One of the selling points of metric put forth by its proponents is that it is easy to get exact mass values given any metric volume (relative to calculating the mass of a volume measured in customary units). Let’s test that. I’ll go first:

231 cubic inches of distilled water at maximum density has a mass of 133 & 12 948 943/56 826 125 oz. avdp. exactly.

Now, can any of you metric people tell me the exact mass in grams of 1 000 cubic centimeters of distilled water at maximum density?

LOL, I know where this one is going, Niles ;)

Nile,

West Nile Disease, or that bird dog won't hunt?

230.400 cu.'' = 128 fl.oz.
230.400 cu.'' = 128 av.oz. wine
230.400 cu.'' = 133 1/3 av.oz. distilled water @ 39.2°
230.400 cu.'' = 109 5/7 av.oz. wheat
230.400 cu.'' = 230.400 av.oz. ivory

230.400 cu.'' = 1 fl.gal.
230.400 cu.'' = 2 fl.pot.
230.400 cu.'' = 4 fl.qt.
230.400 cu.'' = 8 fl.pt.
230.400 cu.'' = 16 fl. cups
230.400 cu.'' = 32 fl. jills
230.400 cu.'' = 64 fl. jacks
230.400 cu.'' = 128 fl.oz.
230.400 cu.'' = 256 fl.tbs.
230.400 cu.'' = 512 fl.dsp.
230.400 cu.'' = 1024 fl.dr.

Info @

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

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

Er, 1kg Niles - although I am sure you are going to come out with some smart-ass reason why you believe it not to be the case.

Niles

Fair enough, I'll answer if you tell me the exact length of 3 round barleycorns in imperial.

AndyA - the imperial side love to make issues out of the slight changes to metric over the years, but claim that we still use the same inch/yard that is based on the cubit referred to in the bible.

Welcome to the boards. It can be fun!

Bearranger,

Regarding your question of September 10th @ 10.44 p.m.

''You tell me the exact length of 3 ''round'' barleycorns.''

3 bcn. = 1/12'
3 bcn. = 1''
3 bcn. = 12'''
3 bcn. = 144''''

3 ''round'' bcn. = Only Bearranger knowed, and he's done passed over.

Info @

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

And topic:

Common Linear Measure

Is it easier to render exact values in metric or in customary units?
September 10 2004 at 4:18 PM Niles


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

One of the selling points of metric put forth by its proponents is that it is easy to get exact mass values given any metric volume (relative to calculating the mass of a volume measured in customary units). LetÂ’s test that. IÂ’ll go first:

231 cubic inches of distilled water at maximum density has a mass of 133 & 12 948 943/56 826 125 oz. avdp. exactly.

Now, can any of you metric people tell me the exact mass in grams of 1 000 cubic centimeters of distilled water at maximum density?

metre:
Forgive my ignorance, where do 231 c.inches come from? Never mind, let's answer that one with the standard defence of imperialists when asked whether they know offhand how many feet are in mile, WHO NEEDS TO KNOW? Mind you that questions must be quite often relevant, Nile's is not.

<<
231 cubic inches of distilled water at maximum density has a mass of 133 & 12 948 943/56 826 125 oz. avdp. exactly.
>>

The word "exactly" in the above quote tells me that it is a definition of either an inch or of an oz avdp. It also quotes an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10 which is greater than the relative uncertainty of the prototype kilogram which is quoted as approaching 1 part in 10^9.

Measuring the mass of of water (or any liquid for that matter) to a high degree of accuracy is fraught with difficulty. The moment one goes above 1 part in 10^3 one has to take Archimedes Principal into account (the liquid has an apparent loss of weigth due to it being in air whose density is of th eorder of 1g/litre (ie 0.1% of the density of water) [Today's bit of trivial information]. If you try to weight the liquid in a vaccuum you will have problems related to vapour pressure (the liquid evaporating).

I therefore deduce that the word "exactly" as used by somebody who did not know what they were talking about.

BTW, I have seen books of scientific tables that quote the density of water as a function of temperatuer to 5 significant figures and no more.

Niles - I believe we're waiting for your answer to the quiz.

BTW - you forgot to list the units used in the metric system - how on earth could eric work it out without giving him hints?

>>you forgot to list the units used in the metric system - how on earth could eric work it out without giving him hints?<<

You're right, Steve. I'm sorry, eric. 1 000 cubic centimeters = 1/1 000 cubic meters. 1/1 000 cubic meters = 1 liter. 1 liter = 1 000 milliliters. 1 000 grams = 1 kilogram.

There, that should help you out.

* * *

Careful, Martin – you don't want to make an accusation you can't back up. 'Exact' means 'precise', as opposed to 'approximate'. When the NIST tells me that 1 Imperial gallon weighs "10 avoirdupois pounds of water under specified conditions," and further research tells me that those conditions are that the water be distilled and its density be at maximum, I tend to think that '1 Imperial gallon = 10 lbs. avdp. exactly of distilled water at maximum density'. This is different than saying that 1 US gallon of water weighs about 133 1/3 oz. avdp.

So, I take it that you hold the position that precise measurements cannot be made regarding the mass of water? Given an open environment, I would agree with you. I'm curious, though – If you sealed the water in a container, how could its mass change? In a sealed container, no water vapor can escape; therefore the amount of added mass should remain constant – unless water vapor can pass through a solid barrier.

* * *

Eri's question regarding 231 cu. in. is amusing, considering his past statements. Allow me to paraphrase and reverse what he said: "What?" asked the American-bashing Briton, "there's a US gallon that's different from the Imperial gallon? And it's only 231 cubic inches? That's new to me."

By the way, Eric, there are 5 280 feet in a mile. Who doesn’t know that offhand? Actually, in the US, 1 statute mile is 5 280.01…feet because we survey our land with the US Survey foot.

In answer to your question, "Who needs to know?" I am not the one who claims that metric or customary is more exact – when you say that metric is, you beg the question.

Also, I am not the one going around telling science students that 1/1 000 cubic meter of water = 1 liter of water = 1 kilogram.

But your point is not lost. In practical terms, 1 L of water has a mass of about 1 kg – much the same way that 1 US gallon weighs about 8 & 1/3 lbs. This is exactly what we have been trying to get at. Exactness is not a function of the unit used; it is how you use that unit.

* * *
Beranger, the yard is not based on the cubit. Anyone who says so is misinformed, or just not paying attention to how they are describing it. The cubit is an anthropometric unit (the distance between the elbow and the tip of the outstretched middle finger). The cubit is 1/4 fathom (also an anthropometric unit – the span of one's outstretched arms). The fathom is 4 cubits because of the nature of ordinary human proportion. The yard is also an anthropometric unit, but not practical for measuring in it's natural state (you have to make a measuring stick of that unit for it to be utilitarian). One yard is 1/2 fathom, or 2 cubits.

It is not that the yard is based on the Biblical cubit, but that they are both based on the same related anthropometric units.

The reason you find the cubit being listed as 18 in. (1/2 yd.) is because when the yard became standardized as the English Royal Yard, the cubit was also standardized. While we all have our own cubit of varying lengths, the most commonly used value for the cubit tends to be the length of the English Royal Cubit, which is about 18 in.



Now, Beranger, unless there is a 'Royal Barleycorn', you know that I can't give you an exact measure. If you happen to have three round barleycorns that you wish me to measure, I can certainly give you an exact measurement of their length in customary units – but the exactitude will not hold for all barleycorns

* * *
xcol, what country do you live in? It can't be the United States because your numbers are incorrect – even if US survey inches are substituted for international inches. In the US, one gallon is exactly* 231 cubic inches. The Imperial gallon is exactly* 277 & 859 159/2 048 383 cubic inches. You will note that neither of these values is 230.4 cubic inches.

*I apologize for my haphazard usage of the term 'exact' here. It has come to my attention that some people might be confused by this since, though 1 inch = the distance traveled by light in a vacuum during 127/1 498 962 290 000 of a second, the variable nature of the speed of light under certain conditions can preclude the absolute exactness of any length unit based upon it. (I could point out that these measurements are absolutely exact in a legal sense, but that probably wouldn't do any good, either).

1 000 cubic centimeters (1/1 000 cubic meters) of distilled water at maximum density does not have a mass of exactly 1 kilogram.

Consider the following values (expressing a property of distilled water at maximum density):

1 gal. (UK) = 10 lbs. avdp. exactly
1 gal. (UK) = 4.546 09 L/dm3 exactly.
10 lbs. avdp. = 4.535 923 7 kg exactly.

4.546 09 does not = 4.535 923 7

Therefore:
1 L (1/1 000 m3) does not = 1 kg.

Instead:
1 L = 45 359 237 /45 460 900 kg, and
1 kg = 1 & 101 663/45 359 237 L.

Now, for you decimalists who prefer messy decimals to fractions, the results are:
1 L = 0.99776372663101698382566117256807… kg, and
1 kg = 1.0022412854960501209489039685566139… L.

A more lengthy explanation is available on my website at: http://dreamwater.org/whittenword/sovrealm/metric01.htm

As far as I know, I am the only one who has dealt with this topic in any detail. Please let me know if I am mistaken; I would like to see the work of others for a comparison.

* * *
The purpose of this exercise is not an attempt to debunk the metric system; instead, it is to show that exactitude in measurement is a relative thing. Sometimes, it is as hard to express an exact measurement in customary units as it is in metric. Most people, when arguing that their system is better, give examples using measurements that make their system look good (for example, figuring out how much 4/5 of a meter of cloth costs at $10/meter; or figuring out how much 2/3 of 1 yard of cloth costs at $9/yard). The trouble with this sort of argument is that it cuts both ways – these same types of examples can be used to make both systems look bad (for example, determine exactly 1/5 of a 1 meter piece of string using a yardstick; or, determine exactly 1/3 of a 1 yard piece of string using a meter stick).

I am not sure bout the definition of the gallon anymore, lgally speaking, altho I know it is defined as so many cubic centimetres.... anyway, in Imperial we measure the gallon and the ten pounds from 62 degrees fahrenheit as it is a more sensible and attainable temperature than 39.2 (the point of maximum density). In metric they use max. dens. as the reference point in relation to the litre-kilogram system..... ***I BELIEVE***, altho' I may be wrong on this as it is all very convoluted and certainly quite difficult to get good figures.

What i will say is that 20 (or was it 25) degrees C is often used insstead of max. dens. (4C) because it is a more convenient temperautre to attain (if not as conceptually 'perfect'.. but then given you cannot actually have conceptual perfection in this matter due to never being able to take the mass of any volume of liquid (as someone above alluded to), I think the traditional (at least rough) Imperial point is the better reference point.

What does this all mean? It means that it is possible your igures are slightly off, Niles, but also equally perhaps not. It also means that in either case one should base one's standard on a temperature that is slightly more average.

Incidentally, and re: xcole, according to my figures, the volume occupied by a mass of 8 1/3 lb of water at MAXIMUM DENSITY is 230 2/3 cuin, and the volume occupied at 62F is more like 231.18cuin

Altho' I agree very much with your concluding paragraph. I would also like to say that if your figures are right, then the cubic foot is closer to 1000 ounces of water than the cubic decimetre is to 1000 grammes.

* * *

Eri's question regarding 231 cu. in. is amusing, considering his past statements. Allow me to paraphrase and reverse what he said: "What?" asked the American-bashing Briton, "there's a US gallon that's different from the Imperial gallon? And it's only 231 cubic inches? That's new to me."

metre:
So what gallon are you talking about now, an old Chinese one?
By the way, this post is about as tedious as Leonards. You are arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle. Let it be said, the world gives a damn about archaic units, full stop.

By the way, Eric, there are 5 280 feet in a mile. Who doesnÂ’t know that offhand? Actually, in the US, 1 statute mile is 5 280.01Â…feet because we survey our land with the US Survey foot.

metre:
Who needs to know and what's more, who cares?
As I said to another US guy on this board, who wants to use, let alone remember, a hodgepodge of units that has 2 different pounds and feet to measure different things. Sounds cazy to any rational person. But then imperialists.....

Niles:
I answer your question, "Who needs to know?" I am not the one who claims that metric or customary is more exact – when you say that metric is, you beg the question.

metre:
You seem to miss the point of this argument altogether. The question is not which system is more precise, but which one is easier to learn and use in any field.

Niles:
Also, I am not the one going around telling science students that 1/1 000 cubic meter of water = 1 liter of water = 1 kilogram.

Metre:
You don't need to, they have to learn it anyhow, never mind that most of them will work in cumbersome units thereafter. That is in anybody's language a needless waste of children's precious time.

Niles:
But your point is not lost. In practical terms, 1 L of water has a mass of about 1 kg – much the same way that 1 US gallon weighs about 8 & 1/3 lbs. This is exactly what we have been trying to get at. Exactness is not a function of the unit used; it is how you use that unit.

metre:
It's not how you use that unit, its whether you can remember it at all. Now which one is easier 1 kg, or 8 & 1/3lbs? That isolated example illustrates how cumbersome and therefore hard to remember, these units are.
And to compound the misery they are cumbersome to write down as well. The world has moved on since the stoneage if you haven't noticed yet.

* * *
Beranger, the yard is not based on the cubit. Anyone who says so is misinformed, or just not paying attention to how they are describing it. The cubit is an anthropometric unit (the distance between the elbow and the tip of the outstretched middle finger). The cubit is 1/4 fathom (also an anthropometric unit – the span of one's outstretched arms). The fathom is 4 cubits because of the nature of ordinary human proportion. The yard is also an anthropometric unit, but not practical for measuring in it's natural state (you have to make a measuring stick of that unit for it to be utilitarian). One yard is 1/2 fathom, or 2 cubits.

It is not that the yard is based on the Biblical cubit, but that they are both based on the same related anthropometric units.

The reason you find the cubit being listed as 18 in. (1/2 yd.) is because when the yard became standardized as the English Royal Yard, the cubit was also standardized. While we all have our own cubit of varying lengths, the most commonly used value for the cubit tends to be the length of the English Royal Cubit, which is about 18 in.



Now, Beranger, unless there is a 'Royal Barleycorn', you know that I can't give you an exact measure. If you happen to have three round barleycorns that you wish me to measure, I can certainly give you an exact measurement of their length in customary units – but the exactitude will not hold for all barleycorns

* * *
xcol, what country do you live in? It can't be the United States because your numbers are incorrect – even if US survey inches are substituted for international inches. In the US, one gallon is exactly* 231 cubic inches. The Imperial gallon is exactly* 277 & 859 159/2 048 383 cubic inches. You will note that neither of these values is 230.4 cubic inches.

*I apologize for my haphazard usage of the term 'exact' here. It has come to my attention that some people might be confused by this since, though 1 inch = the distance traveled by light in a vacuum during 127/1 498 962 290 000 of a second, the variable nature of the speed of light under certain conditions can preclude the absolute exactness of any length unit based upon it. (I could point out that these measurements are absolutely exact in a legal sense, but that probably wouldn't do any good, either).

<<
I therefore deduce that the word "exactly" as used by somebody who did not know what they were talking about.
>>

Martin,

The word "exactly" is usually used to indicate that something is a certain value by definition, but it can also be used to specify an "official" value. For example, g=9.80665 m/s^2 exactly. Of course, this cannot be true by definition, because g varies, but it is the standard value that is used by scientists for consistency's sake. When using it, the uncertainty can almost always be taken to be zero, which is why the word exactly is used.

Niles - note the way that the conversation about accuracy and the interesting relative stuff (as in 'relativity') that you bring totally goes over a certain individual's head?

Instead it's a case of "I'll cut and paste the lot and add things about how awful it is to teach children language used by the majority"

A very interesting post though, Niles. I've often thought about this accuracy argument in terms of reality of physical constants.

Like, for instance, the accuracy of prototype Kilogrammes and the fact that the initial unit point is 1000-fold.

Bryan, ignore the water; it has no effect whatsoever on the mathematical relationships (the devil is in the details, as they say). My math should be spot on – you're welcome to check it if you like (I always welcome an outside perspective)

Alright, now we'll treat the water. I can tell you that I know for a fact that the definition is '10 avoirdupois pounds of distilled water under specified conditions'. I can also tell you for a fact that all of the sources I've seen that actually describe these conditions say 'at maximum density'. Since water reaches maximum density at 39.2°, that's the temperature I assume they use. Again, this isn't important to the equations; what is important is that 10 pounds of *something* is equal to one Imperial gallon.

If you have a source that contradicts me about the water, please let me know – I would appreciate it.

By the way: 1 Imperial gallon = 4 546.09 cubic centimeters exactly = 277 & 859 159/2 048 383 cubic inches exactly.

* * *

You hit the nail on the head, Steve. The individual to whom you refer seemingly doesn't have a clue – which actually reduces the value of discussing anything with him at all. You will note that he doesn't seem to understand customary units, either. How on earth does he measure anything?

<<
Again, this isn't important to the equations; what is important is that 10 pounds of *something* is equal to one Imperial gallon.
>>

We have got to be quite specific about what that "something" is - 10 pounds of mercury occupies considerably less volume that 10 pounds of water while 10 pounds of alcohol occupies about 25% more volume thatn does 10 pounds of water!

Niles said

"Beranger, the yard is not based on the cubit. Anyone who says so is misinformed."

Thank you for agreeing with me Niles. I had said "the imperial side ..... claim that we still use the same inch/yard that is based on the cubit referred to in the bible."

Please refer back to the posts where someone (Tony??) made that exact claim.

Niles also said

"The yard is also an anthropometric unit, but not practical for measuring in it's natural state"

The ulna (yard) was originally the length from your throat to the tip of your outstretched middle finger with your arm horizontal to the ground (half of the distance with both arms outstretched - 1 fathom) Why do you have difficulty in measuring this without a yardstick?

And Niles then said

"Now, Beranger, unless there is a 'Royal Barleycorn', you know that I can't give you an exact measure."

Perhaps this legislation is older than your country (assuming you are from the US), but did Edward I of England not define the inch as "3 grains of barley, dry and round, make an inch" in his statute of 1305? Unless someone knows better, the EC did not force him to adopt this inexact measure.

Even if he did have an exact "Royal Barleycorn" (which I doubt), his definition is still incorrect by approximately 1 part in 900 when compared with his iron ulna (yardstick) & the yard as defined today

I posted an outdated definition of the inch (the "3 barleycorns") to debunk your attempt to use an outdated definition of the kilogram to get someone to say "1kg" as a reply to your question.

Steve

Why is the accuracy of the prototype kilogramme in doubt?

In both the WMA'63 & the WMA'85 (both definitions untouched by the EC) the kilogram is defined as "the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram"

Just because neither side have found a more exact way to define mass (unless you know better!) why have a go at the only exact weight in the world.

I put that in in the hope that someone on the imperial side asserts there is a more exact weight anywhere! Before the imperial side come out with the usual "we don't need that accuracy" posts, look at the original post on this site......

Martin, you cannot see the forest for the trees. For the purpose of this problem, the variable does not matter. We don't need to know what the variable is in order to get the answer to the question I posed. The reason we don’t need to know the variable is because we know the mathematical relationships. The mathematical relationships are: 10 avoirdupois pounds of x = 1 Imperial gallon; and 10 lbs. avdp. = 4.535 923 7 kg; and 1 gal. (UK) = 4.546 09 L.

I am asking you to solve 1 L = y kg.

Given these relationships, in order to solve for y, you don't need to know what x is.

The exact identity of x is an academic question to which the answer is not 'mercury'.

* * *
Beranger, you said: "The ulna (yard) was originally the length from your throat to the tip of your outstretched middle finger with your arm horizontal to the ground (half of the distance with both arms outstretched - 1 fathom) Why do you have difficulty in measuring this without a yardstick?"

Response: Why don't you try measuring using your middle finger and the middle of your throat as a reference if it's so easy?

I didn’t mean that measuring it was a problem, I meant that measuring *with* it was a problem. Unlike the cubit, you have to make a yardstick or some other artifact before the interval becomes practical for measuring things.

Beranger said: "I posted an outdated definition of the inch (the "3 barleycorns") to debunk your attempt to use an outdated definition of the kilogram to get someone to say "1kg" as a reply to your question."

Response: That would be fair except for one thing: I routinely catch metric proponents claiming that 1 cubic decimeter = 1 liter = 1 kilogram of distilled water at maximum density (4° C). I have never heard of anyone (except xcole) who claims that 3 barleycorns = 1" exactly according to today's standards.

See:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/common.htm (U.S. Metric Association (USMA), Inc.) This page claims the equivalency relationship between the cubic decimeter, the liter, and the kilogram still exists.

and

http://www.ukmetrication.com/metrichistory.htm (UK Metrication website.) This page discusses the equivalency relationship and presents the prototype kilogram in such a way that could lead a prudent reader to believe, with no outside information, that the artifact conforms to that relationship.

Beranger said (to Steve): "Just because neither side have found a more exact way to define mass why have a go at the only exact weight in the world?"

Comment: I don’t like the idea of standardizing something in terms of a unique artifact that has to be defined in terms of itself. I prefer the water definition because it can be reproduced. Another acceptable definition would be the 'mass of x number of platinum atoms'. Again, my problem is not with the prototype kilogram, just with its uniqueness.

Beranger said: "the imperial side come out with the usual "we don't need that accuracy" posts…"

Response: I think you might have us confused with eric…

Beranger said: "the imperial side come out with the usual "we don't need that accuracy" postsÂ…"

Response: I think you might have us confused with ericÂ…

metre:
Are you dreaming. Nobody on our side will ever have to use that phrase for metric units outside science.
Please show me one instance where I said metric does not need that accuracy.

Niles wrote

<<
Comment: I don’t like the idea of standardizing something in terms of a unique artifact that has to be defined in terms of itself. I prefer the water definition because it can be reproduced. Another acceptable definition would be the 'mass of x number of platinum atoms'. Again, my problem is not with the prototype kilogram, just with its uniqueness.
>>

The thinking at BIPM (the custodians of the metric sysetm) is much in sympathy with what you are saying. It is quiet likely that at soem time in the future, the kilogramme will be defined as "X atoms of the element Y". However, until an experiment can be set up which is repeatable to the same accuracy as weighing the articfact that is in Sevres, the current defintion will hold. Until 1960, there was a similar problem with the metre, but in that year the committee at the BIPM agreed that the techniques of measuring distance using the wavelength of light was superior to th ebar that they had, so the bar was retired and the definition was changed to accomodate the best technology that was available.

BTW, all signatories of the Convention of the meter have their own proptypte kilograms which they re-calibrate against the version held at Sevres at regular intervals.

<<
I can tell you that I know for a fact that the definition is '10 avoirdupois pounds of distilled water under specified conditions'.
>>

I respectfully contradict. All US customary and imperial units are now DEFINED in terms of the corresponding metric equivalents. The yard was defined by a US-UK treaty and the pound may have had a treaty or it may simply be defined by law, but scientists in the US treat all conversion factors between metric and imperial as exact, i.e., by definition.

metre (eric) says:
"metre:
Are you dreaming. Nobody on our side will ever have to use that phrase for metric units outside science"

I think what Niles was trying to highlight here is the real meaning of "our side" that you mention, and the uncomfortable issue that we "pro-choice" or "pro-imperial" people have to contend with - which is that "that side" is actually (and unfortunately) ours! (yuk)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Niles, but were you not highlighting the fact that eric's knowledge of metric is (in definite self admitted fact) less than his knowledge of imperial - which now appears to be poor as well (unless its a psychological act of "look at me, i don't know jack about imperial so I'm obviously a metric person").

Pretending to "know metric" is so transparent.
Eric (metre) you deliberately avoid arguing with me for your own bizzare reasons - however you'll also note that pro-metric folk have never responded directly to any of your posts either (whether it be in support ot not). Yet only pro-imps and pro-choices converse back with you! What does that tell you, when the rest of us converse universally with each other regardless of "side".

Also - note that only one person backs you up or is backed up by you.

That person is "Carlyle" (ie Euric).

I'm hoping that one day you'll "click" and you'll say "Oh yeah!"

folowed by "OH MY GOD!".

Till then, we'll continue to laugh.

>>>>>>
Perhaps this legislation is older than your country (assuming you are from the US), but did Edward I of England not define the inch as "3 grains of barley, dry and round, make an inch" in his statute of 1305? Unless someone knows better, the EC did not force him to adopt this inexact measure.
<<<<<<

Oh come off it. Grains of whatever were used for millenia to determine length and weight standards.

Bry

Who are you disagreeing with in your post above?

I said barleycorns were used to define length.

Imperial posters said that such a length would vary.

I hope you are agreeing with me???

Confused as to your point if you are disagreeing with my view....

Eric asked: "Please show me one instance where I said metric does not need that accuracy."

Response: Ah, the shortness of the modern memory… Above, I said that, "I am not the one going around telling science students that 1/1 000 cubic meter of water = 1 liter of water = 1 kilogram." To which you replied, "You don't need to, they have to learn it anyhow…" You seem to approve of this since you then say, "never mind that most of them will work in cumbersome units thereafter. That is in anybody's language a needless waste of children's precious time."

If you are a rational being, and if you believe that it is okay to teach children that 1/1 000 cubic meter of water = 1 liter of water = 1 kilogram, then you must believe that the accuracy of that statement doesn't matter (given that the statement is false).

If this is not the case, I apologize for erroneously thinking that you were a rational being.

Steve, I believe that answered your question. So far, on my list of things that he doesn't understand are: Americans, the metric system, the Imperial system, the Customary system, and Objectivist philosophy. Did I leave anything out? I repeat my earlier question, how does he measure anything? Maybe he's rich and has people to do it for him and the real reason he likes metric is because his servants are French and only use metric.

* * *

martin said: "The thinking at BIPM… is much in sympathy with what you are saying [regarding the uniqueness of the prototype kilogram]."

Response: Cool… :)

* * *
Congratulations, Bud. You have hit upon the one thing that, if true, could render my mathematical conclusions invalid. You said that "[a]ll US customary and imperial units are now DEFINED in terms of… metric equivalents… but scientists in the US treat all conversion factors between metric and imperial as exact, i.e., by definition."

Response: You are correct. Allow me to read into your statement, though. You claim to contradict me. You do not – unless your statement is based upon the premise that the redefinition in terms of metric units renders the old definition inoperative. I have found no evidence that the old definition is inoperative – quite the opposite, in fact. In my findings, I cited a current US government document defining the Imperial gallon as 10 avoirdupois pounds of water under specified conditions. When they decided how many liters that was going to be, all they had to do was determine the volume of 1 gallon in cubic centimeters (or its capacity in liters). Once you do that, you have the number of liters that holds 10 lbs. avdp. of water under specified conditions.

The trouble is that it is very difficult to do research on this issue. Besides the NIST document, the only official literature I could find on the topic was some material from the 12th General Conference on Weights and Measures confirming that, as of 1964, 1 kilogram no longer equals 1/1 000 cubic meter of distilled water at 4° C. As of 1963, the Imperial gallon was still officially defined as 10 lbs. avdp. of distilled water. To my knowledge, this has not changed.

* * *
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

When I was reviewing the GCWM documents, it seems (contrary to the metric web site that I relied upon) that the definition of the kilogram has never changed. While I haven’t said that it did in this thread, people could get this idea. At the 3rd GCWM in 1901, the definition of the liter was set at 1 kg of distilled water at maximum density (4° C). Later, though, someone thought to actually measure the liter to make sure. It was off – large – about 1.002 L or so. Thus, in 1964, the 12th GCWM redefined the liter as 1 cubic decimeter. That makes a liter of pure water with a mass of about 0.998 kg or so.

Please note that there is no similar reason to redefine the Imperial gallon since the cubic inch value was always derived from the volume occupied by the mass of the water. The metric folks made the mistake of having two valid definitions for the same thing (though the water mass definition of the liter was controlling, it was adopted under the assumption that the water occupied the volume of 1 cubic deciliter.)

Hey, Steve, I forgot, add 'American law' to that list.

Â…and the prize for stating 'secret correct response #2' goes toÂ… Bud!! September 16 2004, 2:48 AM

Niles:
metre asked: "Please show me one instance where I said metric does not need that accuracy."

Response: Ah, the shortness of the modern memoryÂ…
Above, I said that, "I am not the one going around telling science students that 1/1 000 cubic meter of water = 1 liter of water = 1 kilogram." To which you replied, "You don't need to, they have to learn it anyhowÂ…" You seem to approve of this since you then say, "never mind that most of them will work in cumbersome units thereafter. That is in anybody's language a needless waste of children's precious time."

metre:
I would say: Ah, the confusion of medieval minds. If you read my post again, I state clearly that teaching metric is a waste of time and money if you don't use it.

Niles:
If you are a rational being, and if you believe that it is okay to teach children that 1/1 000 cubic meter of water = 1 liter of water = 1 kilogram, then you must believe that the accuracy of that statement doesn't matter (given that the statement is false).

metre:
You can safely teach children an ordinary people that one Litre of water at 4C = 1 Kg.
Metric children are tought the speed of light as 300,000 km/s and it makes not one iota of difference to the average person. On the other hand it becomes much more complicated if you have to tell children we use 2 feet of unequal lenghts one to measure land and the other your height. To make more complicated still we also use 2 different pounds to weigh different materials. If you can't come up with more profound discrepancies to discredit metric measurements, you have to be classified as a petty pedant. On a larger scale it's remember the old adage of the mote and the beam.

Niles:
If this is not the case, I apologize for erroneously thinking that you were a rational being.

metre:
You are welcome, whatever pleases you.

Niles,

The simple truth is that a unit of measure cannot have 2 definitions. If something is true by definition, it is EXACT. There is zero uncertainty. If the definition of the pound is based on the definition of the kilogram, then it is impossible to determine the mass of any amount of water with zero uncertainty (unless the kilogram is also based on the mass of water, which it isn't).
Defining a unit in a new way does not render the old definition inoperative, but it does introduce uncertainty into the fact that was originally true by definition. In most cases, of course, this uncertainty is very small, and you can continue to treat the old definition as exact for most purposes.

>>>>>>
You can safely teach children an ordinary people that one Litre of water at 4C = 1 Kg.
<<<<<<

Or that 1 gallon is 10 pounds.


>>>>>>
On the other hand it becomes much more complicated if you have to tell children we use 2 feet of unequal lenghts one to measure land and the other your height. To make more complicated still we also use 2 different pounds to weigh different materials. If you can't come up with more profound discrepancies to discredit metric measurements, you have to be classified as a petty pedant. On a larger scale it's remember the old adage of the mote and the beam.
<<<<<<

But of course that isn't true. We use only one foot. We use only one pound.

"....Or that 1 gallon is 10 pounds."

Not exactly a good advert for the 'flaws' of the decimal system, is it?

erm, sorry mate but you are obviously not paying attention. I, many many times, have stated how sometimes ten is good, sometimes not. Sticking totally to one number is idiocy of the highest kind. And that is the beauty of Imperial, it uses various numbers.

your post was a cheap, cheap shot, long since been done to death and out-argued. :)

Just because imperial is not base-10 does not mean that some of its units follow base-10.

Niles- note how eric has changed his main "why let children learn two measures" around from the notion of "imperial is obsolete and a waste of kids time" to "teaching kids metric is a waste of kids time if in real life they use imperial" .

You are making a fool of yourself now eric - but at least gone are the days when you used to pretend that kids in the UK did not understand imperial (your propaganda on 'metricsucks').

BTW eric, some (more) lessons for you about 'your' metric system.

<<metre (eric):
You can safely teach children an ordinary people that one Litre of water at 4C = 1 Kg.>>

It's written one litre, or 1 L
It's 4 degrees C, not 4C. (you can use the degree symbol if you wish but make sure that there's a space between the degree symbol and the number)
And there is no such thing as a Kelvin-gramme. If you meant one kilogramme then the correct way of writing it is like this:

1 kg

(note the space)

Please refer to martin for the website of the BIMP (or whatever its called)

Don't you just love 'im, Niles?

Bud, my number varies from a metric number I saw by about 0.0009 kg or so. There was no indication whether or not the metric number was rounded. (by 'metric' I mean 'taken from a web site dealing with metric'.) However, the volume in cubic inches of 10 lbs. avdp. of water I was given is identical to my exact value for the volume of the imperial gallon rounded to the nearest millionth (mind you, it *was* a rounded value, though…). You are correct, though – for scientific purposes, a more precise definition is sometimes required than what may be an exact legal definition.

* * *

Steve said: "note how eric has changed his main "why let children learn two measures" around from the notion of "imperial is obsolete and a waste of kids time" to "teaching kids metric is a waste of kids time if in real life they use imperial" ."

Response: Eric would say "show me where I said that." 'That', of course referring to whatever happens to contradict his current position. Then, unless he said those exact words, he will deny it – or say that you misunderstood him and, trying to conceal the fact that you did understand him, restate what he said in a different way, hoping against hope that you won't notice that it still means the same thing (please note the paragraph in which he explains why he believes that inexactitude is acceptable because 'it makes not one iota of difference to the average person'.)

Another thing he likes to do (with no logic to support his action) is to assign meaning to words that you use in a sneaky attempt to change what you say. I say sneaky because it isn't too outlandish – he chooses a meaning beneficial to him from a reasonable set of meanings the word could have. After doing this, he then likes to accuse you of the same doublethink he has been caught engaging in. (In the example above, he substitutes 'children' for 'science student'. Once he's done that, he's free to say that it's the same thing as – or worse than – not telling children that the survey foot is 1.000 002 international feet. [While being true, the analogue to what I actually said would be 'telling science students that 1 kg = 1 L is like not telling student surveyors that the survey foot is 1.000 002 int'l. ft. – and that has a different meaning relative to eric's statement.] This, of course, may serve to distract a reader from the original question 'where did I say that metric does not need that accuracy?')

* * *

Bryan said: "But of course that isn't true. We use only one foot. We use only one pound."

Response: Correct. The lb. tr. is supposedly obsolete (but even for measuring large shipments of gold and silver?). However, Americans do still use the survey foot—and we have a very good economic reason for doing so; see my essay at: http://dreamwater.org/whittenword/sovrealm/macu.htm

The survey/international foot thing is a joke anyway. There are microscopically different, really. The same difference tween diferent national standards of the metre, really.

Nile,

Regarding your statement of September 13th @ 11.07 p.m.

‘’Xcole, what country do you live in? It can't be the United States of America because your numbers are incorrect, even if outer-world inches are substituted for inter-world inches. In the U.S.A., 1 1706gal. = 231.000 cu.’’. And 1 imp.gal. = 276.480 cu.’’. You will note that neither of these values is 230.400 cu.’’.’’

Nile, I live in God’s Country.

Now, what country do you live in?

Nile, for the past 6000 years there have been:

1 fl.gal. = 230.400 cu.’’ = 1 av.gal. wine
1 dry gal. = 268.800 cu.’’ = 1 av.gal. wheat

In 1701 the Kingdom of England Parliament invented:

1 1701gal. = 268.802 cu.’’ = 1 av.gal. sussex-wheat

In 1706 the Kingdom of England Parliament invented:

1 1706gal. = 230.907 cu.’’ = 1 av.gal. france-wine

In 1826 the United Kingdom of Ulster & Grand Breton invented:

1 et.gal. = 221.184 cu.’’ = 1 av.gal. distilled water @ 39.2°
1 imp.gal. = 276.480 cu.’’ = 1 av.gal. corn

That means for the past 6000 years, folks have used for fluid measure:

1 fl.gal. = 230.400 cu.’’

And that means for the past 298 years, folks have used for fluid measure:

1 fl.gal. = 230.400 cu.’’
1 1706gal. = 230.907 cu.’’

Nile, where have you got the idea that 231.000 cu.’’ has ever been used for any fluid measure?

Info @

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

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

Niles:
Another thing he likes to do (with no logic to support his action) is to assign meaning to words that you use in a sneaky attempt to change what you say. I say sneaky because it isn't too outlandish – he chooses a meaning beneficial to him from a reasonable set of meanings the word could have. After doing this, he then likes to accuse you of the same doublethink he has been caught engaging in. (In the example above, he substitutes 'children' for 'science student'. Once he's done that, he's free to say that it's the same thing as – or worse than – not telling children that the survey foot is 1.000 002 international feet. [While being true, the analogue to what I actually said would be 'telling science students that 1 kg = 1 L is like not telling student surveyors that the survey foot is 1.000 002 int'l. ft. – and that has a different meaning relative to eric's statement.] This, of course, may serve to distract a reader from the original question 'where did I say that metric does not need that accuracy?')

metre:
Reading your suspicions and weird conclusions, I could have sworn you are lying on a couch telling the psychiatrist how badly the world treats you. You do have problems man. Reading what your insecure mind spews fort points to a deep seated psychosis. To prevent any futher deterioration of your already precarious mental state, I shall in future refrain from making any comments outside measurements.
As to the rest of your post, it doesn't make much sense. Just believe me, you do have 2 different feet, and if you don't like pounds, substitute ounces. That, and many other silly anomalies entitle anyone to call your hodgepodge of units obsolete and cumbersome. Amen.

Re: Is it easier to render exact values in metric or in customary units? September 16 2004, 10:01 PM

Bryan:
The survey/international foot thing is a joke anyway. There are microscopically different, really. The same difference tween diferent national standards of the metre, really.

metre:
Running away from reality again? Never mind how SMALL the discrepancy is, it exists! Boring, you bet, but to repeat over and over that these are the facts of your hodgepodge of units might one day make you see reality. I leave the standard imperial idiocy that there are different metres to more qualified guys to refute.

See what I mean? I couldn't have asked for a better example.

Allow me to direct everyone's attention to the United States Code:

15 USC § 272

(a) Establishment of National Institute of Standards and Technology

There is established within the Department of Commerce a science, engineering, technology, and measurement laboratory to be known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the ''Institute'').

(b) Functions of Secretary and Institute

The Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the ''Secretary'') acting through the Director of the Institute (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the ''Director'') and, if appropriate, through other officials, is authorized to take all actions necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, including the following functions of the Institute -

(1) to assist industry in the development of technology and procedures needed to improve quality, to modernize manufacturing processes, to ensure product reliability, manufacturability, functionality, and cost-effectiveness, and to facilitate the more rapid commercialization, especially by small- and medium-sized companies throughout the United States, of products based on new scientific discoveries in fields such as automation, electronics, advanced materials, biotechnology, and optical technologies;

(2) to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the national standards of measurement, and provide the means and methods for making measurements consistent with those standards;

(3) to compare standards used in scientific investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and educational institutions with the standards adopted or recognized by the Federal Government and to coordinate the use by Federal agencies of private sector standards, emphasizing where possible the use of standards developed by private, consensus organizations;

* *

The statute authorizing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is permissible under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution stating that Congress shall have the power "[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." The statute's operation is a valid delegation of Congressional Legislative power – it passes muster under the "Intelligible Principle Test" applied by the courts to such matters.

* *

'The Gauge Block Handbook', a NIST publication, confirms that "in 1959 the directors of the national metrology laboratories of the United States, Canada, England, Australia and South Africa agreed to define the inch as 25.4 millimeters, exactly." This is the international inch (referred to as 'the inch'). The Handbook also states that "[t]he old U.S. inch is still in use for commercial surveying of land in the form of the "surveyor's foot," which is 12 old U.S. inches." The gallon is not involved in the commercial surveying of land. The gallon is, therefore, measured in inches (not old U.S. inches).

The NIST 'General Tables of Units of Measurement' states in no uncertain terms that 1 gallon (U.S.) has a volume of 231 cubic inches (exactly).

Bryan, if you were curious, the US Statute mile (survey mile) is no smaller than 1 mile and 1/8 inch in international measures.

Cheers Niles, but I know how big the survey foot is :)

Metre, the discrepency exists because of metric. How many times must I repeat that fact?

Yuo can restate it as many times as you like Bryan, until he learns about the metric system he will never be able to argue the point with accuracy.

Niles: "See what I mean? I couldn't have asked for a better example"

Its predicitivity (new word) can almost be described as 'beautiful'. I particularly loved the way he attempts, with froth still around his mouth, to portray you as having psychotic difficulties! Fantastic stuff - I'm looking forward to his next installment!

Did you see, on another thread, where he does a similar thing? He refers to "regurtitating nonsense". It's a joy to read, it really is.


Lets confuse him further!

You know he's being exagerating the difference between the two different 'feet'?

Well, tell him that there are two different 'degrees C' and they are subltly different (but moreso than the 'feet' debate).

Bear in mind he'll have to scour the net first to discover why!

P.S. I ask you to tell him because my status still remains higher than yours!!! ie. he doesn't even ATTEMPT to argue with me anymore! (see metric martyr website for reasons why)

SteveH wrote

<<
Well, tell him that there are two different 'degrees C' and they are subltly different (but moreso than the 'feet' debate).
>>

Do you mean that the two definitions are subtly different or that the values are subtly different?

Martin, for a bit of fun I'd like to see if Eric answers this first.

(or niles/someone else asks him to answer it so he doesn't have to ignore me in petulant childishness)

Bear with me, Martin.

I suspected you did, Bryan. I just wanted an excuse to put out an actual number -- since we were discussing it.

I have seen two sources (more credible than mine) that the '62 degrees' definition of the gallon cited by Bryan is correct.