From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:34484] Re: Metric US draft horses
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:43:10 +1000
Dear Jason,
The drive to preserve the 'hand' is a drive to protect the word 'hand' as a
symbol that the user is part of the 'in' crowd of horse person's who
understands the jargon of horses; simply recall, or observe, the pride that
a young person feels when they first come to know that my horse is
something
like '15.2 hh'. The use of a 'hand' of measurement is a secondary and
different consideration that has to be understood by those who have the
responsibility for measuring horses. In this context the word 'hand' and
the
measurement 'hand' can be easily confused. My guess is that the keepers of
the word 'hand' will want to keep the word 'hand' at all costs while the
users of the measure 'hand' will simply try to make the measuring they have
to do as simple and as clear as possible.
Surely the stud books have to be rewritten to allow for births and deaths
of
horses, so updating the measures should not be an impossible task as it has
to be done each year anyway.
By the way, do studbooks in the USA specify a definition for the length of
a
'hand'? Do they use the UK definition of 101.6 millimetres? Or do they use
inches? And if they intend inches, are they trying for the 1959 metric inch
or are they using one of the older inches such as the old statute or survey
inch? I know that there's not much difference, so I suppose I am asking how
seriously they take the measuring they do. In the case of the Canadians
there is no difference as the pre-1959 inch is the same as the post-1959
inch in that country.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and
may
contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This
email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly
or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any
unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is
prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete
it
from your system and notify the sender by return email.
--
on 2005-09-15 22.46, James J. Wentworth at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I know that the Dutch simply record horse heights in meters to two
decimal
> places. I can't imagine any of the UK or US breed societies adopting
the 100
> mm metric hand of their own accord, as it would require them to
re-calculate
> the heights of every registered mare and stallion. For old breeds such
as the
> Suffolk Punch draft horse, that could mean changing hundreds of
thousands of
> studbook entries!
>
> There is nothing complicated about the original four-inch hand still
used in
> Canada, the UK, and the US--the number after the decimal point simply
denotes
> the number of inches. Hannah is 19.1 hands tall, which is 19 hands 1
inch or
> 77 inches. It's similar to the descending order English unit notation
used by
> carpenters and plumbers, where, for example, 3 feet 7 inches is written
as 3'
> 7". -- Jason
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Pat Naughtin <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> To: James Jason Wentworth <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; U.S. Metric
>> Association <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:21 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [USMA:34453] Metric US draft horses
>>
>>
>> on 2005-09-15 01.44, James J. Wentworth at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> I just came across an interesting listing on DraftsForSale.com. It's
for a
>>> huge Belgian mare named Hannah (at 19.1 hands tall and 2450 pounds,
she's
>>> an equine giantess!):
>>> http://www.draftsforsale.com/ShowAd/index.php?id=43012cf2b71d5
>>> "><http://www.draftsforsale.com/ShowAd/index.php?id=43012cf2b71d5>
>>> <http://www.draftsforsale.com/ShowAd/index.php?id=43012cf2b71d5>
>>> She is bred to Metric's Rochester out of Lake Ledge Metric, for an
April
>>> 2006 foal. Now *there's* an outreach opportunity to popularize metric
>>> among the rural US population. If the foal is a filly, perhaps her
owner
>>> could be persuaded to name her "Little Miss Metric" ("Missy" for
short).
>>> As she grew, she could illustrate how big meters are. She could also
>>> become a living, breathing example of how massive a metric ton is.
--
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>> Dear Jason,
>>
>> I think that, in the fullness of time, hands for horses will be
defined as
>> 100 millimetres.
>>
>> Currently, the British definition of a hand for a horse is 101.6
>> millimetres. This is simply a direct conversion of 4 inches of 25.4
inches.
>> (Note: Clearly this definition is based on the 'metric inch' of 1959,
as
>> prior to 1959, inches had different values in different parts of the
world--
>> UK inches, USA inches, Canadian inches, Cape inches, etc.)
>>
>> So we can guess that the horse you describe above (at 19.1 hands) is a
>> little taller than 1.9 metres simply by looking at the first part of
the
>> number (19).
>>
>> The second part, the '.1', is quite a bit more complicated.
>>
>> Firstly the '.' is not a decimal marker; it is a fractional marker as
the 1
>> refers to 1 finger or 1 quarter (1/4) of a hand; in this case, it is
defined
>> as a quarter of a hand or exactly (according to the UK definition)
25.4
>> millimetres.
>>
>> The height you have given us for the horse above should be read as:
>>
>>
>>> 19.1 hands, which is equal to 4 hands each of 101.6 millimetres plus
1
>>> quarter of a hand (or one finger) of 25.4 millimetres, so the horse
is
>>> exactly 19 x 101.6 = 1930.4 millimetres plus 1 x 25.4 = 25.4
millimetres
>>> and these, added together, means that the horse is 1955.8 millimetres
(say
>>> 1.95 metres).
>>
>> As I said it is quite a bit more complicated -- it's not easy being a
horse
>> fancier.
>>
>> The alternative of redefining a hand for a horse as 100 millimetres
would
>> mean that this horse would currently be described as 19.5 hands and,
in this
>> case, the '.' would be read as a normal decimal marker.
>>
>> I doubt that this sensible approach will be considered by the horse
>> community anytime soon, as, by their very practice of horse
preservation,
>> they label themselves as deep conservatives.
>>
>> However, to end as I began, I think that in the fullness of time hands
for
>> horses will be defined as 100 millimetres.
>>
>> I also feel strongly that some within the horse community will
gradually
>> realise the stupidity of their current position and will gradually
change
>> the definition of a hand from 101.6 millimetres to 100 millimetres. I
>> believe that some European countries already define a hand as 100
>> millimetres although it is more common to simply measure horse heights
in
>> metric units directly, and avoid the concept of hands (with their
competing
>> definitions) altogether.
>>
>> Of course, then the entirely arbitrary division between ponies and
horses
>> (currently 14.2 hands = 1473.2 millimetres) might have to be rounded
to
>> something like 1.5 metres, but that's another whole delicious
discussion and
>> argument that the horse community could enjoy for another 100 years or
more!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pat Naughtin LCAMS
>> Geelong, Australia
>> 61 3 5241 2008
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://www.metricationmatters.com
>>
>> LCAMS means that Pat Naughtin has been recognised as a 'Lifetime
Certified
>> Advanced Metrication Specialist' with the United States Metric
Association.
>>
>> This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee
and may
>> contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged.
This
>> email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be
partly
>> or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any
>> unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is
>> prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately
delete it
>> from your system and notify the sender by return email.
>
