Hi Pat and John: Had this been considered and pound was 'taken' at 500g for daily commercial use; like we in India argued for *use of seer*, METRICATION could be imbedded into minds much earlier. Yes, for scientific operations and allied *exactness* the pound was to be 453.6g and used as such. It may not be late even today, if US industry is willing to gain from this concept! Brij B. Vij
>From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21926] Re: question >Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:41:36 -0400 > >2002-08-25 > > >Pat, > >I see where you are coming from. Britain, and thus its colonies, have, a >longer tradition of having a "standard pound" and thus this 454 g value is >more set in stone. In all other countries where the various "pounds" >existed and varied from locality to locality right up to the time of >metrication, there was never an attachment to a "standard pound" and thus >it >was easier to just set the value at 500 g without any worry about what it >would affect. And I'm sure there were few recipes written down or that >were >that critical that the incorporation of the old measures into the new >metric >ones didn't make much of a difference if they varied somewhat. I'm believe >that even before metrication, any recipe, either oral or written, would >have >produced varying results based on where it was used, as the FFU varied so >much across Europe. In this regard metrication made recipes more >standardised. > >I just wonder how many Australian recipes would be off balance if the chef >used a 500 g amount when a pound is called for. And since your response >indicates that my comments are not strictly so, can I infer that there are >significant cases where 500 g is used as a valid interpretation of a pound? >I feel that despite Australia's history with the imperial measures, it too >will succumb to the same "shortcuts" others have adopted. Albeit the time >will be longer before all requests for pounds end up with becoming 500 g. >But, it will still happen. It is just a matter of time. > >John > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, 2002-08-25 16:25 >Subject: [USMA:21923] Re: question > > >Dear John, > >on 2002-08-26 02.16, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ><snip> > > For example, if an Australian asks for a pound of ham at the > > deli counter, the attendant will weigh out 500 g on a pure metric scale, > > price it at 500 g and as far as the store is concerned only a metric >amount > > was vended. The customer who has no clue as to what a pound is, just >the > > use of the name, does not feel cheated if he/she did not get exactly >what >he > > asked for based on the American concept of a pound, that is 454 g. ><snip> > >What you say here is not strictly so. I will use your example to explain. > >if an Australian asks for a pound of ham at the deli counter, the attendant >will weigh out 450 g on a pure metric scale, price it at the 'per kilogram' >or at the 'per 100 gram rate', and as far as the store is concerned only a >metric amount was vended. The customer wants a pound. She is probably old >and she knows that for her particular recipe (which her grandmother >inherited from her grandmother) a pound is required. [It may also be true >that she is young and that she has no clue as to what a pound is � but this >is a digression]. > >Australian butchers have no tradition that a pound is 500 grams, so they >serve about 450 grams to those who ask for a pound. They know that they are >serving to a recipe size and not to an ignorant person. No doubt, in >nations >(say France and Germany) where 500 grams to a pound has been common argot >for a century or two, the recipes passed from generation to generation have >been quietly adjusted to suit the fatter pound. This transition has yet to >take place in Australia, but I suppose it could. > >Cheers, > >Pat Naughtin CAMS >Geelong, Australia _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
