I think I was having a barney with Andy or Stan recently about the size of England flags being sold in Tesco (the nice round ft/inches were in brackets after "silly looking" metric and I posed the question 'which would you read?')

Well I've got a better example!

I went into Homebase and saw some funpools (paddling pools) for sale.

They were sold as "12ft by 2ft deep".

I went to tesco. They sold them too but their model was "10 feet by 20 inches deep".

(I think you can see where this is going)

I then went to Halfords and EVEN THEY were selling them!

Their model was "225 cm by 35 cm deep"

==========
Now be honest with me - which one's were more simpler to recognise and which models automatically gave you a "mind image" of what was on offer?

And who decided that we'd much prefer the "cm" one in Halfords?

Also it'd be good to know the following, in regard to the metric rendition:

1) Who "imagined" a 225 cm wide pool straight away in their mind?
2) Who "meterized" it to 2.25 metres to get a mind image?
3) Who "fractionalised" it to 2 and a quarter metres to get a mind image?
4) Who "meterized" it to 2.25 metres and then thought "that's a bit over 6 feet" having used '1 metre to 3 feet'?
5) Who couldn't imagine it at all, or resorted to a calculator?

I put myself in the (2) camp, btw.

ok,

final question - regarding the imperial versions:

Who converted it to metres (or cm) to get a mind image?




P.S. I want the pro-mets to be deadly honest with that last question, I want you to tell me that you could not imagine that pool from the imperial size ONLY IF this is the truth and that you could ONLY get a mind image once you translated it into metric. Bear in mind my use of "ONLY" there - I don't want the usual "but I could see it either way" situation.

Eric - centimetres and metres are part of what's known as "the metric system".

It's great innit?

Here is a practical example of how metric and imperial *really does* enter our lives and a *real* situation where one can make accurate observations and definitive points of views. A real meaty situation of something *actually happening* that we could argue the case for, against, or just "pro-choice". It's a "real" argument. One with *real substance* using a topic available to all as they walk into any of the stores I've mentioned.

Yet what do we get? Arguments rolling on about hypothetical non-entities of "learning inch rulers" and the politics of the US deficit versus the forward looking dicatorship of China (because it uses metric). Guff about metric being "superior" because Shell tried to sell by the litre and failed. Nonsense involving calling a measurement system "an insult name" and pretending it to be obsolete or "medieval" even though quite clearly if one's eyes are open we see it all around the world (including mainland europe).

What has happened to this forum?

(ok, I recognise that some pro-mets might not be around for the moment, judging by their lack of recent posts -but still?)

Oh well - at least there's the football [fume].

"Now be honest with me - which one's were more simpler to recognise and which models automatically gave you a "mind image" of what was on offer? And who decided that we'd much prefer the "cm" one in Halfords?"

I converted the measurements to metric in order to compare the three models. I saw straight away, though, that the "centimetre" one in Halfords was a lot smaller than the other two models.

Steveh: "1) Who "imagined" a 225 cm wide pool straight away in their mind?"

see next question

Steveh: "2) Who "meterized" it to 2.25 metres to get a mind image?"

I did.

Steveh: "Who converted it to metres (or cm) to get a mind image?"

I did.

Thank you Conrad, for what I hope was an honest answer (ie you could not at all imagine 12 feet in your mind so had to 'soft translate' it beforehand, presumably to 4 metres or just under).

Conrad, I hope you don't mind me asking - but how long have you lived in the UK? (I seem to remember you saying that you come from somewhere in Europe (Belgium?) and spend quite a lot of time there even today.

Steveh: "Conrad, I hope you don't mind me asking - but how long have you lived in the UK? (I seem to remember you saying that you come from somewhere in Europe (Belgium?) and spend quite a lot of time there even today."

I moved (from Belgium) to the UK when I was 14 and I've lived here for almost 16 years. Since most of family is still living in Belgium, I regularly spend some time there.

I have no problem with using the imperial system, but I still mentally convert almost everything to metric. Visualising 36 feet doesn't mean much to me without first having divided the number by 3.

I never stopped using kilogrammes and litres since most goods are dually labelled. And when I hear someone saying something about "pounds", I divide by two to get a grasp of how much is meant.

On the other hand I don't need to convert miles to kilometres anymore because miles are so "omnipresent". Not using them would be very difficult since there are miles on virtually every sign post.

That was actually a very good object lesson. I would have responded to this, but I was hit with a lot of work – this is why you haven’t heard from me for a span of months.

I’m sorry, Steve, but I am going to have to say that I fall into secret category #6: None of the above. I converted the centimeters directly into feet (dividing each figure by 30 cm). As comfortable as I am with the metric system, I simply have never used it for abstract/geometric thought.

Up to about the height of a person feet are fine, any more than 6 feet and I automatically convert to metres in order to *understand*. A distance of say 30 feet means very little to me until I convert.

I always have done this long before I gave the imperial-metric debate a second thought. I'm 30 by the way.

I appreciate you have an issue with anything above 6ft but that's your own opinion.

You need to ask yourself why Radio One (target audience 15 to 25) choose to use feet when considering a "200 ft drop".

Kid = 5ft tall
200ft = 40 kids tall

Adjust height of "kid" accordingly to visualise height personally so...

"60ft long boat"

Kid = 6ft tall
60ft = 10 kids laying head to foot on the floor.

and so it goes on........

<<<You need to ask yourself why Radio One (target audience 15 to 25) choose to use feet when considering a "200 ft drop".>>>

I do ask myself that. Because I think people of this age range would have a far greater perception of the distance if it were in metres.

Ask eric about "harsh reality" !

;-)

re (And): "I do ask myself that. Because I think people of this age range would have a far greater perception of the distance if it were in metres."

REPLY: And I think you're wrong. And my reason for saying this is that in an independent survey done by ICM between 26 and 28 April 2002, 86% of 18-24 year-olds said that they normally used and preferred miles, yards, feet and inches to kilometres and metres, as against 8% who didn't; a ratio of around 11 to 1. Possibly Radio 1 are aware of this. This result was in line with other surveys. These surveys are empirical observations on people's habits and preferences, repeated time after time, and cannot be gainsaid

All depends on what you are measuring, though. If you asked those 18-24 year olds how far away the next town is, all of them would use miles not kilometres. If you showed them a cliff face and asked them to describe the size of the drop, I reckon more than half would use metres rather than feet.

Why not just say "I don't buy that" to Tony.

The truth hurts, though, sometimes. Try to get used to it.

;-)

(tension diffusing wink)

I prefer to try and justify my arguments rather than just say "i don't buy that".

Furry Muff.

I don't like that style of answer either.

Carlyle: "Yes you do"

Y'hear that folks? He said "Homebase". I rest my case.

I detect some misplaced pride here!

;-)

Heh heh heh, just kidding. But it does rubbish the idea that all DIY industry is metric. Lots of stuff in Homebase is Imperial or dual.

I think nthat some people suffer from that "selective viewing" that the terrible twins talk about so often when they're losing.

"All depends on what you are measuring, though. If you asked those 18-24 year olds how far away the next town is, all of them would use miles not kilometres. If you showed them a cliff face and asked them to describe the size of the drop, I reckon more than half would use metres rather than feet."

......and most would quote the temperature in Celcius. If you asked how far away a parked car was, they would probably use metres.


Greetings everyone - first time poster.

AndyA

Indeed greetings (oh no! 2 Andy's!)

<<......and most would quote the temperature in Celcius.>>

In the hotter months F gets a good airing

<< If you asked how far away a parked car was, they would probably use metres.>>

I would say it would be yards if the person liked football. Otherwise feet. I guess a few would use metres but I think most would find that sounded odd.

I use rods for longer distances -- well, actually intervals of 15 feet. And I use these intervals to calculate 50 foot intervals which I use for distances less than a furlong. And yes, I'm sure some metricator or another will use this an example of the 'nightmarish chaos' of customary measures. But, I assure you, if it was chaos, I wouldn't be using it.

"Chaos" is the situation of pretending to know a measurement system and, in reality, being very poor at it.

A sort of "harsh reality" if you will....

;-)

Niles, can I ask you:

a) How many rods are there to a furlong?: and

b) Had you considered using Chains as a measurement (80 to the mile, I believe)?

With the metric system, you use the same base unit to measure - the only thing that changes is the prefix. So, if you can imagine the base unit, it is easier to envisage multiples thereof.

Also, having a decimally-based system in my view makes things much easier to divide and multiply than multiples of 8,12,14 or 16. The fact I can cope with such numbers doesn't detract from the fact that base-10 is simpler.

Andy (A), I apologize for misidentifying you in the other thread, please do not be offended. Now, you asked: “a) How many rods are there to a furlong?: and b) Had you considered using Chains as a measurement (80 to the mile, I believe)?”

Response: a) 40 rods to the furlong.(about 3 for 50 ft.). b) Yes. In fact, a chain being 66 feet (4 rods) is the same as a 50-foot interval (given I’m talking about ball-parking it rather than taking out the ole tape measure). I just use a 50-foot interval because we describe a lot of things in 50-foot intervals around here.

I’ll treat your final point later today.

Funily enough - I can visualise a foot instantly (ie 12 in).

And I can immediately visualise a yard (3 feet, outstretched arms, one stride, etc).

No base ten.

This makes me a genius (for seeing it so easily)

[SteveH bows to audience of thunderous worshipful applause]

re (AndyA): "With the metric system, you use the same base unit to measure - the only thing that changes is the prefix. So, if you can imagine the base unit, it is easier to envisage multiples thereof".


REPLY:

"Edna, 'ow many dozen eggs shall we 'ave this week?"

"Ooh Arthur, you're doin' my 'ead in with all them non-metric numbers like 'dozen'; can't you stick to them decimal base units?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

"£7 an hour? How much is that a week?"

"Ooh, I dunno, 8 hours, innit. It'd be much easier if the number of hours or the hourly rate were one of them decimal base units, then 'appen I could fathom it out"

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

"'E 'it four sixes in that over, 'ow many runs is that?"

"Dunno. Can't reckon it up in them non-decimal base units"

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

"John is 6 foot tal, but Jane is only 5' 3" tall. What is the difference in their height?"

"Dear oh dear, can you say all that again in those centithingies, then I can reckon it up using them decimal base units"

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Cambridge have won the boat race by 7 lengths"

"Did they? Blimey! That's 700 centilengths!"


[TO BE CONTINUED]

AndyA said: “Also, having a decimally-based system in my view makes things much easier to divide and multiply than multiples of 8,12,14 or 16. The fact I can cope with such numbers doesn't detract from the fact that base-10 is simpler.”

Response: Yet another victim of the illusory nature of the apparent superiority of decimal. Decimal is only easy because we count in base ten. The truth is that ten is among the worst counting bases we could have. It doesn’t divide by anything – 12 and 16 are much more utilitarian. I prefer twelve. A dozenal counting base would allow for easy divisions by 3 and 4; something you can’t do with ten.

If you want a long and potentially boring explanation, I have completed a rough draft of an essay on counting systems available at:

http://dreamwater.org/whittenword/sovrealm/counting.htm

Bryan, you ought to like this one.

LOL LOL Tony, that post was hilarious!

Interesting looking article, Niles; I shall e-mail you when I have finished reading it.

Do extreme metricators have difficulty telling the time?

Well, I am truly honoured to recieve a reply from a 'shelebredy' like Mr Bennett. Tell me sir, do you drive, and if so, do you automatically know the capacity of your car's engine in cubic inches? Do you posess a camera? If so, do you know the diameter of the lens in inches?

Well, I've invented my own system. First of all, for distance, the main unit is called the 'quark'. The 'quark' is sub-divided into 237 'wibbles'. But then sometimes, I use the traditional 'Fnar'. Now the 'fnar' is older and not related to the quark and wibble (equal to the length of my mother's fingernail on a Sunday when there's an 'r' in the month). A 'fnar' is equal to 37.443333 'wibbles', but as it's traditional, that's the way I've always done things and anyone who wishes to persuade me that there's a more sensible way of measuring things is an oppressor, probably secretly on the Brussels payroll.

Now, of course the above is meant purely as tongue-in-cheek, but my feeling is this:

1) Tradition has it's rightful place - but NOT where it's intended purpose has become obselete and where it's continued practice is generally inefficient and obstructive (why do we no longer use horse and cart?);

2) As Britons, we benefit from the international language of business (for the majority of countries) being English. Why then are we not prepared to do the same, and use the same measurement system as 98% of the world's population?

Gentleman, there is only one way to summarise your misgivings.

It's not 'losing our traditions' or 'loss of freedom' - the word you are looking for is 'fear' - fear of the unknown.

'I don't knows it so I don't trust it'

It doesn't matter to me how you dress up your arguments in favour of Imperial units - they all say the same to me - you fear change, far more than the consequences of change.

AndyA,

Give your new system time and I'm sure it will evolve into a great system, like imperial.

You need to get it publicised first.

"(why do we no longer use horse and cart?);"

Because technology evolves *despite* units of measure. Thats why my speedo says mph and my language isn't efficient digital.

"Why then are we not prepared to do the same, and use the same measurement system as 98% of the world's population?"

For the same reason I wouldn't want to see the abolition of 'non-english'

"It's not 'losing our traditions' or 'loss of freedom' - the word you are looking for is 'fear' - fear of the unknown"

Its not "the unknown" for me, so what should I fear next?

"you fear change, far more than the consequences of change."

MY GOD! Its *that* simple!

Let me change something for you:

"Why then are we not prepared to do the same, and use the same measurement system as 98% of the world's population?"

to

"Why then are we not prepared to do the same, and use the same measurement system as 98% of the world's governments?"

re (AndyA): "Well, I've invented my own system. First of all, for distance, the main unit is called the 'quark'. The 'quark' is sub-divided into 237 'wibbles'. But then sometimes, I use the traditional 'fnar'. Now the 'fnar' is older and not related to the quark and wibble (equal to the length of my mother's fingernail on a Sunday when there's an 'r' in the month). A 'fnar' is equal to 37.443333 'wibbles', but as it's traditional, that's the way I've always done things and anyone who wishes to persuade me that there's a more sensible way of measuring things is an oppressor, probably secretly on the Brussels payroll".

REPLY: O.K., a point reasonably well made, AndyA, but the problem with your system is that it wouldn't have built Salisbury Cathedral nor have put the first men on the moon.

Just how *DID* they do it?

P.S. I've heard that when they opened up the new Scottish Parliament Building, built I think in metric and with metric wiring, no doubt, its doors didn't open and the mikes went off just as they were getting into their first historic debate. Dear oh dear, all those MSPs speaking and not being heard, what a catastrophe!

SteveH said ".....because technology evolves *despite* units of measure".

Steve, I would argue that the metric system is an evolution it itself. For centuries, many civilisations have devised their own way of measuring things. Great - except in this age of international trade, travel and migration, it can be difficult to convert between one system and the other.

The SI is the first true international attempt to arrive at a measurement system suitable for all. It might not rest well with some that the system was originally conceived by a Frenchman in the Napoleonic era, but in my view (bearing in mind this was in the late 1700s) I would argue that his vision was very forward-looking.

In any case, this original concept created only the bare bones of the system we know today. What we often forget is that there are more metric units named after British scientists than for any other nation.

It is very obvious to me that the British contribution to the development of the modern metric system is quite significant.

So next time you tell someone that you wish to protect 'British' measures, to avoid confusion, you may wish to to clarify to them precisely which system you are talking about.

Ask any normal person what is meant by "British" measures and I can almost gaurantee their response will be something like "oh, you mean like feet and inches and stuff?"

<<Steve, I would argue that the metric system is an evolution it itself. >>

No - metric is revolutionary, imperial is (still) evolutionary.

It's one thing that marks each one out.

"It might not rest well with some that the system was originally conceived by a Frenchman in the Napoleonic era,"


*groan* Not that old chestnut again. Incidentally, I actually did groan when I read that line.

Is that the same groan as I do when they try to convince me to be proud of how many British names lent their names to "metric" words?

Is it also the same groan as I do when I'm reminded that the "top bloke" at the BIMP (or whatever its called) is a Brit?

Yes, I believe so.

SteveH,

I'm a little puzzled - please tell me how the Imperial system has 'evolved'. The only 'evolution' I can think of in recent years is where engineers back in the 50s started using the term 'mil' for 1000s of a inch, because the blessed Imperial system couldn't cope with such small measurements.

That's the other thing about Imperial measures - when we express a number verbally (say the number 251, for sake of argument) we don't say 'Two Hundreds, Five Tens and One Unit'.

And before some smartass interjects, measurements in metric are usually expressed using a single form, say 205 cm or 2.05 metres. We wouldn't say '2 metres and 5 centimetres'. Nor, if you took a 28 hour flight to New Zealand would you say that the flight took 'One day and four hours'.

Well, English customary emasures have evolved over the centuries. "Imperial" is the term colloquially used to refer to English units, altho' technically it is not accurate terminology.

Actually, it wasn't in the fifties- English engineers have used the thou (1/1000 inch) since the victorian era. I am not sure when the term "mil" came about, but I know the thou, used as one thousandth inch, has been used for well over a century.
Incidentally, tiny measures have been often catered for in traditional units. In some places there were units equal to 1/728 inch. also, in this country moneyer's weight (an extension of troy) measured things to quite small levels. You should also bear in mind that before about 100-150 years ago, micro-engineering was not really required.

MONEYER'S WEIGHT (c.1500 AD, as I recall)

1/20 grain = 1 mite
1/24 mite = 1 droit
1/20 droit = 1 periot
1/24 periot = 1 1 blank

(1,612,800,000 blanks to one pound avoirdupois; 3,555,615.3645 to the gramme.)


By the mid-nineteenth century decimal fractions of the grainwere used instead. Frankly, I don't see the problem using the 'international' prefixes for forming extremely sized units (microinches, megatons etc)


>>>>>>
That's the other thing about Imperial measures - when we express a number verbally (say the number 251, for sake of argument) we don't say 'Two Hundreds, Five Tens and One Unit'.
<<<<<<

I don't udnerstand what you are saying here. Rephrase please.


>>>>>>
And before some smartass interjects, measurements in metric are usually expressed using a single form, say 205 cm or 2.05 metres. We wouldn't say '2 metres and 5 centimetres'. Nor, if you took a 28 hour flight to New Zealand would you say that the flight took 'One day and four hours'.
<<<<<<

But this is the same in Imperial. We often use ounces only or pounds only or inches only etc. It is a matter of context. In measuring stuff about my house for DIY purposes, I will most likely always use inches. Also, I know many users of metric- native users- who say things like "two metres, thirty-five" just as in imperial we say "four feet eight".

"I'm a little puzzled - please tell me how the Imperial system has 'evolved'"

Todays imperial is rationalised from the many many units used years ago.

I have never used a "perch" for example.


BTW - I have heard Europeans (I'm thinking of an italian one now) who say such things as "I am one metre and 75 cm tall".

and as far as the one day and 4 hours - haven't you ever heard people say things like "I took one and a half days" ?

What I mean is that you would never express your height solely in inches or your weight solely in pounds (although I acknowledge the Americans do).

And, where Imperial units are used for hardware a window, for example is described as being 5ft wide, not 60 inches.

With imperial measures you have to know how many inches there are to the foot and how may feet to the yard. Same with pounds and ounces - you need intimate knowledge of the system to understand and even then, they're difficult to remember which. Is it 12 ounces to the pound or 14 inches in a foot or the other way around?

At least the prefixes in metric units give you some sort of a clue - and they are used for all units, regardless of what you are trying to measure. So if you know that 1000ml make a litre, it would stand to reason that 1000mm make a metre.

AndyA, the imperial system and the metric system had different types of origins. The imperial system evolved gradually, meaning to say that no one ever arbitrarily decided how much a foot or a pound should be. Different traders started their own systems, and over time it naturally standardized. When you let the market determine the sizes of the units, although there may be some confusion at first, the end result will be a product of years of work by various people, and thus should be convenient for all.
The metric system started rather differently. Someone simply decided that so much weight should be a kilogram and so much length should be a metre. And that was it.

"Is it 12 ounces to the pound or 14 inches in a foot or the other way around?"

I am not sure I quite follow this post. It isn't too difficult to remember that 12 inches = 1 foot, 3 feet 1 yard, 16 ounces 1 pound and 14 pounds a stone, is it?
And Andy, you are slightly wrong- in hardware and DIY etc, inches-alone and feet/inches are used interchangeably. A recent example- a man came in asking me to cut so many hundred inches of carpet off the carpet-to-cut reel. I converted this to feet/inches immediately in my head, and I do not even know if I measured the length in feet/inches or inches now, as they are both the same to me. I take your point, but up to several feet, there is no problem converting tween inches and feet. Also, it is common to talk about 78 by 30 inch doors completely at ease and interchangeably with six six by two six doors. There really is not the problem academics try to make out (by academics, I mean people who don't deal with foot-pound units on an everyday practical basis but isntead spend all of their tiem reading their beloved SI how-to manuals)

Bud stated

"The imperial system evolved gradually, meaning to say that no one ever arbitrarily decided how much a foot or a pound should be. Different traders started their own systems, and over time it naturally standardized."

With respect, mate, you are talking nonsense.

From O'Keefe's "The Law of Weights & Measures"

"King Edward I (1272–1307) was the first English king to define a system of length and area measurement. This was in a statute of 1305.

‘It is ordained that 3 grains of barley, dry and round, make an inch, 12 inches make a foot, 3 feet make an Ulna, 5 1/2 Ulnae make a rod, and 40 rods in length and 4 in breadth make an acre.

‘And it is to be remembered that the iron Ulna of our Lord the King contains iii feet and no more, and the foot must contain xii inches measured by the correct measure of this kind of Ulna; that is to say the thirty-sixth of the said Ulna makes i inch neither more nor less; and 5 1/2 Ulnae make i rod, 16 feet and a half, by the aforesaid Iron Ulna of our Lord the King.'

Yes, and those measures are based on anthropocentric measures dating back thousands of years. Do you agree? Do you agree that the measures changed often before settling on the present standards. Agreed? I rest Bud's case.

Bryan

Look at what Bud posted

"meaning to say that no one ever arbitrarily decided how much a foot or a pound should be"

Edward I made a metal bar and wrote a law stating that it was exactly 1 ulna (yard) long. Go to Winchester museum and you can see a measure that is reputed to be this very measure. All the smaller and larger units were derived from this measure.

What is your definition of "arbitrarily decided"

I consider this to be the 1st arbitrary definition of the yard.

The current arbitrary definition is 0.9144 metre (Weights & Measures Act 1985)

Edward I gave this arbitrary definition because of the differing feet in use at that time. I'll cut'n'paste more from O'Keefe if you like.

Bud wrote

<<
"The imperial system evolved gradually, meaning to say that no one ever arbitrarily decided how much a foot or a pound should be. Different traders started their own systems, and over time it naturally standardized."
>>

France had the same problems as England, except that various powerful nobles kept their own standards which were used in preference to the King's standard. In 1789 when the French Revolution broke out, this anomoly was resolved by having a single standard throughout the country - the metre.

Re: What would *YOU* choose? September 11 2004, 1:54 PM

Bryan:
Yes, and those measures are based on anthropocentric measures dating back thousands of years. Do you agree? Do you agree that the measures changed often before settling on the present standards.


metre:
"Agreed? I rest Bud's case".
What is it with you imperialists, can't you read plain English?

Can't you?

Eric,
Just because people from either side can agree on things doesn't mean that you have to, by default, just bounce in and "have a go" just to cause insult.

What on earth was their discussion to do with you anyway.

I bet you get thrown out of pubs.

Bryan:
"Agreed? I rest Bud's case".
metre:
What is it with you imperialists, can't you read plain English?

Bryan:
Can't you?

metre:
Gosh, what an awesome answer.

Well, I don't consider that king's first definition of the yard as arbitrary, because the yard already existed and was widely used, he was just defining it in order to eliminate variations. When the French revolutionaries defined the metre, they could have made it half as long or twice as long, because it wasn't based on any previously used unit.

Tourists note: A protoype yard can be seen in Trafalgar Square, along with other measurements.

Bud stated

"Well, I don't consider that king's first definition of the yard as arbitrary, because the yard already existed and was widely used"

That would be why he called it an Ulna then?

Edward I wanted to get rid of the 4 (maybe more) feet in use in England at the time. I believe they ranged from 9.9 to 13.2 inches. That means the ulna (yard) would have ranged from 29.7 inches to 39.6 inches. Such accuracy compared with today's measurement.

I'm not making this up! Will post proof if you want to debate further.....

Beranger, would you please post your sources? I am interested in the differences between medieval and modern measurement values.

Is that bait for Eric, Niles?

Niles

Main source is O`Keefe: The Law of Weights and Measures

It is published by Butterworths as a loose-leaf 2 volume set which is updated every 3 months, or is available on-line (on subscription only).

It contains all current UK W&M legislation & guidance. "Division 0 - Introduction - a Historical Outline" is a fascinating read, tracing the development of the "two great systems of weights and measures in the world"

Don't want to cut'n'paste too much (copyright!) but freely acknowledge that the following passage is lifted directly from O'Keefe. I hope it is of use to you. Feel free to ask any other specific questions about the history & I'll try to give you an answer

"Confusion in the thirteenth century

.........

To get an idea of the confusion of standards it is only necessary to look at the various measures of a foot used by various people for various purposes in England and Wales immediately prior to the reign of Edward I (1272–1307):

(1) The Greek common foot (12·45 inches) was used for building.

(2) The Roman foot (11·65 inches) was also used for building.

(3) The natural foot (also called the ‘Pythic' or ‘Welsh' foot) (9·9 inches) was used by the Celts mainly in Wales for measuring land. This measure was used at various times in Persia, Asia Minor, Egypt, Babylonia, Greece and North Africa. It had become customary to incorporate as the basis of the thumb or foot an expression in terms of barleycorns. Although this became a fiction the sub-divisions of the natural foot were in the following terms:

3 barleycorns = 1 thumb
3 thumbs = 1 palm
3 palms = 1 natural foot

(4) The northern (or Saxon) foot (13·2 inches). Its long history (it can be traced from 3000 B.C. to the last century, in various parts of the world) and the wide areas (from northern India where it originated to western Europe) over which this measure was found are noteworthy. It was probably brought to this country by the Saxons who used it for measuring land and or building. They kept it for land measuring through all upheavals. In those days land was the most important form of wealth and any changes in its estimation by measure were fiercely repulsed. The scale relating to the natural foot has been set out above as consisting of 3 palms or 27 barleycorns end-to-end. It will be seen that the northern foot was allied since it consisted of 4 palms or 36 barleycorns. The relationship of 3 to 4 palms of the same length (9 barleycorns) forms a simple ratio."

After that, it goes onto the 1st definition of the (ulna)yard by Edward I, which I refer to above.

I'm not stating that O'Keefe is infallible, but it is (IMHO) the most authoritative reference book available on the subject of UK W&M legislation

Thanks, Beranger.

Steve asked: "Is that bait for Eric, Niles?"

No, but close. The post is for Beranger because I do have an academic interest in how people did things in the past (one of my degrees is in history, and I specialize in mediæval history). However, I chose the specific wording I used with Eric in mind – anticipating a specific type of outburst by him.

Of course, that doesn't change the reality that since about c 12/1300 AD the foot has changed almost not at all.

and that the measures were anthropocentric, unlike in metric.

Reading some of these messages, one could be forgiven for thinking they were reading an excerpt from Chaucer or something.

I cannot believe that in this day and age, we rely on such medieaval forms of measurement.

In these days of GM crops and better healthcare (meaning people live longer and grow taller and wider) how can we use such unreliable 'standards' such as the length of barleycorns or the width of our thumbs to calibrate things.

On the other hand, the distance that light travels in a vaccum in a given period of time has been the same since the beginning of creation and will remain so until the end of the universe (if or whenever that happens). From this physical constant, it is also able to calibrate tools to measure distance and volume.

The only exception to this is the kilogram - but I am certain that a way will be found to define this accurately -i.e. exactly one litre of X weighs a kilogram. The example of water at 4 celcius is a good example but for scientific purposes it must be possible to find something more accurate - and I am optimistic that one will be found.

Look, units of measure must be easily accesible on your body. Most people can form inch or foot lengths using different parts of their body in different ways. How is basing it on an asurd fraction of the earth a better method ?

AndyA

<<I cannot believe that in this day and age, we rely on such medieaval forms of measurement.>>

That's the whole point - we don't.
It's *EVOLVED*

In the same why I wouldn't talk to like this:

"Gadzooks ye olde gentry-fellow I challenge thee to a dual for thou scandalous for thine argument on that damnest metric foretellment, sire" (or whatever, you get the point)

Steve, thou art taking me out for to pisse with that nonsense. etc.

Yes, you are right, evolved. I should have said that too. But yes, I think anthrocentric measures are better. And no, metric is not anthropcentric. And no, 1.5 m = 1 pace is not evidence of anthropcentricity.

<<<And no, 1.5 m = 1 pace is not evidence of anthropcentricity.>>>

Thats a hell of a pace, I would have said a pace is more like one metre

"anthropcentricity"

Congratulations, Bryan.

You have won "word of the week" !

(cue music)

I like that. "anthropcentricity".
I'm going to try and drop that word into one of the meetings I have at work today.

I wonder if I can do it.

<<<I would have said a pace is more like one metre>>>

Thats a hell of a pace, I would have said a pace is more like one yard, which is what english (and welsh!) speakers accept it as.

Maybe when Golfer run between holes will they change it to "metres" !!

<<
<<<And no, 1.5 m = 1 pace is not evidence of anthropcentricity.>>>

Thats a hell of a pace, I would have said a pace is more like one metre
>>

Given that the word "mile" derives from "mille passum" (one thousand paces), a pace shouldbe about 1.6m. The Romans of course differentiated between a pace (passum) and a step (grassus = 0.8m). A pace was the distance from left heel to left heel when marching , while a step was the distance from left heel to right heel.

".....hats a hell of a pace, I would have said a pace is more like one metre"

You see, therin lies the problem.

The length of an armspan or a pace differs from person to person.

I would argue that SI is the natural evolution of W&M.

How many people do you know with 12" feet ?

I reckon someone of that size would have a pace of at least a metre

<<I would argue that SI is the natural evolution of W&M.>>

SI is *the* most un-natural concoction in today's world.




<<How many people do you know with 12" feet>>

None.

How many people have a three foot garden?

I missed an o out steve: anthropocentricity.



AND, the Roman mile was 1000 five feet paces. Their mile was 1400-1500 metres. One roman foot was about 11.7 inches. A pace or double pace is well-known in the English world and is treated as five feet (about 1.5 m)

>>>>>>
You see, therin lies the problem.

The length of an armspan or a pace differs from person to person.
<<<<<<


Or not. Un petite example.. ahem:


I put my two hands side by side with thumbs fully stretches out.
Measures 13 7/8"

I measure without stretching my thumbs, but just stick em out
measures 12 3/8"

I have my thumbs at 45 degrees
measures 12 1/4"

And of course depending on whether I measure from the knuckles or side of palm or wrist, it changes the size a lot too.

One hand width
measures 2 7/8- 35/8 depending on where I measure from.


I THINK WE ALL CAN SEE WHERE I AM GOING WITH THIS..... maybe therefore I should leave my point to your own crative minds and then tell me what you think.

The SI may be an evolution of W&M, but it is most certainly not natural. Left to natural forces, it would never have come about. It came about because a group of revolutionaries decided to abruptly scrap the entire historical evolution of weights and measures, and replace it with their own arbitrary set of units. This is anything but natural, in fact it is the most artificial way of doing it.

This whole thread is regurtitating the same old and irrelevant rubbish over and over again. Must be really riveting for some people to argue about how many grains of sand there are on a stretch of beach.

All resistance to metrication begins with a thought. If you can control a person's thoughts, you can stop such resistance before it happens.

<<
The SI may be an evolution of W&M, but it is most certainly not natural. Left to natural forces, it would never have come about. It came about because a group of revolutionaries decided to abruptly scrap the entire historical evolution of weights and measures, and replace it with their own arbitrary set of units. This is anything but natural, in fact it is the most artificial way of doing it.
>>

May I refer you to XCole's favourite site
http://www.weights-and-measures.com/.

The book that he has digitised is the result of wwhat happens if weights and measures are left to natural forces. Take a look at it. Do you really want the sort of chaos that his book catalogues - and his book only catalogues the chaos as perceived in the State of Vermont - it ignores weights and measures that were not used there.

SI has removed the need for books such as the one that XCole's ancestor (?) produced.

I don't think we shold listen to xcole because he doesn't even know how the fahrenheit temperautre scale works or how many cubic inches there are in a US gallon. He seems confused.

Bryan,

In fairness to XCole, please visit his site. It consists of a booklet that appears to have been produced by one of his ancestors in 1827. Of course, he might be a bit weird (aren't we all in our own different ways?), but this booklet give a give of life in the early part of the ninteenth century.

<<<I THINK WE ALL CAN SEE WHERE I AM GOING WITH THIS..... maybe therefore I should leave my point to your own crative minds and then tell me what you think.>>>

Are you trying to say that despite the anthropocentricity (!?) of imperial, a foot is not the average length of a foot and a yard is neither the average length of an outstretched arm, an average pace, or the length of someones back garden?

Lets be honest it is irrelevant where the measurements originate from. Its a feeble argument.

Bryan:
<maybe therefore I should leave my point to your own crative minds >

I'm beginning to think that that quote did *not* contain a spelling mistake!

eric (who posts as 'metre'):
<This whole thread is regurtitating the same old and irrelevant rubbish over and over again.>

A few thoughts sprung to mind - these include, but are not limited to:

Iraq
Binding of feet
Witches
Teaching inch-rulers to americans
Parents being selfish
Harsh realities
AntiYank sentiments
Lies
Pretending to know metric.

Indeed, I did laugh at that post!

erm, Martin, I have been to his site probably more times than you have. Seriously. I have visited it a lot.

Andy, what I am saying to you is anyone can form Imperial measurements with their bodies quite simply. This is not the case with metric. The metre, for instance, is on the extreme end, whereas the foot (and by extension the yard) are more easily constructed by most people.

An extremely feeble argument, Bryan

A metre is roughly the same as a yard
A centimetre is just as easily formed using part of the body as an inch

Andy - stop running around mate.
Many pro-metric's see the advatage of the foot unit.

You're arguing for argument's sake.

Aren't we all arguing for the sake of it? Its a no win argument - well not until...

No, its a no win argument!

I disagree. I think that if you used your hands a bit- maybe you do, I do not know- you would see that foot-inch units are easier to work with not only because of their fractionality, but because of their anthropocompatibility [another word for you Steve :D ]. Centimetres and metres are far more difficult to use when you actually have to rely on skill.

Bryan - sorry, but your posts seem to be descending into complete gibberish. The vast majority of the worlds people seem to find metric measurement easier.

If imperial was easier, then the world would be switching to imperial not the other way round.

Visualising objects (small/medium) is much easier done in inches.

Try it for yourself.

Look at an object and see if you can guess how many inches tall it is, then try it out in cm *WITHOUT* doing that "double and a half" mind-calculation.

Try it on a 12" record first [smirk!]

Do it for the sake of anthropocompatibilitiness. (I win!)

Visualising objects (small/medium) is much easier done in inches.

Try it for yourself.

Look at an object and see if you can guess how many inches tall it is, then try it out in cm *WITHOUT* doing that "double and a half" mind-calculation.
-----------------------------------------------------------

And thats a fact then.

Are you sure you don't subconsciously estimate in centimetres and then "times by 2.5" to get the number of inches?

Andy, ever heard of the metric inch and metric foot (invented by the Swiss, by the way). Ever heard of the Japanese who use two centimetre units divided into quarters? Ever heard of the half kilo pound or the 600 millilitre pint? I think you will find that I am right on this point.

"Are you sure you don't subconsciously estimate in centimetres and then "times by 2.5" to get the number of inches?"


Shhh! Don't tell EVERYONE!

I actually times it by 25.4 - THAT'S how accurate I am!

<<
Bryan - sorry, but your posts seem to be descending into complete gibberish. The vast majority of the worlds people seem to find metric measurement easier.
>>
People will find whatever they are accustomed to, easier. Since most governments have forced people to use metric for a long time, people now find it easier.

<<
If imperial was easier, then the world would be switching to imperial not the other way round.
>>
No one would be switching to anything unless they were forced to.

metre:
No one would be switching to anything unless they were forced to.

metre:
One of very few profound statements you have made so far. What you conviniently forgot to add is "irrespective of merits".

What must be really annoying to some people is when the govt does everything it can to force conversion to metric units but people still stubbornly choose to use imperial. Even changing the law can't force people to change the way they choose to do things. 'Merits' eh?

Isn't that a shame.

<<<when the govt does everything it can to force conversion to metric units>>>

Get real! The govt in Britain has done as little as it possibly could to force conversion to metric. That is why we are in the current situation.

lets start with road signs - in my view the most significant area of metrication. Metric road signs are illegal in the UK, the only country in the world where this is the case.

There are virtually no areas where metric is compulsory and where it is, imperial is still allowed in brackets & the law is hardly enforced anyway. OK a few traders may have been prosecuted, but as you often point out, Tesco manages to get away with it.

If it wasn't for the governments total lack of commitment to metrication, we wouldn't be here arguing about it - it would have happened a long time ago.

As soon as a government gets its arse in gear, its game over!

"Get real! The govt in Britain has done as little as it possibly could to force conversion to metric. That is why we are in the current situation."

Ah I see.
So all that stuff about getting a criminal record for selling pounds of apples was made up, eh?
Oh, I just noticed - you've typed "The govt in Britain" !

"lets start with road signs - in my view the most significant area of metrication. Metric road signs are illegal in the UK, the only country in the world where this is the case. "

[[Glow]]

"There are virtually no areas where metric is compulsory and where it is"

Have a word with martin, dear chap.
(Actually have a word with Carlyle - he'll tell you loads about the status of metric in the UK!)

"If it wasn't for the governments total lack of commitment to metrication, we wouldn't be here arguing about it - it would have happened a long time ago."

You misunderstand the reason why Autralia keenly went metric and why the UK never will.

"As soon as a government gets its arse in gear, its game over!"

As I've said, and I'll say it again...

" Tick tock Tick tock Tick tock Tick tock "


BTW - Brainiac on SkyOne proved that you are not a quarter pound heavier after you eat a quater pounder - did you know that?