Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.133.164; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au
Message-ID: <002601c6e3aa$ef234790$fc7eecdc@george>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1425350@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel - Weights and Measures
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:37:50 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bob,
Interesting to say the least - why do I not feel fully satisfied ?
However your right, it may all be in the records somewhere!
I will research it.
BTW I've never fully accepted Metric - still work mostly in inches. I can 
understand those who want simplicity, but for my own point of view 
everything seems to have evolved in12's - degrees, time etc.
I found it interesting to see how some measurements evolved i.e a foot was 
someone's foot ( perhaps the King's) a yard is taken from the shoulder joint 
to the finger tips - from what I've read etc. etc. I have just found the 
variation of the gallon annoying from the Aviation point of view - then one 
starts to wonder WHY?
George ( down under)

> Hi George,
>
> The following is quoted from "Measuring America" by Andro Linklater.
> It's somewhat out of context, but will give some ideas.  You sound like
> the kind of fellow who would enjoy reading this book. :)
>
> "The basic weight was the troy pound in the Philadelphia Mint.  This
> was scaled up by the ratio of 5,760 grains to 7000 grains to give the
> avoirdupois pound, the actual standard being a brass weight marked with
> a star, and consequently known as the "star" pound.  Both of these were
> the same as the British imperial units, but instead of selecting the new
> all-in-one British gallon, the U. S. Treasury decided that the
> distinction between liquid and dry measures should be kept, initially
> for customs duties and then for the standards themselves.  From the
> grab bag of old definitions, Hassler's elaborate comparisons of
> different measures determined the selection of Queen Anne's wine gallon
> of 231 cubic inches for liquids, and for grains the Winchester bushel
> of 2,150.42 cubic inches, each of which was smaller by about 17 percent
> and 3 percent, respectively, than the new imperial gallon and bushel."
>
> Among some of the startling revelations to me was that Thomas Jefferson
> had tried to establish a decimal based weights and measures system in
> the U. S., but was not successful.  It was quite different from the
> French metric system we all know and love today.
>
> Quoting again:
> "In less than 1,000 words, he then outlined the first scientifically
> based, fully integrated, decimal system of weights and measures in the
> world.  Its basic measure of length, derived from the second's rod, was
> a foot, which would be divided into 10 inches.  A cube of rainwater,
> whose sides were 1 decimal inch long, was to weigh 1 decimal ounce, and
> 10 of these ounces would make 1 pound.  The basic unit of capacity
> would be the bushel, which was to measure 1 cubic foot, that is to say,
> 1,000 cubic inches.  Finally, the weight of the dollar was to be
> adjusted so that it came to exactly 1 decimal ounce."
>
> Bob W.
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:43:03 +1000
> "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Paul or ANYONE,
>> Could you tell me why the US gallon is different to the Imperial gallon - 
>> it has always bothered me. I've searched the conversions and found that 
>> the Imperial system has 20 oz to the pint and the US has 16 oz to the 
>> pint, and we all have 2 pints = 1 quart and 4 quarts gallon. It also 
>> seems there is a difference in the value of the ounce.
>>
>> We both have 16 oz to the lb - I wonder if that had anything to do with 
>> some sort of EARLY rationalisation?
>>
>> I would really like to understand the reasoning behind this difference, 
>> there must be some sound reasoning behind wanting to change from what was 
>> THEN considered a universal 'Weights & Measures' system.
>>
>> While your at it could someone tell me why Stone was dropped from the US 
>> weights system i.e. 14 lbs =1 Stone.
>>
>> I just figure if I could just understand the reasoning behind these 
>> decisions and if they sound logical - I could better live with them, like 
>> I do with the difference in spelling. Not that I'm so great at spelling, 
>> in fact I used to get in all sorts of trouble by spelling things 
>> phonetically such as in the US system - but they belted that out of me, 
>> however I do understand the logic behind it. Now if I could just get a 
>> handle on  the weights issue!
>> George ( down under)
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.bob-white.com
> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06)
> Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
> http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/