Behind your thought about "soft conversion" is a deep commitment to "metric conversion" as you refer to later in this email.
I can find no evidence that "metric conversion" has ever worked, any where or at any time, as an approach to successful metrication. To paraphrase your statement: The reason SI failed in the US in the '70s was that America was choosing the "soft conversion" method of metrication as opposed to the hard.". I would say: "The reason SI failed in the US in the '70s was that America was choosing the "metric conversion" approach to metrication. This "metric conversion" approach included "soft conversion" as opposed to "hard conversion" as a natural application of "metric conversion". Currently the activities of "metric conversion" are extremely widespread in the USA and "metric conversion" is just as ineffective wherever it is applied. Schools, colleges, universities, journalists, and politicians are all devoted to "metric conversion" without knowing that it serves little if any useful purpose in moving the USA toward metrication (which, in my opinion is inevitable but not through the "metric conversion" approach). See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/ApproachesToMetrication.pdf and http://www.metricationmatters.com/metric_conversion.html Organisations have consistently been quickly successful wherever they have used the "direct metrication" approach to metrication. Examples abound -- try starting with the computer industry (internally), the motor industry (internally), the 2 litre soft drink bottle, and then go to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html where I like the diaper story when they say about their new metric design in Germany: The redesigned diaper machine operated 25% faster than the previous design, and was easier to maintain. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Geelong, Australia On 2011/01/30, at 05:35 , Kilopascal wrote: > If only it were true that foreign units of measure were being imposed on > America. Believe me no one in the world is going to force the US to > metricate. In fact it is in their best interests if America never does. > What better way to out-compete, out-perform; out-innovate; out-produce the > US? And America's competition knows this. > > What better way for the world to keep the tools of progress out of America's > hands then by simply not insisting that America metricate. > > The reason SI failed in the US in the '70s was that America was choosing the > "soft conversion" method of metrication as opposed to the hard. The > opponents picked this up and was able to convince the general public that > nothing would really change but the numbers and the words. We would be > measuring in increments of 25.4 millimetres instead of 1 inch. We would > drive in increments of 1.609344 kilometres instead of 1 mile. We would buy > food in increments and decrements of 0.45359237 kilograms instead of 1 pound, > etc, etc, etc. > > What a nightmare this would have been if true and no wonder people to this > day in the US hate the metric system. Those countries that metricated > successfully took the hard conversion approach. To this day America is still > stuck in the soft conversion mode. The US however can be thankful to the > importers of world products that the producers in Asia and Europe decided to > change the products so that the numbers would be round and in some cases > even tossed the old into the rubbish. > > Clinging to conversion factors that are long and nonsensical is a major part > of the problem. Not getting rid of the legal status of old units and > maintaining conversion factors with long strings of decimal dust is > guaranteed to keep SI out at least until the rest of the world passes the US > by more so than it is now. But then there has to be a voice in the wind that > will be able to connect the dots and prove to America that hard metrication > is their only salvation. I don't expect that voice to come from the outside, > nor from pro-metric supporters or businesses in the US. > > > > [USMA:49649] how does spelling relate to metrication > > mechtly > Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:36:56 -0800 > > In [USMA:49615], Ron Stone asked "how does spelling relate to metrication" ? > > Answer: *Hostility* to metrication is aroused when familiar words are > spelled > in a way that suggests that *foreign* units of measurement are being imposed > on the people of the Unites States of America. > > All of us here know that SI prescribes only symbols, not spellings. > > However, the false perception of many uninformed members of the public is > that > SI is foreign, and that metrication requires difficult *conversion" > calculations. > > In reality SI is easy to learn and use. Only the *transition* to SI can > sometimes be a temporary numerical burden. > > Gene Mechtly > Pat Naughtin LCAMS 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 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.
