Kilometers or Miles?

[rogerzilla]

A lot of imperial units are human-sized. Obviously feet and fathoms, but also hundredweight - roughly what one man can carry - and yards.

One of the biggest issues with imperial measurements is that US and UK ones can differ, mainly in volume (they have 32 fluid ounces to the quart, we have 40, which means their gallons are only 4/5 the size) but also in weight; their ton is smaller. Our ton, happily, is close enough to a metric tonne for most practical purposes.

[plancashire]

"Cups v grams: why can’t American and British cooks agree on food measurements?":
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/a ... asurements

Jonathan

Chefs & recipes are a PITA, "small carrot, large onion, drizzle of oil, low heat, well done" etc etc.

My recipes are all in grams & ccs.

If you have ever made bread you would know that weight and volume measurements are not enough. The moisture content is also important, as is the precise nature of the flour, which is dependent on crop variety, growing conditions, storage and milling. Carrots and onions dry out. Eggs vary. Oil comes from different plants. Heat is constant, pulsed or has hot spots. My chemistry teacher used to make much fun of cookery.

[plancashire]

Simple I'm English so MPH, pounds and ounces stones, feet and inches and I still occasionally say to myself, "how much, 10s for a X or £1-10s for a coffee

Which of the many feet and inches in general use until recently do you recommend? The Prussian zwolf zölle pro ein fuß?

Luckily no one under the age of 50 in the UK has had their time wasted at school on his nonsense measuring system.

Unfortunately traditional British units are still included in the National Curriculum for England. This residue is of course for two reasons: the incomplete national migration and political appeals to traditionalism.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-of-study

Jonathan

My mother taught in a primary school. She viewed teaching two systems together, which she had to do for decades, as utterly barmy.

[plancashire]

People use units that give comfortable numbers. So inches are too big for small or precise things, and they use mm. But cm are too small, so they use inches. Yards and metres are close enough that they get equally used. Kg are a bit small for measuring people, so they use stones. And so it goes.

You'll never make a full SI system stick for everyday use. No scientist or engineer* would struggle with anything else, but I bet most still use inches and miles outside work.

*US engineers do occasionally use "customary units". It is really not easy for calculations, especially heat and power.

US agricultural scientists of my acquaintance still use customary units. Fahrenheit is very widely used in USA.

[plancashire]

A lot of imperial units are human-sized. Obviously feet and fathoms, but also hundredweight - roughly what one man can carry - and yards.

One of the biggest issues with imperial measurements is that US and UK ones can differ, mainly in volume (they have 32 fluid ounces to the quart, we have 40, which means their gallons are only 4/5 the size) but also in weight; their ton is smaller. Our ton, happily, is close enough to a metric tonne for most practical purposes.

Ah, we had long and short tons too.

The US bushel is a nightmare. It depends on what you are measuring. More: Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products (70 pages!)

[Bmblbzzz]

One of the interesting features of the Imperial system (and USCU and others) is the large number of numbers that don't have an obvious explanation: 12, 14, 16, 22, 112, 640, 1760, 4840, 5280, 63360...

I guess that many readers of this forum can immediately identify most of those...

Jonathan

Some of them but certainly not all.
12 – inches to a foot, or pennies to a shilling
14 -- lbs to a stone
16 -- ? 16 oz = 1 lb
22 -- yards to a chain
112 -- ? Took me a little longer to remember a hundredweight
640 -- acres to a square mile
1760 -- yards to a mile
4840 -- square yards to an acre
5280 -- ? 1760 yards = mile so = 5280 feet
63360 -- ? Inches in a mile

What they all have in common is being even numbers, which is in itself slightly odd (pun not intended but I'll leave it).

Thanks. I might have remembered pounds in a hundredweight with a little (or a lot) more thought. Ounces have always confused me, partly because (I think) the number of (dry) ounces in a pound is not the same as the number of (fluid) ounces in a pint; why?! And of course because American ounces, which now seem to be more commonly referred to than Imperial ones, are different again (something described as eg "a 4oz mug" inevitably means it holds 4 US floz, not that it weighs 4 oz – having the same name for a unit of weight and a unit of volume may have logical roots but is impractical in use!).

[Cowsham]

Some of them but certainly not all.
12 – inches to a foot, or pennies to a shilling
14 -- lbs to a stone
16 -- ? 16 oz = 1 lb
22 -- yards to a chain
112 -- ? Took me a little longer to remember a hundredweight
640 -- acres to a square mile
1760 -- yards to a mile
4840 -- square yards to an acre
5280 -- ? 1760 yards = mile so = 5280 feet
63360 -- ? Inches in a mile

What they all have in common is being even numbers, which is in itself slightly odd (pun not intended but I'll leave it).

Thanks. I might have remembered pounds in a hundredweight with a little (or a lot) more thought. Ounces have always confused me, partly because (I think) the number of (dry) ounces in a pound is not the same as the number of (fluid) ounces in a pint; why?! And of course because American ounces, which now seem to be more commonly referred to than Imperial ones, are different again (something described as eg "a 4oz mug" inevitably means it holds 4 US floz, not that it weighs 4 oz – having the same name for a unit of weight and a unit of volume may have logical roots but is impractical in use!).

Yep -- all very confusing -- when decimal came in we had to work with both systems for a good few years at school which made me wonder why on earth was decimal not brought in sooner.

[Jdsk]

Which of the many feet and inches in general use until recently do you recommend? The Prussian zwolf zölle pro ein fuß?

Luckily no one under the age of 50 in the UK has had their time wasted at school on his nonsense measuring system.

Unfortunately traditional British units are still included in the National Curriculum for England. This residue is of course for two reasons: the incomplete national migration and political appeals to traditionalism.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-of-study

My mother taught in a primary school. She viewed teaching two systems together, which she had to do for decades, as utterly barmy.

Mine too.

But she was highly amused when they ordered their first 15 cm rulers. They came in bundles of a half-dozen.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

4404 is the only one I know - because of all the fours.
...

One of the interesting features of the Imperial system (and USCU and others) is the large number of numbers that don't have an obvious explanation: 12, 14, 16, 22, 112, 640, 1760, 4840, 5280, 63360...

I guess that many readers of this forum can immediately identify most of those...

Some of them but certainly not all.
12 – inches to a foot, or pennies to a shilling
14 -- lbs to a stone
16 -- ?
22 -- yards to a chain
112 -- ?
640 -- acres to a square mile
1760 -- yards to a mile
4840 -- square yards to an acre
5280 -- ?
63360 -- ?

What they all have in common is being even numbers, which is in itself slightly odd (pun not intended but I'll leave it).

Many of those were never planned, they emerged from other factors that were multiplied up. And if you do that and at least one of the factors is even then the product will be even.

That leaves the question of why so many of the original factors were even. I guess that's because divisibility was beneficial,

Jonathan

PS: Just to save time and wear on keyboards... Yes, 12 is more divisible than 10.

[rareposter]

PS: Just to save time and wear on keyboards... Yes, 12 is more divisible than 10.

There's actually quite a strong argument to work in base 12 (duodecimal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal

If you think about it you can count to 10 using fingers but 12 if you use fingers and then fists - there are also ways of counting using knuckles as well as fingertips which give rise to 12. Lots of indigenous communities around the world are known to use such systems.

I was able to work in base 16 (hexadecimal) for a while which is an amazing way of confusing everyone. Forgotten it all now though.

[Bmblbzzz]

Given the human fascination with prime numbers it's surprising there are no 3, 5 or 7. I suppose that's because we have their products instead.

[mattheus]

I was able to work in base 16 (hexadecimal) for a while which is an amazing way of confusing everyone. Forgotten it all now though.

Why bother? I thought that was what we built computers for?!

[sjs]

This reminds me of an old question, possibly from a Christmas cracker. What weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers? Or, an ounce of gold vs an ounce of feathers?

[sjs]

P.S. Apologies if this has already come up. Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread.

[Bmblbzzz]

"An ounce of feathers or 29.5735ml of gold"!