Inventors and/or manufacturers I want to Kill

Page 3 of 5  
Larry Bud wrote:

You should include who wrote what you are quoting.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:25:27 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

Didn't the English system precede the metric system?

What about "A pint's a pound, the world around". I've heard that all my life.
What's the difference between a fluid ounce and an ounce?

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let me know if you have posted also.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on which English system you're talking about. The British yard did. The gallon used the the USA is the Winchester wine gallon legalized by Queen Anne in 1707, so it predates the metric system. The British volume measures were redefined in 1824, however, so the Imperial gallon and the 20 oz pint in use there date to 1824 which is AFTER the metric system.
The foot and the pound have their roots in the system of the Roman Empire. But an old system is not necessarily a better system. The reason the British reformed their system in 1824, and the reason the metric system was introduced around 1800 because the historical measurement units were a huge confusing mess. There were lots of different pounds, feet, pints, etc, all with different sizes. The units in one town could be different from the units in another one. Makes it hard to tell if you're getting what you paid for. And makes trade hard between different regions.

The Imperial fluid ounce is actually not equal to the US fluid ounce. So many "pints" have been defined throughout history that to argue that a particular one is the "real" pint seems futile.

It's a lie. The Imperial gallon was defined to be the space occupied by 10 lbs of water. The gallon holds 8 pints. This makes the weight of an imperial pint of water equal to 1.25 lbs.
The USA gallon is defined to be 231 cubic inches and a pint of water in this system weights a bit more (4%) than a pound.
Unless, of course, you were interested in the USA dry pint which is about 33.6 cubic inches and hence is 16% larger than the liquid pint. But you wouldn't measure water in dry pints....

A fluid ounce is a measure of volume (how much space something occupies). An ounce is a measure of weight (mass). This is a common source of confusion with the USA system. Switching to the metric system would at least prevent this from being a source of confusion.
Take something like the weight of paper. When you buy 24 lb bond paper and then 96 lb card stock does that mean that the card stock was four times (96/24) the weight of the bond paper? Actually it does not because in the ridiculous system used here in the USA, card stock is measured differently than bond paper, so in fact that card stock is only 92% heavier than the bond paper. The only (reasonable) way to know what's going on is to look for a metric designation on the paper in grams per square meter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6 Mar 2006 06:39:19 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@cam.cornell.edu wrote:
[snip]

Ounces & Pounds are used both for weight and mass, despite the fact that weight and mass are very different things. Weight is actually force.
In the metric system, a gram is really a unit of mass. Weight is measured differently (I think the unit is Pascals).
[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@xmail.com0 says...

I think you're looking for "Newton". "Pascal" is a measure of pressure (1pa = 1E-5bar).
That said, gram(weight) is a proper SI unit as well.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Right. I usually don't remember the wrong thing, but it happened that time.

Looks like some people can't stand having 2 different units for 2 different things :-)
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Lloyd ( snipped-for-privacy@xmail.com0) said...

Your mass is the same on earth and on the moon, your weight isn't. Weight is the force you get when you multiply mass by excelleration, which is what gravity is.
Speaking of weight, pounds are not consistent!
A pound of feathers is actually HEAVIER than a pound of gold. Gold (precious metals and some pharmacuticals) is measured in TROY pounds and ounces while everything else uses the AVIORDUPOIS pound, which is heavier.
--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08 Mar 2006 14:08:19 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@remove.daxack.ca.invalid (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) wrote:

Another fact I heard once: When you're walking and have just put a foot down, it's supporting 200% of your body weight.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dynamic loads are not weight.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Daly wrote:

Semantics. A dynamic load is a force as is weight.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Some people will confuse a person's body weight with mass, when it's mass they actually care about.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right, I'm not fat, I just have lot of mass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then what do you consider weight? Weight is a force, a force that happens to be higher at that moment.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mass times gravitational acceleration.

Weight is a force, but that doesn't mean that every force is a weight.
When a dynamic load occurs, it _isn't_ because the weight increases.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And acceleration is acceleration, whatever the source.

What to you think causes it?

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Look it up: Clough, R.W. and Penzian, J, "Dynamics of Structures" McGraw-Hill, 1975 page 91-92.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Lloyd wrote:

Sure it does! Take two seconds to think about how your body weight suddenly doubled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@cam.cornell.edu wrote:

I'm surprised you went to the trouble to answer all of this. I say let them wallow in ignorance. You would think that no one has or uses a dictionary, and encyclopedia, or any other reference books.
Only one quibble. "A pint's a pound the world around" does not refer to a pint or a pound being the same anywhere in the world. It is a ditty for Americans, maybe others that use the same measures, to remember that a pint of aqueous solution (and many other non-aqueous substances and solutions) weighs about a pound (a 4 percent or 25 deviation is of little importance as a generalization).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/06/06 07:40 am mm wrote:

Possibly. But not everything older is better.

I've never heard it. When I still lived in UK, a pint (of real beer) was about 1 shilling (one-twentieth of a pound) or less. :-)
The following site mentions the rhyme and points out that it is often misunderstood:
http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/volume.htm
The 16oz. vs. 20oz. pint issue explains why you will find maintenance manuals for machines sold on both sides of the Atlantic giving oil or fuel or coolant capacities as, for example, "5 US pints (4 Imperial pints)" or "8 Imperial gallons (10 US gallons)". (And now they probably will have Metric measures as well.)

A fluid ounce is a unit of volume. An ounce is a unit of weight. And just to complicate matters even further, there are Troy ounces and Avoirdupois ounces, the former (used for precious metals and jewellery) being about 10% more than the latter "common" ounce.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:11:32 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

Definitely not, but the OP hypothesized an idiot who decided that America didn't need metric sizes, when in fact metric sizes hadn't been invented when America started using the sizes we still use.
No single person or even a small group decided we didn't need metric. In fact a few people decided that we did, but millions of people didn't want to use it anyhow.

So you got 20 pints for a pound. That's a better deal. Although I don't know if I could drink that much at one time.

Thanks to you and Adrian.
Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let me know if you have posted also.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.