Howard: There certainly is an ambiguity in the case of L (which should be Roman, not italic, as should the others). The L is already established, for fairly obvious typographical reasons, as the alternative for l (small L) for liter. In fact, it seems to be replacing the small L altogether. Bill
_____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Hayden Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 08:53 To: 'Stan Jakuba' Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Construction Newsletter All: I agree with Stan that a "new gram" (G) would be a good move, save that I think it a bit unwise to use a letter that is also a prefix. I would gladly use kG (or k-something) instead of tonne or metric ton. But Mg, I repeat, is an abomination. One suggestion would be the Libra (L) but that is already the source of lb for pound. (Still, I don't know of any SI ambiguities with L.) The Einstein (E) might be OK, but the term is used for a "mole" (really, Avogadro's number) of photons. As an aside, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses megatonnes incessantly in discussing CO2 emissions, and they have undoubtedly introduced the notion into most languages on the globe. A pity perhaps, for they could just as well have introduced the GG. (Al Gore would undoubtedly thing that it was a reference to him.) There may well be disputes about what name to use, but there should be universal agreement that the kg has to go, and the sooner the better. I propose that you folks take a positive stance: Tell the membership that the standards committees are making a decision THIS YEAR on the new mass unit, and send out a multiple-choice survey asking for the membership to choose one name from a short list that you write up. Then count the votes and you've made a decision. Don't worry about the rest of the world. You can lead by example. Cheers, Howard ------------ Howard Hayden <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Energy Advocate www.energyadvocate.com <http://www.energyadvocate.com/> A Primer on CO2 and Climate, Second Edition ($14.95) now available at Vales Lake Publishing, LLC. www.valeslake.com <http://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: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Construction Newsletter 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 and symbol. The presence of the kilo, normally a prefix, in the name confuses everybody who is learning metric. Eternal pity that the name had not been changed two 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's new-definition process. There will never be a better opportunity to remove that old thorn than with that change. Suggestion: With the gauss deprecated, the symbol "G" is now available for the "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 and symbol 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 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Stan Jakuba' <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Energy Advocate www.energyadvocate.com <http://www.energyadvocate.com/> A Primer on CO2 and Climate, Second Edition ($14.95) now available at Vales Lake Publishing, LLC. www.valeslake.com <http://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 PM To: Howard Hayden Subject: 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 MEGAGRAM The 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.
