kPa, First, the so-called "conversion factors" are in reality the *definitions* of non-SI units, definitions of units which are "outside the SI." They do not scare anyone who has even only an introductory understanding of SI!
Second, the blog you cite, which adulterates the process of "metrication" as "metrification" with the "if" was obviously not written by a professional in NIST, although the conclusion of the need for the transition to SI is accurately stated. Eugene Mechtly ________________________________ From: Kilopascal [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:45 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board. | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network The old question that asks: With friends like this who needs enemies, sure applies here. First the NIST comes up with conversion factors between USC and SI that will scare anyone away from SI, but now they have the ignorance to call metrication as metrIFication. There is no IF in metrication. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/08/20/you-know-what-the-rest-of-the-world-has-figured-out-the-metric-system-its-time-the-us-got-on-board/ The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the government arm that sets standards and measurements to support American competitiveness, concludes that “the current effort toward national metrification is based on the conclusion that industrial and commercial productivity, mathematics and science education, and the competitiveness of American products and services in world markets, will be enhanced by completing the change to the metric system of units. Failure to complete the change will increasingly handicap the Nation’s industry and economy.”
