You missed my point. I was trying to indicate that there are old metric
units still in use that people seeing them may think they are imperial units
because they are compared to SI units. Both the calorie and the bar are two
old-metric, non-SI units that persist even though there is a correct SI unit
to replace them. Their relationship to SI units is a moot point. But
because they are not SI, some people may think they are imperial and not old
metric.
There are others, such as the curie, maxwell and gauss (SI would be
Becquerel, weber and tesla).
As you mention, there is the torr and also the millimetre of mercury that
can be replaced by the pascal.
The metric horsepower used in some countries along with the watt can be done
away with too.
There may be more, but I'm sure this should help you understand what I was
trying to point out.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pierre Abbat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 2005-09-26 10:59
Subject: [USMA:34657] Re: calories
On Monday 26 September 2005 08:37, Daniel wrote:
I wonder how many people thing the calorie is an English unit and not old
metric. The battle between the joule and the calorie is the same as the
battle between the bar and the pascal. Old metric vs SI and not metric
vs
non-metric.
It's not the same. The bar is a power of 10 number of pascals exactly. The
calorie is any of several numbers of joules, none of which is round. I say
the bar is metric but the calorie is pseudometric.
Speaking of bars, the torr (also pseudometric) is still used for blood
pressure. Is there any movement to oust it?
phma
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 2005-09-23
