Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009

Mike  wrote  on Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:58:16 +0000:

On a trip to Europe, just a few years ago, I came across "livre" and
"pfund" with the same meaning: 500g.

Tsk tsk.  You fail to understand the innate superiority of Dutch
culture.

Not only exists, in every day use.
Asking for 'een pond kaas'
will produce the desired result.
Of course, Dutch being what it is,
'een pondje ...' wil also work.

An error in wiki,

Jan

Even the Flying Dutchman measured distance in nautical miles and speed
in knots.

Your sig line seems to be missing a space after the --.

And don't the Irish?

http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/1378405/monsignor-eugene-oconnor/we-havent-gott
en-any-new-priests-from-ireland-for

Unfortunately, of course, it's not the same gallon.

As it happens, this same connection was made recently in another newsgroup
I read.  This was then posted:

And I responded as follows (copyedited for reposting):

Sorry, but I must confess to having no data on the typical dimensions
of British railways' water troughs.

I do know that the technique was invented by John Ramsbottom for the
London & North Western Railway and first used in 1860 on their line
along the north coast of Wales, at a point between Colwyn Bay and
Conway (now spelled Conwy); and that when this was being planned,
the railway's Works Committee was asked to approve the relaying of
half a mile of track.  So perhaps that was the length of that original
installation.  The troughs were moved from there in 1871 to a position
farther west, near Aber, but it is not clear why.

In other sources I find that water troughs were typically installed
every 30 miles along British main lines, that there were 141 of them
altogether, and that some were supplied with steam heat to keep them
from freezing.  Another L&NWR line had its only water troughs inside
a tunnel (Standedge Tunnel, a triple bore over 3 miles long, 15 miles
northeast of Manchester) because there was no other level track on
that route.

In the days of steam locomotives, passenger trains were heated by
steam from the boiler.  When diesel and electric trains took over,
boiler cars were carried for heating purposes until newer passenger
rolling stock was obtained.  In Britain, some water troughs were
retained for a while for the purpose of refilling these heating
boilers.  North American railways also used the boiler cars but
I don't know if any of them used water troughs to refill them
(I suspect not -- they probably had larger water tanks here).

As to mountain railways, it says here that the highest-elevation
installation of water troughs *in the world* was at Garsdale in
northern England, on the Midland Railway's Settle and Carlisle Line.
The elevation was only 1,100 feet -- high for British railways but
tiny in comparison with those in the Andes, the Alps, or the Rockies.

(27 miles away, the L&NWR's west coast main line had water troughs just
above sea level.)

(For those more familiar with the post-Grouping railways: both the
Midland and the L&NWR became part of the London, Midland & Scottish.)

Prai Jei filted:

I recall a science-fiction short story called "Light A Match" in which a
spaceship was supposed to use this method for propulsion...they'd do some kind
of hyperspace hop, then scoop up whatever matter was around to burn in their
reactor as they coasted to the nearest settlement...in the story, an inept pilot
had made a jump into the middle of a nebula rich in unsuitable organic compounds
(it would clog the scoops, or wouldn't react, or something) and they had to
figure out how to get into clear space again before life-support systems began
failing....

The solution, as telegraphed by the title, was to combust the organics in a much
older manner as a stopgap fuel source....r

Jet fighters do it routinely,

Jan

There is indeed an element of convention in it.
There are good reasons for the difference though:
for a piece of copper to be measured for resistance
all dimensions are measured as length.
In the case of fuel consumption the amount of fuel
is measured as a volume, not as a product of three lengths.

And in fact, in the olden days the liter
was a separate unit in the metric system.
Due to inaccuracies in the original measurements
the liter did not exactly equal the dm^3.
(since redefined)

So I thend to think there is good reason for custom as it is,

Jan

PS For comparison: In the olden days it was customary
to give engine volume in cm^3, not in litres,
for it was actually measured as bore times stroke,
not as a volume.

The dress industry, at least the one here in the UK, periodically
changes the standard (such as it is), as well.  My, hmm, measurements
have stayed exactly the same for the past 40 years.  In that time,
though, my dress size has diminished from a UK 12 to a UK 8.  

No, that's the French.  We've got to WWII.