Bryan,

Regarding your question of January 28th @ 8.41 p.m.

"I see. Fair enough, but would it not be a good idea to have a system whereby
8 fluid gallons equal 1 fluid bushel?"

Bryan, you're going to lose your fingers if you try that stunt.

In dry measure, you've got three choices:

256 dry gal. = 1 dry wey
288 dry gal. = 1 dry tun
576 dry gal. = 1 dry last

Not only that, but you can fit 8 dry gal. into any one of 'em that you want.
Let's go:

256 dry gal. -:- 32 = 8 dry gal. = 1 dry bushel
288 dry gal. -:- 36 = 8 dry gal. = 1 dry bushel
576 dry gal. -:- 72 = 8 dry gal. = 1 dry bushel

But in fluid measure, you've got ONLY one choice:

252 fl.gal. = 1 fl. tun

Yeah Bryan, it can't be done, but we're going to do it anyway.

252 fl.gal. -:- 31 1/2 = 8 fl.gal.

Whoa! I know it hurts Bryan, but you won't forget it in a hurry.

1 cu.in. x 12 x 12 x 12 = 1 cu.ft.
33.6 cu.in. x 12 x 12 x 12 = 33.6 cu.ft.
1 dry pt. x 12 x 12 x 12 = 1 fl. tun

1728 dry pt. = 1 fl. tun
2016 fl.pt. = 1 fl. tun

More info @

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

xcole, I appreciate your appreciation of the beauty of the english system, but I still think that the dry-wet situation in the states is POTENTIALLY a bad thing. I mean, what is wrong with an 8 wet gallon bushel? This results in 1cft + 120cuin. Alternatively, a better solution (one I proposed a while back) is to make the bushel the volume of one cubic hand plus one cubic foot (1792cuin). This results in a gallon closer to the present wine gallon (1 gal would be 7lb 15oz). In fact, I later turned out that such a system did in fact exist alongside the present wine gallon (called the "Guildhall" gallon). It was not chosen over the 231cuin wine gallon. I do not understand why. Maybe it was because 231 goes into 1728 better than 224 does (231 is very nearly exactly 1/7.5 1728... so a pint is almost exactly 1/60cft)

Personally, coming at it logically xcole, I cannot say why the following is not a desirable situation:


1 US ton = 2000lb avoird.

So why not 1 tun = 240 (wine) gallons [a weight of 2002lb avd. of wine]

240 is immensly divisible, you will appreciate. So..... 8 present wine gallons = 1 bushel = 1/30 tun.


This is a much better solution imho.

It's got a long way to go before it will beat this one:

1 tonne = 10 kN (approx) = 1000 L water (at 4deg C) = 1 m^3

Simple, eh ?

Simple.. as in 'inbred and stupid', yes? I concur.

Bryan Parry: "Simple.. as in 'inbred and stupid', yes? I concur."

What do you mean, Bryan ? Are you denying that the relationship between metric units is much more logical than between imperial ones ?

*groans*

This arguement has been gone through many, many times before here. I am not going to go through it again.

Indeed - why *is* the base unit of mass the "kilogramme" in metric and not the "gramme"?

What a strange relationship to other base units in metric.


Or....

***groans***

You like this:

1 tonne = 10 kN (approx) = 1000 L water (at 4deg C) = 1 m^3

Try this:

1 ton = 2,000 pounds = 2,000 (approx) US pints of water (at 40deg F)

Simple, eh?

Try this:

1 ton = 2,200 lb = 1788 (approx) Pints (at 39.2deg F)

Not quite so simple, eh ?

According to US Law, 1 hundredweight = 100 avd. lbs. and 20 cwt. = 1 tn. Thus 1 tn. = 2,000 avd. lbs. Otherwise known as a "Short ton." Every American engineer knows that.

Thus my argument still stands.

1 ton = 2,000 avd. pounds = (approx.) 2,000 US pints at 40 deg Fahrenheit.

According to UK Law(pre 1994), 1 hundredweight = 110 avd. lbs. and 20 cwt. = 1 tn. Thus 1 tn. = 2,200 avd. lbs. Otherwise known as an "Imperial ton." Some British engineers (might) know that.

Thus my argument still stands.

1 ton = 2,200 avd. pounds = (approx.) 1,780 US pints at 39.2 deg Fahrenheit.

As I've already said, "Not quite so simple, eh ?"

Evil Engineer wrote

<<
According to UK Law(pre 1994), 1 hundredweight = 110 avd. lbs. and 20 cwt. = 1 tn. Thus 1 tn. = 2,200 avd. lbs. Otherwise known as an "Imperial ton." Some British engineers (might) know that.
>>

Evil Engineer was wrong - 1 hundredweigh = 112 lbs (=8 stones) and one [long/Imperial] ton = 2240 lbs.

The fact that Evil Engineer made a mistake is however irrelevant because the long ton is irrelevant in UK life (apart from being a question on quiz shows).

Yes, the long ton (which I do not support) is 160 stone (2240lb).

So, in other words:

1 ton = 160st = 28bushels

I do not see what is so difficult with that? BTW, saying 4C for metric and 39.2F for Imperial (maximum density of water) is misleading as most would likely round to 39F and 4C (it is actually more like 39.2 and 3.96 respectively).

ps. Most people in Britain, I do not believe, concieve of the ton as either a metric or Imperial unit. This is due to their amazing closeness of size (around 35lb in it) and the fact that most people do not relate it to kilograames (from not using kilogrammes) or to stone or pounds (from havign a poor educaton etc).

Euric wrote

<<
I don't know where the 3.96 figure has come from.
>>

Euric, I agree with Bryan on this one. I have seen the figure 3.96 in a book of Physical and Chemical constants. THE book itself was compiled by many of the world's foremost scientists and runs to over 2000 pages. Since I no longer work at the site where I saw the book, I cannot give you its exact title.

Yes, thanks Martin :) I have too seen the figure 3.96C used in many, many quite serious books. It is kind of like people who say gravity accelerates at 10m/s/s or 9.81m/s/s exactly (except not as extreme), saying it is exactly 4C

I wrote it the way I did as it was easier and quicker to type out.

Also, Imperial can be used with decimals... 1.5ft.. see!!!!

Also, 7000gr = 1lb
1000lb = 1kip
1000thou = 1 inch
100ft = 1 Engineer's chain
10 acres = 1 sq fur.

etc etc.

Euric wrote

<<
I'm sure it was seen in a book many, many times. But does anyone know how the number came about? Did the book explain how the number was determined?
>>

The book concerned did not explain how the various values were calculated, but it had over 2000 pages of various scientific constants. It also listed the editors of the book. The list of editors read like a "who's who in science". The book itself is re-issued every year and is a reputable reference book.

Regarding the density of water, the book listed the density of water at 1C intervals (or finer) from freezing point to well over 100C (obviously done at pressure). Anyway, if you do a search on the net for the string "maximum density of water" and "maximum water density" you will get a nubmer of references.

I note Euric impersonating his superiors again!

(I did warn you, Bryan)

Evil Engineer:

1 ton = 2,200 avd. pounds = (approx.) 1,780 US pints at 39.2 deg Fahrenheit.

As was noted before, 1 long ton = 2,240 lbs. But who cares anyway.

Tell me why you would even begin to mix long British tons with US pints? I'm an American. The ton is 2,000 pounds. That converts to 2,000 US pints.

I could care less how many US pints are in a British long ton.

My argument still stands. 1 ton = 2,000 pints here in the US of A.

Why do Americans say "I could care less" when it implies that they aren't bothered.. when what they really mean to say is "I couldn't care less"??? I was having a conversation with somebody about this quite recently. It puzzled us both.

he was not being specific.

A pint of water weighs one pound.

Thus 2000 pints of water will equal 2000 pounds.

Strictly U.S. though.

What's with the "polite talk", euric? Its not becoming of you!

To Matt S:

But this is a BRITISH web site NOT an American one.

The differences between the Imperial system and America's so-called "English" system are important because it has a direct effect on one of the BWMA's main arguements for retaining imperial (ie. trans-atlantic trade).

Congratualtions on demostrating that Yankie Arrogance that gets your country a bad name. (even among those that quite like the place)

The US system is more English than our own.

Yes, the current American Customary Weights and Measures are more "British" than your imperial measures. The British Imperial Gallon was created because your own Royal Observatory burned down and you lost the standard. Americans never lost their "Queen Anne Gallon"

It might behoove you to realize that the Americans have existed on their own for the past 228 years because of their "arrogant" minds. Might I remind you that your own King George III is responsible for the American mind and independent way of life. Americans are "arrogant" because they realize that independence and private property should be available for all people. The American Governmental system and the Weights and Measures System are all based upon these two ideas.

The rest of the world does not seem to grasp that twice the Americans have saved Europe. You could be speaking German in England if it weren't for the Americans in World War One and World War Two.

Long Live the Kaiser
Heil Hitler

I really hope that wasnt matts who posted above, but some pretender.

Can someone help me out here.

What denomination is the pope?

Calm down there, Matt.

You might blow a blood vessel or something !

And what exactly has George III or the two world wars got to do with anything ?????

Prefering metric over imperial or "English" is somehow a display of ingratitude for American involvement in conflicts that happened 90 and 60 years ago ???????

Or perhaps because the Americans were involved in two world wars that means that America knows best when it comes to weights and measures?

Get real.

Urick,

Regarding your statement of February 2nd @ 7.41 p.m.

"If we are talking of wine @ maximum density, it's 1 av.lb. wine per 1 fl.pt. Two thousand times 1 fl.pt. equals 2000 fl.pt. Two thousand times 1 av.lb. wine equals 2000 av.lb. wine. 2000 does not equal 2000, and therefore 1 short ton wine cannot and does not equal 2000 fl.pt."

Urick, you're right, it's all just such a headache. O.K., one plus one, does equal two, but what normal person would know that, Urick? Why do people have to make everything so complicated? Uh, oh, I've just seen that your hand has more than one finger, Urick: does that mean you're going to get a sharp knife?

2000 av.lb. wine = 2000 fl.pt. = 33 15/45 cu.ft.
2000 av.lb. wheat = 2000 dry pt. = 38 40/45 cu.ft.
2000 av.lb. = 1 short ton

2016 av.lb. wine = 2016 fl.pt. = 33 27/45 cu.ft. = 1 fl. tun
2016 av.lb. wheat = 2016 dry pt. = 39 9/45 cu.ft.
2016 av.lb. = 1 troy ton

2048 av.lb. wine = 2048 fl.pt. = 34 6/45 cu.ft.
2048 av.lb. wheat = 2048 dry pt. = 39 37/45 cu.ft. = 1 dry wey
2048 av.lb. = 1 winchester ton

2240 av.lb. wine = 2240 fl.pt. = 37 15/45 cu.ft.
2240 av.lb. wheat = 2240 dry pt. = 43 25/45 cu.ft.
2240 av.lb. = 1 long ton

2304 av.lb. wine = 2304 fl.pt. = 38 18/45 cu.ft.
2304 av.lb. wheat = 2304 dry pt. = 44 36/45 cu.ft. = 1 dry tun
2304 av.lb. = 1 merchant ton

4608 av.lb. wine = 4608 fl.pt. = 76 36/45 cu.ft.
4608 av.lb. wheat = 4608 dry pt. = 89 27/45 cu.ft. = 1 dry last
4608 av.lb. = 1 merchant last

1 cu.ft. = 12 x 12 x 12 x 1 in.
1 cu.ft. = 10 x 10 x 10 x 1 av.oz. distilled water @ max.dens. 39.2 F
1 cu.ft. = 4(f.) x 12(d.) x 20(s.) x 1 fl.oz.
1/1000" Equator/meridian = one side of 1 fl.oz. cube (1.216 in.)
1 cu.ft. = 360/6 fl.pt.
1 cu.ft. = 360/6 av.lb. wine
1 cu.ft. = 360/7 dry pt.
1 cu.ft. = 360/7 av.lb. wheat

Info @

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

May I venture to suggest that dry volumetric measure (dry pints, bushels etc) stems from an age when agricultural products were bought and sold by volume, not by mass.

Since today agricultural products are bought and sold by mass, dry volumetric measures are of no consequence in commerce. True, they might be used in cooking - measuring rice, flour, sugar etc is quite easy if it is done by volume (and the 5% variation due to compressibility is no timportant), but measuring butter, cheese , meat etc is difficult to do by volume, so a scalepan is almost essential for such foods.

If one has a scalepan for meat, butter, cheese etc, why does one need dry mmeasures for flour, sugar and rice when a scalepan will work just as well. (BTW, my wife has a measuring jug which is calibrated in [UK] pints as well as approximate weights for flour, sugar and rice.

Would anybody who lives or who has visited the US please let me know whether the dry pint is actually used in commerce, or is its use restricted to cooking?

The dry measures are not used conventionally in American cooking, just commerce. When we have a recipe, the units for the dry units and the wet ones will be fluid measures. Whether it's flour or milk, it's measured in cups.

The only time I have ever seen dry measures in a recipe is when it calls for some kind of fruit. Frequently strawberries or raspberries.

Butter has the most unusual of all American measures, as I think I have covered on here before. American butter comes in sticks. Each stick is called a quarter (for quarter of a pound). 4 sticks come in a box. However, most recipes call for volume of butter in fluid Tablespoons and fractions of a fluid cup.

Thus, on each stick of butter, there are lines indicating where to cut for certain amounts of butter in tablespoons. Each quarter pound of butter happens to be 1/2 cup, 4 fl. ounces, or 8 Tablespoons.

MattS wrote

<<
Butter has the most unusual of all American measures,
>>

You are quite right there - the "stick" of butter is titally unknown in Europe. If I buy a 250g packet of butter, it comes in a slab, about 10cm x 6cm x 4cm. The paper wrapper often has marks showing 0g, 50g, 100g, 150g, 200g and 250g. These marks enable you to estimate where to cut the slab for the appropriate weight.

Dry agricultural commodities in the US are measured in dry measures. For example.

Wheat comes by the bushel
Apples come by the bushel, and peck
Strawberries come by the bushel, peck, pint, and quart

Each of these dry measures has an associated accepted weight, but the following should govern concerning a US dry measurement (This from the state of Nebraska):

A standard dry pint or dry quart container is actually measured by the cubic inches it contains, not the shape. A quart is 67.2 cubic inches. A pint is half that amount. A bushel contains 2150.42 cubic inches. An accurate measure would be when the container is filled and struck level across the top. The product should not be compressed and it does not have to be rounded above the sides of the container unless necessary to achieve the legal volume.

219Zipper,

Regarding your question of February 2nd @ 8.17 a.m.

"So 1 fl. tun of wine weighs 2016 av.lb. But what does 1 fl. tun of distilled water @ 39.2 F weigh?"

2016 av.lb. wine = 2016 fl.pt. = 33.600000 cu.ft. = 1 fl. tun
2016 av.lb. wheat = 2016 dry pt. = 39.20000 cu.ft.
2016 av.lb. = 1 troy ton
2016 av.lb. distilled water @ max.dens. 39.2 F = 32.256000 cu.ft.

1 fl. tun = 33.600 cu.ft. = 2016 av.lb. wine = 2016 fl.pt.
1 fl. tun = 33.600 cu.ft. = 1728 av.lb. wheat = 1728 dry pt.
1 fl. tun = 33.600 cu.ft. = 1 troy ton wine
1 fl. tun = 33.600 cu.ft. = 2100 av.lb. d. water @ max.dens. 39.2 F = 2016 fl.pt.

Info @

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

xcole: 1 = 1, But I'm Not Sure February 3 2004, 10:40 AM

The man is worth his weight in gold. You couldn't get better advertising for metric simplicity if you paid for.

<<<You couldn't get better advertising for metric simplicity if you paid for>>>

And you are the best recruitment-agency for the BWMA I can think of!

Along with your mate, and namesake, "euric"