PSN-L Email List Message

Subject: Re: Man Made Quake
From: ian ian@...........
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:45:01 +0100


at the risk of religious wars(!), the "kilo" is subject to variation 
from place to place because we use a weighing machine to measure it!

Sigh.

:-)

Ian


ChrisAtUpw@....... wrote:

> 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




  
  


at the risk of religious wars(!), the "kilo" is subject to variation
from place to place because we use a weighing machine to measure it!

Sigh.

:-)

Ian


ChrisAtUpw@....... wrote:
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

[ Top ] [ Back ] [ Home Page ]