Eugene. It is just a regular weight scale from Europe, so I am at a
loss as to how to answer your question about newtons.
Price and
shipping details are available at MetricPioneer.com
Shipping is free
this month. I ship via United States Postal Service.
>
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)� = 21.4 kg/m� (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.
>>
>
