![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Julian Scarfe" wrote:
How can you possibly suggest that it would be more "practical" to use kPa? Because one digit less is needed, and conversions are easier when powers of 1,000 are used as normally. There is an installed base of tens of thousands of altimeters in aircraft out there that are calibrated in mbar. This is not about calibration, this is about expressing physical quantities. Besides, if the installed base of equipment were decisive, each of us would still use one's country's inch, pound, or whatever local measures were in use long ago. 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. 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. Using hPA is a half-hearted "solution" that combines the trouble of transition (after all, it needs to be introduced to people who didn't know it, and they need to be reminded, and some people will inevitably misunderstand or forget) with the effect of gaining almost nothing. (We _can_ convert millibars to pascals too.) -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |