The more I think about it, the more I realize that as far as scientific conventions are concerned, no one has ever succeeded in forcing the scientific community to change. They change of their own free will when they want to, but attempts to arrange a concerted change always fail. A few examples:
Several years ago, there was an attempted move to change the sign convention for work (change it so that it is positive when done on system). A few older textbooks that I used stated that this was the "new" convention. The newer textbooks don't even mention it. (This new convention, however, has stuck in a few fields of theoretical physical chemistry, complicating matters worse.)
Another example is the new names of the high-mass elements. The old systematic names (Uun, Uuu, Uub, etc.) have stuck despite the IUPAC's decision to rename these elements.

Moral of the story is that the scientific community will never change a convention unless it wants to because it sees some value in it. Outside pressure will always be rejected.

Indeed. Although Isuspect that if in English nations a more complete techniical and scientific English system was used and endorsed, it would prevent many people from going metric, and boost english's popularity.


Probably off topic again, but when you ask people in Britain about metric and Imperial, most of the people who favour metrication will list, frankly, ONLY the following reasons almost always:


1. How many yards/feet to a mile? It is berky.

2. 14 pounds to a stone??? What!?!?! Un-uhh!

3. How many pounds to a ton, or stones to a ton!??!?!

4. *scoff* what is the hundredweight for?? *scoff*

5. These seem to be the only issues. also, people are unsure how to use 16ths.. probably because most people are no longer able to do the arithmetic (that the metric supporters admit even our 'barbaric' ancestors could do) required.


so....

1. 5000 feet to the mile

2. In America this is no issues. I have before suggested the adoption of a ten pound stone, or a 20 pound "centon" or "score" (to be combined with adopting the ton of 2000lbs and the cental)

3. As isay, in the US system this is not an issue at all

4. *ignores* There are "hundredweight" like units in metric, too.

5. Adoption of either the "iron"- historical unit of 1/48"- or the peteine- 1/24"

The more I think about it, the more I realize that as far as scientific conventions are concerned, no one has ever succeeded in forcing the scientific community to change. They change of their own free will when they want to, but attempts to arrange a concerted change always fail. A few examples:
Several years ago, there was an attempted move to change the sign convention for work (change it so that it is positive when done on system). A few older textbooks that I used stated that this was the "new" convention. The newer textbooks don't even mention it. (This new convention, however, has stuck in a few fields of theoretical physical chemistry, complicating matters worse.)
Another example is the new names of the high-mass elements. The old systematic names (Uun, Uuu, Uub, etc.) have stuck despite the IUPAC's decision to rename these elements.

Moral of the story is that the scientific community will never change a convention unless it wants to because it sees some value in it. Outside pressure will always be rejected.

Well, it should tell you a heck of a lot more if you delf a little deeper why that is so. I mentioned not long ago that Drs. still use mmHg instead of SI preferred Pascals to measure blood pressure. The question you have to ask now is why? Is it more difficult to measure in Pascals? Does it cost too much to change? Is there any other advantageous reason why they persist in using mmHg? Just keep delfing and let me know what you come up with, thanks.

Re: Changing conventions March 10 2004, 10:00 AM

Indeed. Although Isuspect that if in English nations a more complete techniical and scientific English system was used and endorsed, it would prevent many people from going metric, and boost english's popularity.


Probably off topic again, but when you ask people in Britain about metric and Imperial, most of the people who favour metrication will list, frankly, ONLY the following reasons almost always:


1. How many yards/feet to a mile? It is berky.

2. 14 pounds to a stone??? What!?!?! Un-uhh!

3. How many pounds to a ton, or stones to a ton!??!?!

4. *scoff* what is the hundredweight for?? *scoff*

5. These seem to be the only issues. also, people are unsure how to use 16ths.. probably because most people are no longer able to do the arithmetic (that the metric supporters admit even our 'barbaric' ancestors could do) required.


so....

1. 5000 feet to the mile

2. In America this is no issues. I have before suggested the adoption of a ten pound stone, or a 20 pound "centon" or "score" (to be combined with adopting the ton of 2000lbs and the cental)

3. As isay, in the US system this is not an issue at all

4. *ignores* There are "hundredweight" like units in metric, too.

5. Adoption of either the "iron"- historical unit of 1/48"- or the peteine- 1/24"


Boyo, you are barking up a dead tree. Sad but true.

It's "delving"

(that's the only bit i decided to correct considering others found his thread killer as akin to 'barking up a dead tree' - whatever that would look like)

There have been quite a few ericisms lately!

<<
mentioned not long ago that Drs. still use mmHg instead of SI preferred Pascals to measure blood pressure. The question you have to ask now is why? Is it more difficult to measure in Pascals? Does it cost too much to change? Is there any other advantageous reason why they persist in using mmHg? Just keep delfing and let me know what you come up with, thanks.
>>

They don't change because there would be no advantage to doing so.

Re: Changing conventions March 12 2004, 2:19 AM

<<
mentioned not long ago that Drs. still use mmHg instead of SI preferred Pascals to measure blood pressure. The question you have to ask now is why? Is it more difficult to measure in Pascals? Does it cost too much to change? Is there any other advantageous reason why they persist in using mmHg? Just keep delfing and let me know what you come up with, thanks.
>>

They don't change because there would be no advantage to doing so.


Who says so? Cholesterol measuremrents are done in different units in Europe and the US. Europe changed over to mmol/L, while America stuck to mg/dL. Now that might be news to you, but people do travel. An American in Europe having problems sees a Dr. and tells him his level, what's that the Dr. says, ditto in the States. Let's convert. Don't you think that conversions are cumbersome and unnecessary?

By the way it is HABIT that keeps mmHg alive and nothing else.

May I correct "meter" on a few points.

1. The use of mmHg for the measuremetn of blood pressure is expressly permitted in the EU direvtive and in the SI standard.

2. Cholestorel is not measured in mmol/L or in mg/dL, but sugar levels are. Moreover, in the UK the units mmol/L are used while in Germany the units are mg/dL. (I am diabetic and I test my sugar levels regularly).

THe term mg/dL is more useful than mmol/L because it allows supplementary calculations to be done more easily. For example, the avarage adult human being has about 5g of sugar in their blood stream. It is important for a diabetic to know this - this will make them aware of how the practical limits of how much sugar can be taken.

<<May I correct "meter" on a few points>>

Heck Martin, if we all did that we could be here for MONTHS!!!

<<
By the way it is HABIT that keeps mmHg alive and nothing else.
>>

Yes, it is. You still haven't told me what is wrong with that. Instead of answering, you changed the topic to cholesterol.

Martin.
I am no doctor, but this is how one explains the position today.

Total Blood Cholesterol Level 3.9 - 5.5 mmol/L > HDL - cholesterol 0.8 - 1.7 mmol/L > LDL - cholesterol 1.7 - 3.5 mmol/L > Triglycerides 0.5 - 1.7 mmol/L
Cholesterol reading in the US are reported in mg/dL, or milligrams per deciliter; Europe uses the SI (or Systeme International) units, reporting in mmol/liter or millimoles per liter. The factor used to convert between these two systems is 0.0259. To change values from US measurements into equivalent numbers in Europe multiply the US numbers by 0.0259.

Re: Changing conventions March 13 2004, 4:43 AM

<<
By the way it is HABIT that keeps mmHg alive and nothing else.
>>

Yes, it is. You still haven't told me what is wrong with that. Instead of answering, you changed the topic to cholesterol.

To show you what happens when everybody looks after his own little pot.
Ever heard of the global village? If everyone uses different measurements globally, we are back to square one again. One standard world wide will do fine.

<<
One standard world wide will do fine.
>>
No one ever said it wouldn't.
But what we have works fine too.

Re: Changing conventions March 15 2004, 7:31 AM

<<
One standard world wide will do fine.
>>
No one ever said it wouldn't.
But what we have works fine too.

That's what the peasants said before metrication. Meaning, they only saw their little village and thought that was the whole world.

So if the world was their village, so what?

There would be no need to standardize with other villages if there were no connections with other villages.

I'm surprised you're still arguing with him.

The others have left - ages ago.

You can imagine all the pro-imperials and pro-metrics in the virtual pub continuing their arguments in a proper and fun way.

You can join us if you want, Bud!

but metre's logic amuses me.

Re: Changing conventions March 16 2004, 6:06 AM

So if the world was their village, so what?

There would be no need to standardize with other villages if there were no connections with other villages.


I think you didn't really know what you said when you wrote that sentence?

That is how you arrive occasionally, but only very occasionally, at profound insights.

Re: Changing conventions March 17 2004, 3:40 AM

but metre's logic amuses me.


Sadly, I can't return that compliment.

So you respond to my statement by saying that you think I didn't know what I was saying when I wrote it. Now do you see why it's amusing?

It's amusing because of the lack of logic. So if you can't return the compliment, it's a good thing.

The pro-imperials have bought you a pint of Lager whilst the pro-metrics have ordered 35ml of vodka and coke for you......

We have prepared an ounce of common sense for eric, but we think it'll go to waste.

Re: Changing conventions March 17 2004, 7:45 AM

So you respond to my statement by saying that you think I didn't know what I was saying when I wrote it. Now do you see why it's amusing?

It's amusing because of the lack of logic. So if you can't return the compliment, it's a good thing.

Now it is hilarious b/c you still don't how funny and pointless it is what you actually said. Keep trying, or ask somebody to help you.

It is interesting that this thread has generated 21 responses in the last few days, and not a single one is substantially on the same topic as the original post. Most of them, in fact, have nothing to do with the original post whatsoever.

I'm not trying to criticize anyone. I'm only pointing out an observation.

<<Now it is hilarious b/c you still don't how funny and pointless it is what you actually said. Keep trying, or ask somebody to help you>>

erk!

Will someone tell eric, please? Put him out of his misery?

Re: Changing conventions March 17 2004, 7:45 AM

So you respond to my statement by saying that you think I didn't know what I was saying when I wrote it. Now do you see why it's amusing?

It's amusing because of the lack of logic. So if you can't return the compliment, it's a good thing.

Says a man who thinks illogical units are the next best thing to sliced bread. You have to do better than that.

I'm not sure if I need to reply anymore - considering your credibility is at an all time low.

Have a look around, eric