I used to point out both changes too. However, careful reading of SP 447 shows that old bronze yard #11, the official physical standard before Mendenhall, when compared to the modern 0.9144 m yard, had less than 0.1 X of the discrepancy of Mendenhall yard 3600/3937 m.
If Mendenhall had done it right, we wouldn't have needed the 1959 agreement. The 1893 declared value was an unfortunate choice and they knew better at the time. >________________________________ > From: James <[email protected]> >To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:01 PM >Subject: [USMA:53811] RE: Archaic units persist > > >I make fun of them too, Martin! My biggest hope is to make the unending >debate about what to call the hodgepodge of units used here a moot issue >by going entirely SI in the US. I take great delight in pointing out to >folks that my grandpa's yard stick is no longer valid since the size of >the yard (and inch, foot, etc.) in the US changed size in 1959. And that >it had also changed size in 1893. > >Jim > > > >On 2014-05-13 14:45, Martin Vlietstra wrote: >> Not to worry Jim, You should know by now that I take every opportunity to >> ridicule the difference between Customary and Imperial units, especially >> when the same name means different things depending on which side of the >> "pond" you are. >> >> Martin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of James >> Sent: 13 May 2014 20:18 >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:53809] RE: Archaic units persist >> >> Yes, those naturally were US units of measure (esp. the gallon) since I went >> to school in the US. Perhaps I should have made that statement explicitly. >> >> Jim >> >> >> On 2014-05-13 13:45, Martin Vlietstra wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> I assume of course that I would have to use a little over 3 quarts of >> water. >>> :-) >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Martin, resident in the UK. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf Of James >>> Sent: 13 May 2014 18:19 >>> To: U.S. Metric Association >>> Subject: [USMA:53807] Archaic units persist >>> >>> This article from the Chattanooga Times-Free Press states the total >>> production of the mills owned by a company that is setting up new >>> headquarters in Chattanooga TN: >>> http://timesfreepress.com/news/2014/may/13/flour-mills-merge-form-chat >>> tanoog >>> a-based-grain-cra/?breakingnews >>> It gives their production in hundredweights (cwt). A hundred weight is >>> 100 pounds avoirdupois. (In Britain, I believe a hundredweight was 112 >>> lb, or 8 stone.) So, this archaic unit persists in the US. >>> >>> Side story: >>> Years ago I worked my way through college by working part-time in a >>> campus bake shop. We routinely received our various flours in 100 lb bags. >>> The male permanent baker (not a student, such as I) and I got into a >>> contest on hauling bags of flour from the storeroom. I, at one time, >>> carried a 100 lb bag on each shoulder and one in my arms simultaneously. >>> I loaded those three bags onto my shoulders and into my arms by myself. >>> That was back in my youth ... sigh. Of course, I could still do that >>> if I really, really wanted to! But I'm wiser now. (Grin.) >>> >>> I still recall the excellent pie dough recipe we used. It made 25 pie >>> shells. Unfortunately, it's in gallons, pounds, and ounces: >>> 25 lb pastry dough >>> 13 oz salt >>> 10 lb lard >>> 8 lb fine shortening >>> 1 gal water >>> Stir the dry ingredients together. Cut in the fat to form coarse crumbles. >>> Add the water and mix, taking care not to over mix. Double the recipe >>> to make 25 "lids" for the pies. >>> >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> -- >>> James R. Frysinger >>> 632 Stoney Point Mountain Road >>> Doyle TN 38559-3030 >>> >>> (C) 931.212.0267 >>> (H) 931.657.3107 >>> (F) 931.657.3108 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
