On 2011/01/18, at 14:44 , Kilopascal wrote: > Ah, the accuracy of the USMA! > > The information on the Wikipedia page came from the USMA website: > > http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm
I am writing to support the accuracy of the USMA graph. When you look at the top of USMA graph you notice that it is refers to the "Year of Official Metrication". This is always different to the date of successful metrication. The first date depends on legislation and the second depends on the process used to achieve full metrication. Starting at the top of the list, the French legislation was passed of 1795 April 7 but, at that time, the French people had no experience in the process of metrication so, by default, they chose voluntary metrication. This didn't work so some citizens applied pressure on the government to revert until Napoleon introduced "mesures usuelle" in 1812, which was neither the new "decimal metric system" nor a reversion to the old mess that existed in the completely corrupt pre-1789 "ancien règime". This tension between the law and successful metrication wasn't resolved until laws were passed (on 1837 July 4) to make the use of the "decimal metric system" compulsory. Historians judge the success of these laws as being effective by 1848 However, anti-matric voices (mostly from the UK and the USA) still clutch to French people who order une livre (the old pre-1789 measuring word equivalent of one pound) of peas at a market claiming that this is evidence that metrication has not been completed in 2011 and therefore the metric system is ineffective (and that the UK or the USA - depending on the origin of the observer - should never accept the metric system never at all - no time). As I said, there is a difference between the passing of the metrication law and its success in the marketplace. As a second example, consider the USA, which legally approved the metric system in 1866, confirmed this to the international community in 1875, changed all the old definitions of pre-metric measuring words, such as inch, ounce, pound, foot, yard, and mile to the metric system in 1893. (Technically the USA has been fully legally metric since 1893 and perhaps the USMA graph could show this in line with Nicaragua and Tunisia!) However the USA did not then choose a successful metrication process from any other national models -- although to be fair there weren't many successful models available at that time. Without a definite metrication plan the USA, like the French in 1795, had chosen by default to use voluntary metrication as their process to change from old pre-metric measuring words to the "decimal metric system". This was then, and is now, a process that has not been shown to be successful. After another 82 years (1893 to 1975) Congress passed the "Metric Conversion Act of 1975" which encouraged many citizens, especially schools and colleges, to go take the "metric conversion" approach to metrication. The "metric conversion" approach to metrication has not been shown to work anywhere else and it did not work in the USA. Consider this extract from Wikipedia, where they say: The U.S. Metric Study recommended that the United States implement a carefully planned transition to the principal use of the metric system over a decade. Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 "to coordinate and plan the increasing use of the metric system in the United States". The Act did not stipulate the conversion happen over a decade. Voluntary conversion was initiated, and the U.S. Metric Board (USMB) was established for planning, coordination, and public education. The public education component led to public awareness of the metric system, but the public response included resistance, apathy, and sometimes ridicule. Here, the words, "voluntary conversion was initiated" and the last ten words of the paragraph are significant. I believe that the "resistance, apathy, and sometimes ridicule" should have been directed toward the "metric conversion" approach to metrication and not directed toward the metric system itself. But this subtlety seems to have escaped most politicians. But that is past history. The USA will inevitably achieve successful metrication on an individual by individual process of "direct metrication". Consider the example of the computer industry; some unknown individual in the industry decided that to source parts (and labor) from all around the world the industry would have to be all-metric. This decision was made computer industry policy and all design and construction since then has been fully metric without any reference to "metric conversion" at all; all computers now are designed and made using nanometres for chip design, micrometres for logic board layouts and millimetres for case and screen design. See the article, "Approaches to metrication" at http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/ApproachesToMetrication.pdf for an explanation of the difference between "metric conversion" and "direct metrication". 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 for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
