Thank you for your patient explanation, Ron, but I have to agree with Jesse.
Objections to "gry": (1) it is a bit like gram, as Ezra pointed out; (2) "gry" is too close to gray, another unit, as Daniel said; (3) "gry" already has three characters, two too many IMHO; (4) "gry" rhymes with angry. This last point is not a reason but an omen. It should be easy to compose a limerick deriding a proposal of "gry". Objections to "G": (1) "G" already designates the gravitational constant and is sometimes adapted as a measurement unit, e.g., in rocketry; (2) "G" already denotes a measurement unit, gauss, as Pierre pointed out. About coherence: (1) The tidiness of coherence is not compelling to most people. (2) So 1 kg is equivalent to 1 L or rather to 1 dm^3 of water? I think I can remember that - but do I need to? [Thinks to self: hmm, that's water, not gasoline.] (3) Style guides would not need to note exceptions if they condoned prefixed units such as Gg and Tm. The style guides would become shorter, simpler, and more coherent. To get rid of the symbol "kg" just as it is gaining acceptance would set back metrication in the USA. The American public would resist giving up the kilogram. What would the symbol for "gry" be? "gry"? Given a mouthful of alphabet soup like "mgry", the American public would spew it out. > From: "Ziser, Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:21:15 -0800 (PST) > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:40327] Re: review of name and symbol for reference unit for > mass > > Is it really a good idea to try and replace something that has become that > rarest of beasts: a > nearly uncontested international standard? Why not leave well enough alone? > So the kilogram has > a prefix. So what? That's a pretty tiny wart, as warts go. It is widely > understood and > accepted, and a lot of ordinary people have been talked into switching, some > with great > difficulty. Now you want to ask them to switch again? Not gonna happen, and > if it did, the > metric system would lose some of its luster to people who value consistency > (me). > > And if a new standard were to be proposed, shouldn't it be directly to the > BIPM, not some > peripheral institution? People should do what the standard says. It is not a > good idea to > encourage groups outside of the BIPM to come up with totally new, non-SI ways > of doing things. > That's not the same as trying to change the standard itself. > > On top of all that, what's wrong with using an existing unit -- the grave, > which was a real unit > that actually meant kilogram some time ago -- instead of coining a new one? > Gry has other > meanings, notably an old unit of length equal to 0.212 mm. > > The BIPM thinks changing the name of the kilogram now is a bad idea due to the > fact that it has > become so deeply ingrained, but mentions the grave as the most notable > alternative. This link > also mentions the correct place to propose changes to SI. > http://www.bipm.org/en/scientific/mass/faqs_mass.html > > Sorry if I sound preachy. This just reminds me of a some unfortunate things > that have happened in > the world of computer programming standards. "it sure is nice to have a > standard for this"... > "let's change everything because this isn't pretty enough"... "ok, then we'll > just use our own > standard"... "gee, I wish there were some standard for this". Be afraid... > > --- Ron Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Dear Pat and all, >> >> The term 'gry' as a name for a reference unit of mass ([USMA:40308] >> Re: kg) promises a few more chief metric benefits than the present >> term 'kilogram'. >> >> One chief metric benefit is coherence with a system of other coherent >> units. >> >> The equivalence of mass of '1 gry' to '1 liter' of water could be >> widely appreciated. >> >> At the same time the rules for usage of metric prefixes would not need >> to note an exception like for the term 'kilogram'. >> >> When used with reference to a designated style guide, I think that the >> term 'gry' could be learned and practiced practicably. >> >> I spoke with my wife Claudia, a biologist, about the use of a term >> like 'gry' for a reference unit for mass. The calibration of >> instruments for measuring small amounts of liquid might be determined >> more practicably if a microliter could be compared directly to a >> 'microgry' (with the same prefix), rather than a with a 'milligram'. >> >> However there may also be some procedures, such as for determining >> molar concentrations of solutions, that might already be stated in >> terms of certain prefixed expressions, that might call for a >> reconsideration of 'mise-en-pratique' if a reference unit for mass is >> conformed with the prefixing of other reference units. >> >> In the meantime, I think that the expression 'gry', and a transitional >> symbol 'G' (or with much consensus a 'g') should be placed on the >> draft AAT ICAS (Integrated Chronological Applications System, Alliance >> for the Advancement of Technology) transitional specifications document: >> >> AAT ICAS Basilicum-1600-AAT ICAS transitional specifications >> 1600-ps05 review of name and symbol for reference unit of mass >> 'http://www.aatideas.org/icas/1600.html#go1600s18' >> >> For those who might be wondering what is AAT ICAS; it is a framework >> that is mainly concerned with developing standards for uniform formats >> of calendar and clock expressions. Yet ICAS is also concerned with >> coordinating to SI and other reference frameworks. >> >> Some other links on that document: >> >> Appendix A—some initiatives for metric timekeeping or calendaring >> 'http://www.aatideas.org/icas/1600.html#go1600s19' >> >> Appendix B—some normative references >> 'http://www.aatideas.org/icas/1600.html#go1600s20' >> >> In addition, AAT is reviewing comments on the development of ICAS on >> an ongoing basis; and this includes the standards for 'ICAS in use', >> 'ICAS terms of use', and 'ICAS now' open source terms of use. >> >> As I am serving a role of ICAS development for AAT, I will also try to >> see that discussions about ICAS on this list are given consideration >> in the development of AAT ICAS. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ron >> >> ICAS date and time (UT): >> >> � UCN 12008B01 White � >> >> � UCA 2008B01 White � >> >> � IDC (UT) t872 � >> >> � day of year 031 � >> >> � AD 2008 January 31 Thursday � >> >> � SMH (UT) 20:56:30 � >> >> built with 'ICAS now' open source: >> < http://www.aatideas.org/now/icas.html > >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> - - - - - - - - - - - >> >> Ron Stone >> >> e: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> web: >> http://www.enhanceability.com >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> - - - - - - - - - - - >> this message does not necessarily reflect >> the views of any organization I may be affiliated with, >> and should be regarded as personal opinion. >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> - - - - - - - - - - - >> >> >> >> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > ______ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping >
