Don,

Regarding your statement of May 15th @ 2:11 p.m.
______

Common Weights & Measures are based on the sexagesimal number system with the exception of the statute acre which is the commercial acre increased by exactly 10%. That’s why developed land is sold by the commercial acre, but surveyed by the statute acre. The dimensions are below:

1 commercial rod = 15’
1 statute rod = 16 1/2’

1 commercial chain = 60’
1 statute chain = 66’

1 commercial furlong = 600’
1 statute furlong = 660’

1 commercial mile = 4800’
1 statute mile = 5280’

1 commercial acre = 36000 sq.’
1 statute acre = 43560 sq.’
______

Don, 1 stt. acre IS NOT founded on the so-called 1 commercial acre.

The so-called 1 commercial acre IS founded on the 1 stt. acre.

1 stt. acre is constructed on the BASE of 1 stt.ml. times ten. The 1 stt.ml. is a dual measure based on a convenient triangulation, lying between the mile mile of 5000’ and the nautical mile of 6080’. The 1 stt.ml. of 5280’ was selected over 5760’ because of the abolishment of the mile mile of 5000’.

Don, there is no such thing as a:

1 commercial rod of 15’, or
1 commercial chain of 60’, or
1 commercial furlong of 600’, or
1 commercial mile of 4800’

Don, there may or may not be such a thing as a so-called commercial acre, depending on whether trial juries, or grand juries, or justices of the peace ignore its’ use within the commonwealth, and if they do, whether realtors within that commonwealth decide to use the so-called commercial acre.

Whatever, no commonwealth has ever passed a legislative statute establishing a ‘’commercial acre’’.

In those few commonwealths where the so-called commercial acre is allowed (although not approved of by legislative statute), it is limited to sub-divided land being developed for the first time for either commercial use, or residential use, or both. The supposed justification for this realtor scam is that when land is trimmed off for the first time (and hopefully the last time) from the original 1 stt. acre of 43560 sq.’ for county roads, town streets, sidewalks, curbs, utilities, and so on, then on average only 36000 sq.’ is left.

Info @

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

And topic:

Common Superficial Measure

P.S.
Don,
Which is larger, 10% of 36000 sq.’ or 21% of 36000 sq.’?


1 stt.rd. = 16 1/2‘
1 stt.rd. = 25 gun.lk.

1 stt.ch. = 4 stt.rd.
1 stt.ch. = 66’
1 stt.ch. = 100 gun.lk.

1 stt.fu. = 10 stt.ch.
1 stt.fu. = 40 stt.rd.
1 stt.fu. = 660’
1 stt.fu. = 1000 gun.lk.

1 stt.ml. (linear) = 8 stt.fu.
1 stt.ml. (linear) = 80 stt.ch.
1 stt.ml. (linear) = 320 stt.rd.
1 stt.ml. (linear) = 5280’
1 stt.ml. (linear) = 8000 gun.lk.

1 stt.sq.rd. = 272 1/4 sq.’
1 stt.sq.rd. = 625 gun.sq.lk.

1 stt.sq.ch. = 16 stt.sq.rd.
1 stt.sq.ch. = 4356 sq.’
1 stt.sq.ch. = 10000 gun.sq.lk.

1 stt. acre = 10 stt.sq.ch.
1 stt. acre = 160 stt.sq.rd.
1 stt. acre = 43560 sq.’
1 stt. acre = 100000 gun.sq.lk.

1 stt.ml. (superficial) = 8 stt. acres
1 stt.ml. (superficial) = 80 stt.sq.ch.
1 stt.ml. (superficial) = 1280 stt.sq.rd.
1 stt.ml. (superficial) = 348480 sq.’
1 stt.ml. (superficial) = 800000 gun.sq.lk.

You mean there is more then one type of acre. So when someone tells me they have xx acres of land, how do I know what acre they mean?

Thanks for enlightening us all on the how confusing non-SI really is!

<<So when someone tells me they have xx acres of land, how do I know what acre they mean? >>

They won't tell you that,because in your world acres don't exist. Or if they do they are a trade name for something metric

The word "acre" is derived from the old German word "akker" meaning field. In medieval times it was no more than that - a field that could support a family. It was only in more recent times times it became assocaited with a physical area rather tham a commercial area.

re (martin): "The word 'acre' is derived from the old German word 'akker' meaning field. In medieval times it was no more than that - a field that could support a family. It was only in more recent times times it became assocaited with a physical area rather tham a commercial area".


REPLY: I wouldn't dispute what martin says. There is evidence that in ancient Britain, the area of an acre was based on its *value* rather than its physical dimensions.

Out of interest, the word 'acre' appears just twice in the Old Testament (Authorised Version).

In 1 Samuel 14 v. 14 there is a reference to 'a half acre' - the original Hebrew was 'maanah', meaning a furrow.

In Isaiah 5 v. 10 the word 'acre' is used, this time it is from the Hebrew word 'tsemet' meaning 'a yoke of oxen'.

The King James translators would have used the nearest modern English equivalents when translating

ErseSoaryStat,

Regarding your question of May 22nd @ 3:57 p.m.
______

Thanks for enlightening us all on how confusing Common Weights & Measures really are! You mean there is more than one type of acre? So when someone tells me they have one or more of the following, how do I know what they mean?

1 statuteacre
1 commercialacre
1 yocto are
1 zepto are
1 atto are
1 femto are
1 micro micro are
1 pico are
1 milli micro are
1 nano are
1 milli milli milli are
1 centi milli milli are
1 deci milli milli are
1 micro are
1 milli milli are
1 centi milli are
1 deci milli are
1 milli are
1 centi are
1 deci are
1 deca are
1 hecto are
1 kilo are
1 deca kilo are
1 hecto kilo are
1 kilo kilo are
1 mega are
1 deca kilo kilo are
1 hecto kilo kilo are
1 kilo kilo kilo are
1 kilo mega are
1 giga are
1 mega mega are
1 tera are
1 peta are
1 exa are
1 zetta are
1 yotta are
______

ErseSoaryStat, my sentiments exactly.

Info @

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

And topic:

Common Superficial Measure

<<So when someone tells me they have one or more of the following, how do I know what they mean?
>>

A prefix only represents a shorthand for a power of ten and does not affect the unit, so you still only have one kind of are. Also the are is one of those "tolerated" units, not really part of the SI, but allowed. I think only the are and the hectare are allowed, and only for land measurement. Further, compound prefixes are not permitted in the SI, so your centi centi are (and similar) is just plain silly, and incorrect.

Among your "types of acres", you failed to consider whether the square footage is based on the International foot (0.3048 m) or the US Survey foot (1200/3937 m). These differ by about 4 parts per million in square measure.

BTW, the Roman mile was 5000 Roman feet, but, by modern measurments of mileposts on surviving roads and walls, only about 4860 modern feet (1620 yards), and the nautical mile is 1852 m (exact), about 6076 feet.

<<Further, compound prefixes are not permitted in the SI, so your centi centi are (and similar) is just plain silly, and incorrect.>>


In the early-mid 1800's compound prefixes were used, xCole still seems lives in that time period.

Actualy the exact year that xCole lives sems to be 1826 according to his website.

He's welcome to the year 1826. I prefer travelling by jet or automobile to horseback, and I prefer high-speed Internet to telegraph.

I don't think the "commerical acre" had been invented by real estate scam artists by 1826.

John’smile,

Regarding your statement of May 23rd @ 2:15 p.m.

‘’By the highway the roman mile was 5000’, but chaining measurement of mileposts of the surviving streets & walls, only about 4860’ now, and the nautical mile is 1852 nil metre (exactly).’’

So 4860’, John’smile. Yeah, tell me about it, subsidence is pretty bad around our neck of the woods too. Almost every year there’s another sinkhole.

A nautical mile of 1852 nil metre? Nope, subsidence ain’t gonna work on that one, John’smile. So it’s either 6080’ or 1851 23/27 nil metre. Why not just chance it and flip a coin? I know it’s not fair, because coins are round, but flip one anyway.

Info @

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

And topic:

Common Time Measure
Napoleon Emperor’s Republic of Europe Decadent Time Measure


1 milli heure = 1/10 centi heure
1 centi heure = 10 milli heure
1 deci heure = 10 centi heure
1 nil heure = 10 deci heure
1 deca heure = 1 di
1 deca heure = 10 nil heure
1 hecto heure = 1 decade
1 hecto heure = 10 di
1 hecto heure = 100 nil heure
1 kilo heure = 3 1/3 mois
1 kilo heure = 10 decade
1 kilo heure = 100 di
1 kilo heure = 1000 nil heure

1 yocto heure
1 zepto heure
1 atto heure
1 femto heure
1 micro micro heure
1 pico heure
1 milli micro heure
1 nano are
1 milli milli milli heure
1 centi milli milli heure
1 deci milli milli heure
1 micro heure
1 milli milli heure
1 centi milli heure
1 deci milli heure
1 milli heure
1 centi heure
1 deci heure
1 nil heure
1 deca heure
1 hecto heure
1 kilo heure
1 deca kilo heure
1 hecto kilo heure
1 kilo kilo heure
1 mega are
1 deca kilo kilo heure
1 hecto kilo kilo heure
1 kilo kilo kilo heure
1 kilo mega heure
1 giga heure
1 mega mega heure
1 tera heure
1 peta heure
1 exa heure
1 zetta heure
1 yotta heure

<<A nautical mile of 1852 nil metre? Nope, subsidence ain’t gonna work on that one, John’smile. So it’s either 6080’ or 1851 23/27 nil metre. Why not just chance it and flip a coin?>>

Perhaps you need some references more recent than 1826.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NauticalMile
<<<"On July 1, 1954, it was announced that the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Defense had agreed officially that the International Nautical Mile would henceforth be used within their respective departments. The International Nautical Mile is based on the meter and is equal to 1852 meters."
http://geodesy.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf
>>>

XCole wrote

<<
1 milli milli milli heure
1 centi milli milli heure
1 deci milli milli heure
>>

This demonstrates some of growth pains during the early years of the metric system. It was of course the BRITISH who put it right by introducing the prefixes mega-, kilo- and micro and systematising the rules relating to their use.

This was in addition to the BRITISH regularising the measurement of electrical units.

In contrast, the French only made one contribution - the definition of the mtre and the kilogramme.

(See the SI brochure at the www.bipm.org website)

Who says that the metric system is French? As a single nation the British have conributed more to the metric system than the Fench.

Gosh well you've sold it to me now.

I'm going to find imperial inconvenient and cumbersome and make myself choose the really British units.

It's millimetres all the way for me now.....

<<
And topic:

Common Time Measure
Napoleon Emperor’s Republic of Europe Decadent Time Measure


1 yocto heure
1 zepto heure
1 atto heure
1 femto heure
1 micro micro heure
1 pico heure
1 milli micro heure
1 nano are
1 micro heure
. . .
1 kilo mega heure
1 giga heure
1 mega mega heure
1 tera heure
1 peta heure
1 exa heure
1 zetta heure
1 yotta heure>>

I found an interesting list of when various metric prefixes were adopted.
http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/units.htm (first link in list)

None of the above were available in Napoleanic times. It was necessary in the 1800's to use compound prefixes as the extended range of today's prefixes were not available. Now that they are, compound prefixes are incorrect. So xcole, are you stuck in 1826 or 2005, or just like long lists of gibberish?

Given the technology of the time, anything shorter than 3 microheure (1 ms) would have been inconceivable. And they probably still believed in young earth Creation, so anything older than 53 megaheure would have predated Creation, so the list is nonsense anyway, at least with an 1826 perspective.

Prefix introduction summary:
Original (1793): milli-, centi-, deci-, deka-, hecto-, kilo-
1795: myria (10^4), now obsolete, but at the time avoided deka-kilo-
(1826 would be here)
1874: micro-, mega-

1960: (also formal intro. of SI) pico-, nano-, giga-, tera-
1964: femto-, atto-
1975: peta-, exa-
1991: yocto-, zepto-, zetta-, yotta-

<<
Who says that the metric system is French? As a single nation the British have conributed more to the metric system than the Fench.
>>

If you replace metric with SI, then I agree with that statement. You can think of the metric system as a subset of the SI system that is used in day-to-day life. This is mainly mass, length, and volume units. The SI includes the very big and small prefixes as well as the electrical units, among other things, which supplement the core metric.

<<If you replace metric with SI, then I agree with that statement. You can think of the metric system as a subset of the SI system that is used in day-to-day life. This is mainly mass, length, and volume units. The SI includes the very big and small prefixes as well as the electrical units, among other things, which supplement the core metric. >>

Certainly the SI has units and prefixes that are primarily used by engineers and scientists and have little application to everyday life.

However, the SI has certainly shaped the units used in everyday life. This is evident in prefixes and special units which are now deprecated such as myria- (10^4) historically used with the gram or meter, the quintal (100 kg), the Torr (1 mm Hg), the nutritional (kilo)calorie (4.184 kJ) and in the units the SI has accepted as important in everyday life and allowed for everyday use beside the "proper" units, the liter, the metric ton, bar, dgree Celsius, the are.

Many of those units are still in wide use. The torr and calorie are widely used by scientists, and the qunital is used in some countries.

The quintal is a good example of why things need to be regulated. It can apparently be any of at least 11 different "flavors" ranging from 100 lbs to 100 kg.
http://www.sizes.com/units/quintal.htm
<<The quintal is descended from the Roman centarius (= 100 as) through the Islamic kintar or qintar. The common element in all the units below is that they are, or were originally, 100 of some smaller unit of mass. Sometimes spelled kintal or kintall.

1
Some 20th century values, primarily in South America:

Belize , Dominican Republic, 20th century = 100 pounds, approximately 45.36 kilograms.
Angola (UN 1966) United States, 1866 – 1982 = 100 kilograms. This is a survival of the quintal metrique.
Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador (per Statesman's Yearbook 93-94, contrary to UN, 1966), Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Spain, and Venezuela , 20th century, = 100 libra (Castilian), about 46 kilograms (approximately 101.4 pounds av.)
Mexico 46.04 kilograms (approximately 101.5 pounds av)
Paraguay 45.9 kilograms (approximately 101.2 pounds) (UN 1966)
Brazil Prior to June 1931 the quintal was spelled kintal.
Argentina 100 libras (about 101.27 lbs av.
Portugal 58.752 kilograms (about 129.5l pounds av).

In many of the above countries the quintal = 4 arroba = 1&#8260;20th tonelada.

2
In Colombia and Czechoslovakia, 20th century, = 50 kilograms (approximately 110.231 pounds). (UN 1966) This arises from earlier units of mass (the libra and pfund (560 g), respectively) which were approximately half a kilogram; thus a hundred of these units became metrified as 50 kilograms.

3
In pre-revolutionary France, = 100 livre, approximately 107.7 pounds av. in Paris.

4
In the old metric system, 100 kilograms.

5
In British colonies in North America, at least as early as 18th – 19th century, the quintal used for fish was a unit of mass, 112 pounds (the British hundredweight).>>

Sacks this big are uncommon, but some of the "big lots" stores like Costco sell in amounts this large. Can you imagine the utter confusion of them offering Belize and Columbian, Chilean, etc quintals, all different sizes. The idea of a seller using whatever units he wants as long as he uses them correctly is sheer madness and places way too much of a burden on the buyer and creates too much of an opportunity for the seller to rip off the buyer by making the units of measure completely incomprehensible. THanks for the outstanding example of why this is a bad idea.

<<
The idea of a seller using whatever units he wants as long as he uses them correctly is sheer madness and places way too much of a burden on the buyer and creates too much of an opportunity for the seller to rip off the buyer by making the units of measure completely incomprehensible.
>>

If the units were incomprehensible, the buyer wouldn't buy it.

Just like you don't buy something if the label is written in Swahili (unless you speak Swahili).

Most shopkeepers will provide unit pricing for the benefit of the customer. If not, the customer will go elsewhere.

The majority of unit labelling misunderstandings arise because of ignorant customers (i.e., problems with the school system), not a deliberate attempt by the manufacturer to cheat anyone.

<<If the units were incomprehensible, the buyer wouldn't buy it.>>

Not if they appear comprehensible, but are actually incomprehensible like 20 flavors of quintal, with a 2.2:1 range in size.

In the US, we would come out ahead by mislabeling in Imperial gallons (or pints), but I bet they wouldn't like to be duped by one of ours in the UK.

Bud wrote

<<
Just like you don't buy something if the label is written in Swahili (unless you speak Swahili).

Most shopkeepers will provide unit pricing for the benefit of the customer. If not, the customer will go elsewhere.
>>

Bud - you live in cloud-cuckoo land. When there are only a handful of suppliers and they form a de facto cartel, the consumer has a difficult problem to go elsewhere.

Many shopkeepers provide as little concrete information as they possibly can -if the information they supply is incorrect, they can be sued. If however the Government tells them that they *have* to supply certain information and that it must be correct overwise they will be prevetned form trading, then they will supply that information.

but in the "real world".......

If there are only a few suppliers and they form a de facto cartel, they wouldn't be competing each other and they would have no incentive to cheat the customer. They could charge whatever they wanted and no one could do anything about it.
If they did actually try to get an unfair advantage against other traders by withholding information, that proves that they are competing, and thus do not form a "de facto cartel".

You must have heard of the Shell Oil example in the US. Shell tried to convert its petrol pumps to litres, only to find sales drop off. So they were forced to convert back to gallons.
I read that on an anti-metric website, so it is probably exaggerated. But it does prove that companies need to give proper information in order to retain customers, even in the US gasoline market, which is dominated by about half a dozen major companies.