Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Wouldn't it have been easier if
> they had defined the "international BTU" to be 1000 J?

No, since BTU has a previous meaning of course.  It makes sense to formalize
the definition in MKS units, but not to actually change its value.  A BTU is
the amount of energy it takes to raise one pound of water 1 degree F if I
remember right.  This is a property of water and you don't just get to
decide it should be a different value.  If you want 1000J you can already
just say KJ.

For a while the meter was defined as a certain number of wavelengths of the
red emissions of krypton 86 if I remember right.  They didn't just pick a
nice round number because the meter had a previous definition, which in that
case I think was a platinum-iridium bar kept in Paris.  The definition was
so careful to preserve the previous length of the meter that it was actually
given in fractions of the wavelength, even though the actual number was in
the millions.  Would you rather they rounded off to the nearest 1000
wavelengths or so?

I don't know why they have to go thru all this sillyness.  After all how
many people have krypton 86 handy or a means of measuring a few million of
its wavelengths even if they did.  It would be a lot simpler if they just
picked something common, like the distance from the tip of the nose to the
tip of the index finger with the arm outstretched.  Everyone (well, most
everyone) has those handy.  The size of your foot and the width of the your
palm are other readily available measures, the latter particularly useful
for measuring the size of a horse.  Geesh, why do they have to make
everything so *complercated*!?


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist