To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: RE: ENGLISH VS. METRIC
From: "DEVERE, PETER P. (JSC-ES)" <peter.p.devere1(--nospam--at)jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:26:24 -0600 <peter.p.devere1(--nospam--at)jsc.nasa.gov>
Several years ago I worked in Houston at McDermott - Hudson, designing
offshore gas gathering facilities for Qatar ( QGPC ). The entire project ,
( specs....calcs...autocad drawings) , was done in metric.... Mm, Pa...
Of course in order to survive as an international player in offshore
facilities, McDermott had to evolve faster than a chameleon changes
Peter Paul De Vere
JSC, Houston, Texas
Bldg. 13 room 2002
From: Larsen, Trevor [mailto:tlarsen(--nospam--at)DLRGROUP.com]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 10:22
Subject: ENGLISH VS. METRIC
I enjoyed reading the responses to the question: "Where does
the word kip come from". It reminded me of the subject not much unlike the
ongoing debate of ASD vs LRFD. Having had the opportunity to work in an
engineering office in Europe for almost three years I can appreciate the
problems of switching from one system to another. I know it would affect
every aspect of our industry and every aspect of our nation. But when you
consider that only three countries in the world use the English system
(U.S., Liberia, and Burma (I believe)), it's amazing how the U.S. can
continue being a player in the "global" construction market. I've seen a
few efforts in moving to the metric system (government contracts in metric,
"soft" metrification of rebar, even a "metric" LRFD!) but the word "kip"
seems to sum up the problem. Kilo is a metric prefix meaning "1000", pound,
an English unit of force. Everyone can see the wisdom in a base "10" system
but nobody wants to let go of the pound. Just an opinion.
Trevor Larsen E.I.T.