Looks good. I haven't read it all, but skimmed much of it. May I make one suggestion for the 1959 entry on page 131? In the sentence, "However, in the USA they decided to keep the old Mendenhall foot for some purposes in
some states with the result that the USA now has two different standards for a foot." I suggest instead:However, in the USA they decided to keep the old Mendenhall foot for land measurement in some states with the result that the USA now has two different standards for a foot. The Survey foot is approved only for land measurement usage (from NIST notes, this appears to include water depths and elevation of land above (or below) sea level, but does not include pressure altitudes in the US Standard Atmosphere.) It basically covers surveying, land registration, and mapping. It is probably fair to say all States used it until after the release of new geodetic data and a new North American datum NAD83 in 1983. That was originally intended to be metric only, but protests by the States led to USGS also releasing data in feet provided the State and its surveying body agreed to choose between International and Survey feet by legislation. Thus the real data (metric) is either multiplied by 1250/381 or 3937/1200 according to the State's preference. The difference of 2 parts per million is negligible in plane surveying accuracy standards of 1 part in 10 000, but matters because of the "false origins" used to adjust the data ranges of most state plane coordinate systems. Large states use multiple zones and multiple false origins so that the data range "encodes" the zone, and an error of two feet per million becomes important. (50 States = 50 Ways, it is a complete mess. I wonder if USGS thought the mess would facilitate metrication.) The substitution of "land measurement" for "some purposes" makes it correct without getting into the entire can of worms. ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 12:26:11 AM Subject: [USMA:48877] Re: Metric reform 1879 Dear John, I have now updated the Metrication timeline at http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/MetricationTimeline.pdf to include the Upton information from you and from the USMA web page. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Geelong, Australia On 2010/11/17, at 10:58 , John M. Steele wrote: Pat, >I don't know anything about the magazine article. However, the USMA site has >a >nice copy of J. K. Upton's 1878 report to Congress on metrication. It was >apparently in response to an inquiry from Congress in 1877. So it sounds like >there was some initiative at that time (there have been several). Upton's >report was very favorable to metrication; it is not clear why nothing happened. > > > > ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> >To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> >Sent: Tue, November 16, 2010 4:08:02 PM >Subject: [USMA:48873] Metric reform 1879 > >Dear All, > > >It would appear that there was a move for "METRIC REFORM" for the USA in 1879. >See http://cgi.ebay.com/1879-Metric-Conversion-Metrication-System-Measure-Meter-/310271050139 > > > >Does anyone know anything about this metrication effort? 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/ to subscribe.
