Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

Thanks for publishing my letter.

My compliments and gratitude for the predominant use of SI units in the May 
issue articles. I was looking forward to reading this "energy issue." However, 
reading the "Hydrogen Horizon" I found myself 15 years back - all that material 
had been published and discussed in the 1990s, including the "latest" 
technology. Without any quantitative evaluation, I wonder if anyone learned 
much. The "Renewable Sea Power" provided a well written overview of that 
technology with sufficient quantitative support, all in SI units. It could have 
been improved had the proofreaders caught the minor SI problems such as the 
missing space in 4.15kW and 241m, use of 379 kL instead of 380 m³, switching 
between using symbols and names for no apparent reason, and "insulting" ME 
readers by showing that 240 MW is 240,000 kW (which it is not; 240 000 kW is 
correct).

I am sure the pro-metric community appreciate the progress ME made in helping 
our engineers becoming more comfortable with numbers in SI. Your having not 
included the inch-pound values with the metric values is crucial in the 
learning process.

Stan Jakuba

Reply via email to