A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

units of measurement on altimeters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old March 8th 04, 08:40 AM
Julian Scarfe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jukka K. Korpela" wrote in message
. ..

Describing them as hPa makes it clear what the unit is for someone
familiar with the SI, without risking accidents through unit
confusion.


Would it be clearer to use a non-recommended prefix than a recommended
prefix? Besides, your argument indicates a fundamental confusion. There
is only one SI unit of pressure, the pascal (Pa). That's part of the
beauty and practicality of the system. All the rest that is used to
express pressures relates just the way of expressing the numerical
value. For convenience, we can use multiplier prefixes of _the_ unit if
we like, or a multiplier of the number, consisting of a power of ten.


I'm not sure where you believe the "confusion" lies. Describing the unit as
hPa rather than mbar makes it clear that the unit is Pa and the prefix,
which is a standard SI prefix, gives the multiplier.

The preference to use powers of 1000 is just a preference because
practicality and pragmatism is sometimes more important than an
arbitrary recommendation. This is a perfect example of where
pragmatism should (and does) win.


The reason for preferring powers of 1,000, explicitly expressed in
several recommendations and standards, is its practicality, based on
the use of the system as a whole. If you take arbitrary special
aspects, you can always find arguments in favor of using non-SI units
or non-recommended SI expressions - but then you lose all the benefits
of a unified system.


Do you really believe that you lose *all* the benefits of a unified system
by using a prefix described (without deprecation, BTW) in the SI Brochure?

Using hPA is a half-hearted "solution" that
combines the trouble of transition


One man's half-hearted solution is another's essential compromise. :-)

Julian Scarfe


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) Anonymous Spamless Military Aviation 0 April 21st 04 05:09 AM
GWB and the Air Guard JD Military Aviation 77 March 17th 04 10:52 AM
Crosswind components James L. Freeman Piloting 25 February 29th 04 01:21 AM
RV-7a baggage area David Smith Home Built 32 December 15th 03 04:08 AM
A-4 / A-7 Question Tank Fixer Military Aviation 135 October 25th 03 03:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.