Jim: Well, seeing as we're being so agreeable, I agree with you too.
I was responding more to John's response to you, rather than to your original message, to which, I must confess, I had not given the attention it so obviously deserved. (Boy, I can really lay it on thick when I want to. <g>) Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of James R. Frysinger >Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 11:19 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:28495] Re: metricated recipe > > >For the most part I agree with you, Bill. However, I can conceive >of cases in >which one might use prefixes with the degree Celsius. In >chemistry, biology, >or meteorology one might have a paper where the data is predominantly in >degrees Celsius but in which one might wish to discuss a small >interval. To >change between degrees Celsius and kelvins within the paper would >be annoying >to the reader and to to cast the whole paper in kelvins might be >unacceptable >for the given audience used to using degrees Celsius for that particular >topic. > >But the point originally raised had nothing to do with that issue. >It used the >example of 4.3 m�C as explicit evidence that the degree Celsius (�C) was a >unit symbolized by a raised circle immediately abutting a C --- >there is no >space in between the two. To believe otherwise would be to feel obliged to >write 4.3� mC, which would be incorrect. > >Again, I understand your position as stated below and in fact that >is what I >did in my last paper. But I do see room for authors to use >prefixed degrees >Celsius if they wish to. That however had not been my original point. > >Jim > >On Tuesday, 2004 February 03 02:28, Bill Potts wrote: >> I don't see any merit in using prefixes with degrees Celsius >(regardless of >> the fact that the SI Brochure allows them). >> >> The everyday use of Celsius temperatures, which is over a fairly limited >> range, requires neither extreme precision (millidegrees) nor great >> magnitude (kilodegrees or megadegrees). >> >> Where high precision or great magnitude are required (typically in >> scientific applications), I believe it's much better to used the kelvin. >> And, of course, mK would only be used for temperatures or temperature >> differences of less than 1 K. Actual temperatures would be in kelvin, >> kilokelvin and megakelvin, using numbers to the right of the >decimal point >> where high precision is warranted. >> >> Without prefixes, of course, the customary absence of a space before the >> degree symbol isn't a problem. >> >> Bill Potts, CMS >> Roseville, CA >> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >.... >-- > >James R. Frysinger >Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist >Senior Member, IEEE > >http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Office: > Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer > Dept. of Physics and Astronomy > University/College of Charleston > 66 George Street > Charleston, SC 29424 > 843.953.7644 (phone) > 843.953.4824 (FAX) > >Home: > 10 Captiva Row > Charleston, SC 29407 > 843.225.0805 >
