[USMA:31903] Re: "UK measures"/FFU's

[ewc]

Hi Bill   The current thinking is that the 112 cwt derives from the amount of goods lifted clear of the floor by a 100 lb weight on a medieval scale - (rather than the amount balanced by a 100 lb weight.)   Its a generous derivation at that - which maybe favoured wool buyers over wool sellers?   Thanks for the great quote from the AIHA website!   Many years ago I was employed by the local water company and in our spare bits of time a couple of us worked on a mass balance for water in Yorkshire.  We worked (roughly) in tonnes (ie cube metres).  It gave lots of scope for philosophical discussion about things like submarine aquifers etc etc.  After a few months we could take it no further so regretfully called 'Public Relations' to hand it all over to them for information leaflets etc.  A very presentable young lady came down to our floor to collect it and left.  Five minutes later she came back and asked :                 "Is it all in cubic whatsits?"   Its easy to forget just how depressingly simple, in reality, conversion is for much of the population........   best   rob   (Robert Tye, York, UK) ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Potts To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:18 AM Subject: [USMA:31894] Re: "UK measures"/FFU's 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 [SI Navigator]     -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On 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)