Here's a question I'ld like to throw out, fellas.

We all know we can have man-based units of length. Ya know, the finger, the hand, the palm, foot, pace, step, and so on.

Indeed, whilst non-decimal factors are useful, you can have decimal relations and maintain a degree of man-basedness. For instance, you could have a fathom or two paces divided into 10 hands or palms each of 10 fingers, and so on.



However, here's my question: is it possible to have man-based or man-centred untis of weight?


Maybe the maximum weight the average man can comfortable carry by himself, unaided (probably around half a hundredweight)...?

[EDIT]
I've heard the pound is/was the maximum weight a man could throw without putting strain on his wrist. Anyone ever tried this blind? (ya know, picked up lumps of rock or whatever, thrown them, and then weighed the one closed to the most comfortable)

Hi Bryan

I think 16oz troy = 1/2 KG is man based, and rather old (personal joke - see below)

To understand my argument you first have to think about the origins of base counting itself.

When, and why did people first start to count to any base at all?

best

rob

PS To properly understand base counting I guess you have to think about pre-base counting. Georges Ifrah in his ‘Universal History of Number’ gives a good account of pre-base counting, that was my own starting point. But Ifrah does not answer the question << When, and why did people first start to count to any base at all?>> So maybe my own solution is original?

PPS Apologies - I will return to grains a little later, if anyone is interested. My own view is that they are almost all mathematical entities – theoretical fractions of older and larger standards. So from my point of view – you have to understand the bigger units first

PPPS Contra OED I think troy has nothing to do with Troyes. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth (Historia Regum Britanniae) Brutus of Troy founded Britain – and to the 14th century mind – it seemed logical that the very old weight used here then must have been the one brought from Troy by Brutus. The joke is that academia think that troy is much younger than Troy – where as I think it is much older…………

Here's another interpretation, which sounds more likely.

"Dictionary of Phrase and Fable—T
Troy Weight

means “London weight.” London used to be called Troy-novant. The general notion that the word is from Troyes, a town of France, and that the weight was brought to Europe from Grand Cairo by crusaders, is wholly untenable, as the term Troy Weight was used in England in the reign of Edward the Confessor. Troy weight is old London weight, and Avoirdupois the weight brought over by the Normans. (See Avoirdupois.)
Source: Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, E. Cobham Brewer, 1894"
Avoir-du-poids (better aver-de-poids: "to have weight").

NB: there's also the Tower lb, which was equivalent to 15 Troy oz (5400gt [gt= grains troy]), and a mercantile pound representing 2 Tower marks or 16oz Tower.
If the Troy lb is rated 16 then the Tower lb is 15, the Roman libra 14 and the French livre 21.
(Source: Berriman Historical Metrology)

Hi Shaun

<<Here's another interpretation, which sounds more likely.>>

Why does it sound more likely?

<<"Dictionary of Phrase and Fable—T Troy Weight means “London weight.” London used to be called Troy-novant.>>

Sure - in myth - New Troy - the myth from Monmouth - as I said myself.

<<The general notion that the word is from Troyes, a town of France, and that the weight was brought to Europe from Grand Cairo by crusaders, is wholly untenable, as the term Troy Weight was used in England in the reign of Edward the Confessor. >>

Cite the reference please

<<Troy weight is old London weight, and Avoirdupois the weight brought over by the Normans. (See Avoirdupois.)>>

No - 'fraid not - the troy/sterling system was probably brought over by the Jews of Rouen, invited by William - shortly after conquest. First use of the sterling (tower) penny weight being most likely William's Pax issue of 1083

Avoirdupois is unknown in France, and unknown in England prior to the Winchester weights - mid 14th century. It almost certainly came to England with Lombardy bankers/wool merchants - since it was used there and was Roman commercial weight. It adoption by E III in England was perhaps one cause of the peasants revolt of 1381 imo

<<NB: there's also the Tower lb, which was equivalent to 15 Troy oz (5400gt [gt= grains troy]),>>

and the pope is a catholic!

<<If the Troy lb is rated 16 then the Tower lb is 15, the Roman libra 14 and the French livre 21>>.

Nope - Roman is 12oz, Attic 16, Paris troyes 18 ounces, to the same ounce. But 14/21 is just a crude approximation to troy ounced as I best recall

<<(Source: Berriman Historical Metrology) >>

Berriman is fun - but as I said before - you need to look at Skinner - in my opinion

best

rob

"there's also the Tower lb, which was equivalent to 15 Troy oz (5400gt [gt= grains troy])"

I think that's a msitake there, Shaun. The Tower pound indeed was/is 5400 grains, but it wasn't equal to 15 troy ounces; it was equal to 11 1/4 troy ounces, a troy ounce being 480 grains.

[EDIT]
About Old English weights...

does anyone know what we used before 1066? I have read that we used the Tower system.. but if not, what did we use? :huh:

Misread my original notes; the 15 was from the ratio:

Ratio of Tower to Troy = 5400 : 5760 = 15 : 16.

And, just to stir things a little more - what about the suggestion that all weights etc are descended from one universal system - from a civilisation now long gone?

A bit like searching for the original language from which Latin, Greek, German, Sanscrit etc are descendants.
(I shall refrain from quoting Adamski, Von Däniken and Velikovsky ...)

I'll have to look through the DSGB books (still boxed) to see if we've got a copy of Skinner; Arthur collected quite a few books on metrology; he never got the one he really wanted, though, Petrie's Inductive Metrology.

Von Daniken's a quack. But a fun quack. And I don't think it's the same thing; one language which Sanskrit, Latin, English etc come from is accepted, but one original world civilisation is not. Altho I find the idea interesting.

Hi Shaun

Sorry I was in a bit of a rush last night - now I'm waiting for some paint to dry so...

<<If the Troy lb is rated 16 then the Tower lb is 15, the Roman libra 14 and the French livre 21>>.

Roman does come out close to 224 sterling pennies. with Tower 240 and Troy 256 by definition - (all 12 oz) and Paris troyes 16 oz is close to 336 sterlings - so yes I now agree the figures and offer my apologies :)

My understanding is still that Paris Troyes (contra nearly everything you read) post dates troy, and was created specifically to make 20 Paris ounces by definition 21 tower ounces. It was cleverly done since it is based upon Charlemagne's earlier (cca 790 AD) grain of c. 0.532g.

I tend to work in the 16 oz versions of all pounds to save confusion - and you will find paris/troy (16 oz) = 63/64 - which is the figure I retain in my meagre memory

Bryan - if you look check out the Carolingian grain you will find it is Roman 16 oz divided by 2^13 (9,362). This is not a roman grain - its part of Charlemagnes rather attractive simplification of Roman. This is part of the reason I think grains are generally mathematical not biological entities.

The best work on Anglos Saxon weights is probably a paper by Scull written in about 1990. We have about 6 sets of weights from early graves to play with. They seem already to have two pennyweights in cca 600 AD (thats before they had pennies!) They seem to be

a) circa 20 barley grains 1.3g which is a triens to the Merovingian solidus = Apothocaries dr = 3.9g = Troy 16 oz /128.

b ) The other seems to be a 'troy' penny of 32 wheat grains (24 barley grains). I do not think there is direct evidence for the troy pound though, either 12oz or 16 oz.

Be careful of victorian guys talking about the weight of Anglo Saxon pennies. Anglo Saxon penny weight was changed many times - and people grow old trying to figure out what they were up to, without success

Do you guys have a site for files? I have a couple of sheets of figures that you might find interesting - & I would be pleased to get comments/corrections on them.....

best

rob

"Requires"? Is there some intrinsic property about the Pt-Ir kilogram standard that makes it better than any other standard we could possibly fashion (or any definition not based on a physical prototype, for that matter)?

The way it's maintained and managed is extrinsic (and could be applied to any other standard).

No, it isn't at present. The discussion, however, is about what could be.

A new definition probably will be given to the kilogram in the future, but does that preclude the independent definition of another unit?

Let us have a look at the title of this section, and without excluding the subtitle...

As can be seen, it's "Metric & Imperial," which isn't limited to "Metric versus Imperial." The subtitle states that the range of appropriate subject matter is broader yet - not even limited to metric and/or Imperial.

The kilogram has itself been drifting very slightly.

The basic point is, a mass unit isn't doomed to vary more than the kilogram by simply not being the kilogram or by not being pegged to it.

"Was" is right. I think the discussion is meant to be about potential new units.

What really impresses me is that those units were "fimly fixed to the SI" before the SI actually came into existence. :rolleyes:

Indeed.

Ooops, "fimly." :)

Just to make this clear, I was agreeing with you, not pointing out a typo (which I didn't notice till just now).

No, it's not reduced to the adaptation of the present SI to base twelve, since for example the length of the metre, from which a good deal of the other SI units are dependent, was originally arrived at from a decimal subdivision of the terrestrial quadrant, which makes it a decimal-based unit per se independently of the use or not of decimal-based prefixes to obtain multiple and divisor units such as the kilometre. A dozenal system of measures shouldn't be the mere dozenalization of the system of prefixes, replacing kilo- with kido- and the like, while still basing the system on units like the metre which were decimal-based in their conception. A new system that aims to be truly dozenal should arrive at its basic units using purely dozenal terms from the start, independently of previous decimal-based units, as is the case of Takashi Suga's Universal Unit System, which relates dozenality to the interrelationships between several physical constants.

EDIT: Fixed link.

DAJ, I don't see how Imperial measures are obsolete; I can buy a pint of beer or milk, so-labelled, in the shops, so....

DAJ,

the length of the metre is completely arbitrary unless you relate it to its original derivation, which it is still almost identically; 1/10,000 the quadrant. Funny that the decimal angular and time system was abolished/has become disused, tho....

If we just kept SI as it but altered in the ways you say, then the litre would not weigh a sensible number of grams of water, and the value for the acceleration due to gravity would also be awful, so....

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~dd6t-sg/univun.../univunit-e.pdf

DAJ, your comment was that Imperial measures were obsolete. You admit you were wrong on that point. Stop being slippery.

Whatever the case is in Oz, I don't know, but I know the situation the UK better than you do (we've had this debate on BWMA :) )

Hi DJA

<<Nobody really cares what variation existed before their time>>

False - I do

<<Personally I have no problem with non-SI drifting all over the place. they have for centuries why not continue? >>

I am curious to know where you got this false idea from? The core ancient ancient unit have been stable for millenia......

Speaking for myself - I do not find your points very interesting.

More interesting in my opinion is that SI seems to be parasitic upon the man based pound unit of c. 500g (16oz troy = 40 beqa = 60 shekels)

According to my guesses this unit is probably about 10,000 years old - but if you wish to stick to hard facts - more the 4,000 years old in Persia, likely 5000 years old in Egypt.

So the 200 years of SI is just the blink of an eye, it seems to me

best

rob

I know, I was just pointing it out myself. :)

Don't tar me with anyone else's brush. I speak truly. I have always spoken truly.


Vinegar tends not to be sold in Imperial, altho it is almost always marked "568ml" (=1pt);

Milk can be bought in 1, 2, 3, 4 pint varieties, and is labelled in metric and imperial; it can also be bought in 500ml, 1l, 2l etc quantities, uaully also marked in Imperial;

Jam is almost always in Imperial sizes, but it may or may not be marked Imperially. That is, it is marked 454g, 340g, 284g etc, and sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't marked in Imperial, too (e.g. my current jar is marked "WT. 284 g (10oz)");

Fish sauce and olive oil and other similiar products are often marked in fluidounces as well as metric, but these tend to be US fluidounces, as many of these items coem from East Asia;

Tins of drink, particularly one from abroad, are often also marked in US floz as well as ml; unimported tins are not in floz as well as ml;

Tins of paint are exclusively metric, altho some people refer to them as "one gallon", "half gallon" and so on;

Things such as flooring, blinds, curtains, and most such stuff tends to be marked in both Metric and Imperial; sometimes it is based on metric, sometimes Imperial. Overall it is probably more metric than imperial;

most other food products are labelled in metric, but the sizes tend to be imperial sizes. HOWEVER, bread (400g, 800g), and drinks (apart from milk and beer) tend to be the main exceptions;

Beer is bought by the pint of half pint in pubs; in shops, it varies: 330ml, 500ml, 550ml, 568ml, and so on. The ones which are 568 ml tend to bear a legend saying " pint" or "a full pint";

Road signs are almost only in Imperial; sometimes you get metres alongside Imperial;

As for ton signs, I assume they are in tonnes, and not long tons, but I honestly don't know; I don't drive;

footpaths, ya know on walks and suchlike, can be in metres, they can be in yards, they are almost never in feet, and they are almost always in miles, not kilometres;

Petrol is sold by the litre, but people almost exclusively use miles per gallon, and miles per hour; indeed, many people (mostly 30y/o and over) use £/gal, instead of £/l;

pounds per square inch is always used at expense of pascals and other metric units, but sometimes millibars are used;

my gas meter and boiler are marked in millibars, BTUS,and cubic feet of gas;





Is that a fair and honest appraisal of the situation? I tell you, it is, and I have never said otherwise on this point. I am not responsible for Tony or Steve, ok. :)

[EDIT]
DAJ, you said it was obsolete. When I pointed out it is still in use, and therefore not obsolete, you agreed.

Hi DAJ

<<Well, for one thing, look at the pound. How many variations of it were there in France alone before the metric system came along>>

There was only one core ‘pound’ (Livre) in France – that equating to 18 Roman ounces – the one that Newton used in his publications. It went 63:64 against the c. 500g pound

<<How can you say they have been stable, when history says they were not?>>

Do yourself a favour and get some real facts to work from – try downloading and reading

http://ideas.repec.org/p/tor/tecipa/munro-98-01.html

What interests me is the extent to which those with an irrational dislike of historical measures confuse their own propaganda with ‘history’ It has been going on for at least 200 years, and seems a fascinating story in itself

<<It is non-SI that is parasitic.>>

Begs the question

<<Wikipedia says: It most commonly refers to an ancient Hebrew unit of weight. As with many ancient units, the shekel represented a variety of values depending on date, domain and region. Sources quote weights between 9 and 17 grams and values of 11, 14, and 17 grams are common. It can be a gold or silver coin equal in weight to one of these units, especially the chief silver coin of the Hebrews. Which variation of the skekel are you referring to? How stable is a unit if it varies between 9 and 17 g? >>

All the entries I have seen in Wiki bearing upon the history of weight standards are a disaster – brought about in my view by exactly the sort of misleading propaganda you call ‘history’

I already specified the shekel I was refering to – c. 500g/60 = 8.33g – the weight of the gold daric.

<<What you mean is the unit name or the concept of the unit is that old.>>

Utterly incorrect – please reply to what I actually write.

<<That unit had many, many variations right up to the present time. You can only guess because you have no surviving artifact (if one ever existed) to back up your guess.>>

No surviving artifacts? Complete nonsense. The core 500g weight has varied little since at least the time of Shugli cca 2,150 BC. Our best surviving standard (of probably millions of surviving coins and weights) is likely the palace weight of Darius – a 1/3 mina or pound implying a pound of 500.2g as I best recall. Surviving weights of Shulgi are mostly within a few grams of this AIBR

best

rob