Dear Marcus and All,
I have interspersed some remarks.
on 2001/11/19 17.05, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:31:57
> Pat Naughtin wrote:
>> Dear Jim and All,
>>
>> I haven't finished mulling, but what I have done instead is to revisit the
>> suggestion I made some months ago for a new unit for measuring angles.
>> ...
> Ok, Pat. That should be an exciting subject to discuss indeed. However,
> please let me volunteer my views on this, plus add a few others.
>
> I guess most of us here agree that the SI system would require some...
> "refurbishing" in several aspects. This is what I'd propose to do. I know
> this would sound radical, but, he, the main thing is to come up with a
> proposal that should really last a long, looong time!
You are right. SI does need some rethinking. It even provides for this in
the SI Pamphlet: 'Since the SI is not a static convention, but evolves
following developments in the science of measurement ...', The International
System of Units (SI) 7th Edition 1998 page 111.
Maybe the CGPM should schedule a regular time for a rethink of SI as a
whole, and I suspect that pressure is building in various quarters for this
to happen. The year 2010 might be a good time as it is the 50th anniversary
of SI and there might be enough time between now and then to float radical
ideas and have them debated.
> Angles: I'd prefer for us to simply use 100 for the entire circle. Why use a
> "quad" if by doing so we would be running the same risk and flaw of the ifp
> system, i.e. that we would require "conversion factors" as you've rightfully
> pointed out in your e-mail? Angles would be decimally measured to 3 decimal
> points.
I think that this was the sort of approach that the mathematicians, who
introduced the radian were taking. They saw the simplicity of using the
circle and its submultiple (using 2�), the radian. But they didn't see the
problem that this created for those people who thought that a pie was
something you ate.
When the mathematician said ' Pi are squared.' the laborer replied (with his
mouth full), 'No, pie are round.'
The daily measurement of angles by practical people largely involves
'straight edges' and 'string lines' for straight angles, 'squares' of
various designs, and 3-4-5 triangles for right angles (quads). Outside
these, the other (lesser used) angles are formed mostly from halves (45�)
and thirds (30� and 60�) of quadrants (quads).
> Meter: We should redefine it to be ~40% of the current size in line with 100
> Mm for the entire circumference of the earth.
This is too radical for me. Mostly because I recognise the time it would
take too long to implement. Quads, on the other hand, are already an
integral part of SI and they were from just before the metre was defined as
a 10 000 000th part of a quadrant. As I have said elsewhere, historically,
the quad preceded the metre.
> We would finally be able to get
> rid of the hideous nautical mile crap for aviation. The minimum 0.001 of an
> arc would be *exatly* 1 km. And we could finally fly by the meter almost as
> we already do with the hideous foot thing, with added safety.
The use of the quad and milliquad would, finally, 'get rid of the hideous
nautical mile crap for aviation' amongst its other advantages. And I think
that it could do this fairly quickly.
> Peso: New unit for weight (mass) that would be equal to 1 dm3 of water (~6.4
> of our present kg), just like we have 1 L equals 1 kg of mass today (I know, I
> know, it varies with atmospheric pressure, temperature, etc, but you've got
> the picture of what I mean). Therefore, we would keep that convenient
> relationship! (gravity would be ~18.3 m/s2. Atmospheric pressure would be
> ~4727 Pa)
I would support a new name for the kilogram. However, I could not support
the peso as this name. To me it is essential that the new name has only one
syllable, which is why I suggested we reduce the name of the quadrant to
quad.
> Prefixes: They would be the exact same, but now defined as they should.
> Capital letters for + powers and small for - powers.
I agree with you here. It makes a lot more sense to have a 'system' for
names in a 'system' of units.
> Second: It would be redefined to a 0.864 of the current duration of the
> second, so that we would have 100.000 "hours" in a day, where 0.001 is
> evidently the new second. With this approach, days would be referred to as a %
> after all, something that would be very convenient.
A long time ago, I reported on this list the ideas of the Egyptian minor
god, Thoth, who suggested something like 100 000 seconds in a day. Thoth, I
believe, based his ideas on the number of heartbeats of a typical woman in
one day (of 24 h). On the other hand, we chose male heartbeats, probably
because Galilei Galileo synchronised his own heartbeat with the swaying of
the thurible at his church one Sunday morning, thus inventing the pendulum
for keeping time.
> Temperature: No change necessary.
>
> Everything else would fall in place exactly as it is today. The newton would
> still be defined as today, the joule, the pascal, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Unless I missed something somewhere, this would be as close to a "flawless"
> system as one could get.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
--
