Information sought about this photo
I am fairly old and am happy to use either unit - also it is not exactly difficult these days to do an instant google conversion of any unit of weight etc these days anyway
This is probably why Mr Noel is looking slightly worried.
Considering the potential aft of CG limitations imposed by the rather Reubenesque Emma Griffiths, Louis' first flight attempt with her might well have been the last Noel...
Hat, Coat, Aeroplane
- Ed
Hat, Coat, Aeroplane
- Ed
"Not Striccly true and a bit of an exaggeration there ATN,probably older people still use stones/pounds but those under a certain age will use Kg."
and of course the Rugby pages of The Times still uses stones. Weird
and of course the Rugby pages of The Times still uses stones. Weird
so 19 stone equals 120 kg. 6.3 kg for a stone. What is the historical explanation for this weight? Anybody an idea? Is it the weight of a sack of flour from the miller or some such connection?
Encyclopedia 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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me see if I can remember the Imperial weights:
16 ounces = 1 pound (abbrev. 'lb', for Latin 'libra')
14 pounds = 1 stone (and I never knew why it was called that, thanks Asturias)
2 stone = 1 quarter
4 quarters = 1 hundredweight (which is, of course, 112 lb (pounds) but in early counting 'hundred' doesn't necessarily mean 10 x 10)
20 hundredweight = 1 tonne (2240 lb)
These all, of course, the avoirdupois system: as I never dealt with lumps of gold, I didn't learn the troy weights.
The hundredweight was the measure by which coal was sold retail, and I still remember the coalmen delivering it in hundredweight sacks over their shoulders. The US does not use Imperial measures, has (I think) no unit between the pound and the ton, and uses a smaller ton.
When I was a mixed infant, and then a primary boy, I did mental arithmetic in this stuff, as also in pounds, shillings, pence and farthings for currency.
I still find it not quite intuitive to think in terms of weight in kilos (far too many), personal height in metres, or fuel consumption in litres per 100 kilometres, but I have no regrets in the slightest about the adoption of the metric system in the various realms of Elizabeth R. Thanks to the early training in mental arithmetic in bizarre units, I can also calculate change in a way that baffles the young, though that too is a wasting skill. After we came out of our first lock-down, I went into a shop and decided to use a bundle of coins I'd accumulated. I put them on the counter and looked at them, and thought 'How does this work? Is that medium sized one worth 10 or 20?'
16 ounces = 1 pound (abbrev. 'lb', for Latin 'libra')
14 pounds = 1 stone (and I never knew why it was called that, thanks Asturias)
2 stone = 1 quarter
4 quarters = 1 hundredweight (which is, of course, 112 lb (pounds) but in early counting 'hundred' doesn't necessarily mean 10 x 10)
20 hundredweight = 1 tonne (2240 lb)
These all, of course, the avoirdupois system: as I never dealt with lumps of gold, I didn't learn the troy weights.
The hundredweight was the measure by which coal was sold retail, and I still remember the coalmen delivering it in hundredweight sacks over their shoulders. The US does not use Imperial measures, has (I think) no unit between the pound and the ton, and uses a smaller ton.
When I was a mixed infant, and then a primary boy, I did mental arithmetic in this stuff, as also in pounds, shillings, pence and farthings for currency.
I still find it not quite intuitive to think in terms of weight in kilos (far too many), personal height in metres, or fuel consumption in litres per 100 kilometres, but I have no regrets in the slightest about the adoption of the metric system in the various realms of Elizabeth R. Thanks to the early training in mental arithmetic in bizarre units, I can also calculate change in a way that baffles the young, though that too is a wasting skill. After we came out of our first lock-down, I went into a shop and decided to use a bundle of coins I'd accumulated. I put them on the counter and looked at them, and thought 'How does this work? Is that medium sized one worth 10 or 20?'
20 hundredweight = 1 tonne (2240 lb)
Tonne is, I think, used to mean 1000 kg = 2200 lb. i.e a metric ton(ne) (actually 2204.5 lb.)
Then there is the short ton, or US ton, which is 2000lb.
Simple really.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not one single ounce of comment re the weight of the seven passengers Louis Noel carried earlier - presumably all MEN!
Napoleon put the meter as the ten millionth part of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator, and hence the 1000th part of the cubic meter as the liter, which is 1 kg. Such a boring system, compared to your British ounces, pounds sterling, ton, tonne, stone. How sad, that we are now isolated from the British system....
The French didn't fully accept Napoleon's metrication in the 19th century: in my 1886 copy of Baedeker's Rhine it explains that, in that book, "Heights are given in English feet (1 Engl. Ft. = 0.3048 metre = 0.938 Parisian ft. = 0.971 Prussian ft)"
Each system subdivided the foot in twelve so the inch, Pouce and Zoll were in the same proportions.
Each system subdivided the foot in twelve so the inch, Pouce and Zoll were in the same proportions.
ATNotts,
Last year, I produced a W&B chart for my club’s DG 1000S two-seat glider that had pilot weights in Kg. After multiple complaints, I’m having to produce a revised version with pilot weights in pounds.
In Canada, we’ve been metric since 1977 - that’s 44 years ago!
Last year, I produced a W&B chart for my club’s DG 1000S two-seat glider that had pilot weights in Kg. After multiple complaints, I’m having to produce a revised version with pilot weights in pounds.
In Canada, we’ve been metric since 1977 - that’s 44 years ago!
