On Feb 23 , at 1:50 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> What phrase have you proposed to the CCU to replace the misleading words "New
> SI"?
>
> I suggest "Making SI More Precise" or "SI Becoming More Precise" or "Coming
> Greater Precision of SI" or "SI to become More Precise" to replace "New SI"
> which we agree is an improvement of SI *not* a New SI.
>
> Gene.
>
I consider SI to be primarily the way in which the units are related,
including the prefixed units, and the standardization of how they are used
(symbols, etc.).
Improving the precision of basic measurements is a small, technical aspect
of it that is vital, but small in the importance it has for everyday users. The
average person needs to know things like "1000 g = 1 kg", how to weigh meat on
a kilogram scale, the fact that a litre of water has a mass of about a
kilogram, etc. Few people will need to know the number of silicon atoms there
are in a kilogram of silicon (or how the reading on a watt balance tells you
the number of kilograms in a sample).
I'd rather see that the changes that are proposed are not referred to as
changes/adjustments/improvements/"new" at all. After all, since the inch, the
pound, etc. are all based on SI, these proposed changes are improving Ye Olde
English Mixture of units simultaneously and just as much as they are improving
SI units.
It is the fundamental way in which ALL units are derived that is being
changed (improved).
So call it anything, but not "SI". Call it "New Standards of Measurement"
and emphasize that it will improve the precision of the pound as much as the
kilogram. The good old SI is still the good old SI and nothing is changing
except the technical precision of the basic measurements.
Bill Hooper
74 kg body mass*
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
* plus or minus a kilogram or
so, regardless of how the technical
definitions are modified, and
even whether I state my mass and
its variability in kilograms or pounds.
