I am not saying it is "too late," I am saying it will remain ineffective and incomplete until Congress changes. I don't think it can be completed in finite time without a different government role. While a few more industries have changed, the situation hasn't changed since 1866. The Metric Act of 1866 legalized companies working and trading in metric if they wanted to. The government has done nothing constructive since, only giving lip service to metrication and about as many actions setting it back as driving it forward.
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 10:29:31 AM Subject: Re: [USMA:50684] Fw: Wrong interpretation 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.
