-----Original Message----- From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: March 16, 2002 20:42 Subject: [USMA:18808] Re: Short unit names
>2002-03-16 > >If you are going to use a "unit" called Q, why not make it equal to 0.1 mm >(100 �m)? This breaks away from the SI sequence of prefixes which are based on powers of 10 divisible by 3. Probably not a good idea. Especially considering the precedence it would set. D. The use of 0.25 mm is too close to 0.01 inch that it could be >considered hidden FFU. > >John > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, 2002-03-16 19:27 >Subject: [USMA:18804] Re: Short unit names > > >> Han Maenen wrote in USMA 18799: >> >> >This is also why I fervently support the Q. It is based on SI, the mm, >even >> >though it is a quarter of that unit, still simply expressed with the >decimal >> >fraction 0.25. >> >> >> I couldn't diagree more. >> >> Joseph B.Reid >> 17 Glebe Road West >> Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071 >> >
