How big is a billion

I was recently told the Murrican measures were based on wine, not water

I’m sorry, but how does liquid from grapes manage to come out a different size compared to liquid from a tap, or a cow, or…

Well there are three different ounces depending on whether you are weighing precious metals (troy), pharmaceuticals (apothecaries) or anything else (avoirdupois).

And for liquids there’s the Imperial fluid ounce, the American customary fluid ounce (which, in a change, is slightly larger), and the one that Americans use on labels (which is exactly 30ml).

Confused yet? ;)

No, I don’t use Imperial measurements normally

I think the only non-metric measure I use is distances in miles, because it would mean having to convert absolutely every measurement that I see in this country.

Height, weight, milk, wine… everything to me is metric and has been for decades. We set the bathroom scales to kilos decades ago.

I grew up in the Imperial system. Learning physics at school, and having to do calculations in three measurement systems, made me determined to abandon the Imperial system as soon as I could. I pity anyone who has to struggle with Imperial measures.

One other thing… someone mentioned miles per gallon. That’s irrelevant to me, too; I get about 3.5 miles per kWh nowadays on average.

I pity anyone who has to struggle with Imperial measures.

If you grew up with Imperial measures it shouldn’t a struggle.
I mix metric and Imperial and other measures as called for by the context.
With wood and sheet materials it is often more convenient to use feet and inches.
Thinking of a sheet of ply as 8 by 4 is easier than 2400 by 1200.
As for drink mines a wee dram thanks.

If you grew up with Imperial measures it shouldn’t a struggle.

I think I did point out that I grew up with Imperial measures.

Having later discovered metric measures, I realised what a struggle Imperial measures were and are.

Base 60, 12, 24 – that’s what you need to get you through the day.

Decimalise that.

It’s a bit entrenched, is that one.

I believe the French had a go, but the world is what the world is

Rick – think density. An ounce of wine has a slightly lower density than water and so a fluid (wine) ounce has a slightly larger volume. And then add history and law changes to further mess things up.

Thinking of a sheet of ply as 8 by 4 is easier than 2400 by 1200.

But it’s quite handy to know that a sheet of ply is probably 2440×1220, which is much closer to 8′×4′ than 2400×1200 is (only 1.6mm & 0.8mm over), whereas a sheet of plasterboard probably is 2400×1200.

I tend to do construction work in feet and inches (accurate to 0.1"), and furniture making in mm (accurate to 0.25mm). But of course planning and building regulations applications go in in mm…

and of course building materials are sold in metric feet (i.e. 1 foot = 300mm, approx). Ever tried to buy a 2m length of wood? 2.1m (7 feet) is the closest.

Having grown up imperial, used C-G-S at school, M-K-S at Uni, them foot-poundals-seconds at college – I tend to convert to imperial if I want to visualise something metric.

And going back up the thread, an acre is easy – it’s a chain by a furlong, i.e. 22 yards by 220 yards, or 4840 square yards.

and of course building materials are sold in metric feet (i.e. 1 foot = 300mm, approx). Ever tried to buy a 2m length of wood? 2.1m (7 feet) is the closest.

It’s not quite as simple as that, although that’s quite a common pattern. But see my post immediately above yours for others…

But it’s quite handy to know that a sheet of ply is probably 2440×1220, which is much closer to 8′×4′ than 2400×1200

I had forgotten that but it does sort of illustrate the point. When constructing a chicken shed for example a few millimetres is neither here nor there. pacing out or stepping out gives a measurement in feet which is good enough.

The cubit is a good practical measure in the right circumstances. It is reckoned to be 18 inches, but obviously varies from person to person and from adult to child. But this is exactly what makes it useful. For making personal items it is good to have a measuring system that takes body size into account. I make scythe handles for myself and others. The positioning of the handles on the snath is vital for efficient scything and the distance from the top handle to bottom handle is ideally one cubit.
My cubit measured from elbow to tip of middle finger is a tad under 20 inches making two to the metre;
measured from elbow to tip of pinkie is exactly 18 inches making two to the yard, making switching between Imperial, Metric and Biblical a doddle.

When constructing a chicken shed for example a few millimetres is neither here nor there.

Indeed – hence my building work in feet and inches, and furniture making in millimetres!

But it’s quite handy to know that a sheet of ply is probably 2440×1220, which is much closer to 8′×4′ than 2400×1200 is (only 1.6mm & 0.8mm over), whereas a sheet of plasterboard probably is 2400×1200.

As it happens I had two boards delivered a month ago.
One was a sheet of PIR insulation board specced at 2.4 m x 1.2m x 25mm.
The other a sheet of ply which I have just measured to better than a 16th inch)to be 8ft by 4ft by 1/8 inch. The board has been standing on edge in a shed and has developed some warping. I suspect that the original measurment was indeed 2440×1220 but that the warping has shrunk the effective measurement by the difference.

I remember when if you bought a sheet of ply it would be perfectly flat. Even really thin stuff would be. Hell, dismantle eighty-year-old furniture and the plywood you get out of it is still perfectly flat.

These days even 18mm ply is liable to be seriously wonky.

but she was so far beyond right

And in today’s news:
https://metro.co.uk/2024/01/30/alzheimers-spread-people-happen-20192605/

When I was younger, I used to give length measurements in “the most appropriate scale”.

Little things? Centimetres.
Larger things? Inches.
Even bigger things? Feet (size of a school ruler).
Massive things? Metres.

I was, like, ten, so there was nothing beyond that. I was aware of miles and kilometres, but my contextual reference point wasn’t so much the distance as the time it would take to walk.

I never got on with stones and pounds and ounces. I used to know my weight in weird measurements as that what the doctors would say. No real concept of what it meant other than “the size of me” (which wasn’t a lot).

And my height and temperature? Pretty much ¹ always been metric.

There’s something delightfully obtuse about metric for some, Imperial for others, isn’t there?

¹ I spent a year in America as a kindergarten age child in the late 70s, so that would have been a definitively metric-free zone.

American recipes…make my head hurt.

Yup. I have an American book here and I’ve written “1 stick of butter = 113g” on it!

Yup. I have an American book here and I’ve written “1 stick of butter = 113g” on it!

Ah, but apparently American butter is different.
The wife came across something where a merkin was amazed that we put butter on bread for sandwiches

Ah, units! Clive mentions the lakh (100,000) reminding me that Harold Macmillan once described a rather large gathering of political figures as a ‘lakh of principals’.

Today, one can use the unique units sometimes employed in The Register for example:

Area (nanoWales – nW, Belgium, DRC, etc.)
Force (Norris – No: who he?)
Length (linguine – lg, Osman, etc.)
Temperature (Hilton – Hn: who he?)
Volume (grapefruit – gf, Olympic swimming pool, etc.)
Weight (adult badger – aB, Australian tram, etc.)
Velocity – (Percentage of maximum velocity of sheep in a vacuum)
Money – (Pogba – Pg)
Time – (Truss: 44 days = 1 Truss)