Well stated Jim (Fysinger) for persons literate in science and technology! However, for the less well educated, questions of mundane units such as the liter and its symbol are more important than the definitions and realizations of the SI Base Units in terms of the numerical values of fundamental constants.
Incidentally, I owe Jim (Steele) another apology for misspelling his name a few rounds ago. Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:52:56 -0600 >From: "James R. Frysinger" <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:49079] Re: NPR story on ml dosing >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >... >My point is that the primacy of one case (upper or lower) over the other >case is a picayune point. There are larger issues on the CIPM's agenda. > >Periodically this mail list gets flooded (and thus also my inbox) by >emails worrying about the proper way to lace the dancing slippers of >those angels on the head of that pin. > >We are on the cusp of a major revision to the way the SI units are >defined and the letting go of the last of the artifacts that used to >support those definitions. > >NMIs are working feverishly to refine their techniques to close the gaps >sufficiently to permit those re-definitions. > >Major issues are being addressed by OIML and trade organizations >regarding the restriction of trade in goods not labeled in metric units. > >ISO and IEC are nearing the end of a major overhaul of the International >System of Quantities (ISQ) and that ties into the work of the CGPM and >CIPM. The ISQ is being pushed into new areas with the work in progress >on ISO/IEC 80003 series. Conceivably, someday a new SI derived unit or >two might be defined as a result of this work, as it includes >physiological units and thus might pertain to health and safety. > >Harmonization of standards is proceeding at a record pace. > >National Metrological Institutes (NMIs) are deeply involved in >comparisons of their realizations of various units and their >measurements of critical substances. > >The U.S. Congress and many U.S. agencies persist in being obstacles in >revising the FPLA to permit metric-only labeling on a voluntary basis. >Never mind the remote likelihood of mandating metric-only labeling and >usage in this country! > >Frankly, I don't care whether L precedes l or vice versa on someone's >table of units. > >Jim > >On 2010-12-08 1413, Martin Vlietstra wrote: >> One must understand the underlying reasoning. >> >> "l" is the logical symbol as there was no Mr Litre. The French have no >> problem with the letter "l" as their "1", when hand-written, looks almost >> like an upside-down "V" (with the right-hand stroke vertical). However the >> Anglo-Saxon "1", when hand-written, looks very similar to the letter "l" - >> hence the compromise. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of James R. Frysinger >> Sent: 06 December 2010 23:50 >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:49042] Re: NPR story on ml dosing >> >> Personally, I think this is much ado about an extremely small matter. >> The CIPM is currently much more involved with issues dealing with >> proposed new definitions for the SI base units, new mises en pratique, >> harmonization matters, OIML issues, and so forth. Take a look at the >> article of mine published by Metric Today this last year on the work >> that has been done at the BIPM, for instance. >> >> I know of no instances where the acceptability of either case for the >> liter symbol has caused any problems. Let's heed the old motto: "If it >> ain't broke, don't fix it." >> >> Jim >> >> On 2010-12-06 1618, [email protected] wrote: >>> John (Steel), >>> >>> Note that the French original of the BIPM Brochure on SI (8th Edition), in >> Footnote (f) of Table 6, discusses the symbol "l" first and then the symbol >> "L" secondly as an alternative. There is no mention of the preference stated >> in NIST SP 330 for use in the USA. >>> >>> Thus, the BIPM documentation is mixed, L first in Table 6, but "l" first >> in the Footnote. Which should be determinative? The Table listing L >> followed by l or the Footnote discussing l first followed by authorizing L >> as an alternative? >>> >>> It would be less confusing if the CIPM would implement its assignment to >> select one symbol or the other for global use. Older editions of the >> Brochure list l first. Edition 8 with L first is a hint that momentum >> *might* be increasing for L at the only SI symbol for liter. Who has the >> clout in the CIPM to do this? >>> >>> Gene. >>> >>> >>> ---- Original message ---- >>>> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:22:15 -0800 (PST) >>>> From: "John M. Steele"<[email protected]> >>>> Subject: [USMA:49029] Re: NPR story on ml dosing >>>> To: "U.S. Metric Association"<[email protected]> >>>> >>>> The 8th edition of the SI brochure states L first >>>> then l in table 6, but does not otherwise convey a >>>> preference. The US version NIST SP330 states a >>>> clear US preference for L. Can anybody find actual >>>> text of another national standard or law that >>>> requires l in place of L? If both are allowed in SI >>>> Brochure, it is probably fine to "prefer" one but is >>>> it legal to "forbid" the other (in either >>>> direction)? That might be "non-SI." >>>> >>>> The CIPM has a standing assignment from 1979 to >>>> submit a recommendation on eliminating one. In >>>> 1990, it was judged "too soon." I would point out >>>> that 20 years later is considerably less soon and a >>>> 30+ year old assignment might be judged "overdue." >>>> See 16th CGPM summary, resolution 6 in back of SI >>>> Brochure or SP330. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> From: "[email protected]"<[email protected]> >>>> To: U.S. Metric Association<[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 12:00:21 PM >>>> Subject: [USMA:49027] Re: NPR story on ml dosing >>>> A problem for exporters is the fact that Europeans >>>> expect to see "ml" on labels, not "mL" or "ML" and >>>> inspectors might require "ml" in the *primary* >>>> location on labels, and reject products with "mL" in >>>> the primary location. >>>> >>>> Until BIPM specifies only L for liter and not both l >>>> and L, exporters continue to have a problem. I find >>>> no evidence that the CCU or the CIPM even consider >>>> changing the order of preference in Table 6 from "l >>>> and L" to "L and l." >>>> ... >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >-- >James R. Frysinger >632 Stony Point Mountain Road >Doyle, TN 38559-3030 > >(C) 931.212.0267 >(H) 931.657.3107 >(F) 931.657.3108 >
