Forgotten terminology and units of yesteryear

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

The same car in the US does more or less mpg than in the UK? And in Australia?

[coppice]

The same car in the US does more or less mpg than in the UK? And in Australia?

A British gallon is significantly bigger, so of course a car does more miles per British gallon. The measures in British motoring are really silly, though. We buy fuel in litres, and burn it in miles per gallon. If your car's systems display the actual content of the fuel tank it will display this in litres, while the same computer shows your efficiency in miles per gallon.

[tooki]

Top tip: don't trust any source of information on the English language that refers to something called "British English".

The clue is in the name. English is the language that comes from, and is spoken in, England. A qualifier is neither necessary nor correct.

As someone who has actually studied linguistics formally (and is the son of an English teacher), I respectfully declare that that’s nonsense, and respectfully ask that you leave your British arrogance at the door.

“English” refers to all variants of English (as spoken by native speakers) as a whole. So we use that word for every aspect where all variants are the same (for example, the statement “The definite article in English is ‘the’.”) Anywhere where the variants differ, we specify. And the name of your variant is “British English”. Your arrogance doesn’t change your wrongness on the issue. Full stop.

[BrianHG]

It is remarkably difficult to get water to boil at 100 degrees C at home, however hard you try, and I have tried quite a lot.

  I was working on environmental thermometers 5 years ago.  To test the waterproof sensors, I stuck them in a pot of boiling water on my stove.  They all read around 99.2 deg C except 1 which read 98,8.  Ok, there may be some error here, but unless you need lab grade dead on 100 deg C measurements you can get within 2 degrees of true 100 with relative ease.

I wasn't able to test the freezing point as my patience would not allow such an endevour.

[vk6zgo]

Top tip: don't trust any source of information on the English language that refers to something called "British English".

The clue is in the name. English is the language that comes from, and is spoken in, England. A qualifier is neither necessary nor correct.

As someone who has actually studied linguistics formally (and is the son of an English teacher), I respectfully declare that that’s nonsense, and respectfully ask that you leave your British arrogance at the door.

“English” refers to all variants of English (as spoken by native speakers) as a whole. So we use that word for every aspect where all variants are the same (for example, the statement “The definite article in English is ‘the’.”) Anywhere where the variants differ, we specify. And the name of your variant is “British English”. Your arrogance doesn’t change your wrongness on the issue. Full stop.

Worse, it is "some people in England English"!
People from London, Liverpool, Manchester, & other English cities all have difference pronunciations ( sometimes multiple ones in each city).

This is before we add in Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales!(all part of Britain).

[Circlotron]

Worse, it is "some people in England English"!
People from London, Liverpool, Manchester, & other English cities all have difference pronunciations ( sometimes multiple ones in each city).

This is before we add in Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales!(all part of Britain).

Why is it called the United Kingdom then? 

[tszaboo]

The same car in the US does more or less mpg than in the UK? And in Australia?

A British gallon is significantly bigger, so of course a car does more miles per British gallon. The measures in British motoring are really silly, though. We buy fuel in litres, and burn it in miles per gallon. If your car's systems display the actual content of the fuel tank it will display this in litres, while the same computer shows your efficiency in miles per gallon.

And the typical USA fuel octane rating is lower. Note they use a different scale. Here, 95 is the norm, there 87, which is 91 in the EU system.

[IanB]

And the typical USA fuel octane rating is lower. Note they use a different scale. Here, 95 is the norm, there 87, which is 91 in the EU system.

Interestingly, the descriptions match between the UK and the USA (and possibly continental Europe as well), even though the octane ratings use a different numbering system.

The USA has regular, mid-grade and premium fuel at most pumps, and most cars are designed to run on regular (low octane) fuel.

The normal grade in the UK is equivalent to premium in the USA, and most cars are designed to run on premium fuel.

The UK also has "Super" at some pumps which is for high performance cars. I have not seen super grade fuel in the USA.

[HighVoltage]

And the typical USA fuel octane rating is lower. Note they use a different scale. Here, 95 is the norm, there 87, which is 91 in the EU system.

Yes, not only a different scale, a completely different testing basis to obtain an Octane number.
And a different energy density of the fuel between the US and EU.
Therefor consumption numbers are really not directly comparable.

[m98]

But the water also needs to be very pure, with no dissolved solids or gases. And the conditions for the true boiling point are that the liquid and vapour need to be in equilibrium, which means that the water should not be boiling, since boiling is a rate process and as such implies a departure from equilibrium, and also that only water vapor should be in contact with the surface of the water (no air should be present). Both of these may seem overly fussy, but failure to account for such details may lead to an error in the measurement. It is truly quite difficult to get water boiling at 100 degrees.

Check this out: https://www.nist.gov/pml/mercury-thermometer-alternatives-verification-methods-alternative-thermometers
It's not like I've made that stuff up and have to try to justify something.

[Mr. Scram]

  I was working on environmental thermometers 5 years ago.  To test the waterproof sensors, I stuck them in a pot of boiling water on my stove.  They all read around 99.2 deg C except 1 which read 98,8.  Ok, there may be some error here, but unless you need lab grade dead on 100 deg C measurements you can get within 2 degrees of true 100 with relative ease.

I wasn't able to test the freezing point as my patience would not allow such an endevour.

Yes, it's quite nice that you can just have some melting ice and boiling water and being in the most unprofessional home setting more than close enough for most purposes.

[boffin]

The same car in the US does more or less mpg than in the UK? And in Australia?

A British gallon is significantly bigger, so of course a car does more miles per British gallon. The measures in British motoring are really silly, though. We buy fuel in litres, and burn it in miles per gallon. If your car's systems display the actual content of the fuel tank it will display this in litres, while the same computer shows your efficiency in miles per gallon.

If you think that is silly, go flying here in Canada
Airplanes burn (US) Gal/Hr;
which weigh 6lb/gal - you care about the weight
But you buy fuel in litres
You fly in hundreds of feet
You set your Altimeter in inches of Hg
Direction is in degrees magnetic for some things, degrees true for others

As for weather reports (a Canadian and British example)
METAR CYYJ 022200Z 29006KT 20SM FEW020 BKN170 OVC240 04/02 A3032 RMK SC1AC6CI2 SC TR SLP269=
METAR EGLL 022220Z AUTO 21017G27KT 5000 -RA BKN009 BKN017 OVC026TCU 12/11 Q0990 TEMPO 3000 +RA BKN008

CYYJ = ICAO code for Airport (which can be very different than the 3 letter IATA code)
022200Z = date/time in UTC
29006KT= wind speed /direction (06 Kts @ 290 degrees true)
20SM = visability 20 statute miles
FEW020 = few clouds (1/10) at 2000ft
BKN170 = broken clouds (6/10th) at 17000ft
OVC240 = overcast at 24000ft
04/02 = temp 04, dewpoint 02 (deg C)
A3032 = Altimeter 30.32" Hg

Of course note the differences in different countries, At Heathrow (EGLL / LHR) with altimeter 990 hPa (Q0990) instead of "Hg, and visibility in metres (9999) not Statue Miles.

For added fun and excitement, when you call the airport for a wind check, you get the results in degrees magnetic (which is also how runways are numbered - divide bearing by 10)

It's amazing that incidents like ACA143 don't happen more often (fuel loaded in lbs, entered into computer as Kg, ran out halfway there)

[Tedro]

Don't those Canuckistan's in the big Maple Leaf 8bit land still use the word "Colour" for the way that an object reflects or emits light?

[CatalinaWOW]

  I was working on environmental thermometers 5 years ago.  To test the waterproof sensors, I stuck them in a pot of boiling water on my stove.  They all read around 99.2 deg C except 1 which read 98,8.  Ok, there may be some error here, but unless you need lab grade dead on 100 deg C measurements you can get within 2 degrees of true 100 with relative ease.

I wasn't able to test the freezing point as my patience would not allow such an endevour.

Yes, it's quite nice that you can just have some melting ice and boiling water and being in the most unprofessional home setting more than close enough for most purposes.

And absolutely none of this has any bearing on the relative merits of two temperature scales.  Ice water and boiling water can be used to calibrate any temperature scale that has a reasonable number of measurement ticks between the two points.   We could propose the EEBLOG scale which reads 0.00 at the freezing point and 1.00 at the boiling point.  0.23 degrees would be comfortable for most folks.  Or the super human friendly scale which reads 0 at the freezing point and 100 at body temperature, and would read 270 at the boiling point. 

There is no denying the superiority of the metric system of units.  But the temperature scale included has little if any advantage over any other unit of temperature.  If water were to dominate the choice of units you might well choose to divide the degree C by 4.18 so that one Joule would heat one gram of water one degree.  Very convenient if that class of calculations dominates your work.  But just another arbitrary scale.

[Mr. Scram]

And absolutely none of this has any bearing on the relative merits of two temperature scales.  Ice water and boiling water can be used to calibrate any temperature scale that has a reasonable number of measurement ticks between the two points.   We could propose the EEBLOG scale which reads 0.00 at the freezing point and 1.00 at the boiling point.  0.23 degrees would be comfortable for most folks.  Or the super human friendly scale which reads 0 at the freezing point and 100 at body temperature, and would read 270 at the boiling point. 

There is no denying the superiority of the metric system of units.  But the temperature scale included has little if any advantage over any other unit of temperature.  If water were to dominate the choice of units you might well choose to divide the degree C by 4.18 so that one Joule would heat one gram of water one degree.  Very convenient if that class of calculations dominates your work.  But just another arbitrary scale.

I won't claim it's the biggest advantage by a long shot, but it helps that people have a lot of experience with both ends of what was determined to define the scale. I think I mentioned this before.

You mean the liquid we all know intimately, have vast empirical experience with and upon which our lives depend in the most profound sense possible? The liquid which is by far the most abundant on the surface of Earth, and which commonly shows itself naturally in all three states, providing a very natural defined and limited scale with extremes which most of us encounter on a very regular basis?

[boffin]

Don't those Canuckistan's in the big Maple Leaf 8bit land still use the word "Colour" for the way that an object reflects or emits light?

Yes, Canada has chosen to follow the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India to name just a few, that use "Colour"

[Circlotron]

Yes, Canada has chosen to follow the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India to name just a few, that use "Colour"

[HighVoltage]

The UK agreed to spell the airplane CONCORDE the french way with an "e" at the end and convinced the public that the "e" stood for England.

Everyone was happy.
Little games are always palyed.

May be one day we will have a worldwide English dictionary that everyone would agree on to use.

[IanB]

The UK agreed to spell the airplane CONCORDE the french way with an "e" at the end and convinced the public that the "e" stood for England.

LOL 

It doesn't quite work that way. We stole the word and assimilated into the English language, so now Concorde is a national symbol of Britain. We do hear the French may have had some Concordes as well, but we don't really care about that.

[bw2341]

A few years back when fuel prices were high and people worried about fuel economy, car ads promoted the MPG ratings in big text. The numbers looked really good because they were using Canadian gallons instead of USA gallons. An unexceptional car at 30 US MPG suddenly had 36 Canadian MPG. Since we're exposed to a lot of spillover media from the USA, the general public might have a better knowledge of typical US MPG values. Only enthusiasts knew the official L/100km ratings.

Canadians have to deal with US customary units since we have a combined market with the USA for a lot of products. For example, all building materials are in feet and inches. In the grocery, packages are in a strange number of grams or millilitres because they correspond to US package sizes.

A unit problem that's a bit more insidious is that blood sugar level is measured in mmol/L in Canada and mg/dL in the USA. While the values don't overlap in this case, I hope doctors don't have to deal with unit problems with closer ranges.

[glarsson]

May be one day we will have a worldwide English dictionary that everyone would agree on to use.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens already had a plan for that.   

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

[Vtile]

May be one day we will have a worldwide English dictionary that everyone would agree on to use.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens already had a plan for that.   

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

Sounds kuud.

[boffin]

The UK agreed to spell the airplane CONCORDE the french way with an "e" at the end and convinced the public that the "e" stood for England.

Everyone was happy.
Little games are always palyed.

May be one day we will have a worldwide English dictionary that everyone would agree on to use.

en: coordiated universal time
fr: temps universel coordonné

however the abbreviation is UTC in order to offend neither.

[schmitt trigger]

May be one day we will have a worldwide English dictionary that everyone would agree on to use.

en: coordiated universal time
fr: temps universel coordonné

however the abbreviation is UTC in order to offend neither.

Wouldn't FIFA be a similar case?

[tooki]

No, "FIFA" is fully French. (And based here in Zurich, go figure…)