Well, there is space between: *Ye Olde English units pulled from what annuls of history *Continuing to use a reasoned decion of CGPM *Throwing the baby out with the bath water and significantly reinventing SI usage.
I'd prefer to hover around the middle alternative. I don't see much problem with existing guidance from the SI Brochure. I'm not the world's greatest wordsmith and don't want to the write the words, but *Kelvin and degree Celsius are fine for actual temperatures, with the understanding of a 273.15 K offset. *While either kelvins or degress Celsius are currently allowed for temperature differences (and the issue is mostly calculations), perhaps it would be better to only allow kelvins Your "above freezing" redefines the offset needlessly. Further, freezing is NOT 0 °C, but a tiny (pressure dependent) bit more. The offset in any case is defined by the triple point of water, not the freezing or melting point. (by the way, if anything, you should change to melting point, water may be supercooled and not freeze until well below 0 °C, but it melts at about 0.0025 °C. I grant you that few of us measure this precisely, but it is a subtle shift to solve a non-problem. ________________________________ From: Bill Hooper <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 4:31:44 PM Subject: [USMA:48452] Re: kelvin On Sep 1 , at 2:55 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > On the guidance below , John Steele and I (and perhaps Jim Frysinger) are in >full agreement: > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:42:29 -0700 (PDT) >> From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]> >> ... >> Lets stick with kelvins for absolute temperature and >> degrees Celsius for relative. It works, it has lots >> of precedence, and the symbols are well understood. >> ... I won't promote the use of kelvins for Celsius degrees any more since it is falling on deaf ears anyhow. But I can't help responding to the argument agains my ideas as stated above. Your arguments are (and I quote): "Let's stick with (the old)". "It works." "It has lot of precedence." "The symbols are well understood." All these arguments have also been used to argue in favor of Ye Olde English units and against the introduction of SI. Every one of them merely say "I want to keep what's familiar." That's the poorest reason in the world to keep Olde English units over SI metric ones, and it's the poorest reason to dismiss without thought the suggestions I've made. Regards, Bill
