metre
Another testimony to imperial money wasting.

Taken from USMA list server:
RobertHB
Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:30:25 -0700
2005 August 9
Please tell me the cost of the USA still using IP units?

In schools, the cost in lost class time is $9 billion per year.
What is the cost in lost business or lost markets?

There is some thought that as China and India grow, lost business will be
much larger.

Is Europe ignoring us because we talk inches?

What can you tell us?
Robert H. Bushnell PhD PE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

metre
Interesting to see other figures out there to support Dr. Jos. V. Collins and R. Phelps studies on how much money Americans waste teaching obsolete measurements. While I do not know how this figure was arrived at, Pat Mc. Naughtin another poster and metric enthusiast on the USMA list server has extensively written about it, see links below.

Having said that, I am fully aware that these findings mean nothing to ardent “imperialists”. After all nobody able to see and admire metric superiority is qualified to make any valid statement because they are biased. The prerogative to judge metric advantages rests solely with “unbiased” defenders of obsolete measurements, according to some “imperialists” on this board. No wonder major English-speaking countries are still cursed with them.

http://metricationmatters.com
http://metricationmatters.com/articles

My "kids" are all adults. The two oldest started school in the 70's and were taught nothing but metric. The youngest began school in the mid-80's and learned both. So we are making "negative progress" in the US; apparently the UK has the same problem.

I think worse than the classtime is the reinforcement of learning Customary in school and seeing it used in the (US) world around them. Another generation of people used to Customary and preferring it. I would prefer to see the schools only teach metric; the kids could learn about USC in the street like they do sex.

Of course with Kansas going back to teach creation under the guise of "intelligent design" and the dropout rate in urban schools, metric may be the least of our educational problems.

<<The two oldest started school in the 70's and were taught nothing but metric. The youngest began school in the mid-80's and learned both>>

That's an interesting point you make - I didn't realise that it happened like that in the US as well as the UK.
I was "schooled" in the 80's and got a metric education whereas my cousins were "schooled" in the 90's and imperial is back on the agenda.

Shame it seems like we had to trail the US by 10 yrs on this one.
;-)

John, aren't you a regular contributor to the USMA board (maybe under a diff name?)

<<John, aren't you a regular contributor to the USMA board (maybe under a diff name?)>>

No I'm not. I'm not terribly fond of the list server (sequential) format, so I haven't signed up yet. There is an archive, which is somewhat "threaded" that I have looked at and found easier to follow. The archive software has to synthesize the threads and makes some errors, but it helps

Also, there is more "debate" here. :)

<< Also, there is more "debate" here. :) >>

It's a little less of a military classroom - I grant you that!

Ok - I thought you were a contributor there so I was going to ask a question relating to my "habitual lieing" that I apparently do on that system - but since your not a fan of that system there's no point.

I think that Tasty Alien has posted there (TAlien) - but he hasn't for a while.

It's an odd board as the measures (excuse the pun) you need to go through to be a contributor are a little more drawn out than a usual board so it tends to be a 'metric only' audience (with yours truly dodging the custard pies!). I only joined them initially to make them aware of a viscous metric-extremist who was bad mouthing them here after being banned from their site. An aquaitance of his still posts here (he went away for a while after being "ignored off" this board but then came back "all moderate" for a while).

Another weird thing is the number of emails I got from ex-USMA people who didn't like the tone of certain posters/viewpoints. One even said he was going 'pro-USC' after being 'pro-metric' for most of his life due to some people. In the whole I get quite a few good email conversations going with a variety of their members. Some are actually very nice. There is one slightly extreme guy and surprise-surprise he's from the UK! Having said that even debates with him find a common ground now-and-again.

I like it better here though as the humour element is less restricted.

I wish they'd bring back metricsucks though - that was a riot!

<<I think that Tasty Alien has posted there (TAlien) - but he hasn't for a while.>>

Yeah, I still post. I was asked to use my real name, Remek, so that's why Tasty Alien isn't there anymore.

John-MI:
"My "kids" are all adults. The two oldest started school in the 70's and were taught nothing but metric. The youngest began school in the mid-80's and learned both. So we are making "negative progress" in the US; apparently the UK has the same problem."

Stan:
This is true up to a point. Kids are being taught how to convert between metric and some imperial units but the primary system for schools is still metric.

This is is the result of the failure of government to complete the changeover especially on roads. Teachers now feel obliged to teach conversions between metres, mile and yards, kilograms and pounds etc because they are still around in our society. They have a responsibility to prepare kids for the world as it is so we can't blame them.

However there remains the problem that kids are not taught to work in non-decimal units for calculation. That requires a different set of skills entirely.

<<Stan:
This is true up to a point. Kids are being taught how to convert between metric and some imperial units but the primary system for schools is still metric>>

The reality, Stan, is that kids are taught imperial because its used all around them in real life. Not in the background in a factory, or at the chemist, or in the office stationary cupboard but all aroound them in their families, friends, on TV etc etc. It would be plain daft if kids were somehow "censored" from being taught those things. Hence why its called "to teach children imperial units in common use today".

For this reason you (get this) ****WILL**** get questions like "measure, using metric or imperial, some common items and compare them" or "A train is travelling at 100 mph and a cyclist is travelling at 20mph. How far will.... etc".

It's not just "Tell us what a yard is in metres (roughly)".

I would agree that the "defacto" unit is metric, certainly so in science classes. But to detract from that with this notion that in the last 5 minutes of school time a teacher say "Oh, and a pint is about half a litre kids, goodbye and see you all tomorrow" is just hiding from what really goes on.

That's a complete distortion of what I was saying.

I challenge you to produce any evidence that kids are taught to work in imperial units for calculations of things like area and volume or calculate things like averages from imperial data or produce designs in feet and inches etc.

You keep trying to tell everybody (by implication) that schools are reversing their policy of metric education. They are not! There is no evidence for this in the National Curriculum which is available on line.

I suggest you take a good look at it.

Re: Wasting money on teaching USC August 11 2005, 3:12 PM
JS
My "kids" are all adults. The two oldest started school in the 70's and were taught nothing but metric. The youngest began school in the mid-80's and learned both. So we are making "negative progress" in the US; apparently the UK has the same problem.
Of course with Kansas going back to teach creation under the guise of "intelligent design" and the dropout rate in urban schools, metric may be the least of our educational problems.

metre
Since metrication is inevitable in America, one can only wonder why your government makes that relatively simple step so diffcult?
Seen from the outside, Americans seem to have chosen the worst and most torturous way to metricate. Looking at food containers in supermarkets makes one's hair stand on end. Simple pounds and ounces are represented by idiotic metric numbers that convinces many people that metric is stupid. School children's first brush with metric units could not be worse than it is. What they are introduced to is a metric system derived from inches pounds and feet. In other words, a metricated USC system that makes it a pain in the a..e system. It does not take long at that early age to hate remembering silly numbers like 25.4, 0.3048, 1.609, 28.35 and 0.4536 to name a few, when original numbers are usually simple "ones". Never mind that metric is thought in 10, 100, and 1000s, it’s those ugly conversions that engender adverse impressions not easily overcome. Reinforcing this miserable picture are routine math examples taken from the daily experienced IFP world. Barring a miracle, it will take another 100 years before you anywhere near metric. Then again, many unexpected circumstances can arise that forces the issue to be resolved quickly.
I am not going to comment on “intelligent design” that subject opens an even greater can of worms. But, I do commiserate with you about the priorities that capture peoples mind in a world that screams out for solutions to real problems.

Metre,

There is some truth to what you say, but perhaps it is not quite as bleak as your portray.

In the early grades, kids basically learn to measure with both metric and inch rulers. (For my two older kids, they weren't shown inch rulers at school). Later they do learn to convert, but first you have to master decimal multiplication. They need to learn to think in metric. I'm not as opposed to conversion as some at the USMA site, but it should be treated only in the direction of converting old data to metric, so it doesn't have to be discarded, and things remeasured.

Certainly most packaged foods are dominant-customary, but an increasing amount, maybe 10-20% is dominant-metric. If we ever get the permissive-metric-only FPLA passed, I think that will drive a great deal of change.
(Of course, BWMA, which has no standing in the matter, is firmly opposed to that.)

Reminds me of the difference between an optimist and a pessimist. Says the optimist if times get worse, we have to go begging. The pessimist, but where, but where?

The US would be much farther advanced in metrication now if the economy was export driven. The US economy is basically a service economy that imports its manufactured goods instead of producing them for themselves and exporting what it has over produced.

If the US was an export driven economy, then the pressure from the outside to purchase only metric products would have made metrication a priority. The metrication attempt would have never failed and metrication would have been completed by now. But by the early 1980s the US was starting to export manufacturing jobs to metric countries so the need to metricate the economy didn't materialize.

Now the white collar jobs are being exported forcing people into lower and lower waged jobs that force them to maintain a middle class living standard on unrepayable credit. Without a metric based economy we can never get ourself out of the grave we have dug as even if we wanted to return to manufacturing we wouldn't be able to produce in the system the world wants.

So even though some Americans see the battle over metric being won in the US, the near future will show the only thing America was victorious in was eliminating the middle class and creating a society where everyone is either rich or the working poor. That means 5 % rich - 95 % poor.

Whereas metric usage is creating a middle class lifestyle in many parts of the world, the lack of metric is having the opposite effect in the US. A real victory to be proud of.

Stimpy said
<<Another weird thing is the number of emails I got from ex-USMA people who didn't like the tone of certain posters/viewpoints. One even said he was going 'pro-USC' after being 'pro-metric' for most of his life due to some people. >>

How bizarre! I would think you would choose preferred units based on how well they work in your life (professional, personal, or both). I obviously think metric works better, but I can see that for many people Imperial works well enough. I can't see my opinion of any poster changing my mind. If he argues his points well, he might change my mind with the VALIDITY of his argument. If he argues poorly or irritates me, I just ignore him.

However, I suspect some of the people there are what I would call "fanboys" of metric, but have little practical experience using it. (Some others obviously know their stuff.)

Daniel Jackson said
<<So even though some Americans see the battle over metric being won in the US, the near future will show the only thing America was victorious in was eliminating the middle class and creating a society where everyone is either rich or the working poor. >>

The battle is far from over. If you mean the pro-Customary have won, they haven't. Metric has had a couple of setbacks (relaxation of FHWA requirements, loopholes in federal metric construction) and Congress has not demonstrated much will or leadership in encouraging metrication. However, industries are slowly but continually converting. If metric-only FPLA passes, I think you will see metric-only packaging dominate in a few years, and that will tend to tip the public. Long term, we will be metric. (although people have been saying that since the Metric Act of 1866)

<<The battle is far from over. If you mean the pro-Customary have won, they haven't. Metric has had a couple of setbacks (relaxation of FHWA requirements, loopholes in federal metric construction) and Congress has not demonstrated much will or leadership in encouraging metrication. However, industries are slowly but continually converting. If metric-only FPLA passes, I think you will see metric-only packaging dominate in a few years, and that will tend to tip the public. Long term, we will be metric. (although people have been saying that since the Metric Act of 1866)>>

I'm usually more pessimistic about metrication in the US, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the passage of the FPLA amendment. If the 1.75L Simply Orange (bought one today, best OJ on the market) or Tropicana Twisters are bellwethers of business community's outlook on the amendment, then maybe there is hope. There seems to be an evident hard metrication of retail products here and there. For example, I noticed caulking is sold in 300mL tubes, Swiffer Wetjet refill liquid comes in a 1L container, juice boxes that I pack my in my son's lunch are 125 or 200mL, regardless of brand. I've heard nothing about consumers grumbling about these changes. My biggest concern is the amount of opposition that whatever emergent anti-metric forces in the US will put up as this amendment goes up for ratification.

"If you mean the pro-Customary have won, they haven't."

I was referring to those who look back to the late 1970s when the metric board was disbanded and the metrication ended with very little converting, especially anything the public sees. Some see this as a victory. I see it as one of many steps that will end the middle class as we know it.

Sorry that anonymous pessimist am I.


JS
If metric-only FPLA passes, I think you will see metric-only packaging dominate in a few years, and that will tend to tip the public. Long term, we will be metric. (although people have been saying that since the Metric Act of 1866)


metre
Nice touch of dismal reality there. I have the feeling America will ask for another extension of the EU labelling law and it will be granted. Had the new constitution been accepted, it would have been different.

metre wrote

<<
Nice touch of dismal reality there. I have the feeling America will ask for another extension of the EU labelling law and it will be granted.
>>

But who in the US will do the requesting - there is an election in Nov 2008 so the new president will have just 11 months to get things done (or will Bush do it?).

Re: Wasting money on teaching USC August 14 2005, 3:00 AM


<TA
I'm usually more pessimistic about metrication in the US, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the passage of the FPLA amendment.

metre
It needs only a tiny loud minority to frighten politicians, as Britain shows. Metriction is simply not important enough to risk their stipend. The irony is that most people would go along without too much fuss provided they are given good reasons and help to switch.

I don't think permissive-metric-only will stir things up as much as mandatory metric in the UK.

My bigger worry is that it is not on the front burner, and won't be until 2009.5, NIST promised to introduce this in 2005, and Congress will only be back and working for another 3 months.

The EU never should have granted a 10 year extension all at once, and let the tension die. Any relief should have been one year at a time, with further relief contingent on showing progress.

I've seen some reports that we have made some commitments to both the EU and Japan on the metric FPLA amendment. Also, other countries forbid importing goods with supplemental unit (S. Korea is one) so we are already hurting ourselfs. (However, I'm sure the goods have to be labelled in Korean, too. Most of US giids aren't.)

Re: Wasting money on teaching USC August 14 2005, 3:57 AM

DJ
I was referring to those who look back to the late 1970s when the metric board was disbanded and the metrication ended with very little converting, especially anything the public sees. Some see this as a victory. I see it as one of many steps that will end the middle class as we know it.

metre
What an irony. America would be almost metric today, but for the computer and offshore production. As I pointed out on this forum long ago, US industries experienced a gradual downturn in the late 60s and nothing they tried improved their position. On the 1. 1. 1970 the Dow Jones stood at 838 and had nowhere to go, but south.

This is what Business Week had to say on the 13.8 79

"The equity markets are dead! It's time to wet down the fire, call in the dogs and go home".

Japan and Germany's economies boomed inspitring serious US economists to debate which of the 2 models they should adopt. Metrication became all of a sudden very important and few people complained about it. The consensus was rather a metric economy than none. That state of affairs dragged on into the late 90. After the fall of Communism rampant downsizing, outsourcing and offshore production carried the day Then came PC's and the Dow started to rise on a daily basis. On the 1.1.1990 it reached 2753. With prosperity came doubts about metrication. Who needs it? After all, we sent men to the moon and built computers in USC?????! Thereafter metrication became a dirty word.


What a pity that it takes recessions to convince Americans it does not pay to use medieval measurements in the 21 century.

JS
I've seen some reports that we have made some commitments to both the EU and Japan on the metric FPLA amendment. Also, other countries forbid importing goods with supplemental unit (S. Korea is one) so we are already hurting ourselfs. (However, I'm sure the goods have to be labelled in Korean, too. Most of US giids aren't.)

metre
America committed itself 60 years ago in writing to metricate aviation, makes you wonder?
It is not so long ago that I have seen a S.Korean refrigerator with all technical data in USC.

Of course. If it were only labeled in Korean, Americans wouldn't buy it. As I have said over and over, there is much more to the label issue than english/metric. Language and required label content differ by country. There may be a few country pairs that can share a label, but, in general, unique labels are required by market.

Those who wish to sell in the US have to comply with US dual label requirements or they can't sell here. I wonder how THEY can afford the extra inventory, and why it doesn't destroy their economy. Oh wait, . . . I don't wonder -- see above. :)

You have to make what your customers want. If it is not what your OTHER customers want, you have to decide if the complexity of part numbers is worthwhile. Learning to minimize that complexity and providing it easily is a strategy that differentiates businesses.

<<metre
America committed itself 60 years ago in writing to metricate aviation, makes you wonder?
>>

You don't need us. Metricate EU airspace. Russia, China, and CIS countries did. It's probably better to perform the altitude maneuvers over the ocean anyway.

Oh, wait, your roads are still miles, yards, feet of clearance on bridges. Could your pilots handle it?

<<and built computers in USC?????! >>


???Indeed. You know, don't you, that nothing on a 3.5" floppy disk is actually 3.5"? It is entirely specified in metric; the 3.5" designation is a made-up, soft-imperial marketing name. The electronics industry has been largely metric since the early 70's. (there were a few exceptions, like 0.1" pin spacing on ICs, but that died out years ago).

Those inch dimensions on monitor screens are made up too.

Oddly, going metric probably facilitated offshoring all the production. Electronics was one of the first industries to do so. Apparently, their soft-imperial catalogs are good enough to fool both customers and critics. :)

"???Indeed. You know, don't you, that nothing on a 3.5" floppy disk is actually 3.5"? It is entirely specified in metric; the 3.5" designation is a made-up, soft-imperial marketing name. The electronics industry has been largely metric since the early 70's. (there were a few exceptions, like 0.1" pin spacing on ICs, but that died out years ago)."

The exact dimensions of the floppy disk are regulated under ISO 9529-1 specification for floppy disks? The
specification of the floppy disk are 94 x 90 x 3.3 mm^3. The disk is 86 mm in diameter and the mass is 24 g. What dimensions of the floppy is the 3.5 inch is suppose to refer to?

Found this via a Google search. It leads to a USMA archive and was someone responding to a BWMA poster:

http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@colostate.edu/msg05291.html


"Those inch dimensions on monitor screens are made up too.

Oddly, going metric probably facilitated offshoring all the production. Electronics was one of the first industries to do so. Apparently, their soft-imperial catalogs are good enough to fool both customers and critics. :)"

Even though Monitors may give a diagonal dimension in inches, everything else is metric. The dot pitch is in millimetres, the luminance is in nits (candelas per square metre). Even the physical dimensions are in millimetres. Somewhere in the BWMA archives you will read articles on this where the inch specification of the diagonal dimension isn't a real dimension, but a trade name.

Electronic components started out as imperial but switched to metric in the early '90s. A major factor of the change was the exporting of American electronics to Asian countries. Asians loathe imperial and made metrication of the electronics industry a priority.

The 0.1 inch spacing is old technology. There was a 0.05 inch spacing but that was the last of the inch series. Around 1990, JEDEC passed a rule stating that future generation electronics had to be in millimetres to no more then two decimal places in which the second decimal place could only be a 5 or a zero.

Thus, half of 0.05 would be 0.025 inches. Which would be 0.635 mm. This violated the rule, so 0.65 mm was chosen. Since them 0.5 mm and 0.4 mm have have come on the scene. Everything future is metric.

The PC once made by IBM to inch based units and fasteners has long ago switched to metric dimensions and metric fasteners. (Gloating) Thanks to the export of this industry to Asia.

Ahh, yes. Erin -- he got banned.

As I said, I worked in automotive electronics. Even when I joined the company in 1978, it was already making all its automotive radios either in Brazil (90%) or Toronto, Canada (10%). By the late 80's, we had moved radios out of Toronto (moving in other product), cut volume in Brazil (we didn't like all eggs in one basket) and opened plants in Mexico, and Portugal, to balance a little better.

(Our only domestic electronics plant only made engine controls, and it made all of them.)

Even if they were made in Brazil or elsewhere outside of the US the chips were still based on the 0.1 inch centers in those days. Even if other factors like the PC board footprint of the copper density on the boards was in metric that was one aspect of inches in electronics one couldn't get away from.

Now with components all metric based, there is no problem having a 100 % metric PC board.

True, but we used 2.54 mm, although it was really 0.1 inch.

For resistor and capacitor chips, we had to use metric layout rules because of the chip placement machines we used (well, and we were metric). They weren't very flexible, but they each laid 70,000 chips an hour, vs about 2500 chips per hour for the more flexible Japanese ones. In spite of the rate, we ran placement on three shifts, the rest of the plant on two. Ceramic chip components are metric dimension by the way.

This consulting chick came to talk me into using chip components in 1986. I told her she was too late, we already used a lot. She challenged me, "how many do you use," thinking it was some pilot. After a moment's figuring, I told her 2 x 10^9 per annum (just my radio line, I don't know how many the whole electronic division used). Completely blew her mind. She was thinking aerospace, where they build 5 of something a year. We're about "feeding the beast."

<<You keep trying to tell everybody (by implication) that schools are reversing their policy of metric education>>

Absolute rubbish - and I even point that out in this thread!

Metric is not being reversed, it's imperial that is reintroduced.

Simple as.

As to your other idea - here I'll reproduce (again!) "Maths in action":


http://www.nrich.maths.org.uk/public/viewer.php?obj_id=2032&part=index&refpage=monthindex.php

http://www.nrich.maths.org.uk/public/viewer.php?obj_id=1080&part=index&refpage=viewer.php

(solution: http://www.nrich.maths.org.uk/public/viewer.php?obj_id=1080&part=solution&refpage=viewer.php)

http://www.nrich.maths.org.uk/public/viewer.php?obj_id=985&part=index&refpage=monthindex.php

http://www.nrich.maths.org.uk/public/viewer.php?obj_id=628&part=index&refpage=monthindex.php


This is "teaching in action", Stan.

I never got it in the 80's but 90's kids do.

It is plain daft to deliberately not teach units to kids that are available, used, and spoken in day to day life in the UK.

Re: Wasting money on teaching USC August 14 2005, 3:25 PM


JS
You don't need us. Metricate EU airspace. Russia, China, and CIS countries did. It's probably better to perform the altitude maneuvers over the ocean anyway.

Oh, wait, your roads are still miles, yards, feet of clearance on bridges. Could your pilots handle it?

metre
Point taken, but you can't rely on Britain with its dismal metrication record to clamour for change in aviation. It's not a question of needing you either. It is rather a question of Uncle Sam becoming a decent world citizen. Let's put it this way, if he would be a member of a community his behaviour would be classified as anti social. What he does in avaiation is tantamount to saying, while my tune is completely off key, its the only one that can be played.

JS
Of course. If it were only labeled in Korean, Americans wouldn't buy it.

metre
Maybe that frig is also sold in America?
I have yet to see a customer that looks at the appliance tag before he buys a refrigerator. Only nuts like I do that.

Just for clarification - are there still people here that think that international flight changes measurement type depending on which bit the pilot is flying over?

Me, I guess.

All the data I can find talks about Russia, China, Mongolia, and CIS countries (now independent, former USSR satellites) administering metric flight levels.

I also recently found some ads for used corporate aircraft with "metric flight level switches"

So in modern, electronic cockpits, I believe they switch the altimeter to metric. On older aircraft, they use a conversion table. But they have to fly the metric flight level issued by air traffic control. The last time we had the debate, I even posted a complaint from a pilots' organization about the specific maneuver required transitioning from International to Chinese airspace.

Can you offer any evidence they DON'T fly metric levels in those countries or even that NO commercial airliner has an electronic altimer with english/metric?

Re: Wasting money on teaching USC August 14 2005, 2:05 PM

JS
I don't think permissive-metric-only will stir things up as much as mandatory metric in the UK.

metre
Agreed, people won’t be mounting barricades, but it will leave you with a costly and accident prone hybrid for many many years to come.

JS
My bigger worry is that it is not on the front burner, and won't be until 2009.5, NIST promised to introduce this in 2005, and Congress will only be back and working for another 3 months.

metre
Bush will never do it. Metrication for that guy means an infringement on America's righteous way of life. In his eyes America can do no wrong! I am actually surprised he hasn’t invaded Europe yet to teach those backward oafs that USC is the only acceptable hodgepodge of measurements acceptable.

JS
The EU never should have granted a 10 year extension all at once, and let the tension die. Any relief should have been one year at a time, with further relief contingent on showing progress.

metre
A very valid point. One would have to see the minutes of the discussions to know, who got his way?

<<What he does in avaiation is tantamount to saying, while my tune is completely off key, its the only one that can be played.>>

Bull.... I'm not saying we don't say that, the US can be a tad arrogant. However, the total land area of Russia, China, Mongolia and the CIS is pretty large, most of Asia, and represents a lot of flights.

You're saying THEY can successfully ignore the US position and enforce metric flight level, but the EU is unable to? How will you ever get to be a power with an attitude like that. Frankly, you're (the EU) using us as an excuse to not change anything.

Example is the best proof that the world could have metric flight levels and leave the US flying domestically in feet if they really wanted it. Even US flights to China have to transition to metric level on entry to Chinese airspace (we have a lot of flights to China, not so many to Russia.)

(You'd (the UK) probably have a "Tony Bennett of the skies" franticly pasting over the altimeter dials. Would the UK really want metric flight level or would they side with the US?)

<<metre
Maybe that frig is also sold in America?
I have yet to see a customer that looks at the appliance tag before he buys a refrigerator. Only nuts like I do that.>>

There are certainly S. Korean appliance brands being imported here. I haven't shopped for one for years, so I can't say much about the offerings others than ads I see in the paper.

The government works hard to make us read the tag, especially the energy rating. I'm not sure how many people do. I look at it on appliances that are on a lot or use a lot of power. It is worth some premium for an appliance that works as well, uses less electricity.

Did you see this Korean frig in the UK? Asians probably view the US as a bigger English speaking market than the UK (they also tend to learn American English, whereas most other regions learn British English) and they may have been unaware or ignored the measurement differences.

Re: Wasting money on teaching USC August 14 2005, 4:02 PM

JS
<<and built computers in USC?????! >>???Indeed. You know, don't you, that nothing on a 3.5" floppy disk is actually 3.5"?

metre
Hence, my question marks. The decision to offshore production had mainly to do with hefty profits squeezed out of 3rd World workers and maybe tax advatantages. It certainly saves them heaps not to have stringent pollution controls, decent social security payments and the list goes on. Yet, even there metrication costs money to buy new metric equipment. (I think)

Re: Wasting money on teaching USC August 15 2005, 2:10 PM



JS
The government works hard to make us read the tag, especially the energy rating. I'm not sure how many people do. I look at it on appliances that are on a lot or use a lot of power. It is worth some premium for an appliance that works as well, uses less electricity.

metre
I am not talking about energy ratings,they should be pretty prominent. Where are yours? No I am talking about the appliance tag at the back, that has no information the average lay person could do anything with. It is for the repairman only.

Did you see this Korean frig in the UK? Asians probably view the US as a bigger English speaking market than the UK (they also tend to learn American English, whereas most other regions learn British English) and they may have been unaware or ignored the measurement differences.

metre
Yes, and you are right, it probably was made for the American market. Like that A/C sold in Holland sporting outlandish BTUs. Could tell you a nice story about energy ratings and their efficacy. Maybe some other time.

"outlandish BTU's". Jeesh! Whatever next? "Proposterous miles?", "Fiendish feet?". As the Koreans would say "what an iriot" ;-)


<<Can you offer any evidence they DON'T fly metric levels in those countries or even that NO commercial airliner has an electronic altimer with english/metric?
>>

Behind the scenes I've been trying to. A friend of mine has a father who is a pilot (or, more correctly was a pilot until recently) for long haul BA 747 flights. I've been trying to get him to ask him but he keeps forgetting. I will ask again.

Note to some: This pilot really does exist. A tangible human being. Know what I mean?

Ok I have a response.

I will cut and paste it here:

-----------
The global standard is to use feet, although in the days of the soviet union
there were some parts that used meters and they had to convert.
But most places now use feet
-----------


parts = territories, not aircraft parts!

I wonder why this company in advertising replacement avionics for C130 aircraft exmphasizes its switchable english/metric altimeter,
http://www.innovative-ss.com/engine.htm
<<The ultimate C130H air data system and instrument solution.
As Lockheed’s prime contractor for C-130H air data systems and engine/oil/fuel instruments, Innovative Solutions & Support (IS&S) provides retrofit solutions that deliver a level of performance and reliability unsurpassed by any air data system now in commercial or military service.
. . .
Solid-State Altimeters (three)
• RVSM compliant accuracy, 30 ft at 30,000 ft.
• High intensity illuminated solid-state display.
• Meter/feet selectability facilitates operation in metric airspace, except Eastern Europe.
• CADC baro interface.
• ICAO altitude reporting code output to IFF.
• HP and InHg switchable.
• MTBF: 41,000 hours (100x improvement).
• NVIS compliant integral illumination.
• Accuracy: 10 ft @ 50,000 ft.
>>

Rules for foreign aircraft operating in China.
Complete rules at link, excerpt only below:
http://english.enorth.com.cn/system/2001/05/30/000002077.shtml
<<Article 19. A foreign civil aircraft making flight within the territory of the People's Republic of China shall fly at a specified level or altitude.

The flight levels within the territory of the People's Republic of China are as follows: 0 through 179 degrees (T): from 600m to 6,000m, flight levels are at intervals of 600m; above 6,000m, they are at intervals of 2,000m.

180 through 359 degrees (T): from 900m to 5,700m, flight levels are at intervals of 600m; above 7,000m, flight levels are at intervals of 2,000m.

Flight levels are calculated on a specific pressure datum of 760mm height of mercury and courses are measured from true north at the initial and turning point of an air route.

Article 20. The flight altitude or flight level for each flight conducted by a foreign civil aircraft within the territory of the People's Republic of China is assigned by the relevant ATC service of the General Administration of Civil Aviation of China. When a foreign civil aircraft finds it necessary to change its altitude or flight level during flight, no matter what weather conditions prevails, a clearance must be obtained beforehand from the relevant ATC service of the General Administration of Civil Aviation of China.
>>

Article on executive aircraft operations to China
http://www.propilotmag.com/August/article2_aug.html
Excerpt only
<<China uses metric flight levels and altitudes, but the levels are different from those used in Russia. Former colonies such as Macao and Hong Kong still use feet, so care is needed when transiting between FIRs. A third altimeter to measure altitudes in meters is useful. Since some airports in China (and all airports in Russia) use QFE (where the altimeter shows zero meters at touchdown), this third altimeter can be used to crosscheck your altitudes. It’s also important, when using meters, for crews to familiarize themselves with the layout and tables of approach plates.>>

Dear Steve:

I challenge you to work this problem:

http://www.nrich.maths.org.uk/public/viewer.php?obj_id=628&part=index&refpage=monthindex.php

I wouldn't set too much store by the stuff on that nrich site as being typical of what kids do in school. The above problem could only be given to the most able kids. Few teachers would waste their time with it on most of them.

I must also point out that where imperial measures are involved in worked problems, other than simple conversions, they tend to focus on problems involving distances in miles and travel times based on mile/h. Guess why that is!

However I recommend anyone who is interested in a more balanced picture to look at this pdf file from the horses mouth (i.e. the Department for Education)

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/midbins/keystage3/measures.PDF

I reproduce the text of the maths problem referred to in the above message:

"A security camera, which takes one picture each half a second, films a cyclist going by at 8.5 miles per hour on a bike which has wheels of diameter 24 inches. There is a reflector fixed to the spokes of each wheel of the bike. Explain why it is that, in the film, the cyclist appears to go forward while the wheels appear to go backwards. If the cyclist goes a little faster the wheels appear to be stationary. At what speed does this happen?

You will need to know that 1 mile = 1760 yards, 1 yard = 3 feet and 1 foot = 12 inches to do this question. Can you also change the numbers (not necessarily by direct conversion) to pose a similar problem in metric units?"

Notice how the author finds it necessary to give all the factors linking imperial units. The student is not expected to know them.

I think this problem has been posed, not to re-inforce a students knowledge of imperial measures, but rather to complicate it so they have to marshall all the relevent facts. In other words to apply their knowledge. I think that in that sense it's a good one.

However I disagree with the first sentence of that second paragraph. You can also do it simply by converting 24 inches to metres and 8.5 mile/h to km/h and taking it from there. Doing such a conversion *is" part of the curriculum so it would be a more legitimate approach.

You can do it by simple but exact conversion. As it says, you don't HAVE to do it that way. For example, you could round the bike tire to 600 mm (or 60 cm) and find a speed in km/h which has the same essential relationship and have it seem more natural than a 609.6 mm tire and pedalling at 13.6794 km/h. :)

Stimpy said
<<The global standard is to use feet, although in the days of the soviet union there were some parts that used meters >>

OK, I think I've covered China. Now for Russia.

The FAA published this special guide to Russian certification of aircraft from the US, as of 1998 (several years after USSR collapse)
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:7JPynECj7wcJ:www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/export_aw_proc/sp_req_import/media/Russianfed.pdf+russia+flight+levels+metric&hl=en&lr=lang_en
<<1.INTRODUCTION.This document prescribes special requirements for airworthiness acceptance of aeronauticalproducts imported to Russia from the United States of America, which are based on the Agreement forPromotion of Aviation Safety signed between the Government of the [[United States of America]](USA) and the Government of [[the]]Russian Federation on September 02, 1998.
. . .
6.6. Metric Instrumentation.Each aircraft must be equipped [[with metric altimeter or a conversion table (meter-feet) must be installed in the crew cabin in a place visible to both pilots]]. . . . >>

and from a Finnish "close approach investigation from 2003.
http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20030131IE4
<<. . . Investigators have requested Pulkovo Airlines to provide an explanation as to why their plane continued its climb even after the 1200-metre mark. Information on the plane's collision prevention system and other equipment has also been sought.
Haila suspects that one of the reasons behind the potentially very dangerous situation might be the differences between the altimeters used in the West and in Russia.
The western gauges tell the altitude in feet, which directly correlate with the assigned flight levels.
Some of the Russian planes are equipped with altimeters that have readings in both feet and metres. In other planes only the metric system is used, and the pilots have to use conversion charts in order to determine the correct flight level. This increases the chance of a human error. . . . >>

I wonder why Russia not only allows but requires metric altimeters? Is there any chance it is because they use metric flight levels? Or do they just like their pilots to practice math?

John: I'm simply repeating what the son of an international long haul 747 pilot used. I can't really say further than that. What you are digging up via websites might be a "general rule" type thing - similar to our roads being measured in metric but labelled in imperial? Although he is a unix expert he (like most people) has no interest in this debate and as such won't be bothered to post here. If you have any further questions I can ask him.
Of course this all depends whether you believe that my 'friend-son-of-a-747-pilot' exists or whether you think all this is an "habitual lie", if you know what I mean ;-)


Stan: You're clutching at straws mate. A metric puzzle would need the student to know how many cm in a m, g in a kg etc. They also might need to know that the metre is the base unit of distance whereas the kilogramme is different (ie kilo) as being the base unit of mass.

The site I mention is one of many recommended to teachers from a National Curriculum site.

Stan - The school classroom is not a military outfit. What is teached there is part curriculum part teacher's effort. They learn facts about science, maths, languages, physical education, etc PLUS LIFE. To be honest, I'd get used to it rather than counter claim that imperial has *not* being reintorduced and the average kid *won't* know that 12 inches is one foot.

You can start by listening to how kids talk.

I don't have any trouble believing he exists.

Unless his dad actually flies routes into those countries, he may not be aware of the situation. Even the pilot-to-pilot articles I found seemed to be emphasizing it as "different." Vertical separation is extremely important in ATC; you have to fly at assigned level. I very much doubt it is at all like your local councils putting up metric signs when the rules say Imperial.

I think metre is more amazed anyone would stand up to the US. I suspect the real truth is that a lot of retraining is required (and replacement of older equipment?) to convert EU from foot to metric airspace. While people are willing to pontificate about it, actually doing the work is a nuisance. Much better to blame the US for the damn measurement units and keep on flying.

Steve,

Please get used to the idea that children are taught:

1. How to convert between metres and centimetres
2. Approximaet convervsions between feet and metres or yards and metres.

They are NOT (repeat NOT) taught how to convert between feet and inches or yards and feet.

<<Unless his dad actually flies routes into those countries, he may not be aware of the situation. Even the pilot-to-pilot articles I found seemed to be emphasizing it as "different.">>

I'll ask him about his routes.


<<I think metre is more amazed anyone would stand up to the US. I suspect the real truth is that a lot of retraining is required (and replacement of older equipment?)>>

Introducing "the truth" to "metre" (eric) will be as big an acomplishment as getting that Iranian leader to wear A T-shirt with "Go USA" on the front (and both have similar views!!)
In (ahem) "reality" the ide of all (if not most) international air traffic working at its best in feet I see no reason who or why it would change. It's not a UK/US vs rest of world thing. It;s simply that there is no demand.




<<Steve,

Please get used to the idea that children are taught:

1. How to convert betw