Seems to me when I heard a fellow from NIST give a lecture the terminology he used avoided the term customary since the US does not have customs houses anymore. Mark
----- Original Message ----- From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:27 pm Subject: [USMA:53184] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard" To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> > Martin > > "inch-pound" does not name a complete, coherent and well defined > measurement "system" as you observe. > "inch-pound" is at best a "non-system." Discard the > name "inch-pound." > > The name "Imperial" units of measurement includes definitions > which differ from US definitions, as you also note. Avoid > the name "imperial units" unless you are actually discussing > specific deviations from US definitions as e.g. for the UK pint. > > Recent Federal Laws declare preference for SI for US trade and > commerce.If anything, "U.S. Customary" now means SI, as in most > design measurements of automobiles and farm and mining vehicles. > > "Standard" Units of Measurement now means > SI. One could write "standard (SI) > units, or "standard (metric) units" since "metric" is now > defined to mean "SI" again by "declarations" as codified in > Federal Law. > > Most units of measurement outside the SI are now defined as > exact numerical multiples of SI units. > > "Non-SI units" or "Units Outside the SI" are the most accurate > descriptions or terminology for all the non-SI units. > > Eugene Mechtly > > ________________________________________ > From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on > behalf of c...@traditio.com [c...@traditio.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:57 AM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:53181] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard" > > Concerning Metric Pioneer's recent correspondence, I've always > had a > problem with what to call the U.S. measurements. > > Officially, the term "inch-pound" has been used. I don't > care for that > because it does not indicate clearly a measurement system. > Moreover, it > singles out only two measurements, whereas there are many in the > "system." > Another common term used is "U.S. Customary" (USC). Is > this a good > choice? > > Now "Imperial" is being recommended by some. Is this a > good alternative? > I suspect that most people would not connect "imperial" with the > UnitedStates, perhaps Canada. > > I agree that "standard" is not a good choice at all. The > standard should > be SI metric. > > Paul Trusten and you other USMA officers out there, what is the > currentrecommendation? > > Martin Morrison > USMA "Metric Today" Columnist >
