¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. Test-Equipment-Design-Construction
  2. Messages
Single Messages Topics Expanded Polls

Re: Cal Lab Magazine - International Journal of Metrology

 

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 19:56, Tom Lee <tomlee@...> wrote:
I disagree, more strongly now than before, given the citation that you present in bold. The key word that you have missed is ¡°symbol¡±. One certainly should not add an ¡°s¡± to pluralize a symbol. But the unit¡¯s name is not a symbol. The symbol for watt is W, but the unit¡¯s name is watt.

This was the point I¡¯ve made a couple of times already. Can we get off the carousel now?

A power of ¡°2 watt¡± is simply wrong.

Tom

It is odd however how a document from the BIPM


states on page 76 of the PDF

"the luminous efficacy Kcd of monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 ¡Á 10^12 Hz is exactly 683 lumen per watt."? I attach another document from the BIPM, this time a screenshot, rather than text, as I can't get symbols to display properly.

However, looking at the NPL website


it would suggest my usage has been incorrect. It has some recommendations, one of which is

For unit values more than 1 or less than -1 the plural of the unit is used and a singular unit is used for values between 1 and -1.

Dave

unnamed.png

Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.