I see the point is getting homed into the minds of concerned 
'metricologists'. The fact that we have to use the prefixes and/or suffixes 
to express samller or larger quantities of the SI-unit in drawing or 
day-to-day activity make its use 'obligatory! No offence, there!But, if the 
system needs correction among *involved countries*, it is time America's 
Educational system does some home work and adopted the SI-spellings of 
*Metre and Litre* and not the one's the subject aims at. This is where, most 
countries fail in many aspects of conversion to metrics!
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [USMA:21382] Re: Millilitres vs centilitres
>Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:13:33 -0700
>
>Thanks, Joe, for sharing this very opportune survey.  I just have some few 
>additional remarks to make on this subject.
>
>For starters, I find it important for all of us to remember that we should 
>not consider the treatment of prefixed units as being "another unit".  Some 
>of us either unwillingly or for some other reason, tradition, "culture"... 
>(and I'm not saying this is the particular case of anyone who ever 
>participated in this discussion!) appear to think that any and all prefixed 
>units constitute *different* units in themselves.
>
>A typical example of this behavior was that Professor here in my own back 
>yard who insisted in talking about "conversion factors" (a huge SIC!) 
>between several SI prefixed units.  As long as some may have this approach 
>concerning centi or milli we may have a loooong way to go before we could 
>settle this.
>
>While in the minds of some there may be "difficulties" related to 
>"navigating" around differing prefixes the fact of the matter is their 
>introduction and diversity can be adequately addressed if stakeholders 
>involved with this adopted the simple effective procedure of treating them 
>as "the third entity" in calculations (the power of 10 component), as it 
>*always should*, actually!
>
>I know that this may be hard to ask since it would involve getting people 
>"unused" to doing calcs a certain way, but, ultimately, I honestly see no 
>other effective way of handling this issue.  It's either this or continue 
>to upset people by polarizing in favor of one approach over the other (and 
>in the end, I honestly think NOBODY wins really!).  Evidently, it goes 
>without saying that where there is no need to do this (when, for instance, 
>all units involved are of the same expected nature) one can dispense with 
>this 3rd entity business in practice.
>
>Having said the above I'd like to hereby propose that we alert authorities 
>to this simple but effective approach to address this thing for once and 
>for all.  Hopefully when it comes to teaching our next generations this 
>would be part of all countries educational systems.  I realize that this 
>may be somewhat harder to do than to lobby people to stick with one 
>specific prefix.  But I'd like to believe that this idea would be welcome 
>because it would "introduce" a procedure for the treatment of equations, 
>calcs, etc that not only does work but also mitigates current potential 
>operational difficulties involved with camps using diverse prefixes.
>
>If adopted people will finally no longer lose their sleep over whether 
>camps talking are using c or m or whatever else.  Diversity would be 
>respected while with time people would have a better chance in a calmer 
>environment to slowly *but safely* migrate to more preferred prefixes or 
>something where "standardization" would bring clear economies of scale to 
>all involved.
>
>It's important though for all of us to understand and accept that we will 
>*NEVER* achieve complete universality in the use of specific prefixes.  
>This IMHO is next to impossible due to the very diverse nature of different 
>applications.  A striking example is nanotechnology versus so-called heavy 
>industries.  One using (and I'm afraid always will!) nano, femto, while the 
>other kilo, mega or even higher.
>
>So, in summary, the proposal is for the creation of a permanent 3rd entity 
>(power of 10) *as an integral part* of the measured value to be 
>incorporated for all math-related operations (software, manual calcs, etc). 
>  This can be regarded as a precautionary measure as this "new field" may 
>not be used if all entities involved in the calcs were of "cancelling" 
>nature (i.e. results would come in expected format).  In other words 
>depending on the industry this "field" could be entirely ignored, so that 
>the apparent "extra" work/cost of introducing this would effectively not be 
>a player.
>
>There, I hope all of you will view this humble suggestion as a definitive 
>way of dealing with this issue.  Thanks for your time.
>
>Marcus
>
>On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:15:07
>  Joseph B. Reid wrote:
> >Marcus, in USMA 21377, wrote a strong rebuttal of USMA 21374 in which I
> >presented the South African case for the use of the millimetre in
> >engineering and architectural drawings. Albert J. Mettler carried out an
> >internatioinal survey of metric practice in 1976. Albert, with a Swiss
> >background, farvored the centimetre but reported:
> >
> >                Countries not using the centimetre
> >                    engineers  architects
> >Europe
> >        Austria 1)      X
> >        Czechoslovakia  X
> >        Denmark 1)      X         X
> >        Germany         X
> >        Greece          X
> >        Hungary         X
> >        Italy           X
> >        Luxemburg       X         X
> >        Norway 1)       X         X
> >        Poland                    X
> >        Sweden 1)       X
> >        Switzerland     X
> >        Yugoslavia      X
> >Africa
> >        Botswana 2)     X         X
> >        Cameroon        x         X
> >        Mauritius 2)    X         X
> >        South Africa 2) X         X
> >        Sudan           X         X
> >        Zimbabwe  2)    X         X
> >Asia
> >        Cyprus          X
> >        India           X
> >        Iraq            X
> >        Philippines     X
> >Central America
> >        Cuba            X         X
> >        El Salvador     X
> >
> >1) standards institutes with rather puristic approach
> >2) recent converts to metric system with limited use of cm.
> >
> >
> >
> >Joseph B.Reid
> >17 Glebe Road West
> >Toronto  M5P 1C8             Tel. 416 486-6071
> >
> >
>
>
>Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably
>Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail.
>Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Reply via email to