Dear John and All,
Based on the success of the millimetre in the building trades in Australia �
the much foreseen problems of handling big numbers didn't happen � I would
support your suggestion that the printing trade would be well advised to
move directly to micrometres (�m).
I, too, am opposed to Q.
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 2002/03/17 12.26, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2002-03-16
>
> If you are going to use a "unit" called Q, why not make it equal to 0.1 mm
> (100 �m)? 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
>>
>
