Today, UPS delivered a printed copy of "Physical Science Concepts in Action"
(2009 Edition) from Textbooks.com.
Not only the section on Measurement, but the entire Text uses SI exclusively.
The section on Measuring Temperature does, however, discuss three temperature
scales Celsius, Kelvin, and
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 "metricat
The American collection of measurements is so random that nobody can
even agree on what to name it.
David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917
- Message from roberthb...@comcast.net -
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:33:10 -0600
From: "Robert H. Bushnell"
Reply-To: roberthb...@c
But SI should become customary.
Robert Bushnell
On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Natalia Permiakova wrote:
> i think "US Customary" is better than "Imperial"
>
> so, I like any of the options:
>
> US Customary and Metric
> or
> US Customary and Standard (too good to be true to se
i think "US Customary" is better than "Imperial"
so, I like any of the options:
US Customary and Metric
or
US Customary and Standard (too good to be true to see it today on usps.com, in
reverse order - event better)
or
US Customary and The Rest of The World ( ;-) )
_
Our friend Pat Naughtin referred to non-SI units as "pre-metric" units.
Paul Trusten, Registered Pharmacist
Vice President and Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
Midland, Texas, USA
+1(432)528-7724
www.metric.org
trus...@grandecom.net
On Aug 21, 2013, at 13:18, "mechtly, e
. . . The point is not to convert, but to internalize. . .
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/
David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917
Since the US system is unique, it needs a unique name. NIST uses the term,
U.S. Customary, so we ought to use it.
Seems to me that inch-pound is a rather generic term for any system that uses
inches and pounds. It could be applied as a "catch-all" to describe
commonality of US Customary, Imp
There is another document somewhere (no clue where to look) in which NIST
admits they don't know the origin of the term and indicate two possibilities:
*One is the sense of usual or customary
*The second is that originally, weights & measures were part of Customs, which
was part of Treasury, coll
Martin
"inch-pound" does not name a complete, coherent and well defined measurement
"system" as you observe.
"inch-pound" is at best a "non-system." Discard the name "inch-pound."
The name "Imperial" units of measurement includes definitions which differ from
US definitions, as you also note.
Thank you for that. I didn't realize that NIST used the term officially.
I find that in 5.3.2 of NIST Special Publication 811 (Guide): The
following statement occurs: "There are many units besides CGS units that
are outside the SI and not accepted for use with it, including, of course,
all
Concerning Metric Pioneer's recent correspondence, I've always had a
problem with what to call the U.S. measurements.
Officially, the term "inch-pound" has been used. I don't care for that
because it does not indicate clearly a measurement system. Moreover, it
singles out only two measuremen
Dear Post Office.
1. The Metric System is the only legal measurement system in the
United States, made legal by the Metric Act of 1866. Imperial
measurement were never legalized in the United States.
2. Hawaii has embarked on a course that could make Hawaii metric only
by 2018 (see HB 36).
3
14 matches
Mail list logo
