UK almost always uses the tonne (and stated simply as such), whether being used
as a specific measurement or colloquially.
John F-L
From: John M. Steele
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 11:48 PM
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:52642] RE: Germany: Thieves sw
We use Da and kDa in our drug manufacturing operations at Genentech/Roche
Pharmaceuticals.
--
Scott Hudnall
On Apr 8, 2013, at 21:32, Paul Trusten wrote:
> It takes a long time to achieve de facto deprecation of a unit. If the amu
> was replaced by the dalton in 1961, no one reached the auth
It takes a long time to achieve de facto deprecation of a unit. If the amu was
replaced by the dalton in 1961, no one reached the authors of my first science
textbooks or teachers with the news (1965). In fact, I never heard of the
dalton until the mid-seventies, so we shall probably continue s
According to http://www.onlineconversion.com 1 ton [long, UK] = 2 240 pounds
and 1 ton [short, US] = 2 000 pounds
David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917
- Message from vliets...@btinternet.com -
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:43:33 +0100
From: Martin Vlietstra
Reply-To: vliets
Sure, you could express it in yoctograms (or the mass of IGF-1 in
zeptograms), Michael. But why would you want to?
In a way, the dalton (Da, spelled out name starts in lowercase) is
somewhat analogous to but opposite the astronimical unit u_a.
One astronomical unit equals approximately
I remember standing on a scale in England and being told I am 16 stone. I think I have gained a few kilograms since then, however.I remember something about an ounce of feathers being heavier than an ounce of gold, but just the opposite for pounds or perhaps tons. Maybe it is a pound of gold heavie
It is definitely a joke. The alternative time that could be used is the
so-called military time.
John Altounji
One size does not fit all.
Social promotion ruined Education.
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of
John M. Steele
Sent: Sunday, April 0
Interesting Unit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin-like_growth_factor_1
forth paragraph down:
IGF-1 consists of 70 amino acids in a single chain with three intramolecular
disulfide bridges. IGF-1 has a molecular weight of 7,649 daltons.
There is another page on Daltons http://en.wikiped
Density of seawater is commonly taken as 64 lb/ft³, so 35 ft³ is exactly 2240
lb
(fresh water is commonly taken as 62.4 lb/ft³, the difference is important on
the Great Lakes, and, I assume, in navigable rivers).
Perhaps more important, in the metric system article of the AP Stylebook, they
Their methodology seems sound, John. I cannot vet their dose conversion
factors without digging up some information and doing the subsequent
calculations. I did not bother checking their arithmetic, therefore.
Just the activity levels seemed benign to me. Background radiation as
determined by
You are correct, Mark. The short ton (2000 lb) is the one meant by the
simple name "ton" for most applications; the term "short ton" is hardly
ever used except to distinguish it in discussions such as this. The long
ton is used most notably in the maritime industry for vessel capacities
("tonna
I don't believe there is or was a troy ton; I've never seen a definition.
Rowlett's Units of Measures says the troy pound was abolished in 1878 (I
presume
in the UK) to avoid confusion with the av. pound. (But Handbook 44 defines the
troy pound as 12 troy oz.)
_
Per NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C, if the word is unmodified, the short
hundredweight and ton are meant. Long hundredweights and tons must be declared
such (in the US), "short" is optional and may be omitted, but understood.
I assume in the UK the long hundredweight and ton would the default and
Since we don't believe in stones, we consider a 100 lb hundredweight FAR more
logical than a 112 lb hundredweight (which sounds like a trick question). That
leads to a 2000 lb ton in the US. :)
From: Martin Vlietstra
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Mon, A
We have both short tons and long tons. I think the short ton is 2,000 pounds whereas the long ton is based on the hundredweight, which is 112 pounds (sic). So a long ton in the USA could very well be 2240 pounds. Mark- Original Message -From: Martin Vlietstra Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 4:4
When we get to tons, however, the situation is reversed. If I remember correctly and avoirdupois ton is heavier than a troy ton. Mark- Original Message -From: Martin Vlietstra Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 4:51 pmSubject: [USMA:52637] RE: The U.S. Isn't as Anti-metric as You ThinkTo: "U.S. Me
I agree with John. The Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system catalogues the most important
prefixes (at least my view of them). They run from nano (used in
nanotechnology) to tera (used in terabytes).
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.ed
Question: Which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
Answer: An ounce of gold because it would be a troy ounce, while an ounce of
feathers would be an avoirdupois ounce.
How many people would believe this?
-Original Message-
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u.
But they got their conversion wrong – 1 tonne is 2209 lbs and an ordinary ton
is 2240 lbs (at least that is what I was taught in school in South Africa), or
is something different in the United States? ;-)
Martin Vlietstra
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu
I agree with most of your points. I even agree that problems like "how many
nanometers in a kilometer" just teach children to hate the metric system.
However, I have to take issue on the decimeter for two reasons:
*To understand metric, you have to understand the system of prefixes. Perhaps
a
Very well said!
I have a Kindle book (Metric made me Sick - But I'm better Now) that says
essentially the same thing - we look upon most measures as comparisons. This
is bigger than that, that is less than the other, regardless of what
measurement units are being used. There is not much that w
Martin Morrison, Sirs:>." The quiz show "Are You
> Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" recently had a third-grade question: "How
> many decimetres are there in a metre?"The failure of Metric System in US is
> not because 'children DO NOT wish to learn" BUT because they get confronted
> with DUA
Jim:
Two proposed tests for whether they are crying wolf:
*(Serious one): Take a look at the FAO link I posted (FAO is UN's Food &
Agriculture Organization). They outline two approaches which I think may sense
but I am not very familiar with radiological calculations. By either of FAO's
app
The recent exchange on this list about radiological units raises a bigger
point that is often missed in discussions on the metric vs. customary
systems with the public. When it comes to most measurements, people are
not as wedded to the customary system as they think.
Outside of a few common
The article is useless and poorly written, as many here have pointed
out. I have significant experience in radiological controls for human
exposure and nothing here provides me with sufficient data to estimate
resulting exposures.
It does serve one sole purpose, perhaps its only intended one -
Amazingly, it is an AP article and they are metric tons.
http://news.yahoo.com/germany-thieves-swipe-5-tons-chocolate-spread-103316137.html
BERLIN (AP) — These thieves might really have sticky fingers.
Police said Monday an unknown number of culprits made off with 5 metric tons
(5.5 tons) of Nute
I agree, the writer of the article appears not to have a clue what (s)he is
writing about. The author does not appear to understand the difference
between Bq/kg and Sv.
-Original Message-
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf
Of Pierre Abbat
Sent: 0
I don't claim to entirely understand this, but FAO seems to consider 1000 Bq/kg
from all isotopes other than plutonium a reasonable limit for radioactivty in
food. So the food looks OK, the water which he largely ignored looks like a
big
problem.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/u5900t/u5900t08.htm
What is more amazing is that a few becquerels per kilogram in food makes the
top
of the article, but a few thousand
becquerels per kilogram in water falls near the end of the article. Don't most
people drink an amount of water daily approximately equal to their food intake?
It seems to me
29 matches
Mail list logo
