The inch de jour. The gallon changed slightly in 1959. Technically, there is not a Survey inch as surveyors don't use inches (however, there was a "Mendenhall" inch from 1893-1959). The last measured inch prior to Mendenhall order was actually MUCH closer to the 25.4 mm value than the Mendenhall value was, so it not possible to show that a US measured inch ever deviated much from 25.4 mm.
The Mendenhall order was well-intentioned, but with regard to the inch was a very sloppy implementation. However, the Mendenhall inch and the 25.4 mm inch differ by only 2 parts per million. It really can't be easily measured except in a metrology lab. It is nothing like the 20% difference between a US and Imperial gallon/. ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, September 4, 2010 8:49:33 PM Subject: Which inch? 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/ 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
