Growing up in England I was fully immersed in or (or perplexed by) the subtleties and complexities of the Imperial Units of Measurement. Many of these had had their origins in the myriad trades and professions most of which had been in existence for centuries. This was fine for those directly involved in these arcane pursuits, but for others, without considerable mental dexterity these relationships of Distance, Area, Volume and Mass (-or Weight) remained cloaked in mystery. For distances or length we continued happily along with inches, feet, yards, chains, furlongs, miles and rods (also referred to as poles or perches). For maritime applications; fathoms, cables and nautical miles were added for good measure(?). To discover the size or area of something we added square perches, roods and acres to the mix. Volumes were determined by multiples of fluid ounces, gills, pints, quarts and gallons.
For Mass and Weight we come to the piece de resistances. Here there were no fewer than three systems: Troy, Avoirdupois and Apothecaries Weights. These introduced us to grains, drachms, scruples, ounces, pounds, stones, quarters, hundredweights and tons.
Nevertheless, despite all the incomprehension and bewilderment, there was peace in the land. Maybe things were as they were intended to be. After all, it could be argued that if the Good Lord had intended us to be fully conversant with these unitary conundrums, we would probably all have been born with a pocket calculator dangling from an earlobe.
Nevertheless, as the end of the Twentieth Century approached, things began to unravel. With the development of closer ties between Britain and the foreign devils in the rest of Europe, the Imperial System came under increasing pressure. The inscrutability and obscurity that had been its main endearing feature became increasingly threatened by the profane Metric System. With this arrangement, distances and areas would simply be expressed as multiples of metres or hectares respectively, volumes by litres and weights by multiples of Grams. Little or no consideration was given to the poor Apothecary. It fact it might be said that he had no scruples!
My own introduction to this heretical system was sudden, rapid and without any option. As indicated by the image at the head of these meanderings, I was a member of the development team of the Concorde supersonic airliner. Right at the outset it was decreed that all measurements and dimensions would exclusively use the Metric System. After some initial frustration and confusion, to my amazement I progressively discovered how straightforward it all was. By forcing myself to think metric without instinctively converting to Imperial to get some sense of familiarity, the metric units were much simpler and far easier to use. Everything was standardized. To even consider the inanities of four gills to an ounce, sixteen ounces to the pound, fourteen pound to a stone, one hundred and sixty stones to a ton and so on were quite ludicrous.
Despite all this simplicity, in the world at large, old habits have been slow to die. Although by 2011, all countries have formally adopted the system, its implementation has varied from country to country. The USA, although being in the forefront of technological development, has, (certainly as far as the general rank and file is concerned) been reluctant to embrace it and still stubbornly clings to its own (slightly different in places) version of the Imperial System. Although not exclusive to the USA, such is the insistence in the “dumbing down” of anything requiring a modicum of thought, that a new system has been developed that everyone can relate to even though it is imprecise. Within this marvel of ambiguity, distances and sometimes areas are related typically to multiples of “football pitches” without specifying whether or not they include the end zone or indeed even the code of football. Heights are related to “stories” with no indication of a datum story height. 8 – 12 feet probably brackets a likely range. Volumes are on occasion related to swimming pools and weights to “numbers of loaded 747 aircraft”. There are many other regional examples of this but perhaps the most obscure is related to nutrition and food preparation. Weights and volumes are represented by a mishmash of cups, spoonfuls, sometimes fluid ounces and millilitres but with no conversion data from weight to volume. With all these opportunities for culinary disaster it’s a marvel that any meal ever turns out right! However, these pale into significance when compared with my own personal favourite, “the serving”. What the heck is that supposed to mean and how does one item relate to another? Exactly how much is it? How does a serving of meat relate to a serving of vegetables? What meat and what vegetable? Can a serving of steak relate to a serving of chicken or a serving of broccoli to one of potato. How does a serving of fruit relate to a serving of bread? If so, upon what is the implied relationship between them based? At the end of the day how can any of the above possibly be considered preferable to the use of globally accepted precise units of measurements?
In conclusion, the measure of temperature should be mentioned. In the grand Imperial days our good old ”British system” (-developed by the Dutch-German-Polish physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit!) was employed. Its origins are of interest. Using this scale, the zero point was determined by placing the thermometer in a just freezing mixture of brine and ammonium chloride. Somewhat higher up the scale, 32 degrees was the temperature at which fresh water froze. The hundred degree point was based on the body temperature of a horse! An additional point, 96 degrees approximated to body or “blood heat”. Finally stuck out on its own, the unlikely figure of 212 degrees defined the temperature of boiling water, 180 degrees above the freezing point of fresh water. .
However, by the 1970’s, the common usage of brine was falling out of favour as was the ready availability of horses to bleed. The Celsius scale, which recognised the formation of freshwater ice at zero degrees on the one hand and the boiling point of water at 100 degrees* sounded the death knell of the Farenheit scale. Despite that, its universal acceptance was not immediate with again the USA dragging its feet. Apparently the greater possibility of having to use decimals to obtain an accurate temperature value has been considered too onerous.
As for me this entire exercise has become too onerous. I’m going for a brisk bike ride for some fresh air. With a bit of effort I’m hoping to complete my ride at an average speed of 53760 furlongs per fortnight –no need for any decimals there!
* at standard atmospheric conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment