Well stated, Tom. We should accept *all* the SI prefixes! Gene.
---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:48:54 +0000 >From: Tom Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:40649] Leave the centimeter alone >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >...> >I believe it was Einstein who once said that things should be simplified >as much as possible, but no further. > > >if we could get rid of centimeters we'd have virtually eliminated the > >"centi -" prefix. It would be an archaic part of the metric system >like >"deci-", "hect o-" and "deka-". Then we might succeed in getting >rid of >all four of them and h ave just the nice round steps of 1000. > >This is what I mean by the bias against the centi prefix. SI *is not* >based solely on the so called "rule of 1000". SI is firmly based on >decimal base 10 prefixes. It is only when you get beyond 1000 times >that the need for prefixes every order of magnitude becomes unnecessary. > However between 0.001 and 1000 it is very convenient to have closer >spaced prefixes. Yes, it it a tiny bit more complex, but lets not try >to make things simple just for the sake of having everything neat, when >it makes the system more clumsy to use. This should be particularly >true when you are trying to convince your fellow countrymen to change >from something they have known all their lives. > >Also, try to remember that in most countries, metric units are part of >everyday experience, and not something that is the sole preserve of the >scientist, and ease of use is more important than the fact that not >everything is neatly expressed in multiples of 1000. > >Another poster quoted his height in both meters and millimeters. >Expressing your height in mm is simply laughable - it implies a level of >exactness that makes it look over-precise to someone familiar with the >concept of precision (and downright nerdy to those who aren't). Do you >honestly think that trying to standardize on heights in mm rather than >cm will enhance a metric transition ? > >The plain fact is that centi is a perfectly legitimate prefix, and the >fact that it doesn't appear with most units simply means it is a not a >convenient muliplier for those entities. But that shouldn't mean it >should be dropped in the small number of cases where it is, just to >satisfy someone's over zealous sense of symmetry (others have also >pointed out the cL, dB & hPa units in common use). > >> And if it were to be used it w ould be called "centiamperes" (cA) not >> "centi-Amps". > >Only if milliamps were also incorrect (they may well be technically, but >milliamps & amps are more often heard than milliamperes & amperes, so I >guess centiamps would be OK). > >The other thing to remember is the link with the only quantity that was >metric in the US right from the start, and which is familiar to all >Americans: the currency. Using meters and centimeters is as easy and >as apple-pie American as dollars and cents. > >The variety of prefixes is one of the great strengths of the metric >system. You can choose the prefix that gives you the most convenient >range of values, and thanks to the fact it is based on multiples of 10, >shifting between them is trivial. Don't sacrifice this just because >something looks superficially neat. > >(that's my 2 cents worth - or 20 millidollars if you really must insist). > >--------------------------------------------------------- >Tom Wade | EMail: tee dot wade at eurokom dot ie >EuroKom | Tel: +353 (1) 296-9696 >A2, Nutgrove Office Park | Fax: +353 (1) 296-9697 >Rathfarnham | Disclaimer: This is not a disclaimer >Dublin 14 | Tip: "Friends don't let friends do Unix !" >Ireland >
