On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, William Thompson wrote: > Markus Kuhn wrote: > > (stuff deleted) > > > While the international inch is indeed linked to the meter by a > > reasonably round factor, and even shows up indirectly in a number of ISO > > standards (e.g., inch-based threads and pipes), this can clearly not be > > said for the US pound and the US gallon and units derived from these, > > which are still required by US federal law to be present on consumer > > packages. As long as it remains legal and even required in the US to > > price goods per gallon or pound (units completely unrelated to the inch!), > > (rest deleted) > > According to the NIST website, a gallon is defined as exactly 231 cubic inches. > I would say that was a long way from being completely unrelated to the inch. > > While the pound is unrelated to the inch, it is defined as exactly 0.45359237 > kilograms. > > Neither is a nice round number, but there is a definite relationship. > > William Thompson > Well would you Americans consider stopping calling them English Units? It makes me cringe every time the Mars Climate Observer crash is blamed on `English Units'. We call the British equivalent Imperial Units, implying a definite historical context. And teach our kids SI units.
Pete.
