cost of metrication need not be so much of an extra > cost as it has been. with good preparation and planning, metrication can be > accomplished as part of normal costs of operation. > > > See http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html > > in addition to government, it is also important to scrutinize metrication > in areas of education and business. > > > Educators have a problem. The old measuring words required that roughly an > hour a day for ten years of education be devoted to their teaching of all > the old measuring names with their histories, variations, conversion factors > and how to use them, etc., etc. (which was demonstrably ineffective for > rough;y half of the children). > > i don't see this as a very objective consideration. > Now, the metric system that is needed for industry (consider millimetres in > building and construction, millimetres in computer design and manufacture, > millimetres in furniture design, millimetres in car, truck, tractor, and > motor bike design and construction, and so on …) can be taught in less than > a minute, can become habitual within an hour, and can be mastered for all > measurement activities for the rest of your life within a day. > > This is a major problem for educators. I predict that it will take them > several generations for educators to adjust to this dramatic change. They > will delay the inevitable metrication upgrade in two main ways: > > this is too stereotypical and is not really an approach to metrication. > 1 They will encourage metric conversion. This has been shown not to be > effective in numerous trials all around the world, yet it is the dominant > approach by educators in the USA. This is both time consuming and > ineffective. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/metric_conversion.html > > 2 They will favor teaching all of the units of the metric system, together > with all of the prefixes, and all of the possible combinations of metric > system units and prefixes whether these are used in any industry in the USA > or not. Again, this is both time consuming and ineffective. > > 2 Educators like to teach children about the sliding and slithering > decimal point. This can be useful in pure number studies but it is not > necessary, nor useful, to apply it to the metric system that, with sensible > use of prefixes as is done in most industrial applications, can avoid > decimal fractions altogether. > > 4 They will favor centimetres for almost all measurements inside and > outside the classroom. I don't fully understand why, or how, the use of > centimetres delays the process of metrication, but it demonstrably does. I > can find no evidence in any nation where the metrication process has been > successful -- and fast -- using centimetres. > > hyperbole that in a vacuum may or may not inform approaches to metrication. > While educators are adjusting to the threat of simplicity inherent in the > metric system, it follows that business has an even bigger problem. The > metric system as it is being taught in schools and colleges is quite > irrelevant to industry. So much so, that industry has to bear the burden of > extra time and extra cost of training all new new people they hire into > using the metric system that is appropriate for their industry. For example, > someone who is employed on a motor vehicle assembly line has to learn and to > become familiar with the use of millimetres; and has to unlearn anything > they remember about metric conversions, and slithering decimal points to get > from centimetres to hectometres, and back to decimetres! > > this remark is very often too subjective, and i think that an objective approach could be more informative about metrication and a metric system of measurement. > metrication or WOMBAT? isn't that the question? > > > No, I don't think that that is the question. There are two real questions; > the first is: > > *How long will the good citizens of the USA continue to hide the fact that > they are already a completely metric nation?* > you say that this is a real question, however it does not really provide an objective interpretation of the actual metrication processes for an international system of measurement. > > Consider the facts that many people spend most of their days working with > all-metric designed and built computers. > Consider the fact that most people wash their faces and apply make-up etc. > using all-metric products designed and blended using the metric system. > Consider the fact that many clothing items are designed and made to metric > system specifications down to fibre diameters in micrometres. > Consider the fact that most Asian made household items, refrigerators, > washing machines, etc., are designed and made using metric system units. > Consider the fact that most people in the USA drive to and from their work > in all-metric designed and built cars, truck, tractors, or motorbikes. > Consider the fact that after work most people in the USA go home to watch > television or listen to music on all-metric televisions and radios. > Consider the fact that if any citizen of the USA becomes ill they will be > treated with all-metric designed, formulated, and applied medicines. > Consider the fact that when any citizen tells you their height and 'weight' > (read mass), they will do so using the USA metric feet and inches of 1893, > the international metric feet and inches of 1959, and the international > metric pounds of 1959. > Consider the fact that when drivers in the USA talk about miles, and miles > per hour, they are usually referring to the international metric mile. > > Consider the fact that the USA is completely metric but the citizens have, > collectively, decided to hide this fact from each other. > > this is a stereotype. > Once, I tried to convey the message that the USA is wholly metric in a sort > of ironic humor, but I am not sure that it had much effect. See > http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/DontUseMetric.pdf > > And the second real question is: > > *When will the USA decide that it is the approach they choose for their > inevitable metrication upgrade that is important?* > > how might this question be written more objectively? > There are four approaches to a metrication upgrade that are possible. See > http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/ApproachesToMetrication.pdf > > The four approaches are: > > 1 Direct metrication > > 2 Hidden metrication > > 3 Metric conversion > > 4 Ignore it and it will go away > * **One of these works! And it works quickly!* > > speaking for myself, i support direct metrication as a practicable approach to using a metric system of measurement. i also think that this would be easiest and best when put to practical use. cheers, Ron > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin > Author of the ebook, *Metrication Leaders Guide,* see > http://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 > <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. > > -- -------------------- Ron Stone ------------------------- disclaimers or other restrictions may apply to this message. ------------------------------------
