[time-nuts] unités & conventions internationa les

[Arnold Tibus]

Simple?  in which sense? 

The British and the European do use the same Billion...
- if I red it correctly - 
even if the UK does feel sometimes not as Europe
(driving still on the wrong side ;-)  )

(I still hope that our government did apply the US-Billion when 
they published the government financial deficit...!)

There does exist eg. the beer volume standardization problem on the 
Bavarian 'Oktoberfest' in Muenchen,  they use a special 'Wiesn-Mass' 
volume, less content allowed, well compensated by a higher price... ;-)
(I beg pardon at my bavarian friends for this indiscretion!)

Something bad on trying to find a common international language 
(standardization) for better understanding in science and technique?

have a nice day,

Arnold


On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:56:52 -0700 (PDT), J. Forster wrote:

>The solution is simple:

>In the BBC TV series "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" there was a
>similar controversy about EU specifications on sausages. The brilliant
>solution, which let to the advancement from Minister to Prime Minister was
>to define TWO sausages...  the EU Sausage and the British Sausage.

>Following this paradeim, you could easily have a Billion and a British
>Billion.

>-John

>===============




>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:25:48 +0200, AL1 wrote:
>>
>>>HI all timenuts lovers,
>>
>>>i think it is not a question in our hobby : we have to use the
>>> international unities system  (SI) as result fron the international
>>> conventions.
>>>I warm recommand to read that:
>>>http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf
>>
>>>it is on the site of Bureau International des poids et mesures (BIPM),
>>> and is of first interest.
>>>Naturally in our life we can do as we think (...!?), but in any
>>> scientific domain it is no question of approximative!
>>>remember the lost of Mars orbiter due at the misusing of unities!
>>
>>>Meilleures salutations à tous
>>>Alain Bouchet
>>>ingénieur en métrologie
>>
>>
>> Merci beaucoup Alain,
>>
>> I didn't have this document in hand, but I tried always to follow the
>> known
>> standards thus avoiding possible misinterpretations. My concern here was
>> specially the problem with the different understandings of 'billion' and
>> 'trillion',
>> therfore addressing my question to Mark as originator of the very helpful
>> program
>> 'Lady Heather'.
>>
>> I see now that this was tackled already internationally by the BIPM
>> Standardization Organisation.
>>
>> Magnus, I do underline everything you said, as well the statement
>> "This can only be solved by means of education and correction."
>> But that the 'µ' sign (and other greek characters used and wrtten in books
>> for math. and physical faculties sind centuries) could not yet find the
>> way into
>> modern computers is not at all understandable nor acceptable.
>>
>> Concerning the 'ppm'- problem I quote from am. document:
>>
>> "The term 
ppm
, meaning 10^-6 relative value, or 1 in 10^6, or parts per
>> million, is
>> also used. This is analogous to the meaning of percent as parts per
>> hundred. The
>> terms 
parts per billion
, and 
parts per trillion
, and their respective
>> abbreviations 
ppb
,
>> and 
ppt
, are also used, but their meanings are language dependent. For
>> this reason
>> the terms ppb and ppt are best avoided. (In English-speaking countries, a
>> billion is
>> now generally taken to be 109 and a trillion to be 1012; however, a
>> billion may still
>> sometimes be interpreted as 1012 and a trillion as 1018. The abbreviation
>> ppt is also
>> sometimes read as parts per thousand, adding further confusion.)
>>
>> When any of the terms %, ppm, etc., are used it is important to state the
>> dimensionless quantity whose value is being specified."
>>
>> Sounds understandable, so there is nothing to be added from my side.
>> Hopefully we do in future not experience more of such 'Mars Orbiter
>> disasters',
>> this was not the only one, it is just the peak of a big pyramide of
>> comparable
>> 'accidents'.
>>
>> many thanks as well to the other commentators
>>
>> Arnold
>>