Metric vs. other measurement systems - chart

[old kodger]

Why would a country so bent on the metric system use stone as a unit of weight...

To whom do you refer? I'm in Australia and I assure you that weight here is measured in Kg's

[jdurand]

To whom do you refer? I'm in Australia and I assure you that weight here is measured in Kg's

To pick nits, kg is mass, NOT weight. Pounds is force that's taken to be mass in the west.

ie: 1 kg of water is still 1kg in space or on the moon, but 1 pound of water changes even by your location on Earth.

[IntheGroove]

From Britannia:
"Stone, British unit of weight for dry products generally equivalent to 14 pounds avoirdupois (6.35 kg), though it varied from 4 to 32 pounds (1.814 to 14.515 kg) for various items over time. Originally any good-sized rock chosen as a local standard, the stone came to be widely used as a unit of weight in trade, its value fluctuating with the commodity and region. In the 14th century England’s exportation of raw wool to Florence necessitated a fixed standard. In 1389 a royal statute fixed the stone of wool at 14 pounds and the sack of wool at 26 stones. Trade stones of variant weights persist, such as the glass stone of 5 pounds. The stone is still commonly used in Britain to designate the weights of people and large animals."

[marksbug]

I have many stones in my yard,I doubt any weigh 14 pounds or 6.35 kg's. what Im wondering is how many pounds does a stone cost over there?? and how hard can you pound on it?can you pound on it while your stoned? or do you stone it before you pound it? how many pebbles are in a stone?? how much did pebbles flint stone cost?and what about that blarney stone?? where / when does it come into the equation?? all this thinking is making my head pound

[old kodger]

As I said in a previous post, "by any comparator, I'm getting shorter" an addendum to that is by any comparator I'm also getting heavier. the end product is likely to be a lemon on legs. How do we calculate the mass of a lemon on legs?

[TheElderBrother]

I always say, when life gives you lemons, put them in a pillowcase and beat the ever-loving **** out of whoever's responsible.

[Toolmaker51]

The description of "A lemon on legs" paints a visual alright, not disturbing, just humorous.

There is another, differently phrased but equal in humor. It describes an overweight [such as one of our politicians] retiree.
He's beach or poolside in Brazilian styled too-brief excuse for swimwear as an egg wearing a rubberband.
That IS disturbing!

[old kodger]

My mother, being 4'10" (in any direction) was severally described as "a lemon on legs" so it's little surprise that I'm off down the same road. Mind you, she lived 'til 95 years old so that can't be bad.

[Philip Davies]

For once, I am looking forward to a TV programme later this week, to do with the “internationally accepted prototype” of a kilogram. This has shed, I read, a fraction of its weight. This is described as the “equivalent of an eyelash”. Really? That seems quite a lot, and since it is locked in a vault near Paris, it’s not likely to be due to wear and tear. Hopefully the programme will explain why, although if it’s quantum physics, that will in itself be enough. The metrologists are apparently “racing” to invent a new standard kilogram. What are the likely candidates? I suggest 703 coffee beans.

[mklotz]

For once, I am looking forward to a TV programme later this week, to do with the “internationally accepted prototype” of a kilogram. This has shed, I read, a fraction of its weight. This is described as the “equivalent of an eyelash”. Really? That seems quite a lot, and since it is locked in a vault near Paris, it’s not likely to be due to wear and tear. Hopefully the programme will explain why, although if it’s quantum physics, that will in itself be enough. The metrologists are apparently “racing” to invent a new standard kilogram. What are the likely candidates? I suggest 703 coffee beans.

According to this article...

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ns-ncna1007731

it's lost only 50 micrograms, the weight of a few fingerprints; an eyelash would weigh much more.

Science has advanced enough that we can now define the fundamental quantities (meter, kilogram, second) of the metric system in terms of physical constants not subject to the vagaries of nature as the prototypes of the past were. The meter is already defined in terms of the speed of light in a vacuum, a universal constant. The second is defined in terms of the radiation emitted by cesium. The kilogram was the last fundamental to be defined in terms of a physical artefact.

Now the kilogram has been defined in terms of Planck's constant, h = 6.62607015E-34 kg·m²/sec so the physical standard in France is no longer needed; it can rust and abrade away as much as it wishes.

Defining in terms of universal physical constants not only removes the dependence on objects subject to change, it allows users anywhere to generate the standard rather than having to travel to a prototype, measure, and then attempt to carry that measurement back unchanged.