Title: RE: [LEAPSECS] pedagogically barren?
It's also true that changing to SI units for weight and volume is a lot more technically tractable than for length. Public opposition would still be a big barrier, though.
From: William Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: June 4, 2003 10:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] pedagogically barren?
Markus Kuhn wrote:
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!),
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
Neither is a nice round number, but there is a definite relationship.
This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you.