BS: weight measurment

Subject: BS: weight measurment
From: Duke
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 12:44 PM

If a person weighs 17 stone, how much is that in kilos or lbs/ What is 1 stone?

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 12:49 PM

There's 14 lbs in a stone, 14 x 17 = 238 lbs

Not sure about kilos though

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 12:54 PM

That's 107.95 kilos.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 01:05 PM

And 197.65 Ancient Prarfur !!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 01:25 PM

1 kilo = 2.2 pounds approx.
1 km = 0.6 mile approx.

I keep these two conversions in my otherwise metric-free head; they deal with those little conversion nuisances in the grocery, or on the highway.

Stones absent in North America except in the heads of visiting Englishmun.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 01:27 PM

It's sometimes surprised me that people in the States don't use Stones as a measure of weight. Anyone know how that came about? Do Australians use the measure?

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Midchuck
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 01:46 PM

Americans' stones weigh so much that the 14-pound standard would be 'way off.

(As you Brits say, I'll get me coat...)

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Duke
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 02:26 PM

Thanks guys! Another English mystery solved!

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: gnu
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 02:47 PM

At 17 stone, one would WEIGH 7.15 slugs (appox), as pounds are a measure of force. Yes, 238 "pounds mass" is acceptable, but, why have any pounds at all? Why some few in the world resist the use of SI units is a mystery to me.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 02:55 PM

from Yahoo...

"The stone was historically used for weighing agricultural commodities. Potatoes, for example, were traditionally sold in stone and half-stone (14-pound and 7-pound) quantities.

A stone as a unit of 14 pounds originates with the definition in 1340 in England of the (now obsolete) sack, defined as comprising 26 stone each of 14 pounds (ie 364 pounds)[1]. This supplanted earlier definitions of both sack and stone as units of measure, and set a standard for each.

Historically the number of pounds in a stone varied by commodity, and was not the same in all times and places even for one commodity. The OED contains examples[2] including:

Commodity       Number of Pounds
Wool            14, 15, 24
Wax             12
Sugar and spice 8
Beef and Mutton 8


[edit] Current use
Although no longer an official unit of measure, the stone remains widely used within the British Isles as a means of expressing human body weight. People in these countries normally describe themselves as weighing, for example, "11 stone 4" (11 stone and 4 pounds), rather than "72 kilograms" in most other countries, or "158 pounds" (the conventional way of expressing the same weight in the United States). Its widespread colloquial use may be compared to the persistence in the British Isles of other Imperial units like the foot, the inch, and the mile, despite these having been supplanted entirely or partly (road distances and speed enforcement area are still expressed officially in miles and miles per hour respectively) by metric units in official use (a similar usage persists in Canada, decal) and other contexts is the kilogram. In official use, provision is usually made for the public to express body weight in either stone or kilograms (similar allowance is made for measuring height in feet and inches). For example, on a National Health Service website both Imperial and metric units are used [3].

Outside the British Isles, stone may also be used to express body weight in casual contexts in other Commonwealth countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand."




Proof that girls are NOT sugar and spice- or their "stone" weight would only be 8 pounds per stone!

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Bert
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 03:50 PM

...Why some few in the world resist the use of SI units is a mystery to me...

Just 'cos Napoleon went mad there's no reason for us to copy him.

And when you are talking about weight, the SI system doesn't have UNITS it has A UNIT which is why it is so useless. A system of units has to have more than one unit. Most systems of units have grown up over hundreds of years and each step has been chosen for its utility for a specific application. The gram however was chosen by a madmans scientists to create confusion amongst his conquered nations, in the same way that he chose to drive on the wrong side of the road.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM

Stones are still in use as a measure for bags of potatoes.

In Scotland a derived unit still in occasional use is a "forpit" - "fourth part" of a stone, i.e. 3.5 pounds.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Rog Peek
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 04:38 PM

As I understand it, the gram is not the SI unit, which is the Kg. The gram is from the cgs. system of units. Me I'd much prefer the imperial system of units, and in this regard I agree wholeheartedly with you Bert.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Newport Boy
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 05:02 PM

For converting one unit to another, I not found anything better than convert.exe, by Josh Madison. It's tiny and free, and lives on my desktop.

Find it here

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Bert
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 05:54 PM

The gram is the basis of metric weight , a kilogram is just a lot of them obtained by moving the decimal point. You can do this anyway with any system of units if you want; surveyors have no problem with using decimals of a foot, and by doing so in no way detract from the usefulness of the inch as a unit of measure.

With a system of units, the quantity of one unit within a larger unit is not necessarily based on the base of your numbering system.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 06:57 PM

..."surveyors have no problem with using decimals of a foot"...

they do that in the States, Bert ?

I am well aware of using decimals of an inch in the world of engineering , but decimals of a foot ?

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 07:08 PM

until we went metric in the 70's we used Imperial units.

I remember seeing school exercise books with conversion tables, and until a few years back I still had a Conversion card issued by the Bureau of Meteorology.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: gnu
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 07:40 PM

Bert... "And when you are talking about weight, the SI system doesn't have UNITS it has A UNIT which is why it is so useless." and "The gram is the basis of metric weight..."

I can see you will never be converted. ;-)

But, maybe you could at least learn the difference between weight and mass. Try it in your own antiquated and convoluted system first, if that helps.

As for me, I am gonna beat the feet. Youse all have fun eh!

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Rog Peek
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 07:40 PM

Yes Bert, I understand that the gram is used in the metric system, and that a Kg. is a multiple of this, but is not an SI unit and this was the point I was making. In fact, the SI unit of weight (force), is actually the Newton, while the KG. is the SI unit of mass.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 07:45 PM

Sports Illustrated measures force in Fig Newtons? I had no idea they did that or that it was even possible............wow.........You're not shittin' me are ya'?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Rowan
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM

G'day McGrath,
Stones were used in Oz until decimalisation in the 70s.

For Bert and Murray's benefit, I still have my father's old surveying staff which uses feet divided into tenths. But even Americans have converted their surveying measures to versions with exact metric (SI) equivalents rather than ones that require umpteen decimal places.

The SI unit of mass is the kilogram and there are many different SI units (length, frequency etc) specified. Here is one discussion (among many) of the folklore involved.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: gnu
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 08:10 PM

Oh, before I go, perhaps I should point out that such differing views, versions, and preferences may, in part, arise from the fact that there are various systems persuant to my initiaal comment about people living in the past: Imperial, British Absolute, British Gravitational, SI, Metric Absolute mks, Metric Absolute cgs, and Metric Gravitational. Even I could get confused.

Spaw... it sure is. If you eat enough Fig Newtons, yer guts will undergo such a pressure that when the force is released and the mass is accelerated you might need several issues of SI to clean up all the shit.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Joe_F
Date: 20 Dec 07 - 10:41 PM

I did a little surveying as a commune member in the 1970s. IIRC, the tape I used was marked in feet, with the last foot divided into tenths & hundredths.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: gnomad
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 06:58 AM

An online facility for conversions can be found here, it has all sorts of units I never heard of, an alternative to the conversions programme mentioned above.

I still think in imperial measures for almost everything, I can do metric of course, but it is seldom my method of choice. A generational thing I expect.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Mr Red
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 07:31 AM

OK Spaw - how many is that in wrottles?

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM

Q it was, I think, who told us that

Stones absent in North America except in the heads of visiting Englishmun.

But how heavy is an American ROCK?

(Coat-getting time, I suppose.)

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Bob Bolton
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 10:09 PM

G'day McGrath,

Back on "20 Dec 07 - 01:27 PM" you asked "Do Australians use the measure?" (stone = 14 lb = [~] 6.3 kg)

We did ... and I guess that some people who believe it is virtuous to make life hard for themselves still do! I have had to work in technical units for a long time ... and regard any affection for "imperial units" (i.e. - those developed as a means of keeping the 'lower classes' down) in a person with whom I'm dealing ... as a warning sign.

Regard(les)s,

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Bert
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 10:26 PM

I worked on a conveyor system that had been designed in Germany and it was obvious that the designers were incapable of dividing by three.

The metric system makes it easy to divide by ten at the expense of making it impossible to divide by three. Because of the strict limition of denominators to ten alone, it also makes the use of surds to design roof trusses very awkward.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 10:57 PM

Stones were used in Oz until decimalisation in the 70s.

You mean Australians stopped using stones when they talk about their body weight just because the government passed a law? That doesn't sound Australian to me.

For personal weight stones feels far more convenient than pounds. I haven't a clue how many pounds I weigh, or how many pounds would count as heavy or light, and that goes for most people in the British Isles, I'm certain. Oh, I could work it out all right, but I couldn't be bothered. (And I don't think they sell weighing machines here that show weights in pounds rather than stones plus pounds, and maybe kilos asan alternative. Well, no one would buy them.)

As for kilograms... (And what's this "SI"? Another way of saying "metric"?)

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Skivee
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 11:27 PM

A friend once figured the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight.
It was a big number.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 11:39 PM

SI is the systeme International of measures meters, grams, seconds and their derivatives. Here's the whole rundown.


A

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 11:48 PM

ANd here's a better display/


A

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 06:01 AM

Spaw - you have failed me

conversion website

looks like 215.9 rottles (note spelling)

FWIW I worked in the weihging industry for 20 years.

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 06:40 AM

in quartern-loafs (er make that quartern-loaves)

it is 783.4447415

can't be bothered to bore you all with the Funt and Obolus values......

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Mo the caller
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:18 AM

Someone said a sack was 26 stones. That would be difficult to lift, and need very strong hessian!
Most sacks I buy are approx half hundred weight (4 stone = 56lb). My chicken feed comes in 25kg (the kind they don't like / won't eat) and 20kg (the sort that costs a little bit more but works out a lot more / kilo). So they are 55lb and 44lb.
The table we learnt at school
14 lb = 1 stone
2 stone = 1 quarter
1 quarter = 1 hunderdweight (cwt = 112lb)

The beaty of the old weights was that the least possible number of weights is needed to cook. pound, half a pound, quarter pound, 2 oz, 1 oz, half oz, quarte oz, nippikin and the brown bowl.
Good Health

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Mo the caller
Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:33 AM

Meant to say that I buy potatoes by the half hundred weight (well I did, they must be metric now), but we used to have coal delivered in hundredweight sacks.
Please overlook the spelling mistakes above (I did)

More confusing are the weights and measures in handed down recipes.
I have OH's grandmother Christmas pudding recipe, so every year we ponder 'is this a small carrot?' 'how big should the orange be?' the apple is OK, quarter pound, I can do that. Then the tablespoon of baking powder, quite apart from wondering level / rounded / heaped I looked in my cook book "1 tablespoon = 4 teaspoons", then I found a plastic measuring spoon, one end 5ml = 1 teaspoon, the other 15ml = 1 tablespoon. Ah well.
By the time it's been soaked in rum and set fire to no-one will notice anyway. Its not something I make regularly enough to standardise in my own way. (My scone recipe includes... water till it feels right...cook till done)

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: Rowan
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 12:24 AM

"Stones were used in Oz until decimalisation in the 70s."

You mean Australians stopped using stones when they talk about their body weight just because the government passed a law? That doesn't sound Australian to me.

Not quite McGrath,
Mst people who'd grown up using stones still mentioned their weight in the old measures after metrication but
youngsters were taught SI measures
most medical and health details were recorded in metric measures
and most discussion has been pregresively more and more centred in metric measures

so it's only us old farts who know the conversions.

Even so, as you'd have noticed from the thread I linked above, mothers still talk about the birthweights of their offspring in lbs & ozs unless their grandmothers came from parts of Europe that used metrics.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 07 - 07:41 PM

I think when it comes to talking about body weight most of the time people in the British Isles still use stones, even if they use metric for shopping. I can't see that changing in a hurry.

Schools aren't the only place people learn about weights and measures.

I've never seen anyone look puzzled when someone sings "Sixteen Stone"

Subject: RE: BS: weight measurment
From: GUEST,John Gray in Oz
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 09:28 AM

McGrath. Yes - after metrication 40 years ago many people in Oz stayed with the old imperial units, some still do, we call them Neanderthals.
The big mistake is wanting to convert to something else. I weigh 120 kg. Why on earth do I need to know what that is in pounds, yak poo, or whatever.
My field is industrial instruments. We have people call us for flowmeters to handle X gpm. We charge them a consultancy fee to convert to litres so we can select the correct flowmeter. Are we ripping them off for being dumb ? You betcha, they're just like - well, they're just like Neanderthals.

JG / FME