A meaningful way to understand a metric tonne is to visualize one cubic meter of water which is 1000 litres.
Stan Doore ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:41 AM Subject: [USMA:25169] Replies to various postings > Mg vs. metric ton: > I'm with Gene and Gustaf in preferring metric tons to Mg. Jim Elwell, in > answer to your question, Mg is ridiculous because 1) a person will probably > be able to visualize 1000 kg much better than 1000000 g, 2) the metric ton > is authorized for use, 3) normally people will have an idea what a metric > ton is (an analog to the short ton), 4) normally people will think that Mg > is the same thing as mg, having never seen the first but having seen the > second many times. Comprehension will be served by using the metric ton as > a unit. Comprehension will be terrible in the vast majority of circles in > the U.S. if people use Mg as a unit (or Mm, etc.). Being incomprehensible > in metric usage is a good way to reinforce the idea that metric is > confusing. I understand that Mg is a technically legal way to do things, > but in practice I am more concerned with actually communicating. Just using > metric in the first place sets me apart, so I really don't care what some > document says somewhere about which is preferred. > > FPLA timeline: > Brian, someone said a few months ago that the proposed legislation needs to > work its way through a number of agencies before it is submitted to > Congress. They said it would probably be considered at the beginning of > next year, which is (apparently) the start of a session. I don't think > John's (kilopascal) statement that "nothing has come of it yet" doesn't > really give the full picture, as the legislation is expected to take some > time. > > euroisation and dollar hegemony: > I would be a lot more convinced if the author of these postings did not > routinely oversimplify economic processes, continually predict the imminent > destruction of America, compare Bush to Hitler, confuse "than" and "then", > ascribe anti-metric motives to just about any good business decision, and > generally make a nuisance of himself. > >"euroisation = metrication" MUST be our battle cry. > NOT. Why would we associate the metric system, which should be as American > as apple pie, with Europe, which a lot of us are annoyed with at the moment? > America's share of world GDP has been shrinking for decades, lately because > of Asia's development, not Europe's development or America's decline. Let's > promote metric on its merits, not by hoping the U.S. stumbles. > > RE: Some interesting conversations: > >So Carl, did you discuss with him the idea not > >to give in and continue to use SI when conversing > >with people? What good is paying lip service to SI, > >if the guy tries to appease the ignorant and > >struggles with FFU? > Actually, he used metric in a previous conversation, so I didn't think it > was necessary. Besides, I didn't think it was appropriate to the > conversation. He, like most people, is mostly interested in communicating > well, and especially in his position as a foreigner and non-native speaker > of English, he is probably extra-sensitive to making sure that people > understand what he says. I respect that desire. > > I agree with Stephen Gallagher that Canada will have trouble metricating > until we metricate. Like him, I see Canada's continued use of metric for > many things as very positive. As I see it, the pendulum swings both ways, > and we are in the midst of a swing the wrong way. It'll come back, but it > is encouraging to see that things are as good as they are at the moment. > > metric in construction: > According to the recent Baron's article, federal buildings are being > constructed in metric. > > Carl Sorenson > >
