On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:49:51
Gene Mechtly wrote:
...
>Subject: Recent CCU Decisions
>
Thanks, Gene, for sharing this piece with us. While I also don't agree with their
recent decisions I also don't necessarily share in your sentiment vis-a-vis the
coherence aspect. Please allow me to explain below.
>
...
>5. Was the fact that EU Directive COM(1999) 40 final-99/014(COD)199/C
>already uses *only* D for kilo and *only* H for hecto (but still da for
>deca) discussed?
>6. What is being done to resolve this divergence?
>...
Just a small comment that perhaps you meant either 'K for kilo', or 'D for deca' (but
based on the final portion of your sentence this last possibility may not be the
likely one).
>> That proposal was at once given a warm reception,
This is the part that really worries me about this committee. I am indeed quite
disappointed in the fact that these guys appear more concerned about keeping the
status quo than to really evaluating pending conceptual problems with the SI system
and making an effort to fix them! THAT is quite disappointing indeed!...
:-S
...
>> and we decided with no dissenting voices to make no change.
Especially troublesome was the fact that that decision was unanimous! (SIC)
Which gets me to asking who decides who sits in this committee. We might bring this
overall issue to the proper channels (whoever that may be...). THIS state of affairs
is utterly unacceptable.
>Indeed! The set of prefix symbols remains defective in logic.
And I must concur with Gene here. I honestly believe it would be about time to fix
some of these 'minor' problems. It's beyond me why BIPM hasn't yet moved on this
issue at all. This shouldn't be such a big deal. Stakeholders around the world could
implement such logical changes at their own pace and all, but... oh, well... they've
lost a valuable opportunity.
>...................
>> On the other hand we did decide that something had to be done about
>> the names "SI units" and "Units of the SI"...
>> We decided that both "SI units" and "Units of the SI" should be names
>> that covered the whole lot, and that when one wishes to
>> refer to only the base and derived units without prefixes one should use
>> the name "coherent SI units".
>
? I found this resolution also somewhat confusing. Up until the 'whole lot' was
fine, but then they really lost me with the last part of that sentence.
>Presently, as defined by the BIPM Brochure (1998), SI consists of:
> (a) SI Units (only the limited set of completely coherent units),
> (b) decimal multiples (and submultiples) of SI Units, and
> (c) units accepted for use with the SI. (Tables 6, 7, and 8).
>
>Changing the name "SI units" to include multiples (and submultiples) of SI
>Units damages the concept of coherence of SI Units.
On the other hand I don't follow Gene's rationale here either. Gene, would you please
care to explain your position? I'm at odds trying to understand why you'd consider
this move by them as a 'breach of principle'.
If we accept that 'multiples' of SI units are not really *new* units, but rather just
a *cosmetic representation* of the value to save us either unnecessary zeros or
decimal places, why calling these SI units would 'damage the concept of coherence', as
you put it?
However, based on their response they may be 'in tune' with your thinking as
apparently they, too, seem to think of prefixed SI units as 'non-coherent'.
That's why I find this whole issue confusing!... :-S
To me, it should be this simple: prefixed units are *actually* the *same* unit. Just
like cents are still dollars! Therefore, I am ok with calling 'the whole lot' SI
units, after all. As for the coherence part perhaps the solution would be to not
consider prefixed units in this analysis, i.e. that it wouldn't make sense to talk
about coherence as related to prefixed units.
Anyway... just my 2 c worth.
In conclusion I just think that we're suffering from that degree of conservatism that
we often charge the 'enemy' with, but in our own ranks! Tsk, tsk, tsk... :-(
Marcus
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
