My mother bought a carton of mango nectar last week, and it was labeled "32 fl.oz. (1 quart) .946 mL" I was going to e-mail them and point it out, but I think I will just wait and see how long it takes for someone to notice.

Erm, point what out???

Bud wrote

<<
"32 fl.oz. (1 quart) .946 mL"
>>

It is usual to put a "0" in front of a decimal point, otherwise one is not sure whether the "." is a rouge mark or genuine decimal point. If the "." in front of the "9" was a rouge mark, then the label is perfectly correct (at least in American eyes), if it is a genuine decimal point then the person who designed the label is wrong on two counts:

1) Failing to add a zero in from of the decimal point
2) Getting confused between litres and millilitres.

This is a testimony to the confusion that is being caused by having two systems of measure run side by side. The UK and the US should have done what the rest of the Commonwealth did - a rapid changeover form Imperial to metric.

Why does the label have to have FFU units stated twice?

Why does it state 32 ounces (1 quart)? Don't people know that relationship that is has to be reminded to them on a label?

Also, by stating that the product only contains 946 mL, such a product would be illegal in the UK. Since the UK quart is larger then the US quart the product would contain shortmeasure, as the UK quart would equal 1.14 L and not 0.946 L and would have to contain 40 ounces and not 32.

The only way such a product would be legal in the UK is if the UK quart and ounce have already been de-legalised. If so then the product could sell as is, except for the error in stating the metric contents properly.

Euric, Bud lives in America

Sure the law states that the products must be in particular quantities?

I should think that a quantity like 410g would be legal according to you...

In response to several of the above posts:

In the US, it is not common to use a 0 before a decimal point. I have seen .946 L before. I think this is what they intended.

<<
This is a testimony to the confusion that is being caused by having two systems of measure run side by side.
>>

So you're saying that their messing up the metric units (labeling the carton with a quantity 1/1000 of what it actually contains) can be blamed on the fact that they included imperial units? Please clarify, I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Sorry for not mentioning to the newcomers on this board, I live in California, near Los Angeles.

<<
Sure the law states that the products must be in particular quantities?

I should think that a quantity like 410g would be legal according to you...
>>


No, our law is not that oppressive. You can sell in whatever quantity you want. I have a package of Skittles here that is labeled "2.17 oz / 61.5 g".

Bud wrote

<<
No, our law is not that oppressive. You can sell in whatever quantity you want. I have a package of Skittles here that is labeled "2.17 oz / 61.5 g".
>>

Oppressive to whom - producers or consumers?

"This is a testimony to the confusion that is being caused by having two systems of measure run side by side. "

I would say that this shows that U.S. Customary measures are much more widely understood in America than metric.

If that's an argument for using one set exclusively, then it must be an argument for dropping metric from packaging.

If the US wants to go its own way, that is their democratic right (even it the President is a Republican). However it would be counter-productive to drop metric units in the United Kingdom - it is much cheaper to complete the metrication process.

It would have been MUCH cheaper had the government(s) recognized the democratic wishes of the people of Britain and not started the changeover in the first place.

It would have been MUCH cheaper had the government(s) recognized the democratic wishes of the people of Britain and not started the changeover in the first place.

Response:

first of all, that is water over the dam. The UK economy is intertwined with the world metric economy and there could never be a time again where only imperial is used. If a reversion were to occur (I wouldn't hold my breath on one happening), it could only be partial.

Just look at the US. The country never really went metric, but market forces have pushed the US more along then any government regulation could. The US would be more metric now if they hadn't exported so many of their jobs. The American people would be making the metric products that are now being made in China and elsewhere.

<<
It would have been MUCH cheaper had the government(s) recognized the democratic wishes of the people of Britain and not started the changeover in the first place.
>>

On the contrary - considerable savings were made as a result of metrication - the engineering industry being the principal beneficiary. Another industry that benefitted was the office stationery industry - foolscap and quarto paper were replaced with a single standard - A4. This mean a reduction in the number of different types of notebook that had to be manufactured, the size of filing cabinet etc. I could go on, but I will end off by drawing to attention that General Motors in the US recouped the cost of metrication in one year just on reducing the inventory that they had to hold.

<<
Why does the label have to have FFU units stated twice?
>>

Stop saying the term "FFU". I had never heard of this term til Jason and Euric started posting. Who came up with this ridiculous notation?

I agree. People should not use derogatory terms for either US, British imperial or metric/SI units.

re (BWMA Forum Owner): "People should not use derogatory terms for either US, British imperial or metric/SI units".

REPLY:

Well, some peole - indeed, many - have suggested that customary units are, for example: friendly, human, natural - whilst metric units have been described as rational, artificial, unnatural, even inhuman.

In order to compare the benefits of one system against another, it is inevitable that derogatory terms will be used - by both 'sides' to the dispute.

"Why does the label have to have FFU units stated twice?"

Presumably for the same reason that you just used it twice: 'Fred Flintstone Units units'.

I agree that we should refrain from using these terms.

Well, some peole - indeed, many - have suggested that customary units are, for example: friendly, human, natural - whilst metric units have been described as rational, artificial, unnatural, even inhuman.


And billions more have suggested that FFU is old fashioned and out-dated, difficult to use, cumbersome, highly inaccurate, inconsistant, incoherant, arbitrary, unscientific, etc.

While metric is described as consistant, coherant, precise, easy to use, scientific, in harmony with nature, world-wide, unlimited, extremely accurate, ultra-modern, glorious, wonderful, heavenly, etc.


It all depends where on the evolutionary ladder your source is. FFU-ists are still trying to crawl out of the primordial slime.

I don't have a problem with descriptive terms: >>>"rational, artificial, unnatural, even inhuman".

or >>>"old fashioned and out-dated, difficult to use, cumbersome, highly inaccurate, inconsistant, incoherant, arbitrary, unscientific".

However, the names of systems should be mutually acceptable to all sides.

Martin: "Another industry that benefitted was the office stationery industry - foolscap and quarto paper were replaced with a single standard - A4. This mean a reduction in the number of different types of notebook that had to be manufactured, the size of filing cabinet etc. "

I don't see how the savings can be that great. We still need many different sizes of paper, ring binders, folders, etc. They're just different dimensions and called by different names.

I don't have an issue with "FFU" - I always read it as "flexible friendly units".

If you think about it that way each time he says FFU it just makes him look even more foolish for trying to win an argument by attepting - rather badly - to insult hundreds of millions of people!

If the poster was to confirm his age as 7 and three quarter years old then I can accept such use of conversation!

;)

PaulEOS wrote

<<
I don't see how the savings can be that great. We still need many different sizes of paper, ring binders, folders, etc. They're just different dimensions and called by different names.
>>

Instead of having one family of binders (thick, thin, ring etc) in quarto and another family in foolscap, the stationery shop need only stock a single family - A4. This means that he can reduce the number of diffrent items in stock and thus his inventory.

And they don't also stock A5 paper and binders, or any other sizes apart from A4 ?

The point that I was making was that both quarto and foolscap were replaced by A4. OK, there is A3 based stationery and A5 based stationery but htere are very few dcouments in A5 or in A3 that could easily be replaced by A4. On the other hand, everything that used to appear in foolscap or quarto was replaced by A4, thereby reducing the number of inventory lines carried by the stationery industry.

OK, I see your point, although it removed only one extra range of paper and binders.

The fact that two sizes were consolidated into one intermediate size cannot really be put down to metric though, surely? The same reduction in range could have been achieved by adopting U.S. letter size paper.

The stationery industry was one of the first to be metricated in the early 1970's. This metrication was exactly as I have derscribed - replacing the existing paper sizes with "A" sized paper sizes (and in special cases "B" sized paper sizes)

<<<This metrication was exactly as I have derscribed - replacing the existing paper sizes with "A" sized paper sizes (and in special cases "B" sized paper sizes)>>>


So you can no longer measure a sheet of A4 in imperial then?

Steveh: "So you can no longer measure a sheet of A4 in imperial then?"

No. That's absolutely impossible ! ;-)

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

Here is a link to the ISO216 paper series standard. Note the link is to a UK website.

Conrad was having a laugh!

You know "sense of humour" and all that?

No? Not familiar with that?

Hey here's another page from the same place:

http://www.nrich.maths.org/prime/feb00/penta2.html

Tcha! Not a "km" in site!!!!!

Try this - and don't scroll down till you've thought about it!!!


http://nrich.maths.org/roadshow/puzzles/Illusion.html

A security camera, which takes one picture each half a second, films a cyclist going by at 8.5 miles per hour on a bike which has wheels of diameter 24 inches. Reflectors are fixed to the spokes of each wheel of the bike. Explain why it is that, in the film, the cyclist appears to go forward while and the wheels backwards. If the cyclist goes a little faster the wheels appear to be stationary. At what speed does this happen?

To do this you need to know that

1 mile = 1760 yards
1 yard = 3 feet
1 foot = 12 inches.

Can you also change the numbers (not necessarily by direct conversion) to pose a similar problem in metric units?



Answer is below

http://nrich.maths.org/search/results.php3

This superb solution came from James Page of Hethersett High School, Norfolk, well done James.

Method 1

"On the video the wheels appear to be going backwards as the reflector is not making a full turn between shots, but just less.

To work out this question I first worked out how many feet there are in a mile.

1 mile = 1760 yards and 1 yard = 3 feet so there are 5280 feet in a mile.

As the cyclist is travelling at 8.5 miles per hour I multiplied 5280 by 8.5 and found that travels 44,880 feet in 1 hour. Then I calculated how many feet he travels in 1 second then in half a second.

44,880/60 = 748 so he travels 748 feet in 1 minute.

748/60 gives the speed in feet per second and, dividing by 2, I worked out that he travels 6.2333… (6.23 recurring) feet every half second. Now I have to work out the circumference of the wheel.

24 inches = 2 feet

The circumference is 2p = 6.2832 ft (to 4 decimal places).

6.2832 - 6.2333 = 0.0499.

The wheel looks as if it is going backwards as each time the video camera takes a picture it is 'stopped' just short of a full rotation."

Note: This is 6.2333/6.2832 = 0.992 revolutions per half second.

Method 2

Here James worked out how fast the cyclist would have to go for exactly one revolution of the wheels each half second.

The circumference of the wheel is 2p so this speed is 2p feet per half second or 4p

feet per second and converting this to miles per hour gives:

4p x 60 x 60

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 8.5679996
5230

so, to make the wheels look stationary, the cyclist has to cycle at 8.5680 miles per hour (to 4 decimal places).

Method 3

To make the question work in metric units James said that the cyclist was travelling at 8.5 km per hour (leisurely pace) and the diameter of the wheel was 60 cm (close to 24 inches).

"First I had to work out the circumference of the wheel (60p centimetres).

As the cyclist is travelling at 8.5 km per hour I have to multiply this by 1000 to work out how many metres he travels per hour, then how many metres he travels in one minute, then in one second then in half a second which gives:

8.5 x 1000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= 1.18055555...
60 x 60 x 2


So he travels 1.1806 metres every half second (to 4 decimal places). The wheel circumference is 188.50 cm = 1.8850 m (to 4 decimal places).

Note: This is 1.1806/1.8850 = 0.626 revolutions per half second. To make a viewer of the film think the wheels are going backwards this needs to be closer to one revolution per half second.

Method 4

Here James worked out the speed when the 60 cm diameter wheels complete exactly one revolution every half second making it appear on the video film that the wheels are stationary. This calculation gives 13.5717 kilometres per hour (to 4 decimal places). So if he cycled at 13.5 km per hour it would again appear as if the wheels were going backwards.

just thought i'd post here to bring the thread to the top of the list so I can remind "euric" about his recent post about me being a liar when talking about imperial at school!!!


Can anyone guess what "T.T.H." stands for?

just thought i'd post here to bring the thread to the top of the list so I can remind "euric" about his recent post about me being a liar when talking about imperial at school!!!

Reply: This is not proof.

first of all, the link you provided did not bring up the specific page.

second, looking at most other contributions, I saw no measurements used.

third, the one posting from a UK schools show only metric

http://nrich.maths.org/mathsf/journalf/oct99/stage4.html#316


Your example may have come from an American school if it was there at all. You must think nobody checks you referances. Well I do!

Do you have selective reading?
This is based in the UK!
When do americans refer to maths as mathematics? (ie drop the "s"!!!)

Unfortunately Canada drop the "s" too - shame.

Anyway, back to the "euric" dilemma

"This superb solution came from James Page of Hethersett High School, Norfolk, well done James."

That's what it says - sorry pal.

Another british question from the british site!!:-

"The double rule of three
If 4 women working 10 hours a day for 20 days make 448 yards of fine lace, how many yards ought 9 women working 8 hours a day make in 24 days? "

Sorry again mate!

Another:
"To prepare to change it the ground is dug up and levelled, it is then measured and found to be a square 10 by 10 [ this could be feet, metres or yards it does not really matter for this challenge]"

(note the spelling of metre [meter])

Apologies, pal!

And here are the kids who answered the miles/mph question correctly:

Syed Farhan Iskandar, (Age 12, Foxford School and Community College)

George Vassilev (Age 10, Rosebank Primary School, Leeds)

Thomas Harley (Age 8, Tattingstone School)

Jessica Cattermole (Age 10, Tattingstone School)



Now I am going to ask you again Euric....


Try and guess what "T.T.H." stands for?

Go on! Have a guess!

(rubs hands)

> 'The double rule of three
> If 4 women working 10 hours a day for 20 days make 448 yards of fine lace, how many yards ought 9
> women working 8 hours a day make in 24 days?'

What is 'the double rule of three'? Some sort of 'new math'? In any case the arithmetic here is almost too complex to do in one's head, as it took e near a minute to get 977.68 yards. Clearly they were not making a point about measures, or they would have chosen a simpler example!

Andrew Usher

<<<What is 'the double rule of three'?>>

Haven't got a clue! - my maths is obviously as bad as my English!! [wink wink]

<<<Try and guess what "T.T.H." stands for?>>> (posted by me)

DO you know the answer to this or shall we wait for poor old "euric" to try and guess first?

....bless him!