Dear Bill,
Thanks for these thoughts. You make eminently good sense but I will
leave the article (at http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/
AWordAboutGlobalWarming.pdf ) as it is because I agree with you that
most people who are seeking 'conversion factors' are looking for a
single silver bullet approach. In fact, in my experience, most are
looking for a single conversion factor to change from 'joules' (or
any other SI unit) back into some more familiar 'words' with little
or no understanding of the nature of units at all. To many (perhaps
most) people, metric conversion is a linguistic issue and not a
scientific or metrological problem.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Pat Naughtin helps people understand how to go about their
metrication upgrade– quickly and easily – by helping them avoid
mistakes that he has made himself, or that he has seen made by others
during his more than 35 years of involvement with metrication
matters. Contact Pat at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pat specialises in the modern metric system based on the
International System of Units (SI), but he is mostly concerned with
the processes that people use for themselves, their groups, their
businesses, their industries, and their nations as they go about
their inevitable metrication process. See: http://
www.metricationmatters.com/
Pat Naughtin is a highly knowledgeable metric enthusiast, who is also
a writer, professional speaker, editor, and publisher.
On 2007/10/12, at 5:21 AM, Bill Hooper wrote:
On 2007 Oct 11 , at 2:04 AM, Metrication matters wrote:
Somewhat belatedly I have now considered (the) suggestions and
emended the article at http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/
AWordAboutGlobalWarming.pdf accordingly.
But what is even more concerning is that when converting from one
to another, all these
different energy words also require thousands of conversion
factors if energy issues are to
be understood at even a basic level. The 93 measures above require
8556 conversion factors
to convert from any one measure to any other.
There is another way of looking at this (the number of conversion
factors needed). If done wisely, 93 different energy units would
need only 92 conversion factors* to convert from any one unit to
any other. That is, use only the conversion factors between the
joule and each other unit. Then, to convert a quantity in A-units
to B-units, merely convert the value in A-units into joules and
then convert that answer in joules to the value in B-units.
True, it now takes two steps to make any conversion instead of just
one, but it reduces the number of conversion factors from 8556 to
92. I'd say the trade off is a good one. We've just saved 8464
conversions factors that we don't need to learn.
Your argument is of course not "wrong". It is also not necessarily
unfair (and I'm not suggesting that you change it). There are many
people out there who do not want to learn two conversion factors to
go from unit-A to unit-B. They are the ones who will want a single
conversion factor to solve their particular, narrow problem. To
them, it seems reasonable and necessary to need a list, somewhere,
of all 8556 factors. The will accept your argument even while the
more astute will see that there is a short-cut.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
==================
*I am assuming that we use a single conversion factor between any
pair of units. That is, it is not necessary to know both that 1
inch = 25.4 mm and at the same time also know that 1 mm = 0.03937
inches, because it is possible to convert from inches to
millimetres AND from millimetres to inches using only ONE of those
conversion factors (either one). In one case you multiply, in the
other you divide. If we insist upon using both, so we can go either
way by multiplying something, then we would need double 92, that is
184 conversion factors.
===================
HAPPY METRIC WEEK!
