Thanks, Gene, for sharing this with us (once again...). Yes, I do remember having read this. At the time I did not bother elaborating or analyzing this response. However, now in view of our last discussions involving changes to SI I DO have some comments to make.
It really seems to me that our friends at CCU, BIPM, wherever... are missing the point. History appears to show unquestionably that not much thought has been given to definitional structuring of the SI system. This kind of response only reinforces that assessment. I guess (and hope) that everybody has some idea on how the SI system "evolved" from its beginning to its current status. Throughout this (what I consider to be) "painful" process things evolved in a very ad-hoc basis. Units were created in accordance with how technology and human knowledge developed and things were defined as the need emerged. So far so good, but now that we seem to have reached some core body of units, it SHOULD be about time that we gave more thought towards structuring of this thing. IMHO far from being "tinkering" with SI it would actually be paramount that this aspect be addressed. Besides, until we fixed the issue of building a system that was "coherent" (among other things), we had all sorts of framework models fluctuating out there. CGS, MKS, MKSA and whatever else there was. What we now need is a better direction of how we should proceed into the future and hammering these all-important definitional aspects MUST be given due consideration and even priority! Therefore, I'd like to inquire with Gene about the possibility of his using his strong contacts with these folks to present a proposal to them that would *finally* require them to spend some time in the next little while (hopefully in the next year or two) on frameworking/modeling. In such proposal we should include the following fundamentally important aspects: 1. A policy for rigorous name derivation/definition/creation that would stipulate how to proceed when new developments emerge. Things like naming units after scientists, Greek/Latin use for prefixes, whatever. 2. A policy for consistency in such aspects that SHOULD include capital letters for positive powers of 10 and small letters for negative powers of 10. 3. A policy that no new hypothetical base (fundamental) unit would EVER include prefixes therein, since this would hurt a fundamental principle in the framework. As a corollary of this the kilogram unit SHOULD be renamed to bring it in line with this modification. 4. A policy that would give consistency to new namings of ratios. 5. A policy that would give consistency to definition of units that would NOT allow for the use of other base units as necessary, except in indirect context like it's done with the ampere, candela, etc. There, Gene, please consider this as an official proposal to be presented to them. If you care to include any other thoughts into this proposal that would deal with *frameworking/modelling*, please be my guest, my dear friend (and, evidently, please, do not forget to share them with us. I'd personally be very interested in whatever else contribution you can come up with. This observation also serves for Jim, whose opinion and insight I highly value). In essence then, I really believe we should not stop at just coming to grips with things like coherence, we definitely should go deeper into the very fabric of a system of units infrastructure building. Marcus On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:38:58 Gene Mechtly wrote: >Here is the rejection notification that Jim Frysinger mentioned >on the proposal for more logical options for SI symbols da, h, and k. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 14:44:55 +0100 >From: Ian Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Gene Mechtly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >"Martin, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Symbols for SI Prefixes > >Dear Gene, > >... I can tell you that we did discuss the prefix symbols for da, h, and >k, and considered allowing as an alternative D, H, and K. > >I was personally sympathetic to this proposal (as I was when we discussed >it previously). However it was decided to make no changes to the present >prefix symbols. > >The reason is that the members of the CCU are chary of making any changes >to the SI that are not essential. The CCU sees many proposals for small >changes to the system, analogous to this one, which might be described as >"tinkering with the SI". > >It forsees confusion which might result if we start tinkering, even though >the case for any one of these changes may seem good. This particular >proposal was discussed carefully, and we seemed to be reaching no real >conclusion, until someone proposed that we should make no change. That >proposal was at once given a warm reception, and we decided with no >dissenting voices to make no change. > >Sorry about that! ... > >There were many other things discussed. I am sure you would get a copy >of the minutes (when they are available) by writing to Peter Martin at the >BIPM and asking for a copy; he is the Executive Secretary of the CCU. > >Best wishes, Ian Mills >....................... >Gene Mechtly wrote: > >> Dear Ian, >> >> Are the minutes of the CCU meetings on April 19 and 20 now >> availably? If so, how can they be accessed? >> >> If not, what was the decision on the proposal to add alternative >> upper case prefix symbols for multiples greater than one? >> >> Who supported the proposal, and who opposed the proposal >> (if anyone and for what reasons)? >..................................... >Ian Mills >President of the CCU of the BIPM >Department of Chemistry >University of Reading >Reading RG6 6AD U.K. >phone: +44 (0)118 931 8456 >fax: +44 (0)118 931 1610 >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >web: http://www.chem.rdg.ac.uk//dept/staff/phys/imm.html > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
