Why are English units so confusing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter camdenreslink
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    English Units
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the complexities and historical context of measurement systems, particularly the English (Imperial) and metric systems. Participants highlight various units of measurement, such as jiggers, hogsheads, furlongs, and leagues, while expressing frustration over the inconsistencies in weight definitions and conversions. The conversation touches on the U.S. reluctance to fully adopt the metric system, attributing it to the extensive reliance on existing English measurements in engineering and manufacturing. There is a debate about the practicality of both systems, with some advocating for the metric system's simplicity and others defending the historical significance and usability of English units. The dialogue also explores the mathematical properties of different bases for measurement, with some participants humorously suggesting alternative systems. Overall, the thread reflects a mix of technical discussion, cultural commentary, and light-hearted banter regarding measurement conventions.
camdenreslink
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
A Jigger is three mouthfuls.

A hogshead is two barrels.

A furlong is "The distance a plow team could be driven without rest."

A mile is eight furlongs.

A league is "intended to be an hour's walk."

I'm not even going to get into the mess that is the definitions for weight...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_units"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
That's why the entire world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system" Burma, Liberia and one other odd backward country) has switched to metric. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How is a quarter pound with cheese called in Europe?
 
Royaleeeeeee with Cheese

royale1.jpg
 
camdenreslink said:
Royaleeeeeee with Cheese

:smile::smile:

Pulp Fiction
 
camdenreslink said:
I'm not even going to get into the mess that is the definitions for weight...
What's wrong with weight? Legally and colloquially weight a measure of mass. Yes, things do get confusing when physicists try to get picky and claim that weight is a unit of force. And yes, the word 'pound' is a bit overloaded. A pound force makes a pound (mass) accelerate at one foot per second squared. At one point in time a (tower) pound of silver was worth one pound sterling (money). No problem. The mass of one pound of silver is obviously less than the mass of a pound of feathers. Avoirdupois pounds, troy pounds, tower pounds, merchant pounds, London pounds, pounds force, pound sterling, Manx pound, Jersey pound, ...; sure there are a lot of different pounds with different units, but aren't they are all rather obvious? Where exactly is this mess about with you are complaining?
 
500px-English_mass_units_graph.svg.png


You wouldn't say that's a mess?
 
Well, dang, you beat me to it. I was going to show that exact same crystal-clear diagram.
 
BTW, the diagram omits the distinction between a long ton and a short ton.
 
  • #10
I definitely prefer to make all of my engineering calculations in SI due to the ease of unit handling and unambiguous nature. Be that as it may, I still can't help but "think" in inches, feet, pounds, and Fahrenheit.

... my company's engineering drawings are basically all in English (inches, feet, pounds) save for a small select few, and I can imagine what a nightmare it would be to try and "convert" all of those drawings to SI. I'm convinced the main reason the US hasn't "officially" converted to SI is because of the sheer number of companies (engineering, fabrication, assembly, etc.) that are dependent on a large database of English data/calculations/drawings.

Still, even in the US many companies do their work in SI exclusively, mainly driven by customer requirements. My opinion is that companies should strive to meet customer demands, not government regulation. If a company's customers require SI drawings and calcs, they will provide them. Simple as that.
 
  • #11
Mech_Engineer said:
Still, even in the US many companies do their work in SI exclusively
Except for the adult entertainment market !
 
  • #12
7 "Avoirdupois" is equal to one "clove, nail" and 2 "clove, nail" is equal to one "Avoirdupois"?
 
  • #13
mgb_phys said:
Except for the adult entertainment market !

And whomever worked on that Mars lander around 11 years ago...
 
  • #15
cesiumfrog said:
That's why the entire world("[URL and one other odd backward country) has switched to metric. :smile:

If you mean the USA, the USA officially adopted metric units in 1866. However, being the USA, the government can't force people to use them.

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-act.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
D H said:
What's wrong with weight? Legally and colloquially weight a measure of mass. Yes, things do get confusing when physicists try to get picky and claim that weight is a unit of force. And yes, the word 'pound' is a bit overloaded. A pound force makes a pound (mass) accelerate at one foot per second squared.
Not quite, Slick. One pound of force will make a pound of mass accelerate at 32.2 feet per second per second.

One needs to exert one poundal of force to accelerate one pound of mass at 1 foot per second per second.

And, of course, one poundal will accelerate one slug at 32 ft/s/s
 
  • #17
cesiumfrog said:
That's why the entire world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system" Burma, Liberia and one other odd backward country) has switched to metric. :smile:

Canada hasn't switched to metric.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
George Jones said:
Canada hasn't switched to metric.
Except for speed limits, road signs, shopping and food and drink.

Screen sizes and dangly bits are still quoted in inches however
 
  • #20
Metric units are goofy; base 10. How goofy is that? And what's with the dozen metric wrenches to replace 7 American Standard wrenches? Don't know? American standard is based upon the reasonable binary system, 1/8, 3/4, etc, rather than the courser decimal system.
 
  • #21
Phrak said:
Metric units are goofy; base 10. How goofy is that? And what's with the dozen metric wrenches to replace 7 American Standard wrenches? Don't know? American standard is based upon the reasonable binary system, 1/8, 3/4, etc, rather than the courser decimal system.

12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet in a mile... binary?
 
  • #22
Jack21222 said:
12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet in a mile... binary?

12 has several useful divisors: 2,3,4,6. With base 10 you have factors of 2 and 5. They may nearly as well have used base 7.

5280=2*2*2*2*2*3*5*11

5040 would have been better.


If you were to define the number of degrees in a circle, what count would you choose?
 
  • #23
Phrak said:
12 has several useful divisors: 2,3,4,6. With base 10 you have factors of 2 and 5. They may nearly as well have used base 7.

5280=2*2*2*2*2*3*5*11

5040 would have been better.If you were to define the number of degrees in a circle, what count would you choose?

If I were defining it from scratch? 100.
 
  • #24
Jack21222 said:
If I were defining it from scratch? 100.

Then you have something in common with the French Academy of Sciences. The most useful angles: 30, 45 and 60 degrees would become 8.333... , 12.5 and 16.66... in your decimal improved system. 1/5th of a circle would become 20 degrees. You hit that one, I'll give you that.
 
  • #25
Phrak said:
Then you have something in common with the French Academy of Sciences. The most useful angles: 30, 45 and 60 degrees would become 8.333... , 12.5 and 16.66... in your decimal improved system. 1/5th of a circle would become 20 degrees. You hit that one, I'll give you that.

They defined a right angle as 100, so 45deg is ok but 30/60 are a bit inconvenient, they still use it especially for surveying.

Of course if you let physicists choose they would define it as 6.28318531...
 
  • #26
If you really want something divisible, just have the full circle be 1 circle (the units are circle). Then if you have a quarter circle, you have \frac{1}{4} of a circle. If you have a 12th of a circle, you have \frac{1}{12} of a circle. That was easy
 
  • #27
I wonder why American banks still post temperatures in both C and F. When will they realize we don't care about the Celsius value?
 
  • #28
It helps them project a cosmopolitan image
 
  • #29
Office_Shredder said:
If you really want something divisible, just have the full circle be 1 circle (the units are circle). Then if you have a quarter circle, you have \frac{1}{4} of a circle. If you have a 12th of a circle, you have \frac{1}{12} of a circle. That was easy

That's not a bad idea. We could mark up a protractor in 12ths and it would also accommodate one quarters. The resolution would be horrible, so we could divide each 12th into 100 parts for 120 marks. If we wanted anything finer we could further divide by, say 3, and call the fine divisions degrees.
 
  • #30
Phrak said:
Metric units are goofy; base 10. How goofy is that? And what's with the dozen metric wrenches to replace 7 American Standard wrenches? Don't know? American standard is based upon the reasonable binary system, 1/8, 3/4, etc, rather than the courser decimal system.

yes, 2 cups in pint, 2 pints in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon... that's really the way to go. and it's a natural system. if society got blasted into the stone age tomorrow, the first thing some enterprising trader would do is build a set of weigh scales and find two stones to balance it. then he'd put both stones on one side, and find a 3rd weight that was 2 stone. then, 4 stone, 8 stone, etc.

heck, while we're at it, we might as well ditch decimal numbers, too. we should all take the plunge and accept hexadecimal as the new international standard. maybe even adopt some arabic-style character replacements for A thru F, too.
 
  • #31
Redbelly98 said:
I wonder why American banks still post temperatures in both C and F. When will they realize we don't care about the Celsius value?

*Chokes on tea when reading bolded part*
 
  • #32
Yes. All tongue-in-cheek aside, there's good reason for the sorts of units established for their utilitarian value. A great deal of thought to the user should go into such an idea. Base 12 may be superior to base 16.

Twenty four hours in a day is an example. The size of a basic unit, as well, evolves for its utilitarian value.

I cannot see attempting to define the basic unit of length as 1/10,000 the distance from equator to pole as anything but the result of arrogant disregard. (Uncle Marx would have been proud.) Beware of that trap.
 
  • #33
"I love you 44.04884 liters. 44.04884 liters - and a hug around the neck." Hmmm...needs work.

Actually the US has been officially metric since 1893. And 1975. And 1988. What it has not done is outlawed the conventional units.

When yardsticks are outlawed only outlaws will have yardsticks.
 
  • #34
Vanadium 50 said:
When yardsticks are outlawed only outlaws will have yardsticks.

:smile:
 
  • #35
When are you yanks going to stop calling them 'English' units? We stopped using imperial measures ages ago, don't blame us!
 
  • #36
brewnog said:
When are you yanks going to stop calling them 'English' units? We stopped using imperial measures ages ago, don't blame us!

Yes, but they are still historically English. If we called them "American"' units, you'd probably complain about that too.

Actually, I don't know why the US kept them as "customary units." After the revolution, the Americans wanted to distinguish themselves from everything British including the language and the way a fork is used at meals. The latter was successful, but not the former (well, maybe partially successful). Serious consideration was given to adopting German as the national language.

Given that the metric system was a product of the French Revolution, I would have thought the US would have embraced it. However, Americans like their freedoms and have a broad interpretation of the First Amendment. The government has a hard time forcing people to conform to any kind of expression. The US doesn't even have an official national language.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
You will have pry my foot/inch tape measure from dying hands. For the reasons Phrak has already explained, there is no way I will never own or do I want to use a metric tape.

Need I point out that upon conversion to binary .1 becomes something less then nice. Where as the common subdivisions of the inch are perfect binary numbers.


Down with .1!
 
  • #38
Phrak said:
I cannot see attempting to define the basic unit of length as 1/10,000 the distance from equator to pole as anything but the result of arrogant disregard. (Uncle Marx would have been proud.) Beware of that trap.

Defining it as the foot of an English king is clearly the superior method.
 
  • #39
Integral said:
You will have pry my foot/inch tape measure from dying hands. For the reasons Phrak has already explained, there is no way I will never own or do I want to use a metric tape.

Need I point out that upon conversion to binary .1 becomes something less then nice. Where as the common subdivisions of the inch are perfect binary numbers. Down with .1!

You do know that the inch is defined as 2.54 cm, right?

My favorite tape measure has both inch and cm. I think that having been a bike mechanic and then a physics teacher has made me literate in both sets of units.

I usually tell my students that a meter is "the same as a yard," if you're just thinking about it. If you're actually buiding a jet, you'll need to be a little more specific.

And take any speed in m/s, double the number to get mph. That won't hold up in court, but when was the last time you said "That guy was going about 82.7 miles per hour" ?
 
  • #40
At my work we have a test that requires use of a ruler that is in inches, with 1/10 hatch marks. A metric English ruler :wink:.
 
  • #41
lisab said:
At my work we have a test that requires use of a ruler that is in inches, with 1/10 hatch marks. A metric English ruler :wink:.

There's got to be a law against that.
 
  • #42
lisab said:
At my work we have a test that requires use of a ruler that is in inches, with 1/10 hatch marks. A metric English ruler :wink:.

NOAA reports rain and snow in decimal factions of an inch.
 
  • #43
I seem to like using the metric system for small things and the English system for big things. For example, once you get smaller than a half inch, I start switching to using millimeters. But for larger things, feet, yards and miles makes more sense to me than decimeters, meters and kilometers.

Same with weight. I buy produce and meat by the quarter pound, half pound, pound, but smaller quantities I prefer thinking about in grams rather than ounces.

Volumes present a bit of a problem, because common recipes are written with teaspoons and tablespoons in mind, but really, without having an actual measuring spoon, I really can't comfortably guesstimate volume using those measures. Cups, pints, quarts, gallons, sure, those all work for me. But small volumes, I would be much more comfortable measuring in milliliters.
 
  • #44
lisab said:
At my work we have a test that requires use of a ruler that is in inches, with 1/10 hatch marks. A metric English ruler :wink:.

Isn't that an "Engineer's" rule, as opposed to an "architect's" rule? I know places like Pratt & Whitney use decimal inches as their base unit. That way it takes only a 2.54 exact conversion to make everything metric.
 
  • #45
Chi Meson said:
Isn't that an "Engineer's" rule, as opposed to an "architect's" rule? I know places like Pratt & Whitney use decimal inches as their base unit. That way it takes only a 2.54 exact conversion to make everything metric.

when i took engineering drafting many moons ago, we had something similar called "scales". but naturally, most were not on a 1:1 scale.
 
  • #46
lisab said:
At my work we have a test that requires use of a ruler that is in inches, with 1/10 hatch marks. A metric English ruler :wink:.
American-made milling machines and vernier calipers typically use decimal inches, in 0.001" gradations.
 
  • #47
Chi Meson said:
Isn't that an "Engineer's" rule, as opposed to an "architect's" rule? I know places like Pratt & Whitney use decimal inches as their base unit. That way it takes only a 2.54 exact conversion to make everything metric.

A machinist's steel rule is called a scale. It might be what you're thinking about. They range in length from 6 inches to a few feet. Some are stamped or etched in both metric units and inches. If only inches, you get hash marks every 0.1" and 0.01" along each edge. On the other side are fractions with resolutions of 1/32nds and 1/64ths.
 
  • #48
Phrak said:
A machinist's steel rule is called a scale. It might be what you're thinking about. They range in length from 6 inches to a few feet. Some are stamped or etched in both metric units and inches. If only inches, you get hash marks every 0.1" and 0.01" along each edge. On the other side are fractions with resolutions of 1/32nds and 1/64ths.

That must be it. It's a steel rule 6" long with 0.1" along one edge...hmm, don't think I've ever looked at it closely enough to remember what's on the other side. I'll check it out tomorrow morning.
 
  • #49
Proton Soup said:
when i took engineering drafting many moons ago, we had something similar called "scales". but naturally, most were not on a 1:1 scale.

That's right, a "scale." I have several neat triangular scales, some of them in decimal inches, one "Architect's" which is 1/12ths divisions (scaled-down feet and inches), and some in 1/16ths. All this from my fathers before me.

My father, g'father, and g'g'grandgather were all engineers. My g'g'grandfather actually was a railroad engineer, back when engineers were engineers.
 
  • #50
How about a 'scientific' system based on powers of 2 and three basic units: inches, pints and pounds. A pound could be defined as the weight of 1 pint of pure water (pretty close to the current US pound)

The notation could be nU|log_2 where n is a positive real number and U is a unit.

So 3 pints would be written 3 p|0, just 3 p or 1.5 p|1; a gallon: 1 p|3.

A quarter pound would be 1 lb|-2.

For distance, one mile can be closely approximated by 1 in|16 =1.034 mi.

Or we can just forget it and be quaint.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism
3
Replies
110
Views
14K
Countdown to Doom Release: Revisit the Original and Celebrate with Easter Eggs
Replies
14
Views
4K
Advance of Technology; 1818 to 2318....
Replies
22
Views
6K
Requesting suggestions for languages, libraries, and architectures for parallel (and sometimes non parallel) numerical and scientific computations
Replies
8
Views
4K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 230)
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 230)
Replies
1
Views
3K
Magnetic Reconnection vs Double Layers
Replies
8
Views
5K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Replies
7
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Replies
9
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top