How to save billions of dollars.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If you want to interpret 'home' more literally, don't forget your daily dose of tacrolimus.

You're pushing the analogy too far. But, indeed, I use whatever units are convenient. So, yes, my tacrolimus is in mg. My insulins are in 'units' (and there are two insulin units defined, and I frankly don't care what they are). Some of my meds are in 'EQ'. You see, while the pharmacy world may not use the right abbreviations, they are not so stupid as to think one unit is the answer for everything. Only idiots believe that. Also, only idiots defend a metric only system.

No, unless you confirm that the SI base unit for mass is kilogram, . . .

You know, I thought you were stupid before, but thanks for confirming it. You obviously can't read or think. A person capable of reading at fifth grade level would see that you've already been answered.

The gram was originally defined as the mass of one cubic centimeter of water.

The MKS system, the basis for the SI units, . . .

What you seem to be missing is that there is a difference between the metric system and the practical systems based on the metric system. The cgs systems, the MKS system, the Rational MKSA system, and SI are all attempts to make something useful out of a bunch of poorly chosen units. They are all based on the original metric system. None of them use all three basic units as originally defined by that system.

So, please, go play somewhere else. You are wasting everybody's time by repeating your discredited statements.

--Pete

[Zenda]

stupid... idiots... can't read or think... wasting everybody's time...

You are loosing your temper again, so I will add just one more thing.

The French are much to blame, according to your tirade. But the creator of the rationalized MKSA sytem, which was the direct precursor to SI, was an Ialian named Giorgi. He rationalized a coherent system out of 'loose' units, and is viewed as one of the greater contributors to SI.

http://www.iec.ch/about/history/articles...giorgi.htm

[--Pete]

Hi,

You are loosing your temper again, so I will add just one more thing.

Willful stupidity always upsets me. But, given the rest of your post, I'm beginning to think yours isn't willful. I'm glad to see that my posts aren't the only things you are incapable of reading with any degree of comprehension.

The French are much to blame, according to your tirade. But the creator of the rationalized MKSA sytem, which was the direct precursor to SI, was an Ialian named Giorgi. He rationalized a coherent system out of 'loose' units, and is viewed as one of the greater contributors to SI.

http://www.iec.ch/about/history/articles...giorgi.htm

The first paragraph of your link refutes almost all of your nonsense claims. Thank you. Let me quote it with some added emphasis in an attempt to aid your comprehension (probably a futile effort, but someone else might benefit from it).

"In October 1901, a very successful Italian scientist and engineer Giovanni Giorgi showed at the congress of the Associazione Elettrotecnica Italiana (A.E.I.) in Rome that a coherent system of units could be achieved by adding an electric unit to the three mechanical units (centimetre, gram, second) of the existing CGS system. The event can be considered as the birth of what is now known as the International System of Units, or SI. (Visit the IEC SI Zone for a full explanation of International System of Units.)"

First, so much for your claims that the cgs system was not used, or even rarely used. If it were some obscure system, why would a "very successful Italian scientist and engineer" pick it over other metric systems?

Second, note that what he did was show how an electrical unit could be added to the existing units. In no way did he change the existing units. The loose units that he cleaned up where the electrical units. Using modern terminology, the volt, the ampere, the ohm, the henry, the farad, the weber, and probably some I never heard of or can't remember were all defined by some operational definition (and sometimes more than one, hence electrostatic units and electrodynamic units formed two varieties of the cgs system -- both of which were metric systems). A common story is that in the USA, Ohm's law was illegal. The ohm, the volt, and the amp were defined individually. The result was that V = IR didn't work.

Third, if he added an electrical unit to the cgs system, and that "can be considered as the birth of what is now known as the International System of Units", then isn't it apparent that the gram was indeed the basic unit from which the kilogram was derived?

Please, quit. Not only are you ignorant of the subject, incapable of forming a logical argument, and unable to read with comprehension, but even your supporting links prove my point, not yours.

--Pete

[Zenda]

This issue was supposed to be addressed, but I knew I could count on you

The quote you highlight shows a poor choice of words. If you read a bit further, you will find this:

showing that the “absolute” system of practical units could be combined with the three mechanical units metre, kilogram and second to constitute a single coherent four-dimensional system of units. Four units – metre, kilogram, second and, for instance, ohm or ampere – could be chosen as base units from which all other practical electrical units could be derived.

Sure, as an electrical engineer in 1900, Giorgi undoubtly came into contact with the cgs system, and propably even worked with it. He realized however, that using meter and kilogram over centimeter and gram would be the better choice, so he introduced the socalled Giorgi units, also known as rationalized MKSA units (note the presence of M and K in MKSA, and the absence of C and G).

http://science.jrank.org/pages/17138/m-k-s-units.html

Giorgi units, rationalized MKSA

A metric system of units devised by A. Giorgi (and sometimes known as Giorgi units) in 1901. It is based on the metre, kilogram, and second and grew from the earlier c.g.s. units. The electrical unit chosen to augment these three basic units was the ampere and the permeability of space (magnetic constant) was taken as 10–7 H m–1. To simplify electromagnetic calculations the magnetic constant was later changed to 4π × 10–7 H m–1 to give the rationalized MKSA system. This system, with some modifications, formed the basis of SI units, now used in most scientific work.

Btw, you seem rather obsessed with CGS. Did your old field of experience happen to be material science or theoretical physics, perhaps, where you were forced to work with this outdated system? If that's the case, I certainly don't envy you

[--Pete]

Hi,

Giorgi units, rationalized MKSA
A metric system of units devised by A. Giorgi (and sometimes known as Giorgi units) in 1901. It is based on the metre, kilogram, and second and grew from the earlier c.g.s. units.
. . .
This system, with some modifications, formed the basis of SI units, now used in most scientific work.

Once again you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension. First note the "a metric system of units", not "the". It is your incorrect equating of "metric" with "SI" that is at the root of this problem. SI is indeed a metric system of units. But, just like all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs, not all metric systems are SI.

Second note the "earlier c.g.s. units". So, when I claim that the original definition of the gram was one cubic centimeter of water, that the gram is the basic unit of mass (the kilogram is the basic *standard* of mass in the SI system), that no metric system has ever been based directly on the meter-gram-second, and that you're full of crap, which one are you disputing?

Btw, you seem rather obsessed with CGS. Did your old field of experience happen to be material science or theoretical physics, perhaps, where you were forced to work with this outdated system? If that's the case, I certainly don't envy you

Actually, my fields of experience were material science, radiation effects, weapon technology, space based surveying, and a few others. In commerce, a scientist doesn't have the luxury of being one dimensional. And I've used just about every unit there is as needed. Whether it be bar for pressure, kilotons of TNT for energy, acre for area, pounds per square inch for pressure, amagats (you figure it out), km/s, mile per hour, orbital period in minutes, fuzing time in microseconds, sensor detection distance in feet, or shock velocity in mm/µs, or a bunch of others, what was convenient, I used. When all I was interested in was functional forms, I even used 'supernatural' units, where all constants, even pi, were set to one. I've never used cgs, but I know them well enough to have read older texts that use them. It is my contention that an intelligent person will use whatever units are the most convenient for the task at hand, and that only an ignorant or stupid person would demand that utility be discarded for some abstract notion of simplicity so that everything be measured on the same scale.

--Pete

[Zenda]

First note the "a metric system of units", not "the". It is your incorrect equating of "metric" with "SI" that is at the root of this problem.

Ofcourse CGS, MKS(A) and SI are all metric systems. There lies not the root of this problem. I do however equate 'metrication' with acceptation of the SI, which makes anti-gram arguments against metrication meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication...ted_States

Metrication is the process of introducing the International System of Units (SI or Système International), a metric system of measurement, to replace the historical or customary units of measurement of a country or region. The United States of America does not officially use or mandate a metric system of units, making it one of only three countries, along with Burma (Myanmar) and Liberia, that still use customary units.

[TheDragoon]

I do however equate 'metrication' with acceptation of the SI, which makes anti-gram arguments against metrication meaningless.

I think most of the arguments have been against using units in stupid ways versus using them in the appropriate settings for their use, not so much anti-gram, specifically. Anything specific to the gram was just making the point with regards to that measure. You could make a similar argument for kilograms, celsius, newtons or whatever other unit you'd like to target.

Regardless whatever point on whatever tangent from the body of this discussion that you're trying to make (I'm honestly not sure exactly what that point is or at least why it would matter at all) it certainly doesn't touch on any of the rest of the discussion.

[kandrathe]

"The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it." -- Grandpa Simpson

[Klaus]

I do however equate 'metrication' with acceptation of the SI, which makes anti-gram arguments against metrication meaningless.

I think most of the arguments have been against using units in stupid ways versus using them in the appropriate settings for their use, not so much anti-gram, specifically. Anything specific to the gram was just making the point with regards to that measure. You could make a similar argument for kilograms, celsius, newtons or whatever other unit you'd like to target.

Regardless whatever point on whatever tangent from the body of this discussion that you're trying to make (I'm honestly not sure exactly what that point is or at least why it would matter at all) it certainly doesn't touch on any of the rest of the discussion.

I find it odd that the kilogram is what they define to be such-and-such (used to be the mass of a reference object, but didn't they fix that?), but it's still a "kilo"-gram. So, really, the "base" unit is the gram, even tho the defined amount is 1000 of them. The CGS systems were equally weird, because they used the "centi" version of a unit as the base. :-P

What I like about the SI units is that they are defined in terms of measurable things - so many oscillations of a cesium atom, so many wavelengths of a particular color of light, etc. Beyond that, I find a lot of them awkward. I admit, a good chunk of that is because it's what I'm used to, but not all. I find the meter to be too long for everyday use (which is why I don't refer to lengths in "yards" either). The cm is too small. A dm would probably be OK, but still on the small side, and nobody uses them anyway. I could probably get used to km instead of mile. I have no intuitive feel for temperatures in C. Liters are an OK size. Electrical units, like the farad, don't need to be very intuitive. So the farad is usually a ridiculously large amount of cap, and we deal in micro-, pico- and fempto- varieties, but it doesn't matter. The picofarad (or "puff") has become an obnoxiously large amount in the semiconductor world.

The "english" units suffer from oddball conversion factors. 12 inches to a foot does make it harder when you have mixed feet and inches. But the "metric" world isn't without their own odd units, despite being factors of 10 to the base unit. The angstrom and the ton come to mind. There are perfectly good ways to express those in terms of meter or gram, but people don't.

Where I do take issue with using traditional units is when you're doing anything especially scientific. There's no reason to use slugs and feet when you're planning an orbit around mars.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I find it odd that the kilogram is what they define to be such-and-such (used to be the mass of a reference object, but didn't they fix that?), but it's still a "kilo"-gram. So, really, the "base" unit is the gram, even tho the defined amount is 1000 of them. The CGS systems were equally weird, because they used the "centi" version of a unit as the base. :-P

The kilogram is still defined to be the mass of an iridium-platinum cylinder kept in (I think) Paris. It is the only basic unit not defined by an operational definition. It would be simple enough to define it as some number of atoms of some element, but the technology for measuring the number of atoms is still not as precise as the direct comparison of two masses.

What I like about the SI units is that they are defined in terms of measurable things - so many oscillations of a cesium atom, so many wavelengths of a particular color of light, etc.

True, but that has nothing to do with being metric. For instance, take the number of oscillations of whatever frequency is used to define the meter. Calculate how many oscillations there are in 25.4 mm. That's your definition of an inch.

Where I do take issue with using traditional units is when you're doing anything especially scientific. There's no reason to use slugs and feet when you're planning an orbit around mars.

What you are overlooking here is that the imperial system is not the only other system around. There are many units, especially in science and engineering, that are (or were) used because they made sense. Things like star masses in terms of the solar mass, atomic mass units for atom and molecule sized units, bars for pressures from one atmosphere to about a million or so, mm of Hg for low pressures and vacuum (it even has a name, I believe the mm of Mg is the torr), barns (and sheds and doghouses) for atomic cross sections, etc.

I am not against using SI units (or any other system). I am against the 'you must use metric units for everything' mentality of the metrication morons.

Oh, and Celsius is easy. Water freezes at zero, comfortable room temperature is 20 or 21, normal body temperature is 37, and 40 is too damned hot to do anything. Remember those four points, and you've pretty much got it covered.

--Pete

[LavCat]

...
I find the meter to be too long for everyday use (which is why I don't refer to lengths in "yards" either). The cm is too small. A dm would probably be OK, but still on the small side, and nobody uses them anyway. I could probably get used to km instead of mile. I have no intuitive feel for temperatures in C. Liters are an OK size.

"A 'alf litre ain't enough. It don't satisfy. And a 'ole litre's too much. It starts my bladder running. Let alone the price."

[Jester]

"A 'alf litre ain't enough. It don't satisfy. And a 'ole litre's too much. It starts my bladder running. Let alone the price."

Thanks for that, it's been awhile since I've reread it.

-Jester

[Zenda]

I am against the 'you must use metric units for everything' mentality of the metrication morons.

If that mentality existed, how do you explain that the scientists and engineers who you describe as metrications morons actually use ...

Things like star masses in terms of the solar mass, atomic mass units for atom and molecule sized units, bars for pressures from one atmosphere to about a million or so, mm of Hg for low pressures and vacuum (it even has a name, I believe the mm of Mg is the torr), barns (and sheds and doghouses) for atomic cross sections, etc.

[Zenda]

Regardless whatever point on whatever tangent from the body of this discussion that you're trying to make (I'm honestly not sure exactly what that point is or at least why it would matter at all) it certainly doesn't touch on any of the rest of the discussion.

Let me explain it to you, then. Our disagreement starts with the very first lines of Pete's tirade:

Oh, and while you're at it, switch to metric and centigrade. Even more rational, logical ideas!

I often hear complaints or jabs about the USA not being on the metric system. Actually, we've been on the metric system since the late nineteenth century (1878).

Taelas remark was not about just any metric system, but about THE metric system known as SI. Pete acknowledges this by providing a link to a SI webpage in his first sentence. After all, why would anyone expect the US to switch to systems that are no longer the international standard. Then Pete disagrees with Taelas by telling the US are already on THE metric system, but now he refers to the Metric Convention of 1875, which was 85 years before SI was created. After this, he proceeds by picking units from metric systems left and right, and showing their shortcomings as arguments against that one metric system, the SI.

Now, who is incorrectly equating "metric" with "SI"?

[Zenda]

but it's still a "kilo"-gram

Well, if it makes you feel better about this, there was a (short) time when they used the word 'grave' for it. However, the (post-revolutionary) French saw too much association with the German aristocratic title 'Graf', and decided to switch to 'kilogramme', since they already had the 'gramme'.

[TheDragoon]

Taelas remark was not about just any metric system, but about THE metric system known as SI. Pete acknowledges this by providing a link to a SI webpage in his first sentence. After all, why would anyone expect the US to switch to systems that are no longer the international standard. Then Pete disagrees with Taelas by telling the US are already on THE metric system, but now he refers to the Metric Convention of 1875, which was 85 years before SI was created. After this, he proceeds by picking units from metric systems left and right, and showing their shortcomings as arguments against that one metric system, the SI.

Now, who is incorrectly equating "metric" with "SI"?

Ok, based upon this I see you've totally missed Pete's points. From what I have read he has sufficiently addressed all of your arguments with these basic points:

1. US units are already defined in terms of metric system units. I don't see that it matters one lick whether that uses cm, m or km (etc) since those are all units from the system.

2. SI is not THE metric system. While it is certainly A metric system (perhaps the most widely used metric system, at the moment) telling someone that CGS or other measures are not a metric system is ridiculous. They all use units from part of the system, it's really just a matter of scale and maybe some other little tweaks here and there.

3. Pete was not picking metric units to show that the SI is stupid. He was picking them as examples of why it makes sense to use other non-metric units in certain applications. He's listed quite a few examples of this, all of them quite reasonable to me.

As an aside, my personal favorite example of an application where using metric system units just isn't as nice as other units would be Football. There is no way that measuring the field in metric units (meters/centimeters/etc) would make sense. The field was defined at 100 yards long, broken up into 10 yard intervals. It certainly makes more sense to say that it's 10 yards for a first down rather than 9.144 meters for a first down.

At any rate, it seems we're continuing to beat the long-dead horse (which must have been unearthed by the rain we had up here the other day) so I'm going to leave it at this. Pete, if you ever do put together a standard measurement system rant, I'd be interested in reading it as these are always informative to me.

[Jester]

There is no way that measuring the field in metric units (meters/centimeters/etc) would make sense. The field was defined at 100 yards long, broken up into 10 yard intervals. It certainly makes more sense to say that it's 10 yards for a first down rather than 9.144 meters for a first down.

That's why you need an extra 10 yards.

-Jester

[Zenda]

The field was defined at 100 yards long

Sorry to disrupt your favorite example, but a football field can be of any length between 100 and 130 yards

[TheDragoon]

The field was defined at 100 yards long

Sorry to disrupt your favorite example, but a football field can be of any length between 100 and 130 yards

Sorry, I think you have Football confused with Soccer.

That's why you need an extra 10 yards.

Is that actually why you crazy people from up north have 110 yard fields or just a coincidence? I don't think I have ever really realized why the field was longer though I know it was for Canadian Football.

[Jester]

Is that actually why you crazy people from up north have 110 yard fields or just a coincidence? I don't think I have ever really realized why the field was longer though I know it was for Canadian Football.

I don't think so, but what do I know? I'm just joking around, although it would certainly make the conversion easier. Chop a meter off the end, and express all the previous "yard" rules as meters.

-Jester