Abstract
To all who are interested in the improvement of scientific nomenclature the points raised by Dr. Guillaume's letter (NATURE, June 17, p. 427) are of great importance. In my opinion the case for rational nomenclature has been stated with both logic and humour by Dr. Guillaume, while Dr. Harker's reply seems to show misapprehension of the main point. All good nomenclature should be unambiguous, and, if possible, self-explanatory. The terms masse volumique, volume massique, and stéradian have both these desirable qualities; no one with a knowledge of physics and French could make any mistake as to the exact meaning of the first two, and the meaning of the third should be at once self-evident to anyone who knows, the definition of a solid angle. I should not expect a chemist or a botanist to have anything but a hazy idea of the meaning of puissance massique, but even to an ordinary French engineer it should convey its meaning instantly.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CAMPBELL, A. The Names of Physical Units. Nature 95, 451–452 (1915). https://doi.org/10.1038/095451c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/095451c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.