.....He did not say "any decent measurementThe question is NOT if 'units are related' to thirds & halves BUT want is the need for today's skill-work force: do we or don't we wish them to fall in line with International System of Units - the Metric SI-Units? If yes, how hong do we wish the confusion to remain?
system needs thirds," only that thirds can be handy (which is a true statement).
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Saturday) 2005 April 16(D-107/W00-06)H0758(decimal) IST
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
******As per New VGRCalendar Rhyme******
Telephone: +91-11-25590335
From: Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:32712] Re: MIT Technology Review Article on the metric system
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:25:42 -0600
I mostly agree with Phil's comments about the article, but have a few minor differences of opinion:
At 15 04 05, 04:35 PM, Philip S Hall wrote:
>(i) The origin and history of the metre is not relevent to metrology of today and has no bearing on the merits of the metric system. . . .
>
>(ii) Non-metric units do not constitute a "system" and bear no comparison with metric. They started life in different places at different times for specific applications many of which are now defunct. The relations between them are a belated attempt to rationalise them which is why they are such a confused muddle.
If the origin and history of the meter are not relevant to the metric system, why are the origin and history of American colloquial units relevant to the modern American measurement system?
While our colloquial units do not constitute a "system" in the sense of being derived from a minimum number of "base" units, they most certainly do constitute a system in terms of being a "system of measurement," that is a set of defined units widely and successfully used to run the world's largest economy.
>(iii) If it is so important to have units that are of a size convenient to the application in hand (so as to avoid large numbers) then why is aircraft altitude measured in feet? Why do Americans measure their weight in pounds? Why is jet engine thrust measured in lb-force?
>
>(iv) If thirds are so important why don't the imperial/USC units of weight have 3 as a prime factor in any of the multiplies (16, 14, 8, 20)?
On both of these I think you are overstating the author's intent. He clearly says that no system is "ideal for all uses." He obviously understands that that includes our colloquial measurements. He did not say "any decent measurement system needs thirds," only that thirds can be handy (which is a true statement).
Jim Elwell
_________________________________________________________________ The MSN Gamezone! http://www.msn.co.in/gamezone Get set to get hooked!
