Dear Terry, Chris and All, I, too, was taught about fps and at the time I was informed that this was an alternative 'system' to the metric systems cgs and mks. Then almost without a pause I was taught the foot-slug-second 'system but this was never honoured with the acronym fss.
I am more inclined to think that fps was a failed attempt by some to prevent the introduction of metric units and the ultimate demise of old units. When you examine the fps 'system' it does not take long to realise that it is not a system at all. It makes no claim to be universal (with units for all physical quantities) or to be coherent (other than with a few purely mechanical examples). I am not arguing that you could not construct a coherent system based on the foot, the pound, and the second, I am simply saying that it has not yet been done and the only attempt to do so (in the mid 1850s ?) has not been maintained by any national or international organisation. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia on 2002-11-13 05.22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> The term 'fps' (foot-pound-second') was what I was >> taught > > Now that you mention it, so was I. > > >> 'ifp' is almost meaningless, containing two units for >> one quantity. > > Good point. >
