Talk:Imperial unit
|
|
| Contents |
Use The Closest SI unit
Concerning my last edits: I think it's only fair to give Imperial units in the closest (although probably seldomly used) SI ones to show that the SI in many cases can provide units of a similar magnitude as Imperial ones (e.g. 1 furlong ~= 2 hectometre). It's true that in many countries decimetre isn't used that much, but it is the closest SI unit compared to foot (1 ft. ~= 3 dm). It's also good habit to not begin a value with zero (e.g. 0.9144 m), although the closeness of yard and metre could be shown better else. Crissov 09:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is an incorrect definition
I am not sufficiently expert to disentangle this article and related ones, but it has a fundamental error in it. The article describes the following relationship:
Imperial (alias English Customary) -- "irregularly standardized"
US
This is incorrect. The true relationship is
English Customary ("irregularly standardized")
Imperial (standardized 1824, refined 1878, recently obsolete)
US (standardized)
This article needs a small rewrite and a renaming to "English units" (or something of the sort), and a new "Imperial unit" article needs to be written. --John W. Kennedy 13:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Official definitions
The U.K. Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1804 [1] (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_1.htm) doesn't really constitute an official redefinition of any units, as is currently claimed in this article:
- British law now defines each Imperial unit entirely in terms of the metric equivalent. See the
Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_2.htm).
If it did, the U.K. would have a weird official definition of the hour, with a nautical mile officially defined as "nautical mile (UK) metre 1853 metres" and a knot officially defined as "knot (UK) metres per second 0.51477 metres per second".
Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1804 is intended merely as a compilation and restatement of pre-existing definitions.
In other words, notwithstanding Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1804, the official definition of those Admiralty miles remains 6080 feet, and the official definition of those feet remains one-third of the official definition of the yard as 0.9144 m given in the Weights and Measures Act of 1963, the statutory implementation of the international agreement of 1959 (which also includes the current, official definition of the avoirdupois pound as 0.45359237 kg). Gene Nygaard 14:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Practical Usage
How would you convert the following to the metric system? "LOUNGE 15'2 Max X 12'4" -- What do the 15 and 12 stand for? feet? - are the 2 and 4 inches? --81.86.159.146 14:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. The 2 and 4 should also have either " or ″ (double prime) after it (better also single prime ′ for feet). Therefore (depending on context, perhaps one less digit in metric conversions, your best guess as to appropriate precision),
- LOUNGE 15′2″ max. × 12′4″ (4.62 m max. × 3.76 m)
- Gene Nygaard 15:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete?
Is it really true that people think the system obsolete? Although we're taught metric, we learn imperial through our own inquisition. Even if its not used everywhere it will still be used when talking to one another. "Let's go down the pub for a litre!" somehow I think not.
- Outside the U.S. and some die-hards in the British Empire, it is indeed obsolete.
- Urhixidur 23:49, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
- At least completely archaic. In Sweden, where I live, apart from deliberate archaisms, I only know about the imperial usage of inches being regularly used as a measurement for computer and television screens.
- These diagonals are another fine example of commercial obfuscation. A computer monitor billed as being so many inches (in the U.S.) is actually about an inch (sometimes two) smaller, because the American law allows the measurement to include the casing. In Canada, the law stipulates the measurement must be of the viewable area, but the economic power of our southern neighbour is such that the law is systematically flouted.
- Urhixidur 03:28, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
"Imperial" Compared with "U.S. Customary"
This section needs a rewrite.
Through an accident of history, there is a reason that U.S. definition of the units of gallon and bushel are different from the U.K. "Imperial" definitions. Note that author picks up 1824 definitions of Imperial gallon and bushel. U.S. declared its independence in 1776. Units in use in U.S. were the ones in use in U.K. at that time.
The metric system (now S.I. units) were originally introduced during the Napoleonic era. The English liked the base 10 concept, but not enough to adopt the metric system, so they redefined their gallon from approx 8.6 pounds of water to define the volume of a gallon to 10 pounds of water defining the "Imperial" gallon. This occured after the American Revolution, so the U.S. did not adopt this change. Thus, it is better to call the U.S. system as "U.S. Customary". There are a lot of references at www.nist.gov under "weights and measures" to help here.
--69.140.130.29 20:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Today's US units are not the ones used in pre-1824 UK, but a selection of them. There were also efforts after 1776 in the US to harmonize and drop some measures or even create a whole new system of units (based upon the second pendulum), lead by Thomas Jefferson[2] (http://www.varietynickels.com/articles/uniformity.htm), but with the mere result that there are only two gallons (one wet, one dry) left. After all, they had already decimalised their currency, unlike the Britains. But yes, maybe there's need for a rewrite. Perhaps this article and U.S. customary units should be merged and grouped chronologically. Christoph Päper 21:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)