I respectfully disagree and consider Customary to be the entire gamut of inch-pound derived units used in the United States and unique from Imperial, particularly fluid and dry measure as well as units of weight which exceed one pound. It does not include obsolete metric units which are not part of the SI, or the SI. The common inch pound units are reconciled and part of both Customary and Imperial.
________________________________ From: Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 5:31:37 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:50474] Re: Fw: US Customary Gentlemen: You might want to distinguish between Customary and customary to make it easier for me to follow. The group of units called "Customary" (or U.S. Customary) consists of relatively few units that were selected, defined and distributed for use in the U.S. Customs Houses to determine customs duty centuries ago. Those Houses were, of courses, mostly at sea or river ports in those days and measured shippable commodities. The hodgepodge group of units we call (U.S.) customary (as in ordinary, common) consists of just about every unit in existence in the western word & (former) British colonies, it includes most metric units and all SI units, it includes, of course, all Customary units, and even units some SI ignorant scientists and laymen keep coining. It would be insulting to the Customs (or Custom) officers to think that they use customary units. Stan J. On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:16 PM, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote: Well, I certainly agree on two points: >*The average US citizen doesn't understand Customary as well as he thinks he >does, and would be horrified if quizzed on all the obscure conversion factors >(gills, drams, scruples, stones, chains, rods, etc). We have eliminated many >from common usage to "dumb it down." >*All of Customary is sounded rooted in metric standards. There are no primary >physical standards for any Customary unit. They are all declared >relationships >to metric quantities (since 1893). (The average US citizen is probably >unaware >of this and/or how long it has been true). > >However, they are not like the "mesures usuelle" which introduced convenient >relationships to metric quantities (at the expense of fairly significant >change >to the definition). We had essentially imperceptible change at the expense of >remarkably inconvenient relationships such 0.45359237 kg/lb vs 0.5 kg/livre. > > > > ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> >To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> >Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 9:29:10 PM >Subject: [USMA:50466] Re: Fw: US Customary > >Dear John, > > >I can't and won't disagree with any of your research and the meticulous metric >conversions you provide. I agree that the metric conversions provide quite >small >redefinitions -- but they are redefinitions that base the whole of the >measuring >methods of the USA on the metric system. > > >However, as usual, the metric conversions tend to smother my main point which >is >that the USA is now fully metric with respect to all measurements done by all >people, every where, for all activities, every day. Let me repeat the main >point >as I see it: > > >US Customary is just a way to use new definitions -- that never existed before >1893 or 1959 -- to protect some old measuring words to which many, perhaps >most, >of the citizens of the USA have become accustomed and think they understand. >> >> >>In short (to paraphrase John Steele) many, perhaps most, citizens of the USA >>also "have a poor understanding of US Customary." > > >Cheers, > > >Pat Naughtin >Geelong, Australia > > >On 2011/05/13, at 21:37 , John M. Steele wrote: > >To further belabor the point, I looked up the measured 1893 relationship >between the meter and yard based on bronze #11, the official yard of the >United >States (SP 447): >>1 yd = 0.914 399 80 m, which results in 1 " = 25.399 994 mm. >> >>Had Mendenhall approximated this relationship rather than the reciprocal, he >>certainly would have chosen 1 yd = 0.9144 m and 1 in = 25.4 mm, rather than >>the >>clumsy relationship 1 yd = 0.914 401 83 m and 1 in 25.400 051 mm (which >>looks >>better in the reciprocal). >> >> >> >>----- Forwarded Message ---- >>From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association >><[email protected]> >>Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 6:49:41 AM >>Subject: Re: [USMA:50458] US Customary >> >> >>Well, not quite the same as "mesures usuelle" which were visibly rounded from >>their prior values. If you don't accept fractions of a millimeter, there is >>no >>difference between 914.4 mm and 914.401829 mm; unless you can measure >>micrometers over this distance, there is no difference. As I have pointed >>out >>before, the Mendenhall inch was a good idea conceptually, but a very poor >>idea >>technically. The inch at the time was known to a much better value than the >>crudely rounded value Mendenhall made into law. The "official" value of 1959 >>differs by only a few tenths of a part per million from the measured value in >>1893, and by 2 ppm from the Mendenhall value. Had Mendenhall been thinking >>metrically, he would have defined the inch in terms of millimeters (and >>rounded >>suitably) instead of defining the meter in terms of inches. Had he done so, >>and >>used the measured value of the time, he certainly would have rounded at 1" = >>25.4 mm. >> >>I view it as equivalent to the mistaken redefinition of the liter from 1901 >>to >>1964 as 1 kg H20 @ 4 °C instead of 1 dm³, later abrogated. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> >>To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> >>Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 10:20:23 PM >>Subject: [USMA:50458] US Customary >> >> >>On 2011/05/13, at 08:18 , John M. Steele wrote: >>"It should also be considered to make the story accessible to international >>readers, who generally have a poor understanding of US Customary." >> >>Whatever "US Customary" is! >> >> >>I understand that US Customary is fully metric at this time in 2011 since all >>the old measuring words (such as inch, ounce, pint, mile, pound, and ton) >>have >>all been defined by metric system units since 1959 or 1893. >> >> >>Currently, US Customary measuring words have the same status that Napoleon's >>"mesures usuelle" had between 1812 and 1839. >> >> >>US Customary is just a way to use new definitions -- that never existed >>before >>1893 or 1959 -- to protect some old measuring words to which many, perhaps >>most, >>of the citizens of the USA have become accustomed and think they understand. >> >> >>In short (to paraphrase John Steele) many, perhaps most, citizens of the USA >>also "have a poor understanding of US Customary." >> >> >>Cheers, >> >> >>Pat Naughtin LCAMS >>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. >> >> > >Pat Naughtin LCAMS >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. >
