Of course let's not forget the ever enduring WOMBAT! -----Original Message----- From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Trusten Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:14 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association; mechtly, eugene a Subject: [USMA:53192] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard"
Our friend Pat Naughtin referred to non-SI units as "pre-metric" units. Paul Trusten, Registered Pharmacist Vice President and Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association, Inc. Midland, Texas, USA +1(432)528-7724 www.metric.org trus...@grandecom.net On Aug 21, 2013, at 13:18, "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> wrote: > Martin > > "inch-pound" does not name a complete, coherent and well defined measurement > "system" as you observe. > "inch-pound" is at best a "non-system." Discard the name "inch-pound." > > The name "Imperial" units of measurement includes definitions which differ > from US definitions, as you also note. Avoid the name "imperial units" > unless you are actually discussing specific deviations from US definitions as > e.g. for the UK pint. > > Recent Federal Laws declare preference for SI for US trade and commerce. > If anything, "U.S. Customary" now means SI, as in most design measurements of > automobiles and farm and mining vehicles. > > "Standard" Units of Measurement now means SI. One could write "standard > (SI) units, or "standard (metric) units" since "metric" is now defined to > mean "SI" again by "declarations" as codified in Federal Law. > > Most units of measurement outside the SI are now defined as exact numerical > multiples of SI units. > > "Non-SI units" or "Units Outside the SI" are the most accurate descriptions > or terminology for all the non-SI units. > > Eugene Mechtly > > ________________________________________ > From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on behalf of > c...@traditio.com [c...@traditio.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:57 AM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:53181] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard" > > Concerning Metric Pioneer's recent correspondence, I've always had a > problem with what to call the U.S. measurements. > > Officially, the term "inch-pound" has been used. I don't care for > that because it does not indicate clearly a measurement system. > Moreover, it singles out only two measurements, whereas there are many in the > "system." > > Another common term used is "U.S. Customary" (USC). Is this a good > choice? > > Now "Imperial" is being recommended by some. Is this a good alternative? > I suspect that most people would not connect "imperial" with the > United States, perhaps Canada. > > I agree that "standard" is not a good choice at all. The standard > should be SI metric. > > Paul Trusten and you other USMA officers out there, what is the > current recommendation? > > Martin Morrison > USMA "Metric Today" Columnist > >
