Mr. DiCorpo:
Thanks again for your letter.
I understand from your message that there is no known relationship between
KU and any known units of viscosity. If this is correct, the equipment has
no use for us. We were looking to characterize the paint made in our company
in order to define the correct equipment to handle it. If there is no
relationship than we cannot use it as our equipment manufacturers have no
idea of what KU means and how it relates to their equipment.
I regret that I could not make my point clear in my other letter that; if
you cannot relate the measurement to the definition of viscosity then you
cannot name it viscometer as it will only create confusions. You should name
it "Krebs machine" or "Krebs tester" etc. I hoped that a company like yours
which has so much experience in metrology would understand better the
importance of standards over what technicians in a paint company's lab are
used to do.
Furthermore, you are quoting the American Heritage Dictionary. I have to
remind you that a dictionary's purpose is to explain words or phrases
indifferent if they are correct or not. A dictionary IS NOT a standard. I
quoted you the US standard specifications as well as the internationally
recognized ISO standard. I agree and know that people use gm and gms but
they do it from ignorance of the standard specifications. The purpose of my
message to you was to bring to your attention the error that Brookfield
makes in labeling the display in "gm".
I am also attaching a copy of the federal register Vol. 63 No: 144 which
represents the standard published by DoC-NIST regarding the Interpretation
of the International System of units for the United States. At the end of
the document you will find all the correct names, spellings abbreviations
for the SI units.
I sincerely hope that this document will be of use for your company. I see
Brookfield as a metrology giant that takes a lead in promulgating
correctness over bad habits and science over alchemy.
Sincerely, yours,
Adrian Jadic
