Here are two answers for why to buy IEEE/ASTM SI-10 when BIPM is free. 1. To spell meter etc., the BIPM uses the spelling re, which is unacceptable in edited American English. I mention this, realizing that some readers in this group are livid that metricians in the USA persist in opening our eggs at the small end. But there it is, one answer. 2. Many ASTM and IEEE standards - and so (we hope) many industry contracts - specify use of IEEE/ASTM SI-10. For many purposes in the USA, it can achieve regulatory force in a way that BIPM does not. It would be nice to download IEEE/ASTM SI-10 for free.
I am not making a recommendation here, just answering a question. My original question, asking for the latest edition, was bibliographic. From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> Reply-To: <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:04:56 -0700 (PDT) To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:44717] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10 Why pay for a publication from the ANSI when the same information is available for free from the BIPM. http://www.bipm.org/en/si/ Jerry From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:01:31 PM Subject: [USMA:44688] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10 Latest edition is 2002. Here is a link to it at ANSI: http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=SI10-2002 That edition corresponds to 7th edition of SI Brochure. I understand it is currently being revised to latest edition of SI Brochure and NIST SP 330. I don't know the schedule, or the extent of revisions. . --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Patrick Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Patrick Moore <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:44687] IEEE/ASTM SI-10 > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 11:29 AM > > What is the latest publication year/edition of IEEE/ASTM SI-10, "Standard for > the Use of the International System of Units (SI): The Modern Metric System"? > It is difficult to find it in the ASTM catalog or website or the IEEE site: > many documents reference it but the standard itself does not come up, for me > anyway. Thanks.
