North40 Boy,

Regarding your question of January 28th @ 4:17 p.m.

''I see in your answer to the 1 fl. fifth of bourbon question that that number 4608 came up yet again, with 46.080 cu.''. Why is it in weights & measures that no matter where you go you get hit with that number?''

North40 Boy, in The Several States the number system consists of the following numbers:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

4608 is #9 doubled 9 times.

Always has been.

Always will be.

9 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 4608

info @

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

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

1 fl. fifth = 46.08000000000 cu.''
1.000000000 cu.' = 37 1/2 fl. fifths

"4608 is #9 doubled 9 times.

Always has been.

Always will be."



But not in base-twelve. What?

North40 Boy,

What are you on?

First, despite what http://www.weights-and-measures.com says, 1 fl fifth does NOT = 46.080000 fl oz, whether you are talking US OR UK fluid measures.

Try the following:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/cookmeasuretable.html
http://www.iridis.com/hotjay/Cooking_weights_and_measures
http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/conversions.htm
http://pathwayscourses.samhsa.gov/vawp/vawp_2_pg3.htm

All the above give 1 fifth = 25.6 fl oz.
Some other sites give the value 25 1/2 fl oz but I suspect these are rounded

Taking the US Gallon:
1 US Gal = 128 fl oz
128/5 fl oz = 25.6 fl oz

Also, the US Gallon = 231 cu "
so
231/5 cu" = 46.2 cu "

Thus 25.6 fl oz = 46.2 cu "
giving the result
1 fl oz = 46.2/25.6 cu " = 1.8046875 cu " = 1.81 cu "

To confirm

1 US Gal = 128 fl oz = 231 cu "
thus
1 fl oz = 231/128 cu " = 1.8046875 cu " = 1.81 cu " Q.E.D.


As for the last statement, that is correct as an approximation as follows.
1 cu ' = 1728 cu "
given that 1 fifth = 46.2 cu "
1 cu ' = 1728 cu " / 46.2 cu 2 / fifth = 37.402597 fifths = 37.4 fifths
this is close to the figure you posted i.e
1 cu ' = 37 1/2 fifths which would be exact if using 1 fifth = 46.080 cu "

It would seem that at some point a rounding has been performed to give 1 cu ' = 37.5 fifths which then gives 1 fifth = 1728/37.5 cu " = 46.08 cu ".

It just goes to show, don't believe everything you see on the web without confirmation from other sources.

Ray,

With all due respect, I suggest that you investigate XCOLE's site a littl emore carefully. You will find that it is based on a book published by one of his ancestors in about 1826. You will also find that a lot of units of measure that hsi ancestor quoted are no longer in use.

Of course, if you want to go the whole hog, you would throw out the entire Imperial & Customary systems of measure and replace them with the metric system.

That'll be the day I learn Esperanto.



'Ere, ain't it gone quite in these boards over the last few days?

Martin,

"With all due respect, I suggest that you investigate XCOLE's site a little more carefully. You will find that it is based on a book published by one of his ancestors in about 1826. You will also find that a lot of units of measure that hsi ancestor quoted are no longer in use."

With all due respect, I suggest you refer to C:\My Documents\Ref\A Dictionary of Measures, Units and Conversions.htm where under the heading of "A Brief History of Measurement" you will find that the United States standardized their fluid gfallon, basing it on the Queen Anne or wine gallon of 231 cu in. This standardization occurred in 1836, ten years AFTER the publication of xcole's ancestors book. The unit of a "fifth" in RORY ELY COLE's book must therefore have been based on the gallon in use prior to its standardization in the USA. As indicated in my previous post, a figure of 46.08 fl oz / fifth is derived from assuming 1 cu ft = 37.5 fifths. From this we calculate 1728 cu in / 37.5 = 230.4 cu in.

No matter how you look at, the values used by the earlier Cole do not agree with the standard adopted by the USA in 1836. He was perhaps quite correct for his own time, but I imagine that the value of 37.5 fifths per cubic foot is an approximation.

"Of course, if you want to go the whole hog, you would throw out the entire Imperial & Customary systems of measure and replace them with the metric system."

No thanks Martin, I prefer to replace both with a rational duodecimal system of weights and measures, giving the advantages of both older systems with none of the disadvantages.