Dear Joe and All,
Thanks for your response, but I think that you have misunderstood my point.
I am not suggesting that we should use 100�000 seconds in a day at all � I
am simply suggesting that we use the second present with its present
definition more often.
Let me be clear.
I am suggesting that we need to have a clear-cut goal would assist us all in
our efforts to metricate the world. It is my firm belief that this would
hasten the process.
While we only have the broad objective to 'go metric' then those who wish to
follow our leadership are left without specific goals and directions that
they can take without considerable research.
Let's consider the examples that you stimulated with this posting. An air
conditioning installer might use watt-hours, kilowatt-hours, joules,
kilojoules, and megajoules on the same job without knowing that they are all
measuring energy. My point is that this would be simpler if there was
somewhere, someplace, at some time a clear statement that our goal was to
prefer joules, kilojoules and megajoules.
However you do raise the point that CGPM are also confused on this issue, so
I suspect that we will not see any goal setting coming from there.
I suppose my point arises out of my experience in being involved in change
management in organisations. The literature in this area is clearly in favor
of goal setting as a key driver in producing changes that are quickly and
smoothly conducted.
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
--
on 2002/03/03 11.38, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> A little while ago there was a discussion here about luge speeds. Some
>> favored metres per second and others favored kilometres per hour.
>>
>> This raises the whole issue of what we are trying to do with metrication.
>>
>> Are we trying to introduce SI globally? Included with SI I would include the
>> concept of only having one unit for each quantity.
>>
>> Or are we trying to introduce a mongrel system that is largely SI but also
>> includes odd units that have different pedigrees. For example the reasons
>> might include such things as:
>>
>> . historical considerations
>> . special pleading by scientific groups
>> . arguments about safety by medical groups
>> . direct political pressure at the whim of powerful politicians
>>
>> Think about km/h, L/100km, kWh, etc.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pat Naughtin
>
>
> We have a well-established mongrel system; it is the measurement of time.
> That was so well established world-wide that the metric fathers did not
> dare to touch it. Certainly when driving it is more practical to think in
> terms of km/h rather than m/s. For fuel consumption L/100 km preferable
> to, say, m3/Mm. As for electricity consumption kWh is more comprehensible
> that J, again because we think of time more in terms of hours than seconds.
>
> To get a clean system we would need to have 100 000 newseconds in a day,
> But that would be inconvenient for timing three work shifts in a day. It
> would also involve new valwes for speed, acceleration, frequency, force,
> pressure, work, power, electric charge, electromotive force, capacitance,
> electric resistance, electric conductance, magnetic flux, magnetic flux
> density, inductance, activity of a radionuclide, kerma, organ equivalent
> dose, and about 24 other SI derived units. Anyway, you get the idea.
> Changing the second is not on. The hour is here to stay.
>
> Joseph B.Reid
> 17 Glebe Road West
> Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
>
