on 6/12/03 7:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would like to know if someone on the list can direct me to an official > publication (from NIST, for example, but a source from any country will do) > outlining the definitions of hard vs soft metric conversion. I have had a > visitor to my web site asking for such information. While I do understand the > difference a reference would be handy.
Dear Greg, This is an extract from 'Metrication in Australia' by Kevin Wilks, Australian Government Publishing Service 1992 (Page 19). Unfortunately this document is now out of print. The Board was, therefore, always conscious of its responsibilities for guiding industry towards the best ways of avoiding unnecessary costs or, more particularly, of turning the disruptions due to conversion to maximum economic advantage by redesign of products and product ranges. In this context, conversions were divided into "soft", meaning easy, and "hard", meaning not so easy, as described below: Where a product was free-standing and its measurements had no need to match with, or coordinate dimensionally with the measurements of any other product, for example, a table, that product and the plant used to make it did not need to be changed except for the documentation used to describe it. In such cases, all that was required was to give that product a metric name in sensible metric numbers in which its measurement name appeared to be neither more nor less accurate than its original, for example, a 5x3 (ft) table became a 1500 X 900 table, though it actually remained 1524 X 9l4 (mm). This was called a "soft", or easy, conversion. Where a product was not free-standing, and its dimensions or measurements had to interlock or coordinate with those of other products which had been changed for the purposes of metrication, for example, door sets or window sets, changes in the dimensions of the product in question and the plant used in its manufacture were unavoidable. Because of the greater difficulty and effort involved in doing so, this operation was described as a "hard" conversion. However, when "hard" conversion was unavoidable the Board urged manufacturers to take advantage of the necessary disruption to redesign products and product ranges to offset conversion costs, at least to some degree, by reducing inventories, improving manufacturing productivity or upgrading product design. It was also forever vigilant for any attempt by manufacturers or retailers to obtain unwarranted price rises under the cloak of metric conversion. In fact the Board went so far as to recommend that, in a period of vigorous inflation, manufacturers and retailers refrain, as far as possible, from making price rises, due to any cause, less than three months before or after the conversion date for that product. Industry responded extremely well to this call and price 'hikes' due to metrication were almost non-existent. Although several cases of 'hikes' were reported, none were substantiated. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
