Agreed. Also, the term "lineal kilometer" is useful in situations where both linear and squared kilometers are used. It helps to distinguish between (lineal) kilometers and square kilometers. -- Jason
----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Chernack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:35 PM Subject: [USMA:27178] Re: Lineal kilometres > Air miles are the same as nautical miles, a non-SI unit that is acceptable > for use with SI. > Right from the BIPM: > > >From Table 8. Other non-SI units currently accepted for use with the > International System > Name Symbol Value in SI units > > nautical mile (a) 1 nautical mile = 1852 m > > (a) The nautical mile is a special unit employed for marine and aerial > navigation to express distance. The conventional value given above was > adopted by the First International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference, > Monaco, 1929, under the name "International nautical mile". As yet there is > no internationally agreed symbol. This unit was originally chosen because > one nautical mile on the surface of the Earth subtends approximately one > minute of angle at the centre. > > > Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Ma Be > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:36 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:27177] Re: Lineal kilometres > > > ? Even if it is true, Han, I must agree with my colleague here, km^1 is a > redundancy we can do without! Typical, evidently, of folks who know little > about metrology issues. > > It's the same kind of thing with this hideous 'air miles' as if adding the > 'air' to the word it would make any difference!!! (I know, I know... this > is 1.850 2 km we're talking about here, but still...) > > I dream of the day we would simply create a 'km' program for air travel... > Sigh... > > Warm regards, my dear friend, Han. > > Marcus > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:07:25 > Han Maenen wrote: > >Dear Pat, > > > >It is not me who adds ^1 to m or km, it is a standard in the world of > >archives and public records. Archivists feel they have a need for linear m > >and km. > > > >Han > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, 2003-10-13 1:51 > >Subject: [USMA:27161] Lineal kilometres > > > > > >Dear Han, > > > >Your expression 'lineal km' strikes me as being redundant (if not > >tautological). > > > >Since length, in SI, has only one unit - the metre - and the metre is the > >only dimension for length, then you don't need to note that km measures > >length by adding ^1 to km to form the symbol km^1. > > > >If you use the expression km^1 you are saying that the one dimensional unit > >of the quantity length - the km - is one dimensional. > >As I said, either the first of these is redundant (or tautological) or the > >second of these is tautological (or redundant). Sorry for the confused way > >that I've written this, but I never fully understood the difference between > >tautological and redundant - if any. > > > >By the way, I once posted a notice on my office door that said: > > > > Department of > >Tautological Redundancies > > Department > > > > Apply Without > > > >Cheers, > > > >Pat Naughtin > >LCAMS - Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist > > - United States Metric Association > >ASM - Accredited Speaking Member > > - National Speakers Association of Australia > >Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers > >-- > > > >on 12/10/03 7:06 AM, Han Maenen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> Pat, > >> > >> Yes, that was a nice example you gave and that kind of thing gave rise to > >> people who wanted change, like Simon Stevin and John Napier, who stood up > >a > >> few hundred years before decimal money and the metric system made their > >> debut. > >> > >> I got a remark from another list member about the 16 km^1. Although the > >> length of our storaged archives looks like hidden ifp trash, it is not. > Of > >> course, the BWMA would love it if the archives in continental Europe and > >> other metric countries used yards and miles as standard units. Too bad > for > >> them, no way. These 16 km^1 are purely co-incidental. Soon we will take > >over > >> the archives of Dutch Roman Catholicism, 9 linear km, that will increase > >our > >> storage to 25 linear km. > >> > >> As I cannot use superscript in Outlook Express I have written the symbol > >of > >> linear km as km^1. > >> > >> The cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen are planning to build a very large > >storage > >> room for public records and archives on a location between both cities. > >> > >> Best greetings, > >> > >> Han > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Thursday, 2003-10-09 10:27 > >> Subject: [USMA:27143] Re: Curiosity from the archives > >> > >> > >> on 2003-10-09 03.15, Han Maenen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >>> Many financial calculations were made in Roman numerals and the money > was > >> not decimal as well. Present day archivists and researchers get in > trouble > >> with this stuff and have to master Roman numerals and non-decimal > >>> calculations. > >> > >> Dear Han, > >> > >> It makes you realise the genius of Simon Stevin, when you consider his > >> physical and intellectual surroundings. > >> > >> I can remember one of his papers bemoaning the severity of calculating > >> something like, 'What is the result of investing 324 pounds, 12 > shillings, > >> and 4 pence ha'penny for 17 years 8 months and a week at 3 7/8 per > cent?', > >> when all calculations were done in Roman numerals. As I remember it the > >> answer had a whole number with a 13 numeral numerator above a 17 numeral > >> denominator. > >> > >> I didn't check his calculations for accuracy - I took Simon's word for > it! > >> > >> However, I did think at the time that many hundreds of intellectually > >gifted > >> people must have been employed on these terribly pointless tasks. It's no > >> wonder that Simon Stevin was so delighted when he developed decimal > >numbers > >> and decimal calculations in 1585. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Pat Naughtin LCAMS > >> Geelong, Australia > >> > >> Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication > >> matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words > >> subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> -- > >> > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! > Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus >
