Decimal Time

[rickman]

Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is shortened by
about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr, 10 hr/day.

I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a lot of changes
in society. We presently have a large number of convenient time increments
which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no convenient unit
about the same length of time as the hour. The closest would be the
quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours. The deci-hour would be pretty
convenient about 4% shorter than a quarter hour. The old half hour would
now be about a fifth of a new hour, so we could call it a "fifth" which
might become confused with a non-metric liquor measure, a fifth of a gallon
which has since become 750 ml in metric.

The inconvenience would come from the need to totally recalibrate every type
of measurement we use that considers time... speed limits, work days, time
zones... Would we extend this change to measurements of angles which often
are done in degrees, minutes, seconds?

How would we adjust the work day? Do we go to 3 hour work days which would
be about 7.2 old hours? Shift work would have to split hours to get three
shifts while some businesses that use two 12 old hour shifts would hum along
just fine with 5 new hour shifts. Many businesses opening at 9 AM would now
open at 4:00 (I assume we would just count 0 to 9 hours rather than the
annoying AM/PM thing), folks would take a lunch break at 5:00 and banks
would close around 6:00 while retail would remain open until 9:00 or 9:50
(hmmm, that is still about the same).

The minutes gets pretty whacked gaining 26.4 old seconds. So "give me a
minute" becomes a quarter more weighty of a request. The original pulse was
conceived to match the human pulse so our normal pulse rate will become 86
bpm instead of 60 bpm.

In science the changes would be enormous. With a redefinition of the second
every time related measurement would have to change including many in EE
such as capacitance/charge/current, heck, the definition of the
gravitational constant and even the speed of light would have to change.
Every text book would change and every instrument. This would create so
much confusion that we really would need new names for the second, minute
and hour.

This could go on all day (the one measurement that doesn't change) with a
huge list of changes we will have to make and the many adaptations we as a
society would need to accommodate. Then, in the end, we would still have
leap years.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[Tom Biasi]

On 8/31/2017 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:

Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is shortened by
about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr, 10 hr/day.

I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a lot of
changes in society.  We presently have a large number of convenient time
increments which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no convenient
unit about the same length of time as the hour.  The closest would be
the quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours.  The deci-hour would
be pretty convenient about 4% shorter than a quarter hour.  The old half
hour would now be about a fifth of a new hour, so we could call it a
"fifth" which might become confused with a non-metric liquor measure, a
fifth of a gallon which has since become 750 ml in metric.

The inconvenience would come from the need to totally recalibrate every
type of measurement we use that considers time... speed limits, work
days, time zones...  Would we extend this change to measurements of
angles which often are done in degrees, minutes, seconds?

How would we adjust the work day?  Do we go to 3 hour work days which
would be about 7.2 old hours?  Shift work would have to split hours to
get three shifts while some businesses that use two 12 old hour shifts
would hum along just fine with 5 new hour shifts.  Many businesses
opening at 9 AM would now open at 4:00 (I assume we would just count 0
to 9 hours rather than the annoying AM/PM thing), folks would take a
lunch break at 5:00 and banks would close around 6:00 while retail would
remain open until 9:00 or 9:50 (hmmm, that is still about the same).

The minutes gets pretty whacked gaining 26.4 old seconds.  So "give me a
minute" becomes a quarter more weighty of a request.  The original pulse
was conceived to match the human pulse so our normal pulse rate will
become 86 bpm instead of 60 bpm.

In science the changes would be enormous.  With a redefinition of the
second every time related measurement would have to change including
many in EE such as capacitance/charge/current, heck, the definition of
the gravitational constant and even the speed of light would have to
change. Every text book would change and every instrument.  This would
create so much confusion that we really would need new names for the
second, minute and hour.

This could go on all day (the one measurement that doesn't change) with
a huge list of changes we will have to make and the many adaptations we
as a society would need to accommodate.  Then, in the end, we would
still have leap years.

Anyone old enough may remember when the USA tried to go metric. The
people just would not go for it and it was abandoned.

 

[rickman]

Tom Biasi wrote on 8/31/2017 10:16 PM:

On 8/31/2017 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is shortened by
about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr, 10 hr/day.

I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a lot of changes
in society. We presently have a large number of convenient time
increments which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no convenient
unit about the same length of time as the hour. The closest would be the
quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours. The deci-hour would be
pretty convenient about 4% shorter than a quarter hour. The old half hour
would now be about a fifth of a new hour, so we could call it a "fifth"
which might become confused with a non-metric liquor measure, a fifth of a
gallon which has since become 750 ml in metric.

The inconvenience would come from the need to totally recalibrate every
type of measurement we use that considers time... speed limits, work days,
time zones... Would we extend this change to measurements of angles which
often are done in degrees, minutes, seconds?

How would we adjust the work day? Do we go to 3 hour work days which
would be about 7.2 old hours? Shift work would have to split hours to get
three shifts while some businesses that use two 12 old hour shifts would
hum along just fine with 5 new hour shifts. Many businesses opening at 9
AM would now open at 4:00 (I assume we would just count 0 to 9 hours
rather than the annoying AM/PM thing), folks would take a lunch break at
5:00 and banks would close around 6:00 while retail would remain open
until 9:00 or 9:50 (hmmm, that is still about the same).

The minutes gets pretty whacked gaining 26.4 old seconds. So "give me a
minute" becomes a quarter more weighty of a request. The original pulse
was conceived to match the human pulse so our normal pulse rate will
become 86 bpm instead of 60 bpm.

In science the changes would be enormous. With a redefinition of the
second every time related measurement would have to change including many
in EE such as capacitance/charge/current, heck, the definition of the
gravitational constant and even the speed of light would have to change.
Every text book would change and every instrument. This would create so
much confusion that we really would need new names for the second, minute
and hour.

This could go on all day (the one measurement that doesn't change) with a
huge list of changes we will have to make and the many adaptations we as a
society would need to accommodate. Then, in the end, we would still have
leap years.

Anyone old enough may remember when the USA tried to go metric. The people
just would not go for it and it was abandoned.

I don't remember that "people just would not go for it". I don't recall
much resistance at all. I think the "resistance" was at other levels. We
had a partnership with Canada to change together and had a multi-step
program. We completed the first two or three steps and quit. That's why
metric is taught today in schools, it was part of step two or three. When
we had to take a step that would actually change something (I think it was
highway signs) we told Canada to go on without us and we'd catch up later...
*much* later.

I can't believe that even today we still use English units in many
engineering fields. Mechanical engineers often use inches and feet. God
knows what civil engineers use, probably rods. It was just recently that I
learned the acre comes from 160 square rods.

Actually I just looked it up and the acre was defined as 1 chain by 1
furlong while a rod is a quarter of a chain. A chain is 0.1 furlong, so
they are all a related system of measurement.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[Tom Biasi]

On 8/31/2017 10:36 PM, rickman wrote:

Tom Biasi wrote on 8/31/2017 10:16 PM:
On 8/31/2017 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is shortened by
about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr, 10 hr/day.

I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a lot of
changes
in society.  We presently have a large number of convenient time
increments which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no convenient
unit about the same length of time as the hour.  The closest would be
the
quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours.  The deci-hour would be
pretty convenient about 4% shorter than a quarter hour.  The old half
hour
would now be about a fifth of a new hour, so we could call it a "fifth"
which might become confused with a non-metric liquor measure, a fifth
of a
gallon which has since become 750 ml in metric.

The inconvenience would come from the need to totally recalibrate every
type of measurement we use that considers time... speed limits, work
days,
time zones...  Would we extend this change to measurements of angles
which
often are done in degrees, minutes, seconds?

How would we adjust the work day?  Do we go to 3 hour work days which
would be about 7.2 old hours?  Shift work would have to split hours
to get
three shifts while some businesses that use two 12 old hour shifts would
hum along just fine with 5 new hour shifts.  Many businesses opening
at 9
AM would now open at 4:00 (I assume we would just count 0 to 9 hours
rather than the annoying AM/PM thing), folks would take a lunch break at
5:00 and banks would close around 6:00 while retail would remain open
until 9:00 or 9:50 (hmmm, that is still about the same).

The minutes gets pretty whacked gaining 26.4 old seconds.  So "give me a
minute" becomes a quarter more weighty of a request.  The original pulse
was conceived to match the human pulse so our normal pulse rate will
become 86 bpm instead of 60 bpm.

In science the changes would be enormous.  With a redefinition of the
second every time related measurement would have to change including
many
in EE such as capacitance/charge/current, heck, the definition of the
gravitational constant and even the speed of light would have to change.
Every text book would change and every instrument.  This would create so
much confusion that we really would need new names for the second,
minute
and hour.

This could go on all day (the one measurement that doesn't change)
with a
huge list of changes we will have to make and the many adaptations we
as a
society would need to accommodate.  Then, in the end, we would still
have
leap years.

Anyone old enough may remember when the USA tried to go metric. The
people
just would not go for it and it was abandoned.

I don't remember that "people just would not go for it".  I don't recall
much resistance at all.  I think the "resistance" was at other levels.
We had a partnership with Canada to change together and had a multi-step
program.  We completed the first two or three steps and quit.  That's
why metric is taught today in schools, it was part of step two or
three.  When we had to take a step that would actually change something
(I think it was highway signs) we told Canada to go on without us and
we'd catch up later... *much* later.

I can't believe that even today we still use English units in many
engineering fields.  Mechanical engineers often use inches and feet.
God knows what civil engineers use, probably rods.  It was just recently
that I learned the acre comes from 160 square rods.

Actually I just looked it up and the acre was defined as 1 chain by 1
furlong while a rod is a quarter of a chain.  A chain is 0.1 furlong, so
they are all a related system of measurement.

Well you and I remember differently. I was involved in the teaching of
the metric system to the people of the USA. There was great resistance
and money for the project soon got thin. When I studied engineering in
the 70's we used the metric system exclusively. We didn't call it SI, it
was just the way the scientific community did it.

 

[rickman]

Tom Biasi wrote on 8/31/2017 11:13 PM:

Well you and I remember differently. I was involved in the teaching of the
metric system to the people of the USA. There was great resistance and money
for the project soon got thin. When I studied engineering in the 70's we
used the metric system exclusively. We didn't call it SI, it was just the
way the scientific community did it.

What teaching were you involved in? I assume it was companies asking you to
educate employees? That is not related to the government. It also has
nothing to do with the "resistance" from the average person. No one was
overly enthusiastic about it since it was a big change, but people were
willing to go with the flow. Mostly they just didn't understand it as there
had been only notification that it would happen and the education was only
in the schools. I believe it was industry that resisted the change much to
our detriment over the decades.

I don't know what you mean about metric not being "SI". I didn't know
diddly about metric until I was in college (before the conversion program
started) and was taught the SI system. I believe prior to SI there was a
metric system that had a few units that were different from today's SI by
some powers of 10. CGS and dynes come to mind.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[Look165]

It is worthless.

The animal bodies are regulated by the 24h system.

And it would be necessary to redefine the reference second which is now
related to the cesiuaam atom.It is the international reference like the
meter also related to this atom



rickman a écrit :

Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is shortened by
about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr, 10 hr/day.

I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a lot of
changes in society. We presently have a large number of convenient time
increments which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no convenient
unit about the same length of time as the hour. The closest would be
the quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours. The deci-hour would
be pretty convenient about 4% shorter than a quarter hour. The old half
hour would now be about a fifth of a new hour, so we could call it a
"fifth" which might become confused with a non-metric liquor measure, a
fifth of a gallon which has since become 750 ml in metric.

The inconvenience would come from the need to totally recalibrate every
type of measurement we use that considers time... speed limits, work
days, time zones... Would we extend this change to measurements of
angles which often are done in degrees, minutes, seconds?

How would we adjust the work day? Do we go to 3 hour work days which
would be about 7.2 old hours? Shift work would have to split hours to
get three shifts while some businesses that use two 12 old hour shifts
would hum along just fine with 5 new hour shifts. Many businesses
opening at 9 AM would now open at 4:00 (I assume we would just count 0
to 9 hours rather than the annoying AM/PM thing), folks would take a
lunch break at 5:00 and banks would close around 6:00 while retail would
remain open until 9:00 or 9:50 (hmmm, that is still about the same).

The minutes gets pretty whacked gaining 26.4 old seconds. So "give me a
minute" becomes a quarter more weighty of a request. The original pulse
was conceived to match the human pulse so our normal pulse rate will
become 86 bpm instead of 60 bpm.

In science the changes would be enormous. With a redefinition of the
second every time related measurement would have to change including
many in EE such as capacitance/charge/current, heck, the definition of
the gravitational constant and even the speed of light would have to
change. Every text book would change and every instrument. This would
create so much confusion that we really would need new names for the
second, minute and hour.

This could go on all day (the one measurement that doesn't change) with
a huge list of changes we will have to make and the many adaptations we
as a society would need to accommodate. Then, in the end, we would
still have leap years.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Mpffffff... what is unique about time-keeping as-practiced? It is base-12. Meaning that its 24-hour days are nicely divisible by more prime numbers than if it were base-10. It also goes nicely with 360 degrees, and such. It is something that entire world agrees to - one of the very few things.

Esperanto, anyone?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[ABLE1]

On 8/31/2017 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:

Someone was talking about decimal time where the second is shortened by
about 15% allowing 100 secs/minute, 100 minutes/hr, 10 hr/day.

I think the utility of this is limited and it would cause a lot of
changes in society.  We presently have a large number of convenient time
increments which would not be so convenient in the new system.

First, the hour would be 2.4 times longer leaving us with no convenient
unit about the same length of time as the hour.  The closest would be
the quad-deci-hour which would be 0.96 old hours.  The deci-hour would
be pretty convenient about 4% shorter than a quarter hour.  The old half
hour would now be about a fifth of a new hour, so we could call it a
"fifth" which might become confused with a non-metric liquor measure, a
fifth of a gallon which has since become 750 ml in metric.

The inconvenience would come from the need to totally recalibrate every
type of measurement we use that considers time... speed limits, work
days, time zones...  Would we extend this change to measurements of
angles which often are done in degrees, minutes, seconds?

How would we adjust the work day?  Do we go to 3 hour work days which
would be about 7.2 old hours?  Shift work would have to split hours to
get three shifts while some businesses that use two 12 old hour shifts
would hum along just fine with 5 new hour shifts.  Many businesses
opening at 9 AM would now open at 4:00 (I assume we would just count 0
to 9 hours rather than the annoying AM/PM thing), folks would take a
lunch break at 5:00 and banks would close around 6:00 while retail would
remain open until 9:00 or 9:50 (hmmm, that is still about the same).

The minutes gets pretty whacked gaining 26.4 old seconds.  So "give me a
minute" becomes a quarter more weighty of a request.  The original pulse
was conceived to match the human pulse so our normal pulse rate will
become 86 bpm instead of 60 bpm.

In science the changes would be enormous.  With a redefinition of the
second every time related measurement would have to change including
many in EE such as capacitance/charge/current, heck, the definition of
the gravitational constant and even the speed of light would have to
change. Every text book would change and every instrument.  This would
create so much confusion that we really would need new names for the
second, minute and hour.

This could go on all day (the one measurement that doesn't change) with
a huge list of changes we will have to make and the many adaptations we
as a society would need to accommodate.  Then, in the end, we would
still have leap years.

If I may interject:
A lot of years ago I was at a party. I was with a small group of people
and I brought up the topic of Metric Time. I said it as if I really
knew about it and that it was reported on the nightly news by Tom Brokaw
the night before. I said the certain part of Canada had all ready
switched over.

I said it as a joke but did not say that it was. Everyone was 'oh and
'aw about it and swallowed hook, line and sinker. I walked away from
the group and moved else were, snickering all the way.

About 15 minutes later, I got a tap on the shoulder. I turned and faced
a guy that was in that previous group. He had a serious look of
embarrassment and irritation. He said "Metric Time?? Really??" I just
smiled and said "Got Cha". And we had a good laugh.

Actually still laughing today. Since this post put me back to the a very
funny moment in time.

Thanks for the memories.

Les

 

[Tim R]

During the time of the pyramids and pharaohs, the Egyptian calendar had 5 days "out of time" at the beginning of the year, then 12 months of 30 days each.

That still makes more sense than what we do now.

 

[Taxed and Spent]

On 9/1/2017 5:55 AM, Tim R wrote:

During the time of the pyramids and pharaohs, the Egyptian calendar had 5 days "out of time" at the beginning of the year, then 12 months of 30 days each.

That still makes more sense than what we do now.

If we did that now, the politicians will call those tax-free days, with
the remainder being taxed at 100%.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

If we did that now, the politicians will call those tax-free days, with
the remainder being taxed at 100%.

Something like the 0 and 00 on American Roulette wheels?

Keep in mind that the 'modern' calendar was the creation of a religious institution to keep the calendar from 'slipping' and entirely for religious purposes. Islam uses a lunar calendar and slips by about 10 days each year. This is most significant during Ramadan, when fasting is from sunrise to sunset. Makes things a bit hard the further north (or south) one goes when Ramadan falls in the local summer time. But, several other groups, including Buddhists and others use calendars apart from the Gregorian calendar - no surprise there at all.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[Tom Biasi]

On 9/1/2017 3:57 AM, rickman wrote:

Tom Biasi wrote on 8/31/2017 11:13 PM:

Well you and I remember differently. I was involved in the teaching of
the
metric system to the people of the USA. There was great resistance and
money
for the project soon got thin. When I studied engineering in the 70's we
used the metric system exclusively. We didn't call it SI, it was just the
way the scientific community did it.

What teaching were you involved in?  I assume it was companies asking
you to educate employees?  That is not related to the government.  It
also has nothing to do with the "resistance" from the average person.
No one was overly enthusiastic about it since it was a big change, but
people were willing to go with the flow.  Mostly they just didn't
understand it as there had been only notification that it would happen
and the education was only in the schools.  I believe it was industry
that resisted the change much to our detriment over the decades.

I don't know what you mean about metric not being "SI".  I didn't know
diddly about metric until I was in college (before the conversion
program started) and was taught the SI system.  I believe prior to SI
there was a metric system that had a few units that were different from
today's SI by some powers of 10.  CGS and dynes come to mind.

I gave you my experience and you disagree. That's it.
Here is a cut from a Wiki article of which seems to be my experience also.

"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". Voluntary conversion was initiated, and the United
States 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."

 

[rickman]

Look165 wrote on 9/1/2017 4:28 AM:

It is worthless.

The animal bodies are regulated by the 24h system.

Not sure what you are talking about. Animal rhythms are related to a daily
cycle, it has nothing to do with "hours".

And it would be necessary to redefine the reference second which is now
related to the cesiuaam atom.It is the international reference like the
meter also related to this atom

The second is defined as vibrations of the cesium atom in the same way the
yard is defined in feet. If we wish to change the definition of the yard to
four feet we do that and are done. Likewise we can change the definition of
the second in the same way to a different number of vibrations of the cesium
atom.

Has anyone pointed out that top posting is hard to reply to?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[rickman]

pfjw@aol.com wrote on 9/1/2017 7:08 AM:

Mpffffff... what is unique about time-keeping as-practiced? It is base-12. Meaning that its 24-hour days are nicely divisible by more prime numbers than if it were base-10. It also goes nicely with 360 degrees, and such. It is something that entire world agrees to - one of the very few things.

Esperanto, anyone?

Instead of redefining time measures, we should use base 12 for our day to
day computations? That might actually be less work.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[rickman]

Tom Biasi wrote on 9/1/2017 10:14 AM:

On 9/1/2017 3:57 AM, rickman wrote:
Tom Biasi wrote on 8/31/2017 11:13 PM:

Well you and I remember differently. I was involved in the teaching of the
metric system to the people of the USA. There was great resistance and money
for the project soon got thin. When I studied engineering in the 70's we
used the metric system exclusively. We didn't call it SI, it was just the
way the scientific community did it.

What teaching were you involved in? I assume it was companies asking you
to educate employees? That is not related to the government. It also has
nothing to do with the "resistance" from the average person. No one was
overly enthusiastic about it since it was a big change, but people were
willing to go with the flow. Mostly they just didn't understand it as
there had been only notification that it would happen and the education
was only in the schools. I believe it was industry that resisted the
change much to our detriment over the decades.

I don't know what you mean about metric not being "SI". I didn't know
diddly about metric until I was in college (before the conversion program
started) and was taught the SI system. I believe prior to SI there was a
metric system that had a few units that were different from today's SI by
some powers of 10. CGS and dynes come to mind.

I gave you my experience and you disagree. That's it.
Here is a cut from a Wiki article of which seems to be my experience also.

"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".
Voluntary conversion was initiated, and the United States 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."

You didn't answer the question about what teaching you did exactly. I don't
know what "That's it" means.

I will rephrase my statement. The resistance to metric was less than the
resistance we have to our current President. No one marched in the streets.
No one filed actions with the Supreme Court. Yeah, people were people and
we had some editorials and a few indicated they had no reason to change,
such as the machine shop I worked with at the time. But they eventually
acquired metric capability anyway.

The "apathy" was the largest component of the response to changing to the
metric system by far. If the government had stayed the course we would have
been converted long ago and all the pain would be behind us.

I wonder why the wikipedia quote doesn't mention the fact that we did the
conversion in cooperation with Canada? Because wikipedia sucks and often is
not 100% accurate. Never use them for any disputed point without looking at
the references.

From the Popular Science web site, "A Gallup poll at the time showed that
45 percent of Americans opposed the switch." That means less than half!

Here is a better reference... from NIST.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/wmd/metric/1136a.pdf

While the Congressional study recommended a coordinated conversion over a
ten year period, Congress made the actual conversion voluntary. Consistent
with the "apathy" part of your statement above, the efforts of the Metric
Board were much ignored and the board was dissolved.

Today metric is a much larger part of our lives and I believe a conversion
would not be resisted and in fact, welcomed by a much larger percentage of
the population. Anyone who works on cars has both types of tools.
Measuring sticks and tapes often are marked in both systems. Goods on store
shelves are already marked in both systems. We are presently primed for the
conversion.

There is some irony in a personal anecdote. I was a contractor with the
Federal government and had to fill out forms justifying buying something
that wasn't measured in metric. The crusty old government employee who
oversaw purchasing didn't want to risk his pension so *everything* we bought
had to have this document. I ordered a board that *was* metric so I didn't
fill in the form and my PR was rejected. When I explained to him the board
was metric he didn't believe you could buy anything in the US that *was*
metric!!! This was in the 90's.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 10:36:59 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
=

Instead of redefining time measures, we should use base 12 for our day to
day computations? That might actually be less work.

That would instantly remove (at least) 35% of Americans from the computational pool. Without 12 fingers, they would be entirely lost.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[rickman]

pfjw@aol.com wrote on 9/1/2017 11:17 AM:

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 10:36:59 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
=
Instead of redefining time measures, we should use base 12 for our day to
day computations? That might actually be less work.

That would instantly remove (at least) 35% of Americans from the computational pool. Without 12 fingers, they would be entirely lost.

I posted this here because I figured the most resistance would come from a
community that has a large interest in keeping things the same. So far no
one has said much about the impact on repair.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 11:33:03 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

I posted this here because I figured the most resistance would come from a
community that has a large interest in keeping things the same. So far no
one has said much about the impact on repair.

Hence the indirect reference to that 35% of Americans who are unable to compute without their fingers. Not only do they want things to stay the same, but they would very much like to roll back the clock by about a century, or two.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[Tom Biasi]

On 9/1/2017 11:10 AM, rickman wrote:

Tom Biasi wrote on 9/1/2017 10:14 AM:
On 9/1/2017 3:57 AM, rickman wrote:
Tom Biasi wrote on 8/31/2017 11:13 PM:

Well you and I remember differently. I was involved in the teaching
of the
metric system to the people of the USA. There was great resistance
and money
for the project soon got thin. When I studied engineering in the
70's we
used the metric system exclusively. We didn't call it SI, it was
just the
way the scientific community did it.

What teaching were you involved in?  I assume it was companies asking
you
to educate employees?  That is not related to the government.  It
also has
nothing to do with the "resistance" from the average person.  No one was
overly enthusiastic about it since it was a big change, but people were
willing to go with the flow.  Mostly they just didn't understand it as
there had been only notification that it would happen and the education
was only in the schools.  I believe it was industry that resisted the
change much to our detriment over the decades.

I don't know what you mean about metric not being "SI".  I didn't know
diddly about metric until I was in college (before the conversion
program
started) and was taught the SI system.  I believe prior to SI there
was a
metric system that had a few units that were different from today's
SI by
some powers of 10.  CGS and dynes come to mind.

I gave you my experience and you disagree. That's it.
Here is a cut from a Wiki article of which seems to be my experience
also.

"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".
Voluntary conversion was initiated, and the United States 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."

You didn't answer the question about what teaching you did exactly.  I
don't know what "That's it" means.

I will rephrase my statement.  The resistance to metric was less than
the resistance we have to our current President.  No one marched in the
streets.  No one filed actions with the Supreme Court.  Yeah, people
were people and we had some editorials and a few indicated they had no
reason to change, such as the machine shop I worked with at the time.
But they eventually acquired metric capability anyway.

The "apathy" was the largest component of the response to changing to
the metric system by far.  If the government had stayed the course we
would have been converted long ago and all the pain would be behind us.

I wonder why the wikipedia quote doesn't mention the fact that we did
the conversion in cooperation with Canada?  Because wikipedia sucks and
often is not 100% accurate.  Never use them for any disputed point
without looking at the references.

From the Popular Science web site, "A Gallup poll at the time showed
that 45 percent of Americans opposed the switch."  That means less than
half!

Here is a better reference...  from NIST.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/wmd/metric/1136a.pdf

While the Congressional study recommended a coordinated conversion over
a ten year period, Congress made the actual conversion voluntary.
Consistent with the "apathy" part of your statement above, the efforts
of the Metric Board were much ignored and the board was dissolved.

Today metric is a much larger part of our lives and I believe a
conversion would not be resisted and in fact, welcomed by a much larger
percentage of the population.  Anyone who works on cars has both types
of tools. Measuring sticks and tapes often are marked in both systems.
Goods on store shelves are already marked in both systems.  We are
presently primed for the conversion.

There is some irony in a personal anecdote.  I was a contractor with the
Federal government and had to fill out forms justifying buying something
that wasn't measured in metric.  The crusty old government employee who
oversaw purchasing didn't want to risk his pension so *everything* we
bought had to have this document.  I ordered a board that *was* metric
so I didn't fill in the form and my PR was rejected.  When I explained
to him the board was metric he didn't believe you could buy anything in
the US that *was* metric!!!  This was in the 90's.

To answer your question I taught classes to the public under guidelines
from the United States Metric Board (USMB) in 1975.
I don't see why you needed to bring in the President, I don't wish a
political discussion.

 

[rickman]

Tom Biasi wrote on 9/1/2017 12:03 PM:

On 9/1/2017 11:10 AM, rickman wrote:
Tom Biasi wrote on 9/1/2017 10:14 AM:
On 9/1/2017 3:57 AM, rickman wrote:
Tom Biasi wrote on 8/31/2017 11:13 PM:

Well you and I remember differently. I was involved in the teaching of the
metric system to the people of the USA. There was great resistance and
money
for the project soon got thin. When I studied engineering in the 70's we
used the metric system exclusively. We didn't call it SI, it was just the
way the scientific community did it.

What teaching were you involved in? I assume it was companies asking you
to educate employees? That is not related to the government. It also has
nothing to do with the "resistance" from the average person. No one was
overly enthusiastic about it since it was a big change, but people were
willing to go with the flow. Mostly they just didn't understand it as
there had been only notification that it would happen and the education
was only in the schools. I believe it was industry that resisted the
change much to our detriment over the decades.

I don't know what you mean about metric not being "SI". I didn't know
diddly about metric until I was in college (before the conversion program
started) and was taught the SI system. I believe prior to SI there was a
metric system that had a few units that were different from today's SI by
some powers of 10. CGS and dynes come to mind.

I gave you my experience and you disagree. That's it.
Here is a cut from a Wiki article of which seems to be my experience also.

"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".
Voluntary conversion was initiated, and the United States 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."

You didn't answer the question about what teaching you did exactly. I
don't know what "That's it" means.

I will rephrase my statement. The resistance to metric was less than the
resistance we have to our current President. No one marched in the
streets. No one filed actions with the Supreme Court. Yeah, people were
people and we had some editorials and a few indicated they had no reason
to change, such as the machine shop I worked with at the time. But they
eventually acquired metric capability anyway.

The "apathy" was the largest component of the response to changing to the
metric system by far. If the government had stayed the course we would
have been converted long ago and all the pain would be behind us.

I wonder why the wikipedia quote doesn't mention the fact that we did the
conversion in cooperation with Canada? Because wikipedia sucks and often
is not 100% accurate. Never use them for any disputed point without
looking at the references.

From the Popular Science web site, "A Gallup poll at the time showed that
45 percent of Americans opposed the switch." That means less than half!

Here is a better reference... from NIST.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/wmd/metric/1136a.pdf

While the Congressional study recommended a coordinated conversion over a
ten year period, Congress made the actual conversion voluntary.
Consistent with the "apathy" part of your statement above, the efforts of
the Metric Board were much ignored and the board was dissolved.

Today metric is a much larger part of our lives and I believe a conversion
would not be resisted and in fact, welcomed by a much larger percentage of
the population. Anyone who works on cars has both types of tools.
Measuring sticks and tapes often are marked in both systems. Goods on
store shelves are already marked in both systems. We are presently primed
for the conversion.

There is some irony in a personal anecdote. I was a contractor with the
Federal government and had to fill out forms justifying buying something
that wasn't measured in metric. The crusty old government employee who
oversaw purchasing didn't want to risk his pension so *everything* we
bought had to have this document. I ordered a board that *was* metric so
I didn't fill in the form and my PR was rejected. When I explained to him
the board was metric he didn't believe you could buy anything in the US
that *was* metric!!! This was in the 90's.

To answer your question I taught classes to the public under guidelines from
the United States Metric Board (USMB) in 1975.
I don't see why you needed to bring in the President, I don't wish a
political discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I mention the President?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998