The activity on this site seems stale. The same discussions/topics over and over again for decades. Still debating l & L, -er & -re, as if the result of these issues will somehow persuade Americans to adopt metric. No, the debates distract. Concerning the l & L issue, as Martin points out, it is strictly English (and some of their former colonies) problem, since from the time immemorial until the 16th CGPM the L did not "exist." Also, litre and dm3 were not exactly the same volumes until later the CGPM proclaimed the former to mean dm3. Why do we make an issue out of a non-issue? Because we (USMA) believe that the US will adopt the system if we "simplify" it. What an irony. After training thousands of Americans in private industry, government, and schools, I learned that the trainees had the same attitude: Tell us what it is we need to know and we'll use it (because the superiors, company policy, etc. said so).They do not care if metric is simple or complicated, spelled -er or -re, .... We should stop nitpicking SI by comparisons with what one or two of the fifty European countries do. Many Europeans do not even know that they are using the metric system. Never needed to know. Specific to the volumes, nobody seems to have a problem with in3, ft3, mm3, cm3, m3, so why do we waste our time on destroying this sequence with unsettled symbol and spelling for one of the many volumes? Oh yes, Americans will like SI better if they see exceptions. And the opponents of SI will have material for anti-metric blurbs. While the Aussies, S. Africans, Canadians, etc. had an effective task force for phasing metric in, our Metric Board debated -er & -re, l & L. As a foreigner I viewed the US as the most pragmatic of all countries. It felt like betrayal seeing the incompetence. As for -re -er, Australians, get by nicely using only symbols; everywhere - In the daily press, in the tech & sci documents, labels, etc. as I reported several years ago after observing the metrication status traveling there. As a former V.P. of USMA, I am sorry to say that we are not helping metrication much with our debates. One of the reasons why Congress did not enforce the law was the discourse among metrication proponents. I just hope that when a new wave of metrication effort commences, we just adopt the "pure" SI. Perhaps the Churchill's saying applies here too: "Americans always make the right decision - after they tried all the others first" (or some such wording). Stan Jakuba
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Patrick Moore <pmo...@asnt.org> wrote: > In my examples below, the confusion arises in fonts, not in handwriting. > > It might be added that in sans serif fonts, the capital eye (I) generally > looks like the lowercase el and often like the numeral one too. > > On 7/2/15 3:40 PM, "Martin Vlietstra" <vliets...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >The problem of confusion between hand-written "one" and "el" only arises > >in > >Anglo-Saxon countries. If you visit > >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FM_IMG_2024.JPG you can see how > >the > >French write a "one" at a market stall. It was in recognition of this > >problem that the SI Manual permits both lower-case and upper-case "el" as > >the symbol for the litre. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On > Behalf > >Of Patrick Moore > >Sent: 02 July 2015 19:36 > >To: U.S. Metric Association > >Subject: [USMA:54766] Re: labeling 1-liter bottles of Perrier > > > >Lowercase el is ambiguous because it looks like the numeral one. I see no > >advantage in the lowercase el for liter. > > > >In my first month on the job as an editor, 30 years ago, I corrected > >several > >dozen places where the typographer had entered an el to mean one. It was > >an > >old habit in someone who had learned to type on an old pica typewriter, > >where the same keystroke made both characters. In the Courier font on your > >computer today, el and one still look very similar. > > > >Cubic decimeter is a useful alternative for calculations of nonliquid > >volumes. > > > >From: <mechtly>, eugene a > ><mech...@illinois.edu<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu>> > >Reply-To: "mech...@illinois.edu<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu>" > ><mech...@illinois.edu<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu>> > >Date: Thursday, July 2, 2015 12:11 PM > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" > ><usma@colostate.edu<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> > >Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" > ><usma@colostate.edu<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>> > >Subject: [USMA:54765] Re: labeling 1-liter bottles of Perrier > > > >In the Netherlands it it "1 Liter"; in Germany, "1 l", all three. Thanks > >Martin. > >On Jul 2, 2015, at 4:39 AM, Martin Vlietstra > ><vliets...@btinternet.com<mailto:vliets...@btinternet.com>> wrote: > > > >Hi Stanislav, > >I don't know about bottling plants, but "L" is often used when advertising > >Perrier water in Europe. > > > >I have a selection of advertisements, some of which show "L" and some of > >which show "l": > > > >United Kingdom: > >http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=274501973 > >http://www.waitrose.com/shop/DisplayProductFlyout?productId=50549 > > > http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/sparkling-water/perrier-spar > >kl > >ing-mineral-water-750ml > > > >Netherlands: > > > http://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi198722/perrier-mineraalwater-koolzuur > >ho > >udend > > > >Germany: > > > http://www.amazon.de/PERRIER-nat%C3%BCrliches-kohlens%C3%A4urehaltiges-Min > >er > >alwasser-Frankreich/dp/B0051BLCCI > > > http://german.alibaba.com/product-tp/perrier-mineral-water-for-export-fob- > >eu > >rope-117971051.html > > > http://www.kaufen.com/Preisvergleich/result.jsp?ga=g37&q=mineralwasser+per > >ri > >er > > > >France: > >http://www.carrefour.fr/search/site/--perrier/15 > >http://www.auchandirect.fr/boissons/eaux/eaux-gazeuses/id0/663 > >It should be remembered that in Continental Europe, the hand-written > >number > >1 usually has a long leading stroke - see for example the picture at > >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FM_IMG_2024.JPG< > https://urldefense > >.p > > > roofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__commons.wikimedia.org_wiki_File-3AFM-5FIM > >G- > >5F2024.JPG&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=BpxbfWo0gcPQHL0R58p0D96tVlz > >Zl > >sjR_iWGK6ETi80&m=sOg077__2SoziT2D6rMe_Mp9fMHkenze5ohZNL-PNiA&s=MlvlrexBixw > >B4 > >ACIZZVyfjuQbaDnIibsAVbRxzccDAk&e=>. > > > >Martin > > > >From: owner-u...@colostate.edu<mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu> > >[mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Stanislav Jakuba > >Sent: 02 July 2015 00:03 > >To: U.S. Metric Association > >Cc: U.S. Metric Association > >Subject: [USMA:54762] Re: labeling 1-liter bottles of Perrier > > > >Paul: > >The European bottles-filling plant had never seen L as symbol for dm3. > >Always the l (lower case "el"). You might have a better success with that. > > > > > >On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, mechtly, eugene a > ><mech...@illinois.edu<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu>> wrote: > >Paul, > > > >Let us know when Perrier labels one liter bottles as 1 L. > > > >I drink all my water from a tap, not from a bottle, so I will not detect > >this improvement by Perrier. > > > >Eugene Mechtly > > > >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 10:47 PM, Paul Trusten > ><trus...@grandecom.net<mailto:trus...@grandecom.net>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear Perrier makers, > >> > >> Please place the "1 L" in large type on your one-liter bottles! I > >>suppose > >you have to include the fluid ounces for auld lang syne, but I want to be > >able to tell the difference between the 1 L and the 750 mL sizes AT A > >GLANCE, and can't do that with ounces and quarts cluttering up tge field. > >If, as you say on your Web site, your 1 L size is popular, then please > >reflect this popularity on your label design. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Paul Trusten > >> Midland TX USA > >> > > > > > > > >
