Dear Paul, I have interspersed some remarks.
On 2011/04/02, at 03:32 , Paul Rittman wrote: > I have been looking at the metric system for a couple of years now. My > primary reason for exploring it has been my continual frustration with the > bizarre medley of traditional imperial units—bushels, hogheads, > hundredweights, etc., as well as the various types of ounces. I teach history > at the college level and struggle to be able to remember statistics because > they are usually attached to some unit that I can’t seem to recall off the > top of my head. And the old measuring words often have multiple meanings. For example the word, mile, can mean anything from one kilometre to 15 kilometres. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile > First, I have seen many people in threads (not here) state that they like > using the metric on the job, but at home and in their personal lives, they > prefer the traditional units. I think it is best for society to pick one > system and use it (almost) exclusively, instead of switching between two > separate systems—and I’m sure some NASA engineers would agree with me there. Anyone seeking honesty in measurement would agree with you here. I don't know when this was written but I think it's still relevant: Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, … But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have. Deuteronomy 25:14 and 25:15 Different weights (now masses) have always been used to support dishonesty. > My main problem with the metric system is trying to use it in my daily life > (I live in the southern California region in the United States). I don’t > really have a problem with kilometers or liters, but with the shorter units > of length that I would be using in my daily life. I guess its easier to > visualize 6 feet than 180 or so centimeters. I read Pat’s article on using > the millimeter (perhaps he was simply saying that businesses should use mm, > with individuals using what they prefer?), but it just seemed a bit too much > to continually tell myself, “I’m sitting 150 mm from the window,” or > something like that, or that I’m 18,500 mm tall. Some years ago I changed my work from working in building industry research to working in the textile industry. I had actively worked on the metrication upgrade in the building industry where we chose to use millimetres for all small measurements. This meant that all measurements on every building site were in whole numbers. There were no common or vulgar fractions and there were no decimals. As part of my job was training I soon realised that enough of the metric system could be taught to all workers in under a minute and that each of them could become familiar with the metric system in less than a day. The whole metrication upgrade for the Australian building industry was completed for most companies in under a year and for the slowest companies in under two years. This success was then repeated -- using millimetres -- in about 85 % of all other Australian occupations. You can imagine my surprise when I changed to the textile industry (mostly wool textiles) only to find that they had chosen centimetres for their small metric system unit and -- after 30 years of metrication -- the process was yet to begin. They were still using all of the old pre-metric measuring words (inches, feet, yards, etc) as well as some metric system words, which they used interchangeably with many, many, conversion factors. I was so impressed with the difference with the metrication upgrade in most industries -- using millimetres -- and the lack of success in the textile industry -- using centimetres that I began to study the history of metrication. Note that this research was about metrication the process of changing to the metric system from whichever of the old pre-metric system was available beforehand. After a few years research I came to the conclusion that although the metrication upgrade could be done in a single day using millimetres, it was more likely to take longer than two hundred years if you chose centimetres (and especially if you chose decimetres, decametres, and hectometres). On a personal level I have had countless encounters where people have leaned the metric system in a day. And I also know many people who are still struggling with their metrication transition after 40 years -- so far -- in Australia. At our house my wife tried to go down the centimetre road (without much success) until I measured her hands (little finger = 10 millimetres, hand width = 90 mm, long finger width = 15 mm). From that day she rolls pastry to 5 mm by looking at her little finger and rolling to half that width. > Even cm seem to small, but decimeters seemed good—about the width of my hand. > But then I looked around and saw that pretty much nothing was measured in > terms of the decimeter (except pools in metric countries). The only use for decimetres that I have seen in Australia since 1970 is in physics classes where the teachers want to establish that a litre is equivalent to a cubic decimetre. But physics classes do not represent the activities of the whole community. Most people are happy to know that 1000 millilitres - 1 litre. > Any suggestions on ingraining the metric system in your personal life? This > isn’t the only question I have, but it’s the most significant. Honestly, I > think I’d rather speak in terms of “I’m a third of a meter away from the > window” than any other metric way of speaking—a meter is pretty easy for me > to visualize, as are simple fractions like that—but I keep getting the idea > that one isn’t supposed to use fractions in the metric system. Or is this > simply in a professional setting, where calculations need to be used? It hasn't been necessary to use fractions since Simon Stevin promoted decimals in 1585. Certainly many people chose to preserve common or vulgar fractions in their daily activities but this is not necessary. One of the fears that applies here is that if you use millimetres you will have to use large numbers. This is true but I have yet to meet a winner of a lottery refusing to accept $234 567.00 because the number was too large. The removal of all fraction, common and decimal, soon makes up for any inconvenience of large numbers. Here is an example of using whole numbers of millimetres to consider a simple analysis that most of us face at some time or other: http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/PageBordersInchesORmillimetres.pdf > I’ll save my next question for a future thread, after we solve this one. J Finally, I recognise the centimetre as part of the metric system as devised in the 1780s and early 1790s. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/who-invented-the-metric-system.html and http://metricationmatters.com/docs/USAMetricSystemHistory.pdf My overall point is that there is copious evidence that the metrication process is best done with millimetres and not with centimetres. Cheers, 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.
