Gene Mechtly wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, James R. Frysinger wrote:
>
> > You must be working from a different copy of the SI brochure than I am,
> > Gene. I'm using the 7th edition (1998) and Supplement 2000...
> You caught me in another hasty act, Jim.
> The most I can say is that acceptance of minute, hour, and day
> in Table 6 implies acceptance of year, and the discussions in SP 811 and
> by ISO, which you mentioned, support acceptance of "year" with SI.
There must be a step in your syllogism that I have missed, Gene. ;-)
What you say in your first sentence is like saying that the listing of
the barn in Table 8 gives the fermi similar status. And the derivative
works in your second sentence are, well, secondary and not accepted in
toto by the CGPM. The SI brochure takes precedence over them.
I infer that the very acceptance of the day, hour, and minute and the
omission of the week, month, and year represent a conscious decision not
to include the latter, not an oversight.
> > When you're ready to give up the week, month, and year, Gene, I'll be
> > ready to give up the hectare.
> That is not a balanced trade, Jim. The non-SI units of time,
> (including "year"), have a higher status, all three documents considered,
> than the deprecated units in Table 8, including hectare. No dice!
But only one of those three documents -- the brochure -- defines the
SI. The conscious omission of month, day, and year from Table 6 gives
them a lower status than the overt listing of hectare in Table 8. The
hectare is at least a minor actor listed in the credits; the shunned
units of time at best might be likened to unlisted "extras". If the CGPM
wanted those three time units included, but not in Table 6, they could
have put them in a "lower" table.
More seriously, the month and year will never become accepted with the
SI, I would bet, because they are rather vague units. At best, the CGPM
would have to define its own metric year and metric month. I don't know
why they didn't include the week; I suppose that was merely because the
need for it was not significant.
Thanks for the repartee, Gene. But the new work week -- oops -- several
contiguous work days are at hand.
Jim
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
