RE: [LEAPSECS] pedagogically barren?

From: Seeds, Glen <Glen.Seeds_at_COGNOS.COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:00:00 -0400

It's also true that changing to SI units for weight and volume is a lot more
technically tractable than for length. Public opposition would still be a
big barrier, though.
  /glen

-----Original Message-----
From: William Thompson [mailto:thompson_at_ORPHEUS.NASCOM.NASA.GOV]
Sent: June 4, 2003 10:35 AM
To: LEAPSECS_at_ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] pedagogically barren?


Markus Kuhn wrote:

        (stuff deleted)

> While the international inch is indeed linked to the meter by a
> reasonably round factor, and even shows up indirectly in a number of ISO
> standards (e.g., inch-based threads and pipes), this can clearly not be
> said for the US pound and the US gallon and units derived from these,
> which are still required by US federal law to be present on consumer
> packages. As long as it remains legal and even required in the US to
> price goods per gallon or pound (units completely unrelated to the inch!),

        (rest deleted)

According to the NIST website, a gallon is defined as exactly 231 cubic
inches.
  I would say that was a long way from being completely unrelated to the
inch.

While the pound is unrelated to the inch, it is defined as exactly
0.45359237
kilograms.

Neither is a nice round number, but there is a definite relationship.

William Thompson

This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you
have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you
may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any
attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender
promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you.
Received on Wed Jun 04 2003 - 08:02:19 PDT