Dear All: James points are excellent and were along the lines of my thoughts when I read the article. We all have to live with spin and whilst there was some spin in the article - it invited all people to the party. If you are presenting the results to Congress do you want some anti-metric group saying they were excluded from the get go.
John M. Nichols Assistant Professor Room A414 Langford AC MS 3137 Department of Construction Science College of Architecture Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843-3137 Phone: (979) 845 6541 Fax: (979) 862 1572 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James R. Frysinger Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2005 9:21 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:32838] NIST's USMS document Here are some comments and thoughts that have come to mind... We have to take a broader view to understand this document. This list is focused on metrication and thus the answer here is always going to be "state it in SI units". However, units of measurement are only a portion of what NIST is responsible for. I see this document as a matter of NIST stepping ***way back*** and inviting its customers, American businesses and citizens, to lay out all their measurement concerns. I think that NIST is being quite clever here. They have made the scope of this document purposefully broad so that any one issue is diffuse. A long time ago, my dad, my brothers, and I used to play cards. One learned that it was rarely a good strategy in any game to lead with the Ace of Trumps. If NIST had lead with a "program to metricate the U.S." they could have put Prego out of business with all the tomatoes they would have collected. Further, they would have entrenched the "antis" irrevocably. I think that perhaps this is part of a shrewd tactic to metricate the U.S. but also a means of discussing other issues that American businesses and citizens have regarding measurement in general. Note on page 4: What is being addressed here is not only a matter of a system of units, but also a system of management of measurement in the U.S. Note on page 5: This is not a bad definition of measurement, compared to some that I have seen. Measurement does indeed include things such as Rocknell hardness values, diamond clarity, Pantone color values, and so forth. I hate to break it to this august assembly, but there are some things that are not measured in SI or any of its similar units defined outside the SI. Hence, the point on page 6. Note on page 9: This page hints at a number of issues, such as "harmonization of standards". This is a serious issue at NIST. But note also that it raises the matter of international cooperation and communication being needed. That's the trapdoor that allows SI to come into this picture. Note on pages 14 and 16: OK, now this page is particularly important. Here's where this crowd can get in its licks. The advantage is that this push for moving entirely to the SI will appear to Congress and the country at large as a logical culmination of a grassroots concern, rather than a "top down" government-in-your-face program. Beautiful! Get the patient to state that he has a health problem and identify (with careful coaching) what needs to be done about that and the patient is more likely to follow the prescribed treatment plan than if the good doctor had "ordered" it. Note on page 27: Keep in mind that NIST has held two public meetings. They already have some data on the FPLA amendment. Another issue that this forum has not discussed is all the work that is ongoing on the topic of labeling and harmonization of standards within the OAS. Our OIML representatives have been working hard here and success here will help metricate the U.S. Note on page 29: Go for it! See the second bullet! But don't act prematurely. Let's see just what the tone and nature of these meetings are expected to be like. We don't want to be the first to hold a Town Meeting SI Picnic. Let's be smart about this and not cause any self-inflicted foot damage! NOW! I ask the group to once again take up Paul's invitation to read this document. Stand ***way back*** when you do. Weed through the government and business management jargon to think about what is being said. Then, think about how we might be able to use this. What we have here just might be our dream come true --- a place to show grassroots support for the SI to someone besides the other readers on this forum THIS IS THE TIME for thinking and devising some useful strategies. Let's take the broad view and shape our responses to suit our purposes. But do not fall prey to the belief that we are looking at an overnight solution here. It's going to be long, steep road. But it will likely be a very useful road by letting our push for metrication seem to be going along with the crowd of other issues. Let's be part of the big plan. Jim -- James R. Frysinger Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist Senior Member, IEEE http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer Dept. of Physics and Astronomy University/College of Charleston 66 George Street Charleston, SC 29424 843.953.7644 (phone) 843.953.4824 (FAX) Home: 10 Captiva Row Charleston, SC 29407 843.225.0805
