Dear John,
In the definitions you report below, which inch applies?
Is it now the 1960 (metric) inch set at 25.4 millimetres exactly?
Is it the survey (metric) inch set at 1/36 of 36/39.37 of the
international prototype metre set in 1893?
Or:
Are you referring to one of the previous 'inches' as variously defined
during the 1800s?
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see
http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY
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.
On 2010/08/22, at 07:25 , John M. Steele wrote:
You may find this link even more interesting:
http://www.sizes.com/units/gallon_english_wine.htm
The US gallon at 231 in³ is identical to Queen Anne Wine gallon
passed by Parliament in 1706, taking effect in 1707.
Prior to that, it had been 231 in³, a cylindrical measure 7" D x 6"
high (about 0.1 in³ less than 231 in³) or 224 in³ or 233 in³.
The proper measure had been in some dispute, remedied by the 1706
bill, although in the UK, this gallon was later abrogated by the
Imperial gallon.
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 4:21:28 PM
Subject: [USMA:48415] Re: Trip to Canada
This article in Wikipedia gives the background and the attendant
crazy flavor of what's behind the Imperial vs US Customary madness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce
I agree with John .... maybe holding the feet to the fire of those
members of the FMI who are opposed to amending the FPLA might jar
them enough to want to liberate themselves from the US Customary
quagmire with the option of metric-only labeling!
-- Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]>
To: "ezra steinberg" <[email protected]>, "U.S. Metric
Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 10:58:21 AM
Subject: Re: [USMA:48413] Re: Trip to Canada
The US fluid ounce is larger than the Imperial, but the quart is
smaller. While not allowed (alone) by FPLA, the 40 oz delaration is
true in Canada in the "I gave you more than" sense. Had they said 1
QT 8 OZ, that would have been untrue (and unlawful) in Canada.
Has NAFTA somehow exempted the US FPLA requirement for largest
units? I can't find anything in the FDA rules that says it. I
agree with you completely on permissive metric only. However, with
FMI opposition and lackadaisical support from food processors, I'm
not optimistic, and one strategy is to hold the manufacturers to
every letter of the rules regarding Customary. If they love
Customary so much and think the present rules are so good, they
should obey them scrupulously. (If Customary is enough of a PITA,
they'll change their position.)
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 1:08:52 PM
Subject: [USMA:48413] Re: Trip to Canada
Here's where things get a little ugly, of course, because the FPLA
requires US fluid ounces, which are not the ounce used in Canada.
All the more reason for us to get the FPLA amended. I have this
obsessive conviction (no secret there ;-) that rational metric sizes
will abound once that happens, which will have at least a partial
positive impact on the Canadian sense of "living metric".
-- Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:23:42 AM
Subject: [USMA:48409] Re: Trip to Canada
I have a 1.18 L bottle of shampoo, which would look a little funny
without its companion "40 oz." I believe it is not strictly FPLA-
compliant as I believe 1QT 8OZ is mandatory, but 40 OZ may be
specified in addition. What is odder is that it came in a bundle
that included a smaller bottle, which is an even metric size, 200 mL
(6.8 FL OZ). A more useful small size would be a 100 mL bottle that
I could take on an airplane.
From: John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 2:20:48 AM
Subject: [USMA:48407] Re: Trip to Canada
I've often wondered why McDonalds doesn't rename its 'Quarter
Pounder' to something on the lines of 'Big One Hundred' or something
similar (" ...a full 100 grams of fresh beef...."). Most customers
would not notice the approx. 12% reduction in meat content, and
McDonalds would save that amount in meat costs while likely getting
away with charging the same price.
Blame not only the FPLA for non-rational sizing of products in
Canada, but also NAFTA, where the US managed to outlaw Canada's
original laws regarding product sizing.
In regards to BC, it is probably the least 'progressive' in terms of
achieving full metric conversion. Surprisingly, I've found Alberta
- cowboy country - to be more metric than anywhere else, while in
Ontario and Nova Scotia - two provinces I have spent much time in
this year - you will have to look very hard indeed to see any
official signs on the roads with miles on them (and ft-in on bridge
signs - though more of these in NS than Ont), while in the stores,
anything pre-packaged (including say cold meats) is invariably (and
as required by law) to be labelled in metric units. Admittedly (and
as I've mentioned before and as Harry Wyeth pointed out) some of
those sizes are oddball indeed, and I couldn't relate them to ANY
rational size, metric, imperial or USC (shampoo in 1.08 L ?).
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:31 AM
Subject: [USMA:48406] Re: Trip to Canada
Unless they're educated to display price per 100 grams! ;-)
-- Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carleton MacDonald" <[email protected]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 7:34:57 PM
Subject: [USMA:48405] Re: Trip to Canada
One big reason they want to show prices in pounds is because the
price per unit is lower. Marketeering, after all.
cm
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 17:14
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:48404] Re: Trip to Canada
This is precisely where I think amending the FPLA to permit metric-
only labeling will have a disproportionately larger impact in Canada
than it will in the country (USA) that actually amends the law.
Once the "bandwagon" effect takes hold among US manufacturers to
switch to rational metric sizes with metric-only units, Canadians
will likely see a wholesale change-over to metric only units and
rational sizes in packaged goods. That has got to provide (in my
view at least) a strong positive impulse towards greater acceptance
and use of metric units on their side of the border.
Wishful thinking or prescience? We'll find out soon enough (if the
<bleep>ing FPLA ever gets amended and signed into law)!
-- Ezra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Wyeth" <[email protected]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:23:16 AM
Subject: [USMA:48402] Trip to Canada
Many readers already know this, but here is what I found after a
week in the Vancouver area:
road signs in km, but at least a few still in miles, same with
bridge height signs; lots of signs with "Km" or "Kg"
some "kms" private signs
all exercise machines at a gym, and weights, still in lbs. and miles
grocery stores a total mess: fruits and veges in pounds, with kg
sometimes added; milk in nice 2 and 4 L containers; stuff in cans
and bottles mostly in US style
containers with oddball metric contents which are
undoubtedly US sizes; cans of beer in 355 and even 34-something mL
sizes
a weird poster on a taxicab window advised riders that the cab rate
was a certain rate (such as $1.50) per 1.5 km, and helpfully added
that this amounted to xxx cents per something like
52.031 metres or some crazy figure!
I think fish and meat servings at restaurants often were offered in
8 and 12 ounce options
Canada obviously has a long way to go, but this is not news.
HARRY WYETH
