Dear Bill, Rob, and All, To add to your thoughts on the 'invention' of the 2000 pound ton, might I suggest that a suitable timeframe for this would have been in the late 18th century.
At that time there was considerable interest in decimal methods. James Watt (1736 - 1819) , the English engineer, was actively promoting decimal arithmetic for engineers. In 1824, Lord Wrottesley's proposal for decimal currency was rejected by the British Parliament but the proposal that there should be ten pounds in a decimal gallon was approved. It wasn't until 1849 that the 'florin' coin � a tenth of an English pound � was introduced as a first step toward decimal currency in England. At about the same time, in the USA, Thomas Jefferson (1743/1826) and John Quincy Adams (1767/1848) were actively promoting decimal measures. To put this into context you might recall that 1785 was the year that the USA government passed the laws that led to the introduction of decimal currency (and the new coins began to appear in 1792). Both Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams had recommended conversion to the metric system for the USA to replace the existing hodge podge of measuring units sometime before 1784. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams again recommended the adoption of the decimal system in the United States in 1821. He wrote regarding the French metric system: 'Considered merely as a labor-saving machine, it is a new power, offered to man, incomparably greater than that which he has acquired by the new agency which he has given to steam. It is in design the greatest "invention" of human ingenuity since that of printing.' I suspect that Jefferson and Quincy Adams were basing their decimal ideas on the previous work of Simon Stevin (1548/1620). I also know that Bishop George Berkeley (1684/1753) had a copy of Simon Stevin's book, 'De Thiende' (Of Tenths) when he went to the USA in 1728. Before Berkeley returned to London, in 1731, he divided his library between the Harvard and Yale libraries and Harvard received the Simon Stevin material � which they subsequently lost when their library building burnt down in 1764 (see http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050152.html ). Cheers, Pat Naughtin Geelong, Australia 61 3 5241 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metricationmatters.com on 2005-01-13 21.18, Bill Potts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm not an FFU user (such people being a rarity on this listserver), but I > believe the U.S. ton (otherwise known as the short ton -- 2000 lb) was simply > a rational substitution for the English ton (or long ton -- 2240 lb). > > Rather than being a multiple of 112 lb, or hundredweight (abbreviation: cwt), > it was the same multiple of 100 lb (a more sensible value for something known > as a hundredweight, but officially known as the cental [a rarely used term]). > > The folks in the colonies were probably glad to be rid of peculiar units like > the stone (14 lb), a choice of unit on which we can blame the existence of the > hundredweight (8 stones). > > I don't know the date of the first use of the short ton. > > I acknowledge that you know most of the above. However, it's written for the > benefit of all participants here. > > By the way, for your amusement, you might be interested in the definition of a > ton given on a web page called "Technical Terms and Definitions" on the > American Industrial Hygiene Association website. >> >> ton A short ton equals 2000 pounds. A long ton (also known as a British ton) >> equals 2240 pounds. A metric ton is 1000 kilometers or 2204.62 pounds. > Now that metric ton is a really long ton. > > You can find it at http://www.aiha.org/pubs/style5.html. > > They also say that EHF is "300 to 300 GHz" -- a pretty narrow range. (They > also forgot VHI -- Very High Indeed.) > > Bill Potts, CMS > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org <http://metric1.org/> [SI Navigator] > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of >> ewc >> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 01:42 >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:31893] Re: "UK measures"/FFU's >> >> >> Hi Bill & all >> >> >> >> you write >> >> >> >> <<You are correct in saying that you don't have specific knowledge of the >> Conf�rence G�n�rale. The people who attend the CGPM are not French >> academics, but are representatives of their respective countries. I don't >> believe France has any greater representation than any other country>> >> >> >> >> In my reasonably long experience of attending meetings I've come to the >> conclusion that who attends is pretty much irrelevant - its he who writes >> the minutes that counts. But anyhow - that issue is no going to be advanced >> by us exchanging simplistic one-liners. >> >> >> >> How about answering my earlier question - where did the US customary ton >> come from? Any 'FFU' users care to answer? >> >> >> >> rob >> >> >> >> (Robert Tye, York, UK) >> >>> >
