Well, I don't much care what derogatory term is made up, but the old US units would appear to have an official name. At the request of Congress, the National Bureau of Standards (precursor to NIST) published a summary of weights & measures used in the United States in the Federal Register, 1968-07-27, citing their delegated authority to determine weights and measures. That text is reproduced in NIST SP 447, Appendix 8: http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app8.pdf It uses the phrase "U.S. Customary" units in several places to describe traditional inch/pound units used in the US, and also lists metric units in use. In addition, the FPLA uses the phrases "customary inch/pound system" and "SI metric system" to describe the compulsory two systems of marking net contents. I find no laws about weights and measures defining a "standard" unit system; however, applying it to both Customary and SI makes "standard" non-standard. Since the term "Customary" is reserved under rule and law (subtle distinction in the US between agencies and Congress) for the traditional US inch/pound units, I consider a statement that the SI is the new customary to be disingenuous and serves only to confuse (and destroy?) the meaning of the word, but I would be quite willing to have it be the "new standard." I suppose USMA could take the position "it doesn't matter what we call it as long as long as we abolish it" but that is (sadly) a long way from happening. The unique US system is Customary, the unique UK system is Imperial (what little of it remains, most units have been withdrawn) and the worldwide system (including those two) is SI. .
________________________________ From: "Ressel, Howard (DOT)" <howard.res...@dot.ny.gov> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:02 AM Subject: [USMA:53199] Re: Metric / Imperial / "Standard" 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 http://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 > >
