Metric only tape measures
- Thread starter sickasapike
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Spirit measures have been metric for years. I remember all ours were 1/6th of a gill, but Scotland's were 1/5th. I also remember seeing in pubs on Dartmoor cognac in 1/7ths - it allowed them to charge the same for cognac as the other spirits. Brandy is still not on the list that must be measured - it was apparently accidentally omitted from the 1963 Licencing Act.
Allowing beer to be sold in 1/3 and 2/3 pints is giving a licence for robbery. It is supposed to encourage people to drink less, but most beer drinkers would probably drink less if they were served quarts - if we're a third from the bottom of a glass we tend to neck it.
Ironically, when bottle sizes were changed, wine went from 700ml to 750l ........... perfectly sensible, I hear you say................. but why at the same time did spirits not change to 750ml as well? :?
Allowing beer to be sold in 1/3 and 2/3 pints is giving a licence for robbery. It is supposed to encourage people to drink less, but most beer drinkers would probably drink less if they were served quarts - if we're a third from the bottom of a glass we tend to neck it.
Ironically, when bottle sizes were changed, wine went from 700ml to 750l ........... perfectly sensible, I hear you say................. but why at the same time did spirits not change to 750ml as well? :?
novocaine
Established Member
fair comment, it should be clearly labeled as 2/3 or what ever. comes under weights and measures legislation and licensing laws which means they must have a price list which states the measures available for viewing. it's normally near the bar. the waitress did her job and provided the information so I think they are in a grey area.
The term you are looking for is not 'decimal' its the International System of Units... refered to as SI (from the french). It wasn't dreamed up by accountants who count things. It's a fully integrated system of measures across seven standard units ... i dont remember them all but includes, metres, seconds, amperes, kilograms and degrees kelvin. It was created by scientists specifically to make a standard set of measures that could be used across disciplines. The whole purpose of it is that every unit of measure can be derived from one of those seven units without resorting to conversion factors and constants.Jacob":dq5hzq20 said:
You might prefer to use imperial measurements to measure things because its what you are used to, or its entirely adequate for your purposes. Thats fine. Tradition and familiarity matter. Change is hard.
But there simply is no argument that the SI system of measurement in its wider context is immeasurably (pun intended) superior.
Technically as soon as you use amps and volts or (at a stretch) seconds you are using the decimal/metric/SI system.
Now that i can agree with
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Decimal and duodecimal systems originated millenia before metric and imperial were formalised.Brandlin":3tj4hher said:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
MikeG.
Established Member
Jacob really should be using the barleycorn. The inch was defined from the earlier barleycorn (3 barleycorns to the inch), and legalised by the Normans (=French invaders).
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Norsemen - from Normandy. Not French.
sickasapike
Established Member
Interesting point, I bet if I went back it'd say '2/3rds pint' somewhere, it's a huge board behind the bar, maybe 3m long and 2 tall with a couple of dozen beers and ciders listed. They'll presumably have slipped a little note in somewhere but the main content in big letters is just beer name and price, new bar, slick company product, they'll have covered the legal side I bet, doesn't make it honourable though.MikeJhn":2219dlds said:
It’s been interesting to read the derisory comments about the imperial standard, and how by implication it isn’t a robust measurement system. It might be interesting to note that the metric system was just as flawed and impossible to repeatable measure initially. I quote
‘The French originated the meter in the 1790s as one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole along a meridian through Paris. It is realistically represented by the distance between two marks on an iron bar kept in Paris.’
The ability to make the measurement in 1790 was somewhat questionable. Equally the size of the Earth flexes as it moves around it’s orbit due to gravitational pull. It was therefore by definition a flawed unit of measure and not very repeatable.
A iron bar held at Grenidge that defined the foot would have been just as reliable as the iron bar held in Paris that is the meter.
There have been updates to the metric SI standard as it became evident how unreliable the definition was. Today, the meter is defined to be the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds. It would be just as simple to define a foot by such a method.
The reason why the imperial system of measurement is so useful for every day life and is recognised as being better than the metric system for practical uses is the number of numbers that will divide into it to produce a whole number.
10 can only be devided by 1, 2 and 5 to produce a whole number.
12 can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, which are the most used divisions for every day life.
‘The French originated the meter in the 1790s as one/ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole along a meridian through Paris. It is realistically represented by the distance between two marks on an iron bar kept in Paris.’
The ability to make the measurement in 1790 was somewhat questionable. Equally the size of the Earth flexes as it moves around it’s orbit due to gravitational pull. It was therefore by definition a flawed unit of measure and not very repeatable.
A iron bar held at Grenidge that defined the foot would have been just as reliable as the iron bar held in Paris that is the meter.
There have been updates to the metric SI standard as it became evident how unreliable the definition was. Today, the meter is defined to be the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds. It would be just as simple to define a foot by such a method.
The reason why the imperial system of measurement is so useful for every day life and is recognised as being better than the metric system for practical uses is the number of numbers that will divide into it to produce a whole number.
10 can only be devided by 1, 2 and 5 to produce a whole number.
12 can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, which are the most used divisions for every day life.
Its always interesting to read the reasoning behind the use of one or the other measuring systems, but its use is really down to what you wish to use, I find the metric system easier on my brain, even though throughout my education I used imperial, but as I said use whatever suites you.
Mike
Mike
MikeG.
Established Member
deema":qgkedonb said:
And yet base 10 is what our entire maths, arithmetic and counting systems are based on. When you have to get involved in 32nds or 64ths, (which aren't to base 12, by the way) rather than just a decimal point, then you know the system is just a bit clumsy.
Starting from scratch, now, with no system nor knowledge of any previous systems, do you really think we'd invent something which involved fractions with a denominator of 32 or 64 (amongst others)? "I know, let's use the width of an average man's thumb as the base unit, and divide it into 128ths" just isn't going to win at that particular committee meeting, is it.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Trying to make something precise, on your own without a committee and no prior system, yes you would start from scratch - in fact you'd have to!MikeG.":211jbxg7 said:
You'd take a handy standard measurement such as your foot, or your stride. Take your foot - divide it by 2, 3, subdivide these divisions again and you get very quickly to inches. Carry on dividing by 2 and you get to 1/64" - beyond which you can't really see anything, but you'd now have a useful measuring system, simply waiting to be standardised if anybody else wanted to use it. You'd do all this with dividers.
On the other hand if you just want to count your cowrie shells, or slaves, you'd tick them off by fingers and get straight to decimalisation. Add your toes and you have base 20 which is still with us as a "score" and is used in other countries too.
Or if you were a farmer you'd start working in handy measures; rod, pole, perch, furlong.
Surveyors different again, then astronomers, navigators etc etc
Sheffield Tony
Ghost of the disenchanted
MikeG.":uwrsjyf2 said:
No. Base 10 is only for people who need to count on their fingers.
Most arithmetic is done by computers in base 2. Or if we want to write it compactly, base 8, or 16. So just as in base 2 we have columns for 1's, 2's , 4's, ... 32's - as fractional values 1/2, 1/4. 1/8 ... 1/32 etc are perfectly sensible.
:lol:
MikeG.
Established Member
Sheffield Tony":2vvwxy2u said:
Do you want to have a little rethink on this, bearing in mind how long maths has existed, and how long we've had computers? You might also consider the form in which the answers generated by the (binary) computer are presented. I'm pretty sure that if I ask a computer what the square root of 625 is it won't be telling me it's 11001.
Sheffield Tony
Ghost of the disenchanted
Sheffield Tony":2pwr8mbl said:
I was only having a bit of fun :wink:
novocaine
Established Member
I'd start with the height of the president of ANSI between the years of 2001 and 2002. unless you want to be more international, then I'd take the height of the president of the international organisation for standardisation between 2003 and 2004.
but to really mess it up, I'd take his height when at university in 1958.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot
but to really mess it up, I'd take his height when at university in 1958.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot
flying haggis
Established Member
sickasapike":37qwi6vx said:
I think trading standards might take a dim view of that sales technique
Similar threads
