Re: [Phys-l] backwards units : entrenched usage

[Trevor Fink <tmfink@ilstu.edu>]

On 5/17/08 6:52 PM, "Hugh Haskell" <hhaskell@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I dunno. Maybe this is just a historical phenomenon, but it may also
> be a natural thing for people who are not well trained in science. As
> you point out, electricians seldom use the words current or
> potential, but they also seldom use any of the accepted phrases for
> rotational speed or power. I have heard them frequently say "the RPMs
> are . . ." and "the HP is . . ." And my students often used terms
> like that, substituting the unit for the name of the quantity--"The
> joules of this object are . . ." etc. Look on the label of a can of
> soda. It won't say Energy: xx joules, or yy Calories. It always says
> Calories: yy (I used to have a Coke can from Australia that listed
> energy content correctly, as xx joules).

As one far less educated in the realm of physics I read this and did not see
error; further proving your point.  I do not understand why "the RPMs are"
is incorrect. I would conclude that onset to read, "The RPMs are equal to
1,000."  This, to me, means the same as, "The engine is operating at 1,000
RPMs."  Maybe that is wrong too, I don't know.

I would like to offer 1 final thought.  Why is it that, if we understand
what a calorie is, we can't say that substance has 1,000 calories?  Why must
we say Energy: 1,000 calories?  Such short cuts are accepted elsewhere (no
doubt raising similar alarm amongst members of their respective fields),
such as at any McDonalds, you will see "Drive Thru."  When did this become
acceptable?  When did we decide that apostrophes were optional?  Who
knows... But if you know what I mean when I don't use an apostrophe then
what purpose does it serve?  Let us make an argument for conservation.  How
much ink and paper would be saved if we eliminated every apostrophe from
every book ever printed?  Probably more ink than all of the Office Depots,
Office Max and Office Whatevers on earth.  Yes, that is just conjecture, but
you get it.  Hugh, I don't mean to call you out, but if physics professors
can use "dunno" why cant english, history, economics, etc. students use RPMs
and calories in a way familiar to them?  Its sad, to me, that lazy
informalities such as, "idk, imho, nvm, txt, msg," et cetera et al have
become so common place.  Even worse is that I too fall victim to the vice
and use those informalities.

I scattered several errors throughout this posting.  Did you notice them?
If not, does it matter that they are there?  Was the overall meaning changed
by my gratuitous use, misappropriation, or omission of "necessary"
punctuation, spelling, or convention? Idk, u tell me... ;)