Once again might I put forward one of three ideas that I feel deserve attention as being worthy ideas for volume/capacity reforms:

1. A common 1.75cuin floz. Gals and pts etc can remain different.
2. A 27.68cuin, 3 1/40” cube pint that weighs a pound.
3. 1 bushel = 1 cuft, 1 floz = 1.728cuin.


If any one here has a problem with these suggestions, please state them- I WANT to know how you all eel about this.

Careful Bryan. You're starting to sound like xcole!

Perhaps ;) Who are you, not to sound rude. Just curious. Anyway, I am simply stating simply three ideas for tweaking volumes to actually make them make sense. I want some feedback on this

I've been posting on these boards for over a month now. I was only joking when I said about xcole.

Bryan,

Could you please explain how your proposals improve the situation regarding weights and measures?

In what way do they offer a constructive contribution?

Richard: I see- nice to meet you.

Metric man: 1fluidram should be a dram, 1 fluidounce should be an ounce, 1 pint should be a pound etc. They very nearly are, but not quite. We will be improving English by cleaning it up and doing away with some eccentricities that impede usefulness in some places. Do not suggest metric, as it has a number o its own eccentricities that are no good, and I will quite frankly never accept metric as fundamentally more useful than English, because it isn’t.

<<
Do not suggest metric, as it has a number o its own eccentricities that are no good, and I will quite frankly never accept metric as fundamentally more useful than English, because it isn’t.
>>

Aaw shame!

BTW I only speak English, or so I thought. I wasn't aware that I was speaking a different language when conversing in metric.

Try looking up the word metre in an English dictionary. You won't find marked as a non-English word.

It's a bit silly calling imperial 'English', because the imperialism is with regard to the British Empire. Similarly customary measures are US originated (and opposed by the BWMA I believe), and cannot claim to be 'English' either.

This is similar to the Amish, who have strange notions of what 'English' means.

>>> Similarly customary measures are US originated (and opposed by the BWMA I believe), and cannot claim to be 'English' either.

US units are English in origin. They are the units that English/British colonists took with them. Differences in fluid measures that have occurred since are owing as much to changes in the UK as in the US.

Using the term "English" is no different to calling the 1c coin a "penny". That is what it used to be. BWMA does not opposed US units.

It's also worth pointing out that the units we use in the US developed continuously from the units used in England in the 17th century, and are more closely related to traditional English units than modern British units, since the British "imperial system" -- which was created in 1824 and contained significant alterations -- never caught on here.

<<
Anyway, I am simply stating simply three ideas for tweaking volumes to actually make them make sense. I want some feedback on this
>>

Why do the volume measurements have to make sense? The metric system makes too much sense, more sense than anyone (except scientists) needs or wants, which is the problem with it. The beauty of the English system is that it does not make sense, it has evolved over time and is practical and reasonable rather than rigid and sensible.

<<
Why do the volume measurements have to make sense?
>>

Bud - A few weeks ago you said that you are a chemical engineer. If you do not know why volume measurements have to make sense, you are a pretty poor chemical engineer.

You quoted only one line of my post. Let me finish your quote:
<<
Why do the volume measurements have to make sense? The metric system makes too much sense, more sense than anyone (except scientists) needs or wants
>>

First of all, chemical engineers are scientists. I specifically excluded scientists from my generalization that volume measurements need not make sense. Scientists the world over use the metric system already. I'm talking about everyday nontechnical purposes.

Secondly, by saying that volume measurements don't need to "make sense" I do not mean they shouldn't be understandable, I mean that they need not be so heavily based on logic and reason. Volume measurements in the metric system make more sense than English, because the unit conversions are easy and each volume is the cube of a unit of length and each volume of water weighs a certain unit of mass, etc., but all this isn't of much value to anyone (except scientists and engineers). The English system lacks sense in this respect, but this artificial "sense" is totally unnecessary and detracts from the natural beauty and historical and cultural value of units of measurement.

^ see my response in other thread, please :)