Talk:Load (unit)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by MinorProphet in topic Confusion

Sigfig

edit

With traditional mass units like this, it's simply misleading to provide an endless decimal "conversion" to metric. Leave it at the original significant figures, possibly with an additional two places of precision. — LlywelynII 10:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I made the suggested edit. If anyone needs explanation of why, here it is: It would be ignorant to think that any of these ancient-to-medieval units were ever standardized to even the units decimal place of pounds or kilograms, let alone anywhere rightward from there. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Confusion

edit

It seems to me that the very subject of this article is unclear. Is it the general concept of a "load" of something, which might indeed at different times have been called something different (like a "fother"); or is is just those specified quantities which have been used at various times and places, for various goods? There are five words shown as the title:

  • Load - yes, OK
  • Carrus - Latin for cart-load: appears to be quite irrelevant
  • Fodder - does seem to be an alternative spelling of 'fother'
  • Fother - SOED gives this as specifically 19.5 cwt of lead or 17 2/3 cwt of coal
  • Charrus - cite?? (perhaps this is some connection with the Latin)

The "load" of lead is given as 175 stones, while the "fother" is 156 stones (19.5 x 8): are these different versions of the same thing, or two different measures? I don't know.

Also, the text quoted includes at least one typo/misreading: in the "5" after the 25 shillings -- this looks like a footnote or similar, but I can't find exactly this version. Here's one reference: British Mining no.61: https://www.nmrs.org.uk/assets/pdf/BM61/BM61-129-140-weights.pdf NB Dead link repaired by MinorProphet (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Also loads of lead consist of thirty fotmals, and each fotmal contains six stones minus two pounds. And each stone consists of twelve pounds, and each pound consists of twenty-five shillings in weight. The sum of the pounds in the fotmal is 70. The sum of the stones in the Load is 175 stones and is proved by six times thirty which is nine score (180) except for each fotmal subract two pounds multiplied as before (x30) which is 60 pounds constituting five stones. So there are in the load 175 stones. But according to some others the load consists of 12 Weys and this is according to troni weight, Wey for both lead and wool linen tallow cheese weighs 14 stones."

(The "troni weight" here is surely OCR for troy? somehow?) And if a 12 pounds make a stone, which of these can we regard as the contemporary unit, if either? And what's with the past tense on everything?

Imaginatorium (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The reason for the past tense is to convey to the reader, correctly, that these units have no commercial currency at all anymore (that is, no one uses these units in commerce anymore; they are history). The variation in definition is what you said—both: "Is it the general concept of a "load" of something, which might indeed at different times have been called something different (like a "fother"); or is is just those specified quantities which have been used at various times and places, for various goods?" (either one, depending on context); "are these different versions of the same thing, or two different measures?" (either one, depending on context). It's as simple as people today saying "a truckload of hay" or "a truckload of fill dirt." It is either "the same amount" or "not the same amount" depending on how you view it and what requirements you need to fulfill. It is not defined any more precisely than that. And yet this article has value, because it tells what some of the quasi-standards were for 1 load of various commodities. In commercial transactions today, people must specify tons, tonnes, pounds, kilos, cubic yards, cubic meters, or any other units if they want to be more precise. In noncommercial use, maybe they don't care (Hey John, I have a truckload of fill, you can have it if you want it). Centuries ago, there was only local consensus on how much a cartload was for a particular commodity in a particular era. Being knowledgeable meant being familiar with it (i.e., not being a greenhorn sucker). For more info on prescientific mindsets in measuring stuff and the practical relativism involved ("measured" as objectively as the cultural context allowed, but not any more objectively than that), this book is helpful. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
<bump> "troni weight" is probably the Trone weight used in parts of Scotland. One trone pound = approx. 1.25 lb., depending on where you were and what you were measuring. See also Scottish units. The entire subject of weights and measures is a vast pit of snakes and demons, and anyone investigating it will likely not survive. MinorProphet (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply