The name sake of John spouts a lot of rubbish, but Austin is very reasonable. Just see down the message. I sent them this answer: The Internet and encyclopedias contain information about the definitions of Imperial and US units. Especially the Mendenhall Order of 1893 (defining US units) and the agreement between English speaking countries of 1959. It is probably unpalatable for members of the BWMA, but the national British standards of length and mass are the metre and the kilogram and they define all units in use in the UK, be they Imperial or metric. Metric units have never been defined in terms of Imperial and US ones. The metric system does not need the crutch of Imperial standards in order to survive and thrive. In no metric country the W&M law defines the metre in terms of the yard or the foot. You will not find such definitions on the website of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures either: http://www.bipm.fr The definition of the metre has changed several times, but its length has never changed. The same will happen when the kilogram standard changes. The international character of the metric system is highlighted by the fact that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) in the US is deeply involved in the proposed change of the definition of the unit of mass, the kilogram. By the way, what about the fact that the UK has signed the Metric Convention and is a member of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures? Shouldn't the BWMA campaign for British withdrawal from the Convention and the Bureau? John ('s namesake) wrote: "Just because scientists used metric when defining the distance of light, there is no inevitable reason why this should have been so. They could have used feet." My answer to this is: Why should people use feet when they prefer metric? If the BWMA campaigns for freedom of choice, it should respect preferences for metric. I have the right to use feet and Fahrenheit, but I won't, never, ever. About this one: "Your cup should contain between 1.0 and 1.2 fluid ounces of coffee, which should have been delivered at a water pressure of "9 Bar" and a temperature of 90 degrees celsius. Any milk added to the drink should be warmed to a temperature of between 155 and 160 degrees fahrenheit." Yes, it should be in one system of units only, and let everybody make his or her own choice. In continental European countries and in most other nations on this planet people will choose metric; in the USA and the UK most people will choose Imperial/US units. Yours, Han Maenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Gardner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Austin Spreadbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Joseph B. Fox'" [EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "mail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Han Maenen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 7:54 PM Subject: RE: Questions about measurement standards As Austin says, inches and pounds are defined (in legislation) in metric terms. However, metric is itself defined by so much distance travelled by light in a vacuum, etc. It therefore follows that the inch and pound can also be defined by the distance of light travelled by light in a vacuum. Consequently, metric can be defined by imperial units, as well as vice versa. Just because scientists used metric when defining the distance of light, there is no inevitable reason why this should have been so. They could have used feet. So, it's a level playing field when coming to defining one system in terms of another. John On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:17:01 +0100, Austin Spreadbury wrote: I think it's wrong to say that metric measurements are defined in terms of imperial ones. IMHO it's quite clearly the other way around: when (for example) the inch was standardized, it was fixed at EXACTLY 25.4 mm, splitting the difference between the former values of the UK and US definitions. The inch changed, not the metre, so the direction of dependency is quite clear. For the record, the metre is in fact now (since 1983) defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second", with the second being defined in terms of some measurable atomic constant. Austin. -----Original Message----- From: Joseph B. Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 August 2001 12:57 To: mail; Han Maenen Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Questions about measurement standards To take the first point last: recipes should be in imperial throughout (at least in this country). The fact that water pressure of 9 bar was reccommended demonstrates that the writer had no real knowledge of the metric system - 9 bar is more than twice the pressure at which water comes into our homes. Should have stuck with psi! As for imperial units being defined in metric terms, you could just as well say that metric units are defined in imperial terms. Of course there must be one and one only set of conversions - but bear in mind that the metre is now defined in terms of so many wavelengths of a particular kind of light. But our Dutch correspondent is on firmer ground when it comes to using metric units to rip off the customer. The fault here lies with the retailer. (Same principle as "guns don't kill people - people do", which sentiment I hope our new friend will thoroughly endorse.)
