These people design gardens, not integrated circuits. I can't imagine what they would do with a nanometer. Whether it is called 0.1 m or 100 mm, I recommend they design as much as possible on 100 mm grid. (Note that surveyors mostly use meters with an appropriate number of decimals, so most plats would be in meters, and they would start with that in designing a garden)
However, these people make artistic arrangements of plants and know how far apart to place plants in arrangements based on their mature size. Do you expect to throw away all that knowledge on plant spacing and start over? Do you have references for them in metric? (they probably exist somewhere). However, as designers, I think they are better off transitioning their existing Customary knowledge into rounded metric practices. Provided that they create a sensibly rounded metric drawing (NOT multiples of 304.8 mm), their planting crew can work entirely in metric. But these people are responsible for the drawing and the bill of materials for the garden. Certainly knowing how to use their new metric ruler is part of the process. However, I do not think their existing knowledge base can be entirely discarded with their foot rulers. (I DO think that for the people planting, however.) ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, June 14, 2011 6:12:17 PM Subject: [USMA:50641] Re: Not the way to metricate On 2011/06/13, at 20:33 , John M. Steele wrote: No, you do NOT note that I want to preserve old words. > >This project is at the design stage. I presume these landscape designers have >not used metric before and are not terribly numerate. Rather than teach them >a >lot of conversion, I would rather hand them a dual tape to help them translate >their visions in inches into reasonable metric equivalents (I would suggest 4" >is about 0.1 m). > >However, I clearly expect them to produce a metric drawing. When the >construction phase begins, I would expect them to construct from that metric >drawing using metric tapes to measure. Thus, the "old words" are only in >their >heads while they draw, and never written down. Hopefully, on their second >job, >they can design without this crutch. > >Certainly a builder can build with only a metric tape, even the first time. >Exactly how would you teach a designer to design in metric for the first time >if >he is only experienced in inches? > Dear John, Broadly, I would use the same training techniques used in "Metrication in a day". See http://metricationmatters.com/docs/MetricationInADay.pdf However the "Metrication in a minute component would need to be expanded to include: 1000 micrometre = 1 millimetre and (? if you go to this level) 1000 nanometres == 1 micrometre Note that in saying this I am advocating direct metrication rather than metrication via metric conversion (even in the form of a dual ruler). One of the trainers I worked with in the metal fabrication trade in the 1970s used the line "Don't duel with dual!" to great effect. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/ApproachesToMetrication.pdf > > ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> >Sent: Sun, June 12, 2011 11:48:32 PM >Subject: Re: [USMA:50541] Not the way to metricate > > >On 2011/05/31, at 21:37 , John M. Steele wrote: > >I know Pat will disagree, but a dual tape is a good way to identify a round >metric number around an inch dimension you have in mind. It is not a bad >crutch >for a a couple of jobs, but it should then be replaced with a metric-only >tape. >It can be used to get across the point of sensible rounding very well. > >Dear John, > > >You are wrong. I agree with you when you say: > > >a dual tape is a good way to identify a round metric number around an inch >dimension you have in mind. > > >It is a good approach if you want to retain the use of old pre-metric >measuring >words for as long as you possibly can. Friends who spent some $30.00 on a high >quality dual sided measuring tape in the 1970s still have them and they can't >see why they should buy a millimetre only tape now. > > >However in agreeing, I also note that you have chosen to use metric conversion >as part of your approach to metrication. With this approach I totally disagree >if complete metrication is your aim and a FAST metrication upgrade is one of >your requirements . >See http://metricationmatters.com/docs/ApproachesToMetrication.pdf and http://metricationmatters.com/docs/MetricationInADay.pdf > > > >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/ to subscribe. > > 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/ to subscribe.
