[USMA:17869] Re: Fwd: Euro vs. Metricationt)
I have to make it clear that the Dutch pound of 500 g is also illegal but it is tolerated. Most shopkeepers price by the kilogram or 100 g though. On street markets the pound of 500 g and the ounce of 100 g are often seen in pricing. It is the people who ask for a pound of cheese or 3 ounces of cold cuts. But the lb avdp is an interloper and so it is not and should never be tolerated. Han - Original Message - From: Joseph B. Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 2002-01-31 21:20 Subject: [USMA:17819] Re: Fwd: Euro vs. Metricationt) Jim Elwell wrote in USMA 17775: If we all define our own meter, then we open the gates to fraud, which is something government *should* work to prevent. Selling by the pound is not fraud. Selling a pound (or kilogram) that is a different size than the standard is. Han Maenen reported in USMA 17790 that some Amsterdam street merchants were stopped by the police when they attempted to sell by the pound avoirdupois of 454 g since the pound in Holland has been 500 g since 1816 Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
[USMA:17868] Re: Fwd: Conversions Question
This company should contact Freedom 2 Measure, the ACWM or the BWMA for such metric to ifp conversions and difficult pure ifp calculations. Sam Malin, Seaver Leslie or David Delaney/Vivian Linacre should know how to convert this stuff! I would only be willing to help private persons in such non-metric cases. I would make the ifp calculation first, then I would show how it is done the metric way. Han - Original Message - From: Jim McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 2002-01-31 22:36 Subject: [USMA:17822] Fwd: Conversions Question Can anyone on the list provide a conversion factor for the questions contained below? Possibly the first question is asking the total square inches of paper on a 5000 lb roll of the stated width paper mass. Question two probably wants the number of linear yards on a 5000 lb roll of the stated width paper mass. Question three probably wants to convert 32 g/m^2 to lb/in^2. Please reply directly to me. Thank you, Jim McCracken Subject: Conversions I am looking to build a spreadsheet for our company standard conversions. We purchase paper from mills in pounds in various widths They range in weights of 32g/sm (grams per square meter) to 55g/sm. My clients want prices in MSI (square inches) LY linear yards LB pounds. If I purchase a roll that is 5000 lbs 56 inches wide that is 32g/sm what formula can I set up to convert?
[USMA:17872] metric in Texas
2002-02-01 I have been to Texas twice since the middle of January and was mildly surprised to find the companies thatI visited had a stock of standard metric fasteners in their stock room. Most of it is needed for the machines they use, as most are imported and are 100 % metric, except for the gages, which are dual. However, the machines that are computer controlled are set to operate in inches. Even the raw materials, such as steel plate that was seen in the warehouse had dimensions marked only in millimetres. And the millimetres were rational. Every-so oftenI did see where some local inspector had marked the steel in FFU unites (inches) with a marker. The original metric dimensions were stencilled on the plates. The odd thing is, the use of metric is driven by the large amount of imported metric machines and raw materials. Yet, the average worker in these plants is basically oblivious to this and is able to ignore the metric around him and view all of this through FFU glasses. An 8000 x 3000 x 11 mm steel plate is viewed as a 26 x 10 feet, 7/16 inches thick. In one case where I did point to the metric markings on the plate to the guy I was with, he just made a noise and started to walk away. Apparently he didn't like the idea that the plate had no inch markings on it for 'mericans. Unless something is done, this country will increasingly purchase and use metric products, but the metric aspects of the products will be ignored by the masses, and these products will be thought of in FFU. How many people, after 23 years of being metric know that wine and liquor come in metric containers? I'll bet very few. Most ignore the metric and refer to the sizes by their old FFU names, even if the FFU names are no longer true. John
[USMA:17873] Re: Un-define non-SI (was RE: Voting for SI)
Duncan Bath wrote: -Original Message- From: Pat Naughtin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is a micron a nickname for micronewtons, mirolitres, micrometres, or micrograms? Good question. It answers mine! On second thought - does it? The micron was specific to length, was it not?. Yes, in 1948 the 9th CGPM declared, in Resolution 7, the micron's symbol to be the lowercase Greek letter mu, but the micron existed before then as a unit of length (not of mass, volume, or any other quantity). I do not find in the brochure a note on when the micron was first defined. The table accompanying the 1866 Act of Congress in the U.S. does not include the micron (the length table ranges from myriameter* down to millimeter) so that probably puts an early bound on its inception. My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary gives 1892 as the date it was first used and interestingly it was one year later that the Mendenhall Order was published. Jim * myriameter = 10 km = 10 000 m; myria was an old metric prefix for 10 000. -- Metric Methods(SM) Don't be late to metricate! James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
[USMA:17874] Re: metric in Texas
Hi, John, I'm resubscribed now, probably in honor of the Patriots (can't look!!), the other lost cause. Just came back to see how SI was doing, and, now being a Texan, I found my attention caught by your letter. You make an excellent point. We can be flooded by metric products, and our countrymen ignore the metric for the sake of the WOMBAT.. In the IV room in my pharmacy, we have a refrigerator that has an LCD-readout thermometer that reads out in degrees Celsius only. However, a chart used to monitor the temperature range is in Fahrenheit only. Someone taped a brief conversion table to the refrigerator door, allowing one to read the temperature in C but convert it to F to do the monitoring!!! I'm considering making a new monitoring chart, this one Celsius-based, so the technicians can monitor the Celsius temperature alone. I'll let the group know how this goes over. Concerning the prevalence of SI in Texas, I'll keep my eyes open. Thanks for the post. kilopascal wrote: 004901c1ac01$97d44420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> 2002-02-01 I have been to Texas twice since the middle of January and was mildly surprised to find the companies thatI visited had a stock of standard metric fasteners in their stock room. Most of it is needed for the machines they use, as most are imported and are 100 % metric, except for the gages, which are dual. However, the machines that are computer controlled are set to operate in inches. Even the raw materials, such as steel plate that was seen in the warehouse had dimensions marked only in millimetres. And the millimetres were rational. Every-so oftenI did see where some local inspector had marked the steel in FFU unites (inches) with a marker. The original metric dimensions were stencilled on the plates. The odd thing is, the use of metric is driven by the large amount of imported metric machines and raw materials. Yet, the average worker in these plants is basically oblivious to this and is able to ignore the metric around him and view all of this through FFU glasses. An 8000 x 3000 x 11 mm steel plate is viewed as a 26 x 10 feet, 7/16 inches thick. In one case where I did point to the metric markings on the plate to the guy I was with, he just made a noise and started to walk away. Apparently he didn't like the idea that the plate had no inch markings on it for 'mericans. Unless something is done, this country will increasingly purchase and use metric products, but the metric aspects of the products will be ignored by the masses, and these products will be thought of in FFU. How many people, after 23 years of being metric know that wine and liquor come in metric containers? I'll bet very few. Most ignore the metric and refer to the sizes by their old FFU names, even if the FFU names are no longer true. John -- Paul Trusten, R.Ph. 3609 Caldera Blvd., Apt. 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[USMA:17875] Re: Fwd: Conversions Question
FFU has a strong tendancy to fragment information. Areas in square feet; areas in acres Volumes in cubic inches; volumes in fl. oz.; volumes in [oil patch] barrels Power in watts; power in h.p.; power in 'BTU' Mass in ounces avoirdupois; in Troy ounces; in carats and so on and on. Duncan -Original Message- From: kilopascal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: February 2, 2002 10:36 Subject: [USMA:17871] Re: Fwd: Conversions Question 2002-01-02 I would also expect a person or company that chooses to use FFU should know how to figure out the answers to the questions Jim is asking below from the specs given. It is the difficulty of using FFU that confuses and prevents someone from attempting such calculations. The real help should be to show this person how to obtain results using SI units, and how simple it is to do so. Help this person, but only using SI units only. If they insist on FFU, then let them figure it out for themselves. John - Original Message - From: Han Maenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 2002-02-02 03:32 Subject: [USMA:17868] Re: Fwd: Conversions Question This company should contact Freedom 2 Measure, the ACWM or the BWMA for such metric to ifp conversions and difficult pure ifp calculations. Sam Malin, Seaver Leslie or David Delaney/Vivian Linacre should know how to convert this stuff! I would only be willing to help private persons in such non-metric cases. I would make the ifp calculation first, then I would show how it is done the metric way. Han - Original Message - From: Jim McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 2002-01-31 22:36 Subject: [USMA:17822] Fwd: Conversions Question Can anyone on the list provide a conversion factor for the questions contained below? Possibly the first question is asking the total square inches of paper on a 5000 lb roll of the stated width paper mass. Question two probably wants the number of linear yards on a 5000 lb roll of the stated width paper mass. Question three probably wants to convert 32 g/m^2 to lb/in^2. Please reply directly to me. Thank you, Jim McCracken Subject: Conversions I am looking to build a spreadsheet for our company standard conversions. We purchase paper from mills in pounds in various widths They range in weights of 32g/sm (grams per square meter) to 55g/sm. My clients want prices in MSI (square inches) LY linear yards LB pounds. If I purchase a roll that is 5000 lbs 56 inches wide that is 32g/sm what formula can I set up to convert?
[USMA:17876] RE: Euro vs. Metrication
At 17:38 +1100 02/02/2, Pat Naughtin wrote: Why not extend this idea. Jadic - A new measurement standard Pat, may I give you an advice ? Don't do the same mistake than those who invented the metric system : rush to the Patent Office and apply for a patent. We never know. Of course you should pay some royalties to Adrian, but this could be negotiated ! Cheers Louis
[USMA:17877] Pat's new invention : 'Jadic'
Hi Pat At 1.86 meters in length 99.7 kilograms in mass, Jadic deserves to be a model for a strong man. You missed 1 important thing. Get the year in which 'Jadic' was born and we will start a new calendar in which the year of Jadic's birth will be the year # 1. And I hope this will be an era of peace prosperity. You are sending us informative and entertaining mails. Keep it up Pat Madan --- Pat Naughtin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 17:38:26 +1100 Subject: [USMA:17864] RE: Euro vs. Metrication From: Pat Naughtin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U.S. Metric Association [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Adrian and All, on 2002/01/31 12.17, Adrian Jadic at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if I sell by the jadic? I am free to do so, right? Am I opening to fraud? NO! because all my neighbours know what a jadic is. It's what fits in Adrian's palm. Why not extend this idea. Jadic - A new measurement standard (I am indebted to Jeremy W. Burgeson for the original version of this piece) Introduction I would like to propose a standard of measurement for the United States that actually makes some amount of sense to the average citizen. Most people in the US are familiar with old measurements such as feet, degrees Fahrenheit, gallons and pounds. I understand a need for change to a more uniform standard. The problem is that, to most of us, SI (sometimes called metric) is as arbitrary and meaningless as what we are familiar with. If we have to change, we should not change to a standard that is no better than the one currently in place. Justification There are two big advantages to my new (proposed) standard. The first advantage is, it is based on phenomenon and objects observable by the average person, as long as they come to my house. This is unlike SI that has its length measurement based on the wavelength of a certain type of light. There is no convenient way for a person of average means to set up the proper apparatus to measure this. All the other SI standards are at least as hard to duplicate. The second advantage is, everything is a multiple of one (1). This is at least ten (10) times simpler than the current SI trend of everything being a multiple of ten (10). Length The standard measure of length I would like to see implemented is the Jadic. It is the distance between the bottom of my feet and the topmost portion of my head (excluding hair), while standing upright. Current conversion factors for the Jadic measurement of length include: 1 Jadic = 73.4 inches and 1 Jadic = 1.86 meters. Mass The standard measure of mass I would like to see implemented is the Jadic. It is equal to my mass, excluding any clothes I happen to be wearing that day. Current conversion factors for the Jadic measurement of mass include: 1 Jadic = 6.83 slugs and 1 Jadic = 99.7 kilograms. Time The standard measure of time I would like to see implemented is the Jadic. This is equal to time elapsed between my birth and death. Since I am still living (as of this writing), this is a changing standard. This changing standard is not the problem it first appears to be. In fact, it is a great advantage. The advantage of this is, if you start reckoning from the time of my birth, the time is always one (1). The current conversion for the Jadic measurement of time is: 1 Jadic = 0.965*10^9 seconds (approximate). Others The real beauty of this new system is in the units derived from others. Some examples are: One Jadic of area is Jadics^2. One Jadic of volume is Jadics^3. One Jadic of density is Jadics per Jadic^3. Speed measured in Jadics per Jadic. Acceleration is measured in Jadics per Jadic^2. One Jadic of force is the force necessary to accelerate one Jadic one Jadic per Jadic^2. One Jadic of pressure is Jadics per Jadic^2. It can also be measured by the easier method of Jadics of water or Jadics of mercury. One Jadic of energy is the work done by accelerating one Jadic one Jadic per Jadic^2 for one Jadic. Conclusion There are many measurements I have left out. Most of the other common measurements can be derived from the ones defined here. For the measurements that cannot be easily derived from the ones defined, I suggest leaving them alone, but renaming them Jadic. I would appreciate any reactions or suggestions you might have. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist - United States Metric Association ASM - Accredited Speaking Member - National Speakers Association of Australia Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers -- __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
[USMA:17879] Un-define non-SI
Jim (McCracken), What can be done by NIST and the DoC to implement Jim Frysinger's proposal (see below)? A problem is that some non-SI units are written into existing statutes, and these statutes would have to be revised by Congress, one-by-one. Or, could they be revised by an omnibus act? In either case, the Secretary of Commerce certainly does not have the unilateral authority to abrogated the US Code. However, each federal agency is instructed to ... ensure that regulations, standards, specifications, procurement policies and appropriate legislative proposals are updated to remove barriers to transition to the metric system. Quotation from NIST SP 814, 1998. Does the DoC have a consolidated list of items in the US Code that obstruct the transition to SI? Which of the federal agencies have submitted their lists of US Code or other barriers to transition to the SI? Are these lists available over the Web? What are the URLs? Gene. .. On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, James R. Frysinger wrote: ... we don't really have to force metrication. All we have to do is to disestablish all other unit definitions. Let people use them to mean whatever they feel like... ... it occurs to me that the Secretary of Commerce has only to go through the regulatory procedures to do this, starting with a Notice of Public Rule Making. After all, it's a cost-cutting measure government should consider, isn't it?
[USMA:17880] Olympic Web Sites
My local newspaper has published addresses of the following Web Sites for information on the 2002 Winter Olympics: www.saltlake2002.com(the official site) www.nbcolympics.com (NBC news and features) www.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/Olympics/2002 (Sports Illustrated CNN) www.sportsline.com/u/olympics/2002 (CBS reporting) www.espn.go.com/oly/winter02/index (ESPN reporting) www.sltrib.com (Salt Lake Tribune) www.wintersports2002.com(Desert News and KSL TV-radio) Let's find the names and e-mail addresses of sports commentators at each of these sites, and persuade them to use *SI Only* (or at least SI First)! Gene.
[USMA:17881] Re: Olympic Web Sites
Just perused these sites, and I cannot find one e-mail address to the sports announcers. If someone can locate an address or addresses, please post to the group. Thanks! Gene Mechtly wrote: My local newspaper has published addresses of the following Web Sites for information on the 2002 Winter Olympics: www.saltlake2002.com (the official site) www.nbcolympics.com(NBC news and features) www.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/Olympics/2002(Sports Illustrated CNN) www.sportsline.com/u/olympics/2002 (CBS reporting) www.espn.go.com/oly/winter02/index (ESPN reporting) www.sltrib.com (Salt Lake Tribune) www.wintersports2002.com (Desert News and KSL TV-radio) Let's find the names and e-mail addresses of sports commentators at each of these sites, and persuade them to use *SI Only* (or at least SI First)! Gene. -- Paul Trusten, R.Ph. 3609 Caldera Blvd., Apt. 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[USMA:17883] Re: Un-define non-SI (was RE: Voting for SI)
Pat Naughtin wrote re USMA 17863: on 2002/02/01 04.11, Duncan Bath at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Would micron not qualify as a nik-name for a micrometre much as litre is a nik-name for cubic decimetre and hectare is a nik-name for square hectometre? (the angstrom would not qualify). Duncan Dear Duncan and All, Is kilo a nickname for kilogram or kilometre or kilolitre or kilotonnes? Is a micron a nickname for micronewtons, mirolitres, micrometres, or micrograms? And is mils a nickname for millilitres, millimetres, milligrams, or milliinches? And is megs a nickname for megalitres, megagrams, or megametres? I somehow don't think that this approach is getting us anywhere. However, I believe that your point about litres and hectares is valid and worthy of a lot more consideration. Cheers, Pat Naughtin The name micron was quite unambiguous. It never meant anything but what we now call micrometre. Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
[USMA:17884] RE: Euro vs. Metrication
Pat Naughtin in USMA 17864 quoted Adrian Jadic Dear Adrian and All, on 2002/01/31 12.17, Adrian Jadic at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if I sell by the jadic? I am free to do so, right? Am I opening to fraud? NO! because all my neighbours know what a jadic is. It's what fits in Adrian's palm. Why not extend this idea. Jadic - A new measurement standard Adrian and Pat are quite free to use the jadic or the naughtin as much as they like, but they are not free to use them for trade. Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
[USMA:17882] Re: quantity in SI
Robert Bushnell wrote in USMA 07859: In 17784 and 17787 Louis Jourdan gives the term quantity as defined by ISO. Now that this is raised here, I comment. Quantity is discussed at length by J. de Boer in Metrologia 1994/95 32 pp 405-429, On the History of Quantity Calculus in the International System. I object to saying that each of mass, length, time, etc. is a quantity. Rather I say that these are properties. I submitted a letter (1999 Jan 21) to Metrologia pointing out logical errors in de Boer's paper. Metrologia rejected the letter, saying it is not scientific. It may not be scientific but it is directly on the subject of de Boer's paper. The rejection tells me that Metrologia is not interested in promotion of public understanding and use of SI. Its job is reporting on scientific improvement of fundamental standards. My objection is that quantity means how much to most people. Consequently, our documents are obscure. At times de Boer uses quantity to mean how much and at times to mean property. This confusion appears in French in grandeur. The French and English dictionaries that I have show both meanings. That is, quantity in SI has a special meaning which the general public never hears about: that property of anything that can be determined by measurement. En francaise le 7em sense de grandeur est MATH Tout ce a quoi on peut affecter une valeur dans un systeme d'unites de mesure. Outside of SI quantity means how much and amount. To see the confusion, read the words in 17787 substituting for quantity, property in a reading and amount in a second reading. Read them outloud for the best effect. I give one example: b) particular properties: - length of a given rod. b) particular amounts: - length of a given rod. Which is it? properties or amounts. Can one of these words be used throughout? The committee revising SI10 rejected my view without recent discussion so the 2002 issue still has quantity as the column heads in the tables of prope rties and units. Quantity and grandeur are firmly established in CCU, CIPM, CGPM, ISO and NIST. This is not going to change. This does not help us sell SI measures. I hesitate to refer people to our standards. Teachers must be careful if they use the standards. Let me know your thoughts. Robert Bushnell I see your point. Quantity seems to be well established in scientific jargon. Hence in speaking to the general public we should avoid the term, or explain what it means in a perticular context. How is this: quantity is a measurable property of something, or the numerical value of that property? Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
[USMA:17885] Re: Un-define non-SI (was RE: Voting for SI)
James Freysinger wrote in USMA 17873: Duncan Bath wrote: -Original Message- From: Pat Naughtin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is a micron a nickname for micronewtons, mirolitres, micrometres, or micrograms? Good question. It answers mine! On second thought - does it? The micron was specific to length, was it not?. Yes, in 1948 the 9th CGPM declared, in Resolution 7, the micron's symbol to be the lowercase Greek letter mu, but the micron existed before then as a unit of length (not of mass, volume, or any other quantity). I do not find in the brochure a note on when the micron was first defined. The table accompanying the 1866 Act of Congress in the U.S. does not include the micron (the length table ranges from myriameter* down to millimeter) so that probably puts an early bound on its inception. My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary gives 1892 as the date it was first used and interestingly it was one year later that the Mendenhall Order was published. Jim * myriameter = 10 km = 10 000 m; myria was an old metric prefix for 10 000. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary dates birth of the micron as 1892 Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
[USMA:17886] Re: Un-define non-SI (was RE: Voting for SI)
Joseph B. Reid wrote: James Freysinger wrote in USMA 17873: My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary gives 1892 as the date it [micron] was first used and interestingly it was one year later that the Mendenhall Order was published. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary dates birth of the micron as 1892 That's not terribly common for these dictionaries to agree on dates of word origins. I suppose then that the term micron was coined at some meeting, perhaps a CGPM meeting. Jim -- Metric Methods(SM) Don't be late to metricate! James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
