We can't even agree on how to spell it!  :)
 
Actually, FHWA was pushing metric pretty hard when Congress prohibited it (ca 
1995) from forcing metric on the States.  Theoretically, it could happen state 
by state if individual states chose to accept it.  However, the fact is that 
FHWA and DOT have given up and removed all the metric messages from MUTCD and 
SHS and moved metric dimensions (for the physical sign blank) to an appendix.  
Congress speaks with forked tongue as this is NOT how you would treat the 
preferred system of weights and measures.  "Direction" provided by Congress is 
much like the motion of a rudder-less ship.
 
Given that all the examples and specifications for metric sign messages have 
been deleted (effective 2009 edition), I am unclear whether a new 
metric-message sign is even legal in the United States anymore.  Nothing says 
it is illegal, but no guidance is given either.  I think if it is not in MUTCD, 
it may be necessary to seek Federal approval for a proposed sign.

--- On Sat, 3/17/12, Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:51532] RE: millibar depreciated
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012, 4:26 AM







In contrast, the UK uses yards, not feet for distances.  Why can’t both nations 
agree on a single, neutral unit.  How about the metre (or meter)?
 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
John M. Steele
Sent: 09 March 2012 01:31
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:51502] RE: millibar depreciated
  





Golf and (American) football are exceptions where yards are used.  Yards are 
not permitted on road signs.  Distances less than 1/4 mile are usually feet,  
occasionally tenths of mile, but not yards.  The MUTCD does not contain the 
word yard (or symbol yd).

 

My dental floss is 40 m / 43.7 YD.

--- On Thu, 3/8/12, Michael Payne <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Michael Payne <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:51501] RE: millibar depreciated
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, March 8, 2012, 7:02 PM 


It's been my impression that the use of yards is almost always in association 
with something that is really meters and all they do is change the word and the 
distance is yards. i.e. The other person was 500 m away becomes 500 yards away. 
Domestically in the US the measurement is feet. 

 

Mike

 


On 08/03/2012, at 01:47 , Zach Rodriguez wrote:



Canada does use kilopascals, as seen here: 
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/caon0512 — but Australia uses 
hectopascals, as seen 
here: http://www.weatherchannel.com.au/australian-forecasts/act/sth-tablelands/canberra
 

 

Canada, in my experience (which may be incorrect), seems to be the only country 
to use kilopascals in meteorology.

 

What I've noticed is that, here in the States, again speaking from personal 
experience, regular atmospheric pressures are given in inches of mercury (often 
just stated as "inches", which drives me even further up the wall), but the 
pressures of tropical storms and hurricanes are given in millibars. No 
conversion to inches of mercury is given, nor are millibars talked about as if 
they're unusual.

 

If one switches Weather.com into metric, the pressures are unfortunately 
displayed in millibars. (It seems BBC Weather also uses millibars — 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2643743 ) Why can't they just switch to 
hectopascals for all pressures?

 

 

 

Zach Rodriguez

 

(Semi-related side notes: more and more often, I've been hearing people talk 
about distance—usually a range of distances—in yards, sadly, in 
non-sports-related contexts, where, often, yards dominate usage of feet. 
Because a range is usually given, or stated as "about __ yards", it would be 
incredibly easy to replace yards with metres, but, alas, it is not usually 
done.)

 

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 14:36, <[email protected]> wrote:
Canada has settled on the kPa. I think Australia has done the same. Why would 
you not do the same?

John F-L

-----Original Message----- From: Hillger, Don
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 8:23 PM
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:51493] RE: millibar depreciated 



 
>From the World Meteorological Organization:

3.1.2 Units and scales
The basic unit for atmospheric pressure measurements is the pascal (Pa) (or 
newton per square metre). It is accepted practice to add the prefix "hecto" to 
this unit when reporting pressure for meteorological purposes, making the 
hectopascal (hPa), equal to 100 Pa, the preferred terminology. This is largely 
because one hectopascal equals one millibar (mbar), the formerly used unit.

The scales of all barometers used for meteorological purposes should be 
graduated in hPa. Some barometers are graduated in "millimetres or inches of 
mercury under standard conditions", (mm Hg)n and (in Hg)n, respectively. When 
it is clear from the context that standard conditions are implied, the briefer 
terms "millimetre of mercury" or "inch of mercury" may be used. Under these 
standard conditions, a column of mercury having a true scale height of 760 (mm 
Hg)n exerts a pressure of
1 013.250 hPa.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Michael Payne
Sent: Wednesday, 07 March 2012 12:36
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:51491] millibar depreciated

I'm trying to get my company to replace millibar with hectopascal in company 
manuals and was looking for an authoritative source that states this. Anyone 
have an idea? I was under the impression that millibar was depreciated. In my 
travels as a pilot worldwide it seems the pressure stated most outside north 
America is hectopascals for atmospheric pressure, mainly because it's the same 
as a millibar.

I do have http://www.unitconversion.org/pressure/bar-conversion.html, but would 
prefer a website with more authority, a government or educational website would 
be best.. Wikipedia does not seem to have this included, with good sources I'd 
include it.

Regards,

Michael Payne



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4856 - Release Date: 03/07/12 
 

 

Reply via email to