The report states

"5.14 Sixth, the system of customary weights and measures rolls up one unit into another at the point when the numbers begin to get large and unwieldy - pints into gallons, pounds into stones and so on. The human brain finds it more difficult to cope with larger numbers. Figures of hundreds of grams on a packet or tin in the supermarket being a prime example."

Lets look at the definitions in Schedule VI of the Weights & Measures Act 1985. There are quite a few imperial measurements that use bigger numbers than 1000 within their definitions....

Mile = 1760 yards
Acre = 4840 square yards
Rood = 1210 square yards
Cubic inch = 1/1728 cubic foot
Ton = 2240 pounds
Grain = 1/7000 pound

Personally, I think that 1210, 1728, 1760, 2240, 4840 & 7000 are larger & more unwieldy than 1000.

And if the human brain has problems with "hundreds of grams", then how about

Furlong = 220 yards
Square mile = 640 acres
Square inch = 1/144 square foot
Hundredweight = 112 pounds
Cental = 100 pounds
Ounce apocthecaries = 480 grains

Never mind though Tony, I've now given you the answer to one of the 2 imperial units divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 - try looking directly above! Any chance that you might find out the other one by yourself?

Beranger, I have read your post the times.

Please justify the heading you gave this thread, viz. 'Another Howler'

Tony

"Beranger, I have read your post the times."

But has my post's left wing, nationalistic views been altered or influenced by Printing House Square's (or Wapping's) right wing sentiments? :-)

I would suggest that it was once a great paper though.

Seriously

I consider section 5.14 to be factually incorrect. I say "another" howler, because I don't think you have successfully refuted any of my previous criticisms.

Btw, I assume we are playing to "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" - this time you're not on trial for doing anything criminal.......

<<
Lets look at the definitions in Schedule VI of the Weights & Measures Act 1985. There are quite a few imperial measurements that use bigger numbers than 1000 within their definitions....
Mile = 1760 yards
Acre = 4840 square yards
Rood = 1210 square yards
Cubic inch = 1/1728 cubic foot
Ton = 2240 pounds
Grain = 1/7000 pound
>>

Why are you so preoccupied with the definitions? The point of measurement is to measure things. We all know a mile is 1760 yards, but when measuring things in either miles or yards, you never use this number. The numbers in the definitions are a function of how far apart in magnitude the units are. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you look around you, you will see 3-digit numbers used to label things in g or mL. You will usually not see 3 digit numbers in imperial. What you see with your own eyes is more important than the definitions.

re (Beranger): "I consider there is a factual inaccuracy in the following: 'Para. 5.14: Sixth, the system of customary weights and measures rolls up one unit into another at the point when the numbers begin to get large and unwieldy - pints into gallons, pounds into stones and so on. The human brain finds it more difficult to cope with larger numbers. Figures of hundreds of grams on a packet or tin in the supermarket being a prime example'"


REPLY: Well, I'm pleased to see you rowing back frantically from 'another howler', anyway. Now kindly either row back still further or point out what you claim to be 'a factual inaccuracy' in our Paragaph 5.14

Berenger, my two-pence. The _entire_ Imperial system is no longer "official". Just because the law may or may not recognise that inbetween grains and pounds there are drams and ounces (and, incidentally, the grain is not even REALLY a part of avoirdupois), does not mean such units do not exist and are not used.

Berenger, in an attempt to point out flaws in this report, you have here made a rather silly msitake, to be honest.

Addendum:


16 drams to an ounce (drams seldom used, though, instead fractions of the ounce mostly)
16 ounces to a pound
14 pounds to a stone
8 stone to a hundredweight (still used in some contexts)
160 stone, 2240 lb, 20cwt to a ton

12 inches to a foot
3 feet to a yard
1760 yd to a mile (the furlong and chain are seldom used by normal men)

20fluidounces to a pint
8 pints to a gallon


Only when we go from stone to tons or yards to miles do we encounter a "problem". In Metric, there are not as many intermediate steps:

100 grams to a hectogram (altho the hectogram is scarcely known by name, just like the hundreweight or chain)
1000 grams to a kilogram
1000 kilograms to a megagram

10 millimetres to a centimetre
100 centimetres to a metre
1000 metres to a kilometre


I think Tony's point is justifed, somehow.

<<<We all know a mile is 1760 yards>>>

Who is WE? Americans? Certainly not British. Very few British people know this - even Tony and SteveH do not dispute this.

<<<but when measuring things in either miles or yards, you never use this number>>>

But you need to know it in your basic understanding of the system, otherwise how do you know how far a mile is? You need to break it down into more easily visualised units.

We've been over this before but Americans know there are 1760 yards in a mile, 50 years ago everyone in Britain knew there were 1760 yards in a mile. Excusing the fact that hardly anyone in Britain today knows by saying it is not necessary to know doesn't wash

re (Beranger): "this time you're not on trial for doing anything criminal..."


REPLY:

Well, that's come as a bit of a relief,
Otherwise I'd have consulted a brief.
Gee, I'm a poet
And I don't know it.

But nevertheless, I am quite clearly 'on trial'.

Beranger, given that Article 6.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights covers my rights to a 'fair trial' in any civil or criminal proceedings, throughout the area covered by the Council of Europe (which includes your country and mine), please set out on this bulletin board how my trial will proceed and what my rights are.

I believe that the accused is entitled to have the charge(s) read out to him, whereupon he may plead 'Guilty', 'Not Guilty' or may fail to enter a plea. He is then entitled to a sumamry of the factual evidence against him.

Please ensure that these rules are complied with.

Who will be the judge, and is there a jury?

Does the procedure allow for mitigation in the event of a conviction?

Tony

Excuse me if I split your post into 2 parts (for convenience)

"5.14 Sixth, the system of customary weights and measures rolls up one unit into another at the point when the numbers begin to get large and unwieldy - pints into gallons, pounds into stones and so on.

Yes. The two examples you give change at 8 & 14 units respectively. I pointed out 6 examples where the imperial weight or measure changes at over 1000 units. In my opinion, these numbers are large & unwieldy. These 6 units make your claim about the "system" factually incorrect.

Indulge me, and let me repeat myself

"Personally, I think that 1210, 1728, 1760, 2240, 4840 & 7000 are larger & more unwieldy than 1000."

Do you disagree with this statement? Do you think that 1000 (the changepoint between g>kg, mm>m, ml>l)is a larger number than the 6 examples of imperial units given? Or do you think it is more unwieldy? Or both?

"5.14 [Continued] The human brain finds it more difficult to cope with larger numbers. Figures of hundreds of grams on a packet or tin in the supermarket being a prime example."

My telephone number (like many others) is 11 digits long. I do not have any trouble remembering it. Or my mobile. Or my work number. Or various friends/relations. In comparison, 3 digits are a doddle. I could name the official names of many roads I drove upon today. Each road (apart from one - the A <number> <number>) had 3 or 4 digits following the class of the road (A, B or C)....

Bud said

"If you look around you, you will see 3-digit numbers used to label things in g or mL. You will usually not see 3 digit numbers in imperial. What you see with your own eyes is more important than the definitions."

Bud (and Tony - this is still relevant to you!)

I looked around tonight. I was driving my car. I saw signs in yards. They had 3 digit numbers like 100, 200, 220, 300, 330, 400, 570(!?) & 800. I was not confused by these signs. I believe that "yards" are part of the "system"

I also saw signs in miles. One of them referred to a town 127 miles away. Is there no unit that "rolls up" from miles to something more convenient - I might be confused by this large number.

Bud - please check http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Direct%20Action.htm for examples of signs that ARM have amended to read 380, 300yds, 500yds, 200yds, 600yds, 330yd & 550yd (and let us also admire ARM's consistency in the abbreviation of the unit involved!).

Will someone please explain why hundreds of grams (in a supermarket) is a prime example of numbers that the human brain has difficulty with (remember, you can take your time if you are in the "slow readers" group) but you can immediately understand signs referring to hundreds of yards when travelling at 60 mph?

Bryan

I was only referring to the imperial units still retained within the UK Weights & Measures Act. They are still legally part of our measurement system. Your statement that implies that the grain was no part of the imperial system is absolute nonsense. Before 1963(??? - would need to check actual date it went metric!), how were maximum permissible errors on imperial traders weights expressed? How was the troy ounce & pound defined?

And outside the UK, was the US pound not defined by grains for many years? Wasn't the primary US standard a troy weight?

And your point about metric totally ignores prefixes like centi & deci. I didn't even try to use the "everything divides by 10" argument - I was working from the "everything divides by 1000" point of view.

<<
I looked around tonight. I was driving my car. I saw signs in yards. They had 3 digit numbers like 100, 200, 220, 300, 330, 400, 570(!?) & 800. I was not confused by these signs. I believe that "yards" are part of the "system"
>>
If you used metric in this case, the metres would be the same. Three digits.

<<
I also saw signs in miles. One of them referred to a town 127 miles away. Is there no unit that "rolls up" from miles to something more convenient - I might be confused by this large number.
>>
If metric were used here, the label would be in kilometres, and it would be an even larger number, and you would be even more confused!

Berenger, two points:

1. The grain, I said, was not really a part of avoirdupois. And it isn't.. REALLY. It is part of try/apothecaries.

2. Yes, your number is 11 digits.. like most other people's... and like most other people's it is broken into three (or more) parts. Mine is (xxx) xxxx-xxxx

I should note that it is a well-known and tested Psychological fact that 7 is about the optimal number of 'chunks' a human can remember. Too far beyond this point, humans have increasing difficulty at perceiving and manipulating such figures.

P.S. deci- is dead as a prefix; I have done my own research which suggests that metrically educated foreigners cannot grasp what a decimetre is well, oftentimes. Likewise, centi- has limited uses. People don't think, generally, when they here 'centilitre', centi (=100) + litre, they think 'centilitre'. The prefix, I contest, actually for most people does not aid how they memorise things or understand the system. A 'millimetre' is one-tenth a centimetre, not 1/1000th metre.

Note, I even know some Brits who, not knowing chilliad or hecto-, actually hear 'milligram' and think '1000 grams'. so how's that for your prefixing and self-evidently glorious system.

re (Beranger): "Will someone please explain why hundreds of grams (in a supermarket) is a prime example of numbers that the human brain has difficulty with (remember, you can take your time if you are in the 'slow readers' group) but you can immediately understand signs referring to hundreds of yards when travelling at 60 mph?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY: Yes (long, audible sigh).

Step 1: Have a careful look at this table from the CMS Report below (remember, you can take your time if you are in the 'slow readers' group)

A Survey of Metric Weights of Packaged Goods

This survey was carried out in September 2003 in Somerfield
Supermarket, Old Harlow, Essex. The following different weights were noted in a 10-minute survey of several supermarket shelves:

740g - Piccalilli Large
710g - Jar of Beetroot Slices
540g - Grapefruit Segments
500g - Dolmio Original
480g - Ragu Lasagne Sauce
454g - Blackcurrant/Strawberry Jam
440g - Tikka Curry Sauce
439g - Pineapple Chunks
432g - Fruit Salad
425g - Green Giant Asparagus
420g - Tikka Masala Sauce
415g - Heinz Baked Beans
411g - Pear Halves
410g - Somerfield Red Kidney Beans
400g - Heinz Spaghetti
390g - Ratatouille Provencal
375g - Egg Lasagne
340g - Chicken in White Sauce
335g - Chicken Quarters
325g - Somerfield Sweetcorn Tins
320g - Dolmio Bol
300g - Tins of Beans and Peas
295g - Mediterranean Tomato Soup
290g - Chestwood Mushrooms
283g - Curry Paste
250g - Easy Cook Peas
220g - Tins of Butter Beans
213g - Bob the Builder Spaghetti
205g - Spaghetti Hoops
190g - Pesto / Cranberry Sauce
185g - J West Tuna in Garlic
180g - Tartare Sauce
176g - Mashed Potato Mix
175g - Mint Sauce
140g - Apple & Herb Stuffing
110g – Houmous
100g - Polish Mayonnaise
97g - Somerfield Mashed Potato Mix
85g - Sage & Onion Stuffing
73g - Table Salt Refill


Step 2: Now imagine going along a road and seeing these distances as you come up to a road junction (remember, slow readers' group, you can take all the time you need):

'Give Way 540 yards'

'Give Way 335 yards'

'Give Way 213 yards'


Step 3: Beranger: (long pause) "Oh, I see now. Thanks very much for pointing that out. I really appreciate it"

Bud

I think you have missed my point.

Yes. I agree. A three digit number in imperial yards will usually be a three digit number in metric metres.

My point is in response to Tony's uncorroborated & nonsensical statement "The human brain finds it more difficult to cope with larger numbers. Figures of hundreds of grams on a packet or tin in the supermarket being a prime example."

If you can explain why 150g is less comprehensible than 150yd or 150m (meaning metres for the pedants!!!!), please do!

Bryan

"1. The grain, I said, was not really a part of avoirdupois. And it isn't.. REALLY. It is part of try/apothecaries."

I was talking about the Imperial System. If you feel that Troy is not part of that system, please post!

"2. Yes, your number is 11 digits.. like most other people's... and like most other people's it is broken into three (or more) parts. Mine is (xxx) xxxx-xxxx"

Londoncentric or what(Imagine the "Horst Wessel" song as you read!!) OK, can I at least suggest that most people that stay in big UK cities are stupid? At least stupid enough to stay in big cities?

Tony has an 11 digit number (xxxxx)xxxxxx
So do I (xxxxx) xxxxxx

Only big city dwellers need to have numbers divided into 3. Smaller brains, smaller attention spans, a youth party for aryan pureness???????

Tomorrow belongs to Bry??????

Bry, you tell me!

Btw, are you comfortable with your "racial superiority" posts on another thread" - are there not laws against that sort of thing?

Tony's survey!!!!!

It proves very little.

It seems to prove that Harlow supermarkets stack goods according to weight. I am amazed that a random survey found 40 weights in descending order!

I am even more amazed that 3 digit numbers were understood by the reporters. The CMS report does state "The human brain finds it more difficult to cope with larger numbers. Figures of hundreds of grams on a packet or tin in the supermarket being a prime example."

The reporters seemed to be able to find the biggest metric value quoted, plus the next 39 in descending order within 600 seconds. And all in metric.

Tony, you must be hiding a report stating that imperial can do this in 5 min.

Or else, errr........

What was the point of your post........????????

<<
If you can explain why 150g is less comprehensible than 150yd or 150m (meaning metres for the pedants!!!!), please do!
>>

Beranger, 150 of anything is equally comprehensible (or incomprehensible).
However, just because our road signs are less comprehensible than our food labels is no reason to change the food labels.
The road signs would be more comprehensible if they used a more suitable size unit. However, they don't; it is just something we have to deal with.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bryan

"1. The grain, I said, was not really a part of avoirdupois. And it isn't.. REALLY. It is part of try/apothecaries."

I was talking about the Imperial System. If you feel that Troy is not part of that system, please post!
<<<<<<<<<<<<

I never said that. Imperial has, technically speaking, troy as a part of it (altho' one could argue agaisnt this, ya know). And yes, the pound avoirdupois is (or was, not sure on the statutes) defined as 7000 grains. HOWEVER, if you look at the history and uses of the three Imperial weight systems, you will see that the grain doesn't really belong to avoird.


>>>>>>>>>>>>
"2. Yes, your number is 11 digits.. like most other people's... and like most other people's it is broken into three (or more) parts. Mine is (xxx) xxxx-xxxx"

Londoncentric or what(Imagine the "Horst Wessel" song as you read!!) OK, can I at least suggest that most people that stay in big UK cities are stupid? At least stupid enough to stay in big cities?

Tony has an 11 digit number (xxxxx)xxxxxx
So do I (xxxxx) xxxxxx

Only big city dwellers need to have numbers divided into 3. Smaller brains, smaller attention spans, a youth party for aryan pureness???????
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ber, don't be an ass. It doesn't suit you. It is an established scientific fact about the chunking. If you don't like it, tough tits, because it is a FACT. It is also a fact that lots of people don't break up their mobile nbumbers at all. And it is equally a fact that those numbers are harder to read and harder to remember. It is a fact that in France they often break numbers up into lots of two or three. It is also a fact that in ortder to remember a number (especially beyond about 7 digits) your mind will automatically 'chunk' the number to make it more storable. These are FACTS. If you want to go to university or take an A-level in psychology or get a grip and actually read anything about anything, then you would know this. Also, you don't even need to be told by a doctor it is so because intuitively it makes sense.

I'ld appreciate it if you didn't insult me in a (scarcely) veiled manner. Likewise I'ld appreciate it if you wouldn't insult city-dwellers or Londoners. How about that, eh?


>>>>>>>>>>>>
Btw, are you comfortable with your "racial superiority" posts on another thread" - are there not laws against that sort of thing?
<<<<<<<<<<<<

What "racial superiorty" posts? What the hell are you talking about? I don't appreciate your assertions that I am racist. It is the typical crap people like me (i.e. Nationalists who happen to be British) have to put up with all the damn time. Anything we say is racist. Well bollocks. Link me to whatever it is I have said that is racist. I'm about as far from racist as you are likely to find. Cheers.

It might be instructive to conduct a similar survey to that shown below somewhere in say continental Europe where metric packaging has been around for many decades just to see the sorts of quantites you find there.

"A Survey of Metric Weights of Packaged Goods

This survey was carried out in September 2003 in Somerfield
Supermarket, Old Harlow, Essex. The following different weights were noted in a 10-minute survey of several supermarket shelves:

740g - Piccalilli Large
710g - Jar of Beetroot Slices
540g - Grapefruit Segments
500g - Dolmio Original
480g - Ragu Lasagne Sauce
454g - Blackcurrant/Strawberry Jam
440g - Tikka Curry Sauce
439g - Pineapple Chunks
432g - Fruit Salad
425g - Green Giant Asparagus
420g - Tikka Masala Sauce
415g - Heinz Baked Beans
411g - Pear Halves
410g - Somerfield Red Kidney Beans
400g - Heinz Spaghetti
390g - Ratatouille Provencal
375g - Egg Lasagne
340g - Chicken in White Sauce
335g - Chicken Quarters
325g - Somerfield Sweetcorn Tins
320g - Dolmio Bol
300g - Tins of Beans and Peas
295g - Mediterranean Tomato Soup
290g - Chestwood Mushrooms
283g - Curry Paste
250g - Easy Cook Peas
220g - Tins of Butter Beans
213g - Bob the Builder Spaghetti
205g - Spaghetti Hoops
190g - Pesto / Cranberry Sauce
185g - J West Tuna in Garlic
180g - Tartare Sauce
176g - Mashed Potato Mix
175g - Mint Sauce
140g - Apple & Herb Stuffing
110g – Houmous
100g - Polish Mayonnaise
97g - Somerfield Mashed Potato Mix
85g - Sage & Onion Stuffing
73g - Table Salt Refill

Ber said - <<If you can explain why 150g is less comprehensible than 150yd or 150m (meaning metres for the pedants!!!!), please do!>>

I think you mean 150 m don't you? In metric the rule is to put a space between number and unit.


...



...


...


Oh dear.

What have I done?

Bryan

BWMA seem to have removed the thread referred to in my post above. I therefore cannot prove what you posted there. I'm not the only person that has noticed it is missing.

"HOWEVER, if you look at the history and uses of the three Imperial weight systems, you will see that the grain doesn't really belong to avoird."

As I explain above (and you appear to have ignored) the limits of error on Avoirdupois traders weights used to be expressed in grains.

I honestly cannot remember whether the limits of error changed from grains to milligrams in the Weights Regulations 1970, or the Weights Regulations 1986 (the current regulations)

And before anyone says I'm talking nonsense, Schedule 4 of the '86 regs(which was deleted on 1/1/2000) used to state:

Column 1 - Purported mass of the weight
56lb 50lb.......1/16oz 1/32oz
Column 2 - Prescribed limits of error on passing as fit for use for trade (+ only)
4000mg 3600mg.......5mg 5mg
Column 3 - Prescribed limits of error in relation to the obliteration of the stamp (+/-)
4000mg 3600mg.......5mg 5mg

>>>>>>
BWMA seem to have removed the thread referred to in my post above. I therefore cannot prove what you posted there. I'm not the only person that has noticed it is missing.
<<<<<<

No one is going to buy that rubbish, Ber. I do nto recall postign any "racial superiority" posts or threads. I might have said something along the liens that there were certain superior things about English culture (as there are about other coltures). But I certainly don't recall writing anything racist, or even to be hoenst, racialist. why do I remember no such threads? Because my worldview does not revolve around races, or feature them in any way. That is why. I would NOT have posted something racist because I do not buy into racist ideology. That is the plain and simple truth. Your lack of proof to the contrary tells me that you are either misremembering, misunderstanding, or worse, misrepresenting.


>>>>>>
"HOWEVER, if you look at the history and uses of the three Imperial weight systems, you will see that the grain doesn't really belong to avoird."

As I explain above (and you appear to have ignored) the limits of error on Avoirdupois traders weights used to be expressed in grains.
<<<<<<

No, in fact I recognised that fact above. My point is that the grain is a kind of special part of it, really. It doesn't relate to the dram, ounce or avoird. pound in a astraightforward or logical fashion. that is because it coems directly from older systems of weight.

Bryan

I've placed my recollection of what you said on the "St David's Day" thread. Unless BWMA can confirm that you did or did not make that comment (or something very similar), we will have to leave it there.

Please refer to the "New" St. David's day thread. :)

Bry

OK!

Sorted! :) (If BWMA delete the new St D thread, everyone will wonder what the hell we were on about!)

Anyway, back to the real debate.

I definitely remember my home number in 2 chunks - the town code (xxxxx) and the number (xxxxxx)

Realistically, however, I only need to remember the last 4 digits as every number in the town starts with the same 1st 2 digits.

I take your point with respect to mobiles. I always give mine in the form xxxx xxx xxxx

Cities v Towns
I stand by my comments. If you check the Scottish "league tables" for educational achievement, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen & Edinburgh are at the bottom. (excluding the Public Schools (Bud, this means something different in the UK!))

I imagine a similar situation exists in England.

Anyway what was "Chilliad" meant to refer to - it still intrigues me!

Chilliad is the greek word for group of a thousand; thence "kilo-" (it was pronounced "killiad"). Not well known to layfolk. Likewise "hecto-" from "hecaton". However, I think "centi-" and "milli-" are infinitely more understandable to English speakers.