Stan, When you write that the *kilogram.meter* is perfectly fine as a unit of energy, your are in fact writing in a language that is *outside* SI.
Can it be that you are still unable to discard the habits of your "engineering education" in Europe where the kilogram was taught as a unit of force? One kilogram-force (kgf) = 9.80665 newton *exactly* by definition. (See Page 51 of NIST SP 811, 2008 Edition.) Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:54:16 -0400 >From: Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Some Fundamentals of SI >To: [email protected] >Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Gene: > Am I speaking in a language "out of this world?" > Gosh, Gene I met you several times, first some 30 > years ago. From all those contact and my years of > writing about SI, you formed an opinion "that Stan > Jakuba is not persuaded that SI is superior > ..." Well, I see that I had preached to the tens of > thousand people in my lectures about the advantages > of SI, but it was all a lie. Thanks Gene. :-) By > the way, your summary about the kg·m can be found > in my 1993 book on page 48 and others. > Cheers, > Stan > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:29 AM, > <[email protected]> wrote: > > In SI: > > 1. The "first moment of mass" has the unit > *kilogram.meter*. > 2. The "second moment of mass" or "moment of > inertia" has the unit *kilogram.meter squared*. > 3. The "unit of force" has the unit > *kilogram.meter per second squared* which is given > the special name *newton*. > 4. The "unit of energy" has the unit > *newton.meter* which is given the special name > *joule*. > > In SI, the *kilogram.meter* is NOT a unit of > energy. > > I regret that Stan Jakuba is not persuaded that SI > is superior to all other previous and antiquated > systems of units of measurement. > > Gene Mechtly. > > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:39:20 -0400 > >From: Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: [USMA:48372] RE: Air-conditioning > >To: [email protected] > >Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" > <[email protected]> > >... > > The kg·me is perfectly fine in the context > of the > > ".... thousands of energy units..." of which > most > > are of course obsolete and/or bad in other > ways. The > > kg·m in particular, is still happily used in > many > > places world over by the old timers. > > Two centuries of books and specs have it, > usually as a unit of > > work which we know is a form of energy. > > ... > > Stan Jakuba > > ...
