Entertaining piece on the 'Today' programme this morning - about the British Chemistry Society doing a research project on the aphrodisiac qualities of mead. Apparently they want newlyweds to drink lots of the stuff and report to the British Chemistry Society how it affects their...[sorry for the loss of sound].

Apparently mead - fermented honey made into wine - has been a traditional honeymoon drink since Babylonian times - when it was traditional to marry on a full moon and then drink mead until the next full moon, hence: 'honeymoon'.

John Humphreys (any relation, Steve H?) asked: "What, do you want people to drink pints or even gallons of the stuff?"

Thirty years after the compulsory metrication of gallons, this was interesting.

And doesn't it reveal the descriptive power of customary weights and measures?

There is one term for a modest amount of liquid - a 'pint' - and another for lots of liquid - a 'gallon' e.g. 'gallons of the stuff'.

It's the same with ounces (small weights), pounds, stones etc., and miles, yards, feet and inches.

The inhuman metric system limits you to the boring metres or kilometres, grams or kilograms, millilitres or litres (O.K., to be fair, I've missed out 'centimetres'). The poverty of metric language is unbelievable.

I'm reminded of this doggerel:

'An ounce is to dangle on your finger,
A pound is to hold in your hand,
A stone is to carry under your arm,
A hundredweight is to carry on your back,
And a ton is to pull on a cart'.

Sadly the metric system could never produce poetry like that

What we say as a figure of speech doesn't actually mean we use that figure, e.g. I say "its miles away", etc. I accept that the imperial system has shorter words for speech but that does not necessarilly make it a better system.

In English (as spoken in England), the term "half way to ..." is often used when the person concerned is has nowhere near completed 50% of the journey to ....

FOr example, many years ago, on the Winchester bypass, somebody tried to overtake us on the wrong side and found himself on the Newbury road, not the London road. When I describe this event, I say "The last we saw of him was him slamming on bakes half way to Newbury". (In reality he hit his brakes less than 100m from the junction).

Customary measures may have short names and nice little rhymes etc.

Thats quaint.

But there it ends. It offers nothing else.

Anyone who advocates a set of measures on those grounds has very little understanding of the practical needs of a good coherent measuring system.

Communication of measurement information is essential. The spoken words pint and gallon cannot be confused, where as decilitre and dekalitre can.

In terms of written communication, DL and dL can be similarly confused.

These are not perhaps major points; metric users can avoid mistakes if careful. But the words illustrate how imperial has developed "organically" while metric is a scientific-committee creation.

Decilitre and Dekalitre are hardley ever used.

If you follow the engineer's convention, you only use the prefixes relating to 10^3N (where N is an integer) - ie nano (10^-9), micro (10^-6), milli (10^-3), kilo (10^3), mega (10^6), giga (10^9) etc.

The fact that the decilitre and Dekalitre are hardly ever used shows the cracks within the metric system.

No system, no matter how perfect on paper, can survive if people do not use it. Clearly, people have looked at the decilitre and Dekalitre and given them the thumbs down. Thus, metric slips from being a decimal system to a semi-decimal system.

Then, people think, "hmmm, the kilo's too heavy, we'll use 500g modules. Then they realise the metre is too long, and work in 0.3 "units".

Before you know where you are, we are back with imperial. That is the future of metric - if it survives.

BWMA: "Then, people think, "hmmm, the kilo's too heavy, we'll use 500g modules. Then they realise the metre is too long, and work in 0.3 "units". Before you know where you are, we are back with imperial. That is the future of metric - if it survives."

That's true BWMA, inch by inch we're going back to imperial, not only in Britain, but also in Europe, Asia, Latin America... Absolutely true, absolutely...

Ho, ho. Very funny that one !

So a Kilo's too big for some purposes ?

Well, duuhhhh.....That's what grams are for !

By that arguement the pound is no good because it's an inconvenient unit for buying Sherbert Lemons or Cheddar Cheese.

Surely you can do better than that ! If the world is "going back to imperial" as Conrad suggests it looks like it might be one where in many places the pound has grown by around 46g

>>> "That's what grams are for!"

But grams are far too light.

>>> "By that argument the pound is no good because it's an inconvenient unit for buying Sherbert Lemons or Cheddar Cheese".

That's what ounces are for.

>>> "If the world is "going back to imperial" as Conrad suggests it looks like it might be one where in many places the pound has grown by around 46g"

I did not mean imperial in the literal sense. I meant that metric will be replaced by an organic system that is similar to imperial in nature.

"That's what ounces are for."

Ounces are in intervals of 28g! If something is 49g, that is 1 3/4oz - at least with grams you always have a whole number where it is always easier to do calculations with.

BTW, whatever happened to drams?

If one wants to go lower than ounces, then one uses drams.

Note the first letter: drams, not grams.

<<
Ounces are in intervals of 28g! If something is 49g, that is 1 3/4oz - at least with grams you always have a whole number where it is always easier to do calculations with.
>>

No, you don't "always" have a whole number. It depends what precision you want.

And about calculations, if you're in a grocery store, for example, the calculations aren't going to be super exact, you only want a rough estimate. Whole number ounces are fine. In fact, if you used grams to do calculations in most situations, you would probably do it mentally in tens or hundreds of grams as the gram is needlessly precise for most purposes. You would then add back the zeros at the end.

Metre Man:
"Customary measures may have short names and nice little rhymes etc. Thats quaint.
But there it ends. It offers nothing else"

How about the fact that in the UK its extremely more popular than your metric system? Hmmm?

(he laughs loudly)

Your answer to very comment always comes back to the same thing.

It gets a little boring after a while.

Would you prefer that we simply accept the headline slogan that Imperial rules OK because 90% or whatever prefer it?

If so then you have won.

So lets all pack up and go home.

"No, you don't "always" have a whole number. It depends what precision you want."

If you want 45.87 grams then that is 4587 cg. As the system is decimal (ie the way numbers actually work) any value can be expressed as an integer, with or without the use of standard form. In imperial once we get past ounces there are mad fractions like 45/876ths of an ounce. I think we can add drams to the collection of units apparently favoured by the public but about which they know little or nothing. As for inches, there is no sensible division!

"As for inches, there is no sensible division!"

There is nothing wrong with binary fractions of an inch. Every other customary unit may be divided into binary fractions, so the inch is no exception.

FURTHERMORE, if you don't like the fraction, you can easily write decimal inches. Again, I repeat that in customary units fractions AND decimals are legal tender, unlike metric where fractions are taboo.

1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16 1/32 1/63
0.5 .25 .125 .0625 .03125 .015625

If you don't like binary fractions, then use tenths, or twelfhs, or any other number if you want. Either way, there's a flexibility with customary (using fractions AND decimals) that doesn't exist with metric.

MattS: "If you don't like binary fractions, then use tenths, or twelfhs, or any other number if you want. Either way, there's a flexibility with customary (using fractions AND decimals) that doesn't exist with metric."

...because we don't need to.

MattS: "If you don't like binary fractions, then use tenths, or twelfhs, or any other number if you want. Either way, there's a flexibility with customary (using fractions AND decimals) that doesn't exist with metric."

Me: "...because we don't need to."

Oops, I think my answer doesn't really match... ;-)

Second try: "... because with metric we don't need that kind of flexibility." Our standard subdivisions are perfect as they are.

Second try: "... because with metric we don't need that kind of flexibility." Our standard subdivisions are perfect as they are.

Except there are folks in the world that like fractions (I know it's hard to imagine for a metric fanatic like you Conrad). In fact, it's a majority of humanity that uses fractions for things. People incessantly divide things into fractions, because it's a division that the eye can do.

Not only that, but I have seen many bottles of things that are metric that say things like "half liter" or "quarter liter", and these are not official metric names for units. Fractions are not allowed, and yet people insist on using them? Maybe it's because it's easier than 500 milliliters.

People can use fractions in metric if they want. Terms such as "half litre", "half a kilometre", "half a metre", etc don't bother me in the slightest. I use fractions a lot when I talk in metric.

I think we are talking at cross-purposes here.
Originally, the point about using fractions as well as decimals was used in relation to inches ie tenths of an inch or sixteens of an inch. Miles similarly vary between tenths and eighths.

While someone can say "half a km" or "half a litre", it is not common for metric units to be formally divided into halves, quarters, eighths, etc (although, of course, the divisions of milli-units often follow this pattern).

MattS: "Except there are folks in the world that like fractions (I know it's hard to imagine for a metric fanatic like you Conrad)."

I DO like fractions, as long as they are easy to visualize. E.g. 1/4, 6/8, 2/3, 1/5,... You know, the ones that a normal human being is most likely to use.
I hate, however, fractions such as 52/69, 14/23,... because I simply cannot visualize them anymore.

MattS: "Not only that, but I have seen many bottles of things that are metric that say things like "half liter" or "quarter liter", and these are not official metric names for units. Fractions are not allowed, and yet people insist on using them? Maybe it's because it's easier than 500 milliliters."

I have no problem with "1/2 litre" or "1/4 metre".

There isn't much of a problem with fractionalising metric units. If humans 'naturally' make such divisions then this shows that there is nothing inaccessible about metric units which means they cannot be understood.

"I DO like fractions, as long as they are easy to visualize. E.g. 1/4, 6/8, 2/3, 1/5,... You know, the ones that a normal human being is most likely to use.
I hate, however, fractions such as 52/69, 14/23,... because I simply cannot visualize them anymore."

Conrad, all those fractions you like are normal in customary measures, 1/4" 2/3 cups. 52/69 and 14/23 are off the wall fractions that you never see in any measurements.


"There isn't much of a problem with fractionalising metric units. If humans 'naturally' make such divisions then this shows that there is nothing inaccessible about metric units which means they cannot be understood"

Ross, Then why not give those fractional divisions names? In customary measures, each fractional division is a new unit. Half a quart is a pint, half a pint is a cup and so on.

Too many units cause confusion.

Imperial/Customary measures are not as Fraction-friendly as some people make out.

1/3 foot = 4 inches, fine.

1/4 foot = 3 inches, nice.

1/3 lb = ?

1/3 stone = ?

3/4 stone = ?

2/3 gallon = ?

Metre Man,
Please do not blame imperial units for the laws of numeracy. One cannot have a number that is infinately divisible by both two and three.

The nearest we can get is the number sixty, and this is used for minutes, hours and degrees (ie 60x6 = 360 degrees).

For pounds and feet, 16 and 12 offer binary and thirds, respectively.

I think Metre Man has made a very valid point. Whereas 12 is indeed a very useful number for division, if not multiplication, other divisions are not so useful.

14 has 3 dividers: 1,7,14: not 2,3,4
16 has 5 dividers: 1,2,4,8,16: not 3
20 has 6 dividers: 1,2,4,5,10,20: not 3

It is bizarre that the stone, the pound and the pint cannot be divided by three!

Ross: Thank you for your observations I totally agree.

BWMA:
<<
Please do not blame imperial units for the laws of numeracy. One cannot have a number that is infinitely divisible by both two and three.
>>

Agreed.

However I do blame advocates of non-metric for overstating the case.

Divisibility by 2, 3 and 4 requires 12 or a multiple of 12. Imperial/Customary measures do not consistently have it. There is no evidence that during the course of the evolution of non-metric units, easy fractions were deliberatly incorporated or were a driving force for their definition.

1/3 Bizarre, 1/2 Nuts, & Total Fruitcake

Ross,

Regarding your bulletin of June 7th @ 7.13 p.m.

"It's bizarre that the av.lb. and the fl.pt. cannot be divided by three!"

1/3 av.lb. = 2560 aM
1/3 av. cup = 1280 aM
1/3 av. jill = 640 aM
1/3 av. jack = 320 aM
1/3 av.oz. = 160 aM
1/3 av.tbs. = 80 aM
1/3 av.dsp. = 40 aM
1/3 av.dr. = 20aM

1/3 fl.pt. = 2560 fM
1/3 fl. cup = 1280 fM
1/3 fl. jill = 640 fM
1/3 fl. jack = 320 fM
1/3 fl.oz. = 160 fM
1/3 fl.tbs. = 80 fM
1/3 fl.dsp. = 40 fM
1/3 fl.dr. = 20 fM

1/3 fl.pt. = 9.600 cu.in.
1/3 fl. cup = 4.800 cu.in.
1/3 fl. jill = 2.400 cu.in.
1/3 fl. jack = 1.200 cu.in.
1/3 fl.oz. = 0.600 cu.in.
1/3 fl.tbs. = 0.300 cu.in.
1/3 fl.dsp. = 0.150 cu.in.
1/3 fl.dr. = 0.075 cu.in.

1/3 fl.egs. = 0.050 cu.in.
1/3 fl.scr. = 0.025 cu.in.
1/3 fM = 0.00125 cu.in.

Need help? See site:

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

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

Nobody gives a s*** xcole so stop posting the most stupid, irrelavant rubbish on these message boards.

Conrad:

I'm sure we all hate using fractions that have unnecessarily large prime numbers as the denominator. That's why no one ever divides things into twenty-thirds.

But powers of two, multiples of 12 and 60, etc. are extremely useful, and can be much more flexible than decimal notation.

There are also quite a few numbers that cannot be represented in decimal with complete accuracy. Some of them are rather commonplace, like 1/3.

It's true that you can draw a line over the repeating portion of a decimal number, but you can't do it in plain text on a message board like this. And even if you could, some simple fractions are far too unwieldy anyway. 1/7 = .142857, all six digits repeating.

And would you have recognised that .142857 is one seventh without having to work it out on paper?

Rotclar: "And would you have recognised that .142857 is one seventh without having to work it out on paper?"

No, I wouldn't.

But then again, I have no problem with products having things like "1/2 litre" on their label. I wouldn't consider it a bad thing, for example, if firms would start printing "1/3 L" on their beverage cans instead of 33 cl or 330 ml.

Ok BWMA, I admit it, it would be a 3 ml rip-off... ;-)

While I agree that Customary measures are not always as fractionally friendly as one may want, we must remember that these measurements evolved over thousands of years into divisions and units that were convenient to use with convenient divisions. They were not arbitrarily picked like metric measures, but changed over time to become the most useful to the folks working with them.

It's true that the avd. pound cannot be divided into thirds of even ounces, but so far it has not proved catastrophic for the world. If you want a pound divisible by twelve, then there's always the Troy pound of 12 ounces. So Metre Man's comment about the fractions not being diliberately incorporated is a little off base. The Troy pound is older than the Avoirdupois pound.

"Too many units cause confusion."

If kids can use them without getting freaked out and running behind the sofa then I'm sure you can use them!

The only people who benefit form have vast numbers of units are people like XCOLE who publish lists of untis too vast to be remembered

Re: "Too many units cause confusion."

This is a perfect example of one of my basic philisophical problems with people who promote metric.

There AREN'T too many units! When I measure my height, I use feet and inches, NOT feet and inches and meters and miles and cubits and kilometers and stadia and microns and yards and angstroms.

There's no confusion, because what units I'm using in a specific context have no bearing whatsoever on what someone else is useing somewhere else. The measuring units I use, and the circumstances in which I use them are independent and are only relevant to myself and whomever else is participating in those same circumstances with me.

The metric advocates see everything as some monolithic system, of which everything is necessarily a part. But in reality, the world is not a system at all, it's a vast collection of countless autonomous individuals and independent events, many of which are diametrically opposed to individuals and events existing and occurring elsewhere.

It's the worldview that treats everything collectively as a single entity that's illogical and confused.

Advocates of the metric system only see weights and measures as being a necessary part of a coherent system.

The variety and individualism that you speak of is inappropriate when applied to weights and measures, specifically in the context of mutual co-operation on nation-wide and a global international scale.

That doesn't mean we see homogeneity and a tight systematic structure in literally everything. Nature and human affairs are far more complex than that. We are not so foolish or narrow minded as to pretend otherwise.

In fact we could turn the accusation around on those who argue as in the previous post. It is you who lack a breadth of vision and a sense of variety by not being able to separate out those distinct issues.

<<
Advocates of the metric system only see weights and measures as being a necessary part of a coherent system.
>>

What are the other parts of the "coherent system"? Are any of them also "necessary" like weights and measures?

Bud,

As an engineer, you should be aware of the way in which energy, electric current etc are linked in with mass and length.

<<
As an engineer, you should be aware of the way in which energy, electric current etc are linked in with mass and length.
>>

Aren't energy, electric current, etc., already included under "weights and measures"?

I appear to have been misunderstood.

So I will re-phrase the quoted sentence.

Pro-metrics are only advocating that weights and measures should have a coherent systematic structure.

Beyond that we will have indivual views about life the universe and everything.