Thanks! The writer actually has her own web site, and I wrote to her using it.
http://www.katherinesalant.com/ The article (will only be available for viewing another six days or so, without an archive fee) - the reference is on page 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040700 809.html?sub=AR Carleton -----Original Message----- From: Pat Naughtin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 14:56 To: Carleton MacDonald; U.S. Metric Association Subject: Re: [USMA:36538] Re: Contractors resisting metrication (was April 1) On 11/04/06 2:50 PM, "Carleton MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A recent article in The Washington Post about house remodeling noted the > large amount of waste that results. > > I remember a few months ago an article on this list noted that when > construction is metricated there is very little waste. > > Could someone point me to it? I'd like to educate The Post a bit. > > Thanks > > Carleton Dear Carleton, I can't give you an actual reference, but I recall the metrication days in the 1970s when there was active promotion of the metric system in the building industry here. One of the resources that I saw was a slide presentation that showed two 'identical' houses being built side by side -- one of them was fully metric and the other was built in yards, feet, inches, and fractions of inches. This slide presentation included a dramatic image of the waste material from each house job; the feet and inches house needed two five-tonne trucks to cart away the waste while the off-cuts from the metric house were taken away in a wheelbarrow! Leaving aside, the cost of the extra waste, there was also the cost of the extra driver for the second truck plus the extra costs of loading and unloading. At the time reckoned -- without hard data -- that metrication was increasing the net profits of building contractors, and their sub-contractors by about 15 %. I have explored this issue further, especially in the USA, in a pdf article 'Costs of non-metrication' that you can find at: http:www.metricationmatters/articles.html Cheers, Pat Naughtin PO Box 305 Belmont 3216 Geelong, Australia 61 3 5241 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metricationmatters.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Pat Naughtin > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 22:23 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:36536] Re: Contractors resisting metrication (was April 1) > > On 11/04/06 9:31 AM, "Pierre Abbat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Monday 10 April 2006 14:04, Martin Vlietstra wrote: >>> A four by two become 100 by 50 - at any rate it did in the UK. >> >> The actual size is pretty close to 40 by 90. It's 100 by 50 before it's >> milled. >> >> phma > > > Dear Pierre, Martin and All, > > The construction industry in Australia used the opportunity of metrication > to re-engineer almost all housing dimensions including the materials that > were used and their descriptions. > > For timber, this meant that the quality (such as number and placement of > knots) was monitored much more closely and the compressive strength, for > example, was much more predictable. As part of this process timber sizes > were specified to the nearest millimetre and professionals have learned that > this is fairly reliable. Some amateurs are still talking '2 by 4' or '4 by > 2' for things that now measure almost exactly 90 mm by 40 mm. > > One of the things that I admired in this process was the re-engineering of > houses so that wall studs were no longer placed at 18 inch (457 mm) centres > but at 600 mm centres so that the standard sheeting materials of 1200 mm by > 2400 mm could be fitted more easily with major reductions in waste both in > materials and in time taken to measure, cut, and fix them. > > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin > PO Box 305 Belmont 3216 > Geelong, Australia > 61 3 5241 2008 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.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. > > > >
