Unit of measure for Ipswich land

[wooden ewe]

Hi all, I am looking to purchase a house at Ipswich and I'm looking to check the size of the land off an old survey plan. The survey plan says that the front boundary is 137.8 (unit unknown) The realestate says the boundary is 28 meters. I have converted the 137.8 to yards and feet but can't get 28 metres as the answer. 28 metres is about right- the house has a tenant in it so I can't just go around and measure the property. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers, Matt

[Bedford]

137.8 "links" is 27.72 meters. :)

Links to Meters Conversion Calculator (http://www.unitconversion.org/length/links-to-meters-conversion.html)

[wooden ewe]

Thank you so much Bedford! Greatly appreciated.

[ringtail]

Ahhh that takes me back. A few of the old fellas in my suburb still talk in chains

[Bloss]

Ahhh that takes me back. A few of the old fellas in my suburb still talk in chains

I still own one . . . attached the ball - not 66 feet long though! :- Of course few under 50 would know, but that is also the length of a cricket pitch (22 yards), and 10 chains to a furlong (80 to a mile), but even that has gone the way of the horse & buggy - and I reckon that's a good thing, fully metricated that I am!'

I grew up being taught 'Imperial' and was relieved when we moved to decimal - 'Imperial' measurements always seemed to be in the same vein as 'Farnarkling' Mr John Clarke — Farnarkeling (http://mrjohnclarke.com/projects/farnarkeling) but supposedly was to be taken seriously.

It is some irony that the supposed (and self-defined) 'world leader' in technology, the USA, is so conservative and stultified it is the only country left in the world not using the metric system, and it uses it's own 'customary units' system which was retained by the USA when the UK 'Imperial' was updated - in 1824!

[yozza]

137.8 "links" is 27.72 meters. :)

Links to Meters Conversion Calculator (http://www.unitconversion.org/length/links-to-meters-conversion.html)

Beat me to it,will by a few days anyway.

Quick story in regards to this. When my wife and myself bought our house the title dimensions had been amended to metres, but they had not actually changed all of the numbers, so going by our title we owned our block and all of the surrounding neighbours, conversely all of the neighbours owned our place as well. After a bit of stuffing around we realised that the original dimensions where in links and some lazy sod in the title office decided to just write metres at the end of all dimensions.

[seriph1]

Queensland home sites are still measured in perches I think

:D

[shauck]

What's with those Americans? Can't they follow? Must they feel that they are leaders in everything?

[Johning]

Interestingly the USA does not try to “lead the world” in measurement systems. It in fact uses the metric system as its fundamental standard and has done so since 1893. The reason for the slow uptake by the general population is that the government of the USA did not mandate its use.


Metrication in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system_in_the_United_States)

[shauck]

Ok. Cool. Was really just kidding about. Sorry. Read a lot of that article. Very interesting. The co-habitation of systems is present here too to some extent. I definitely still think of my height in feet, inches. I understand the reluctance and costs involved with changing to metric but I'm really glad I don't have to know too much imperial stuff in relation to building/carpentry.

[SlowMick]

i work in the air conditioning industry which for some strange reason seems determined to use both metric and imperial. tube, pipe and ducting is all bought in an imperial diameter and a metric length - 2-5/8 copper tube in a 6 metre length. :doh:

[Bedford]

Yep, like tyres, imperial diameters and metric widths.

[Draffa]

Ahhh that takes me back. A few of the old fellas in my suburb still talk in chainsSurveyors Chains rather than Engineers Chains, presumably. :)


It is some irony that the supposed (and self-defined) 'world leader' in technology, the USA, is so conservative and stultified it is the only country left in the world not using the metric system, and it uses it's own 'customary units' system which was retained by the USA when the UK 'Imperial' was updated - in 1824!The BNSF Railroad, one of the Big Four in the US, specifies that all plans must be in 'English' units.

[Black Cat]

I sew in inches, build in mm, knit in centimetres, cook in litres and/or ounces and occasionally in gills. It helps to keep the mind busy and alert (or google helps too). And my house is on 2 roods of land ...

[seriph1]

and have a look at the standard for measuring buttons!

[ringtail]

On QI the other night they were saying that shoes sizes are measured in barley corns. The little slidey thing you put your foot into at the shoes store is calibrated in barley corns apparently.

[Bedford]

Three barley corns to an inch, or about 8 point something mm for those who use the little buggers.:)

[Bloss]

It in fact uses the metric system as its fundamental standard and has done so since 1893.

Metrication in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system_in_the_United_States)

The USA does not have it as a 'fundamental standard' - well not in any plain English interpretation of 'fundamental' anyway - as the article clearly shows. If use is not mandated then it is hardly 'fundamental' IMO. Of course I referred to what was 'used', not 'sanctioned - and yes it is changing. The CIA reference says it clearly:

At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures. Although use of the metric system has been sanctioned by law in the US since 1866, it has been slow in displacing the American adaptation of the British Imperial System known as the US Customary System. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities, but there is increasing acceptance in science, medicine, government, and many sectors of industry.

The main reason is that although the USA is a big exporter its internal economy is of much greater significance - there has always been an isolationalist nationalism by the USA too and a great distrust (and fear) of 'the other' - foreigners.

[Johning]

[QUOTE=Bloss;866637]The USA does not have it as a 'fundamental standard' - well not in any plain English interpretation of 'fundamental' anyway - as the article clearly shows. If use is not mandated then it is hardly 'fundamental' ]


Clearly my “plain English” understanding of the word fundamental is different from yours and that is fine as long as it is not the source of any misunderstandings.

My dictionary defines the root word fundament as follows:

Fundament (noun)


Lowest support of a structure.
The fleshy part of the body that you sit on.
The fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained.



As you probably know, all measuring instruments (tools) have to be calibrated with more accurate instruments and they with even more accurate instruments and so on until you reach the fundamental standard unit of measurement. All I was saying is that the USA uses SI metric standards and not its own unique standards, eg the USA foot is defined as being a ratio of the metric metre. ie the fundamental standard of length is the metre. (meter in the USA).


Surely if a country was trying to promote its measurement system above an other it would hold and control its fundamental standards? The USA does not.

[intertd6]

I do believe all of the international science community has been metric since the 1957 international geophysical year, in the states its just at the street / common level it has been retained, but mostly people with a higher level of education operate in the metric system for their profession.
regards inter

[Bloss]

[QUOTE=Bloss;866637]The USA does not have it as a 'fundamental standard' - well not in any plain English interpretation of 'fundamental' anyway - as the article clearly shows. If use is not mandated then it is hardly 'fundamental' ]


Clearly my “plain English” understanding of the word fundamental is different from yours and that is fine as long as it is not the source of any misunderstandings.

My dictionary defines the root word fundament as follows:

Fundament (noun)
Lowest support of a structure.
The fleshy part of the body that you sit on.
The fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained.
As you probably know, all measuring instruments (tools) have to be calibrated with more accurate instruments and they with even more accurate instruments and so on until you reach the fundamental standard unit of measurement. All I was saying is that the USA uses SI metric standards and not its own unique standards, eg the USA foot is defined as being a ratio of the metric metre. ie the fundamental standard of length is the metre. (meter in the USA).


Surely if a country was trying to promote its measurement system above an other it would hold and control its fundamental standards? The USA does not.

If you quote and then try argue against it you should use the whole quote or at least sufficient to not be misleading about what was said eg: The USA does not have it as a 'fundamental standard' - well not in any plain English interpretation of 'fundamental' anyway - as the article clearly shows. If use is not mandated then it is hardly 'fundamental' IMO. Of course I referred to what was 'used', not 'sanctioned - and yes it is changing. . . . - as that makes the context and meaning clear. You part quote doesn't.

As to your last sentence I'm not sure who suggested the USA was trying to promote its own system (not me), I said simply that it had not changed to what the rest of the world uses - its general population anyway even though as interd tightly points out scientific and other organisations are metricated and have been for a long time. But I've lived in the USA in various places and visited over many years - inches, feet, yards, miles, pounds, gallons, pints, BTUs are what are used, not metric measures and terms except in niches where there is consistent international interaction which forces it. Even in science writing you will often see mixed measures being used adjacent to each other.

I'm not sure that you understood what I said, because it seems to me we are in furious agreement. Of course on a matter that is of little moment to this forum anyway.

[lazydays]

I do believe all of the international science community has been metric since the 1957 international geophysical year, in the states its just at the street / common level it has been retained, but mostly people with a higher level of education operate in the metric system for their profession.
regards inter

I was about to chip in about the famous metric/imperial mistake on the hubble telescope but found that it is a myth. The mistake was really a chip of paint deflecting a laser light. Some really interesting reading here
Spaceflight Now &#0124; STS-125 Shuttle Report &#0124; The history of Hubble:<BR>A grand space telescope (http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts125/090509history/)
Did you know that the Hubble is so powerful that its equivalent to be able to see a fire fly in the states or the standard flashlight can be seen about 3 k's away yet with the hubble you could see it on the moon.

[Johning]

[QUOTE=Johning;866954]

If you quote and then try argue against it you should use the whole quote or at least sufficient to not be misleading about what was said eg: The USA does not have it as a 'fundamental standard' - well not in any plain English interpretation of 'fundamental' anyway - as the article clearly shows. If use is not mandated then it is hardly 'fundamental' IMO. Of course I referred to what was 'used', not 'sanctioned - and yes it is changing. . . . - as that makes the context and meaning clear. You part quote doesn't.

As to your last sentence I'm not sure who suggested the USA was trying to promote its own system (not me), I said simply that it had not changed to what the rest of the world uses - its general population anyway even though as interd tightly points out scientific and other organisations are metricated and have been for a long time. But I've lived in the USA in various places and visited over many years - inches, feet, yards, miles, pounds, gallons, pints, BTUs are what are used, not metric measures and terms except in niches where there is consistent international interaction which forces it. Even in science writing you will often see mixed measures being used adjacent to each other.

I'm not sure that you understood what I said, because it seems to me we are in furious agreement. Of course on a matter that is of little moment to this forum anyway.

Bloss


The reason I only quoted a part of your post was because I only disagreed with that part of the post.

i.e. “The USA does not have it as a 'fundamental standard' - well not in any plain English interpretation of 'fundamental'”.


The rest of your post I totally agree with.


I do, and I am sure many people, understand the plain English meaning of “fundamental standard”.


A World History of Measurement and Metrics (http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/WEIGHTSandMEASURES/MetricHistory.html)


Below is a quote from the above document. It is clear to me that the American Congress uses the term “fundamental standard” as I do.


“1893 - "The Mendenhall Order." The Secretary of the Treasury announced that the International metre and kilogram would be regarded as fundamental standards by the Office of Standard Weights and Measures (which became the National Bureau of Standards in 1901). “


I agree that this discussion is of no importance to this forum, but it is tucked away in “General Odds and Sods” so I am sure no one will mind.:wink: