In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about €œthe metric system€�,
the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a
foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy.
And so on.

I have tended to sit on the sidelines. But today my partner passed a
booklet to me discussing some of the measures used in the textile
industry in the past in terms of conversion to the tex. Not sure when it
was printed but the latest date I can find within is 1962. Its sheer
complexity makes it incredible that the units discussed were in regular use.

It has introduced me to measures such as:

The Galashiels Cut
The Yorkshire Skeins Woollen
lbs. per 14,400 yd
drams per 40 yd.

The fact that asbestos yarn was measured in 50 yd. per lb.

That 1/36 worsted = 24.6 tex and 2/24s worsted = R74 tex/2.

And I finally found out that denier is grammes per 9,000 metres. But not
for tights where it is a density of weave.

Metres rule. (And seconds, kelvins and so on.)

--
Rod

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:25:34 +0000, Rod had
this to say:

In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about “the metric system”,
the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a
foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy.
And so on.

I have tended to sit on the sidelines. But today my partner passed a
booklet to me discussing some of the measures used in the textile
industry in the past in terms of conversion to the tex. Not sure when it
was printed but the latest date I can find within is 1962. Its sheer
complexity makes it incredible that the units discussed were in regular use.

It has introduced me to measures such as:

The Galashiels Cut
The Yorkshire Skeins Woollen
lbs. per 14,400 yd
drams per 40 yd.

The fact that asbestos yarn was measured in 50 yd. per lb.

That 1/36 worsted = 24.6 tex and 2/24s worsted = R74 tex/2.

And I finally found out that denier is grammes per 9,000 metres. But not
for tights where it is a density of weave.

http://www.bwmaonline.com/

--
Frank Erskine
Foot, pint and pound are perfectly sound

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 21:55:09 UTC, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:25:34 +0000, Rod had
this to say:

In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about the metric system,
the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a
foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy.
And so on.

I have tended to sit on the sidelines. But today my partner passed a
booklet to me discussing some of the measures used in the textile
industry in the past in terms of conversion to the tex. Not sure when it
was printed but the latest date I can find within is 1962. Its sheer
complexity makes it incredible that the units discussed were in regular use.

It has introduced me to measures such as:

The Galashiels Cut
The Yorkshire Skeins Woollen
lbs. per 14,400 yd
drams per 40 yd.

The fact that asbestos yarn was measured in 50 yd. per lb.

That 1/36 worsted = 24.6 tex and 2/24s worsted = R74 tex/2.

And I finally found out that denier is grammes per 9,000 metres. But not
for tights where it is a density of weave.

http://www.bwmaonline.com/

I prefer attoparsecs per microfortnight myself...a nice mixed bag!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Frank Erskine wrote:
snip

http://www.bwmaonline.com/


What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half
pound) packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza
which are a real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

But I suppose this perpetuates the manipulation shown when Chivers Jam
was sold in jars cunningly designed to look like pound jars but only
containing 12 oz.
--
Rod

Rod wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:
snip


http://www.bwmaonline.com/


What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half
pound) packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza
which are a real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

But I suppose this perpetuates the manipulation shown when Chivers Jam
was sold in jars cunningly designed to look like pound jars but only
containing 12 oz.

Then learn how to easily convert. That is what I had to do in 1978 when
I joined a metric engineer.

Dave

Dave wrote:
Rod wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:
snip


http://www.bwmaonline.com/


What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half
pound) packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza
which are a real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

But I suppose this perpetuates the manipulation shown when Chivers Jam
was sold in jars cunningly designed to look like pound jars but only
containing 12 oz.

Then learn how to easily convert. That is what I had to do in 1978 when
I joined a metric engineer.

Umm, I don't think that I need to learn how to convert. My very earliest
memories of weights and measures, from well before 1978, included a
mixture of litres, pints and US quarts. (And English, German and French
labelling.) And I have used many such ever since.

The standardisation of packaging for items such as flour and sugar was
imposed a very long time ago. I really can't see any reason for this not
to apply to many other products.

If *everyone* who wishes to buy coffee has to manipulate prices/package
sizes in order to gauge 'value' that adds an unnecessary burden to those
who for any reason cannot quickly convert.

Interesting that for many products the manufacturers have standardised
packages to the extent of being able to send the goods to Greece, Italy,
Spain, Sweden or pretty much anywhere else in Europe without incurring
problems of packaging or language. But where they see the possibility of
a more lucrative edge they adjust package sizes.

--
Rod

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:57:15 +0000, Rod had
this to say:

What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half
pound) packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza
which are a real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

Why are you trying to compare prices of different substances?

It's fair enough comparing identical stuff...

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:57:15 +0000, Rod had
this to say:

What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half
pound) packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza
which are a real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

Why are you trying to compare prices of different substances?

It's fair enough comparing identical stuff...

Am I willing to pay £2.31 for a pack of coffee A? Coffee A is a bit
nicer than coffee B at £2.10. Is it 21p nicer? Well if both are in 250g
packs, I might decide against. But if coffee A is in a 250g pack and
coffee B is in 227g than coffee A is cheaper per gram so no contest.

(Of course, I really want the pack size to be in "mugs of coffee as Rod
likes them made" which should include a factor for coffee A being a
touch stronger than coffee B.)

--
Rod

"Rod" wrote in message
...
Frank Erskine wrote:
snip

http://www.bwmaonline.com/


What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half pound)
packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza which are a
real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

Surely you buy the coffee you prefer - on flavour not price?

Mary

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:53:27 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
had this to say:


"Rod" wrote in message
...
Frank Erskine wrote:
snip

http://www.bwmaonline.com/


What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half pound)
packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza which are a
real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

Surely you buy the coffee you prefer - on flavour not price?

Exactly.

--
Frank Erskine

Rod wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:
snip

http://www.bwmaonline.com/


What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half
pound) packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza
which are a real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

But I suppose this perpetuates the manipulation shown when Chivers Jam
was sold in jars cunningly designed to look like pound jars but only
containing 12 oz.

I've always wondered why beer is sold in 440ml cans. 500ml I can
understand, half a litre, 330 ml, roughly a third of a litre, 568ml - a UK
pint.

440ml doesn't convert into anything rational.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Rod wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:
snip

http://www.bwmaonline.com/


What we have is the worst of all worlds. E.g coffee in 227 gr (half
pound) packs. Except for the real 'foreign' coffees such as Lavazza
which are a real 250 gr. Makes price comparison so much fun...

But I suppose this perpetuates the manipulation shown when Chivers Jam
was sold in jars cunningly designed to look like pound jars but only
containing 12 oz.


I've always wondered why beer is sold in 440ml cans. 500ml I can
understand, half a litre, 330 ml, roughly a third of a litre, 568ml - a UK
pint.

440ml doesn't convert into anything rational.

I'll bet it converts into profit quite readily though :-(

Dave

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about €œthe metric system€�, the
pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a foot can be
divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so on.

So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:59:24 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
had this to say:

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about “the metric system”, the
pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a foot can be
divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so on.

So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

Harry - that's it in a nutshell. In Real Life things don't always work
out in nice neat bundles of 10s :-)

Having to use your brain to do calculations is really not too
difficult - a lot of us (even those who weren't particularly
mathematically-minded) managed 11+ 'arithmetic' reasonably well.

Most of these special units had good pragmatic reasons. Once upon a
time I worked for the GPO (the telephone bit). Wire gauges were
traditionally referred to by 'lb/mile'. The origin of this went back
to open wire (bare conductors) of copper or cadmium/copper. By far the
easiest way of finding how much wire you had on a reel of the stuff
was to weigh it, assuming you could see the 'preferred-value'
thickness (40 lb or 70 lb). You (or the storekeeper) simply weighed
the reel and could then calculate the length to see if you had enough
for a particular 'span'.
When dealing with insulated wires (usually internal) the system
became, I suppose, less valid, but nevertheless lasted for many years.
As it happens, 6¼ lb/mile wire was almost identical to what became
known as 0·5mm or 25 (or was it 26?) SWG. Or was that AWG? :-)

It's all this 'standardisation' that's CAUSING confusion...


73 -
--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:59:24 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
had this to say:

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about “the metric system”, the
pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a foot can be
divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so on.
So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

Harry - that's it in a nutshell. In Real Life things don't always work
out in nice neat bundles of 10s :-)

Having to use your brain to do calculations is really not too
difficult - a lot of us (even those who weren't particularly
mathematically-minded) managed 11+ 'arithmetic' reasonably well.

Most of these special units had good pragmatic reasons. Once upon a
time I worked for the GPO (the telephone bit). Wire gauges were
traditionally referred to by 'lb/mile'. The origin of this went back
to open wire (bare conductors) of copper or cadmium/copper. By far the
easiest way of finding how much wire you had on a reel of the stuff
was to weigh it, assuming you could see the 'preferred-value'
thickness (40 lb or 70 lb). You (or the storekeeper) simply weighed
the reel and could then calculate the length to see if you had enough
for a particular 'span'.
When dealing with insulated wires (usually internal) the system
became, I suppose, less valid, but nevertheless lasted for many years.
As it happens, 6¼ lb/mile wire was almost identical to what became
known as 0·5mm or 25 (or was it 26?) SWG. Or was that AWG? :-)

If you are using wire for telephones, then lb/mile might very well be a
useful and pragmatic way of handling it. If, however, you have a bit of
wire very much shorter than a mile, how do you measure it? About the
only easy way is to measure its diameter (whether with a micrometer-type
instrument or a gauge with holes in it).

I suppose that some product today might be described a x palettes per
container - meaning that it contains x palettes of some ingredient in
the amount of product that fits into a standard shipping container. I
couldn't argue with the pragmatism that might make that sensible in a
given circumstance. But is is of damn all use outside that circumstance.

There are so many scales for some things - take knitting needles.
Metric. US, UK/Canadian. Japanese. And then probably no end of other
'ethnic' and traditional sizes. The UK/Canadian scale manages to use
that wonderful kludge - having run out of numbers at 0, it uses 00 and
000. (Is 00 larger or smaller than 0?)

Mind, I do understand that at the larger sizes, differences of less than
1 mm are probably not very significant. At the smaller end, fractions of
a millimetre are important. A non-linear scale might very well have its
sensible use here rather than having to deal in fractional sizings such
as 2.25.

It's all this 'standardisation' that's CAUSING confusion...

Ahh! A stone contains 14 lb. But a woollen stone contains 15 lb. A
butcher's stone has 8 lb. That sort of standardisation?

--
Rod

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:10:31 +0000, Rod had
this to say:


Ahh! A stone contains 14 lb. But a woollen stone contains 15 lb. A
butcher's stone has 8 lb. That sort of standardisation?

It's a standard for wool people. And for butchers. And so on.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:10:31 +0000, Rod had
this to say:

Ahh! A stone contains 14 lb. But a woollen stone contains 15 lb. A
butcher's stone has 8 lb. That sort of standardisation?

It's a standard for wool people. And for butchers. And so on.

Which is fine when wool people are dealing with wool people, butchers
with butchers and so on. But if you (or a wool person) were to visit
your local butcher and ask for a stone of chitterlings, you would be
****ed off to get just 8 lbs. (Actually, given their disgusting nature,
that might be a slight relief.) Really, the butcher has to use 14 lb
stones when interfacing with anyone other than a like minded butcher.

--
Rod

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Rod wrote :

In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about €œthe metric
system€�, the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12
inches in a foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by
10 is easy. And so on.


So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

The Romans were too stupid to work it out and the French were even worse
;-)

Dave

Dave wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Rod wrote :

In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about €œthe metric
system€�, the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12
inches in a foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying
by 10 is easy. And so on.


So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

The Romans were too stupid to work it out and the French were even worse
;-)

Dave

Older than the Romans.

"Among the great mathematical inventions of the Assyrians were the
division of the circle into 360 degrees"

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/ASSYRIA.HTM

Andy

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about €œthe metric
system€�, the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12
inches in a foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by
10 is easy. And so on.

So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

Ahh..well that started fro9m te fact that tere are 365 days in a
year..and became 360 degrees in a cirle..nice number..easily divisible..

Then bvously you divied teh day into night and day, which is a factor of
two, and forenoon and afternoon, which means you have four periods..

From there on it probably seemed rational to split that again, and have
8 periods in a day..why that was split three ways again to make hours is
anybodies guess. Maybee beacause the duodecimal system is nice and makes
for easy division by 2,3,4,6,and 12..

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:59:24 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about “the metric system”, the
pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a foot can be
divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so on.

So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

....and when is spam going to go metric...I've yet to see one that says
"Add 50mm to your knob"...

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On 2008-03-03 05:54:54 +0000, Stephen Howard said:

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:59:24 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about “the metric system”, the
pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a foot can be
divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so on.

So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

...and when is spam going to go metric...I've yet to see one that says
"Add 50mm to your knob"...

Regards,

Not spam, but the Eurotadger is certainly metric


http://www.menshealth.de/sex/penis-i...9237.18748.htm

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:17:05 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-03-03 05:54:54 +0000, Stephen Howard said:

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:59:24 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about “the metric system”, the
pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a foot can be
divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so on.

So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

...and when is spam going to go metric...I've yet to see one that says
"Add 50mm to your knob"...


Not spam, but the Eurotadger is certainly metric


http://www.menshealth.de/sex/penis-i...9237.18748.htm


Well that's put me off me Schnitzengrubers. Think I'll just have a
slice of toast...

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On 3 Mar, 08:17, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-03 05:54:54 +0000, Stephen Howard said:

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:59:24 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about "the metric system", the
pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a foot can be
divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so on.

So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

...and when is spam going to go metric...I've yet to see one that says
"Add 50mm to your knob"...

Regards,

Not spam, but the Eurotadger is certainly metric

http://www.menshealth.de/sex/penis-i...-dossier.29237...

There's a vas deferens between an inch and a millimetre.

In message 47cbb402@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-03-03 05:54:54 +0000, Stephen Howard said:

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:59:24 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about €œthe metric
system€�, the
pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a
foot can be
divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so on.
So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?
...and when is spam going to go metric...I've yet to see one that
says
"Add 50mm to your knob"...
Regards,

Not spam, but the Eurotadger is certainly metric


http://www.menshealth.de/sex/penis-i...9237.18748.htm


An exaggerated tail ...

--
geoff

On 2008-03-02 22:59:24 +0000, Harry Bloomfield
said:

Rod wrote :
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about €œthe metric
system€�, the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12
inches in a foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by
10 is easy. And so on.

So why, despite decimalisation - do we still have 60 seconds in a
minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?

We don't have to have that. The French Revolutionary calendar had
each day divided into ten hours, each hour into 100 decimal minutes
and each decimal minute had 100 decimal seconds. Thus an hour was more
than twice as long as a conventional hour; a minute was slightly longer
than a conventional minute; and a second was slightly shorter than a
conventional second.

There were 10 days to a week (which meant that more work could be
done), three weeks to a month and 12 months to a year.

This resulted in 5-6 extra days left over at the end of each year.

OTOH, our present calendar has to use leap years with correcting rules
to approximate nature.

I like the month names. Currently we are in Ventose which is
topically appropriate.

"Rod" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about "the metric system",

"The French System" in some of my books.

the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12 inches in a foot
can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10 is easy. And so
on.

I have tended to sit on the sidelines. But today my partner passed a
booklet to me discussing some of the measures used in the textile industry
in the past in terms of conversion to the tex. Not sure when it was
printed but the latest date I can find within is 1962. Its sheer
complexity makes it incredible that the units discussed were in regular
use.

It has introduced me to measures such as:

The Galashiels Cut
The Yorkshire Skeins Woollen
lbs. per 14,400 yd
drams per 40 yd.

The fact that asbestos yarn was measured in 50 yd. per lb.

That 1/36 worsted = 24.6 tex and 2/24s worsted = R74 tex/2.

And I finally found out that denier is grammes per 9,000 metres. But not
for tights where it is a density of weave.

Some of the aforementioned books have a much wider choice of measures,
includiing foreign non-metric measures from before the French system became
prevalent in Europe.

Metres rule. (And seconds, kelvins and so on.)

As a child, I learned how to think in multiple base systems without even
being aware of the fact. Today's kids only get to think in base 10. I do not
think that is an advance.

Colin Bignell

nightjar cpb@ wrote:


As a child, I learned how to think in multiple base systems without even
being aware of the fact. Today's kids only get to think in base 10. I do not
think that is an advance.


Todays kids cannot think at all.

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

nightjar cpb@ wrote:


As a child, I learned how to think in multiple base systems without even
being aware of the fact. Today's kids only get to think in base 10. I do not
think that is an advance.


Todays kids cannot think at all.

Mine can.

M.

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message news:h-


As a child, I learned how to think in multiple base systems without even
being aware of the fact. Today's kids only get to think in base 10. I do
not think that is an advance.

Colin Bignell

Same here.

Mary

"nightjar.me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Rod" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about "the metric system",

"The French System" in some of my books.

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"nightjar.me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Rod" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about "the metric system",

"The French System" in some of my books.

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

Colin Bignell

The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

That seems to be the widely held view but a search I did found a site
(http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/dates.htm) that gave the initial
credit for the metric system to a French vicar in 1670 (still French of
course) but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

"1790

Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal-based measurement system for the
United States.

France's Louis XVI authorized scientific investigations aimed at a
reform of French weights and measures. These investigations led to the
development of the first "metric" system."

Being a Merkin site Jefferson gets first mention for 1790 but the link
to his actual report refers to sources in his possession on the subject.
A French one which is only to be expected but also a British one.



--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

That seems to be the widely held view but a search I did found a site
(http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/dates.htm) that gave the initial
credit for the metric system to a French vicar in 1670 (still French of
course)

While Gabriel Mouton is claimed to be the spirtual father of the metric
system, his base unit of length would have been the swing length of a
pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second, which is roughly 25cm. He
did, however, provide the central ideas that were developed by later French
scientists.

but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

I would view a defining quality of the metric system to be that is based
upon the metre, rather than simply being decimal. Otherwise, the centimetre
/ gram / second system I was taught at school (along with the metre /
kilogram / second and foot / pound / second systems) would be equally
qualified for the name.

"1790

Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal-based measurement system for the
United States.

Interestingly, that seems to have been based upon Mouton's work, rather than
on the system then being developed in France.

France's Louis XVI authorized scientific investigations aimed at a
reform of French weights and measures. These investigations led to the
development of the first "metric" system."

It is more usually credited to Talleyrand and the French Revolutionary
National Assembly

Colin Bignell

In message , Roger
writes
The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

That seems to be the widely held view but a search I did found a site
(http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/dates.htm) that gave the initial
credit for the metric system to a French vicar in 1670 (still French of
course) but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

"1790

Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal-based measurement system for the
United States.

France's Louis XVI authorized scientific investigations aimed at a
reform of French weights and measures. These investigations led to the
development of the first "metric" system."

Being a Merkin site Jefferson gets first mention for 1790 but the link
to his actual report refers to sources in his possession on the subject.
A French one which is only to be expected but also a British one.

There was a program on BBC2 last year about the Englishman who first
proposed the metric system

unfortunately I missed it, I bet I have it on DVD though



--
geoff

Rod wrote:
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about "the metric
system", the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12
inches in a foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying by 10
is easy.
And so on.

Some American bloke actualy makes tape rules calibrated in 'bobs' (I think).
Dead serious. I've had a quick Google but can't find his site.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

A third set of dimensions is frequently used by experience
practictioners and is recorded for general reference below: -

The Gnats System of Measurement

This system has been in use for many,many years for moving and
positioning large objects such as Stonehenge and the Pyramids to the
latest CNC machine Tools. Lately it has fallen into disuse as no
direct metric equivalent to a "smidgen" has been found.

1 Gnats Whisker = 0.000" to 0.005" or less (i.e. a light gap).
2 Gnats Whiskers = 1 Gnats Doodah.
3 Gnats Doodahs = A Gnats.
4 Gnats = a Smidgen.
3 Smidgens = a Little Bit.
2 Little Bits = a Bit.
3 Bits = a Tad.
2 Tads = a Move It (left or right).
5 Move Its = That's the Wrong Way.
Too many Wrong Ways = Collect 'P45'.

Found elsewhere on this interweb thingy and too good not to pass on.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying
something like:

1 Gnats Whisker = 0.000" to 0.005" or less (i.e. a light gap).
2 Gnats Whiskers = 1 Gnats Doodah.
3 Gnats Doodahs = A Gnats.
4 Gnats = a Smidgen.
3 Smidgens = a Little Bit.
2 Little Bits = a Bit.
3 Bits = a Tad.
2 Tads = a Move It (left or right).
5 Move Its = That's the Wrong Way.

What about the Ba'Hair? Much used measurement in Scottish engineering.
--

Dave

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying
something like:

1 Gnats Whisker = 0.000" to 0.005" or less (i.e. a light gap).
2 Gnats Whiskers = 1 Gnats Doodah.
3 Gnats Doodahs = A Gnats.
4 Gnats = a Smidgen.
3 Smidgens = a Little Bit.
2 Little Bits = a Bit.
3 Bits = a Tad.
2 Tads = a Move It (left or right).
5 Move Its = That's the Wrong Way.

What about the Ba'Hair? Much used measurement in Scottish engineering.

Or the traditional English double firkin:

too firkin long, too firkin heavy, too firkin big to go through the door


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Rod wrote:
In uk.d-i-y we have seen numerous discussions about "the metric
system", the pros and cons - how some prefer the fact that the 12
inches in a foot can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. That multiplying
by 10 is easy.
And so on.

Some American bloke actualy makes tape rules calibrated in 'bobs' (I
think). Dead serious. I've had a quick Google but can't find his
site.

Found it. http://www.bobsrule.com/index.htm

24 'bobs' to the inch :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257