## 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 ]