Jim is correct. Even apparently obvious improvements of SI are painfully difficult.
Years ago, I proposed to the CCU optional alternatives for SI prefix symbols: da or D for deka; h or H for hecto; and k or K for kilo. Although the chairman of the CCU supported my proposal (by e-mail), the CCU was not persuaded that all prefix symbols representing multiples of 10 and larger should have the option of being consistently expressed as upper case symbols. CCU voted to restrict these three prefix symbols to the traditional da, h, and k. Gene Mechtly. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:13:36 -0500 >From: James Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:41237] Re: gali and avo >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >Cc: Brian Leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], >[email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Bruce, > >Please note that I did not agree with Brian about the need for new >names. I merely said they were the best proposals I had seen to date. > >I also pointed out the process of making such a change and cautioned >that it was a long, arduous road. Hopefully all concerned figured out >that there wasn't a snowball's chance on a Tennessee summer afternoon of >the changes being approved. That said, in the past I made remarks >similar to yours here, but about not needing the dalton. Now it has >risen to the level of acceptance as a unit that can be used with the SI. >So much for my opinion! > >Rest assured that CIPM and CGPM will not take USMA discussion on the >matter as the basis for deciding what to do about the unit name for >mass. "L'gran K" will live on in name, if not in artifact. (But we may >have to live with watts in the balance.) > >In the meantime I hope to have enlightened some folks about the process >of effecting changes to the SI -- and the minuscule likelihood of being >successful. The endless banter on the USMA mail list (this thread >started before I joined USMA in 1990, I think) is indeed more of an >academic aerobics exercise than an effective course of action. I find it >a refreshing relief from the endless argument about the centimeter. > >Jim > >Bruce Barrow wrote: >> Dear Jim, >> >> Good #$&*% grief! We do NOT need a new name for the kilogram. We do >> NOT need to advocate changes in the SI. We need to teach the metric >> system and expand its use in the US. People here know what a kilo is; >> let's not confuse them. >> >> Bruce Barrow >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Frysinger" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Brian Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:09 PM >> Subject: Re: gali and avo >> >> >>> Dear Brian, >>> >>> These are the two best proposals I have seen to date. >>> >>> One should be braced; it takes a very long time for proposals to wend >>> their way through the administrative process to become approved. >>> Consider how long it took for the dalton (Da) to obtain approval. The >>> pathway is via the Consultative Committee on Units (CCU) and SCC 14 >>> ("stds-units") has a healthy connection to our country's CCU. Perhaps >>> your proposals could find some discussion at our next SCC 14 meeting >>> as a possible proposal to CCU. Publication of appropriate papers in >>> Metrologia might be beneficial to your cause as well. >>> >>> regards, >>> Jim >>> >>> Brian Leonard wrote: >>>> Dear Howard: >>>> >>>> Thank you. You are absolutely right. For a long time I've been >>>> advocating the name gali (symbol G), honouring Galileo--as he was the >>>> first ("modern physicist") to explore both the inertial and >>>> gravitational properties of mass (although, of course, he didn't >>>> speak of them in these terms). His experiments and insights were >>>> essential for Newton's laws; in fact, Galileo already had "Newton's >>>> first law." >>>> >>>> This is not some mere whim. The idea of honouring an appropriate >>>> scientist is well established. The symbol (capital) G is also >>>> appropriate. The unit gauss is no longer in use. [Some have >>>> suggested giorgi (also symbol G), honouring the founder of the "MKS" >>>> system, known for cleaning up mechanical, thermal and electrical >>>> energy concepts--I find this a bit "awkward."] I have no trouble >>>> keeping gram (symbol g) defined as (exactly) one milligali: g = >>>> mG. Here's the "delicatessen test": >>>> >>>> I would like half a gali of roast turkey and two hundred grams of >>>> Swiss cheese. [1/2 a G of roast turkey and 200 g of Swiss cheese.] >>>> >>>> Checkout scales would register in G to three decimal places--as they >>>> do now (in kg) in metric countries. Labelling would have to be >>>> precise in distinguishing between G and g--but this distinction >>>> between capital and lower-case HAS to be cleaned up anyway! >>>> >>>> This flows nicely--because in most metric countries a kilogram is >>>> referred to as a kilo ("keeloh"); and gali ("galley") is phonetically >>>> very close to this. [I don't think I could stomach half a giorgi of >>>> roast turkey.] >>>> >>>> Also, chemists are never going to give up working (and thinking and >>>> communicating) in grams and moles--see below. SI submultiple >>>> prefixes can be used--even though that's an SI "no-no"! But we have >>>> no trouble doing submultiple and supermultiple SI prefixes with >>>> liter. [An appropriate name for a cubic meter (and a square meter) >>>> is another concern.] >>>> >>>> I also have no trouble with tonne (symbol t) defined as (exactly) one >>>> kilogali: t = kG. [Pronounce it as "tunn" rather than "tonn." >>>> Other tons will drop by the wayside.] It's handy for large >>>> commercial masses. SI supermultiple prefixes can be used with >>>> this--even though that's also an SI "no-no"! >>>> >>>> Getting back to the chemists, the kilomole--renamed the avo (symbol >>>> Av), honouring Avogadro for obvious reasons--should be the BASE unit, >>>> thereby avoiding the ridiculous situation of having the amount >>>> specific mass (not "molar" mass) of, for example, carbon 12 be 0.012 >>>> kg/mol when expressed in base units. In the new base units, it would >>>> be 12 G/Av (12 gali per avo). This avoids factors of ten to the plus >>>> or minus three popping up all over the place in theoretical >>>> equations. The mole (and SI submultiple prefixes) would still be >>>> used by chemists; one mole being defined as (exactly) one milliavo: >>>> mol = mAv. >>>> >>>> By the way, dalton (Da) is used as an (accepted) alternative to >>>> "unified atomic mass unit" (u). SI units or units in use with SI >>>> should not have multi-word names (metric ton, etc); what is a ku?--a >>>> kilo-unified atomic mass unit: an atomic mass unit unified a thousand >>>> times? A kilodalton (kDa) is well defined. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Benny Leonard. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 6:57 PM, Howard Hayden wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Stan, >>>>> Gee, I thought a short ton was 2 million millipounds. This is the >>>>> problem you face when the UNIT of mass has a prefix meaning a >>>>> thousand, namely the kilogram. So, a metric ton becomes a million >>>>> millikilograms, for that is exactly the meaning of megagram. >>>>> If the SI committee wants to do something truly useful, it would be >>>>> to RENAME the kilogram so that it has no prefix. Call it the >>>>> Jakuba, the Washington, the Brenner, the FMU (French Mass unit), the >>>>> SIMU (SI Mass Unit), the Dalton, the Mach, the Einstein, the Cagey, >>>>> or SOMETHING!!! This simple naming problem has been in the works for >>>>> a half-century. Get on with it! All you've got to do is choose a >>>>> name. Why should that take decades? >>>>> Look at it this way. You're trying to get the whole world to quit >>>>> using the word /tonne/. It should be much easier to get the >>>>> standards committees to quit using the long-outdated term >>>>> /kilogram/, and instead to use a non-prefixed name. That would >>>>> remove an obnoxious exception to SI. Now that the shoe is on that >>>>> foot, just who is it that's suffering from hardening of the categories? >>>>> SI got rid of a large number of past units, among them gram-force, >>>>> kilogram-force, Gauss, Gilbert, Oersted, slugs, poundals, and >>>>> probably others, and for good reason. Why not do the right thing >>>>> and get rid of the term /kilogram/? >>>>> The Megagram is NOT unambiguous. Students are forever getting >>>>> confused about this issue. (Try teaching a bunch of students that a >>>>> megagram is a million thousandths of the unit of mass in the SI >>>>> almost-system. They'll think you're nuts, and they'll be right.) >>>>> Teaching would be much easier if the same mass were called the >>>>> kiloEinstein (or kE). >>>>> I have no sympathy whatsoever for the term /megagram/. It is NOT a >>>>> million mass units. The term /tonne/ has been in use by the French >>>>> for over two centuries, and it at least relates /directly/ to the >>>>> mass unit (1000 kg), unlike the indirectly related megagram >>>>> (1,000,000 milli-kg). >>>>> It's time for SI to clean house and get rid of that Mg abomination. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Howard >>>>> >>>>> ------------ Howard Hayden [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /The Energy Advocate/ >>>>> www.energyadvocate.com <http://www.energyadvocate.com/> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> James R. Frysinger >>> 632 Stony Point Mountain Road >>> Doyle, TN 38559-3030 >>> >>> (H) 931.657.3107 >>> (C) 931.212.0267 >>> >> >> > >-- >James R. Frysinger >632 Stony Point Mountain Road >Doyle, TN 38559-3030 > >(H) 931.657.3107 >(C) 931.212.0267 >
