Isn't there something wrong about ifp? At least cgs and mks referred to length, mass and time, the 3 original fundamentals of nature. Your ifp seems to double up on the length and omits the time factor. Is that a mistake or was that intended? I would think intended to show that even by name FFU is confused.
Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2004-02-13 16:34 Subject: [USMA:28662] Re: FFU > I prefer ifp...inch foot pound. > It's not barbed at all...nor as contrived as WOMBAT. > Straightforward. > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From: "john mercer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:22:07 -0800 > Subject: [USMA:28661] FFU > > > This message is for Gavin. Gavin FFU is a term we use for imperial > > measurements whether they be lenth or volume or mass. FFU stands > > for Fred Flintstone Units. > ------- End of Original Message ------- > >
