[Tagging] weight limit in short tons
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Jan 27 04:11:30 UTC 2019
I have edited the units page to include the long ton.
And edited the weight page to exclude the unit from the definition.
And also mention the tonne (BE!).
It makes a few barleycorns of difference.
(Barleycorns were used as a unit of weight ... and length just to confuse).
I too recall the hundredweight from my youth, but I don't recall the relationships.
For those interested in old units, from wikipedia
On 27/01/19 12:45, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 00:49, Sergio Manzi <smz at smz.it <mailto:smz at smz.it>> wrote:
> ... but now I have a doubt... I don't find any referenece... have
> I been pranked? :-/
> I thought perhaps you had, because I couldn't turn up anything on a google search.
> Which is why I said I hadn't heard of it. But I was puzzled when you responded that
> the imperial hundredweight was "112 lb 8 stones" so I checked. And found
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight. So you were right about the cental.
> Except in British English we used hundredweight in my youth because we had never
> heard of "centum weight" or "quintal." And, to be honest, even hundredweight
> wasn't much used outside of people involved in bulk transportation of heavy
> goods, so it was pretty much ounces, pounds, stones and tons for ordinary
> There are many more units of weight. I dimly remember a very old Science Fiction
> story in which aliens failed to invade the Earth because they were confused by all
> the different units of weight involved. I can't remember the name of the story or the
> author, but I can remember that one of the bizarre units was the catty.
> This way madness lies. Some of these bizarre units of weight are still in use in
> various parts of the world. The link above has an image of a weight restriction
> sign on Alderney (not part of the UK but a Crown Dependency) of 30cwt. Which
> is imperial cwt (or centum weight) not US cental. I'm seriously starting to think
> the wiki page adopted the most sensible strategy of saying that weights should
> be in metric units.
> Except for one problem. The various tons and hundredweights are not units of
> weight but of mass, so weight restrictions are given in mass units not weight
> units. We should be specifying weight restrictions in Newtons, dynes
> poundals and slugs.
> OK. Let's deprecate weight restrictions. Change the wiki to say weight restrictions
> are not permitted. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging