Gene Mechtly wrote: >Ton = 1 000 kg is a well established definition of ton in most >countries (spelling variations aside), and is more explicitly related >to the SI base unit of mass, kilogram, than is megagram. > >The Mg is unnecessary and is more of a deviation from coherent SI.
I don't understand. Despite the kilogram being the base unit, the names are manipulated as if the base unit were the gram. Part of the true SI sequence for mass is: pg picogram ng nanogram �g microgram mg milligram g gram kg kilogram Mg megagram Gg gigagram The tonne is a table 6 unit and is therefore non-SI but 'accepted for use'. So it is acceptable to have: �t microtonne mt millitonne t tonne kt kilotonne Mt megatonne Gt gigatonne I have seen tonne and larger multiples such as kilotonne. However, I do not regard these as anything other than commonly used non-SI anomalies. Are you suggesting that the normal SI prefixes should not apply for mass?
