Mike, Using kelvin is no different then using Celsius when you are use to Fahrenheit. It is just a matter of getting use to the range of numbers. With kelvin though there are no negative numbers to get excited over.
Jerry ________________________________ From: Mike Palumbo <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:13:34 AM Subject: [USMA:42597] Re: REALLY using the SI I personally do not believe that kelvin and the thermodynamic temperature scale are appropriate for use when talking about temperatures that humans feel & interact with on a daily basis. Humans are not going to deal with absolute, but we will surely deal with the freezing & boiling points of water. I'd much prefer to say, "It's really hot out, must be almost 35 degrees!" much more than "Must be almost 309!". -M Paul Trusten wrote: > From that last exchange between Jim Frysinger and Stan Doore, I am > contemplating the corruptions of the SI we have lived with, and I wonder if > even the metricated world could stand international standardization of > measurement. Consider: > > * kelvins instead of degrees Celsius for temperature > * square meters or square kilometers instead of hectares > * megagrams instead of tonnes or metric tons > * In U.S. medical laboratories, millimoles per liter instead of > milligrams per deciliter for results involving concentrations > > Actually, I've never seen a megagram used, but I don't understand why it >isn't used. Its symbol, Mg, could hardly be mistaken for the milligram, >and,even so, no one is going to mistakenly ship someone else one milligram of >rice. > Paul Trusten, R..Ph. > Public Relations Director > U.S. Metric Association, Inc. > www.metric.org <http://www.metric.org> 3609 Caldera Blvd. Apt. 122 > Midland TX 79707-2872 US > +1(432)528-7724 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
