In a message dated 04/04/2006, ian@........... writes:

the  comparrison is deeply flawed.  A metric tonne is a unit of mass, a ton 
is  a unit of force. Someone screwed up significantly when we went metric. It  
should have been Newtons or Kilo-Newtons for measuring  weight.

Ian.  



Hi Ian,
 
    No, it should not be defined as the force. If it  were, the actual 
quantity (mass) would vary from place to place. The ton in  commerce is also mass. 
Going metric wasn't a 'screw up'?
 
    Regards,
 
    Chris Chapman






In a message dated 04/04/2006, ian@........... writes:
<=
FONT=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=
=3D2>the=20
  comparrison is deeply flawed.  A metric tonne is a unit of mass, a to=
n is=20
  a unit of force. Someone screwed up significantly when we went metric=
.. It=20
  should have been Newtons or Kilo-Newtons for measuring=20
  weight.

Ian.  


Hi Ian,
 
    No, it should not be defined as the force. If i=
t=20
were, the actual quantity (mass) would vary from place to place. The ton in=20
commerce is also mass. Going metric wasn't a 'screw up'?
 
    Regards,
 
    Chris Chapman