Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 10th, 2012, 04:54 PM   #11

Naomasa298's Avatar
This title is too lo
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 16,029

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculptingman View Post
Even measuring temperature in Celsius is ridiculously stupid... anchoring the scale with the phase points of water at an arbitrary sea level pressure... what the hell sense is there in that?
Makes as much sense as anchoring the scale to two points within an arbitrary length of time in an arbitrary point in Europe.

Humans are fully capable of relating to the fact that water turns to ice and turns to steam. It's perfectly within the experience of anyone who has ever lived through a cold northern hemisphere winter or boiled water.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 10th, 2012, 11:10 PM   #12
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2012
From: South Wales UK
Posts: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculptingman View Post
Most early measures are simply varying interpretations of Human dimensions.

An ounce is about as much liquid as you sip, a cup, about as much as you can hold in a cupped hand, a foot is pretty much a foot ( when the shoe is taken into account ) A yard is a robust walking stride... and a Mile is about a thousand of these strides.
These measure made sense because they were directly related to how human beings engage with the world.

And here's a lesson... the "rule of thumb" is NOT, as is commonly claimed, the thickness of stick you were allowed to beat your wife with...
It refers to the fact that a man's thumb is almost exactly an inch wide... thus you can measure an object by alternately laying each thumb in front of the other... using your thumb as a 'rule'.

Most mediaeval measures are variations on this same theme, of relating the average human experience into the average measure.

Keep in mind that, though it varied a lot from culture to culture... it did not vary any more than human beings, themselves vary.
A bushel basket is the size it is because anything much larger a man can not carry when full of grain.


This influence of Our dimensions on the size of things extends even to such things and the size of the solid rocket boosters used on the space shuttle. Their width and length was determined by the fact that they would be shipped by rail and had to be able to fit on standard rail cars and thru railway tunnels and bridges.
And these dimensions were determined by rail road gauge- the distance between rails... that That was determined because the earliest railways were horse drawn, and the rails had to be wide enough to allow a horse good footing between them, Or three horses good footing with one on either size.

So something as esoteric as the diameter and length of pre-assembled rocket boosters is ultimately determined by how wide a horse's ass generally is.
trace things back far enough, and most things come down to human scale.

Metric might make sense from the perspective of math... but it makes little sense to human beings experientially.
Even measuring temperature in Celsius is ridiculously stupid... anchoring the scale with the phase points of water at an arbitrary sea level pressure... what the hell sense is there in that?

Fahrenheit set his 100 degree range by marking the coldest day in the part of Europe he lived in, and marking the hottest day....
That is a temperature measure that is directly relatable to human experience of heat and cold.

Man is the measure of all things... and measures should keep their relation to our immediate perception of ourselves and our scale in dealing with the world around us.
And THAT is the reason the US still has the good sense to keep to imperial measures.
I am afraid there is a great deal more to take into account than this extremely simplistic commentary. Read my book which was written with the assistance of colleague Steve Redman...you can download it free...all 550 plus pages of it... and you will see what you have missed...Historians have as yet to scratch the surface of this fascinating study.

My measures evaluations are verifiable by the interested individual and medieval works utilized the same units as were applied in ancient times in numerous cases...The George Washington Monument is a case in point as is the diameter of the dome at the White House and numerous cathedrals across Europe etc etc.

Unless you actually do the research and reading necessary to gain an understanding you are NOT in a position to make valid comment, a point made by someone else here about a different subject only yesterday.
harry sivertsen is offline  
Old May 15th, 2012, 01:46 AM   #13
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2012
From: South Wales UK
Posts: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculptingman View Post
Most early measures are simply varying interpretations of Human dimensions.

An ounce is about as much liquid as you sip, a cup, about as much as you can hold in a cupped hand, a foot is pretty much a foot ( when the shoe is taken into account ) A yard is a robust walking stride... and a Mile is about a thousand of these strides.
These measure made sense because they were directly related to how human beings engage with the world.

And here's a lesson... the "rule of thumb" is NOT, as is commonly claimed, the thickness of stick you were allowed to beat your wife with...
It refers to the fact that a man's thumb is almost exactly an inch wide... thus you can measure an object by alternately laying each thumb in front of the other... using your thumb as a 'rule'.

Most mediaeval measures are variations on this same theme, of relating the average human experience into the average measure.

Keep in mind that, though it varied a lot from culture to culture... it did not vary any more than human beings, themselves vary.
A bushel basket is the size it is because anything much larger a man can not carry when full of grain.


This influence of Our dimensions on the size of things extends even to such things and the size of the solid rocket boosters used on the space shuttle. Their width and length was determined by the fact that they would be shipped by rail and had to be able to fit on standard rail cars and thru railway tunnels and bridges.
And these dimensions were determined by rail road gauge- the distance between rails... that That was determined because the earliest railways were horse drawn, and the rails had to be wide enough to allow a horse good footing between them, Or three horses good footing with one on either size.

So something as esoteric as the diameter and length of pre-assembled rocket boosters is ultimately determined by how wide a horse's ass generally is.
trace things back far enough, and most things come down to human scale.

Metric might make sense from the perspective of math... but it makes little sense to human beings experientially.
Even measuring temperature in Celsius is ridiculously stupid... anchoring the scale with the phase points of water at an arbitrary sea level pressure... what the hell sense is there in that?

Fahrenheit set his 100 degree range by marking the coldest day in the part of Europe he lived in, and marking the hottest day....
That is a temperature measure that is directly relatable to human experience of heat and cold.

Man is the measure of all things... and measures should keep their relation to our immediate perception of ourselves and our scale in dealing with the world around us.
And THAT is the reason the US still has the good sense to keep to imperial measures.

It is blatantly obvious that here you are commenting upon a subject that you have NOT studied. May I suggest you start with John Michell's New View Over Atlantis which is NOT about Atlantis but was merely a title that caught the imagination. Move from there to John Neal's All Done With Mirrors...I am still puzzled about that title! and then read my work which expands upon both and clarifies much. Perhaps then you will be sufficiently knowledgeable to comment upon this area which is a specialty of mine.

Much is currently being made of religion on a different thread here. Coincidentally, measures are used quite extensively to explain parts of stories in the Bible...and these are crucial elements of the tales that link, for example, Biblical writings to some from India. When the ancient measures, the same as were utilized in medieval times, are understood, much becomes apparent that has previously remained shrouded in nonsensical fantasy.

This is a very wide ranging subject that CANNOT be generalized in the cavalier fashion that is all too often seen.

I invite anyone interested in this subject, or indeed the flood story and Atlantis to download my books FREE... Discover what others have missed...The research for these works took me well over 20 years, they are original...and the results are verifiable, but read in depth, do not scan or much will be missed, these books are packed with detail.

If anyone wishes to contact me regarding my research try
h.sivertsen@btinternet.com
harry sivertsen is offline  
Old May 15th, 2012, 04:56 AM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,750

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Around here, you'd get some funny looks for drinking Fosters.
I like drinking it because, in Bolton, you can get a box of 15 cans of it for just £9.

If you go down south it costs £15 for a pint of it.
Brunel is offline  
Old May 15th, 2012, 05:00 AM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,750

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
Medeival weights and measure are known as the English System and are still used in the US.
They are used in Britain, too, of course. And other English-speaking countries like Canada. In the US and Canada, for example, the foot is the official unit of measurement, whereas the EU forces the British to use a strange, alien unit called "a metre" in certain cases.

Being a part of the EU we must, by law, have silly metric measures which nobody uses on all our food and drink packaging.

I don't think imperial measures are compulsory - despite the fact they are our traditional measures which everybody understands - but our unelected EU Masters graciously allow the British to have both metric AND imperial measures on our packaging if we wish.

Despite all this, we have miles on our road signs, not kilometres. We measure our height in feet and inches (I'm 5 feet 8 inches). You'll never hear a Brit saying they are two metres (or whatever it works out as) tall. We measure our weight in stones (compared to North Americans who use pounds), rather than kilograms. I weigh 14 stones.

Last edited by Brunel; May 15th, 2012 at 05:08 AM.
Brunel is offline  
Old May 15th, 2012, 05:14 AM   #16
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,750

It was the Romans and Greeks who first used the foot. They subdivided it into 16 digits. In later years, though, the Romans subdivided their foot into 12 unica. Unica is where the English measures "inch" and "ounce" get their names from and why today there are 12 inches in a foot.

It was the Romans who introduced the foot to Britain in the 1st Century AD. Then, in the 5th Century, the Anglo-Saxons arrived and introduced their North German foot of 13.2 inches.

The new foot was used for land measurement, while the Roman foot continued to be used in the construction crafts. Some time between 1266 and 1303 the weights and measures of England were radically revised by a law known as the Composition of Yards and Perches (Compositio ulnarum et perticarum) often known as the Compositio for short. This law, attributed to either Henry III or his successor Edward I, instituted a new foot that was exactly 10/11 the length of the old foot, with corresponding reductions in the size of the yard, ell, inch, and barleycorn. Furlongs and rods, however, remained the same. The furlong remained an eighth of a mile, but changed from 600 old feet to 660 new feet. The rod remained the same length, but changed from 15 old feet to 16 1/2 new feet.

A barleycorn is a third of an inch.

An ell is 18 inches, or 1.5 feet. It is approximately the length of a man's arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger.

A yard, of course, is three feet, and is the minimum length that opposition players have to be from the ball during a free kick in football.

English units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brunel is offline  
Old May 15th, 2012, 05:35 AM   #17
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2012
From: South Wales UK
Posts: 11

Once more we see comments that are based upon such spurious resources as Wiki which in this subject are virtually worthless.

Go to my page on Scribd

http://www.scribd.com/harry_sivertsen

which was referenced in my early post and read the papers there then move to the books on the same site...all is free. Over 20 years of hard won knowledge for nothing!

As a number here are making comment regarding the metric system I introduce the history of the change to metric, in most cases, only a simple calculation to move from one version to the next.


A Product of the Revolution - The Development of the Metric System

The story of the metric system begins over three hundred years ago. For many years in Renaissance Europe there had been discussions about the need for a coherent system of measurement in order to better scientific communication and enhance trade.
The above need reminds us of a similar situation regarding standardisation problems in the transfer of scientific data in the 1970’s. These were solved by scientists at CERN, the European Nuclear Research Institute in Geneva, who invented html, the so-called mark up language of internet web pages, which became the standard format for scientific document transfer during the 1980’s.
Standardisation problems abounded in mediaeval Europe; 17th century France in particular had standards of linear and volume measure that varied from town to town across the country, which made trade difficult, and obviously, the subject of much potential dispute. It was in 1670 that Gabriel Mouton, a vicar at St. Paul’s Church in Lyon, first suggested a unit associated with Earth measurement, namely 1/40,000,000 of the Earth’s longitudinal circumference. Mouton's proposal contained three of the major characteristics of the future metric system: decimalization, rational prefixes (i.e. a standard set of unit multiples and sub-multiples), and a unit of length related to the Earth's dimensions. Mouton's proposal was debated for some 120 years, but it was not to be until the fall of the Bastille and the creation of the National Assembly that it became a political possibility in France. In April of 1790, one of the foremost members of the National Assembly, Talleyrand, introduced the subject of standardisation of measurement to the Assembly, launching a debate that resulted in a directive to the French Academy of Sciences to prepare a report.
After several months' study of available data [such as Bouger’s, see footnote] the Academy came up with a series of recommendations. The main one of interest to us here was that the Academy recommended that length of longitude passing through Paris be determined from the North Pole to the Equator, and that 1/10,000,000 of this distance would become a new standard length, termed the metre. This unit would then form the basis of a new decimal linear measurement system which would be extended to include a new unit of weight, derived from the weight of a cubic metre of water. In addition, the Academy also proposed a list of prefixes for decimal multiples and submultiples.
The revolutionary National Assembly endorsed the above milestone of a report and directed that the necessary measurements be taken. This was formalized on June 19, 1791, when a committee of 12 mathematicians, geodesists, and physicists met with the King, Louis XVI, who gave the Royal Assent to the submitted proposals. Incidentally, the next day, the King and Marie Antoinette attempted to escape from France, but were caught at Varennes. [They would have made it if the coach had not been delayed for a long time in order to load a large trunk containing the Queen’s toilet set.] Louis XI and Marie Antoinette were forcibly returned to Paris, where the King was imprisoned and a year later he played his last part in this story. Here, from his cell, he issued the proclamation that directed two engineers, Jean Delambre and Pierre Méchain, to perform the surveying operations necessary to determine the length of the new standard unit.
Footnote:

Newton’s assertion that Earth was an ellipsoid was further confirmed by a number of French surveying expeditions in the early 18th century. In 1735, Pierre Bouger travelled to Peru with Charles-Marie de La Condmine to ascertain the length of the meridian (or line of longitude) between various latitudes in the region, which is approximately south of the equator by the same distance as Paris is to the north. The following year in an expedition to Lapland, similar measurements were made by Pierre-Louise Moreau de Maupertuis. Utilising triangulation, these surveyors and their teams confirmed that the Earth was, as Newton had predicted, flattened at its extremities.

Delambre and Méchain now set to work to measure the distance on the meridian from Barcelona, Spain, to Dunkirk in northern France, a task so arduous that it was not completed for six years. While Delambre and Méchain were struggling in the field, administrative details were being worked out in Paris and in 1793 a provisional metre was constructed from geodetic data already available. In 1795, a draft law defining the metric standards of length, mass, and capacity was produced, along with the prefixes for multiples and submultiples. The standard metre, as determined by Delambre and Méchain, was formally presented to the Assembly in 1799 and was adopted on June 22nd of that year.
The motto of the metric system that introduces this chapter is ironic here, as one of the key themes of Measurements of the Gods is that whilst there were indeed a variety of units of measurement in use, these were linked to a canon of numerical units of measurement based on geodetic dimensions that had existed around the world not merely for a few hundred years, but for millenia.
For those who understood, these units were interrelated and posed no problems. Among those who were aware of the values were the designers of palaces, cathedrals and monastic buildings during the period when metrication or ‘standardisation’ was introduced in France. We must conclude from this that although a man of the church, Gabriel Mouton was unaware of the geodetic nature of the measurements already in existence and inherent in his own place of worship.

Basic elements of the Metric System

The new metric system comprised a number of elements - the standard metre as derived by Delambre and Méchain, the gram, litre and are. The gram, the basic unit of mass, was made equal to the mass of a cubic centimetre of pure water at the temperature of its maximum density [which was defined as 4 degrees Centigrade or 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit]. A platinum cylinder known as the Kilogram of the Archives was declared the standard for 1,000 grams whilst the litre was defined as the volume equivalent to the volume of a cube, each side of which had a length of 1 decimetre, or 10 centimetres. The are was defined as the measure of area equal to a square 10 metres on a side. In practice the multiple, hectare or 100 ares, [approximately 2.47 imperial acres] became the principal unit of land area measurement. In addition, names for multiples and submultiples of all units had a uniform style, based on Greek prefixes.
The year 1823 saw the introduction of legislation in France to enforce the use of the new measurement units, an enforcement that was still necessary as late as 1837.
This reminds us of the United Kingdom today, where there is still a reluctance to use the ‘new’ metric measures by many older people who have been brought up using the old Imperial system, in fact a recent move by the government has allowed the old values to remain in use provided traders also display the metric equivalents. Indeed, some building materials such as plywood can still be obtained in imperial sizes…even in 2009!
However, during the period under discussion, the mid 18th to the early 19th centuries, in Britain a similar move toward standardisation was taking place. The Select Committee of the House of Commons was set up to report on the Original Standards of Weights and Measures in ‘this kingdom’. On May 26th1758 and April 11th 1759, the Select Committee submitted reports upon the units then in use and recommended that the Ale Gallon of 282 cubic inches should be that which replaces all other interpretations of the gallon. They also suggested that the Troy pound should be the basis of all weight measurement.
Later, after a period of inactivity regarding any standardisation two eminent scientists were consulted by the committee, one Dr. W. Hyde Wollaston, Secretary to the Royal Society, and the other being a Professor Playfair of Edinburgh. Their recommendations as outlined here were finally passed by the Committee in 1816 and were in use at that time.
One of the recommendations that emerged was for a yard that contained 36 inches with the inch derived from an accurately balanced pendulum, sited in the middle of London and that vibrated at 60 times per minute. The length of this pendulum had been calculated at 39.13047 inches of which 36 made the yard.
This basically defined the linear measure as the yard was seen to be 3.3702 inches shorter than the newly developed French metre at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 3.3826 inches shorter at 55 degrees Fahrenheit. Correlation was therefore seen to two invariable stands, the measure relating to Earth’s meridian circumference of which the metre was 1/40,000,000 and the pendulum in London.
The Select Committee recommended that the pint should be comprised of 34.56 cubic inches with the quart at 69.12 cubic inches and gallon at 276.48 cubic inches. [Note: 69.12 miles = one degree of anciently accepted Earth circumference and 34.56 inches = the Egyptian [as named by Michell of which more later] step measure. Also compare numerical counts to the values associated with Indian weights in Chapter 15.] Here it should be noted that all the liquid measures were conducted at 561/2 degrees Fahrenheit. A cubic foot of pure water or 1728 cubic inches, at 561/2 degrees Fahrenheit weighed exactly 1000 ounces Avoirdupois. This was taken as the standard from which all else in the realm of weight / liquid measure evolved as 1728 cubic inches means a cube of exactly 12 inches per side. The volume of water of a single pound Avoirdupois therefore was seen to be 27. 648 cubic inches.
Just a few years later, in 1824, the Weights and Measures Act of that year decreed somewhat different values. The linear measures remained the same but due to the fact that the conditions for evaluating liquid were altered, the volume correspondingly changed and the gallon was now quoted at 277.274 cubic inches making the pint 34.69525 cubic inches against the earlier recommendation of 34.56. In 1824 the temperature for evaluation was set at 62 degrees Fahrenheit with the barometer at 30 inches, which of course meant an expansion of the unit weight utilised to ascertain the displacement volume of water in the pint, gallon etc. If we examine what could have been observed in the case of a weight to ascertain a pint volume for example at the earlier assessment taken at 561/2 degrees Fahrenheit, the pint, as noted, had a displacement value of 34.56 cubic inches which from the unit numbers involved [34.56, 1728, 6912 and 12], will be seen to be 100 percent compatible with the system that dates to millennia before this event. At the new interpretation taken at the higher 62 degrees, the weight utilised to ascertain the displacement volume had expanded to the volume of 34.69525 cubic inches, an increase of 0.0042436 of an inch or 1/9.277 of a millimetre per side. As the earlier British measures were compatible the with ancient units as seen above, it becomes apparent that the Imperial measures were intimately related to these vastly older units.
In Chapter 16 we return to this subject of weights in much more detail but here we shall look once more to the French initial interpretation of the metre and to the implications arising. The Select Committee noted the reported difference between the yards and the metre at two different temperatures, 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 55 degrees Fahrenheit which naturally gave two different readings. We shall take the lower value which was read at freezing point, 32 degrees Fahrenheit. This difference was 3.3702 inches, making the metre 36 plus 3.3702 or 39.3702 inches in length. This meant that the French calculation for the Earth’s meridian circumference was 40000000 x 3.28085 feet or 24854.92424 miles. The ancient’s version for a globular Earth was 24883.2 miles, a difference of some 28.2 miles.

The SI System

At this point it is useful to explore a reason for the eventual pervasiveness of the metric system – namely it’s expansion into a much wider technical and scientific field. The creation of the decimal metric system at the time of the French Revolution can be seen as the first of a number of steps in the development of the present International System of Units, commonly known as the SI system.
In 1832, Gauss strongly promoted the application of the new metric system (together with the second defined in astronomy) as a coherent system of units for the physical sciences. In the 1860s, under the active leadership of Maxwell and Thomson, the British Association for the Advancement of Science [BAAS] formulated the requirement for a coherent system of units consisting of base units, and derived units. Consequently, in 1874 the BAAS introduced the CGS system, a three-dimensional method based on the units centimetre, gram and second, using prefixes ranging from micro to mega, to express decimal submultiples and multiples. The development of physics as an experimental science was largely based on this system.
The sizes of the coherent CGS units used in the fields of electricity and magnetism proved to be inconvenient, so in the 1880s, the BAAS and the International Electrical Congress approved a mutually coherent set of practical units. Amongst them were the well known nowadays, Ohm for electrical resistance, Volt for electromotive force, and the Ampere for electric current. In 1889, the CGS system was amended so that the base units were changed to the meter, kilogram and second. [Note: We now use the French spelling for the meter – metre] Later, in 1946, the CGS system was expanded to include the Ampere as a unit of electrical current. Further expansion to include the Kelvin [temperature] and candela [light] was made in 1960, where the modern name of the SI system was born. Finally, in 1971, the current version of the SI system was completed, by adding the mole as base unit for amount of substance, bringing the total number of base units to seven.

Alexander Ross Clarke and the advent of British Geodetic Surveying

While France was adopting the metric system, Britain still maintained the Imperial system of measurement, which was standard throughout the British Empire. Indeed, while the French were producing their surveys, in the late 18th century, Britain was also engaged in a similar exercise: the first complete trigonometrical survey of the British Isles. This was to eventually result in what we recognise in modern times as the Ordnance Survey, the initial work being completed in 1852.
Alexander Ross Clarke [1828 – 1914], a pioneer in modern surveying, was closely involved in this work, and he published the results of the first geodetic survey of Great Britain in 1861. His calculations of the size and shape of the Earth [known as the Clarke ellipsoid] were the first to approximate accepted modern values with respect to both polar flattening and equatorial radius. The figures derived from his second set of calculations [1866] became a standard reference for geodesy in the United States for most of the twentieth century, even though he had never set foot on North American soil.

3.4 The Last Days: The End of the Imperial Measurement System

The quotation heading this chapter is a little tongue in cheek, in that while it may have been utilised in the context of the new metric system, the system that it was displacing was actually as ancient as human civilisation itself. This system, the Imperial measurement system, had already been proven to be capable of being described as ‘For all peoples, for all time’. What we knew as the British Imperial system is but a part of a completely integrated numerical system, which was so beautiful in its connectivity, it was almost like poetry in numbers. Algernon Berriman’s fear, noted in his work Historical Metrology in 1953, that a heritage of ‘great antiquity’ was to disappear from daily life began to be borne out during the course of the 1960’s, as the process called metrication began in Britain. Feet, inches and other associated units began to be replaced by a unit new to Britain - the metre - and its various offspring such as the kilometre. In a similar way, the British, or rather imperial, units of weight and volume were to be supplanted by ‘metric’ units. This attack on Britain’s heritage was incurred, supposedly, via an Act of Parliament in 1963. The word ‘supposedly’ is used here because there are many who would argue that there was no such Act, and the concept of metrication, whether for good or otherwise, had been hoisted onto the British public by stealth. Whatsoever, by stealth or otherwise, in 1963, a national changeover began. According to Chambers Dictionary, in 1963 the yard was defined as 0.9144 of a metre, making the metre 3.280839895feet or 39.37007874 ins. It is this value that is used throughout Measurements of the Gods and is the now internationally accepted interpretation.
The metrication process in Britain has been slowed by a great emotional attachment by the British to the old Imperial units. For example 30 years after metrication, it was still possible to purchase items in Imperial sizes such as sheets of Malaysian plywood, and there are many examples in the world of engineering where the metric system has not taken hold. However, one had to purchase ones building materials, whether metric or imperial in a metricated currency in Britain, as the British monetary system ‘went decimal’ in 1971, triggering off an inflationary spiral, which has resulted in the pound being worth in 2003 perhaps 10 per cent of its value in 1971. However, four feet, apart from being the equivalent of 1.2192 metres, is still four feet, as indeed, a second is still a second…even when measured by an atomic clock…
Some measurement units in life have altered dramatically while others have remained constant. In this context then, how much longer we will be able to order a very old measure, a pint of beer, [albeit not quite the same measure as that of the 18th century] is a matter of conjecture. But if metrication is to be complete, even this time honoured tradition will be relegated to the realms of history, and the pint and half pint glasses will be consigned to history museums, along with imperial barrels and kegs.
How had the Imperial System come into being? The accepted story has a typically British mediaeval feel about it, and here we examine a part of the history. 14th century statutes recognise a yard of three feet, the ‘Iron Yard of the King’ [reputedly his girth] with each foot having twelve inches. A barleycorn, according to these statutes, was equal to a third of an inch hence there were 36 barleycorns to a British foot and 108 to a British yard. The standards for these measurement units were kept at Winchester and were known, appropriately, as the Winchester standards, which incidentally were both reaffirmed by King Henry VII and Queen Elizabeth I.
What seemingly enhances the apparent approximations of the measurement units used is that, in the 16th century it was customary to line up sixteen men heel to toe as they left church and evaluate the overall length of their feet. This value was then the local rood or rod length. By the early part of the 17th century, statute had standardised the acre, furlong and rood or rod [also known as the pole or perch] accurately [in British units] to 4840 square yards, 660 feet and 16.5 feet respectively. The acre was also defined as 40 rods in length, by four rods in width, giving 160 square rods or 43,560 square feet.
During the 17th century, Edmund Gunter developed the measuring device known as the surveyor's chain based on the acre width of 4 rods [792 British imperial inches, or 66 British feet, or 22 yards]. [Note the ‘rod, pole or perch’ was a length of 16.5 feet.] This chain is a familiar distance today, even in a metricated world – it is the length of a cricket pitch. It should also be noted here that this supplies a link to the ancient past as this distance is the height from ground level of the head of the Great Sphinx at Giza in Egypt. In fact, the ancient Egyptians among others in the distant past were very fond of this value and it is seen in monuments in the Middle and New Kingdoms as well as the Old. This may be because if this length is converted to inches, the result is a count of 792. The value 792 in various formats occurs very widely in the ancient and not so ancient worlds.
As the anciently accepted diameter of Earth was 7,920 miles of the variety known in modern times as British, it would appear that there is a definitive link as is confirmed in later chapters. Thus it is easy to envisage that the length of a surveyor’s chain, which itself is used for geodetic or Earth measurement, is a deliberate representation of numerically symbolic values with which the 16.5 feet of the ‘rod, pole or perch’ were directly related via a different factor.
The above standardisation of lengths actually began, as indicated, long before the 17th century, and was part of Edward I's statute of 1305. British units, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, were initially defined in terms of Northern feet which were also known as German feet. The furlong, 1/8th of a mile and still known to lovers of horse racing everywhere, was 625 German feet although the appendage ‘German’ is unlikely to have been used as this was a standard measurement. The mile did not change length but with a change of foot value there now were 660 of the new shorter feet to the furlong with 5280 to the mile. The conversion factor from Northern feet to Standard English feet, or what later were known as simply British feet, is obtained by dividing the 660 British feet by the original 625 Northern feet which results in 1.056, i.e. 1.056 British feet is equivalent to the length of the German foot. It has been noted that the British mile is the odd man out in the ancient measurement system as it is the only mile with a count of feet at variance to the original 5,000. However, at this point another issue regarding the history of the mile is raised:

It has frequently been stated that the mile was standardized to 5,000 feet in Roman times. It will become obvious, however, that this is an erroneous idea and that the mile, as a 5,000 feet unit of geodetic measurement, stems back to what is generally termed pre-history.


This is extracted from Chapter 3 of the book Measurements of the Gods where full referencing is applied.
harry sivertsen is offline  
Old May 15th, 2012, 06:21 AM   #18
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,750

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculptingman Click the image to open in full size.
Even measuring temperature in Celsius is ridiculously stupid
You are right.

Farenheit measures a hot day as 80 to 100+ degrees F. This seems normal: approaching 100 is hot. In Britain we say: "Jesus Christ. It's sweltering. It's 85 degrees!"

But when I was in Italy in the summer of 2004, with absolutely sweltering temperatures, I kept getting told: "This heat is incredibly. It 45 degrees!"

And I was thinking: "45 degrees isn't that warm. Are they sure they have the measurement right?"

But I always kept suddenly remembering that they are using the bizarre metric Celsius scale, which measures temperature as scorching hot when it's just 40 degrees.
Brunel is offline  
Old May 15th, 2012, 06:25 AM   #19

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 8,464
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
You are right.

Farenheit measures a hot day as 80 to 100+ degrees F. This seems normal: approaching 100 is hot. In Britain we say: "Jesus Christ. It's sweltering. It's 85 degrees!"

But when I was in Italy in the summer of 2004, with absolutely sweltering temperatures, I kept getting told: "This heat is incredibly. It 45 degrees!"

And I was thinking: "45 degrees isn't that warm. Are they sure they have the measurement right?"

But I always kept suddenly remembering that they are using the bizarre metric Celsius scale, which measures temperature as scorching hot when it's just 40 degrees.
We do? News to me. Strange how the weather forecast uses celsius.

Its a question of familiarity, if some one were to declare a temperature to me in farenheit I would look at them blankly, might well have just said it was X arbitrary units. I have no point of reference to base the quantification on.
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old May 15th, 2012, 06:27 AM   #20

Gudenrath's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
You are right.

Farenheit measures a hot day as 80 to 100+ degrees F. This seems normal: approaching 100 is hot. In Britain we say: "Jesus Christ. It's sweltering. It's 85 degrees!"

But when I was in Italy in the summer of 2004, with absolutely sweltering temperatures, I kept getting told: "This heat is incredibly. It 45 degrees!"

And I was thinking: "45 degrees isn't that warm. Are they sure they have the measurement right?"

But I always kept suddenly remembering that they are using the bizarre metric Celsius scale, which measures temperature as scorching hot when it's just 40 degrees.
To me it sounds bizarre when Americans say it is 90 degrees outside. It all depends on which scale you are familiar with.
Gudenrath is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
measures, medieval, weights


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Going Medieval okamido History in Films and on Television 11 February 23rd, 2012 06:59 PM
Medieval English Art Qymaen Art and Cultural History 9 June 6th, 2011 09:57 AM
To what extent did Stolypin use agrarian reforms over repressive measures? Jake987 European History 1 October 28th, 2010 01:33 PM
Medieval Wall gimli Medieval and Byzantine History 8 April 5th, 2010 02:21 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.