A Dictionary of Units Summary table of conversion factors most often required x means 'multiply by' . . .

/ means 'divide by' . . . # means it is an exact value All other values given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. To change . . into . . do this . . To change . . into . . do this . . acres hectares x 0.4047 kilograms ounces x 35.3 acres sq. kilometres / 247 kilograms pounds x 2.2046 acres sq. metres x 4047 kilograms tonnes / 1000 # acres sq. miles / 640 # kilograms tons (UK/long) / 1016 barrels (oil) cu.metres / 6.29 kilograms tons (US/short) / 907 barrels (oil) gallons (UK) x 34.97 kilometres metres x 1000 # barrels (oil) gallons (US) x 42 # kilometres miles x 0.6214 barrels (oil) litres x 159 litres cu.inches x 61.02 centimetres feet / 30.48 # litres gallons (UK) x 0.2200 centimetres inches / 2.54 # litres gallons (US) x 0.2642 centimetres metres / 100 # litres pints (UK) x 1.760 centimetres millimetres x 10 # litres pints (US liquid) x 2.113 cubic cm cubic inches x 0.06102 metres yards / 0.9144 # cubic cm litres / 1000 # metres centimetres x 100 # cubic cm millilitres x1# miles kilometres x 1.609 cubic feet cubic inches x 1728 # millimetres inches / 25.4 # cubic feet cubic metres x 0.0283 ounces grams x 28.35 cubic feet cubic yards / 27 # pints (UK) litres x 0.5683 cubic feet gallons (UK) x 6.229 pints (UK) pints (US liquid) x 1.201 cubic feet gallons (US) x 7.481 pints (US liquid) litres x 0.4732 cubic feet litres x 28.32 pints (US liquid) pints (UK) x 0.8327 cubic inches cubic cm x 16.39 pounds kilograms x 0.4536 cubic inches litres x 0.01639 pounds ounces x 16 # cubic metres cubic feet x 35.31 To change . . into . . To change . . square cm feet centimetres x 30.48 # square feet feet metres x 0.3048 # square feet feet yards /3# square inches fl.ounces (UK) fl.ounces (US) x 0.961 square inches fl.ounces (UK) millilitres x 28.41 square km fl.ounces (US) fl.ounces (UK) x 1.041 square km fl.ounces (US) millilitres x 29.57 square km gallons pints x8# square metres gallons (UK) cubic feet x 0.1605 square metres gallons (UK) gallons (US) x 1.2009 square metres gallons (UK) litres x 4.54609 # square metres gallons (US) cubic feet x 0.1337 square miles gallons (US) gallons (UK) x 0.8327 square miles gallons (US) litres x 3.785 square miles grams kilograms / 1000 # square yards grams ounces / 28.35 tonnes hectares acres x 2.471 tonnes hectares square km / 100 # tonnes hectares square metres x 10000 # tons (UK/long) hectares square miles / 259 tons (UK/long) hectares square yards x 11 960 tons (US/short) inches centimetres x 2.54 # tons (US/short) inches feet / 12 # yards Go to the top of this document Categories of Units length area volume or capacity mass temperature density, area density, line density, volume energy force power pressure speed spread rate (by mass) spread rate (by volume) do this . . into . . sq. inches sq. inches sq. metres square cm square feet acres hectares square miles acres hectares x 10.76 square yards acres hectares square km square metres kilograms tons (UK/long) tons (US/short) kilograms tonnes kilograms tonnes metres do this . . x 0.1550 x 144 # x 0.0929 x 6.4516 # / 144 # x 247 x 100 # x 0.3861 / 4047 / 10 000 # x 1.196 x 640 # x 259 x 2.590 / 1.196 x 1000 # x 0.9842 x 1.1023 x 1016 x 1.016 x 907.2 x 0.9072 x 0.9144 #

fuel consumption mass per unit length mass per unit area mass per unit volume

stress torque

Length The S I unit of length is the metre. To change any of these other units of length into their equivalent values in metres use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. Where some uncertainty is indicated it means that a good idea of the size of the unit can be given but that a better value would depend upon knowing th e period and/or culture in which the unit was being used. Note than in matters concerned with land measurements, for the mos t accurate work, it is necessary to establish whether the US survey measures are being used or not. angstroms divide by 10 000 000 000 # astronomical units x 149 598 550 000 barleycorns x 0.008 467 centimetres x 0.01 # chains (surveyors') x 20.1168 # cubits x (0.45 to 0.5) ells (UK) x 0.875 (but many variations) ems (pica) x 0.004 233 3 fathoms x 1.8288 # feet (UK and US) feet (US survey) furlongs hands inches kilometres leagues light years links (surveyors') metres [m] x 0.3048 # x 0.304 800 609 6 x 201.168 # x 0.1016 # x 0.0254 # x 1000 # x (4000 to 5000) x 9 460 500 000 000 000 x 0.201 168 # 1

microns (=micrometres) x 0.000 001 # miles (UK and US) x 1609.344 # miles (nautical) x 1852 # parsecs x 30 856 770 000 000 000 perch (=rods or poles) x 5.0292 # picas (computer) x 0.004 233 333 picas (printers') x 0.004 217 518 points (computer) x 0.000 352 777 8 points (printers') x 0.000 351 459 8 yards x 0.9144 # Area The S I unit of area is the square metre. To change any of these other units of area into their equivalent values in square metres use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. Where some uncertainty is indicated it means that a good idea of the size of the unit can be given but that a better value would depend upon knowing the period and/or culture in which the unit was being used. Note than in matters concerned with land measurements, for the most accurate work, it is necessary to establish whether the US survey measures are being used or not. acres x 4046.856 422 4 # ares x 100 # circular inches x 0.000 506 707 479 hectares x 10 000 # hides x 485 000 (with wide variations) roods x 1011.714 105 6 # square centimetres x 0.000 1 # square feet (UK and US) x 0.092 903 04 # square feet (US survey) x 0.092 903 411 613 square inches x 0.000 645 16 # square kilometres x 1 000 000 # square metres 1

square miles x 2 589 988.110 336 # square millimetres x 0.000 001 # squares (of timber) x 9.290 304 #

square rods (or poles) square yards townships

x 25.292 852 64 # x 0.836 127 36 # x 93 239 571.972

Volume or Capacity The S I unit of volume is the cubic metre. However, this seems to be much less used than the litre (1000 litres = 1 cubic metre).To change any of these other units of volume into their equivalent values in litres use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. The litre. There can be some ambiguity about the size of the litre. When the metric system was introduced in the 1790's the litre was in tended to match up with the volume occupied by 1 kilogram of pure water at a specified pressure and temperature. As the ability to measure things got better (by 100 years later) they found that there was a mismatch between the kilogram and the litre. As a result of this they had to redefine the litre (in 1901) as being 1 .000028 cubic decimetres. Very handy! This nonsense was stopped in 1964 when it was ruled that the word "litre" may be employed as a special name for the cubic decimetre, with the additional recommendation that for really accurate work, to avoid any possible confusion, the litre should not be used. Here the litre is taken as being a cubic decimetre. barrels (oil) bushels (UK) bushels (US) centilitres cubic centimetres cubic decimetres cubic decametres cubic feet cubic inches cubic metres cubic millimetres cubic yards decilitres fluid ounces (UK) fluid ounces (US) gallons (UK) gallons, dry (US) gallons, liquid (US) litres [l or L] litres (1901 - 1964) millilitres pints (UK) pints, dry (US) pints, liquid (US) quarts (UK) quarts, dry (US) quarts, liquid (US) x 158.987 294 928 # x 36.368 72 # x 35.239 070 166 88 # x 0.01 # x 0.001 # 1 x 1 000 000 # x 28.316 846 592 # x 0.016 387 064 # x 1000 # x 0.000 001 # x 764.554 857 984 # x 0.1 # x 0.028 413 062 5 # x 0.029 573 529 562 5 # x 4.546 09 # x 4.404 883 770 86 # x 3.785 411 784 # 1 x 1.000 028 x 0.001 # x 0.568 261 25 # x 0.550 610 471 357 5 # x 0.473 176 473 # x 1.136 522 5 # x 1.101 220 942 715 # x 0.946 352 946 #

Mass (or Weight) The S I unit of mass is the kilogram. To change any of these other units of mass into their equivalent values in kilograms use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. carats, metric grains grams hundredweights, long hundredweights, short kilograms [kg] x 0.000 2 # x 0.000 064 798 91 # x 0.001 # x 50.802 345 44 # x 45.359 237 # 1

ounces, avoirdupois x 0.028 349 523 125 # ounces, troy x 0.031 103 476 8 # pounds x 0.453 592 37 # slugs (or g-pounds) x 14.593 903 stones x 6.350 293 18 # tons (UK or long) x 1016.046 908 8 # tons (US or short) x 907.184 74 # tonnes x 1000 # Temperature

There have been five main temperature scales, each one being named after the person who invented it. G D FAHRENHEIT (1686-1736) a German physicist, in about 1714 proposed the first practical scale. He called the freezing -point of water 32 degrees (so as to avoid negative temperatures) and the boiling -point 212 degrees. R A F de REAUMUR (1673-1757) A French entomologist, proposed a similar scale in 1730, but set the freezing -point at 0 degrees and the boilingpoint at 80 degrees. This was used quite a bit but is now obsolete. Anders CELSIUS (1701-1744) a Swedish astronomer, proposed the 100-degree scale (from 0 to 100) in 1742. This was widely adopted as the centigrade scale. But since grades and centigrades were also measures of angle, in 1947 it officially became the Celsius scale. Also, the S I system of units gives preference to naming units after people where possible. William Thomson, 1st Lord KELVIN (1824 -1907) a Scottish mathema tician and physicist, worked with J P Joule - about 1862 - to produce an absolute scale of temperature based on laws of heat rather than the freezing/boiling -points of water. This work produced the idea of 'absolute zero', a temperature below which it was not possible to go. Its value is -273.15 degrees on the Celsius scale. William J M RANKINE (1820 -1872) a Scottish engineer and scientist, promoted the Kelvin scale in its Fahrenheit form, when the equivalent value of absolute zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit. Nowadays, while scientists use the KELVIN scale, the CELSIUS scale is the preferred scale in our everyday lives. However, the Fahrenheit scale is still widely used and there frequently is a need to be able to change from one to the other. To change temperature given in Fahrenheit (F) to Celsius (C) Start with (F); subtract 32; multiply by 5; divide by 9; the answer is ( C) To change temperature given in Celsius (C) to Fahrenheit (F) Start with (C); multiply by 9; divide by 5; add on 32; the answer is ( F)

Line density Line density is a measure of mass per unit length. The S I compatible unit of line density is kilograms/metre. A major use of line density is in the textile industry to indicate the coarseness of a yarn or fibre. For that purpose the SI unit is rather large so the preferred unit there is the tex. (1 tex = 1 gram/kilometre) To change any of these other units of line density into their equivalent values in kilograms/metre use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact.Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. denier divide by 9 000 000 # drex divide by 10 000 000 # grams/centimetre divide by 10 # grams/kilometre (tex) divide by 1 000 000 # grams/metre divide by 1000 # grams/millimetre 1 kilograms/kilometre divide by 1000 # kilograms/metre 1 divide by 10 000 # divide by 1000 # x 1.116 125 x 0.093 01 x 17.858 x 1.488 164 x 0.496 055 x 0.000 281 849 divide by 1 000 000 # x 0.631 342 x 0.563 698

milligrams/centimetre milligrams/millimetre ounces/inch ounces/foot pounds/inch pounds/foot pounds/yard pounds/mile tex tons(UK)/mile tons(US)/mile tonnes/kilometre 1

Density Density is the shortened term generally used in place of the more accurate des cription volumetric density.It is a measure of mass per unit volume. The S I compatible unit of density is kilograms/cubic metre. However, this a rather large unit for most purposes (iron is over 7000, wood is about 600 and even cork is over 200). A much m ore useful size of unit is kilograms/litre (for which the previous values then become 7, 0.6 and 0.2 respectively). This unit also has the great advantage of being numerically unchanged for grams/cubic centimetre and tonnes/cu bic metre (or megagrams/cubic metre). To change any of these other units of density into their equivalent values in kilograms/litre use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. grains/gallon(UK) divide by 70 157 grains/gallon(US) divide by 58 418 grams/cubic centimetre 1 grams/litre divide by 1000 # grams/millilitre 1 kilograms/cubic metre divide by 1000 # megagrams/cubic metre 1 milligrams/millilitre divide by 1000 # milligrams/litre divide by 1 000 000 #

kilograms/litre

ounces/cubic inch x 1.729 994 044 ounces/gallon(UK) x 0.006 236 023 ounces/gallon(US) x 0.007 489 152 pounds/cubic inch x 27.679 905 pounds/cubic foot x 0.016 018 463 pounds/gallon(UK) x 0.099 776 373 pounds/gallon(US) x 0.119 826 427 tonnes/cubic metre 1 tons(UK)/cubic yard x 1.328 939 184 tons(US)/cubic yard x 1.186 552 843 Energy or work There is a lot of room for confusion in some of the units used here. The calorie can take 5 different values and, while these do not vary by very much, for accurate work it is necessary to specify which calorie is being used. The 5 calories are known as the International Table calorie = cal(IT) thermochemical calorie = cal(th) mean calorie = cal(mean) 15 degree C calorie = cal(15C) 20 degree C calorie = cal(20C). Unless a clear statement is made saying otherwise, assume the IT calorie is being used. As a further complication, in working with food and expressing nutritional values, the unit of a Calorie (capital C) is often used to represent 1000 calories, and again it is necessary to specify which calorie is being used for that. The British thermal unit (Btu) can also take different values and they are named in a similar way to the calorie, that is Btu (IT), (th), etc. Also note that the therm is100 000 Btu so its exact size depends on which Btu is being used. The S I unit of energy or work is the joule. To change any of these other units of energy or work into their equivalent values in joules use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. British thermal units(IT)x 1055.056 Btu (th) x 1054.350 Btu (mean) x 1055.87 calories - cal (IT) x 4.1868 # - cal (th) x 4.184 # - cal (mean) x 4.190 02 - cal (15C) x 4.185 80 - cal (20C) x 4.181 90 Calorie (food) x 4186 (approx.) centigrade heat units x 1900.4 ergs divide by 10 000 000 # foot pounds-force x 1.355 818 foot poundals x 0.042 140 gigajoules [GJ] x 1000 000 000 # horsepower hours x 2 684 520 (approx.) joules [J] 1

kilocalories (IT) x 4186.8 # kilocalories (th) x 4184 # kilogram-force metres x 9.806 65 # kilojoules [kJ] x 1000 # kilowatt hours [kWh] x 3 600 000 # megajoules [MJ] x 1 000 000 # newton metres [Nm] x1# therms x 105 500 000 (approx.) watt seconds [Ws] 1 watt hours [Wh] x 3600 # Force The S I unit of force is the newton. To change any of these other units of force into their equivalent values in newtons use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. dynes kilograms force kilonewtons [kN] x 1000 # kips meganewtons [MN] divide by 100 000 # x 9.806 65 # x 4448.222 x 1 000 000 #

newtons [N] pounds force poundals sthenes (=kN) tonnes force tons(UK) force tons(US) force

1 x 4.448 222 x 0.138 255 x 1000 x 9806.65 # x 9964.016 x 8896.443

Fuel Consumption Fuel consumption of any means of transport (car, aeroplane, ship etc.) that uses fuel is a measure giving the relationship be tween the distance travelled for an amount of fuel used. The most common example is the car where it is usually express ed (in English-speaking countries) in miles per gallon. It could also be expressed in gallons per mile. However, for a car the latter method gives a rather small figure: 35 miles pe r gallon is about 0.0286 gallons per mile. In that case it would be better to give a figure for 100 miles, so it would be 2.86 gallons per 100 miles. That is the metric way of expressing fuel consumption - as litres per 100 kilometres. From regular enquiries it appears that in real life people are using all sorts of ways of exp ressing their fuel consumption, so this section (unlike all the others) tries to cover as many ways as possible. All the values are given to an accuracy of 4 significant figures. To change miles per gallon (UK) miles per gallon (UK) miles per litre miles per gallon (UK) miles per gallon (US) miles per gallon (US) miles per litre miles per gallon (US) X miles per gallon into miles per gallon (US) multiply by 0. 833 miles per litre multiply by 0.22 miles per gallon (UK) multiply by 4.546 kilometres per litre multiply by 0.354 miles per gallon (UK) multiply by 1.2 miles per litre multiply by 0.2642 miles per gallon (US) multiply by 3.785 kilometres per litre multiply by 0.4251 gallons per 100 miles: divide 100 by X (both gallons must of the same type)

X miles per gallon (UK) litres per 100 km: divide 282.5 by X X miles per gallon (US) litres per 100 km: divide 235.2 by X X km per litre litres per 100 km: divide 100 by X X miles per litre litres per 100 km: divide 62.14 by X Power Since power is a measure of the rate at which work is done, the underlying units are those of work or energy, and that section should be looked at for explanations concerning the calorie and Btu. In this section the (IT) values have been used. In this section it is the horsepower which provides confusion. Just like the calorie, it can take 5 different values, and these are identified as necessary by the addition of (boiler) , (electric), (metric), (UK) and (water). Unlike the calorie (whose 5 values are reasonably close to each other) , the horsepower has 4 which are close and 1 (boiler) which is considerably different - it is about 13 times bigger than the others - but it seems to be very little used. The S I unit of power is the watt. To change any of these other units of energy or work into their equivalent values in watts use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. Btu/hour x 0.293 071 Btu/minute x 17.584 267 Btu/second x 1055.056 calories/hour x 0.001 163 # calories/minute x 0.069 78 # calories/second x 4.1868 # ft lb-force/minute x 0.022 597 ft lb-force/second x 1.355 82 gigawatts [GW] x 1 000 000 000 horsepower (electric) x 746 # horsepower (metric) x 735.499 watts [W] joules/hour joules/minute joules/second kilocalories/hour x 1.163 kilocalories/minute x 69.78 kg-force metres/hour kg-force metres/minute 1 divide by 3600 # divide by 60 # 1

x 0.002 724 x 0.163 444

kilowatts [kW] megawatts [MW]

x 1000 # x 1 000 000 #

Pressure or Stress The S I unit of pressure is the pascal. The units of pressure are defined in the same way as those for stress - force/unit area. To change any of these other units of pressure (or stress) into their equivalent values in pascals use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. M easures based on water assume a density of 1 kg/litre - a value which is rarely matched in the real world, though the error is small. atmospheres x 101 325 # bars x 100 000 # centimetres of mercury x 1333.22 centimetres of water x 98.066 5 # feet of water x 2989.066 92 # hectopascals [hPa] x 100 # inches of water x 249.088 91 # inches of mercury x 3386.388 kg-force/sq.centimetre x 98 066.5 # kg-force/sq.metre x 9.806 65 # kilonewton/sq.metre x 1000 # kilopascal [kPa] x 1000 # kips/sq.inch x 6 894 760 meganewtons/sq.metre x 1 000 000 # metres of water x 9806.65 # millibars x 100 # pascals [Pa] 1

millimetres of mercury x 133.322 millimetres of water x 9.806 65 # newtons/sq.centimetre x 10 000 newtons/sq.metre 1 newtons/sq.millimetre x 1 000 000 # pounds-force/sq.foot x 47.880 pounds-force/sq.inch x 6894.757 poundals/sq.foot x 1.448 16 tons(UK)-force/sq.foot x 107 252 tons(UK)-force/sq.inch x 15 444 256 tons(US)-force/sq.foot x 95 760 tons(US)-force/sq.inch x 13 789 500 tonnes-force/sq.cm x 98 066 500 # tonnes-force/sq.metre x 9806.65 # Speed The S I compatible unit of speed is metres/second. To change any of these other units of speed into their equivalent values in metres/second use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. centimetres/minute divide by 6000 # centimetres/second divide by 100 # feet/hour divide by 11 811 feet/minute x 0.005 08 # feet/second x 0.3048 # inches/minute divide by 2362.2 inches/second x 0.0254 # kilometres/hour divide by 3.6 # kilometres/second x 1000 # knots x 0.514 444 Mach number x 331.5 metres/hour divide by 3600 # metres/minute divide by 60 # metres/second [m/s] miles/hour miles/minute miles/second yards/hour yards/minute yards/second 1 x 0.447 04 # x 26.8224 # x 1609.344 # divide by 3937 x 0.015 24 # x 0.9144 #

Spread Rate (by mass) The spread rate of a substance is a measure of how much of it there is covering a unit area. The 'how much' can be measure d by volume or by mass. The S I compatible unit of spread rate by mass is kilograms/square metre. It is also a measure of area density (mass/unit area) and is similar to - but not the same as - pressure, which is force/unit area. For the rainfall conversio ns a density of 1 kg/litre has been assumed. To change any of these other units of spread rate into their equivalent values in kilograms/square metre use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. The conversion for rainfall assumes a density of 1 kg/litre which is accurate enough for all practical purposes. grams/sq.centimetre x 10 # grams/sq.metre divide by 1000 # inches of rainfall x 2.54 kilograms/hectare divide by 10 000 # kilograms/sq.centimetre x 10 000 # milligrams/sq.metre divide by 1000 # millimetres of rainfall 1 kilograms/sq.metre ounces/sq.foot ounces/sq.inch ounces/sq.yard pounds/acre pounds/sq.foot pounds/sq.inch pounds/sq.yard tonnes/hectare tons(UK)/acre tons(US)/acre 1 x 0.305 152 x 43.942 divide by 49.494 divide by 8921.791 x 4.882 428 x 703.07 x 0.542 492 divide by 10 # divide by 3.982 942 divide by 4.460 896

Spread Rate (by volume) The spread rate of a substance is a measure of how much of it there is covering a unit area. The 'how much' can be measured by volume or by mass. The S I compatible unit of spread rate by volume is cubic metres/square metre. However, this is a rather large unit for most purposes and so litres/square metre is often preferred. To change any of these other units of spread rate into their equivalent values in litres/square metre use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accur acy. cubic feet/acre divide by 142.913 cubic inches/sq.yard divide by 51.024 cubic yards/sq.mile divide by 3387.577 cubic metres/hectare divide by 10 # cubic metres/sq.km divide by 1000 # cubic metres/sq.metre x 1000 # fl. ounces(UK)/sq.yard divide by 29.428 litres/square metre 1

gallons(UK)/acre divide by 890.184 gallons(US)/acre divide by 1069.066 gallons(UK)/hectare divide by 2199.692 gallons(US)/hectare divide by 2641.721 inches of rainfall x 25.4 # litres/hectare divide by 10 000 # millilitres/sq.metre divide by 1000 # millimetres of rainfall 1 Torque The S I compatible unit of torque is the newton metre. To change any of these other units of torque into their equivalent values in newton metres use the operation and conversion factor given. Those marked with # are exact. Other values are given to an appropriate degree of accuracy. dyne centimetres divide by 10 000 000 # gram-force centimetres x 0.000 098 066 5 # kg-force centimetres x 0.098 066 5 # kg-force metres x 9.806 65 # newton centimetres divide by 100 # newton metres [Nm] 1

ounce-force inches divide by 141.612 pound-force inches x 0.112 984

pound-force feet x 1.355 818 poundal feet x 0.042 140 ton(UK)-force feet x 3 037.032 ton(US)-force feet x 2 711.636 tonne-force metres x 9 806.65 # Notes Errors Whilst every care has been taken in the compilation of this document, and many checks have been carried out, the possibility of an error is always present in a work like this and that must be borne in mind by all users. The author would be glad to be told of any errors detected. Accuracy In a general dictionary like this it is impossible to know just what accuracy is needed by any particular user. Where the given value is an exact one then it has been signalled. In most cases other values are accurate to at least the number of significant figures shown. In some cases it might be more than that as trailing zeros have not been included. Presentation The conversion factors have mainly been presented as multipliers, but exceptions to that have been made for two reasons. First, it is easier to convey the exact value 'divide by 60' rather than the approximation 'multiply by 0 .0166667' and it is more likely to be keyed in without errors if a calculator is being used. Second, most calc ulators accept only 8 digits, which means that 'multiply by 0 .000 084 666' will become '0.000 0846' (3 significant figures) whereas 'divide by 11 811' will give the result to 6 significant figures. The appearance of a '1' needs no operator but shows that t he named unit is exactly equivalent to the standard unit. Inverse usage In nearly all cases the conversion factors have been given to change 'non-standard' units into standard units of the SI. For those cases where it is necessary to do a conversion the o ther way it is only a matter of reversing the operation. For example to convert feet into metres you multiply by 0.3048 so, to convert metres into feet you divide by 0.3048. Following on from this it can be seen how conversions can be made between non-standard units, changing first into the standard unit and then back into the required unit. Author's Note A guiding principle behind the writing and presentation of this document has been that of clarity for non-specialist readers. To that end I have been guilty of breaking "the rules" in a few places. I am sorry that these transgressions may offend some readers but I have done so in the belief that it will be a little bit easier for many, and also help the flow of a continuous narrative. This dictionary is not meant to be encyclopaedic in its coverage, and there are many many more units which are not touched upon, but it is hoped that all 'ordinary' needs are covered. The many references to other sources, both in books and on-line should take care of anything beyond that. Finally, I must thank all of those who wrote with suggestions (and corrections!) after reading the earlier editions.

This provides a summary of most of the units of measurement to be found in use around the world today (and a few of historic al interest), and the definitions and rules of the various systems in which they are found. Conversions between the various units are dealt with in Part 1 There are NO units of currency. There is an outline of the S I system, a list of its 7 basic definitions, some of its derived units, together with a list of all the S I prefixes, and some of the rules and conventions for its usage. On the subject of measures generally, there is a short historical note. Then there are descriptions of the Metric system, and the U K (Imperial) system, followed by statements on the implementation of 'metrication' in the U K, and then the U S system of measures. At the bottom of this document is a list of other sources , and also some links to other Web sites. And then there is its publishing history . There is a separate document covering the most FAQ and other measures. The Systeme International [S I] Le Systeme international d'Unites officially came into being in October 1960 and has been officially recognised and adopted by nearly all countries, though the amount of actual usage varies considerably. It is based upon 7 principal units, 1 in each of 7 different categorie s Name Abbrev.

Category

Length metre m Mass kilogram kg Time second s Electric current ampere A Temperature kelvin K Amount of substance mole mol Luminous intensity candela cd Definitions of these basic units are given. Each of these units may take a prefix. From these basic units many other units are derived and named. Definitions of the Seven Basic S I Units

metre [m] The metre is the basic unit of length. It is the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/ 299792458th of a second. kilogram [kg] The kilogram is the basic unit of mass. It is the mass of an international prototype in the form of a platinum -iridium cylinder kept at Sevres in France. It is now the only basic unit still defined in terms of a material object, and also the only one with a prefix[kilo] already in place. second [s] The second is the basic unit of time. It is the length of time taken for 9192631770 periods of vibration of th e caesium133 atom to occur. ampere [A] The ampere is the basic unit of electric current. It is that current which produces a specified force between two parallel wires which are 1 metre apart in a vacuum. It is named after the French physicist Andre Ampere (1775-1836). kelvin [K] The kelvin is the basic unit of temperature. It is 1/273 .16th of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water. It is named after the Scottish mathematician and physicist William Thomson 1st Lord Kelvin (1824 -1907). mole [mol] The mole is the basic unit of substance. It is the amount of substance that contains as many elementary units as there are atoms in 0.012 kg of carbon-12. candela [cd] The candela is the basic unit of luminous intensity. It is the intensity of a s ource of light of a specified frequency, which gives a specified amount of power in a given direction. Derived Units of the S I From the 7 basic units of the SI other units are derived for a variety of purposes. Only a few of are explained here as examples, there are many more. farad [F] The farad is the SI unit of the capacitance of an electrical system, that is, its capacity to store electricity. It is a rath er large unit as defined and is more often used as a microfarad. It is named after the English chemist and physicist Michael Faraday (1791-1867). hertz [Hz] The hertz is the SI unit of the frequency of a periodic phenomenon. One hertz indicates that 1 cycle of the phenomenon occurs every second. For most work much higher frequencies are needed such as the kilohertz [kHz] and megahertz [MHz]. It is named after the German physicist Heinrich Rudolph Hertz (1857-94). joule [J] The joule is the SI unit of work or energy. One joule is the amount of work done when an applied forc e of 1 newton moves through a distance of 1 metre in the direction of the force. It is named after the English physicist James Prescott Joule (1818-89). newton [N] The newton is the SI unit of force. One newton is the force required to give a mass of 1 kilogram an acceleration of 1 metre per second per second. It is named after the English mathematician and physicist Sir Isaac Newton (1642 1727). ohm [ ] The ohm is the SI unit of resistance of an electrical conductor. Its symbol, is the capital Greek letter 'omega'. It is named after the German physicist Georg Simon Ohm (1789-1854). pascal [Pa] The pascal is the SI unit of pressure. One pascal is the pressure generated by a force of 1 newton acting on an area of 1 square metre. It is a rather small unit as de fined and is more often used as a kilopascal [kPa]. It is named after the French mathematician, physicist and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623 -62). volt [V] The volt is the SI unit of electric potential. One volt is the difference of potential between two p oints of an electical conductor when a current of 1 ampere flowing between those points dissipates a power of 1 watt. It is named after the Italian physicist Count Alessandro Giuseppe Anastasio Volta (1745-1827). watt [W] The watt is used to measure power or the rate of doing work. One watt is a power of 1 joule per second. It is named after the Scottish engineer James Watt (1736-1819). Note that prefixes may be used in conjunction with any of the above units. The Prefixes of the S I The S I allows the sizes of units to be made bigger or smaller by the use of appropriate prefixes. For example, the electrical unit of a wat t is not a big unit even in terms of ordinary household use, so it is generally used in terms of 1000 watts at a time. The prefix for 1000 is kilo so we use kilowatts[kW] as our unit of measurement. For makers of electricity, or bigger users such as industry, it is common to use me gawatts[MW] or even gigawatts[GW]. The full range of prefixes with their [symbols or abbreviations] and their multiplying factors which are also given in other forms is yotta [Y] 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 10^24 zetta [Z] 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 10^21 exa [E] 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 10^18 peta [P] 1 000 000 000 000 000 = 10^15 tera [T] 1 000 000 000 000 = 10^12

giga [G] 1 000 000 000 (a thousand millions = a billion) mega [M] 1 000 000 (a million) kilo [k] 1 000 (a thousand) hecto [h] 100 (a hundred) deca [da]10 (ten) 1 deci [d] 0.1 (a tenth) centi [c] 0.01 (a hundredth) milli [m] 0.001 (a thousandth) micro [] 0.000 001 (a millionth) nano [n] 0.000 000 001 (a thousand millionth) pico [p] 0.000 000 000 001 = 10^-12 femto [f] 0.000 000 000 000 001 = 10^-15 atto [a] 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 = 10^-18 zepto [z] 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 001 = 10^-21 yocto [y] 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 = 10^-24 [] the symbol used for micro is the Greek letter known as 'mu' Nearly all of the S I prefixes are multiples (kilo to yotta) or sub -multiples (milli to yocto) of 1000. However, these are inconvenient for many purposes and so hecto,deca, deci, and centi are also used. deca also appears as deka [da] or [dk] in the USA and Contintental Europe. So much for standards! Call up a Conversion Calculator for Prefixes OR Notes on Prefixes (inc. other types) Conventions of Usage in the S I There are various rules laid down for the use of the SI and its units as well as some observations to be made that will help in its correct use.

y y

y y y y

Any unit may take only ONE prefix. For example 'millimillimetre' is incorrect and should be written as 'micrometre'. Most prefixes which make a unit bigger are written in capital letters (M G T etc.), but when they m ake a unit smaller then lower case (m n p etc.) is used. Exceptions to this are the kilo [k] to avoid any possible confusion with kelvin [K]; hecto [h]; and deca [da] or [dk] It will be noted that many units are eponymous, that is they are named after pers ons. This is always someone who was prominent in the early work done within the field in which the unit is used. Such a unit is written all in lower case (newton, volt, pascal etc.) when named in full, but starting with a capital letter (N V Pa etc.) when abbreviated. An exception to this rule is the litre which, if written as a lower case 'l' could be mistaken for a '1' (one) and so a capital 'L' is allowed as an alternative. It is intended that a single letter will be decided upon some time in the future when it becomes clear which letter is being favoured most in use. Units written in abbreviated form are NEVER pluralised. So 'm' could always be either 'metre' or 'metres'. 'ms' would represent 'millisecond'. An abbreviation (such as J N g Pa etc.) is NEVE R followed by a full-stop unless it is the end of a sentence. To make numbers easier to read they may be divided into groups of 3 separated by spaces (or half -spaces) but NOT commas. The SI preferred way of showing a decimal fraction is to use a comma (123 ,456) to separate the whole number from its fractional part. The practice of using a point, as is common in English -speaking countries, is acceptable providing only that the point is placed ON the line of the bottom edge of the numbers (123 .456) and NOT in the middle.

A Brief History of Measurement One of the earliest types of measurement concerned that of length. These measurements were usually based on parts of the body . A well documented example (the first) is the Egyptian cubit which was derived from the length of the arm from the elbow to the outstretched finger tips. By 2500 BC this had been standardised in a royal master cubit made of black marble (about 52 cm). This cubit was divided into 28 digits (roughly a finger width) which could be further d ivided into fractional parts, the smallest of these being only just over a millimetre. In England units of measurement were not properly standardised until the 13th century, though variations (and abuses) continu ed until long after that. For example, there were three different gallons (ale, wine and corn) up until 1824 when the gallon was standardised. In the U S A the system of weights and measured first adopted was that of the English, though a few differences came in when decisions were made at the time of standardisation in 1836. For instance, the wine -gallon of 231 cubic inches was used instead of the English one (as defined in 1824) of about 277 cubic inches. The U S A also took as their standard of dry measure the old Winchester bushel of 2150 .42 cubic inches, which gave a dry gallon of nearly 269 cubic inches. Even as late as the middle of the 20th century there were some differences in UK and US measures which were nominally the sam e. The UK inch measured 2.53998 cm while the US inch was 2 .540005 cm. Both were standardised at 2.54 cm in July 1959, though the U S continued to use 'their' value for several years in land surveying work - this too is slowly being metricated. In France the metric system officially started in June 1799 with the declared intent of being 'For all people, for all time'. The unit of length was the metre which was defined as being one ten -millionth part of a quarter of the earth's circumference. The production of this standard required a very careful survey to be done which took several years. However, as more accurate instruments became available so the 'exactness' of the standard was called into question. Later efforts were directed at finding some absolute standard based on an observable physical phenomenon. Over two centuries this developed into the S I. So maybe their original slogan was more correct than anyone could have foreseen then. Metric System of Measurements

Length 10 millimetres = 1 centimetre 10 centimetres = 1 decimeter 10 decimetres = 1 metre 10 metres = 1 decametre 10 decametres = 1 hectometre 10 hectometres = 1 kilometre 1000 metres = 1 kilometre Volume 1000 cu. mm = 1 cu. cm 1000 cu. cm = 1 cu. decimetre 1000 cu. dm = 1 cu. metre 1 million cu. cm = 1 cu. metre

Area 100 sq. mm = 1 sq. cm 10 000 sq. cm = 1 sq. metre 100 sq. metres = 1 are 100 ares = 1 hectare 10 000 sq. metres = 1 hectare 100 hectares = 1 sq. kilometre 1 000 000 sq. metres = 1 sq. kilometre Capacity 10 millilitres = 1 centilitre 10 centilitree = 1 decilitre 10 decilitres = 1 litre 1000 litres = 1 cu. metre

Mass 1000 grams = 1 kilogram 1000 kilograms = 1 tonne The distinction between 'Volume' and 'Capacity' is artificial and kept here only for historic reasons. A millitre is a cubic centimetre and a cubic decimetre is a litre. But see under 'Volume' for problems with the litre. The U K (Imperial) System of Measurements Length 12 inches = 1 foot 3 feet = 1 yard 22 yards = 1 chain 10 chains = 1 furlong 8 furlongs = 1 mile 5280 feet = 1 mile 1760 yards = 1 mile Volume 1728 cu. inches = 1 cubic foot 27 cu. feet = 1 cubic yard Mass (Avoirdupois) 437.5 grains = 1 ounce 16 ounces = 1 pound (7000 grains) 14 pounds = 1 stone 8 stones = 1 hundredweight [cwt] 20 cwt = 1 ton (2240 pounds) Apothecaries' Measures 20 minims = 1 fl.scruple 3 fl.scruples = 1 fl.drachm 8 fl.drachms = 1 fl.ounce 20 fl.ounces = 1 pint Area 144 sq. inches = 1 square foot 9 sq. feet = 1 square yard 4840 sq. yards = 1 acre 640 acres = 1 square mile

Capacity 20 fluid ounces = 1 pint 4 gills = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon (8 pints)

24 grains

Troy Weights = 1 pennyweight 20 pennyweights = 1 ounce (480 grains) 12 ounces = 1 pound (5760 grains)

Apothecaries' Weights 20 grains = 1 scruple 3 scruples = 1 drachm 8 drachms = 1 ounce (480 grains) 12 ounces = 1 pound (5760 grains)

The old Imperial (now UK) system was originally defined by three standard measures - the yard, the pound and the gallon which were held in London. They are now defined by reference to the S I measures of the metre, the k ilogram and the litre. These equivalent measures are exact. 1 yard = 0.9144 metres - same in US 1 pound = 0.453 592 37 kilograms - same in US 1 gallon = 4.546 09 litres - different in US Note particularly that the UK gallon is a different size to the US gallon so that NO liquid measures of the same name are the same size in the UK and US systems. Also that the ton(UK) is 2240 pounds while a ton(US) is 2000 pounds. These are also referred to as a long ton and short ton r espectively. Metrication in the U K There have been three major Weights and Measures Acts in recent times (1963, 1976 and 1985) all gradually abolishing various units, as well re-defining the standards. All the Apothecaries' measures are now gone, and of the Troy measures, only the ounce remains. The legislation decreed that From the 1st October 1995, for economic, public health, public safety and administrative purposes, only metric units were to be allowed EXCEPT that y pounds and ounces for weighing of goods sold from bulk y pints and fluid ounces for beer, cider, waters, lemonades and fruit juices in RETURNABLE containers y therms for gas supply y fathoms for marine navigation

could be used until 31st December 1999. The following could continue to be used WITHOUT time limit y miles, yards, feet and inches for road traffic signs and related measurements of speed and distance y pints for dispensing draught beer and cider, and for milk in RETURNABLE containers y acres for land registration purposes y troy ounces for transactions in precious metals. Sports were exempt from all of this, but most of them have (voluntarily) changed their relevant regulations into statements of equivalent metric measures. That was how the legislation was framed. In common usage the 'old' units are still very apparent. Historical Perspectives on Metrication by Jim Humble who was the last Director of the UK Metrication Board. The first parliamentary reference to metrication in the UK was 13th April 1790. This was when parliamentarian Sir John Riggs Miller [Britain] and the Bishop of Autum, Prince Talleyrand [France] put to the British Parliament and French Assembly respectively, the proposition t hat the two countries should cooperate to equalise their weights and measures, by the joint introduction of the metric system. There was no immediate progress although there were many positive debates in the second half of the 19th Century. For example, 1s t July 1863 the Bill for a compulsory change to the metric system was approved by 110 votes to 75 votes. Speakers argued many of th e points we hear today. On the one hand supporters argued its logic and simplicity, savings in time and money, advantages to trade and ed ucation. Opponents stressed the undesirability of following the precedent of France and the problems of conversion for the illeducated and disadvantaged. However no specific cut-off dates were proposed. The following year, 9th March 1864, the House of Lords debated a Bill to permit the use of metric weights and measures in trade. One supporter noted that Englishmen were notorious for liking old terms and old habits and he hoped that the new nomenclature would not be diverted by attempts at ridicule. He said the sound of the word 'metric' can be absurd to anyone but a fool who has never heard it before ; but no more than a 'yard' to a man who has never heard of a 'yard' before.... !!! Parliament passed the Bill and this became the Metric Weights an d Measures Act 1864. On the 24th February 1868 a parliamentary proposal to set Imperial cut -off dates was withdrawn on promise of a Royal Commission of enquiry. The Enquiry Report was positive, and on the 26th July 1871 Britain almost became a metric country. The government lost the Bill to make metric compulsory after two years, by only 82 votes to 77 votes. An argument that might ha ve influenced opponents was a plea that Britain would be "letting down America and our colonies" who had harmonised their systems with the ones in use in Britain. [NB At that time th e American Congress had emulated Britain by allowing contracts in metric. A particularly strong USA advocate for metric was John Quincy Adams.] There were further debates, and near misses, in the UK Parliament in 1872 and 1896, before a comprehensive debate [21st June - 6th August 1897] concluded by legalising the use of metric for all purposes. There were no contrary votes. [NB This is the debate which most references indicate to be the genesis of metrication in the United Kingdom.] Metrication continued to be debated for the next 10 years. In 1904 The House of Lords unanimously voted to make metric compulsory after two years. It was claimed that the Austrian and German nations had successfully made metric compulsory with a changeover time of only "one week"!!!!! . The Government said they would not obstruct the proposal, but the Bill was never adopted in the Commons. Two similar debates in 1907 failed. By now, the Board of Trade was expressing some reservations, claiming that metrication had failed in France and that the agricultural labourer would never ask for 0.56825 of a litr e of beer. The vote against compulsion rose to 150 votes to 118 votes. Conflicts in Europe put further political consideration of metrication out of mind until the publication of a Government White Paper on Weights a nd Measures 10th May 1951. The 1951 White Paper was in fact the 28th Report put to Parliament during the preceeding 100 years. This latest report was in response to the the Hodgson Committee Report published in1949. Eventually we had the Weights and Measures Act 1963; a long series of Parliament ary questions to Ministers and the Federation of British Industries [now the CBI] lobby in favour of metrication in 1965. These initiatives culminated with the creation of the Metrication Board in 1969 by Anthony Wedgewood Benn, Minister of Technology. The target date for completion was end 1975. The transition to metrication and the role of the Board were given positive support and encouragement by Geoffrey Howe the re sponsible Minister of the new Government in 1972. Indeed at that time, and until circa 1977/8, there was good, sensible and steady progress which seemed to be supported by every section of society including, for example, the small retailers and the elderly as represented by Age Conce rn. Prepackaged food changed but the really difficult issue to emerge affected retailers of 'loose weight' products. They needed to be reassured there would be an agreed cut-off date for their transfer from Imperial to metric. The retail problem was that metric prices would always appear to be more expensive than their nearest Imperial equivalent. Voluntary transferees to metric found themselves commercially disadvantaged. This is because viz. 4 ozs is smaller than 125 g: one pound is smaller than 500 g and a pint is smaller than a litre. Prices are corr espondingly lower. The issue of how best to explain the position to consumers dominated much of the Board's creative thinking. The product which brought all voluntary retail initiatives to a full stop was the experience of the floor covering and carpet retailers. Their 1975 change to sales by the sq. metre started well, but in 1977 one of the major High Street retailers found enormous commercial advantage in reverting to sales by the square yard. Consumers could not be persuaded to believe that goods costing, for example, 10 per square yard or 12 per square metre were virtually priced the same. Consumers bought, in very significant volume, the apparently cheaper priced imperial version. Metrication of carpet sales entered into full scale reverse and the Chambers of Trade and retail associations pressed for firm Government leadership i.e. compulsory cut -off. With hindsight one of the Metrication Board jingles may have helped spread the 'carpet' misunderstanding. This was the jingle " a metre measures about three foot three , just a bit longer than a yard you see". Consumers understandably couldn't relate an e.g. 2 per square unit price difference with the Metrication Board's "just a bit longer". Then the political nerve began to fail. Board of Trade Ministers Shirley Willia ms, Alan Williams and later Roy Hattersley and John Fraser supported metrication. They seemed to recognise the setting of a cut -off date was unavoidable. They had had, by this time, the benefit of analysing the results of successful metric changes in all the Commonwealth countries. There was a wealth of information within the Department of Trade to show that a clear retail cut -off date was both desirable and inevitable....exactly as 19th Century parliamentarians had forseen. The necessary Order, drafted by the Board of Trade in 1978, was agreed by a huge range of retail trade, industry, engineering, consumer, trade union, elderly person, sporting and educ ational organisations and..... the overwhelming number of parliamentarians. A small number of critics, in each political party, did voice opposition to the element of compulsion but this seemed to come from a relatively small minority within the Eurosceptic movement. However, the initiative was in the hands of Secretary of State for Trade, Roy Hattersley and a General Election was expected in 1979. There seemed to be weeks and weeks of "will he/ won't he" allow Parliament to vote for the Order giving the final Imperial cut -off. Almost every private test of opinion indicated the Order would command a substantia l majority in Parliament. Although the Opposition sensed a weakness in the resolution of the Labour Government it was acknowledged that many conservative MPs had been career -long advocates for cut-off and would

therefore be likely to favour the Government Order, or at least abstain. In the event, Roy Hattersley chose not to test opinion, not to allow the vote. He withdrew the draft Order. Speculation was that he judged the issue might lose some votes in the forthcoming election . Plenty of time to introduce Imperial cut-off Orders after a Labour victory. The junior Trade Minister, John Fraser, made his disgust and disappointment apparent... suggesting the actions of his Secretary of State would be seen as "gutless". Many shared that view. Labour lost the elec tion anyway and Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. One Conservative backbencher, Sally Oppenheim had been almost the lone but persistent critic of the metric programme. Ironica lly she was appointed junior Minister of Consumer Affairs at the DTI and t hen metrication was added to her portfolio. In letters to MP's and associations she made it clear [a] she was not opposed the metrication in principle, [b] metrication was not the result of Britain's accession to the EEC but [c] she did object to measur es which would compel people to adopt metric against their will. Proponents of metrication, trade and consumer organisations, officials and the Metrication Board explained and argued that a voluntary change at retail level was absolutel y impossible...it co uld never happen. It was a recipe for confusion, waste and duplication. Government had to lead over the last hurdle. It did, it l ed backwards. In 1980 the Metrication Board was abolished. In truth the Metrication Board had little else to do. Every possible programme had been agreed, consumer information campaigns composed and there was nothing to do until or unless a date was fixed for the completion of the transition. We little knew then the die wa s set for a further 20 years of waste, confusion and argume nt. Successive DTI Ministers did nothing to inform consumers or public opinion. They did nothing to refute the new 'big lie' namely, that Britain was being forced to change because of the European Commission. In fact, during the pas t 20 years most Commission Officials, European Politicians and businesses in Continental Europe 'couldn't have given a damn' whether Britain changed to the metric system or not. They seemed to quite like the idea of Britain shooting itself in its economic foot, by imposing upon i tself the extra costs and waste of maintaining a dual system. For twenty years not one single British Minister has attempted to explain the advantages of metrication; been frank about the changes which had successfully taken place in the rest of the World or the fact that we had committed ourselves to become a metric nation long before we joined the European Community. Most tried to pretend or imply they were protecting our British c ulture from the European bully. How sad, what a waste, what a pity. Jim Humble OBE Director of the Metrication Board [1978-1980] Some other dates of note 1950 The Hodgson Report was published which, after arguing all the points for and against, favoured a change to metric. 1963 Weights and Measures Act defined the basic measures of the 'yard' and the 'pound' in terms of the 'metre' and the 'kilogram'. Many of the old imperial measures were abolished (drachm, scruple, minim, chaldron, quarter, rod, pole, perch, and a few more) 1971 Currency was Decimalised 1985 Weights and Measures Act abolished several more imperial measures for purposes of trade, and defined the 'gallon' in terms of the 'litre'. Thus, all the measures had been metricated even if the public hadn't!

The U S System of Measurements Most of the US system of measure ments is the same as that for the UK. The biggest differences to be noted are in Capacity which has both liquid and dry measures as well as being based on a different standard - the US liquid gallon is smaller than the UK gallon. There is also a measuremen t known at the US survey foot. It is gradually being phased out as the maps and land plans are re -drawn under metrication. (The changeover is being made by putting 39.37 US survey feet = 12 metres) Length 12 inches = 1 foot 3 feet = 1 yard 220 yards = 1 furlong 8 furlongs = 1 mile 5280 feet = 1 mile 1760 yards = 1 mile Volume 1728 cu. inches = 1 cubic foot 27 cu. feet = 1 cubic yard Capacity (Dry) 2 pints = 1 quart 8 quarts = 1 peck 4 pecks = 1 bushel Capacity (Liquid) 16 fluid ounces = 1 pint 4 gills = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon (8 pints) Area 144 sq. inches = 1 square foot 9 sq. feet = 1 square yard 4840 sq. yards = 1 acre 640 acres = 1 square mile 1 sq.mile = 1 section 36 sections = 1 township

Mass 437.5 grains = 1 ounce Troy Weights 16 ounces = 1 pound (7000 grains) 24 grains = 1 pennyweight 14 pounds = 1 stone 20 pennyweights = 1 ounce (480 grains) 100 pounds = 1 hundredweight [cwt] 12 ounces = 1 pound (5760 grains) 20 cwt = 1 ton (2000 pounds)

Apothecaries' Measures 60 minims = 1 fl.dram 8 fl.drams = 1 fl.ounce 16 fl.ounces = 1 pint

Apothecaries' Weights 20 grains = 1 scruple 3 scruples = 1 dram 8 drams = 1 ounce (480 grains) 12 ounces = 1 pound (5760 grains)

As with the UK system these measures were originally defined by physical standard measures - the yard, the pound, the gallon and the bushel.They are now all defined by reference to the S I measures of the metre, the kilogram and the litre. These equivalent measures are exact. 1 yard = 0.9144 metres - same as UK 1 pound = 0.453 592 37 kilograms - same as UK 1 gallon (liquid) = 3.785 411 784 litres 1 bushel = 35.239 070 166 88 litres Note particularly that the US gallon is a different size to the UK gallon so that NO liquid measures of the same name are the same size in the US and UK systems. Also that the ton(US) is 2000 pounds while a ton(UK) is 2240 pounds. These are also referred to as a short ton and long ton r espectively. Note than in matters concerned with land measurements, for the most accurate work, it is necessary to establish whether the US survey measures are being used or not. Other Measures barn The barn is a very small unit of area used to express the cross -sectional area of the nucleus of an atom. It was defined in 1942 by Holloway and Baker (in Chicago) and the name was taken from the expression "as big as a barn door" which it was, relatively speaking, in t heir particular work with sub-atomic particles. -28 1 barn = 10 square metres Later, following on from that idea, the ' shed' an even smaller unit was defined, but this seems never to have been taken up by the scientific community. 1 shed = 10 -24 barns = 10-52 square metres barrel The word 'barrel' is both a name for a type of container and also a unit of measure. As a container, the once very familiar barrel was made of wood and roughly cylindrical in shape except that it 'bulged' outwards in the middle, and was used to transport not only the obvio us liquids (water, beer, wine etc.) but also other commodities such as fish, sugar, flour, meat, cement, minerals, and so on. The sizes of the different barrels vari ed with contents and, some of these different barrels acquired different names. So, deeper enquiry must be made if the exact quant ity meant in any particular context is wanted. The sizes given here are to help the modern reader who wishes only to have a rough idea of just how big something might have been. Small numbers like 123 are the equivalent size to the nearest litre. For liquids similar to water (wine etc) this is also the weight of the contents in kilograms. barrel = 36 galls(UK) 164 kilderkin = 18 galls(UK) 82 butt = 108 galls(UK) 491 pipe = 126 galls(US) 477 firkin = 9 galls(UK) 41 pin = 4.5 galls(UK) 20 hogshead = 54 galls(UK) 245 puncheon = 70 galls(UK) 318 tierce = 42 galls(US) 159 tun = 216 galls(UK) 982 A study of the sizes shows the relationships between some of these containers. Like: 1 tun = 2 butts = 4 hogsheads = 6 barrels = 12 kilderkins etc. The use of the US gallon betrays the origins of the container as being in the wine trade. It was the old UK wine gallon which later became the standard US liquid gallon. The unit of a barrel as used in the oil trade is, in f act, the tierce which is one-third of a pipe. 'Tierce' and 'pipe' were used for both containers and measures in the wine trade. Some other names for barrel-like containers of unspecified size are breaker cask drum keg tub bels & decibels Abbreviations are B and dB respectively. The bel was originally a measure of sound intensity based on a logarithmic (base 10) scale. This means that each increase of 1 bel is 10 times louder than the one before it. The need for such a scale is that the mea surement of noise covers such a big range. A really loud noise is billions of times louder than a quiet one. On this logarithmic scale, one billion is only 9. 9 1 billion = 10 It is named after Graham A. Bell (1847 -1922) who invented the telephone. However, it is the decibel (one-tenth of a bel) which is much better known and used. On this scale, a value of 0 dB represents the smallest amount of sound that can actually be detected, 50/60 dB would be the level of ordinary conversation, and above 130 dB of noise would cause pain. The dB logarithmic scale idea has since been adopted by other specialist areas, most notably in electronics. Here they use it to measure power. Thus dBW for decibel watts, and dBmW for decibel milliwatts (in laser work) which, unhelpfu lly for us, they often write as dBm. Some other (related) words are: neper phon sone For much more detailed information on all of this, go to the A to Z of units listed at (and linked from) the bottom.

bottles The bottle is a well-known container of all kinds of liquids. It is not a legally defined measure, though for certain purposes there is common agreement on what size it should be. However there are different ways in which the capacities of bottles are stated. For instance, milk bottles give it in litres, wine bottles in centilitres [cL] and smaller sizes of soft -drink bottles in millilitres [mL]. Of course there are marketing ploys at work here ~ 330mL sounds more than 33cL and certainly much more than 0 .33L ! How did the wine bottle come to be 75 cL in size? It has a long and complicated history but, briefly, in the 1600's when bottles were made by hand, the wine bottle was about 46 .24 cubic inches (26 and two-thirds fluid ounces) in capacity, a measure which was known as a 'reputed quart'. This came from being one-quarter of a wine gallon which was the size of 8 troy pounds of wine. (Wine by the pound!) Metrication trimmed one and a half teaspoonsful off this to m ake it 75cL. One set of bottle sizes which always fascinate is that used for champagne. The names, with their generally accepted measures, are bottle =3L = 12 bottles = 1 bottle rehoboam =9L = 75 cL = 6 bottles balthazar magnum = 4.5 L = 16 bottles = 2 bottles methuselah = 12 L nebuchadnezzar = 1.5 L = 8 bottles jeroboam = 20 bottles =6L = 15 L = 4 bottles salmanazar The large sizes are rarely used, except for very special (and expensive) occasions when they are usually made to order. Some other names of bottle-like containers are amphora ampoule ampulla blackjack calabash chagal demijohn flagon flask gallipot gourd phial vial brix A measure of the percentage of sucrose contained (by weight) in a sugar solution at a temperature of 17 .5C. It is measured by using a saccharometer (=hydrometer) graduated in degrees of Brix, where 1 degree = 1% It is important to know this value during the fermentation process of alcoholic d rinks (wines & beers) since the alcoholic content of the final liquid is determined by the amount of sugar present at a certain stage. The measure was devised by A F W Brix (1798 -1870) a German chemist. BTU or Btu Both are measures of energy. The BTU is the Board of Trade Unit and is equivalent to 1 kilowatt hour (kWh) but is no longer used. The Btu, or BThU, is the British Thermal Unit (equivalent to over 3000 BTU's) which is obsolete but still seen quite a bit. The SI uni t of energy is the joule. cable This was a measure of length used at sea. In the UK it was defined as 100 fathoms (600 feet); and in the US as 120 fathoms (720 feet). Informally, it was also regarded as one-tenth of a nautical mile (608 feet) in the UK. The unit is no longer used operationally, and neither is the fathom. cholesterol The level of cholesterol in one's blood is an important measure of the state of one's health, especially in terms of assessin g life expectancy. Unfortunately, 2 different ways of measuring it are used. In the US it is given in mg/dL (milligrams per decilitre or 100 millilitres) while the UK uses mmol/L (millimoles per litre). To change from one system to the other: From US to UK units divide by 38.6 from UK to US units multiply by 38.6 As a rough guide to the sort of figures expected: in UK units it should be less than 5, while in US units the total should be less than 200. Then there is the matter of good and bad cholesterol. But that has nothing to do with the units used to measure it. cookery measures What a mess! The system of measures that is. It must be realised that the measures used had their origins in the days when th e ordinary kitchen had no specific measuring utensils (scales or graduated jugs) and recipes had to give the required amounts in terms of what would be to hand, like 'teaspoons' 'tablespoons' and 'cups'. Given that the sizes of such things did not vary very much in those times, and that rec ipes are basically only about proportions between ingredients, it all worked very well. A look now in almost any kitchen will show just how much these things can vary in size, and indicate that some sort of 'stand ardisation' is needed. The simple answer is to give weights and volumes in regular measures (metric preferr ed) and avoid any reference to utensil measures. Or, alternatively, specify what size those measures are intended to be. This latter is much better since many of the smaller quan tities would be quite difficult to measure. Most cookery books nowadays usuall y include a section giving guidance on this topic. Of course, that still leaves the problem of working from an old recipe. As a guide, and nothing more than a guide, try 1 teaspoon = 5 mL 1 tablespoon = 15 mL = 3 teaspoons 1 cup = 250 mL (= one-quarter of a litre) Of course, if it is a dry ingredient, then it is necessary to know whether the spoon is to be 'heaped' or 'level' And then there are 'pinch' 'handful' & 'teacup'. Never mind, think of cooking as an art, and not a science. drops This measure is much used in medicine for prescribing dosages for treating ailments of the nose, ear and throat. Surprisingly, the exa ct size of a drop is NOT defined, but everyone 'knows' roughly what it means, though variations can be found in the literature. In general, it can be taken that

1 drop = 0.05 millilitres (mL) which means 100 drops would fill a 5 mL teaspoon. e This symbol is now often seen on packaging which originates from within the European Union. It is NOT a unit of measurement. It is a lower ca se 'e' which is printed adjacent to (before or after) the stated (nominal) quantity of the contents of the package. Thus e 150g or 275mL e It indicates that the quantity stated lies within the limits allowed by the rules given under The Average System of Weights and Measures eV This stands for "electronvolt" and is a measure of energy used in nuclear and atomic physics. It is a very small unit and is more usually seen as keV, MeV or GeV (that is kilo- mega- and giga- eV). -19 1 eV = 1.602 176 462 10 joules But, since this figure has to be determined by experiment, its value might be a little different in other printed sources (de pending on date of publication). fluid ounce This is a measure of volume and not mass or weight. This is because it is def ined in relation to the gallon. In the UK 160 fl.oz. = 1 gallon In the US 128 fl.oz. = 1 gallon This looks like a big difference but, the UK and US gallons are not the same size. Changing to a common unit we have In the UK 1 fl.oz. = 28 .413 063 mL In the US 1 fl.oz. = 29 .573 530 mL (A difference of about 4%) The original intention (in both cases) had been to make the fluid ounce also equal to one ounce of water in weight. In fact In the UK 1 fl.oz. = 1 .002 241 oz In the US 1 fl.oz. = 1 .043 176 oz Considering their closeness and that they are only (usually) used for non -scientific measurements it is not unreasonable to treat them as being the same size and weighing 1 ounce. But, if really pressed, there are (small) differences! gauges also gage or gages This is one of the more overworked words in the English language. Major dictionaries identify over 15 different usages of thi s word! First of all, for the use we make of it in connection with measuring, it is NOT a unit in itself. It can best be tho ught of as a collection of standard sizes. Each collection having its own identity and not necessarily having any relationships within itself or with any other c ollection. A characteristic of nearly all collections of gauge sizes is that the size is given by a number and you need to refer to a table in order to find exactly what size or dimension that number stands for. Neither do you know beforehand whether bigger numbers mean bigger (or smaller) sizes. The standard sizes used for a collection are most oft en laid down by the ruling, or organising, body concerned with the use of whatever it is that is being measured. It is most unusual for any gauge sizes to defined by government legislation. (Unlike, for instance, our measu res of weight, length etc.) One of the better known examples of gauge sizes is that used for wire where there are such well -known names as American (or Brown & Sharpe);Birmingham (or Stubbs); British Imperial (or S W G); Gauge sizes are also used for sheet -metal, model railways, knitting a nd sewing needles, shot-guns, and several other things. Though not usually referred to as gauge sizes, though in principle they are, we have those for clothes and shoe sizes, and th e Beaufort wind scale. hand This is a measure of length which, if nothing else, serves to remind us how many length -units had their origin as a part of the human body which served as a convenient built -in measure to be used to size up something with a rough and ready degree of accuracy. For general use it has long been obsolete, but it is still used to measure and record the height of a horse. 1 hand = 4 inches (just over 10 centimetres) hoppus foot This is a measure of volume once used in forestry work but now obsolete. It was derived from a formula used to find the volum e of usable wood in the trunk of a tree, after an allowance had been made for waste (about 20%). 1 Hoppus foot = 0.036 cubic metres The unit was named after Edward Hoppus, an English surveyor, who devised the system in 1736. klicks Also spelt klik or click. It is principally a measure of length or distance, and is equal to 1 kilometre There seems to be some doubt about when it first originated, but certainly was in wide use by the US military in the Vietnam War (1961 - 75). It is also sometimes used to mean a speed of 1 kilometre per hour. lb & oz These are very well-known abbreviations for the pound and the ounce, but where did they come from? When the Romans came to Britain they brought their own system of measures. For weighing they used the 'libra' and ' uncia' (which was onetwelfth of a libra). When the English language was forming the word 'pund' appeared and was concerned with weighing, but slow ly changed (to pound) to mean the weight itself, which was the libra, and the abbreviation 'lb' was retained. It is not hard to see how 'uncia' became 'ounce' but why 'oz'? Hazy! The 'best' story is that the merchants of those times we re always looking for

contractions for frequently written words and for ounce wrote o+squiggle which got formalised over time into oz. (An example of early textmessaging?) But what about its size? There are not 12 ounces in a pound. Well not now. The original pound was the Troy pound which did have 12 ounces. Later the standardised pound Avoirdupois (7000 grains) was introduced, thi s was bigger than the Troy (5760 grains). But they decided to have 16 ounces in the pound which made the new ounce (437 .5) smaller than the old one (480). Note that the 'uncia' as the one -twelfth part of a measure was retained in English measures as a divi sion of the 'foot' but in that case its name evolved into 'inch'. Inevitably, liberties have been taken in re -telling 2000 years of history in so few words! In reality it was an evolutionary and very uneven process. Going 'metric' is a doddle in comparison ! litre/liter These are the same measure. The difference is only in the spelling. In UK English it is 'litre', in US English it is 'liter'. There can be some ambiguity about the size of the litre. When the metric system was introduced in the 1790's the litre was intended to match up with the volume occupied by 1 kilogram of pure water at a specified pressure and temperature. As the ability to measure thing s got better (by 100 years later) they found that there was a mismatch between the kilogram and the litre. As a result of this they had to redefine the litre (in 1901) as being 1.000028 cubic decimetres. Very handy! This nonsense was stopped in 1964 when it was ruled that the word "litre" may be employed as a special name for the cubic dec imetre, with the additional recommendation that, to avoid any possible confusion, 'in high-accuracy work the name "litre" should not be used.' So now the litre is taken as being a cubic decimetre, or 1 litre = 1000 cubic centimetres (= 1000 mL) It should be remembered that one unusual feature of the litre is its abbreviation. It is unique in that two forms are allowed. In 1979 the governing body who control the SI ruled that the letter used as the abbreviation for litre could be written in either lower or upper ca se, 'l' or 'L', to avoid possible confusion with '1'(one). They hoped one day to make a decision on one or the other, but have not done so yet. It see ms a pity that the 'L' appears to be so little used. It is clearer on printed material (mL rather than ml) and cer tainly much the better way for written matter. Given the number of cases that come to notice from time to time in medical work where a wrong dosage has been administered, perhaps it should be made mandatory in that field at least. mcg Stands for "microgram" or one-millionth of a gram. It is not an 'officially' approved abbreviation. It should be written g However, the difficulties of printing the Greek letter "" led to the use of "mcg". Nowadays there is rarely a real need for this; it is largely a matt er of laziness. metre/meter These are the same measure. The difference is only in the spelling. In UK English it is 'metre', in US English it is 'meter'. No matter how it is spelt, it is the standard by which all other measures of length are defined. For example a 'foot' is 0 .3048 of a metre and so on. One advantage of the UK form is that it allows a clear distinction to be made between the 'micrometre' which is one -millionth of a metre and a 'micrometer' which is an instrument used (mainly by engineers) to measure small sizes with great accuracy. micron symbol (the Greek letter mu) "Micro" means one-millionth and the word micron means one -millionth of a metre. It is often used as a measure of thickness for sheet metal and card. It is still in very com mon usage though no longer an approved SI unit. It should be "micrometre" or m. miner's inch This is NOT a measure of length, but of the rate of water flow in a miner's sluice. A sluice is used in getting metallic ores (like gold) from the gravel containing them by a system of washing in which the rate of flow of the water is very important. Too fast and it takes away everth ing, too slow and nothing happens. 1 miner's inch is a flow of 1 .5 cubic feet per minute or about 64,000 litres in 24 hours. nail As a measure this is now obsolete. It was once used as a measure of length for cloth, and was equal to one -sixteenth of a yard (two and a quarter inches). It was also a measure of weight for wool or beef and equivalent to 8 pounds. Its alternative name wa s a 'clove'. Where the 'nail' is a type of fastener (for wood) it picked up another measure in US usage. The size of the nail was expresse d by the cost (in pennies) of 100 nails of that size. Thus a one -inch nail would have been two-penny nail, while a four-inch nail would have been a twenty -penny nail and so on. rod, pole or perch These have meant different things at different times and in different countries! But most commonly they may be taken to be al ternative names for the same unit of length, and eq ual to 5 yards or 16.5 feet. Sometimes the 'rod' being referred to is meant to be a unit of area, and it will be necessary to read the context carefully to see if this is so. In that case it is equal to 272 .25 square feet. They are now obsolete, but do seem to come up quite often. For more detailed information on these measures, look under 'rod' in the A to Z of units listed at (and linked from) the bottom. teaspoon This common household implement has long been used as a measure of dosage when dispensing medicine at home. So what size was it? Well it varied, there was no standard until about the middle of the last century when it was set (by general agreement) at 5 millilitres (5mL) and, to make

sure, free plastic "teaspoons" were given away with the appropriate medicine. This is fine with liquids but what about a medicine which is in the form of granules or powder? Should it be a level measure or a heaped one? The latter can be t wice the size of the former! One manufacturer (of supplements) when challenged on the amount of the various ingredients in a dose argued that a heaped teaspoon was needed, but it did not say so on the package. So, ask! And then there is the teaspoon used in cookery . . . Meanwhile the US National Institute of Standards and Technology give a teaspoon as 4 .928 922 mL (An example of spurious accuracy that is hard to beat!) verst This is a Russian measure of length (now obsolete) equal to a little more than a kilometre (1.067 km) or about two-thirds of a mile. English Customary Weights and Measures Distance In all traditional measuring systems, short distance units are based on the dimensions of the human body. The inch represents the width of a thumb; in fact, in many languages, the word for "inch" is also the word for "thumb." The foot (12 inches) was originally the length of a human foot, although it has evolved to be longer than most people's feet. The yard (3 feet) seems to have gotten its start in England as the name of a 3 -foot measuring stick, but it is also understood to be the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the middle finger of the outstretched hand. Finally, if you stretch your arms out to the sides as far as possible, your total "arm span," from one fingertip to the other , is a fathom (6 feet). Historically, there are many other "natural units" of the same kind, including the digit (the width of a finger, 0.75 inch), the nail (length of the last two joints of the middle finger, 3 digits or 2.25 inches), the palm (width of the palm, 3 inches), the hand (4 inches), the shaftment (width of the hand and outstretched thumb, 2 palms or 6 inches), the span (width of the outstretched hand, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger, 3 palms or 9 inches), and the cubit (length of the forearm, 18 inches). In Anglo-Saxon England (before the Norman conquest of 1066), short distances seem to have been measured in several ways. The inch ( ynce) was defined to be the length of 3 barleycorns, wh ich is very close to its modern length. The shaftment was frequently used, but it was roughly 6.5 inches long. Several foot units were in use, including a foot equal to 12 inches, a foot equal to 2 shaftments (13 inches), a nd the "natural foot" ( pes naturalis, an actual foot length, about 9.8 inches). The fathom was also used, but it did not have a definite relationship to the othe r units. When the Normans arrived, they brought back to England the Roman tradition of a 12 -inch foot. Although no single document on the subject can be found, it appears that during the reign of Henry I (1100 -1135) the 12-inch foot became official, and the royal g overnment took steps to make this foot length known. A 12 -inch foot was inscribed on the base of a column of St. Paul's Church in London, and measurements in this unit were said to be "by the foot of St. Paul's" ( de pedibus Sancti Pauli). Henry I also appears to have ordered construction of 3 -foot standards, which were called "yards," thus establishing that unit for the first time in England. William of Malmsebury wrote that the yard was "the measure of his [the king's] own arm," thus launching the story th at the yard was defined to be the distance from the nose to the fingertip of Henry I. In fact, both the foot and the yard were established on the basis of the Saxon ynce, the foot being 36 barleycorns and the yard 108. Meanwhile, all land in England was tr aditionally measured by the gyrd or rod, an old Saxon unit probably equal to 20 "natural feet." The Norman kings had no interest in changing the length of the rod, since the accuracy of de eds and other land records depended on that unit. Accordingly, the length of the rod was fixed at 5.5 yards (16.5 feet). This was not very convenient, but 5.5 yards happened to be the length o f the rod as measured by the 12-inch foot, so nothing could be d one about it. In the Saxon land-measuring system, 40 rods make a furlong (fuhrlang), the length of the traditional furrow ( fuhr) as plowed by ox teams on Saxon farms. These ancient Sax on units, the rod and the furlong, have come down to us today with essentially no change. The chain, a more recent invention, equals 4 rods or 1/10 furlong in order to fit nicely with th e Saxon units. Longer distances in England are traditionally measured in miles. The mile is a Roman unit, originally defined to be the length of 1000 paces of a Roman legion. A "pace" here means two steps, right and left, or about 5 feet, so the mile is a unit of roughly 5000 feet. For a long time no one fel t any need to be precise about this, because distances longer than a furlong did not need to be measured exactly. It just didn' t make much difference whether the next town was 21 or 22 miles away. In medieval England, various mile units seem to have been used. Eve ntually, what made the most sense to people was that a mile should equal 8 furlongs, since the furlong was an English unit roughly equivalent to the Roman stadium and the Romans had set their mile equal to 8 stadia. This correspondence is not exact: the furlong is 660 English feet and the stadium is only 625 slightly-shorter Roman feet. In 1592, Parliament settled this questio n by setting the length of the mile at 8 furlongs, which works out to 1760 yards or 5280 feet. This decision completed the English distance system. Since this was just before the settling of the American colonies, British and American distance units have always been the same. Area In all the English-speaking countries, land is traditionally measured by the acre, a very old Saxon unit that is either historic or archaic, depending on your point of view. There are references to the acre at least as early as the year 732. The word "acre" also meant "field", and as a unit an acre was originally a field of a size that a farmer could plow in a single day. In practice, this meant a field that could be plowed in a morning, since the oxen had to be rested in the afternoon. The French word for the unit is journal, which is derived from jour, meaning "day"; the corresponding unit in German is called the morgen ("morning") or tagwerk ("day's work"). Most area units were eventually defined to be the area of a square having sides equal to some simple multiple of a distance unit, like the square yard. But the acre was never visualized as a square. An acre is the area of a long and narrow Anglo -Saxon farm field, one furlong (40 rods) in length but only 4 rods (1 chain) wide. This works out, very awkwardly indeed, to be exactly 43 560 square feet . If we line up 10 of these 4 x 40 standard acres side by side, we get 10 acres in a square furlong, and since the m ile is 8 furlongs there are exactly 10 x 8 x 8 = 640 acres in a square mile. Weight The basic traditional unit of weight, the pound, originated as a Roman unit and was used throughout th e Roman Empire. The Roman pound was divided into 12ounces, but many European merchants preferred to use a larger pound of 16 ounces, perhaps because a 16 -ounce pound is conveniently divided into halves, quarters, or eighths. During the Middle Ages there were many different pound standards in use, some of 12 ounces and some of 16. The use of these weight units naturally followed trade routes, since merchants trading along a certain route had to be familiar with the units used at both ends of the trip. In traditional English law the various pound weights are related by stating all of them as multiples of the grain, which w as originally the weight of a single barleycorn. Thus barleycorns are at the origin of both weight and distance units in the English system. The oldest English weight system has been used since the time of the Saxon kings. It is based on the 12 -ounce troy pound, which provided the basis on which coins were minted and gold and silver were weighed. Since Roman coins were still in circulation in Saxon times, the troy system was designed to model the Roman system directly. The troy pound weighs 5760 grains, and the ounces weigh 480 grains. Twenty pennies weighed an

ounce, and therefore a pennyweight is 480/20 = 24 grains. The troy system continued to be used by jewelers and also by druggists until the nineteenth century. Even today gold and silver prices are quoted by the troy ounce in financial markets everywhere. Since the troy pound was smaller than the commercial pou nd units used in most of Europe, medieval English merchants often used a larger pound called the "mercantile" pound ( libra mercatoria). This unit contained 15 troy ounces, so it weighed 7200 grains. This unit seemed about the right size to merchants, but i ts division into 15 parts, rather than 12 or 16, was very inconvenient. Around 1300 the mercantile pound was replaced in English commerce by the 16 -ounceavoirdupois pound. This is the pound unit still in common use in the U.S. and Britain. Modeled on a common Italian pound unit of the late thirteenth century, the avoirdupois pound weighs exactly 7000 grains. The avoirdupois ounce, 1 /16 pound, is divided further into 16 drams. Unfortunately, the two English ounce units don't agree: the avoirdupois ounce is 7000/16 = 437.5 grains while the troy ounce is 5760/12 = 480 grains. Conversion between troy and avoirdupois uni ts is so awkward, no one wanted to do it. The troy system quickly became highly specialized, used only for precious metals and for pharmaceuticals, while the avoirdupois pound was used for everything else. Since at least 1400 a standard weight unit in Brit ain has been the hundredweight, which is equal to 112 avoirdupois pounds rather than 100. There were very good reasons for the odd size of this "hundred": 112 pounds made the hundredweig ht equivalent for most purposes with competing units of other countries, especially the German zentner and the French quintal. Furthermore, 112 is a multiple of 16, so the British hundredweight can be divided conveniently into 4 quarters of 28 pounds, 8 stone of 14 pounds, or 16 cloves of 7 pounds each. The ton, originally a unit of wine measure, was defined to equal 20 hundredweight or 2240 pounds. During the nineteenth century, an unfortunate disagreement arose between British and Americans concerning the larger weight u nits. Americans, not very impressed with the history of the British units, redefined the hundredweight to equal exactly 100 pounds. The defini tion of the ton as 20 hundredweight made the disagreement carry over to the size of the ton: the British "long" ton remain ed at 2240 pounds while the American "short" ton became exactly 2000 pounds. (The American hundredweight became so popular in commerce that British merchants deci ded they needed a name for it; they called it the cental.) Today, most international shipments are reckoned in metric tons, which, coincidentally, are rather close in weight to the British long ton. Volume The names of the traditional volume units are the names of standard con tainers. Until the eighteenth century, it was very difficult to measure the capacity of a container accurately in cubic units, so the standard containers were defined by specifying the weight of a part icular substance, such as wheat or beer, that they coul d carry. Thus the gallon, the basic English unit of volume, was originally the volume of eight pounds of wheat. This custom led to a multiplicity of units, as different commodities were carried in containers of slightly different sizes. Gallons are always divided into 4 quarts, which are further divided into 2 pints each. For larger volumes of dry commodities, there are 2 gallons in a peck and 4 pecks in a bushel. Larger volumes of liquids were carried in barrels, hogsheads, or other containers whose size in gallons tended t o vary with the commodity, with wine units being different from beer and ale units or units for other liquids. The situation was still confused during the American colonial period, so the Americans were actually simplifying things by se lecting just two of the many possible gallons. These two were the gallons that had become most common in British commerce by around 1700. For dry com modities, the Americans were familiar with the "Winchester bushel," defined by Parliament in 1696 to be the volume of a cylindr ical container 18.5 inches in diameter and 8 inches deep. The corresponding gallon, 1/8 of this bushel, is usually called the "corn gallon" in England. Thi s corn gallon holds 268.8 cubic inches. For liquids Americans preferred to use the traditional Britis h wine gallon, which Parliament defined to equal exactly 231 cubic inches in 1707. As a result, the U.S. volume system includes both "dry" and "liquid" units, with the dry units being about 1/6 larger than the cor responding liquid units. In 1824, the British Parliament abolished all the traditional gallons and established a new system based on the "Imperial" gallon of 277.42 cub ic inches. The Imperial gallon was designed to hold exactly 10 pounds of water under certain specified conditions. Unfortunately , Americans were not inclined to adopt this new, larger gallon, so the traditional English "system" actually includes three different volume measu rement systems: U.S. liquid, U.S. dry, and British Imperial. On both sides of the Atlantic, smaller volumes of li quid are traditionally measured in fluid ounces, which are at least roughly equal to the volume of one ounce of water. To accomplish this in the different systems, the smaller U.S. pint is divided into 16 fluid ounces, and the larger British pint is divided into 20 fluid ounces. The Bottom Line Because of their many eccentricities, English customary units clearly are more cumbersome to use than metric units in trade a nd in science. As metrication proceeds, they are less and less in use. On the other hand, these traditional units are rich in cultural signific ance. We can trace their long histories in their names and relationships. We should not forget them, and it is unlikely that we will, even when Britain and America complete their slow conversion to the metric system. The American economy of the 22nd century may be completely metric, but probably A mericans will still call 30 centimeters a "foot" and 1600 meters a "mile." The Metric System in the United States Article I, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution gives Congress the power to "fix the standard of weights and measures" for the nation. The First Congress, meeting in 1789, took up the question of weights and measures, and had th e metric system been available at that time it might have been adopted. What actually happened is that Thomas Jefferson, who was then serving as the first Secretary of State, submitte d a report proposing a decimal-based system with a mixture of familiar an d unfamiliar names for the units. Jefferson's system actually resembles the metric system in many ways. Its biggest shortcoming is that Jefferson didn't hit on the idea of using prefixes to create names for multiples of units. Consequently, his system was burdened with a long list of names. For example, he divided his basic distance unit, the foot (it was slightly shorter than the traditional foot) into 10 inches. Each inch was divided into 10 lin es, and each line into 10 points. For larger distances, 10 fe et equalled a decade, 100 feet was a rood, 1000 feet a furlong, and there were 10 000 feet in a mile (making the Jeffersonian mile about twice as long as the traditional mile). His basic volume unit was the cubic foot, which he proposed t o call a bushel (it was about 3/4 the size of a traditional bushel). The basic weight unit was the ounce, defined so that a bushel of water weighed 1 000 ounces. (This is very similar to the metric system, in which a liter of water weighs 1000 grams). Congress gave this plan serious consideration, but because it lacked independent support from other scientists it was easy to criticize. Ultimately, Congress took no action. This left Americans with a version of the traditional English weights and measures, including: y distance measurements identical to those of the 1592 Act of Parliament, y the traditional avoirdupois system of weight measurements, y a system of measurement for dry volumes based on the "Winchester" bushel used in England for wheat and corn since the late Mi ddle Ages, and y a system of measurement for liquid volumes based on the English wine gallon of 1707.

It is remarkable that Congress never established this traditional system, or any other system, as the mandatory system of wei ghts and measures for the United States. In 1832, Congress directed the Treasury Department to standardize the measures used by customs officials at U.S. ports. The Department adopted a report describing the traditional system, and Congress allowed this report to stand without taking any f ormal action. This is the closest the U.S. has ever come to adopting a single system of measurement. Ironically, the U.S. missed two opportunities in 1832. Americans could have adopted the metric system, which was then at an uncertain point in its history; or the y could have decided to align their measurements with the British Imperial measures established by Parliament in 1824 and thus created a possible alternative to the metric sy stem in international commerce. The metric system originated in France in the 1790's, a few years after Jefferson's proposals. During the mid -nineteenth century, as expanding trade demanded a consistent set of measurements, use of the metric system spread through continental Eu rope. As they imported goods from Europe or exported goods to Europe, Americans became increasingly aware of the metric system. In 1866, Congress legalized its use in an act reading: It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred t o therein are weights or measures of the metric system. As a result, the U. S. has been "metric" since 1866, but only in the sense that Americans have been free since that time to us e the metric system as much as they like. Although there has always been popular resistance to changing the traditional measures, t he metric system has actually enjoyed strong support from American business leaders and scientists since the late nineteenth century. In 1875, the U.S. was one of the original signers of the Treaty of the Meter, which established the International Bureau o f Weights and Measures (BIPM). This agency administers the International System of Units, the official version of the metric system. American scientists and engineers have always been among the lead ers in improving, extending, and revising the metric system. The general public, however, has lagged far behind. In 1893, Thomas C. Mendenhall, then Superintendent of Weights and Measures in the Treasury Department, concluded that the met ric standards, the official meter and kilogram bars supplied by BIPM, should become the standards for all measurement in the U.S. With the appro val of the Secretary of the Treasury, this decision was made and published; it has since been called the Mendenhall Order. The order didn't mean that metric units had to be used, but since that time the customary units have been defined officially in terms of metric standards. Curr ently, the foot is legally defined to be exactly 0.3048 meter and the pound is legally defined to equal exactly 453.59237 grams. In 1901, Congress established the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to support technical standards for American industry and commerce, including the maintenance of standards of weight and measurem ent. In 1964, NBS announced: Henceforth it shall be the policy of the National Bureau of Standards to use the units of th e International System (SI), as adopted by the 11th General Conference of Weights and Measures, except when the use of these units would obviously impair communication or reduce the usefulness of a report. In the 1970's there was a major effort to increase the use of the metric system, and Congress passed the Metric Conversion Ac t of 1975 to speed this process along. However, American consumers generally rejected the use of metric units for highway d istances, weather reports, and other common measurements, so little was accomplished except for the encouragement of faster metric conversion in various scientifi c and technical fields. In 1988, Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, wh ich designates "the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce." Among many other things, the act requires federal agenc ies to use metric measurements in nearly all of their activities, although there are still exceptions allowing traditional units to be used in documents intended for consumers. The real purpose of the act was to improve the competitiveness of American industry in international markets by en couraging industries to design, produce, and sell products in metric units. The debate over metric conversion continues. Although metric units have become more familiar and more widely used, the United States remains a "soft metric" country. (The phrase "soft metric" refers to designat ions like "1 pint (473 mL)" in which metric equivalents are simply tagged onto traditional measurements.) Proponents of the metric system in the U.S. often claim that "the United States, Liberia, and Burma (or Myanmar) are the only countries that have not adopted the metric system." This statement is not correct with respect to the U.S., and probably it isn't correct with respec t to Liberia and Burma, either. The U.S. adopted the metric system in 1866. What the U.S. has failed to do is to restrict or prohib it the use of traditional units in areas touching the ordinary citizen: construction, real estate transactions, retail trade, and education. The U.S. has not ma de the crucial transition from "soft metric" to "hard metric", so that "1 pint (473 mL)" becomes "500 mL (1.057 pint)", with the traditional equivalent fading into smaller type sizes and finally disappearing.