Bill,
The *ideal* end result is rarity of units outside the SI, as is approximated in
most countries.
Censoring, purging, or deprecating non-SI units are but some of the possible
steps toward the *ideal* state of metrology.
Gene.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:25:34 -0400
>From: Bill Hooper <billhoope...@gmail.com>
>Subject: [USMA:47787] censoring the censor
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
>
> Gene,
> Referring to your note appended below, as well as
> some others:
> Following your line of reasoning (that EVERY
> reference to a non-SI unit be clarified by including
> an SI equivalent), you yourself should include the
> SI equivalent of "L/in^3".
> The SI equivalent would be "L/(0.016 L)" which can
> be simplified to "1/0.016" which of course reduces
> to "62.5".
> I don't think that "explaining" what "L/in^3" is by
> stating that it is "62.5" will clarify anything at
> all.
> Regards,
> Bill Hooper
> Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
>
> ==========================
> Make It Simple; Make It Metric!
> ==========================
> On Jun 11 , at 10:54 AM, <mech...@illinois.edu>
> <mech...@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> "L/in^3" is *CENSORED*! Please cease and desist
> its use!
>
> EAM, Inquisitor,
> a self appointed censor of deviations from SI
>
> ---- Original message ----
>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:37:10 +1000
>
> From: Pat Naughtin
> <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com>
>
> Subject: [USMA:47684] Re: Metric motors in the
> USA
>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association"
> <usma@colostate.edu>
>
> ...
>
> You can of course say 0.016 387 L/in³ and
>
> wonder where to round.
>
> ...
