Gene:
I suggest you check on the definition of "coherent." And perhaps also on what a prefix is as it has nothing to do with coherence.
Stan

----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: 08 Jun 24, Tuesday 13:33
Subject: [USMA:41217] Re: tonne


Stan,

More simply; A "tonne" is a "metric ton" is 1 000 kg in coherent SI. The Mg has never been widely used and is not coherent or appropriate for masses of 1 000 kg and more. I object to promotion of the Mg on grounds of incoherence with the SI unit of mass, the kilogram.

Gene.



---- Original message ----
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:56:05 -0400
From: "Stan Jakuba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [USMA:41200] tonne
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>

  A copy of a letter to Editor.


  I liked the latest issue of your newsletter very
  much, particularly the CO2 disposal analysis. It was
  a news to me.

  Now a negative, the "tonne" issue. Please do not
  introduce a redundant (and non SI) unit into The
  Energy Advocate.

  You must know about the possibility for confusion
  with the tonne. There is a whole bunch of tons
  already, such as tun, tann, tuna, long t., short t.,
  metric t.,. boiler t., etc. worldwide. Some mean
  mass, others force, and most both/either. You know
  that most people have no understanding what all
  those "t." really mean, and will guess the "tonne" -
  an obvious chance for error.

  As you know, there is simply the Mg (as there are
  mg, kg, Gg, etc.) for any mass, and their meaning is
  undisputed. You can always use 1000 kg if 1 Mg is
  too "foreign" for you. (I give preference to
  "foreign" but specific over a "used" but a matter of
  interpretation.) You also know, that, aside from the
  two, there is the long established "metric ton." It,
  like the other "t,s", requires a qualification such
  as "of mass" (massic) or "of force." In any case,
  these three "units" are more than enough - why a
  fourth one?

  Please, apply the KISS principle and stick
  with SI. Its usage will spread quicker without
  tonnes. You will agree that the general population
  will catch on anything if they see it repeated
  enough times. Anybody can and will be comfortable
  with Mg, or kN, or kW if all the "t." nicknames
  disappear. I do not need to tell you that SI is the
  ultimate goal and these silly "t" nicknames, even
  those approved by BIPM, are only making
  the simplicity of SI less obvious and fuel
  anti-metric sentiments in the US.

  Also, I should not need to point out that the E. A.
  is read outside the English speaking word - how is
  "tonne" in Chinese?, Arabic?, Portuguese? - what is
  its international symbol?

  Let's keep the tonne where it had been - in France -
  and do not support its spread.

  All the best,
  Stan Jakuba



Reply via email to