Stan, Howards & all, sirs:
>While changing the definition, I wish we would also change the name 
>and>symbol. The presence of the kilo, normally a prefix, in the name 
>confuses>everybody who is learning metric.
This had been under discussion since long. In my USMA 40215, I proposed: ‘I 
proposed that the current gram (symbol 'g') be up graded to (symbol 'G' for 
GRAM =1000g) for kilogram. Tonne would then be 1000G i.e. 10^6g’.
 
>Suggestion: With the gauss deprecated, the symbol "G" is now available forthe 
>"new gram". One new gram (G) = one old kilogram (kg). Many other possibilities 
>have and will be explored.I thank you Stan for supporting: G="New gram"=1000g 
>(kg). I wonder, how will this meet expectations of BIPM/CGMP and the science 
>family.
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij  (MJD 2454642)/995+D-135W25-02 (G. Tuesday, 2008 June 24 H 
20:23(decimal) ISTAa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda Jan:31; Feb:29; 
Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 
(365th day of Year is World Day) My 
Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdfHOME PAGE: 
http://www.brijvij.com/ ******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar***** "Koi bhi 
cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" Contact # 
011-9871554809 (M) 001(201)962-3708(when in US)


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [email protected]; [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [USMA:41207] Re: Construction NewsletterDate: 
Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:00:43 -0400




Hi Howard:
 
I am amazed at your defending to replace "ambiguous" Mg (or 1000 kg) with what? 
- an even more ambiguous "tonne". What a way to avoid a problem - by increasing 
the error likelihood.
 
I think I am doing better than you by trying to solve the kg problem by not 
adding a redundancy. For decades I have been doing my part by writing such as 
this example illustrates:
 
Some of you will remember me asking to come up with a better name and symbols 
for the kilogram. The attached talks about a change in the definition (not 
attached here). I am asking that the name and symbols be also changed. This is 
what I wrote to the committee:While changing the definition, I wish we would 
also change the name andsymbol. The presence of the kilo, normally a prefix, in 
the name confuseseverybody who is learning metric. Eternal pity that the name 
had not been changedtwo centuries ago when the move from the g to the kg as the 
base unit was made. I wonder what it would take to get the name-change included 
in the mass unit'snew-definition process. There will never be a better 
opportunity to removethat old thorn than with that change.Suggestion: With the 
gauss deprecated, the symbol "G" is now available forthe "new gram". One new 
gram (G) = one old kilogram (kg). Many other possibilities have and will be 
explored.Anyone ready to help with that process? Any suggestions for the new 
name andsymbol for the unit of mass? Any arguments to justify the trouble with 
pursuing this change?Please, try.Stan Jakuba
 
Why not to join the committee, or write to it. The latest ISO/TC 12 N 825 (2007 
09 16) asks for the name change (clause 6.5.3.). Get on with it! Propose.
 
Contrary to your statement, I am not trying "to get the whole word to quit 
using the word tonne". It is impossible to do - because nobody outside the 
french/anglo culture uses it. And within the french/anglo sphere MOST have not 
heard of it, and most of the others have no firm idea what it means. And by 
comparison the Mg being confusing?! The tonne is outright dangerous.
 
Speaking of the whole world - how is "tonne" in Chinese?, Arabic?, Portuguese?, 
any of the phonetic languages, .....? And what is its international symbol? 
(The same as any of the other "t's" according to the BIPM - great!!!) It is not 
in your league to ignore the world outside the US, so I am wondering what's 
causing this attitude.
Stan
 
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Howard Hayden 
To: 'Stan Jakuba' 
Cc: [email protected] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 08 Jun 23, Monday 18:57
Subject: RE: Construction Newsletter

Hi Stan,
 
Gee, I thought a short ton was 2 million millipounds.  This is the problem you 
face when the UNIT of mass has a prefix meaning a thousand, namely the 
kilogram.  So, a metric ton becomes a million millikilograms, for that is 
exactly the meaning of megagram.
 
If the SI committee wants to do something truly useful, it would be to RENAME 
the kilogram so that it has no prefix.  Call it the Jakuba, the Washington, the 
Brenner, the FMU (French Mass unit), the SIMU (SI Mass Unit), the Dalton, the 
Mach, the Einstein, the Cagey, or SOMETHING!!!  This simple naming problem has 
been in the works for a half-century.  Get on with it!  All you've got to do is 
choose a name.  Why should that take decades?
 
Look at it this way.  You're trying to get the whole world to quit using the 
word tonne.  It should be much easier to get the standards committees to quit 
using the long-outdated term kilogram, and instead to use a non-prefixed name.  
That would remove an obnoxious exception to SI.  Now that the shoe is on that 
foot, just who is it that's suffering from hardening of the categories?
 
SI got rid of a large number of past units, among them gram-force, 
kilogram-force, Gauss, Gilbert, Oersted, slugs, poundals, and probably others, 
and for good reason.  Why not do the right thing and get rid of the term 
kilogram?
 
The Megagram is NOT unambiguous.  Students are forever getting confused about 
this issue.  (Try teaching a bunch of students that a megagram is a million 
thousandths of the unit of mass in the SI almost-system.  They'll think you're 
nuts, and they'll be right.)  Teaching would be much easier if the same mass 
were called the kiloEinstein (or kE).
 
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the term megagram.  It is NOT a million mass 
units.  The term tonne has been in use by the French for over two centuries, 
and it at least relates directly to the mass unit (1000 kg), unlike the 
indirectly related megagram (1,000,000 milli-kg).
 
It's time for SI to clean house and get rid of that Mg abomination.
 
Cheers,
Howard
------------ Howard Hayden [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Energy Advocate 
www.energyadvocate.comA Primer on CO2 and Climate, Second Edition ($14.95) now 
available atVales Lake Publishing, LLC. www.valeslake.com PO Box 7609    * NEW  
P.O. NUMBER *Pueblo West CO 81007 (fax) (719) 547-7819 
People will do anything to save the world ... except take a course in science.


-----Original Message-----From: Stan Jakuba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 
Monday, June 23, 2008 1:44 PMTo: Howard HaydenSubject: Construction Newsletter

Howard: Thought you should read this - and adopt the anti-tonne position. 
Cheers, Stan
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Brenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>; "SCC14 IEEE" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Stan Jakuba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 08 Jun 23, Monday 11:13
Subject: Re: tonne
Here's what I wrote in the 3rd Quarter 1997 Construction Metrication newsletter:
 
BEHOLD THE MEGAGRAMThe customary inch-pound measure for large masses is the 
ton.  We usually think of the ton as equaling 2000 pounds, but that's just the 
short ton; the long ton weighs in at 2240 pounds.   For power there's the ton 
of refrigeration and for shipping there's the register ton, a unit of volume.  
There's also the ton-force and the assay ton.In commercial use, the analogous 
measure for mass is the metric ton (or tonne).  The metric ton equals 1000 
kilograms or 1 000 000 grams (2204.6 pounds).  Of course, the appropriate 
metric name for 1 000 000 grams is the megagram.While the word "megagram" may 
sound unfamiliar at first, it has many virtues:1.  It's the proper metric 
measure for large masses and, unlike the word "ton," it has no other meaning.2. 
 Its symbol, Mg, is simple and unambiguous.3.  It sidesteps the use of the word 
"ton" and the ton's possible equivalencies of 2000, 2240, and 2204.6 pounds, 
and it eliminates any potential confusion with power, force, and volume 
measures of the same name.4.  It does away with the strange "tonne," variously 
pronounced tun or tunnie, which, like "metric ton," is restricted to commercial 
use and should be avoided in construction work.So, let's avoid tons of trouble 
and confusion by shedding our short tons, long tons, metric tons, and tonnes 
and uniformly adopting the megagram.  Think and write Mg.
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_062008

Reply via email to