[time-nuts] unités & conventions internationales
Joseph M Gwinn
gwinn at raytheon.com
Mon Oct 12 18:01:18 UTC 2009
While Britain and Europe may agree on the definition of "billion" (a
million million), the US differs (a thousand million). So, IEEE standards
use "one thousand million" and do not use billion.
Joe Gwinn
From:
"Arnold Tibus" <Arnold.Tibus at gmx.de>
To:
"Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
<time-nuts at febo.com>, "jfor at quik.com" <jfor at quik.com>
Date:
10/12/2009 11:28 AM
Subject:
Re: [time-nuts] unités & conventions internationa les
Sent by:
time-nuts-bounces at febo.com
Simple? in which sense?
The British and the European do use the same Billion...
- if I read 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
>>
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com
mailing list