Stephen: I was interpreting "reliable" in the scientific or engineering sense. It's possible for something to be reliable and stupid at the same time. I'd put the U.S. gallon into that category. The Mars Climate Orbiter disaster was the result of the subcontractor specifying a force in foot pounds, with the main contractor assuming that the unit was the newton. Take a look at the first item at http://metric1.org/currentevents.htm. The U.S. has used hertz for a very long time now. On the very rare occasions when I see someone using cycles per second, chances are it's someone from Britain. Sad, but true. The advent of widespread use of AM/FM radios in the 1960s made everyone familiar with the megahertz. As the broadcast band (UK: medium wave) was, in turn, calibrated in kilohertz, the use was reinforced. Also, many electrical products are marked "110 V, 60 Hz." I've seen cycles per second on specification sheets from the far east, but not from large U.S. corporations. Regarding the common sense of SI units, you'll get no argument on this list server. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: July 09, 2001 16:25 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [USMA:14265] RE: Imperial Knowledge. > > > Well, Bill, it's just that I think that if the same unit of measurement > measures something different in other countries, by definition, I > think that > is unreliable. > > I understand metric has been used at NASA for decades. In fact, > didn't that > Mars probe crash or blow up because someone substituted a US > Customary Unit > from an SI one in the computer code?? > > It just proves to me the foolishness of trying to exist with a dual system > of measurement. > > Do the US use hertz rather than cycles per second now? I just > mention this > because is a unit of measurement that was abandoned over here without any > fuss, so what is the problem with converting to more accurate, > easier to use > SI units? > > It just seems like common sense to me!! > > Regards, > > Steve. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:49 PM > Subject: [USMA:14265] RE: Imperial Knowledge. > > > > Oh, it's perfectly reliable, Steve -- just nonsensical. > > > > The U.S. gallon (128 U.S. fluid ounces) has always been > different from the > > Imperial Gallon (160 Imperial fluid ounces). Not surprisingly, many > > Canadians were confused by U.S. gas mileage claims (thinking U.S. cars > were > > even less economical than was actually the case). Since Canada > switched to > > liters for gasoline, I suspect they have simply ignored the > claims in U.S. > > car ads, as the liter is very clearly nothing like a U.S. gallon. > > > > Just a correction, though; the U.S. has never used Imperial. What it has > > used and persists in using is officially known as U.S. > Customary. You may > > have seen a couple of the alternative names we often use on this list > > server -- WOMBAT (Way of Measuring Badly in America Today, or Waste of > > Money, Brains and Time) and FFU (Fred Flintstone Units). > > > > Bill Potts, CMS > > Roseville, CA > > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > > Behalf Of Stephen Davis > > > Sent: July 09, 2001 14:36 > > > To: U.S. Metric Association > > > Subject: [USMA:14257] Imperial Knowledge. > > > > > > > > > America seems to be one of the last bastions of the imperial > system, yet > I > > > would ask this. > > > > > > How many Americans actually know how many ounces there are in a pound, > or > > > how many pints there are in each gallon? > > > > > > The imperial system is deemed so good by it's supporters, yet I > understand > > > the US gallon is different to the British gallon, so it's not a very > > > reliable measurement, is it? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Steve. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
