Thread: Measurements

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

Please tell me what is the logic of, for the man or woman measuring curtains, a metre being the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1 ⁄ 299,792.458 of a second? Logical would have been 1/100,000,000 or 1/250,000,000 of a second, but no, they cut the time to fit an existing arbitrary measurement.

The metre was created by the French on the logical grounds that the English had the yard so they must be different. Logical? The DIN system (Deutsches Institut für Normung) varies its number bases to suit applications, just as Imperial measurements do - For instance the standard hole centre distance on circuit boards is 1.2mm, counting in 12s like inches. Metric, we are told, is logical because it counts in 10s, we have 10 fingers - we also have 2 hands, so 12 is as logical, or 20s as we have 10 toes, 12s are the most economical way to pack and stack things, they use the volume and area most efficiently, 10s are wasteful of materials - But hold on, nature does not count in 10s, it tends towards the logarithmic; it counts in 2s (cell division), fractals, in Fibonacci numbers, sizes of successive rings of petals in flowers increase in size according to the Golden Proportion, as do leaf sizes and spacing up a branch, see here: ( The Golden Proportion, Beauty, and Dental Aesthetics ); no there is nothing specially logical in the metric system. What you are really saying is, that you find it easier to count on your fingers. I have always held the view, the right tool for the right job, the metric system is as arbitrary as any other, its only advantage is that it counts in fingers...

And basing measurements on a human body parts and barleycorns makes perfect sense. If you’re going to be arbitrary – and any unit you might initially choose would be arbitrary – at least do it increments that make sense. In case you haven’t noticed – the numeric system we all use is decimal -- based on tens. What’s logical is having a corresponding system of measurement.

Originally Posted by garza

Bloggs - The fact that the English, or Imperial, system was adopted in places like the U.S. and Belize had everything to do with colonialism. The system was devised in England in the way you describe, and then carried to the colonies. Are you suggesting that settlers in the colonies just happened to come up with the same system? No. They used the system of measurement they brought with them.

No - What I am saying is that natural/human based measurement was used all over the known world, the pound weight was even used in France, cloth was measured by holding the free end to your nose, and stretching to arm's length, from Nottingham to Nanking, from Nantucket to Nagano; the English happened to call it a yard. The French, resenting the English as they do, decided that they must have their own measurement based on something other than the existing one, and came up with the metre. Metrology, as a science ,was invented by the industrialist Armstrong in order to improve transferability of parts and technology between his various factories, the French, in their inimitable, not to say, insatiable lust for creating a bureau for every activity under the sun, set up the International centre for codifying measurement and ignored as far as possible every English measurement extant; they can't help themselves, it's in their psyche this need. The British, who invented most games, regarded them as exactly that; the French said no. no, we can't have that, so an amazing number of headquarters for international sports are in Paris. Look at the activites of The Acadamie Francais, they still refuse to accept any word that smacks of Englishness, and will not allow words or phrases such as sandwich, week-end, jumbo jet to be used in official documents.

@ JoB- for some reason "how many grams to an ounce" was of major importance

Originally Posted by Kevin

@ JoB- for some reason "how many grams to an ounce" was of major importance

Heh. But you soon learn how to eyeball a dime without knowing any of that.

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

cloth was measured by holding the free end to your nose, and stretching to arm's length

And for the best deal, the idea was to find a tailor with really long arms.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Yeah – only the kids on drugs took it seriously. I’m sure it happened just like that.

That statement was made tongue in cheek. Sorry if you misunderstood. I probably should have typed one of these: o_O

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

… Look at the activites of the Académie Française, they still refuse to accept any word that smacks of Englishness, and will not allow words or phrases such as sandwich, week-end, jumbo jet to be used in official documents.

How interesting! Can't they have a tête-à-tête or something, and try to come to an amicable agreement?

Originally Posted by patskywriter

That statement was made tongue in cheek. Sorry if you misunderstood. I probably should have typed one of these: o_O

Well, I knew you were trying to be funny. Most humor is based at least partly on truth. As a bona fide former school-age drug user, it didn’t make a lot of sense to me. o_O

Originally Posted by JosephB

Heh. But you soon learn how to eyeball a dime without knowing any of that.



And for the best deal, the idea was to find a tailor with really long arms.

I remember that soon after Reagan took office, there was a high demand for scales, and a bunch of people became at home 'pharmacists'. It was an interesting time. I watched from the periphery. The 'little entrepenuers' drove leased ferraris(before getting busted by the feds)

Back to the OP... I'm pretty sure sticking to Imperial measurements would be fine. In every novel I've read that mentions someone's height, they'll use feet and inches.

I've never been great at judging distance, but I feel that I have a better grasp of it than some authors... when someone says something like "He was stood right in front of him, only fifteen feet between him and revenge", I want to find the author and ask him what the hell he thinks a foot is; in my head, 'right in front of him' would be within arm's reach, or a step away. Honestly, this writer had no concept of distance, what so ever... another example was using two hundred yards, which again he thought was no distance at all. I think he made a character shoot someone at that distance, with a pistol. Yeah, good luck with that one, buddy. At two hundred yards I can't make out people's faces... but that could be due to my glasses prescription being rather inadequate.

What I'm trying to say is: if you're going to use exact measurements, make sure they're sensible. Have a tape-measure to hand when writing and double check the distances you're using. I stopped reading that novel... and the crappy distances was part of why I did, sort of. Haha.

Originally Posted by Kevin

How fat is "fat"? Are we talking like 'struggles to button his pants' fat, or 'so enormous that he bends the floor boards'?

Who cares? Your readers are going to create their own image of the characters anyway, and it's almost certain to be different than what you envision. What does it matter that they don't have the exact same vision you do?

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's so much easier if I just say "...five-foot five, two hundred eighty-five." If I use these type of specifics I know one audience will get it but I was wondering who wouldn't. Maybe I just shouldn't use them...

That's specific, but it doesn't actually help the reader. Specific weights are so vague. Is he 285 because he's rippling with muscle, or is he just grossly obese? Is he somewhere in the middle?

I've used myself as an example before, but I'll do it again. I'm 6'2" and weigh 230 pounds. Any BMI calculator will tell you that's in the obesity range (30 something BMI). And yet, I'm probably in better shape than almost anyone you'll meet. Muscle is heavy, and athletic people are often going to weigh more than couch potatoes.

So, if you feel the need to specify height and weight, feel free, but understand that it's still not going to give your reader the same picture that it does you.