I'm commenting on a couple of threads here. Sorry for any confusion.
Regarding microliters, MCL, mu, etc.: I didn't notice anyone suggesting the obvious solution: use the letter "u" rather than the greek mu. As in uL, um, etc.
It is not exactly correct, but it does not require special characters and the problems associated with those. In fact, the MRP software (manufacturing & accounting) my company uses does not allow special characters (ASCII only). We have no choice on our Bills of Material except to use the letter u for micro. And, no, it is not old software: the latest version was installed this summer.
Greek Letters in general: SI requires both mu and omega. Personally, I think the mu should be replaced with u (or make it an acceptable substitution), but there is no obvious substitution for omega. In our MRP software, we use the letter R for "ohms," lacking a better alternative.
nanofarads: twenty years ago nanofarads (nF) were uncommon, but they are used occasionally today. I haven't seen micro-micro-farad (mmF) in years. QSI follows the SI standard for picking prefixes, so we have plenty of caps in nanofarads (see attached screen shot).
CMS for cubic meters: next time you are on the freeway and a truck hauling a cargo container passes, look at the markings on the back. Most of them have both colloquial and metric units, and most of the metric units are incorrect (e.g., KGS for kilograms). Ditto for many cartons that computer enclosures come in. I have commented before, and Carleton points out, that Americans often do not use the metric system properly, but neither do people in countries that have been metric for decades.
Computers & Databases: the problem here is that manufacturing companies spend huge amounts on software to run their businesses, and those who write the software generally have priorities other than accommodating accurate SI. While it is easy to talk Unicode, if the software a company uses does not support it, the manufacturer has no way to use it. And due to the huge expense of the software, let alone the implementation, manufacturers are loath to switch to different software.
I am familiar with two different MRP programs: mid-range Infor Visual and a fairly recent high-end installation. The former cost QSI about $80,000, plus $15,000/year "maintenance". The high-end software cost its buyer several hundred thousand dollars, with annual fees probably in the range of $50k. Neither of these support Unicode.
They DO support the extraordinarily complex job of managing material and labor resources in a manufacturing environment. But the programmers can sure seem short-sighted in some ways. For example, our $80k software allows part descriptions to be only 40 ASCII characters long -- entirely inadequate. We've complained for years, there have been numerous new releases, but this hasn't changed. So I don't have much hope for Unicode being introduced.
Jim Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
