I agree with your analysis, John, except that I do not believe "metrication will never be straightened out" (the double negative is a positive). As you say, better late than never. It may take several more generations to clear the damaging clutter of conversion duality; both mm and inches. We can be happy that some industries (automotive, CAT), and some professions (pharmacy, nutrition) are now already almost fully SI!
Gene Mechtly -- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 06:00:34 -0700 (PDT) >From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:50684] Fw: Wrong interpretation >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >... > ----- Forwarded Message ---- > From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 9:23:10 PM > Subject: Re: [USMA:50681] Wrong interpretation > There were several factors. I think I might rank > order them differently or assign cause and effect > differently, but I think we would agree on several > of the important factors. > > It is absolutely true there was too much focus on > conversion between units in education, and not on > learning to measure, design, and solve problems in > metric. Professors who assign problems where part > of the data is Customary and part is metric should > be keel-hauled. > > However, I think the cause was the government's > decision that no one would be forced to metricate, > that it would be voluntary. That surely creates a > situation in which the two co-exist side by side for > a long time and a lot of conversion is required to > make sense of data in the other system. Conversion > focus is a direct consequence of "it's voluntary" > which is a direct consequence of spinelessness on > the part of government. > > A second and perhaps unintended consequence is that > industry separates into two camps, the metric and > the non-metric. The automobile industry and the > aircraft industry have VERY few suppliers in common. > One factor is that except for rivets, and a few > other things where usage is "thousands per plane" > the aircraft industry is low volume, high price; > auto is the opposite. The other bigger factor is > their suppliers want to work in Customary and we > want nothing to do with them. We (and they) solve > our conversion issue by choosing our suppliers. > However, this tends to create a stable situation. > Each side is happy in their preferred system, has > developed a supply base that works with them, etc > (and don't talk to each other). > > In my opinion, Boeing has made a colossal error by > farming a Customary design around the world. If you > want an international supply base, you have to work > in metric and cut loose any supplier who won't. If > you want a US supply base, you may have a wider > choice if you stick to Customary, but there is a > metric supply base in the US and they can handle > large orders (they may not handle small orders as > well). > > While changing over, there is some conversion to > capture your knowledge base and develop new design > procedures in rounded metric. But you have to move > beyond that and get on with actually using metric, > designing, analyzing, and building in "real" metric, > not converted inches. Perhaps some of our > disagreements over the role of conversion are > failure to articulate the difference in that > changeover phase vs ongoing practice. > > It was later than the 70's. more like the 90's, but > the Feds originally had pretty good plans for > Federal buildings, Federal highway construction, and > signage. Congress swooped in on their "voluntary" > platform (and probably some huge campaign > contributions and gutted those plans with laws that: > *Required Customary bricks and lighting fixtures to > be considered in metric buildings (to ensure > conversion forever) > *Forbade FHWA from forcing the State DOTs to build > metric highways > *Forbade Federal funds for metricating highway signs > or requiring States to do them. > > Congress caused ongoing conversion, and other > problems. Between Congress and the conversion they > caused, it is unlikely we will ever get metrication > straightened out other than in a handful of > industries that agree and do it without the > government (and may need to fight with the > government to do it). > > If the government is not willing to drive it to > completion, it will fail at some intermediate > point. I think the US, the UK, and Canada all > demonstrate, in varying degrees, that lack of will > and stalling out with the job part done. The actual > percent accomplished/remaining between those nations > differs, but not the general principle. > > As to whole millimeters, nothing wrong with them, > but they are not that common in the auto industry. > Many nominals and tolerances are stated in > millimeters to one decimal place, occasionally two. > Except in electronics, we don't use micrometers for > anything but plating thickness. The idea that > engineering drawings use millimeters is pretty well > ingrained, to whatever resolution is required. I > don't think anyone tries to use centimeters > exclusively, but whole centimeters are very > convenient for human height, clothing sizes, and a > few other things. If the centimeter needs a > decimal, I would prefer to see millimeters used. > However, I don't think centimeters are wrong or as > big a problems as you do. I think anyone who > understands metric should understand them. > > Short answer: I blame Congress, not centimeters. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > From: Pat Naughtin > <[email protected]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 8:13:12 PM > Subject: [USMA:50681] Wrong interpretation > Dear All, > I wonder if the failure of the adoption of the > metric system in the 1970s is widely misinterpreted > by citizens of the USA. > It seems to me that many people in the USA wrongly > believe things like: "The metric system did not work > here."; "The metric system is not right for the > USA."; and "The old measures are good enough for us > because metric conversion was a failure here." > I think that these are all wrong interpretations. > My view is that the wrong metrication processes were > chosen for the metrication transition in the USA. It > was the metrication processes that should be blamed > for the lack of success for the USA in the 1970s. > Chief among these wrong choices was twofold. In my > opinion, the use of centimetres and the focus on > metric conversion as part of the metrication > processes remarkably slowed metrication and pointed > the public perception to the wrong ideas about the > metric system itself listed above. > The metric system worked fine - and really quickly - > wherever better metrication processes were chosen. > Examples include: choice of whole numbers of > millimetres in the automotive industry; choice of > nanometres, micrometres, and millimetres and for > internal measurements of television and computer > designs; and so on. > Any thoughts? > 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.
