Introductionary Preamble (part one).

So, I’m trying my hand at essay writing (about measurement systems). Hopefully it is not laughably bad, and will lay the foundations of a number of later essays. I wish to touch on some of my thoughts about measuring systems and their roles and to suggest some workable, perhaps to be adopted in some form nation-wide someplace, systems and units (within in the, to be established in a moment, context).
This piece will be broken up into several fairly distinct sections that follow on from one another. Firstly, I will establish certain “rules” and ideas- goals I have generally and in this essay. Secondly, I will talk of a, what I consider, “reasonable” set of potential alterations to the foot. I will then follow with the bulk of this piece, talking of three slightly different, though hopefully useful and well measured, as it were, systems. Finishing with a little bit more detail on my thoughts and two other interesting systems, followed by my final words and afternotes.
Also, note that I often refrain from drawing any conclusions, but rather present the figures and ideas so as to give you, the reader, the opportunity to judge for yourself the merits of the ideas within.


Introductionary Preamble (part two- Laying the Groundwork).
Recently I have been working on devising systems where the three basic units (those of length, volume and force) are all derived from some, preferably clean, fraction of the distance light travels in a second in a vacuum. My goals in these systems have been:

 To essentially leave the present English units of the foot and the ounce relatively unchanged (relative to the change that would be brought by introducing a foot that is defined as the distance light travels in 1/1,000,000,000 of a second in a vacuum)
 To create a union of volume and capacity. That is to say, the word “Bushel” (or another if so preferred) would be a true synonym for the expression “cubic foot” and not just a close approximation; a marriage complete.
 To, as far as possible whilst maintaining what I have judged as reasonably easy to remember definitions of the foot, engineer the systems so that the volume occupied by one “fluid ounce” of water at maximum density weighs an ounce.

I have also devised some systems (or, rather, variants of potential systems), which are slightly more removed from the present English units. Included in this category is the aforementioned 1/1billion foot.
I shall briefly introduce each system as I lay it down and some key thoughts that may have struck me in the creation of that system. Also, note that I am focusing on suggesting systems here with only the three “normal”, or customary, elements (weight/force, length/distance and volume/capacity), due to two main reasons:
1. I believe that as a person who uses these styles of units everyday I am as qualified to suggest reforms in this area as anybody else. That is to say that I, for the most part, wish to leave more “complex”, as they may be deemed, “Scientific” units to the scientists.
2. I do not have, presently, the required information and resources with which to consider the problem of measures in terms of their theory and application in relation to mass, work and so on.

Considering the above, it is fair to add another goal to the three listed already:

 To create units and systems that will be useful to scientists, engineers, mathematicians and other likeminded individuals. Hence my trying to define these units scientifically and practically (in all respects)
 To show that there are systems that are easily created that use the same basic defining elements as the present metric system, but that are much better for the job of advanced and basic measuring. Buy “basic defining elements”, I essentially mean basing the main length unit off a certain fraction of the distance light travels in a vacuum in a second, and deriving the volume and weight units, in some way, from this length.


I will be using certain terms and abbreviations (other than the standard and accepted), and making several assumptions throughout which I will duly note here.

1. The maximum density of water is 1cm^3/1g at 4ºC (39ºF). I use this figure as it appears the most reliable and supported figure.
2. 1 inch is equal to exactly 2.54cms.
3. 1 ounce is equal to exactly 28.349523125grms.
4.
i. Therefore, in English terms using the figures in points 1-3, the formula required to calculate this is:
1/2.54^3 over 28.349523125. (0.061023744094732283952756881891717x28.349523125).
That is, the volume of water occupied, at maximum density, of exactly one ounce, is:
1.7299940443876950746027476306921 cu. ins.
ii. I usually round this, in my calculations, to 1.73 cubic inches (and therefore, 16 to 27.68)
5. The volume that is equal to, exactly or approximately, one ounce of water, shall be referred to as the “floz”, and will be abbreviated as “fl”.
6.
i. The term “bushel” shall always refer to the volume of a cube with a length equalling approximately one foot.
ii. The term “gallon” will be used to refer to the next unit in the scale down from the bushel. The number used to relate the two will not remain constant. It could be twelve or ten or any other number deemed appropriate.
iii. Likewise, the word “pint” shall refer to the main unit along the scale down from the gallon. It need not be the unit most closely resembling the current pint.
7. When I compare the units and give their sizes in relation to one another, I will always be referring to how they relate to Imperial measures, and not American. I will, usually, only refer to the approximate size in present units, as mostly the exact conversion will not be required. An example of this is that I will refer to the gallon as being 277.42 cubic inches whether or not it is exactly this.
8. Often, I will use the terms “cuin” and “cuft”. Their meaning should be self evident, but just to be clear, these terms refer to “cubic inches” and “cubic feet”. Context will indicate whether I am talking of cuin and cuft Imperial or in the system that is at that time being proposed.
9. So as to not keep repeating the expressions “..the distance light travels in a vacuum in a second”, and “.. the weight of water occupying a volume of one cubic foot at maximum density”, I will often just refer to the fraction of the distance the light travels (e.g. 1/700,000), and talk of the “weight” of the water or of the cubic unit itself.


Sorry for this lengthy introduction for what will follow a, no doubt, somewhat disappointingly short and perhaps even not satisfactory exploration, but I include this introduction now so as to establish certain rules and clarify certain objectives and to save myself the need to do this again (until it is required again, that is).

***


A “Reasonable” Redefinition of the Foot.

1 cuft of water weighs a little under 1000oz. (approx. 998.85). A suggestion would be to keep our system as is, but just to alter the foot ever so slightly to make this alignment exact. Or, rather, to make it close enough so that an ounce can become 1/1000 the weight of water occupying, at max. dens., a cubic foot. I suggest the following figures which, I feel, are (as ever) “reasonable”: This would imply that the Bushel (8 gallons, approximately a 13”cube), would become the cubic foot. However, I do not suggest that is a necessary change, but if we are to realign the foot with the main reason for doing so to make a cubic foot of water weigh 1000oz, then it would be natural that in all spheres, the Bushel would become the cubic foot, making it 1000oz. However, this need not be accompanied by a proportional downsizing of the pint and gallon; I take it that the bushel would exclusively become used for three dimensional area (volume) and would become separate from the pint and gallon. Perhaps the fluid ounce could be changed to be 1.73 cubic inches, but with the bushel no longer being 8 gallons (it would become 6.25gals, approx.)

i. 1/983,570,000
ii. 1/983,225,000
iii. 1/983,192,500
iv. 1/983,500,000
v. 1/983,000,000

Basic Repercussions.

Definition “i.”
The foot now equals exactly 12.000012888930482152473806050736”
Therefore a yard is equal to 36.000038666791446457421418152209”
A mile (assuming its 1760 yard length) 63360.068053552945765061695947888”
The mile is now around One fifteenth of an inch longer.
1/1000 the weight of a cubic foot of water is 998.850oz

Definition “ii.”
The foot now equals exactly 12.004223526827892222745212354571”
A yard 36.012670580483676668235637063712”
A mile 63382.300221651270936094721232134”
The mile is now fractionally over 22.3” longer than its present size.
1/1000 the weight of a cubic foot water is 999.90240oz

Definition “iii.”
The foot now equals exactly 12.004620333419299202047067504403”
A yard 36.013861000257897606141202513209”
A mile 63384.395360453899786808516423248”
The mile is now a little over 24.395” longer than its present length.
1/1000 the weight of a cubic foot of water is 1000.001oz

Definition “iv.”
The foot now equals exactly 12.00086698237453414408608176647”
A yard 36.002600947123602432258245299409”
A mile 63364.577666937540280774511726959”
The mile in this case is now a little under 4.578” longer.
1/1000 the weight of a cubic foot of water is 999.063880oz

Definition “v.”
The foot now equals exactly 12.006971187350309593803317820267”
A yard 36.020913562050928781409953460802
A mile 63396.807869209634655281518091012”
Therefore, the mile is now slightly more than 36.8” longer.
1/1000 the weight of a cubic foot of water is 1000.589oz


Now, the desirability of the above, what I consider most obvious and simple redefinitions of the foot, is largely a matter of personal taste. And whether they make the foot-pound system(s) any easier is a matter that will be open to debate, surely. Also, whether the possible resulting complications of conversion between “Imperial” and metric is something to be desired is, too, a source of potential debate. However, I view the above as simple alterations so as to enable decimal working of the weight and length systems for the various fields and in the various fields that it will be required.
I do not believe that anything in this world is “dead” if it continues to move. I do not wish to get involved in any esoteric reasoning or matters of philosophy in this piece, so will dispense with the all too often and expected (and delivered) reasons about the yard or the metre being God given or whatever. However, it is important to recognise and note here, that something that no longer is used or adapts to its terrain is, in fact, dead. The metric related systems are constantly, if rather sluggishly, changing. As is the case in the English systems. Therefore, I view the above as reasonably expected, rational, and perfectly sensible changes to the Imperial system which will, I believe is self-evident, improve it, if only in some modest way.

These redefinitions of the foot could also be accompanied by the complete changing of the “English” system to make it entirely decimal. This might entail the end of the mile as we know it, and the creation of some kind of “kilofoot”. It could also be accompanied by the altering of English units to a decimal scaling so as to create something resembling the following:

1000 grains equal an ounce.
1000 ounces equal a thousandweight.
100 grains a dram.
0.1 feet a deci, and so on.*1


I do not believe that such a pure decimal system is required or even vaguely beneficial to scientists or the hoi-polloi, but, being a supporter of traditional measures and more specifically the continuance of English measures in the English world, this will no doubt come as no real surprise.

Another, what I consider small (relatively) change to the English system which I have suggested elsewhere which may as well be included here for the sake of fullness, is that of changing the volume of the fl. oz. to be 1.75cuin the world over. This would be with the intent that the “split” between American measures and Imperial would remain. It would, however, clear up most of the “misunderstandings” between the two variants, and create much more practical pints, gallons and bushels in terms of the number of cubic inches comprising them.


A slightly more dramatic change to potentially accompany the above redefinitions of the foot, leads me on to three closely related systems. These three could fairly be described respectively as the decimal, mixed and binary foot systems. The basics of these systems are:

1. Decimal- 1000 ounces to a cuft water.
2. Mixed- 960 ounces to a cuft water.
3. Binary- 1024 ounces (64lbs) to a cuft water.

***


The Pure Decimal Foot System.
Core:

The basic unit: The foot (ft)
This is defined as one of the above 5, or some other very similar.

The basic volume unit: The bushel (bsh)
This is a cube with one foot along each side.
The capacity and volume systems are combined.

The basic weight unit: The thousandweight (mwt)
This is the weight of a bushel.

Auxiliary and others:

The weight system shall be, assuming no prefixing system is employed:

1mwt = 1000oz
1oz = 1000grains (gr)

100 gr = 1 dram (dr)
10 oz = 1lb
100oz = 1 stone (st)
-Other weight units larger and smaller, as well as other powers of ten in between, may also be invented.
-The stone unit presented here, of course varying slightly based on the exact definition of the foot employed, equals about 6.25lbs. avoir.
-The mwt is around 62.5lbs avoir.
-The ounce, 437 present grains


The Volume system shall be:

10fl = 1 pint (pt)
100fl = 1 gal
1000fl = 1 bsh

The “pint” unit here will be almost exactly one half-pint. I suggest that the creation of a “fifth” of a gallon unit as the most appropriate for drinking beer and buying milk (etc)


Even in a “Pure” Decimal foot, I cannot suggest a completely decimal length and distance system which I would view as beneficial. I shall now, however, present some suggestions as to the names of these two length systems: one completely decimal and one featuring some multiples of ten.

Pure Decimal:

Kilorod/Mile = 10,000ft
Kilofoot/Furlong = 1000ft
Hectofoot/Chain/Hundredfoot/hundrafoot = 100ft
Dekafoot/Decad/Rod = 10ft
Foot
Decifoot/Deci/Sun *2 = 1/10ft
Centifoot/Line = 1/100ft
Millifoot = 1/1000ft

Note: 1/1000ft is roughly 1/85”

Semi-Decimal:

Foot to be divided decimally or otherwise.
5 feet to a pace (ps)
1000ps to a mile.




The Mixed Foot System.

For this system it will be required to use a different definition for the foot than those used previously. To elaborate and remind you of the “goal” of this system, it is create a mixed units system in terms of the ratios between the units, which should resemble the current English systems. What I have devised is as follows.

1 cubic foot of water weighs 960oz.

Weight:
16oz = 1lb
6lbs, 96oz = 1 st
10st, 60lbs, 960oz = 1mwt

Volume:
16fl = 1pt
6pts, 96fl = 1gal
10gal, 60pts, 960fl = 1 bsh

Alternatively, though in this humble painter’s eyes *3 it compromises the aesthetic of the system, we could have the following. (such things as aesthetic being of the utmost importance. Especially considering that languages form part of the culture in which they are used, as well as impacting directly on, and being a direct consequence of, those very people’s mentality. A measuring system is, of course, a part of the “language” of the people. Sorry to drudge beliefs up again after having already stated it was my aim to not, but before you have finished yelling at this screen that measuring systems are not part of our language in any reasonably major way (if you are one of those types), consider the expression “give ‘em an inch…”. The fact is, measuring systems can have a profound impact on the mentality of the people (though usually they are the result of the mentality of the people), but I shall save this line for some other time).

Alternatively:
Weight:
16oz = 1lb
12lbs, 192oz = 1 st
5st, 60lbs, 960oz = 1 mwt

Volume:
16fl = 1pt
12pts, 192fl = 1 gal
5gals, 60pts, 960fl = 1bsh


The definition of the foot, upon which the above completely depends, has, once more, several viable options.

i. 1/997,500,000
ii. 1/996,660,000
iii. 1/997,000,000
iv. 1/995,000,000

Once again, let us look at the basic impact of the foot being defined in these ways.

Basic Repercussions:

Definition “i.”
The foot now equals exactly 11.832433761569277524519961320624”
The yard 35.497301284707832573559883961873”
The pace (5ft) 59.162168807846387622599806603122”
The mile 62,475.250261085785329465395772897”
It should be noted again that in these three alternative systems I am presently working through (The Decimal, Mixed and Binary Light-Foot Systems), I generally assume a system where five feet equals one pace, there being 1000 paces in a mile. On this basis, the mile would be exactly 59,162.168807846387622599806603122 inches. This equates to approximately 1643.4yds.

The pint (16oz) equals almost exactly 16 present fl. oz.
The gallon equals almost exactly 4.7892560957744568426750421035663pts
The bushel equals almost exactly 5.9865701197180710533438026294583gals.

Note: I say “almost” exactly, as I, presently, cannot verify whether the Imp. Gal. Really does equal exactly 277.42cuin. When I am able to ascertain its exact size, I will amend this piece to reflect that accordingly.

I do not wish to overburden this piece with reams of almost identical figures reflecting the above alternative definitions of the foot, so will condense the information as follows:

-The bushel is around 6gals
-The gallon is around 5pts
-The thousandweight, which should be as close to 960oz as possible, is from in between 958 and 965oz. My preferred choice of definition “ii.” Creates a mwt of 960.00560oz.
-The pound is 16.000… oz.
-The mile is around 1645yds.

Finally, to complete this introduction of this trio of similar systems, we will now look briefly at the “Binary” version.


The Binary Foot System.

This system, too, can have the foot defined in a number of ways. I shall list three reasonably easy figures to illustrate this system with. Keep in mind, of course, that the basic goal of this system (asides from those already mentioned goals that this trio shares), is to create a bushel that weighs as near as damnit 64lbs. This is, of course, so that 1/64 of the weight of this unit, will equal a size extremely close to the present pound.

The four main definitions of the foot, then, are:

1. 1/974,000,000 the distance light travels in a second in a vacuum.
2. 1/975,000,000 the distance light travels in a second in a vacuum.
3. 1/976,000,000 the distance light travels in a second in a vacuum.
4. 1/975,500,000 the distance light travels in a second in a vacuum.

These three definitions create thousandweights (the weight of water taking up a volume of one cubic foot at maximum density (a bushel), you will remember) of the following approximate sizes:

1. 1028.57oz
2. 1025.4oz
3. 1022.27oz
4. 1023.84oz.

Considering all of this, then the weight, length and volume systems are as follows:

16oz = 1lb
64lbs, 1024oz = 1mwt

The binary multiples and divisions could be named as follows. The goal, of course, probably being to reflect the present names or represent in some way what the sizes of the various units measure:

32lbs = 1 half
16lbs = 1 stone
8lbs = 1 clove
2lbs = 1 ki (from kilogramme, which is 2.205lbs)
32mwt, 2048lbs, 32,768oz = 1 ton

For length, we may have:
3ft = 1 yd
32yds = 1 chain
32 chains = 1 click *4 , 1024yds
2 clicks = 1 mile, 2048yds

That is, to concieve of it another way:
1/8 mile = 1 furlong = 256yds
1/8 fur = 1 ch = 32yds

For volume:
16fl = 1pt
8 pts, 128fl = 1 gal
8 gals, 64pts, 1024fl = 1bsh


And now we have concluded the main part of this piece. I have a couple of potentially much more dramatic systems (though still bearing in mind the principles and goals of this piece in the introduction). Other systems and practical applications of these and other systems will be gone over at a later date. Once again, this entire piece is meant mainly as an introduction to some alternative systems to metric.

***

The Light foot System.

We come to what I usually refer to as the “Light foot system”, or sometimes the “Roman Light foot system”. Unfortunately, neither of these terms of particularly accurate or appropriate, especially when you consider that any system where the basic unit of length happens to be derived from some fraction of the speed of light and which also happens to be roughly foot sized, could be called a “Light foot system”. Added to this, we have not so much as a system here, at least no more elaborate than the “Pure Decimal Foot System” outlined earlier, so much as a single unit- the foot.
You may ask what is the point of dedicating an entire section to a single definition of the foot, which could have been included in an earlier section. That would be a fair question, but the answer is simple and twofold:
1. The definition of this foot changes it from its present size significantly.
2. More to the point, it has important implications as regards metric reform.

This foot is the exactly 1/1,000,000,000 the distance light travels in a second in a vacuum.
I find this foot, which happens to be roughly the same size as the Roman foot of old (11.80”/29.9cms), to be an incredibly exciting prospect for one reason alone. That is, not so much as it may one day become the basis of a new system, (though that would be quite nice to see, in my humble opinion), but more that it demonstrates the fundamental inadequacies of the metre-based metric system.
The metre is defined as 1/299,792,458 the distance light travels in a vacuum in a second. Now, this is often treated as 1/300,000,000, but that still is not a decimal number. This is quite significant, I believe, when almost everything in the metric system is rounded to or based on the number ten or its powers of. >>The previous definition was equally awful<<. And why is the “progressive” metric system burdened with the same thing the English system is “burdened” with? (that thing being the inability to change significantly from historically established units). Well, units have a kind of inertia and sluggish movement and life all of their own. Now, this is not a problem at all. But when your central unit is based on something not in nature or particularly practical or at hand, then when a more appropriate “natural constant” is found, you will find a system almost unworkable scientifically, and useless in terms of its lack of anthropomorphicity, also. However, the foot is something that most of have at least one of. Now, before I trail off into a complete rant against the metric system, which, I am forced to remind myself, is not the point of this piece, I will return to the metre.
The metre. Even its original definition was not decimal, being based, as it was, off 1/40,000 the circumference of the Earth (1/10,000 of the distance from the North Pole to the equator through an arc of Paris). So, in short, the “metre”, if defined decimally, would in fact be the foot. That is why I like this new and most natural of units- it is a good demonstration of the uselessness and of the undesirability of the metre (at or about its present size). Perhaps one day, the metric system will be reformed along this or some other lines, leaving us with a unit called “metre”, but actually more closely resembling the foot, cubit or some other ancient measure. And, on that note, perhaps it would be more appropriate, then, to refer to this foot unit as the “Pure Decimal Light foot”, 1/1,000,000,000 being the only clean decimal number to use.

Now, I come to the second of my, perhaps unexpected, systems:


The Palm, Pint, Pound System.

The palm is an ancient unit of measure (sometimes referred to as the “hand”), now not used, measuring three inches. After a while, the hand became four inches- more accurately reflecting the size of the hand- and the “hand” remained as the palm, now too more closely resembling it’s size. As I said, the palm is actually now no longer used, and the hand is only used in a very limited number of ways, being restricted, as it is, to measuring the height of horses. However, the palm is a potentially useful unit that I have used in a big way in a proposed dozenal system of mine, before.
Three inches cubed is 27cu. in. One pound of water at maximum density occupies a volume of 27.68cuin. It can be seen, then, that if the inch were slightly longer, this could become an exact match. Hence, this system.

The Palm is the fundamental unit of length, the pint the basic unit of volume, and the pound for force. One cubic palm is a pint, and the weight of water that occupies, at maximum density, one cubic palm, is a pound. This is the basis of the system. As regards other units, it would be fruitless to speculate here as to what they should be. Suffice it to say, this system has, I feel, a lot of potential, especially considering it features two highly established units almost unchanged in size, and one other ancient, though no longer presently used, unit.

As in all other systems, a various number of ways of defining the units could be used (though in this essay I have kept that constant, having only varied the specific fraction (which obviously goes quite some way to defining the unit!)). I suggest either 1/3,900,000,000 or 1/3,901,000,000 the distance light travels in a vacuum in a second. This would give us a palm of either 3.026 or 3.0256inches, a pint of either 27.72 or 27.697cuin, and a pound of, more or less, 16oz.

***

I hope this have been at least reasonably interesting to you all, and has not been, at least, a complete waste of my time. This essay may have seemed limited in terms of the methods of defining the units, and of the units defined, but, once again, to state the essential goal of this piece, it was to demonstrate a number of possible alternatives to, and improvements on, the current measuring systems. That is, a sort of introductory essay, laying out certain terms and expressions and ideas, to perhaps be later drawn on and referred to. It also, hopefully, contained some worthy systems in and of themselves, with a germ or two for the growth of new systems and units by any reading this. Thank you for reading.


-Bryan James Parry (Sunday the 16th February 2003)




Notes:
1. Not an English word, but some word would have to be used, considering “inch” comes from the Latin “uncia”, meaning twelfth,
2. The “Sun” was 1/10 Shaku (Japanese feet)
3. I often paint in my spare time. I view measuring systems as almost a piece of art.
4. The “click” is the term in the US military for 1000metres. Itused to be the term for 1000yds.

I know measuring systems are composed of more than just the three “basic” measurement types (force/weight, length/distance, volume/capacity), but I focus on these units as I feel that they, being used by “normal” people in non-scientific contexts, are more prone to slow change than are the more technical units. I feel that we should attempt to create the most practical units for everyday purposes while keeping them “scientific”. So, it is with that that I ask your respective opinions on how to define these basic units. Which of the following basic options do you think is the best way to fundamental have your system of these three basic measurement types?

1. Length & Volume, Force: The volume units are derived from the cube of some length unit or other. The force unit is derived from something else altogether (though usually it is closely aligned with the other two).
2. Force & Volume, Length: Where the volume unit is defined in terms of the volume required that some liquid or other occupies at a certain force unit of yours. (Length is usually closely aligned somehow).
3. Length & Volume & Force: Completely aligned (as much as is physically possible) Perhaps one of the units is the fundamental measure from which the others are derived in some way.

Sub-types:
Often, in history, there have been three volume styles- that of the measure of dry goods, the measure of liquid goods, and the measure of the space occupying three dimensions.
There has also been a disparity between length and distance (length being, essentially, short distance, I suggest).
Etc.
Often, the liquid volume units and the three dimensional measures units have been based off the cube of some length unit, while the dry volume units have been based off their weight.

My main question to you all: Do you believe it is useful or desirable to have these various separations, some of them, or none of them? I would like to have some ideas thrown about as to the advs. and dis advs. Of these various set ups. For I will never feel comfortable talking about other units or scales if I do not have these three basic types “figured out”. It is all well and good suggesting new systems, but how should the basic units be derived from one another?

Some ideas:

I’ld suggest that the foot is absolutely fundamental and that any system without some foot in it is in some serious trouble. However, a cubic foot is too small for many volumes, and the foot is now optimal- what to do?

Please, I would like to know whether in your opinions it would be a sensible move to adjust the foot (and/or pound), slightly, to make it exactly 1000oz to a cubic foot of water at max dens blah. [refer to other post- half essay, half post] . This would give us some more “decimal- non-decimal interfacability” (I believe I just invented that last word, by the way…), along the lines of what I, or at least I was, trying to bring about when talking to Leonard. I like Leonard’s Planck systems, but I wonder if the route to customary and non-decimal and decimal union can be brought about without such dramatic changes (while also making things just as good, or better, for scientists).

For some of my recent thoughts and ideas for the three basic unit types, as I said, refer ot my other recent post.
--

While I’m at this post, I would like to say that I have not given up my interest in measures or in retaining English measurements in the English world, but having not been posting lately due to those things that happen in life sometimes…. I’m just busy, basically.

Also, I would like to end the joke on what a foot (in a measurements context) is, by offering some well established definitions:

1. It is a unit that can be, at the extremes, anywhere between 9 and 13 inches (23 and 33cms)
2. A foot unit of 12 ½ inches plus is most likely a “manual foot” formed by some part of your body other than the foot- probably the hands. A foot unit of 11.75-12.5 is a “functional foot”- approximately foot sized, but a practical standard and mean size (perhaps a natural foot and a thumb is a good definition). A foot of 9-11.75inches is a “natural” foot- the length of most people’s feet.
3. 12 finger widths is a natural foot, 16 is a functional foot, and a “manual foot” is a functional foot and a thumb or two. 1 “inch” is 1/12 feet, 4/3 finger widths. A thumb width is slightly smaller than an inch.

Sorry to sound xcole-ish, but I would like to get the first part of the message cleared up in my mind, as I view it as important that we must know what is best if we are to pursue the “best” measuring system. As for the second part, I am just sick of hearing the metric lines of “Whose foot? Guffaw!” and “How about one third metre or one quarter metre feet?”. I view the absolute optimal foot unit as being between 11.8 and 12.2 inches, roughly.

As regards the first part of this post:

- what other ways could we define these basic units and is the Light Foot worth pursuing in some way? (1/1,000,000,000 the distance light travels in a vacuum in a second)
- What is the speed of light when travelling through some other medium eg. Glass, and would it be better to define a unit in those terms? (I can’t find anything on this or the speed of light in other than a vacuum)
- What main ways are there of defining force? Which is best iyhos?


Also….. THIS IS NOT SPAM!!! I am concerned with reforming ENGLISH measures, as I feel, and I have heard Leonard say much the same in the past also, that something that no longer moves or changes, is dead. English is fundamentally right and more natural (and more practical), and is the true international system (as the metrictes keep reminding us (much to their dismay))

The English foot (or thereabouts) or the Roman foot are true universal European measures, at least. The English ounce is, too, more or less an average and the most refined mercantile ounce of Europe. Even the English mile is more or less in between the other miles that have existed in Europe (going from the Prussian, as I recall, and Russian miles, to the much shorter Italian mile). And so on. What can be said to be the TRUE System international, features at least a unit which is 1/21,600 the Earth’s circumference, the Roman or English inch and foot, the English mile, ounce and pound, and the acre.

One last note (on my dozenal thinkings from a while ago): One nautical mile is 1/60x360 the circumference of the Earth. In Britain, we defined it as 800 feet longer than the statute mile, and in metric they have it as 1852m. If we defined it as 1/12x1728 (or 48x432), gives us a mile of 1/20,736 the Earth’s circ. As opposed to 1/21,600. A nautical mile of this dozenal length is 75,960”- almost exactly 6/5 statute miles (60 inches shy). Although, if we use the average figure for the Earth’s circumference round the waist and over the head, 5/6 these dozenal nautical miles equals a 6 1/8” longer statue mile. I just thought it good to mention this cleaner, in my view, system… for interests sake.

Anyway, back to the major point of this waffley post- how to define the basic units? Suggests? Also what to define them, fundamentally, in respect of (that is, is the speed of light the best bet?)

Another thing: I was watching BBC3 on BBC2 the other day, and they kept referring to the size of everything on this architectural programme in terms of metres. And… no weather programmes refer to things in terms of Fahrenheit any more!! What the hell is going on!? Can we write a letter to the beeb about this or what?

Also, if we were to readjust the system so there were 1000oz to a foot, then surely the system is now the "foot-ounce-second” system. I have been using the following terms for the meantime for such a system: thou, ote and sun. these refer to a thousandth foot, a hundredth foot and tenth foot respectively. The first is self-explanatory, but the last two are from the Italian for eight (as 1/96ft is 1/8 inch) and the sun was 1/10 Japanese feet.

Additional thoughts on the fluid ounce (a most knotty of problems, if you ask me).

You see, I have basically proposed two fluid ounces- one 1.75cuin and one 1.73. I also seem obsessed with a 16fl oz pint, but yet, maybe the larger US 1.8…cuin floz is required because otherwise the pint is too small. That is, and I hope I state it more clearly than in the above post, is it actually BENEFICIAL to have a union of volume and capacity? Is it actually a benefit to the system to have dry and wet measures combined? I’m not so sure. The bushel, gallon and pint may well be approximately 12, 6 and 3 inches cubed respectively, and 16fl oz may well be very nearly 16oz, but is it all really worth having this system completely aligned? (what I was trying to explore, in part in a way, in the initial post in this thread).

I’m not sure. I love the pure binary division of the American capacity system, but yet also find the 10lb gallon appealing (not to mention that most lovely 20oz pint).

Would Americans accept a smaller fluid ounce, even if it now did weigh an ounce? By my calculations, if I recall, the American gallon actually weighs 8lbs 5 ½oz, when it ought to weigh 8. The British gallon, in contrast, actually weighs what it is supposed to- 10lbs, near as damnit.

I have a few problems:

1. I would love to have American and British measures separate if that’s what people want. However, I feel that in light of metrication it is going to be really not beneficial in the long run to have two almost the same but not quite systems on both sides of the Atlantic. Now, length is the same- there’s no problem there. But what of capacity (though not volume) and higher weights?
2. We could keep the separate American systems of higher weight and binary division in capacity, but must align capacity somehow. I feel the best way is from the bottom up- others think a common gallon is best. I feel that cosmetics and drinks form a far greater number of things together than those measured in gallons (amounting only to petrol and buckets of water for your garden). However, if we have a common fl oz of 1.75cuins, then Britain gains no real benefit and loses in terms of a fl oz weighing less of an ounce than before. America also loses out in the product world. We do gain from increased tidiness in numbers, but is that good enough? What about the 1.73 common floz? Britain essentially remains unchanged, and America actually has a pint that weighs a pound, but they lose further in the product stakes. Maybe people in America could drink more things in quarts fifths or could drink by the Imperial pint. Is this a solution in the eyes of the Americans here?
3. Now, if the Imperial pint becomes popularised in the States, then we have defeated the purpose of some of our reforms, right? Why? Well, because the 20oz pint would now be prevalent and the union between pints and pounds that we seek will have been destroyed….

… OR, maybe people would just drink different things in different amounts. That is, milk, coke etc would be bought by the floz (12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40 etc), beer by the “Imperial” (British pint), vodka by the fifth and petrol by the US gal. How is that for a solution? If it is fine this way, then what floz would the Americans here feel worth adopting? 1.73cuin or 1.75- these are the only two options as far as I see, unless you want to radically change the weight system instead of the capacity system.

I think we need to get to the bottom of this problem- two different tons and hundredweights- American and British- is no real problem to me, so long as the pound, ounce, dram and grain are the same. Two separate gallons in no real problem either, but we MUST have a common floz- I view this as of the most absolute importance.

Note: one Imp pint is 19.25US floz. Is this a good size to drink by? I notice that the US fifth takes the place of the British sixth gallon unit (1 1/3pts), and that things are not really drunk, in a sitting, by the qt, so is the Imperial a good idea? Is it already popular?

One last thing: it appears to be the case that the “fl oz” is increasingly referred to as the ounce and “fluid” is only added in certain instances to clarify in America (much like the mil[lilitre], mil[limetre] situation in Britain.) So then, maybe it’ld be wise to make the fluid ounce actually weigh an ounce, as that is the way things seem to be going anyway. If we are to do this, then, surely also it would be sensible to make sure that this actual ounce floz is equal to the fl oz as used in Britain (perhaps causing us to change our fl too). It may seem drastic or mad even, but I think it is required. It has a precedent, too: when it became desperate, Britain and America realigned both our yards. Why can that not be done here, too? Maybe the weakening of the notion that a pint is 20fl oz, due to metrication, and the selling of petrol in litres now, can be used to our advantage here in Britain, giving us the opportunity to align both our systems into the “Common English system of weights and measures”. This will only happen, though, if we get English units taught in schools in real practical ways and not just the rubbish metric conversion sums. Books must be printed which put English to the fore and not as some occasional subsidiary measure. This will require government backing and interference, which I do not like, but it is that same governmental interference in the first place that has brought about the potential destruction of the sensible and organic weights and measures systems. Can you, Leonard, or BWMA (or anyone else, for that matter), print off or create some booklets featuring Imperial or other systems sums and whatelselike which I could purchase or you could send to me. I would distribute, copy and so on these items in an attempt to increase English and Imperial education in the schools and college I have access to. The Tescos and others use of Imperial is just a temporary delaying measure before full metrication- we need to strike back into the minds of the population and into the hearts of the young, not by preaching, but by teaching and using Imperial units in an off hand and casual way, without making a big deal out of metric v Imperial and metric/imp conversions. We must have Imperial taught in colleges and schools throughout the land having complete parity with metric.
--


Second element to this post: “Organic” new “small” units.
I was thinking that we need some units that are smaller than the grain (of barley). What could these be? I was thinking the weight of an atom or proton, perhaps. How about the weight of the hypothetical average grain of sand? What would these units be called and what would their ratios be? I’m not sure. However, I think that we need to create units smaller than thosse we presently have in the English system without resorting to a prefixing system. How much does a grain of sand weigh do you reckon? Post script: I am serious here.
--


Third part to this post: The Furlong “problem”.
The main reason I suggested a 12^3 yard mile was to have a “sensible” way of defining the mile without referring to the furlong (which is no longer in popular use) (And also because the length system seems to be mainly 12-based whereas the other elements are binary). However, does anyone else have a satisfactory solution, or are we to remain with the apparently irrational 1760yd mile?

Call me of short attention span, but a 7300-word essay is just too much to read.

Concerning that one question I saw somewhere, about if there should be a distinction between dry and liquid volumes:
If you can bring forth *one* good reason why a measurement of volume should be based on anything else than its spacial occupation ?

Ralf

Bryan wrote

<<
What is the speed of light when travelling through some other medium eg. Glass, and would it be better to define a unit in those terms? (I can’t find anything on this or the speed of light in other than a vacuum)
>>

The reason why the speed of light is only quoted for a vacuum is because the speed at which light travels through any other medium is dependent upon its wavelength. (If c is the speed of lightin vacuo and R is the refractive index of the medium, then the speed of light in the medium is c/R and R depends on teh wavelength).

Before spending too much time on trying to devise a new system based on approximations to traditional English measures, may I suggest that you look at how SI ties up various units - in particular mass, length, force and energy in the spere of mechanics, energy, electrical current, voltage and magnetic field strength in the case of electromagetics and energies associated with nuclear particles in teh case of nuclear physics. One place to look is the site www.bipm.fr.

Yes, I am promoting the metric system, but may I also remind you of the old Chinese proverb "Know yourself, know your enemy, in a thousand battles, a thousand victories".

After designing your system, ask yourself:

1. How am I going to promote this system?

2. How can I convince the average English(wo)man to use this system rather than the Imeprial system?

3. If I can overcome the inertia attached to the current system, how can I persuade people to use the new system rather than the metric system?

Bryan,

I think you've gone a little overboard, not to mention you have no idea what a significant digit is. Secondly, Thomas Jefferson already tried what you are proposing. I think it's nuts. There is no need to reform the current English measures. Why? There is nothing wrong with them. They are the way they are because they are convenient to use everyday. They have units that were developed over 5,000 years (unlike the metric ones which were created without thought to convenience).

Again, I think you don't realize that the only reason you people like decimal systems is that you happen to have 10 fingers on your hand. The binary, and duodecimal systems work more logically as far as numbers are concerend. Why do you think computers work this way. Lastly, as I have said before, FRACTIONS ARE EASIER TO VISUALIZE; SO FORGET DECIMALS!

I know what 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, & 1/8 look like. I cannot see 0.357 or 0.231 or even 0.25. Half means half, and quarter means half of half and eighth means half of half of half. All of which happen to be convenient customary unit sizes. Try that with your beloved decimals.

By the way, dry measures are for dry things because they have worked that way for about 5,000 years and people like it.

You can't visualize 0.25 ?!!!!
Please stop posting on this board.

Ralf

MattS wrote

<<
I think you've gone a little overboard, not to mention you have no idea what a significant digit is. Secondly, Thomas Jefferson already tried what you are proposing.
>>

Matt, I agree with you, at least the first part of what you wrote.

It is perhaps interesting to note that in about 1800 the US Government purchased a reference metre from the French Government, but the ship that was carrying that it to Washington sunk. This suggest to me that there was considerable interest in the metric system in the US at the time (as well as probably considerable opposition).

One of the reasons for buying a reference metre was to ensure that the US had control over its own standards and was not reliant on a standard that was in the custody of what at that time was perceived to be a potentially hostile nation. Had the ship not sunk, I believe that the US would have adopted the metric system as the standard that was owned by Congress would have been a metric standard. It should be noted that the US introduced a decimal currency at about the same time.

Perhaps the real reason why metrication was not persued by the US at the time and was persued by the French was that the US had inherited a relatively stable system of measures from the UK, while the French system of measures in 1789 were a mess (see for example)

http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/themes_detude/institutions/mesures.htm

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cgd/mesure.htm

(Note - both these sites are in French).

And the other reason might be that in "them days" the Americans hated the Brits and liked the French.

And today?

"Mirror image" springs to mind!

Actually, the Americans did not take on the metric system because of the popularity of Gunter's 22 yard survey chain. The discussion of this is in a new book by Andro Linklater called "Measuring America." The US had massive amounts of land to survey at one time, and this was being done while the standards for weights and measures were being worked out. Gunter's chain became the standard by which all land was measured and thus every other standard which was then adopted at the recomendation of Mr. Haslett (a staunch metric supporter) were English units. You really should read the book to get a better understanding of why the Americans are so tied to the American Customary Measures.

OK - I was not aware of the importance of the chain. However the chain was divided into 100 links and teh link did not map onto anything else that was sensible, so the US ended up with a half-baked system of measure.

Certain parts of the US were not surveyed in chains - Louisiana was I believe, frist surveyed in French units (toise or metres?) while the unit of land measure in Texas was the Vara.

You'd really have to read the book to get a good idea about how this all worked. It's a great piece of scholarship and I'd highly recommend it. By reading it you'd get a very good feel for why Americans like their customary measures.

The only places which were not surveyed with the chain were the two that you mentioned where the old surveys were left to stand. But again, because you are European, you cannot grasp the size of the US. It's massive and the vast majority of it was surveyed with the chain.

Yes, the chain was divided into 100 links, however the link was seldom used. Thomas Jefferson insisted on the shape of a square arguing it was the most convenient and democratic. The ground was surveyed into squares of one section (sq. mile) and then subdivided into halves, quarters and eighths as time went on.

The chain has it's mark on almost everything laid out on the ground. The standard right-of-way in a city was (and still is) 66' with a 33' street. 66' was also useful because a person's regular pace was about 6' (3' per step) so he could step off his own property in 11 steps per chain length.

You see, if you divided the chain in halves you got 33' and if you divided it again, you got 16.5' which a surveyor recognizes as a perch. Furthermore, 80 chains was a mile. So 10 chains becomes the known unit of a furlong. The beauty of the chain is that it related every single distance unit in the English system into one convenient length. In this way, Gunter was a genius.

Thus when Haslett (the metric fanatic) went to standardize American measures, the unit of the chain had an indelable mark on the land and the way people related to it. Americans are fanatical about land and property and how much they own. If they were used to their land being measured in feet, then they wanted everything else to fit with feet.

If you want to see a measurement in action (the acre) land at one of Britain's airports while looking out of the window!

(best you do this during the day)

<<
But again, because you are European, you cannot grasp the size of the US.
>>

Matt,

I was brought up in South Africa and have traversed the Sahara by Land ROver. I therefore understand a bit about how big soem countries are.

Size however is not the important factor - the important factor is the number of measurements that need to be made and more importantly the number of measuremenets per 1000 population.

Britain was mapped out using Imperial measure from about 1800 onwards. The entire mapping system was converted to metric during the 1970's and all maps in Britain now are metric (including those that might appear to be Imperial).

Among the latter, I include my road atlas, billed at 4 miles to the inch. The flysheet tells me something else - 250,000:1 - 3.94 miles to the inch. Moreover the grid is either 12.5km or 10km (I forget which).

In fact, every decent map in the UK has a metric grid. UK residents, if you don't believe me, check the grids out in your own atlases.

Land registry is in acres.
Maps are in both systems.
Niggling on what one they used first is as daft as pointing out the original language used on a Sega game

The land registry, and the grid systems here in the US are in feet/acres and changing them would be a monster of a problem in the fact that there are hundreds of grids for different municipalities here in the US none of which relate to one another. (See my previous posts about this matter).

US maps are in customary measures with some showing metric equivalent scales, but not usually.

As I said before. Customary measures are stamped into the landscape here in the US and it would take a miracle to erase them. The chain shows up everywhere. Americans are tied to their landed property and if you start fooling with the way it's measured, all hell will break loose. Andro Linkleter evaluates this beautifully.

Any constructive comments? ps. Matts: I have promoted dozenal systems many times- perhaps you have not been following the debate. Pps. I am not nuts- this is very sane.

Did anyone actually read ANY of that!? Christ!!

Bryan,

I did read some of it, but again my constructive criticism is that reforming customary measures would be close to impossible. As I said before, Thomas Jefferson tried it too, to no avail. Your proposal is a strong one, but I would say that trying to impliment it would be just as difficult as trying to impliment the metric system, especially here in the US.

While in exile at St. Helena, Napoleon was a great supporter of reform of measures Europe-wide “but Napoleon said that he thought abstractions were a mistake… and that throwing out units like the hand, foot and ell would destroy our link with the physical worlds…”
(From Collier’s Encyclopaedia- I neglected to look to see which version it was, but quite recent, in any case (Not that that is relevant here))

To the point: There is nothing “nuts” about creating a decimal underlay with mixed factors over the top. In fact, in the past I have tried to push that way with Leonard Cotrell, stating that decimal multiples are fine. There MUST be some kind of resemblance with already present customary units, though, and, where required, the decimal would be done away with (or rather, non-decimal would be done away with in certain instances and fields). Thus, I concede that defining the foot independently of the metre (or changing its definition to be other than .3048m or some other simple conversion) may be a mistake in our “global village”. However, this is a pretty large village with more than its fair share of idiots. That is to say, the man who says that metric as it is is fine or who says that English is in no need of reform surely has his head in the sand. The reality is this, and I’m sorry to be so blunt, but a 1000oz cubic foot of water is a sensible and desirable, in my eyes, step forward. Of course, we will not all of a sudden measures our weight in ounces or “kilo-ounces” (or ever, for that matter), but the present 16 ounce pound system would remain. The only intent of creating this 1000oz cubic foot of water is so we can further reap the benefits of our glorious and civilised system of weights and measures.

My first few posts in this thread were a little drivelly, but that is because I was just typing up some of the general things that I haven’t in my absence.

Further demonstrations of possible decimal/non-decimal union? Well, in Leonard’s length system, we have a 60-63-ish inch pace or brasse unit. One thousand of these made a mile, while one tenth was the historical unit as used for centuries in Britain- the shaftment. Two shaftments may make a foot, if so wished. There are many such instances as these. Let us compare, at the most basic level, our present Imperial system and my proposed (as regards length, volume and weight):

Imperial:
Length = inch and foot. Inch is 1/12 feet.
Volume = gallon. Gallon is approx. a 6.522” cube. Is 10lbs avoir of water.

A Basic alternative:
Length = inch and foot. Inch is 1/12 feet.
Volume = Bushel. Bushel is a 12 inch cube. The mass of water occupying a bushl is 1000oz.

Of course, the latter system does not really imply that the pound is abolished. Not at all. We just have a neater set of few units.
--

MASS. I have a problem with this. My problem is that the mass unit in SI is defined as the mass of the Iridium-Platinum Kilogramme prototype. I just find that completely unsatisfactory. The pound mass of the ft-lb-sec system was defined as the mass of the platinum pound. Not very good either. The kilogramme used to be, apparently, the mass of 1 cubic decimetre of water at maximum density. Apparently this was not a very convenient way of measuring it. I will stand by that wisdom, then. However, it still remains- how to define the mass unit. Would this be best achieved by having your mass unit as some decimal power of the mass of some atom- say hydrogen? Unfortunately, my maths skills are not excellent, and I have been finding it difficult to calculate, in pounds and ounces, the mass of a certain power of the mass of the hydrogen atom. This does not even take into account whether it would be a good idea to define the mass unit in terms of the mass of some atom or other. Please, could someone with a genuine interest help me here? I would appreciate it greatly.
--

TIME UNIT. I proposed before a better length unit based off the distance light travels in a vacuum. It was roughly 11.8 inches, and was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/1,000,000,000 seconds. This has been rejected it would seem. However, if the second was altered, we might be able to push this new foot towards the current. With this goal in mind (perhaps with this gaol in mind, considering your respective reactions thus far ;-D), I have come up with the following. Please correct any calculation mistakes of mine and tell me if I simply way-off in some way.
Metric:
Time Unit = second (s). This is defined as the interval occupied by 9,192,631,770 cycles of the resonance vibration of the Caesium-133 atom.
Mass Unit = Kilogramme (kg). The mass of the Iridium-platinum kilogramme prototype.
Length unit = Metre (m). 1/299,792,458 the distance light travels in a vacuum in a second [is there a shorter way of putting that? I keep referring to “DLTVS”]

So, by my calculations, the Force Unit (Newton), is equal to 9.8m/s² or 9.8kg.

Does, then, the following work out?

Time Unit = second (s). This is defined as the interval occupied by 9,350,000,000 cycles of the resonance vibration of the Caesium-133 atom.
Mass Unit = [Obviously undecided due to lack of means by which to define it.]
Length Unit = Foot (ft). 1/1,000,000,000 DLTVS (new second) = 12.004905155849189746466477276503”

However, at maximum density, the mass of the water occupying a cubic foot of water, is 1000.07 present ounces. I assume, obviously, that the ounce and pound would remain in more or less unchanged form, I just don’t have the capacity, presently, to create a new definition for them. Does my alternative actually make physical and mathematical sense? If not, then how not?
--

One last thing: The problem with Jefferson’s system, as I understand it, is that it had no real provision for non-decimal scales. Of course, his units were roughly equivalent to our present, except I believe he was far too rigid in his decimal leanings here; the mile was almost twice as long (it was 10,000ft), and I really am not keen on dividing the foot into 100ths (although, 1/1000 feet is almost an optimal “small” length unit, being, as it is, around 1/84” or 1/3mil). However, Jefferson was moving in the right direction. I believe that fact is self-evident.

Bryan

Ps. The figures I am always using for the ounce and pound are, respectively:
28.349523125gms & 453.59237

Apparently, the mass of the hydrogen atom is 1.6604*10^-24grammes. So, what does this all mean in Pounds and ounces? I’m not sure how to go about translating that.

Additional: I think it is, unless I am very much mistaken, that 1lb is roughly 3.661*10^21 hydrogen atom mass and 1oz is roughly 58.6*10^21 h-atom masses. Hmm, if this is correct and I haven’t just lost it, then 1 new ounce could be defined as the mass of 60*10^21 H-atoms, yes? If so, a new pound is more or less 7171gr (it used to be 7200 and is presently 7000)

Or, a new pound is 3.6*10^21 or 3.65*10^21 (6884.2gr & 6979.82gr respectively)

I am aware that even if the metre cannot be defined as 1/300,000,000 the distance light travels in a vacuum in a second, then it surely is almost impossible to do some of the things I suggest, but I suggest them because I KNOW, just as I know the sun will rise tomorrow, that the English units of pound, ounce, foot, horsepower etc are the most fundamental, beautiful and glorious civilised measures that man could devise.

Bryan,

I think that instead of refining or revising the system, that definitions should be created in terms of customary measures instead of metric ones and then keep the relationships between units the same. I attempted to do that myself awhile back. My posts should still exist. It goes something like the following:

1 second remains the same definition of that period of time which makes the frequency of a certain radiation emitted by atoms of cesium-133 equal to 9,192,631,770 cylces

1 inch is the distance light travels in a vacuum in exactly (127)/(1,498,962,290,000) seconds.

1 avoirdupoids pound is the mass of 27.7016 cubic inches of distilled water at 39.83 degrees fahrenheit and the barometer at 30" of mercury.

Temperature scale of Fahrenheit is defined with the freezing point of distilled water at maximum density at 32 and the boiling point at 212 with 180 between. Where there is an absolute scale of Rankine with it's zero set at absolute zero and each division the same as the Fahrenheit scale.

The Ampere and the mole and the candela would also be redefined using the appropriate customary units.

Then the derived units of weight, pressure, energy and power would be:

Weight is defined as the pound-force where the weight is computed by multiplying the mass (in pounds) by 32.174 ft/s^2 for the acceleration of gravity.

Poundf per square inch which is self explanitory of one pound-force per square inch.

British Thermal Unit is the amount of energy required to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit at maximum density

Power is the horsepower which is 6,600 inch-pounds per second or 0.7068 Btu/s

You'll notice that this revives the unit differential of pound-force and pound-mass which I think is appropriate. Furthermore, I think the inch is a more useful standard length for derivation, but the foot or the yard can also be used. This I think creates a completely defined customary measure system defined empirically instead of off of the metric definitions.

This leaves the arbitrary volume units definitions too (which I forgot).

The imperial gallon stays approximately 277.4194 cubic inches (since BWMA wants to keep imperial measures).
The US gallon will stay at 231 cubic inches
The US bushel will stay at 2,150.42 cubic inches

I wouldn't want to fool with the actual sizes of anything since that would wreak havoc on the whole of things. But now this at least gives scientific definitions for all the units and it divorces them from their metric counterparts.

BTW the acceleration of gravity is more accurate at 32.17404 feet/sec^2 at sea-level

> But now this at least gives scientific definitions for all the units and
> it divorces them from their metric counterparts

Matts,
that's a completely pointless exercise since all research on measurements is done in SI. What would happen if the BIPM chose a different definition of the kilogram at some point because it's more accuracte ?
Would your definition stay the same ? That would mean that you would have to live with an "out of date" definition that noone wants to use because it's imprecise.
And, of course, "the frequency of a certain radiation" is not exactly a scientific definition.
Oh, well...

Ralf

<<
BTW the acceleration of gravity is more accurate at 32.17404 feet/sec^2 at sea-level
>>

At what latitude? According to my figures, g varied from 9.78m.s^-2 at the Equator to 9.83m.s^-2 at the Poles.

If you noticed, I never use the kilogram in any of my above definitions. The fact that they use SI when doing these definitions is completely meaningless. These definitions are equivalent numerically to the SI ones since there are exact conversions established. Once you have a definition using only the customary measures then the definitions can stand on their own. If they need to be revised, then an agency (ie the US Government, the British Government etc.) overseeing the customary definitions can do so. The governments kept the standards before the metric debauchle, they could do so again.

I know that "the frequency of a certain radiation" is not exactly scientific, but it was the words I had at hand at the time. I think everyone knew what I meant.

As for the acceleration of gravity, I should have been more precise, I know. By agreement among physicists, the standard acceleration of gravity g is defined to be exactly 9.806 65 meters per second per second (m/s2), or 32.174 05 feet per second per second.

<<
By agreement among physicists, the standard acceleration of gravity g is defined to be exactly ...
>>

Certainly not by physicists. Physisits have defined the metre and the second, so g can be measured.

Possibly a convention exists whereby a value for G is assumed when making certain types of measurement (eg a "Standard atmosphere" for aviation purposes). The actuak practitioner would then look up the standar figures and make corrections for his actual situation.

MattS,

what reason could the US government have to go back to a separate definition for the Imperial, having been the one who came up with the idea of basing them on SI ?
Apart from that, separating the units again simply to please someone's ego would be pathetic.

Ralf

Ralf,
Do not invest too much in the defining of inch-pound in terms of metric/SI.
SI/metric is used by scientists when measuring the speed of light, etc. It is their preference.
As a result, the definition that comes out of laboratories is metric-based. That's all there is to it.
It is the speed of light, wavelengths in a vacuum, etc that is the ultimate definition.

Wow, thanks for the backing up, BWMA ! :)

Ralf

And then we get back to that "the gove has no jurisdiction of units" thing.

Yes, it seems to be one of those "circle of life" things.

Ralf