... We had failed to specify the jacket
durometer, so the vendor used whatever they had.
Would it not be better to say:
'We had failed to specify the jacket hardness (instead of durometer), so the
vendor used whatever they had'.
I have found that it's generally better to use a quantity name to describe a
quantity rather than the name of the instrument that measures it (in this
case durometer) or the name of the unit (as some folk do with expressions
like 'the amperage was 3 amps')
The term "durometer" has entered common usage as the name of the "unit of measure" for the "softness or hardness" of a material, rather than just the name of the instrument used to measure it. It is used all the time, as in "80 durometer gaskets" (fairly stiff) or "40 durometer o-ring" (quite soft).
Compare:
unit of
measure
volt
amp
durometer
No one is going to say "I need to specify the electromotive force of the motor," they will say "I need to specify the voltage of the motor."
In other words, I can see your point with this particular unit, but our language is messy enough that I just don't see this as a windmill at which I wish to tilt. If what I say or write is clear to the intended audience, I'm not going to worry too much which term I use (constrained, of course, by proper metric and grammatical usage where appropriate).
> More interesting info at http://www.machinist-materials.com/hardness.htm,
> comparing the different hardness scales. Even this US site is pretty much all
> metric.
Yes, but it's a strange sort of metric. The good folk who made this useful
comparison have yet to discover Isaac Newton's insight that mass and force
(weight) are two different things. This is, no doubt, why they chose to use
kilograms and grams for their TEST FORCE RANGE rather than the correct SI
unit of force, the newton.
Yea, it's pretty messy. I didn't notice the weight/mass thing, but did notice the "kgs." I guess I was happy enough to see metric units rather than "lbf" that I didn't pay closer attention to how well they were using metric.
Jim
P.S. I have had a couple of private inquiries about that 7.5 km of cable. It has two twisted pairs intended for an Ethernet connection (correct impedence, etc.), but has a bunch of other wires for control purposes, and is not really suited for typical home or office wiring -- and it is several times more expensive than a roll of CAT5 you buy at your local supplier.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
801-466-8770
www.qsicorp.com
