Gene:
From your comments I must assume that you had not seen the book, let alone
read it. Otherwise, I believe you would refrain from bringing up impertinent
points, subjects covered in other chapters, and use phraseology that does
not fit the tone nor intent of the book.
Do you really believe that your sentences would help my intended audience to
like and use SI? Reading them, I better understand why so many ordinary
Americans hate metric. In my omitting your rigid, bureaucratic statements
and references, the core of the book presents the knowledge one needs to use
the system and avoid potential pitfalls. Nothing else is needed for applying
SI in daily practice, my goal.
Metric is beautiful! You make it ugly. What you wrote is relevant to the few
experts who now that stuff anyway or know where to find it.
While I do appreciate that you took the time to write, that information is
not new, nor does it help the book's intent should it go into second
printing. Which is doubtful in light of the lack of any interest in metric
by the media at present.
Again, I appreciate you wrote, and wish you pleasant holiday. Stan
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Dennis Brownridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Matt Zotter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Henry A. Scarton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Benny Leonard"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kverneland, Knut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 07 Dec 06, Thursday 12:49
Subject: Jakuba Book
Stan,
In your e-mail of November 11, you indicate that one of your objectives
for revising the chapter "FORCE AND THE TERM WEIGHT" in your Book is to
"pacify Gene." You invite comment.
I do have some suggestions.
Use facts from NIST SP 330 and from NIST SP 811, with *citations of page
numbers* from the latest editions of 2001 and 2000, respectively. Samples
for segments of your text:
"The International System of Units (symbol SI) is the preferred system of
units of measurement for United States trade and commerce ..." This
assertion is derived from Public Law 100-418, Section 5164 as amended in
1988.
"The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (symbol kg). The mass of the
kilogram is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the
kilogram."
"The SI unit of force is the newton (symbol N). The newton is the force
which gives to a mass of 1 kilogram an acceleration of 1 meter per second,
per second."
"The word 'weight' denotes a quantity of the same nature as a force
(newton, symbol N). The weight of a body is the product of its mass and
the acceleration due to gravity at a particular location in a particular
specified or implied frame of reference (i.e. in a particular coordinate
system)."
"Some units of mass outside the SI are the carat, grain, ounce, pound, and
slug. See SP 811 for their 'definitions' as multiples of the kilogram,
and for definitions of several other units of mass."
"Some units of force outside the SI are the dyne, kip, and poundal. See
SP 811 for their 'definitions' as multiples of the newton, and for the
definitions of several other units of force."
"The SI unit for lift, weight, thrust, and drag, all forces, is also the
newton (N). Some units of force outside the SI are still used as units of
weight. These are residue from 19th century technology."
"The word 'weight' continues to be misused sometimes as a synonym for
'mass.' This careless misuse is deprecated."
The remainder of the chapter could be your discussions of deviations from
the SI, but I would delete much of that.
Gene Mechtly.
---- Original message ----
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:49:50 -0500
From: "Stan Jakuba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [USMA:39706] Past e-mails
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Dennis Brownridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matt Zotter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Henry A. Scarton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Benny Leonard"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Kverneland, Knut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dears:
Vacationing in Europe I missed most of the past
mail. I want to comment on just two items I noticed:
(1) Concerning the "what is a metric bible" - unlike
the US, most nations issued just one SI (guide)
book, usually somewhat analogous the Barry Taylor's
SP 330 but thicker. Those nations have a "bible." In
the US, with its plethora of metric guides, I'd
think that the only "bible" could be the BIPM
document. (Way back, some considered the ASTM E380
as such, but not the IEEE and other societies.)
(2) Concerning the voting on the meaning of weight,
I was taken aback that we would think that we can
coin a single meaning. Have you, guys, ever tried to
coin a meaning with your own wife (and teenage
kids)? Why would we want to spend time on such
petty, impossible to resolve issue is beyond me
considering the presumed intelligence of this
distinguished group.
A while ago, I sent a chapter from my book that
elaborated on the weight meanings. Pictures were
missing. I am attaching the 20 years old piece
again, this time with pictures. It is also slightly
edited to stress the unit selection and to also
pacify Gene. In addition, I am attaching an exercise
I use for getting the points across. All the
questions in the exercise are debatable, as you will
see when you try them. A discussion was the real
purpose for the "quiz", not to check the knowledge.
Perhaps looking at the attached again and trying the
exercise will let us place the issue to rest.
I'll be soon off for Central America, so if you
would like to comment (I wish you would), write
soon. But remember with a selection of a unit - it
depends on circumstances! List them
Thanks, Stan J.
________________
b-FORCE AND WEIGHT2.doc (5950k bytes)
________________
b-FORCE AND WEIGHT2.pdf (424k bytes)
