Dear Carleton, Ezra, and All, I have interspersed some remarks.
On 3/03/06 12:55 PM, "Carleton MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of my other groups got off on a metric tangent. This is from a poster > who used to live in San Francisco but now lives in Australia. It seems > like his USA background still affects his opinion. > > Carleton > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Australia has switched to the metric system, Herman. > > It has some advantages but constant meddling by the French and the > others make the metric system one that frequently changes. This makes an interesting point in that to someone who has little formal knowledge of metrology the metric system might seem to be often tweaked to improve its accuracy and precision. This was rarely necessary with old measures because people could more or less define new units as they went along even giving them the repeated names of older units. For example, when the UK redefined their gallon in 1824, they seemed to give little precedence to the gallon of USA or on any need to agree with its size. In contrast, the metric system is maintained as a fully functional International System of Units that requires occasional adjustments to maintain its international integrity, which is kept aligned with current scientific and technological advances. > Many of the measurements are based on engineering principles and some on > obviously logical premises like the centigrade degrees where 0 is the > temperature at which water freezes at sea level and 100 the temperature > at which water boils. That was logical and a semi-educated person could > immediately twig to the logic by the name centigrade-100 gradients, but > they fiddled that to and changed the name to Celsius which means nothing > to me. Another slight problem there is the coarseness of the metric > degree. So instead of round numbers (as is usual with the finer > Fahrenheit system) we need to put decimal places in daily weather > reports (for instance). This confuses the 'need to put decimal places' with the currently available accuracy of modern instruments. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology provides the temperature data with a one decimal place precision because they can -- not because they need to! See: http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDV60701/IDV60701.94857.shtml for current details from Geelong Airport. > With other metric measurements, they have introduced hard to pronounce > and spell wog names which I simply can't be bothered with such as Pascal > as in kPa. And why should we be bothered with that kind of thing? They > could have picked easy to remember or self explanatory names (like > centigrade) but they chose to immortalize long dead people. > > Then, still fiddling, they have changed the unit of measurement for > torque and others to suit engineers but which are unintelligible to the > reasonable man. They are more suited to engineering than everyday use. This is a typical first reaction to change, that is epitomised by the lines, 'If I ignore it will go away' and 'If I belittle it, I might be able to make it go away quicker'. Sadly for the writer, there is little evidence that these maxims actually apply in the real world. > I quite frankly can't be bothered referring back to formal sources but > the hubris, vanity and even narcissism displayed by those mostly > European people constantly fiddling with the metric system is mad > useless, just what I expect from them. Do I detect a hint of 'hubris, vanity and even narcissism' when this writer refers to 'those mostly European people'? > And I guess you know about one > metric system of measurement based on the distance from the north pole > to the equator via Paris. > > Please spare me that silliness. No, I have not heard this one. I do know the one about choosing the initial line for measuring from Barcelona (in Spain) to Dunquerque (in France) so that the metric system would always have an international character. By the way, the meridian that passes from Barcelona to Dunquerque does not pass through Paris -- what a pity for your nationalist anti-French story. > The US has simplified the old Imperial measurement system enough so that > it works well. Simply not a problem, domestically and an extraordinarily > high (by international standards) percentage of US production is > consumed domestically. This writer appears not to have visited the USA recently. Industry in the USA is now predominately metric (more than 60 %) although many companies choose not to mention this to their clients. The claim that the USA measurement system 'works well' is simply wrong (probably naïve) because it has had to be patched up with the metric system since the Mendenhall Order of 1893. The current measurement methods of the USA are in fact forms of hidden metric since the redefinition (in 1959) of the metric inch as exactly 25.4 millimetres and the metric yard as exactly 914.4 millimetres. > And the continent that gave us the metric system is sinking of its own > intellectual vanity and weight. They can't even reproduce. They are in a > "death spiral" to use a common phrase and soon won't matter. The United > States and China now power the world economy with Europe and Japan > contributing little (except hot air and moral posturing on the part of > Europe). And given China's massive internal problems, their vital > contribution to the world economy could be seen as volatile. I can't comment on economics as I don't have sufficient knowledge of this topic. My only contribution would, quite rightly, be regarded as ignorant conjecture. > It's quite possible that the US will eventually go metric, but there > seems to be little movement in that direction to me, an occasional > visitor to the US. I visited the USA last year from March to May last year, specifically to observe metric progress there. I noted that metrication was far more advanced than it was when I last visited the USA in the 1980s. I also noted that I found it quite odd that it was not yet socially accepted to use metric terms to discuss issues in general conversation even though a majority of manufacturers seemed to use metric units daily. I believe that it is inevitable that the USA will achieve their upgrading to the metric system as they will continue to build on the substantial progress that they have already made. > Metric road signs and speedometer markings have all > but disappeared in recent years and no one I spoke to in the US recently > used or even knew metric measurements unless they were Mexican, Canadian > or other foreigners. This is an interesting point that you have to be some kind of 'foreigner' to have the confidence to use the metric system in general conversation. As I've said before, this is a social issue not a metrology matter. > And even though we have gone metric here in Oz we still stay 20', 40', > 48' and 53' for shipping container lengths, and still measure truck > engine outputs in horsepower and lb ft of torque, and US thread, bolt, > and nut sizes are still in wide use. And my new rainwater tanks are in > gallons (with litres in the fine print). When metrication takes place, some folk choose fast, smooth, and economic metrication processes, some choose slow, painful, and expensive metric conversion processes, and a third group chooses methods that are essentially designed around the principle I mentioned earlier that involves the thought, 'If you ignore it, it will go away' and 'If we keep the old (real) measurements we will be ready when the metric system ultimately fails. This third method is the approach taken by international container makers and water tank makers in Australia. However, since these policies are based on the eventual collapse of the International System of Units (the metric system), they are doomed to failure because no individual, no group, no company, no industry, and no nation, after using the metric system for some time has ever gone back to using old pre-metric measures. It is my firm belief that the success of the metric system in the USA is inevitable. > The Anglosphere still seems quite comfortable with imperial measurements > even those countries that have formally gone metric. All countries have now 'gone metric' even the English speaking nations. The countries of the 'Anglosphere' agreed in 1959 that all of their old measures would be defined as part of the metric system. There are no longer such things as Imperial inches, avoirdupois pounds, or USA gallons. All of these historical names are now defined in metric units. I suppose they are more correctly called metric inches, metric pounds, and metric gallons. Cheers, Pat Naughtin PO Box 305, Belmont, Geelong, Australia Phone 61 3 5241 2008 Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by going to http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter Pat is the editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' chapter of the Australian Government Publishing Service 'Style manual for writers, editors and printers'. He is a Member of the National Speakers Association of Australia and the International Federation of Professional Speakers. He is also recognised as a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association. For more information go to: http://metricationmatters.com This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email. --
