---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:29:16 -0600 (CST) From: Gene Mechtly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sandy Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: WLME-8
Dear Sandy, Thanks for informing me that Kathleen Lay and an Outside Panel are the authors of WLME-8. Please let them know that I would be pleased to communicate with them directly concerning SI units of measurement, and would like to have their e-mail addresses to do so. You might want to forward this e-mail to them? My proposition is that SI is the *only* "system" of units having properties of uniqueness, completeness, and coherence as detailed in the Federal Register Notice of 1998 <www.gpo.gov> (fr28jy98N). "Uniqueness" means there is *one and only one unit* for each quantity. Multiples and submultiples are formed by application of prefixes. For example, the millimeter is a submultiple of the meter, but the *only unit* of length in SI is the meter. "Completeness" means there is a unit for every physical quantity; mechanical, electrical, thermal, etc. For example, the joule (J) is the SI unit of energy of all kinds. "Coherence" means that units are derived from products or quotients of previously defined units with no coefficients other than the number one. For example, J = N.m defines the joule as the produce of newton and meter; and W = J/s defines the watt as the quotient of joule and second. There is *no other* "system" of units having these orderly properties of uniqueness, completeness, and coherence. ........................................... I have the following comments with respect to your statements of Mar 26. > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Sandy Berger wrote: > ... > There was no intention to imply a heirarchy of importance in systems... But there *is* a firmly established hierarchy of importance; SI is the only fully qualified *system* of units currently recognized world wide! > nor does anyone want to "handicap" students. But students are being handicapped, perhaps unknowingly, by lack of emphasis on the SI; by failure to treat SI preferentially. > Since both systems cannot come "first,"... "Both systems"? What is the documentation for a second "system" other than a mixture of incoherently related definitions of non-SI units each defined as a multiple of an SI units? (e.g. as published in NIST SP 811.) > ... You might consider writing a manuscript, using only metric units,... My present thought is to rewrite some of the WLME examples in SI-only format which would be more suitable for use world wide. I might also rewrite some examples from NCTM Standards 2000 in SI-only format. > It would be a nice way to draw attention to National Metric Day through > something teachers can use in a way that you think is appropriate. Yes, indeed! I trust that you will select referees who are like minded. But are members of the "panel" like minded (enthusiastic advocates of SI)? > ... I would need the manuscript by April 16. Not a problem, unless my U.S. or Illinois tax returns are audited. Gene Mechtly.
