Ezra, Bill sirs: >.....training to use many different prefixes. In my mail of 2004 July 17, this discussion had come up again. I proposed that the current gram (symbol 'g') be up graded to (symbol 'G' for GRAM =1000g) for kilogram. Tonne would then be 1000G i.e. 10^6g.Regards,Brij Bhushan Vij (MJD 2454491)/995+D-026W03-05 (G. Friday, 2008 January 25 H 17:88(decimal) IST Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 (365th day of Year is World Day) HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"Contact # 011-9818775933 (M)001(201)962-3708(when in US) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [USMA:40212] Re: TonnesDate: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:09:45 +0000Well, while I agree with Bill, it seems that humans need quite a bit of training to use many different prefixes.Instead, most people in metric countries seem to settle on a small number of prefixes (in addition to the base unit) because they want (I presume) to keep only a small number of "standard" sizes in their heads. This is why I see metric usage that uses the kilometer as the "base" for the unit of travel length, and then all distances are numeric multiples of kilometers (such as "20 million kilometers", etc.) rather than adjusting the prefix. Ezra -------------- Original message ----------------------From: Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > On 2008 Jan 24 , at 10:06 PM, Ziser, Jesse wrote:> > > ... found nothing suggesting that anyone is even considering > > "switching" from tonnes to> > Mg. Why the heck not?> >> > If I may ask, what is the opinion of you wise folks on this?> > Inertia.> Laziness.> "We always did it that way."> > There is no good reason not to use the megagram (Mg) which is > identical to the tonne (also called "metric ton" in countries using > non-metric units). The same faulty arguments are used as are used to > explain why non-metric countries (USA) don't switch to metric.> > If we allow the renaming of every unit to give them all different and > unrelated names, we'll be almost back to where we started before SI > was created.> > Regards,> Bill Hooper> Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA> > ==========================> SImplification Begins With SI.> ==========================> > --Forwarded Message Attachment--From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [USMA:40211] Re: TonnesDate: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:39:40 +0000
On 2008 Jan 24 , at 10:06 PM, Ziser, Jesse wrote: ... found nothing suggesting that anyone is even considering "switching" from tonnes toMg. Why the heck not?If I may ask, what is the opinion of you wise folks on this? Inertia. Laziness. "We always did it that way." There is no good reason not to use the megagram (Mg) which is identical to the tonne (also called "metric ton" in countries using non-metric units). The same faulty arguments are used as are used to explain why non-metric countries (USA) don't switch to metric. If we allow the renaming of every unit to give them all different and unrelated names, we'll be almost back to where we started before SI was created. Regards, Bill Hooper Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA ========================== SImplification Begins With SI. ========================== _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
