Dear Gerry,
I have interspersed some remarks.
On 2009/02/09, at 1:07 AM, Jeremiah MacGregor wrote:
Pat,
Teran says he prefers imperial. Thus that means at least to me that
he prefers the units established for use in the UK. Thus the cup he
prefers would be the English cup as defined by the organization that
monitors and controls imperial units in the same fashion that the
BIPM does for SI units.
I don't know of any such organisation. The closest would be the
National Physics Laboratory (http://www.npl.co.uk ) but I don't think
that they concern themselves with the size of cups. If you search
their web site for the word, cup, you will only find a reference to a
football cup, which is irrelevant to our discussion.
UK cooking teachers and writers of old pre-metric cook books sometimes
define a cup for the UK as 8 fluid ounces (UK), but Wikipedia defines
it as closer to 10 fluid ounces (UK) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_weights_and_measures
I doubt imperial is involved with Scottish cups or French cups or
any random cup from the cupboard.
This is the approach taken by many, if not most, newby cooks who are
not yet concerned with accuracy of cooking to a recipe.
Imperial also has a defined value for the foot and the pound and
every other unit that is a part of its collection. So his choice for
what pound or foot to use is would already be defined by the
imperial version of the BIPM.
Imperial measures no longer exist. They were all replaced by
international agreement in July 1959. The new definitions of July 1959
had the effect of disabling the Imperial measures while keeping the
words 'inch' and 'yard'. This has given an illusion to some that the
Imperial measures still exist. All citizens of the UK and all citizens
of the USA now use the metric inch of exactly 25.4 millimetres and the
metric pound of 0.453 592 37 kg
The current UK definition of the inch and the yard are given at http://www.npl.co.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.482
but you will notice that there is no specific definition of a foot.
You must calculate this yourself either from the definition of a yard
or an inch.
The current UK definition of a pound for the UK pound can be found at
http://www.npl.co.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.2082
Curiously the National Physics Laboratory has no definition of a pint.
In fact, if you search the site for the word, pint, you will get a
null result.
Where exactly is the imperial BIPM located and what do they call
themselves?
I suppose that the National Physics Laboratory is the closest
organisation to fit your description, but it seems that they don't
cook a lot in their laboratory!
Jerry
From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2009 1:02:36 AM
Subject: [USMA:42943] Re: measurement preference
Dear Teran,
Thanks for your interesting statement. I have interspersed some
comments.
On 2009/02/08, at 11:05 AM, Teran McKinney wrote:
I happen to prefer Imperial.
Do you have the courage to use only Imperial measures - only -
without using any metric units at all? The article, 'Don't use
metric', at http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/DontUseMetric.pdf
might get you started.
Eight ounces in a cup,
Is this an English cup, a Scottish cup, a French coffee cup, or just
a randomly selected cup from your cupboard. As you know these are
all a different size and none of them are part of the Imperial Law
of 1824.
two cups in a
pint, two pints in a quart,
This seems to be a pint and a quart of your own devising based on
your choice of cup size. Is this true? Or are you referring to the
10 pound gallon that was part of the decimalisation of measurement
in the UK in 1824. If this is the case could you please let me know
how big the pound was at that time and how much does it differ from
the 1959 pound.
and four quarts in a gallon makes so much
more sense than those pesky little litres.
Try cubic metres instead of those pesky little gallons, especially
for international trade.
And how terrible is using
decimals with length? I enjoy trying to figure out if 7/18ths or
22/48ths of an inch is larger.
It has largely been unnecessary to use fractions since they were
essentially replaced by decimals in 1585 with the publication of
Simon Stevin's Disme: 'The Art of tenths'. Consider how many people
have wasted their time learning about fractions, (and their
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) such as the
examples you mention in the last 424 years. This also causes large
financial burdens on human commerce. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf
for a suggestion about financial losses as applied to the USA.
Don't forget that the foot is a natural unit of measure because some
people's feet are as long as a foot. No one's feet have ever been a
metre long, so it must be unnatural and thus inappropriate.
Two seconds ago the world population counter suggested that there
are currently 6 772 878 551 people in the world and almost all of
them have two feet. One of the problems before the invention of the
metric system in England in 1668, the development of decimal
divisions in the USA in the 1780s, and its legal development in
France in the 1790s was the selection of whose foot to use. In
France before the revolution, the king chose his own foot known as
'Le Pied de Roi' (the foot of the king) and this was then almost
universally hated sufficiently to become one of the causes of the
French revolution. When Bishop John Wilkins published 'AN ESSAY
Towards a REAL CHARACTER, And a PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE.(1668)', he
intended to provide a 'universal measure' that would allow people to
have access to an honest system so that they would not be cheated as
was usual between any dealings between the peasantry and the
aristocracy. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CommentaryOnWilkinsOfMeasure.pdf
for details of Bishop Wilkins' invention.
In addition, no nation has ever been prepared to accept the foot of
a foreign king as their own foot. For example, the English have
always refused to use the French foot. Politically, the choice foot
has always been an incredibly difficult decision. This has always
had major implications for international trade. For example using
pounds for international trade, S. Ricard, in his 'Traité de
Commerce' (1722) published a list comparing the various pounds
around Europe with the Amsterdam pound. He wrote: 100 pounds of
Amsterdam are equal to 108 lbs in Alicant, 105 lbs in Antwerp, 120
lbs in Archangel, 105 lbs in Arschot, 120 lbs in Avignon, 98 lbs in
Basil, 100 lbs in Bayonne, 97 lbs in Berg. op Zoom, 166 lbs in
Bergamo, 95 1/4 lbs in Bergen, Norw., 111 lbs in Bern, 100 lbs in
Besançon, 100 lbs in Bilboa, 105 lbs in Bois le Duc, 151 lbs in
Bologna, 100 lbs in Bourdeaux, 104 lbs in Bourg en Bresse, 103 lbs
in Bremen, 125 lbs in Breslaw, 105 lbs in Bruges, 105 lbs in
Brussels, 105 lbs in Cadiz, 105 lbs in Cologne, 87 lbs in
Constantinople, 107 1/2 lbs in Copenhagen, … and this is only up to
the letter C. Again consider how much it must have cost to do all
the conversions before the gradual acceptance of Bishop John
Wilkins' 'universal measure' in the form of the modern metric system.
Seriously though, aside from being more used to Imperial, there is no
reason that I wouldn't prefer Metric.
Sorry if I've offended anyone
who has read this email, but I would advise that you do some research
if it does offend you.
I am not sure that I understand where you are directing me to do
research. Could you please be more specific? I have researched the
development of the metric system (see http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/MetricationTimeline.pdf
) but I suspect that research into the metric system is not what
you have in mind.
I am not offended in any way by your statement of your opinion. I am
fully aware that whenever people use the metric system for a while
they do not willingly go back to using any of the old pre-metric
measures that you say you support. This applies to individuals, to
work groups, to companies, to industries, and to whole nations. Keep
in mind that the Imperial Law of 1824 only covered a few different
measures; many others such as the cups you mention have to be added
to the few Imperial measures because the Imperial law did not
provide for a system of measures. The important Imperial measures
are now defined in terms of the metric system. The foot you referred
to is probably the metric foot of 304.8 millimetres and the pound
you use is probably the metric pound of 453.592 37 grams.
Personally, it is my opinion that the adoption of the metric system
in inevitable. To quote the French philosopher, Condorcet, the
metric system is 'For all time - for all people'. In time this will,
in my opinion, even include you!
Cheers,
Teran
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that
they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or
selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources
for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial,
industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and
in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google,
NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the
USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication
information, contact Pat at [email protected] or
to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com
for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected]
or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
