** Caution: EXTERNAL Sender ** In significant figures, 6 kg means between 5.5 and 6.5, 6.0 kg means between 5.95 kg and 6.05 kg, at least to any kind of STEM major. However, it is true that convention is NOT followed in net contents declarations, where "frivolous" zeroes are discouraged. As always, context matters.
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024, 14:17 Metricmike <metricmik...@gmail.com<mailto:metricmik...@gmail.com>> wrote: ** Caution: EXTERNAL Sender ** I would agree with your rationale generally except for the 6.0 kg. If it were 6,1 maybe but I've not seen pounds with a decimal. Unless of course they use ounces as well. Mike Payne On 15/09/2024 18:54, John Steele wrote: I question the merits of an extensive debate over 3.2 cm vs 32 mm, and whether they are "different." The SI Brochure is silent on the issue of whether centimeters are bad (and in fact uses them in the document). Some people like them, some people hate them. As an engineer, I would 100% write 32 mm; however, that is because of the extensive use in engineering drawings of millimeters (without the unit written) and the general note "all dimensions in millimeters unless noted." I recognize that as my personal preference (and the preference of my profession). I, personally, would only consider use of centimeters if an integer value suffices (height, clothing size, etc) On the other point, conversion of 13 ¼ lb should be 6.0 kg, not 6 kg which is a significant reduction in precision vs the contemporaneous report (nearly 200 years ago). But worrying about precision in a nearly 200 year old accident report is like "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin" or "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." Finally, assuming the tamping rod was measured to 43" length with reasonable precision, 1.09 m or 109 cm might be a better conversion, although 1.1 m is not unreasonable. If the precision is ½"or better, I would round to the centimeter and then decide how to express it. On Sunday, September 15, 2024 at 10:32:02 AM EDT, Metricmike <metricmik...@gmail.com><mailto:metricmik...@gmail.com> wrote: ** Caution: EXTERNAL Sender ** Came across this discussion. What are the feeling of the USMA community? https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTalk%3APhineas_Gage%23Dimensions&data=05%7C02%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C73828881d8c14ca88e4a08dcd5bc4afe%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C638620252263482997%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FnudsFrm8ZiItJmBfAcfIfCEVwji6tE8IRDRUqVYnE0%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTalk%3APhineas_Gage%23Dimensions&data=05%7C02%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7C73828881d8c14ca88e4a08dcd5bc4afe%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C638620252263482997%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FnudsFrm8ZiItJmBfAcfIfCEVwji6tE8IRDRUqVYnE0%3D&reserved=0> Mike Payne _______________________________________________ USMA mailing list USMA@lists.colostate.edu<mailto:USMA@lists.colostate.edu> https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma _______________________________________________ USMA mailing list USMA@lists.colostate.edu<mailto:USMA@lists.colostate.edu> https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma
_______________________________________________ USMA mailing list USMA@lists.colostate.edu https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma
