There is a support for
da or D for deca,
h or H for hecto, and 
k or K for kilo, for at least a trial period,

Why not they give a lower case English letter for
micro instead of "�".  This will complete the cycle
with
upper case letters for more than 1 and lower case
letters for less than 1.

Since "m" is given for milli,  the next letter in
micro - "i" can be given for it.

But please do not bring these new developments to USA
as they are still in transition and any change may
lead to confusion.  Already the KM is interpreted here
as kilo miles instead of kilometers.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:06:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Gene Mechtly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Barry N. Taylor, U.S.Rep., CCU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ian M. Mills, President, CCU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
    "Terry J. Quinn, Director, BIPM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Symbols for SI Prefixes

Dear Barry,

        Considerable support is being expressed again by me and my
associates for CCU approval of *both* alternative symbols in three
instances:
                da or D for deca,
                h or H for hecto, and 
                k or K for kilo, for at least a trial period,

        Subsequent approvals by the CIPM and the CGPM would enable
the option of *all* upper case symbols for multiples greater than one.
This improvement would greatly enhance the appeal of SI to students.

        The president for alternative symbols is l or L for liter,
Both of these symbols are currently approved for a trial period.

        Furthermore, Council Directive 80/181/EEC of the European Union
*replaces* k by K for kilo, and *replaces* h by H for hecto.
        The question of D replacing da, or approval of both da and D as
alternatives is not addressed by CD 80/181/EEC.

        Please seek approval of da or D, h or H, and k or K, at least
for a trial period, at the CCU meeting in 2001 April 19 and 20.

        Who objected to this proposal at the CCU meeting in 1998 and why?

Sincerely,

Eugene A. (Gene) Mechtly, College of Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (uiuc)

cc: U.S. Metric Association


Reply via email to