On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Terry Simpson wrote: > > ... The main issue for me is that the name is identical throughout the > size scale...
Only the "E" format or ten and its powers or double prefixes can presently satisfy that requirement (e.g. 3.21 E3 kg = 3.21 x 10^3 kg = 3.21 kkg) and, at the same time, maintain coherence of units in equations. > and it should reduce factors in formulae. Note that prefixes applied to gram are not coherent with SI units for other quantities and *increase* the number of compensating factors in equations (formulas). Permitted double prefixes (for only the kg), e.g. mkg, kg, kkg, Mkg, etc., or a new name for the kilogram are possible resolutions of this dilemma, often discussed in this forum, but the CCU and the CIPM are not persuaded to make either of these improvements. > The discomfort that we feel with megagram is merely the same discomfort > of unfamiliarity that anti-metric people frequently quote as a criticism > of metric units. Not so! Prefixes applied to the gram form *less coherent* multiples and submultiples. Incoherence of units is not a serious problem for retail trade, but reduces simplicity of science and engineering calculations. Are most of your clients retail traders, or engineers? Gene.
