MetricPioneer, What is your price for a kilogram-only mass scale? (In SI kilogram is "mass" and "weight" is force, newtons) Is shipping free? How do you ship?
Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 11:43 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:52307] Re: The Metric System, the United States of America, and Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed When my wife and I were in la France last summer, we bought several weight scales (kilograms only) along with metric-only tape measures and thermometers. The scales are not digital, so no batteries are needed. We have six left for sale on MetricPioneer.com just in case anyone is interested. David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917 http://metricpioneer.com/shop/weight-scale > In my case, I have a digital scale. The switch on the back is set to > “kg”, > so when I step on it, the display is in kg. > > > > The last time I was at the doctor, they had new scales that could be set > to > either lb or kg, and a height measuring device that had both in and cm > scales. The doctors are “old school” and put your weight into their > computer in lb. (The computer then converts it.) So that’s how I know my > height. My height does not vary significantly, and the accuracy cannot be > determined to millimeter precision. > > > > I have not converted either measure in many years. > > > > With regard to spelling, sorry, both are right. In the USA it’s meter, > theater, center. In Canada and the UK it’s metre, theatre, centre. It’s > a > regionalism, NOT an error. “Milliard” is also a confusion as there is a > logical progression with million, billion, trillion, quadrillion. To me, > “milliard” is like saying “millimeter, centimeter, decimeter, meter” > rather > than “millimeter, meter”. > > > > What is wrong is not using “meter” for “metre”. What IS wrong is using > “inch”, “foot”, “yard”, “mile”, etc., instead of “meter” or “metre” or > whatever. > > > > Carleton > > > > > > > > From: Kilopascal [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 23:48 > To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:52303] Re: The Metric System, the United States of America, > and Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed > > > > I was curious, so I posted a comment asking if the height and weight given > came about by measurement or conversion. Here is what I said: > > You said: “Here’s a quick quiz: I weigh 71 kilograms, and am about 1.82 > meters tall.” > > How did you come about those values? By actual measurement or conversion? > If > by conversion, tray an actual measurement in metric and report it back > here. > It would be interesting to see if there is a difference as the USC > measurement could be in error due to bias, over rounding or guesswork. > Conversions could also introduce some errors for the same reason. > > Another point, it is not necessary to spell out the words when using SI, > simply use the standardized symbols. Thus you will have a mass of 71 kg > and > a height of 1.82 m or 182 cm. By using symbols, you avoid using the > incorrect spelling for metre. Metre is a unit and meter is a device to > measure with. > > It just seemed that a height of 1.82 m was just a conversion of 6 ft and a > height of exactly 6 ft may be biased as an easy number to remember. I > would > be curious to know what results he gets my actually measuring in metric > instead of just converting. > > > > > [USMA:52303] Re: The Metric System, the United States of America, and > Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed > <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22%5BUSM > A%3A52303%5D+Re%3A+The+Metric+System%2C+the+United+States+of+America%2C+and+ > Scientific+Literacy+%7C+Sci-Ed%22> > > > John M. Steele > <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22John+M.+S > teele%22> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:32:39 -0800 > <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20130202> > > I agree either 182 cm or 1.82 m is equally valid. The 1.82 m form has the > advantage that it is directly usable in BMI calculation: > 71 kg/(1.82 m)² = 21.4 kg/m² (he's pretty skinny). > Some would argue centimeters should be discouraged (I don't particularly > agree). For a human height, I would prefer either to 1820 mm, but I would > use > 1820 (without units) on an engineering drawing. >
