George Orwell, 1984

George Orwell, 1984

I was always taught in the Navy that there are exactly 2,000 yards in a nautical mile, but it turns out that the conversion is only approximate.
According to this cite, a nautical mile is actually equivalent to exactly 1,852 meters (approximately 2,025.372 yards).
Well that’s odd. George Orwell is English, and the scene seems to be set in England. An American pint is only 16 ounces, but a British pint is 20, which is more than a half-liter.
I think that’s the point: the character in 1984 thinks that a pint (568 ml) is a better size for a glass of beer than a half litre (500 ml). I suspect that it’s in part nostalgia for the good old days. (And that nostalgia is not irrational, given the economic shortages and the political repression in England under Big Brother).
Sure, but on most nautical charts that’s an error smaller than your pencil lead (assuming you’re using a paper chart). Plenty close enough, and the advantage is that it synchronizes the yards with the knots and nautical miles in dead-reckoning calculations in the familiar three minute, six minute and sixty minute rules.
Throw in the Metric Tonne and the Hectare and you have the reasons why metric never caught on here in the states. Why trade one set of inconsistencies with another?
U.S. liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches.
(Gallon - Wikipedia)
1 ounce is about 28g, so one would assume “not very much”.
Ooh, that’s a good one. I’ll have to remember that.
One of my professors is fond of measuring the sugar for his tea in barn-megaparsecs (about .6 teaspoons). And, of course, American fuel economy is expressed in units of inverse area.
My WAG (which is partly confirmed by the link given in post #58) is that in the 1790s, it was far easier to produce/manufacture the Ur-Kilogram out of some (inert to heat as possible) metal (not water) with a precision of a few grams - than manufacture an Ur-gram out of metal with a precision of a few micro-grams, regardless if the gram was originally defined as cubic centimeter of water (because a cubic meter would’ve been to heavy).
As the examples in this thread have shown, grams can be quite large for scientists, chemists, apothecaries, jeweliers (who still use carat, despite SI) etc., so the “too small to use” is only true for some groups of people.
Aren’t nautical miles based on longitudinal divisions? I thought I heard that somewhere.
In fact, there are almost exactly 60 nautical miles in a degree of latitude (one NM per minute of latitude). However, this does not hold true for degrees of longitude, as these vary in size with latitude. One degree of longitude at the equator is a much longer distance than one degree of longitude near the north pole.
Can you explain the inconsistency that you perceive here.
So…How long is a knot ?
I don’t understand this either. Why would that not also be a reason for it not catching on everywhere else?
or 54 nautical miles in one gon of latitude.
Canada chiming in here. Meat and produce are priced by the kilo. So are many other goods, not only foodstuffs. Gasoline is sold by the litre. Big items by the tonne.
What’s a gon?
An angle that is 1/400th of a circle.
Deli meats are sold by the 100 grams in British Columbia.