2001-03-16
If there is a US hundredweight, then it is obsolete and out of use. I have
never heard of it or seen it in use. I'm sure if I asked around, people
would give me an odd look. Maybe there is some fringe group or industry
that uses it, but I doubt one will find a scale around calibrated in this
odd unit.
It seems that the British hundredweight of 112 lb is very close to 50 kg. I
wonder if that was accidental or planned that way?
John
Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
frei zu sein.
There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
re free!
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 2001-03-16 01:42
Subject: [USMA:11651] RE: last night in the House of Commons
> I really wonder how many people in Britain know what a cwt (hundredweight)
> is. We should ask the BWMA and these MP's how many people who 'prefer'
> Imperial know that the cwt is equal to 112 lb. How would Mr Delaney and
Mr.
> Linacre make up an invoice with ton.cwt.qr. lb and old pre-1971 British
> currency?
>
> At least in the US this is logical: a cwt is 100 lb.
>
> Han
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 6:37 AM
> Subject: [USMA:11650] RE: last night in the House of Commons
>
>
> > 2001-03-16
> >
> > If someone told me that a 140 lb of pigmeat produced 100 cwt (whatever
> that
> > is) of bacon, I would simply ignore it as most would. I'm sure he
assumes
> > that because people don't question him when he spouts this nonsense,
that
> > they understand what it means.
> >
> > I'm sure more people would understand that 80 % of pigmeat is bacon that
> the
> > other rubbish. In fact it does translate better in SI. 100 kg of pig
> meant
> > produces 80 kg of bacon. It also implies that 20 % or 20 kg/100 kg
either
> > goes into other products or is wasted.
> >
> > You are right, he is a dummy. But, I think he is trying to impress the
> > "other dummies" out there with fancy words that mean very little to most
> > people.
> >
> > John
> >
> > Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
> > frei zu sein.
> >
> > There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe
> they
> > are free!
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, 2001-03-15 23:37
> > Subject: [USMA:11648] RE: last night in the House of Commons
> >
> >
> > > >From the debate:
> > >
> > > Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
> > > It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend
> > > the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
> > > Taking a leaf out of her book, I should like to
> > > tell the House that 140 lb of pigmeat makes
> > > 1 cwt of bacon. Many people in Britain today
> > > are familiar with such equations. I could not
> > > give the metric equivalent of that equation,
> > > but I make that point to show that I have been
> > > in business, which, regrettably, not too many
> > > hon. Members these days have.
> > >
> > > What a dummy. That doesn't even need to be expressed in metric,
either.
> It
> > > simply reduces to "80% of pig meat is bacon." That has to be simpler
> than
> > > his statement.
> > >
> > > Bill Potts, CMS
> > > San Jose, CA
> > > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> > >
> >
> >
>
