A third meaning of "IPSI" unit is:
"Inch Pound SI" unit, since both the inch and the pound are *defined* as exact
numerical multiples of SI values. That is:
The IPSI unit "inch" is, by definition, exactly equal to 25.4 mm.
The IPSI unit "pound" is, by definition, exactly equal to 0.453 592 7 kg.
The Foundation of STEM is SI.
EAM.
--- Begin Message ---
Bob and Tim,
I propose the following *replacement* for both; the older usage by NIST of the
term US Customary (USC), and the term 'Inch-pound' used in the current FPLA.
We all know that the new "USC" should *become* SI by definition and practice,
and "inch-pound" units should be *deleted* entirely from the amended FPLA!
The newly coined acronym; IPSI unit, in polite form means;
1. "Incoherent Precursor of SI" unit, or in derogatory form, means;
2. "Incoherent Perverse SI" unit. e.g. The IPSI unit "inch" (= 25.4 mm exactly
by *definition*) is deprecated. The IPSI unit "pound" (= 0.453 592 7 kg exactly
by *definition*) is deprecated.
Gene.
The Foundation of STEM is SI!
--- Begin Message ---
2011 March 19
Tim,
I do not use the words English, imperial and USC to refer to the set
of units used in the USA. I always say inch-pound.
USC comes from United States Customary. Well, we have a law which
says SI is our set of units. So, SI should be "customary". To say our
inch-pound units are "customary" damages the logic that we should change
to SI. A change away from "customary" units is hard to sell.
Let us make SI customary.
Robert Bushnell
--------------------------------------------
On Mar 19, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Tim Williamson wrote:
Hi all,
Our goal is to encourage the metrication of our country. Whatever
our differences may be regarding specific 'words' or even specific
names, and to some extent even the meaning of the 'words' in
question, is superseded by the goal of bringing the USA into the
modern world where trade, commerce, science and technology is
dominated by the use of SI metric units domestically and
worldwide. In relation to the goal of directed metrication of the
our country, spelling takes a second seat. Let's get the country
metricated, then we'll work out the details.
However, nuances and connotations of words are important. The
subtle meaning of a word can determine the speed and degree of the
successful accomplishment of our overall goal. For instance, when
discussing labeling or dual-labeling requirements, it is common to
use these descriptors - metric/English, English/metric, or metric
only. What is wrong with this? For us these descriptors are clear
and easily understood as referring to units used. But to most
people in the USA, English means language, which equals national
identity, which in turn means American...., whereas, by the
linkage of one to the other, the word before or after 'English' is
'obviously' foreign. Thus the whole concept becomes suspect and
unwanted. How do we unlink the linkage of the word 'English' to be
synonymous with 'American' when discussing things metric?
On closer examination, using the word 'English' in conjunction with
dual-labeling descriptors is very imprecise, and may very well be
part of the reason why the USA has been slow to metricate.
'English' is not a measurement system. It's who we are. It is
America. All else is foreign. These are the nuances and
connotations of the word in the hearts and minds of most
Americans. So what can be used in its place in our labeling
descriptors?
The USA uses USC, which is derived from Imperial measurements. Why
not, from now on, we use the following, the connotations are far
different - metric/imperial, imperial/metric, metric only. Yes!
There will be those of you who will say that Imperial is quite
different from USC, and you would be correct. However, the word
'English' is much less correct than 'Imperial' when used in terms
of labeling, and the nuances are much more ingrained in our
national psyche as being anti-American.
Just a thought!
--
Thanks!
Tim Williamson
Alabama, USA
1-205-765-6090
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
