When my wife and I were in la France last summer, we bought several
weight scales (kilograms only) along with metric-only tape measures and
thermometers. The scales are not digital, so no batteries are needed. We
have six left for sale on MetricPioneer.com just in case anyone is
interested.
David Pearl MetricPioneer.com
503-428-4917�
http://metricpioneer.com/shop/weight-scale
>
In my case, I have a digital scale. The switch on the back is set to
> kg,
> so when I step on it, the display is in kg.
>
>
>
> The last time I was at the doctor, they had new scales that could be
set
> to
> either lb or kg, and a height measuring device that had both in and
cm
> scales. The doctors are old school and put your weight into
their
> computer in lb. (The computer then converts it.) So thats how I know
my
> height. My height does not vary significantly, and the accuracy
cannot be
> determined to millimeter precision.
>
>
>
> I have not converted either measure in many years.
>
>
>
> With regard to spelling, sorry, both are right. In the USA its
meter,
> theater, center. In Canada and the UK its metre, theatre, centre.
Its
> a
> regionalism, NOT an error. Milliard is also a confusion as there is
a
> logical progression with million, billion, trillion, quadrillion. To
me,
> milliard is like saying millimeter, centimeter, decimeter,
meter
> rather
> than millimeter, meter.
>
>
>
> What is wrong is not using meter for metre. What IS wrong is
using
> inch, foot, yard, mile, etc., instead of meter or metre
or
> whatever.
>
>
>
> Carleton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Kilopascal [mailto:kilopas...@cox.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 23:48
> To: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net; U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:52303] Re: The Metric System, the United States of
America,
> and Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed
>
>
>
> I was curious, so I posted a comment asking if the height and weight
given
> came about by measurement or conversion. Here is what I said:
>
> You said: Heres a quick quiz: I weigh 71 kilograms, and am about
1.82
> meters tall.
>
> How did you come about those values? By actual measurement or
conversion?
> If
> by conversion, tray an actual measurement in metric and report it
back
> here.
> It would be interesting to see if there is a difference as the USC
> measurement could be in error due to bias, over rounding or
guesswork.
> Conversions could also introduce some errors for the same reason.
>
> Another point, it is not necessary to spell out the words when using
SI,
> simply use the standardized symbols. Thus you will have a mass of 71
kg
> and
> a height of 1.82 m or 182 cm. By using symbols, you avoid using
the
> incorrect spelling for metre. Metre is a unit and meter is a device
to
> measure with.
>
> It just seemed that a height of 1.82 m was just a conversion of 6 ft
and a
> height of exactly 6 ft may be biased as an easy number to remember.
I
> would
> be curious to know what results he gets my actually measuring in
metric
> instead of just converting.
>
>
>
>
> [USMA:52303] Re: The Metric System, the United States of America,
and
> Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed
>
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=subject:%22%5BUSM
>
A%3A52303%5D+Re%3A+The+Metric+System%2C+the+United+States+of+America%2C+and+
> Scientific+Literacy+%7C+Sci-Ed%22>
>
>
> John M. Steele
>
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=from:%22John+M.+S
> teele%22> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:32:39 -0800
>
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=usma@colostate.edu&q=date:20130202>
>
> I agree either 182 cm or 1.82 m is equally valid. The 1.82 m form has
the
> advantage that it is directly usable in BMI calculation:
> 71 kg/(1.82 m)� = 21.4 kg/m� (he's pretty skinny).
> Some would argue centimeters should be discouraged (I don't
particularly
> agree). For a human height, I would prefer either to 1820 mm, but I
would
> use
> 1820 (without units) on an engineering drawing.
>
