Dear John, Please allow me to respectfully mildly disagree with your position with the following explanations below.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:04:47 kilopascal wrote: >suggestion and inquiry: SI and ICAS2003-01-30 > >I don't understand the need to create new time units to parallel the second, when we >have the second, an SI unit. The problem with all of these ticks and tocks is they >are based on the variable earth day. > Actually, John, the "need" concerning the current SI second is due to the fact that the time construct is NOT decimal in nature. True one could sort of overcome that by using artificialities like the ks and other stuff, but the fact of the matter is NOONE would jump to using it, we're still stuck with mediocre minutes and hours. So, technically, theoretically, we'd still require to find ways to fix this construct in ALL its manifestations. Evidently, though, this does not have top priority at this time, so I'll grant you that. On the other hand, please consider that R&D should continue till a reasonable "solution" is found. In other words, we should not stop the wheels of progress to find new ways to improve upon the current SI system. When the right time comes and when a workable, reasonable proposal that may deserve consideration be developed, then we'd consider and study the issue more carefully. >Yes, it is possible, as you have shown below to give the ticks and the tocks the same >definition as the SI second. One can even define the foot and inch by the same >definition as the meter. > I believe that what AAT is trying to accomplish is to precisely do away with "conversion factors" in the time framework, and not use 'ticks and tocks' as an ifp-like construct. >The second and the SI prefixes are perfectly suitable for all measurements of time. True, of course, no doubt about it. But the challenge with the likes of km/h, bpm (beats per minute, even though in this case the simple solution would simply be to adopt cHz!), etc continues!... > We don't need more complicated time units to deal with. Let's all agree to scrap >the whole idea. > But AAT is not trying to come up with 'complicated time units', even though I must grant you that their way of doing it does seem that way (an observation, BTW, that I have already relayed to them, i.e. that they should seriously consider simplifying things a bit). Otherwise their whole effort would defeat the purpose, right? In any case, something along the lines of two "units" like second and hour (instead of the triplet second-minute-hour) could help a lot. Unfortunately the difficulty with using ks in our present construct as a possible replacement framework for s-min-h, for instance, is the fact that such "unit" can not be "found" in any watch/clock or time device! Therefore, it has no practical usage! If one changed the time construct though (like with the percentime proposal) then the "ks" would be there in the form of 'metric percentime hour', properly and definitively addressing the issue. Anyhow, I just wanted to come in defense of AAT's effort to contribute towards enhancing the SI system. So, please allow folks to do their R&D and hopefully come up with future proposals that may be helpful. Take care, my good friend. Marcus >... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: AAT at www.aatideas.org > To: U.S. Metric Association > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 2003-01-29 12:49 > Subject: [USMA:24678] suggestion and inquiry: SI and ICAS > > > Madan, > > > Thank you for the suggestion about notation of years. The AAT is considering ICAS >revisions in light of comments and suggestions, and hopes to be able to address these >metrication concerns in future programming. > > > At the same time, other areas of development are also on the board. One is to >specify an IDC fixed unit that is fixed or derived from the SI second: > > > A method for defining a fixed tik unit based on the SI second is under >consideration. A tik may be designated as fixed from second (ffs) by the following >formula: By custom there are 86,400 seconds in a day, and there are 100,000 tiks in a >chron. A tik fixed from second (ffs) is thus 0.864 seconds, and may be expressed as >tt010 ffs. A chron that is fixed from second may be likewise designated as t 1 ffs >(equal to 86,400 seconds). > > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding >to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium >133 atom." (SI 2.1.1.3) From this a tik fixed from the second would is derived from >[9,192,631,770 x 0.864 = 7,942,433,849.3] 7,942,433,849.3 periods of the radiation >corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state >of the caesium 133 atom per SI 2.1.1.3 (however calculation or application of measure >is not validated). Alternately one tok (tt100) ffs (8.64 s) would be 79,424,338,493 >periods per SI 2.1.1.3 (however calculation or application of measure is not >validated). > > However at this time the AAT ICAS department must inquire into the validity of >these derivations. > > > Sincerely, >-- >Ron Stone, programs manager > Alliance for the Advancement of Technology (AAT) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.aatideas.org > > AAT at www.aatideas.org > PO Box 141155 > Mpls., MN 55414-1155 > USA ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
