Stan and Patrick,
Consistency in scientific practice and public practice is a consummation
devoutedly to be wished by those of us who value measurement, but just
that, a wish. Heck, I'd love to see bartenders pour half a cubic
decimeter of beer on demand, but that's a metrologist's wet dream. I
don't expect those words ever to be uttered at your local American
watering hole. The public just isn't as keen on measurement as we are in
the halls of USMA, NIST, and IEEE. This may seem heretical, but I want
to tell the U.S. public that there are only three units they will ever
have to be concerned about with if we go metric, and for practical
purposes, this is the truth: the meter, the gram, and the liter.
Anything else is just a decimal multiple or a decimal fraction of those
three. Now, that's not teaching the Nation SI, but I don't expect to
teach the general public all about SI. But, I do darn believe that the
U.S. can be exactly like Australia, publicly metric to the core. We can
influence the way the U.S. speaks, writes, and thinks about measurement,
but I don't think it will be in our own image. If we can duplicate
Australia's feat, I think we should be overjoyed at such.
Students, however, shall learn about SI, but its public face has got to
be simple. To me, the purpose of U.S. metrication it to give our country
a measurement system that is easier to use than the one we have now.
Paul
Patrick Moore wrote:
One huge advantage that the liter has over the cubic meter (multiples
and submultiples included) is that the symbol notation does not entail
a superscript. The awkwardness and potential ambiguity of terms like
"dm3" (with the 3 resting on the baseline) appear wherever text lacks
character formatting: (1) electronic books available on-line and
archived by services such as the Gutenberg Project; (2) electronic
files of new books, files requested and catalogued by the Library of
Congress in advance of publication; (3) very many bulletin board, list
serve, blog, and e-mail programs and sites; (4) anywhere else that
uses ASCII or MS-DOS text.
We of the USMA seek to change the way people in our country speak,
write, and think. Our purpose is noble, but the wish to impose
uniformity does not always share this noble purpose. For purposes of
science, the compulsion is almost as persuasive as Miss Manners
telling us to put a fish fork at every table setting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: G Stanley Doore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: G Stanley Doore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:29:22 -0400
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:38959] Re: Indefinite postponement
Bill et al:
The litre is identically the same as cubic decimeter, mL is
identically the same as cubic millimetre, etc. and the kL is
identically the same as cubic metre. So why switch terminally? I
took your explanation as implying/advocating two different terms -
litre and cubic decimetre etc. - for identical quantities.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your explanation. I still don't understand
why you want to use a mixture/two terms for the same
quantity/quantities/notation in common general/public practice in
contrast to scientific practice/notation when the litre is ACCEPTABLE
for use under the SI while NOT being strictly SI.
You said: "(2) there is no reason to have two names (and two symbols)
for the same unit." So why use litre (L) at all? Can't there be
consistency in pubic practice and in scientific practice in this
special case for volume?
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hooper <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:54 PM
Subject: [USMA:38956] Re: Indefinite postponement
On 2007 Jun 28 , at 5:09 PM, STANLEY DOORE wrote:
Bill Hooper asks why not keep the cubic decimeter, cubic
metre, cubic millimetre etc. which are strictly SI.
No, I did not. I merely asked to keep the cubic metre and not
replace it with the kilolitre.
I said nothing about the others you mention. I do have some
thoughts on those, but those thoughts have no bearing on my
argument for NOT using the kilolitre.
That argument is:
because
(1) the kilolitre is identically the same as a cubic metre
(which most decidedly IS a proper SI unit),
and
(2) there is no reason to have two names (and two symbols) for the
same unit.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==========================
Make It Simple; Make It Metric!
==========================
--
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
www.metric.org
3609 Caldera Blvd., Apt. 122
Midland TX 79707-2872 USA
+1(432)528-7724
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
