Ok by me, if Bill were inclined to adopt the idea. Jim Elwell
At 2/17/2003, 06:23 PM, kilopascal wrote:
2003-02-17 Instead of "precise" and "typical, what about "actual" and "practical"? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 2003-02-17 10:18 Subject: [USMA:24876] RE: Definitions of US non-metric units > At 2/16/2003, 02:51 PM, Bill Potts wrote: > >Dennis Brownridge and I have anticipated that very need, Terry. > > > >Just go to http://metric1.org/nonsi.htm. > > > >Bill Potts, CMS > >Roseville, CA > >http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > Bill: > > As always, there is more to your website than I realized. I've bookmarked > this non-metric-unit conversion page for reference, and will be referring > my (captive) students to it. > > However, I'm puzzled by the widely varying precision in the conversion > factors. You say that precision is shown as "appropriate," but I can't see > why cubic foot deserves 8 significant digits while gallon gets only 4. > Fluid ounce gets 5, cup gets 3 (or 2). > > I would suggest two columns: "precise" (with maybe six digits for > everything) and "typical" (rounded as appropriate). That way I can have a > "cup" as 240 mL for typical use, or 236.59 mL if I want the more precise value. > > Actually cup illustrates the problem: there are some listserver members who > would suggest it should be rounded to 250 for typical use, not 240, but if > only the rounded value is shown, it makes it difficult for the user to > round as appropriate to their use. > > > Jim Elwell, CAMS > Electrical Engineer > Industrial manufacturing manager > Salt Lake City, Utah, USA > www.qsicorp.com >
