Jim: I was using SI-10 and you're using the SI Brochure. The Brochure (which I just downloaded afresh from the BIPM site) clearly identifies the dalton as a non-SI unit. The first paragraph on page 125, to which you refer, says the following:
"The first three units, the non-SI units electronvolt, symbol eV, dalton or unified atomic mass unit, symbol Da or u, respectively, and the astronomical unit, symbol ua, have been accepted for use with the SI by the CIPM. The units in Table 7 play important roles in a number of specialized fields in which the results of measurements or calculations are most conveniently and usefully expressed in these units. For the electronvolt and the dalton the values depend on the elementary charge e and the Avogadro constant NA, respectively." But, as it says "accepted for use with SI," you must be right (as usual, dammit :)). Bill ________________________________ Bill Potts Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] -----Original Message----- From: James Frysinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 15:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: U.S. Metric Association; 'Brian Leonard'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [USMA:41240] RE: gali and avo Please see the first paragraph on page 125 and note (c) to Table 7 on page 126 of the Brochure. Jim Bill Potts wrote: > Bruce: > > There are two occurrences of dalton in SI-10, in tables A-1 and A-3. > A-1 simply gives the conversion factor to kilograms. A-3 lists it > under "Other Units." > > So you're right, there doesn't really appear to be any level of acceptance. > > Bill > ________________________________ > Bill Potts > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Barrow > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 14:50 > To: James Frysinger > Cc: Brian Leonard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: gali and avo > > Jim, > > Yes, I did note the careful wording in your response to Brian. You > clearly are using some of the political skills we now see daily on TV. > > In your message, you observe that the dalton "has risen to the level > of acceptance as a unit that can be used with the SI." Gee, I just > checked my copy of IEEE/ASTM SI 10, and I can't find it. > > Bruce > > PS. On a not-frivolous note, I believe that the 8th edition (2006) of > our BIPM bible has now become deplorably less authoritative, thanks to > the expanded Table 7 and Tables 8 and 9. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Bruce Barrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Brian Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:13 PM > Subject: Re: gali and avo > > >> Bruce, >> >> Please note that I did not agree with Brian about the need for new names. >> I merely said they were the best proposals I had seen to date. >> >> I also pointed out the process of making such a change and cautioned >> that it was a long, arduous road. Hopefully all concerned figured out >> that there wasn't a snowball's chance on a Tennessee summer afternoon >> of the changes being approved. That said, in the past I made remarks >> similar to yours here, but about not needing the dalton. Now it has >> risen to the level of acceptance as a unit that can be used with the >> SI. So much for my opinion! >> >> Rest assured that CIPM and CGPM will not take USMA discussion on the >> matter as the basis for deciding what to do about the unit name for mass. >> "L'gran K" will live on in name, if not in artifact. (But we may have >> to live with watts in the balance.) >> >> In the meantime I hope to have enlightened some folks about the >> process of effecting changes to the SI -- and the minuscule >> likelihood of being successful. The endless banter on the USMA mail >> list (this thread started before I joined USMA in 1990, I think) is >> indeed more of an academic aerobics exercise than an effective course >> of action. I find it a refreshing relief from the endless argument >> about the > centimeter. >> Jim >> >> Bruce Barrow wrote: >>> Dear Jim, >>> >>> Good #$&*% grief! We do NOT need a new name for the kilogram. We do >>> NOT need to advocate changes in the SI. We need to teach the metric >>> system and expand its use in the US. People here know what a kilo >>> is; let's not confuse them. >>> >>> Bruce Barrow >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Frysinger" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "Brian Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; >>> <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:09 PM >>> Subject: Re: gali and avo >>> >>> >>>> Dear Brian, >>>> >>>> These are the two best proposals I have seen to date. >>>> >>>> One should be braced; it takes a very long time for proposals to >>>> wend their way through the administrative process to become approved. >>>> Consider how long it took for the dalton (Da) to obtain approval. >>>> The pathway is via the Consultative Committee on Units (CCU) and >>>> SCC >>>> 14 >>>> ("stds-units") has a healthy connection to our country's CCU. >>>> Perhaps your proposals could find some discussion at our next SCC >>>> 14 meeting as a possible proposal to CCU. Publication of >>>> appropriate papers in Metrologia might be beneficial to your cause as well. >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> Brian Leonard wrote: >>>>> Dear Howard: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. You are absolutely right. For a long time I've been >>>>> advocating the name gali (symbol G), honouring Galileo--as he was >>>>> the first ("modern physicist") to explore both the inertial and >>>>> gravitational properties of mass (although, of course, he didn't >>>>> speak of them in these terms). His experiments and insights were >>>>> essential for Newton's laws; in fact, Galileo already had >>>>> "Newton's > first law." >>>>> This is not some mere whim. The idea of honouring an appropriate >>>>> scientist is well established. The symbol (capital) G is also >>>>> appropriate. The unit gauss is no longer in use. [Some have >>>>> suggested giorgi (also symbol G), honouring the founder of the >>>>> "MKS" system, known for cleaning up mechanical, thermal and >>>>> electrical energy concepts--I find this a bit "awkward."] I have >>>>> no trouble keeping gram (symbol g) defined as (exactly) one >>>>> milligali: g = mG. Here's the "delicatessen test": >>>>> >>>>> I would like half a gali of roast turkey and two hundred grams of >>>>> Swiss cheese. [1/2 a G of roast turkey and 200 g of Swiss >>>>> cheese.] >>>>> >>>>> Checkout scales would register in G to three decimal places--as >>>>> they do now (in kg) in metric countries. Labelling would have to >>>>> be precise in distinguishing between G and g--but this distinction >>>>> between capital and lower-case HAS to be cleaned up anyway! >>>>> >>>>> This flows nicely--because in most metric countries a kilogram is >>>>> referred to as a kilo ("keeloh"); and gali ("galley") is >>>>> phonetically very close to this. [I don't think I could stomach >>>>> half a giorgi of roast turkey.] >>>>> >>>>> Also, chemists are never going to give up working (and thinking >>>>> and >>>>> communicating) in grams and moles--see below. SI submultiple >>>>> prefixes can be used--even though that's an SI "no-no"! But we >>>>> have no trouble doing submultiple and supermultiple SI prefixes >>>>> with liter. [An appropriate name for a cubic meter (and a square >>>>> meter) is another concern.] >>>>> >>>>> I also have no trouble with tonne (symbol t) defined as (exactly) >>>>> one >>>>> kilogali: t = kG. [Pronounce it as "tunn" rather than "tonn." >>>>> Other tons will drop by the wayside.] It's handy for large >>>>> commercial masses. SI supermultiple prefixes can be used with >>>>> this--even though that's also an SI "no-no"! >>>>> >>>>> Getting back to the chemists, the kilomole--renamed the avo >>>>> (symbol Av), honouring Avogadro for obvious reasons--should be the >>>>> BASE unit, thereby avoiding the ridiculous situation of having the >>>>> amount specific mass (not "molar" mass) of, for example, carbon 12 >>>>> be 0.012 kg/mol when expressed in base units. In the new base >>>>> units, it would be 12 G/Av >>>>> (12 gali per avo). This avoids factors of ten to the plus or >>>>> minus three popping up all over the place in theoretical >>>>> equations. The mole (and SI submultiple prefixes) would still be >>>>> used by chemists; one mole being defined as (exactly) one milliavo: mol = mAv. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, dalton (Da) is used as an (accepted) alternative to >>>>> "unified atomic mass unit" (u). SI units or units in use with SI >>>>> should not have multi-word names (metric ton, etc); what is a >>>>> ku?--a kilo-unified atomic mass unit: an atomic mass unit unified >>>>> a thousand times? A kilodalton (kDa) is well defined. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Benny Leonard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 6:57 PM, Howard Hayden wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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] >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /The Energy Advocate/ >>>>>> www.energyadvocate.com <http://www.energyadvocate.com/> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> James R. Frysinger >>>> 632 Stony Point Mountain Road >>>> Doyle, TN 38559-3030 >>>> >>>> (H) 931.657.3107 >>>> (C) 931.212.0267 >>>> >>> >> -- >> James R. Frysinger >> 632 Stony Point Mountain Road >> Doyle, TN 38559-3030 >> >> (H) 931.657.3107 >> (C) 931.212.0267 >> > > > > -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (H) 931.657.3107 (C) 931.212.0267
