[USMA:47672] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI

[Pat Naughtin]

Dear Gene,

I liked 'numbed down'. I don't know where I will use it, but I  
definitely will.

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see 
http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008

Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has  
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the  
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they  
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for  
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many  
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial  
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.  
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,  
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com 
 for more metrication information, contact Pat at pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com 
 or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter 
 to subscribe.

On 2010/06/11, at 01:48 , <mech...@illinois.edu>  
<mech...@illinois.edu> wrote:


Yes, John.  My objection is the dumbed-down unit used by the AP  
("foot"), not the excess precision of the estimated depth.
I see that I previously wrote "numbed down" which my spell checker  
did not reject, but "numbed down" also applies.
Gene.

---- Original message ----
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [USMA:47640] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI
To: mech...@illinois.edu, "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu 
>

 I hope that is a joke, as I KNOW you understand
 precision and sensible rounding.
 However, we have some "decimal dusters" who might
 not get it.

 The 1000 m is of course one of "those" numbers where
 you ask how many of those digits are significant.
 Given a vertical plume, and general lack of
 precision in measurements at sea, I'm guessing 1 or
 2, although clearly it is a guess.

 However, I do wonder why British Petroleum measures
 the leak in American "barrels."  Do they think they
 are aidding or hindering understanding?  Given the
 range, that figure has no significant figures and
 the order of magnitude seems debatable.

   ------------------------------------------------

 From: "mech...@illinois.edu" <mech...@illinois.edu>
 To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
 Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 11:00:56 AM
 Subject: [USMA:47640] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team
 Using SI

 Pat,

 In my local newspaper I read that an oil plume was
 located at a depth of "3 300 feet" which was
 probably reported at 1 000 meters.  i.e. 3 300 x
 0.3048 = 1 005.84 meters. Note the discrepancy of
 5.84 meters between the value reported and the
 numbed down value disseminated by the Associated
 Press.

 Shame on the AP distortion!

 Gene,
 Censor of Deviations from SI

 ---- Original message ----
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:29:29 +1000
From: Pat Naughtin
 <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com>
Subject: [USMA:47625] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team
 Using SI
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>

Dear Gene,
You might be interested in this article in our
 local
newspaper, 'The
Age':
 
http://www.theage.com.au/world/experts-at-loggerheads-over-oil-leak-rate-20100608-xtlj.html
Since each of the sources has their own
'down-dumber' I don't suppose we can have any
confidence whether the original data (kilograms,
litres, cubic metres, metres per minute, metres
 per
hour, gallons UK, gallons USA, feet per minute,
 etc,
) is being reported reliable given the
 possibility
of multiple conversion errors.
Cheers,

Pat Naughtin
...