help me please, i am american reading british history and needing to know a stones wieght in our pounds and ounces. sorry to be so ignorant but trying to understand. thanks

One stone is equal to 14 pounds. The stone is used for measuring people's weight, for instance, "8 and a half stone", or "9 stone, 11 pounds. Also used in the fishing industry. Hope that assists.

Fran,

A few additional notes:

From the 1773 edition of Encyclopeadia Britannica:
<<
STONE also denotes a certain quantity or weight of some commodities. A stoen of beef, at London, is the quantity of eight pounds; in Hertfordshire, twelve pounds; in Scotland sixteen pounds.
>>

As you will notice, this definition is incomplete as it make no mention of the fourteen pound stone that BWMA referred to earlier. Over the years the various definitions of the stone have fallen by the wayside - in 1939 the eight pound stone for weighing meat in London fell by the wayside and in the last few years the fourteen pound stone (the last surviving stone), was no longer permitted for legal or commercial purposes.

The stone is still however widely used on bathroom scales, but has obvious limitations for those people who are concerned about obesity and who wish to calculate their BMI (Body Mass Index) without the aid of a lookup table.

Except of course the stone he'll be on about is likely the stone stone (ya know, the real stone) of 14 pounds.

The man is studying history so it's only fair to point out how it has changed over the centurys.

If you want to know the definition of any of the ancient and obsolete units, there is an excellent site to visit;

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/

Here is the definition for stone:

stone (st)

a traditional British unit of weight, rarely used in the U.S. Originally the stone varied in size, both from place to place and according to the nature of the item being weighed. A stone of sugar was traditionally 8 pounds, while a stone of wool could be as much as 24 pounds. Eventually the stone was standardized at 14 pounds avoirdupois or approximately 6.350 29 kilograms -- a convenient size because it makes the stone equal to exactly 1/2 quarter or 1/8 hundredweight. Today the stone is used mostly for stating the weight of persons or animals. No -s is added for the plural.


The stone is not a legal unit in the UK for trade. The only mass unit legal for trade in the UK is the gram and its multiples and sub-multiples.

See: http://www.nwml.gov.uk/consumer/units.asp

Scroll to the bottom of the page and notice the chart labelled:

Other units not used for trade

you will stone among the multitude of imperial units no longer legal.

The stone is equivalent to 14 pounds.

This is the answer to the question posed by the poster.

"""The stone is equivalent to 14 pounds.

This is the answer to the question posed by the poster."""


no it isn't. He said he was "reading British history", the key word being history. Thus the various historical definitions are important to refer to. What's wrong, can't you accept that your precious imperial fluctuates all over the place?

A few more historic notes to tie the use of the stone in the US with its use in the UK.

In his report to Congress in 1790, Thomas Jefferson made no mention of the stone being a weight that was in use in the Unietd States. In the latter part of his report, he proposed a decimal system of measure in which:

The [new] inch was derived from the length of a pendulum and was about 1.174 [old] inches.

The [new] ounce was the weight of one cubic [new] inch of rainwater and was about 0.937 av oz.

The [new] pound was 10 [new] ounces and was about 0.586 [old] pounds

The stone was 10 [new] pounds and was about 5.86 [old] pounds.

Congress was not very enthusiastic about Jefferson's proposals and at about the same time the French started their surveys that that eventually led to the adoption of the metre, based not on a pendulum as proposed by Jefferson, but rather on 1/10,000,000 of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator when measured through Paris.

Jefferson's report may be viewed at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm

"but rather on 1/10,000,000 of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator when measured through Paris"

which then changed a few times over the years!

Don't tell that to old 'mallet boy' though - he's done enough damage to his person today as it is.

Ah, the old metricsucks days! Why *did* he bang on (no pun intended) about his mallet in those days anyway?

<<when measured through Paris>>

Where they careful not to drive around any corners in their pre-cursor to the 2CV?

"""which then changed a few times over the years!"""

Do you have proof to this lie?

As usual, your lack of knowledge has exposed your stupidity and ignorance once more. Did you parents use your head as a fly swatter when you were young? I think that would explain much of your inability to produce intelligent statements.

Is Erin a complete idiot?

It doesn't take much to blow his fuse!

Mind you, he's dead good at winning arguments.

Look at the way he wins this one - insulting both 'SteveH' and his family.

I look forward to more victory speeches like this.

Keep up the Easter spirit, Erin - everyone loves you!



Back to the topic - I understand the metre was redefined three times - is this correct or is it more? I look forward to SteveH's response (or anyone else who might know, except Erin, who plainly doesn't)

<<
Back to the topic - I understand the metre was redefined three times - is this correct or is it more? I look forward to SteveH's response (or anyone else who might know, except Erin, who plainly doesn't)
>>

The original metre was made in about 1790's. This prototype lasted until after the Treaty of the Metre in 1875 when twenty (?) prototypes were made and carefully calibrated against each other. On was chosen at random to be the definitve metre and was kept at Sevres while the rest were distributed to the nations who signed the treaty. They were distributed in 1889.

In 1960, the metre was defined in terms of the wavelength of a particular colour of light. Since then, there have been two further redefinitions. At each definition, care has been taken to preserve the original metre as closely as possible. All that has happened is that the uncertainty associated with each definition became less.

What this means is that with the original bar, one could measure with an accuracy of say one part in 10^6, but with the current definition it is to one part in 10^10. However, any measuring device that is accurate to one part in 10^5 can use either definition.

"""Back to the topic - I understand the metre was redefined three times - is this correct or is it more? I look forward to SteveH's response (or anyone else who might know, except Erin, who plainly doesn't)"""

Steve and you know nothing. My response is only for those who would be polluted by both of your lies and ignorant comments. Your lack of knowledge is very evident in the statement you made above.


Redefining an SI unit does not change the value of the unit. It only creates a newer or different way to descibe the same thing. Great care goes into assuring that a newer definiton of an SI unit does NOT change the actual physical characteristics of the unit. The people at the BIPM (http://www.BIPM.fr) who devise these definitions are Engineers and Scientists of the highest calibre. They are not Kings and Queens who change units at whim.

People who have attached themselves to imperial units are use to the concept that units can have different meanings with the same name or that units can change definition and change value. The same is not true of SI. A new definition only improves the description, reliability and accuracy of reproduction of the unit anywhere in the universe.

Even though the SI units do not change with improved definitions, imperial units have physically changed over time, the last change being in 1960. The inch was physically changed (as were the foot, yard, etc.) to 25.4 mm exactly. This was not just an improved definition it was an actual physical change. The change was so significant, that the US had to retain the old definition of the foot used in surveying. Thus in the US two definitions of the foot are used, with two different values and meanings. And this is the crap that some people want to preserve.

If you don't believe me, then ask someone at the BIPM.

"It doesn't take much to blow his fuse!"

To be honest it was a while coming. But - boy- didn't he blow? There's spittle everywhere!

Spot on! A great post-easter treat!

Not only that - I've got BOTH of them talking about me!

Absolutely perfect!

:-D

A quick question for a normal person :- Martin, am I right in saying that the first ever metre was almost a foot shorter then the current one? I'm talking about the very very first merre here, ie right at the "beginning"

SteveH wrote

<<
A quick question for a normal person :- Martin, am I right in saying that the first ever metre was almost a foot shorter then the current one?
>>

No - the original metre and the current metre are approximately the same length - if you had a metre stick that was less accurate than the original metre you would be unable to tell whether it was calibrated from the original meter or the current one.

A quick question for a normal person :- Martin, am I right in saying that the first ever metre was almost a foot shorter then the current one? I'm talking about the very very first merre here, ie right at the "beginning"


Hey all! Like my response? Notice how I could not disagree or disprove the statements made, so I thought I'd show how upset I was by distracting you all from the reality. I know the metre has never changed value from its inception, but I will continue to insist it does because those damn meticationists keep bringing up a truth I don't want to hear. That is that the imperial units have verifible changed over time.

Like how I tried to compare the non-existant variation of the metre to a unit that has varied considerably over time? do you know the greastest joy of imperial units are its variations? Yes. Because this way when an imperial unit is used, it can never be wrong. Because if it is, one can always say they meant a different version. Can't do that with metric. That makes me feel so goose-pimply thinking about it.

Oh...just to let you all know, I really enjoyed my Easter choclate bunny. It was a whole POUND, do you hear that you metricksters, a whole POUND. So there!


P.S. Remember what I said above about the beauty of imperial and its variability....well, don't tell anybody, but my full pound was a 500 g pound.....Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

First - to Martin - the definitions I've found are:

1793: 1/10000000 of the distance from the pole to the equator.
1795: Provisional metre bar constructed in brass.
1799: Definitive prototype metre bars constructed in platinum.
1889: International prototype metre bar in platinum-iridium, cross-section X.
1960: 1650763.73 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the krypton-86 atom.
1983: Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1/299792458 of a second.

I'm pretty much sure that the redefinition has a whole lot to do with accuracy, and as such the metre/meter of 1983 must be variably different in length to the various metres/meters before it. We should agree that the accuracy definition has to allow for the variety. We should understand that over the years the definition was changed for higher accuracy on a determined length but the reason for this increase in accuracy and the requirement thereof over the years is to lower that variety. Note also that there is recent mention of light in vacuum being non-constant.

I'm sure you can see how I'm driving this, Martin. And it's not to suggest that over the years people said "I know, lets make the metre/meter a bit different in length".

Right, back to Fruitcase (John/Erin/Euric/Carlyle/etc).

I think its time for you to step back, calm down and simmer down a bit.
In my last post I deleted some text before posting it (I kid you not, folks). This is the line I deleted (along with some lines left in), from the end:
===========

Not only that - I've got BOTH of them talking about me!

Absolutely perfect!

:-D

With any luck he'll blow his final fuse and start posting as "HevetS" (my name spelled backwards) and prove to all of us that he's completely lost it (yet again).

============


Somehow I'm glad I didn't include it as you would have exploded, and that would have been a bit messy for the others in the hospital!

LOL!

Time to think of a new post name, me thinks!

SteveH wrote

<<
1793: 1/10000000 of the distance from the pole to the equator.
1795: Provisional metre bar constructed in brass.
1799: Definitive prototype metre bars constructed in platinum.
1889: International prototype metre bar in platinum-iridium, cross-section X.
1960: 1650763.73 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the krypton-86 atom.
1983: Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1/299792458 of a second.
>>

The 1795 definition of the metre made the distance from the equator to the pole 10002km (to the nearest km). This is unchanged in the 1983 definition (when rounding to the nearest km).

Erin said: "Steve and you know nothing. My response is only for those who would be polluted by both of your lies and ignorant comments. Your lack of knowledge is very evident in the statement you made above."

Charming! I was only pointing out the bloody obvious!

I'm astounded how one man can have so much in-built hate over how people measure things! No wonder no-one wants to engage in real conversation with you!

Sad.

<<
No - the original metre and the current metre are approximately the same length - if you had a metre stick that was less accurate than the original metre you would be unable to tell whether it was calibrated from the original meter or the current one.
>>

Martin, what do you mean by the "accuracy" of a metre stick? A metre stick has a definite length, which has no uncertainty (although it may be impossible to determine this length).

Just to clarify, are you saying that the original and modern metres are the same to within the uncertainty in the original metre?

Bud wrote

<<
Martin, what do you mean by the "accuracy" of a metre stick? A metre stick has a definite length, which has no uncertainty (although it may be impossible to determine this length).
>>

A good quality meter stick will have metal ends and maybe a metal body. The ends might appear to be flat, if if they are inspected under a micorscope they will have a very rough surface and tehre is no way in which the two ends can be regarded as being two parallel planes (if they are parrallel at all). However, if one is happy to live in the knowledge that the roughness and possible and other irregularities give an uncertaintly of less that 0.1mm, then the metre stick is probalby adequate for your purposes. If you requuire a greater accuracy, then you need something which is better than a metre-stick.

I always thought that you use the side of a metrestick that has the markings on it to measure things. So only this side matters. If the ends are not parallel, then so what? What matters is the distance between two corners of the stick, on the side with the markings.

A cheaply made ruler or metre stick may place the zero and 100 mark at the ends,, thus if the ends are damaged or worn then a wrong reading can be made if the damage is not taken into account.

A more precise metre stick will place the zero and 100 mark away from the edge so as provide a referance point that has a lesser chance of being damaged.

I'm sure the same typr of manufacuring practice holds true for imperial based rulers.

Bud wrote

<<
I always thought that you use the side of a metrestick that has the markings on it to measure things. So only this side matters. If the ends are not parallel, then so what? What matters is the distance between two corners of the stick, on the side with the markings.
>>

Bud, if you and I each have a metre stick and I inform you that I have measured something, then the accuracy to which you can repeat that measurement is determined by, amongst other things, the accuracy of the two metre sticks.

Effectively the expected tolerances make it so that either metric or imperial can be used to measure things on a day to day manner.

So the more appropriate measure to use would be based upon the more convenient application of the unit, rather than it's name.

A rule that I tend to use all the time.

It's not the accuracy of the metre stick, it's the accuracy of the technique of the person using the metre stick.
The edges of the two marks on the stick are a definite distance away from each other, with no uncertainty in that distance. The question is how accurately you can compare that distance to another distance.

Bud wrote

<<
It's not the accuracy of the metre stick, it's the accuracy of the technique of the person using the metre stick.
The edges of the two marks on the stick are a definite distance away from each other, with no uncertainty in that distance.
>>

Bud - I defy you to measure to an accuracy of 0.001mm using a wooden metre stick. If you say you can then either yuo are badly mistaken or you ar a liar. Judging from your previous posts, I suggest the former rather than the latter.

Bud said

"The edges of the two marks on the stick are a definite distance away from each other, with no uncertainty in that distance. The question is how accurately you can compare that distance to another distance."

Every physical measure & every physical weight in the world (apart from one weight) has an error. It may be a tiny amount, but it is still an error.

Measures of Length

I do not know the specific individual US State's allowed tolerances, but length measures used for trade in the UK must be accurate to certain limits.

From memory, these requirements also applied to yardsticks (in use for trade) when these were still used in the UK.

On original verification of the metrestick/yardstick

Step 1 - Round the measure up to the next whole metre.

Step 2 - Then use the formula "Allowable error = 0.6mm + 0.4mm per metre of length"

Therefore, allowable errors worked out at (and still work out at in metric)

1 yard +/- 1mm
1 metre +/- 1mm
20 metres +/- 8.6mm
22 yards (rounds up to 21 metres) +/- 9mm

The error allowances double (on retesting) after the measure has been put into use

1 yard +/- 2mm
1 metre +/- 2mm
20 metres +/- 17.2mm
22 yards (rounds up to 21 metres) +/- 18mm

The above allowances only apply to measures in use for trade. There is no requirement for non-trade equipment to be even as accurate as this!

<<
Bud - I defy you to measure to an accuracy of 0.001mm using a wooden metre stick. If you say you can then either yuo are badly mistaken or you ar a liar. Judging from your previous posts, I suggest the former rather than the latter.
>>

I can't measure to such an accuracy with a wooden metre stick, and I don't believe I ever said I could. I was saying that it is possible in theory, but not possible due to my measurement technique (or the lack thereof) rather than the stick itself.
Anyway, I think we are just going around in circles, so I will leave it at that.

Bud wrote

<<
I can't measure to such an accuracy with a wooden metre stick,
>>

I therefore infer that the limit of accuracy of a wooden metre stick is coarser than 0.001mm (which is what I was trying to say in the first place)

<<
I can't measure to such an accuracy with a wooden metre stick,
>>

If HTML code were allowed on these forums, I would have italicised the first letter of that statement. I said that I, personally, cannot do it. That does not imply that it cannot be done.

Bud wrote:

It's not the accuracy of the metre stick, it's the accuracy of the technique of the person using the metre stick.

----------------------------------

Accuracy has a lot to do with the instrument used to make the measurement. Try as I might, I cannot measure inches with my cars odometer; it just wasn't designed for that. Likewise I wouldn't choose a 100 ml graduated cylinder to measure out 1 ml of reagent; I would choose a 1 ml volumetric pipette for increased accuracy and precision. It has nothing to do with my inability to measure the reagent in the 100 ml graduated cylinder; no one could accurately do that without being off by perhaps several hundread microlitres. A metre stick would not be suited to measuring micrometres or nanometres, not through fault of the user; but because the metre stick is not designed for that. If the metre stick is in good condition (not worn at either end for example) I might be able to get an acurate reading to 0.5 mm (500 µm) or so, but I wouldn't try to do better than that. It has not been accurately calibrated down to such a small measure. There will always be some uncertainty as to the final answer. I cannot guaranty down to the yoctometre if my measurements are accurate; I might get down to a nanometer or so, but that isn't an exact measure, just sufficient for the task at hand.

The below text is from a website describing 'accuracy' as it pertains to measurment.
(http://service.homeworkhelp.com/guests/samplelessons/science/chemistry/ch24/11/main.htm)

"Precision and Accuracy

The accuracy is how close to "the truth" your measurements are. The accuracy of your measuring tool depends on how well it is kept to a known standard. A household bathroom scale has a low degree of accuracy, whereas a triple beam balance has a high degree of accuracy. (note, houshold metre sticks would fall in the same catagory as a bathroom scale)

Accuracy is shown as the uncertainty in a measurement.

Let’s say you have a graduated cylinder with 33.5 ml of gasoline.

The accuracy of the measurement is 0.1 ml which means that the actual amount of gasoline in the container is somewhere between 33.6 ml and 33.4 ml. It could be 33.49 ml. It could be 33.68 ml. No one knows. No one can ever know. All we know is that the measurement falls in a range.

If you got a better graduated cylinder you might get a more accurate reading. Now you have 33.56 ml of gasoline. The accuracy of the measurement is 0.01 ml which means that the actual amount of gasoline is somewhere between 33.57 ml and 33.55 ml. Again, you aren’t exactly sure what the measurement is, but you know about the amount of gasoline more accurately."

"""The accuracy of the measurement is 0.1 ml which means that the actual amount of gasoline in the container is somewhere between 33.6 ml and 33.4 ml."""

An accuracy of measurement of 0.1 mL would imply a variance of +/- 0.05 mL, or a range 33.45 mL to 33.55 mL. A variance of +/- 0.1 mL would be an accuaracy of 0.2 mL. The accuracy is the difference between the extremes and not from the mean to the extremes.


"""It could be 33.49 ml. It could be 33.68 ml. No one knows. No one can ever know. All we know is that the measurement falls in a range."""


If your range of accuracy is from 33.4 to 33.6, then how could 33.68 be within that range? You are 0.08 mL outside the tolerance limits. Did you mean 33.58 mL?


I'm glad I'm not a proofreader. If I were, I might not catch these obvious errors. Now what were you saying earlier about being ridiculed in the profession? As I responded, being ridiculed by people who make these types of errors would be an honour, not a shame. I hope you get the drift.

Jeesus! Who dropped that one?

That's disgusting!

erin wrote:

If your range of accuracy is from 33.4 to 33.6, then how could 33.68 be within that range? You are 0.08 mL outside the tolerance limits. Did you mean 33.58 mL?

_______________

Yes I assume that should say 33.58 ml; I guess I should have put '[sic]' after that statement or taken the privilege of changing it. Actually if I had noticed that I probably would have completely re-written that part and not copied it at all or found a better source to copy it from. Well, at least it makes the point I was trying to make.