Remember that we are not writing scientific journal papers here. We are trying to communicate to non-scientists and we do so in a manner that we eel is most understandable.
While I agree you are to deal with public at large and would NOT worry about 'scientists' view point as non-scientist. The fact cannot be ignored that scientists are only a minority among the public and political decisions are not taken from the view point of a scientist: thus, public at large is to be made aware of the right useage and therminology. Please do NOT forget YOU are the link between science and public - especially sitting at NASA. When is the public going to learn?
Teach them YOUNG when the child is at school, is one answer! The need is education at all levels.
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20040428H1198(decimal) AM(IST)
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda.
*****The New Calendar Rhyme*****
Thirty days in July, September:
April, June, November, December;
All the rest have thirty-one; accepting February alone:
Which hath but twenty-nine, to be (in) fine;
Till leap year gives the whole week READY:
Is it not time to MODIFY or change to make it perennial, Oh Daddy!And make the calendar work with Leap Week Rule! ***** ***** ***** *****
From: "MightyChimp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:29644] Re: Fwd: Gravity Probe B article Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:01:39 -0400
So, if I understand this response correctly, "billionths of a micro-gauss" is more understandable then teslas. What planet is this guy from?
Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Hooper To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Tuesday, 2004-04-27 12:13 Subject: [USMA:29641] Fwd: Gravity Probe B article
Here is the reply I received from the NASA official responsible for the internet information on the Gravity Probe B. Some of you expressed an interest in seeing his answer to my message.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Koczor, Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2004 April 27 8:20:31 AM EDT To: 'Bill Hooper' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Gravity Probe B article
Thanks for your note, Bill. All of our writers use the measurements that
they get from their interviews as most are not scientists themselves. We do
try to relate what we consider unfamiliar metric units with more easily
recognized English units when we feel it is appropriate.
Remember that we are not writing scientific journal papers here. We are
trying to communicate to non-scientists and we do so in a manner that we
feel is most understandable.
Eventually my successors will not have to worry about ye Olde English units!
But for now, we feel that we must be communicators.
Best wishes,
Ron
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Hooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 8:41 PM To: Koczor, Ron Cc: USMA Subject: Gravity Probe B article
Ron Koczor:
I read with interest the article about the gravity Probe B on the following web page:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/26apr_gpbtech.htm?list533332
I understand from that page that you are the responsible NASA official for this article.
It was a fascinating story about an experiment that I had been following for some time. It was marred, however, by the awkward use of a mish-mash of measurements, some in the SI metric system, some in older versions of metric system and even some in Ye Olde English mixture.
I would be interested to know how much of the complex mix of units was a result of the scientists and engineers who actually use those measurements and how much was the result of the reporting and editing of the information for this article.
Of particular concern was the use of the unit "micro-gauss". The SI
unit of magnetic field is the tesla. A gauss corresponds to
one-ten-thousandth of a tesla.* In SI, the field of "3 micro-gauss"
could have been given as 0.3 nanotesla. The use of an SI prefix (like
micro) with a non-SI unit (like "gauss") is odd (although not entirely
unheard of) but the use of a hyphen between them is something which
definitely is not done in SI metric and which I have never seen it done
by anyone else in any other system of units.
There really was no need to use all those Olde English measures. Most
of the people who are sufficiently interested in reading this type of
article would be reasonably familiar with the SI metric system which is
used so extensively in science. The reference to 400 miles could have
been 650 kilometres, the 1.5 inches could have been 38 millimetres, the
12 feet could have been 3.6 metres and the 400 gallons could have been
1500 L (or 1.5 cubic metres). Few readers would have any trouble
understanding those measures and many would prefer them.
It is curious to note that when a good SI unit, the nanometre, was
used, it was "explained" by telling that it is one-millionth of a
millimetre. The author apparently knew that the reader would understand
how big a millimetre was so it could be used to explain the nanometre.
So why did the author have to give the diameters of those spheres in
inches; if the reader understands millimetres in the other case, surely
he or she would understand 39 millimetres in this case.
There was very little other information reported in SI metric.
Temperatures in kelvins and the SI related degrees Celsius were the
only other metric uses. I would have thought NASA reports on scientific
work would have been reported using the units that are almost
universally used by scientists; SI metric. I am disappointed to find
that this is not so.
Sincerely, Dr. William Hooper Prof. of Physics (ret.) University of Virginia's College at Wise
* I recognize that the magnetic field measured in CGS units of gauss and the magnetic field measured in the SI units of tesla, are not the same thing. Therefore, the tesla cannot strictly speaking be said to "equal" a number of gauss. The problem here is a bit more fundamental; namely, why are NASA scientists still using the definitions of quantities (as well as the units) of the old CGS system instead of using SI and the definitions of quantities inherent in that system.
_________________________________________________________________
BharatMatrimony.com. http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?72 The No 1 Indian matrimony.
