How did defining an inch with barley grains have both pros and cons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter frozen7
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Defining an inch using three barley grains placed end to end provided a relatable standard for measurement, as barley was a common agricultural product. However, this method had significant drawbacks due to the variability in barley grain sizes, leading to inconsistencies in measurement. The discussion highlights the importance of having a precise and universally understood standard, as familiarity with measurements can enhance their practical application. Additionally, the need for exactness in measurements is emphasized, suggesting that relying on natural objects can introduce ambiguity. Overall, while the barley grain definition had its merits, the lack of uniformity ultimately made it a poor choice for a standard unit of measure.
frozen7
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Long ago in england, the inch was defined as the lengthof three barley grains placed end to end. In what ways was this a good way to define a standard? In what ways was this a poor way to define a standard?

Does anyone know how to answer this question?

:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes- you answer it by THINKING! I doubt that there is any good way to help you here short of giving you the answer- and that isn't the point of the question. Think about what you need to have a "standard" measure.
 
Is it because all barley are similar in size?
and it could be a bad way since not all barley same in size actually?
 
That's a good start! Now what other reasons can you come up with?
 
Consider that fact that some things are common and easy to visualize. For instance, I live in America so I can visualize a mile. I have grown up with it as a standard unit of measure. But ask me to run a kilometer and I'm stuck. With someone common measurements can have more meaning as more people understand them.

As for the cons, you have a good start. Exactness is the key.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top