I'm going to be honest and say that I didn't invent it, but heard it from at least a couple of other people on the list (this as we debated whether "colonial units" (or "colonial measure"), "WOMBAT", "non-SI", "US Customary", etc. etc. should be used. I've found "colonial units" most understandable by non-metric people.
Carleton From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Tim Williamson Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 20:45 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50169] Re: 'Words' and their impact on metrication in the USA Carleton, I use your 'colonial units' designator in a recent posting to USMA, NIST, NSF, The WTO and OSTP. I'm going to try to put that phraseology into Alabama Code, and will use it in public discourse as well. Thanks! I like it. The nuances and connotations are exactly the ones I've been searching for. Tim Williamson On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> wrote: On 2011/03/23, at 03:05 , carlet...@comcast.net wrote: I still like "colonial units" - not only is it historically correct but it adds just enough disdain to get the message across. And people outside our group understand it. Carleton ----- Original Message ----- From: mech...@illinois.edu To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:30:15 AM Subject: [USMA:50136] Re: 'Words' and their impact on metrication in the USA Bob, Tim, and Ron, Here is an even better acronym for units "Outside the SI" (OSI). OSI is shorter than USC, and shorter than inch-pound. Even if, by a typo error, OSI appears as 0SI (The zero "0 " is directly above O on most keyboards.) it still conveys the same "0utside SI" meaning, and OSI can be construed to exclude the units isted in Table 10 and Table 11 of NIST SP 811, on Page 11, such as erg, dyne. gauss, torr, kgf, calorie, etc. as "not accepted for use with the SI by this Guide" SP 811. Gene. Dear Carleton, Gene, and All, I like it, but I have a problem with the term "colonial units" because many of them -- perhaps most -- are not units at all. Suppose that someone refers to an old sword and describes it as "26.72 inches". Before I can comprehend what he is saying I need to have an answer to the question: "Which inch?" Is it pre-1934 and therefore pre-Imperial? Is it post-1924 and pre-1934 (when the Houses of Parliament burnt down) and therefore a true Imperial inch? And so on for all of the other UK inches. Then we could start on the inches defined at various times in the USA. Is it a pre-1893 inch? Does the Mendenhall Order apply to this inch? And so on for the various inches in the USA. After consideration of these questions I suggest that old measuring words be described as "colonial measures". Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS 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 <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. -- Thanks! Tim Williamson Alabama, USA 1-205-765-6090
